Waltherians consider CF Dub Dub better than Lutheran Scholastics?

That is right dear friends, UOJ Waltherian Huberites consider CF Dubya Dubya, better theologian than Gerhardt, Leyser, Hunnius and more.

Credits: Dr. Ichabod

Well, what can I say but...WOW.

How could you pay homage and so much respect to the guy who has inferior exegetical abilities than Hunnius or Gerhardt? The guy who relied on translations rather than deal with the original Greek and Hebrew? Did the Old Orthodox Lutherans rely on translations? No, they were careful exegetes skilled in the original languages.  How could one lean on Walther rather than the ones who were there in the writing of the Formula of Concord?

Now, Walther could be correct in some area against the Lutheran Scholastics - but that would be an accident, a stroke of luck but not due to skill.

I am skeptical of Lutherans who easily dismiss Old Orthodox Lutherans. Yet today I hear Lutherans who criticise Luther, and even somewhat embarrassed of him when in fact they have not read Luther himself.

Frankly when you survey the things CFW said I would label him as unconscious Calvinist.

You might object to me and say - wait a minute LPC - CFW Walther wrote against Calvinism and criticised Calvinists. Well, you see Evangelicals criticise Calvinism too but their denial and separation of the Holy Spirit from the Word and from the Sacraments make them unconscious Calvinists.

Ever heard of false flags? You could raise the flag of Lutheranism but behind the scene you have another flag in your left arm, the real one, which undermines the one you have raised. Now far be it from me that CFW was a purposeful false flagger. Sincere people could be wrong and could have adopted a position just like the position they have been attacking.

I would like you to read this old post on the critique of Walther's method and his lack of exegetical abilities.

Fortunately it is only in the USA were Walther is revered -  for example a pastor I interact with, from German origin who migrated to Australia, is as skeptical towards Walther as I am. Another pastor gave snide remarks about the teachings of Walther. I would not be surprised to hear from an American Lutherans tell me that those people are heretics for doubting Walther.

Why is Walther considered the guru of American Lutheranism? Walther's method was to quote Luther, the Confessions and the Lutheran Fathers. In doing so, it gave his would be hearers an air of Walther being faithful to the Lutheran Orthodox tradition. When in fact he was actually mis-quoting them, and in real fact, his position contradicted them! We must remember that when Walther was a disciple of Stephan, Stephan's followers drank with loyal fervour the sayings of Stephan, when Stephan was booted out of the scene, the same unquestioning loyalty simply transferred the Walther.

This is the explanation of Dr. Karl Edwin Kuenzel...(emphasis mine).

... Walther’s method of citing Luther and the Lutheran dogmaticians...  was wrong both in principle and in practice. The problem was that unlike Luther, who stressed the Bible and the study of the Bible, Walther’s positions neither rested directly on Scripture nor did they lead one directly into it. Instead he strongly stressed, to the extreme, the importance of Luther and the Lutheran Confessions and the Lutheran fathers, and certainly much more than he cited God’s Word. Utilizing this format Walther led people to think that the matter under discussion or being presented had been established sufficiently by the quotations from Luther and the fathers; therefore it was unnecessary to study Scripture. This format actually hampered people in their use and study of the Bible. And eventually, it has come to the point where the citation theologians not only quote Luther and the old fathers but now they have also included Walther and others as proof of the doctrinal stand. As pastors, theologians, and theological students took up the study of doctrinal maters in subsequent years the subject of study was not as much a study of the Bible as it was a study of old synodical reports and conference and convention essays. And now quotations from these, not the Bible, are frequently used to support doctrinal positions.

...

However, it was unsettling to have Walther take a firm stance on a matter citing the Lutheran fathers as his proof, yet not realizing that at the same time his position was in contradiction to what they had written' 

I think the reason why UOJers hold to Huber's view of Justification is because to them Walther believed it and has already established the issue and therefore, it is settled with no need to unearth (for them) or review the issue. Walther believed it, we should too. Duh?

I tell you what, do you want to be accepted by "confessional" American Lutherans? Pay homage to Walther and quote him too... Lord have mercy.

Lutherans entertaining a bad idea.

The topic of this post is the ordination of women to the pastoral office.

Women should serve in the church. There should be no question, the question is in what capacity? In what role(s)? The Lutheran Church of Australia this October 2015 will deliberate on the ordination of women to the pastoral ministry. I wonder why I have this suspicious feeling that should it pass (because it failed many years ago), some ministers, in time, would leave this synod.

I have read some arguments favouring the ordination of women. Some interesting arguments do not argue exegetically though they claim that their arguments are based on the text of Scripture. Most of these arguments are theological using Justification of the believer as the ticket for either male or female to vie for the pastoral office. In this post I will use the following lines of thought to establish my case why I do not buy into the idea of ordaining women to the ministry. I will use my training in the Biblical languages to argue exegetically, then historically and lastly behaviourally why ordaining women to the pastoral office renders Lutherans in LCA irrelevant. Amazingly when I was a Pentecostal, this was not a problem for me, why is it a problem now? Hopefully in lining up my exegetical, historical and behavioural reflections will enlighten you why I do not buy ordination of women to the pastoral office.

1. Exegetical.

The best question I believe one should ask exegetically is this - do we have texts from Scripture that women were pastors during the time of the Apostles? What were the terms used by Scripture for pastors and was this applied to any women characters mentioned in Scripture? One line of reasoning I have read is the mention of women in the house churches greeted by St Paul. In other words, since St Paul was greeting these women where house meetings are happening, they say that is proof positive that women were pastoring in the early church. What comes to mind are women mentioned in Romans 16, such as Phebe. She was called a servant of the church in Cenchrea. The word "servant" as used in the KJV  was for διάκονος, this is where we get the word deacon.  This is someone who carries out the orders of another. In fact it means attendant, someone who waits for instructions and carries them out. Yet others in favour of women's ordination latch into this and translates this word as "minister" broadening the significance of the word, thereby arguing that Phebe was a pastor too. This is not correct, the word deaconess is quite narrow, it is one who attends to the poor and distributes money collected for their use.

The there is the issue of Priscilla in Acts 18:26. Some argue that the "fact" (it is alleged) Priscilla was mentioned first in Romans 16:3, that shows that Priscilla had a dominant role between her and her husband Aquila. If one looks when these two people are named in Scripture, and we argue on the basis of first mention as being important, this argument is shot down. For in 1 Cor 16:19, in the Greek NT, Aquila was mentioned first. Now was Priscilla really mentioned first in Acts 18:26? Only if you go by an eclectic Greek NT Text, this is NOT so in the Textus Receptus(TR). In Acts 18:26, Aquila was mentioned first!  Six times Priscilla was mention in Scripture, and using your eclectic Greek NT, 3 times Priscilla comes first and other times Aquila comes first thrice. Not so in the TR, we get 4 times Aquila coming first and only twice did Priscilla get mentioned prior to Aquila. If we follow this idea, then the Women's Ordination people appears to interpret Scripture by brute force.  If carries no solid conclusion.

Then there is the allegation that Priscilla taught Apollos on her own in the home church setting! There is no such text in Scripture I can find that Priscilla ever taught anyone without Aquila being there. Such suggestion is more imagination than exegesis. You would have to have a very active imagination to suggest that Priscilla taught Apollos on her own (without the presence of her husband).

I dare say that indeed, those who promote women's ordination on the basis of house churches found in Acts are letting their imagination run wild - going forward where Scripture is silent.

So let us go back to the words used by the Bible to refer to pastors. We can name two - the first we have is episcopos επισξοπος  were we get the title Bishop or Overseer and then the word prysbeteroous πρψβετερους where we get the word Elder or Presbyter. The first word occurs in 1 Tim 3. We can rule out that St Paul ever had in mine women to be Bishops here. The reason is that he used the pronoun he, and referred to this office as a person having one wife etc. All we need is to deal with the text of Scripture and it ought to be obvious that he had no idea that this could be an either male or female role.

The other one we need to deal with is the word elder or presbyter. Now, there was the office of old widows mentoring the younger women apparently this can be found in Ellicott's Commentary.   This is where this word might be applied to a woman. It is like an order in the Church. In other words, a woman who is by reason of age is a senior in the church whose job is to be a spiritual mentor to the younger women specially the younger wives. I am getting ahead of myself in discussing the historical aspect of this post, but more of that later. When St Peter and St Paul addressed the church, they used the masculine form of presbyter. Note that St Peter considered himself also as an elder in 1 Pe 5:1.

The last word is that of pastor - poimen (ποιμήν) - which is from the word "shepherd".  In Eph 4 is the only place I know where this word occurs. However, it is attached to the idea of eldership. For example St Peter in 1 Pe 5:1 instructed his fellow elders to "shepherd" the flock of God. Most of the time, that title is reserved for Jesus - who is the Good Shepherd - the real Pastor of the Church. Since Jesus is male, by analogy, elders shepherding God's people from the male population fits the parallelism well. Besides, the job of herding sheep in Bible times was never regularly performed by women. It is unlikely that St Peter had women elders too in mind when he said this about shepherding God's people.

2. Historical.

We have no surviving tradition of women holding the office of pastor in any known ancient Christian denominations from either the West or the East. I think this is a fair statement. It is probably of significant consequence. For there there is plenty of evidences of women in the priesthood of pagan cults. Correct. The pagans had no qualms in having women lead them in their religious affairs. In Ancient Egypt and Greece, women had already been in the forefront of religious leadership. It stands to reason that since pagans have female goddesses, it is natural that their priest who should mediate between the goddess and the people would be a woman akin to the goddess itself. See for example in the Eleusinian Mysteries. It is possible that this is one of those matters that made Christianity different from pagan religions - that of not having female leadership.

Then there were mention of women attending the altar around 400-500 AD. It is usually in and around a male presbyter who has become a heretic. So sure you will find some women who performed the role of priest in the churches but they were congregations with suspicious orthodoxy. You can find inscriptions of women being called presbytera but that does not mean they presided over the church as shepherd for as we said, there were these elderly women in church whose job was to teach younger women.

The most brief treatment of this issue is found here in a Christian History Institute Article.

Why we should look at history for this question? It is because the same way we treat the Canon of Scripture. For example it is known that St Paul wrote a letter to the Laodecians. What if suddenly historians found a papyri purporting to be that letter of St Paul? Are we going to rip our New Testament and make room for this letter to be included in our NT? I venture, no Christian will do such a thing. The reasons is that there is no tradition stating or which evolve to this effect that St Paul's letter to the Laodecians is Scripture. Therefore because we do not have clear evidence first from Scripture that women served as pastors (no question, the served as deacons!) neither from history (other wise we would see them operating in church, when we got born into this world of which we know the church is older than us) then in this counts it is deviant to to ordain women now in the pastoral office.

3. Behavioural.

Let us face it women are numerous in church than men. Let us for the sake of argument we ordained women into the pastoral office. Then yet again, that is one more reason for men to abdicate their duty and console their conscience leading them to further laziness, cowardice and indifference to the call for ministry. As a man, I know how to reason and make excuses. Hey wait there is one keen woman here who wants to do the work, problem solved, just let her do it just like she does at home. We go sit in the couch and watch TV.

I cannot pin point what are the motivations of these present male ministers advocating for women in the pastoral office - is it really because they see it in Scripture? I am finding it hard to believe this because most arguments I have seen were either dramatical, emotional or bereft of fair even handed exegesis. Or something else is motivating this, perhaps a hero complex?  Yeah sure ladies, I will advocate for you to be in the pastorate, I will be your hero, we got equal rights in the church too.

Often times I see Roman Catholic apologists hurling insults at Lutherans along this line - how dare they say they are more catholic than us Romans?

Well, when the Lutherans start ordaining women into the pastorate - I'd say they have left catholicism itself. They lose their right to claim a return to the catholicism that is Biblical and Evangelical. Certainly such a synod is not catholic anymore.

Westcott-Hort Axiom on Textual Criticism Does Not Pass Statistics

I was with the King James Version of the Bible when I first believed. Sometime in the late 1980 I started toying with other versions of the Bible. One of the most disgusting versions I have come across is the NIV, so I am sorry if you are a fan of this Bible translation, as I am not.

However through the years I let NASB, NRSV and now ESV hang around my library and when I was pastoring  I even preached from these.

Now that I have more time, I have recently in the last couple of weeks studied a bit this matter of Textual Criticism.

I process of copying Biblical text by the ancients was an extremely and complex human activity and the axioms of Westcott and Hort people are very simplistic and do not account the physics of this writing process.

Let me give a few examples of why for a trained mathematician the following axioms must be rejected. Now we know that these textual criticism axioms are not like mathematical axioms that are self evidently true. TC axioms are not like this of course but these TC axioms are not even scientific.
Here are the axioms I reject.

1. Manuscripts are to be weighted not counted.
Now what is the rational of this? Well we can say that simply because it is many does not mean it came from the original. Now this may be true, but that depends on what is being copied and the nature of that document being copied. If you forgive me, I feel this is quite stupid when applied to the New Testament. Right now, all them modern versions come from Alexandrian type manuscript. Yet there are more than 5000 copies of Byzantine manuscripts.  Here statistics wins. Why do we have many copies of Byzantine and no inundation of copies of Alexandrian? It is because the ancients believed the Byzantine source is most reliable, it is the one worth copying and the Alexandrian is not.

2.  The shorter reading is to be preferred.
Now to be frank, before this axiom, there is another axiom that prevails - the more difficult reading is to be preferred. In the modern translations besides KJV and NKJV, since they base their text from Alexandrian type manuscripts, all the readings that are short have been preferred. This presupposes the scribal writer has the tendency to add text. Again, this does not work. Humans are the ones copying these text, not like computers, so they struggle with lighting and tiredness; so they are likely omit words or phrases when they are tired. Sure there may be a double checkers but the process we know is not air tight, therefore the longer reading is to be preferred.

More later.

Why I believe Calvinists are not catholics (small c)

Definitely Calvinists are not Roman Catholics. That is something I think they are proud about. I suggest they are not even catholics (note that Romanism started 600AD roughly, all Christians before that were catholics - universal), and I suggest that is not something to be proud about. In fact that is something one should worry about (if one is a Calvinist).

Let me explain.

Well, if we take a typical Calvinist, we assume he would subscribe to the T.U.L.I.P. principle and would be an adamant promoter of Limited Atonement(LA). Here is the problem - the Nicene Creed.

Now I know Reformed people claim to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, but they do not really know what that implies. I find this specially true for Baptistic Calvinists. As typical I have found them to put their own spin on what the Nicene Creed. Case in point, the Nicene Fathers were not re-baptizers - remember the line " we believe in ONE baptism, for the forgiveness of sin"? A Baptistic Calvinists can not affirm that, since if you were baptized as a baby, you will be re-baptized by them once more, so  right there Calvinists of Baptistic bent are out of catholicism.

Yet there is more and so I come now to their affirmation of LA. In the Nicene Creed  we have one line which Lutherans affirm - on Jesus we confess - "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;"
The phrase "who for us men" - means all of humanity that was how the Nicenes understood that phrase, so if you believe in LA, you can not affirm the Nicene Creed - for LA says that Jesus did not die for the whole human race, he only died for the elect - which is of course only a subset of the human race.

One has to really warp this passage of the Nicene Creed if confession to it and affirmation of LA is to be maintained. The two are incompatible.

So a question , if Jesus did not die for the whole world - that means he did not die for all men, then what happened in the incarnation? That is, we can ask this question - when Jesus became man, did Jesus leave behind the humanity of the non-elect - since after all according to LA, he was not meant to die for them anyway so did Jesus assume the humanity of these people whom he would not die for in the first place? No Calvinists I have asked dared answer this question, all I hear are just evasions. Clearly in the Scripture it says - he tasted death for every man - Heb 2:9.

Calvinists and UOJ are alike - and here is their fallacy - they conflate the Atonement with Justification. They both think that when one is Atoned for, one is automatically Justified as well.

As far as I know, only Lutherans who believe in Justification By Faith Alone, are the ones who make this distinction between Atonement and Justification properly and mediated by the Means of Grace.

Woman rebukes apostate Lutherans

Thoughts on the "Western Wall"

The Western Wall is the wall known as the Wailing Wall, where Rabbinic Jews in Israel come to pray. It is specially now called the "Western Wall" to emphasise the "fact" that it is the western wall of the 2nd Temple. Indeed many of Jewish faith use this term to highlight this idea.

I would like to express my opinion as to why I do not believe this wall is part of the 2nd Temple. I do not mean any dis-respect to those who disagree with my opinion, they are entitled to their beliefs just as I am.


Now, there are evidences from historians and archaeologists who do not believe this wall is part of the last Temple. I admit they are a small number. I won't go into those evidences, for example that the wall was actually the wall of Fort Antonia and it used to be a Christian dump site, etc. Josephus an eye-witness of the 70 AD destruction by the Romans, wrote that the Temple was completely destroyed.

As a Christian, I will however offer my reason why I disbelieve that the "Western Wall' is part of the 2nd Temple. The reason is Jesus Christ - Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said in Mk 13:2 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Think of that for a moment,  that statement is very very crucial to your faith - be you a Christian or of another persuasion. Jesus said that no stone will be left upon another -  now if that wall is indeed part of the 2nd Temple and is even the western side of the Temple, then Jesus' prophecy failed and so Jesus is found to be a false prophet. He said no stone will be on top of another and yet there is that wall - a part of the Temple standing. So he is a false prophet and thus a false Messiah. This then mean also that the whole Christian faith crumbles, for we believe in a person who just lied and falsely prophesied to us. Did you get it?

Now, we have Josephus himself a non-believer of Christ who as a historian and eye-witness of the 70 AD destruction of the Temple by the Romans testified indeed that the whole Temple was completely destroyed.

Now assume for a moment if you come from Jewish persuasion and admit that the "Western Wall" might not be a part of the Temple, then Jesus' prophecy came to pass and that means he is worth pursuing. However I doubt and am pessimistic if the Jewish authorities in Israel will change their minds about this - the reason is that asserting the "Western Wall" to be part of the Temple is also asserting that Jesus is a false Messiah and that justifies ignoring the claims of Jesus of Nazareth.

If the real location of the Temple is not in the "Western Wall", then Jews and Muslims can give up the fight for  the control of this area.  Everybody wins.

As a Christian, we have no care of any Temple at all, at least I for one do not care. The reason again is Jesus and what Apostle Paul said - Jesus said in Jn 4:21 that we will not worship in any mountain nor in Jerusalem and in Mt 12:6  he said -- But I say to you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.    Then the Apostle Paul said in 1 Cor 6:19 that our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Won't it be a shame if WWWIII began based on a false belief of a holy site?

Why I listen to Dr. Ichabod's Sermons.

Why do I listen to Dr. Greg Jackson's sermons? Very simple reason. Not for the eloquence, not for lofty and clever speeches, not for terrific engaging style, none of that. Only one thing - he encourages me to have faith in Christ and in Christ's Word by simple exposition of the text.

How pathetic, Lutheran preachers, reads a text of Scripture but then go talk about something else during the homily so you wonder after the service, what was it all about? Did I get something from that?


I observe that people have an over estimation of themselves. I observe most Lutherans in particular and Protestants in general, believe they have no problem with faith that is why they listen to false teachers that pat them in their sin.

I live with myself all the time and I know how I allow my anxiety to overwhelm me.

Luther was right when he said, we neither fear, nor love nor trust God. At least what he said was true about me. I confess my sins each Sunday but the root of those sins is one source - my lack of faith.

I need to be prodded to believe God, that Christ covers my sin, that God will take care of me even though I have been unfaithful, that God will not leave me nor forsake me and will provide for me etc etc. Lack of faith, that is the diagnosis of my decease - I go for the preacher who stirs me in this faith direction, that is why I listen to Dr. Jackson's sermons.

Christ my only hope

I have just been thinking the other day.

I was alone with my thoughts. It dawned on me in a deep and profound sense that without Christ, I have no hope for the forgiveness of sins and how hopeless I would be without Christ. There is no other way, but to look to Christ for the forgiveness of all my sins.

Is this what it means to hope in Christ?

Romans 5:2-7

LPC

C. F. W. Walther - UOJ Theologian with no exegetical prowess, a Zitatentheolog

Over at Shaky Lutherans,  we see a celebration of ACLC's critical response to ELDONA's statement on Justification.  ELDONA, thank God, retreated away from  the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ), the doctrine that says that God has ALREADY declared the world to be righteous, when Jesus was raised from the dead (or when he breathed his last at the Cross - UOJers are not uniform on this). Obviously such a move by a synod away from UOJ carries some traction and must be averted at all cost - it is just bad publicity, so all guns from UOJ synods are pointed at ELDONA today.

Needless to say the UOJers proudly fronted their hero, C.F. W. Walther by presenting him as the man with the final say. Here is an interesting quote...from Francis Pieper presented by Mr. Jim Pierce (an enthusiastic defender of UOJ).

Should, for instance, anyone deny the universality of Christ’s redemption, negating with Calvin the Scripture truth that Christ has redeemed all mankind and that in the Gospel God seriously offers to all men His grace without any discrimination, then he subverts the doctrine of justification. If that error is maintained, then the individual sinner cannot become personally sure of his salvation unless he receives an extraordinary, immediate revelation to that effect. Again, should anyone teach that Christ has indeed redeemed all men, but not completely, in other words, that Christ has indeed made forgiveness of sins possible for all men, but that this forgiveness of sins or justification does not yet actually exist for every sinner, then he makes faith and conversion a meritorious cause of the forgiveness of sins and invalidates the doctrine of justification by grace for Christ’s sake. Or, should anyone pervert the doctrine of the means of grace by denying that God offers the sinner His grace in Word and Sacrament so that the sinner must seek grace in Word and Sacrament, then he bids the sinner seek grace in his own subjective condition, in conversion and regeneration, and so in his own good works. Finally, should anyone pervert the doctrine of faith by denying that faith is essentially trust in the grace offered in the Gospel and by identifying faith with the feeling of grace, then he will put in place of divine grace the condition of the human heart as the basis of justification and salvation. Or should anyone teach wrongly concerning faith by ascribing the creation of faith to human co-operation or to man’s good conduct, then again he surrenders the Scriptural doctrine of justification despite the fact that he may use the expressions “by faith alone” or “by grace for Christ’s sake.” This subject seems to us so very important that we shall develop more fully the three points on the basis of many statements made by Walther. 

I highlighted the bolded text to show how UOJers commit the fallacy of tertium non datur. The reasoning goes like this, if you do not believe in UOJ then you MUST...believe in "faith as a work" or you MUST then believe in Limited Atonement... blah blah blah. None of this is true because the statement assumes that there are only two options that are mutually exclusive. This is the fallacy, it assumes there is no third alternative. Anti-UOJers do not believe in Limited Atonement and they follow the teaching that faith is a gift created by means of grace. At first blush the fallacy makes initial sense but this is demolished by a clear exposition of passages which purports to teach a Justification without and prior to faith.

A few months ago, I was search through the Internet and I found the thesis of a certain Rev. KARL EDWIN KUENZEL. This ThD thesis (2006) was about the doctrine of church and ministry in the ELS (of USA).  Of course, the thesis could not help but mention Walther because after all Walther wrote something about this subject. The author had some glaring criticism of Walther though we can also detect somehow his political stance of not overtly lambasting Walther. he swung between respect and disdain of Walther. Here are some interesting quotes. Some of the emphasis are mine...

Walther was a tremendous leader, a dynamic preacher, a powerful lecturer, and a remarkable 
writer. However, lest we wind up worshipping the man, as many had done with Martin Stephan, 
and perhaps some do with Luther, we need to be mindful of some of Walther’s deficiencies. 
Walther was legalistic when it came to the matters of usury, dancing and going to the theater, life 
insurance, running a tavern, in-law marriage (e.g., a man marrying the sister of his deceased wife), 
geographical parish boundaries, the local congregation and the pastoral office. He often made his 
position as if it were Scripturally based and therefore God-given doctrine, when, in fact, he was 
going beyond what the Bible says and turning matters of casuistry into untenable doctrines.

Not only did Walther use terms that were readily misunderstood by others, but another cause for 
his naevi [faults], according to his student August Pieper, was that Walther depended too heavily 
on the secondary sources of theology, i.e., Luther and the lesser fathers. In spite of all his 
emphasis on Scripture, there can be no denying this. Although Walther was a great, and a very 
talented leader, he was a poor, even an inferior exegete. He had only an average knowledge of 
the original biblical languages. Frequently he would cite dozens of Bible passages merely because 
Luther and the dogmaticians had done so. Yet these passages did not prove what they were 
supposed to prove. Although very eager to express himself on matters, he failed to recognize that 
his position was based on translations and not on the original text. Thus, he could say something 
as if it were doctrinally true, but without a firm scriptural basis. Over all, the knowledge of Scripture 
that Walther had was more an intimate acquaintance with Luther’s Bible and knowledge of certain 
passages rather than knowledge of the whole line of thought of a biblical book and of the original 
text.

 Another reason that is frequently cited for his use of this format is that he 
realized how inadequate his knowledge of Scripture and doctrine really [LPC: I suppose compared to Hoenecke]was in comparison with 
Luther and Chemnitz, Gerhard and Calov, thus in all modesty he was afraid of going astray in 
even the smallest point of doctrine.

Walther was a great leader and the Lutheran Church benefited much from his leadership, still no 
matter how justified Walther’s method of citing Luther and the Lutheran dogmaticians might have 
been in the beginning, it was wrong both in principle and in practice. The problem was that unlike 
Luther, who stressed the Bible and the study of the Bible, Walther’s positions neither rested 
directly on Scripture nor did they lead one directly into it. Instead he strongly stressed, to the 
extreme, the importance of Luther and the Lutheran Confessions and the Lutheran fathers, and 
certainly much more than he cited God’s Word. Utilizing this format Walther led people to think that 
the matter under discussion or being presented had been established sufficiently by the quotations 
from Luther and the fathers; therefore it was unnecessary to study Scripture. This format actually 
hampered people in their use and study of the Bible. And eventually, it has come to the point 
where the citation theologians not only quote Luther and the old fathers but now they have also 
included Walther and others as proof of the doctrinal stand. As pastors, theologians, and 
theological students took up the study of doctrinal maters in subsequent years the subject of study 
was not as much a study of the Bible as it was a study of old synodical reports and conference and 
convention essays. And now quotations from these, not the Bible, are frequently used to support 
doctrinal positions

However, it was unsettling to have Walther take a firm stance on a matter citing the Lutheran fathers as his proof, yet not realizing that at the same time his position was in contradiction to what they had written 



----
LPC: Is it any wonder why UOJ has damned souls and caused confusion? It was promoted by someone who knew more secondary sources rather than the Scripture itself, what do we expect?

Merry Christmaths

My postings have been scarce this year.

It will be even more so because I am writing a booklet for first year maths students on proofs. I got dismayed when I encountered senior maths majors having no clue and no rigour when writing proofs.

God's blessings for Christmas to those who often come here.

LPC

UOJ Huberites do not know why faith justifies.

Over at so called LutherQuest (really HuberQuest, if you asked me), my dear friend and brother in Christ, Mr. Brett Meyer was busy evangelising its  Huberite members. Brett's interaction with these self appointed so called 'orthodox' Lutherans (just like Huber applied the label to himself and called those who disagreed with him as Calvinists) can be found here.

You can see that the Huberites are allergic to the notion of faith causing anything. They are horrified to think that faith in Christ may actually make something happen, like say cause you to be declared righteous in Christ. See the drift I am heading?

In truth, though the BoC signers did not consider faith as meritorious, they did consider it as a cause of Justification under the premise that such a faith came from the HS created through the Means of Grace.

The technical term they used for this is instrumental cause. What the BoC denied faith to was its meritorious cause as if it was inherent to man. They did not deny to faith its instrumental cause. Thus it is of some cause nevertheless.

Pr. Paul Rydecki has a lengthy post on this and you can find it here.

When these Huberites engage Brett, they are like wasps ganging up on him. They often drop names for themselves, with the intent that an outside reader might think they are genuine Lutherans. For example in answering Brett, they start off by claiming "we orthodox Lutherans believe blah blah blah, yada yada yada". You now wonder what "orthodox" means. They think they are when in fact they are devotees of Walther.

Yet, if these people have studied the orthodox Lutherans they claim they have affinity with, they would have showed knowledge as to why faith justifies as the BoC authors said and not malign faith as if each time we mention it, we are promoting faith in faith. So these Huberites are just faking it.

Let them come to this turf, if they have the fortitude to leave the safety of their haven, I dare them and would welcome their dirt and venom.

LPC

Be sure to tell Linden and Mueller about this

Dr. Ichabod reported that so called LutherQuest forum (WaltheQuest), a certain Linden responding to my characterisation that UOJers are like Calvinists who lump Atonement and Justification as the same event. You can read about it here..

Franz Linden  remarked:

This is nonsense! UOJ does not treat the atonement with justification as one and the same event. The atonement was necessary for the justification to take place. They aren't the same event, but they necessarily go together, like heads and tails on a coin.
It is the deniers of UOJ that are the Calvinists, because they drive a wedge between the atonement and justification, trying to separate heads from tails, as it were. They give a passing nod to the atonement, but the thing they really crave is justification, as though it could be obtained for us in any other way than the atonement that was made for the sins of all on the cross.
If you ask them how they can be certain that their sins are forgiven by God and that they stand justified, what answer can they give? They can't point to the cross, because they have already debased that act by their theology that so as to deny that it is a guarantee of their justification. Instead, they point to the Means of Grace, as if the Means of Grace do anything other than deliver to the sinner the very same forgiveness that was obtained by Christ at the cross for the sins of all.
This is Calvinist theology. It's been repudiated again and again by faithful preachers of the Gospel. Alas, it must continue to be repudiated until the end of time. Sometimes I wonder if Calvin might not be the AntiChrist. He's got almost as many people believing the same lie as the papacy.

LPC: Well if Linden wants to be technical, of course to them the Atonement and Justification can be made to be different events but that distinction is artificial. For in UOJ doctrine, UOJers practically or effectively make them One and the same thing. Why do I say that? It is because they teach that when Jesus died on the Cross and rose again, which is the whole of the Atonement,  they teach that right there and then, the whole world has been declared righteous already. They do this by logic and out of context extraction of Scriptural verses. Do I need to quote LC-MS Brief Statement 1932 Article 17b again? You find that it has been quoted to death in this blog.

Just ask the UOJer when did God declare the sinner righteous already? That would be a surprise if they point out a Scripture that does not involve Romans 4:25,which again has been thoroughly dealt with in this blog.
--------

It is nice to be quoted disrespectfully by your enemies. Dr. Ichabod reported that at WaltherQuest another UOJ fanatic objected to my accusation of their Calvinism in treating the Atonement and Justification as co-equal and categorically the same  and you can read it here.

Mueller had this to say:

I'm curious, Brett. You quoted this guy Cruz. Why? I had never heard of him before and now it appears that he was trained as a Calvinist. So why are you quoting a crypto-Calvinist to attack the Lutheran doctrine? What's even worse is that this guy criticizes us orthodox Lutherans for agreeing with Calvinists on the intensive perfection of the vicarious atonement! So he thinks that as a "Lutheran" he has to abandon, not only the errors of Calvinism, but the truth they teach as well!

LPC: What is Mueller saying? He is saying that I do not have to abandon the truth that Calvinists teach. What is this truth we may ask? Well, it is the truth that as UOJers they agree with the Calvinists that the Atonement and Justification are co-equal and equivalent categories only the UOJer and Calvinists arrive at different conclusions depending on where that interchange of categories lead them. Yet make no mistake, this UOJ Lutherans admit that the Atonement and Justification are co-equal and equivalent categories.

Folks, when you equate the Atonement with Justification you can go either of two ways which I have elaborated before and have been reported by Dr. Ichabod. You can arrive at only two options:

a.) Seeing that the Atonement and Justification are assumed to be co-equal interchangeable categories, and seeing that Justification is only for a few, you can pull Justification to the left towards the Atonement since they are the same; thus you conclude that the Atonement is only for some, hence - Limited Atonement. What is the L in TULIP of the Calvinists? That one - Limited Atonement.

b.) Seeing that the Atonement and Justification are assumed to be co-equal interchangeable categories, and seeing that the Atonement is for all, you can pull  Atonement to the right towards Justification since they are the same; thus you conclude that Justification is for all irrespective of faith, or irrelevant to faith since Atonement happened without it. Hence Universal Objective Justification - UOJ.

Item b.) was the conclusion of Samuel Huber, a Calvinist turned Lutheran in the 16th century. This was his conclusion. Huber never abandoned the categories he was accustomed as a Calvinists even though he became Lutheran. He was still operating in its philosophy. Folks if you think that Calvinism is just TULIP you are wrong, it is a philosophical framework and all its roots have to be abandoned if you become Lutheran or you will wind up in a lot more mess, just look at Huber's fate.

The Reformed, allows reason, rationalisation or deduction quite a leverage in their method of theology. Hear what the Westminster Confession says I.VI.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture

You will notice that things that are not expressly set down in Scripture but can be so called "good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" is allowed in their theological method. Rationalisation carries some currency with the Reformed.

The same is true with Halle Pietists descendants we call UOJers.

The favourite UOJ Gambit - Faith In Faith

Universal Objective Justification (UOJers) teacher say that if you do not believe in their doctrine, then there is no other way but for you to believe in your faith - or, you must have faith in your faith.

This argument is directed to people who believe in One Justification Through Faith Alone, i.e. the JBFA people. This ploy is also commonly levied to people who are shaky in their confidence with UOJ and to keep these people in a coral, they throw a guilt trip saying to them - if they abandon UOJ then you must believe in your own faith.


This is also called the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e., because of this, then this follows, and so on. People not accustomed to spotting fallacies are prone to slip and go along this UOJ fallacy.

Let us examine this conclusion a bit - it says if you do not believe in UOJ then you must believe in faith in your faith, or you will then have faith in your faith.

Now no where in the Bible does it teach that there is a thing called faith in your faith. Jesus often tells people who believed in him that their faith has saved them. For example  Lk 7:50. Yet it is Jesus who says this about these people's faith. No where do we see anyone who believes in Jesus commend himself/herself's faith. The very nature of the faith taught in the Bible is that it's object is not directed to itself but away from it, to Christ's person as Lord and his work of atonement. By the Bible's definition, saving faith has Christ's person and work as its object.

Consider now the published teachings of UOJ teachers we have encountered in this blog. We have clear evidence (if you search here) that for the UOJer, the object of faith is directed at that so called "justification" that has happened on all people 2000 years ago when either Jesus breathed his last or when he was resurrected from the dead (which one event specifically caused our "justification", no one knows).

Consider further what UOJers teach about people who do not believe this general or objective justification. They teach that if you reject this general objective justification you are not subjectively justified and hence, one can say you are "unjustified". It is somewhat laughable and hypocritical that they throw the "faith in your faith" on to JBFAers when in fact the same is true for them. For is it not reasonable to say the same thing applies to UOJ teaching? For if you want to be justified, you must believe that you already have been and if you don't then you are not. This too results in faith in faith and in fact far more so and worst because the object is not Christ and his work. Let us not go very far, let us simply quote their famous saint C. F. W. Walther

"For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is—faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him."
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection—The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978, p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.

The emphasis there is mine. Yet note what Walther said - one thing remains ON YOUR PART... and EVERY MAN WHO WANTS TO BE SAVED MUST ACCEPT. It is indeed amazingly weird to think that the UOJer's faith can not result in faith in that faith, as if it could never happen to a UOJer.

There is one thing I want to ask a UOJer - are you sure that you believe in that general absolution pronounced 2000 years ago? For if you are not, as per Walther's teaching you are not saved.

On the other hand, the faith spoken of by JBFA teaching is a faith that can not boast and can not look at no other object except Christ's work and person. It locks the believer into the proper place to rest one's faith and hence, its very nature can not look at itself nor somewhere else.

2 Timothy 1:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

My reply to those who say - I've never been to seminary

Some pastors from the UOJ camp dismiss my views because my religious education was from a university not from a seminary. So they imply it is not worth much because I have never been to seminary. Here is my reply.

Corollary Proof from St. Mark - Faith in Christ Is Forgiveness of Sins

It is understood in Christendom that 'justification' is tantamount to the forgiveness of sins. All major Christian streams, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants agree essentially that when one is  justified, one is forgiven. Where they differ is how that justification occurs. Except for Reformation based Protestants, the others teach a mixing of faith + works to be justified.

In the Lutheran confessions we have these words...

"86] But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

Further...

71] But when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it of the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of justification or preparation for justification, so that not faith itself is that through which we are accepted by God, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, That Faith in Christ Justifies.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

I offer further proof that the Lord Jesus Himself taught that faith in him is justification and so is also forgiveness of sins when we look at how the BoC view repentance.

In the Apology, Article XII (V) on Repentance, the Apology broke repentance into two parts - contrition for sin and faith in Christ.

In Mark 4, Jesus spoke the parable of the sower and the seeds. His disciples asked what this parable meant and why he spoke to the people in parables. He replied...

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

The word used for converted is EPISTREPHO, meaning to turn around and so to repent.  A few more points...

1. Repentance results in the forgiveness of sins. So says Jesus and repentance is contrition of sins and faith in Christ, so says the BoC.
2. Repentance occurs through the Word. Note that repentance is linked to understanding the mystery of the Word, i.e. in this case the parable. Jesus said that to the disciples it is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God, to understand his Word.
3. Clearly then, repentance comes from the Word. Since this comes no other way except through the Word of Christ, repentance is never the work of Man and is completely in a different category from works.
4. If we observe faith, it is really an amazing thing. It is really of a divine origin to see when someone believes or trusts in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. There is indeed a mysterious aspect of faith in Christ. See John 20:29, how blessed are people who have not seen yet believe in Christ. It is not a trivial matter no matter how many times we see it often in Christians.

This passage dispels many UOJ gambits. It dispels the UOJ contention that if you do not believe in UOJ, then you must believe that faith is a work of Man. It dispels the idea that man can repent before the Word is proclaimed, i.e., before the Means of Grace is applied. It also dispels the UOJ error that everyone is forgiven before repentance, before they could believe, before they were born.

Quoting the BoC Fathers?...That's a no no!

HT:Ichabod.

A few weeks ago, Rev. Paul Rydecki wrote a fine essay entitled  The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace in the Theology of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy: A Reflection on Atonement and Its Relationship to Justification

In this well written paper, Rydecki quoted Scripture and from the Concordian Fathers that Atonement and Justification are not one and the same thing. It should be admitted that they are related but that does not mean the two are one identical. Rydecki's paper is filled with the statements of the orthodox Lutheran fathers that showed that from their perspective, atonement and justification are not equivalent concepts where one can be used as a substitute for the other. The action of God in the Atonement is not a simultaneous action that God has Justified the whole world ALREADY right there and then.

Now we have been pointing this difference of concept to universal objective justification (UOJ) adherents for many years. Such a category mistake results in confusion, and lots of it. Let me name one right off the hat...

It makes the Means of Grace, that is right, Baptism, The Word, and the Sacrament (Lord's Supper) merely symbolic and thus Zwinglian. It other words, the Means of Grace does not confer justification when it is used and applied. They thus do not confer the present grace of Justification.

Take the case of Baptism. Here, it becomes a reminder of a Justification that has already occurred before the individual is baptised. It becomes a memorial. The same is true for the Lord's Supper, it becomes a memorial of a Justification that has already occurred. Likewise the Word does not convert but tells you to believe the Justification that has already occurred before you were born, before you could hear. These are all contrary to Scripture, for example, Romans 6:1-4, Psalm 19:7, etc.

What would the famous UOJ promoter, the late C. F. W. Walther might say about the wisdom of quoting the BoC fathers, if he were alive today?

Normal people might consider what Rydecki did a reasonable procedure but Walther would have considered Rydecki a very naughty boy.

Here is what he said when he was being challenged in his doctrine of Election...

The principal means by which our opponents endeavor to support their doctrine, consists in continually quoting passages from the private writings of the fathers of our Church, published subsequent to the _Formula of Concord_. But whenever a controversy arises concerning the question, whether a doctrine is Lutheran, we must not ask: "What does this or that 'father' of the Lutheran Church teach in his private writings?" for he also may have fallen into error;

In a typical cultic fashion Walther dismissed the words of the BoC fathers assuming that they were wrong, ... because they disagreed with his innovative view.

In cult like fashion, ala Samuel Huber, Walther did not bother to argue what might the said father meant but rather he dismissed their words as something that should not be taken seriously, a none event. That shows you the attitude of Walther towards his critics. Huber did the same, he purported to know more than the Wittenberg Reformers even charging them of Calvinism, the ideology he claimed he eschewed.

When it comes to UOJ, even UOJ famous proponents admit that it could not be found in the BoC. All of the said portions where UOJ is said to appear in the BoC is what might be called pareidolia (Google it).  It is just like finding a rat amongst the rocks in mars or like seeing the Virgin Mary in a tortilla corn chip.

M. Suzuki's Bach Passion of St John

I so love this rendition of J. S. Bach's Passion of St. John, BMV245.
You will enjoy this, it has English subtitles.
One thing I notice about J. S. Bach as a writer and a Godly composer. Bach does not leave the story out there, he brings the story down to you. An example is the denial of Peter when he repented. Towards the last of the 1st Part we hear these words...


Jesu, blicke mich auch an,
Wenn ich nicht will büßen;
Wenn ich Böses hab getan,
Rühre mein Gewissen!


Jesus, look on me as well,
When I feel no sorrow;
When I wickedness have done,
Stir thou up my conscience!

Steadfast Lutherans- your neighbourhood Lutheran Pub?

I often listen to music while I work and I wondered off to Issues Etc.

The episode I was listening had a few seconds sound grab from Steadfast Lutherans (sic)(Waltherian/Antinomians).

Here is what the sound advertisement said, I quote...

Imagine SteadfastLuthearn.org as the Internet version of a Lutheran Pub. Your neighbourhood Lutheran Pub, that is, where the finest Lutheran conversation is going on in every table and at the bar, sometimes contentious but always informative... we are only serving Wittenberg ale...etc.

Are you a bit unimaginative? Why would you use the motif of a pub to advertise your religious website? Don't you have any other ideas you can use to attract listeners to your website? Is that the best you could do? Can you not use other analogies to get the listeners interested in your website?

I did not realise there is such an animal called a Lutheran Pub. This reminds me of my Pentecostal years. You go to a "Christian" barber, a "Christian" butcher, a "Christian" mechanic, a "Christian" this and that.

Unless of course, being Lutheran is understood to have the propensity to be imbibed; and that advert shows your desire to be relevant, relational and even missional. Unless of course, you understand that it is tradition and normal for a Lutheran to be a bit tipsy and that is just being Lutheran! Not to be like that is just unLutheran.

Well of course, if you are a UOJer, God has forgiven you even before you repent and believe and that includes before you got intoxicated also. You are of course proud of your lack of sanctification and no big deal if those Evangelical pietists get offended. The main thing is you show off  your liberty in your "Gospel". You need to take pride in your justification, your "freedom" (from the Law, if you asked me).

Don't get me wrong, over here, I have been to the pub about 10 times. One time I worked in a country town and I went to the pub to buy lunch; over here, the cheapest lunch meals are found in a pub.

Don't get me wrong either, I often have a glass of wine with my meal specially in special occasions, like yesterday. I went to a wedding and I enjoyed the finger food with a glass of white. It made the food delicious.

But please do not slap me in the head because of those. Rather, kick me in the head for my lack of deft when it comes to imagination.

Walther: The closer to Luther the better the theologian...unless

I have been looking over the Net on some striking Walther quotes.

How many times have I heard the famous C. F. W. Walther quote - the closer to Luther, the better the theologian?

Walther is held up as a guru by Synodical Lutherans; this pastor even said that the closer one is to Walther, the better is the theologian.

There is one example of fanatic if you ever want to find one.


During Walther's controversy on the doctrine of election, learned men frequently quoted to Walther the fathers of the Lutheran church.  Here is what Walther said, you can find the full quote in here.

The principal means by which our opponents endeavor to support their doctrine, consists in continually quoting passages from the private writings of the fathers of our Church, published subsequent to the _Formula of Concord_. But whenever a controversy arises concerning the question, whether a doctrine is Lutheran, we must not ask: "What does this or that 'father' of the Lutheran Church teach in his private writings?" for he also may have fallen into error;


Those words of Walther are an epitome of the quip - take my advice, I am not using it.

In reality, what Walther really meant in practice was - the closer to Luther, the better the theologian, unless, the theologian teaches against me (because the said theologian must be in error).

The words in red are my interpretation of his behaviour on how he handled criticism. In fact his UOJ followers have the same attitude towards their critics... they must be wrong.

When a person falls for a fallacy, one does not stop at swallowing just one fallacious argument. The person invariably swallows the next one and the one after that and so on and on.

Here is another Walther quote from this site and IMHO, shows that Walther and Huber were cut from the same cloth.

We are not reconciled to God when we believe, but we are already redeemed, are already reconciled to God, so that we believe.  This is also true regarding justification.  The whole world is already justified in Christ.  Faith is not the condition under which we are justified but the way and means by which we become partakers of the justification which God has long ago given us

There is the fallacy of misreading Romans 4:25.

A fish is caught through its mouth.

Happy Bachday to you

March 31st was the day when J. S. Bach was born. So happy bach-day to you.

Sometimes I listen to Lutheran Public Radio, Sacred Music to the World. Some of the hymn versions they play lately leave me depressed.  I am sorry for the fans of this Internet station, that is just honestly how some of the hymn versions they have been playing affect me. For example, the tempo of those versions do not match the lyrics of the hymn. It somewhat undermines the truth found in the hymns.

This is not my experience with Bach's cantatas. It is hard to be gloomy even if the music had a somber message. In 2009, my eldest daughter gave birth to a disabled boy. He has cerebral palsy. Each morning as I went to work (I had a software development contract then), I had to struggle getting out of bed. When I get to work, I would play Bach's music again and again as I worked. It got me out of depression and mind you I had experienced some serious ones in the past.

Have a listen to this BWV75

Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan,
What God does ,that is done well,
Dabei will ich verbleiben.
I shall keep to this thought.
Es mag mich auf die rauhe Bahn
It may be that on the rough road
Not, Tod und Elend treiben;
I shall be driven by distress, death and misery;
So wird Gott mich
yet God will
Ganz väterlich
just like a father
In seinen Armen halten;
hold me in his arms;
Drum lass ich ihn nur walten. (Samuel Rodigast 1674, Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan.)
therefore I let him alone rule over me.