Only for the brave

...and probably for the truthful and the not so fanatical. See the post here.

Don't bother, we'll just do it ourselves

I am a committee member of my state chapter of the IEEE-CS. Last week, we hosted Mr. Edwin Black, the author of this book to talk about the ethics of technology and how it is important today. Technology can not be ethics neutral and it should not be just a matter of commerce.

Anyway there were a few of us who took the author to dinner. It so happened that I sat beside him and so we chatted a bit. Mr. Black comes from a Jewish background and so my mind went back to the time when I was taking my Religious Studies degree 20 years ago, when one of my subjects was OT Judaism.

As we chatted about the Holocaust, I was reminded by one quip from someone I heard a long time ago of how Jews have abandoned their belief in God due to this tremendous suffering that they have experienced in WWII.

Many people criticize Pentecostalism's wealth and health prosperity doctrine saying that this is a sure fire way of making people atheists. While there is truth to this observation, this is not the only source of why people become atheists. One source is turmoil in life and unspeakable suffering. Life hurts. That quip I heard a long time ago goes along these lines...

"Where were you God when all of these were being done to us? Thanks very much, don't bother, from now one, we will just do it ourselves".

That seems to be the prevailing attitude of Israelis today.

As I thought about this, many statements of Jesus came to my mind as I relate to my own sufferings. For example...

John 16:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

I am glad Jesus said this but I have not fully comprehended all of this. The tribulation part is very obvious; it is the part about being of good cheer because he has overcome the world that I want to learn how.

If you are reading this

You did not get raptured either.

...

If there is anything to be learned, it is the end of the world --- of false prophecies, hopefully.

Faith Receives

I was reading my Bible last night and I so happened to be at Acts 10:

how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. ³⁹ And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they^[e] killed by hanging on a tree. ⁴⁰ Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, ⁴¹ not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. ⁴² And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. ⁴³ To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

I was arrested by these words as I recalled how the BoC spoke of how faith receives as well. For example in AC, XX

28] It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. 29] And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works

So I started to meditate on this for a bit - faith receives, faith receives, faith receives.

Hmm, the object of faith is Christ but what is received is the forgiveness of sins.

My mind went back home and I reminded my self of how in my home culture, whenever there is a wedding, it is customary for the bride and groom to give their guests a small souvenir, a small giveaway so to speak as a token of appreciation of their coming. The above picture is a sample of that.

So how do the guests receive the souvenir? They simply turn up at the wedding - go through and witness the ceremony and eat with the bride and groom. The receiving of the souvenir is the effect of being in the wedding.

I should not stress too far the analogy but in the wedding scenario, the guests focus their attention on the wedding - on the bride and groom but that results in getting a gift. I thought the analogy somehow was appropriate and useful.

To know the man, ask his wife

This is not me. That is the picture of mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel.

What Einstein did for Physics, Gödel did to Mathematics and Logic.

Gödel identified himself as a baptized Lutheran. Many academics are embarrassed to admit that Gödel might have been a true believer.

When people make claims that Gödel was a secret Christian, people in academia are quick to dismiss and make appeal to his biography how he denied this or that. You see, academia does not allow a man with a great mind to be a Christian as well.

Gödel wrote his mathematical proof for the existence of God. I suspect he did not publish it while he was alive for fear of being persecuted. However, it is in God's good providence that it was kept waiting until he passed away.

I pointed out in some Internet discussion of his Christian leanings and right away I was presented with disclaimer etc. etc.

It is funny that his wife Adele testified that her husband, while alive, would read the Bible every Sunday morning. That is why I said to the nay sayers - hey forget what this professor or official biographer wrote, if you want to know the man, ask his wife.

Lastly Gödel's quoted statements presupposed a Christian understanding of reality.

He said... "I only believe in apriori truths".

Well, where do you find apriori truths? How else if not from God who first declares them? Apriori truths are only found when God defines or declares them.

Weak on sanctification

And they seem to be proud of it too.

I went to a country church a few Sundays ago. There was a fine elderly gentleman who greeted with me and sat beside me all through the divine service. After the service, they had fellowship over coffee/tea. We got to chat at length and I got the chance to speak to him of my journey. This fine Christian man, now retired used to work for a prominent publishing company. He said he took care of the religious publishing division of the company and he got to read a lot of theological stuff. If I am not mistaken, he even explored for a time, other denominations outside the Lutheran Confessions too. So after hearing of my journey, he asked me with much concern - "do you not consider Lutherans weak on sanctification"? I said, "yes, I do, and I am perplexed by it because you would think that the one strong on justification would have been strong on sanctification too". It seemed my gentleman host has been bothered by this too and did not know what to do with it. See another one bothered about this too.

Over the years, I have heard Lutherans in the Internet proudly said of themselves - weak on sanctification. Mind you they do not say this with shame, they even boast about it. Like one time, I heard a pastor said that when he is amongst some Baptists - the more he would drink beer in front of them, so he could show them how free he is. I suppose the man wants to purposely offend.

1 Cor 10:⁹ But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. ¹

It is one thing to admit one is weak on sanctification but sad about it, versus saying one is weak on sanctification and boast about it too. I would say the first one is coming from a repentant heart, the second one I suspect is coming from an anti-nomian bent (either consciously or unconsciously).

Can do theology...again

I was bored so I tuned in to a Christian radio station here last night.

It was a litany of teaching one after another of how-tos. There is such a flood of this and the sinful nature in me seemed to have been at ease believing I am such a great guy I can do it in my awesomeness.

What I heard was...How you can do it, how you can have a better life now, how you can be moving forward and upward, how you can be succeesful, how you can rise above like an eagle and hover over those turkeys below etc.

So I am sold that Christianity is about being successful. It is not about trusting God in the middle of sacrifice and suffering. It is about being in the world and being of the world too. It is about having your best life now and having more of it in the next.

That is so so marketable.

I was still bored after listening.

Does this sound familiar?

Church Mouse has been blogging on Rob Bell.

According to Bell...(emphasis mine)

“Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for.” (“Velvet Elvis,” p 146)

I know a lot of people (Waltherians) who will or at least should agree with the bolded words. Except they will say that people in Hell have been indeed forgiven but they are in Hell because they did not accept the forgiveness...etc.

Me: err, hump, so they have been forgiven and have not been forgiven? So now since, the Cross everyone starts forgiven and only gets un-forgiven due to unbelief? What was the first forgiveness for? So there is a second forgiveness? I am confused.

What is happening with Bell? My analysis is that like the others I am protesting against and they hate me for it- he is equating the atonement with justification (which is forgiveness of sins). Since everyone has been atoned for, everyone, so he thinks, has been forgiven.

That is obvious

Of course, any philosophically based religion can easily posit God is Sovereign. There is no genius needed for that, even Islam knows that. That is pure intuition.

In maths, we call that assertion - trivial.

However, that is not the great thesis of Christianity.

Myths

...I mean myths propagated by some (even so called Lutherans).

1. That if a Lutheran stresses faith and promotes it, he is being a Calvinist. This misunderstands old Lutheranism. This is the fallacy of false dilemma.
2. That if a Lutheran stresses faith he must be looking at faith as a form of works. Jesus and St. Paul enjoined people to faith, did they consider faith as a form of works by their admonition to believe? This is the fallacy of a category mistake.
3. That if a Lutheran stresses faith it will lead him to being robbed of his assurance of salvation. So what is the solution? Promote the doctrine of psycho-quasi Christianized Universalism? More category mistakes and false assumptions.
4. That a Lutheran's assurance of salvation is never shakeable. Really? Only if he is a Universalist. If it can never be shaken, why would the BoC make you run to the Word and Sacraments?

Food for thought, from Luther's Galatian 4 Sermon...

As before said, they regard faith of slight importance; for they do not understand that it is our sole justifier. To accept as true the record of Christ–this they call faith. The devils have the same sort of faith, but it does not make them godly. Such belief is not Christian faith; no, it is rather deception.

13. In the preceding epistles we have heard that to be a Christian it is not enough simply to believe the story of Christ true–the Cain-like saints possess such faith–but the Christian must without any hesitancy believe himself one to whom grace and mercy are given, and that he has really secured them through baptism or through the Holy Supper. When he so believes, he is free to say of himself: “I am holy, godly and just. I am a child of God, perfectly assured of salvation. Not because of anything in me, not because of my merits or works, am I saved; it is of the pure mercy of God in Christ, poured out upon me.

Where Walther went off the rails.

I have been reviewing my BoC for my devotions and I have been re-reading some of my annotated portions when I stumbled on something that is making me continue my critique of the statement made by Walther found in the last post, found below.

One of the big difference between Calvinism and orthodox Lutheranism is in the area of the Means of Grace. Ex-Calvinist who become Lutherans hammer on the difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism on the Lord's Supper and this is true.

However, IMHO, the difference starts before that. It really starts on what Lutherans mean by the Means of Grace. Firstly, what do Lutherans mean by this? Well, these are objective means that God uses to create faith and sustain faith in the life of a believing sinner. These are the Word and Sacraments (Baptism and Supper). Lutherans believe (or I think they should) that God, though he is sovereign, has bound himself to these Means for our assurance of salvation.

Talking about God being Sovereign is talking about God in the abstract. Now that Jesus came and we have the Scripture we cannot talk about God in the abstract anymore; because God has made things now concrete, Jesus came, died for our sins, rose again and now seats at the right hand of God.

Yes in the abstract, God can do anything to save a sinner, but now that Jesus has come, we cannot talk now of what God can or cannot do, rather we should talk about what will he do! God won't violate his means, so that we may not be in doubt where we might find him. For if God violates his means of grace, then we are no longer with an anchor as to where we are guaranteed where we may find him. This opens the door to Enthusiasm and mystical experiences.

In Calvinism, for example, they consider reason or the mind as a means. For example, some Calvinists I have read say that God illumines reason and uses it for man to find him. In Lutheran concept, this is not objective and it is not considered by Lutherans to be God's means of grace. Why? Because in Scripture, God is seen by the Lutheran to be binding himself to Word and Sacraments only. In our relationship to God, the Lutheran is not to go anywhere apart from Word and Sacrament to find his forgiveness, which is life and salvation.

Let me now come to the statement of Walther found in the post below.

If Walther was correct, then that baby over there just recently delivered, had his sins already forgiven. Then Dr. Ichabod (and others like him, like the late Pr. Vernon Harley) is correct in his critique and opposition, for this means that God forgives sins without the Means of Grace. Seriously the statement is quasi-universalism.

If God has already forgiven the sins of that baby, then what is the need for the Means of Grace? For Baptism of the baby? None.

Then there is also one thing that is also serious about Walther's words. Walther's statements violate the teaching of the BoC and contradicts it and I quote: Solid Declaration, I (Original Sin).

31] Because of this corruption(original sin), too, the entire corrupt nature of man is accused and condemned by the Law, unless the sin is forgiven for Christ's sake.

The emphasis is mine.

If sins have been forgiven without the Means of Grace why would the BoC say the above quoted text? Waltherian Lutherans in effect have an irrelevant Means of Grace.

Truth is, as far as the BoC is concerned, no one is forgiven unless the Means of Grace has been applied and believed.

Back to the hole.

Walther's Synergistic Quote

I thought that I should bring up to people's attention this famous Walther quote (HT. Ichabod) . It seems appropriate to discuss this since Ichabod is featuring Rev. Harley's papers.

I highlighted in bold the synergistic - decision theology presentation found in this quote from the lips of 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.

---

Hmmm, so you must accept by faith that you have been absolved and if you do, then you are. Then, if you don't, you ain't.

To quote one of the kids in our clan...Wah???? Wah????

Anyway back to my hole.... see youse later...

Collapsing under stress.

I was reading Genesis 22 the other day.

Then I imagined what if what happened to Abraham, happened to me. What if I was Abraham and God told me to sacrifice my son?

I would probably have my ulcers flare up, and I would probably have fainted under stress.

I wish people would stop trivializing the faith of Bible characters.

What happened to Abraham was not a simple matter, it was a very excruciating experience.

I would have been a nervous wreck if God told me to do something like that.

(I am still offline, I thought I would give something for you to think about).

3rd Use and Last Post

For now.

I have been spending time with my closest family friend. We made our way to Queensland and we encountered towns flooded by the rain, which is another adventure by itself. Anyway we got to talk about Scriptural topics. He is a businessman who has experienced failure and demise and now he is on the comeback. He has been meditating on the Book of Proverbs and have found it a wonderful treasure of God's wisdom, which got us to talking about the 3rd Use of the Law. I have encountered people who know about this use of the Law, it is found in the BoC here. However, though they do lip service on it, it is virtually nothing in their operation of the Christian life. Listen how they speak of the Law, they speak of it as something evil. That is a clue that the person is functioning without the 3rd Use of the Law. The mistake of modern Evangelicals is that though they have the 3rd Use of the Law they tie this up with salvation, hence, pietism. The error of Waltherians (those who follow Walther and Co.) is that due to the emphasis on 2nd Use of the Law, things become virtually antinomian.

Last Post:

Dear friends,

I wish to thank you for your continued use of this blog. I have to attend to pressing duties like facing some trying times. I am facing some heavy artillery fire and need to focus my attention on this. This could be my last post and won't be posting for many days to come. However, I will be commenting in the usual places where you normally find me.

May I say how I appreciated your patronage through this 5 year period of blogging. I would appreciate your prayers for me and my family.

God be with you all.

LPC

BM on Wedland's 1951 paper.

This was kelmed at Ichabod. The red emphasis are mine, but the rests are BM's.

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Introduction to WELS DP Beckman's Guilt-Free Saint...":

(W)ELSian Ernst Henry Wendland quotes an appropriate warning, by the Ohio Synod's Kirchenzeitung in its May issue of 1905, to everyone who teaches and defends the false gospel of Universal Objective Justification in his essay, Review of Common Confession Article VI-Justification given to the Biennial WELS Convention at DMLC, New ULM, MN in 1951

Reconciliation and personal justification are thrown together (by Missouri), so that nothing is left of an individual justification by faith. According to Missouri’s new teaching the whole world is justified, in fact, already when Christ completed his work of redemption. A different justification, which takes place when man comes to faith is not present according to this teaching. Thus the central teaching of Scripture and of the Lutheran church is destroyed. (2) According to this new doctrine of justification is already completed without faith, before faith ever enters into the picture. Faith limps behind. Man should only believe in a justification already completed a long time ago. Thus Missouri destroys the Bible teaching of a justification by faith. (3) It is no longer true according to this new doctrine that God first justifies in the moment that a sinner comes to faith. No longer - faith, then justification; rather centuries ago a justification of the whole world - now believe this! We shudder at this sin against everything sacred! God preserve these blinded creatures, who prate so about the clarity of Scripture, and condemn vigourously everything that doesn’t suit their fancy. Now through their own blindness they have fallen so deeply into the night of error! God have mercy upon the poor people who are no longer hearing the central teaching of Scripture, but rather a miserable fallacy, a poor figment of man’s own invention (Lehre u. Wehre, Vol. 51, p. 385 ff.) Page 3

E.H. Wendland goes on to clarify the heart of UOJ and dismisses Missouri's Brief Statement as too ambiguous in regards to declaring the whole unbelieving world forgiven, justified and righteous by God's divine verdict.

"Now we come finally to the Common Confession, where this doctrinal divergence has been supposedly resolved. As we approach it we naturally ask, “Will it contain an unequivocal statement on objectivejustification? Will it rule out the thought that faith is first necessary before any justification of God’s part is possible?”


We read: “By His redemptive work Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; hence, forgiveness of sin has been secured and provided for all men. (This is often spoken of as objective justification.)”


We readily agree that this first sentence is a statement which sets forth the Scriptural truth of universal redemption. We cannot say that there is anything unscriptural about it, as far as it goes. But we certainly cannot agree with the following parenthetical statement, that this sentence adequately and unequivocally covers objective justification. As a matter of fact, we cannot find the essential characteristic of objective justification mentioned at all, the fact that God “has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ” (cf. Brief Statement). “Secured and provided” do not convey the thought of an outright grant, declaring man as acquitted before the bar of God’s justice. Perhaps they can be interpreted in that light by members of the Missouri Synod. But they can just as well be interpreted by the American Lutheran Church to uphold their old position, that although God has secured and provided forgiveness of sin by the redemptive work of Christ, He does not actually justify or declare the sinner to be righteous until the first spark of faith is kindled in his heart. The ambiguity of the Common Confession’s definition of objective justification is so evident that we cannot see how it can be accepted as a final settlement of the old controversy.

"http://www.wlsessays.net/files/WendlandJustification.pdf

Note the new URLs for essays. The old links will not work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ME: Many think that this controversy is rather new. Actually it has been going on for 100 years now. It is interesting that one has to skim through the works of UOJ defenders to mine the quotes of anti-UOJers. The above is an example.

A lot of people consider me a poor soul, someone to be pitied, someone to be sad for, why?... because I have casted my lot against UOJ. Thanks for people's sympathy.

Gonna Fly Now

I interrupt our regular programming for this fantastic rendition of Gonna Fly Now - theme from Rocky, arranged by Maynard Ferguson and played as a tribute to him.

They say that Maynard may have been the greatest trumpet player of our time. I wonder if Joe would agree.

Anatomy of a politician

The anatomy of a pastor-politician, that is. I am compiling a list but the ideas here are not original to me, some ideas are from the missus.

• The approach is sociological, rather than theological.
• Counselling is psychological rather than doctrinal.
• Accomodates everyone, opposses no one.
• Takes the cue from the Synod not from Scripture or the Confessions.
• Theology is only incidental not intentional.
• Keeps the gate of status quo.
• Vague conviction.
• Sits in between.
• When challenged to back up his statements with Scripture he asks you if you know Greek. [BM]
• Unity is based on compromise [GJ]
• The Vicar of Bray [MH]

If you have something to add let me know.

Seriously, the prophetic pastor who calls you to repent and believe the Gospel is really your friend.

Embouchure, coming back

Seems like. Been practicing again, and I can sense it is coming back. I left my hobby of trumpet playing when I did the doctorate, that was some 6+ years ago. Some part of life seems to be coming back. I took the hobby as a way of relaxing and having a bit of artistic engagement. So I would turn on the CD - play the minus one and belt out a tune from Duke or Chet. It was fun.

Now, I am having a bit of time for it. The missus proded to me to pick up my trumpet again.

This reminds me of my talk last month when I was in Spain attending a conference. I was sitting with a mixture of PhD students and professors all from various countries discussing the idea of doing PhD. We all concluded that one must be a little bit crazy to do this, specially if you do something in the field of mathematical logic or theoretical computing (which I did). You got to be extremely out of your marbles to attempt this. You have to be a bit odd with some loose screws to go through the process of not having a life. Because that is what you are going to experience while you are writing your thesis, you ain't got a life. You may also pass up some opportunities for good employment. That thesis becomes a ball and chain on you.

All of that said, I do feel I got some edumacation.

Why go to church?

When eventually what you hear is that I am ok, you are ok, he is ok, she is ok, we are all ok...

When I was in Charismania, we loved to sing Andre Crouche's song "Christ is the Answer".

To which a quick quip comes, if Jesus is the Answer, what is the Question?

So if I hear from the pulpit that I am ok, you are ok, he is ok, she is ok, we are all ok, even your dog is ok... so what is the problem? Nothing. Everything will pan out OK.

As we say here, you'll be right, mate.

So what is the church for? The world already says to me, we'll be right mate and I hear that in the pulpit too, so church is obsolete, no?

Why we need Dr. Ichabod

Dr. Ichabod is the type of author, blogger that keeps me sane in Lutherland. I am not kidding. Let me explain.

Prior to coming to Wittenberg, I was in a Lutheran list-group some 5 years ago or so, and in that list-group there was a free exchange of ideas. Some orthodox conservative, some confused, some liberal, some having denominational identity crises etc. The free flow of interaction there impressed me. I came away concluding, hmmm, these people are not cultic, they are not a bunch of fundamentalist fruit cakes, Lutherans are honest and willing to follow where evidence leads them. I am happy to be named like them. That is what I thought about Lutherans.

The presence of Dr. Ichabod says that there are brave Lutherans out there who are willing to follow where ever the evidence (as per God's Word) leads them. Because if I look at Internet Lutherland, minus Ichabod, I will come away getting the impression that this is some exclusive club of pastors that feather their own nest, not perhaps in terms of money, but in terms of influence, i.e. a clique and thus a cult. The mark of a cult is that dissenters are eliminated, they are marked and avoided. Also, if blogdom is an indication, I will get the impression that Lutherans are mindless-herd-following people, they got no one who checks where the herd is going.

You might disagree with Dr. Ichabod, but it will do you good to read him, even if his style does not conform to yours. Onion skinned folk need to thicken a bit when they wonder off his blog, for he pulls no punches. In the end, your friend is the one who loves you in truth, rather than the one who loves your feelings. In fact, if you do not like him, the more you should read him. If you are from a different school, you should read him for proper scholarship demands that you read your critics, he could be giving you good service if by listening you adjusted what he found what is weak about you.

Let me suggest something, do not start with his posts, start with his sermons first. First you got to see the guy's pastoral nature, then you can read the posts. When you do, you will get a proper context of why his style is that way. This is the problem with people I know who criticize Dr. Ichabod to me. They read the posts but never bothered to read or listen to his Sunday videoed Divine Services.

Lastly, though the Synodical pastors do not like him, for people like me who come from outside the family, a refugee who has seen quite a bit, it is Ichabod who gives a good name to Lutheranism to me. For there are lots of Lutheran pastors out there receiving accolades, yet they do not behave like Luther, far from him, who was willing to stand alone. So I wonder why they call themselves Lutherans when they appear to be scared.

Just sayin...