Thursday, June 30, 2011

FW: Cranach Painting Luther

Wow…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:34 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: Cranach Painting Luther

 

My friend, Aaron Lewis, sent me a photo he took in a museum of a painting depicting Cranach painting Luther, with Melanchthon looking on. Very nice! The painting is by Heinrich Stelzner, who lived from 1833-1910. He painted this painting in 1890. It is in the Alte Pinakothek museum at Munich, which, I'm told, has a general policy against displaying works from the 19th century or earlier, but they made an exception since it is such a unique portrayal of Lucas Cranach at work. I'm trying to figure out how to upload the full size version of the painting as a jpeg to this blog post, but have forgotten how to to that in WordPress. Any suggestions?

 


View article...

FW: Herman Sasse on Baptism

Sasse…

 

Feed: divinae consortes naturae
Posted on: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:22 AM
Author: noreply@blogger.com (Paul)
Subject: Herman Sasse on Baptism

 

In Baptism the Holy Spirit is communicated; we are "all baptized into the one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). Those who are baptized have been baptized into Christ's death (Romans 6:3). These are all realities that take place, not alongside of Baptism, but in Baptism. In the New Testament, Baptism with water, inasmuch as it is a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, is Baptism with the Spirit, it is a being born anew and at the same time from above "of water and of the Spirit" (John 3:5). Certainly the New Testament knows of no regeneration without Baptism and independent of Baptism. Baptism, therefore, is not a sign but a means of regeneration. To take it only as a sign of a regeneration, that also takes place without it and independently of it, is unbiblical.


View article...

FW: Get Your Very Own Copy of The First Edition of the Book of Concord, Dresden, 1580

BoC…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:25 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: Get Your Very Own Copy of The First Edition of the Book of Concord, Dresden, 1580

 

Well, at least virtually….check out this great resource, uncovered by Pastor Harrison.


View article...

FW: An evangelical critique of contemporary worship

For your consideration…

 

Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Posted on: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:01 AM
Author: Gene Veith
Subject: An evangelical critique of contemporary worship

 

D. H. Williams, a theology professor at Baylor, offers a searching critique of contemporary worship as practiced in the typical megachurch, published in Christianity Today, no less.  You need to read it all, but here is the opening description of the service:

On a recent Sunday, I found myself visiting a Protestant megachurch. Entering the "worship center" was eerily similar to being ushered down the aisle of a movie theater: floor lighting, padded chairs, visual effects shown on two large screens, and music over the speaker system.

A band appeared on stage to begin the service with live music. It was dark, and I thought I heard the audience singing along, but it was impossible to tell. And although I was seated in the front row, I sensed that the congregation was almost superfluous to the activity on stage. As in most forms of entertainment, the audience functioned as passive onlookers, participating only in an unseen, intensely personal way.

While the band played, song lyrics flashed across the two big screens, with words like great, God, and high figuring prominently. The musical performance was outstanding, even if the vocabulary was extremely limited. If the songs aimed at an emotional response, they were probably successful, but like so much contemporary worship music, they lacked any element of substantive teaching.

Immediately after the singing, without any announcement, much less Paul's words of institution (1 Cor. 11:23-26), the elements of the Lord's Supper were hurriedly handed around. Again, I was amazed at the blandly efficient nature of this activity. We could have been passing pretzels and soda pop. No one offered any guidance whatsoever on the sharing of this critical ordinance or sacrament. It seemed a strictly vertical encounter between each individual and God.

Next came the sermon, offered by a capable person who worked very hard to relate while teaching some biblical content. A simple outline appeared on the screen so that we could follow the train of thought. So did the relevant Bible passages, lest anyone could not find them in an actual Bible. I noticed that the illustrations came almost solely from popular movies and television. Then the service ended as abruptly as it began, with a few announcements over the speakers and a cordial "thank you" to the congregation. No benediction or closing prayer—not even a person to give it. The house lights came on, and it was time to leave.

via Contemporary Music: The Cultural Medium and the Christian Message | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.


View article...

FW: Sasse: Baptism Saves

Sasse…

 

Feed: Mercy Journeys with Pastor Harrison
Posted on: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:16 PM
Author: Rev. Matt Harrison
Subject: Sasse: Baptism Saves

 



It is obvious from the above that the historical question whether the church of the apostolic age knew and practiced infant baptism must be answered in the affirmative with a very high degree of probability. But that fact in no wise decides the theological question concerning the right of infant baptism. After all, the church of Corinth in the days of the apostle Paul practiced a vicarious baptism for the dead [I Corinthians 15:29]. It is possible, therefore, that we are dealing here with a very ancient abuse. Theologically, infant baptism can be grounded only on Scriptural evidence which proves it to be a legitimate form of Baptism.

 

The argument against infant baptism formerly raised by the Anabaptists and today by Karl Barth is that the essence of the Sacrament of Baptism includes "the responsible willingness and readiness of the person to be baptized" to receive the divine promise and to accept the divine obligation (Barth, op. cit., 23). In an essay in the Berlin religious weekly Die Kirche some time ago, a disciple of Barth attempted to prove the correctness of this view by a reference to the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) where, as he maintained, not only an expression of the will of the candidate preceded his baptism but also his confession of faith as a condition for receiving it. Unfortunately, that theologian had overlooked the fact that verse 37 with its solicitation of a confession of faith and the making of that confession is an ancient addition to the original text, as is shown by a study of the manuscripts. The oldest and best manuscripts do not have it and thus confirm the fact that in the primitive church (cf. Acts 2:41) Baptism was sometimes administered without a spoken Credo.

 

So the question is: What is Baptism according to the testimony of the New Testament? What does it give or profit? What is the relation of Baptism to the faith of the baptismal candidate? Is it necessary for salvation or not? Our first answer must be that, according to the clear teaching of the New Testament, Baptism is "the washing of regeneration." The ancient church, which always actually identified Baptism and regeneration, and the church of all times with the exception of the Reformed denominations, has understood Titus 3:5 in this sense, and rightly so. There Baptism is said to be "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

 

In Baptism the Holy Spirit is communicated; we are "all baptized into the one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13). Those who are baptized have been baptized into Christ's death (Romans 6:3). These are all realities that take place, not alongside of Baptism, but in Baptism. In the New Testament, Baptism with water, inasmuch as it is a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, is Baptism with the Spirit, it is a being born anew and at the same time from above "of water and of the Spirit" (John 3:5). Certainly the New Testament knows of no regeneration without Baptism and independent of Baptism. Baptism, therefore, is not a sign but a means of regeneration. To take it only as a sign of a regeneration, that also takes place without it and independently of it, is unbiblical.

 

The Reformed Church in its doctrine of Baptism, precisely as in its doctrine of the Lord's Supper, on the one hand rejects the pure symbolism of Zwingli, as though Baptism were nothing but an "ostensible" sign of the Christian profession like the white cross which the confederate attaches to his garment in order to show that he is a confederate; but on the other hand it also rejects both the opus operatum of the Roman sacramental doctrine and the Lutheran and New Testament identification of sign and substance.

 

Why does it do this? In the final analysis, it is because of the aversion of Calvin and his medieval theological predecessors to the view that an external, physical act can evoke spiritual effects like the forgiveness of sins. But this is, in the first place, a philosophical prejudice, and in the second place it is a misunderstanding of the significance of the Word of God in Baptism. "For without the Word of God the water is simply water and no Baptism; but with the Word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration." Even in Catholic doctrine the Word as forma is inseparably united with the sacrament; as Augustine's famous dictum, quoted over and over again by all occidental churches, puts it: Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum [The word comes to the element and it becomes a sacrament; Tractate 80 on John 3; Smalcald Articles III.V.1].

 

That which separates Luther from the Catholic doctrine of Baptism is best stated in his own words in the Smalcald Articles, where he draws the line between himself and Thomism as well as Scotism at the same time:

Therefore we do not hold with Thomas and the monastic preachers or Dominicans, who forget the Word and say that God has imparted to the water a spiritual power which, through the water, washes away sin. Nor do we agree with Scotus and the Barefoot Monks who teach that by the assistance of the divine will Baptism washes away sins, and that this ablution occurs only through the will of God and by no means through the Word and water. (SA III,V 2-3)

For Luther, everything depends on the close connection of water and the Word:

God, however, is a God of life. Now, because He is in this water, it must be the true aqua vitae that expels death and hell and quickens forever (WA 52.102.9).

But that this presence of God or Christ cannot be any other presence than that in his Word will not need to be proved, we trust, in the case of Luther. All effects of Baptism, in the view of Luther and the Lutheran Church, are effects brought about by the Word connected with the water.

 

Consequently, the Reformed objection to the Lutheran interpretation of Baptism is none other than the objection to the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace in general. That God gives his Spirit—and with him forgiveness of sin, life and salvation—to no one without the external means of his grace, without the external Word, without Baptism, without the Lord's Supper: that is the point against which this objection is directed. "The power of Jesus Christ, which is the only power of Baptism, is not bound to the execution of Baptism" (Barth, op. cit., 14f.). A favorite distinction made by the older Reformed theologians was the one between external baptism by water and internal baptism by the Holy Spirit and the blood of Jesus Christ, which cleanses us from all sin.[1][1] The reception of both, they said, does not always coincide; it is possible to have the one without the other. Whether an individual receives the Spirit-and-blood baptism together with the water baptism depends upon whether he is one of the predestined or not. This point of view also accounts for the objection to emergency baptism, which has been raised again and again since Calvin, especially against the Weibertaufe (baptism by women, midwives). Even so late a document as the Union Constitution of the Palatinate contains the sentence: "The Protestant Evangelical Christian Church of the Palatinate does not recognize emergency baptism" (E. F. K. Mueller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der Ev.-Reformierten Kirche, 1903, 871).

 

After all (they say) Baptism cannot give man anything he would not have without Baptism. Salvation and damnation do not in any sense depend upon Baptism, but only upon the question whether a man has been predestinated unto salvation or not. That is classic Reformed doctrine. And even where, as in the school of Barth, the old predestination doctrine has been softened up or surrendered, the conclusion still stands: Baptism has been instituted by Christ—Calvin agrees with Luther and the universal tradition of the Eastern and Western churches that the institution is identical with the baptism of Jesus—hence it must also be practiced as an ordinance of Christ, but it is not necessary for salvation. According to Karl Barth (op. cit., 15), one can only speak of a necessitas praecepti [necessity of command], never of a necessitas medii [necessity of means].

 



View article...



Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors IV, 1949



[1][1] "Andrea [at Montbeliard] argued that external baptism is accompanied by interior regeneration and the gift of faith. Beza said that what happens interiorly is known only to God and may not be presumed because of human [sic!] actions." Raitt, The Colloquy of Montbeliard, p. 147. MH

FW: Ich lieb dich, Herr, von Herzen sehr

Cantemus…

 

Feed: HYMNOGLYPT
Posted on: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:08 PM
Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes)
Subject: Ich lieb dich, Herr, von Herzen sehr

 

Here is my translation of the hymn "Ich lieb dich, Herr, von Herzen sehr" (C. Becker, 1628), a somewhat close paraphrase of Luther's translation of Diligam Te Domine (Ps. XVIII), on which the Introit for the 2nd sunday after the Feast of the Holy Trinity is based. Thought it was originally designed to be sung to "ein feste Burg," I give the proper tune specially composed by Schütz (which for that matter far surpasses Reuter).


I LOVE Thee Lord, with all my heart,
My Rock in tribulation,
My mighty Fortress, God, Thou art,
My refuge and salvation.
I trust Thee and know,
My Shield, shalt not go
Or abandon me,
I cry and call to Thee,
From every foe relieve me!

2. The bands of death my spirit bound
With fear and apprehension,
The floods of hell were swelling round,
With strength and mighty tension,
The cords of Belial,
Strangled me withal,
In the throes of death
I cried with failing breath,
And Thou, O God, didst save me.

3. Lord God, Thy angry curse did shake
The earth in all its measure,
The mountains in their roots did quake,
Because of Thy displeasure,
Smoke and fire came forth
Lightning o'er the earth,
Heaven didst Thou bow,
And swiftly haste below
In darkness as a garment.

4. Thou rodest on the Cherubim,
On wings of wind descending,
Thy dwelling all around was dim,
With clouds of black impending.
Thou didst flash with light,
Splitting heav'n with might
With great fire and hail,
Thine hand didst hard assail
With mighty peals of thunder.

5. Thy blast resounded mid the foe
With fireballs, hail, and lightning;
Thou by Thy might didst lay them low,
The floods were deep and fright'ning;
Earth's foundation wide
Parted on each side,
All Thy wrath and ire
Was kindled like a fire,
And crushed the foe completely.

6. From heaven did Thy help descend
From trouble to convey me
From every foe didst me defend,
When they were set to slay me.
When I scarce could live,
Room, Lord, Thou didst give,
In my greatest woe,
Thy grace to me didst show,
Yea, at the fittest moment.

7. The Lord is good, in whom I trust;
He shows me grace and favor,
I rouse Him not with villainy;
His Word beholding ever;
So I keep His way,
Never from it stray,
Nor against Him stride,
Nor cast His Law aside,
But shun all sin and evil.

8. According to my righteousness
The Lord hath spared and stayed me,
According to my hands' cleanness
With good He hath repaid me,
To the pure of heart,—
Pure, O Lord, Thou art,
Should They honor Thee;
But hostile men shall see
That Thou to them art hostile.

9. The Lord beholds humility,
But pride His heart estranges,
He never hath forsaken me,
My grief to gladness changes,
He doth mine ordain
Victory and gain;
I cast warriors down,
And receive the crown,
By Him all walls o'erleaping.

10. The ways of God no turning have,
His Word is pure and tested,
Who trusts in God, him God shall save,
The Lord alone, unbested,—
He is God, our Shield,
His is pow'r to wield,
For where may there be
A God to help as He,
The Lord of Hosts, our Savior?

11. He girds me with His mighty pow'r
And in His way instructs me
I may escape the strongest tow'r,
To glory He inducts me,
He has taught my hand
Warlike to withstand,
And resist the foe,
He doth the strength bestow
To draw a bow of iron.

12. God is my Shield and Savior true,
His right hand doth uphold me,
His chastenings bring mercies new,
In them I see His favor.
In the battle tide,
He stands at my side,
Clears for me the plain,
That I not fight in vain,
But o'er the foe claim vict'ry.

13. I chase my foes in hasty flight
And cut them down together
Not one of them returns to fight,
Their spirit is gone thither.
Vict'ry givest Thou,
Foes before Thee bow,
Fallen at Thy shot,
Thou set'st their snares at naught,
Destroying those who hate me.

14. They cried, but Thou didst answer not;
In vain they prayed and flattered,
They beaten lay, to nothing brought,
Like chaff on breezes scattered.
Crushed was all their pride,
Swiftly cast aside
Trampled under feet
Like rubbish in the street:
So will I clear them wholly.

15. Thou hast saved me from men of strife,
And o'er the heathen set me.
A people serves me with their life
That once had never met me.
Strangers me obey,
Others distant stay,
To salvation lost:
They die in chambers closed,
And in their bondage languish.

16. My highest Rock lives yet, My Lord,—
Whose name I'll bless forever,
Who shows salvation in His Word,
Whose vengeance faileth never
On my enemy,
Many though there be,
And to me subdues
Those who my will refuse,
And wickedly oppose me.

17. Therefore will I give thanks to Thee,
O Lord, with jubilation,
Among the heathen, for Thou didst
Reveal such great salvation,
And by grace anoint
David, and appoint;
Him as King, O Lord,
Thy mercy on Him poured,
And on His seed forever.

Translation © Matthew Carver, 2011.

GERMAN

1. Ich lieb dich, Herr, von Herzen sehr,
Mein starker Fels in Nöten,
Mein feste Burg, o Gott, mein Herr,
Mein Hort, mich zu erretten,
Ich trau fest auf dich,
mein Schild, du wirst nicht
Absetzen von mir,
Ich schrei und ruf zu dir,
Hilf mir von meinen Feinden.

2. Des Todes Band umfingen mich
Mit Schrecken viel und Grausen, [=grausam?]
der Höllen Flut ergossen sich
Übr mich mit großem Brausen,
Die Strick Belial
Mich umfingen all, [umfangen]
In äußerster Not
Rief ich zu dir, mein Gott,
Da halfst du mir aus Nöten.

3. Die Erd erbebt und sich bewegt, [Erd bebet…]
Herr Gott, für deinem Schelten,
Der Berge Grundfest sich erregt,
Mußten deins Zorns entgelten,
Dampf, Feuer von dir
Mit Blitz ging herfür,
Du neigst den Himmel
Und fuhrst herab gar schnell,
Mit Finsternis bekleidet.

4. Du fuhrst daher auf Cherubim,
Tätst auf Windflügeln schweben,
Dein Zelt war finster um und um
Mit Wolken schwarz umgeben,
Glanz ging für dir her,
Trennt die Wolken schwer,
Mit Hagel und Feur
Schlugst du drein Ungeheur
Und ließt dein Donner brausen.

5. Dein Gschütz unter die Feinde kracht
Mit Blitz, Hagl, Feuerstrahlen,
Zerstreuest sie durch deine Macht,
Groß Wasserström herqualen, [herquälen]
Des Erdbodens Grund
Sich zerriß zur Stund,
Dein Zoren und Grimm
Brach ein mit Ungestüm, [mit grosser Ungestüm]
Vertilgt die Feind zu Grunde.

6. Von Himmel kam dein Hülf herab, [die Hülf]
Du führtest mich aus Nöten, [führest]
Du jagst mich meinen Feinden ab,
Der Sinn war, mich zu töten, [dern Sinn]
Als ich lebte kaum,
Machst du Herr mir Raum, [Machstu mir Herr raum]
In meim höchsten Leid
Kamst du zu[r] rechter Zeit,
Beweisest mir dein Güte.

7. Der Herr erzeigt mir deine Gnad, [beweist mir seine Gnad]
Weil ich auf ihn fest traue,
Erzürn ihn nicht mit böser Tat,
Auf sein Wort stets ich schaue
Und halt seinen Weg,
Geh nicht fremden Steg,
Tu nicht wider Gott,
Verwerf nicht sein Gebot [Verwirf…]
Und hüte mich für Sünden. [hüte dich…]

8. Drum nach meiner Gerechtigkeit
Der Herr auch meiner schonet,
Nach meiner Hände Reinigkeit
Er mir mit Gutem lohnet,
Heilig, fromm und rein
Willt du, Herr, mit sein, […bei mir sein]
Wenn man dich so ehrt,
Sind denn die Leut verkehrt,
So habn sie dich zum Feinde.

9. Der Herr acht groß elende Leut,
Den Stolzen tut er hassen,
Mein Trübsal kehrt er all zur Freud,
Er hat mich nie verlassen,
Mit ihm kann ich wohl
Siegen, wie ich soll,
Kriegsvolk ich zerschmeiß,
Behalt den Ehrenpreis,
Spring mit ihm über Mauren. […übr die Mauren]

10. Ohn Wandel Gottes Wege sind,
Sein Wort ist lautr und reine,
Wer Gott vertraut, Hülf bei ihm findt,
Er ist der Herr alleine,
Er ist unser Schild,
Kein Macht ohn ihn gilt,
Denn wo ist ein Gott,
Der helfen könnt aus Not,
Gleich wie du, Herr Zebaoth?

11. Er rüstet mich mit großer Kraft,
Tut mich sein Wege lehren,
Daß ich entgeh aus aller Haft,
Durch ihn komm ich zu Ehren,
Er lehrt mein Hand
Zu tun Widerstand,
Den Feind zu bestahn,
Durch ihn recht spannen kann
Mein Arm ein Ehrnen Bogen.

12. Gott selber ist mein Schild und Heil,
Sein Rechte tut mich stärken,
Sein Züchtigung kömmt mir zuteil,
Sein Lieb dabei ich merke,
Wenns zum Treffen geht,
Zur Zeit er mir steht
Und räumt mir den Plan,
Daß ich frei fechten kann
Und die Feind überwinde.

13. Ich schlag sie in die Flucht behend
Und bring sie all ums Leben,
Ihr keiner wieder um sich wendt,
Den Geist habn sie aufgeben,
Den Sieg gibst du mir,
Der Feind fällt für dir,
Du schlägst ihn zurück
Und machst zunicht sein Tück,
Mein Hasser du verstörest.

14. Sie rufen wohl, du hörest nicht,
Vergebens ist ihr Schreien,
Sie sind zerstreuet und vernicht,
Wie von dem Wind die Spreuen,
Zerstoßen mit Macht,
Zunicht wird ihr Pracht,
Wie Kot ausgeschütt,
Den man mit Füßen tritt,
Will ich sie rein wegräumen.

15. Des zänkischen Volks hilfst du mir ab,
Machst mich zum Haupt der Heiden,
Ein Volk in meinem Dienst ich hab,
Das mich nicht kannt vorzeiten,
Sie folgen mir gern,
Die andre sind fern,
Entfremdt von dem Heil,
Sie gbären einen Feil,
In Banden sie verschmachten.

16. Noch lebet Gott, mein höchster Hort,
Den ich lob alle Stunden,
Er zeigt mir Heil in seinem Wort,
Durch ihn hab ich Rach funden
Wider meine Feind,
Der so gar viel seind,
Er zwingt unter mich,
Die so ganz freventlich
Sich wider mich tun setzen.

17. Darum will ich, Herr, danken dir,
Und deinen Namen preisen
Unter den Heiden, weil du mir
So groß Heil tust beweisen,
Durch dein Gnad bin ich
Ein König mächtig,
Dein gsalbten David
Mit Güt hast überschütt
Und seinen Samen ewig.


View article...

FW: When did Christians Start Baptizing Infants?

Sasse…

 

Feed: God the Crucified
Posted on: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:27 AM
Author: noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Lange)
Subject: When did Christians Start Baptizing Infants?

 

"When Polycarp at the trial preceding his martyrdom testifies that he has been serving the Lord for eighty-six years (Mart. Pol., 9), the reference can only be to his membership in the church. Accordingly, his baptism must have taken place in the apostolic age, even prior to the year ad 70. The statement of Justin (Apol. 1:15) that at that time there were many Christians sixty and seventy years old who from the days of their childhood ematheteuthesan to Christo [who had become disciples of Christ] can refer only to members of the church who were baptized as children during the period between ad 80 and 90. We have already mentioned Irenaeus. He testifies that Christ came to save all, "all who by Him are regenerated unto God; babes (infantes), little children, boys, youths and men" (Adv. Haer., II 22:4). In the Church Order of his disciple Hippolytus (ca. 170- c. 235) the baptism of little children is mentioned in so many words. They are to be baptized before the adults, and their parents or some relative are to take their places at the "Amen" and confession of faith by speaking vicariously for them.

"When Tertullian (ca. 155-220) in his Treatise on Baptism directs his polemics against the custom of infant baptism, he certainly is not attacking it as an innovation; even as, later on, Pelagius in his battle against Augustine's doctrine of original sin had to admit the argument that, after all, infants were baptized too; at least he does not deny the fact. Likewise, Origen (ca. 185- ca. 254) and Cyprian (ca. 200-258) presuppose the baptism of infants: the former in the claim later transmitted to the Middle Ages by Dionysius the Areopagite that the baptism of infants goes back to a tradition given by the Lord to his apostles (Commentary on Romans, 5:9); Cyprian in the well-known instruction given to Bishop Fidus (Ep. 64) not to defer baptism to the eighth day analogous to circumcision. Jeremias is right when he claims that a later introduction of infant baptism would have stirred up a great excitement and thus have left definite traces in the history of the Church. The results of church-historical investigation rather indicate that in the ancient church, precisely as in our modern mission fields, both forms of baptism, adult and infant, have always existed side by side. If that is true, then infant baptism must go back to the apostolic age. The baptism of children must then be included in the baptism of entire families, of which we have examples in the New Testament, even though the children are not specifically mentioned.

Translated from Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors vol. V, 1949. Found at Mercy Journey's blog.



View article...

FW: Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

Walther…

 

Feed: Gnesio
Posted on: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:56 AM
Author: Gnesio
Subject: Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

 

Many ministers, not all inefficient otherwise, imagine that they have accomplished much, in fact, that they have achieved their aim, when they have roused their hearers from their carnal security and reduced them to a state of mind where they despair of their being in a state of grace and of their salvation. It is, indeed, necessary that every person who is to be saved by brought out of his false security, false comfort, false peace, and false hopes. He must, indeed, be made to despair of salvation and of his present condition. But that is merely a preparatory stage through which he must pass; it is not the matter of chief importance nor the chief aim that is to be achieved with regard to him. The principal matter is that he attain to full assurance of his state of grace and his salvation, so that he may exult, as a pardoned sinner, with the godly poet Woltersdorf and sing: —

I know, yes, I know, and shall e'er be maintaining,
That, as sure as God's hands in His Kingdom are reigning,
As sure as his sun does the heavens adorn,
His pardon for sinners to me has been borne.

That such is the principal aim of an evangelical minister there can be no doubt. For the minister must preach the Gospel to those entrusted to him; he must bring them to faith in Christ, baptize them, and administer absolution and the Lord's Supper to them. However, preaching the Gospel means nothing else than telling men that they have been reconciled, perfectly reconciled, with God by Christ. Living, genuine faith of the heart means nothing else than the divine assurance that one has the forgiveness of sins and that the gates of heaven are open to him. Baptizing a person means nothing else than taking him out of the world of lost sinners, by the command and in the name and place of God, and giving him the solemn assurance that God is gracious to him, that God is his Father, and that he, the baptized person, is God's child; that the Son of God is his Savior and the baptized his child and already saved; that the Holy Spirit is his comforter and the baptized an abode of the Holy Spirit. Administering absolution to a person means nothing else than saying to him by the command and in the name and place of Christ: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." Administering Holy Communion means nothing else than saying to him in the name of Jesus: "You, too, are to share in the great achievement of redemption. To confirm your claim on it, this precious pledge is given you, namely, the body and blood of Christ, the ransom with which He purchased the entire world."

An examination of the Scriptures reveals the fact that the aim of all true ministers has been to train their hearers so that they could declare themselves children of God and heirs of salvation. When Christ said to His disciples: "Rejoice because your names are written in heaven," Luke 10, 20, He evidently called upon them to rejoice in the certainty of their salvation. Paul writes to the Corinthians: 'Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." I Cor 6, 11 Peter writes to the Christians living in the dispersion: "Ye were as sheep going astray; but ye are now returned unto the shepherd and Bishop of your souls." I Pet 2, 25. John says to his spiritual children, including himself in the statement: "Now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is." I John 3, 2. Nowhere in theHoly Scriptures do we find the apostles treating the members of the congregations as if they were uncertain regarding their standing with God; their treatment of them is always such that one can see they presuppose that their members, in spite of their weaknesses and blemishes, are dear, beloved children of God.

Conditions are different in our time. As a rule, even the best ministers are well satisfied if they have trained their people to come to them occasionally and complain that they have no assurance of their salvation, that they are afraid they would be lost if they were to die the next night. A complaint like this alarms a truly evangelical minister whose aim is to get his hearers to profess: "I know that my Redeemer lives. I know in whom I have believed." But ministers who are not truly evangelical take this complaint as evidence that they have made good Christians out of their hearers.

What is the reason that so many in our day live in uncertainty about their being true Christians? The reason is that ministers, as a rule, confounding Law and Gospel and do not heed the apostolic adminition: "Study to show thyself a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." 2 Tim 2, 15 For when the Gospel is preached with an admixture of law, it is impossible for a hearer to attain to faith in the forgiveness of his sins. On the other hand, when the Law is preached with an admixture of Gospel, it is impossible for a hearer to arrive at the knowledge that he is a poor sinner in need of the forgiveness of sins.

from C.F.W. Walther, 'Law and Gospel, Thirty Eight Evening Lecture' (October 23, 1885)

See also:

  1. Preach the Word of God In Its Truth & Purity
  2. Speak the Truth Simply, Or Don't Speak It At All!
  3. Truth in Love
  4. Forgive – What's In A Word?


View article...

FW: My Dad Was a Lutheran

Peters…

 

Feed: Pastoral Meanderings
Posted on: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:00 AM
Author: noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Peters)
Subject: My Dad Was a Lutheran

 

A wedding a few days ago and I heard the typical comments for a Lutheran in the South -- "You are Pastor of what church???"  "Where is this Lutherian Church?"  "Now what kind of Christian is a Lutheran?"  "Boy, you don't find many of them down here!"  But my all time favorite:  "My dad [insert family member here] was a Lutheran..."

With so many dads, moms, uncles, aunts, grandparents, nieces and nephews Lutheran, you might think there would be more of us Lutherans.  But the emphasis is on WAS Lutheran.  From the comments I have received over the nearly 20 years in the South, I estimate that 60% of the people in this community have a close family member who WAS Lutheran.

But no more.

It seems that the Lutherans gravitated to Methodist churches more than any other denomination (from my own non-scientific sample).  Perhaps the Lutheran penchant for moderation left them in search of a more strict method.  Perhaps they had sung a gospel song that made their eyes tear up and they left in search of a place where they might hear more of them.  Perhaps they were offended by the Word of God and the Pastor's insistence upon preaching the whole counsel of God's Word (a sword that cuts both ways and incites family against family if you read last Sunday's Gospel).  Perhaps they got tired of going to Communion so often (or, in reality, got tired of acting so darn Catholic).  Whatever the reason, there are a ton of former Lutherans out there -- even in Baptist country.

It seems that nearly as many Lutherans found refuge in a Baptist congregation (again, this is non-scientific hypothesis).  Perhaps they always had issues with infant baptism and the unrealistic stress upon grace alone.  Perhaps they got tired of explaining to the gazillion Baptist neighbors what a Lutheran was/is and decided to go with the flow (at least in the South).  Perhaps they got bored with the same liturgy week after week and the hymns did little to perk up the pace and they sought out a place which puts on a better show (complete with Britney Spears microphones and great cd back up band).  Perhaps they had aspirations for political office or were climbing the economic ladder and figured that Lutherans have no juice in the South so your dreams might require a change of religious address.  Whatever the reason, there are a ton of former Lutherans out there who are fine upstanding Baptists in congregations with names like First, Hilldale, Spring Creek, Little Hope, etc...

A number of Lutherans changed because of marriage.  I had never understood St. Peter and his talk of the weaker vessel until now.  Lutherans, it appears, are the weaker vessel.  We change to conform to our spouses religious preference (confirmation vows notwithstanding).  Till death us do part comes into conflict when you pit the vows of marriage with the vows of a youth confirmed in his/her baptismal faith.  A few even became Roman Catholic (but they are generally pretty quiet about that fact -- both that they were once Lutheran and that they are now Roman Catholic -- you know the South).

In the end it seems that many, perhaps most Lutherans left for no place at all.  They belong to St. Mattress of the Home Church and their religious needs are met by pop gospel Christian music radio and the occasional tune in for Joel Osteen --- ohhhhhh, don't forget their half read copy of The Purpose Driven Life!  As long as you can squeeze the Pledge of Allegiance in there, stand for the National Anthem, and substitute stadium ceremony for religious ritual, you can get by without much churchy stuff (if you were a Lutheran).

It seems that Lutherans have a weak grasp on what they believe so they migrate to other denominations with little trouble... OR they get tired of being the only Lutheran in the room and crave some fellowship with predominate religious groups of the region... OR they gave up and went to church with the husband/wife and let it go at that... OR they took their toys and played at home either because they did not like the people in the playground, the rules of the playground or the playground monitor (Pastor) at the Lutheran congregation...  You can fill in the blank or answer the question "why," I am stuck wondering why we Lutherans have so much trouble keeping our folks.  Perhaps we might tackle this one before we fill the pews with new Lutherans to replace the old -- only to follow them in the drift toward other venues...  Just a thought...


View article...

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

FW: Sasse on the Historical Argument for Infant Baptism

Sasse…

 

Feed: Mercy Journeys with Pastor Harrison
Posted on: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:22 PM
Author: Rev. Matt Harrison
Subject: Sasse on the Historical Argument for Infant Baptism

 



One never becomes a member of the church by a resolution of the will or by birth—the latter is true only of certain state churches like Zurich, the prototype of the Volkskirche since the days of Zwingli, where today one can exercise all the rights of a church member except that which belongs to the clergy, without even being baptized. According to the testimony of the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:13), one becomes a member of the Church by Baptism. And the only theologically legitimate question, which also determines whether infant baptism is right or wrong, is, Who may be baptized: only those who can confess their faith in Jesus Christ, i.e., adults and older children who are able to do so, or also minor children, infantes in the strict sense?

 

So the question of infant baptism is a theological question, not merely one of practical sociology. Neither is it a question that is to be answered from history. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III Quaestio, 68:9) meets the objection that intention and faith are necessary for baptism with a quotation from the last chapter of the "Heavenly Hierarchy" of Dionysius the Areopagite[1], according to which the apostles approved the baptism of infants. But that is, to say the least, a tradition that cannot be verified.

 

However, Joachim Jeremias (b. 1900), (Hat die älteste Christenheit die Kindertaufe geübt? 1938) and W.F. Flemington (The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 1948) have advanced a mass of weighty arguments showing the probability that infant baptism, which is first mentioned expressis verbis by Irenaeus (c. ad 185), goes back to the apostolic age. There it was practiced following the pattern of the Jewish baptism of proselytes, which as is well known, was administered not only to adults but, in cases where entire families were admitted, to all the members of a household, including the children. The well-known examples of Lydia, the seller of purple, and of the jailer at Philippi (Acts 16) who were baptized together with all those in their households after they themselves had come to faith, come to mind here. [See Jeremias' Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries and The Origins of Infant Baptism (SCM Press, 1960 and 1963)].

 

When Polycarp at the trial preceding his martyrdom testifies that he has been serving the Lord for eighty-six years (Mart. Pol., 9), the reference can only be to his membership in the church. Accordingly, his baptism must have taken place in the apostolic age, even prior to the year ad 70. The statement of Justin (Apol. 1:15) that at that time there were many Christians sixty and seventy years old who from the days of their childhood ematheteuthesan to Christo [who had become disciples of Christ] can refer only to members of the church who were baptized as children during the period between ad 80 and 90. We have already mentioned Irenaeus. He testifies that Christ came to save all, "all who by Him are regenerated unto God; babes (infantes), little children, boys, youths and men" (Adv. Haer., II 22:4). In the Church Order of his disciple Hippolytus (ca. 170- c. 235) the baptism of little children is mentioned in so many words. They are to be baptized before the adults, and their parents or some relative are to take their places at the "Amen" and confession of faith by speaking vicariously for them.

 

When Tertullian (ca. 155-220) in his Treatise on Baptism directs his polemics against the custom of infant baptism, he certainly is not attacking it as an innovation; even as, later on, Pelagius in his battle against Augustine's doctrine of original sin had to admit the argument that, after all, infants were baptized too; at least he does not deny the fact. Likewise, Origen (ca. 185- ca. 254) and Cyprian (ca. 200-258) presuppose the baptism of infants: the former in the claim later transmitted to the Middle Ages by Dionysius the Areopagite that the baptism of infants goes back to a tradition given by the Lord to his apostles (Commentary on Romans, 5:9); Cyprian in the well-known instruction given to Bishop Fidus (Ep. 64) not to defer baptism to the eighth day analogous to circumcision. Jeremias is right when he claims that a later introduction of infant baptism would have stirred up a great excitement and thus have left definite traces in the history of the Church. The results of church-historical investigation rather indicate that in the ancient church, precisely as in our modern mission fields, both forms of baptism, adult and infant, have always existed side by side. If that is true, then infant baptism must go back to the apostolic age. The baptism of children must then be included in the baptism of entire families, of which we have examples in the New Testament, even though the children are not specifically mentioned.

 

It is obvious from the above that the historical question whether the church of the apostolic age knew and practiced infant baptism must be answered in the affirmative with a very high degree of probability. But that fact in no wise decides the theological question concerning the right of infant baptism. After all, the church of Corinth in the days of the apostle Paul practiced a vicarious baptism for the dead [I Corinthians 15:29]. It is possible, therefore, that we are dealing here with a very ancient abuse. Theologically, infant baptism can be grounded only on Scriptural evidence which proves it to be a legitimate form of Baptism.




Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors V, 1949.

 

[1]Converted by Paul at Athens (Acts 17:34), tradition regards him as the first Bishop of Athens. Later works (ca. 500) appear under his name. Lutheran Cyclopedia p. 236. MH


View article...



 

Monday, June 27, 2011

LHP QBR 5.2 is now available in pdf!



 

FW: Where are the Lutherans?

DeYoung asks…

 

Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Posted on: Monday, June 27, 2011 4:01 AM
Author: Gene Veith
Subject: Where are the Lutherans?

 

So asks Reformed blogger Kevin DeYoung:

What up with Lutherans?

More to the point: where are they? I'm looking for help from those of you out there who know the Lutheran world better than I do. I look around at what seems vibrant in evangelicalism and see lots of Baptists and Presbyterians. I see a lot of Free Church folks and a growing number of Anglicans. I see non-denominational guys aplenty. The Pentecostal world is a little outside my circles, but I certainly see continuationists and charismatics in conservative evangelical circles. But I don't see many Lutherans.

I don't know of Lutherans speaking at the leading conferences. I don't know of many popular books written by Lutherans. I don't know of church planting movements among Lutherans. I know lots of people who look up to Martin Luther, but I don't see the influence of Lutherans.

I'm genuinely curious to know why the big tent of conservative, confessional evangelicalism doesn't have more Lutherans. I understand that the Calvinist soteriology of TGC and T4G types doesn't fit with Methodism or parts of the Holiness traditions, but Luther's doctrine of predestination was Calvinist before there was Calvin.

I know Gene Veith is Lutheran. So is Doug Sweeney. White Horse Inn has worked hard to include the confessional wing of Lutheranism. But after that, I'm drawing a blank to come up with contemporary Lutheran leaders/theologians/pastors I know or read. I'm not blaming anyone–Lutherans or the Young, Restless, Reformed movement or the blogosphere or Sarah Palin. It's just something I've thought about from time to time: Where have all the Lutherans gone? I know you exist outside of Lake Wobegon.

So which of the statements below best explains why quandry?

1. I'm ignorant. This is, no doubt, a  big part of the explanation. I'm sure there are thousands of good Lutheran churches and pastors. I just don't know all the good they are doing and saying. And there may be thinkers and authors I like who are simply Lutheran without my knowing it.

2. With their high church, confessional tradition, Lutheranism has always been a little out of place with the sometimes rootless, low church expressions of evangelicalism. They never got on board with evangelicalism after the Great Awakening. This may be part of it, but evangelicalism has been influenced by many Anglican theologians and preachers, hasn't it?

3. Lutherans are content to remain in ethnic enclaves. Again, that could be part of the issue, but then how do you explain the influence of the Dutch Reformed on evangelicalism?

4. The Lutheran view of the sacraments is a bridge too far for many evangelicals, and the faddish nature of evangelicalism is a bridge too far for many Lutherans.

5. Lutheranism in America has bigger problems and less influence than many people realize. The bulk of Lutherans have gone liberal and the rest have gone into bunker mode.

I'll read the comments more carefully than usual. I blog so that I might understand. Help me out, especially if you are part of the tribe: What's up with Lutherans?

via What's Up With Lutherans? – Kevin DeYoung.

How would you answer him?  (Click the link and go to the comments to see what I said.  Also see what others have said, including the folks at Pirate Christian Radio.)

HT:  Justin Taylor


View article...

Sunday, June 26, 2011

FW: Walther: Find the church's teaching on Church and Office "in their completeness" in Chemnitz and Gerhard.

Walther…

 

Feed: Mercy Journeys with Pastor Harrison
Posted on: Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:56 AM
Author: Rev. Matt Harrison
Subject: Walther: Find the church's teaching on Church and Office "in their completeness" in Chemnitz and Gerhard.

 



It was, of course, not our intention to present the doctrines of the church and office [Kirch und Amt] in their completeness. Whoever desires this will find such a presentation in the larger dogmatic works of the teachers of our church, among others, especially in the master works of men like [Martin] Chemnitz and [Johann] Gerhard.[1][1] It was our purpose to stress only those points concerning which there prevails a difference and to take up only so much uncontested material as is demanded by the context. We hope, therefore, that on account of this intentional incompleteness we shall not be charged with one-sidedness in our interpretation and presentation. In order to avoid misunderstanding, we declare expressly that in this monograph we are not so much dealing with how the church is to be constituted as rather about its essence [Wesen] and the principles according to which its manifestations [Erscheinungen] are to be judged and which its polity [Verfassung] is to rest.

 

C.F.W. Walther, Preface to Kirche und Amt



View article...



[1]

[1]

[1][1] Chief among these "masterworks" are Chemnitz' Loci Theologici, Examination of the Council of Trent, and Gerhard's Theological Commonplaces, all available in English from Concordia Publishing House. Walther's forthright endorsement of Chemnitz and Gerhard on the church and the office of the ministry is not something to be taken lightly. M.H.

LHP Review: Love One Another


Eckstein, Tom. Bearing Their Burden (Galatians 6:1-2): Speaking the Truth in Love to People Burdened by Homosexuality. Jamestown, ND: Lulu, Inc., 2010. 370 Pages. pdf. $15.99. (Paperback also available for $29.99.) http://www.concordiajt.org/  http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pastoreck (LHP)


In a time of headlines like this, pastors need a trustworthy resource grounded in Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions to equip themselves for pastoral care and inevitable questions. Bearing Their Burden is that pastoral, compassionate, Biblical, Lutheran resource to help Christians speak the truth in love to those caught up in sin.

Some respond with hatred to people who struggle with same-sex attraction and teach that homosexuality is the unforgivable sin. Others affirm homosexuality by stressing either that Bible passages thought to prohibit homosexual behavior have been misinterpreted or that the clear biblical prohibitions against homosexual behavior simply have no authority over us today. In this book Pastor Eckstein shows how Scripture clearly condemns even consensual, monogamous homosexual behavior and that the biblical prohibitions against homosexual behavior still apply to us today. However, Pastor Eckstein also stresses that homosexual behavior is no worse than any other sin and that those who agree with God's Word that their homosexual behavior is sinful and trust in the forgiveness provided for all sinners through God's Son, Jesus, are holy in God's sight and will receive strength from the Holy Spirit to say "No" to their homosexual desires and "Yes" to God's loving plan for our sexual lives. (Publisher's website)
Unfaith is the unforgivable sin, according to the Bible. While homosexual behavior has unique consequences and cultural support, it is one sin among many, including countless other forms of sexual immorality. 
 
Lutherans in the LCMS have had to be more clear about their affiliation and beliefs since the August 2009 votes of the ELCA national assembly. Hundreds of congregations have voted to disaffiliate with the ELCA. Others have had overwhelming votes repudiating blessing same-sex unions and also non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy. This is a book for our time.
 
About the author:

Greetings in Christ! My name is Tom Eckstein, and I'm an ordained pastor in The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. I serve Concordia Lutheran Church ( www.concordiajt.org ) in Jamestown, North Dakota. I am married and have three children.
My book, Bearing Their Burden, is the result of many years of ministry with people who struggle with same-sex attraction as well as years of research regarding Scripture's teaching on the issue of homosexual desire and behavior.
This book is scholarly and yet very accessible to the layperson. I carefully explain what Scripture clearly teaches about God's gift of sex and I respond thoroughly to pro-gay arguments that twist the meaning of Holy Scripture. But most of all, I point us to the forgiveness, love, peace and hope we have in Jesus, God's Son, and His death and resurrection for us.
Pastor Eckstein focuses our attention on Galatians 6:1-2 as motivation for speaking the truth in love. We are given to love one another, Jesus "new mandate" of the Gospel of John. He keeps his readers' focus on Christ as the Savior from all sin. And he deftly handles both secular (22-24, et al) and religious (201, et al) objections, many based on misunderstandings of Scripture, or deliberate misinterpretations of God's Word. He examines common arguments against Biblical sexuality and points out inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright falsehoods. 

In addition, Rev. Eckstein calls His readers to repentance (223ff.), renewed faith in Christ, and care and compassion for those who struggle with same-sex attraction (e.g., 281) founded on a solid Scriptural foundation and an unique Lutheran identity. 

Appendices deal with related issues, including psychological treatment, the connection to the ordination of women to the pastoral office, creation and evolution, testimonies, and recommended resources. An extensive Bibliography compiles recommended resources from his very helpful footnotes. 

I especially appreciated the Nagel reference early in the book (31), urging readers to "Let the Lord Have His Say!" I, too, was equipped by that Holy Baptism class. "....the Christian life is defined by daily repentance and faith in Jesus" (6). Amen! 

Bearing Their Burden will be of great help to pastors and other Christians in providing Biblical care in Christ.



The Rev. Paul J Cain is Pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church, Sheridan, Wyoming, Headmaster of Martin Luther Grammar School, a member of the Board of Directors of The Consortium for Classical and Lutheran Education, Wyoming District Worship Chairman, and Editor of QBR.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

FW: The Commemoration of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession

Augustana…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Saturday, June 25, 2011 4:54 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: The Commemoration of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession

 

The Augsburg Confession, the principal doctrinal statement of the theology of Martin Luther and the Lutheran reformers, was written largely by Phillip Melanchthon. At its heart it confesses the justification of sinners by grace alone, through faith alone, for the sake of Christ alone. Signed by leaders of many German cities and regions, the confession was formally presented to the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at Augsburg, Germany, on June 25, 1530. A few weeks later Roman Catholic authorities rejected the Confession, which Melanchthon defended in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531). In 1580 the Unaltered Augsburg Confession was included in the Book of Concord.

We pray:

Lord God, heavenly Father, You preserved the teaching of the apostolic Church through the confession of the true faith at Augsburg. Continue to cast the bright beams of Your light upon Your Church that we, being instructed by the doctrine of the blessed apostles, may walk in the light of Your truth and finally attain to the light of everlasting life; through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Here is an interesting illustration of the articles of the Augsburg Confession. The much higher resolution, though much larger, version of the image may be found in the Wikipedia commons here.


View article...