FW: Doomed to Repeat History

Doomed…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:33 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: Doomed to Repeat History

 

Thanks to Dr. Larry Rast, president of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, for this "funny because it is so true" moment….posted on his blog. You got to like a theologian who is into: rock guitar, trains, and church history, plus has a sense of humor. No doubt he has learned the truth of what Dr. Dale Meyer, president of Concordia Seminary has quipped, "Being a president of seminary is like being a president of a cemetery, you can walk around telling people things, but nobody listens."

View article...

FW: There are always “Externals”

Consider…

 

Feed: This Side of the Pulpit » This Side of the Pulpit
Posted on: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:33 AM
Author: Christopher Hall
Subject: There are always "Externals"

 

When do you bow? Before crossing the altar on only upon approaching it? Do you have to wear a cassock and a surplice and a stole, or should you wear an alb and a stole, or is it okay to do a prayer service dressed in a suit and a clerical collar? Of a tie? Or dressed casually? How do you handle communion vessels? What about communion kits you use with shut-ins? What do you do then and how do you do it? These are questions of ceremony. How the rites, liturgies and prayers are performed, and the... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

View article...

FW: 'We cannot celebrate a sin'

2017 and 1517…

 

Feed: Pastoral Meanderings
Posted on: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:22 PM
Author: noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Peters)
Subject: 'We cannot celebrate a sin'

 

From the news agency of the German dioceses (KNA), via the news website of the Diocese of Münster: Kurt Koch for commemoration and acknowledgment of guilt Ecumenism Cardinal: Reformation is no reason to celebrate There is no reason to celebrate the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation, in 2017, in the opinion of the "ecumenical cardinal" of the Vatican, Kurt Koch. He pleads for, not an anniversary, but a "reformation memorial", said the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on Tuesday night (04/24/2012) in Vienna: "We cannot celebrate a sin." On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther published 95 theses on the state of the Church, which started the Reformation and led to the secession of the Protestant churches. He was aware that, with his statement, he might be perceived as an "anti-ecumenist," Koch said. He expects to make an anniversary commemoration a "two-sided admission of guilt", following the model of reconciliation seeked by John Paul II in 2000. The commemoration of the Reformation would then lead to progress in the ecumenical discussion of the churches.  With the atonement plea in the the Jubilee Year of 2000, the pope apologized extensively for the first time in 2000 years for the errors and sins of Christians. Among these, John Paul II denounced the division of Christendom. A little something on the day we commemorate the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession.... just to show that the opinions are not all agreed... at least yet.... so, well, the work goes on...

View article...

FW: Forgotten Lutheran Classics

Consider…

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Monday, June 25, 2012 12:47 PM
Author: Pastor David Juhl
Subject: Forgotten Lutheran Classics

 

I am an incurable bibliophile. Yes, I am even a member of a Facebook group about book smelling. The smell of a book, whether a newly published paperback or a musty tome, makes me almost euphoric. In my theological library are a host of books one might call "Forgotten Lutheran Classics." Some are published by good ol' Concordia Publishing House. Others are published by houses long since gone (Muhlenberg Press comes to mind). Some of these books may not even be considered "classics" because they were not big sellers or because their theological method leaves something to be desired. Whatever the case, perhaps it would be a fun exercise to list the names of some "Forgotten Lutheran Classics" that either should be published again or perhaps left to be sought out as a collector's item on used book websites. I'll start with these books: "The Word That Can Never Die" by Olav Valen-Sendstad. John Warwick Montgomery often quoted from this book during the "Battle for the Bible" days. "The Mystery of God" by Wilhelm Stählin. A book that bespeaks its time (the 20th century "Liturgical Movement") and may be best left for seeking out on used book sites. "The Gospel of Baptism" by Richard Jungkuntz. A marvelous little book that Pastor William Weedon recommended to me. Regardless of Jungkuntz's later theological position, this book is full of Gospel and could be described as "wet" with baptismal  joy. An enjoyable read. "The Theology of the Resurrection" by Walter Künneth. I haven't cracked open this book yet, but CPH published it many years ago and the title looks intriguing. "The Mission of God: An Introduction to A Theology of Mission" by Georg Vicedom. Dr. Detlev Schulz quotes favorably from this out-of-print CPH book that I am waiting to buy. If anyone has a copy they are willing to give away or sell, please contact me! "The Lively Function of the Gospel", edited by Robert Bertram. This is a "festschrift" for the 25th anniversary of Richard Caemmerer's professorship at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO. The seeds of Seminex are all over this book, which makes it an intriguing read. An essay by the late Kenneth Korby also makes the book worth reading. "Luther's Theology of the Cross" by Walther von Loewenich. I'm reading this right now. It is not an easy read, but the title intrigued me enough to borrow the book from a local college library. So far so good, but it's too early to write any sort of review. You are welcome to add to the list with your comments. Let's see if we can get a good list going of books that may be hard to find, but worth the search. The more obscure, the better!

View article...

FW: WMLTblog — Our Connection to the Ancient Church

True Ecumenism…

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:32 AM
Author: Norm Fisher
Subject: WMLTblog — Our Connection to the Ancient Church

 

Found on Witness, Mercy, Life Together blog:   Monday, June 25, 2012 is the 482nd Anniversary of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession before the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, at the Diet (meeting) of Augsburg on June 25, 1530. Remember, and thank God for our Lutheran forebears who gave us this wonderful confession of faith. The Augsburg Confession, along with Luther's Catechisms, are considered foundational for the Lutheran Church. The genius of this confession of faith is not only that it briefly summarizes the main points of Scripture. Everything we teach as Lutherans, everything we live by, needs to be drawn from Scripture and judged by the Word of God. Even a quick reading of this confession of faith shows that the whole purpose of Scripture and Lutheran teaching is to bring the greatest possible comfort to penitent sinner, to hurting and broken people. But even that's not all. The Augsburg Confession also shows that what the Lutherans of 1530 taught and practiced was nothing new, but was completely in step with the church's teaching and practice for centuries. This point becomes plain when the reformer Philip Melanchthon, the author of the document, not only explains doctrine but also shows how the Lutherans had corrected abuses in the medieval church. For example, the practice had arisen that the cup with the Lord's blood shed for us was to be kept from the laity and consumed only by the priest. The common people received only the bread. Article XXII of our confession explains why this rather late abuse was corrected so that, in the Lutheran churches, all the people are given both the break and the wine in the sacrament. Christ commands with clear words that all who receive the supper should also drink of the cup: "Drink of it, all of you." (Matthew 26:27). St. Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 11 that the whole assembly received both the body and the blood of Christ (11:27). Melanchthon points out that "this usage continued in the church for a long time, as can be demonstrated from history and the writings of the Fathers" (Augsburg XXII, Tappert, p. 50). Therefore, the confessors said, the practice of withholding the cup from the lay people was contrary to God's command, contrary to the ancient practices of the church and was unjust. Why is this important? First of all, for the sake of the consciences of believers. The Lord Jesus gave us His Supper whole and intact. It is "not proper to burden the consciences of those who desire to observe the sacrament according to Christ's institution or to compel them to act contrary to the arrangement of our Lord Christ." (Tappert, p. 50) In other words, it is the Lord's Supper and we must listen to Him. He both tells us what it is (His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins) and also how it is to be given (everyone coming to the Supper receives both kinds). You cannot divide the Supper. Second, this is important because it shows that our Lutheran forebears did not leave the ancient church. They were not innovators bringing in something never seen before, but they intended to return to Scripture and to the teaching and practice of the ancient church. In this area, they considered the Roman Church to be the innovators while the Lutherans had the ancient catholic practice – understanding the word "catholic" here in its original meaning: "universal," "orthodox," "found wherever there are Christians." So it is today. The Lutheran Church at its best desires nothing more than to be found in Scripture and in the teaching drawn from Scripture. Thus we are not surprised when we discover that our teaching and practice also fits that of the ancient church. And when we find ourselves drifting from that teaching and practice, our confessions call us back. We trust the promise of Jesus that "when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-14). What about issues we face today? The church is ever in need of reformation. And the best route to that is through our confessions, which always drive us back into the Bible. So if it's been a while, take another look at the Augsburg Confession. June 25th would be a great day to do so. I think you will be surprised at how relevant it is today. Remember – look for maximum comfort for broken people. + Herbert Mueller

View article...

FW: Entertainment Bibles. . .

Peters and Saltzman…

 

Feed: Pastoral Meanderings
Posted on: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:00 AM
Author: noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Peters)
Subject: Entertainment Bibles. . .

 

I have on these pages complained about the marketing of Scripture as more a reflection of our status in life, the stage of life where we are, the self-image we cultivate, or the things we value most (usually much more than the Word of God).  It is a scandal of our own creation -- because we buy the dang things!  Anyway, I will not recount or recant what I have said but I am happy to read of another Lutheran Pastor who shares my disdain and who has framed his opposition in a very "entertaining" piece. You can read it all here....  Pr. Russ Saltzman has written a pretty good summary of the problems with this whole category of Bibles. I will simply copy a paragraph or two to bolster my own complaint about the marketing of Scripture into a cash cow for publishers no longer beholden to the Church and with an agenda not necessarily friendly with our cause of making known the Word of the Lord. But if I have any real objection, it is less with The Voice itself and more with the entire category of what I call "entertainment Bibles," every one of which was supposed to rock our Christian world. The effect of an entertainment paraphrase, whatever the intention, is to titillate by novelty. When the novelty is gone, we go looking for new entertainment. That's how it rolls.

View article...

FW: God’s conditional and His unconditional Words

More from Veith…

 

Feed: Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Posted on: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:00 AM
Author: Gene Veith
Subject: God's conditional and His unconditional Words

 

More in our continuing series on non-Lutherans discovering Lutheran theology (while  many Lutherans throw it away). Jono Linebaugh, New Testament Professor at Knox Theological Seminary, is working in the same orbit as Tullian Tchividjian, Billy Graham's grandson and pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, in their discovery, via Luther,  of the distinction between Law & Gospel. Dr. Linebaugh has written a very helpful piece on that subject entitled "Luther on the Law."  He underscores some aspects that we often miss:  how it's God who uses the Law; how the Law is conditional and the Gospel is not conditional. His discussion of the controversial "Third Use of the Law" is interesting too.  He is NOT denying that Christians must live a life according to God's commands.  He is trying to work his way out of the Reformed position that puts so much stress on the Third Use that the Gospel can be forgotten.  His point is that God's commands in light of the Gospel are not conditional either. I'll post excerpts to give you the flavor, but you should read the whole thing.  Tomorrow I post some of what he says on the Third Use of the Law, so hold that thought:  The distinction between Law and Gospel is ultimately – that is, in reality – not a distinction between what is said; it is a distinction between what is heard. In other words, the difference between Law and Gospel is the difference between faith and unbelief. Thus, for Luther, the same words can encounter the human as either Law or Gospel. For example, the 10 Commandments are both the "hammer of God" that terrifies sinners with the "thunder of Mt. Sinai" and the pure promise that "I am the Lord your God." Conversely, the beautiful and basic words of the Gospel – "Christ died for your sins" – can be, to the ears of unbelief, nothing but an announcement of the "enormity of God's wrath" (Against the Antinomians 1539). . . . Two important implications follow from this theological definition of Law. First, because Law is a way of identifying God's action with words, talk about "uses" of the Law cannot be human uses of the Law but God's use of his Law. In other words, God is the acting subject; he wields the words of death and life and the theological term Law is a way of pointing to God's accusing, condemning, and killing speech. Second, because Law is defined in terms of its function and effect rather than simply its content, it is not, as noted above, reducible to a moral codex or a grammatical pattern.  . . . God's words that accuse and kill typically do their work of condemnation in the form of a commandment attached to a condition. So, for example, when Paul sums up the salvation-logic of the Law he quotes Leviticus 18.5b: "the one who does [the commandments] will live by them" (Gal 3.12). Here, there is a promise of life linked to the condition of doing the commandments and a corresponding threat: "cursed is everyone who does not abide in all the things written in the Book of the Law, to do them" (Gal 3.10 citing Deut 27.26). When this conditional word encounters the sinful human, the outcome is inevitable: "the whole world is guilty before God" (Rom 3.19). It is thus the condition that does the work of condemnation. "Ifs" kill! Compare this to a couple examples of New Testament imperatives. First, consider Galatians 5.1. After four chapters of passionate insistence that justification is by faith apart from works of the Law, Paul issues a couple of strong imperatives: "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore stand firm (imperative) and do not be subject (imperative) again to the yoke of slavery." Here the repeated imperatives are emphatically not commandments with conditions. The exhortation here is precisely to not return to the Law; it is an imperative to stand firm in freedom from the Law. Or take another example, John 8.11. Once the accusers of the adulterous women left, Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Depart. From now on, sin no more." Does this final imperative disqualify the words of mercy? Is this a commandment with a condition? Is this Law following the Gospel? No! This would be a conditional command: "If you go and sin no more, then neither will I condemn you."  But Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." The command is not a condition. "Neither do I condemn you" is categorical and unconditional, it comes with no strings attached. "Neither do I condemn you" creates an unconditional context within which "go and sin no more" is not an "if." The only "if" the Gospel knows is this: "if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous" (1 John 2.1). For Luther, it is within this unconditional context created by the gospel, the reality he called "living by faith," that the Law understood as God's good commands can be returned to its proper place. Freed from the burden and bondage of attempting to use the Law to establish our righteousness before God, Christians are free to look to commandments, not as conditions, but as descriptions and directions as they seek to serve their neighbor. In other words, once a person is liberated from the commonsense delusion that acting righteously makes us righteous before God, and in faith believes the counterintuitive reality that being made righteous by God's forgiving and resurrecting word precedes and produces righteous action, then the justified person is unlocked to love. For this reason, Luther would insist that the Law only applies to the second question of Christian living: what shall we do? It helps to answer the "what" question, the question about the content of good works. The Law, however, does not answer the more basic question, the question far too few people ask: How do good works occur? What fuels works of love? While the Law demands and directs, what delivers and drives? For Luther, the answer to this question always follows the pattern of 1 John 4.19: "We love because he first loved us." Works of love flow from and follow prior belovedness. Thus, as Lutheran theologian Oswald Bayer has said, the essential question of theological ethics is this: "What has been given?" The answer: "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Rom 5.8). via LIBERATE » Luther on the Law. HT:  Daniel Siedell

View article...

FW: A Belated Reflection on Projection Screens in the Liturgical Context

Consider…

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:46 AM
Author: Pastor John Frahm III
Subject: A Belated Reflection on Projection Screens in the Liturgical Context

 

The use of projection screens in place of printed books or bulletins in the Divine Service has become quite prevalent in some parts of North American Lutheranism.   With this said, I am not aware of any major study that has reviewed the implications of using said devices within the liturgical context, let alone for catechetical functions outside the sanctuary.  Obviously there is nothing in the Bible that forbids them as they didn't exist until recently.  But this does not thereby commend their use to us.  Even when things are neither commanded nor forbidden, this does not mean they are completely indifferent or that they may be used willy-nilly.  What follows below are a few reflections and cautions regarding the use of projection screens (PowerPoint, etc) in the sanctuary or for the Divine Service in general.   I certainly do not expect these reflections to be definitive, but as grist for conversation and hopefully to give pause over jumping both feet in into this novelty. 1.       Regarding the transient and ethereal nature of the projection. Obviously the computer, projector, and monitor can be switched on and switched off.   During the progression of a service various lyrics, pictures, and information can be flashed onto the screen for varying lengths of time.   This means that reading ahead in the service is not a possibility for the worshiper and neither for the liturgist, without a hand-held version of the service.   This also means that for the parishioner who is concerned to be a Berean Christian (Acts 17:11) about the content of the service, they have no means to evaluate such prior-to or during the service until it comes into being on the screen(s).   A thing that can lose power cannot be accounted for and is easily forgotten.  Yet the effect of these things upon the heart and mind, and the soul can be lasting, even negatively with harm.  There is no test of time, no evaluation of the church catholic, no ecclesial awareness at all in what is produced from an individual or committee in one locale.   It then becomes liturgical Russian-roulette.    Furthermore, even when said content is good, meditation on the text or other item projected is also a fleeting moment.   (And what trouble there is in a power outage!)  What is given in this context is a brief appearance, reflecting what someone thought at a moment.  It is to engender an experiential response to know the spiritual realm and in that has some affinity with Gnosticizing tendencies of centuries past. 2.       Regarding the dangerous potential of weekly chosen content. Anytime one changes format or mode of presentation, the casting aside of standardized content becomes a real possibility and even likely.   For Lutherans who subscribe to Augsburg Confession and Apology XXIV, this is not something that should be ignored or taken for granted.   Even before the advent of projection screens in Lutheran sanctuaries, we have seen wholesale rejection of the liturgical heritage of our Confessions.    The liturgy du jour produced by pastor, worship committee, praise team, or what have you becomes the standard content of the screen.  And the liturgy du jour is hardly built around a format that is Divine Service (Acts 1:1-2; Luke 22:27; Revelation 3:20; Romans 10:17), or leitourgia in the sense of Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV.78-83.   This article of the Confessions still stands even when Formula X is invoked by the practitioners of liturgy du jour.   While, in the LCMS, we do have resources like Lutheran Service Builder, this still does not preclude liturgical tinkering, or worse, liturgical borrowing from the Arminians, Wesleyans, and charismatics.   Formula X, on adiaphora, never condones importing heterodoxy-laden songs and practices and rites from the schwärmer.  On the contrary it assumes that adiaphora are used to avoid confessional ambiguity in a liturgical context.   In this area, novel use of said technology in the worship context may lend itself well to promoting an Arminian to charismatic understanding.   Certainly we have a history among us of importing practices that originated among non-Lutheran protestants without much prior theological reflection out of undisciplined zeal, curiosity, items being offered in a supply catalog, or even coveting.   This is worse than crossing the street without looking both ways.   The purpose of the liturgical assembly and service is to deliver the saving gifts of our crucified and risen Lord.  However, so much of what happens when the liturgy du jour occurs is an engineered experience to produce a certain mood or sensation.   The projection screen helps enable this to higher degree in many cases.  Psychological and social sciences along with propaganda devices enable not catechesis but manipulation of image and emotion.  3.       Regarding the displacement of books and printed material. Certainly the use of printed material is well-within the biblical orthodox tradition, whether scrolls or codices, or modern bound books.   Computers and high quality printers make this easier than ever.  There is also something reflective of the incarnation and the sacraments in their physical, earthly, tangible character (see 1 John 1:1-5; John 1:14).    Many a bookworm could muse freely on the texture, weight, smell, and even the sound of a book as pages are turned within one's own hands, especially as books age.   One could argue that the displacement of printed books with electronic media, has furthered the shortening of the attention span in western culture and narrowed our vocabulary.   This certainly impacts our catechesis and the nurture of faith in terms of both trust and content (fides qua and fides quae).   A book or a printed bulletin may easily be taken home and referred to again and become an object of discussion beyond the initial presentation.   By comparison, the permanence of a printed Bible or Catechism or hymnal presents an opportunity for ongoing reference, discussion, study, teaching, and prayer, with or without electricity or a projector technician, while the electronic text or artwork is relatively disincarnate, and is only virtually there.   In such cases is the medium or the text itself primary?   Will we become like Christians in the medieval church who thought it benefited them to merely watch the spectacle Mass rather than receive Christ's body and blood given for the forgiveness of sins? 4.       Regarding the visual displacement of altar and cross. Certainly the use of projection screens at the very least means an alteration of the chancel architecture and new focal point.   Prior to projection screens, the classic Christian tradition saw the altar and cross a united focal point for quite theological reasons:   We preach Christ and Him crucified.    This is surely even more consequential than when televisions became the focal point of the American household's family room, now with even bigger screens and louder sound systems and integrated computers.  Screens in the sanctuary (holy place) cultivate the atmosphere of the living room, concert hall, karaoke bar, and sports arena.  After demonizing television for so many years why invite it in with its ever-expanding creep of questionable and indiscriminate content.   We live in the world and are not of it– we whose citizenship is in heaven among angels, archangels and the saints who have gone before us. Connected to an internet or satellite feed, such screens open up no end trouble for heresy and idolatry (Revelation 13:15) and indiscriminate borrowing from heterodox societies and fellowships that would deny our genuine confession of the unchanging faith (Jude 3). What has been noted above is certainly not exhaustive by any means.    Christianity is spiritual not at the expense of or negation of the physical and tangible.   We confess a Savior who came back bodily alive from the grave.  And this Savior is the eternal Word of the Father who became flesh in order to submit Himself perfectly under the law in humility and suffer as the holy sacrificial Lamb.   The Temple and its predecessor were very earthy and tangible places. Christianity does not become less tangible or more ethereal but rather universal and sacramental so that the Word who became flesh and redeemed us may go out into the whole world until the new creation is revealed.  Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith as He comes and serves us in His holy Word and Sacraments.  My prayer is that more discussion and theological consideration of this somewhat prevalent practice may take place and we pause to consider whether we ought to use such technology in the liturgical context or reserve it for other uses with thoughtful care.   Perhaps we might even consider back-tracking down the road we have gone, when our eyes were fixed on shiny new equipment the neighboring churches had.  Certainly technology can be a great and useful gift within the Church in this world, but how and where it is used can be at least as important and using the latest thing certainly need not be inevitable.  My own personal opinion is that technology can be best used in the church in the context of education or catechesis rather than in the liturgical realm.  It can also be used well in outreach and catechesis beyond the church building with streaming audio and video, podcasts, informative websites, tracts, and online education as a component of the larger realm of residential education and parish catechesis.

View article...

FW: “I am a Mormon, and I’m Emphatically NOT a Christian”

Worth reading…

 

Feed: Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog Feed
Posted on: Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:46 AM
Author: Paul T. McCain
Subject: "I am a Mormon, and I'm Emphatically NOT a Christian"

 

Big HT to Justin Taylor for the following excellent blog post. The New York Times published a curious opinion piece by a devout Mormon who insists that he is not a "Christian." I'm about as genuine a Mormon as you'll find — a templegoer with a Utah pedigree and an administrative position in a congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am also emphatically not a Christian. He equivocates on what he means by "Christian." Sometimes he seems to refer to a set of historical and theological beliefs (he agrees with Richard Land that Mormonism is "a fourth Abrahamic religion, along with Judaism, Christianity and Islam"); other times to a culture of power and acceptance and behavior ("Being a Christian so often involves such boorish and meanspirited behavior that I marvel that any of my Mormon colleagues are so eager to join the fold"), and he also uses it in verbal form positively ("Mormons are certainly Christian enough to know how to spitefully abuse their power"). One might think that a Mormon offering a strong defense of dissimilarity from historic Christianity would insist that theology matters. But that's the opposite of this writer's approach. For the curious, the dispute can be reduced to Jesus. Mormons assert that because they believe Jesus is divine, they are Christians by default. Christians respond that because Mormons don't believe — in accordance with the Nicene Creed promulgated in the fourth century — that Jesus is also the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Jesus that Mormons have in mind is someone else altogether. The Mormon reaction is incredulity. The Christian retort is exasperation. Rinse and repeat. I am confident that I am not the only person — Mormon or Christian — who has had enough of the acrimonious niggling from both sides over the nature of the trinity, the authority of the creeds, the significance of grace and works, the union of Christ's divinity and humanity, and the real color of God's underwear. Regarding the statement I've italicized: I understand that (1) this is an opinion piece, (2) that most Mormons don't understand the Trinity, and (3) that many evangelicals—to use Robert Letham's indictment—are "functional modalists"—but one would still think that the Paper of Record would flag a historical error this significant. The pro-Nicene theology emerging from the fourth century most certainly did not say that Jesus is the Father and the Spirit. That is a heretical belief. For those who would be helped by a review of some of the key differences between Mormonism (or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and historic Christianity, I once constructed a Q&A format from the ESV Study Bible article on religious cults and sects (article available online to subscribers). It's an attempt to be concise and accurate without being overly simplistic. What do Mormons believe about apostasy and restoration? Mormons claim that "total" apostasy overcame the church following apostolic times, and that the Mormon Church (founded in 1830) is the "restored church." What's the problem with this understanding? If the Mormon Church were truly a "restored church," one would expect to find first-century historical evidence for Mormon doctrines like the plurality of gods and God the Father having once been a man. Such evidence is completely lacking. Besides, the Bible disallows a total apostasy of the church (e.g., Matt. 16:18; 28:20; Eph. 3:21; 4:11-16), warning instead of partial apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1). What do Mormons believe about God? Mormons claim that God the Father was once a man and that he then progressed to godhood (that is, he is a now-exalted, immortal man with a flesh-and-bone body). What does the Bible teach about the nature of God? Based on the Bible, God is not and has never been a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9). He is a spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Furthermore, God is eternal (Ps. 90:2; 102:27; Isa. 57:15; 1 Tim. 1:17) and immutable (or unchangeable in his being and perfections; see Ps. 102:25-27; Mal. 3:6). He did not "progress" toward godhood, but has always been God. What do Mormons believe about the Trinity and polytheism? Mormons believe that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods. According to Mormonism, there are potentially many thousands of gods besides these. What does the Bible teach about the Triune God? Trusting in or worshiping more than one god is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible (e.g., Ex. 20:3). There is only one true God (Deut. 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:18; 46:9; 1 Cor. 8:4; James 2:19), who exists eternally in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14). What do Mormons believe about human exaltation? Mormons believe that humans, like God the Father, can go through a process of exaltation to godhood. What does the Bible teach about humanity? The Bible teaches that the yearning to be godlike led to the fall of mankind (Gen. 3:4ff.). God does not look kindly on humans who pretend to attain to deity (Acts 12:21-23; contrast Acts 14:11-15). God desires humans to humbly recognize that they are his creatures (Gen. 2:7; 5:2; Ps. 95:6-7; 100:3). The state of the redeemed in eternity will be one of glorious immortality, but they will forever remain God's creatures, adopted as his children (Rom. 8:14-30; 1 Cor. 15:42-57; Rev. 21:3-7). Believers will never become gods. What do Mormons believe about Jesus? Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit-child of the heavenly Father and a heavenly Mother. Jesus then progressed to deity in the spirit world. He was later physically conceived in Mary's womb, as the literal "only begotten" Son of God the Father in the flesh (though many present-day Mormons remain somewhat vague as to how this occurred). What does the Bible teach about Jesus? Biblically, the description of Jesus as the "only begotten" refers to his being the Father's unique, one-of-a-kind Son for all eternity, with the same divine nature as the Father (see note on John 1:14; cf. John 1:18; 3:16, 18; see also John 5:18; 10:30). Moreover, he is eternal deity (John 1:1; 8:58) and is immutable (Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8), meaning he did not progress to deity but has always been God. And Mary's conception of Jesus in his humanity was through a miracle of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20). What do Mormons believe about our eternal destiny? Mormons believe that most people will end up in one of three kingdoms of glory, depending on one's level of faithfulness. Belief in Christ, or even in God, is not necessary to obtain immortality in one of these three kingdoms, and therefore only the most spiritually perverse will go to hell. What does the Bible teach about our eternal destiny ? The Bible teaches that people have just two possibilities for their eternal futures: the saved will enjoy eternal life with God in the new heavens and new earth (Phil. 3:20; Rev. 21:1-4; 22:1-5), while the unsaved will spend eternity in hell (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:13-15). What do Mormons believe about sin and atonement? Mormons believe that Adam's transgression was a noble act that made it possible for humans to become mortal, a necessary step on the path to exaltation to godhood. They think that Christ's atonement secures immortality for virtually all people, whether they repent and believe or not. What does the Bible teach about sin and atonement? Biblically, there was nothing noble about Adam's sin, which was not a stepping-stone to godhood but rather brought nothing but sin, misery, and death to mankind (Gen. 3:16-19; Rom. 5:12-14). Jesus atoned for the sins of all who would trust him for salvation (Isa. 53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). What do Mormons believe about salvation? Mormons believe that God gives to (virtually) everyone a general salvation to immortal life in one of the heavenly kingdoms, which is how they understand salvation by grace. Belief in Christ is necessary only to obtain passage to the highest, celestial kingdom—for which not only faith but participation in Mormon temple rituals and obedience to its "laws of the gospel" are also prerequisites. What does the Bible teach about salvation? Biblically, salvation by grace must be received through faith in Christ (John 3:15-16; 11:25; 12:46; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22-24; Eph. 2:8-9), and all true believers are promised eternal life in God's presence (Matt. 5:3-8; John 14:1-3; Rev. 21:3-7).

View article...

FW: LHP QBR has shared a tweet with you

Consider…

 

 

Thanks, Larry Peters, for your guest article over at Liturgy Solutions. http://t.co/5IoX88mE -- Phillip Magness (@PhMag)

 

 

FW: Ich lobe dich von ganzer Seelen

Cantemus…

 

Feed: HYMNOGLYPT
Posted on: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:44 PM
Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes)
Subject: Ich lobe dich von ganzer Seelen

 

Here is my translation of "Ich lobe dich von ganzer Seelen" (Fr. K. Hiller, 1711), a hymn on the subject of the Church as the one holy, catholic communion of saints called, enlightened, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. It especially regards the subject in a way appropriate to the Second Sunday after Holy Trinity, e.g., in stanza 2, where the Gospel pericope is expressly referenced. The German is found in ELK 214, where it is appointed the melody "Jauchzt, alle Lande, Gott zu Ehren" (G. Franc, 1543), i.e., "Navarre" (TLH 100) or "Rendez à Dieu" (LSB 600) WITH ALL my soul, O Lord, I praise Thee, Who here upon this earth hast deigned A glorious Church to build and raise Thee, And to Thy glory her sustained: From many souls one congregation, One blest communion of the saints In Jesus' blood a new creation Cleansed from all blemish and offense. 2. Yet still Thy cry goes out, desiring That all should come and feast with Thee; Still sounds the call of Thine inspiring, That here Thy dwelling filled might be. In every street Thou servants sendest, Inviting whosoe'er they find, To every soul their heart commendest, E'en to the poor, the lame, the blind. 3. One Church, O God, Thou hast created From every tongue and every race, Whereby Thy name is celebrated In fairest splendor for Thy grace; Together under Christ united, Their princely Head, in every part With Him made one, their faith is lighted, The hope of every Christian heart. 4. Our hope may not on works be grounded; No man could thus God's grace obtain: Though by unnumbered works surrounded, Unfaithful servants we remain. By faith we shall receive the merit Which Christ by dying has prepared, In faith procure for flesh and spirit That life with saints in heaven shared. 5. Resolve in this true faith, Lord, give us Until our life on earth be spent, Of Thy dear gifts let none bereave us— Thy Holy Word and Sacrament! Oh, fill our hearts with grace and blessing, Thy Church let peace and gladness see, By fire of holy love possessing unfeigned, unblemished unity. Translation © 2012 Matthew Carver. GERMAN 1. Ich lobe dich von ganzer Seelen, daß du auf diesem Erdenkreis dir wollen eine Kirch erwählen zu deines Namens Lob und Preis, darinnen sich viel Menschen finden in einer heiligen Gemein, die da von allen ihren Sünden durch Christi Blut gewaschen sein. 2. Du rufest auch noch heutzutage, daß jedermann erscheinen soll; man höret immer deine Klage, daß nicht dein Haus will werden voll. Deswegen schickst du auf die Straßen, zu laden alle, die man findt; du willst auch die berufen lassen, die blind und lahm und elend sind. 3. Du, Gott, hast dir aus vielen Zungen der Völker eine Kirch gemacht, darin dein Lob dir wird gesungen in einer wunderschönen Pracht, die sämtlich unter Christus stehen als ihrem königlichen Haupt und in Gemeinschaft dies begehen, was jeder Christ von Herzen glaubt. 4. Wir wolln uns nicht auf Werke gründen, weil doch kein Mensch vor Gott gerecht; und will sich etwas Gutes finden, so sind wir dennoch böse Knecht. Mit Glauben müssen wir empfangen, was Christi Leiden uns bereitt; im Glauben müssen wir erlangen der Seelen Heil und Seligkeit. 5. Erhalt uns, Herr, im rechten Glauben noch fernerhin bis an das End; ach lass uns nicht die Schätze rauben: dein heilig Wort und Sakrament. Erfüll die Herzen deiner Christen mit Gnade, Segen, Fried und Freud, durch Liebesfeur sie auszurüsten zur ungefärbten Einigkeit.

View article...

FW: Wie wohl hast du gelabet* (Original Melodies)

Cantemus…

 

Feed: HYMNOGLYPT
Posted on: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:53 PM
Author: Matt Carver (Matthaeus Glyptes)
Subject: Wie wohl hast du gelabet* (Original Melodies)

 

Here are two original melodies for the the postcommunion hymn "Wie wohl hast du gelabet" (J. Rist, 1651), tr. by C. Winkworth as "O Living Bread from Heaven" [TLH 316; LW 244; LSB 642]. It was first published set to a tune by Andreas Hammerschmidt, appearing in Rist's hymnal (Lüneburg, 1651) thus (from Kümmerle):     This was included among others by some editions of Praxis pietatis melica, though it was eventually replaced by "Nun lob mein Seel…" A second melody, by Samuel Welter, appeared around 1692:

View article...

FW: Great Stuff — Word and Music or Word and Sacrament: Which Ministry is it?

Consider…

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Monday, June 11, 2012 7:15 AM
Author: Norm Fisher
Subject: Great Stuff — Word and Music or Word and Sacrament: Which Ministry is it?

 

Another great post found on This We Confess by Pastor Woodford:   The argument that often continues among Lutheran brother pastors is the nature of our worship. In my own district there remains a distinct divide among the brothers regarding various perspectives on worship and the way that worship shapes ministry. Contemporary or traditional, vestments or jeans, paraments or video screens, formal or informal—which one is best, which way is right? Some feel one can attract more people. Others feel one is more proper. Sadly, the divides have become so significant that various parties have been formed, labels have been given, names have been distributed, closed meetings take place, and animosity only grows. Though not formally affiliated with any group, I have been labeled one way by one group, and another way by a different group. But the only label I desire is the one given me at my baptism—redeemed. Nonetheless, I realize this often happens when political movements are afoot. Our district is nearing a convention. Elections will be taking place. Troops need to be rallied. Propaganda needs to be distributed. Allies need to be forged. Both sides do it. Power is at stake. The thought is, "If our guy is elected our problemswill be solved." However, "power" does not create theology. Not if we are being honest. That belongs to God's Word alone. Power simply creates the illusion of control. And when we crave it too much, it becomes dangerously intoxicating. Certainly the church needs solid, compassionate, pastoral leaders. My prayer is that they will stand on the power of the Word and not their position of power as they lead. But back to the topic at hand. As of late, the worship debates seem to surround one central subject—the issue of music. Contemporary advocates feel that a "contemporary" form of worship provides a greater appeal and attraction to the people of our contemporary world. Therefore the use of a less formal, less ordered, contemporary music based worship setting is employed. This often includes higher volumes of music produced by electronic pianos, guitars, and drums. Traditional advocates argue that bringing too much of secular sounding music into the realm of the sacred distorts and disorders the means of grace being given in worship. In short, the argument is that the musical setting and the emotional atmosphere it creates becomes the central element of worship rather than the truth of God's Word and Sacraments alone. This is an interesting development for Lutherans. The debates about music in the church are a curious one. Historically Lutherans have understood the central elements of worship and ministry to flow out of Word and Sacrament, where they were ordered and celebrated in a formal manner:"The Church is the assembly of saints in which the Gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly." (Augsburg Confession VII). In short, music was not a central identifying mark to the Church. But it seems to becoming one today. Churches are evaluated and critiqued not so much upon the objective presence of the Word and Sacraments being purely taught and rightly administered, but on the subjective appeal and presence of musical forms. To be sure, musical excellence and quality should be a concern in our worship services. But it will be alarming if music becomes the defining element of Lutheran worship. Do you see the potential shift that would take place? "Word and Sacrament" ministry would become "Word and Music" ministry. The theological and practical implications would be significant. If the sacraments become second to music how would such ministry shape the beliefs of our people? Will the sound of music now be the manner in which people believe they encounter the love of Christ? Will the emotional appeal of a particular instrument or song be the manner in which people believe God comes to us? Please note I'm including all instruments here. The reality is that music, whatever the instrument, whether organ, violin, trumpet, French horn, guitar, piano, or drums, cannot, does not, and will not ever forgive sins! But the Water and the Word of baptism does, likewise with the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper. If music has become more prominent than the sacraments, I believe we have a problem. And if music has become more desirable than the sacraments, I know we have a problem. In my book, Great Commission, Great Confusion, Great Confession I argue that the Church would be well served to emphasize Word and Sacrament ministry by a return to the historic liturgy of the church. However, I am amazed at how some people think this means I am simultaneously advocating the use of a specific musical instrument. I believe this to be evidence of just how conditioned or uninformed people (on both sides) are about the liturgy. As I express it in my book, "there is flexibility, within limits, where uniformity cannot be legislatively imposed, but where there are indeed non-negotiables (both theological and structural) to Lutheran liturgy"(p.182). But no where do I advocate for any particular instrument. In fact, I offer the following in a footnote on p.179: Lutheran Worship has room for use of multiple different instruments. However, music, whatever the instrument, is always meant to be in service to the liturgy and is to never displace or surpass in prominence the means of grace given in the Divine Service. Thus the following description remains helpful for any musical use in the worship setting: "Music in the Lutheran tradition is noted by the following adjectives: doxological (it focuses on praising the Trinity),scriptural (the texts are rooted in God's Word), liturgical (it fits into the ordered Divine Service within the pattern of the Church Year), proclamational (it communicates the Gospel of Jesus Christ), participatory (the congregation actively sings), pedagogical (it teaches the truth of God's love and forgiveness in Christ), traditional (it is built on the best of the past), eclectic (it employs styles and practices from various sources that aid the Gospel), creative (it eagerly explores new expressions), and it aspires to excellence (it desires and seeks to give God the best)." Maschke, Gathered Guests, 265. My point is that our worship must, above all, be preoccupied with the Word and Sacraments. If our fascination with music and its various forms supersedes this in anyway, then I believe we will have indeed changed the marks of the Church from "Word and Sacrament" to "Word and Music." If this happens, it is sure to lead us down a very hazardous and foreign theological road. What do you think? As always, this blog aims to move past partisanship and demonizing of those who disagree, and endeavors to thoughtfully, honestly, and collegially, foster the goal of talking about the mission of the Holy Christian Church and what it means to be authentically Lutheran, while "discipling all nations" in the 21st century. For those willing to enter the fray, I welcome your constructive thoughts and reactions. Yours, Rev. Woodford   Rev. Woodford has published the book Great Commission, Great Confusion, or Great Confession? and was interviewed on Issues Etc a couple of weeks ago.

View article...

FW: Great Stuff — The Nicene Creed According to Scripture

A very useful reference…

 

Feed: Steadfast Lutherans
Posted on: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:01 AM
Author: Norm Fisher
Subject: Great Stuff — The Nicene Creed According to Scripture

 

Posted by Chris Rosebrough on Letter of Marque   By Richard Gilbert     The Father I Believe Rom. 10:9, Jas 2:19, John 14:1 In one God, Deut. 6:4, Is. 44:6 The Father Is. 63:16, 2 Pet 1:17, Matt. 6:9 Almighty, Gen. 17:1, Ps. 91:1, Rev. 4:8 Maker Job 4:17, 35:10, Is. 17:7, 54:5 of heaven Gen 1:1, 8 and earth Ps. 104:5, Jer. 51:15 and of all things Gen 1:31 visible and invisible. Ps. 89:11-12, Amos 4:13, Rev. 3:5, Col. 1:16 The Son And in one Lord Eph. 4:5 Jesus Christ, Acts 10:36, 11:17, Rom. 1:7, 5:1, 1 Cor 1:2, 6:11, 2 Cor. 1:2, 8:9, Gal. 1:3, 6:14, Eph. 1:2, 3:11, Phil. 1:2, 3:20, Col. 1:3, 2:6, 1 Thes. 1:1, 5:9, 2 Thes. 1:1, 2:14, 1 Tim. 6:3, 14, 2 Tim. 1:2, Philemon 1:3, 25, Heb. 13:20, Jas. 1:1, 2:1, 1 Pet. 1:3, 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:8, 14, Jude 17, 21, Rev. 22:20-21 the only-begotton, John 1:18 Son of God, Matt 3:17, John 3:16 Begotten of His Father, Heb. 1:5 Before all worlds, John 1:1, Col. 1:17, 1 John 1:1 God of God, ((see below)) Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, John 1:1, Heb. 1:5 Not Made, Mic. 5:2, John 1:18, 17:5 Being of one substance with the Father, John 10:30, 14:9 By whom all things were made; 1 Cor. 8:6, Col 1:16 Who for us men Matt 20:28, John 10:10 and for our salvation Matt 1:21, Luke 19:10 came down from heaven Rom. 10:6, Eph. 4:10 and was incarnate Col. 2:9 by the Holy Spirit Matt 1:18 of the Virgin Mary Luke 1:34-35 and was made man; John 1:14 and was crucified Matt. 20:19, John 19:18, Rom. 5:6, 8, 2 Cor. 13:4 also for us Rom. 5:8, 2 Cor. 5:15 under Pontius Pilate. Matt. 27:2, 26, 1 Tim 6:13 He suffered 1 Pet. 2:21, Heb. 2:10 and was buried. Mark 15:46, 1 Cor. 15:4 And the third day Matt. 27:63, 28:1, 1 Cor. 15:4 He rose again Mark 16:6, 2 Tim. 2:8 according to the Scriptures Ps. 16:10, Luke 24:25-27, 1 Cor. 15:4 and ascended Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9 Into heaven Mark 16:19, Acts 1:11 and sits at the right hand of the Father. Ps. 110:1, Matt. 26:64, Acts 7:56, Heb. 1:3 And He will come again Jn. 14:3, 1 Thes. 4:16 with glory Matt. 16:27, 24:30, 25:31, 26:64, Mark. 8:38, Col. 3:4 to judge Matt. 25:31-46, Acts 17:31 both the living and the dead, Acts 10:42, 1 Pet. 4:5 whose kingdom John 18:36, 2 Tim. 4:1, 18 will have no end. Luke 1:33, Rev. 11:15, Ps. 145:13 The Holy Spirit And I believe in the Holy Spirit, Matt. 28:19, Acts 13:2 The Lord 2 Cor. 3:17 And giver of life, John 6:63, Rom. 7:6, 8:2, 2 Cor. 3:6 who proceeds from the father John 14:16-17 and the Son, John 15:26, Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6 Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped Luke 4:8, John 4:24 and glorified John 4:24, 1 Tim. 1:17 Who spoke by the prophets. 1 Pet. 1:10-11, 2 Pet 1:21 And I believe in one 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 12:12-13 Holy Eph. 3:16-17, 5:27, 1 Pet. 2:9 Catholic 1 Cor. 1:2 and Apostolic Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14 Church, Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:24, Heb. 12:23, 1 Pet. 2:9 I acknowledge one Baptism John 3:5, Rom. 6:3, Eph. 4:5 For the remission of sins, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21, Tit. 3:5 And I look for the resurrection of the dead 1 Thes. 4:16, 1 Cor. 15:12-13, 16, 52 And the life of the world to come. 1 Cor 15:54-57, Rev. 22:5 Amen. Ps. 41:13, 2 Cor. 1:20     NOTE: The text "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God" was not found in the original posting; if someone has the original brochure and it's listed there, please get the bible references to me.

View article...