"Correcting a Misperception" by Rev. Weedon

Rev. Weedon has a post on is blog entitled “Correcting a Misperception” where he addresses some of the issues discussed in “Does Lutheran Theology Destroy Souls?”.

Rev. Weedon states:

“Some former Lutherans persist in slandering our faith by saying that it is spiritually damaging - pointing especially to the teaching that we are simultaneously just and sinner. Thus, to their way of thinking, Lutherans teach that one may intentionally and willfully persist in sin and rejoice in forgiveness. But this is a complete falsification of our teaching.”

"Does Lutheran Theology Destroy Souls?" is not arguing that Lutherans teach that one “may intentionally and willfully persist in sin and rejoice in forgiveness”. Here is Drew’s criticism of Lutheran theology:

• The Lutheran ‘Gospel” left him powerless to fight against his sin.

• The psychological benefit of ‘extra nos’ was “spiritually deceptive”, especially in regards to living in a culture “saturated by carnal sensuality”.


• When he fell into sin, the message of ‘extra nos’ did calm his “troubled conscience”. However, this was the danger for him – the “satanic delusion” he calls it. As he states, “the extra nos leaves one thinking they are 'right with God' when in fact, they may not be -- as in my case.”


• He knew that he was “sowing in the flesh, and therefore reaping corruption”. Yet, he was led to believe that he was “justified before God, righteous in His eyes” because he received the Sacrament of the Altar trusting that it was “for him”.


• He believed that God would see him “through to the end no matter what” he did in his life. However, he had a terrible prayer and thought life. His life was really no different from a non-Christian.


• His life was “centered around the passive reception of Christ’s forgiveness through Word and Sacrament”. He points out that “passive” is the key.


• Hearing sermons that Christians are really no different from non-Christians (he used sermons about the Corinthians as an example) “only pampers the flesh, and definitely does not lead to true repentance.”


• “The boogeyman of 'works righteousness' will always haunt the Confessional Lutheran. Anything that looks even remotely close to 'works righteousness' is shunned. Just bring up fasting around Lutherans and witness the debate that ensues. In fact, exhorting the Christian to do anything (besides the passive reception of Word and Sacrament) often leads to debate as well. Just go read about the Lutheran debates centered around the so-called 'third use of the Law'.”
  

I think Drew’s main point is that Lutheranism did not give him the tools to fight sin effectively. The emphasis on the "passive" reception of Word and Sacrament does not necessarily lead to significant behavior change or an increased desire/motivation to fight sin.

For example, Rev. Weedon states:

“What simul justus et peccator is rather seeking to confess is that to be a Christian is to be in a life-long struggle against the flesh and its lusts. You will never advance to a point where the struggle is ended. It goes on to the very end. The fact of the struggle doesn't mean one isn't a Christian (the absence of the struggle does!). As St. Paul wrote of himself to the Romans: "I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh, for I have the desire to do what it right, but not the ability to carry it out." (7:18)

Drew’s criticism of Lutheranism is that it failed to give him the tools for the “life-long struggle against the flesh and its lusts”. Further, some of the tools can actually “backfire” – produce short-term relief from a troubled conscience but pamper the flesh in such a way that true repentance and effort to resist sin does not occur.

I think Rev. Weedon would agree that the “tools” for fighting sin are often hard to find in many LCMS churches. How many LCMS churches have weekly Communion? How many offer private Confession and Absolution? How many spend time during sermons and study classes discussing ways to resist temptation and fight sin?

Where is the Church today?

This is the seventh post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

What did the early fathers mean when they used the word “Church”? Where is the Church today?

Lutherans say that the Church is wherever the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments are properly administered.

Of course, what is really meant is that the Church is wherever the Lutheran take on the Gospel is preached and where the two Lutheran Sacraments are administered according to Lutheran tradition.

Rev. Palke discusses these issues when he states:

“Ultimately, for me the key issue was the Church. How did the fathers and Creed understand “one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?”

I felt that the Protestants had, to varying degrees, “gnosticized” the church. In other words, since they had broken from Rome, which claimed to be the true visible church, Protestants, in reaction, tended to spiritualize the church, emphasizing its invisible character through “faith alone.” Hence, there was no need for anything “human”--bishops, fasting, monks, liturgy, iconography, councils, etc.

Yet, few of our Protestant friends realized that the Church determined the canon of Holy Scripture in the late 4th century. It did so through application of holy tradition (rule of faith) which preceded even the writing of the New Testament. The Church formulated the Creed. The Church established canons that regulated its life (The Orthodox Church still observes these canons. For example, the canons do not permit divorced men to become clergy. This stands in sharp contrast to Protestantism, which finds itself with increasing percentages of divorced clergy.). Those who confessed and taught the faith and were in doctrinal and sacramental fellowship with other bishops (who were commemorated in the worship of Orthodox churches) and their respective flocks comprised the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” (many Church Fathers refer to the Church simply as the “Catholic Church”). Virtually every Father testifies as to those who were in the Church and those, who, due to false teaching or noncanonical practice, put themselves outside of the church.

The Creed affirms that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver of life. He forms a body and unites it to Christ, the head of the church. Because it is united to Christ, it is described in the book of Ephesians (1:23) as the fullness of him who fills all things. It is one. It is complete (this is primarily what the word "catholic" means). It lacks nothing. It is universal. It transcends any one culture. And it transcends any period of history. It is both divine and human at the same time. It is local and also universal. It has one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. Thus, it will exist from Pentecost until our Lord’s parousia.

Protestants will be surprised that, while the Scriptures affirm the Word of God as reliable and true, the same Scriptures declare that the Church itself is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Without this pillar, everything comes crashing down. To this body the Word of God was revealed. And only this body, instructed in the apostles’ doctrine, could decide which Gospels and epistles belonged in the canon of Scripture. And this body alone, through its ecumenical councils and right-teaching fathers, is equipped to interpret the contents of Scripture. “

The Lutheran Confessions and Sola Scriptura

This is the sixth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

LCMS Lutherans teach Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). However, we also have the Book of Concord. I was taught that our Confessions are the correct interpretation of Scripture. This led me to have several questions. For example:

• If Scripture is all I need, why do I need the Book of Concord?

• If the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture, should I read Scripture through the "lens" of the BoC?
  

• If I can determine the correct interpretation of Scripture without the BoC, then why do I need it?

• How do I know if the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture?
  

Here are the answers I have received from LCMS pastors:

• Read Scripture and see for yourself that the Book of Concord accurately interprets Scripture.
  

• Scripture is clear and don't use the BoC as a "lens".
  

• Use the clear passages of Scripture to interpret the unclear parts (i.e. use Scripture to interpret Scripture).
  

• Use the BoC to make sure that all personal interpretations are correct.

Let you head go down these rabbit holes for a few hours and you will need more than an aspirin.

Rev. Palke discusses the Scripture/Confessions issue when he states:

“Lutherans, in contrast to other Protestants, seem to be inconsistent in their approach to sola scriptura. On the one hand, they support the concept of sola scriptura, yet, on the other hand, rely heavily on their confessional writings as a form of tradition. In order to explain away this inconsistency, Lutherans admit that the Scriptures are the “norms that norm” and that the confessional writings are “norms that are normed.”

The Lutherans who corresponded with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople indicated that the Scriptures were self-sufficient and clear “so that even the most simple person can understand them.” Yet, a cursory reading of the Lutheran Confessions will reveal appeals to patristic sources. It finally occurred to me that the Confessions employed patristic sources on a selective basis. For example, they utilized the Orthodox objections to the primacy of the pope. When they espoused unique teaching, the teachings of the Fathers were silenced in favor of the opinions of the theologian(s).

In Luther’s forensic understanding of justification, a lack of patristic evidence is strangely apparent. In reacting to Roman abuses of Holy Tradition, Luther may have forgotten to ask whether his teaching had been taught “everywhere, always, and by all (see the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins)” This selective use of the Fathers has also given rise to the priority of human reason. Luther, at the Diet of Worms, stood by his own teachings, unless persuaded otherwise by Scripture and reason. The use of reason has been elevated to such an extent that it has led countless numbers of Lutheran scholars of the past century to reject many of the essential doctrines of Scripture, and even to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves. Thus, for much of Lutheranism today, the very foundation of its faith has been questioned and even rejected. Without the Church and its holy tradition, Lutheranism, in varying degrees, will continue to flounder in the wake of mainstream Protestantism.”

Infant Communion and the LCMS

This is the fifth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

As a father of two children, I am responsible for making sure my children are fed. My children were Baptized and are now God’s children. Why does my LCMS church deny my children the Body and Blood of Jesus every other Sunday (we don’t have Communion every week)? Why do my children have to wait until some arbitrary day when they are older to be fed by God?

Rev. Palke addresses this issue when he states:

“I had always wondered why we baptized infants, bringing them to spiritual life in God's Kingdom, but withheld spiritual food from them until they reached some mythical “age of accountability.” It's a lot like watching the birth of a baby with the intention of withholding food from the child until it is able to distinguish between peas and carrots. It had occurred to me that children had participated fully in the life of the Old Covenant, including circumcision and partaking of the Passover meal. And from a liturgical point of view, I knew that the early Church baptized, chrismated, and communed the catechumens in a discernible, inter-connected sequence of sacramental actions.

If John 3:5 indicates the necessity of the new birth by water and the Spirit (baptism and chrismation), then John 6:53 (“unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he has no live abiding in him”) is equally clear in asserting the necessity of the Eucharist. And if children belong to the Kingdom, should they be denied the banquet table of the Kingdom? I'm not ignoring Paul's exhortation to examine oneself, which the Orthodox fulfill in sacramental confession. But shall we withhold the Sacrament from those who are not capable of self-examination, such as the retarded or the senile?

I finally came to the realization that we had been turning faith into a rational act of the mind rather than trust. And I then realized that if we were consistent in our interpretation of Scripture, we would end up denying infant baptism for the same reasons that we deny infant communion. There is only one class of Christian in the Church--those who are baptized (the Easter experience), sealed with the Holy Spirit (Pentecost experience), and partake of the Sacrament of the Kingdom. As a Lutheran pastor, I had to keep track of “baptized members” and “communicant members.” Orthodoxy makes no such distinction, recognizing the need of the “medicine of immortality” for all its members."