Faith Consoles

Until now consciences were plagued with [a false] doctrine of works.  They did not hear consolation from the Gospel.  Some people were driven by conscience into the desert and into monasteries, hoping to merit grace by a monastic life.  Some people came up with other works to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins.  That is why the need was so great for teaching and renewing the doctrine of faith in Christ, so that anxious consciences would not be without consolation but would know that grace, forgiveness of sins, and justification are received by faith in Christ.

People are also warned that the term faith does not mean simply a knowledge of a history, such as the ungodly and devil have [James 2:19].  Rather, it means a faith that believes, not merely the history, but it believes this article:  the forgiveness of sins.  We have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ.

The person who knows that he also has a Father who is gracious to him through Christ truly knows God [John 14:7].  He also knows that God cares for him [1 Peter 5:7], and he calls upon God [Romans 10:13].  In a word, he is not without God, as are the heathen.  For devils and the ungodly are not able to believe this article:  the forgiveness of sins.  Hence they hate God as an enemy [Romans 3:11-12] and expect no good from Him. Augustine also warns his readers about the word faith and teaches that the term is used in the Scriptures, not for the knowledge that is in the ungodly, but for the confidence that consoles and encourages the terrified mind.  (Augsburg Confession XX 19-26)

Feingold lecture.

I listened to this lecture basically on the sacrifice of the mass by Larry Feingold someone linked to at Called to Communion.  In it Luther is misquoted and maligned several times, having teachings associated with him that he did not hold or confess.  I've tried to comment, but the comments are not coming out of moderation.

These are my comments so far.

I have listened to the entire lecture by Larry Feingold. I don’t know anything else about him, but he seems to be a qualified man to speak on the subject. Much of the talk I enjoyed. Much of it I and most Christians can agree with. The background on sacrifices, natural law, OT, the efficacy of the means of grace according to God’s promises, is all very fine.

However, he does not from this many body of the talk repudiate Luther’s view, nor show that the eucharist is not now only a sacrifice of thanksgiving, not blood. He does not bring in scripture passages that deal with how the word “priest” is used in the NT, or what Christ and Paul say about the Lord’s supper. Our Lord is abundantly clear that the supper is a Promise, a Testament, not a sacrifice. Look at the words scripture itself uses, and teaching it teaches.

But Luther gets dragged in here, as a red herring to obfuscate that the RC teaching here is not scripturally underpinned or takes away from Christ’s all sufficient sacrifice, robbing him of his glory, thereby.

Luther did not abolish the Eucharist or the mass, only the abuse of it (have a look at the confessions). Also it is wrong to say that Luther taught that Christ suffered in hell. Again, have a look at the confessions. Feingold calls him in one breath an innovator and heretic, but then alleges teachings he did not hold, and does not explore the false teachings which he deplored. There is no fairness in this. Feingold sounds like a man who should know better. And Cross would also know better, I would expect. The never-ending demands on man’s conscience by requiring repeated masses, ceremonies, sufficient contrition (who can know when he has sufficient contrition?), payments–all never-ending or enough and all for merit and the power of the pope–this is what is being deplored. The right use of the Eucharist is not.

I can bring in all the necessary quotes of scripture and the confessions, if anyone cares to hear them.

And regarding Christ's descent into hell:

Just to follow up with what Luther and Lutherans do confess regarding Christ's descent into hell, without having to change the words or the Apostle's Creed to "limbo of the just" (not scriptural, just in case someone does not know that.)

Luther's response to the conundrum is the proper one, to stick with the creed, to not teach things not contained in the scriptures (apostolic witness), to be faithful to what has been revealed and not speculate on what has not been revealed and then make the teaching binding on consciences. This is what the confession is:

'Even in the Ancient Christian teachers of the Church, as well as among some of our teachers, different explanations of the article about Christ's descent to hell are found. Therefore, we abide in the simplicity of our christian faith. Dr. Luther has pointed us to this in a sermon about Christ's descent to hell, which he delivered in the castle at Torgau in the year 1533. In the Creed we confess, "I believe... in Jesus Christ. His only Son, our Lord, who... was crucified died and was buried. He descended into hell." In this Confession Christ's burial and descent to hell are distinguished as different articles. We simply believe that the entire person (God and man) descended into hell after the burial, conquered the devil, destroyed hell's power, and took from the devil all his might. We should not, however, trouble ourselves with high and difficult thoughts about how this happened. With our reason and our five senses this article can be understood as little as the preceding one about how Christ is placed at the right hand of God's almighty power and majesty. We are simply to believe it and cling to the Word. So we hold to the substance and consolation that neither hell nor the devil can take captive or injure us and all who believe in Christ.'

Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration. Article IX."

I want to say some things about the mass, but I'm still reviewing it from the Apology to the Augsburg confession.  This apology is most helpful, actually.

It seems to me from reading Calvin's position as quoted by the Catholics on the blog, that Christ's supposed suffering in hell is important to Calvin's theology.  Of course, we agree with the Roman Catholics that there is much very wrong with Calvin's views.

I am starting to appreciate the Book of Concord more and more.  If everyone read it, I'd think we could agree on many things, and that would be wonderful.

To cross-post, this is also on James' blog, from which I have not been expelled, yet, or moderated into silence on, to his credit, I would say.

We got started

Husband and I started on the Lutheran Confessions with the Introduction to the Formula of Concord on page 443, because the reading plan calls for a reading of the Solid Declaration for the rest of the year.

Beginning with this introduction was a good choice, as husband loves all things historical and history is what we get here.  We read everthing to do with the Interims up to page 452.  Already we are not keeping within out two page limit.  :)  I am getting the sense that husband will be eating this up, too.  Anyways, he said he was on board with the reading plan. (Good man.)

Here is where we started.  The picture is highly compressed, so we are not breaking the copyright.  (Strange thing that printing a confession could be copyright infringement, but you never know.)

This history surrounding these documents is really truly quite breath taking.  Somebody should make a movie series.

!!! Ah, yes, the inimitable Pastor Fisk should do it.

See him talk about the importance of the Confessions again.

LWUFTBOC or "Women of Concord"?

Perhaps, the "LWUFTBOC" should be shortened to "Girls of Concord"  or "Women of Concord".

How to read the BOC?  My problem is that when I get started I don't finish.  So, perhaps, a reading plan is in order to provide a little self-control.

http://bookofconcord.org/reading-calendar.php
Here we have links to the readings divided up over 52 weeks, but that would mean reading every day and reading on a screen.  That will not work for me.

However: 
http://bookofconcord.org/reading-fullyear.php
One click over we have the whole plan.  This will be better.  You can get caught up, or get a little ahead and still stay in lock-step with others.  I will print this out and put it in my LC. 

Now, that it's going to be winter, we might be able to tack that onto the Treasury readings and do it as a couple.

There is a plan!  So, it looks like we are in week 38.

Buy your book here.

The Book of Concord: for the church library or for children in grade four?

Recently, I have had some conversations about the Book of Concord which baffle me. 

The most recent one was with some who really ought to know, educated persons in my church body.  We had not met in a while and never spoken much in depth but here we were sitting across from each other over dinner.  These kinds of meetings happen to me quite regularly these days in my role as wife of chairman M. (Mao).  LOL.

So what is this other person into these days? What is this person reading?  Cool. ...  When nobody asked me what I am doing or reading I gladly volunteered this information --  I've been reading a lot of books that have come out recently from CPH, some Giertz, some Just, the Treasury every day, some Harrison...  We talked about Matt Harrison.  Nobody has heard of him.  I filled them in.  New President.  Liturgy plus mercy, etc.

So, I tell them, there is this new, great edition of the Book of Concord, the Reader's Edition.  It has shorter sentences, has great introductions to all the documents, has color plates and some other illustrations.  The eyes of the people across from me wander away. -- Ah, not a good subject for them.

One volunteers:  "Nobody will read this sort of thing."
Me: "If you don't make it available, and encourage people to read it, they surely won't.  Those who will read this sort of thing, need to be told about it."
Other: "Well, yes."
Another: "This sort of thing might be great for the church library."
Other to Another:  look at each other agreeing.  Yes, indeed for the church library!

Says I: "No, no, no, no.  Not just for the church library. Walther said there should be a Book of Concord in every household.  It should be at hand."

This contrasts with what Myrtle has been saying.  Myrtle says, children in grade 4 should begin to become acquainted with it and read it.  Someone else, a confessional expert so to speak, said the other day.  "Yes, of course, they can start with the small catechism".  Myrtle would say that they can read the Large also.  Myrtle should know.  She is a literacy expert. 

At the least, every Lutheran should know that the book exists, what is in it, that this is very, very important and why, that he should have a copy at hand and read in it.  Get yourself a Reader's Edition from CPH!  

The Book of Concord is a great treasure.  The great doctrines, with justification by faith through Christ alone at center, are defended from all angles and attacks.  Former evangelicals, baptist... eat this up and we want to put it into the church library!

Watch this recent Youtube video by Pastor Fisk.  Such an awsome job. Thank you Pastor Fisk. 

And thank God for the Book of Concord and Pastor Fisk, and Myrtle. See the link to her booklet listed in red at the bottom.  Great points, good thinking, excellent work, super presentation.  A+.  Don't miss it.  Pass it on.



Dare to Read the Book of Concord:  http://www.justanote.com/p/contact.html

Books we read along the way

Along the way, I read all of the explanations to the Small Catechism. I had never done that, nor do I remember anyone ever pointing out that resource. There are about 200 small pages of Bible verses and passages to go with each sentence and phrase in the Small Catechism! Behold! Hello! Someone told me the other day that the catechism is not in the Bible, why are we stuck on it? Well, there you go! Read the entire explanation and you will see how it is thoroughly biblical. It's not so much "Luther's" Small Catechism it is the "Bible's" Small Catechism.

The other thing I read was the Formula of Concord, mostly the Epitome and some of the long version (seeing from the Paul Gerhardt video that this was a crucial document).

I used to think Bror was a brilliant theologian. Now I know where he gets this stuff!!! :)

(How come I'm not interested in any light reading?)

(I think it's because I'm a "Lutheran"; anything "heavy" is actually "light" because of the clear Gospel light.)

The other book we both read (though we thought it might be too late for us, due to our advancing age, :)) was the "Love and Respect" book by Eggerichs. Mary gave that to us four years ago and we did not read it til now. There were two events that got me into it. One, I read on line where a Lutheran Pastor really recommended it highly as not some run-of-the-mill-how-to-book. Two, we were at the Alliance church the other day to hear Pastor Lang speak (his 17 year old son was shot in the Tabor school shooting about 10 years ago) and the church is advertising a four evening series of sessions on this Love and Respect book. Martin--like--almost--or did--agree to go to it. I think Mary heard it. Right Mary? Anyways, we read the book on the way. (See, Mary, it did good after all.)

Admittedly, I did not like the book right away. It is full of testimonials and things you think you know or almost a pitch to go to the seminars... But, it grew on me, a lot.

We need the getting beaten over the head with the two-by-four over and over again, if we've only been seeing our own side of the story. Wake up and look around! And look at yourself. We get this in the book. Repetitive but maybe we'll get it.

The anecdotal items are relevant and often moving. The author is a deep and caring and understanding enough man. Most of all, the material is thoroughly biblical. And Eggerichs finishes up with what we call the theology of the cross. You can try your very best and you still may not be "happy" in your marriage of "good-willed" people. In the end you are not going to do the right thing basically for your own happiness, you are doing it as unto the Lord. Very important two-by-four lesson for all the selfishness in our hearts.

Eggerichs does not counsel as to what to do in certain types of situations or how to enrich your marriage by doing this or that little activity. He does not go into abuse, etc. He deals with the fighting and/or unhappiness of people of more-or-less "good will". He brings out what biblical concepts apply.


http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part_no=223079&find_category=&find_description=&find_part_desc=catechism

http://www.amazon.ca/Love-Respect-Desires-Desperately-Needs/dp/1591451876/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254764172&sr=8-1

http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?category=&part_no=531154&find_category=&find_description=&find_part_desc=book+of+concord

Barmen/Bethel

It is a beautiful, gorgeous day, and what am I doing--reading stuff about the Barmen Declaration and the Bethel Confession written in opposition to Nazification of the church during the Thirties.

It is important to note, that Christians were speaking out against the oppression. It is also important to note that there were significant differences in their approach to their confession.

This thing, I will quote from what I printed out:

"It is no accident that Bonhoeffer and Sasse eventually split over the issue of the validity of the historic Lutheran confessions, esp. vis-a-vis the "miracle" of Barmen, which Bonhoeffer stylized into the decisive criterion for the church's being church while downplaying the historic differences between Lutherans and the Reformed (cf., on the other hand, the statements in the Bethel Confession that denied the bishops the power to downgrade the authority of the historic confessions). There are, as Sasse saw clearly, significant similarities between the theology of the Barthian "confessing church" and the "German Christians"; they have to do with a shared and deeply ingrained unionism that favors present-day "confessing" over historic "confessions".

One thing I will say: I grew up in Germany, in the state church with its beautiful buildings, wonderful organs, excellent hymns, superb choirs, plus in the pietistic fellowship with guitars, witnessing and praying, with a complete mish-mash of teaching, which did not totally throw me off, because we actually read the Bible quite a bit and that works, plus the hymns, they work, too, BUT I will take the historic confessions any day over the present-day confessing, if I have to chose. (But do we always have to chose?) It surprises me less, that many just know that they are not Roman Catholic, that they don't believe any "formalism" such as sacraments, or trust any theologians at all. (Theologian is like a dirty word to some.) This is all very limiting. It is not the Lutheran confessions that are limiting.

Still, I am intrigued about the new confessions in the back of the hymnal I bought. We should talk about them. We need to know our own stuff, well, though, too.

Last chance at BOC's/ Evolution

OK, let me prove my complete nuttiness. We are right out of Books of Concord. Yesterday, Martin gave one to Rev. Tawa A., who is doing his PHD in the States on Apologetics at a Baptist University. (Tawa, correct me where wrong info. Tell what you are doing! (Do write!))

So this is a reminder. They are on sale this month. :) I just bought several more. (I conveniently forget how many).

I also blew some time on a video at Uncommon Descent. "Signature in the Cell". It seemed really good. I will have to watch it again and pay more attention; I was kind of doing my dishes. Anyone with an opinion on the man's work? And what did anyone think of "Expelled". We watched it at church convention for evening entertainment in the movie theatre. I liked it a lot, especially the irony at the end with Richard Dawkins. Smart move.

Now, I really have to think about my trip. Leaving on the 27th.

Book of Concord

Somebody's book of Concord. Guess whose. (Those of you who know don't tell. Not mine, anyways.) There are markers also on the north end of the book,too. How do you remember what you've marked?