A Potential Cause for Schism

The great majority of our theologians, Luther in the forefront, believe that the holy Supper should never be administered privately by one who is not in the public preaching office, by a layman. That is partly because no such necessity can occur with the holy Supper, as with Baptism and Absolution, that would justify a departure from God’s ordinance ( I Cor 4:1; Romans 10:15; Heb 5:4); partly because the holy Supper “is a public confession and so should have a public minister”; partly because schisms can easily be brought about by such private Communion…

C.F.W. Walther. Pastoral Theology. Trans. John M. Drickamer. (New Haven: Lutheran News Inc, 1995); p.134

The Use and Misuse of Luther in Contemporary Debates on Homosexuality: A Look at Two Theologians

The Use and Misuse of Luther in Contemporary Debates on Homosexuality: A Look at
Two Theologians
a paper by Prof. John T. Pless

B-LOGIA: The Banff and Jasper Commissions

The Banff and Jasper Commissions

Shared via AddThis

Is it Still the Blood of Christ if Grape Juice is Used in the Lord’s Supper?

Is it Still the Blood of Christ if Grape Juice is Used in the Lord’s Supper?



Thesis I: It can be clearly established with certainty that wine made from grapes was used in the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, and is therefore included in the “this do” command of our Lord in His institution.



While Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18 refer to “fruit of the vine” this is not a reference to what we call “grape juice.” “Fruit of the vine” literally refers to the grape itself, rather than its juice. Grapes inherently contain a leavening agent and left to themselves will ferment naturally. One must assume that intoxicating wine was being used to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the church of Corinth for believers were combining the love feast with the Lord's Supper and some were partaking of the Lord's Supper in a drunken state as a result (cf. 1 Cor. 11:21 where the Greek verb metheuo is used i.e. intoxicated). Although wine was clearly abused by the Corinthian believers in conjunction with the Lord's Supper, Paul does not condemn the Corinthian Christians for using wine, nor does he prohibit the use of wine in the Lord's Supper. Paul's correction is directed toward their sinful abuse of wine not their lawful use of it. If wine was not lawfully to be used in the Lord's Supper, here was the ideal time for Paul to demonstrate where the use of wine would lead those who broke God's law by using it in the Lord's Supper. The silence concerning any prohibition of wine in the Lord's Supper at this point is emphatic.



The Christian Fathers, as well as the Jewish rabbis, have understood "the fruit of the vine" to mean wine in the proper sense. Our Lord, in instituting the Supper after the Passover, availed himself of the expression invariably employed by his countrymen in speaking of the wine of the Passover. Furthermore, the drink offering that was poured out before the Lord at the Passover and on other occasions was wine not grape juice (Num. 28:24; cf. Num. 28:14 where the drink offering is specifically identified as wine, Hebrew word: yayin ). It would certainly follow that the Lord used wine at the Passover celebration (and at the institution of the Lord's Supper) with His disciples in Matthew 26:29.


There was a Greek word available to the writers of the New Testament which might have been used to refer to grape juice (“trux”) if they had wanted their readers to understand that the common beverage used by Christ, the disciples, Timothy, the presbyters and deacons, and the Corinthian believers was unfermented grape juice (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature , by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, p.564). The Holy Spirit of God chose not to use the word “trux” (grape juice) even one time in the New Testament. There is therefore no reference in the New Testament to unfermented grape juice, but all references are to fermented wine. To be sure, the Lord’s Supper was instituted in the context of a Hebrew Passover which used wine made from grapes. Jesus instructs the disciples to “make ready for the Passover,” which included wine.


Thesis II: While the Scriptures condemn drunkenness (the abuse of alcohol), alcohol itself is not condemned by God.

One can certainly demonstrate that alcohol itself is not immoral. Scripture only condemns drunkenness or the abuse of alcohol, but not responsible and legal use of alcohol. One need only cite Jesus’ first miracle of turning water into wine at the Cana wedding for proof, in addition to Psalm 104:15; Deuteronomy 14:26; Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18; Isaiah 5:11; I Timothy 5:23. Later temperance or prohibition movements in society do not reflect an accurate teaching of Scripture in that regard, but derive from protestant revivalism or pietism. In fact, Mr. Welch invented grape juice in order to avoid wine at Communion, because he believed to consume wine was sinful. Also to be noted was the fact that Welch did not believe that the Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ, but only a symbol at best. As one scholar has also pointed out:
Abstention from the use of wine has, occasionally, been declared obligatory by heretics. It was one of the tenets of the heresy of Gnosticism in the second century. Tatian, the founder of the sect known as the Encratites, forbade the use of wine, and his adherents refused to make use of it even in the Sacrament of the Altar; in its place they used water.



Thesis III: It is not our personal faith which makes the Lord’s Supper what it is but the command and institution of Christ. Therefore to change what Christ instituted in this sacrament is spiritually dangerous and puts the sacrament into doubt. Included in the command “this do” is the use of the physical elements of bread and wine made from grapes along with the rest of the institution of Christ Jesus. The Lord’s Supper is not merely a symbol or a reminder but a means of grace.


The Lord attached His Word and promise to a particular way of observing this sacrament. What is used in the sacraments is a doctrinal matter, not simply a matter of convenience. Since the Lord’s Supper is not merely symbolic, what we use in the Lord’s Supper is not merely a case of using something that resembles wine or even resembles blood. It is a matter of faithfully carrying out the institution of the Lord Jesus. While acknowledging that there may be some circumstances in which an individual may have a physical difficulty with alcohol, there are better and worse ways to pastorally work with this situation. If we are to deal with these situations catechetically, then we must deal with them in such a way as to respond compassionately to the physical health situation of the individual communicant, but also be theologically faithful to a biblical and confessional understanding of the Lord’s Supper. The Word comes to the element Christ designated, and it becomes the sacrament.

It is not our faith that makes the earthly elements the body and blood of Christ, but that is according to Christ’s command. Our faith simply receives (passively) the benefits of this gift and gives thanks. For those who in special circumstances there are three options: (1) to receive wine diluted with water; (2) intinction (slightly dip the host in the wine); or (3) to refrain from the Lord’s Supper and be comforted by the preached Gospel, Holy Baptism, and Holy Absolution in Christ. For many because of illness, mental incapacity, or age, there comes a time at which many are not able to commune, but what they have received and continue to receive in the other means of grace sustains them.


A RELATED MATTER: Is It Our Personal Faith Which Makes the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Lord’s Supper? Can the pastor make whatever elements he chooses to be the body and blood of Christ by simply speaking the words of institution? No.


That the blessed bread is the holy body and the blessed wine is the holy blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, can only be ascribed to the word, command, and institution of Christ and not to our personal faith. It would be true, regardless of whether we believed or not. It is due to the powerful Word of Christ. When celebrated according to what is entailed in the Lord’s command “this do”, it is the effective Word of our Lord that brings this miracle about. This is why the evangelical practice of closed communion is necessary. The real presence is objective.



With this said, we must not take the words to be “magic” in the occult sense that we can substitute any or “similar” earthly elements we want in place of the bread and grape wine, say the words, and still have the real presence. (Not unlike the way some made fun of the Verba with the corruption "hocus pocus.") That would not be true or reliable. In fact, it would be an abuse of the sacrament and contradict the clear command of Christ. Again, it is not our personal faith nor simply saying the words over any element that has the promise and blessing of Christ that it be His body and blood. That would be an occultish practice. The pastor does not have the ability or authority to change the elements (I Cor. 4:1-2). As St. Paul says in I Corinthians 11 about the Holy Supper: “That which I received from the Lord I also delivered unto you…”.


What is necessary for it to truly be the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood is that it be done clearly according to Christ’s institution and command “this do” on the night in which He was betrayed, accounted for us in the Holy Scriptures in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and in I Corinthians. In a proper celebration the pastor should serve as liturgist or celebrant, bread and wine made from grapes (either red or white) should be used, there should be the giving of thanks, and the Lord’s Words should be spoken or sung clearly and distinctly before the congregation. The sacrament should be consecrated, distributed, and received by those who have been examined and absolved, and being thus received in the unity of the one holy Christian faith in the Divine Service (Acts 2:42; I Cor. 10).


The Lord's Supper is what the Lord has made it. The Lord does this by His very own words. Without the Words of Institution there is no Lord's Supper. They are Christ's words and He is speaking them through the mouth of His called and ordained man. The words of Christ are directed toward the elements as consecratory words. This is not simply for “setting apart” the bread and wine (a generic consecration), but rather that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. This is why the versatility of the freestanding altar serves so well to make this clear before all.

The Lord’s Supper is what the Lord has made it. Without bread and wine made from grapes there is no Lord’s Supper, just s without the words of institution there is no Eucharist. Similarly we may not change the element in Baptism to something other than water or change the words. These are the exclusive and particular earthly elements that the Lord Jesus intended and commanded to be used and to which He attached His promise when He instituted the gift of the Eucharist. To change the earthly element is the same as saying that the Temple in the Old Testament could have been built somewhere other than Jerusalem or to say that Christ could have been born of someone other than the Virgin Mary or somewhere other than Bethlehem. Anything else cannot be the Lord’s Supper with any Scriptural certainty. When there is no Scriptural certainty, no clear following of the Lord’s command and institution, then faith cannot be sure either. Faith needs to have its proper object, not just sincerity, optimism, or the thought of what God might think or do or understand apart from His clear revealed will and word in Scripture (sola Scriptura).

All of this is so that we might have a firm foundation for our faith and a clear, undistorted and unpolluted Gospel of salvation in Christ our crucified and risen Lord, who comes to us in grace and mercy in the Divine Service. It is our personal faith which receives, but does not cause, the benefits of this Gospel sacrament, forgiveness, life and salvation through the body and blood of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Our personal faith is passive in receiving this precious gift of Holy Communion, but then responds with thanksgiving, praise, service to our neighbor, and the sanctified life in Christ who dwells with His Church, and within us.

Article about ELS and ELCA from Mankato Free Press

http://www.mankato-freepress.com/local/local_story_237211220.html

Cyberbrethren » LCMS President A.L. Barry on the ELCA's Ecumenical Decisions

Cyberbrethren» LCMS President A.L. Barry on the ELCA's Ecumenical Decisions

Shared via AddThis

Edward Kennedy Gets a Mass?

I'm not at all well informed here - but Ted Kennedy gets a funeral Mass? Wasn't he under the minor ban for his very public support of abortion? Didn't the Roman bishops take a pretty firm stand on that back in 2004 when Kerry was running and state that legislators who voted for abortion were banned from receiving Communion? Perhaps he made a sickbed repentance on that - and God be praised if he did.

I ask the question not to look for some excuse to criticize Rome - for surely their Christian discipline in matters of personal morality far outshines our own disjointed efforts. But there's a real question of pastoral care here.

What do you do when someone under the minor ban dies? Perhaps it's not even public that he or she has been barred from the Table by the pastor. What if that person dies while under such a ban? Anybody with experience on this want to speak?

+HRC

Having a Personal Vision for the Church?

We do not deny that the spirit of prophecy still lives, that He rules and works, that the gift of prophecy is still in the Church; but we hold that all prophecy must be according to the analogy of faith, -- namely, in the New Testament, must be related to the Word of the Lord as the particular to the universal, as the conclusion to the proposition, as the bud to the plant. A prophecy that does not confirm the true doctrine, or that is not in connection with it, is empty and worthless (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 [Open in Libronix (if available)] ). Further, a prophecy that rests on merely human foundations, or does not proceed from the Holy Spirit, even though it be ever so correct a conjecture, is not a prophecy; as, for instance, Balaam's, Numbers 24, or Caiaphas's, John 11:51 [Open in Libronix (if available)] , is no testimony to the man that said it. Therefore we must be just as critical of prophecies as of miracles, and must hold firmly that all prophecies must accord with the faith once delivered to the saints (Romans 12:7 [Open in Libronix (if available)] ).

This distinction, which has to be made with reference to miracles and prophecies, shows that they cannot be characteristic marks of the Church. They need to be sifted and tried by the pure Word and the Scriptural Confession of the Church; they do not give a clear testimony; they, according to their nature, call to inquiry, -- and this so much the more because it is not the church only that has these uncertain witnesses; but heretics too, heathen, and Antichrist, boast and will boast of them.

Besides, it is not easy to see why our opponents glory so in miracles. The miracles which occurred in the first centuries did not occur in the service of the Roman Church -- and if in the missions of later times wonderful things occurred, it was not in the service of Romish error. If, however, something wonderful actually occurred in connection with the doctrine that contradicted the Scriptures, it certainly was not of divine origin, for God would not help error to victory by miracles. And, as to later times, what can they tell of? Miracles like that at Ratisbon can easily be explained even if it were not condemned by the worship of images; and miracles such as are claimed for the holy coat at Treves, an imposing personality -- whether Jewish or Mohammedan or heathen -- could produce upon neurotic people. How many things of this sort could be alleged, if there were any reason. We need not go back to Luther, for did many a wonderful thing for the sake of which, if he had been a Romanist, Rome would have canonized him. Every period of our Church has had occurrences enough of the sort, far surpassing the image of the Madonna at Ratisbon and the coat at Treves. And this is the case with prophecy too, of which our opponents in our times have indeed little enough reason to boast.

Let the ministers of our Church become conscious of the wonderful gift which is bestowed upon them in the pure Word and prayer; let them cease to dismiss the melancholy, the tempted, or those who seem to be possessed, and to treat them like fools, turning their own parishioners over to the Romanists to be sprinkled with holy water; let them cease on account of their indolence and indifference towards those who seek their help to give the Romanists occasion to boast of miracles done upon their flocks. It is time to use God's Word in prayer and to make use of the prayer of the Church for blessing upon all who are in need. The gift of God can sleep, but it can be waked up again. The Lord has not left our Church without the gift of prayer; He hears her cry. If the gift be used, help and answer will come, through which the pure Word, and a great blessing through it, will more and more be commended to the people. -- The Lord be with us; His blessing and the gifts of His grace be and abide with us; that men may know that the true God is in Sion!

Wilhelm Loehe. Three Books Concerning the Church: Offered to friends of the Lutheran Church, for Consideration and Discussion. Translated from the German by Edward T. Horn. [Reading, PA: Pilger Publishing House, 1908] pages 148-150

Dr. Dean Wenthe on ELCA

What a Pastor Does

+ In Nomine Jesu +

As a shepherd of the sheep of Christ, a pastor

Preaches the Gospel,

Teaches the Word of God,

Catechizes the young and old,

Prays with and for the flock, and

Administers the Mysteries of God:

For the entire congregation, collectively, and for each member individually within his or her various and sundry circumstances, from day to day, week after week, throughout the year;

all for the sake of absolution, which is the forgiving of sinners,

unto repentant faith and life in Christ the Crucified.

+ Soli Deo Gloria +

Three - Not One

This may be little long but ...

Three - Not One

There are not three Fathers but one Father, so says the Athanasian Creed. The glorious mystery of the Trinity so correctly stated in this creed reminds us that in the inner workings of the Trinity each distinct person of the Trinity has its own proprium. The Spirit holds neither the estate nor the function of giving life to the Son. Only the Son holds the estate and function of being the Christ, the Sacrificed One; neither the Father nor the Spirit. Only the Father has the estate and the function of generating the Son. This doctrine always remains a mystery for seldom does God, in His radiant Word, allow us a glimpse of this economy. But outside the Trinity their estate and function are not divided but indivisible

The second person of that Trinity catechizes us that God is our Father. He is in relationship to us. He, as Father, is and must be Giver. This is His nature; He is a Giver. In giving gifts He has established the means by which these gifts are given. In His wisdom, He has established this as another holy trinity. He has given to us, who are called His children, three gracious fathers. To those outside the Christian church, who are not called His children, He has only given two fathers. He has come to give us, His children, life and once we are generated as His son or daughter we receive the fullness of the three fathers, the three estates. Like the Trinity each are connected, yet each is distinct. Each has its own proprium and each has its peculiar function. Some functions are identical but many are unique.

God has established the first estate: the biological father. He commanded Adam to procreate. The command was given to our first parents in the Garden to be a father and mother. Once Adam had conceived a child and only after this had occurred did he hold the estate of being (esse) a father. Not only did he function as a biological father in the mere act of procreation but in that investiture he was given the estate (stand) of being a father. To this estate God commands the giving of honor and the duty of obedience. For this estate God commands the offering of prayers. This estate is passed from one father to son as the image of the father is genetically conveyed to the son. When the son has become a man he leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife with the desire to fill not only the function of fathering but the estate of being a father. He is to raise his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. He is to be and to function as a parent, ruling his own household.

But once a child leaves the confines of his biological father’s house he passes into another estate, the estate of the world. In God’s care for the children of men he has established a second father, the father of the state. There are many names for this estate. Sometimes the holder of this estate is called king, emperor, dictator, ruler, president, etc., but the fact still remains that all authorities in this world are established by God. This estate is distinct and differentiated from the estate of being a biological father. Some biological fathers may also be king but not all. Sometimes this estate is called the governmental father, the economic father, the civil father or referred to as the powers, the authorities, the state. To this estate God has given unique powers. Only the father of the government can exercise capital punishment. This gift is given to the governmental authority for the preservation of life, but taking of life can never be exercised by the estate of the biological father nor by the spiritual father. To this governmental estate God not only has given His establishment but He has also given to it the right to be honored, to be the object of prayer, to be financially supported and to be obeyed.

As a child of man God has given to this male or female the protection and care provided by two estates, the biological and the civil, i.e. governmental. But the child of man, who has been birthed by Holy Baptism into the family of God, has now become the child of God. To this new member of the family of God, Christ commands that they alone are given not only the fact that but also the right to say God is our Father. When God rips out of His child a cold stony heart and gives to that child the living beating heart of Christ Jesus, pulsating with the blood of the Lamb, that offspring has been thrust into a third estate. When his Holy Mother, the Church, has delivered him by the rush of living waters conjoined with mighty Word, he is birthed a child of the Heavenly Father. Gloriously his Father has adopted him as His own, nurtured him with true Food and Drink, given to him ears that might hear the glorious proclamation of His eternal Gospel.

This third estate of this holy trinity is the spiritual estate. God has established the gnadenmittelamt, the means-of-grace estate. This estate is generally called the pastoral or ministerial estate. It is established by God. He is the One who anointed His prophets, apostle-ized His messengers, called and ordained His Seelsorge, soul care-givers. For the care of His spiritual lambs, God has commanded that the holder of this estate take charge of the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made him overseer, that is, bishop. It is not an estate created by the will of man but by the will of God. Even through the biological father whom we have been given by the will of God yet often may be perceived by us as evil, we must still acknowledge him as our father. Likewise even though the governmental father may be seen as wicked or even as an enemy of God, yet we are to acknowledge them as being placed in that estate by God. Just so your spiritual father must be seen as placed in this estate by our Father. That same spiritual father is the one to be to honored, the one for whom prayers are offered, the one to whom support be given and the one to be obeyed.

Thus we have three fathers not one father, three lords not one lord, and three gift-givers given to us by a generous God to provide for us in their three respective realms, not one gift-giver. We as children of the heavenly Father reside all the time in three distinct yet conjoined realms. We sit upon a sturdy, strong three-legged stool. The culture of the current day is no different than many other times of history. The ego has become the center of our lives. “I’m worth it after all.” We refuse to acknowledge the means which God has given for our care. The three estates, not oneself, bring gifts and blessings from our loving Father. We Lutherans are not Enthusiasts; we do not expect God to directly talk to or effect us. When we Lutherans hear talk of “Jesus did this” or “Jesus led me to do this”, we feel very uncomfortable. Lutherans uncharismaticly are able to rejoice as they move freely through the three estates. In each they receive the appropriated gifts that their loving Father wishes to give them through each respective gift-giver. The three work for one goal, led by one authority. Our Father has come to give life and life abundantly, so He gives a superabundant trinity to provide for His children.

Pr Georg Williams

ELS Press Release: ELS Disagrees with ELCA on Homosexuality — ELS

Press Release: ELS Disagrees with ELCA on Homosexuality — ELS

Shared via AddThis