ansatz cljournal coldnsnowy fearsome forgetisaid goopenhiemer gebryan highway nosuch payphone popesleipnir rawkstah springtide technicolor waferthinmint wolfandmoose

Saturday, August 2, 2003

•••Attending to the Invisible Lutheran Church Christopher (whom I respect a great deal for his thoughtfulness and scholarship) made the following comment over on the Fearsome Pirate's blog: As I say, I am still absorbing and trying to understand what you've said; but there is one point on which I definitely disagree. When you say that "visible fellowship is ... [not] necessary for personal salvation" I cannot agree. I very much doubt that the Fathers at Nicaea had an "invisible Church" in mind when they included belief in the Church in the Creed; and I see no suggestion that the Church described in the New Testament was anything other than the visible, concrete gathering of "the Apostles' fellowship". I see no reason that it should be any less visible and concrete now. That wasn't so troubling as when next a fellow named Bill Cork (whom I don't know from Adam) suggested: It seems to me some folks are misquoting the Lutheran confessions. The purpose of the Church is not "fellowship" between individuals who are "saved" by an immediate faith. That's Protestant evangelicalism, but not Lutheranism. Now understand, to this point in the thread, none other but yours truly had even quoted and made reference to the Lutheran Confessions. Hence he can mean no other folks besides me. Furthermore I went to great pains to make it absolutely clear throughout that I was not speaking of an "immediate faith" in the sense of a faith given without or apart from God's appointed means. Serious matters, theologically speaking, to be accused of playing fast and loose with the Lutheran Confessions. I think what's going on is some are taking the words from the Nicene Creed "I believe ... in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" (some translations render "one, holy Christian and apostolic church) as "the marks of the church." That is, in their thinking when you want to find the true, authentic, legitimate church -- you must look for the one that is most obviously exhibits ONENESS, most noticably HOLY LOOKING, most extensively UNIVERSAL/catholic, and IMPRESSIVELY apostolic. In Lutheran thinking, these are indeed attributes or characteristics of the Church -- but they are not always, in fact rarely if ever VISIBLE to the naked eye. Rather the Oneness of the church is believed, discerned by faith as God's work and gift. So with it's holiness. Outwardly the church looks pretty unholy sometimes. Nevertheless within that assembly of genuinely imperfect and completely unimpressive (though forgiven) people God's Spirit is at work -- this faith confesses and believes, but the eye cannot SEE. Likewise with the catholicity and apostolicity of the Church. The way we Lutherans figure it, that's why we say "I BELIEVE IN one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." It's an article of faith. In Lutheran Theology, the marks of the church are the faithful preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments according to Christ's command. Look for those marks, there you'll find the CHURCH -- real saints of God gathered. You'll almost always also find hypocrites and scoundrels, false teachers and unbelievers present nearby too. See, these Christ draws to himself by that Word and Sacrament. And the naked eye can never tell the difference between the true saint and the false saint. But God sees that difference. I've always found it interesting how the Bible distinguishes between the obvious and that which is not always obvious, but nevertheless true and real. Take Galatians 5 for example, "The works of the flesh are obvious..." (v.19). But the fruit of the spirit, it's NOT so obvious and in fact all those things listed are generally speaking quite easy to overlook, misinterpret, explain away, criticize and completely dispute when we see others actually doing them. I am either right or wrong when I say that properly speaking: External, outward, visible fellowship with one particular body or group of Christians in this world is not necessary for personal salvation. Faith in Christ alone is necessary for salvation. Moreover, my theology there is either truly Lutheran, or it isn't. Naturally, I hope that I'm both right about this *and* entirely Lutheran in my thinking and speaking. That said, I know "being right" is not enough, or the most important thing. Being forgiven by grace, through faith, on account of Christ alone shall be my only salvation in this. Here's a little closing quote from a chapter in Professor Kurt Marquart's book in the Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series, "The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry and Governance:" Ultimately it is a question of the right distinction between Law and Gospel. Where that distinction is denied in principle or abolished in practice, the church will either be reduced legalistically to a particular visible, juridicial structure, or else it will evaporate into an abstract, universalistic invisibility, projecting upon mankind, in a false magnanimity, the cruel illusion of salvation through Law, natural knowledge, and sincere self-disposition. (25) By contrast the true import of the church's essential invisibility has always been the sola fide, the very quintessence of the evangelical confession. This means that no visible structure, least of all a "Lutheran church," may pretend to be co-extensive with the mystical body of Christ. On the other hand, since faith is totally dependent on Christ's Gospel and sacraments, these objective, visible moorings keep the church's invisibility from being dissipated into gasseous habitat for flutter-spirits." By the way, I'm of the opinion that Kurt Marquart is entirely Lutheran in his theology -- and right about this.   7:13:23 PM   googleit 178

•••Ft. Wayne Faculty Makes "Unanimous" Statement on Pluralism, Idolatry, & True Knowledge of God Chalk up another fine paper by the entire faculty of Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, Indianna. A couple of salient quotes: The proof, therefore, that one knows God is that one worships Christ (Philippians 2:9-11). Conversely, those who do not worship Christ prove that they do not really know who the true God is or what He has done for the salvation of the world (1 John 2:22-23). The testimony of the Scriptures is clear: man in the bondage of sin repeatedly rejects and perverts both the natural and special revelation of God with the result that he may know information about God (e.g., anything from the fact that God exists to the full content of the Scriptures) but still not know who God is. Knowing who God is and what He has done comes by the Holy Spirit working faith through the gospel and is evident in the worship of Christ. The Lutheran Confessions follow this biblical teaching. They acknowledge that there is in fallen man "a dim spark of the knowledge that there is a God, as also of the doctrine of the law" (Solid Declaration II, 9), so that "even the heathen to a certain extent had a knowledge of God from the natural law, although they neither knew Him aright nor glorified [or "honored"] Him aright" (Solid Declaration V, 22). This "dim spark" of knowing the existence of God causes the universality of religion. It does not, however, result in knowing who God is... (page 3) I'm grateful for the Ft. Wayne faculty's unanimous, careful and concise contribution to our synodical 'discussion' of these matters, even as I wonder with a quiet sadness why my own alma mater in St. Louis seems either unwilling or unable to do the same. Individual professors from St. Louis have, certainly, made tremendous contributions. David Adams, cited in the Ft. Wayne paper is a St. Louis professor and did write a seminal article which has shaped much of our discussion. Dr. Jeffery Gibbs is another outstanding thinker in these matters who has contributed well to the discussion. But as a whole, the St. Louis sem has stayed pretty quiet.   12:10:56 AM   googleit 177

August 2003
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31
Jul   Sep

 •••  the preacherman   •••
      © Copyright 2003       

Comments by: YACCS