Justification and regeneration stand in the closest relation to each other. The terminology has not always been the same, but has been changed from time to time, while the subject matter concerned has always been fixed. We have already called attention to the fact that different presentations have been made by different theologians of our Church, and opinions are still divided, but everything depends on a good interpreter, i. e., if we understand the definition correctly, clarity and order will ensue. The Formula of Concord speaks of different definitions of regeneration.[1] We quote the following: “The word regeneration is sometimes understood in the sense that it includes both the forgiveness of sins, which is experienced for Christ’s sake alone, and renovation, which the Holy Spirit works in those that are justified by faith. At times it signifies the forgiveness of sins alone and the adoption as the sons of God. In the latter sense it is very often found in the Apology. As for example when it is stated: ‘Justification is regeneration.’ But Paul also makes a distinction between these words when he says in Titus 3:5: ‘According to his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.’ The word ‘vivifying’ (vivificatio) is therefore sometimes used to signify the forgiveness of sins. For since man is justified through faith, which the Holy Spirit alone works, it certainly is a regeneration, because man is changed from a child of wrath to a child of God.” From this it is evident that regeneration has been variously defined. Some have considered it late dicta (broad sense) others stricte dicta (narrow sense) and still others strictissime dicta (narrower sense). By regeneration late dicta is understood all the acts of grace or regeneration in the broad sense; stricte dicta denotes regeneration in the sense of new life and sonship; while strictissime dicta is equivalent to the gift of faith or donatio fidei.

1. The Definition of Regeneration.

Regeneration is the act of grace through which the converted sinner at the time of, in, with and through justification receives the new spiritual life, becomes a child of God and is renewed in heart.

The definition here given corresponds with the technical term regeneratio stricte dicta. The so-called late dicta is rarely used. The selection is, therefore, between stricte and strictissime dicta. According to both of these definitions regeneration is instantaneous like justification. Since conversion, as most generally defined, consists of contrition and faith, there is a difference in the conception of conversion and regeneration, the former being progressive and the latter instantaneous. A baptized child is regenerated, and an adult Christian may also be converted, depending upon whether or not he has fallen from grace and been restored. There has been a dispute among theologians as to whether such a converted and restored person is again regenerated. This question depends upon whether or not regeneration can be lost. If faith can be lost, it is self-evident that regeneration can be lost. This takes place when a fall occurs by self-conscious, premeditated and intentional sin. A real apostasy may not result, if repentance follows soon. Still it is a fall. It is not always easy, however, to distinguish between an intentional and an unintentional sin. It may be a case like the fall of Peter, where faith is not entirely extinguished. A righteous person may in a certain sense fall seven times and yet arise again. When a real fall occurs, man is in the same condition as the prodigal son. Before he returned, he was looked upon as dead, but when he returned and was restored, the father said: “This my son was dead and is alive again.” It is clear that a person cannot be regenerated and at the same time be dead in sins. We must be careful in using the analogy of human birth so that we do not identify a birth into the natural life with the experience of being born again in the kingdom of God. A spiritually dead person, who once lived spiritually, may be reborn in the kingdom of grace.

For the sake of clearness it is also of some importance to investigate or decide which definition of regeneration is the most Biblical. There is very little hope, if any, that theologians will agree on this question. Many will follow the old dogmatic view according to the definition regeneratio strictissime dicta or regeneration to faith. Just as many prefer regeneratio stricte dicta or regeneration by or through faith. Regeneration cannot exist before faith, and a person cannot be justified without faith. We are justified by faith. “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom also we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand” (Rom. 5: 1, 2) ; “The righteous shall live by faith” (Rom. 1: 17). Faith is receptive and apprehensive and manifests itself in confidence or trust. When the Lutheran Church rejects fides caritate formata (faith formed by love) and emphasizes the purely receptive character of faith, it seems that regeneration by faith is a clearer expression than regeneration to faith, although the latter term also presents the life in faith. The Bible teaches plainly that we are justified by faith. If we are justified by faith, we are also regenerated. It is clearly evident that regeneration cannot be the cause of justification. Justification as the objective act and fact is the causative factor. When the Holy Spirit works faith in the repenting sinner, that very moment God justifies him, and the subjective effect is regeneration. All three acts occur at the same time. But in order to have a logical and clear conception we must place justification before regeneration. A sinner could not be regenerated in the strict sense, if he were not justified. Justification is the great cause in the heart of God in heaven, and regeneration is the great effect by the Holy Spirit in the heart of man on earth.

According to the old Dogmaticians regeneration is the same as conversio transitiva (transitive conversion) and especially donatio fidei (the giving of faith). Hollazius defines as follows:[2] “Regeneratio is the act of grace through which the Holy Spirit endows the sinner with saving faith, so that after his sins have been forgiven, he may become a child of God and an heir to eternal life.” In such case man is regenerated to faith and not through faith. In a measure regeneration is thought of as successive and not momentary in its operation, which seems to conflict with the concept of birth. Gisle Johnson defines regeneration as follows: “Regeneration is the act of grace through which God has created in the heart of the penitent sinner a certain and living assurance of the objective reality of justification and in this assurance implanted in him the fruitful seed of a new life, in perfect holiness and blessedness, embracing the whole of his personal natural organism.”

The relationship between justification and regeneration is of great importance. It is evident that, although the Confessions define regeneration somewhat differently, as for instance the Apology in the definition, “Justificatio is regeneratio,” they do not teach that justification is received through regeneration, but quite the contrary. In the explanation of the Apology’s presentation of justification, Gottfrid Billing says:[3] “Inasmuch as faith is both justifying and regenerative at the same time, therefore the word ‘justify’ may signify both to declare righteous and to regenerate, but faith does not justify because it is regenerative, on the contrary, it is regenerative because it justifies. Furthermore, it justifies because it is apprehensive, because it receives the forgiveness of sins, which can be received in no other way save through faith alone.” The old Dogmaticians, who placed regeneratio before justificatio, did not thereby mean to express that justificatio comes about through regeneratio. On this account Quenstedt sought to establish the following: “Regeneratio, justificatio, unio mystica et renovatio tempore simul sunt” (regeneration, justification, mystical union and renovation occur simultaneously). He considered renovatio in another sense than that which is common now. With regard to the relationship between regeneratio and justificatio it is true that they take place simultaneously, but the question is as to whether justificatio as the dominating act ought not to be placed before regeneratio. Faith is indeed apprehensive, and when man is justified by faith, the new life is created or is born in him. Roos presents the relation between justification and regeneration in the following manner:[4] “A justified Christian is also a regenerated Christian, because at the moment he believes he is justified, but at the same moment he is also regenerated, inasmuch as faith is the most important activity of the spiritual life, and consequently at the time of justification he receives the new life.” Schartau places justification before regeneration, but says that the gift of faith can be considered the first part of regeneration.[5] Nohrborg in his doctrine of the order of salvation presents regeneration as the great change that takes place in man when he is translated from spiritual death to spiritual life in Christ through faith, but he also says that regeneration is the gift of faith. Citations could be made from many of the newer writers who define regeneration as donatio fidei. References could also be made to many places in modern theological literature which present regeneration as the new life and place justification before regeneration. Representatives of the latter view are Thomasius, Luthardt, Gisle Johnson, Landgren and others.

We would simply add the following to what has already been stated. It would seem as if regeneration were not adequately described by the definition donatio fidei. The first stage of regeneration may indeed be called the kindling of faith as a preparatory act, since indications of life precede the real birth. Even excitation in an earlier stage of development is an indication of life. A birth, to use the natural birth as an analogy, is not the beginning of life, it is the real appearance of life. The child possesses life before it is born, but its real life begins with its advent into this world. So in the awakened sinner there are indications of spiritual life through the activity of grace, but he is regenerated when he is born into the spiritual world and made a child of God. But we cannot conceive of a person regenerated and possessing spiritual life with sins unforgiven. Justification must precede the spiritual life. No one can be a child of God that is not justified. But faith is a condition of justification and must therefore precede it, since faith is receptive like the mouth or the hand. Faith itself is not the spiritual life, but receives the spiritual life through justification. The gift of faith would therefore not seem to define regeneration adequately. We may indeed speak of a living faith as contrasted with a dead faith, as well as the life of faith on the basis of that life which faith apprehends and contains, but faith is nevertheless not the same as life, and the gift of faith is an incomplete definition of regeneration. Then, too, regeneration implies a new relationship in the sense that the regenerated person is a child of God, since he is born of God. Inasmuch as this new relationship must belong to regeneration, it is evident that man is regenerated through faith and not only to faith. Compare John 1:12, 13: “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Faith is mentioned as preceding regeneration. That which follows immediately upon faith is justification, if, for the sake of logical sequence, we would distinguish as to time between justification and regeneration. “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5: 1). In 1 John 5: 1 faith is presented as a criterion of regeneration. Compare Gal. 3: 26: “For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.” Some have used Titus 3: 5—7 as an argument in favor of the position that regeneration precedes justification, but these might with as much reason assert that renovation also precedes. In this passage Paul does not discuss the order of sequence in the acts of grace, but presents salvation by grace and the means by which it may be attained. We therefore maintain that regeneration is more completely, logically and Scripturally comprehended if we adhere to the definition that is called regeneratio stricte dicta, since late dicta embraces too much, and strictissime dicta (donatio fidei) expresses too little.

2. The Causes Of Regeneration.

Man, who stands in need of spiritual life, is subjectum quod, while his spiritual nature (anima humana) is subjectum quo, but he is not the active subject, since he cannot regenerate himself. Causa efficiens principalis (principal efficient cause) is God and in a special sense the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit applies salvation. Therefore the Scriptures use the expressions, “born of God,” “the children of God,” etc. Causa impulsiva interna (internal impulsive cause) is the mercy of God. Compare Titus 3: 5. Causa impulsiva externa (external impulsive cause) is Christ the mediator, or His merit. Causa efficiens minus principalis (secondary principle efficient cause) which is the same as the means of regeneration, are the Word of God and Baptism.

Regeneration cannot be wrought by man, but God is active in this wonderful work of grace. Cf. John 1:13: “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” But this divine activity does not repress the freedom of man, which subject has been treated before in the doctrine of conversion. In accordance with the divine revelation regeneration is wrought solely through Baptism and the Word. For this reason Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). James writes: “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (James 1:18). Compare 1 Peter 1:23: “Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth.” Baptism and the Word work together in an indissoluble union, hence they must both be used in accordance with the order of God. Where they are rightly used, and the necessary conditions are at hand, they work regeneration.

3. The Starting Point and End Of Regeneration.

Terminus a quo (starting point) is the want of spiritual life. The understanding is by nature incapable of correctly knowing the spiritual life. Compare John 1:5; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 5:8. The natural will of man is not fitted to will that which is good nor to seek the good of the spiritual life. Compare Rom. 8: 7. The emotions are not inclined toward that which is spiritual, but seek after the lusts of the flesh. Compare Rom. 7:5.

Terminus ad quem (proximate goal) is the spiritual life and the spiritual powers. Compare 2 Cor. 5: 17: “Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.” Cf. Col. 3: 10; 1 John 5: 12, etc. This change of spiritual life, however, is not substantial, but accidental, since the personality of man is not destroyed, but made different, so as to result in a new man, although the old man is not dead nor destroyed. For this reason we reject the teaching of the Fanatics, who say that regeneration destroys the human body, while the soul remains and a new body is formed. The doctrine of the Flacians is likewise rejected, which states that a new heart is created in such fashion that the essence of the old Adam and especially the intelligent soul is destroyed and a new soul essence is created out of nothing. If the change were essential or substantial, no fall from grace could take place and the spiritual life would become mechanical.

Finis proximus (the final goal) is unio mystica and renovatio, and finis ultimus (final end) is the salvation of the regenerate person and the glory of God.

[1] Sol. Declaratio III, 686, 19, 20.

[2] Hollazius: “Regeneratio est actus gratise, quo Spiritus sanctus hominem peccatorem salviflca fide donat, ut remissis peccatis fllius Dei et haeres seternse vita e reddatur.”

[3] Billing, Lutherska Kyrkans Bekannelse, p. 426.

[4] Roos, Troslara, p. 178.

[5] Schartau, Bref, No. XXVIII. t Nohrborg, Postilla, pp. 460, 461.

Trent, Levi, and Matt want to hear from you. Specifically, we want to hear about how you made your way into Lutheranism. Perhaps you’re a cradle Lutheran who “rediscovered Lutheranism for the first time,” like Trent; perhaps you used to be a Reformed Baptist, like Levi; perhaps you used to be a heathen cult-member, like Matt. Whatever the case may be, if you wouldn’t mind telling us your story in about 250 words, we would love to read it on the air. We’re calling this series (which will run sporadically and indefinitely) “Swimming the Rhine.” Clever, eh? (Matt is Canadian. We say “eh” ’round here to make him feel at home.)

With all of that said…Pseudepodcast has plans for a debut episode on Wednesday, June 18!

Some guidelines for sending in your “Swimming the Rhine” story:

1. Seriously, it can’t be much over 250 words. If you send us a book to read, we’re going to put it in the round-file labeled “Personal Testimonies”   **SMILE**
2. No bitterness, no looking back over your shoulder and snarling, no hurling invective at your former self/former coreligionists. “I had never really heard the Gospel before” — that’s OK. “My old church was full of terrible, ignorant, hypocritical pietists” — this will get fed to Typo, the pet peeve that we keep around the studio. (Don’t worry — he’s been fixed.)
3. Let us know if you’d like to remain anonymous, or whether we can read your first name on the air.
4. Please use the contact form below.

[contact-form-7]
+VDMA

The life of the regenerated Christian must grow and develop. It is not sufficient that a man has been born into the spiritual world, thereby coming into possession of spiritual life, but as a child of God he must grow and develop under the fostering care of the Spirit. Man begins his walk in the newness of life, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, with the power of sin broken in principle, but with the old Adam still alive. Through the act of regeneration the Christian has received new powers by which he willingly co-operates in the continued work of redemption through the grace of the Spirit. The development of Christian liberty is always conditioned by grace. This grace is called gratia cooperans (cooperating grace), and although the Christian cooperates in the work of renovation, still he does not do so through his own natural powers, but through the powers granted by the Spirit, and in a direct sense grace always remains the principle of renovation and sanctification.

Renovation and sanctification have been considered in both a broad and a more restricted sense. Sanctification can be considered as a part of renovation. By sanctification some understand all the works of grace, and then it is called sanctificatio late dicta (sanctification in the broad sense). Sanctificatio stricte dicta (sanctification in the narrow sense) is equivalent to renovatio negativa (negative renovation), and strictissime dicta (strictly said) is equivalent to the positive side of renovatio (sanctification).

While regeneratio (regeneration) is a momentary act, renovatio (sanctification), on the other hand, is a progressive process, which continues through life. The Christian experiences anew the gracious acts of the Spirit, in general, not with the same limitations as during the period of conversion, but in a more intimate way with the acts of grace interlocking and overlapping.

1. The Definition of Renovation.

Renovation is that act of grace by which the Holy Spirit through the means of grace with the co-operation of the regenerated person more and more overcomes the power of sin and restores the image of God, so that the old man is put off and the new man is put on. Renovation consists of two acts, one the negative, and the other the positive.

Renovatio negativa (negative renovation) or sanctificatio stride dicta (sanctification in the strict sense) is that part of the grace of renovation by which the power of sin is ever increasingly overcome and the old Adam is put off or dies, although slowly.

Renovatio positiva (positive renovation) or sanctificatio strictissime dicta (sanctification strictly said) is therefore the gracious act of the Spirit through which He renews in man the image of God, while man co-operates with the powers granted in regeneration. Renovation is therefore considered both from the transitive and intransitive point of view.

Causa efficiens principalis (the primary efficient cause) is the Triune God, but terminative the Holy Spirit. Compare 1 Thess. 5: 23; Rom. 15: 16; Gal. 5: 22; Titus 3: 5. The regenerated person is considered causa efficiens (an efficient cause) in a secondary sense. Compare Phil. 2: 2,13. Terminus a quo (beginning point) is the old Adam and unconquered sins. Subjectum quo (the subject) is in a primary sense the spiritual nature of man, which sin has permeated and corrupted as to the intellect, will and emotions. In a secondary sense the membra corporis (members of the body) are also included. The media or means that are to be used are the means of grace, although the means employed in ascetic morality may at times prove useful as formal auxiliaries.

Among Scripture passages that present the negative and positive sides of renovation the following may be quoted: “Though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16) ; “Our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that we should no longer be in bondage to sin” (Rom. 6:6); “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 13: 14; cf. 4: 22 —24; Col. 3: 9, 10).

2. The Degrees of Renovation or Sanctification.

Inasmuch as renovation is progressive and therefore continually developing, it must have degrees. The above-cited passage from 2 Cor. 4:16 as well as other passages indicate this. Sometimes a backsliding will take place on account of the weakness of man, but the normal state is one of progress. In this matter the emotions are not always a reliable gauge, and man himself is seldom able to measure the progress of his spiritual development. Under normal conditions the Christian passes through the various spiritual ages such as the age of spiritual childhood, youth, and manhood. Compare 1 Cor. 3: 1; 1 John 2:12—14; Heb. 6: 1; 1 Cor. 16: 13. But although terminus ad quem (the final goal) is the new man, yet renovation never becomes complete in this life, which doctrine we stress against Methodists and others, who assert that man can become perfectly sinless on earth. Compare Rom. 7: 19—22; Gal. 5: 17; Phil. 3: 12—16; Heb. 12: 1; 1 John 1: 8—10; 3: 2.

3. The Proof of Renovation in Good Works.

Renovatio is demonstrated in good works. They are called good works, not because they are perfect in themselves, but because they proceed from faith. Only the regenerated are therefore capable of doing good works. By good works are meant not only external deeds, but also the emotions of the heart and the decisions of the will. Hollazius defines bona opera as follows: “bona Opera are the free acts of justified persons which stand forth as good in the light of the preceding true faith in Christ and are performed through the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit, according to the prescription of the divine Laic, to the honor of God and the edification of man.”[1]

The Lutheran Church has never underestimated the significance of good works, and her doctrine of justification does not conflict with the Biblical doctrine of good works. But by reason of the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning good works and her false doctrine of justification it became necessary for the Protestant Church to emphasize the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without thereby denying the necessity of good works as the fruits of faith. The Catholics have intermingled good works in justification and have falsely conceived both justification and sanctification. The Church of the Middle Ages taught that the works that proceed from gratia habitualis (habitual grace) merit everlasting life. The consilia evangelica (evangelical counsels) were placed above the fulfilment of praecepta, such as abstention from the pleasures of the world, voluntary poverty, chastity and obedience. The Council of Trent[2] decided that the justified man is able to fulfill the commandments of God, and the meeting condemned those that deny this. In the confutation of the Augsburg Confession the Catholic Church states that the doctrine of sola fide conflicts absolutely with the Word of God, while the doctrine of good works is emphasized. The Apology presents clearly the relation between faith and good works. Major, Menius and Amsdorf especially gave rise to an investigation of the relationship between justification and good works. These theologians expressed themselves in a way that could be misunderstood. Major and Menius expressed themselves as follows: Good deeds are necessary to salvation. No one can be saved without good works. Good works are necessary in order to retain salvation or are necessary in order not to lose salvation. Amsdorf, on the contrary, stated that good works are injurious for salvation. The Formula of Concord* sets forth the following points among others: That it is the will of God that the believers perform good works; that good works are not performed through the natural powers of man; that good works are well-pleasing to God for Christ’s sake through faith; that good works are to be performed not by constraint (coactio), but by the free spirit, which freedom is not arbitrary. Such modes of expression as those used by Major and Menius ought to be avoided, since they may be misunderstood, while they conflict with particulae exclusivse. The Epicurean doctrine that faith, justification and salvation could not be lost through intentional sins was also rejected. But if salvation could be lost through intentional sins, still it could not be kept through good works. Faith is indeed the only organ for the reception of justification and salvation both in regard to the beginning, middle and end. The expressions of Amsdorf were also criticized. Good works are injurious only when intermingled in justification so as to constitute the foundation for self-confidence. But when performed with the proper intention and for a proper end they are the characteristic marks of the Christian and are well-pleasing to God, who shall reward them both in this life and in that which is to come.

Affectiones operum bonorum are therefore: 1) spontefiunt, or that they take place voluntarily; 2) necessaria, or that they are necessary as the fruits of faith; 3) imperfecta, inasmuch as they are imperfect. Bona opera are divided into interna and externa. With regard to their so-called forma the old Dogmaticians say that when they are considered in the absolute sense, then forma is conformitas cum lege, but when considered in the relative sense, on the ground of the special favor of God, then forma is fides in Christum, since the works do not completely conform to the demands of the Law, but nevertheless are well-pleasing to God on account of faith which apprehends Christ.

There are different degrees of good works and all are not of the same quality. Bona opera (good works) have therefore been divided into different grades, as follows: 1) interior obedientia cordis (obedience of the heart), such as good intentions, the inclination of the will and the pure motives of the heart. To this class belong the invisible works of sanctification which God alone sees; 2) opera moralia tabulse primes (works of the first table), to which belong worship in an internal and external sense and therefore also love to God; 3) opera moralia tabulse secundse (works of the second table), to which belongs love to our neighbor, which manifests itself in a variety of ways. In every case God sees all of these deeds and in many cases they are seen and observed by our neighbors also.

The quality of the bona opera (good work) is set forth in the Scriptures in figures of speech, such as gold, silver, precious stones, etc. Compare 1 Cor. 3: 12—15; 2 Tim. 2: 19—21. Although the first passage on account of the context must be applied in a primary sense to the teachers of the Word as to how they build on the foundation, still there are lessons to be drawn in the interest of sanctification for Christians in general. All Christians build on the same foundation, but they do not all build alike. The works of some are like gold, silver and costly stones, while the works of others are like wood, hay and stubble. The quality of sanctification, therefore, is of great importance before God, and this not only for time, but also for eternity. This phase of the matter is clearly presented in vv. 14 and 15. There are, besides, so-called Christians who bear no fruit, an evidence of the fact that they have become withered branches. This condition denotes that they have lost their salvation. They withered because they did not abide in Christ. Compare John 15:2—6. But true Christians desire to bear fruit and to build in such a fashion on the true foundation that their works shall stand the test of the fiery trial. This does not always mean that they shall stand the test in their own estimation or in the estimation of others, but God judges a righteous judgment. The deep-seated desire of all true Christians, is to follow after sanctification, without which no man shall see the Lord. Cf. Heb. 12: 14.

4. The Object of Renovation.

Finis proximus (next goal) is the same as the term terminus ad quem, i.e., the new man. Renovation has its beginning, its continuance and its completion. The Holy Spirit is continually occupied with the gracious work of restoring man to the likeness of God, i.e., to the divine image in which he was originally created. If man had remained in the original state of integrity, he would have developed more and more until he had become prepared for entrance into the world of glory. In accordance with the divine plan of salvation the same work is now accomplished in another way. This work, however, is hid from the eyes of the world, and in certain cases also from the Christians themselves, since our life is hid with Christ in God. Compare Col. 3: 1—10. The Christians, nevertheless, experience the activity of the Spirit of the Lord. If they remain faithful, the new man will in due season become complete. But renovation has also a final goal, finis ultimus, which is life eternal and the glory of God. This object possesses great significance, inasmuch as the glory belongs to God and He is glorified through the salvation of man.

[1] Hollazius: “Bona opera sunt actus hominum justificatorum liberi per gratiam Spiritus sanctl renovantem ad prsescriptum legis divinse praelucente vera in Christum fide prsestiti in honorem Dei ad hominum sedificatlonem.”

[2] Sessio VI. Caput XI et Canon XIII.

Many contemporary Christian worship services have no Confession of Sins and no Service of Holy Communion?  Why?  Obviously, someone has decided that these things are less important than other things.  What are the other things that are so important that they take the place of confessing sins and receiving God’s forgiveness?  What is more important than receiving the Lord’s Supper?  These are important questions because the way we worship affects and reflects our faith.  That is to say: How we worship teaches and demonstrates what we believe!  So, what does your Worship Service teach and demonstrate about what you believe?

The Flow and Focus of Worship

Why is the Christian liturgy shaped as it is?  It is a “dialogue” between God and humanity.  The action of worship is primarily from heaven to earth; the flow is from God to us.  That is to say,  it is primarily about God giving us His Word (Scripture and Preaching) and God giving us Holy Communion.  These primary actions of worship belong to God and the primary focus is upon His greatest gift, Jesus Christ.  Only after God acts can we give Him our response.  For example:

Invocation (God gathers us in His Name.  His holiness shows us our Sin.)

Confession (We respond with a Confession of our Sins.)

Absolution (God gives us His Forgiveness.)

Gloria (We respond with praise for God’s merciful goodness.)

Scripture (God gives us His Word.)

Creed (We respond with a Statement of Faith.)

Sermon (God applies His Word to us.)

Offering/Prayer (We respond with Offerings and Prayers.)

Holy Communion (God gives us His own Presence, the Body and Blood of Jesus.)

Nunc dimittis (We respond with hearts filled with peace.)

Benediction (God sends us with His blessing.)

For almost 2,000 years, the Christian liturgy has formed the shape of Christian worship.  The liturgy is composed of purposefully chosen portions of Scripture, for example: Kyrie (Lord, have mercy, Matt. 15: 22); Gloria in Excelsis (Glory to God in the highest, Luke 2: 14); and Agnus Dei (Lamb of God, John 1: 29).  In addition, the historic liturgy includes spoken portions:  Confession and Forgiveness, Scripture Readings and Sermon, Creed,  Lord’s Prayer, and Holy Communion.  The shape of biblical worship keeps the focus on Jesus as grace flows from God to us.

The Changing Shape of Worship

Today, the shape of worship has changed in many places.  Especially, in the Non-Denominational churches, the liturgy has been replaced with singing.  What is wrong with singing?  Nothing.  I love to sing.  But, what components of worship are omitted in order to have 30-45 minutes of singing?  As a result, is there a change in the focus and flow of worship?

Contemporary Christian worship is characterized by lots of new songs.  But, who is checking to see if the words of these songs are in accordance with Holy Scripture?  If the words of the songs are faulty, what message will the people take home?  Is the message of the all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus at the center of our modern Christian worship?  Here is a song whose theology you may find interesting:

All to Jesus I surrender, all to Him I freely give.  I will ever love and trust Him, in His presence daily live.  I surrender all, I surrender all.  All to Thee, my blessed Savior, I surrender all.

The problem with this song is that it simply is not true.  I do not surrender all to Jesus.  I do not ever (always) love and trust Him.  It is Christ who surrenders all, not I.  It is Christ who is ever loving and forever trustworthy, not I.  Perhaps, the song should sing to Jesus, “You surrender all.  You surrender all.  All for sinful, selfish people, You surrender all.”

In the original song, it seems that the spotlight is on the wrong person.  It says that I surrender and I love and I trust.  It is almost as if it ismy work that establishes and keeps the saving relationship between God and me.  Like our culture, this song has taken the spotlight off of the Cross of Jesus and put it on my ego.

In our day, a congregation may find itself singing songs twice or even three times as long as it hears the preached Word of God.  With that much singing, it is imperative that each and every song be carefully screened for true and pure biblical theology.  The most glaring concern is that the focus of worship may move from Christ to the human ego, and the primary flow of worship may be reversed, from earth to heaven instead of from God to us.

Things Added, Things Subtracted

The shape of contemporary worship is not only changed by adding a large number of new songs, but by subtracting several components that were part of traditional Christian worship.  For example,  the Confession of Sins and Absolution (Statement of God’s Forgiveness) are often missing today.  Also, the Creed (Statement of Christian Faith) and Sacrament of Holy Communion are frequently omitted.  Just as a congregation’s theological understanding is shaped by what is added, it is shaped by what is subtracted.  What is the net result of a congregation going week after week without making Confession of Sin and without receiving Absolution?  There are many things that may result:  perhaps, a belief that real Christians do not sin, a belief that God does not forgive sin, or even that a person has ceased to be a real Christian if he does sin.

What is the result when a congregation does not regularly and publicly declare its faith in the Triune God.  Is it possible that people may become unclear about who God is and what they believe He has done, if they do not confess a Creed?

What is the result when a congregation does not regularly celebrate Holy Communion?  Our Lord has commanded us to “do this” so that we can receive the true body and blood of Christ.  He visits us, enters us, and forgives us through this Sacrament.  When we do not receive Holy Communion, do we seek substitutes instead?  That is to say, do we add “false communions” of our own making?  I believe that people are much more apt to hunger for a tantalizing experience or a show-stopping performance if they do not have the body and blood of Christ in the Supper.  Instead of receiving Communion as Christ commanded, we may seek the substitute of self-generated excitement, false euphoria, or the “spirituality” of warm and fuzzy feelings.  Do we find these substitutes in congregations that suffer from infrequent Holy Communion?

I am suggesting that there is a cumulative effect upon the faith and life of a congregation when critical elements of Christian worship are omitted.  Do you think that there is a negative result when a congregation seldom recites the Creed or the Lord’s Prayer,  infrequently celebrates Holy Communion, and rarely if ever, confesses their sin and receives God’s forgiveness?

Shaping Our Future Faith

There is an ancient axiom that states: the way we worship affects what we believe (lex orandi lex credendi: the law of prayer is the law of belief).  In short, how we worship dramatically influences our Christian faith.  Adding lots of songs reshapes the flow of worship, and faulty lyrics reshape what we believe.  Omitting the Confession of Sins, Creed, Lord’s Prayer, or Lord’s Supper robs the congregation of biblical truth and God’s means of grace.  What we choose to omit from our worship is just as much a statement of faith as what we add.

Is it possible that a shift is taking place?  Is the focus of worship moving from the all-sufficiency of Christ to the feelings of human ego?  Is the flow of worship being reversed, so that it is more often about what we are doing for God rather than what Our Lord has done and is doing for us?

Whose responsibility is it to see that our songs proclaim the truth of God’s Word? Who should make sure that we confess our sins, declare our creedal faith, pray as Christ taught us, and receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion?  The Pastor is accountable before God for the souls of those in his care (Hebrews 13: 17).  Our worship, what is included and what is excluded, will shape the life and faith of our people for generations to come!

Many of you followers of Pastor Cooper’s work have expressed curiosity regarding Eastern Orthodoxy. While I am by no means an expert in the subject, I have had a longstanding interest in Eastern Christianity — an interest which at one time extended to serious inquiry and an interest in converting. It’s a topic which I have thought much about and written some about. With that said, I’d like to offer the following list of essays and reflections on Eastern Orthodoxy (only one of which is mine) for your perusal.

Before I compile the list, some caveats:

• I am not even attempting to be unbiased, so you needn’t point out the fact that I’m presenting a biased list. I am Lutheran. I think everyone should be Lutheran. I don’t recommend being Eastern Orthodox. If you tell me personally that you’re thinking of becoming Eastern Orthodox, I will discourage you from doing so. If you’re Eastern Orthodox and you’re thinking of leaving, I will encourage you to do so even as I lovingly attempt to poach you for the Church of the Augustana (the grandiloquent name for the Lutheran Church).
• I am not suggesting that these short pieces, which are critical and written by detractors from Orthodoxy, comprise a fitting substitute for longer, positive works written by actual Eastern Orthodox Christians. I highly recommend The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware.
• I am not suggesting that reading is a substitute for visiting and participating in an Eastern Orthodox liturgy. Much is made of this point by Eastern Orthodox friends of mine — almost exclusively converts, mind you — so much, in fact, that they almost suggest that you really should just convert first and ask questions later. Otherwise, it is implied, you’re just being a “rationalist.” Point is, if you’re really curious about Eastern Orthodoxy, you might also want to visit one of their services, as just reading about it will not give you as much insight as reading and visiting. (I will never forget the first Eastern Orthodox liturgy I ever visited. It was at an OCA parish that met in the top floor of an old Grange Hall; the priest’s office was a caboose that had been permanently parked outside. It was the Great Vigil on the Eve of the Theophany of Christ at the Jordan. Three hours of standing, crossing myself, getting censed, and being confused — and that last one is not me being flippant or pejorative: it was a pleasant confusion, all things considered. I was so saturated with incense by the time I left that I almost hotboxed my car on the drive home; it smelled like a Turkish bazaar for about a week.)

Those caveats being made, I offer you the following list of things to read:

• “On Temptations To Go East,” By Rev. Dr. Burnell F. Eckardt, Jr.
• “What Are You Afraid Of?” by Rev. Fr. William Weedon.
• “My Best Guess As To Why I’m Not An Eastern Orthodox Christian,” By me.
• “The Errors Of The Christian East: Justification,” By “Quiet George”.
• “Why Stay Lutheran?” By Rev. Fr. William Weedon (NB: this is a two-part video series).
• “Leaving The Orthodox Church,” by Rev. Fr. Richard Rene.
  • Response piece: “On Leavings,” by Owen White.
• “Is There A Patristic Consensus?” by Rev. Fr. Christopher S. Esget.

Some podcasts you should listen to:

• “An Issues, Etc. Interview with Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart: Eastern Orthodoxy.”
• “Just & Sinner: An Introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy.”
• “Just & Sinner: Joshua Genig’s Conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy.”
• “Just & Sinner: Response to Subdeacon Harju on Justification.”

Questions or comments? You know what to do: bottle them up and tell no one.

Or, if you’d rather, leave them in the combox. Blessed Whitsuntide to you and yours! – TDD

+VDMA

This particular text has historically been at the center of Roman Catholic and Protestant polemics. Roman apologists have utilized this text as an establishment of the Papal office. It is argued that Jesus grants the keys of the kingdom to Peter, that he is the rock upon which the church is built, and that these keys are consequently passed down to various successors of St. Peter. The context and syntax of this passage demonstrate, however, that Matthew has no intention of promoting the foreign concept of a Roman Papacy through the words of Jesus.

There is an obvious wordplay in this text, wherein Peter is parallel to “the rock.” If no such wordplay was intended, than Jesus would have used the more common term λιθός, rather than πέτρα to refer to the rock. The name Cephas, or Peter, was given to Simon by Jesus himself. After Peter’s great confession, Jesus is confirming the validity and accuracy of that title. Roman interpreters have argued that there is an exact identification between Πέτρος(Peter) and πέτρα (rock). This interpretation cannot be sustained. Πέτρα is a feminine noun, whereas Πέτρος is masculine. This makes it likely though there is a relationship between the two, they are not identical. It is instead something about Peter that the church is built upon, not his person. The “rock” is the confession Peter makes that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. Some Roman theologians have purported that the original Aramaic word kepha would have allowed for no differentiation between the name “Peter” and “rock.” This claim is completely irrelevant, because the exegete must attend to the text of Matthew’s gospel itself rather than making inferences about what Jesus might have said in Aramaic. The other major issue with this interpretation is that Jesus’ words switch from the second to third person. He says: “You are Peter,” and does not continue by saying, “and upon you, Peter,” but instead he says: “upon this rock.” The fact that, while still addressing Peter directly, Jesus switches from σύ to ταύτη, makes it apparent that Jesus does not intend any direct identification between Peter and the rock upon which the church is built.

The most problematic aspect of this passage for the Roman Catholic interpreter is simply that there is no indication of the conferring of Peter’s status as “the rock” to his successors, nor is there any indication of exactly what it would mean for Peter to be the rock upon which the church was built. Even if one were to grant, as some protestant interpreters do,[1] that Jesus does identify Peter as the rock, there are no grounds for importing an idea of apostolic succession into the narrative. There is no such concept mentioned by Matthew. Paul writes in Ephesians that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). If Peter were “the rock” spoken of in this text, then it would be in the same sense that the other apostles and prophets are foundation stones for the church. Jesus is speaking here to a person, not to an office that would not be established for some decades. The Roman interpretation has no textual basis to stand upon.

[1] See, for example: France, The Gospel of Matthew, 621-622.

Gerhard O. Forde, the father of “Radical Lutheranism.”

Reposted from the Facebook.

Starting in medias res…

Since it was wisely stated by a friend that “every little skirmish isn’t as important as a few well-crafted contributions,” I have abandoned the skirmishes of the land of Comboxen for a time and undertaken to craft a more substantive contribution. I hope my efforts have not been in vain.

For the record, there is no dispute concerning the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls — justification sola fide, sola gratia, solo Christo. Man has no active role in his justification: he is the passive recipient entirely. He was dead, but now he is alive. He was guilty, but now he is forgiven. He was unrighteous, but now he has been declared righteous:

[B]efore man is enlightened, converted, regenerated, renewed, and drawn by the Holy Ghost, he can of himself and of his own natural powers begin, work, or concur in working in spiritual things and in his own conversion or regeneration just as little as a stone or a block or clay (FC SD II, 24).

For simplicity’s sake, I will say that justification deals with dead people. The spiritually dead cannot choose to obey God. An unregenerate man cannot regenerate himself, and what’s more, he doesn’t even want to: his will is enslaved to sin. He is passive, like a drowning-victim receiving CPR.

But in sanctification, we are not talking about dead people. We are talking about live people, converted people, born-again-through-Water-and-the-Word people. God has done something to us ontologically. He has given us hearts of flesh (cf. Ezek xxxvi, 26). To put it bluntly, we’re “saved.” Period. We cannot add to or augment our justification. To suggest otherwise is to affirm the cardinal heresy of Papism. No one here is doing that.

Because we are alive in sanctification, we are able to co-operate with the Holy Spirit. Because our wills have been freed, we are able to obey God’s commandments, which — to the New Man, at least — are not burdensome.¹

However, it seems that many ostensibly confessional Lutherans — including a number of pastors and public theologians who publish quite prolifically on the internet — do not believe that we are the ones obeying in our New Obedience. It at least sounds like these “soft antinomians” (hat-tip to Pr. Mark Surburg) are saying that the willing and acting human person continues to will and to act only evil and commit only sin. If I am not severely mistaken and this is in fact what they are saying, they are quite simply wrong.

When St. Paul says that God works in us to will and to act according to His good purpose, this working is the Holy Spirit enabling us, not dominating or controlling us. The very grammar attests that the Holy Spirit is the necessary cause of all of our good works, but that we still do the works. In all of this our will is mixed, for it is the proving ground in the struggle of flesh vs. spirit. “I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh,” the Apostle writes to the Church in Galatia; “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish” (Gal v, 16-17). We must not overlook the ultimate clause: “the things that you wish.” The regenerate sinner, the Christian, the New Man, wishes to do the will of God, but the Old Adam in him continues to desire what is sinful. But they are one person.²

It is false to say that every act of the Christian is sin. Even if we can say (and we can and must say) that his every act is tainted by sin, the sin is not necessarily essential, i.e., of the substance of the act, but rather it is accidental on account of the lingering sinful nature which burdens us and resists the working of the New Man. And this is no mere quibble, nor is it a hairsplitting Jesuitical distinction: if one says that the Christian is non posse non peccare — that is, not able not to sin — then the reality³ of the Spirit’s work in us is denied. According to this schematic we are merely inhabited by the Spirit but not at all changed by him. Among other things, this verges on the Flacian error, condemned in Article I of the Formula: if Christians are not able not to sin, then sin is essential to human nature. This erroneous (and, I repeat, officially condemned) anthropology makes hay out of the Incarnation and effectively undermines the entire Gospel. This would have Christ born a sinner in re, not merely imputed with the sin of mankind. If one attempts to sidestep this in order to preserve the sinlessness of Christ, then Christ is not true man, human nature being essentially sinful; rather, He must be some tertium quid. If this sounds familiar, it is because it is redolent of both Docetism and Eutychianism — all for the sake of insisting that sin is essential to man’s nature! The problems such a teaching presents for the Atonement are heretical in size. (As an aside, it seems to me that it would be much easier just to stay orthodox, to say nothing of the health-benefits involved!)

I must pause at this point to say that the only place in the greater Lutheran cosmos I have heard such a denial of the posse non peccare is from among the theologians of the “Radical Lutheran” rump of the ELCA. From what I know of this contingent, they are viewed as “conservative” by ELCA-standards and thus have garnered for themselves a bit of bad-boy “rebels-fighting-a-rearguard-action” cachet among some in the LCMS. But enmity with the ELCA doth not necessarily a friend of Missouri make. Indeed, the subtle errors of the “Radical Lutheran” school are in some ways more pernicious than the flagrant apostasies of the ELCA mothership. The devil never likes to come in the front door.

Back to the matter at hand:

Perhaps this is a grave misunderstanding on my part, but what I have read and heard from those espousing the soft-antinomian position is that man does not cooperate with God at all in the process of sanctification. This is simply false. I’ve also heard it said that “sanctification is identical with subjective justification,” which is also false — and quite loony, to boot. (To be blunt, I have heard or read every one of the absurd statements compiled here.) As “edgy” and “radical” as such perspectives are, they are terribly sloppy, paying no mind to the wide and narrow definitions of the term “sanctification” and its derivations as they are used in Scripture, the Confessions, and the Lutheran scholastic tradition.

The soft-antinomian “Radical Lutheran-esque” paradigm suggests that even after conversion man does not have a free will in any sense. (At times, its adherents seem to go far beyond this error to suggest, when pressed, that man does not have a will [arbitrium] at all. In certain instances, this latter error seems to stem from a truncated and idiosyncratic use of theological terminology). To say the very least, I am uncomfortable with the Hegelian overtones of such a position, for it would amount to God merely realizing and recognizing himself — obeying His own Law — through inert automata. This seems more redolent of the thought of Paul Tillich, or Robert Jenson, or Wolfhart Pannenberg than that of any orthodox theologian. To be honest, “Radical Lutheran” soteriology strikes me as being somewhat redolent of Far Eastern religious thought, wherein salvation entails the obliteration of the conscious self through its absorption into the Divine, like unto a drop of water landing in the ocean. It should go without saying that the goal of the Incarnation is not an erasure of personhood, but its restoration and fulfillment. Grace perfects nature; it does not destroy it. I say this because the “Radical Lutheran” heterodoxies, if taken to their logical conclusion, effectively do away with the discrete individual status of the human creature as a separate entity from his Creator. In fine, they are anathema to orthodox Christianity. One can only hope that the adherents of Radical Lutheranism are prevented from such a serious error by what Dr. Francis Pieper called “felicitous inconsistency.”

I’ve also seen it explicitly stated by the soft antinomians that the Christian is not a New Man, not a new creation, but that the New Man is simply Christ in us (though not communicating anything of His divine nature to us, a lá Nestorianism — NB: this is my analogy, not theirs). This flatly contradicts Scripture and our Lutheran Symbols. “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation,” St. Paul writes, “old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Co v, 17). “His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,” St. Peter writes, “by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter i, 3-4). I am not sure if any theologian anywhere ever has taken St. Peter to be referring only to a future participation in the divine nature, i.e., one which takes place in the Resurrection only, but not at all right now. While that may be an interesting debate, it wouldn’t be one in which Confessional Lutherans were free to espouse differing positions. The Formula of Concord speaks of the regenerate as having a liberated will and a nature which is being renewed right now, in this life:

Therefore there is a great difference between baptized and unbaptized men. For since, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, (Gal iii, 27), all who have been baptized have put on Christ, and thus are truly regenerate, they have now arbitrium liberatum (a liberated will), that is, as Christ says, they have been made free again, (John viii, 36); whence they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to assent to it and accept it, although in great weakness (FC SD II, 67).

Those of us who have been opposing the soft-antinomian “Radical Lutheran-esque” position via various media are not suggesting that man has any natural power to co-operate in sanctification apart from the Holy Spirit. Yet the Scriptures and the Confessions clearly attest that there are two workers, two operators, in sanctification: the Holy Spirit and the Christian. For this reason St. Paul says to the Church in Corinth (vi, 1): “We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain” (Συνεργοῦντες δὲ καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν μὴ εἰς κενὸν τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ δέξασθαι ὑμᾶς·). This is indeed a holy mystery, and although it may unsettle us or contradict the reductionistic presentation of the Lutheran faith we have grown comfortable with, it is a truth that I do not think can be gainsaid. The reality of the “new powers” with which the Christian co-operates is attested by FC SD II, 65-66, which says:

As soon as the Holy Ghost, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should co-operate, although still in great weakness. But this [that we cooperate] does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, as St. Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain (2 Co vi, 1).

Again, those of us who have been opposing the soft-antinomian “Radical Lutheran-esque” position have constantly affirmed that the Holy Spirit is the necessary cause of these works, as the Formula states:

But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would withdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus…that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth.

Let the reader understand: we are not suggesting that “converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon.” Not at all. However, refusing to attend to the proper definition of “co-operation” is no way to prevent or combat this error. Nor do we get to pick and choose favorite bits of the Concordia — it presents a unity of doctrine which we are to own, not a buffét from which we are free to pick and choose things that strike our fancy. If we neglect to gain a proper understanding of just how it is that we do cooperate with the Holy Spirit and instead huff and puff until we’re blue in the face about how we don’t, we will certainly commit the reductionist error. For example, without an orthodox understanding of the co-operating, passages such as the following (regarding rewards for good works) are incoherent:

Here also we add something concerning rewards and merits. We teach that rewards have been offered and promised to the works of believers. We teach that good works are meritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace or justification (for these we obtain only by faith), but for other rewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life, because Paul says, ‘Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor’ (1 Co iii, 8). There will, therefore be different rewards according to different labors. But the remission of sins is alike and equal to all, just as Christ is one, and is offered freely to all who believe that for Christ’s sake their sins are remitted. Therefore the remission of sins and justification are received only by faith, and not on account of any works (Apology V [IV II], 73-74f).

Yes, in fact — Scripture and the Confessions speak of degrees of glory and rewards in the Resurrection for good works done here and now this side of the grave. Yet the foregoing portion of the Apology is so neglected, it seems, that it likely strikes our ears as un-Lutheran. I know that it did mine not too many years ago.

Some may wonder what the “cash value” of all of this is. A pragmatist question, but one worth entertaining. For this I can think of no better place to look than the confessional. When the rubber met the road, “soft antinomianism” can be catastrophic in the effect it has on the consciences of those “smoldering wicks” and “bruised reeds” who come to confess their sins to the pastor as to God himself. (I do speak from experience as a penitent here, which evidence I hope is admissible.)

If a Christian is struggling with habitual sin and feeling rather walked-upon by world, flesh, and devil, he of course needs to hear the “already-having-happenedness” of Christ’s work of justification proclaimed powerfully to him by his confessor. He needs to be told that Christ has made atonement for his sins — yes, even those sins on which the paint has not yet even dried! He needs to be told that he is reconciled. It hurts to hear this, but it’s the hurt of a salve being applied to a wound, a hurt which turns to comfort. Finally, he needs to be told, “I forgive you all of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the + Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

However, in the same confessional, the penitent also needs to hear the reassurance that he no longer possesses an enslaved will. He needs to be reminded that Christ has not only fought and conquered world, flesh, and devil for him, but that the Holy Spirit will help him, himself, to fight the unholy trinity and resist temptation in the hour of sin. The good fight which the Christian is called to take up is not meritorious for salvation, no, but it is still necessary. (Yes, something can be necessary without being necessary for salvation; however, to draw out this distinction would take a separate essay.) The penitent Christian needs to be encouraged to shoulder his cross and mortify his flesh — encouraged as the son of the free woman, not ordered as the offspring of the slave. Exhortation is needed. For lack of it a struggling Christian can easily despair.

Yes, the pastoral consequences of “soft antinomianism” are very worrisome, to put it mildly. Pastors who espouse this heterodox perspective (intentionally or by default — both are common) run the risk of implying not just to their parishioners but to whomever their teaching might reach that it does not really matter if they resist outward sin or not. The reasoning goes something like this:

Regardless of how successfully you’ve warred against the lusts of the flesh that particular week, or whether you’ve curtailed sinful acts, you’re still a poor miserable sinner, so, really, you shouldn’t expend too too much effort at leading a holy life or abstaining from near occasions of sin. (Slash away, Ockham’s Razor.) In fact, you might even be worse off if you’ve successfully curtailed outward sins (it is implied), because such successes will only make you proud. Better it is to “sin boldly” than be a “pietist” (this term, “pietist”, for anyone unfamiliar with Lutheran inside-baseball, is just about the worst thing anyone can call you). Just be sure to come back next Sunday, admit that you’ve been bad, and tank up on some grace.⁴

While the foregoing is a caricature of precepts and examples which I have personally seen presented as the cream of the Lutheran crop over the last decade or so, it is only slightly hyperbolic. More often these errors are not explicitly stated in this manner; no, they are just not preached against. However, sometimes they are indeed presented in the foregoing manner (as though world, flesh, and devil needed help). As for me, if I had not at some point mercifully learned that this was a severe misrepresentation of historic orthodox Lutheranism, I surely would not be Lutheran today. No, I would not be some other denomination: to be perfectly blunt, I would probably be dead.

“Don’t preach exhortation to good works — that’s un-Lutheran,” the soft antinomians say. But the words of Melanchthon in the Apology would rebuke them, if only they would allow themselves to be taught:

[I]n our churches all the sermons are occupied with such topics as these: of repentance; of the fear of God; of faith in Christ, of the righteousness of faith, of the consolation of consciences by faith, of the exercises of faith; of prayer, what its nature should be, and that we should be fully confident that it is efficacious, that it is heard; of the cross; of the authority of magistrates and all civil ordinances [likewise, how each one in his station should live in a Christian manner, and, out of obedience to the command of the Lord God, should conduct himself in reference to every worldly ordinance and law]; of the distinction between the kingdom of Christ, or the spiritual kingdom, and political affairs; of marriage; of the education and instruction of children; of chastity; of all the offices of love. From this condition of the churches it may be judged that we diligently maintain church discipline and godly ceremonies and good church-customs (Apology, Article XV [VIII], 43-44).

So, too, the words of the Formula of Concord:

For the old Adam, as an intractable, refractory ass, is still a part of them, which must be coerced to the obedience of Christ, not only by the teaching, admonition, force and threatening of the Law, but also oftentimes by the club of punishments and troubles, until the body of sin is entirely put off, and man is perfectly renewed in the resurrection, when he will need neither the preaching of the Law nor its threatenings and punishments, as also the Gospel any longer; these belong to this [mortal and] imperfect life. But as they will behold God face to face, so they will, through the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, do the will of God [the heavenly Father] with unmingled joy, voluntarily, unconstrained, without any hindrance, with entire purity and perfection, and will rejoice in it eternally.

Accordingly, we reject and condemn as an error pernicious and detrimental to Christian discipline, as also to true godliness, the teaching that the Law, in the above-mentioned way and degree, should not be urged upon Christians and the true believers, but only upon the unbelieving, unchristians, and impenitent (FC SD VI, 24-26).

It is fitting that the Formula should have the penultimate word here, as the architect of “Radical Lutheranism”, the late Gerhard O. Forde, accused its authors and subscribers of heresy in his essay “Fake Theology: Reflections on Antinomianism Past and Present” (in The Preached God: Proclamation in Word and Sacrament, eds. Mark C. Mattes and Steven D. Paulson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 214, 217, 223, 224). This leads me to my final point.

I would urge us all as Confessional Lutherans to consider seriously the nature of the influence had by the late Gerhard Forde and his ELCA coreligionists, such as the aforementioned Steven D. Paulson, on our inheritance of historic Lutheran orthodoxy. In addition to regarding the Formula of Concord as heretical, Forde denied the Fall and the substitutionary nature of the Atonement and supported the “ordination” of women to the Office of the Ministry (NB: I have heard that he was also a universalist, though I myself have seen no evidence of this). To treat of Paulson’s heinous and heretical errors would take a separate essay. For now, see Appendix B.

I mention all of this not to speak ill of the dead but to be forthright about just what kind of theologians we’re dealing with in the school of “Radical Lutheranism.” And if I may beat anyone who’s thinking it to the punch, it is most certainly not the genetic fallacy or “poisoning the well” to bring this up, for all of theology is interconnected, and we cannot expect errors of such magnitude to be of nil effect on other doctrines that we deem “more important. (To be frank, though, I don’t think that the doctrines I mentioned above are of particularly junior-status.) One may as well try to remove manure that has been blended into brownie-mix and baked in order that one may “just eat the good parts.” Yes, Forde understood very well that the Law and the Gospel are to be preached, not merely preached about, and that they are living and active words. That’s great. He was hardly the first person to say such a thing. Why so many in the LCMS are ready to trade in their patristic, confessional, and historic Lutheran birthright for the stew of a vaunted “Radical Lutheranism” I do not know, and I cannot fathom why. I pray that we see a resurgence of Lutheran orthodoxy, and soon.

Appendix A:
A note on terminology

It would be more accurate to refer to the so-called “Radical Lutherans” by a different name — perhaps “Lutherites” or “Lutherists” — but even this would be too charitable (to them, not to Luther), as they don’t even take into account the whole of Luther’s personal theological writings, but only a certain few of his early works (many of which are good and orthodox, yes); however because they do not take into account the greater arc of his theology, they give primacy of place to a few writings in which the Blessed Doctor (who was not infallible) went overboard and said some things that were not entirely orthodox, such as in his De Servio Arbitrio. And this is not simply my opinion, as though I am seeking to gainsay the great Martin Luther: the good doctor himself corrects some of these earlier erroneous opinions later on in his life!

All of this is somewhat beside the point, though, for the name “Lutheran” is a misnomer — one which has stuck, and one which prudence would have us simply accept, but a misnomer all the same. What “Lutheran” really means is “Church/Christian of the Augsburg Confession”, not “follower of Martin Luther.” With that said, it must be honestly stated that men such as Gerhard O. Forde and Steven Paulson are not, in fact, Lutheran at all. From the standpoint of the historic Church of the Augsburg Confession, they are heterodox sectarian theologians. The norm that is normed by the Scriptures and which we Lutherans subscribe to is the Concordia, not Luther’s Works, as brilliant and salutary as his writings may be.

Appendix B:
Steven Paulson

From a comment on this site:

[T]here are some in Lutheran circles who are making a career out of finding the places where Luther went too far rhetorically, and pushing them even further, so that they are no longer rhetorical. I have in mind especially Steven Paulson, who in his book Lutheran Theology, explicitly says that Christ sinned in the Cry of Dereliction. He also equates sin and human nature in a distinctly Flacian fashion, so that the Incarnation becomes no longer about Christ assuming humanity, but about Christ assuming sinful humanity (the only kind there is for Paulson, who like Forde denies the posse non peccare).

The text in question (from Paulson’s book):

Then finally in the words on the cross, “My God, my God…” he made the public confession of a sinner…. Confessing made it so, and thus Christ committed his own, personal sin—not only an actual sin, but the original sin. He felt God’s wrath and took that experience as something truer than God’s own word of promise to him (105).

(For a more thorough critique of the Steven D. Paulson’s work Lutheran Theology, see this piece by Rev. Dr. Eric Phillips.)

NOTES:

1. A clarification about what is meant by the term “will” is in order, as this is one of the central areas of contention in the present debate:

There are two Latin words in our Lutheran confessions which are translated into English as “will” — arbitrium and voluntas. The problem with this translation, however, is that is belies the significant disparity in meaning which exists in the Latin. Arbitrium would be better defined as “choice” or “ability to choose” (in the East they would call this the “deliberative” will); voluntas, on the other hand, defines better straight across as “will”, though it also carries the sense of “desire”, “intention”, or “inclination”. With this in mind, it strikes this author as somewhat unfortunate that Dr. Luther’s majestic work De Servo Arbitrio is almost universally rendered into English under the title, The Bondage of the Will. While this is unquestionably more euphonious a title than The Bound Ability to Choose, there is a way in which it lends itself to erroneous thinking from the outset. The reason unregenerate man’s choice is bound is because his will is evil; he can choose, but he can only choose among various things that he wants to do, all of which are evil. In short, he can do what he wants to do, but what he wants to do is sin. If the only options at Baskin Robbins are chocolate and vanilla, you can’t order hazelnut ripple — and what’s more (if we are to be true to the frame of reference), you don’t want hazelnut ripple; your desire is for chocolate or vanilla, and you’re going to choose one of them. Like all analogies, this gets ridiculous pretty quickly, so I’ll leave it at that for now.↩

^{2. G.K. Chesterton’s gloss of this dual aspect of the Christian condition, found in his essay on Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Curious Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, is most apposite:}

Though the fable may seem mad, the moral is very sane; indeed, the moral is strictly orthodox. The trouble is that most of those who mention it do not know the moral, possibly because they have never read the fable. From time to time those anonymous authorities in the newspapers, who dismiss Stevenson with such languid grace, will say that there is something quite cheap and obvious about the idea that one man is really two men and can be divided into the evil and the good. Unfortunately for them, that does not happen to be the idea. The real stab of the story is not in the discovery that the one man is two men; but in the discovery that the two men are one man. After all the diverse wandering and warring of those two incompatible beings, there was still one man born and only one man buried.↩

^{3. Lest anyone accuse my coreligionists and me of siding with Tuomo Mannermaa and the “Finnish Interpretation of Luther,” let me distinguish between the soteriological realism of Osiander and Osiander’s actual error:}

The reason why Tuomo Mannermaa’s article is controversial is less theological than political and cultural, though there may be a theological component to it. Part of Mannermaa’s thesis is that Luther’s very realistic understanding of the atonement was forgotten and therefore not present in the Formula of Concord, and that therefore there exists a chasm between Luther and the Formula, as well as Luther and Chemnitz, on the nature of deification. He finds this chasm to be spelled out particularly in the Formula’s condemnation of Osiandrianism.

What Mannermaa fails to see, according to my opinion, is that the Formula does not condemn Osiander’s soteriological realism, but rather it condemns Osiander on two points: firstly, that Osiander taught that Christ’s presence in us is only according to the divine nature, and not according to both, as Lutheran Christology would demand (this topic would be dealt with at length in Chemnitz’s “The Two Natures In Christ”), and secondly, that Osiander found that logical “reason” for our justification to be found not in the judgment upon Christ as mankind on the cross, but upon our inner renewal through the indwelling of Christ. The problem of Osiandrianism is that of “who is God looking at when he declares ‘not guilty’”? Is he looking at you with the divine nature renewing you from within (an idea which seems almost a Lutheranized form of Catholicism’s “infused grace”) or is he looking at Christ as the first and fullness of a new humanity?

The second reason for the controversy over Mannermaa is that since his entire theology was developed in the crucible of the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, there is suspicion that when Mannermaa speaks of Luther’s doctrine of deification, he is actively trying to make it sound just a little more Orthodox so as to make it appealing to them, as opposed to allowing it to sit in its full Lutheran glory. The main way he does this is in (seemingly) repeating Osiander’s mistake (and the mistake of the Orthodox) and finding the locus of justification in the presently-living Christian who has Christ within him by faith, and not in Christ on the cross, who has Mankind in Him.

The primary question of the Lutheran doctrine of the Forensic Atonement is this: where does God find you righteous?

If the answer is, “On the cross, where Christ was declared both guilty and righteous, Him becoming one with our guilt, us becoming one with His righteousness,” then you are a Lutheran.

If the answer is, “Within the sinner who possess Christ by faith and is renewed by Christ’s divinity,” then you are an Osiandrian.

If the answer is, “Within the sinner who has Christ within him, both as a renewal, and as a pledge of God’s good will,” then you are a follower of the Finnish Interpretation.

[...]

I argue, of course, the first, and so you can see how it differs from the others.

The question would again be put: by what merits are you declared to be righteous?

If the answer is: “By the merits of Christ depicted in His Incarnation, obedience, passion, death and resurrection, in which we all participate through baptism in faith, and which are truly made ours,” then you are a Lutheran.

If the answer is: “By new merits gained by Christ through and in us by his indwelling,” then you are some sort of Osiandrian-Finn.

(“Quiet George”. “The Errors of the Christian East: Justification.” Pseudepigrapha: Deniable Plausibility, 23 January 2014. Web. 14 March 2014.)↩

^{4. The sad irony is that this serves to confirm the perverse misquotation of Luther’s words “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong” as “Be a sinner and sin boldly” which is so frequently tossed at us by Roman Catholics.↩}

+VDMA

Click Here to go to the Official Just & Sinner Kickstarter Page!

Help fund Just & Sinner’s summer publishing push, and help new Just & Sinner editor Trent Demarest get relocated to Iowa!

 

Just & Sinner Relaunch, Summer 2014

…first there was a blog;
…then, a podcast;
…now, a publishing house!

The Coopers

Pastor Jordan Cooper began his formal study of theology as an undergraduate at Geneva College. Coming as he did from a Reformed church background, Jordan was acutely aware of the many issues confronting Protestants — indeed all Christians — in this “post-modern” era of American Christianity. After a process of intense study and inquiry, he found sufficient and compelling answers for the greatest of these quandaries in the historic Lutheran Church.

In confessional Lutheran theology Jordan discovered the true evangelical and catholic heart of “the faith once passed down to the saints.” And he never looked back! Instead, he began busily applying himself to making the treasures of Lutheran theology available to those who, like him, had at one time or another been dissatisfied and frustrated by their experiences in other churches. But he wasn’t going it alone.

In 2008 Jordan met Lisa, whose charm so arrested his attention that he was willing — nay, forced! — to overlook her ignorance of certain of his favorite post-punk emo bands. Pious, witty, and pretty, she captured his heart. The two dated for two years and were married in December of 2010.

Shortly before he and Lisa were wed, Jordan had begun work on a Master’s degree at the Wittenberg Institute. While a student there, he began to post more theological reflections on his blog, Just & Sinner, including a number of scholarly journal articles. In September of 2012, Jordan added a theology podcast to his site and quickly acquired an eager following. In February of 2013 Jordan and Lisa moved to Brighton, IA, where Jordan was installed as the pastor of Hope Lutheran Church. In October of that year, Just & Sinner Publications was launched, publishing The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church by George Henry Gerberding, the first volume of the American Lutheran Classics Series.

Pr. Cooper and Lisa with their son, Jacen, at Hope Lutheran Church in Brighton, IA.

 

Trent Demarest rediscovered the confessional tradition of Lutheranism while an undergraduate at Hillsdale College. He took an early interest in Jordan Cooper’s work when the latter was studying at the Wittenberg Institute. While Jordan was in school at the Institute, Trent was in school, too…in a manner of speaking: he was teaching history, theology, and Latin at a Lutheran classical academy. Although he had been a lifelong Lutheran, Trent was frustrated by certain presentations of contemporary Lutheran theology, and he appreciated Jordan’s more historic and catholic perspective. On occasion he would email Jordan questions or comments, sometimes roping the latter into ridiculously picayune theological debates with complete strangers. Because of this, or in spite of this, the two struck up a cordial relationship.

That’s all you need to know about Trent. That, and he has a green website – no, not like “emission-free” green. Just green. For some strange reason, Jordan befriended him. Over the course of a few years, the two went from emailing to talking on the phone — usually about theology, but sometimes about the merits of single-origin coffee and lustrous red facial hair.

In the spring of 2014, Jordan decided that the best way to get Trent to stop emailing him would be to keep him within shouting distance, at least for awhile. So he and Lisa invited Trent to come and work for Just & Sinner publications that summer. Then, they started a Kickstarter. That’s the story.

This summer

This summer Just & Sinner is taking things to the next level as a number of new and exciting developments get underway. The American Lutheran Theological Journal, published by Just & Sinner, will release its premier issue at the annual convention of the AALC (American Association of Lutheran Churches) this June; several new installments of the American Lutheran Classics series are waiting in the wings, as well as the Works of Revere Franklin Weidner (Pastor Cooper’s favorite American Lutheran theologian); last, but certainly not least, Pastor Cooper is writing a complete systematic theology text!

When asked, “Where do you see yourself fitting into all of this?” Trent scratched the underside of his chin, and said, “Me? I coulda been a contenda.” This wasn’t particularly helpful.

When asked, “Where do you see Trent fitting into all of this?” Pastor Cooper shrugged and said, “Well, he’s the only person besides Lisa I’d allow to make me coffee.”

Trent is relocating to Iowa this summer to work as full-time as possible for Just & Sinner Publications, doing anything and everything that needs to be done: editing, researching, writing, design, and, yes, making coffee. Your funding will help him with relocation costs and provide a small stipend so that he can devote as much time as possible to the publishing house without going broke and having to take up busking in Fairfield. He might like to go busking in Fairfield, but for fun, not for…you know…food.

“Would prefer to play for fun, not food…”

You

The mission of Just & Sinner in general — and of Just & Sinner Publications in particular — is to promote the Gospel by making the treasures of classical Lutheran theology available at an affordable price. The podcasts are free; the books are inexpensive; both, however, require funding to produce. That’s where you come in.

This is an unabashed request for your generous support! $3000 would meet Just & Sinner’s needs for this summer publishing push; thus, it is the minimum that would need to be raised by this effort. But Just & Sinner would be grateful to receive any funding that exceeds this target amount! Any surplus that is raised will be used to fund the following items:

• Book sales - What if your church or Bible-class wanted to do a study of C.F.W Walther’s The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel or Henry I. Schmidt’s The Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper? Book subsidies would allow Just & Sinner to offer sale and bulk pricing on these and other classic Lutheran works.
• More and better media content - Trent is going to be relaunching Pseudepodcast under the Just & Sinner banner, in which he will be joined by Matt Fenn and Levi Nunnink to talk amateur theology (and perhaps occasionally spoof/roast Pastor Cooper). Just & Sinner also has plans to do a professional-quality video series of Pr. Cooper’s sermons.
• Travel budget - Just & Sinner would love to be more mobile; a modest travel budget would allow us to market books at conferences in the greater Midwest, do on-site interviews, etc.; speaking of conferences…
• Conferences - We would like to do more in the future! And we would like to charge people as little as possible to attend. (We look forward to seeing many of you at the Pirate Christian Radio Conference this August!)
• Equipment - microphones, a printer (and ink cartridges), computer monitors, mixing and editing software. Any questions? Look in the FAQ section to see if your question is addressed; if it’s not, please let us know!

The WELS Translation Liaison Committee just posted their latest comments regarding the HCSB translation. (http://www.wels.net/about-wels/synod-reports/translation-liaison-committee/translation-liaison-committee) Overall, the work is solid and the committee is to be commended for its diligent work. For the most part I agree with everything they have noted. In a couple cases I will offer additional thoughts. I will not comment on the Plan of Salvation page because previously I have advocated that it not be included. If I don’t address a specific passage it means that I support the WELS Committee suggestions.

Six Translation Suggestions for Some Key “Sacramental Verses”

I am very much supportive of the points made in these texts. I came across this when I was preparing the Maundy Thursday worship service. I had intended to use the HCSB but stopped short because of the use of “established” in the words of institution. τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ⸂ἐμῷ αἵματι (1 Cor. 11:25 “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” NAS).

In Matthew 3:11 HCSB has [John said:] “I baptize you with water for repentance” which is a fine translation. However, the footnote skews the text considerably with “Baptism was the means by which repentance was expressed publicly.” The problem is that there is nothing in the text to support anything that the footnote suggests. It is a case of imported theology from one specific group. I noticed this same kind of imposition of this kind of theology in the translation the Voice Bible, but even stronger: “I ritually cleanse you through baptism*…” with the footnote: “Literally, immerse in a rite of initiation and purification.”

Although not technically a Sacramental verse (although it is in the context), Acts 8:37 needs clarification. I agree with the suggestion to put the entire verse in a footnote. Even the footnote that is used is not clear; HCSB makes it appears as if the textual evidence is equally split on the inclusion of the text. The reality is that the manuscript evidence leans far toward the side of not including the verse (see NET footnote below).

NET footnote: A few later MSS (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891 pc) add, with minor variations, 8:37 “He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Verse 37 is lacking in {P45, 74 ℵ A B C 33 614 vg syp, h co}. It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed a confession of faith. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

Tetragrammaton

This extended discussion relates to my own frustration with HCSB. Either go fully with Yahweh or LORD, but don’t switch back and forth. The WELS Committee makes a strong case for using LORD, based on the LXX, NT, and early church usage of those texts containing the tetragrammaton. In light of that I would opt for their solution.

Slave or Servant

I think the Committee makes some good observations and this translation of δουλος needs attention. At the same time, I don’t think a wholesale change should be made. One of my book reviews last fall was by Joseph Hellerman.Embracing Shared Ministry: Power and Status in the Early Church and Why it Matters Today. Kregel Ministry, 2013 provides additional information on this topic. One of the key insights is that the class-conscious people of Philippi would understand the nuance of titles. There were two levels of society: Elite and non-Elite. The lowest level in the non-Elite status was not household servants, but slaves.  The expectation in that culture is that Paul would be Elite, in fact, the highest level of Elite, and so the expected title would be “apostle” in the greeting. But Paul uses δουλος, the only time he uses it unadorned. That seems intentional to separate even from household servants.

My suggestion then is to follow the WELS recommendation except that the nuance of each use must be carefully considered. It’s not an absolute: either servant or slave, but context would determine the specific translation choice.

Christ/Messiah in the New Testament

I wholeheartedly support this position of the WELS Committee. See my postshere and here.

The Use of “Should” and “Must” in the Translation of the New Testament

Although I have not addressed this issue on my blog, I am right in synch with the Committee regarding the changes. At times the use of “should” and “must” almost has the sense of a ruler-entrenched teacher waiting to snap my knuckles. Not exactly what the Biblical text has in mind.

Capitalization of Pronouns for God

I have used primarily NAS and NKJV for the past 37 years. Capitalization of divine pronouns seemed like a natural. Of course as I began translating I realized that it was English editor/publisher decision and nothing more. In the last 20 years I have used many other translations that do not capitalize divine pronouns.

The WELS Committee makes an excellent case for not using capitalization for divine pronouns. Another problematic text is Genesis 32:24-32, in which the Hebrew doesn’t indicate even by specific names, but pronouns are used throughout. Compare how HCSB and NAS deal with this.

NAS 24 And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28 Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

HCSB 24  Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. 25 When the man saw that He could not defeat him, He struck Jacob’s hip socket as they wrestled and dislocated his hip.  26 Then He said to Jacob, “Let Me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob said, “I will not let You go unless You bless me.” 27 “What is your name?” the man asked. “Jacob,” he replied. 28  “Your name will no longer be Jacob,” He said. “It will be Israel because you have struggled with God and with men and have prevailed.” 29 Then Jacob asked Him, “Please tell me Your name.”

Even capitalization doesn’t help identify the players. “Jacob” isn’t in the Hebrew in v. 25 for instance.

“Man” and “Men” in Contexts where Women are Included

I was glad to see this issue addressed. Generally HCSB does better than ESV, and HCSB does okay in some places, but as the WELS Committee noted, they are inconsistent. In addition to the WELS suggestions on changes I would add Psalm 1 and Psalm 32:2 (especially 32:1 has it correct).

Psalm 4:1 How long, exalted men, will my honor be insulted?[change to: How long, people, will my honor be insulted?]

It seems odd that בְּנֵ֥י אִ֡ישׁ  (“sons of man”) would be translated as “exalted men.”

Many other examples can be cited. It appears that the WELS Translation Committee has done a fine job of highlighting changes that could make HCSB an even better translation. Well done!

Price: $10