← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 13299 | Posts: 36 | Started: 2004-04-23
2004-04-23 23:30 | User Profile
[url=http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/11.3docs/evangelical,%20confessional.html]Evangelical Catholics & Confessional Evangelicals: The ecumenical polarities of Lutheranism[/url]
by Gene Edward Veith
Introduction
Imagine a church that is both evangelical-proclaiming the free forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ-and sacramental, centering its spiritual life in the regenerating waters of baptism and the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion. Imagine further a church that is strongly grounded on Scripture, but yet avoids the solipsism of individual interpretation in favor of a comprehensive, intellectually rigorous and eminently orthodox theological system. Imagine a worship service that features both strong preaching and the historic liturgy. Imagine that this is a historical church with a rich spiritual tradition, but without legalism. Imagine, in short, a church that has some of the best parts of Protestantism and the best parts of Catholicism. Finally, imagine that this church body is not some little made-up sect, but one of the largest bodies of Christians in the world.
Such a church might seem like what many Christians-disaffected by both the vacuity of liberal theology and the shallowness of American evangelicalism-are dreaming of. For millions of Christians such a church actually exists-it goes by the admittedly inadequate name "Lutheran."
Worldwide, there are some 60 million Lutherans on the books, making it the largest Protestant tradition of them all. There are around 9 million Lutherans in the United States, but 5 million in Africa and another 5 million in Asia. Brazil has over a million Lutherans, and it is one of the dominant religions of Papua New Guinea. In the United States, there are about the same number of Missouri Synod Lutherans (2.5 million) as there are Episcopalians.
To be sure, these numbers are uncertain and doubtless inflated, including state churches and those that have all but abandoned their heritage in favor of liberal theology or quasi-evangelicalism. Just as not all Catholics actually believe and practice their Catholicism, the same is true for Lutherans. Nevertheless, this many people consider themselves Lutherans and affirm, in their formal subscriptions, the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and salvation by grace through faith in the work of Jesus Christ.
Despite its size, the Lutheran Church seems almost unknown in American Christianity. Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, charismatics, and Calvinists are well represented in theological debates, opinion polls, and articles in Christian publications, but Lutherans-who have their own distinctive approach to everything from salvation to politics-are often theological wallflowers.
Billy Graham called Lutherans "the sleeping giant." If Lutheranism is the invisible Church, or, to paraphrase what Luther said of God, the Church that hides itself, this is partly its own fault and partly the result of its theological tension with American culture. Nevertheless, Lutheranism has much to offer Christendom as a whole. As a Church body with a thoroughly worked-out theology, which it actually follows, Lutheran denominations have retained their orthodoxy more successfully than most. But more than that, Lutheran theology-and spirituality-is animated by a dynamic polarity in which divisive theological controversies are put into balance and thus resolved.
Paradoxy
The distinctive characteristic of Lutheran theology is its affirmation of paradox. Calvin and Arminius both constructed systematic theologies, explaining away any contrary biblical data in a rationalistic system of belief. Luther developed his theology in Bible commentaries, following the contours of Scripture wherever they led and developing its most profound polarities: law and gospel; Christ as both true God and true Man; the Christian as simultaneously saint and sinner; justification by faith and baptismal regeneration; Holy Communion as the Real Presence of Christ in material bread and wine.
Not only have Lutherans always affirmed both "evangelical" and "Catholic" ideas, their way with paradox also resolves issues that have divided Protestants. Calvinists insist on salvation by grace alone to the extent of double predestination; Arminians insist that everyone, potentially, can be saved, and so stress the utter freedom of the will. Lutherans stress grace above all, that God does literally everything for our salvation, dying on the cross, with his Spirit breaking into our lives through Word and Sacrament, the means of grace. But Jesus died for all, and potentially anyone might be saved. Lutheranism affirms the best of both Calvinism and Arminianism, while avoiding the exclusivity of the one and the potential Pelagianism of the other. Charismatics emphasize the Holy Spirit-so do Lutherans, finding that Spirit not in the vagaries of human emotion but even more tangibly as being genuinely operative in the Word and Sacraments. Lutherans are fundamentalist in their doctrinal rigor, while excluding separatism and legalism. Lutheran cultural theology affirms Two Kingdoms, preventing the secular from swallowing up the sacred, and the sacred from swallowing up the secular. This explains why Lutherans can seem both inwardly focused and free and easy, why they seem conservative yet apolitical, and why they often have beer at their church dinners.
Lutheranism-with its sacramentalism and liturgical worship synthesized with its biblicism and evangelical proclamation-might serve as a bridge between the various factions of Christianity. Of course, it is not that simple.
If Lutheranism represents an "evangelical Catholicism" (a term favored by many confessional Lutherans), its paradoxes mean that it is likewise subject to attack from every side. Evangelicals consider it "too Catholic"-making fun of what they consider its stiff formality, its old-fashioned music, and its ancient liturgy and, more seriously, questioning how Lutherans can say salvation is by faith if they believe in baptismal regeneration and being appalled at the way the pastor says when he gives the absolution that he forgives people their sins. Catholics and Orthodox lump Lutheranism with all other Protestants-in fact, Lutherans are the worst Protestants because they started the dissolution of Christendom.
Within Protestantism, Calvinists attack Lutherans for "not going far enough in the Reformation," for keeping papistical practices and idolatrous worship. Arminians attack Lutherans for not believing in the freedom of the will and for leaving the door open to anti-nomianism. Charismatics think Lutherans are "cold." Fundamentalists say Lutherans are strong on doctrine but weak on morals.
And, just as the Lutheran framework seems to invite attacks from every side, Lutherans counterattack everyone else. Lutherans condemn Arminians for not believing in predestination and Calvinists for believing in double predestination. Catholics and charismatics are considered alike in believing that the Holy Spirit reveals himself in human beings, apart from the Word. Fundamentalists are savaged for their legalism. In fact, many Lutherans do not see themselves as being Protestant at all.
The Lutheran synthesis is a baroque structure that can only be held together by a doctrinal rigor that constantly reinforces every point. Anglicans attempt a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism, which works through compromise, broad consensus, and a tolerance for differences. The Lutheran way, on the other hand, is one of polarities. Each pole of the paradox must be maintained and heightened. What Chesterton said in Orthodoxy of the paradoxes of Christianity is particularly descriptive of Lutheran theology: "We want not an amalgam or compromise, but both things at the top of their energy; love and wrath both burning." Christianity does not approach doctrinal issues, such as the nature of Christ or the moral status of a human being, in terms of the Aristotelian golden mean. Rather, "Christianity got over the difficulty of combining furious opposites, by keeping them both, and keeping them both furious."
Thus, Lutherans are very sacramental and very evangelical. Anglicanism, even in its high-church phase, has always been dismissed by continental Lutherans as merely another variety of Reformed Calvinism, its articles being so wishy-washy in not clearly affirming the Real Presence. Evangelicals are not evangelical enough, falling as they do into the trap of "decision theology" and moralism, not trusting God to accomplish literally everything that is needful.
As a result, Lutheran theology, though embracing in one sense the whole range of Christian spirituality, is nevertheless an entity unto itself, with its own spiritual disciplines that are quite alien to those of other traditions. Consider, for example, the way Lutheranism opposes the so-called Theology (or rather, spirituality) of Glory-with its pretensions of power, victory, and earthly success-with the Theology of the Cross, in which God reveals himself in weakness, defeat, and failure. Or the Word of God, not merely as a sourcebook of information, but as a sacramental means of grace. Or the way God hides himself in what seems to be his opposite, in the material elements of the Sacraments, in humiliation and defeat, in what seems most secular and nonreligious. Or the exhilaration, under the gospel, of Christian freedom.
The Roots of American Lutheranism
An immigrant faith, like Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Lutheran churches had always been somewhat culturally isolated and highly conscious of their differences with mainstream American Protestantism. While German Lutherans came to Pennsylvania in colonial times and Scandinavian Lutherans settled in the upper Midwest, bringing their churches with them, another group came for a different reason.
In nineteenth-century Germany, efforts were being made by the post-Enlightenment princes to combine the various Protestant factions into a single, ecumenical, state church. Calvinists and Lutherans were forced to give up their doctrinal distinctiveness and combine into an "Evangelical and Reformed" church. ("Evangelical"-referring to the centrality of the gospel-is the preferred continental term for Lutheranism, as opposed to the "Reformed" Calvinists. Lutherans were thus the
first, and one might argue, the most quintessential Evangelicals.) The state churches so formed tended to foster a rationalistic, cultural religion-preaching new agricultural techniques and doctrines of social progress rather than the gospel-the fruit of the new liberal theology being developed in German seminaries. In the typical heavy-handed German way, pastors who opposed the ecumenical union were actually imprisoned, and the so-called "Old Lutherans" were persecuted. Scores of congregations that insisted on classical Lutheranism left everything they owned and settled in America. (Substantial numbers also went to other countries such as Australia, Africa, and Brazil.)
These formed the more conservative Lutheran denominations, such as the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod (terms that refer to the place of their historical origins and denominational headquarters), churches that, because of their history, would naturally be suspicious of ecumenism. Like the Catholics, these confessional Lutherans, recognizing that the Protestant civil religion of the public schools was inimical to their faith, established an extensive system of parochial schools to educate their children in a way that would be supportive of their faith. This strain of Lutherans thus resisted assimilation into the mainstream of American religious life. In terms of their "Two Kingdoms" theology, they assimilated quite well into American society and economic life, but their church was kept separate, untouched by the revivalism, the social gospel, religious individualism, and other trends of American religion.
Between Separatism & Accommodationism
But if one tendency in American Lutheranism is a certain separatism, the other part of the inevitable polarity is accomodationism. The colonial-era Lutherans and many of the Scandinavian settlers were not so strict as the religious refugees. Quite early, these Lutherans debated about to what extent they should adapt to the religious life of their new homeland. An important nineteenth-century theologian, Samuel Schmucker, went so far as to amend the Augsburg Confession to accommodate the new revivalism and a more Reformed view of the Sacraments. While many Lutherans went in this direction, another theologian, Charles Krauth, in a movement paralleling the Oxford movement within Anglicanism, championed a revival of confessionalism and liturgical renewal.
Ever since, American Lutherans have tended to vacillate between the poles of separatism and accommodationism. Historically, Lutheran denominations in America have tended to drift towards the religious mainstream, only to lurch back into their distinctiveness.
In this century, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) has gone through a particularly traumatic "civil war." Its seminary in St. Louis gradually began accepting other mainline Protestant denominations' approach to the Scriptures, employing the historical-critical method to cast doubt on the authority of the Bible and adopting other tenets of liberal theology. In the 1970s, "the battle of the Bible" erupted, as conservatives called "the moderates" on their unorthodox view of the Scriptures-the latter were expelled, set up a seminary of their own, and every congregation had to choose which side it would be on. Unlike what happened in other denominations, the liberals left and the conservatives retained control of the institution (rather than the conservatives leaving, which has usually been the case in other church bodies).
Today, the LCMS is facing a similar issue, only now the American religious mainstream is no longer liberalism but evangelicalism. Many Lutheran churches have been jettisoning their liturgy and their distinctive beliefs, in favor of emulating the Evangelicals, adapting techniques from the church-growth movement, singing "praise songs," preaching sermons on pop-psychology, and otherwise abandoning their spiritual heritage in favor of generic American Protestantism.
In the meantime, the moderates' exodus from the LCMS served as the catalyst for the union of the nation's more liberal Lutherans. The resulting Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) continued going the way of the rest of mainline Protestantism. The ordination of women, left-wing political advocacy, and the ecumenical movement have made them less distinctive, and more and more like generic American liberal Protestantism.
In some places, genuine Lutheranism-for all of the Lutheran churches-has become hard to find. But, as it always has, the pendulum may be starting to swing in the other direction.
Lutheran Confessionalism
Today, a new confessionalism is emerging in Lutheran circles. Just as many Lutheran churches are going the way of American evangelicalism in using praise bands and overhead projectors, others are reemphasizing the historic liturgy, chanting the service and signing themselves with the Holy Cross. Many parishes have reinstituted the ancient Lutheran practice of private confession and absolution.
The most rigorously confessional Lutheran pastors can be recognized by their black shirts and white clerical collars, the priest-like garb worn by traditional holders of the pastoral office before they adopted the American-style minister's coat and tie. All Lutheran pastors wear the collar; the arch-confessionalists are distinguished by wearing it practically all the time.
This confessionalism can appear formidable. Closed Communion (sharing the Lord's Supper only with those who agree on every point of doctrine), a genuine pastoral authority, rigorous catechetical instruction for converts, and forthright practices (such as no weddings during Lent, and no congratulatory eulogies during funerals), can be off-putting in America's easy-going culture. But confessionalism is not the same as conservatism. During the LCMS controversy over the Bible, high-church ceremonialists tended to be on the liberal side; today, while theologically orthodox, they stand against the evangelical and fundamentalist tendencies within the church.
Lutherans allow a measure of freedom in practice, while insisting on agreement in doctrine (unlike, say, the Anglican tradition which has tended to stress uniformity of worship forms while allowing for doctrinal latitude). Conservative denominations such as the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods remain rigorously confessional, in the sense of upholding the creeds and formulas of the Book of Concord, though they are presently torn by controversies over worship styles. That style is expressive of confession, though, is becoming more and more evident, and serious fault lines seem to be manifesting themselves within the conservative Lutheran denominations. Most Lutherans today are somewhere along the spectrum between the two poles of low-church informality and high-church ceremonialism.
Nevertheless, it is surely significant that many of the most ardently confessional pastors, those who are most concerned to bring back the Lutheran traditions in both doctrine and worship, are those straight out of seminary. The younger pastors, the new generation, seem to be the ones most concerned to recover their Lutheran distinctiveness.
In the meantime, Lutherans are starting to get their share of disaffected Evangelicals-casualties of megachurches and refugees from generic American Protestantism, Christians looking for meaningful worship and theological depth-as well as Catholics dismayed by the post-Vatican II liberalism within their Church, and burnt-out secularists who, broken by the law and renewed by the gospel, have come to Christ.
Anti-Ecumenism
Confessional Lutherans are not ecumenical. They will never join the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the World Council of Churches. Lutheran institutions are so big-with their network of schools, colleges, publishing houses, and denominational services-that they can be rather insulated and self-contained. Though the ELCA has pioneered ecumenical dialogue with the Reformed, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics-to the point of claiming to have found agreement with Rome on justification by faith-the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods will have none of that. Their wariness of ecumenical union and, even more profoundly, of American-style Christianity has kept them out of the mainstream, but it has kept them relatively true to their theology.
Any genuine ecumenism must avoid simply emptying Christianity of its distinctive content and must somehow affirm what is most salient, what is most "Christian," in the whole spectrum of Christian belief, from traditional Catholicism to Protestant fundamentalism. Lutheranism, while eschewing ecumenism as such, provides a framework-or, rather, a set of polarities-by which this might be done.
Many confessional Lutherans have taken to calling themselves "evangelical catholics." They are catholic in their historic creeds, their worship, and their sacramentalism, and they are evangelical in their trust in the good news of Christ, that in his cross he has saved us by sheer grace for a life of Christian freedom. Others are calling themselves "confessing Evangelicals," allying with Reformed Christians to call today's doctrinally shallow Evangelicals to the historic confessions of faith forged by the Reformation. From the Lutheran perspective, mere Catholics are in need of evangelical reformation, and mere Evangelicals are in need of historic orthodoxy. The theological formulas that purport to show how both of these tasks can be done are collected in a volume appropriately titled The Book of Concord. For Lutherans, such an approach represents nothing other than mere Christianity.
Gene Edward Veith is Professor of Humanities and Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Concordia UniversityWisconsin. He is the author of eight books-including Postmodern Times, Reading Between the Lines: A Christian Guide to Literature, and Reformation Spirituality: The Religion of George Herbert-and numerous essays on Christianity, culture, and the arts. He is a member of First Immanuel Lutheran Church in Cedarburg, Wisconsin, a congregation of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
2004-04-24 21:09 | User Profile
"If Lutheranism is the invisible Church, or, to paraphrase what Luther said of God, the Church that hides itself, this is partly its own fault and partly the result of its theological tension with American culture. Nevertheless, Lutheranism has much to offer Christendom as a whole. As a Church body with a thoroughly worked-out theology, which it actually follows, Lutheran denominations have retained their orthodoxy more successfully than most. But more than that, Lutheran theology-and spirituality-is animated by a dynamic polarity in which divisive theological controversies are put into balance and thus resolved."
2004-04-24 21:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Despite its size, the Lutheran Church seems almost unknown in American Christianity. Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, charismatics, and Calvinists are well represented in theological debates, opinion polls, and articles in Christian publications, but Lutherans-who have their own distinctive approach to everything from salvation to politics-are often theological wallflowers.
Lutherans also outnumber Calvinist Presbyterians/Reformed in N. America by a ratio of 3-4:1, so it's ironic that the Calvinists dominate the debate way out of proportion to their numbers.
The Baptists and other sundry American evangelicals I can understand, from sheer weight of numbers, their higher view of the Law, and the resulting confusion they have in separating the Biblically-defined missions of the Church (saving souls) and civil government (maintaining order). It's no wonder Baptists and others are in the limelight when they foolishly believe that government can impart Christian morality to society.
Lutherans are fundamentalist in their doctrinal rigor, while excluding separatism and legalism.
I don't think Veith is being entirely candid here. He comes from a modern Missouri Synod perspective, with its increasing tolerance for ecumenism and liberalized doctrine. Back during the early 20th Century Scopes Monkey Trial era, when modernism was destroying American Christianity, the Southern Baptists and the (Old) Missouri Synod remained the strongholds of fundamentalism in American Christianity:
"Fundamentalism had great appeal for Protestants who found Liberalismââ¬â¢s gospel a very thin soup, and who were looking for the same kind of religious "certainties" which the Roman Catholic Church promises to its adherents. During the 1920s and 1930s, Liberalism and Fundamentalism waged a titanic struggle for control of Protestant denominations in America. When the smoke of battle cleared, the Liberals had apparently won in most of the major communions. But Fundamentalists were clearly dominant in two large denominations ââ¬â the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church ââ¬â Missouri Synod. They also held sway in scores of smaller denominations (including some which split off from the major Methodist and Presbyterian bodies during the struggle). And there were Fundamentalist minorities of various sizes in other Protestant communions."
From [url=http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1564]Whatââ¬â¢s the Difference? A Comparison of the Faiths Men Live By[/url], by Louis Cassels
Furthermore, conservative Lutherans have always been highly separatist in that they require complete doctrinal agreement before fellowship with other Christian bodies (include other Lutherans) can be established--after all, it is the body of Christ at stake in Communion--and this has extended significantly into their worldviews. It explains why the Missouri Synod used to have a quality parochial school system second only to American Catholicism in size--Lutherans wanted their kids to have a frankly conservative Lutheran education. When my parents were growing up in rural Minnesota, it was not uncommon for their playmates to be restricted to kids who were also Missouri Synod Lutherans, and from research I have done on the Internet, this was a relatively common practice among midwestern Lutheran families.
So it's no surprise that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod--the most conservative of the "national" Lutheran bodies--is still very separatist, though I would say less so than the pre-WW2 Missouri Synod was.
And some vestiges of Lutheran separatism still come through even in Modern Missouri, hence the national flap in the Synod over Rev. Benke praying with pagans at a post 9/11 memorial service in Yankee Stadium.
EDIT: Veith vindicates himself later in the article WRT Missouri/Wisconsin Synod separatism. This is a really good article. I think, however, he paints Modern Missouri as being a good deal more conservative than it really is overall.
2004-04-25 06:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE]EDIT: Veith vindicates himself later in the article WRT Missouri/Wisconsin Synod separatism. This is a really good article. I think, however, he paints Modern Missouri as being a good deal more conservative than it really is overall.[/QUOTE]
Could you please link to that article?
I grew up around Lutherans, and I was aware of the acute disagreements between the Missouri and Wisconsin synods, but I never really delved into the differences because it just wans't something you discussed much in Wisconsin.
That split happened in the 1950's, I believe, and I know that nerves were still really raw in the 1960's when I was a kid.
Walter
2004-04-25 15:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Could you please link to that article?
I grew up around Lutherans, and I was aware of the acute disagreements between the Missouri and Wisconsin synods, but I never really delved into the differences because it just wans't something you discussed much in Wisconsin.
That split happened in the 1950's, I believe, and I know that nerves were still really raw in the 1960's when I was a kid.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Walter,
The [url=http://www.lcms.org/]Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS)[/url], [url=http://www.wels.net]Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)[/url], and [url=http://www.evluthsyn.org/]Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS)[/url] all used to be in fellowship with each other under the auspices of an organization called the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America.
The Lutheran Hymnal, (c) 1941 by Concordia Publishing House (LCMS's publishing arm) was authorized, accepted and used by all three synods, and represents the last time confessional Lutherans had a common book of worship with the historic liturgy. Not surprisingly, ultra-conservative Lutherans still insist on using it. Nowadays, the LCMS and WELS/ELS use different, modern hymnals for the most part, though the 1941 Hymnal is still authorized for use in all three, and can sometimes be found in conservative congregations.
The ELS broke fellowship with the Missouri Synod in 1955, as did WELS in 1961. Today, WELS and ELS are in fellowship with one another and the old Synodical Conference is defunct. (Internationally, the LCMS relates to the [url=http://www.ilc-online.org/]International Lutheran Council[/url], while WELS/ELS relate to the [url=http://www.celc.info/cgi-bin/home.cgi]Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference[/url]. Unlike the liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), none of these Lutheran bodies is a member of the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, or the Lutheran World Federation.)
This article about the whole affair may interest you:
[url=http://www.concordtx.org/msnews/elstalks.htm]Reasons Why the Evangelical Lutheran Synod Declined Kieschnickââ¬â¢s Invitation to Doctrinal Discussions[/url]
There are also some smaller Lutheran bodies even to the right of WELS/ELS, such as the [url=http://clclutheran.org/]Church of the Lutheran Confession[/url] and the [url=http://www.lcrusa.org/]Lutheran Churches of the Reformation[/url], which is unabashedly pre-1932 Missouri Synod in doctrine and practice.
A couple years ago I found this chart from a confessional Lutheran church in Argentina, and it does a good job of laying out the doctrinal differences between today's Lutheran bodies:
[url=http://centinel.freeshell.org/luth.html]Comparison of Lutheran Doctrines[/url]
2004-04-25 15:52 | User Profile
Thanks, Centinel, I'll check it out.
Walter
2004-05-04 02:57 | User Profile
The Lutherans and the Methodists are the only two Churches which the True Church feels aligned with. Lutherans have to let by-gones be by-gones..... yes we has St. Peter's Basilica to build, but that was ages ago, in another world, literally. The Catholic Church still holdds you under its umbreella, as long as you stay the course. In reality, The Lutherans and Methodists through DEED have shown their acknowledgement of the Truth. But by doing so, they are only showing their true stripes .. do not think that the Catholic Church is bad, those days 500 years ago, where there was scandal concerning questionable Popes ( before Infallibilty ) created the Renasissance and all it did for Western Civilization, namely, made it happen. Come back, we are all brothers, come into the Church. Do not let the perrsonal desires of a King let you decide who is in union with Christ !!!!!!!!!!!!!
2004-05-04 18:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Lutherans have to let by-gones be by-gones.....
A Statement Regarding The Signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification on October 31, 1999 in Augsburg Germany
*Of the Antichrist
As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2: 3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed hirn through the Reformation these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles. Triglot, p. 515, @ _ 39 to . 1; p. 401, _ 45; M., pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles. Triglot, p. 475, @ _ 10; M, p. 308.) *
--from the [url=http://www.lcrusa.org/brief_statement.htm]Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod[/url], Concordia Publishing House, 1932
2004-05-05 11:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]* A Betrayal of the Gospel
A Statement Regarding The Signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification on October 31, 1999 in Augsburg Germany
*Of the Antichrist
As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2: 3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist "as God sitteth in the temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ's sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed hirn through the Reformation these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles. Triglot, p. 515, @ _ 39 to . 1; p. 401, _ 45; M., pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is "the very Antichrist." (Smalcald Articles. Triglot, p. 475, @ _ 10; M, p. 308.) *
--from the [url=http://www.lcrusa.org/brief_statement.htm]Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod[/url], Concordia Publishing House, 1932[/QUOTE]
I don't see how anyone could write that, having read the Anathemas of the Council of Trent. The first one makes it clear that we are saved through faith.
Walter
2004-05-05 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I don't see how anyone could write that, having read the Anathemas of the Council of Trent. The first one makes it clear that we are saved through faith.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Walter,
From the LCMS FAQs:
[url=http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2212]Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification[/url]
Q. I would like to understand the main problem your church body has with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (signed October 31 by representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church). Is it the fact that it implies that we are saved as a result of both faith and works?
A. Yes, you are on the right track here. The recently signed Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) does not signal a change in the Roman Catholic church, but rather, a willingness on the part of the Lutherans who signed it to allow Rome's doctrine of justification to stand as a valid interpretation of what the Bible teaches us about justification. This is something that the Lutheran church has never done before, and in fact, it is a great tragedy and a profoundly sad moment in the history of Lutheranism.
Rome historically has always taught that we are saved by grace, and grace alone. They emphasize that very strongly. The 16th century Council of Trent makes this point very clear. Thus, there is nothing new on this in the Declaration on this point, even though some Lutherans have made it sound as if Rome's words about grace signal some marvelous breakthrough.
What you probably have not heard is that the JDDJ very carefully avoid precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification.
**The problem with Rome's view of justification is that they view it as a process, whereby we cooperate with God's grace in order to merit eternal life for ourselves, and even for others (that is a paraphrase of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches). They view grace as a sort of "substance" that God infuses into us that permits us to do those works that are necessary in order that we might earn more grace. The Bible describes grace as the loving and favorable disposition of God; in other words, grace is all about what God is doing and giving. **
We distinguish between the result of justification, which is the Christian life, and the work of God to save us. Rome mixes sanctification with justification. Why is this view troublesome? Because it teaches that something other than trust in Christ is necessary for or salvation. That "something other" is what we bring to the table. And the only thing we do bring to the table is our sin, not our good works. Our works are a response that God works in us, but not a contributing cause to our justification.
The Roman Catholic Church is very careful to state that even this "something other" is made possibly only because God has given us the "initial" grace to desire more grace. But in practical reality, it is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church is finally throwing people back on relying on what they are doing, or can do, to merit eternal life. When we mix in our works in the picture of our salvation, the glory and merit of Christ always end up becoming obscured.
But the Bible is clear that it is purely by grace, not by works, or else grace would just be a "help" for us to do the works that finally are what merit God's forgiveness. In the Roman Catholic view, justification is a process by which we participate with God in achieving our salvation. The Biblical view is that justification is God's declaration of our complete righteousness and total forgiveness, apart from any works. This gift is received by faith alone--apart from works (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8-9).
Another point to be made is this: If, in fact, Rome does teach justification as the Bible teaches it, then there should be an immediate change in its view of indulgences, prayer to the saints and the myriad of other extra-biblical traditions that it has embraced. For if justification is the heart and center of the Bible, then these other things are incompatible with it.
I hope this helps you see that the Roman Catholic view of justification and the classical Lutheran view are definitely not complementary, but diametrically opposed to one another. The JDDJ did not change that fact. The Lutherans who signed the document did not insist on careful definition of terms so as to make absolutely clear that our salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone, by grace alone.
The best short study of the historic differences between Rome and Lutheranism on the doctrine of justification is available in a book called "Justification and Rome" by Robert Preus. You may purchase a copy of this book from Concordia Publishing House (CPH) (800-325-3040).
The most complete treatment of this subject is in the 16th century Lutheran response to Trent, which still stands today as the best and most complete treatment of Trent by a Lutheran. It is "The Examination of the Council of Trent" by Martin Chemnitz, also available through CPH.
2004-05-06 04:20 | User Profile
This is semantics. The fact is that there can be no godly works but through Grace. The infusement of the Holy Spirit is tantamount to the secondary ability of performing actual works. Without Grace, there can be no Works. Very clear, isn't it ?
2004-05-06 08:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Without Grace, there can be no Works. [/QUOTE]
Very true ED, but do they then infuse any saving merit for the regenerate or are they still sin-tainted and therefore in and of themselves unacceptable to God?
2004-05-08 01:12 | User Profile
Tex, I'm surprised you ask that question, you and I both know what the answer is. Perhaps you are wondering about me, because I know some of my statements have been heavy handed. The answer is, of course they can be forgiven, all they have to do is TRULY be sorry for their sins, and make a TRULY honest account of all their sins, vowing to lead a new life.. not only according to the Word, but doing more through Works, because those who have commitest the gravest of sins OWE it back, and the Holy Spirit will sustain, guide, and gradually come back into their soul when and Only when they beg their new Saviour to come back as the ruler of their Conscience.. At that moment, and only through total honesty, can they be brought back into the Father's House. And as is the case with us All, no human is rubber stamped into Heaven.
2004-05-08 01:29 | User Profile
In addition, I must say, that if said person has not the ability to perform Works, such as in the conditions of physical inability or mental incapacity, then the ultimate judge can only be God. The Sacrament of Confession grants forgiveness only when the desire to REPENT is manifest in the Confessor. He or She must also make PENANCE. In rare cases where the ability to make Penance is not attainable, such as in Last Rites, the Confessor can take solace in the safeguard of the Church and its blessings, and only God can decide in his Holiness whether or not that person intended to make true Penance.
2004-05-08 01:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Very true ED, but do they then infuse any saving merit for the regenerate or are they still sin-tainted and therefore in and of themselves unacceptable to God?[/QUOTE]
that's a separate question all together. You appear to be asking, in other words, " What if a man who is athiest or insolent to God still performs " good " works, is that the same " ?
Of course not. Any man can commit so-called good deeds. They can even be self-serving. But in the case they are not self-serving and the non believer performs truly good deeds, then this is an example of how some are actually infused in the Holy Spirit, and do not know it as such. For example, a Muslim man sees an American soldier bleeding and dying, and takes her into a hospital , treating her to save her life with very possible risks to his own life.. thats what happenned with Jessica Lynch. That man might only believe that Jesus was a Prophet, Not God incarnate, but God / Jesus knows better than we do.. he does not deal in human distinctions. Jesus can work within those who do not " formally " acknowledge him as God the Father. That's part of the true magic of Christ.
2004-05-11 15:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]The Sacrament of Confession grants forgiveness only when the desire to REPENT is manifest in the Confessor. He or She must also make PENANCE. [/QUOTE]
Hello ED. Please pardon my ignorance, but could you point me to the Scriptural support for the 'penance' condition you state above? I'm just trying to get my mind around this thing.
2004-05-11 15:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]You appear to be asking, in other words, " What if a man who is athiest or insolent to God still performs " good " works, is that the same " ?[/QUOTE]
No, I'll try to rephrase it: For the regenerated, do works performed because of God's Grace infuse any kind of saving merit or justification into the person?
2004-05-15 13:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Hello ED. Please pardon my ignorance, but could you point me to the Scriptural support for the 'penance' condition you state above? I'm just trying to get my mind around this thing.[/QUOTE]
[URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm]Here's[/URL] a Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Sacrament of Penance.
Basically, Christ had the power to forgive sins because he was God (Matthew 9: 2-7), and Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins when he bestowed the Holy Ghost upon them with his breath (John 20: 21-23). The Apostles passed that power down to us via [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm]apostolic succession[/URL].
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-29 00:03 | User Profile
I just opened this thread for the first time. It is very interesting. I need to digest it. Thank you to all who contributed the wealth of information.
2004-05-29 00:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I just opened this thread for the first time. It is very interesting. I need to digest it. Thank you to all who contributed the wealth of information.[/QUOTE]
Hello AOR. Several members here have expressed to me that this article made an impression upon them. I first read this piece by Veith as an addition to his book [url=http://shop.cph.org/Product.pasp?txtCatalog=CPHProduct&txtCategory=&txtProductID=123371]The Sprituality of the Cross[/url].
If you are interested, in layman's terms the book greatly expands on some of the themes of the article and much more. It is very readable and I found it quite informative when I moved into the Lutheran church-Missouri Synod. If you have any specific questions about anything, please post them here and I or others will try to provide an answer. Best regards to you.
2005-03-14 11:09 | User Profile
This is a thread I'm following with interest as I recently left the Catholic Church to join the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America - ELCA.
Ecumenicism doesn't bother me so much as inter-religious dialogue with Jews and Moslems, with its underlying premise that Christians have something to learn from those faiths, which I vehemently deny, as I hold that Christ is against Judaism and Islam, and outside of Christ there is only damnation. (In another thread I was helped to remain firm in these convictions.)
I affirm double predestination as the Calvinists do - and as Lutherans don't - in other words I hold that God chooses who will follow Christ and be saved and who will follow something other than Christ and be damned. I can affirm this because I know from personal experience that Christ is chasing me all the time - He won't leave me alone. Even when I try to turn away from Him He stops me. Clearly He has decided that I will follow Him and He has imposed His omnipotent will upon me. I can say this because I am living it. I watch it happen. Logically, then, if He can do this with me, He could do this with anyone. If He doesn't, it must be His choice, as His omnipotence cannot be overcome, so if someone isn't saved, it must be because God has declined to lift a finger. Hence double predestination.
Anyone who affirms double predestination finds it easy to affirm that salvation is by grace alone. Grace is nothing other than predestination unfolding in my life. It is also easy to affirm that salvation occurs in Christ alone. Predestination is nothing other than God's selection of a soul for Christ. As for faith alone - this is the easiest of all, because faith and salvation are one thing, not two things. Faith is salvation. Salvation is faith. To walk in faith is to be saved. To be saved is to walk in faith. To understand this it is necessary to live it. Life in faith is different in kind from life outside of faith. The creature captured by faith in Christ differs in essence from the creature lost in the wilderness outside of faith in Christ.
All of this is biblical and easy to defend by Scripture. Where the modern churches fall down is their unwilling to choose Scripture over political correctness. The bible isn't multicultural. The bible isn't universalist. The bible isn't tolerant. The bible divides people into those who will be on Christ's left and those who will be on Christ's right - and the first will be sent away from Him while the second remain at His side.
As for ecumenicism - I think it's misguided to the extent that it focuses on abolishing theological differences. Better would be to allow each denomination to follow its conscience on theological questions, while uniting all of Christendom in a spiritual struggle against atheism, Judaism, and Islam. Let Baptists be Baptists and Lutherans be Lutherans - and let all Christians be Christians in public defiance of whatever isn't Christian at all.
2005-03-14 18:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petrocco]This is a thread I'm following with interest as I recently left the Catholic Church to join the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America - ELCA.
Hello and welcome, Petrocco. It's always a great pleasure for me to have a fellow Lutheran come on board.
Ecumenicism doesn't bother me so much as inter-religious dialogue with Jews and Moslems, with its underlying premise that Christians have something to learn from those faiths, which I vehemently deny, as I hold that Christ is against Judaism and Islam, and outside of Christ there is only damnation.
I agree with that. Not to be too critical, but I believe most of your problem with ecumenicism and interfaith 'dialogue' stems from the ELCA itself as those two things seem to be the primary focus of that particular synod. Without a doubt they are far and away the most liberal of all the Lutheran synods. I may be wrong, but I don't believe any other synod is still in communion with them. Now I'm sure there are still some good individual churches within the ELCA and I hope that yours is one of them, but one the whole they have some real doctrinal and ecclesiastical problems, in my opinion.
I affirm double predestination as the Calvinists do - and as Lutherans don't - in other words I hold that God chooses who will follow Christ and be saved and who will follow something other than Christ and be damned...Logically, then, if He can do this with me, He could do this with anyone. If He doesn't, it must be His choice, as His omnipotence cannot be overcome, so if someone isn't saved, it must be because God has declined to lift a finger. Hence double predestination.
That's a pretty good synopsis of the difference between Lutheran single predestination and Reformed double predestination. The key word is 'logically'. Lutherans on the whole refuse to go beyond the plain words of Scripture. In short, we confess that the elect are predestined (Romans 8, Ephesians 1), but God loves all the world (John 3:16) and desires that all come to faith in Christ (2 Pet. 3:9).
Grace is nothing other than predestination unfolding in my life. It is also easy to affirm that salvation occurs in Christ alone. Predestination is nothing other than God's selection of a soul for Christ.
Predestination is the objective assurance of the immutability of God's divine will, a most critical doctrine without which we remain mired in a spiritual wilderness constantly doubting our salvation and/or whether or not we have done things right. If we believe that God cannot act to save us until our 'decision' and/or 'invitation', then how can we be sure he is able to work any other promise He makes in Scripture.
Welcome to the board and I hope you find something of worth here.
2005-03-14 19:50 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Lutherans on the whole refuse to go beyond the plain words of Scripture. In short, we confess that the elect are predestined (Romans 8, Ephesians 1), but God loves all the world (John 3:16) and desires that all come to faith in Christ (2 Pet. 3:9)." [/I] [/B]
This sounds a rather reasonable and Scriptural attitude to me - sometimes I get the feeling that those Calvinists who dogmatically insist on the double predestination want to defend God's sovereignty and honor even more than He Himself does:
[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Acts 10:14-15:
But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." [/COLOR]
That is, ultra-Calvinists want to be even purer and more uncompromising than His revealed Word requires...
Petr
2005-03-14 20:20 | User Profile
An informative article in defense of 'double' predestination:
[url=http://www.fivesolas.com/dblpred.htm]Double Predestination[/url] by RC Sproul
2005-03-14 23:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petrocco]This is a thread I'm following with interest as I recently left the Catholic Church to join the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America - ELCA. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Hello and welcome, Petrocco. It's always a great pleasure for me to have a fellow Lutheran come on board. [/QUOTE][QUOTE] [url="http://www.religioscope.info/article_68.shtml"][font=Times New Roman][size=3][color=#800080]http://www.religioscope.info/article_68.shtml[/color][/size][/font][/url]
| [size=2][left][/size][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]23 [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] | [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][left]Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] |
| [left]James 2:[font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]24[/size][/font] [/left] [size=2][left][/size] [/left] | [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][left]Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] |
| [left]2 :[font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]26 [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] | [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][left]For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead. [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] |
[font=Arial][size=3]"Laugh-in" recently presented its "Flying Fickle Finger of Fate" award to state automobile-license bureaus that sell names and addresses for direct-mail advertising. I have no idea whether this is the source of the vast quantities of junk mail I receive; perhaps such mail simply represents one of the occupational hazards of the ministry. The invitations to join Hefner's Bunny Clubs at a reduced rate I can stand (they are invariably well printed); what I have great difficulty in tolerating is the not inconsiderable quantity of politically rightist propaganda misdirected to me, Behind it seems to lie the thoroughly fallacious assumption that anyone who is "conservative" theologically must of course believe that the United States is "God's country" and must join the crusade to. "bring America back to the Christian political philosophy of the Founding Fathers." That this viewpoint is by no means limited to pamphleteers was evident when I received as a Christmas gift from an evangelical publisher Benjamin Weiss' book, God in American History, whose preface sets the tone of the entire volume: "The purpose of this book is to present documentary evidence that the source of our nation's strength from its beginning has been faith in God. . . Schools, colleges, charitable institutions, hospitals, orphanages, and other institutions are monumental proof of the Christian character of the United States." Now there is an element of truth in these. claims. As the dean of American church historians, William Warren Sweet, pointed out in his epochal work Religion in Colonial America, the biblical orthodoxy of seventeenth-century colonists cannot be disputed, nor can the religious motivations leading to Puritan and Pilgrim settlement in the new world. Such influence continued in the eighteenth century: "between 1717 and the Revolutionary War some quarter of a million Ulstermen came to America" (J. G. Leyburn, The Scotch-Irish: A Social History), and these Ulster Scots were the products of a strict yet dynamic Presbyterian confessionalism. Moreover, the "natural rights" theory underlying the Declaration of Independence had its direct source not in the thought of French philosophes but in the work of Christian philosopher John Locke, and his ideas in this regard can be traced back to medieval Christian 'natural law." Thus the efforts of Mrs. O'Hare and her ilk to rewrite American history in unqualifiedly atheistic terms are doomed to failure. But what about the opposite viewpoint with which we began-the view that equates America with "God's country"? This stands no greater chance of success, and in fact turns out to be a kind of reverse mirror image of Mrs. O'Hare Oust as extreme left and extreme right tend to display the same mentality across the political spectrum). The most influential Founding Fathers of the eighteenth century were not Christian in any biblical sense of the term: they were either outright deists or mediating religious liberals. Among the deists were Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin. Jefferson had so little respect for the Scriptures that he created his own Bible-the so-called Jefferson Bible consisting of the ethical teachings of the New Testament (with the miraculous and divine aspects of Jesus' life carefully excised). Julian P. Boyd's account of The Spirit of Christmas at Monticello is a chilling barometer of the kind of religion maintained by one who endeavored, in his own words, "to shew by example the sufficiency of human reason." Paine's Age of Reason set forth the religion of deism as a specific alternative and corrective to historic Christianity. The "Book of Nature" was now to replace the "Book of Scripture," and Paine devoted the entire second half of his work to a demonstration of alleged errors, contradictions, and immoralities in biblical religion. As for Franklin, though his motion in behalf of morning prayer at the Constitutional Convention in 1789 has led some to speculate that he experienced Christian conversion before his death, there is no doubt that deism and not Christian belief informed his political action during his career. George Whitefield found it necessary to confront Franklin with the claims of Christ throughout their long acquaintance. Wrote Whitefield on one occasion: "As you have made a pretty considerable progress in the mysteries of electricity, I would now humbly recommend to your diligent unprejudiced pursuit and study the mystery of the new birth' If outspoken deists were few in number among the Founding Fathers, their influence was nonetheless considerable. Their philosophy of the natural goodness of man entered directly into the foundation documents of the nation. And the opponents of deism among the Fathers of our country were not so much spokesmen of historic Christianity as advocates of religious liberalism who considered deism too radical. The liberals themselves "generally held an Arian view of Jesus" (H. S. Smith, American Christianity, I [1960], 487), and therefore found deistic anthropology quite hospitable. In many ways the American frontier experience reinforced the anthropocentric self-confidence instilled by the Founding Fathers. F.J. Turner observed the "do-it-yourself' kind of religion which so easily developed in a frontier situation where self-reliance was the prime virtue. Americans have not generally been known for a sense of unworthiness or a willingness to accept aid from others-though such attitudes are fundamental to the Christian Gospel ("Except ye become as little children . . ."; "I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance"). Bertrand Russell shrewdly points up an American characteristic of which Americans themselves are often oblivious: [/size][/font] [indent][font=Arial][size=3]If Job had been reincarnated as an inhabitant of New York, and had been twitted, as the original Job was, with the great size of Leviathan and Behemoth, he would have been unimpressed, and would have replied: "Gee, they ain't half as big as a skyscraper." (The Impact of America on European Culture, 1951, pp. 9,10).[/size][/font][/indent] [font=Arial][size=3]In reality, ours is no more "God's country" than is any other part of this sin-impregnated globe. We are not the Israelite theocracy repristinated, nor are we the pinnacle of Christian civilization. What we have accomplished positively as a nation is due, not to ourselves, but to God's grace. And for our Hiroshimas and My Lai massacres we stand under the wrath of the Almighty just as others do for their Pearl Harbors and Buchenwalds. Perhaps the judgment against us is even greater, "for unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." Let us therefore demythologize our American religion, cease our presumptive removal of motes from the eyes of other nations and ideologies, and return to the Christ who stands in judgment (and-praise heaven-in grace!) over the history of all peoples. [/size][/font] |
| [size=2][left][/size][font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]23 [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] | [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][left]Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] |
| [left]James 2:[font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]24[/size][/font] [/left] [size=2][left][/size] [/left] | [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][left]Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] |
| [left]2 :[font=Trebuchet MS][size=2]26 [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] | [font=Trebuchet MS][size=2][left]For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead. [/left] [/size][/font][size=2][left][/size] [/left] |