Home > Christian Life > Aversion to Sanctification Caused by Phobic Allergic Reaction to Any Talk About Good Works

Aversion to Sanctification Caused by Phobic Allergic Reaction to Any Talk About Good Works

February 25th, 2013
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com

 

In light of some recent comments I’ve run across again on this issue, it’s time once more for the “Aversion to Sanctification” blog post, since the problem persists and appears to have become part-and-parcel of what some perceive to a confessional Lutheran understanding of God’s Word.

More recent examples of this problem in action include a pastor posting a picture of a guy giving “the finger” and claiming there is nothing wrong with that and defending it, continued comments about how no matter what good works are done they are still “sinful,” and the ongoing effort to turn every comment in the Scriptures about the good works to which we are called into a discussion about the second use of the law, virtually laughing off Proverbs 31 and saying that text does not really apply to individuals but is really about Christ and the Church. I’ve had occasion, unfortunately, to observe pastors in my church body defending the use of obscenity and profanity. Why? Because they are “free” in Christ to do. I wish I was making this kind of thing up.

I think the comment that took the prize was posted on my Facebook wall some time ago where the text of God’s Word was actually twisted to the point that the that indicates that God has prepared good works for us to walk in, to read “good work upon which God has prepared us to work” thus not about good works, but about Christ. All these things are put forward with the best of intentions, but they betray an unhealthy lack of balance and understanding on these issues.

I read recently a lay Lutheran theologian taking broad swipes with little understanding of the subject about which he was speaking, and, I should note, this lay theologian is a disciple and fan of Gerhard Forde, whose writings I have always found to be remarkably unremarkable and, in fact, a cause of some of the problems we have on these issues. As one wag put it, the only thing he finds helpful in Forde’s writings is when he is quoting Martin Luther. Keep in mind that Forde denied the Biblical teaching concerning the atonement, the very heart of the Gospel itself, and from there he went wrong on sanctification, the law, good works and a whole host of other Christian doctrines. My advice for any seminarian or college student reading this is: put away Forde and take up much better resources on Lutheran theology!

The memory of a most disturbing conversation with two younger men I had some time ago still is as fresh as ever. They were gleefully asserting that listening to the audio pornography and vile filth of Eminem is appropriate for Christians. One suggested that because only what comes out of a man is what makes him sinful that it matters not what he sees, or hears, as a Christian. These two young men are sadly typical of a poorly formed understanding of the life of good works to which we are called as Christians that seems pandemic in the Christian Church, where apparently some can wax eloquent about how they are striving to be faithful to God’s Word, but then turn right around and wallow in the mire and squalor of sin. This all the more underscores for me the point that we have a serious lack of emphasis on the call to holy living and good works which is part-and-parcel of our new life in Christ, truths that have, apparently until recently, been taught in our beloved Lutheran church. There is much teaching that is not being done, that must done. Simply repeating formulas and phrases about justification is not teaching and preaching the whole counsel of God. Comforting people with the Gospel when there is no genuine repentance for sin is doing them a disservice. There is a serious “short circuit” here that we need to be mindful of. Let this be clear. Listening to the “music” of swine such as Eminem is sinful and willfully choosing to listen to it is sin that drives out the Holy Spirit. This is deadly serious business. Deadly. Serious.

Pastors who wash their hands of this responsibility claiming that they want to avoid interjecting law into their sermons when they have preached the Gospel are simply shirking their duty as preachers and are being unfaithful to God’s Word.

We have done such a fine job explaining that we are not saved by works that we have, I fear, neglected to urge the faithful to lives of good works as faithfully and clearly as we should. This should not be so among us brethren. Parenesis is lacking in much preaching and teaching. Sermons become a never ending recitation of the doctrine of justification, as if that is the only doctrine taught in Holy Scripture.

I’m growing increasingly concerned that with the necessary distinction between faith and works that we must always maintain, we Lutherans are tempted to speak of good works and the life of sanctification in such a way as to either minimize it, or worse yet, neglect it. I read sermons and hear comments that give me the impression that some Lutherans think that good works are something that “just happen” on some sort of a spiritual auto-pilot. Concern over a person believing their works are meritorious has led to what borders on paranoia to the point that good works are simply not taught or discussed as they should be. It seems some have forgotten that in fact we do confess three uses of the law, not just a first or second use.

The Apostle, St. Paul, never ceases to urge good works on his listeners nad readers. I recall a conversation once with a person who should know better telling me that the exhortations to good works and lengthy discussions of sanctification we find in the New Testament are not a model at all for preaching, since Paul is not “preaching” but rather writing a letter. This is not a good thing.

A number of years ago an article appeared that put matters well and sounded a very important word of warning and caution. It is by Professor Kurt E. Marquart of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I strongly encourage you to give it your most serious attention.

Antinomian Aversion to Sanctification?

An emerited brother writes that he is disturbed by a kind of preaching that avoids sanctification and “seemingly questions the Formula of Concord . . . about the Third Use of the Law.” The odd thing is that this attitude, he writes, is found among would-be confessional pastors, even though it is really akin to the antinomianism of “Seminex”! He asks, “How can one read the Scriptures over and over and not see how much and how often our Lord (in the Gospels) and the Apostles (in the Epistles) call for Christian sanctification, crucifying the flesh, putting down the old man and putting on the new man, abounding in the work of the Lord, provoking to love and good works, being fruitful . . . ?”

I really have no idea where the anti-sanctification bias comes from. Perhaps it is a knee-jerk over-reaction to “Evangelicalism”: since they stress practical guidance for daily living, we should not! Should we not rather give even more and better practical guidance, just because we distinguish clearly between Law and Gospel? Especially given our anti-sacramental environment, it is of course highly necessary to stress the holy means of grace in our preaching. But we must beware of creating a kind of clericalist caricature that gives the impression that the whole point of the Christian life is to be constantly taking in preaching, absolution and Holy Communion-while ordinary daily life and callings are just humdrum time-fillers in between! That would be like saying that we live to eat, rather than eating to live. The real point of our constant feeding by faith, on the Bread of Life, is that we might gain an ever-firmer hold of Heaven-and meanwhile become ever more useful on earth! We have, after all, been “created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). Cars, too, are not made to be fueled and oiled forever at service-stations. Rather, they are serviced in order that they might yield useful mileage in getting us where we need to go. Real good works before God are not showy, sanctimonious pomp and circumstance, or liturgical falderal in church, but, for example, “when a poor servant girl takes care of a little child or faithfully does what she is told” (Large Catechism, Ten Commandments, par. 314, Kolb-Wengert, pg. 428).

The royal priesthood of believers needs to recover their sense of joy and high privilege in their daily service to God (1 Pet. 2:9). The “living sacrifice” of bodies, according to their various callings, is the Christian’s “reasonable service” or God-pleasing worship, to which St. Paul exhorts the Romans “by the mercies of God” (Rom. 12:1), which he had set out so forcefully in the preceding eleven chapters! Or, as St. James puts it: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (1:27). Liberal churches tend to stress the one, and conservatives one the other, but the Lord would have us do both!

Antinomianism appeals particularly to the Lutheran flesh. But it cannot claim the great Reformer as patron. On the contrary, he writes:

“That is what my Antinomians, too, are doing today, who are preaching beautifully and (as I cannot but think) with real sincerity about Christ’s grace, about the forgiveness of sin and whatever else can be said about the doctrine of redemption. But they flee s if t were the very devil the consequence that they should tell the people about the third article, of sanctification, that is, of new life in Christ. They think one should not frighten or trouble the people, but rather always preach comfortingly about grace and the forgiveness of sins in Christ, and under no circumstance use these or similar words, “Listen! You want to be a Christian and at the same time remain an adulterer, a whoremonger, a drunken swine, arrogant, covetous, a usurer, envious, vindictive, malicious, etc.!” Instead they say, “Listen! Though you are an adultery, a wordmonger, a miser, or other kind of sinner, if you but believe, you are saved, and you need not fear the law. Christ has fulfilled it all! . . . They may be fine Easter preachers, but they are very poor Pentecost preachers, for they do not preach… “about the sanctification by the Holy Spirit,” but solely about the redemption of Jesus Christ, although Christ (whom they extol so highly, and rightly so) is Christ, that is, He has purchased redemption from sin and death so that the Holy Spirit might transform us out of the old Adam into new men . . . Christ did not earn only gratia, grace, for us, but also donum, “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” so that we might have not only forgiveness of, but also cessation of, sin. Now he who does not abstain fro sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians; the real Christ is not there, even if all the angels would cry, “Christ! Christ!” He must be damned with this, his new Christ (On the Council and the Church, Luther’s Works, 41:113-114).

Where are the “practical and clear sermons,” which according to the Apology “hold an audience” (XXIV, 50, p. 267). Apology XV, 42-44 (p. 229) explains:

“The chief worship of God is to preach the Gospel…in our churches all the sermons deal with topics like these: repentance, fear of God, faith in Christ, the righteousness of faith, prayer . . . the cross, respect for the magistrates and all civil orders, the distinction between the kingdom of Christ (the spiritual kingdom) and political affairs, marriage, the education and instruction of children, chastity, and all the works of love.”

“Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, unto Thy Church Thy Holy Spirit, and the wisdom which cometh down from above, that Thy Word, as becometh it, may not be bound, but have free course and be preached to the joy and edifying of Christ’s holy people, that I steadfast faith we may serve Thee, and in the confession of Thy Name abide unto the end: through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Amen.”

Kurt Marquart

Concordia Theological Quarterly

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Categories: Christian Life
  1. Anthony Sacramone
    June 26th, 2011 at 11:53 | #1

    Thank you for posting this. I can’t tell you how many pastors shy away from this topic for fear they will be condemned as legalists. Every Sunday sermon is virtually identical: “Your sins are freely forgiven in Christ.” OK. I grasped that the first 247 times you told me. Now what? “Well, your sins are forgiven. Freely. Amen.” OK: but what must I do to ensure I don’t have as many sins to confess next week? Or how should I as a Lutheran Christian make that faith manifest in a dying world? “DO? MAKE? MANIFEST? Didn’t you just hear that your sins are FREELY forgiven???” How about the Third Use of the Law in the Book of Concord? “What are you, a communist?”

    If the word “sanctification” is so off-putting, how about we start giving serious consideration to the teaching of discipleship?

    • June 26th, 2011 at 11:57 | #2

      Some Lutherans make the mistake of thinking that because Justification is the chief article of the Faith, it is the only article of the faith.

  2. Tina
    June 26th, 2011 at 15:00 | #3

    Yeah man. I’m bored with all that forgiveness stuff. Let’s get on to the good stuff. Like-what can *I* do for God? Oh yeah, and how can I get better and better so I don’t sin as much tomorrow as I did today?

    But wait. Where do the Scriptures or the Confessions say that “Christians improve at keeping the Law”?

    • June 26th, 2011 at 15:13 | #4

      “Tina” … thank you for providing a dramatic example of missing the point of this post.

  3. Karyn
    June 26th, 2011 at 16:44 | #5

    “. . . because only what comes out of a man is what makes him sinful . . . it matters not what he sees, or hears, as a Christian.”

    Brings to mind another oldie but a goodie: “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”

  4. G
    June 26th, 2011 at 18:25 | #6

    @Tina

    No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.

  5. June 26th, 2011 at 20:01 | #7

    Concerning filth and porn, here is a moral dilemma I faced recently:

    As part of the online graduate-level class on curriculum development I have been taking this summer, I was required to watch “The Vagina Monologues” (I am not joking on this – I wish I were) and write an essay about it. The show (a one-woman performance by Eve Elsner) is vile and degrading. Possibly the worst part was when Ensler joked about the time when she was a child and a lesbian tried to molest her. Elsner thinks homosexual assault of children is a good thing!

    I thought about complaining to the department over this and other bizarre material the teacher chose for the course, but I know from experience the department head is even nuttier than my teacher is. Nor will the department be doing student evaluations of instructors (SEOI). In every other class I have ever taken we have done SEOI, but not this time.

    My dilemma is this: should I have dropped the class? The course turned out to be nothing but a bunch of Christophobic ravings and race-baiting garbage (of which “The Vagina Monologues” was only a small sample), and had zero to do with education. I feel like I was used to advance a vile agenda, and that my presence as a Christian was touted as “proof” that what the teacher did was legitimate.

  6. Trent Calloway
    June 26th, 2011 at 20:17 | #9

    Luther’s discussion on active and passive righteousness in his Galatians Commentary needs to be brought up in light of this discussion. When Luther said: “This is our theology” and also called the writing his apology to the AC, it is something worth studying. It would really help the Lutherans of our day with this exact topic.

  7. Paul Guhl
    June 26th, 2011 at 21:14 | #11

    Can’t let this one pass me by… My response is to some conflicting messages in the post and the first comment. Remember that not all of Luther’s writings are part of the Book of Concord. I’m not sure what “G” is trying to say either. I don’t see the connection between that passage and this discussion.

    If you can point to a “good work” that you have done, it is not. None of us would know a “good” work if it jumped up and bit us! How would God define a good work? “A pretty decent work”? “A really pretty good thing”? Howabout “A very, very good deed” No. Anything “good” to God is nothing short of perfection. We are only capable of doing “good” things through the author of perfection himself. We are all poor and miserable sinners who deserve nothing but eternal damnation for ever! The only reason we are not all toast at this point is because our creator God, in the person of Jesus Christ, died a humiliating and awful death just so that we poor, self righteous excuses for human beings can keep breathing, and only through God’s infinite Grace and Mercy can we be called His children. We are all redeemed by His precious blood and we have recieved the promises connected with His sacrifice through a Faith that only comes from Him in the first place, yet we are no less of a sinner than the pimp down the street. (Really. Ok…so we would maybe do less sinful things. Sure about that…?)

    Of course, we are called to life a life of sanctification, but whose work is that? Justification=God, sanctification=us? We all want to feel just a little worthy, but sorry, sanctification is not our work either. Sure it needs to be taught and preached about in the church. You can’t have one without the other. But what motivates us and enable us to do good things? (eventhough as soon as we think we recognize it as such, it is not- tainted by our sinful needs and desires.) We fix our eyes on the cross and let Him hang on to us. Jesus living in us and through us is the only motivation for us to be his disciples. As Christians we are compelled to do so by Him, in and through us.

    Maybe it is a bit over the top for me to say at this point that I bet I commit adultery numerous times every day. It is impossible in this society today to not let an indecent thought enter your mind. Am I OK with that? Certainly not. But I pray that God will grant me repentance every morning, for the sake of Christ and forgive me. Because of Jesus, I also know that God does not punish sin anymore, because he has already taken that punishment for the entire world. But we still have to fight unbelief, the only thing that will disqualify us from His eternal mercy.

    I thank God for Pastor Harrison who once wrote about the message of Jesus: “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”. Pastor Harrison continues: “the reformation began with a divine call to repentance- with a confession of sin and a rejection of the delusion that human activity can in any way bring about salvation or divine favor”. I will also add that nothing we say, do, or think, in and of ourselves, will make any difference as to us going to heaven or hell.

    We need to let God do his work of sanctification in us. But we are delusional if we think that we will be “less of a sinner” as time goes by. We confess every Sunday that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We will be sinful and unclean by nature until we die. It is only through daily dying and slaying of the old Adam that we can live. Our only comfort and hope is that He lets us wear His robe of righteousness that covers up all our ugliness. Anything good in us only comes from Him. Period. May God have mercy on us all.

    • June 26th, 2011 at 21:18 | #12

      Of course I can point to good works I’ve done, by God’s grace. If you can’t, you don’t understand the Ten Commandments, I guess.

  8. Paul Guhl
    June 26th, 2011 at 22:13 | #13

    Pastor McCain, #12

    I don’t understand your reply. I do have a very rambling roundabout way when I try to make a point. I am reacting to the talk about somehow for us sinful beings to be able to discern a godly and good work. Especially pointing to something and saying: “That was a good work I did”. I’m sure we as Christians do good works, by God’s grace, every day without realizing it. Are you equating keeping a commandment with a good work? I think I understand the commandments in the light of the three uses of the law. But beyond that I’m not sure. I’m not trying to solicit a theological discussion here. Maybe I’m missing the point in this discussion also somehow.

  9. June 26th, 2011 at 23:48 | #14

    Amen. Thanks much for this post Pr. McCain. You’re not the only one worried about the antinomian strain which seems to have infected so many who claim to be confessional Lutherans. I can’t stand it when I hear people say “if you haven’t been accused of Antinomianism, you’re not really preaching the Gospel.” I’d say, if you’re really preaching the Gospel, you couldn’t possibly ignore sanctification and should have nothing to be accused of in the first place.

  10. June 26th, 2011 at 23:58 | #15

    Paul McCain: Thanks for keeping up the sound doctrine on this point. Antinomianism is alive and well, alas. I am amazed that so many of our pastors read the Epistles of Paul and somehow don’t see the exhortations.

    Paul Guhl: Our works are always tainted with sin; simul iustus et peccator and all that. But there still are good works that a Christian does. “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now own; for *their works* do follow them.” I find them a whole lot easier to see in others than myself.

  11. Guillaume
    February 25th, 2013 at 17:23 | #16

    I think the Large Catechism’s explanation of the close of Commandments is a nice corrective. Not only should Christians do good works but we will be rewarded by God for doing good works.

  12. Guillaume
    February 25th, 2013 at 17:48 | #17

    315 Look, is not this a cursed overconfidence of those desperate saints who dare to invent a higher and better life and estate than the Ten Commandments teach? To pretend (as we have said) that this is an ordinary life for the common man, but theirs is for saints and perfect ones? 316 The miserable blind people do not see that no person can go far enough to keep one of the Ten Commandments as it should be kept. Both the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer must come to our aid (as we shall hear). By them ‹power and strength to keep the commandments› is sought and prayed for and received continually. Therefore, all their boasting amounts to as much as if I boasted and said, “To be sure, I don’t have a penny to make payment with, but I confidently will try to pay ten florins.”
    317 All this I say and teach so that people might get rid of the sad misuse that has taken such deep root and still clings to everybody. In all estates upon earth they must get used to looking at these commandments only and to be concerned about these matters. For it will be a long time before they will produce a teaching or estate equal to the Ten Commandments, because they are so high that no one can reach them by human power. Whoever does reach them is a heavenly, angelic person, far above all holiness of the world. 318 Just occupy yourself with them. Try your best. Apply all power and ability. You will find so much to do that you will neither seek nor value any other work or holiness.
    319 Let this be enough about the first part of the common Christian doctrine, both for teaching and urging what is necessary. In conclusion, however, we must repeat the text which belongs here. We have presented this already in the First Commandment, in order that we may learn what pains God requires so that we may learn to teach and do the Ten Commandments:
    320 For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments. [Exodus 20:5–6]
    321 As we have heard above, this appendix was primarily attached to the First Commandment. Yet it was laid down for the sake of all the commandments, since all of them are to be referred and directed to it. Therefore, I have said that this also should be presented to and taught to the young. Then they may learn and remember it, and we may see what must move and compel us to keep these Ten Commandments. This part is to be regarded as though it were specially added to each command, so that it dwells in, and runs through, them all.
    322 Now, there is included in these words (as said before) both an angry, threatening word and a friendly promise. These are to terrify and warn us. They are also to lead and encourage us to receive and highly value His Word as a matter of divine sincerity. For God Himself declares how much He is concerned about it and how rigidly He will enforce it: He will horribly and terribly punish all who despise and transgress His commandments. 323 Also, He declares how richly He will reward, bless, and do all good to those who hold them in high value and gladly do and live according to them. So God demands that all our works proceed from a heart that fears and regards God alone. From such fear the heart avoids everything that is contrary to His will, lest it should move Him to wrath. And, on the other hand, the heart also trusts in Him alone and from love for Him does all He wants. For He speaks to us as friendly as a father and offers us all grace and every good.
    Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions. Edited by Paul Timothy McCain. St. Louis, MO : Concordia Publishing House, 2005, S. 396

  13. Mike
    February 26th, 2013 at 09:34 | #18

    I came out of seminary with a touch of the antinomian many years ago. I had this odd feeling that something was missing in my preaching. I never ever said “Do.” It seemed wrong to me. At the same time, I had convinced myself that if I just preached the gospel that people would automatically respond in with good deeds, without me even suggesting. And so I never spoke of stewardship; never told people they should think about coming to church more often; never pointed out how they should love more thoroughly or deeply. They would would just figure it all out from the Gospel.

    I was at last disabused from this and found the missing piece in my preaching there in the Formula of Concord. The Quest for Holiness also helped me too. Now I don’t have that odd feeling that I’m missing something.

    How odd that some of the major supporters of the antinomianism salute the confessions! READ THEM! In Particular read the Formula on the subject of the third use of the law.

    • February 26th, 2013 at 09:51 | #19

      Mike, I went through the same experience you did. I could no longer justify what I had been told at seminary with what I was reading in Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, not to mention in the sermons of all our Lutheran orthodox fathers.

  14. February 26th, 2013 at 10:39 | #20

    Thank you pastor for this article. As you can see from some of your responses, antinomianism is alive and well. Many Christians, indeed many Lutherans, are very unfamiliar with the place that “works” have in our daily walk with Christ. The gospels are very clear that Jesus said there were two commandments that his followers were to obey: love God, and love your neighbor. That was the summation of the law. He did not say that either commandment was optional. Yes, we are sinners and generally are not good at follow the rules. However, that is why he gave us grace; the power and ability to do what is good and correct with his assistance. Yes, we are going to fail and sometimes miserably, but it seems that he gave us a way out. We are to repent (turn away) from our sins and get back up and try again. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate that we are to sit back and be unconcerned with our sins. After all, such an attitude is called antinomianism and it is a heresy. Did not Jesus tell us to pick up our cross and follow him? It is easy to do so….no. But to suffer and die on the cross was not easy either. One effect of his death and suffering was to give us the grace (supernatural help) to better ourselves and to become more like him. This is called sanctification. If we do not become better examples of who Christians should be over time, then I would have to ask if you truly understand the pure gospel. Here is a direct statement by Martin Luther concerning good works. In his “Introduction to Romans,” Luther stated that saving faith is,”a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever…Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!” So if you claim to follow the gospel as well as the theology of Martin Luther, you will be concerned with your works.

  15. February 26th, 2013 at 11:33 | #21

    Thank you for this discussion and for the comment out of frustration from Captain Thin, when he said, “If you haven’t been accused of antinomianism you aren’t preaching the Gospel.” I had never heard that statement, but the fact that it has been said (and frequently, apparently!) shows me how much this error can blind a person. I know I’ve wrestled with trying to be completely evangelical, and still recognize the third use of the Law.

    This past Sunday I was leading my Bible class through I Jn 3. We came to the exhortation from John in v. 18, “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” That definitely sounds like paranesis, a style of exhortation. But what caught my attention, was the following verse. “And in this we ourselves know that we are of the truth, and before Him we convince our heart.” “This?” Unless I’m misreading this verse, “this” is referring to what is above. Therefore it would mean: When we love in deed and in truth, we can see we are of the truth and we can use this to convince our hearts we are of the truth. This is not where we first turn for assurance of faith, but if I’m reading this correctly, our good works can be visible to us and can give evidence that we are children of God.

    • February 26th, 2013 at 12:29 | #22

      Rob, that comment, I think, comes from Forde. It is stupid.

  16. Alan
    February 26th, 2013 at 12:27 | #23

    Thanks Timothy. I loved this comment that you wrote: “There is nothing in the gospels to indicate that we are to sit back and be unconcerned with our sins.”

  17. Craig
    February 26th, 2013 at 13:39 | #24

    Get ready. Here comes an amazingly theological response to this blog … wait for it … wait for it … BRAVO!!!

  18. Mitchell Hammonds
    February 26th, 2013 at 15:48 | #25

    The quote mentioned by Rob above does not originate with Forde. Forde is to much of the LCMS what Bush is to Obama… a scapegoat for bad theology. The quote originates from Martin Lloyd Jones. Do some research.

    • February 26th, 2013 at 16:05 | #26

      Oh, right, Forde is the guy who bragged about being “weak on Sanctification” and the resulting stupid t-shirts.

      Eye roll.

      Forde is not a good source for Lutheran theology or practice.

  19. Paul Faulkner
    March 3rd, 2013 at 02:24 | #27

    @ptmccain
    I was a theatre major at CURF. We had to attend a production of this for a course in my major. When I pitched a fit, I was made to feel old-fashioned and closed-minded. Glad I’ll be in debt for another 15 yrs from that education. Lol

Comments are closed.