RSS

My Two Most Recent Ad Crucem News Pieces

06 Sep

+++

For those who don’t follow me on X or who may have missed my two latest Ad Crucem pieces, the links to both articles follow.

In the first piece, I talked about the predecessor body of the Association of American Lutheran Churches, the AALC: The Iowa Synod / ALC / TALC. The article is titled “The Iowa Synod, an American Lutheran Church Open for Unity”:

https://open.substack.com/pub/adcrucem/p/the-iowa-synod-an-american-lutheran

The second article is about the meaning of the deleted Jordan Cooper X-post above:

https://www.adcrucem.news/p/does-aalc-poking-of-the-lcms-bear

Hope you enjoy the articles.

FIN

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 6, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

A Catalog of Testimonies for the Pirate Christian and Lyman Stone

19 May

+++

No, it’s not about me. But when people make it about you, you do need to say something.

Since the Pirate Christian told me he was reporting me to the AALC Clergy Commission, I decided to provide recent material that he might need to demonstrate that I am a “malicious and impenitent slanderer”.

Lyman Stone, who has made similar accusations against me, can perhaps also appreciate this. Another collection of my earlier tweets related to the issues they are upset with me over can be found here and here.

It is entirely possible that I have perhaps missed some of the tweets, most likely responses, that these men consider slanderous. In which case, I would invite them to submit those to me and I will make sure they get posted in this article.

Yes, I always want to mean what I say and own what I do. And I have very real and very strong convictions. Again, I hope these men (and others who have made the same accusations against me) will find this helpful — as I will as well, for my own records. The most recent tweets occur first in the list.

Not right away though. First of all, this thread explains why I am doing what I am doing:

And this is currently my “pinned tweet”, and it is also out of chronological order from the others:

Now, all the others, in reverse chronological order:

1.

Update (0.5):

(The first tweet above seems to have disappeared — I must have accidently deleted it — so I put in this second one on Jun. 24, 2026)

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

I also retweeted all of these posts from Matt Cochran:

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 19, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

Jesus Tempted by Sodomy and Worse? The “Scorsesiazation” of the LCMS 

06 May
“I’m a liar, a hypocrite, I’m afraid of everything…. Lucifer is inside me. He tells me I am not a man, but the Son of Man, more the Son of God, more than that, God.”

– Martin Scorsese’s False Christ

+++

Update: see my follow-up piece at Ad Crucem News: “Addressing Rampant Confusion about Jesus’s Temptations”: https://www.adcrucem.news/p/the-debate-about-jesuss-temptations

+++

What’s the Harm with a Little “Scorsesiazation”?

Martin Scorsese has always been groundbreaking, both in his unique style as a director and in addressing controversial issues of particular interest to Christians. 

As a 14-year-old paper boy in Appleton, Wisconsin, I remember as clear as day the front page headlines in the local paper inspired by the furor against the 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ.

Christians were deeply upset by Scorsese’s film because it included a scene where Jesus receives a vision from an angel (later revealed to be Satan) involving sexual relations with the woman he might have married, Mary Magdalene! Clearly, the idea here was to suggest that it would be pious for Christians to imagine that the temptations Jesus had faced in the wilderness and the Garden of Gethsemane could be taken even much further! Wouldn’t this just be Jesus more fully identifying with, joining in solidarity with, the men and women he came to save?

Almost 40 years later, for many Christians today, even this might seem “tame”. I’d insist otherwise, maintaining that Jesus was, in accordance with His Father’s will, focused on saving his one true bride, meaning us, His church! Still, some might say: “Is it really so out of bounds to think that Christ may have desired the good of marriage and the unique blessings it brings – even as He was able to overcome this distraction by being riveted on his Father’s will?” Well, as we will see below, we have come along much further than Martin Scorsese imagined here, and for the worse!

Speaking of which, one might certainly speak about a kind of “Scorsesiazation” here as regards this filmmaker’s influence, referring to how his particular style and approach has affected the film industry. The contention of this article though is that a different kind of violently anti-Christian Scorsesiazation exists in American Christian culture in general – and even the LCMS in particular – and that we must become much more aware of this and vigorously fight against it, even if there are great costs.

But, again, is such alarm on my part really warranted at all? After all, Scorsese himself still identifies as a Christian! Matters pertaining to the Christian faith are obviously still extremely important to him, as evidenced by his more recent films, such as Silence and Killers of the Flower Moon. He even met with Pope Francis while he was alive, and he certainly sounds quite pious in interviews about his Catholic faith!

So, why the worry? Especially when one considers that in the Garden of Eden sexual relations within marriage would have been untainted by sin, and our Lord, after all, did assume an un-fallen human nature! Be that as it may, something very dark is indeed happening with Scorsese here. For not only is The Last Temptation of Christ noted for containing frequent nudity and sexual activity (per the trusted Internet Movie Database), but it even includes a nude sex scene between a married Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene… At the very least, all devout Christians will agree that the joy of marital intimacy is something to be known between a man and his wife alone. 

Scorsese has gone on to show the trajectory that he has been on for a long time, and the fruit is all bad. He has, for example, shown support for all manner of LGBTQ+ causes, primarily through producing LGBTQ-themed documentaries and advocating for “inclusion” within the Catholic Church. He even served as executive producer of Building a Bridge (2021), a documentary about the infamous Father James Martin’s “ministry” to “LGBTQ+ Catholics”, and has gone so far as to support the trans romance film Port Authority.

The LCMS Appears to Be on the Same Trajectory

Addressing a debate that I believe I started on social media, the demographer and LCMS layman Lyman Stone, a frequent guest on the Issues ETC program, recently suggested on X/Twitter how we could, responsibly, posit that Jesus Christ had desires for gay sex: 

“Taking this to its root…you might say something like, ‘Christ did not ever involuntarily experience the temptation of same-sex attraction because he had no involuntary internal stirrings of sin i.e. concupiscence i.e disordered motus primo primi, however, in his voluntary wish to bear all the temptations of man and carry all those infirmities which are on man now, he may have [voluntarily] chosen to allow the world and the devil to tempt him in a way identical to what we experience, that he might defeat it.’ I’m unsure if this reading would be correct, but it would at least be the kind of argument Lutherans who read their scholastics would be arguing about.”

Stone is “going here” because this is evidently where several “confessional Lutheran” pastors want to go. For example, the “Pirate Christian” Chris Rosebrough, another frequent Issues ETC. guest and the most popular Lutheran on YouTube, promoted a website a few years ago on Issues, that, among other things, contains articles that might still be able to shock a few Christians here and there.

In one, the author claims that a desire for, e.g., homosexual activity, prostitution, and even bestiality is not sinful in itself. Not only this, but contrary to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession which states that “[our Roman Catholic opponents] contend that concupiscence is a penalty, and not a sin”, desires for sodomy, for example, are seen as a punishment for sin and not sin itself.

The hits keep coming. On the basis of Hebrews 4:15-16, the author claims that “we must routinely look to our cross to find grace in dealing with the sins of others that do NOT tempt us, for they HAVE tempted Christ” and insists that Christ Himself must have not only experienced the temptation to participate in homosexual activity, but equates this temptation with Jesus feeling these [evil] desires or passions. Evidently, this is an essential part of Jesus’ work and to reject this is to do damage to His saving message!

Anyone who would like to see some of the core quotes from the article linked to above can quickly see them in both the Twitter/X and Facebook post that I did several weeks ago, the latter which said, in part:

“in [this understanding of Hebrews 4:15]… ] desires [for things like homosexual activity] come into Jesus externally here, and our Lord does internal battle against them, even though the desire for such things is something that he truly experiences, is somehow a real desire.

So the major point of concern is that Jesus has some of these desires in his heart at all! Evidently, this is thought to be at the center of God’s Gospel, God’s atonement for us which brings us comfort. No worries? This was just part of his experiencing the punishment that we deserved for our sin?

Did God allow Satan or the power of sin to have such an impact on Jesus Christ? What Biblical justification can there be for this? This disturbs me, and I am sure many of you, greatly. I say we must say ‘No!’.”

It is also shocking to know that the author of the piece the Pirate Christian promotes says elsewhere that he has had four conservative Lutheran pastor friends who have all supported him in these teachings, assuring him of their orthodoxy.

Now, there is no doubt that among Christians, a variety of opinions can be held on a variety of issues. 

Still, should Christians even be discussing as a possibility how Jesus could have somehow been tempted towards homosexual acts? And, logically, by extension, acts of bestiality and even pedophilia? And that to deny all of this would in fact throw the gospel itself into question?

The fact of the matter is that all of us will agree that there are some theological questions that simply should not be debated. We don’t debate about whether or not Jesus is God, we condemn the Arians. We don’t just “agree to disagree” whether or not women should be pastors, we simply say what Paul says in 1st Timothy 2, that a woman is to remain silent and not have authority over a man.

Should not the same be true for a question like this? The debates that have occurred in the church about just how Jesus Christ was tempted, the nature of his temptations, have never gone in the frightening direction some men today seem so oddly comfortable with! So what in the world is happening?

Extreme Scorsesiazation. Let’s explore this more, and figure out how to effectively nip it in the bud.

All Means All!? Countering Extreme Scorsesiazation

Hebrews 4:15 states that Jesus was tempted in every way that we were, yet without sin. How should Christians understand this? After I posted on Facebook about the article above, Pastor Andrew Preus, host of the excellent podcast Christendom and the World, made the following very helpful comment:

“Being tempted without sin is something we can only begin to understand by faith in Christ who is set before us as our substitute. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, though he knew no sin in himself. This again is a great mystery.  

It seems like the desire of saying that Jesus experienced perverted temptations is to apply comfort to those who are experiencing such perverted temptations. This desire is certainly commendable. And to be sure, in a general sense, his temptations cover every possible temptation, but we should not confuse the temptation and the urge or desire. We can’t fathom experiencing one without the other. Christ experienced one without the other, though it remained a full-on temptation. The temptations toward perversions that are contrary to nature can be included under the general temptations appealing to the appetite, testing of God, and the pride of the world, but the unnatural, perverted temptations as such are manifestations of deep control of sin, which has consented to the temptations. The devil didn’t tempt Jesus to engage in perverted sexual acts, though the devil’s temptations can and do lead to such perverted acts. Jesus did not consent even to the general temptations. He nipped it in the bud, so to speak. But in doing so, he is able to sympathize with all even in each particular temptation no matter how far down the sewer they have gone, since he was tempted in every way as we are, and he truly did bear the sin of the world. But this does not mean that he consented in every way. This is why we pray in that great hymn, ‘Keep me from its first beginning.’”

At this point, a brief editorial comment on the following: “…the unnatural, perverted temptations as such are manifestations of deep control of sin, which has consented to the temptations…”

Some might be concerned here, pointing out that many who have found themselves involved in homosexual or other illicit sexual activity, for example, did not seek it, were not involved willingly. Indeed, those who were sexually abused by adults as children often end up, in part, justifying and repeating such sins! So how can our compassion not be aroused?! Therefore, does this not in fact speak to how deadly and harmful and soul-deforming these particular sins are – and why it is critical to fight them, nip them in the bud, and take extremely strong measures against them?

Pastor Preus continues:

“For example, the devil didn’t tempt Jesus to cheat on his live-in girlfriend or to murder his lover’s husband. Obviously not, since Jesus didn’t consent even to the first temptation. Sexual perversions, and even many common temptations in particular, are, as far as we experience them, further down the sewer of sin consenting to initial temptations. Christ resisted every temptation from the start. This should be our comfort when we find ourselves further down the temptation hole. Christ, who was tempted like us in every way in that we experienced the initial temptations, has already resisted and won the victory over the temptation.  

Also, the fact that Jesus became sin and bore sin teaches us about the nature of sin. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked beyond our understanding. Jesus bore precisely this wickedness, which is why he is numbered even among the grotesque sinners while remaining pure. It’s a great mystery, but it is the source of great comfort.”

Beautiful stuff. This is indeed where the true comfort lies, and not in the kind of story that Martin Scorsese puts forth! This is what makes passages like Hebrews 4:15 so comforting!

Jesus Had Absolutely no Concupiscence – Even Rome Agrees! (a Case Study)

Nevertheless, as we have seen, the Scorsesiazation runs deep, and so it would be good to expand on the thoughts above. Even if some may not be convinced, those who are convinced should have their resolve strengthened!

I recently came across an example of a man who had had a rather subtle but still extreme case of Scorsesiazation (and, again, a faulty understanding of Hebrews 4:15) changing his views.

The example comes from the Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong (a friendly adversity of the author), who also left this very interesting comment on my Facebook post:

“Totally agree. Jesus did not and could not have concupiscence, as we do. He couldn’t ever entertain such thoughts. He’s impeccable… Sorry to hear that you have to deal with this nonsense in the LCMS (sort of my ‘heroes’ among Lutherans and larger Protestantism). But we all have our heterodox liberals, I reckon… Like the poor, they’re always with us, poor souls…”

So, about this example. After one of his fellow Roman Catholic converts from American Evangelicalism was captivated by The Last Temptation of Christ, Dave was able to make quite a bit of headway with his friend (you can see this from his 2001 article, “‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ & Cinematic Historical & Theological Accuracy + Christian Filmmaker’s Creed (with Dr. Stanley D. Williams)” available in the Internet Archive).

Again, even if we would not agree with Dave regarding his Roman Catholic distinctives, in the matter of Christology Roman Catholics and Lutherans share much in common, and one can learn a lot by looking at how Dave interacted with his Catholic friend. 

Dave’s friend also had Hebrews 4:15 in mind, stating that the film was a “most powerful testimony to the human nature of Christ and how HE is like US, and how WE, as humans, must make the same decisions that Christ made, to suffer and die with him.” He also touted the film in a variety of other ways…:

  • “[T]he movie makes so clear Christ’s mission and passion.”
  • “The Last Temptation of Christ is a textbook example of ‘the power of the story is not in its being factual but in its being truthful’ (Joseph Pearce).”
  • “It is as if we’re watching an alternative story of Jesus’s life where the facts on the surface change, but the dual nature of Christ and his reason for coming is perfectly preserved.”
  • “I think the church played into the hands of Satan once again and prevented this movie from being released….”
  • “[It is] a haunting and provocative portrayal that expounds on the truth of Christ, who he was, and why he came. [The creators of this film] were being good witnesses.”
  • “[T]he movie reinforces the critical truth of Christ’s dual nature in a way that is disturbingly and authentically Christian.”

Dave, though unrelentingly kind and patient, was not impressed. In fact, at an appropriate moment in their discussion, he bluntly stated “the movie is blasphemous and heretical, and [many Christians] don’t wish to patronize a movie of that sort…” Even this: “[I] have decided that the original negative to The Last Temptation of Christ should have been destroyed because it was so anti-Christian.” 

No Scorsesiazation here! – even if, in Roman Catholicism, one will usually hear that the disordered desires known as concupiscence are no longer sin in any sense in the baptized (even if they remain a particular kind of evil disability)! 

And, encouragingly, because of Dave’s firm stand and excellent argumentation – and perhaps also because of his answering with gentleness and respect – his friend came around, basically coming to agree with Dave! Not only did he say to Dave “[f]rom your evidence it is obvious that the Catholic and Lutheran reaction[s to the movie that you shared with me were]  more intellectually centered”, but also – based on a further study of Chalcedonian Christology spurred on by Dave – reconsidered and adjusted his views on certain aspects of the temptations of Jesus!

What, specifically, did Dave point out? Dave dealt with the kinds of things that have already been touched on above, even if from a slightly different yet important angle. Let’s briefly look at what he said. 

First, he introduced and framed the discussion by bringing up the matter of the church’s historic teaching: 

“The developed theology of the Two Natures of Christ, or Hypostatic Union, as elaborated upon at the Council of Chalcedon [451 A.D.], does not deny either the human or divine natures of Christ. It asserts them both as equally true and important to believe. How they are to be thought of, in relationship with each other, however, is the tricky part.”

Second, Dave brought up Scorcese’s Jesus saying “I’m a liar, a hypocrite, I’m afraid of everything….Lucifer is inside me. He tells me I am not a man, but the Son of Man, more the Son of God, more than that, God,” along with his interlocutor insisting that “Jesus would have mulled [these kinds of thoughts] over and over (as part of the devil’s ongoing temptation) as [he] grew to maturity.” “No”, Dave said. 

To be sure, the mystery of Jesus Christ’s “hypostatic union” is great, but as Dave pointed out, we need not imply Jesus ever found any evil suggestion from the devil compelling in the least! Jesus never even would have considered that he’d sinned, for example, because he always possessed the critical knowledge that made him immune to the culpable doubt from which we fallen men suffer. In short, “[h]e cannot be tempted in exactly the same way [we are] because He wasn’t subject to original sin and… concupiscence.”

Some err in making Jesus more God than man, as with the Monophysite heresy. Others fall off the other side of the horse when they insist there are two hypostases, or persons, in Christ – one divine and one human! Both of these viewpoints are heretical, for the Son of God in human flesh, Jesus Christ, is indeed the one person of the God-Man! 

Of course, the Radical/Fake Lutheran heresy that influential Lutheran voices follow – exemplified by Steven “Christ committed his own personal sin” Paulson – is also another of these horrific and soul-destroying errors. As are the errors of Dietrich “Jesus was not the perfect good” Bonhoeffer. All of this goes hand in hand with the Scorsesiazation Lutherans must contend against.

A Confessional Lutheran Case Study

Again, Pastor Preus, quoted above, is simply echoing the historical understanding of Hebrews 4:15! In short, these kinds of debates never occurred in the early church because none of these kinds of ideas would have even crossed their mind!

Still, they evidently do cross the contemporary Christian mind, even among apparently more conservative Christians. One of the more interesting things about Dave’s friend originally supporting Scorsese’s film is that he also pointed out (at the time, approvingly) the following:

“[T]he movie makes perfectly clear [that Mary] Magdalene, Peter, and even Paul (in the temptation at the end) articulate to Jesus and the audience that Jesus dies on the cross SINLESS to save all mankind.”

…and he also, again, referenced Hebrews 4:15 as well, thinking Jesus must have experienced some of the more depraved temptations men feel!

Lord have mercy!

And sadly, again, moves like these are exactly what the Lutheran voices mentioned above make as well!:

  • Desires for homosexual activity, bestiality and pedophilia are not necessarily sinful in themselves.
  • We should necessarily assert that Jesus Christ himself experienced these for our salvation (again, per Heb. 4:15).
  • This does not mean that Jesus Christ sinned.

Again, the Pirate Christian Pastor Chris Rosebrough defends all of those things just stated above. In the interest of showing that he does not believe that Jesus committed any sin, he even stated that he entirely agrees with what the great 16th century Lutheran teacher Martin Chemnitz taught, citing his teaching from his classic work, The Two Natures in Christ.

Nevertheless, for the doctrine defended by Pastor Rosebrough, these desires somehow get inside of Christ and are truly experienced by him – even if they do not originate in him. Truly, this curious claim demands our full attention and sharpest thinking. What, at bottom, is happening here? In short, the pastor affirms Christ is sinless or “impeccable”, but then ascribes to Him desires that clearly fail Chemnitz’s definition of what that means!

For he simply does not, like Chemnitz, assert an absolute absence of “any inward disorder” and concupiscence in Christ. So this pastor clearly is running afoul of Chemnitz…. even while citing him in his own defense! Again, unfortunately, this kind of inconsistent thinking is evidently becoming all too common in the LCMS. 

We can only pray that clearer hearts and minds and wills like those of Pastor Preus will, spurning the devil’s most subtle temptations, prevail! May the scourage of Scorsesiazation be kept far from us!

FIN

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 6, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

Gottesblog Article and Another Round with Roman Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong

17 Apr

+++

Ever since we debated the topic of Martin Chemnitz and the Council of Trent 15 years ago, I have stayed in touch with the Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong.

After promising him for about 6 months that I would get back to him after he responded to a Reformation day sermon that I sent him last October, I finally got around to sending him this* the other day, and it is my understanding that he will be responding to it in two parts today and tomorrow (I will put the links here and here after they are posted).

I am guessing that I will not have time to get back to him with a counter-response anytime soon, but in the meantime, you can take a look at the article that I had published at Gottesdienst: The Journal of Lutheran Liturgy blog. It is called: “Who are the Real Nominalists? Is it Baked into Wittenberg or Rome?”, and it is a review and comments on the scholarly article, “Bishop John Fisher’s Response to Martin Luther.”

I think the article is a very strong case (evidentially-based and well-argued) against Roman Catholic claims, and it is likely that some of the content from it would find it’s way into any further responses to Dave.

FIN

*WordPress is not letting me copy and paste that response entire response here with my phone early this morning, so I may try to do that here (below) later today.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 17, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

Briefly Addressing My Detractors: Focus on Teachings

14 Mar

This post has two parts. Part I is more important. The entire post can be read without all of the embedded tweets, which can be safely ignored.

(Note on tweets, if you want to read them: the rational for the placement of all of the tweets embedded in part I may not make sense until you read all of part II; many are in this post for my own convenience as well, as a way to have an index of sorts of the claims I have made)

I.

In the book of Job, Job famously says “shall we accept good from God, and not bad”? This means trial, trouble, adversity, suffering…

The answer is clearly no. In Christian theology, particularly Lutheran theology, most everything, horrifying “natural evils” like diseases, tornadoes, and hurricanes and the other evils that beset man as a result of sin can, in some sense, be considered a blessing.

So Job prays “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD”. We will not curse God in spite of the questions we might have. We will praise or bless him, for all that comes from his hand is to be received in thanksgiving.

For we who are in Christ know well that God disciplines those he loves, that we might share in his holiness and produce a harvest of righteousness (Hebrews 12:5–11). Even punishment from God for our sins can be construed as a blessing from God, for he chastens everyone he accepts as his son, and his sons have an “Old Adam” that remains in them until death!

Again, most everything can be considered a blessing. But not everything.

Take a careful look at the end of Romans 8:

“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

It appears that nothing can separate us from the love of God. Some Bibles will even use this as a heading for this section! Nothing! Not the evil one and his spirits, not any powers of earth or anything else in creation. Not death itself, the wages of our sin.

But something can separate us from the love of God. The sin we commit. The sin that comes out of us, and the sin from the company around us which molds and shapes. And loving our sin will separate us. Some sins are indeed manifestly worse, abominable, more soul-killing.

Nevertheless, beware! Even small sins become large, mortal, when they are considered small…

Judgment, death and hell might be good news for the believer, as he will no longer molested by his own sin nor the enemies of God. At the same time, death and hell (utter condemnation, final judgment and punishment) are not good for those who love their sin.

Thanks be to God! Faith in Jesus Christ which justifies the ungodly is the greatest force known to man. And it lives in repentance!

Going hand in hand with this, we do not “use” love. Rather, we use the gifts God gives in love. According to design, nature.

To want to deviate from such good deeds, love, is sin.

To be tempted to do something in the wrong context or excessively is not necessarily sin.

To want unnatural acts is already sin.

I believe that this gets to the heart of the theological controversies we are dealing with today. It all has to do with general antinommian currents, which manifest themselves in the LCMS in particular ways. Indeed, we live in the midst of a law-hating and creation-hating people.

We must be different (Romans 12:1-2).

+++

II.

So, how does the above shake out? As you might guess from some of the tweets you’ve seen already, I’ve gotten into trouble on Twitter/X lately for a few things.

First, some background:

The 2023 edition of Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications, published by Concordia Publishing House for the LCMS, is also known as LLCACA. Though withdrawn from distribution shortly after publication due to controversies regarding its content for a short period of time, this volume, designed to provide modern context to Luther’s original 1529 text, is currently being used in LCMS seminaries.

What am I in trouble for with some? As best I can tell, these things:

-I strongly disagree with the evaluations of any pastors who think that this catechism is acceptable or good enough. I believe that it was full of problems, was a terrible mistake, and that it should be completely re-done. The following statement from the catechism was enough to sink the whole thing:

-Even though the wider context does certainly not avert this “large cataclysm”, I also do not need to imply any malicious intent on the part of the author, but only to decry the weak theological leadership that let all of this slide.

-Part of the problem here is that even many traditional Lutheran pastors misinterpret Matt 7:1-5, paying attention to what Luther says about self-righteousness in general but not noticing that he, like everyone else in church history, also did not deny logs were bigger and more serious sins than specks.

-Just like I went after Steve Paulson six years ago when I saw no one else (besides David Scaer, in his more erudite way) was really doing it, I recently committed myself to go after “Pirate Christian” Chris Rosebrough, for promoting teaching that says Jesus experienced desires for every possible perversion known to man (because the book of Hebrews says he was tempted in every way we were yet without sin).

-Some people say I am being unfair, but I think this in itself is an accurate summary (I deal with it in a more nuanced way in a recent Facebook post, which, thankfully, has gotten a lot of support from some great theologians). I am accused of not recognizing exculpatory evidence, but I look at the evidence (and I’ve shared it with others) and it only leaves me (and I think most everyone) with more confusion and questions.

People are accusing me of lying and slander and worse.* Even as they refuse to deal with the facts above. They give every impression that because of my approach they think I am just mean. OK. In truth, I really do wish someone in an authority position would do something, but frankly, they often seem to be a big part of the problem. I’m prepared for some of their energy to be spent on me though, even as I hope not.

Folks, I have done everything I know how to avoid slandering everyone. We are Lutherans and false public teaching invites public rebuke. Going to someone personally first is not required, and often, among our contemporary cohort, despised (thanks for your “concern”). So I am utterly convinced that all of this amounts to false accusations against me.

Therefore, I will not trouble myself to speak with any critics until they are willing to discuss all of the above issues specifically (no other issues are relevant, and if they have their own accusations about specific teachings of mine — and not merely the fact that I am willing to give most anybody my time and ear — they should make specific accusations known to somebody at least).

Why? Simple. Because this touches on the character of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Nations, whom I desire with all my heart to trust, love, serve, and revere. I want his cause to be mine, and this includes preaching both the law in its furious judgement and his gentle and tender mercy to all who call their sin “sin” and his grace “grace”.

FIN

P.S.: True, I think, perhaps even of this post:

Endnotes:

* The man whose aberrant theology Chris is supporting, for example, has said that I am an “absolute slandering liar”, that my biases/hatreds equals drawing the line on the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work/compassion, that I “backpedal when [my] nose is rubbed in the truth!”, that I am a “self-appointed judge who defies scripture”, that I “hide exculpatory evidence”, “play stupid as defense”, “targets persons and not truth”, “play double-standards and manipulative games” and even “suck at literary analysis”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 14, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

A Confessional Lutheran Take on the Thomist-Molinist Debate

11 Mar
Molina and Melanchton, birds of a feather?

+++

My specialty is in Lutheran theology, and I am by no means an expert in Roman Catholic theology. 

That said, I think I know enough to write a decent blog post giving a confessional Lutheran view of the debate that occurs among Catholics between Thomists and Molinists.

+++

Are Thomist Catholics semi-Pelagians like the Molinists or just synergists, e.g. those that say while God in His grace must make the first move, man must nevertheless make a choice or decision for salvation? So, here, I think unlike semi-Pelagianism (or at least not necessarily like semi-Pelagianism), God must start, man must finish, man must, empowered by grace, put the ball in the hoop.

This is the question that occurred to me recently as I was writing an article about the influence in Roman Catholicism of 16th century Saint Bishop John Fisher, a piece I hope to have published somewhere soon (see more details here [1]).

So, where, more specifically, did my question come from? Interestingly, it seems that some Roman Catholics themselves in fact consider other Roman Catholics to be semi-Pelagians or at least semi-Pelagian-adjacent! Previously, I had had no idea!

+++

So there are interesting parallels here with what occurs in Lutheranism. The Lutheran confession arose against Roman Catholic systems of theology which were built on, and structured around, ideas of free will and consent. 

What happened? Around the time of the Reformation especially, because all of this had clearly gone so terribly wrong, men like Luther were driven back to the scriptures. A refrain for them eventually became grace alone, faith alone, and Christ crucified alone! These are the only things that brought man salvation, or justification, peace with God! (see Rom. 4:5, 5:1).

Still, in a move that mirrors that of the Luis deMolina and the Molinists, Luther’s friend Philip Melanchthon and his “Philippists” went astray when he looked to the will again, positing that the ultimate determining factor between Peter’s salvation and Judas’s damnation was the difference in their wills!

Rejecting the audacious idea that Divine causes outside of one’s self alone bring and give salvation – “What do we have that we have not received?” – Melanchthon believed that there must be in man “a reason for the discrimination” as to why some are saved… elected… and not others. Thus started the “synergistic controversy” among Luther’s heirs in the 1550s and 1560s. [2]

The Roman Catholic apologist and author Dave Armstrong is also a Molinist, and, unsurprisingly, one can see how his views map somewhat with Melanchton’s. Even though he talks about his belief that God’s grace is “monergistic”, he also talks about the importance of theologians taking into consideration God’s “middle knowledge” [3], and, more critically, also focusing on man’s will and consent. 

Hence he says, “I don’t see how you could absolutely rule out any foreseen consent in God’s decision to elect” and “If He knows that we will accept and act upon His grace, He could therefore choose to elect the person who does so.”

+++

The Thomist, on the other hand, here makes an effort to put the focus on God’s grace all the more, insisting that efficacious and irresistible grace is intrinsically so, meaning that its nature simply cannot be determined by what man chooses to do with it in his freedom! 

The freely available New Advent Catholic dictionary article on semi-Pelagianism also quotes Augustine against it, saying: “True freedom of the will is that effected by grace, since it makes the will free from the slavery of sin.”

Since the biblical testimony to election is so abundantly clear about both the importance and exclusivity of God’s action to save us entirely by the gift of his grace, the devout Thomist may well believe that the Molinist is skating dangerously close to semi-Pelagianism. The fact that all Roman Catholics will insist the good works a sinner might do prior to being saved are done in a “context of grace”, where the “merit of Christ” is understood to be in the background of all of this does not alleviate the concern of such men. [4]

+++

A few more interesting tidbits to add here, in order to effectively summarize this matter:

  • Armstrong says that the debate between Thomas and Molinists “is interesting to ponder and debate, but…makes no practical difference which way one comes down on it…”
  • Thomists say that predestination or election itself is grace and that therefore the elect are absolutely predestined apart from foreseen merits or the lack of foreseen demerits (even as efficacious grace then secures salutary acts that merit eternal life). This position, in ways resembling that of Calvinism and Lutheranism, was not condemned at Trent.
  • While Thomists will say that all men get sufficient grace but only the elect get “efficacious grace” that never fails, others only emphasize that “All men have been given sufficient grace to keep the commandments; those that don’t it is their fault; those that do, it is the gift of Him who saves” (Dave Armstrong, stating the Council of Quierzy’s teaching as he interprets it, from his view).” Again, Molinists like Armstrong would say that sufficient grace becomes efficacious grace as sinful man cooperates with it.

+++

In spite of their own conflicts, both the Molinist and Thomist nevertheless emphasize the reality of man’s freedom in an expansive way that the serious Lutheran never could. For they speak about these matters in a way that seems to deny the utter sinfulness of sin. The Bible says that man is dead in sin and by nature a child of wrath, and so the disagreement is finally over just what these unregenerate, spiritually dead men could possibly do to please God!

What is the key point here? It is that even if a Thomist today will wax eloquent about how original sin makes us a “rotten tree”, “soiled with guilt”, “frequently inclined towards evil” and even “interiorly destitute of divine life” (Malloy) [6], they and all other parties in Rome will nevertheless agree – following the teachings of the Council of Trent itself – that it is really possible for even unregenerate men – even if only on account of the graces that God bestows – to love God, truly keep and obey his commandments.[7] 

Is this semi-Pelagianism or simply synergism? Even if one might not be inclined to call the more circumspect Thomism “semi-Pelagianism”, it seems inescapable that at the very least it is cooperation on the part of sinful man that merits one’s salvation. In other words, in making the decision to love God, the godless shows himself to now, in fact, be godly, worthy of and meriting God’s adoption!

FIN

Endnotes:

[1] The main topic of that article is going to be Fisher’s nominalism, which means his developed notion of the “merit of congruity”. This means his Pelagianisn/”semi-Pelagianism”, which had a large influence on the Council of Trent, which I maintain means that Rome is in denial today about what it truly was and is. 

[2] Philipp Melanchthon, Loci Communes, 1543, Translated by Jacob A. O. Preus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992). Full quote: “Since the promise of God is universal and there are not in God contradictory wills, there must be in us a reason for the discrimination by which Saul is rejected and David received.”

Describing the views of his opponents, here is how C.F.W. Walther put their views in the late 19th century during the LCMS’ own synergism controversy: “As a certain synergism on man’s part is not to be excluded from the means of grace prior to the inward, godly activity of grace, so a synergism of the human will and divine grace occurs not only after the completion of conversion but also during the act of conversion itself” (C.F.W Walther, “God’s Grace Alone the Cause of Man’s Election,” in Theodore G. Tappert, ed., Lutheran Confessional Theology in America, 1840-1880 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 172).

This Google Gemini summary of the synergistic controversy of the 16th century is decent, and I did make some minor modifications:

“The controversy among Confessional Lutherans regarding conversion—often termed the Synergistic Controversy (approx. 1555–1577)—centered on whether the human will plays an active, cooperating role in coming to faith. 

Philip Melanchthon proposed that there are three cooperating causes in conversion: (1) The Word of God, (2) The Holy Spirit, and (3) The will of man, which “does not resist” the grace of God.

Martin Chemnitz (along with other “Gnesio-Lutherans” or “true” Lutherans) maintained the orthodox Lutheran doctrine of two causes—the Holy Spirit and the Word—arguing that the will is completely passive, or “dead,” in its own conversion, and that conversion is entirely a work of divine monergism. 

The Core Issues of the Controversy

The disagreement was not merely philosophical; it was a battle over whether salvation is entirely by grace (sola gratia) or partly dependent on human cooperation (synergism). 

Synergism vs. Monergism: Melanchthon, particularly in his later Loci Communes (1535 onwards), sought to explain why some are saved and others are not, moving toward a “synergistic” position that attributed a small share in conversion to the human will—the “ability to apply oneself to grace”. Chemnitz insisted otherwise: God alone converts the sinner.

The “Three Causes”: Melanchthon’s formula (“three causes conjoined”) was viewed by his opponents (like Amsdorf and Flacius) as a return to Semi-Pelagianism, echoing the very ideas Erasmus used against Luther. They argued that the will is not a “partner” but an enemy of God that must be broken, not merely encouraged to cooperate.

The Role of the Will: Melanchthon famously stated that “God draws, but draws him who is willing,” implying a necessary human assent. Chemnitz and the Gnesio-Lutherans argued that the will is a “statue” or a “block” that is acted upon by grace, rather than a living agent capable of cooperating before regeneration.

The Goal of Peace: Melanchthon’s willingness to make compromises (such as the Leipzig Interim) to appease Roman Catholics and create peace with the Reformed (Crypto-Calvinists) fueled the distrust of his doctrine. 

Resolution in the Formula of Concord (1577)

The controversy was formally settled by the Formula of Concord (Article II), which, with the strong influence of Martin Chemnitz, rejected Melanchthon’s Synergism and the “three causes” formula. 

The Formula established that:

Total Depravity: Man is entirely dead in sin and cannot contribute to his conversion.

Monergism: Conversion is the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit through the Word.

No Cooperation: The human will is not active but passive (not resisting, but passive) during the process of conversion. 

While Melanchthon was a revered founder, the Lutheran Church adopted Chemnitz’s view over Melanchthon’s synergistic modifications to preserve the doctrine of salvation by grace.”

[3] “What is Middle knowledge? This: “1) Theoretical circumstances that did not actually happen, but may have happened. ; 2) Knowledge of how people would have reacted had this alternate state of affairs occurred in actuality.”

Overall, this kind of knowledge on God’s part would of course be very practical when it comes to dealing with his creatures. For example, St. Gregory of Nyssa talks about how God “does not always hear our prayer for temporal goods, in order to prevent their misuse; or that God allows a man to die at an early age in order to save him from eternal damnation….’ (per Dave Armstrong). St. Augustine (The Gift of Perseverance, 9, 22 [c. 429]) says that ‘[C]ertainly God, foreknowing that certain men would fall away, was able to take them from this life before that would happen.’ (vol. 3, 174, #1996) 

See also Matthew 11:21,23; 1 Sam 23:1-13; Wis 4:11.

From Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong’s blog we read the following quote:

“Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, post and propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media [middle knowledge], sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure, a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory).” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974; originally 1952, 242-245)

His interlocutor JS responds: “GOD KNOWS THE CONDITIONED FUTURE FREE ACTIONS WITH INFALLIBLE CERTAINTY (Scientia futuribilium). (SENT[ENTIA]. COMMUNIS.)

By these are understood free actions of the future which indeed will never occur, but which would occur, if certain conditions were fulfilled. The Molinists call this Divine knowledge scientia media . . . The Thomists deny that this knowledge of the conditioned future is a special kind of Divine knowledge which precedes the decrees of the Divine Will.”

Dave Armstrong responds: “Molinists are not saying that anyone merits eternal life (contra Pelagianism); only that God utilizes His middle knowledge in deciding who to give the grace which alone causes them to believe and to attain final salvation….the Church would have condemned Molinism, but it chose not to in 1607. Rather, the Molinists were charged not to call the Thomists ‘Calvinists’ and the Thomists were told to refrain from calling the Molinists Pelagians. These things are ultimately mysteries, so no one can be overly dogmatic about it.”

JS responds: “The Church is rather clear on this teaching when, following the insights of St. Augustine and his disciple St. Prosper, she declared in the third canon of Quierzy in 853 AD, ‘Almighty God wills without exception, all men to be saved, though not all are saved. That some are saved, however, is the gift of Him who saves; if some perish, it is the fault of them that perish.’” 

Going further, JS says that Jesus does not die in order to save some men from future sins. What the official Thomist position might be here is unknown to the author. “The fact that God would allow one man to die in order to save him from future sins, yet He does not do so for another man would clearly seem to indicate that God unconditionally predestines some to eternal life, while others he permits to fall into and remain in sin….” (italics mine).

A Catholic Theologian by the name of Ott says: “In the light of scientia media [God] then resolves with the fullest freedom to realise certain determined conditions. Now He knows through scientia visionis with infallible certainty, how the person will, in fact, act in these conditions.”

Of this, JS says the following quite interesting words, showing how important the concepts of both free will and consent are even for the contemporary Thomist theologian:

“This seems to be a pretty good summary of Molinism. [And it] highlight[s] one of the main dilemmas with Molinism, in that God — via the scientia media –– determines the conditions in which man will realize his salvation. This would seem to undermine man’s freedom, since he is ultimately determined by preordained circumstances that will compel him to act in a certain manner…. [I’m against the idea that it is] circumstances guided by grace that realize man’s election….”

[4] In his online debate with a man named “J.S.”, Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong’s Molinist position was challenged in this way:

“The Molinists argue that efficacious grace is not of itself efficacious, but our cooperation with sufficient grace makes those graces efficacious. But, as has already been shown, this whole line of reasoning is superfluous because as St. Paul states, ‘Who can resist the will of God?’, and the Psalmist writes, ‘Whatever God wills in heaven is done.’

…I do believe Molinism comes perilously close to Pelagianism. And, the decrees of [the Council of] Quierzy are relevant, because they were not so much about Pelagianism but rather Predestinarianism. The third canon of that council states, ‘Almighty God wills without exception, all men to be saved, though not all are saved. That some are saved is, however, is the gift of him who saves; if some perish, it is the fault of them that perish.’ This canon virtually defines the absolute gratuity of grace as ‘gift’- the consequence of which is that grace is not dispensed on the basis of foreseen merits, since even those foreseen merits are the work of grace already given. Once again, the burden of proof is on you, as the Molinist, to explain how this canon supports the doctrine that election and the dispensation of efficacious grace are conditioned by foreseen merits.

If God sees via His omniscience that a man will respond favorably to His gift of mercy, it is only because God has already elected to bestow that gift of mercy; any merit, including a foreseen merit, presupposes the action of a prior grace, which in turn presupposes that God had already elected to bestow that grace. So again, election precedes the meritorious works ‘foreseen’ by God from all eternity….

Molinism… cannot fully accept the mystery of God’s love. Love transcends reasons, though it is not irrational either.”

He quotes St. Augustine here: “God’s love is the cause of all that is good. Yet one thing would not be better than another, had God not loved it more than the other.”

The Thomist position, he says is the following:

“He gives to each: 1) enough graces so that it is possible for all to be saved and that if one is not saved it is solely their own fault (Quierzy) and 2) each according to their own capacity. So, for example, God gave Mary infinitely more graces than you or I because of her exalted calling….

The proposed solution of the Molinists does not solve the dilemma…. but only further complicates it in a noble attempt to explain it. Since one must logically ask, why does God not pre-determine the most ideal circumstances for everyone to achieve salvation? Is God’s middle knowledge not infallible enough to see the possibilities in which everyone can be saved? Is God’s will not omnipotent enough to bring about the salvation of everyone? The same objection of ‘unfairness’ on the part of God can be equally raised against the Molinists, and the Molinists might very well find themselves responding just like the Thomists. Yet unlike the Calvinists, both the Thomists and the Molinists do not accept double predestination and we yield to the mystery of God’s infinite justice.”

Dave’s final analysis of this debate however is basically this: “This is interesting to ponder and debate, but it makes no practical difference which way one comes down on it…”

[5] Armstrong: “What Trent teaches on salvation is perfectly compatible with either Molinism or Thomism. If the former were semi-Pelagian at all, the Church would have condemned it along with the ancient heresy. But it has not.”

[6] The Thomist Christopher Malloy defines original sin in the following way:

“Original sin is what we inherit from Adam: We are all conceived in a state of alienation from God (Ps 51, Eph 2:3). We are deprived of sanctifying grace, which made us radiant like angels. Stripped of our royal robe, we inherit the rebellious state Adam chose. Also, we are ravaged interiorly by this loss, so we find acts of supernatural virtue impossible, acts of natural virtue difficult, and, often enough, acts of vice attractive. This is not all.

Upon birth, those begotten of Adam (except the Mother of God) also bear the stain of guilt before God, which cries out for eternal punishment. Since sin entails guilt before God; only God can remit sin. Indeed, only the one who is offended can re-establish a violated relationship. No matter how much I try to win back the friend I have wronged, I must await his free forgiveness. How much more is this the case with God!”

Malloy also goes on to say the following: “[God] created us without our assistance, so he redeemed us without the cooperation of sinners, putting forth his Son as an expiation for sin (Rom 3:24ff).” (Mary is the only other member of mankind involved here) So, therefore, because of this objective redemption, our will is led to cooperate, even in part by the unregenerate man’s powers.

[7] So, Malloy is perhaps only speaking metaphorically when he says: “God alone replaces the heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ez 36:26ff). This surgery is divinely wrought, not a work of human effort (Eph 2:8-10).” Is not grace understood to energize such natural human effort though, making it meritorious?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 11, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

Jesus and Us, Tempted Without Sin

22 Feb

Sermon preached at Clam Falls Lutheran Church, Feb. 22, 2026.

+++

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it…”

– Gen. 3:6a

+++

Eve was taken for a ride, and corrupted.

As we heard in Genesis 3 and Romans 5, Adam went along, and now we follow in their train…

What do you really want? 

What or Who do you want? Love?

What is love? Sacrifice for the good of the other. And love that is forced is not free, and therefore not genuine love. 

Only freely given love is genuine love.

Otherwise, we might as well be robots, soulless artificial intelligence. 

+++

Christian, do you realize that a day will come when you will no longer be able to sin?

We will be just like Adam and Eve – only better. 

Get ready!

Still, this is one of the mysteries of the faith, is it not?

Adam and Eve were created very good.

“But can someone who is very good be tempted?”, we might ask.

They can.

The fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in itself good. 

It was indeed pleasing to the eye, it was indeed good for gaining wisdom. 

Mormon theology, in line with Satanism, teaches that Eve was meant to do this – to gain Enlightenment for mankind. 

Not so.

The fruit from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was not to be used the way Eve used it.

By this action, Eve was neither loving nor trusting in God…

Love is not something we use. A tool that we pick up and use. 

Love is not something to be used properly or improperly. 

Rather, if we use the things that God has given us properly, according to his design and command, we walk in love. 

If we use the things God has given us improperly, not according to his design and command, we do not love. We walk in sin.

Again, we are not able to use anything God has created properly unless we have love (Romans 1:27)! 

That is, unless we have affection for, and desire to treat rightly, that concrete thing and gift that God has given us to rightly know.

The fruit, though forbidden, was good, truly beautiful.

Eve could have been tempted without sin. 

Likewise, Adam could have rejected the fruit she gave him. He didn’t, and God comes down on him hard:

“Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it….”

Again, in the Garden of Eden, overcoming temptation was certainly possible, but a tragic failure was the narrative Satan wanted. 

It became their story.

…It became, and is, our story. 

It is the account of all men. We are now, infected, fallen, never without sin.

+++

Nevertheless, can we too, like Adam and Eve were, be tempted without sin?

It is an important question.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God who took on human flesh, was tempted without sin.

Even as perfection in this life is beyond reach, the same can indeed be true of us, increasingly so. We can overcome temptation, be tempted without sin.

Satan fooled Adam and Eve. 

He worked with something that was good, and in the process of creating his own frame and narrative, twisted Adam and Eve’s good desires into sinful ones…

Therefore, the believer’s life is now not only a fight against the temptation of Satan – the great angel who fell – but the sin within that has taken root.

+++

In the book of Judges, in chapter 2, we can read in an extended section that can serve for us as a metaphor for the Christian life. 

First, God’s chosen people receive a message from the Angel of the Lord – possibly the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity – that God is judging them for their sin, and then, after this…:

“…all the Israelites, the people, wept aloud… [and] they offered sacrifices to the Lord…”

After this, they take possession of the Promised Land, and we hear that:

“The people served the Lord throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had seen all the great things the Lord had done for Israel…”

What happens though, after their leader Joshua, and that generation, dies?:

The next generation forgets the God of their fathers, who rescued them from Egypt. No longer knowing him, they worship the gods of their neighbors. Then the Lord, angry, allows their enemies to oppress them.

And we read on to see that there is a recurring cycle here, not a cheerful one…

Israel quickly and repeatedly forgets the ways of their ancestors – who were obedient to the Lord’s commands – and spurns the “judges” or messengers that God sends them.

Instead, they again “prostitute” themselves with foreign gods. Their enemies oppress them again and again. They repeatedly groan and cry out, and God sends his judges to save them…

Still, the people also grow worse and worse all the time. They always “refuse to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways….”

Finally, we hear that:

“I will use [the other nations] to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of the Lord and walk in it as their ancestors did…”

Israel will no longer drive out the other nations, as intended. 

Instead, those nations will help test their hearts…

+++

What is the key point of the metaphor?

Jesus, who has the same name of Joshua but in Greek, leads his Christians into the promised land…

He is the one who has given it to us – and he is the only one who could have given it to us. 

In baptism, you take possession of the promised land.

With this you have all God’s blessings, with Jesus always being the One who gives us all the good things we need.

Judges 2 maps with this perfectly. Again, it serves as a good metaphor for the Christian life. 

In addition, we see here the struggle of the Christian life as well. 

Having taken possession of the promised land, having taken possession of Heaven already, we will be tested, lest we fall into idolatry again. 

We must not fail to drive out that which is evil, externally and now internally as well, since the fall.

Israel was originally called to drive out their neighbors immersed in idolatry. 

We too are now called to drive out evil… evils within and without.

Here, few verses are as helpful or practical to us here as the one we find in the book of James, chapter 1, verses 13-15:

“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”

Again, “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire…”

It is only Satan and sin that brings temptation. 

And sin, as the Book of Genesis reminds us, is crouching at your door….

But you must master, must rule over it.

Again, having already provided a way for us into the Promised land, having already brought us into the promised land, Jesus shows us the way to prepare ourselves for it.

+++

Jesus was tempted, and yet was without sin.

James tells us that desire leads to sin, but Jesus tells us that evil desires are already sin.

So what is happening here?

What is happening here is that the book of James is not talking about sinful desire – which some Bible translations just assume – but simply strong or powerful desire.

Strong and powerful desire that is meant to be properly channeled.

It is not wrong to look upon, appreciate, or even to desire a beautiful fruit, for the beautiful fruit God has made is good.

Nevertheless, God had, for his purposes, limited Eve here. And Satan caused her to go astray.

When the serpent speaks with his “Did God really say?” and his subtle re-frame, upon further consideration the fruit looks really good to her! I mean, she had not looked at it that closely before! 

It is not so much a matter of her wanting to engage in an activity that denies God’s clear word – which would indicate that her desires have already become one with the “flesh”, infected by evil. 

Not at all. 

Rather, Satan has fooled her in line with desires that are still, at this point, fundamentally good.

Nevertheless defying the Lord.

He succeeds. He uses, in part, the fundamental goodness of the fruit’s beauty to lure her, pull her away from God’s word.

+++

And Satan tries to do the same with Jesus – twist that which is good and right into something askew, wrong, evil – but He fails.

Jesus knew, He loved, God’s word too much.

It is not wrong to say that Jesus enters into a real process of temptation with this Tempter, but he never gives into sin at all, not even a little…

Now, did he find what Satan said to be interesting at all? Was his curiosity aroused? Well, why wouldn’t it be?

After all, in the proper context, Jesus certainly should have desired and did desire these things! 

In the proper context, it would be a very good thing for him to enjoy nourishing food, to enter into a dangerous and risky situation knowing God would deliver him, and especially, for he who is the Messiah, to rule the nations.

Beautiful! 

Still, to do all of these things in this way would be to abandon the good purposes his Father had for him!

Jesus knew, loved, God’s word too much.

Too much, that is, for the devil.

So even as the process of internal temptation begins in Jesus, He never consents for one second to the twisted framing and narrative of the Evil One – the wicked thoughts and perhaps even mood that Satan had introduced…

As the head slithers through the hole in the tent it’s as if he crushes it immediately.

+++

And now, like Jesus, it is God’s will for you to be set apart, made holy, sanctified!

Fighting your sinful nature and growing in love and trust that you might be blessed in every way possible, in the deepest of ways.

Through rain and shine, suffering and joy. 

Whatever your external circumstances.

Again, Adam and Eve failed to trust and love God. More specifically, they failed to love God deeply out of a deep trust and loyalty. It didn’t have to be that way.

Rather, would that they had gloried in God’s word more…!

Treasured and worshiped every word that proceeded from his lips!

….known that He knew best, that, yes, the fruit was beautiful, but evidently not for now!

….and that God had the best things possible planned for them!

We don’t know how long they were in the garden before they fell. 

Maybe it was a day. Or days. Or weeks. Or months. Or years.

Whatever the case, God intended more for them. God intends more for us.

+++

Satan found out that he could not get Jesus, but he has you in his sights, the one created in Christ’s image.

In sum, he now appeals to our fallen flesh with subtle lies, or “re-framing actions”, about God, His good creation, and the good desires that are meant to accompany it.

Desires that are by nature good, that are in line with God’s plans and purposes for creation, become…

– inappropriate (as they are wrested from their proper context)

– excessive (going beyond what is intended), 

– and, as evil grows ever more rebellious, these desires even become “unnatural”…

But, remembering what we read from Judges too, God always expects his people to obey him. 

And, at the exact same time, God also expects you to understand why you obey him – out of thankfulness and joy for what he has done for you in Christ!

So you know that you can’t justify yourself before him. 

You absolutely cannot. 

Which is why, for example, the Gospel of Luke talks about how his true servants say “Lord, we are unworthy servants, we have only done what you asked!”

+++

Satan sees this.

And he knows that men – now also burdened and infected with sin, perpetually make all kinds of excuses, some bad – some worse….

Be aware of your enemy! 

Satan is crafty, and will encourage all manner of soul-destroying errors!

A Buddhist might say that all desire is the problem. Not just sinful desires, but desire itself! 

Just like Ben Kenobi told Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars, earthly “attachments”, starting with marriage, for example, are actually what cause all the suffering in this world. 

And some bearing the name Lutheran – they are actually captive to Fake Lutheranism  – believe that desires for things like homosexual activity, prostitution, and even worse are not sinful in themselves.

Others insist that because the scriptures say he was tempted in every way we are that Jesus himself must have had desires to engage in homosexual activity!

It gets worse. On a seemingly more traditional and conservative Lutheran social media feed, one said…

“[Adam and Eve] could not resist [temptation] and neither can you or me.   

If the only law was don’t [molest children] we’d all be [child molesters].”

So some people truly begin to believe that God’s law causes Christians to sin, namely that it – and not our sinful nature – is a problem.

Some Lutherans are particularly tempted by this in part because they know Lutherans are to be a people of the Gospel, grace!: 

A Lutheran – even more than any other Christian! – is to know that man only lives from the forgiveness, life, and salvation that Jesus gives.

And so, Satan tempts us by saying “Did God really say to follow his commandments?”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent says to us, if you live outside the law instead of within it….

+++

So, I repeat…

Subtle and sneaky and ever so creative in his approaches, Satan would trick you…

And now, post-fall, more…. kindle the sinful desires, evil inclinations, that remain in your heart this side of the promised land…

Can we be tempted without sin?

Again, yes. Sin and temptation must remain distinct.

Again, in our earthly sojourn, we can never be entirely without sin, even as, in God’s Spirit, we can drive out our sin more and more.

In like fashion, we will never be able to avoid temptation even as our temptation, like Jesus’ temptation, need not lead into sin.

Martin Luther said that when we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into the Christian life, which is a life of persistent repentance. 

In that, our faith lives, and does not die.

Only Christ has fully resisted temptation and has lived a sinless life, obeying fully. 

Only he, with his perfect life, could pay the price for us, as the perfect sacrifice.

And yet, he certainly wills to include you in his work! With him, we can face temptation! He comes by your side, joins, unites with you!:

– Keep watch and be sober!

– Resist and flee evil! 

– Love more and more what is good, true, and beautiful, so you can recognize, have less taste for, evil!

– Be transformed by the renewing of your mind!

– Cling to the sword of the Spirit – that is His word in the Scripture!

– Pray without ceasing!

Yes Lord, deliver us from evil, the Evil One!

+++

Jesus is always the solution. 

With his atoning sacrifice for your sins, He wipes your slate clean, gives you a clear standing before God. 

And He sets you on the paths that are straight.

He will give you peace before God and power to live.

He will give you a love for him that will drown out the desire to sin. 

The power and strength to resist temptation. And the tactics and strategies required to minimize it as we are able….

We can know this. In our simple daily lives, in our vocations or callings, we can cultivate this knowledge.

God would indeed choose for us to face temptation at times…

…but He does not desire that we be led more deeply into temptation such that sin overcomes us, but rather that with Him we deal with temptation in short order and overcome it.

Your old Adam remains. Will you, in this or that fashion, fall again and again and again? 

Yes.

And will Jesus Christ will be there to forgive you again and again and again?

Yes! For you are his child. The promised land is yours, has been readied for you!

So get ready for it! 

For God will indeed eliminate all evil, within and without!

This is also why the psalmist rightly prays that those who do evil would not be permitted to molest and entice God’s chosen ones – and even that they would be finally removed from her presence (Psalm 125)!

The day is indeed coming when you will know temptation no more, know sin no more! 

And more than that, you will only want to know and do what is the absolute best!

So, the time to start on this road, perhaps slowly but definitely surely, is now! 

The time to start is today!

For God justifies and sanctifies you and glorifies you in Jesus Christ. 

And he will, finally, in the presence of your enemies, justify and sanctify and glorify you in Jesus Christ.

Forever.

Amen

Endnotes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Joieesxep-5AOeOJaBVWViGGbV86jcGDdrUpz3z4dyc/edit?usp=sharing

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 22, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

“Of Faith and the Merit of Christ and the Righteousness of Faith no Mention was Made”

19 Feb

+++

In the 1530 Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran Church, in article XXV titled “On Confession”, we hear at one point that “of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made”. The claim here is that prior to the Reformation, essentially no mention of faith was being made in the Roman Catholic church but most everything was understood in terms of works. 

Here, for reference, is the wider context of the quote: 

“The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers. (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/#ac-xxv-0004)

Why did this happen? In Article XXVIII, “Of Ecclesiastical Power”, we get an idea:

“Now, it is against Scripture to establish or require the observance of any traditions, to the end that by such observance we may make satisfaction for sins, or merit grace and righteousness. For the glory of Christ’s merit suffers injury when, by such observances, we undertake to merit justification. But it is manifest that, by such belief, traditions have almost infinitely multiplied in the Church, the doctrine concerning faith and the righteousness of faith being meanwhile suppressed. For gradually more holy-days were made, fasts appointed, new ceremonies and services in honor of saints instituted, because the authors of such things thought that by these works they were meriting grace. Thus in times past the Penitential Canons increased, whereof we still see some traces in the satisfactions….”

And in Article XX in the Augsburg Confession, “Of Good Works”, is one of the richest and most interesting articles. I am posting it directly below and bolding the parts of that article that make this same claim. That said, I encourage you to take a look at the entire article, as it is well worth the read.

Article XX. Of Good Works.

1 Our teachers are falsely accused of forbidding Good Works. 2 For their published writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like import, bear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what works in every calling be pleasing to God. 3 Concerning these things preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of rosaries, monasticism, and such like. 4 Since our adversaries have been admonished of these things, they are now unlearning them, and do not preach these unprofitable works as heretofore. 5 Besides, they begin to mention faith, of which there was heretofore marvelous silence. 6 They teach that we are justified not by works only, but they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith and works. 7 This doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and can afford more consolation than their old doctrine.

8 Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine concerning faith, which ought to be the chief one in the Church, has lain so long unknown, as all must needs grant that there was the deepest silence in their sermons concerning the righteousness of faith, while only the doctrine of works was treated in the churches, our teachers have instructed the churches concerning faith as follows:—

9 First, that our works cannot reconcile God or merit forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification, but that we obtain this only by faith when we believe that we are received into favor for Christ’s sake, who alone has been set forth the Mediator and Propitiation, 1 Tim. 2:5, in order that the Father may be reconciled through Him. 10 Whoever, therefore, trusts that by works he merits grace, despises the merit and grace of Christ, and seeks a way to God without Christ, by human strength, although Christ has said of Himself: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. John 14:6.

11 This doctrine concerning faith is everywhere treated by Paul, Eph. 2:8: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of your selves; it is the gift of God, not of works, etc.

12 And lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the testimonies of the Fathers. For 13 Augustine, in many volumes, defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits of works. 14 And Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium, and elsewhere, teaches to like effect. For in his De Vocatione Gentium he says as follows: Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of man’s works be superseded by the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer.

15 But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced, nevertheless God-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the sure ground that for Christ’s sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul teaches Rom. 5:1: 16Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. 17 This whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the terrified conscience, neither can it be understood apart from that conflict. Therefore 18 inexperienced and profane men judge ill concerning this matter, who dream that Christian righteousness is nothing but civil and philosophical righteousness.

19 Heretofore consciences were plagued with the doctrine of works, they did not hear the consolation from the Gospel. 20 Some persons were driven by conscience into the desert, into monasteries hoping there to merit grace by a monastic life. 21 Some also devised other works whereby to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins. 22 Hence there was very great need to treat of, and renew, this doctrine of faith in Christ, to the end that anxious consciences should not be without consolation but that they might know that grace and forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by faith in Christ.

23 Men are also admonished that here the term “faith” does not signify merely the knowledge of the history, such as is in the ungodly and in the devil, but signifies a faith which believes, not merely the history, but also the effect of the history—namely, this article: the forgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ.

24 Now he that knows that he has a Father gracious to him through Christ, truly knows God; he knows also that God cares for him, and calls upon God; in a word, he is not 25 without God, as the heathen. For devils and the ungodly are not able to believe this article: the forgiveness of sins. Hence, they hate God as an enemy, call not upon Him, 26 and expect no good from Him. Augustine also admonishes his readers concerning the word “faith,” and teaches that the term “faith” is accepted in the Scriptures not for knowledge such as is in the ungodly but for confidence which consoles and encourages the terrified mind.

27 Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God. 28 It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. 29 And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. 30 For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. 31 For man’s powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God’s sight. 32 Besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, 33 to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, 34 but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human strength.

35 Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. 36 For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. 37 Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man’s help. 38 And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. 39 Wherefore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing; 40 and the Church sings:

Lacking Thy divine favor,

There is nothing found in man,

Naught in him is harmless. (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/ )

FIN

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 19, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

Would Luther Have Considered Pedophilia a Speck?

01 Feb

“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment”

– John 7:24

“[W]henever any Christian sees his neighbor doing wrong, he has the duty of admonishing him and restraining him, which is impossible without judging and passing judgment.”

— Martin Luther, exposition on Matt 7:1-5

+++

Are you a Missouri Synod Lutheran and have not heard of the Large Cataclysm? Well, here is a timeline filling you in. And in light of the recent scandal (prepare!), it seems like the above quotation is coming to the fore again (I attempted to deal with it before).

Really? See timeline above or just this tweet, in the thread which begin the entire public controvery.

And now…

First, let’s take a look at Matthew 7:1-5. It reads:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

Here is a Google AI summary on Martin Luther’s take on Matthew 7:1-5, which I can confirm is accurate:

“Martin Luther interpreted Matthew 7:1-5 as a command to prioritize self-examination over condemning others. He taught that believers should look in the ‘mirror’ of God’s law to see their own massive ‘beams’ of sin before judging the ‘motes’ (specks) in a neighbor’s eye, ultimately focusing on personal repentance rather than arrogant, hypocritical judgment. 

Key Aspects of Luther’s Interpretation:

Self-Examination: Luther emphasized that before judging a neighbor’s small fault, one must recognize their own, far greater transgressions against God.

Mirror of the Law: The ‘beams’ in one’s own eye are so large they should act as a constant reminder of one’s own sins, which are often constant, unlike a neighbor’s occasional mistake.

Against Hypocrisy: The focus is on the hypocrisy of fixing minor issues in others while ignoring one’s own profound spiritual corruption.

True Purpose: By focusing on personal sin, one becomes too busy with their own repentance to act as a harsh judge over others…

This passage is a key component of the Sermon on the Mount, focusing on the danger of judgmental attitudes rather than prohibiting all forms of discernment.”

+++

I was driven to think much harder about this topic over the last couple days.

Six points, some of which cannot be found in the Google AI summary above: 

1. God’s Standard Does Not Change

Luther said: “Be careful not to measure your holiness by other people’s sins.” This is man’s problem. He always wants to compare himself to others, and not God directly. Lacking a salutary fear of God, I believe this is the church’s biggest problem today.

Jesus tells his disciples that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Man still needs to keep the Law, and his righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and the Pharisees to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20). The Pharisees were most likely viewed by many as being the paragons of righteousness. They tended to be more successful people who, externally at least, lived good lives, apparently fulfilling the law of God. 

The knowledge of God’s standard is first of all meant to help us understand that we do not measure up and to lead us to the knowledge that the Lord Jesus must be our righteousness. When our sin is forgiven and his righteousness is imputed to us by grace through faith we then have peace with God and live lives of holiness, fulfilling the law as Christ did (Romans 8:4), albeit imperfectly. Christ’s blood covers the sin that remains even in our best works.  

2. Jesus Calls Us to Judge

Do you sometimes appreciate being judged? Well, kind of. If the dentist tells you that you have a cavity at some point you will probably be quite happy he pointed this out to you.

Years ago, in the wake of the same-sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court, Joseph Klotz wrote at the Steadfast Lutherans blog: “Jesus who called the Pharisees vipers and turned over the money-changer’s tables in the temple. Jesus clearly teaches his disciples to judge. The issue is that we must judge properly, using God’s Word as the standard for our judgment, rather than our own personal morality or behavior.” 

He goes on: “Kretzmann writes that the word used by Jesus in Matthew 7:1, which we render as “judge,” in the Greek implies personal, unkind uncharitable, unauthorized, condemnatory judgment (Kretzmann 1921). Christians must practice self-examination, and use God’s standard, rather than their own to judge the words and deeds of others.”

3. Proper Repentance is Necessary to Do This 

Again, Klotz helpfully summarizes: “Jesus did not forbid his followers from judging sin. He called them to judge the sin of others (the specks) in the light of their own sin (the logs), only after proper self-examination and repentance, according to God’s standard.”

In one sermon, Luther gave this colorful and practical advice: 

“Therefore a Christian should follow a different practice. When he sees the mote in his brother’s eye, he should go look at himself in the mirror before passing judgment. He will then find beams in his eye big enough to make hog troughs. Consequently he will have to say: What is this anyway? My neighbor has done this once in a quarter, a half, a whole year; but I have become so old and have never yet kept the commandments of our Lord God, yea, I transgress them every hour and moment. How can I be such a desperate rascal? My sins are nothing but large oaks, thirty feet tall; and I allow the paltry motes, the specks of dust in my brother’s eye, to irritate me more than my large beams! But this should not be. I must first see how to get rid of my own sins. This will keep me so busy that I shall forget about the motes.”

Martin Luther. What Luther Says. Ewald M. Plass, ed. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1959 (Page 524).

4. Luther’s Primary Focus is Self-Righteousness 

What sins should we repent of in general? We should first of all repent of any sins that we are aware of and that are bothering us. But as we can see, Luther is keen to let us know we must go deeper. 

In Luther’s exposition of Matthew 7:1-5 he is focused on a problem that all men have: the impulse to judge other people more harshly than they judge themselves. In other words, Luther is focusing on the garden-variety self-righteousness that all of us must fight against. I heard this put very effectively years ago: “The headlights on the approaching vehicle are always brighter than one’s own.” All of us know that this is a problem we have, and so it is good that someone as wise as Luther has given us help in addressing how we should handle our sinful nature here.

5. Luther Also Says Bigger Sinners Have More Trouble with This 

By causing us to first consider all of our sins as logs and our neighbors sins as specks Luther does not mean to say we should never judge; nor that we should not desire for particularly heinous offenses to be punished. 

Luther certainly makes judgments. At one point he speaks of how “some whore will imagine that she is prettier than anyone else, and what she sees in others will not please her” (211). Even though Luther does talk about general garden-variety self-righteousness a lot, it is also clear from his exposition on Matthew 7:1-5 that those he judges as the most self-righteous are religious men who do very evil things and habitually get away with it. For example, in this exposition, Luther harshly judges the Roman Catholic Church that had set their sights on him. After he had pointed out terrible problems not just with their lives but with their doctrines, they had done everything possible not to examine themselves but to try to destroy him. They “search[] out the worst things [they] can find about [Luther]”… they do their best and look for just cause to judge and condemn us….(215, 219).

This is why in the same exposition in which he at times appears to give the impression Christians are to never judge, he also judges his opponents quite harshly: “…the way of the world [is] everywhere; the log judges the speck, and the big villain condemns the little one…. They are all full of demons and blindness, while they mourn over other people’s specks…” Again: “those who are full of vices and wickedness cannot stop watching and condemning the tiny vices of other people. Thus the log is the master and the judge of the speck” (220). 

Christ’s Church has always understood that logs are worse sins than specks. Even as Luther focuses on self-righteousness – and tells us to focus on our own sins and see them as more weighty and important than others (“…the one who judges always has a log in his eye as far as God is concerned, while the one who is being judged only a speck”) – he does not say it is not true that the logs are objectively worse sins than specks. On the contrary, it is especially true that the big villain – the one with the bigger sins – condemns the little one.

6. Christians Today Will be Tempted to Abuse Luther’s Interpretation of This Passage.

Today, conservative Lutherans have great problems with antinomianism and a desire to fit in with the culture and world around them. At the very least, they want to be seen as compassionate and never as mean. When they read Luther say: “You [should] be willing to forgive and tolerate and excuse someone else’s speck, in view of the fact that God forgives and pardons your log” (222), there is a danger that this will be used as an excuse to not enjoin the battle where it should be enjoined.

In addition to this, my whole life, I have been listening to pastors tell me that every sin before God’s eyes is just the same. Even if there are many who recognize this is a false statement, many, even many good men, do not.

Therefore, when one sees a quotation like the one found in the new edition of the Large Catechism, they should recognize that such a statement should never have been allowed to see the light of day. As I said right from the beginning, all of those books should have been burned, even if only for this one simple statement (there were other problems too). Luther would have never allowed it.

So I have no regrets about this tweet that I put up a couple days ago. You can write me off as just a mean person eager to judge if you want, but do so at your own peril.

Again, Matt Cochran was right days after this problem first came to light: “[T]hose who sounded the alarm on this quote were hardly in error or being uncharitable.” Other men, even good men, have remained wrong, even if they never plan to shoot the messenger who pulled the fire alarm.

FIN

Addendum: The debate continues….

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 1, 2026 in Uncategorized

 

My New Ad Crucem Article

28 Jan

Is up.

It’s called “Can a Christian People Impose ‘Christian Laws’? – or Even ‘Christian Nationalist Laws’?”

So, this one is about Luther, Lutherans, and Church and State — “Civil Righteousness”.

My previous articles were about justification and sanctification:

-“Does the Church Only Rise or Fall with the Doctrine of Justification?”
-“When Sanctification Becomes Justification: How Fake Lutherans Created a Passive Church”

So, basically, one about the second use of the law, one about the third, and this one about the first.

I hope you’ll check them out if you haven’t already.

UPDATE, another one!:

2026 “Addressing Rampant Confusion about Jesus’s Temptations.” Ad Crucem News, May 7, https://www.adcrucem.news/p/the-debate-about-jesuss-temptations

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2026 in Uncategorized

 
← Older posts
 
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started