Missouri has made the gospel a conclusion appended to a sermon, regardless of whether the pericope actually leads there, with a chain of indefinite absolutions replacing sanctification.
Perhaps the act of preaching (a work) has itself become the Gospel (delivery of righteousness) therefore manipulation of the Word is justified to satisfy demand.
I appreciate a lot of what Dr. Scaer is saying here, especially as regards antinomian tendencies in the LCMS, but I'm a bit perplexed by the notion that justification has somehow been separated from the cross and the empty tomb. "Sermons don’t fail because they get justification wrong, but because they don’t preach Christ." If they don't preach Christ, then they get justification wrong too. If they're just giving lip service to the right Lutheran words, that doesn't equal getting justification right.
Also, is he arguing that baptism is absolutely necessary from John 3? As far as I'm aware, Lutherans have always contended that baptism is ordinarily necessary, but not absolutely---that is to say, God has prescribed ordinary means for us to receive his gifts, but He is not restricted to only those means Himself.
Thank you for writing this out . When I listened to the you tube I had thought Dr. Scare said he had become Anglican. I am happy to see I had miss heard.
I am glad to see sanctification and the third use defended. The simul has been abused in a very unlutheran way. I thought those who denied the third use and the Vicarious Satisfaction Atonement were a real minority. This sounds like it is a very big faction.
We joined the LCMS after nearly two decades in the EFCA. I can see these differences between the sermons. In my experience, evangelical sermons will trend more towards telling listeners what to do, many times downplaying or simple blurring the law/gospel distinction. But the people liked being told what to do. One of the common comments from people attending our old church was "the sermons are so practical" and "the pastor actually seems like a real person." Conversely, faithful Lutheran sermons have been grace and peace giving to me as they speak of Christ's work for me, and deliver his gifts to me in the divine service. However, I don't know how many times in the last two years a sermon has instructed me on how to have a good marriage, father/parent well, practical ways to stop sinning, or even how to read my bible. Because we have the law/gospel distinction and absolution, Lutheran Pastors should be the ones most willing and able to exhort and admonish their flock as they know they aren't threatening the hearer's justification. I remember reading one of C.F.W. Walther's sermons focusing on an area of sin in my life and I felt really bad...and it made me not want to sin, but did not threaten my justification. I loved it.
I can't speak to LCMS congregations in general, but I personally have been helped in thinking through daily repentance without falling into the trap of thinking "I can sin bc I'll be forgiven anyway" by paying attention to the difference between sins of weakness and intentional sins against conscience. This something I feel like I run into more frequently and forcefully taught in the older Lutheran theologians that I've read so far. By no means do I have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject but it has definitely stood out as something I appreciate.
Thank you. This is a lot to take in but worth knowing what is REALLY going on in preaching!
Perhaps the act of preaching (a work) has itself become the Gospel (delivery of righteousness) therefore manipulation of the Word is justified to satisfy demand.
I appreciate a lot of what Dr. Scaer is saying here, especially as regards antinomian tendencies in the LCMS, but I'm a bit perplexed by the notion that justification has somehow been separated from the cross and the empty tomb. "Sermons don’t fail because they get justification wrong, but because they don’t preach Christ." If they don't preach Christ, then they get justification wrong too. If they're just giving lip service to the right Lutheran words, that doesn't equal getting justification right.
Also, is he arguing that baptism is absolutely necessary from John 3? As far as I'm aware, Lutherans have always contended that baptism is ordinarily necessary, but not absolutely---that is to say, God has prescribed ordinary means for us to receive his gifts, but He is not restricted to only those means Himself.
Thank you for this.
Thank you for writing this out . When I listened to the you tube I had thought Dr. Scare said he had become Anglican. I am happy to see I had miss heard.
I am glad to see sanctification and the third use defended. The simul has been abused in a very unlutheran way. I thought those who denied the third use and the Vicarious Satisfaction Atonement were a real minority. This sounds like it is a very big faction.
We joined the LCMS after nearly two decades in the EFCA. I can see these differences between the sermons. In my experience, evangelical sermons will trend more towards telling listeners what to do, many times downplaying or simple blurring the law/gospel distinction. But the people liked being told what to do. One of the common comments from people attending our old church was "the sermons are so practical" and "the pastor actually seems like a real person." Conversely, faithful Lutheran sermons have been grace and peace giving to me as they speak of Christ's work for me, and deliver his gifts to me in the divine service. However, I don't know how many times in the last two years a sermon has instructed me on how to have a good marriage, father/parent well, practical ways to stop sinning, or even how to read my bible. Because we have the law/gospel distinction and absolution, Lutheran Pastors should be the ones most willing and able to exhort and admonish their flock as they know they aren't threatening the hearer's justification. I remember reading one of C.F.W. Walther's sermons focusing on an area of sin in my life and I felt really bad...and it made me not want to sin, but did not threaten my justification. I loved it.
The interesting the apology of the Augustana says we preach exactly these kind of practical sermons.
I can't speak to LCMS congregations in general, but I personally have been helped in thinking through daily repentance without falling into the trap of thinking "I can sin bc I'll be forgiven anyway" by paying attention to the difference between sins of weakness and intentional sins against conscience. This something I feel like I run into more frequently and forcefully taught in the older Lutheran theologians that I've read so far. By no means do I have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject but it has definitely stood out as something I appreciate.