Pastors' Keystrokes

How Jesus Found You and Me

Written by Pastor Nuckols Thursday, 01 July 2010 08:53

(An except from "The Hammer of God" by Bo Giertz. Edited for meaning)

"I just want you to know from the beginning, sir, that I am a believer," he said. His voice was a bit harsh.

He saw a gleam in the old man's eyes which he could not quite interpret. Was approval indicated, or did he have somthing up his sleeve?

The seasoned veteran put the lamp back on the table, puffed at his pipe, and looked at the young man a moment before he spoke.

"So you are a believer, I'm glad to hear that. What do you believe in?"

Schmidt stared dumfounded at his superior. Was he just jesting with him?

"But sir, I am simply saying that I am a believer."

"Yes, I hear that, my boy. But what is it that you believe in?"

Schmidt was almost speechless.

"But don't you know, sir, what it means to be a believer?"

"That is a word which can stand for things that differ greatly, my boy. I ask only what it is that you believe in."

"In Jesus, of course," answered Schmidt, raising his voice. "I mean--I mean that I have given Him my heart."

The older man's face become suddenly as solemn as the grave.  "Do you consider that something to give Him?"

By this time, Schmidt was almost in tears.

"But sir, if you do not give your heart to Jesus, you cannot be saved."

"You are right, my boy. And it is just as true that, if you think you are saved because you give Jesus your heart, you will not be saved. You see, my boy," he continued reassuringly, as he continued to look at the young man's face, in which uncertainty and resentment were shown in a struggle for the upper hand, "it is one thing to choose Jesus as one's Lord and Savior, to give Him one's heart and commit oneself to Him, and that He now accepts one into His little flock; it is a very different thing to believe on Him as a Redeemer of sinners, of whom one is chief. One does not choose a Redeemer for oneself, you understand, nor give one's heart to Him. The heart is a rusty old can on a junk heap. A fine birthday gift, indeed! But a wonderful Lord passes by, and has mercy on the wretched tin can, sticks His walking cane through it and rescues it from the junk pile and takes it home with Him. That is how it is."

Schmidt said nothing. Though it seemed sacrilegious to speak about the Savior in connection with such an ungodly thing as a walking stick, he saw that the old man's intention were certainly not sacrilegious. He felt this by the very tone of his voice. When the old man continued, his voice was gentler still.

"And now you must understand that these two ways of believing are like two different religions, they have nothing whatever to do with each other."  "And yet," he added thoughtfully, "one might say that there is a path that leads from the lesser to the greater. First, one believes in repentance, and then in grace. And I believe you are on that path. But now we must argue no longer," he said briskly. "It probably does not pay, nor can I ever convince you with words. But other there"--he pointed with his pipe toward the dark winter night outside--"out there you will find a strict and demanding teacher."

Schmidt looked puzzled.

Later that night, during their evening devotion, and after they had sung the hymn, the old man offered a prayer in his own words. It was a prayer unlike any Schmidt had ever heard. There was thanksgiving for God's almight works in creation, for the stern glory of winter, for the Christmas that was soon to bring its special joy, for the roof over one's head, and for the salutary discipline of pain and sickness. His intercessions, too, were unique. Finally, he prayed for poverty of spirit, for a right trust in God's grace, and for the final favor of dying one day as sinners won by the Savior's merits.

Regarding Confession and Absolution

Written by Pastor Nuckols Friday, 18 June 2010 14:16

Regarding Confession and Absolution from C.F.W. Walther

The characteristic mark of our Church is unquestioned submission to the divine Word, while our sectarian teachers are continually tossed about like the waves of the sea and betray the fact that they are not founded upon the rock of the Word of God. Now, every Church which lacks this spirit of childlike simplicity, even when professing the truth with the mouth, is not to be trusted. That is indeed a terrible charge, but from what I have stated in my previous remarks you know that it is not without foundation. Let me offer you a few additional proofs.

The Protestant churches, so called, which are outside of the pale of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, know nothing of the true way to forgiveness of sin by means of the Word and, in general, through the means of grace. This is evident, in particular, from their rejection of absolution as pronounced by the minister from the pulpit, or in general and private confession.

Their charge is grounded, first, in their ignorance of what we really teach concerning absolution. They have made an absolute caricature of our doctrine. They are not conscientious enough to investigate the meaning we connect with absolution. They are not so honest to inquire of us what we mean by absolution, but behind our backs they slander us, calling us papists, who would lead our poor people back to Rome. As a rule, these people imagine we teach that by the rite of ordination a minister becomes endowed with a certain mysterious power, which enables him to forgive sin. They imagine we teach that absolution is a privilege of the minister, so that, while sins are forgiven when an ordained minister pronounces these words: “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” these words would be without effect when pronounced by a layman.^[1]

Now that forgiveness of sin has been procured, as stated, not only has a minister a special commission to proclaim it, but every Christian, male or female, adult or child, is commissioned to do this. Even a child’s absolution is just as certain as the absolution of St. Peter, yea, as the absolution of Christ would be, were He again to stand visibly before men and say: “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” There is no difference; for, mark you! it is not a question of what man must do, but what has been done by Christ.^[2]

In the Augsburg Confession, Art. 25 (Mueller, p. 43 f.; Triglot Conc., p. 69): “The people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution as being the voice of God and pronounced by God’s command. The power of the keys is set forth in its beauty, and they are reminded what great consolations 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.”

The Augsburg Confession wants us to regard absolution, not as the word of a human being who happens to pronounce the same, but as the word of God forgiving men’s sins. This is usually understood to mean that the words of absolution are taken from the Bible and in that sense are the Word of God. But the meaning is that the announcement by a minister to a poor sinner, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” are tantamount to God’s pronouncing those words. For the minister absolves, not because he is a peculiar personage possessing extraordinary power, but because God has commanded that in His name and in His stead men’s sins be forgiven them. It makes no difference whether God or a minister makes the announcement. Accordingly, our Confession tells us to believe firmly that what the minister says at absolution is what the almighty God Himself, who determines this matter, is saying to me.

But the objection is raised, How can a minister forgive sins? That is the same perverse and foolish objection which the Pharisees raised when they said about Christ: “This man blasphemeth.” Matt. 9:3. They imagined that Jesus was attempting something that was impossible. When the objectors are told that man forgives sin in God’s stead, they want to know how that is possible. Of course, absolution would be invalid if God had not commanded it. But God has commanded it, just as I can instruct some one to make a communication in my place to an enemy of mine, informing him that I am reconciled to him. At absolution we say nothing but what has happened. That is the precious truth that forgiveness of sins has been acquired. If we would only truly believe in absolution, with what joy would we attend church whenever it is pronounced!

But few, very few, there are, even among Lutherans, who truly believe in absolution. That is the curse of false teaching. By incorrect preaching men are deprived of their most precious treasures. The fanatics admit that absolution is taught in the Bible, but the Bible statements must not be taken as they read. That is a teaching worthy of the devil’s reward. For we must surely take the Bible as it reads. Are we to get its meaning by reading between the lines? God will call every one to account who treats His Word in such scurrilous fashion. A true Lutheran relies on God’s Word and is unconcerned even though the whole world were to ridicule and despise him for it. He does not consider the world an authority in religious matters; he rests his faith on higher authority. Agreeably with the Augsburg Confession he regards absolution as an announcement in God’s stead and by God’s command.^[3]

The Augsburg Confession states that its adherents teach with great diligence how comforting and necessary the Power of the Keys is to persons whose conscience has become alarmed. Among the fanatical sects many spend their lives in a state of despair because they do not “feel” what they would like to feel and finally pass away in their despair and are lost. If they would only know our doctrine of firm faith in absolution! They would approach God and say: “Heavenly Father, I have been absolved according to Thy command by So-and-so. I know that Thou art ever truthful and canst not deceive me.” God would answer them: “That is right; I am never proved a liar; I keep my promises.” But the people must be taught how to arrive at this assurance.

To the statement of the Augsburg Confession that God requires faith in absolution, as if it were His own voice speaking to the sinner from heaven, the objection may be raised by some of you: “Is a godless person, then, to believe that he has been absolved?” Indeed, that is what God requires, and the person is in duty bound to believe this or lose the salvation of his soul. A different question would be whether he can believe it; for his conscience will denounce his attempt to believe it by casting up to him that he does not intend to come to God because he is living, and proposes to continue living, in sin, without any regard for God. Nevertheless, he ought to believe it. Ought God to require that we do not believe what He says? God has commanded to preach the Gospel to the whole world. This Gospel men are to believe. When absolution is pronounced to a person, the Gospel is brought to that individual; for the Gospel is nothing else than absolution.^[4]

Over against the worthiness of the confessor, Luther emphasizes the importance of faith in absolution. Even if the confessor were a perfectly holy person, without the least unrighteousness, and free from every blemish, yea, if he were an exemplary saint, that would not contribute one iota to the validity of absolution. But the Word of the Gospel, without which no one can obtain salvation, is powerful and salutary, making absolution valid. This is what the faith that saves grasps and builds upon, rather than the personality of the party pronouncing absolution.^[5]

As Satan’s frontal attack by way of accusation and condemnation so easily backfires, if it is unrelenting and unrelieved, he uses it to distract us from another stratagem. He couples it with a much more subtle attack on the citadel of the conscience by an ambush from behind us. In the front door attack he tries to break into the conscience by attacking our faith in Christ; in the back door attack he attempts to gain a secret foothold by attacking our love for our fellow Christians, our brother and sisters in Christ.

I Believe that God has Made Me and All Creatures

Written by Pastor Nuckols Monday, 07 June 2010 13:25

Evolution: fact or theory? Many people assume it is simply a fact. Christians who by faith accept the truth of God’s Word about Creation, as it is recorded for us in Genesis and elsewhere in the Scriptures, sometimes wonder how they can help others consider the possibility that there is a Creator. The purpose of this pamphlet is to provide a starting point from which to evaluate the claims made by advocates of Evolution.

In 1859, Charles Darwin, in his book, On The Origin of Species, proposed a theory that the various species of animals resulted from a process of “natural selection,” with the “favored races” being preserved in the “struggle for life.” Is this merely a scientific theory, or is there more? “Darwin was fully aware that his idea was a frontal assault on the very notion of an intelligent Designer behind the world. In fact, he might very well have formulated it precisely for that purpose. The idea of a spiritual realm apart from matter seems to have been anathema to him as a young man already. The primary inspiration for his theory of natural selection did not come from observation of nature. Perhaps not incidentally, his writings also reveal glimpses of specific antipathy to the God of the Bible, especially concerning His right to judge unbelievers in eternity.”(Wieland).

Evolutionary theory proposes that life forms start out at a very simple level and then, by natural selection, eventually become more and more complex as changes occur. However, biochemical and molecular biological research continues to gather convincing evidence that the living cell is totally useless unless, and until, it reaches its final form, and then, having reached that form, any change at all actually destroys, not enhances, its function. Darwin’s greatest challenge comes from the question of how the individual cell developed. Scientists studying this issue have described the living cell as “irreducibly complex.” More and more scientists are reaching the conclusion that living organisms, even the most “simple,” show clear evidence of a creator because of their incredible complexity at even the most fundamental levels. The scientific literature is strangely silent when it comes to the question of how these molecular structures, the basis of life, developed. How could all this have evolved?

Proponents of Intelligent Design have made great headway in recent years. Their findings have added muscle to the long-held Creationist arguments on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, simply put, says that the way of all things, both living and non-living, is to go from a state of order to various states of increasing disorder, not the other way around. Other arguments being put forward are based on dubious dating-methods used by evolutionists, and on the fossil record—the latter still showing no conclusive transitional stages in types or kinds (one would think every fossil would show a transitional stage).Together, these evidences, along with many others, form a convincing case for the idea of Creation and Intelligent Design.

Evolutionists appear unwilling to address the findings of biochemistry and other related fields. They are quick to say they are defending science, yet when confronted by an Intelligent Design paradigm that explains the data better than their own (such as on the human eye, a bird’s wing or the processes of blood-clotting),they offer no scientific defense at all. Instead, they lash out, ridiculing the Intelligent Design paradigm as nothing more than “religious.”

Those who prefer the Creation and Intelligent Design explanation for life cannot be conveniently stereotyped as backward, ignorant, flat-earth fanatics. To the contrary, believers in special Creation and Intelligent Design are discerning, rational people—tens of millions of them—who, upon weighing the evidence, have dismissed evolutionary theory as untenable. And these millions are being joined by growing numbers of biologists, geologists, paleontologists, physicists, medical doctors, mathematicians and other professionals in the pure and applied sciences.

A molecular biologist explains that evolutionary theory has an influence “far removed from biology” and is one of the “most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age” (Denton,p.358). As one biochemist puts it, “To a person who does not feel obligated to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the law of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather, they were planned. Their designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring the systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity” (Behe,p.193).

As much compelling evidence as there is for a young earth and a worldwide hydraulic cataclysm (the Noahic Flood, which explains much about our planet’s geology and paleontology), Intelligent Design, on its own merits, can be argued effectively without a single reference to the Scriptures. This natural knowledge of a Creator is not the same as advancing a set of specific theological and doctrinal beliefs about that Creator. If evolutionists persist in saying that creation cannot be divorced from religion, then they themselves must be prepared to admit that their orthodoxy—that life in all its beauty, organization and complexity arose from random mutations and other Darwinian speculations—is just as dogmatic, just as much a religion, really, as what they scorn. If Creation is theistic, calling for an intelligent, purposeful Author of Life, then naturalistic Evolution is atheistic, denying the existence of that Author and any supernatural acts wrought by His hand. For generations, Evolution, with all its weaknesses and unexplained gaps, has reigned unchallenged in American public life in our zoos, science centers, museums and mass media, and yes, perhaps most clearly in our schools. The theory of Evolution is simply handed down as fact. Only now, finally, is Evolution being contested on its own terms: objective science. On the blackboards of America’s public-school science classrooms, and in the pages and on the screens of the media, the time has come for the words “Evolution,” “naturalism” and “neo-Darwinism” to make room for “Intelligent Design.” Anything less, based on the evidence, would be intellectually dishonest.

It would be a mistake on our part to think that simply by presenting the evidence for Intelligent Design, a person will become a Christian. Believing that God is our loving heavenly Father who created the heavens and the earth is an article of faith. Believing that there is an intelligent designer is a far cry from believing that we are sinful human beings in need of a Savior and then trusting in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who is our Savior from sin, death and the power of Satan. Such a living hope is a gift of God, given by the Holy Spirit. It is not a matter of scientific study or analysis. Faith is as miraculous an event in our life as is God’s work of Creation in the world. In fact, it is no accident that those who are in Christ are called “new creations” (2 Cor.5:17). The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes, teaches and confesses that Adam and Eve were real historic individuals and that the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual, not merely a “myth” or a “story” made up to explain the origin of all things.

We would also be making a very serious error simply to accept the theories of science without question. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are directly contradictory to God’s Word. Evolution cannot be “baptized” to make it compatible with the Christian faith. Those who attempt inevitably wind up watering down the teachings of the Bible. Christians have no need to fear the findings of science, nor do they have any reason to give “science” more credence than they give the Word of God.

As scientists continue to study and explore the wonders of God’s creation we join the ancient Psalmist in saying, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well”(Psalm 139:14).

For Further Study:

Michael Behe,Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

(New York:The Free Press,1996).

William Dembski,Intelligent Design:The Bridge Between Science and

Theology (Downer’s Grove,Ill.: InterVarsity Press,1999).

Michael Denton,Evolution:A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase,Md.:Adler &

Adler,1985).

Carl Wieland,“Darwin’s Real Message,Have You Missed It?”Creation Ex Nihilo

(14(4):16-19,Sept.-Nov.1992).

Why Do What We Do?

Written by Pastor Nuckols Wednesday, 19 May 2010 09:41

Why God has ordered forgiveness in such a manner that He indeed forgives it, but has not yet completely swept it out, destroyed it or buried it, is a mystery. God could, if He indeed desired to do so, bring the one forgiven into immediate perfection by act of sheer power, but He doesn’t. When God accepts a man and endows him with the Holy Spirit He does not destroy the evil within him in an instant. Instead, like a dead twig that is grafted into a living tree, God designs man to grow and to quicken to the increasing mastery of evil. “. . . while He pours out His purity on us at once, through the Word and faith, and, in addition, renews our hearts through the Holy Ghost, He does this in such a way that this work of purification is not completed all at once, but He daily labors with us and purifies us so that we become continuously purer and purer.”[1] Sin certainly remains as an element in our lives, even though its domination has been broken by the Spirit, and faith recognizing its fearful danger hates it accordingly.

As a result of the fact that the believer is always “dead and alive at the same time,” it follows that there is a difference in the motives that drive him to think, speak, and act in a manner that is holy. Scripture shows us a great number of such motives, however, they can all be reduced to two great types, that of joyful liberty and that of bitter compulsion. Where the recognition of the work of the Spirit is not complete or is not considered seriously, the answer to the question, “What are the characteristics of Lutheran ethics?” can only be legal prescriptions and the enforced efforts to fulfill such regulations. But, where there is justification by grace through faith engendered by the Holy Spirit, there, in place of the Law, is “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). And, in addition, in place of compulsion, there is a glad readiness to do God’s will. It is impossible for any code of rules to prescribe down to the minutest details what shall be done in each new situation that may arise in the continually altering circumstances of life.

For example, in the care of souls, pastors are continually confronted with entirely new problems, and with the most momentous decisions for which he can nowhere find any specific written guidance. However, at such times, a freedom that reaches its determinations and decisions only according to the ability of our natural reflections, inclinations and general attitude is even less satisfactory. Therefore, only revealed from above, a guidance through the Holy Spirit by the life-giving law of the Spirit; where constraint and freedom have become an indissolubly unity, that is, where the service of God has become perfect freedom. This means, of course, that man becomes completely dependent on God, and therefore, all human crutches and all self-dependence has been taken away. Only in the continual hearing and obedience of the revealed Word does the believer receive guidance from eternity, and for eternity. The same Spirit that assures us of our adoption as sons is the guide of our actions. “For every one who so lives as to secure for himself all graces before God, is well pleased with spiritual purity, consequently it is much easier for him to resist carnal uncleanness and the Spirit instructs him in this faith, how he shall avoid all evil thoughts and everything that is unchaste. For faith in the divine favor, as it is continuous and always active, does not cease to admonish those who possess it concerning what is pleasing and is displeasing to God.”[2]

There has always been a danger of emphasizing faith over life, or life over faith. Both much be taught with equal emphasis. Whoever makes the doctrine of sanctification the central question and at the same time carries on a polemic against the doctrine of justification should clearly understand how quickly the Church is led by such a theology to the brink of a pragmatic or enthusiastic abyss. Whoever reproaches the doctrine of justification by grace through faith too vehemently as being, a one-sided fourth of the Gospel, will make the emptiest explanation of Baptism, and then, in the teaching of sanctification will inevitably run off the wrong track. On the other hand, when the Gospel is preached merely as a forensic judgment that has been pronounced on us without regard to the sanctification that the Holy Spirit brings, then Christianity becomes inclined to verge into a meditation on sinfulness that evaporates into a comfortable feeling that sin is no longer harmful because it is forgiven, and so the Gospel finally becomes sentimentalized. However, it is really the message of the alien righteousness that is ours from Christ that daily establishes and supports our relation to God. This is the source from which the much desired activity alone can spring. It is as the Church of the Word that Christianity has the promise that it shall become the Church of deeds.

Be not proud, but afraid! If there is not a continual return to the humbling word of the cross there will inevitably be a shallow, optimistic confusion of spirits and the Holy Spirit, of emotion and faith, of self-control and self-denial. Men confuse the spiritual individual with one “full of the Spirit,” a new conduct with “renewal from above,” and a peace between nations with “peace on earth.” For without justification, Christian ethics will become neo-Protestant or “American,” sanctification of the emotions will turn into romanticism, the “renewal of thought” result in a monistic philosophy of immanence. The Kingdom of God will be secularized into the idea of an “alcohol-free, world republic, a communistic realm of peace, or a League of Nations on a republican basis”[3]

By striking this balance, we are prevented from exalting religious feelings over sound doctrine, and from placing moral growth above the gift and promise of God. And again, we are banned from esteeming one’s own conversion above the Sacrament, or deeming one’s own separatistic notions greater than the Confessions of the Church. In other words, the more man truly holds fast to the “God-for-us,” the more “our-being-for-God” grows and is strengthened. Therefore, the Gospel must be protected as carefully against legalism as it is against antinomianism, for an active pride is as dangerous for faith as the laziness that shirks every task. Further, the battle against dead works is just as important as the battle against dead faith, and it is our justification that robs all conduct of its appearance of holiness. Rather, it is our sanctification that guards men from sinning against grace. It is the promise of forgiveness that gives the basis of action, direction and power to all conduct, and likewise, the Christianity of action prevents pure doctrine from becoming mere talk.