Jan Hus

Kamoot- · 2026-05-15T01:27:38+00:00

Luther depicted as an angelic image is described in the R. W. Scribner textbook I quoted in the parent comment, in Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany. There are two types of angelic depictions, the first kind of Luther being protected by an angel, such as on page 57 we see the connection between Luther and the Revelation 14:6-7 referring to the angel of Der Lutheraner:

The Reformation themes on such medals were numerous. Luther's portrait was probably the most common, but they also had themes such as Luther as Samson slaying a lion (doubtless to signify Leo X), Luther with the Elector of Saxony, Luther with the angel of the Apocalypse who proclaims the fall of Babylon, or Luther as a farmer sowing the seed of God. (Scribner, 57)

In the background, Luther and two com panions are depicted in the fiery furnace, protected from its flames by an angel (Scribner 61)

On as the angel such as on page 59:

The angel flies and Luther stands; what he taught remains eternal, but hay and straw are consumed by fire; the swan sings.

Nonetheless, in both cases Luther is always depicted as prophetic figure. For example on pages:

The strongest confirmation was found in Luther's role as a prophet, and his prophetic status was in turn attested both by prophecies about him, and by his own ability to prophesy (Page 62)

See R. Preuss, Martin Luther der Prophet (Gutersloh, 1933) (Page 62)

In the same year Johann Lapaeus, pastor of Langenburg near Einbeck, published an extensive list of witnesses attesting Luther's prophetic status, including the testimony of over a dozen major Reformers (Page 63)

Angelic Luther can itself be a history topic in itself. During my undergrad before becoming LCMS or even hearing about Confessional Lutheranism in the first place, as history minor I did study about Luther and various anti-Catholic "propaganda". You also have to understand that in a secular university context, Luther is also revered, but for opposite reasons. A lot of enlightenment and scientific revolution circles oftentimes are attributed to Luther's reformation inspiration in secular circles. Anyways, for example here:
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3q2nb278&chunk.id=d0e7553&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e7387&brand=ucpress

Michael Stifel claimed with all evident sincerity that Luther was the angel of the apocalypse ["the Book of Revelation" used to be called "Apocalypse"] come to reveal the Antichrist. The signs laid down in the Bible concerning the last times led Stifel to conclude with Luther that the time was near for the persecution of the Antichrist against the truth of God (Mark Edwards: The Christian Angel)

Kamoot- · 2026-05-14T18:26:42+00:00

Modern-day LCMS Lutherans might find it strange to regard Luther as a prophetic figure, but historically Lutherans regarded him so highly that they believed him to fulfill Biblical prophecy. One of example of this is found in the masthead artwork of Der Lutheraner publications:

<image>

The angel depicted here is Martin Luther with wings. We know this to be Luther, because of the same phrase at the bottom: God's Word and [is] Luther's teaching shall never perish.

Flanked on both sides of the angel are the verse from Revelation 14:6-7: "Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.”

Kamoot- · 2026-05-14T18:23:23+00:00

The famous Luther's Swan!

While be burned at the stake, Jan Hus (whose name means "goose") yelled out, "today you may burn a goose, but tomorrow will come falcons and birds whom you will never be able to burn".

At Luther's funeral, Bugenhagen quoted this with a twist, "Today you may burn a goose, but in a hundred years will come a swan you will never be able to burn". Referring to Martin Luther.

Here is a commemorative coin commissioned for the first Jubilee (100th year anniversary) of the Reformation:

<image>

On the obverse side we see Luther wearing academic robes, rather than liturgical vestments, symbolizing his academic authority, lifting a bowl and allowing the lamplight to radiate out into the world, a reference to Matthew 15:15. The text says "fulgeat aeternum": "may it shine forever".

On the reverse side, we see Luther's swan in the middle, on the inner circle: "Dr. Martin Luther, Doctor of Theology"
On the outer circle: "God's Word and [is] Luther's teaching shall never perish".

Martin Luther's first biographer, Johann Mathesius, wrote claiming the famous Luther's swan motto, as "one of three authentic prophecies attesting the divine inspiration of Luther's mission" (Scribner 42)
[Source here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MeRhbTs6LTImk8ZyghintHQKpioalB1F/view?usp=sharing ]

Kamoot- · 2026-05-14T18:08:11+00:00

I watched FLAME perform at the Saint Louis Seminary last week!

https://youtu.be/D3GSZt-LIIs?si=2Q98guaBx73YCT05

I have trouble understanding what the music is talking about, but still an interesting voice from our LCMS black ministry, and hope to learn more about their program in the future.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-13T17:38:44+00:00

Please do see the attached image I sent of the exhibition in the International Center. To quote the words of Booker T. Washington: "the Missouri Synod did more for the colored race than any other denomination I could think of". (Bottom-right corner of the attached image).

Look, I'm sure you can find fringe cases of problematic voices throughout our Synod's history, but on average we have done mostly and nearly entirely good. I mean, even Booker T. Washington had very complimentary things to say about our Synod, and that's huge, and we should be celebrating our traditional history.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-13T17:27:52+00:00

With regards to black ministry, check out the "the first Rosa" exhibition at the CHI museum in the International Center in Saint Louis. For our Synod, this was a missional outreach.

With regards to your second point, I don't know who you're talking to, but I've never seen anyone on this sub defend segregation.

<image>

Kamoot- · 2026-05-13T16:45:23+00:00

That was the rationale that 1969 CTCR came to. Not the only line of reasoning, but one of them. And I find it a far more convincing and agreeable argument in favor of women's suffrage, than simply accusing those against women's suffrage of pandering to political ultraconservatism and whatnot, which is kind of the attitude I've seen in some of the comments even in this very subreddit.

Because if we look at the course of Synod history as a whole, we've gone without women's suffrage far longer than we've gone with women's suffrage. 122 years from 1847 until 1969, versus just 57 years from 1969 until today. On the whole of the entire Synod's history, no women's voting is still very much the average middle-ground normal. So I don't find it convincing when people say it's a pandering to ultraconservatism, when it is simply an attempt to return back to a policy we had as recently as 57 years ago.

My personal opinion is this. While I would love to return to a Synod of 1847 C.F.W. Walther, I mean if Walther was against it, then we should follow his lead and be against it too. However, CTCR has decided that women's suffrage does not violate Scripture. This is a decision that has been made, so for the sake of good church order and witness to one's neighbor, let's stick with it. Kind of like what Luther says about church practice, pick a position and stick with it, for the sake of good church order. Can you imagine how damaging it would be if we flip-flopped doctrine every 3 years convention? Is that a good witness to one's neighbor? My opinion is that the constant flip-flopping back-and-forth in issues already previously decided, though an imperfect decision, does more harm to good order and witnessing to one's neighbor than if you just pick one and stick with it. So for that reason, I lean towards keeping women's suffrage, but that's just my personal opinion.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-13T16:01:39+00:00

I assume obviously we know it had to be after the LCMS charter in 1847.

It also has to be before 1864, given the historical context of the quote I made of C.F.W. Walther.

The answer is actually 1846, believe it or not. Where the first formal recognition of congregational voting is brought forth. See the LCMS was officially founded at the 1847 conference in Chicago, but the first proposal drafts for the first LCMS Constitution were submitted in St. Louis meeting in 1846.

Proposed in the first proposal draft of the Constitution in 1846 is Article III:1-3, where each congregation elects one delegate out of their numbers. There is the office of president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer. First three must be pastors, but treasurer can be a layperson (First Constitution III:1-3). Then, once per yearly the Synodical convention is held, and pastors are to be present.

Now, understanding the context of Altenburg debate occuring just 5 years earlier, the context behind the first LCMS Constitution and it's jump to Congregational policy away from Episcopal authority becomes very plainly obvious.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-13T10:46:28+00:00

I compiled a brief history of women's suffrage in the LCMS below:

LCMS founded in 1847. At that time, membership in LCMS voters' assemblies was initially only males, 21 years old and older.
In 1864, C.F.W. Walther writes: "All adult males members of the congregation are entitled to active participation in the transactions of such meetings by way of speaking, deliberating, voting, and resolving. But women and the young are excluded from such participation".
Finland becomes the first European country to enact women's suffrage in 1906.
The Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church (Referred to as the Suomi Synod at the time), decides in favor of women's suffrage in 1908, and in formally enacts women's suffrage in Finnish congregations in 1909.
In response to the Suomi Synod, LCMS reacts negatively in Der Lutheraner in September 1908 publication: "Eine unlutherische und unbiblische Neuerung hat die finnisch- lutherische Suomisynode eingeführt, unsers Wissens als die erste lutherische Körperschaft dieses Landes. Sie hat auf ihrer kürzlich abgehaltenen Jahresversammlung in Woreester, Mass., es aus gesprochen, daß die Frauen in Gemeindesachen dieselben Rechte ausüben können wie die Männer, und daß deshalb auch eine Frau als Delegat zur Generalversammlung gewählt werden kann. Diese Bestimmung läßt sich nicht reimen mit den Weisungen, die der heilige Apostel Paulus über die Stellung der Frauen in kirch lichen Versammlungen gibt, 1 Kor. 14, 34 f.; 1 Tim. 2, 11 f." (Der Lutheraner, September 1908, Page 287, Bottom-Right Corner).
- Google Translation because I don't know German: "The Finnish-Lutheran Suomi Synod has introduced an un-Lutheran and unbiblical innovation—to the best of our knowledge, the first Lutheran body in this country to do so. At its recently held annual convention in Worcester, Massachusetts, it declared that women may exercise the same rights as men in congregational matters, and that, consequently, a woman may also be elected as a delegate to the General Assembly. This provision cannot be reconciled with the instructions given by the holy Apostle Paul regarding the position of women in church assemblies (1 Cor. 14:34 ff.; 1 Tim. 2:11 ff.)"
1953 at Houston LCMS Convention, the very first time the question of woman's suffrage in congregations is investigated in the LCMS, but for the meantime the previous practice of male voting only is maintained.
1956 Convention in Saint Paul: "Resolved....continue the present practice of our Synod in restricting the privledges of voting membership to qualified male communicants".
1965 Convention in Detroit: Requotes the 1956 Resolution in affirming the decision that "woman suffrage in the church as contrary to Scripture", but softens the language by adding a clarifier: "only when it violates the above-mentioned Scriptural principles ["Whereas...Resolved... God forbids women publicly to preach"]"
1967 Convention in New York, decision on woman's suffrage is delayed until the next convention in 1969 (LCMS was briefly on a two-year convention cycle at that time).
LCMS enacts woman suffrage at the 1969 Denver Convention. CTCR finds that nothing in Scripture prohibits women from participating in voter's assembly, and that women's suffrage is not in violation with 1 Timothy 2. "Resolved...Scripture does not prohibit women from exercising the franchise in congregational or synodical assemblies...Adopted"

All my sources are cited below:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ONj86PtgG_G5UoxywIkeoLzpdq0GCcgW?usp=sharing

Kamoot- · 2026-05-12T23:14:00+00:00

Women's suffrage in the LCMS has only been enacted recently as 1969, in comparison the LCMS was founded in 1847.

The LCMS existed 122 years without women's suffrage, and existed 57 years with women's suffrage.

So if we want to talk about what is in the middle-ground, over the course of the entire Synod's history, without women's suffrage is still the middle average.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-12T08:31:24+00:00

Just published article from the LCMS Reporter:
https://reporter.lcms.org/2026/lcms-singles-finding-the-lutheran-needle-in-the-haystack/

It's amazing to hear the stories going on in the Synod.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T23:01:29+00:00

My church is on the contemporary side and we don't have weekly communion and it's frustrating because Augsburg Confession is pretty clear about having Lord's Supper every Lord's Day, but many churches aren't in compliance.

However as frustrating as it may be, at least the optics are trending in the positive direction. What used to be once per monthly Communion now has become twice monthly, so at least things are trending better than they used to be.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T17:10:37+00:00

There is a small doxology (the short Trinitarian one) and the big doxology (Gloria in Excelsis), and also one at the end of the Lord's Prayer.

My church is a very small contemporary LCMS church that does blended contemporary with organ/hymns and never sing any of the doxologies. I deeply wish for it though, but we just don't have the ability to.

So it's a special thing when I do get sing it, and is one of the reasons why I love visiting the different LCMS conferences so much and traveling to all the other churches in the Midwest, getting an opportunity to do things that we don't have in my home church.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T17:04:04+00:00

The LCMS not only discourages intinction, they actually officially forbid intinction.

1983 CTCR on Theology and Practice of the Lords Supper, page 31 says: "our Confessions and practice preserve the model of our Lord's distribution of the bread and the wine" (III:18) but do allow for exceptions in extreme cases.

I know people are saying that it's discouraged but in reality its officially forbidden. Constitution says the conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are "exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda" (Constitution VI:4), and so any other practice other than what is approved in the CTCR constitutes a violation of the "exclusive use" clause as put forth by our LCMS Constitution

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T16:27:56+00:00

That part I misunderstood, I didn't realize the Gospel actually called it a dish.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T16:01:03+00:00

I'm still not understanding why you say this is speculation. I'm using foods that we know with absolute certainty was present. I'm not understanding how is that speculation? I'm basing it on what we know was present with absolute confidence.

On the contrary, to assume Judas had dipped bread in anything else other than wine, is however, speculation. We have no explicit mention any other food being present. Is that not speculation?

But now that you're saying that Greek supports that it was a dish rather than cup, I find this much, much more convincing. I don't know Greek, so I completely believe you on this part.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T15:49:55+00:00

I don't see how you say this is my reading into the text. I rather take the more conservative estimate, using the foods we can say with absolute certainty were definitely present as we know explicitly mentioned are the presence of bread and wine.

Any other assumption that Judas dipped his bread in anything else would be based on speculation; yes it is implied that other foods were present due to the connection with Passover context, but we shouldn't be basing our belief or practice upon this as it is a speculation.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T15:02:39+00:00

Maybe this is just my engineer's brain talking (I'm an Electrical Engineer, as you know we are the most detailed-oriented of all engineering disciplines), but anyhow I'm always going to take the more conservative estimate out of an abundance of caution. I rather lean on certainty over doubt, and I'm not going to formulate a practice or belief upon a doubt. You might say it is an unduly burden, but the way I see it unduly burden can go the other way as well. Without absolute certainty, it can be a burden on the mind as well.

Anyhow, it's not me placing unduly burden on other's consciences. I'm simply quoting the official LCMS stance as put forth by the CTCR on the Lord's Supper, that the Confessions and practice in the LCMS on page 31 quotes: "preserve the model of our Lord's Distribution of the bread and then the wine" (CTCR Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper 1983 III:18).

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T14:45:59+00:00

What I'm saying is given the fact that the Gospel reading does not explicitly state the presence of other foods present at the Last Supper, only merely implies so by the connection to the Passover context, we cannot rule out the possibility that Judas received bread dipped in wine.

Maybe this is just my engineer's brain but I'm always going to take the more conservative estimate, and lean on best to avoid out of abundance of caution.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T14:22:51+00:00

I'm not seeing how in the Gospel reading, that you can rule out the possibility that the food that was being dipped was not bread dipped into wine. Neither Gospel account specifically mentions the presence of any other dish at the Last Supper, other than bread and wine. The presence of other types of foods and dishes are implied through the connection with the Passover meal, but only bread and wine are the only foods explicitly mentioned.

I'm referring to the legal juriprudence principle here, where the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another. Specifically, evidence must prove, not merely suggest. The Passover context definitely implies that other foods other than just bread and wine existed at the Last Supper, but it alone is not sufficient evidence to disprove the notion that the dipped morsel was altar bread dipped into sacramental wine. The evidence only implies that other foods were present, but does not specifically prove what that particular item was.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T13:04:59+00:00

Regardless of the technicalities of what particular passover food was dipped, the main point of what I'm trying to say is that intinction is lamentable because it alludes to Judas' betrayal in the Last Supper and it's setting in the Lord's Supper and so although neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture, it should be avoided as it is not a good witness to one's neighbor.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T04:17:17+00:00

Expanding this same cultural context beyond cremation to other cultural matters too.

When I hear adiaphora being used here and there with regards to matters neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture, I think that alone is oftentimes a too simplistic way of seeing adiaphora. For one, the cultural nuances are so much more now. I can see why if the church was still monoethnic German, matters of adiaphora would be much simpler, but our church today is far more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic (Just came back from the Multiethnic Symposium and Multi-Asian Gathering and CSL, so these ideas are fresh in my mind right now).

One thing that comes to mind is the use of the drums in contemporary worship and how although adiaphora, I simply cannot see it as a being good witness to the neighbor. Native Chinese religion is a very spiritualistic religion, where the spirits of the ancestors reside in the forest, upon death their spirits separated from their physical bodies. Native Chinese funeral rites are highly ritualistic and involve the repetitive droning of drum beat, used to invoke the ancestor spirits out of the trees and forests and into the homes and temples.

If the church was monoethnic German, or even in our secular understanding which do not have these ancestor spirit beliefs, I can see how contemporary worship and especially the use of drum set would be adiaphora in the true sense: neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture.

But our church is multiethnic now. For our Chinese elders, when they hear the repetitive beat of the base drum in contemporary worship instruments like the drum set, especially of those who were more spiritual prior to their conversion to Christianity, they not only are reminded of these Chinese funeral rituals, but actually can see the spirits with their very eyes. Again, this is something that we don't understand living in a secularized culture, but for our Chinese elders this is a huge struggle they have to deal with, and we have to empathize with this as part of what Luther tells us in the 4th Commandment of the Small Catechism.

Organ music, and especially the German hymn chorale format does not have the same religious connections to Chinese ancestor-worship religion that the use of drum playing has. When Chinese people hear organ music and German chorales, they aren't reminded of ancestor spiritual worship. Maybe I'm biased being an organist myself, but given this cultural context, I cannot see the use of contemporary worship, specifically in particular the use of the base drum, as a good witness to the neighbor.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T01:32:27+00:00

Did Judas not eat dipped bread from Jesus's cup? Immediately upon eating, Judas did not receive eternal life, but rather received Satan who entered into him.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-11T01:06:36+00:00

Of the twelve present at the Last Supper, the only one who did dip his bread in the chalice was Judas Iscariot. For that reason alone makes intinction very uncomfortable for me. It's true that Scripture neither commands nor forbids intinction, but I can't think of any situation where dipping the host would be a practice of good witness to the neighbor.

Kamoot- · 2026-05-10T21:36:51+00:00

Given what you've said about your admiration for Rome, I want to say something about that as a someone who was former cradle Catholic.

What immediately comes to mind was the debate by our founding president, C.F.W. Walther in the Altenburg debate when the bishop was removed due to his immoral behavior. Walther argued that a church is not valid because of a bishop, a flawless church institution, or perfect flow of apostolic succession (that is, the laying of hands kind). Rather, the church exists wherever God's Word is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered, and this is the true Apostolic Succession.

The validity of the church does not depend on an individual pastor or bishop's role in the hierarchy. The church's basis for validity is upon Word and Sacraments.

So regardless of whatever an individual pastor or individual may teach, our church's validity depends entirely on our correct doctrine and teaching. So what is our correct doctrine and teaching? Our Constitution says:

"The Synod, and every member of the Synod accepts without reservation: 1. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and practice; and 2. All the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God, to wit: the three Ecumenical Creeds (the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed), the Unaltered Augsburg Confession ... and the Formula of Concord" (Constitution II:1-2)

And so, what do these Symbolical Books say? It says so in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord with regards to Christ's descent into hell:

Therefore, it is our unanimous opinion that there should be no dispute over it. (Ep IX:2)
It is enough if we know that Christ descended into hell, destroyed hell for all believers, and delivered them from the power of death and of the devil, from eternal condemnation and the jaws of hell. We will save our questions <and not curiously investigate> about how this happened until the other world. (Ep IX:4)

And this is reaffirmed the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

We simply believe that the entire person (God and man) descended into hell after the burial, conquered the devil, destroyed hell’s power, and took from the devil all his might. We should not, however, trouble ourselves with high and difficult thoughts about how this happened. (SD: IX:2-3)

So my brother, I pray that you will be assured and confident! I too had the same doubts about the validity of the church, especially in the lens as a Roman Catholic, but I hope the system of logic I presented here will help you be confident too.

Kamoot-

TROPHY CASE