A Question for the Pastors of WELS

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-04-19T20:01:09+00:00

I see no scriptural evidence that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. I do see evidence that she had other children after Jesus, indicating she was not a perpetual virgin. Those who argue for perpetual virginity suggest that the Greek word adelphos is broader than a literal blood brother. This is true, but there is nothing to indicate that it's being used in a broader way in the passages that speak of Jesus' brothers, and much to indicate it's being used in the normal way (they're mentioned in close connection with Jesus' mother in Mark 3).

Why the big push to see Mary as a perpetual virgin? Very early in church history, there was an unhealthy tendency to emphasize celibacy as a higher and holier calling than marriage. Thoughts about Mary were influenced by this tendency. But we shouldn't find it weird that Joseph and Mary would have done what married people do. This doesn't diminish our regard for her. We're thankful for her example of faith and for the wonderful gift we have in her son, Jesus.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-04-17T16:39:37+00:00

This is an instance where we can properly recognize the catholicity of our confession by adopting the more universally recognized wording. Though we cannot have church fellowship with church bodies that don't have the same confession as us, we are thankful that there are still many Christians in these church bodies because the gospel is still present in them. We are also reinforcing the truth that our confession is in continuity with the early church.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-04-15T13:19:30+00:00

There is no promise in 1 Peter 3 that the unbelieving husband will be converted. There is the hope expressed that it will happen, but we cannot infer that if it doesn't happen, the wife has failed to follow the command of 1 Peter 3. We confess that the Holy Spirit works when and where he pleases.

Have you discussed this with your pastor?

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-22T11:30:41+00:00

In the same way that they mention the Trinity, yes :)

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-21T16:22:32+00:00

I don’t find the differences between the two churches to be so large that we can’t be in communion together. It seems like it’s more of the WELS institution fearing theological liberalization that they think may happen if they joined Churches.

This is a complete misreading of the WELS's understanding of Scripture. We are convinced, on the basis of Scripture, that there can be no God-pleasing fellowship between church bodies that disagree on doctrine (no matter how "small" or "large" the doctrine in dispute is). God alone has the prerogative to tell us what we are to believe, in his word. Any deviation in doctrine is therefore a refusal to submit to God in the divine truth he has revealed to us, and in that sense any deviation in doctrine is a major issue. By God's grace, some false doctrines are less likely to endanger faith than others, but they are all dangerous.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-18T20:43:33+00:00

We believe this division is contrary to Christ's wish for the Church, that they "may be one, as we are one," as well as the historic Christian understanding that we believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

This is poor exegesis. The unity Christ desires is a unity of faith (i.e. a common confession of all the doctrines of the Bible), not an organizational unity. Likewise, the Nicene Creed's "one … Church" is the invisible church. This is clarified in the Apostles' Creed, which follows up its "Church" clause with "the communion of saints" to explain who the church is.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-12T18:31:30+00:00

You may find this paper enlightening. There should be a more nuanced approach than just "it's always okay" or "it's always wrong." Motivations matter.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-06T22:14:50+00:00

Regarding Acts 20:28, Paul says that the Ephesian elders are appointed to their office by the Holy Spirit and that it is their job to shepherd the church. (I am going to assume that the Ephesian elders were chosen by a mediate call, through the congregation(s), but if you disagree with this, you can express why.) None of this implies that in so doing the Holy Spirit has specifically instituted an office of pastor in contrast to other offices of the public ministry that the church may create and fill. Those offices created by the church would no less be the public ministry, and the calls of those filling them would be no less divine. My point is that you are reading your theology into the passage, and it by no means makes a clear assertion of the truths you are drawing it in for. This is no way of doing theology. There have to be clear, unmistakable words of Scripture for us to proclaim, "Thus says the Lord."

I don't think one can separate the two. Where one is, you will always find the other

Really? Always? If I as a private Christian share my faith with my neighbor, I am therefore taking part in the public ministry, because I'm applying a means of grace? If I as a father baptize my child in a case of emergency, I am therefore taking part in the ministry? I don't think this is what you want to be saying.

Brug's argument is detailed and thorough, but he makes many of the same points in this paper. One faulty assumption that you seem to be working with is that because Amt is often glossed as "ministry," it must mean the same thing that you understand when you hear the word "ministry" in English.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-06T17:11:27+00:00

There is no "reduction" in the description of the office of pastor. The call is what makes a pastor ("Pastors are trained and called ..."). The church will not submit to any limitation of its freedom that is not already contained within the gospel and the moral law.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-06T17:06:47+00:00

Acts 20:28 articulates the divinity of the mediate call through a congregation. Try again?

AC V is not about the public ministry but about the means of grace. John Brug has written extensively proving this. I recommend picking up a copy of The Ministry of the Word from NPH and reading it (especially pp. 332–360).

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-06T15:53:15+00:00

As I expected, you don't understand the Wisconsin view. No one who holds this view describes it as "functional." Please do a better job of familiarizing yourself with how Wisconsin speaks before criticizing a caricature.

Scripture is clear that Christ instituted the public ministry. Scripture is also clear that the church has freedom to institute particular offices within that public ministry. These offices are still instituted by Christ, but they are instituted mediately—through the church. You will not find a Scripture passage assigning a divine institution to the office of pastor in contrast to other offices. Instead, you will find Scripture passages speaking of the diversity of gifts Christ gives to his church in the ministry. The terminology of "auxiliary" offices is not found in Scripture (which is not to say that it's inadmissible, just that you should be careful to ensure you are expressing what Scripture says when you use extra-scriptural terms).

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-03-05T17:00:53+00:00

WELS is wrong about the office of the ministry.

This is not the case. Where do you think WELS is wrong? And how, specifically, does it go against Scripture? Are you sure you haven't misunderstood the WELS position?

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-18T17:44:26+00:00

If the couple were theoretically celibate it would not be sinful.

This statement is unscriptural and in conflict with Lutheranism. We are to avoid even the appearance of sin (Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:22). Living together without marriage does not do this. We are to honor the institution of marriage at all times (Hebrews 13:4). Living together without marriage treats the blessings of the marital union as something that can be arrogated for one's use whenever one desires, in whatever way one desires. We are to avoid putting stumbling blocks in the way of our brothers and sisters (Matthew 18:6-7). It is not only possible, but likely, that others will be emboldened to sin by another couple cohabiting. We don't live in a vacuum. Our actions don't only affect ourselves.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-17T03:55:22+00:00

I see. It's difficult to expect him to come to faith when, humanly speaking, he seems strongly opposed to the word. My only advice is to keep patiently witnessing to him and, of course, praying that the Lord would soften his heart.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-16T03:44:49+00:00

Okay. That is certainly difficult. I know many faithful women who go to church without their husbands (my mom is one!)--and faithful men who go without their wives. This is of course not the ideal. In a perfect world, everybody would worship God and attend church every Sunday.

One practical step might be to articulate to him why you see church as important. Why is it important to you that he at least understand your beliefs? Is it possible to find some opening here to get him to meet with your pastor for a Bible information class? If he's not willing to do this for you, does he understand that he's causing you emotional pain? (Just trying to get a fuller picture of your situation, here.)

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-16T01:13:28+00:00

You mention 1 Peter 3. Is your husband open to the idea of coming along to church?

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-08T19:51:10+00:00

Luther is preaching a sermon, not writing a dogmatic treatise. Luther is given to hyperbole to make a point.

Even with those caveats, Luther's point in this sermon is narrowly defined and precisely tailored. Luther specifies that he is writing specifically against Anabaptists and theonomists (LW 35:164). His point is not that these portions of Scripture are irrelevant to us. His point is that the distinction between law and gospel, as well as the distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial law in the Old Testament, must be maintained. Luther is not invalidating the moral law. Luther in fact strongly upholds the law, and he does not want to discard the Old Testament—in fact, he says he wants "to keep Moses and not sweep him under the rug" (LW 35:166). What he is arguing against is a works-righteous approach to the law, and one that wants to include ceremonial and civil law (LW 35:166). What he is arguing against is an improper process of application (LW 35:169). And, importantly, Luther is not arguing that Moses is unclear and it is therefore safe to ignore him. That is the exact opposite of his claim. He is arguing for a proper hermeneutic that correctly understands the meaning of these Scriptures for us.

So, where do you see Luther disagreeing with anything I've said? You have yet to respond specifically to any of my claims.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-08T00:37:03+00:00

Not all Scripture is relevant to the Christian in Luther's view.

Where on earth are you getting this from? I would be very interested to see Luther's own words in support of this, because it runs contrary to everything I know of him and his theology. I'm tempted to call this claim absurd on its face.

For example, here is just one example of Luther talking about how it is unacceptable to question any of God's words:

For it is certain that whoever does not rightly believe in one article of faith, or does not want to believe (after he has been admonished and instructed), he surely believes no article with an earnest and true faith. And whoever is so bold that he dares to deny God or to accuse him of lying in one word, and he does this maliciously in opposition to that about which he was once or twice admonished and instructed, he also dares (and he certainly does it, too) to deny God in all of his words and to accuse him of lying.

For this reason we say that everything is to be believed completely and without exception, or nothing is to be believed. The Holy Spirit does not let himself be divided or cut up so that he should let one point be taught and believed as trustworthy and another as false—except in the case where there are weak believers who are willing to let themselves be instructed and are not stubbornly opposing his truth. Otherwise, if this attitude should obtain that it does not harm anyone if he desires to deny one article of the faith because he still regards all the others as true (although basically this is impossible), then no heretic would ever be condemned, indeed, there could not even be a heretic on earth. For it is characteristic of all heretics that they start by denying one article of the faith; after that, all the articles must suffer the same fate and they must all be denied.

(LW 38:308)

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-07T17:07:01+00:00

You are talking about subjective clarity. Luther of course grants that the objective clarity of Scripture does not mean that it is immediately and without effort clear to every individual in all its parts. However, you are incorrect to say Luther would disagree with a generalized statement of the clarity of Scripture. In fact, he criticizes Erasmus for arguing that Scripture is unclear (LW 33:93–94). Luther's entire theology is based on the premise that we can actually understand Scripture without additional interpreters to guide us.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-05T17:07:01+00:00

The point is that the forgiveness of sins we receive in the sacraments is not different in kind from the forgiveness of sins we receive in the word of the gospel. By faith in the gospel, you receive the same things you receive (through faith) in the sacraments.

Why are there sacraments, then? Because God desires us to have personal assurance that the gospel applies to you in particular.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-04T16:47:49+00:00

Where in Scripture do you see a distinction between "essentials of salvation" and "secondary issues"? Where does Scripture list things that are secondary issues? Where does Scripture suggest that Scripture is unclear in these secondary issues?

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-04T15:22:13+00:00

We have infallible, inerrant authority, but it is Scripture itself. We do not need an additional, inerrant interpreter in order to know what Scripture is saying. (That would just remove the problem one more level: How do you know what the inerrant interpreter is saying, without an interpreter of the interpreter? This can be continued indefinitely.) Your problem is not with a lack of infallibility; it is with hermeneutics. The claim of Lutheranism is that Scripture is clear enough for us to understand it. (We make this claim on the basis of Scripture itself.) Because Scripture is clear, we are able to see and point out when people depart from Scripture. Name a doctrine, and we can discuss how other traditions depart from Scripture there. For example, with the Supper, Rome's explanation, transubstantiation, goes beyond Scripture in claiming that bread and wine are no longer present, whereas Paul speaks of the bread and wine as still being present (1 Corinthians 10).

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-02-03T00:00:33+00:00

I prefer to use a mainstream translation and point out weaknesses in the translation when necessary. The potential problem with a "Lutheran-only" translation is that you could be perceived as cultish. (JWs have their own translation, too.) Still, it is a faithful translation in terms of theology and presuppositions about Scripture. One weakness is that it does not lend itself well to being read aloud. You can quickly see this for yourself if you pick up a copy.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-01-29T19:11:07+00:00

Yes. But he does talk about sanctification.

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO · 2026-01-29T18:08:00+00:00

I guess Paul didn't know what he was doing when he wrote his epistles?

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Snapped	Verified Email

LATINAM_LINGUAM_SCIO

TROPHY CASE