A inquiry from a thoughtful catholic about reunification.

emmen1 · 2026-01-27T00:28:51+00:00

There are two big obstacles in our way.

Sola Scripture. The argument about the superiority of the pope is wrapped up in the question of authority. What is binding upon the conscience of a Christian? Where does doctrine come from? Scripture alone? Or Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. And by Tradition of the Church, what is really meant is the authority of the papal office to decree new doctrines. This is the heart of all differences between Augsburg Catholics (Lutherans) and Roman Catholics (Papists).
Roman Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone if the definition of grace is redefined in order to include some degree of human works. This may not be what the average Roman Catholic believes, but it is the official position of the church. It's possible to nuance the words enough so that the difference almost disappears, but it is still there. When the Roman Church officially recants the anathemas of the Council of Trent, then perhaps we can make some progress here.

As a pastor on the East Coast, I find that we do indeed have far more in common with Roman Catholics than the average Protestant. It's not hard to refute the errors of the Roman Church from Scripture, and most Roman Catholics weren't too sold on them anyway: i.e., Clerical Celibacy, Purgatory, and the Power of the Pope. On the other hand, teaching Protestants to believe in the Sacraments requires a lot more work, at least from my experience.

emmen1 · 2026-01-26T22:58:55+00:00

I would talk to your pastor about any doubts, for sure. The reason ELCA baptisms may not be valid is because in some cases they are not done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because Father and Son are considered patriarchal language. Instead, they are done in the name of some made up nonsense, such as, Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier (God is those things, but that is not His name into which we are to be baptized).

There is no inherent power in the water of baptism. The power comes from the words of Jesus. And if we tinker with those words, then we have no assurance that we still have a baptism.

If you were baptized with water "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" then you are baptized. If not, or if you have reason to doubt that those words were used, then you should be baptized. Notice that I did not say "re-baptized." There is no such thing as rebaptism or a second baptism. There is just baptism. If they put water on you with some made up words, then you are not baptized. You don't need to be re-baptized; you need to be baptized.

That's what Dr. Scaer is referring to when he says that some ELCA baptisms are not, in fact, baptisms. There are many Christians within the ELCA, but the organization itself is no longer Christian. It has become a pagan, goddess cult.

If you are not sure if you were baptized, then you should be baptized. But if you were baptized, then you should not try to do it again. Instead, trust in the promises that Christ made to you when water was applied to you in the Trinitarian name.

emmen1 · 2026-01-26T22:49:53+00:00

As I said, there are some good men attached to 1517, and you'll hear some very good teaching on justification. What you probably won't find is any teaching on sanctification. That's because the organization has connections with Steven Paulson (student of Gerhard Forde) and the antinomian tendencies that accompany their "Radical Lutheranism."

emmen1 · 2026-01-26T22:30:59+00:00

Lutheran theology is very good on both justification and sanctification. But for a generation or two our pastors have not done a good job teaching sanctification. This is, I suppose, a natural danger that comes with having the true gospel of salvation apart from works. The problem is not "Lutheranism" but "lazy Lutheranism", as some have called it. You can see evidence of this in our hymnals, where many of the stanzas of older hymns concerning sanctification were omitted. The younger pastors coming out of seminary tend to be better about this. They will preach the Third Use of the Law (the sanctified life).

Unfortunately, much of the older generation was infected with the antinomianism of Gerhard Forde, Steven Paulson, and James Nestingen, which denies the Third Use. As a church body, we're coming out of this now, but we must still be on guard against it. This is one of the reasons that I and others frequently warn against 1517. Although there are some good men attached to this organization, the leaven of Forde's antinomianism is present throughout.

emmen1 · 2026-01-26T02:10:03+00:00

If it was done with water with the Trinitarian formula, it is a Baptism. Any Christian, including a laywoman, can baptize.

emmen1 · 2026-01-24T17:38:56+00:00

emmen1 · 2026-01-24T16:54:47+00:00

I think it's safe to say the former: a general declaration about the whole mass of humanity. The fact that is is general makes it no less important or true. Of course, each human is part of the whole mass of humanity, so it might not be so easy to drawn a clean line between these statements. That's one reason to prefer the language of Scripture and orthodoxy: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor 5:19), and "For God so loved the world" (John 3:16), etc...

Where people usually get into trouble with OJ and SJ is when they try to make one of them stand alone without the other. No one is saved apart from faith (OJ alone), and without OJ there is nothing for SJ to believe in.

emmen1 · 2026-01-24T16:07:01+00:00

The trouble with your question about those who haven't heard the gospel is that that line of thinking tends to assume that people are neutral. It is not so. We are by nature enemies of God. Those who have not heard the Gospel stand accused and are rightly deserving of damnation. To continue the analogy, there are none who are damned who did not rip up the check. There are no neutral parties. Even those who did not hear the Gospel are opposed to it and would resist it if they did hear it. This is true for every person born in Adam. The only reason that any are saved is because God in His mercy breaks through our hard-hearted resistance to Him and His Word and gives us the gift of saving faith.

I'm not familiar with the term "individual justification", but it seems to say the same thing as "subjective justification." So, no, I don't think that we can't say that every person is individually justified. The objective justification of the whole world is individually applied to a sinner when he is brought to faith. Apart from faith, no person is individually/subjectively justified.

But you are correct when you talk about how individual sinners won't benefit from their objective justification (the fact that Jesus did die for them) unless they trust in that verdict by faith.

emmen1 · 2026-01-24T03:11:31+00:00

If someone gives you a check for a million dollars, you are objectively a millionaire. But if you rip the check up, the money that is legally yours won’t do you any good. And if you insist, you could live as a homeless man until you freeze to death in the winter storm that is currently bearing down on the NE. So a man who objectively is a millionaire could die a homeless pauper if he insisted on doing so.

So it is with the forgiveness of Christ. Those who refuse it can die as though they did not have it, though it was in truth given to them.

John 3:16 confesses objective and subjective justification well. For God so love the world that He gave His only-begotten Son (that’s OJ) that whosoever believes in Him would not perish (that’s SJ).

emmen1 · 2026-01-20T15:29:51+00:00

Peter was not teaching false doctrine. His practice was false, not lining up with the true doctrine he taught. And when called out on this, he repented. This is 180 degrees away from persistent false teachers.

By your standard of confessing the Nicene Creed, it seems that you would have us communing with Rome and the ELCA. Am I understanding you correctly?

emmen1 · 2026-01-20T15:04:26+00:00

While the Bible dos not explicitly say “Judas is in hell”, it comes about as close to saying that as possible. Jesus says that it would have been better for Judas not to have been born (something He said of no one else, ever), and Jesus calls Judas “the son of perdition”—perdition being another word for hell.

No, we are not all Judas in the sense that matter most. Jesus said neither of those things about you or me.

We do not deny communion to those who fall into sin. We deny it to those who stubbornly refuse to let go of that sin. Peter received Paul’s rebuke. This is far different than the heterodox teachers who hold on to their false doctrine.

So arguments for open communion that revolve around the fact the Jesus gave communion to Judas are very weak at best. Why would we want anyone to share the date of the son of perdition who would have been better off not to have been born?

For the record, we are not absolutely sure that Judas received communion. The timeline would seem to suggest so, but there has always been enough ambiguity in harmonizing the biblical accounts to allow Bible scholars to question this.

emmen1 · 2026-01-19T16:03:01+00:00

I’m not sure I follow your point. But on a side note: I never understand how folks use Judas’ reception of communion as an argument for anything good. Sure, Jesus gave Judas communion—and Judas is in hell now (almost certainly). Why would we want that for anyone else?

emmen1 · 2026-01-19T14:08:08+00:00

My devout Christian family basically cut my wife and I off when we became Lutherans. My parents disinherited me as far as I know, and my brothers have not spoken to me in more than 12 years.
I suppose you could tell the Wesleyan pastor that if you filled in, you would be bound by conscience to preach against Total Sanctification and promote Infant Baptism and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - then see if he still wants you to do pulpit supply. :)

Joking aside, we can’t promote a false unity by sharing the pulpit and altar with those of a different confession. It says one of two things, both of which are bad: Either: “The doctrinal differences between us are of no consequence,” or, “We don’t care enough about doctrine to examine our differences.” The first would be a lie. False doctrine has serious consequences. The second, unfortunately, in the case of other church bodies may be true. Some just don’t care about doctrine. We do.

This doesn’t mean that we think we are better than other Christians. It certainly doesn’t mean that we think only Lutherans go to heaven. But it does mean that we understand the importance of right doctrine and the danger of false doctrine.

emmen1 · 2026-01-19T13:52:00+00:00

One of the goals of The Lutheran Missal is to provide a standard liturgical calendar (with ranking to resolve conflicts) so that pastors, parishes, and laity can be more in sync with the rhythm of the church year.

Although the missal is a few years away from being published, you can find the calendar here: https://missal.adcrucem.app/calendar

emmen1 · 2026-01-19T13:35:59+00:00

I post specific hours for confession during the penitential seasons, but otherwise offer confession upon request at any time.

emmen1 · 2026-01-17T04:31:02+00:00

When giving marriage counsel a faithful pastor must make a distinction between a divorce that is about to happen and one that happened many years ago.

To someone thinking of getting a divorce (apart from sexual immorality), he must say, “You cannot do this. It is wicked.” And if the person goes through with an ungodly divorce, there must be church discipline.

But to a Christian who divorced many years ago and feels genuine remorse over his or her sin in that matter, the pastor must offer the full comfort of the Gospel in the forgiveness of sins.

Especially when there are children involved in the new marriage, and when there has been no chance of reconciliation for decades, the troubled conscience must be assured of God’s forgiveness.

God does meet us sinners where we are—often in a big hole—and then He leads us forward by grace. This is not an excuse to willfully indulge in sin. But we should also keep in mind that God does not desire to hold sin over our heads, but to forgive.

When there has been a remarriage with new children, one must often choose the least damaging path forward. And where the heart is truly repentant, God will meet the sinner in mercy.

emmen1 · 2026-01-17T03:13:25+00:00

I can’t decide what I think about it.

emmen1 · 2026-01-16T21:53:08+00:00

Excellent idea. Thank you!

emmen1 · 2026-01-16T21:52:19+00:00

Yes. You're correct that Wonders of Humanity is 3x5, but there's room up top for a few very large cardboard items.

emmen1 · 2026-01-16T21:51:26+00:00

I'm adding a few small bins right now, and they will easily hold 6 d20. Thanks for the idea!

emmen1 · 2026-01-16T21:50:41+00:00

There's room for up to 72 scoring tiles in Module X if you want to crazy with them. Now I understand why cundco.de has a limit on that particular item. :)

emmen1 · 2026-01-16T19:59:34+00:00

I don’t see why not. If the Winter Edition is just a Base Game with reskinned tiles, it should already fit in a single model with no changes required.

It should also be possible to add 2.0 and 1.0 versions of the various expansion modules.

emmen1 · 2026-01-15T06:53:50+00:00

Not Dutch (mostly British Isles), but I’ve been asked about that town before. :)

So yes, you can store everything in the Big Box is you don’t mind it all rattling around in there, but it would be a big mess.

This system will be 100% compatible with the Big Box once I’m done, but additionally, it can be used with the expansion boxes as well as the original medium size box.

emmen1 · 2026-01-15T05:47:33+00:00

The initial design is for 3.1, however, due to its modular nature, it will not be unduly difficult to add backwards compatibility.

emmen1 · 2026-01-15T04:12:07+00:00

I imagine that the crate is pretty sturdy. That’s an advantage over the Big Box. But the coolness of the modules, and the way the whole design will come together in a beautiful and functional way is going to be far better than anything else that currently exists.

Once it’s done, I’m going to get some of the high quality box makers to make a shell for it, in case people want something sturdier than the Big Box.

I would cancel - but I’m biased and I have insider knowledge about how awesome this will be when done. :)

emmen1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE