Quote Originally Posted by Dropkick View Post
I finally had time to look over the source material in the blog and found that the blog does indeed prove doctrinal disunity among Lutherans but not confessional Lutherans. Rest assured there still is no doctrinal disunity with the Lutheran confessions or among confessional Lutheran churches.
Again, my apologies for not seeing this post, and that it was primarily in response to something I said here:
I stated just a few comments ago that "I don't assume to know the doctrinal positions of all (or even very many) confessional Lutheran churches." I don't know the history of either the ASLC or the ELDoNA. Regardless, it is ironic to me that I was very easily able to find a intra-Lutheran debate on the very topic you claimed Lutherans were united on. I could also cite the recent flare up between Rev. Rydecki and WELS. Rev. Rydecki says, "Because I am convinced from the Holy Scriptures that the Lutheran Church, as defined by the Book of Concord of 1580, has preserved the doctrine and practice of the catholic faith as taught by the Apostles, I am a Lutheran." WELS wants nothing to do with him because of his view of justification. Rydecki is now ELDONA and they claim, "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America is committed to the restoration and advancement of consistently Evangelical Lutheran doctrine and practice in harmony with the Sacred Scriptures and the Book of Concord (1580)." So, I still say when I take your argument and apply it your very words, you refute your own words: "How can we [sic] common ground on what the gospel even is when the reformed can't even define it amongst themselves?"
If I've understood your comments, you appear to be arguing that ELDoNA is not a confessional Lutheran church, so there is no disunity among confessional Lutherans? If that is the case (and I'm not entirely sure that's what you're saying), I was basing my comments on this statement from ELDoNA's official website:

In the Lutheran Church, one encounters a great deal of talk about ‘confessional Lutheran’ doctrine and practice; sadly, the substance has been something quite different. The various ‘synods’ often appear more interested in a ‘theology of glory’ (focusing on worldly prestige, money, and ‘numbers’) than a ‘theology of the cross’ which recognizes that the Church is despised by the world, because she is the Bride of Christ.

The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America is committed to the restoration and advancement of consistently Evangelical Lutheran doctrine and practice in harmony with the Sacred Scriptures and the Book of Concord (1580).
Now, I guess it could then be debated if ELDoNA really is committed to the Book of Concord and if they're really confessional. I assume they probably say they are and you and some others say they aren't. I assume from their perspective that by embracing Rev. Rydecki's version of justification, ELDoNA has a problem with universal objective justification.

Addendum
That confessional Lutherans are not broadly unified is sadly easy to document. This statement also is of interest:

The 1850 founding constitution of the Wisconsin Synod includes confessional provisions like the following: All congregational arrangements must be “in harmony with the pure Word of the Bible and the Confessions of our Evangelical Lutheran Church.”

What began well on paper didn’t really describe the reality for many years to come. It was a confessional ideal held by some, but not by others, including the synod’s first president, Rev. John Muehlhaeuser, who (unofficially) scribbled out all references in the constitution to confessional writings and replaced them with such wordings as “pure Bible Christianity” and “pure Bible Word.
I'd like to also mention something I said previously, to bring this all back to where it started:

I don't assume to know the doctrinal positions of all (or even very many) confessional Lutheran churches. I'll take it that some confessional Lutheran denominations may have a similar problem that some confessional Reformed churches have- that in their historic tradition they have confessional standards, but in practice in recent history, they deny aspects of those confessions, or perhaps the confessions entirely. For instance, I recall talking to a Presbyterian minister (PCUSA) some years ago telling him that I enjoyed reading the Westminster Confession of Faith. His response was, "Well, we've moved beyond that document." In other words, historic Reformed churches that have the historic Reformed confessions as part of their pedigree of belief are most certainly united on "what the gospel is." That being said, that some confessional churches have strayed from their confessions, perhaps even to the point of leaving the Gospel is not the fault of their historic confessions. What it means is, is that like the churches the Lord rebuked in the book Revelation, some church bodies that start out well finish poorly.
I have a feeling that had I had access to the needed Lutheran resources, like the minutes of the meetings from Lutheran synod gatherings throughout the decades, it would be fairly easy to document the pains and struggles and disunity all large denominations go through. This is the case in my own denominational history. I have a number of volumes on the battles within the CRC (the parent church of URCNA), as well as the URCNA synod minutes.

It's obvious to me you're committed to the Lutheran church, and I respect that. However, you can be committed to the Lutheran church without becoming a theologian of glory over your church. The theologian of glory is in each and every one of us, I know I fight him every day within me, and often lose.