UCLA Stem Cell Ethics Panel Ignores Heart of Controversy

In our national debate, one of the center-stage bioethics issues is embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Prior to attending UCLA’s public symposium on human stem cells, I decided to investigate the big-picture facts and distinctions concerning the controversy. I discovered:

• There are two broad categories of human stem cell research: adult stem cell research (ASCR) and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), with the latter being the point of contention.
• There are two main concerns with ESCR: 1. the killing of human beings at the embryonic stage and 2. the cloning of human beings.
• The only way to acquire human embryonic stem cells is to kill a human embryo.
• Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is a method used in ESCR by which human embryos are cloned.

My discoveries show that this is a topic about the nature and value of human life itself, requiring its handling with careful distinctions and clarity of thought. I went into the symposium expecting to hear answers to questions like: Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? What is the embryo? Should tax dollars go to clone human beings? Are all human beings valuable or only some? What makes human beings at the embryonic stage less valuable than human beings at the infant or toddler stage and why are those differences relevant? Bearing my discoveries in mind, I paid close attention during the “Stem Cells and Ethics” portion of the symposium. The topic was to be covered by 4 lecturers (only 3 showed up) and a moderator—the sort of thing one would expect for a debate on an important, pressing controversy. However, and sadly, nothing resembling a debate ever happened.

The first speaker was Glen McGee on the topic of What’s in the Dish? (referring to the Petri dish where ASCR and ESCR take place). Instead of answering that foundational, crucial question of what is it that is in the dish, he used his lecture to advocate for a “common language discussion” on stem cell research that uses “new words in better ways to get social consensus” and avoids “political”, emotive language used in states “less blue than ours” (meaning less liberal/democratic than California). As it turns out, the language he is referring to by “political” is language such as killing the most vulnerable among us. Well, answering “what’s in the dish” will determine whether or not such language is indeed political (whatever that means) or perfectly appropriate. He asked many more questions, rarely answering them and often dismissing them. For example, he asked Is it the DNA that makes [the human embryo]alive? followed by That’s a weird question that philosophers ask. Other crucial, yet unanswered questions included: At what point is the frozen embryo viable? What does viability mean? And though these and other essential questions were left unanswered, at no time did Mr. McGee advocate the use of caution in research that kills or clones human embryos—humans at the embryonic stage that appear to be valuable members of the human family.

The next lecture What’s In it for Egg Donors? by Dr. Mildred Cho focused on a controversy regarding the donation of eggs for experimentation. This highly specific issue was outside the scope of the major controversy of ESCR. Dr. Cho, though unashamedly in favor of ESCR, offered nothing in terms of an argument in its favor. I spoke with her at length after the lecture and she admitted that the unborn is a living, whole human being from the moment of conception (and thus at the embryonic stage) yet she was unsure at what developmental point human beings become too valuable to kill for research. My question to her was If you don’t know whether or not a human is valuable at the embryonic stage then why advocate the dismemberment of them for research? Her response was revealing, The current policy allows for the use of certain frozen embryos in research, those are the only ones being used. In other words, “I’m not going to answer your question.”

The final lecture Embryo Ethics: A Religious Perspective by Dr. Kevin FitzGerald, I thought would have the most promise of actually answering the real issue and perhaps bring more balance to the two lectures which enthusiastically supported ESCR. Dr. FitzGerald’s lecture amounted to a modified pro-ESCR position that served to further confuse the issue. His argument was that no one knows when [biological] life begins (I don’t know why Dr. Cho didn’t correct him here) and Catholics believe that there is so much more to us than just our cells, we are valuable to God because we reason and love, those are the real characteristics that make us valuable as human beings. Though he is not in favor of using “unfrozen” humans at the embryonic stage of development he is in favor of using humans earlier than the embryonic stage of development as well as frozen human embryos. He did not offer a clear reason why he advocates such a seemingly arbitrary position on human life and thereby digresses from the clear Catholic position.

It is clear to me that those who advocate the killing and cloning of human beings have on them the burden of proof to demonstrate that their research methods violate no ethical laws and do not destroy valuable, innocent, and defenseless human life. It is a disservice to the UCLA community to invite a one-sided ethics panel that results in a rubber stamp approval for UCLA’s ESCR agenda. I suggest open dialogue & debate on these issues and a serious reconsideration of the University’s positive position on human embryo-killing and human cloning methods.

Basic Doctrine Quiz

This quiz really does get at some of the most basic, deeply practical doctrines of Christianity. Our salvation does not depend on how coherent we are with the answers, but it does show us how important it is for us to get these answers right as we think and reflect on what God has done for us. I will post the answers at a later date, but if you want the answers sooner, listen here.

Questions About God and Christ (Answer True or False)
1. Jesus was God, but only appeared to be human.

2. Jesus was the first of all God’s created beings.

3. Jesus had a human body and divine soul.

4. In the Old Testament, God was known as the Father, in the New Testament, as the Son, and after Pentecost, as the Holy Spirit.

5. Mary is the mother of God.

6. God chooses people because he knows in advance they will choose him.

Questions About Salvation (Answer True or False)

7. The only way we can be saved is by the perfect conformity to the law of God.

8. We are saved by grace after all that we can do.

9. I am saved because of my decision to accept Christ.

10. God is so sovereign, he can change his mind.

11. The Bible teaches that there is an age of accountability, and that children who die before this age go to heaven because they are innocent.

12. If I die with unconfessed sin, I will not go to heaven.

13. The main motivation for holiness is fear of punishment and hope of reward.

14. God cannot hold someone guilty for the sins of another.

15. Justification is the process by which a person, through faith in Christ and sorrow for his sins, receives the gift of the Holy Spirit and so becomes a child of God.

16. God cannot require of us anything which cannot be performed.

17. True Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

18. God helps those who help themselves is a biblically sound principle.

19. Though no one is perfect, the Lord looks on the heart to see who really loves him.

Forgetting Something?

“If a pastor can preach a sermon and the sermon can make sense without Jesus on the Cross for sinners, it was not a Christian sermon.” –George Borghardt, St. Mark’s Lutheran Church, Conroe, TX

Reagan: A Pro-life Legacy

Inseparable from his presidential legacy was Ronald Reagan’s public pro-life commitment:

PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION
January 14, 1988
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
America has given a great gift to the world, a gift that drew upon the accumulated wisdom derived from centuries of experiments in self-government, a gift that has irrevocably changed humanity’s future. Our gift is twofold: the declaration, as a cardinal principle of all just law, of the God-given, unalienable rights possessed by every human being; and the example of our determination to secure those rights and to defend them against every challenge through the generations. Our declaration and defense of our rights have made us and kept us free and have sent a tide of hope and inspiration around the globe.

One of those unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the right to life. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, however, America’s unborn have been denied their right to life. Among the tragic and unspeakable results in the past decade and a half have been the loss of life of 22 million [now over 50 million] infants before birth; the pressure and anguish of countless women and girls who are driven to abortion; and a cheapening of our respect for the human person and the sanctity of human life.

We are told that we may not interfere with abortion. We are told that we may not “impose our morality” on those who wish to allow or participate in the taking of the life of infants before birth; yet no one calls it “imposing morality” to prohibit the taking of life after people are born. We are told as well that there exists a “right” to end the lives of unborn children; yet no one can explain how such a right can exist in stark contradiction of each person’s fundamental right to life.

That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies born handicapped, and the elderly or infirm. That we have killed the unborn for 15 years does not nullify this right, nor could any number of killings ever do so. The unalienable right to life is found not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.

All medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that children before birth share all the basic attributes of human personality — that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, the decision in Roe v. Wade rested upon an earlier state of medical technology. The law of the land in 1988 should recognize all of the medical evidence.

Our nation cannot continue down the path of abortion, so radically at odds with our history, our heritage, and our concepts of justice. This sacred legacy, and the well-being and the future of our country, demand that protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that the personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land. In legislation introduced at my request in the First Session of the 100th Congress, I have asked the Legislative branch to declare the “humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the several states to protect the life of each person before birth.” This duty to declare on so fundamental a matter falls to the Executive as well. By this Proclamation I hereby do so.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America’s unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every human being and the sanctity of every human life.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twelfth.

Ronald Reagan

UCLA Invites “One-Sided” Ethics Panel

Unfortunately promoting human embryo killing & human cloning is all that matters to UCLA anymore. A true and open discussion or debate of the issue is over…at least that’s what the school administrators are hoping for… Enter a rubber-stamp approval by a group of sympathetic pro-choice ethicists…
Feb. 5, 2006
11:10am Stem Cells and Ethics
What’s in the Dish?
Glenn McGee, Alden March Bioethics Institute
From Stem Cells to Jail Cells: Ethics, Politics and Policy Options
R. Alta Charo, University of Wisconsin School of Law
What’s In It for Egg Donors?
Mildred Cho, Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics
Embryo Ethics: A Religious Perspective
Kevin FitzGerald, SJ, Ph.D., Georgetown University
Moderator: Edward McCabe
My brief Google research yields…

Edward McCabe (Not an ethicist, but a scientist/doctor mesmerized by the possibilities)
http://www.societyandgenetics.ucla.edu/directors.htm
http://www.research.ucla.edu/som/progress/
“This is a unique chance to hear some of the world’s most distinguished scientists and ethicists speak not about some PR scam like cloning, but about the real developments that will soon shape our lives.”

Glenn McGee (Apparently “scratching his head” at the arguments against human embryo killing…he just doesn’t GET IT.)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/28/smn.18.html
MILES O’BRIEN (CNN): All right, one final thought here, we are pretty much of time, but I got to ask you this. Is any harm done through all of this [negative reaction to cloning, embryonic stem cell research]?

GLENNMCGEE: Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, yesterday I heard again and again, and I’ll repeat, because I think it’s true, those of us who are in favor of human embryonic stem cell research are scratching our heads yet again at where these stories come from.

I mean, if anything will motivate the Senate to take action on something like a ban on all things related to cloning, it’s going to be action like this that’s irresponsible, scares people half to death, and confuses them about the difference between making a baby and trying to do something like cure Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s using cells that may or may not come from embryos.

We want to be very, very clear that what we’re talking about today is an offshore, not so credible attempt to make a human baby, and that is not the same thing as stem cell research.

But I can say it until I’m blue in the face, and a lot of people will still be confused this afternoon.

R. Alta Charo
http://www.law.wisc.edu/facstaff/biog.php?ID=246
Professor Charo is a member of the board of the Alan Guttmacher Institute [Planned Parenthood] and the Foundation for Genetic Medicine, a member of the National Medical Advisory Committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and has been on the board of the Society for the Advancement of Women’s Health and the board of the former American Association of Bioethics.

Mildred Cho
http://prolifetraining.com/pro-life_blog/?p=46
Meanwhile other scientists say that a “construct” could never become a human being, by which they mean a born baby. David Magnus and Mildred Cho of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics in California stated, “There is no reason ever to believe one of these things could ever become a human being.” Right, and Dolly was not really a sheep.

Kevin FitzGerald
“He has published extensively on stem cell research, human cloning, the Human Genome Project, and health care ethics. To the fascinating subject of the new genetics he brings the professional perspective of a research scientist and the spiritual values of a Christian ethicist.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61643-2004Jan29?language=printer
The Rev. Kevin T. FitzGerald, a university bioethicist, said he reasoned that the scientists did not know the cells had come from aborted fetuses when they began their work and should not be forced to abandon potentially lifesaving studies or risk forfeiting grants. The benefits to society, he said, far outweigh the harm done by using the cells, because the abortions were not performed for the purpose of providing the cells to scientists.

“The ideal would be not to be involved with [aborted fetal cells] at all,” said FitzGerald, a Jesuit priest who holds a doctorate in molecular genetics. “Obviously, we don’t live in an ideal world. We do the best we can.”

Church officials concluded that the benefits of widespread immunization significantly outweighed the drawbacks of using aborted fetal cells, said FitzGerald.

“The connection to the abortion was distant and remote enough to say that this in no way encouraged or facilitated further abortions,” he said. “The good was a proportionately strong enough argument to say, ‘Do this.’ ”

Georgetown applied the same rationale to the new dilemma, reasoning that the work its scientists had been doing was too important “to throw all this good stuff out,” FitzGerald said.

But FitzGerald acknowledged the practical challenge of avoiding the cell lines in future research projects. Investigators often must use a particular line of aborted fetal cells to qualify for a grant because the National Institutes of Health or other research funding agencies want to compare the results with other studies performed using the same source material. Using cells with different traits would make comparisons invalid, he said.

FitzGerald said Georgetown scientists should not feel threatened by the university’s actions. “We’re not trying to roll back anybody’s freedoms or disrupt anybody’s research,” he said.

UCLA & ESCR

Tomorrow I will be attending a symposium on stem cells (embryonic and adult) put on by UCLA’s Center for Society and Genetics, UCLA Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine and UCLA School of Law. UCLA is competing for the over $3 billion designated by Prop. 71 and is aggressively advancing its campaign, despite the fact that the funds are tied up in lawsuits against the state and may not be available for a few years (or never).

The only way to get human embryonic stem cells is from human embryos and that always results in the killing of that embryo, thus the taking of an innocent human life. The issue of ESCR is a classic case of the ends (possible therapies/cures) justifying the means (killing of innocent human beings).

I am especially interested in the “Stem Cells and Ethics” topic/panel at 11:10 am, since after all this is a matter of ethics and not science. I certainly hope but do not expect there to be some voice of dissent on the panel and won’t hesitate to make our club’s voice known during the Q & A.

Excellent clarifications on Embryonic Stem Cell Research:
The Confusing Moral Logic of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Means and Ends
Are you against stem cell research?

Michigan to “Let the People Decide”

Eventually we will need this at the federal level…

From CBR:

Columbus, OH – February 1, 2006 – The Center for Bio Ethical Reform (CBR) Midwest applauds Michigan Citizens for Life for leading an attempt to amend the Michigan Constitution recognizing personhood at conception. The Michigan Constitutional Amendment is one of several state initiatives that would provide the necessary constitutional challenge to Roe that could send the abortion issue back to the states. This amendment, if enacted, would immediately be challenged by the courts thus providing a test case against Roe. The Thomas More Law Center is prepared to defend the initiative in court if necessary. These types of initiatives are important because it often takes years for the US Supreme Court to receive such cases.

The following is the proposed Constitutional Amendment:

“The right to due process, whereby no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, guaranteed in Article 1 Section 17, and the right to equal protection of the law, guaranteed in Article 1, Section 2, vest at conception.

A ‘person’ for the purposes of the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, exists from the moment of conception.”

Biola Apologetics

“God, Time, and Creation” with William Lane Craig, Ph.D., D.Theol.
World renowned debater and theologian, Dr. William Lane Craig, will explore:
–theories of time
–the beginning of our world and the origin of humankind
–the Christian belief of creation ex nihilo
–the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God
–and more!

March 2 & 3, 6:00-10:00 p.m.
March 4, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Mayers Auditorium, Biola University

========================
FREE DEFENDING THE FAITH KICK-OFF EVENT
========================

The Defending the Faith Spring Lecture Series
“Truth is a Strange Sort of Fiction: Responding to Emerging Challenges in the Church”

Monday Evening, February 20, 7:30 p.m.
Sutherland Auditorium, Biola University
Free and Open to Everyone
Featuring Greg Koukl of “Stand to Reason”

Join us for this exclusive and exciting evening with author and radio apologist Greg Koukl, founder and president of “Stand to Reason” as he offers stimulating cultural critique and news from the frontlines of the battle for ideas.

OF COURSE THERE’S STILL MORE:

While you’re at it, save the rest of your Monday evenings this spring for our lecture series:

Topics Include:

–The Case for Life After Death
–A Reasonable Incarnation
–History, Prophecy, and the Revolutionary Jesus
–Truth and the New Kind of Christian
–The Changing World of Mormonism
–The Church and Beauty
–Why God Allows Evil

Speakers Include:

–J.P. Moreland, Ph.D.
–John Mark Reynolds, Ph.D.
–Fred Sanders, Ph.D.
–Mike Erre, M.A.
–Craig J. Hazen, Ph.D.
–R. Scott Smith, Ph.D.
–Clay Jones, D.Min.
–Greg Koukl, M.A.

When: Monday evenings, February 27-April 10
Time: 7:00-10:00 p.m.
Where: Calvary Chapel Auditorium, Biola University campus

For information on this class, please contact:
The Christian Apologetics Program
Biola University
13800 Biola Ave
La Mirada, CA 90639-0001
Phone: 888.332.4652 (toll free)
apologetics@biola.edu

http://www.biola.edu/academics/scs/apologetics/events.cfm

Daily Bruin Quote #1

I was asked to comment on Prop. 73 in UCLA’s Daily Bruin “73 gets ‘no’ vote by slim margin“. Like many reporters they botched the quote so I’ll fix it for you with brackets:

“Barron Sawyer, president of Bruins for Life [: Defending Human Value], said the proposition would be beneficial because ‘[any time] we can chip away at the [ridiculous notion] idea that [the right to an] abortion transcends every possible right in the universe, including the rights of parents [ we should do so].'”

From now on, I’ll make my responses in email/written form. I was also asked for a comment by someone writing an euthanasia article (horribly written, as it turns out), but was not able to get his email in time to respond. I’ll post future quotes here.

J.W. Montgomery’s UCLA & SoCal Appearances

Don’t miss out on one of these rare opportunities to see Dr. John Warwick Montgomery lecture/teach here in Southern California. If you are interested, planning on attending, need directions, or have any questions, don’t hesitate to email or call me! Dr. Montgomery is the director of the International Academy of apologetics, Evangelism, & Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

UCLA Student Forum – Sponsored by University Lutheran Chapel: “A Lawyer’s Defense of Christianity and Human Rights.”
Wednesday, February 1st. 7:30pm in Moore 100
—————————————————————————–
Concordia University at Irvine Class – Colloquium in Apologetics:
(Tuesday and Thursday nights, from 6pm to 10pm)
January 19th, 24th, 26th, and 31st,
February 2nd, 7th, 9th, 14th, 16th, and 21st.

Concordia University at Irvine – 4 week Public Series on “The Truth of Christianity-More Than a Feeling”:
(Sunday nights from 6:30pm to 9:30pm)
January 22nd and 29th,
February 5th and 12th.

Concordia University at Irvine – “The Christian – Free Indeed!” Forum:
Dr. George Forell and Dr. John Montgomery:
(Sunday night from 6:30pm to 9:30pm)
February 19th.

Westminster Seminary in Escondido – Mike Horton’s “Modern Mind” evidential Apologetics class.
(Wednesday from 10:30am to noon)
February 8th.

St. James Episcopal Church – Newport Beach (courtesy of Mr. Gordon Carle): “Christianity: It’s Claim to Truth”
(Saturday afternoon through early evening – including meal/gastronomic feast!)
February 4th (possibly February 11th)

Faith Lutheran Church of Capistrano Beach: Adult Class on “The Gospel in the Public Square – Our Culture vs. the 10 Commandments”
(Sunday mornings from 9:15am to 10:15am)
January 30th, February 5th, 12th, and 19th.

The White Horse Inn radio program taping w/ Rod Rosenbladt and Mike Horton – Anaheim
(Friday February 25th)
Spread the word!

UCLA Philosophy

My first week of UCLA last quarter my TA James Rocha (my amazingly brilliant TA and sometimes professor here) gave our session a solemn warning: “Philosophy at UCLA is very hard.” In fact, he said that it is the hardest north campus major (as opposed to the hard science oriented south campus majors, i.e. math, bio, chem, phsyics). Classmates have pointed me to a detailed ranking system called Philosophical Gourmet which rates UCLA’s Philosophy program as tied for the #6 spot in overall program, beating out many well known universities.

In the “Breakdown of Programs by Specialties” section, UCLA does especially well in:
Philosophy of Language
Philosophical Logic
Normative Ethics & Moral Psychology
Philosophy of Law
Mathematical Logic
Medieval Philosophy
Early Modern Philosophy: 18th Century
History of Analytic Philosophy (incl. Wittgenstein)

So far I haven’t been scared off by the warnings or ranking…I’m just happy to be here and reading the philosopher’s works themselves. Also, I’ve never been around such a focused and enthusiastic bunch of classmates (of whom at least 50% aspire to law school). The professors I’ve taken–Kelsey, Kaplan & Normore–have exceeded my expectations in their lectures and approachableness. I hope it only gets better from here.

McLaren v. Christianity

Update: Kerry and I highly recommend reading Tim Challies’ book review of Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy, it is quite thorough. I actually thought it to be much more interesting review than Frame’s. If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, at least read the intro, discussion, and conclusion.

5 Things Every Christian Needs To Know

From: Challies Dot Com (great work Tim!):

“One may be a Christian without knowing them, but one’s walk with Christ will be greatly enhanced by understanding, applying and treasuring them. To deny them, however, is to undermine the very bedrock of the faith…

“For the Reformers these five things defined what it meant to be a Protestant. The Roman Catholic Church could not and still cannot abide by these five things and has declared them to be anathema – false doctrines. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons along with other cultic groups cannot hold to them. These five things define Protestantism, even crossing the boundaries between Calvinism and Arminianism, and hence define a biblical view of the Christian faith. It is sad, then, that they are not better-known among believers. Very few churches today invest the time and effort to teach and defend these fundamental doctrines.

“Yet whether we are aware of them or not, these five things continue to define us as Protestant even to this day. When we lose sight of and deny these distinctives, it could be argued that we are no longer Protestant at all, and hence are no longer a church that is truly grounded in the Scripture. These things tell us how we can know about God and define our relationship with Him and His relationship with us. These five things will enrich our walk with God, will ensure that we have a proper view of ourselves in relation to God, and ultimately impact every area of our lives. They are of critical importance to the Christian life.

“Here are the five things, then, that every Christian needs to know:
1. The Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith for the church.
2. Our salvation has been accomplished soley and fully by Christ.
3. It is only by God’s grace that we are given salvation.
4. While we are saved by God’s grace, He does this only through the instrument of faith.
5. Because of who He is and what He has done, we owe all glory to God alone.
“You may also know these five distinctives as the five solas of the Reformation. The Reformers formulated five doctrines which defined their disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church. They defined these as Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Solus Christus (Christ Alone), Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone).”

Sermon Sense

“The Law must indeed be preached in all its severity, but the hearer must be able to note, ‘That is for the good of a person who is still secure in his sins.’ And the Gospel must be preached in such a way that the people can notice, ‘That applies only to those who have been struck by the Law and need comfort.’ This is the most important thing to consider in a sermon.”

–C.F.W. Walther, Law & Gospel, 1884

The Perspicuous Gospel

“the Gospel is veiled only to those who are perishing.” — Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 4:3)

“No book on earth is as plain as Holy Scripture; compared to all other books, it is like the sun compared to all other lights.” — Martin Luther