This is so low. You've really outdone yourself this time. The eight commandment obviously doesn't protect anyone anymore - except yourself. The minute someone says something bad about you - a defensive hissy fit occurs. Continually breaking the eighth commandment is something is called "living in sin". Your blog is proof that you continually break the eighth commandment. "living in sin" means you reject the gospel. Rejecting the gospel means you go to hell. Oh, wait, maybe I'm not taking your words and actions in the kindest possible way. I will be praying for you and your selfish, arrogant, sinful behavior. May God have mercy on you. I forgive you - but I wish we could see some fruits of repentance.
***
GJ - "It is to laugh," as Bugs Bunny used to say. The latest rant comes from an anonymous pastor. He has appointed himself as the nameless accuser.
I never felt protected by the Eighth Commandment in the Wisconsin Synod. The antinomian pastors feel free to do anything they want - while savaging anyone who gets in the way of their adultery, intoxication, abuse of members, and (a minor point for them) their false doctrine. Simply approaching one of these felons is a violation of the Eighth Commandment. Sure, talk to one of these thugs - then Matthew 18 was not done in the right way, another invented sin of the lawless ones. Since it was not done in the right way, the evil person who violated subsection w of Matthew 18 is subject to all the vile abuse they can pour on him...anonymously of course.
I am speaking about something that preceded my experience with the UOJ/CG Stormtroopers. That is how they dealt with anyone who questioned the heresiarch Ted Hartwig, who was promoted and puffed from then on.
25 comments:
Dr. Jackson,
You have to understand that in the WELS, many think that one sin is as bad as another. So if they can strain even a gnat of slander out of your blog, that makes you as bad as an adulterous, murder, and you name it, and that means they can dump on you as though you were some serial killer named on the front page of the local news. Anyway, that's how many of them think, and there's no use trying to tell them that God doesn't see it that way exactly. I'm sure it ties in to their high-octane UOJ Gospel doctrine somehow.
----------
Google: "sin is sin" "no one sin is worse than another":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US303&q=%22sin+is+sin%22+%22no+one+sin+is+worse+than+another%22&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=
-----------
http://richleonardi.blogspot.com/2009/05/no-sin-is-worse-than-another.html
So the serial killer/rapist/arsonist and the elderly lady who ate a grape without paying for it at the grocery store are both going to hell?
I challenge you to show me from scripture where that is not the case.
Yes. Without Christ, the serial killer, rapist, arsonist, elderly grape stealer, Greg Jackson, you and I would all be going to the very same hell. Thankfully, Christ died for every sin, no matter how great or small they seem to you.
Last time I checked, that's what the WELS and the Bible both taught about sin.
Hi again Dr. Jackson,
You see what I mean by these last two commenters? This is the kind of moral and theological idiocy one has to put up with when hanging around with WELS folks, or attending school with them. I'm sure that it has to do with the "findings" of propositional theology as taught by Walther. You'll recall that back in Dresden he thought he wasn't ready for the Gospel, and had to have Martin Stephen assure him he had self-flagellated enough, so the Gospel applied even to him. Walther was the type of frontier preacher who would make ol' granny feel the flames of hell lapping her fanny over that grape she stole from the vendor two years ago.
We all should feel the flames of hell lapping at our collective fanny. Sin is real, hell is real. Sin deserves the fires of hell and we all have sinned. If we deny that we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Where did this sin-ranking Roman Catholic come from? The Lord does not rank sin, nor should you.
All sin...even the desire to sin, damns a person to Hell for eternity. Without Christ, sin damns all--even old people
Schottey
anon @7:25 appears to have the reading comprehension of a "typical" MLC student. In case my fingers stuttered while typing... I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME FROM SCRIPTURE WHERE THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Once again, scripture not Walther. Love what the guy wrote, but he's not quite authoritative.
Thanks in advance.
Okay, you want scripture, you'll get scripture. (I usually don't try to fight this "received wisdom" and scripture illiteracy because it is so widespread and intractable in the WELS, it's just a losing battle to fight it. Yet, this Manichean thinking warps the thinking and judgment, and affects the relationships of WELS members to others.
If sin ranking is wrong, then why did Christ do it? The Sodomites and Capernaites were both unbelievers, yet Christ said one group would receive a more severe judgment at the end.
As to believers, there will be more or less rewards in heaven depending on how much good or evil believers did. See the parable of the talents/mina.
If you read Luther, he believed that minor sins were "injurious" to faith, but not necessarily fatal.
Christians commit minor sins every day, and if one were to counts thoughts or attitudes, many many times per day. Even if one does not confess these minor sins or even think they are sins, God will forgive them anyway, and it is doubtful that they would be fatal to the soul. Anyway, if that's not the case, then only a tiny fraction of Christians are going to heaven, even of WELS members.
When Matthew 10:15 is read in context it does not, in any way imply that those for whom it will be more bearable (those of Sodom and Gomorrah), will be saved. All sin condemns. It is only because of and through Christ, who was blameless (that's right he never even ate a grape without paying for it), are we given the gift of heaven.
Luther is not the supreme authority. He said and abundance of wonderful things, but at times his Catholic roots are visible.
Friends, arguing isn't going to help. Don't comment anymore, eventually he'll get bored. This is what we should do.
Hi Dr. Jackson,
You see, why try to fight it?! The one commenter implied I said the Sodomites would be, or might be, saved. I explicitly said that the Capernaites AND Sodomites were on the road to hell. The wrong thinking is so entrenched they can't read what I'm saying right.
Then the commenter said that all sins condemn if it weren't for Christ. Actually, there are unknown sins and petty sins that Christians will hold on to life, and these will not be confessed nor even thought of as sin. An example is the sin of these petty heresies that WELS members hold on to, such as UOJ and there is no hierarchy of sins, and that some sins are more damning than others.
I quoted Luther, and they said his Catholicism is showing. Such is the thinking of the WELS that they can easily dismiss Luther, Gerhard, Calov and others when it suits their fancy. That's why I say, why fight it?
Hey Greg, please give this anonymouse his own post and explain why sin ranking is unscriptual. I can think of 10 passages off the top of my head that would make him blush, so I'm sure you can come up with 30.
Calling every sin a sin is not just something the "UOJ Stormtroopers" barfed up one day.
Also, anon@7:40, why assume this guy is a MLC student? Most MLC students wouldn't address Greg as "Dr." nor would they buy into the false doctrine of sin ranking.
Why wouldn't most MLC students call him "Dcotor"? He has an earned PhD from a research university, which is more than most of the people in the WELS who use that title have.
My calling him an MLC student was a bit tongue in cheek. My apologies, as that does not come across too well in type. That analogy just seems to be thrown around here when someone misses the point. Once again,I apologize. I did not intend to imply that MLC students would accept that false doctrine. All analogies limp a little; that one probably needs a wheel chair.
I don't think GJ has ever been called "Dcotor." I'm not even sure how to pronounce that.
Anyway, the point of my comment was that I'm surprised that this anonymous guy comes in from left field with fists swinging against the WELS and a doctrine that is pretty clear in Scripture. He's also looking for GJ to back him up, so why isn't GJ saying "Don't help me"?
Maybe GJ agrees?
Hi Dr. Jackson,
Notice how the commenters are so sure that sin ranking is "unscriptural" and not ranking sin is standard WELS doctrine that's "pretty clear in Scripture."
Having been WELS most of my life, with the exception of a few years in the LCMS, and having attended and completed more than one WELS synodical school, is how I know that most WELS members do not rank sin as to severity, even though WELS doctrinal books teach the ranking of sin! (see citations below). An outsider could not have known this, since he'd assume that WELS members actually believe what their doctrinal books teach! (doctrinal quotes below).
This very common error in WELS thinking is part of what makes it insufferable to be in the WELS, since if someone thinks that in the eyes of God all sins are the same, there is no measured response to sin. That's why you receive such vitriol every day on your blog and by email, because WELS members have no measured response to what they conceive to be sin. If they can strain one iota of slander out of your blog, they are certain you are going to hell if you don't repent, and in the eyes of God you are in the same class as serial murderers.
One example is I was at a WELS dorm and noted that someone left the shower on hot for twenty or thirty minutes in order to make it into a steamy sauna, and I said I wished they didn't waste that much energy and the synod's money doing that. My roommate then felt this was the time to remind me that I left my stereo with the headphones plugged in when I left the room for short periods, such as to brush my teeth. So in his mind, wasting several bucks worth of hot water in twenty or thirty minutes was equal to wasting $1 over an entire year by not turning off my stereo enough, which would be a big inconvenience to me. You can see how this kind of thinking day in and day out can making being around WELS members an unbearable experience.
Another example is in the WELS, if someone thinks that someone else is a spendthrift, he's condemned as severely as though he's a wife beater. Again, no measure.
Christ taught don't be unfair in judging because you'll be judged "in like measure." However, since there is no gradation in sin in the WELS (outside of their ignored doctrinal books), WELS members take judge not lest ye be judged as teaching don't judge, period, lest you suffer the consequences. On the other hand, they think this teaches that if anyone presumes to judge another, then it's open season on that person, and they can throw as many brickbats at that person as they want with impunity before God and others.
So you can see this thinking leads to antinomianism because no one can speak up against any sin, grievous or not, or even mention that certain sins occur more frequently than one can expect among the churchly class, without fear of being berated severely and incessantly over some perceived sin, no matter how minor. Notice I said "perceived" and not actual sin.
Now, how do WELS members know for certain that someone else has sinned, be it slander or spendthriftery, or false doctrine? It seems that whenever two or three have agreed that the other person sinned, say by spending money unwisely, then that person has sinned, period. There's no need for further proof or argumentation or documentation or a court case to prove it. Also, there's no need to use the word "alleged."
So, for example, whether anyone can actually document it or not, Rev. Herman Otten and Dr. Jackson have slandered, and the fact that they are journalists of a sort, and are fighting false doctrine on a grand scale, are not mitigating factors in their defense.
----------
Koehler's "A Summary of Christian Doctrine," p. 72, says the difference between venial and mortal sins is mortal sins kill faith and drive out the Holy Spirit, whereas venial sins do not.
Mueller's "Christian Dogmatics" on p. 231 makes the same distinction.
----------
The only distinction to be made as to the class of sin is regarding the sin which can not be forgiven, the sin of rejecting the gospel. This would be what you made reference to as a mortal sin. All other sins are venial, can be forgiven, and in fact must be forgiven in order for the Christian to enter heaven. God forgives all sins whether they are confessed during the life of the Christian or not. At the final judgment God will call the sinner to account for all his sins, even the ones he is not aware of. The one who has only committed a "small" sin will not be admitted to heaven while still carrying his sin. Any sin no matter how small condemns.
Hi again Dr. Jackson,
You see how cocksure WELS members are of this "sin is sin" doctrine? I give them the page numbers to doctrinal books that they should have on hand, and yet they disregard that and repeat back to me the misunderstanding that's so prevalent in the WELS.
That misunderstanding must have arisen from the Pietists and their UOJ doctrine. The UOJ doctrine says that unbelief is the only unforgivable sin, and that all others are forgivable, so that logically erases any distinction between sins in the minds of WELS members, despite what the doctrinal books say. BTW, the unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Spirit, not permanent unbelief as is commonly taught in the WELS thanks to the UOJ doctrine. Perhaps one could say there is two unforgivable sins.
Mueller lists a number of distinctions: 1) Voluntary/Involuntary, 2) Commission/Omission 3) Against God, Neighbor and Self, 4) Grievous and less grievous (p. 230), 5) Mortal and Venial, 6) Sins that cry out to God for vengeance 7) the Unforgivable Sin.
Here's the Mortal/Venial distinction. Koehler and Mueller says a mortal sin is one that grieves the Spirit and destroys faith, while venial sins do neither. In judging how grievous, Mueller says "the impelling cause" must be taken into account, among other factors (p. 231).
So one cannot condemn Dr. Jackson or even Rev. Herman Otten to hell just because they are perceived (by some) as being habitual slanderers because they see what they are doing as being right, and so they are not sinning against their conscience, and the "impelling cause" (anti-heresy) is very significant, so they are not grieving the Spirit to the point of the Spirit abandoning them, or destroying their faith.
All are condemned by sin, Dr. Jackson, you, myself, any other person you want to name. Luther knew his sins condemned him and that's why he, as i do also, took such great joy and comfort in the Gospel. With that being said, it's becoming obvious that it is about time to shake the virtual dust off my digital sandals here. For this topic at least...
Anonymous@4:54PM,
I agree with you, even Jesus said there is a greater sin etc.
John 19:11
Jesus answered, " You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."
Jesus says some sins are greater than others. All sin damns but some sins attract greater condemnation than others.
This idea that all sins are the same period, plays out well in practice. As an example, one gets tempted to lust, since he thinks he has sin already and all sins are the same, he reasons, he might as well do it or act it out and so at least get to enjoy the pleasure it brings. Such reasoning promotes antinomianism and presumption.
Your connecting Manicheanism with UOJ is another area worth exploring.
LPC
Thanks LP. Your comments are appreciated, and are much different than the other commenter who would shake the dust of his "virtual sandals" and leave the discussion. That idiot doesn't even bother to crack open a doctrinal book to refute me, seemingly because it might knock down his received wisdom.
http://wels.graviteklabs.com/news-events/forward-in-christ/october-1997/are-all-sins-equal%3F?page=0,1
Are all sins equal?
James: real faith for real life
Ten years at a Lutheran college have convinced me that a cherished belief many students hold is: All sins are equal. Or, as they put it, "All sins are the same."
Since most of my students come from synod Sunday schools, elementary schools, high schools, and prep schools, their notion seems to derive from a common source.
An understandable corrective
For centuries Roman Catholicism has distinguished between venial and mortal sins. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a mortal sin as one "whose object is a grave matter," committed "with full knowledge and deliberate consent." A mortal sin destroys charity and turns one away from God.
Though a venial sin also offends and wounds, charity can remain in a person's heart; it is done "without full knowledge or without complete consent." Venial sin, the Catholic Catechism explains, "does not set us in a direct opposition to the will of God."
Lutherans and Protestants, uneasy with this "grading" of sins, generally avoid the terms venial and mortal altogether.
An imprecise statement
Those who insist all sins are equal are surprised (troubled, even) to read Jesus' words to Pontius Pilate: "The one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin" (John 19:11). Caiaphas, Annas, Jerusalem's religious leaders--they knew the Scripture's promises, and they ought to have welcomed Jesus as the one who fulfilled those promises. Pilate was plainly baffled by Jesus and astonished at how fiercely the crowd clamored for his death. For a time, at least, he tried to set Jesus free. Jesus "came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him" (John 1:11). That sin was worse than Pilate's.
Where God grants generous blessings and uncommon opportunities, he also demands greater accountability, which means the possibility of greater sin. One who knew his master's will but didn't do it will suffer more than one who never knew (Luke 12:47,48).
Some sins are also greater because they bring harsher consequences to others. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, John said, and God's law convicts me even for thinking of killing my neighbor. But if my sin remains in my heart and doesn't lead to action, my neighbor's life is spared. I would hardly say, "Thinking of killing him is just as bad as doing it," nor should I say, "Since I've already murdered him in my heart, I might as well murder him on his driveway!"
An unbroken whole
James was more precise: "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10). He didn't say all sins are equal. He said God's law is an unbroken whole. To sin at any point makes one a lawbreaker.
Even if one kept every other commandment, and sinned only by showing favoritism, he would still have broken God's law. The same God gave the whole law. All sins--big ones and little ones, ones everyone knows about, ones no one sees, the good we've left undone, the evil we've failed to correct--deserve his judgment.
My real problem isn't the sins I commit each day but the sin that has estranged me from my Father, twisted me into a vain, mean, selfish soul, and earned me a million lifetimes in hell. But for all the guilt I inherited from Adam, and for all the wrong I do each day, my Savior's mercy is rich and free. "The blood of Jesus purifies us from every sin" (1 John 1:7).
Mark Braun is a professor at Wisconsin Lutheran College, Milwaukee.
Author: Mark E. Braun
Volume 84, Number 10
Issue: October 1997
I believe the point that was trying to be made was that all sin, even the little ones, condemn. Yes, there are varying degrees of condemnation. But even the smallest venial sin disqualifies man from entering heaven on his own. Some will be punished more than others, only those who accept Christ as their Savior from all sin will be saved.
Dan, Everyone on this blog know that the smallest sins need to be forgiven before one enters heaven. What you and others are doing by bringing this "point" is you are trying to blur the distinction between venial and mortal sins. This blurring is done so often in the WELS that most WELS members don't even know there is a distinction between sins, and this causes all sorts of problems, such as over-judging small sins, and under-judging larger sins.
By definition, a venial sin cannot keep one out of heaven because only believers can commit venial sins. Likewise, the sins of unbelievers are all mortal sins. Mueller says on p. 231 : "All sins of unbelievers are mortal sins since unbelievers reject Christ..."
Too often the distinction between sins is blurred or ignored in the WELS to try to get the moral majority to shut up about the immoral minority who often are pastors. Also, it is used to turn the perceived venial sins of people we don't like into mortal sins that will damn them, and often this is done for political purposes, or to hold on to false doctrine. For instance, since Dr. Jackson believes he's fighting heresy, he has an "impelling cause" for what he's doing, and therefore even if he were wrong about UOJ and CG, heaven would still classify his sin as venial (Mueller, p. 231). However, some of those who want to hold on to CG and UOJ would have us believe that Dr. Jackson's blog is purely slander motivated by less than elevated reasons, and therefore his blogging is a mortal sin for which he and his avid readers are in danger of being damned.
Post a Comment