bored has left a new comment on your post "Still Clueless":
Of course my comment was purposefully inflicted with spelling and grammar errors. I thought I'd been sufficiently thorough to avoid an explanation. Good night KFax! Your first clue should've been that I referenced spell-check's 'little red line' underneath misspelled words. To wit, if I possessed the wit to write that, wouldn't it seem obvious that I purposefully ignored those 'little red lines' in my own comment? Please don't apply your own standard to me. But hey, I'm not looking for a fight.
The WELS deficiency in spelling and grammar is a symptom of a larger overarching problem in that synod. For a long time, their Modus Operandi has seemed to be to willfully minimize the importance of the 'little things'. At least, I think so. They change the pronouns in the Creeds. We can guess it was done to be less paternalistic. "Oh, it's no big deal", they say. "It doesn't detract, and it might make those with a modern mindset more comfortable". Likewise, it's not unimaginable that the WELS began to use the NIV because it's problems were "only minor", or that the NIV's so-called benefits overshadowed its problems. There's a long list of very important little things that are commonly ignored or purposefully ejected. Maybe that could be the Ichabod-reader contest? To compile a list of "little things" that the WELS has gone soft on?
Of course there's the big problem with Universal Justification, but could it be that all the loss of the important little things allowed the nastiness of Universal Objective Justification to express itself? That's just a hypothesis, of course. I've been trying to make sense of the fact that a good number of Confessional Pastors claim to believe UOJ. The Confessional Pastors to whom I'm referring pay a lot of attention to the little things, and maybe this keeps them on line with a true teaching of Justification. I suppose I'm saying something pretty obvious, but my curiosity for causation (of this hip trend towards apostasy) leads me to pose the question anyway. In any event, if the fastidious translation of ancient sacred texts is unimportant, it's probably too rediculous to require accurate spelling. (Yes KFax, I misspelled rediculous on porpoise)
Another question: what is the best way to approach my pastor, who claims to believe UOJ (in private, when I inquire), even though he continues to correctly teach Justification?
***
GJ - Ask him how often he reads Ichabod. That is a good conversation-starter.
1 comments:
Mr. Bored touches on an interesting fact. That Objective Justification as it's falsely confessed in the Lutheran Synods is not openly taught to congregations. When Pastor DP Buchholz necromanced it during a sermon it was the first I had heard it from him after two + years. And that, I believe, was prompted by Gurgle asking him to give his 2005 conference paper. It is, after all, one half of their central doctrine of faith. Something is rotten in Denmark. They are afraid to openly and publicly testify to the scope and breadth of this false teaching. They communicate it softly every now and then but it's seldom heard and caught by the few alert laity over the purring of the congregation. The majority of the laity have never heard the term or the full teaching - this we confess and this we condemn concerning UOJ. I seriously hope that Dr. Jack Kilcrease, if he can maintain his self confidence long enough, publishes a book on UOJ so that more people are exposed to everything that is being taught and confessed.
Mr. Bored, a good approach would be to take a copy of Siegbert W. Becker's Justification essay to your pastor and say, "Pastor XYZ, I've heard you confess your belief in Universal Objective Justification. Having studied this doctrine by reading our WELS This We Believe confession, DP Buchholz' 2005 Conference essay and SW Becker's often referenced paper (include Mark Zarling and H.A. Preus if applicable) I contend that it teaches another gospel than Scripture teaches, confuses Christ's atonement with the distribution of Christ's righteousness to the whole unbelieving world for the forgiveness of sins, destroys the faith given by grace of the Holy Ghost and so much more. Can we talk about this? I've brought SW Becker's essay as a good starting point since his defence of UOJ is also a defense of the Kokomo statements and a rejection of Justification by Faith alone."
A Pastor who is not in on the deception will be more than happy to talk about it. One who is complicit in the deception will be annoyed, arguementative and demeaning. That comes with the territory since the Christ, the Holy Ghost, God only dwells in His children who are heirs to eternal life through faith in Christ alone and confession of the pure doctrine of Justification by faith alone. The others do not have Christ because of a confession in a false gospel and are led by their father below - thus the violent reception to discussing Justification as taught by Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
You'll even find some who warmly welcome the discussion initially then when they realize the implications of what has been done with UOJ they will make a choice between Christ or men and the result will be reflected in their appearance and attitude.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Post a Comment