klange (http://klange.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Learn from Church and Change, Girls - An Open Let...":
The Intrepids have revealed the true nature of WELS - a mind-control cult.
Stated another way, the doctrine of many WELS leaders is all mixed up and set like concrete.
---
samuelthrace has left a new comment on your post "Learn from Church and Change, Girls - An Open Let...":
Brett--
Those quotes only apply if you're talking about teachings that matter. The difference between UOJ and universal atonement is so slight that it is laughable that anyone would actually care about it. This argument is all about determining who the smartest theologian in the room is and has no real consequence for Christian faith and life.
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Learn from Church and Change, Girls - An Open Let...":
Samuelthrace, I've pulled these quotes from past Ichabod discussions concerning the importance of being faithful to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions in regard to doctrine.
"Doctrinal indifference is at once the root of unionism and its fruit. Whoever accepts, in theory as well as in practice, the absolute authority of the Scriptures and their unambiguousness with reference to all fundamental doctrines, must be opposed to every form of unionism."
M. Reu, In the Interest of Lutheran Unity, Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1940, p. 20.
"Therefore nothing but a satanic, seductive, and sinister strategy is involved when we are called upon to yield a bit and to connive at an error for the sake of unity. In this way the devil is trying cunningly to lead us away from the Word. For if we adopt this course and get together in this matter, he has already gained ground; and if we were to yield him a fingerbreadth, he would soon have an ell."
What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, III, p. 1411f. Ephesians 6:10-17.
"Therefore, do not speak to me of love or friendship when anything is to be detracted from the Word or the faith; for we are told that not love but the Word brings eternal life, God's grace, and all heavenly treasures." 19 " In matters concerning faith we must be invincible, unbending, and very stubborn; indeed, if possible, harder than adamant. But in matters concerning love we should be softer and more pliant than any reed and leaf and should gladly accommodate ourselves to everything." 20 "Doctrine is our only light. It alone enlightens and directs us and shows us the way to heaven. If it is shaken in one quarter (in una parte), it will necessarily be shaken in its entirety (in totum). Where that happens, love cannot help us at all." 21 " But this tender mercy is to be exercised only toward Christians and among Christians, for toward those who reject and persecute the Gospel we must act differently; here I am not permitted to let my love be merciful so as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order. Then it is my duty to contend in earnest and not to yield a hairbreadth." What Luther Says, II, 637f.
"However, if anything is undertaken against the Word, faith, and the honor of God, we are in no wise to preserve silence, are to bear it far less patiently. Then we should offer stubborn resistance."
What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, III, p. 1308. Sermon, 1523.
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Invisible J. P. Meyer Quotation":
I for one, in witnessing the struggle for God's pure doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, am encouraged in spirit by the public confession and statements, faithful to Christ, made by men and women such as Bored, LPC, Tom Wyeth, WELS Church Lady, Scott E. Jungen and others.
May Christ, by his gracious love and mercy, continue to give you each the strength and wisdom to continue in the one true faith, contending for the truth, rebuking false teachings, defending the pure Word unto life everlasting.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
---
bored has left a new comment on your post "Invisible J. P. Meyer Quotation":
Garret,
The terms are not confusing, if you do some home work. The material is all easily available at Ichabod. Read how people describe UOJ and you'll see that the two options written by Tom seem to be pretty precise and succinct description of Justification a) of Jackson, Brett Meyer, Maier and others b) of UOJ proponents.
I was once told by a College professor to 'embrace ambiguity'. Interestingly this professor also said that 'definitions are roadblocks'. But in action, that Professor only 'embraced' ambiguity when it suited his best interest, and only decried definitions when he painted himself into a corner with his own words. Rydecki is playing the same game by refusing to provide a definition and refusing to defend the WELS definition for UOJ. As soon as the face of the argument was shaved, he ran like a scared rabbit. For UOJ to be defended, entities must be multiplied beyond necessity. (flipping Occam's statement.)
Garret, if Pastors use a term that isn't in the Scriptures, isn't in the writings of the early Church Fathers, isn't in the Lutheran Confessions, then the onus is on them to provide and defend a definition. What Tom was doing, I think, was to demand a definition, and to hold people responsible for what their words actually mean.
True or false?
A man without faith is either innocent or he is not innocent.
---
Tom has left a new comment on your post "Invisible J. P. Meyer Quotation":
I posted this comment at Intrepid (sic) Lutherans, and have posted it here for posterity:
Pastor Rydecki,
As a brother in Christ I must say: Your dodging of questions and control of information is disquieting. The Wisconsin Synod needs to have its senses sharpened, not dulled.
I find it impossible to understand why you would run from a conversation about Justification. If your position is so easily defendable (and so obviously true) why wouldn't you take my comment as an opportunity to clarify the issue of Objective Justification?
If you don't like my points a) and b), please say why. Without bias, those two points remain the clearest and most succinct summaries of the pro and anti Objective Justification arguments. Having read much of what you've written on this blog, I respect your mind enough to say that you are capable of it. You're no dummy.
Why the subterfuge? Why the deceit? If you want me to Prove, in no uncertain terms that my two statement a) and b) are fair and valid summaries, I will do so.
I fear you have been coerced into abandoning discernment by people who can legitimately threaten your job. Let me encourage you that IF this is the case, by forging ahead and practicing discernment (which WILL include questioning the WELS doctrinal positions) you will store up treasures for yourself.
You need to quit thinking about the WELS and begin thinking about the invisible church. If you truly believe your Pastoral Call is from God, then the WELS is merely a cosmic fart. If you lose your job, are shunned, become a Barista, or are physically harmed for your application of 1 John 4:1, you will be better for it.
Again
a)Is Christ's righteousness universally available but imputed individually only through faith?
or
b) Are all people declared Righteous, and the benefits of the Righteousness imputed through faith?
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "The Insipid Lutherans Shut Themselves Down":
Bored states, "(I know if Brett reads this he will say: "If they say they believe UOJ then they are definitionally, unfaithful. Brett, I agree in a sense, but I think the Holy Spirit works for our good in spite of our own failings. There are many good pastors who defend UOJ.)"
I think you may be psychic.
To defend my position as accurately described by Bored I present the following:
1. UOJ is a false doctrine, irrespective of the confessors intentions, because of what it teaches.
2. To believe and confess a false gospel displaces and rejects the true Gospel as they are not compatible. Pastors who teach a false gospel are leading those who believe it to reject the true Gospel.
3. Confessing a false gospel is condemned by Christ as Paul says in Galatians 1:8, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
4. Since preaching a false gospel is accursed, if they preach the false gospel of UOJ they are accursed by God. Does the fact that a pastor may have good intentions when teaching a false gospel have anything to do with it's damning effect on those who trust his false teaching? How then can they still be good pastors??
5. A good pastor will consider and listen to God's Word (read, mark, learn and inwardly digest) and the Confessions instead of continuing to defend the defenseless false gospel of UOJ for the sake of Holy Mother Synod.
---
Pastor Rydecki just posted, "You arbitrarily define Objective Justification with the quote that supposedly came from J.P. Meyer. I say "supposedly," because Pastor Jon Buchholz was unable to find the exact source of that quote when he presented his 2005 paper at the WELS synod convention. Nevertheless he addressed it:
"When God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, He individually pronounced forgiveness to each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not." When we wish to speak about objective justification, we must use objective terminology. This statement is a muddle of objective and personal terms. When God reconciled the world [objective] . . . he individually [a specific or personal term] pronounced forgiveness [as shown in the body of the essay, the word “forgive” in Scripture is overwhelmingly used to describe the personal remission of sins received through repentance and faith worked by the means of grace] to each individual [another specific term] sinner. (all brackets in the original)
And so, yes, I join Pastor Buchholz in rejecting the statement you quoted as Scripturally inaccurate, and also as an inaccurate representation of Objective Justification. "
It would seem that you haven't studied Pastor Buchholz' 2005 essay, or rather I would hope you haven't as that's the only excuse that will allow such an outrageous contention as you've publicly stated above.
Pastor Buchholz states in that same essay, ""God has declared the entire world righteous." This statement is true, as we understand it to mean that God has rendered a verdict of "not-guilty" toward the entire world. It is also true—and must be taught—that the righteousness of Christ now stands in place of the world’s sin; this is the whole point of what Jesus did for us at Calvary. However, once again we’re wresting a term out of its usual context. In Scripture the term "righteous" usually refers to believers."
Page 9
Note that he contradicts his Universalist statement by saying "In Scripture the term "righteous" usually refers to believers." By doing so not only does he contradict his previous statement but he confirms that, in fact, he intentionally meant to make the statement (it wasn't just sloppy theological language). He also states the following in his essay:
"God has forgiven the whole world. God has forgiven everyone his sins." This statement is absolutely true! This is the heart of the gospel, and it must be preached and taught as the foundation of our faith. But here’s where the caveat comes in: In Scripture, the word "forgive" is used almost
exclusively in a personal, not a universal sense. The Bible doesn’t make the statement, "God has forgiven the world."
"God has forgiven all sins, but the unbeliever rejects God’s forgiveness." Again, this statement is true—and Luther employed similar terminology to press the point of Christ’s completed work of salvation.16 But we must also recognize that Scripture doesn’t speak this way."
"Since the term objective justification is found neither in Scripture nor in the Lutheran confessions, we can understand the term correctly as referring to the justification of the entire world."
Pastor Rydecki you're telling lies to these people who are reading your blog. Intentional or not, informed or not you are lying about what Buccholz teaches and the literally vast majority of (W)ELSians who are in a position to teach, instruct are doing the exact same thing when they continue to promote UOJ in any of the versions in which the (W)ELS is currently promoting.
Our foes, O God, are in Thy hand,
Thou knowest their endeavor;
But only give us strength to stand,
And let us waver never,
Though reason strives with faith, and still
It fears to wholly trust Thy will,
And sees not Thy salvation.
Freddy and Pastor Spencer - do you also stand with the confession that is being made in the name of the Intrepid Lutherans today, both in word and deed?
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
---
WELS church lady has left a new comment on your post "The Insipid Lutherans Shut Themselves Down":
"My Church and Others" A Summary Of The Teachings Of The Evangelical Lutheran Church By John Theodore Mueller!
"We Believe (a) that God does not recieve men on the basis of their own works; (b) but without the deeds of the Law, by grace alone, on account of the perfect merit of Christ, He justifies them, that is, He reguards as rightesous all those who believe that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven: (c) that by this doctrine alone Christ is given the honor due Him, and through it alone sinners recieve the abiding comfort that God is surely gracious to them; (d) that the Christian religion is centered in the precious doctrine that we obtain forgiveness of sins without the works of our own, solely by the grace of God, for Christ's sake through faith."
This was written in 1926 and published in St. Louis. (BEFORE the Brief Statement of 1932) Later printings were revised in the Other Demoinations section as statics and mergers occured. Yet, the Teaching section remain unabridged. I have a 1968 edition. I am pressed for time, but our friend J T Mueller was dead set against those Modernists and Universalists. Now these two groups are not around any more?(Nope) UJ, OJ, UOJ and associated court language were not visible in this book.
"We reject as unscriptural the following teachings": (here is one exmple for you ichabodians)
3. That God does not offer and communicate the spiritual blessings purchased by Christ alone through the means of grace, but also immediately, without the means of grace:
UOJ falls into that immediately category. Again, in the words of Joe Krohn, there are skads of takes on the teaching. Thsi book was far, FAR better than "This We believe."
In Christ,
from WELS church lady
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "The Insipid Lutherans Shut Themselves Down":
I posted this on Intrepids last night and it wasn't approved and thus not posted this morning. I reposted it this morning and as yet it hasn't been approved. I'm posting it here so that, if by chance, Lisette reads Ichabod I can provide a clarification to the statement I made that she didn't understand.
Lisette, to clarify my earlier point in response to Marcus, the (W)ELS uses Romans 5:18 to prove their doctrine of Objective Justification - that the whole unbelieving world has been declared justified but not saved. In Romans 5:18 Christ declares that the justification Romans 5:18 speaks of is that which saves, "justification that brings life for all men." So either the (W)ELS confession on the central doctrine of Christian faith teaches there is another Justification which doesn't save or it is changing the clear Words of Christ in Romans 5:18 to match their doctrine. It would be teaching another kind of justification if there is one that doesn't save as the (W)ELS confesses. Thus there are two justifications in the doctrine of UOJ. I hope this helps to clarify my previous statements.
From the (W)ELS This We Believe:
"the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (Romans 5:18)."
---
bored has left a new comment on your post "The Insipid Lutherans Shut Themselves Down":
One such discussion
Schottey said...
I think it is sad that this discussion went beyond:
"We treat of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is achieved and won. Second, how it is distributed and given to us."(Luther)
Then, Professor Manthey brought it back around to reality with the banquet analogy.
The people who try to pretend UOJ is any different from atonement try to pin doctrines on the WELS that they do not teach--trying to take statements about UOJ/Atonement as the WELS saying any are saved apart from faith.
That is not, nor has ever been true.
October 8, 2010 8:20 AM
Tom Wyeth said...
Schottey: The WELS statements on Justification have said that "all people have been declared righteous/saints" but then in many WELS churches we are taught that justification happens through faith only. This incongruity makes it reasonable and fair to ask which is it:
a)Is Christ's righteousness 'available' to everyone, and imputed individually through faith alone?
or
b) Are all people declared Righteous, and the benefits of the Righteousness imputed through faith?
These are two divergent understandings of the most important doctrine of Christianity. Which is correct? Walther, Pieper, and many WELS theologians argue for viewpoint b) very clearly. Do you believe a) or b)?
October 8, 2010 8:52 AM
Schottey said...
The fact that Christ's righteousness is available to everyone is based in the truth that Christ's sacrifice was for everyone. The guilt and punishment for sin was paid by Christ for everyone. Yet, none are saved apart from faith.
It is not incongruous to talk about forgiveness in both ways. To say so calls scripture and the writings of Luther and the Concordians incongruous.
If you would like to further discuss this, go back up to posts by Pastor Rydecki, Pastor Manthey, or one of mine and pretend that I am responding to you again.
October 8, 2010 9:01 AM
Tom Wyeth said...
Schottey:
You responded to me, but you avoided the question. This question is for everyone, by the way so I'll repeat it here: Pick one of the following.
a)Is Christ's righteousness 'available' to everyone, and imputed individually through faith alone?
or
b) Are all people declared Righteous, and the benefits of the Righteousness imputed through faith? I think I've fairly assessed both views in a) and b. Position a) promotes universal payment for sins (atonement) and individual justification through faith alone. b) promotes Objective and Subjective Justification.
Without being snarky, could you tell us which you believe in, Schottey? If you think my representation of each viewpoint is fair, why can't you answer the question?
October 8, 2010 9:56 AM
***
GJ - If UOJ is in harmony with the Book of Concord and the Bible, why do Stormtrooper heads explode when someone teaches justification by faith in agreement with Luther, the Word, and the Confessions?
Why do Stormtroopers condemn me if we have the same standards? Obviously, we do not.
Why do Stormtroopers evade the most basic questions?
