Ichabod Is Interactive, But Other Blogs Are Stalinistic

WELS Pastor Tim Glende plagiarizes Craig Groeschel, with the blessing of DP Englebrecht.
Meanwhile, the Intrepids (sic) beat the drum for UOJ,
the doctrinal foundation for Glende, Ski, Parlow, Kelm.

Almost all blogs control what is published on them. They even neuter the information they provide.

For instance, the Intrepid (sic) blog does not allow many comments against UOJ but gushes in favor of UOJ. The blog would have been far more interesting if they had published who thrashed them for criticizing UOJ in the first place. We all know Manthey did, but they enjoyed several days of being given the Left Boot of Admonition, administered with gusto and persistence. We want names and details.

Meanwhile, readership has zoomed over the letter about plagiarism, abuse, and false doctrine.

I was kind enough to copy Rick's post against me, which is what makes Ichabod so fun. Notice that he did not mention my name or link the nefarious blog post. Just to make sure everyone knew who it was, he stated that I was "not WELS." For those who are not of the Wisconsin sect, that means "not human."

I am debating people, quoting people, naming names. I let them speak by linking them and copying their anointed words, because those anointed words have a way of being erased in the middle of the night. I let almost all comments come through, unless they are shamelessly promoting their own stuff.

I would have let anonymous comments go on, except I was getting spammed to a fare-thee-well. But people know they can send a comment and get it posted all through the day.

WELS Church Lady wondered what happened when I was a couple of hours late. I explained to her that I had to get groceries, run the dog, etc.

The extra comments, which often make great posts, give dimension and depth to Ichabod. Each layman has valuable perspective and insights. I believe we all benefit from debating the doctrinal topics in the open. Walther recommended it. The Lutheran Reformation practiced it, following what the Apostle Paul wrote.

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

But now, everyone wants control. The Intrepids (sic) had to go directly against the spirit and substance of the Formula of Concord. I have quoted this passage many times, but I will explain it this time as well, since the lunkheads do not comprehend what is sitting on their shelves, gathering dust.

The Closing of the Formula of Concord

We have no intention of yielding aught of the eternal, immutable truth of God for the sake of temporal peace, tranquility, and unity (which, moreover, is not in our power to do).

We will not surrender a single point of the eternal and unchangeable truth of God's Word, simply to achieve outward peace, harmony, and unity. We do not even have the power to do that.

This is Luther's call to never back down on a single point of God's teaching, revealed by the Holy Spirit, without error or contradiction, clearly and plainly set forth for all people to grasp. Since it is God's Word and not man's, no mortal is given the power to change, alter, supplant, pervert, or adulterate the Oracles of God.


Nor would such peace and unity, since it is devised against the truth and for its suppression, have any permanency.

Creating a false peace and unity, since it is based on deception and suppression, cannot last.

Formulas of compromise, aimed at two opposing interpretations at once, cannot create anything more than a sham peace and a fake unity, since God's Kingdom is never advanced through falsehood, deception, lies, and dissimulation.

Still less are we inclined to adorn and conceal a corruption of the pure doctrine and manifest, condemned errors.

We are even more opposed to hide false doctrine (like Groeschel's) and deny there are obvious, previously condemned doctrinal errors.

As Luther taught, we are even more against prettying up false doctrine or hiding a known doctrinal error from view, as if either one accomplished something good for the Kingdom of God.

But we entertain heartfelt pleasure and love for, and are on our part sincerely inclined and anxious to advance, that unity according to our utmost power, by which His glory remains to God uninjured, nothing of the divine truth of the Holy Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error, poor sinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up by faith, confirmed in new obedience, and thus justified and eternally saved alone through the sole merit of Christ."

The unity we seek and love, the unity we strive to achieve with all our power, is the one where God's glory is never diminished, God's divine truth is never denied, no error is tolerated, and poor sinners are brought to repentance, both contrition for their transgressions and trust in the Gospel, so they are raised up by faith, strengthened in the New Man's obedience, in such a way declared justified by faith through the merit of Jesus Christ alone.

Those who speak of salvation would best accomplish the divine work of the Word by adhering to its purity, giving God the glory. When people hear the pure Word of God and receive the visible Word of the Sacraments, they are contrite, filled with trust in the Gospel of Christ, justified by faith, and given a new life of following Jesus in love.

Source of the italicized words:
(Closing of Formula of Concord, Triglotta. p. 1095) Francis Pieper, The Difference Between Orthodox And Heterodox Churches, and Supplement, Coos Bay, Oregon: St. Paul's Lutheran Church, 1981, p. 65. Tappert, p. 632. Heiser, p. 294. FC SD XI, #94-96.

---

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "Ichabod Is Interactive, But Other Blogs Are Stalin...":

"Formulas of compromise, aimed at two opposing interpretations at once, cannot create anything more than a sham peace and a fake unity, since God's Kingdom is never advanced through falsehood, deception, lies, and dissimulation."

Falsehood, deception, lies, and dissimulation are the modus operandi of Church and Change, the hidden enthusiasts, the plagiarists, and the active promoters of UOJ. Employing our ministerial use of reason, we can surmise that they are not advancing God's kingdom.


***


GJ - WELS is run by and for Church and Change. The Missouri Synod is run by and for UsFirst. The apostates wreck congregations and prove to be stingy givers, so they expect the faithful to fund them - and the faithful do.

Forgiveness without Faith - In Their Own Words

"This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God by which He proffers pardon to all through Christ; subjective, is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the Gospel. The former is universal, the latter not." Translator.

Lectures on Christian Theology, Christian George Knapp (Halle University, the center of Pietism). Here is the link.

Translated by Leonard Woods Junior, one of the best known Protestants of the era.

This 1833 translation was used by all denominations until the 1890s. The book was in the libraries and used in the classrooms.

From the researcher:

His lectures that were given for years were finally
published in Halle in 1827:
Vorlesungen über die christliche Glaubenslehre

Also here:
Vorlesungen über die christliche Glaubenslehre (Halle 1827, 2 Bde.)
If you look in Google Books, they have an 1827
edition online, and also an 1836 edition.

The original was published in German, so one can see how easily the Pietism of Halle entered the old Synodical Conference.

C. F. W. worked with the Pietists before he came to America. He criticized every Protestant theologian except Spener.

Tholuck belonged to the next generation of Pietists at Halle. He taught Hoenecke.

More later. I owe this link to one of the best researchers around. We have been working separately but in harmony on this issue.

It's time to wake up and smell the Universalism.

UOJ = Enthusiasm.


"For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is--faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him."
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 J-5 p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.

"Christ's Glorious Resurrection from the Dead the Actual Absolution of the Entire Sinful World Here I would point out two things: 1. That This Is Certain And True, and 2. That Therefore Every Man Who Wants To Be Saved Must By Faith Accept This General Absolution As Applying Also To Him,"
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 J-5 p. 230. Mark 16:1-8. [GJ - Does this sound like Decision Theology to you?]

"This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God. [George Stoeckhardt, Concordia Theological Quarterly, April, 1978, p. 138.]
Pastor Vernon Harley "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1.

"The chief purpose, however, is to keep this article (general justification) before the people for its own sake. It cannot be presented and studied too often. Its vital relation to the subjective, personal justification by faith, cannot be stressed too strongly. It forms the basis of the justification by faith and keeps this article free from the leaven of Pelagianism. Unless the sinner knows that his justification is already an accomplished fact in the forum of God, he will imagine that it is his faith, his good conduct, which moves God to forgive him his sins. And unless he knows that God had him personally in mind in issuing the general pardon on Easter morning, he will have no assurance of his justification." [Theodore Engelder, Concordia Theological Monthly, July/August/September, 1933. Reissued by the seminary printshop, Ft. Wayne, 1981.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1f.

"The entire Pauline doctrine of justification stands and falls with the special article of general justification. This establishes it beyond peradventure that justification is entirely independent of the conduct of man. And only in this way the individual can have the assurance of his justification. For it is the incontrovertible conclusion: Since God has already justified all men in Christ and forgiven them their sins, I, too, have a gracious God in Christ and forgiveness of all my sins." [Quoted with approval by Theodore Engelder, from George Stoeckhardt, Commentary on Romans, p. 264.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 2.

"The resurrection is God's public absolution of the entire world: 'Your sins are forgiven, all sins of all human beings; and there is no exception.' This is the meaning of the technical term 'objective justification.' The objective justification is central to the doctrine of salvation and derives logically from the facts that God's reconciliation, forgiveness, and declaration of 'not guilty' in no wise depend on the attitude or behaviour of human beings. If objective justification is denied, then it must follow that those who are declared righteous in some way have contributed to God's change of heart; justification is then no longer solely the result of God's grace." [Theodore Mueller, Concordia Theological Quarterly, January, 1982, p. 29.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 3.

"The starting point in presenting the doctrine of the means of grace must be the universal objective reconciliation or justification. This is the procedure of Scripture."
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., trans., Walter W. F. Albrecht, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953, III, p. 105.

"Now, then, if the Father raised Christ from the dead, He, by this glorious resurrection act, declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for, and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal. This gracious reconciliation and justification is clearly taught in Romans 4:25: 'Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification.' The term dikaiosis here means the act of divine justification executed through God's act of raising Christ from the dead, and it is for this reason called the objective justification of all mankind. This truth Dr. Walther stressed anew in America. He taught that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners. (Evangelienpostille, p. 160ff.)…Calov, following Gerhard, rightly points out the relation of Christ's recurrection to our justification as follows: 'Christ's resurrection took place as an actual absolution from sin (respectu actualis a peccato absolutionis). As God punished our sins in Christ, upon whom He laid them and to whom He imputed them, as our Bondsman, so He also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him, and so He absolved also us in Him.'" [Bibl. Illust., ad Rom. 4:25]
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 321. Romans 4:25.

"Scripture teaches the objective reconciliation. Nineteen hundred years ago Christ effected the reconciliation of all men with God. God does not wait for men to reconcile Him with themselves by means of any efforts of their own. He is already reconciled. The reconciliation is an accomplished fact, just like the creation of the world. Romans 5:10: 'We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.' When Christ died, God became reconciled." pt. 1 of paragraph
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 347f. Romans 5:10.

"The resurrection of Christ is, as Holy Writ teaches, the actual absolution of the whole world of sinners. Romans 4:25: 'Who was raised again for our justification.' At that time we were objectively declared free from sin."
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 348. Romans 4:25.

"As Christ's death lies in the past, so also our reconciliation is an accomplished fact. 2 Corinthians 5:19: 'God was in Christ, reconciling' (namely, when Christ lived and died on earth) 'the world unto Himself.' The katallassein of Romans 5:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:19 does not refer--let this fact be noted--to any change that occurs in men, but describes an occurrence in the heart of God. It was God who laid His anger by on account of the ransom brought by Christ. It was God who at that time already had in His heart forgiven the sins of the whole world, for the statement: 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself' means--and that is not our, but the Apostle's own interpretation--that God did 'not impute their trespasses unto them.' And 'not imputing trespasses' is, according to Scripture (Romans 4:6-8), synonymous with 'forgiving sins,' 'justifying' the sinner." part 2 of paragraph
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. p 348. Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19

Diaprax and the ELCA Merger in 1987

Going along with the process has its rewards: Pastor Ski and Pastor Tim Glende, WELS.

Pastor Tim Glende is fond of stating what a fabulous education he has, which means no one can dispute anything he does or says. Graduating from two unaccredited schools is enough to make anyone vain, I suppose, even though he was a mediocre student.

Therefore, all the Sausage Factory graduates should be in awe of my experience, since I have the advantage of their stellar education plus other schools as well, including (ptui, ptui) Concordia, Ft. Wayne. Tim's uncle Brug and I were both at Yale, at different times. The Mequon professors are using their spare time (no students to speak of) to finish their degrees, to catch up with people like me. Perhaps they will write books some day.

I was at the meetings preceding the ELCA merger, which united the LCA, The ALC, and the Seminex bunch, based on their common unbeliefs. The merger was consummated in Columbus and officially began January 1, 1988.

Mrs. Ichabod and I attended the Chicago LCA convention of 1979, the Toronto LCA convention of 1984, and the ELCA convention in the Twin Cities. Needless to say, I knew a number of participants, bishops, leaders, managers, seminary professors and president. I had lunch with Bishop Crumley one time and Bishop Chilstrom another time.

ELCA began with a process. Those who are doing their homework know that this was Diaprax. There was a great show of universal participation in the whole shebang, so that no one would be left out. "We will read and consider every single suggestion." The ideas poured in, of course.

I could tell from the beginning that the entire merger was a fraud. The Diaprax began with quotas. The radicals who left the LCMS got the most people on the Commission for a New Lutheran Church. The other quotas were Black, female, and homosexual.

Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature knew that the quotas would determine the outcome, because the outcome necessarily demanded quotas. That meant the straight, white male pastors with large churches lost decision making power to the misfits of society. The pro-abortion feminists logrolled with the homosexual lobby, and they dominated everything. Straight white male pastors with large congregations were the new minority. Bishops were set aside and made impotent, with the new Church Council ruling the roost. The bishops were allowed to meet and pass resolutions, which had no power.

Retired pastors previously had a voice and a vote at all district meetings. They lost both, but no one minded, since they were bound to oppose the Brave New Church Body envisioned by the quota people.

Traditionalists had to argue to include Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the ELCA constitution. The vote itself was a squeaker, 33-30, as I recall. The Commission denied that it happened, of course.

So, 22 years later, many in ELCA were rocked and shocked that their own quota-driven synod voted for homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, and trans-sexual pastors.

About 350 congregations have joined the LCMC since that assembly. Another group, the NALC, has formed under the leadership of six former ELCA bishops, including my first one - Kenneth Sauer.

That is why Missouri and WELS are headed exactly the same way. Both synods employ the same methods to control the agenda and quash dissent. That also explains why WELS and Missouri work happily with ELCA on a wide variety of projects while acting superior and holier than ELCA about doctrine. They all have the same doctrines - UOJ and Diaprax.

UOJ = everyone is forgiven, so there is nothing to argue about.

Diaprax = join in the process for making a brave, new world.

Diaprax - California Thanks Churchmouse and Ichabod

Daniel Fuller. The enterprise named Fuller Seminary was begun to emphasize inerrancy, albeit a watered down form of it.
Fuller repudiated inerrancy at the same time
they started the Church Growth Movement there.

This is where UOJ and Church Growth leads - Diaprax.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for publishing the posts about Diaprax by Dean Gotcher.  I have many of his booklets and had the privilege meeting him several years ago when attending one of his presentations re: the subject.  He explains the "process" so well, that although it takes a bit of concentration, there is no mistaking how it works.  Some researchers figured it out on their own through their own experiences with schools then their churches 40 years ago.  Once the process is understood, there is no denying it has been in play in society at large, government, schools, and churches including WELS and others. 

The dots can be connected if one is observant and intellectually honest.  The disarray didn't just happen.  Unsuspecting people  trusted and were led astray.  Once one knows something has gone awry,  without understanding of the modus operandi and its terminology  especially re:church, energy is consumed by concentrating on symptoms rather than the root cause of the how things have come to such disarray.  A mistake is to assume (conclude) that the institutions have failed. Not so. The systems analysis process or Diaprax has systematically been employed to bring about the weakening if not destruction of the foundations  themselves.     

UOJ Comments on Intrepid (sic) Lutherans

The Intrepids have run away from the real issues,
but at least they are airing their errors
about justification,
and letting justification by faith come through.

Anonymous said...

Pastor Rydecki, Thank you! Please get rid of the words "objective" and "subjective" to describe Christ's work. There are many better and easier ways to describe this. Scott E. Jungen

November 3, 2010 5:29 PM

LPC said...

Pr. Paul, I do not wish to rain on KM's parade but in my early start in Lutheranism, I thought UOJ was just another way of speaking at the atonement until I found out that the UOJers do equate it with justification which is absolutely wrong. I was a Calvinist, and this is what Calvinists do -equate justification with atonement. Although they go the opposite conclusion from the UOJers. Calvinists look at atonement as justification and seeing that not all are justified, concludes, not all have been atoned for. UOJers seeing all have been atoned for conclude that all have been justified, they just have not believed it yet. See my drift? When I was looking at this, KM's work was one of the very first material I read to be enlightened about the controversy. The whole point again is Scripture and then we can not escape, Maier's exegetical work once again. Frankly. KM's exposition does not help because he could not release himself from the terminology of general justification vs personal justification. In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe. The category of general or personal are pointless. You only need categories if there is a nuance that needs to be understood - but there is none. LPC

November 3, 2010 8:03 PM

Anonymous said...

LPC -- You say, "KM's exposition does not help because he could not release himself from the terminology of general justification vs personal justification. In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe." I see from your blogger profile you have some knowledge of the languages. So please permit me the following observations: 1) In Romans 3:23, the subject of the sentence is, "all." 2) "All," in this context, clearly refers to all people, Jews and Gentiles, who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That would of course mean all people. 3) The second part of the sentence (3:24) adds the present passive participle dikaioumenoi, "All," literally, "being justified." Thus the Bible speaks clearly of "all" people of all time "being justified," in just so many words. Dennis Rardin Addendum GREEK GRAMMAR ALERT ON If you'll forgive a bit of grammar discussion, dikaioumenoi is a coordinating participle, used where in English we would use another finite verb. The ESV and NIV translations both have it correct, "and are justified." Another very familiar example of this use of the participle is Matt 28:18. Literally, Jesus says, "Going, teach all nations." But in English, "Go and teach." The present participle is best translated as coordinate with the main verb, with the same time and type of action. GREEK GRAMMAR ALERT OFF

November 3, 2010 9:03 PM

David Jay Webber said...

Kurt Marquart told me personally that he was satisfied that a fundamental agreement had been reached and/or recognized between himself and Dr. Maier, when Dr. Maier made the following statement regarding objective/subjective justification: I regret that some publicly quoted statements of mine from a technical paper "prepared for faculty discussion purposes only" have given a wrong impression about my doctrine of justification as a whole. I, therefore, withdraw that paper from discussion. Doctrinally, I stand with our Synod's historic position. ... When the Lord Jesus was "justified" (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29), and by the imputation of which He had been "made...to be sin for us" (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, "made a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13). In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and sacraments of Christ. Faith alone can receive this treasure offered in the Gospel, and this faith itself is entirely a gracious gift and creation of God through the means of grace. Faith adds nothing to God's forgiveness in Christ offered in the Gospel, but only receives it. Thus, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him" (John 3:30). My reservations concerning some of the traditional terminology employed in expressing the doctrine of justification are fully covered by the following statements from the major essay delivered to the first convention of the Synodical Conference, assembled in Milwaukee July 10-16, 1872: "When speaking with regard to the acquisition of salvation (by Christ), God has wrath for no man any longer; but when speaking with regard to the appropriation, He is wrathful with everyone who is not in Christ" (Proceedings, p. 32). "Before faith the sinner is righteous before God only according to the acquisition and the divine intention, but he is actually (actu) righteous, righteous for his own person, righteous indeed, first when he believes" (Proceedings, p. 68). The italicized line in Dr. Maier's text above is what Dr. Marquart specifically referred to in his conversation with me, as the key phrasing that showed that Dr. Maier actually was, or had come to be, in fundamental agreement with what the Synodical Conference had always intended to be teaching in its use of terms like "objective justification" or "general justification." In other words, this matter was then basically settled to his (Marquart's) satisfaction. The text of the statement quoted above that Dr. Maier submitted, and that essentially settled the controversy, is from this paper written by Robert Preus.

November 3, 2010 9:17 PM

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Lito (LPC), "In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe. The category of general or personal are pointless." But the issue, as Marquart develops it, is that the justification of Christ as the substitute for mankind is the acquisition of justification for mankind. The distribution of this to faith, that is, the justification of any individual, is what Scripture normally refers to, and no one has a righteous status before God apart from faith. That will be further developed in the next section or two. Dennis, I appreciate the exposition of Romans 3, but I can't say I agree that this is the best proof passage for a "justification of all." "Being justified" ties all the way through to "through faith in Jesus Christ." I believe Luther also interpretted it that way - "All - as many as are justified - are justified freely...through faith." (I included that quote in a previous comment to Pr. Sullivan, but I don't have it handy at the moment.) Nor does this participle act like the coordinating participle in Matthew 28. In (I believe) all those cases, the participle precedes the main verb (as it does in Matthew 28). But I'll have to check that. More on the exegesis of some key passages will follow.

November 3, 2010 9:35 PM

Daniel Baker said...

As I've stated since my first acquaintance with this complicated topic, this whole issue reeks of muddy terminology. Using the word "justification" in two senses, in my opinion, leaves room for hapless dissidence. While most confessional Lutherans are in agreement on the actual fundamentals, this terminology creates needless contention among some - to the detriment of the body. Sticking to confessional and biblical terminology should always be preferred.

November 3, 2010 10:48 PM

Anonymous said...

21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus....28for we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. --Romans 3:21-26,28 [ESV] We know from passages like John 3:16 that Christ's death was triggered by God's love for all the world. We truly can trust that whoever believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior(might I say Rescuer) will indeed be saved. From Romans above, Paul reveals that there is a 'righteousness of God'. At this point in time, I believe the 'righteousness of God' to refer to the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood". The Scripture in the Romans passage clearly reveals that this righteousness of God is received through faith in Jesus Christ. I believe I can ascertain that faith is indeed a tool by which we receive the righteousness of God. As our Confessions have it in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article III, verse(*I don't know how to properly reference the BoC)verse? #3: "We believe, teach, and confess that faith is the only means and instrument whereby we accept Christ and in Christ obtain the 'the righteousness which avails before God,' and that for Christ's sake such faith is reckoned for righteousness (Tappert). To be honest I don't know for sure what "avails before God" means in this part of the Formula of Concord. My thoughts are that both the Scripture that states "the righteousness of God" and the Lutheran Confessions that state "the righteousness that avails before God" have a particular fact to convey. These two facts must mean that God is the possessor of this "righteousness" that we receive through faith. This righteousness exists before we have faith and whether or not we have faith. The redemption was to show his righteousness for the present time. God has this righteousness. We know God has died once for all. He atoned for the sins of all people of all ages--as we would say---he died and took the place of all the world. Yet, it is His righteousness he was showing. The Scriptures do not say that this equates to all are now righteous (aka, justified?). The Scriptures clearly say God is "the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" and "one is justified by faith" in the above Romans passage. Simply, God gives us His righteousness through faith--he justifies us by faith. (written by Levi Powers--continued)

November 3, 2010 11:24 PM

Anonymous said...

Elsewhere in the Solid Declaration of the Formulas of Concord, Article III, line 17 (Tappert) states, "Accordingly the word 'justify' here means to declare righteous and free from sins and from the eternal punishment of these sins on account of the righteousness of Christ which God reckons to faith". Here the article references Philippians 3:9 which states "and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--" [ESV]. I believe this even further demonstrates that we are justified by faith. I do not believe it then to be Biblical or confessional to speak of people without faith as justified in the eyes of God. People are only righteous before God by faith. That is because this is the gift of God. It is true, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". The rest of the verse is also true, "and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." It seems from the other clear verses (and our confessions)that "and are justified" is achieved through that gift and tool we know as faith. Through faith we are given the righteousness of God. I realize that I may not be coming to the same conclusions as everyone else. This is a complicated issue for sure. I just don't know that we can truly declare the sins of all forgiven and therefore all are justified. I think from Scripture we can know that all the sins of the world were atoned for. I think we should reserve the terms justification and "forgiven" to believers. Perhaps it is best to stick with the bare words of Scripture. I hope any of this made sense. I stand by God's Word and hope that this is a correct understanding. If not, please show me my errors. --Levi Powers

November 3, 2010 11:24 PM

Anonymous said...

Just a word of encouragement and warning from Martin Chemnitz in "Justification: The Chief Article of Christian Doctrine as Expounded in Loci Theologici" and translated by J.A.O. Preus (pg. 15): "Nor must we judge that this is a mere childish zeal for the definition of terms. For just as the substantive matter in this locus are far above and beyond our reason, so also the Holy Spirit has certain terms in the teaching on justification that are not found in common usage. The church must be concerned about language, that is, it ought not devise new ideas or produce new dogmas, but those things which have been given us by the Holy Spirit it must learn from the correct meaning of the words that Scripture uses in teaching the heavenly doctrine...the neglect of correct language was the source and spring of all errors under this article." --Levi Powers

November 3, 2010 11:34 PM

LPC said...

Dennis, Please see the comment of Pr. Paul. Hint, see Romans 3:25-26. Pr. Jay, With fondness to you, I reply... if Maier categorically renounces his paper I would believe, but all else is politicking. Is there documentation that he has retracted his paper in unequivocal terms? Can I please have this evidence? Pr. Paul, The start of sophistry is initiated when terms and categories are invented and then given meaning. For example in Romanism, to justify the worship of Mary they gave a spin to "worship" etc. Jesus Atoned for our sins, the benefit of this Atonement is justification and this benefit is enjoyed only by those who believe in that Atonement. Atonement is the ground of Justification. The two are not co-equal. Read Peter Stuhlmacher, a German Lutheran NT scholar on this also. The word general justification is no improvement for universal justification because the term "general" is subject to the same spin. Occam's razor is still instructive even in theology. LPC

November 4, 2010 5:20 AM

David Jay Webber said...

Is there documentation that he has retracted his paper in unequivocal terms? As far as I know Dr. Maier never did this. But he withdrew his paper from public discussion, and he also later moved beyond the things he said in his paper (as a result of dialogue with his faculty colleagues) when he affirmed as a part of his teaching the essential intended point of the "objective justification" formulation, on the basis of 1 Timothy 3:16. I think he remained unpersuaded that certain other passages which are often cited in support of "objective justification" do actually teach it, but he admitted that the 1 Timothy passage does teach it. So, dogmatically, a fundamental unity was recognized, even though some "exegetical questions" remained. But "exegetical questions" as such are not divisive, as long as the essential dogmatic content of Scripture is mutually affirmed.

November 4, 2010 7:19 AM

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Lito, UOJers seeing all have been atoned for conclude that all have been justified, they just have not believed it yet. See my drift? You are not defining correctly what UOJ is meant to convey, so you are effectively demolishing your straw man, but you are not helping the understanding in doing so. You speak as if "believing" conveys nothing. This is a caricature of UOJ, not the true teaching of it. There is, unfortunately, not a single, unified grouping of "UOJers." There is the caricature, and there is the true teaching. This is the very point we're trying to get across. There is a misleading understanding of UOJ which you rightly disagree with, but there is a correct understanding of UOJ which you have not yet come to terms with. So to speak of "UOJers" and then define their belief according to your singular definition is in itself misleading. To be sure, every individual who is justified before God is justified by faith alone. But what we're trying to get across is that the declaration of righteousness that is pronounced on the individual through faith is a declaration that is based on the vicarious righteousness of Christ, who has already secured (acquired, won) our righteous verdict by his resurrection from the dead. I would encourage you to try to see beyond the caricature with which you are so familiar and really listen to the reasoning that is put forth over the next couple of weeks.

November 4, 2010 8:28 AM

Tim Niedfeldt said...

Pr Paul, I would agree that nearly every single person here probably understands the proper distiction of justification as being discussed. I will also admit that in the past I would also bristle at the "charicature" of UOJ in the extreme of "forgiven without faith". My immediate reaction was just one of "how can you jump right to that conclusion that is just crazy talk..Lutherans don't believe justification in those terms to that extreme.." However, I've changed my views on that a bit. Whereas that extreme argument may fall flat in this audience, we should pay attention as to how close to home this extreme view of UOJ is hitting home. We could point all day long at the ELCA so much it isn't even a challenge. There is new age-ism creeping into all kinds of Christian churches, emergent church, etc. However when we see speakers such as Leonard Sweet speak in the synod or in December Kerwin Steffen will speak at the WELS national college rally, Then we can begin to worry that the extreme view of UOJ has indeed begun to spring up in our midst. All of the sudden the quest here for the ultimate clarification of justification terms becomes immediately essential before we too go the way of ELCA etc. Tim Niedfeldt

November 4, 2010 9:36 AM

Floyd Luther Stolzenburg, You Owe Jay.

UOJ Leaves Only the Law in Its Polluted Wake

LutherRocks said...

I blogged about Justification in my Reformation MMX post of 10-30-10. I believe as most do here that UOJ seems to be the culprit to all this Pietism. If everyone is forgiven, what is left? Only the Law!!! This is how to live! What a discombobulation....I recently went back to hear a recent 'sermon' from my former pastor at Christ the Rock. Nothing seems to be changed. The content of the sermons from a lot of these Guilt Factory Grads from the last 20 or so years just leaves you feeling so...guilty for not measuring up and living your faith... JK

November 2, 2010 8:04 PM

---

From Bret Meyer:

The Intrepids are working feverishly to defend and reinterpret the (W)ELS doctrine of Universal Justification (UOJ). Rydecki has brought in Pastor Kurt Marquart's letter in a feeble attempt to bring clarity to the blasphemous doctrine which he disingenuously describes as being misrepresented by it's opponents. I provide two examples of why the attempt to defend UOJ is absurd and the charge that it has been unfairly defined is ridiculous because the promotion of it in the (W)ELS has been precise and consistent in it's contradictions to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions throughout the numerous articles and essays by (W)ELSians Buchholz, Becker, Zarling, Beckman, Deutschlander and many others. It is also quite consistent between Lutheran denominations within essays by H.A. Preus, Marquart and many others of the LCMS. UOJ is in fact a foundational tenant of the New Age religion of the Antichrist (this is well documented in the best selling and blasphemous book, The Shack. This was recently followed by the book Burning Down the Shack which exposes it's Universal Reconciliation - Universal Justification (UOJ) teaching).

Intrepid Rev. Rydecki in response to LPC:
You are not defining correctly what UOJ is meant to convey, so you are effectively demolishing your straw man, but you are not helping the understanding in doing so. You speak as if "believing" conveys nothing. This is a caricature of UOJ, not the true teaching of it. November 4, 2010 8:28 AM
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2010/11/justification-marquart-section-1.html?showComment=1288884512968#c4160646761723975787 In Kurt Marquart's letter "clarifying UOJ" he states, "The pattern is clear and consistent throughout: the Gospel or absolution offers not a conditional, future prospect, but a perfected, past and present reality. God already is gracious, merciful, propitious, reconciled in Christ, and freely offers this ready forgiveness or grace in the Gospel. To believe this Gospel or absolution is to believe oneself forgiven, justified, accepted. Forgiveness exists "objectively" already before faith. Faith does not create forgiveness but only receives, accepts, appropriates it. Absolution is prior to, and creates faith, not vice versa (Augsburg Confession XII, 5; Apology XII, 42). The Gospel "offers forgiveness and justification, which are received by faith" (Apology IV, 62). And: "forgiveness of sins is the same as justification" (IV, 76). http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.marquartjustification.html


Here Marquart perverts beyond recognition Christ's doctrine of Justification when he states, "Absolution is prior to, and creates faith, not vice versa". The Scriptural and Confessional refutations of this heresy have been discussed on Ichabod and other faithful internet sites for many years. Marquart doesn't bring clarity to the doctrine but continues to teach it's Scriptural contradictions while intermingling faithful statements if spoken and taught alone. Certainly Marquart's use of Roman Catholic apologist Hans Kueng who he commends as a world class, liberal Roman Catholic New Testament scholar isn't a productive effort in bringing Confessional Lutheran light to the study of this doctrine. The position that Kueng takes, and of which Marquart approves, is more human reason dancing with the devil. Kueng states, "All men are justified in Jesus Christ and only the faithful are justified in Jesus Christ." (W)ELS Pastor Jay Webber would approve of this sophistry as it shows the Scriptural contradictions that are inherent in the false gospel of UOJ. UOJists will say that the first justification is Objective and the second Subjective but they continue the contradictions when they respond to the statements opposition by saying there are not two Justifications but only one.


(W)ELS' consistent and precise doctrinal position of Universal Objective Justification can be found in David Beckman's essay which I've posted quotes from below. In it he continues to teach that the whole world is forgiven of all sin without and before faith. He even goes so far as to say that the whole unbelieving world are part of God's elect. This is another essay which is clearly faithful to the true (W)ELS teaching of Justification showing without qualification that UOJ's opponents have not misrepresented any of the Scriptural contradictions which have been attributed to it.


Universal and Objective Justification with Special Emphasis on a Recent Controversy
By David J. Beckman
[Delivered at the District Pastor-Teacher Conference of the South Atlantic District, January 27, 1983]


"A quotation from Schaller shows us that the term "objective justification" was commonly used in his day. "The doctrine of universal, so-called objective justification sets forth that the Lord God by grace because of Christ’s redemption actually forgave sins to all men."7"
"Romans 4:25 says that Christ "was delivered over, to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." Paul could hardly mean that God’s pronouncement of innocence is limited to just the believers. If that were true, then Christ’s atonement would have to be limited to just believers." [BM - More human reason shaping (W)ELS doctrine, "Paul (Christ) could hardly mean…"]


"But some want to maintain a distinction between Christ purchasing forgiveness and God actually forgiving. This distinction was one of the chief points in the Kokomo controversy. A passage which erases any such distinction is 11 Corinthians 5:19, which states, "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them." In Christ’s death God pronounced all men innocent since He no longer counted their sins against them. This orthodox Lutheran understanding of the passage has always linked reconciliation of II Corinthians 5 and justification of Romans 3 - 5 as meaning one and the same thing."


"Dr. Ed. Preuss draws a similar conclusion in commenting on II Corinthians 5:19. "This is not the justification which we receive by faith, but the one which took place before all faith. In Christ we were justified before we were even born."17"


"There have also been "Lutherans" who have ripped the heart out of the Gospel and have taught that God has not actually forgiven all the sins of all mankind. In Ministers of Christ, Prof. Meyer quotes a statement which came out of the old Ohio Synod, now part of the ALC. We believe and confess: Through the reconciliation effected by Christ the holy and gracious God made an approach to us, so that now He can forgive us our sin and justify us; justification itself, however, does not take place until the spark of faith is kindled by God ‘ s grace in the heart of the poor sinner; then God forgives the sinner his sins.18 (emphasis Meyer’s) This "Lutheran" statement makes God’s forgiveness dependent on man’s faith. Even Lenski, whose "big green line" adorns most WELS pastors’ bookshelves, is guilty of the same error. In commenting on II Corinthians 5:18,19 he says, "We do not (emphasis mine) find the idea that Paul here says that when Christ died, when in and by his death God reconciled the world objectively, he then and there forgave all sins to the whole world."19 If Lenski meant that God did reconcile the world "objectively," he certainly did not understand objective justification as we do, for he denies that on the basis of Christ’s death and resurrection God once and for all forgave all the sins of all mankind."


"The Bible therefore does teach that all the sins of all mankind are completely forgiven. That means also the sins of Judas, the sins of the people destroyed in the flood, the sins of all the ungodly, and the sins of all people who will from now to the end of time die apart from Christ and end up in hell. All people have a changed status. But that is not to say that all people are saints." [BM - So much for the (W)ELS rejecting the Kokomo statements. In fact (W)ELS supports the 4 Kokomo statements so strongly that they excommunicated the families who rejected them] Unfortunately the response of Faith Congregation had to be to suspend from fellowship those who leveled the charges.


"The position that all men’s sins have been forgiven, even the sins of those in hell, has always been held to by orthodox Lutheran theologians. Koehler writes, "There is not a soul in all the world which God has not already absolved from all sin. This is called objective or universal justification."22"


"Orthodox Lutherans therefore, on the basis of the scriptural doctrine of universal and objective justification, teach, believe and confess that all people who have lived, are living or will ever live on earth have been declared righteous by God and have thus been forgiven of all their sins."


Beckman ends this heretical essay with this Universalist statement declaring that the whole world are of God's elect.
"We have, however, a broader commission, a universal calling. As Christ’s witnesses we have been called to reach out to the world, not only with our wallets but also with our words. Whether it be a personal conversation with our landlord, neighbor or friend, or whether it be a more "professional" conversation with the unchurched parent of a pupil or with the new prospect discovered by the evangelism committee, we know for certain the message we have for them. In our minds there’s no Reformed reflection on whether or not this person really is one of God’s elect. There’s no Arminian condition attached to the forgiveness we hold out to them. The only message that will bring them to faith, strengthen them in their faith and motivate them to want to hear the Word is our simplified version of universal and objective justification."
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckmanUniversal.PDF

Diaprax and Dissent

Churchmouse has been publishing on the topic of Diaprax. Here is his latest post.

The best way to advance an agenda is to make dissent a sin. From that point on, anything can be forced upon the unwilling, because someone who speaks up is:

1. violating Matthew 18 and the Eighth Commandment,
   
2. unloving,
   
3. unbrotherly,
   
4. over-zealous,
   
5. evil,
   
6. full of hatred,
   
7. full of himself,
   
8. on a power trip,
   
9. wound tight,
   
10. getting even,
    
11. jealous,
    
12. bitter,
    
13. and mentally ill.

When that kind of reaction is accepted as the norm, the only response is "Second the motion and move the previous question." To do otherwise invites reprisals, which are considered well deserved since the sin of dissent has been committed, whether in private or public.

The reprisals are not reserved for the individual alone, but for every member of his family and anyone suspected of being friends. It is considered good form to walk up to someone's friend with an accusation like this, "I suppose you agree with your friend about..." The idea is to isolate anyone who might have an original thought.

I remember what a struggle it was just to convene a circuit meeting in Columbus. For years, VP Kuske and the Circuit Pastor avoided circuit meetings required by the constitution. (Typical UOJ Antinomianism) When we finally had one, a layman was primed to start the meeting, shouting "We have a rule in our company. No one is allowed to come to a meeting with negative thinking." Although circuit meetings are supposed to address problems, it was clear that would be a sin of the worst order. Ditto - conference meetings.

I was at a CLC meeting where almost the same thing was expressed, as if questioning false doctrine would make the micro-mini sect fall apart in a flash. I was ready for that one, so I asked who leaked the letter to Herman Otten, another grave sin in Lutherdom. The group fell into a nervous, guilty silence.

Luther should inform the Lutheran response. Remember him from Reformation Sunday? Luther applied the Word to all situations and accepted the consequences. Unlike the queasy Methodists running the show today, he understood the Old and New Testament doctrine of the efficacy of the Word alone.

The issue is - What does the Word of God say?

As soon as people ask, "What does Synod say," Diaprax is established and growing.

---


Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Diaprax and Dissent": A good example of this is the response from a Holy Mother Synod District President to the clear presentation of (W)ELS plagiarism and false teachings noted in Rick's (St. Peter, Appleton) post on his Light from Light blog:

The concern is that the Intrepid Lutherans use of God’s Word to publicly question doctrine and practice in the WELS is causing division and bad public relations. Recently, the Intrepid Lutherans criticized the sin of plagiarism, and also pointed out problems with the synod wide “Walking Together Sunday” service. In response, at least one District President has counseled the Intrepid Lutherans to close shop.
http://vdma.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/wels-and-the-intrepid-lutherans/

False doctrine and practice are being condoned and promoted when protecting (and misrepresenting) the reputation of the Synod supersedes faithfulness to Christ, His Word and the Lutheran Confessions, all of which should be the sole guide and rule for truly Lutheran churches and administrative groups.

What Sasse Says: Why is Luther the Greatest of the Church's Teachers?

What Sasse Says: Why is Luther the Greatest of the Church's Teachers?

Why is Luther the Greatest of the Church's Teachers?
...exactly why is Luther the greatest in what has been a long line of teachers in the church who have proclaimed the Word of God from generation to generation? It is because none of the others understood the Word of God so profoundly. The Word of God is greater than human words, which have limitations. The time will come when nobody remembers Homer, or Shakespeare or Goethe, but the Word of God will endure forever. Human words can certainly accomplish much - the command of a powerful ruler or of a general can decide the fate of nations, but sooner or later their power ceases to be. No mere human word is almighty. But God's Word is always living and active because it is the Word of the eternal, almighty God, the Word through which all things were created. It is the Word of the Judge of all who live. It is the Word of forgiveness, the Word of redemption, the Word which no human word can contradict. It is the Word which, as John says, has become flesh in Jesus Christ. He is himself the eternal Word of God; 'his name', it is written in Revelation (19:13), 'is called the Word of God'. To proclaim the Word of God is to proclaim Jesus Christ. 'To him all of the prophets bear witness', according to the apostle Peter (Acts 10:43). 'We preach Christ crucified' says Paul in regard to the preaching of the apostles (1 Cor 1:23). He, Jesus Christ, is the content of the church's preaching - that he is the Redeemer and the Lord is the proclamation of the teachers of the church from its very beginning. That is the message which has been handed down from one generation to another. The proclaimers come and go, but the proclamation itself remains the same: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. That and nothing else is the content of the Christian proclamation. Luther again and again reminded the church of this - a church which had forgotten it, and indeed which had almost buried the one Word of God under so many human words of religion and philosophy.

Luther is one of the great Christologists, the great witnesses to Christ in the church. Like the great theologians of the early church - an Irenaeus or an Athanasius - he stood in reverence before the great mystery of God's revelation: 'the Word became flesh' (John 1:14); 'great is the mystery of godliness, that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). All of his life Luther stood prayerfully and reverently before the incomprehensible mystery of the person of Jesus Christ, 'where God and man meet and all fullness appears'. What the Greek fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries acquired by deep study of Holy Scripture with reverent and prayerful meditation, what the ancient church confessed in her ecumenical councils and stated contrary to the reasoning of philosophy - that Jesus Christ is true God, God from God, Light from Light, very God of very God, of one being with the Father, and at the same time true man - Luther thought through these powerful truths and took them even further in his theology in connection with the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. However, he tried to speak of these things so clearly and simply that even the simplest Christian - yes, even a child - could grasp them. 'He whom the world could not contain, lies on Mary's lap. He who upholds all things becomes a little child'. That is the teaching of Nicea. Or we think of how Luther expressed the doctrine of Chalcedon, the teaching of the two natures of Christ, in his catechism - 'I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the virgin Mary, is my Lord...' This explanation of the second article of the creed has been called by some the most beautiful sentence in the German language - it is the most beautiful sentence in the German language, but not only because of its structure, which reveals a master of language, but also because of its content. Here we find the eternal Word of God, the eternal Gospel: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.

From a sermon given on Reformation Day 1943 in Erlangen, Germany.