Looking for Luther has left a new comment on your post "Doing the Lindee Two-Step":
Just seeking some clarification here.
Have you spoken with Pastor (sic) Lindee? Attempting to take his words and actions correctly- perhaps my universal grace he simply was trying to state that God's grace isn't only for some people, but for all people. (For God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth) I can see how saying universal grace might give the impression of the world recieving Grace apart from the Means of Grace. Again, I would hope this is not Pastor Lindee's stance. Rather, God so loved the world- that's grace. The world did not deserve such love. And yet God, in his grace, sent his son to die for the sins of the World.(Does this mean the whole world is going to heaven? Sadly, no.) I think perhaps this is what was meant by "universal grace"- a counter to the Calvinist idea that God's grace was only for the elect.
***
GJ - Have you spoken with him? I do not know which entity appointed you as his guard dog. I would call this a case of ordination-by-comment. He is a computer guy who attended Northwestern College.
I have read his previous excuses for UOJ, which are posted on the Intrepid blog, unless they were euthanized. I take him at his word until he repudiates his errors.
That weird cracking noise you might hear happens when you open the Book of Concord the first time. The glue on the binding crackles a bit. Be gentle and the Triglotta will last a long time, even after being thrown under the bus.
According to the Large Catechism, published doctrine can be debated in public without resorting to the Matthew 18/Eighth Commandment Two Step. The charge of slander cannot be against discussing doctrine.
Let's say Luther, Chemnitz, and Paul are wrong about justification by faith. It does not hurt to debate the topic in public.
Pastors and laity are doctrinally comatose because the Pietistic leaders prevent any honest discussion. What happened to the synod that held meetings all over the US about fellowship with Missouri? Now they go to Fuller events with Missouri, ELCA, and anything that moves.
In addition, a careful reading of the Large Catechism will also show that notorious criminals can be discussed in public, to serve as a deterrent against similar crimes. Instead, WELS has covered up for its criminal class of clergy.
WELS DP Ed Werner was known for arranging the adoption of illegitimate children from his former parish. The babies were from minor girls. Who was their daddy?
As soon as the Werner story came out, WELS had a cover story, which was fronted by a DP's son, Keith Free, now head of American missions. Keith did not seem to buy the story, which was quickly buried under the enormous heading of "Things We Never Discuss."
There is a close relationship between refusal to clarify doctrine (beyond the repeat-after-me stuff) and the criminal cover-ups of murder, embezzlement, molestation, and more.
---
Looking for Luther has left a new comment on your post "Here It Comes Again":
Hey,
Meine schult. Forgive me for my error. Honest mistake. I read Intrepids frequently, and tend to just blur the group together as "pastors".
Anyways,I'll shoot Lindee an e-mail to ask him about the "universal grace" thing. I just would hate for his words to be taken out of context and misconstrued. I understand you feel very strongly from his past remarks that you know exactly what he meant, but I'd prefer to hear him explain himself and then, without a shadow of a doubt, eithe (sic) exonerate him or condemn him.
Thank you for your time.
***
GJ - When sending a snarky comment, spelling counts.
We all await--with bated breath--your verdict.
I was forgiven before I was born, according to your bunch, so your response seems less than gracious.
I would be happy if the entire UOJ crowd would say "Jackson teaches justification by faith" (linked) "We are against it, for the following reasons..."
But no, they argue without evidence, beat around the bush, and expect everyone to know their target. Lindee was not being polemical in the post cited, but he was not being candid either.
12 comments:
"Pastor" Lindee. That's too funny. Someone schools you for not having talked to Lindee first before posting, but doesn't even know Lindee is a layman.
We laugh to keep from crying.
"According to the Large Catechism, published doctrine can be debated in public without resorting to the Matthew 18/Eighth Commandment Two Step."
Even Intrepids would agree with that.
Did you ever get the feeling that when you to discuss false doctrine in public you are treated like one of Pavlov's dogs? The conditioned response by the water carriers is to always admonish for private discussion about publicly stated false doctrine. Back in the old days, you wrote your points of contention on a piece of paper and nailed it to the church door for all to see. It sure seems that these private table talks are pushed by those who have something to hide.
Hey,
Meine schult. Forgive me for my error. Honest mistake. I read Intrepids frequently, and tend to just blur the group together as "pastors".
Anyways,I'll shoot Lindee an e-mail to ask him about the "universal grace" thing. I just would hate for his words to be taken out of context and misconstrued. I understand you feel very strongly from his past remarks that you know exactly what he meant, but I'd prefer to hear him explain himself and then, without a shadow of a doubt, eithe exonerate him or condemn him.
Thank you for your time.
Posting my comment here from a previous post as it applies directly to this issue. The (W)ELS new NNIV (2011 NIV) establishes any public admonition of public sin as a sin itself.
NNIV
Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew%2018&version=NIV
Here is the 1984 NIV of verse 15:
A Brother Who Sins Against You
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
Here is the KJV of verse 15:
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Note how the KJV (even the 1984 NIV) has "trespass(sin) against thee" The 2011 NIV would have Matthew 18 apply to all sins, private and public, so that discernment and open public rebuke of public sins is removed.
Nasty buggers. Shame on the (W)ELS for their shameless promotion of such treachery which seeks to steal God's Word away from His Church. Shame on the SP and DP's who do nothing to warn the sheep of this!
Revelations 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
If you're gonna play in this sandbox, you better strap 'em on and be ready to take it, if you're gonna give it.
I admire our forefathers (Luther, et alii) for having a pair - so to speak.
Brett Meyer,
The words "against you" are found in some manuscripts and are omitted in others. The editors of the UBS text, as well as Bible translators, are split on the issue of whether or not they were part of the original. This may well reflect faithful, textual criticism rather than a translator's agenda.
Hey,
Again, not saying a public sin shouldn't be repudiated in public, but my point from the original comment was looking to understand his position.
Didn't realize everyone would get so up in arms. But, in a roundabout way, I now know what you feel he meant by "universal grace".
Again, I do appreciate the time you put into research and posting. (No snark there. I'm serious. You've been posting and warning and informing for several years now. Just want to make sure all the facts are being recorded correctly.)
I'm glad everyone sees that this innocent sounding question "Have you spoken with..." is just another form of the 8/18 beat down which is supposed to cause a rush of guilt in the person pointing out the error.
I suppose they also know that Matthew 18 is reserved for sins of one brother against another, not public sins or false teaching. But since they believe in UOJ, they want to serve as UOJ's bodyguards, like Churchill said: "Truth deserves a bodyguard of lies."
Looking for Luther, I believe Mr. Lindee has written sufficiently on the doctrine of Justification to make a clear statement concerning his confession, even though many of his statements leave room for wiggling, there are plenty that remove all doubt.
I believe Frederick Schroeder addressed these statements in the following Intrepid post by Mr. Douglas Lindee.
"On the other hand, all of God's subjective work, His work in man, must constitute nothing other than the distribution of God's completed work in Christ, and not itself be any part of His work on man's behalf. If man's faith completes God's work, the wicked falsehood of synergism prevails."
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2010/11/carl-manthey-zorn-on-justification.html
ff...73, in light of the other abominations in translation that the NNIV is guilty of I reject the possibility that they were simply trying to be faithful to the Scriptures.
Brett, that doesn't make you right about this passage.
ff…73, I appeal to the Lutheran Confessions, The Large Catechism, Eight Commandment
276] But the true way in this matter would be to observe the order according to the Gospel, Matt. 18:15, where Christ says: If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. Here you have a precious and excellent teaching for governing well the tongue, which is to be carefully observed against this detestable misuse. Let this, then, be your rule, that you do not too readily spread evil concerning your neighbor and slander him to others, but admonish him privately that he may amend [his life]. Likewise, also, if some one report to you what this or that one has done, teach him, too, to go and admonish him personally, if he have seen it himself; but if not, that he hold his tongue.
The Lutheran Confessions confess Christ’s Words in Matt. 18 as, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee,…”
Also,
284] All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it.
Here, the BOC differentiates secret sins and public sins based on the Scriptural translation posted above. The result of the NNIV changing this passage is contrary to the Lutheran Confessions in regard to the treatment of private and public sin.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php#para254
Post a Comment