'via Blog this'
***
GJ - The Intrepids have been echoing my posts lately. The Slander Machine at the Love Shack will have to be turned up a few notches.
The Glory Has Departed
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "Testament:" Modern Bible Translations and Covenantal Theology -- Part 1
'via Blog this'
***
GJ - The Intrepids have been echoing my posts lately. The Slander Machine at the Love Shack will have to be turned up a few notches.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Pastor Rydecki has been, by the grace of God, faithful in the rebuke of the false gospel of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ) and teaching of Justification by Faith Alone.
It is important to note that while he is making such a good confession he is also opposing the official teachings of the (W)ELS. Dr. Jerome H. Klotz is well versed in the teaching of UOJ and is applying every nuance of it's promotion that the Sausage Factory has endorsed. His statement on Oct 11, 2011 7:26PM captures the sentiment well, "Don't they teach this stuff in the seminary???"
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/fraternal-dialogue-on-topic-of.html?showComment=1318393741487#comment-c2071646607328906445
Dr. Klotz states, "To argue otherwise is as arrogant as the petulant child who refuses to believe his father's promise, "Dinner is ready!" and foolishly imagines instead that his dinner did not exist prior to entering his mouth!"
Pastor Rydecki responds, "This is just getting foolish. I don't know who's saying what you say here. I've said all along that forgiveness has been acquired by Christ for all. Faith does not "create" forgiveness."
October 11, 2011 8:20PM
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/fraternal-dialogue-on-topic-of.html?showComment=1318394449665#comment-c8420523970004157927
To answer Pastor Rydecki - Your (W)ELS District President, Pastor Jon Buchholz teaches in his 2005 Convention keynote essay what Dr. Klotz is confessing in his defense of UOJ - which, by the way, is the official teaching of the Synod which the Intrepids are in fellowship with.
"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
http://www.wlsessays.net/node/390
It's only fair to include (W)ELS' beloved Siegbert W. Becker as one who also taught the false gospel of UOJ to it's fullest.
"If justification is universal, it must of necessity be objective. For if the sins of all men have been forgiven in the heart of God, then men are forgiven by God whether they believe it or not." Page 1
http://www.wlsessays.net/node/142
If these men were to debate the issue, whom would you back?
Becker (20th century WELS theologian:
"If justification is universal, it must of necessity be objective. For if the sins of all men have been forgiven in the heart of God, then men are forgiven by God whether they believe it or not."
Abraham Calovius (17th century orthodox Lutheran theologian):
"Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God’s children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe."
I'm not sure when objective justification became an official teaching of the WELS. There's even an essay in the WELS seminary files which says that while it is taught, yet it is not an official teaching of the WELS.
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/CuriaCorinthians.rtf
We know there were no righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah when God judged, condemned and destroyed them. But the UOJ gang says they are justified=forgiven.
I believe that's part of the problem, Simpleman. What is the official doctrinal statement of the WELS? Is there one? If so, where? This We Believe? The WELS Seminary essay file?
SimpleMan,
In Curia's paper there is not one reference to the Book of Concord. Perhaps that's the reason why Schaller and Hoenecke could not come to consensus on what 2 Corinthians 5:19's "reconciling" means. I.e. does it refer to "Atonement" per Schaller/F. Pieper (the "traditional view) or to "Justification" per Hoenecke/Meyer/Kuske?
Curia's quote from W.H.T. Dau comes close to what the BoC says:
…the entire doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together; …namely, that God in His purpose and counsel ordained [decreed]: 15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life. 16] 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments. 17] 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith. 18] 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life. Etc. 5-8. 27] …. Now, God does not call without means, but through the Word, as He has commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached in His name, Luke 24:47. St. Paul also testifies to like effect when he writes: We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:20. - Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration; Article XI “Election”
Did you catch his concluding remarks:
And so I, for one, choose to stand with Hoenecke and those who view the reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:19 and elsewhere as change of “status” before God, a part of the doctrine of justification and not of the atonement, as such. Is Hoenecke’s view the “official interpretation” of the WELS? That all depends on your definition as to what makes an interpretation “official”. If by “official,” one means the interpretation taught as most correct at our Seminary, then I would have to say, “Yes,” on the basis of my instruction there. If by “official,” one means that it is the interpretation found most often in our Synod’s publications, then I would also have to answer, “Yes.” If by “official,” one means that it is the only interpretation allowed by our Synod, then, of course, I would have to answer, “No,” for we have just recently republished Schaller’s Biblical Christology, unedited and without comment when he expounds his views quoted earlier in this paper. Likewise, an article of his espousing the traditional view, also quoted earlier in this paper, appeared un¬edited and without comment. translated from German Into English, in our own Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly in 1975—translated by no one less than a grandson of Adolf Hoenecke!"
Along the same point that LutherRocks makes, one of the shameful teachings of UOJ is that the Antichrist has been declared righteous by God, guiltless, forgiven of all sin and thereby justified by the body and blood of Christ - if only he would just believe it, then he would also be saved.
UOJ = Antichrist is righteous by God's divine verdict.
Kudos to Klotz and Webber for correctly warning that Justification by Faith Alone is incompatible with Universal Objective Justification and those who reject the false gospel of UOJ have rejected the gospel of the (W)ELS completely.
I'm not saying that I agree with Curia's conclusion, but I find it interesting that he says objective justification is not an official teaching of the WELS, and yet someone has now been taken off from membership in the WELS because of that very teaching which is not an official teaching.
Post a Comment