Mystery Solved: The Secret Behind Robert Preus' Justification and Rome

Robert Preus earned two doctorates in theology
and the respect of all Protestants for his scholarship.

When I bought Robert Preus' Justification and Rome, I read it carefully. I was interested in what he said about Rome, which was not going to be a surprise. And I also wanted to know how he expressed himself on justification.

I knew what he wrote and taught before. His little essay, which Jack Cascione lovlingly reproduced, quoted his distant relative Eduard Preuss offering the fabulous opinion that we are justified before we are born.

I also knew that UOJ was untouchable by LCMS standards because it was embedded in the 1932 Brief Confession, doubly blessed.

First of all, that particular statement was the swan song of Franz Pieper.

Secondly, the Olde Synodical Conference fixated on that particular confession as the infallible truth of all time, far above the Book of Concord (in practice).

Big shock. Robert Preus quoted various sources against UOJ and definitely confirmed his opposition to that strange heresy. My intuition was that his sources were arguing against someone or something. Later, when someone showed me the double-justification from the English version of Georg Christian Knapp (Halle University, mother ship of Pietism), I was still stumped. The Preus citations were pre-Knapp, pre-Pietism.




Just recently, another researcher--name withheld--fell upon the Hardt essay involving Samuel Huber and Polycarp Leyser. That explained the Preus citations. The post-Concord theologians were arguing against Huber's weird justification - the absolution of the whole world. As Dr. Lito Cruz has pointed out in his cogent posts and comments, the merging of the Atonement and justification is a hallmark of Calvinism. Huber came over from Calvinism. Spener got his cell groups from Calvinism.

The Walther mythology deceives people into thinking he delivered American Lutherans from Pietism. CFW Walther was a Pietist who swore allegiance to the Pietist Stephan, a cell group fanatic. Cell groups continued in the foundering Missouri Synod, because all the pastors were Pietists. They did come to struggle against the unionism of America. So did the General Council, another Pietistic group. The Wisconsin Synod was Pietistic and moved away from it (with mixed success) - thanks to Hoenecke and Bading.

Therefore, enjoy the graphics gathered below and see how they are reactions against the false doctrine of Samuel Huber. If you agree with Huber's version of justification, you are roundly condemned by Leyser (Chemnitz' biographer and also an editor of the Book of Concord) and other great theologians.

Preus repudiated UOJ in this statement and cited
Calov in support.

This statement is answering the claim that
everyone in the world is absolved of sin (OJ).

I heard Preus lecture about how much he
loved Quenstedt.

J. S. Bach, who was orthodox, owned the famous
Calov Biblical commentaries.

Gerhard co-authored a famous book with Chemnitz.
No Lutheran before Huber taught universal absolution.
Huber was kicked off the faculty for teaching what the
Olde Synodical Conference leaders love the most.

Quenstedt was a precise writer.

Some of these theologians have been cited as supporting UOJ,
just as Tim Glende claimed I did.
UOJ fanatics are not very bright.

Thrivent offers 100,000 reasons to fill red kettles on Dec. 2 - Thrivent Financial for Lutherans

Thrivent offers 100,000 reasons to fill red kettles on Dec. 2 - Thrivent Financial for Lutherans:

GJ - And 100,000 reasons not to waste money on Thrivent.

'via Blog this'

Proud of WELS support of the Salvation Army.

Real Estate Weekly for Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - BizTimes. "It's a Steal" - Depending on Who Is Doing the Stealing

Real Estate Weekly for Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - BizTimes:

Bielinski Homes sells its HQ office building

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod recently purchased the 32,000-square-foot office building at N16 W23377 Stone Ridge Dr. in Pewaukee, from Bielinski Homes for $2.85 million.

The sale price is significantly lower than the assessed value for the property of $4.2 million, according to Waukesha County records.

A representatives for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod could not be reached for comment.

Bielinski plans to move its headquarters another location in Pewaukee, said Paul Bielinski, chief operating officer of Bielinski Homes.

"(The new location) will give us a better street presence," he said. "We found a new location that better suits our needs today."

RFP Commercial brokers Bob Flood and Scott Revolinski represented Bielinski Homes in brokering the transaction.

Bielinski Homes is the only tenant in the building and currently occupies about half of the building, said Jenna Johnson, marketing coordinator for RFP Commercial.

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod’s offices are currently located at 2929 N. Mayfair Road, Wauwatosa.

Bielinski Homes and other home builders have been adversely affected by the downturn in the housing market. Last year housing starts were down 71.3 percent from the market’s peak in 2004.

'via Blog this'

Intrepid Lutherans: On "Emasculated Bibles" and being "Objective"

Doug Lindee

Intrepid Lutherans: On "Emasculated Bibles" and being "Objective":

On "Emasculated Bibles" and being "Objective"

I spent an evening last week in the company of around fifty WELS laymen and clergy. They had asked me speak to them about the issue of Bible translations, in preparation for the decisions our Synod will be faced with in the very short period of time between now and the 2012 District Conventions. I think I used about two hours of time – I lost track. I first gave a “presentation” – “a little talk”, as I put it to them, rather than a formal lecture or power point entertainment session. I think that lasted around fifty minutes or so, in which I talked a little about the history of Christian education, from Abraham to the Reformation, and the fact that all education over the expanse of time the Church has existed – both the Old Testament Church and the New Testament Church – grew from God’s command to read that which was written. That is, our forebears didn’t create for themselves dumbed-down childrens’ Bibles to read. They didn’t produce translations rendered in an artificially reduced grammar and vocabulary for the sake of wider distribution and profit (in the name of “readability,” of course). Instead, they read the Scriptures as they were written, and in the case of the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, Luther’s German Bible, and Tyndale’s English Bible, they read in their own language translations which were honest academic attempts to reproduce in those languages, not just the meaning of the original text, but a grammatical structure and vocabulary that was as nearly parallel to that of the source texts that the target language could accommodate – a parallel grammar and vocabulary in the target language that also carried the meaning of the source. But the Bible, in the source languages, has a lot of complex grammar, and very precise vocabulary! If, as a result, the Bible was hard to read and understand, what was the solution for the Hebrews? The early Christians who read Paul’s letters directly in Greek? The Latin Church? And the Reformers? The solution was not to dumb-down and emasculate the Bible. The solution was to redouble their commitment to educating Christians. All Christian education emanated from this need: to read and understand God’s Word.

Emasculated Bibles
From there, I talked a little about the terms Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence, which readers of Intrepid Lutherans should be familiar with – we wrote a little about these terms in our post The NIV 2011 and the Importance of Translation Ideology, and they come up frequently in discussion concerning the evaluation of modern Bible translations. After that, I spoke a bit about the difference between Complementarianism and Egalitarianism, the militant feminist influence which faces us in Egalitarian teaching, the postmodern devices of language employed by feminism to “cleanse” the English language of masculine forms (read about this, and the recent challenges WELS has faced from Egalitarians, in our recent post on Postmodernism and pop-culture), and the clear connection between emasculation of the Bible in the NIV 2011 and the objectives of Egalitarianism and militant feminism, including confused teaching regarding the roles of men and women, especially in Acts 1 and 1 Cor 14 (for more on this, see NIV 2011: A brotherly debate). I concluded “my little talk” with a dramatic reading of a conversation which covers many of these issues.

Being the first time through these presentation materials in front of a group, it went a little rough. Add to this the fact that I was actively redacting and adding material on the fly, to adjust for my audience. But it went well-enough that nearly an equal amount of time was spent in Q&A following, discussing the material in my presentation, and other various issues related to the decisions we will be facing, the time for which is swiftly bearing down on our Synod. This presentation, and the conversation with followed, was good timing for these men; and the materials I left them with, Rev. Brian Keller's (WELS) excellent essay, Evaluating Bible Translations: Alle Schrift von Gott eingegeben, and Rev. Robert Koester's (WELS) important open letter Thoughts on Gender-Neutral Language in the NIV 2011, will go a long way toward informing their thinking. The fact is, there are many deep issues for the laity to investigate and consider. It would be a pity if they were presented with substantive information to consider only a couple months before District Conventions.

Being “Objective” in matters of consequence
But did I provide them an “objective” presentation? The answer is emphatically, “No, I did not.” I was nice, of course, and non-polemical – I even told a joke or two. I simply provided a positive case for my position. So the next question to ask is “Did my audience know that I was biased, and that my presentation was ‘non-objective’ from a political standpoint?” The answer is emphatically, “Yes, they did.” How do I know? Because I told them so. Here are my words from introductory remarks I prepared and delivered:

How do you do, gentlemen? My name is Doug Lindee. I’ve been invited here tonight to talk a little bit about Bible Translations. None of you really has any good reason to know who I am, so you may be wondering, “Why was this guy asked to speak here, on this topic?” I am not a pastor. I am a layman. I have no education that would be officially recognized by Synod as qualification for Ministry of any sort among us, nor am I, having no Call from a Congregation, a “Minister of the Word” in any sense. I am a simple layman, and any “ministry” I engage in occurs within the context of Vocation, not in any “special” capacity within the Church. But I have a College Education. Thirteen years of full time, classroom education, 10.5 years straight, including Summers (except two), plus 2.5 years straight beginning about five years later. In this time, I studied Mathematics, Physics, Economics, Computer Science, Education and Philosophy, and Business and Organizational Leadership. In other words, I know how to learn, and using the tools of learning which I obtained through years and years of practice, I have independently pursued study in matters of the greatest consequence: those of my own faith and confession. It was this study which brought me, along with my wife who studied with me, through the Scriptures, to the conclusions of the Lutheran Confession, and which propels us into further study and advocacy of Scripture’s teachings. As a result, I have gained somewhat of a reputation (a good reputation according to some, a not-so-good reputation according to others) for taking and defending positions – more recently, positions related to the ideology of Bible Translation. So, when it was mentioned to an acquaintance of mine that someone was looking, and found it difficult to find, a person who could speak on the issue of translations which is currently facing our Synod, and inquired whether he knew of someone who might be able to discuss this issue with laity, when my name was mentioned as a knowledgeable layman, this person was aware of who I was and what I have written on the subject. Apparently, that was qualification enough to appear here before you tonight...

Finally, I need to be honest with you and say, I am not objective regarding the issues I will be discussing. I have already drawn conclusions that I am convinced are correct and worth defending. That isn’t to say my mind can’t be changed, but anyone who attempts to do so will have their work cut out for them, as I have been considering and researching these issues for over fifteen years, and my position didn’t just develop overnight. This is important for you to know. For this reason, I am going to stay as far away as I can from characterizing the perspectives of those holding a position opposite to mine. Why? Simply because I know that I will not be able to do so to their satisfaction – I am biased after all. And this should really be the approach taken by anyone discussing these issues who is known to have taken a position regarding them. How disingenuous it would be for me, or for anyone, to claim objectivity in this matter when it is known that I have taken a firm position. You would have every reason to be suspicious of me! I mentioned that I have 13 years of college experience – and this is an absolute fact that I have learned at the feet of countless college professors during that time. The absolute best professors were those with a definite position, who advocated that position in their lectures. I may have disagreed with them from start to finish, but their impassioned defense provided me the opportunity to develop a more refined rebuttal of my own, and more firmly establish my own position. At other times, though I may at first have disagreed with them, I found their impassioned defense to be more valid than my own position, prompting me to change my mind. Yeah, that happens too, and there is nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, the absolute worst professors were those who were “objective.” The only way to be truly objective in matters of consequence, without violating your own conscience, is if you actually don’t care. The worst professors were the “objective” professors. Why? Because they actually didn’t care about what they were talking about. In matters of consequence, this was most frustrating, because we had no idea whether we were receiving key information which would determine the issue, or if such information was being deliberately omitted to keep us students from developing a definite position of our own. But the real tricky professors were the ones who “pretended” to be objective. You see, one rule you can always count on is that college professors know far more than what they actually say in lecture. They choose to share certain information, and choose to withhold certain other information, time being the primary criterion, of course, but also usually according to an unspoken agenda. No, they are not actually objective, but when they nevertheless pass themselves off as objective, they are disingenuous. Sometimes, they are under genuine political pressure to publicly lend support to certain viewpoints which are at odds with their own convictions. Other times, perhaps they are required to "objectively" present issues on which they hold definite bias. The result in any case is that they do so in a way which minimizes damage to what they are convinced is true. The kids who pay attention usually have such professors figured out by the end of their Sophomore year, if not before. In either case, such professors, once they are figured out, are not considered reliable.

Anyway, my purpose here isn’t necessarily to change your mind or establish your position, nor is it to “demonize” those holding an opposing position, but is simply to give you information which supports my own position – a position held by quite a number among both laity and clergy in our Synod – knowing that you will be exposed to opposing information. And that’s as it should be. You need to hear information from opposing positions, from those who actually hold those positions, in order to draw your own conclusions. What is my position? I am convinced that adopting the NIV 2011, as our English Language standard of the Holy Scriptures, would be a major mistake; and further, that any alternative ought to favor a Formal Equivalence approach to the translation of the source texts into English.

The laity of our Synod will be presented information regarding Bible Translations. The men of the TEC have been tasked with doing this. They are all known to hold definite positions. This fact, along with their rather staunch defense of NIV 2011 at the 2011 WELS Synod Convention, raised the question of their “objectivity” in this task from the floor of the Convention: “Haven’t they already ‘tipped their hand’?” is the question I recall. This question resonates with me, along with many laymen and clergy I speak to or hear from. These men are certainly capable of providing a defense of their own position, which is support for the NIV 2011, and in all fairness I think they ought to continue doing so. But who will speak from an opposing perspective? We at Intrepid Lutherans don’t know. While we assume that they must exist, we know of no man from either the Seminary or MLC who is opposed to the NIV 2011. If such men exist, as we assume, then “they ain’t talkin’”. On the other hand, there are many very knowledgeable parish pastors who are busy talking and writing in defense of something other than the NIV 2011 – but to my knowledge they are not being selected to the invitation-only Symposium in January, from which will proceed positions/materials used to present these issues next Spring. Which raises a second issue regarding the presentation of these issues to the laity: “How much time will the laity have to consider these substantive issues, prior to the time they cast their votes at the District Conventions?” A couple of group meetings a few months before District Convention is insufficient.

Henry VIII burned Tyndale at the stake for his translation.
Tyndale prayed, "Open the King of England's eyes."
King James published a revision of the Tyndale translation,
essentially the Luther Bible in English.

For my part, I am convinced that, given the time, regular folks can digest these difficult issues, come to sound conclusions, and act accordingly. I am also convinced that, in the absence of other voices, I am willing, and find it necessary, to speak and write about them as my conscience dictates.


'via Blog this'

Brett Meyer on Universal Objective Justification

Those who teach, promote and defend UOJ like to say that there is only assurance of forgiveness through Objective Justification. Objective Justification is their new gospel which declares the whole unbelieving world forgiven of all sin, justified and righteous by God's divine verdict when Christ paid for the world's sin. UOJ teaches that this declaration is the only thing that can create faith and that the promise of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ cannot create faith because faith must have the certainty of sins already forgiven, justification already declared and righteousness already bestowed for it to cling to. The resulting teaching is that Objective Justification must be true for anyone to be assured that they are forgiven and have true peace. Therefore UOJ teaches that without UOJ there is no Gospel.

But are they teaching a doctrine of peace? Certainly not, and not only because the Scriptures and Confessions reject Objective Justification as a new and false gospel. But look at the doctrine of UOJ in more detail and you'll see the contradictions and fear it creates when it abandons Christ, Scripture and God's Gospel of the promise of forgiveness of sins through faith alone, and that faith in Christ's atonement alone.

UOJ distributes Christ's body and blood to the whole unbelieving world for the forgiveness of sins. In Holy Communion the Lutheran Church confesses that anyone who receives Christ's body and blood without faith is condemned. Where is the peace then for the whole unbelieving world to whom the UOJists distribute His body and blood to?

UOJ teaches that Christ died and paid for all sins except for the sin of unbelief. UOJ teaches that unbelief is the unforgivable sin. In fact it's that teaching that they lean on to prove they are not Universalists. They confess not everyone will be saved even though everyone has been declared forgiven of all sin, guiltless, righteous and children of God. But because some don't believe the wonderful news that God sees them as He sees Christ, they won't be saved. Yet, who was conceived with faith? Every human being ever conceived was born in unbelief - they didn't believe in Christ. You didn't believe in Christ when you were born. Everyone is guilty of the sin of unbelief. So if Christ didn't die and pay for that sin then everyone is going to Hell. No one is saved, not Adam, Moses, Abraham or you. Where's the peace in that? But since Christ died and paid for all sins, He paid for the sin of unbelief too (Romans 11:23). Therefore UOJists are in fact Universalists because the one sin it hinges upon was paid for by Christ and by their teaching was also forgiven by Him before they believed and even if they never believe.

UOJ teaches that the whole unbelieving world has been declared by God to be forgiven of all sin, justified and righteous by Christ's atonement. Yet, they aren't saved unless they believe it's true. So being declared sinless, guiltless, justified and righteous - just as Christ is, because it is His righteousness they have been given, doesn't save them. Worse yet UOJ teaches that God's wrath over sin still resides on them even though they've been given Christ's righteousness. What peace is there in that? What peace does a believer have, if having accepted the teaching that they were forgiven and righteous before they believed, God's wrath still abides on them for the sin they commit in their sinful flesh.

UOJ teaches that faith doesn't do anything but receives the benefit of what was already declared to be true before they believed. So where is the peace for the believer if they are truly the same as before they believed - when God's wrath still rested on them while they had Christ's righteousness.

Faith in the false gospel of UOJ doesn't rest on Christ and Him crucified for all sins and particularly your sins. UOJ's faith rests on the fact that you were declared forgiven, justified and righteous before faith in Christ. UOJ even teaches that a person is not to look at their faith for the assurance of forgiveness. Read the holy grail of (W)ELS UOJ teaching, Siebert W. Becker's essay on Justification for the most blasphemous statements about faith to come from sources other than the Antichrist.

Here's a quote from that essay, "But universal and objective justification is one doctrine whose place in the victorious Christian life is clear. Wherever men teach that faith comes first as a condition that must be fulfilled or a work that must be done or even as a fact that must be recognized before forgiven is bestowed or becomes real, men will be trained to look into their own hearts for assurance rather than to the words and promises of God. If my sins are forgiven only if I first have faith then I have no solid foundation on which to rest my hope for eternal life. I must then know that I have faith before I can know that my sins are forgiven.

But there are times when a Christian does not know that he has faith. And many people who think they have faith do not have it, and many that think they are not believers are believing children of God. In regard to our own faith we may be in error or filled with doubt. But there is nothing uncertain in the truth that is proclaimed in the Gospel. Your sin is taken away, wiped out, forgiven, cancelled, swallowed up in the empty grave in Joseph’s garden. To that we must cling. To that we can cling. On that we can build a solid hope that will not make us ashamed.

In times of temptation when I am no longer aware of my faith, when my heart tells me that I am an unbeliever, I have no place to turn for assurance if faith must come before forgiveness. But if forgiveness comes first, if it is always there, if it is true whether I believe it or not, I do not need to know whether I have faith or not before I can cling to God’s promise. I know that my sins are forgiven whether I feel forgiven or unforgiven. I know that my iniquity is pardoned whether I believe it or not. And when I know that, then I know also that I am a believer. John teaches us that when he writes, “Brethren, if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things.” Take away objective and universal justification and you have gone a long way toward cutting the heart out of the Gospel message." Page 13 http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF

(W)ELS' own Our Great Heritage confirms the same teaching that Becker declares above. Where is the peace when God gives you what Christ has and yet you are not saved. Where is the peace when you taught not to look at your faith for assurance that you, one - believe that Christ Jesus died and paid for your sins, and two - that believing you are forgiven, justified and saved. (W)ELS contends against Christ in this regard when He declares in 2 Cor. 13:5, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" True UOJists are reprobates, warring against Christ, against the Father and against the Holy Spirit and teaching others to do the same.

In Christ, Brett Meyer

---

LutherRocks has left a new comment on your post "Brett Meyer on Universal Objective Justification":

It is the father of all lies that propagates ambiguity...notice how that serpent misdirects attention from Christ as our stand-in to a 'universal absolution'. It is classic smoke and mirrors...and the sheeple follow....

***

GJ - I figure only a small percentage of all Synodical Conference members know what UOJ is teaching.

I saw a billboard that had a baby on it. The message said, "A baby is forever." I said to my wife, "Look a pro-life message." I was driving.  She said, "Read the whole billboard the next time we go by."

The next time I had a chance to glance at more of the billboard. I could see that the baby was a negative message. "You are stuck with this baby forever." They wanted to provide abortions, but they were not going to put that on a billboard in plain words.

So I think many laity hear UOJ language, as pastors have done, and think, "Oh, Christ died for the world's sin. That is OJ. We are justified by faith = SJ." In fact, I thought that OJ was simply a recent synonym for the Atonement. Laity got me started and kept me going about the real meaning of Universal Objective Justification.

James Heiser was at Ft. Wayne during the Robert Preus years. He first reacted with shock about "denying OJ." When he read my quotations about the real meaning of UOJ, in Thy Strong Word (supported by laity), he saw the light. Paul McCain, a graduate of the same school, about the same time, never got beyond Robert Preus.1, so he is still stuck on UOJ.

WELS ministers are the least enlightened, because they are trained against the Book of Concord and in favor of synodical idols. All the Shrinkers are paraded through the synodical schools as heroes of the unfaith, so the students realize they must follow the Fourfold Path:

1. UOJ,
   
2. Church Growth,
   
3. Infallible synod,
   
4. Death to Ichabod.

But that is fine with me. There is no better way to drive readers to this blog than to ban it.

"Don't waste your time reading Ichabod." The dean and the president are telling us not to read Ichabod. What was in it today? They are really steamed.

---

LutherRocks has left a new comment on your post "Brett Meyer on Universal Objective Justification":

Well if our excommunication as well as others doesn't show people the awful truth about this doctrine, then nothing will.

***

GJ - Start with California, who only questioned trends. She was excommunicated. The two Kokomo families correctly questioned J. P. Meyer's UOJ and decision theology. They were excommunicated. Rick Techlin correctly identified Tim Glende's plagiarism, as the circuit pastor did. Rick was excommunicated (more or less) and the circuit pastor was replaced with a finger puppet.

I know a number of pastors hated out of WELS. One was a circuit pastor who dared to challenge WELS about Church Shrinkage.

This appeared in a discussion about Penn State, which parallels WELS and Missouri:

C.S. Lewis said it best in "The Abolition of Man": "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."


Don't vote for girly-men and expect doctrinal leaders.

 ---

LutherRocks has left a new comment on your post "Brett Meyer on Universal Objective Justification":

Keep voting for girly men and you'll get girly language in the Bible and girly worship...

Just Sayin'

2100 page-reads at noon.
2500 page-reads at 5 PM.

WELS Administration Models Money Management! Doubling Down on Real Estate in a Down Market

Now WELS owns the Olde Love Shack and
P. U. Towers (Pewaukee Universalist Towers).

http://www.wels.net/news-events/synodical-council-addresses-relocation-issues

The Synodical Council (SC) held its regular fall meeting on Nov. 4 and 5. At that meeting, the SC addressed recent developments in the plans to relocate the synod administrative offices.

The move to the newly acquired building in Pewaukee, Wis., had been tentatively scheduled for mid-December. These plans have now been put on hold. Only days before the end of the “due diligence” period, the developer who had signed an offer to purchase the current administration building unexpectedly withdrew that offer, stating that he had concluded his planned project for the site was not financially feasible for him at this time.

The SC is committed to reducing the financial risk to the synod. It determined the best course of action is to consider all options and appointed a task force to weigh the options and evaluate additional information as it is gathered. These options include making new efforts to find a buyer for the current administration building as well as pursuing the possible sale of the newly acquired building. The task force will bring possible courses of action to the Executive Committee of the SC. Full SC approval will be necessary before any final actions.

http://www.wels.net/news-events/bible-translation-information

GJ - WELS will keep meeting and voting until the New NIV is approved. Notice the new manipulations. Special invites. Hands-on. Will they get to meet and greet Moo, the paid sales rep for the New NIV?

WELSians, this is your punishment for buying and supporting the old NIV for 25 years. Lie down with dawgs, git up with fleas.

The district meetings allow the Church and Change DPs to control the majority of meetings.

---

bruce-church (https://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "WELS Administration Models Money Management! Doubl...":

Notice how after the last synod convention cut travel expenditures for the WELS HQ, that's when all of sudden they bought a new building farther away from the Milwaukee airport. Also, it's only 92 miles to O'Hare, and there's gotta be an express bus from Peewaukee to O'Hare and Midway leaving every couple hours. I know there's a service like that from Madison to O'Hare.

The commercial real estate market is not growing at all, and many mortgages on commercial real estate are in default. Now that the wELS has an extra sizable property on its hands, I suppose it will have to sell the Love Shack at a fire sale price--like Prairie Du Chien:

http://blog.al.com/huntsville-times-business/2011/11/post_41.html

Convention speakers agreed, though, that commercial real estate will not be "the other shoe to drop,'' as was predicted early in the economic downturn, according to a release from The Counselors of Real Estate.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/11/14/real-estate-news-u-s-farmers-reclaim-land-from-developers/

City Sees More Defaults: Despite a robust recovery of commercial real estate values since the depths of the recession, New York City properties purchased during the boom years are increasingly falling into default.

If UOJ Is All Grace and Forgiveness, Why Are Their Stormtroopers So Mean, Dishonest, Vindictive, and Corrupt?

UOJ's Darth Vader is carved into
the decorations of the Episcopal Washington Cathedral.

The Universal Objective Justification advocates would like everyone to believe they represent grace, forgiveness, and love.

Is there a nastier bunch than the leaders of the Olde Synodical Conference? Pope John the Malefactor is maxed out on UOJ. He instantly excommunicates pastors and threatens congregations who do not genuflect to kiss his ring. His underlings are terrified of being accused of communicating with me.

Paul McCain, MDiv, is famous for his effusive praise of UOJ, his tireless criticism of justification by faith. Back in the 1990s, when he was Al Barry's assistant and ghost-writer, McCain got into trouble with Larry Darby, a generous supporter of McCain's alma mater. McCain wrote a letter accusing Darby and me about influencing an elderly pastor (who opposed UOJ on his own). I asked McCain for a copy of the letter - no answer. Darby could not give me a copy because his attorney was dealing with it as legal issue.

Since then McCain has set a record for nastiness on his blog and all over the Internet. I imagine he finally stopped messing himself on the ALPB discussion board, but he was given a time-out and a ban before that. I enjoy his flailing against me, but I wonder why he has to take it out on so many of his so-called friends.

Tim Glende and Don Patterson, both WELS pastors, are known for two things - their adoration of UOJ and their love for Emergent Church trickery. Ignoring what they might have said about me, in private or in public, anonymously or nonymously, they are savagely opposed to their own members. Why do they flog members for asking them questions? Why are they so quick to excommunicate when they say every single person is forgiven and saved?

All the Church Growthers are "passionate about sharing Jesus." So why don't they share Jesus with their own members? They sure enjoy sharing Moses with their members. No one can discuss Christian doctrine with them because THEY have studied Greek. Because THEY have been called to The Sausage Factory. Because THEY cannot answer reasonable questions honestly. Comicly, Patterson told two members that he would come over to tell them off, but they had to sit there and listen.

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "If UOJ Is All Grace and Forgiveness, Why Are Their...":

As has been stated numerous times here on Ichabod, many of the present shenanigans in the synodical conference point back to UOJ. A good example would be Paul Calvin Kelm's Upside Down Evangelism. UOJ takes on a form of the Babtists' salvific knowledge teaching. They reason that since newborns cannot reason, babies are unaccountable. UOJ says, "you are saved, you just do not know it until we tell you so". It is akin to having an unknown malady, until the physician tells you what it is. In this manner, UOJ taints a lot of doctrine, especially evangelism.
All of mankind is either saved or unsaved, guilty or not guilty. It is a spiritual condition, not a mental one. This is why the Divine Service was meant for a body of believers, not seekers. It contains both Law and Gospel, in the proper usage of each. 

---

LutherRocks has left a new comment on your post "If UOJ Is All Grace and Forgiveness, Why Are Their...":

If you read the 'private' (probably 10-20 guys read it before it went out) letter regarding our termination of fellowship...we were accused of denying the forgiveness of sins. But Patterson preached my sins were forgiven already; even before I was born. 'But I hadn't heard the Word or been baptized yet' I said...so they said since you will not believe you were saved 2000 years ago; before doing anything...you are an unrepentant sinner and we are kicking you out...while they turn right around and preach to forgive your neighbor even if he is unrepentant. How jacked up is that? 

***

GJ - Randall and Joe, it's the Rubik's Cube. If one thing is wrong, everything else is askew. They deny or ignore the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit in the Word, the efficacy of the Word alone in the Means of Grace. No amount of explanation can make their opinions match the doctrine of the Bible.

UOJ legalism is compatible with the Babtists and Calvinists. In fact, some Babtists are Calvinists. Most Babtists are Arminians. "You are forgiven. This you must do to be forgiven." As <s>Barth</s> Kirschbaum said so eloquently and erroneously, "The gift is a demand."

From a Criminal Mind Comes Felony Stupidity - Another Beer Belch from Appleton

Dr. Gregory L. Jackson Promotes Universal Objective Justification

In his most recent blog post, Dr. Gregory L. Jackson is proclaiming the gospel of universal objective justification by quoting Luther:

"Gospel means nothing but a preaching and proclaiming of the grace and mercy of God through Jesus Christ, merited and won by his death. And, historically and etymologically speaking, it is really not that which is contained in books and is put together in letters, but rather an oral proclamation, a living word, and a voice which resounds through the entire world and is publicly proclaimed so that it may be heard everywhere." - Martin Luther, in his exposition of 1 Peter. "What Luther Says" Vol. 2 p. 562.

I was going to do a post on the UOJ Stormtroopers being in love with law-preaching. Tim Glende is too ashamed to post under his own name, just as he is too feeble to give his own sermons. Plagiarism is against the law. So is impersonation. Glende enjoys breaking both laws. Engelbrecht and Mark Schroeder are examples of men who refuse to do their jobs - just like the jellyfish at Penn State. No spine - but just as toxic.

The lawless legalists get their way because the laity support them and elect them.

The UOJ Stormtroopers are lawless, but they love the law, their own man-made law. That attracts them to law-salesmen like Groeschel, Warren, Driscoll, and Andy Stanley. Glende and Ski have worshiped with at least three of the four. Bishop Katie's bragging tweets used to keep us all amused and informed.

Ski and Glende used to tweet for the masses, but no one told them that Twitter was a publishing service, not a private email account. Felony stupidity? I said that before.

Glende has no more grasp of Luther's doctrine than he does of pastoral work. Steve Spencer's post was apparently aimed at imposters like Glende. I assume, because no one informed me, that Spencer was writing about Jeff Gunn's congregation. He quoted a large portion of Luther's sermon to emphasize the preaching of the Gospel of forgiveness.

Gunn is another plagiarist. Long ago I matched up his "confession of faith" with that of another denomination. The words are copied by so many Church Growth wannabees that it is difficult to determine who the original author is. However, does any Lutheran pastor want to confess exactly the same words as the Pietistic Evangelical Coventant people - or the Babtists?

Glende illustrates how ignorant and boorish ministers seize on a few words of Luther and bray, "This proves what I have been saying."

Glende's deceitfulness - previously noted by his own member - is also revealed in his words.

Clearly the synod officials all approve of this behavior. We all know how quickly they react against justification by faith, the Means of Grace, and marital fidelity. They love to adulterate the Word so they also love and embrace adulterous pastors. Poor Tim got a bad start at St. Paul in German Village, where a known adulterer was encouraged to pretend he was a pastor.

---

AC V has left a new comment on your post "From a Criminal Mind Comes Felony Stupidity - Anot...":

This is exactly what the UOJ-ers are expert at: pulling words out of context to make someone say something other than what was intended. The quote intends to emphasize the sacramental nature of the Word. God does not bring his Gospel (see footnote for official definition of that word in the Formula of Concord) in any other way than through the means of grace. Luther was BIG on the oral, preached word, so much so that he once said that the Virgin Mary was impregnated with the Christ through her ear when the angel Gabriel spoke the promise of the Savior's birth through her.

We need to hear this emphasis again in our day because so many think they don't need the means of grace (i.e. preaching and the sacraments) because, after all, "I was forgiven 2,000 years ago when Christ died on the cross."

Footnote: "The Gospel, however, is that doctrine which teaches what a man should believe in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins from God, since man has failed to keep the law of God and has transgressed it, his corrupted nature, thoughts, words, and deeds war against the law, and he is therefore subject to the wrath of God, to death, to temporal miseries, and to the punishment of hell-fire. The content of the Gospel is this, that the Son of God, Christ our Lord, himself assumed and bore the curse of the law and expiated and paid for all our sins, that through him alone we reenter the good graces of God, obtain forgiveness of sins through faith, are freed from death and all the punishments of sin, and are saved eternally." Solid Declaration V:20.

---

AC V has left a new comment on your post "From a Criminal Mind Comes Felony Stupidity - Anot...":

Re: "so much so that he once said that the Virgin Mary was impregnated with the Christ through her ear when the angel Gabriel spoke the promise of the Savior's birth through her."

That was inexact. Let me clarify that statement. From what I can determine the "conceptio per aurem" was in the early church a common way of understanding how the Virgin Birth came about. Luther said it this way: "Where does it (the virgin birth) come from? The angel Gabriel brings the word: `Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, etc.' With these words Christ comes not only into her heart, but also into her womb, as she hears, grasps, and believes it. No one can say otherwise, than that the power comes through the Word" (Luther's Works 36:341).

***

GJ - The early church was consistent with Biblical teaching. God works only through the Holy Spirit in the Word. So how can all the Hottentots and Hindus be pronounced forgiven and even saved without the Word? The UOJ leaders never tire of saying that much and more.