The UOJ Stormtroopers are determined to expose themselves. But lo, we have our cameras out and will share their pudenda (objects of shame) via the Net.
Harrison, Schroeder, and Pope John the Malefactor will call them into their palatial offices and dress the Enthusiasts down (or up) for displaying their nuda doctrina.
They used to say, "In wine, truth," but more accurately, "In anger, truth."
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Advocates Are Raging on Steadfast Lutherans":
Ichabod -
I happened to run across this Steadfast blog posting you are referencing. No sooner than I had made 2 innocent comments, I was bushwhacked with the accusation that I've committed slander! What gives! Where is their universalist tolerance? I thought their site was a forum of comment opinions! I am befuddled!
Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org
---
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Stormtroopers Expose Themselves More Than Prin...":
Ichabod -
Please allow me (for context sake) to submit my original comment:
August 23rd, 2012 at 11:12 # 42 Reply
Daniel -
You have expressed yourself well, throughout this posted thread. I don’t believe that you have any problem understanding the doctrine of justification; but, the problem [challenge] with some who would attempt to contend with you, is that they apparently cannot break away from some of their universalist thinking, – making more of the Atonement than what Scripture says.
Generally speaking, I believe that one of the reasons for their Atonement = Justification [deficit] thinking, is that there is no room in their limited thinking for what it actually means to be “reprobate.” They conveniently ignore God’s gift of free moral agency and also ignore (in the process) Dr. Luther’s Bondage of the Will, thesis. Hence, Scriptures such as Galatians 5:19-21 and 1 Corinthians 6:10 are avoided by them. They really can’t deal with them because these Scriptures don’t fit into their Universalist inside the box mentality. [They can’t think outside the box; they can’t conceive of Scripture paradox]
Consequently, in their feverish zeal that all should be saved, they scuttle the reality of man’s free will to reject the Gospel and its all encompassing Atonement work of Christ. They just can’t leave “well enough alone” and emphasize the Holy Spirit’s work of initiating personal faith and His completion of faith in the believer. Their misunderstanding over emphasis of the Atonement makes them (in some respects) proponents of a type of decision theology. Although they would not agree with a Billy Graham perversion; they promulgate (by their understanding and teaching) a decision theology based upon an individual’s free will acceptance of their understanding of universal justification. ["Do you believe that Christ's sacrifice gives you peace with God; - then, say: 'yes; I accept that!’ Good! Once you do that - then you are saved! Now, come to the Lutheran altar and receive Communion!'"]
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel
http://www.thechristianmessage.org/
http://moralmatters.org/
- Nathan M. BickelAugust 23rd, 2012 at 11:35 | #44Rev. McCain -I’m am thrilled that I have (apparently) made your day! Any time that I can bring joy to a Universalist, stuck in the mud of misunderstanding, I am therefore grateful.
- August 23rd, 2012 at 11:49 | #45Pr. Em. Bickel, this is pure slander.Please show me where anyone who confesses Objective Justification denies the existence of the reprobate, denies the ability of man to resist the Holy Spirit and the means of grace, or in any way limits or denies the Holy Spirit’s exclusive work in initiating, effecting, and preserving saving faith in the believer?Your accusations are shameful.You accuse us of having a: “feverish zeal that all should be saved”. I am not sure what you mean by this. By “should be saved” do you mean to imply that we confess that all will be saved? If so, this is pure slander.However, I suspect, rather, that this is what you mean (Correct me if I am wrong.): We have a feverish zeal that, since Christ has indeedatoned for all sins of all men, and that therefore, they should indeedbe saved! Why? Because God Himself wills it, and God Himself atoned for their sins!What part of that have I gotten wrong?They should be saved. However, they are not all saved, because they resist the Holy Spirit. They do not believe God. They are not justified by faith.
- August 23rd, 2012 at 11:59 | #46Pr. Em. Bickel,I have had a great deal of difficulty getting to the bottom of what the Jacksonites are teaching regarding the Atonement. I don’t understand what they are trying to say. Every attempt I have made in the past has gotten nowhere. It has devolved into a bunch of name calling.Therefore, please, if you would, let me pose a question to you. It is not a trick question. I am trying to, yet again, understand what you are teaching.First a statement:The “Three forms of unity” Calvinists believe that the atonement of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but the atonement itself was limited to those who would actually believe and be saved.Now my question:How is your view of the Atonement different from the Calvinist position I have outlined above? Where are they in error, and how do you differentiate yourselves from them on this doctrine?Please try to instruct me on your position. You may reply separately to my previous post. I want to get at your own understanding of these doctrines.
- August 23rd, 2012 at 12:04 | #47Pastor Martin Diers -My goodness – the manner, in which you would accuse me of slander, makes me believe that I designated you for perdition! Calm down. Cool down and chill-out!I’m sorry, [for you] that you have apparently “extended the argument.” If you look closely at my comment, I said: “Generally speaking…..” Can I not speak of a collective mentality – from my opinion thoughts? It seems to me that you are needlessly taking offense, to now accuse me of slander. Cannot you appreciate a forum with back and forth contrasting comments and expressed thoughts? Perhaps, you should read a piece about “polemics,” which may help you to calm yourself down:“Understanding the Art of Polemics:”Please extend your Universalist type of forgiveness to me for the aforementioned title and link. It is my way of helping to evidence some of my comment train of thought.Pastor emeritus Nathan M. Bickel
August 23rd, 2012 at 12:24 | #48You will note that I challenged your use of “Generally speaking” asking for even a single example of your “Generally”. If you cannot do even that, then your “Generally” allegations are just as surely slander as had your pointed the finger at an individual.Now, if you can demonstrate to me that your “general” accusations are not slander, I will happily withdraw my accusation of slander.Do not hide behind a scholastic definition of polemic. You have made specific allegations regarding those who teach Objective Justification. I have, in the spirit of your polemic, challenged you to defend them.Now please do so.
August 23rd, 2012 at 12:38 | #49
Pastor Martin Diers -
I’m sorry, that you apparently have taken offense to my forum comments. I cannot help that. However, having stated that, I don’t countenance (what I regard to be) shoot from the hip [emotional] charges. If forum participants have thin skins then forums such as “How to garden” would be more fitting for them.
---
LPC has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Stormtroopers Expose Themselves More Than Prin...":
Pr. Nathan,
I love the comment on gardening. They should raise onions since just a inkling of speech doubting their position makes them cry foul.
It is not the JBFA people who throw names at the first encounter, if you observe, it is the UOJ people who cry wolf when they see a mouse.
LPC
