Tuesday, January 31, 2012

More Ugliness from the UOJ Squadron

LutherQuest (sic)

I don’t know Pastor Rydecki personally, but some of what I’ve read by him makes me sad. For instance, recently on Steadfast Lutherans he made the following comments in regard to OJ.
He wrote:

“The remission of sins is not proclaimed to the sinner as a past reality for all which must be appropriated individually. Instead, remission of sins is promised to the sinner on the basis of the satisfaction Christ made for sin. Christ with his perfect righteousness and satisfaction is the object of faith.”


“I haven’t seen a clear Scripture passage that states that God ever absolved the world of sin, or that the sins of the world have been remitted – although they have certainly all been paid for!”

They might as well have given the award to Dr. Jackson. This is no different than what Jackson teaches.

In the first quote he denies that the sins of the entire world have been remitted [forgiven] objectively, and he says that it is the Atonement that is the object of faith.

In the second quote he says he knows of no Scripture passage stating that God has absolved the sins of the entire world.

First, the object of our faith is not something like; “Jesus died for me and if I believe that, God will credit it to me as righteousness”. It sounds very pious to say that; "Christ with his perfect righteousness and satisfaction is the object of faith”, but our faith is not merely in the Atonement. The object of our faith is God’s promise that He laid all of our sin upon Christ, damned Christ for them, and absolved Christ of them. The payment has not only been made, but has been accepted. The unmerciful servant was forgiven. This was not contingent upon his believing it. And, although he did not believe it, and was put in prison, the forgiveness was real.

Second, I know of no clearer passage of Scripture which states this than that which says; “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world”.


GJ - The post used an award given to another pastor as an excuse to make some nasty guilt-by-association remarks. Rev. Rydecki's statements, as quoted, agree with the Book of Concord and the Scriptures. Those are the two norms.

I always put (sic) after LutherQuest because they have no comprehension of Luther's doctrine, his Biblical exegesis, or the the Confessions.

The LQ errors were addressed by Luther and in the next generation by P. Leyser and the Wittenberg faculty ( against Samuel Huber).

"Behold the Lamb of God" is not the absolution of the entire world.

LQ is full of nastiness. It is a skunk patch, as one pastor described it. Paul McCain could not get away with his tactics on a serious website, so he posts on LQ now. The UOJ Stormtroopers attack one another too.

The award mentioned in the post has nothing to do with me. I never read their Gottesdienst periodical or blog or whatever else they have. I have never met Rydecki. As far as I can tell,. the award was for setting up a discussion blog, something LQ has failed to accomplish.

One prominent ELS member said, "I read LQ for laughs."

A Lutheran observer said, "Are they all crazy or just stupid. I cannot believe what they post."


Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "More Ugliness from the UOJ Squadron":

Dave Schumacher wrote on Lutherquest: "First, the object of our faith is not something like; “Jesus died for me and if I believe that, God will credit it to me as righteousness”."

Christ declared in Romans 3:22, "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

Jim Pierce and Jack Kilcrease made the same confessions attacking Christ in the BJS thread.


GJ - The value of those discussions is bringing out what they really believe and also what they reject with a passion. Buchholz claimed that no one taught Universalism in WELS, even though he sent me the link to his Universalistic convention essay, which ELS Stormtrooper Jay Webber commended.

John Shep ran Thoughts of Faith, ELS, and joined ELCA.
Jay Webber defended Roger Kovaciny being the bagman for Floyd Luther Stolzenburg's Masonic church.
UOJ is so flexible when it comes to the Ten Commandments.

Churchmouse Campanologist

No wonder people are depressed.

Churchmouse Campanologist:

"Mainline Protestant denominations can also create problems with their interpretations of the Bible, depriving people of deriving much-needed comfort and reassurance from it. Some Catholic theologians are also guilty of this.

Unfortunately, pietist churches might not be helping, either. One of the comments on Johnson’s post reveals that some churchgoers blame the person suffering from depression as being unrepentant and too inactive in the life of the church. If only they would DO something, they would feel better."

'via Blog this'

Some Means of Grace Writers Are Trying To Steady the Steadfast Enthusiasts

With all due respect, they don’t confuse me. They used to, but it was Robert Preus’ book “Justification and Rome” that was foundational in getting me to think and teach in terms that the Book of Concord uses to describe Justification.

Are you sure I’m really free not to use them? The terms “heresy” and “heretic” have flown around a little too loosely when this topic comes up.

Walther’s admonition is one to take to heart: “Bear this in mind, dear friends . . . it is your duty not only to believe as the Church believes, but also to speak in harmony with the Christian Church.” (Law and Gospel, 276-277) The vocabulary of the church I swore to uphold is the Book of Concord. So, thank you for the affirmation that I am free not to use the terms “Objective” and “Subjective” when teaching the doctrine of Justification! Not everyone feels that way.
Rev. James Schulz


If I may respond from the Anti-UOJer side of things.

We know the answer to those questions and the answer proves UOJ is a concept filled with fallacy.
In fact, when you ask “Can I be saved”? According to C F W Walther, your question is ill formed, you should not be even asking if you “can be saved”. Because YOU ARE ALREADY even before you believe whatever it is you want to believe.

Here is a quote from http://www.franzpieper.com/ quoting Walther.

C.F.W. Walther wrote in 1868: “…you often hear pastors preach, ‘You are saved if you believe.’ What they should be saying is, ‘You are saved so that you might believe.“

Jack says that UOJ is not Christianized Universalism.

Don’t you guys in the US have a saying, if anything walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck? See Mk 16:16.


The forgiveness exists *in Christ*, because it is Christ who earned that forgiveness by His perfect life and atoning death. That forgiveness becomes ours when we become one with Christ through Baptism/faith. What we believe in is Christ; what becomes ours is His merit.

Just because the forgiveness exists in *Christ*, it does not follow that I was forgiven (or righteous) before I was born (much less the world). The world stands condemned already because it has not believed on the name of God’s one and only Son. However, people are not condemned only for rejecting the Gospel (certainly this is a condemnable offense, but not the only offense). People are condemned because they are sinful. Otherwise, it places one in the peculiar position of explaining the eternal state of the millions and millions of people who never had an opportunity to hear the Holy Gospel.
Dan Baker


To UOJers
We won’t go around in circles if you can provide Scriptural evidence for your UOJ theory.
I even grant to you that subjective Justification is not the issue here, because you have the fallacious advantage and the sophistic mechanism to agree with JBFAers when we speak about JBFA, so that is not the issue.

The issue and the foremost one is the declaration of the whole world as righteous ALREADY on account of the Jesus death (and to some on account of his resurrection, as per F. Pieper)
The issue is this…1932 Brief Statement Article 17.

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25

Does Romans 4:25 teach it? No, it is part of a larger context where faith is mentioned.
Does Romans 5:19 teach it? No, again see above.

Does 2 Cor 5:18-21 teach it? No, for firstly in 1 Cor 5:17, it speaks of those in Christ. Secondly, v.19 does not say that righteousness has been imputed, rather our sin has been imputed to Christ, v.19 speaks of the Atonement.

So the problem with UOJ is that it thinks when God imputed the sins of the world to Christ, right there it also meant the whole world has been declared righteous already., i.e. the righteousness of Christ was imputed to the World already.

Now, according to UOJ teaching, one must only have to believe this.

Even your precious idol C. F. W. Walther said this and I quote:
“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, p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.

So Walther teaches, Word of Faith, believe you have been absolved already and so you are. Believe you are not absolved then so you are not. You are what you believe.

Kenneth Hagin and his followers said something similar to this in regards to healing. Your healing already happened at the Cross, believe you are healed and so you will be, believe you are not healed and so you would not. If you do not get healed, your problem is your faith.

Jack [Kilcrease] specializes in missing the point. The issue is not your precious UOJ does not teach, our issue is WHAT IT DOES TEACH!
I hope you get it.


@Daniel Baker #103
Yes Daniel,
UOJ has a mistaken, even a warped view of faith as taught by Jesus and the Apostles. They think that when one mentions faith, one is a synergist.

This was the blunder of Walther. Remember he struggled with his assurance of salvation when Bishop Stephan found him. Though Walther did not eliminate faith all together, because that would be too obvious a Scriptural teaching, what he did promote made faith superfluous.

Did Jesus or the Apostles shy away from using that word?

In fact, Jesus said strong things to people about faith. See Luke 7:50, Luke 18:42


@Jim Pierce #101
Mr. Pierce,
I was a UOJ advocate in my early years in Lutheranism. I thought it was another way of saying the atonement not until I discovered that they were equating the atonement with justification.
In logic, this is called a category mistake, hence a fallacy.

You said But, it is certainly possible that I don’t understand what it means to say that Christ “paid for the sins of the world” and yet, all sins are not forgiven in Christ

The first procedure is to distinguish the Atonement from Justification, that is the first consideration. Just follow the procedure in high school maths, two names are not necessarily the same, i.e. an identity, unless you have evidence that they are so. Equality is to be proven not assumed.

In UOJ, they reverse the process, Equality is assumed and not proven.

The mistake of UOJers is to collapse Atonement with Justification, they assume this and they proceed to see what their assumption wishes to see.

Calvinism does this too, they collapse the Atonement with Justification but they go to the right side of that assumption, concluding that Atonement is Limited because they see Justification is limited, because they are one and the same thing. In UOJ it pulls the quality left ward, concluding that Justification is universal because Atonement is.

Thus UOJ is functional universalism despite the protestation of Jack Kilcrease that it is not.
UOJ makes one progress in its ambiguity and so it even makes one hate even the mention of faith, or pooh poohs faith, yet Jesus considered this something that He gets excited about, for after all, He is the author of faith.

Walther even said the preacher does not even have to mention faith at all in his preaching as if it is wrong if the preacher mentions it. Thus Walther went against the Apostles. For example, when the eunuch wanted to be baptized in Acts, what did Philip say? Did he say, great, lets do it. No. See Acts 8:36-38.



When Jackson speaks of Justification as communicating salvation, is he speaking Biblically or historically? He is speaking biblically. Which should take precedence in theological discussion, Scripture or philosophy?
Show us from Scripture that the Biblical writers equated Atonement with Justification. Is there any place in Scripture when Atonement is mentioned, God has declared the whole world already righteous, without faith, prior to faith or even prior to being born?

Few attempts were made from Waltherians like you to address challenge from Scripture citing Romans 4:25 but they miserably fail because no reputable exegete would sign his name and say that was the justification of the world, except perhaps from LC-M-ess.

The terminology and concept of UOJ whether originated, borrowed or stolen was foreign to Scripture and the Confessions. One thing for sure, it did not come from orthodox old Lutheran Concordians. In fact you have to cite 19th century of how the word justification is taken differently.

Your argument against this does not work in your favor but actually digs you in a hole because you are admitting it did not come from Scripture nor from the Concordian writers themselves.

UOJ was promoted by your fathers below – C F W Walther , originated by Samuel Huber and aided by the Halle Pietists.

C F W Walther was really like Calvin, he borrowed ideas and stamped them as if it was his own. He wanted to be peculiar and genius. This is the sad mark of Calvinism. Guess what Huber was a Reformed pastor turned Lutheran but he never got rid of his philosophical paradigm. Walther was the same, he was Pietistic and he never got rid of the separation of the Means of Grace with Justification.

In UOJ every one starts off as already forgiven since the Cross. You get unforgiven if you do not believe you are forgiven and you are forgiven if you believe you already are.

What is this but Word of Faith theology.

Mr. Pierce,

You often quote what St John the Baptist said about Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and so, no more sin.

Yet in John 5:34 this is what Jesus said…

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

In UOJ therefore, faith in justification IS justification.

Yet in Scripture, as said by Jesus, faith IN Him is Jusitfication.

This is a world of difference.



Daniel Baker makes an important objection to the teaching of UOJ.

Dr. Kilcrease states, “When a preacher says things that are conditional, he is always speaking law-words. When a preacher says “if you believe, you will be forgiven.” Or “just believe” this is law, even if he’s talking about salvation. These words will not create faith because they are conditional law-statements.” And, “Other doctrinal formulations turn gospel-statements into law statements: “If you believe, then you are saved.”
This is contrary to Scripture where Christ declares in Acts 16:31, “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

UOJ teaches that Christ is using the Law here but He is not. Christ is declaring the Gospel.

But according to UOJ Christ was declaring the Law when he declared in Romans 10:9, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

This is not a teaching faithful to Scripture and the Confessions. Dr. Kilcrease and the doctrine of UOJ confess that Christ’s statements above are Law because they attribute faith as a work of man. Since faith is solely the gracious work of the Holy Ghost who only works through the Word purely taught the declarations are pure Gospel.

Brett Meyer


@Dr. Jack Kilcrease #104
Dr. Kilcrease,

“A number of points need to be clarified for all of us. So let’s break it down. First, here’s rules of preaching: When a preacher says things that are conditional, he is always speaking law-words. When a preacher says “if you believe, you will be forgiven.” Or “just believe” this is law, even if he’s talking about salvation. These words will not create faith because they are conditional law-statements. The human mind under sin hears these words, it will then try to work itself into faith, convince itself that it has achieved it, and feel good at having done a good work. The only statements that create faith are gospel-statements which promise Christ and his benefits unconditionally. The point is using the terminology of objective justification is that they safe-guards the preacher being able to make unconditional gospel-statements. Other doctrinal formulations turn gospel-statements into law statements: ‘If you believe, then you are saved.’”

Thank you for the attempted clarification. However, when contrasted to the actual examples and preaching of the Apostles, I think it falls short. I would be interested in hearing your response to the citations and argument I asserted in my previous post. The “human minds” of the crowd St. Peter preached to in Acts 10 didn’t try to “work themselves” into faith; to the contrary, St. Peter said “believe in Christ and you will receive forgiveness,” and lo, while he was still speaking they received the Holy Spirit (and thus forgiveness)!
“Also, to clear the air, objective justification does not teach the following things:

1. That everyone is automatically saved. (pronouncing and receiving are different things. This is fairly obvious).
2. That God’s forgiveness is not mediated through the means of grace. (God’s declaration though already actualized as objective and universal in eternity, is mediated through the means of grace, and communicated to faith. It is not communicated apart from them- this is a key distinction).
3. That faith is unnecessary for the reception of Christ and his benefits. (Again, reception and communication are different than actualization).

So, if the conversation is going to go forward and not just go in circles, those who reject Objective justification need to stop asserting that some how we are claiming these things. We have repeated stated that we do not hold these things and neither, in light of our description of what OJ is can you really claim that these things are the implication of our claim.”

I do not recall asserting that Universal Justification advocates make any of these claims. Whether or not the doctrine of Objective Justification lends credibility to any of these three points is another matter entirely, but we can agree that the doctrine does not, as currently posited, advocate any of the three enumerated points.
Daniel Baker


Hi, Jim! Please don’t take any of my words as a “charge” against you or anyone. This is a good and important discussion.

I haven’t seen a clear Scripture passage that states that God ever absolved the world of sin, or that the sins of the world have been remitted – although they have certainly all been paid for! I think it’s the modern failure to distinguish between the payment and the absolution (based on the payment) that has muddied the waters. And to speak of absolution apart from the Means of Grace is simply not known in the Scriptures. If we stick to the language of Scripture, we’ll be fine. “God so loved the world…” Great! “Christ bore the sins of the world.” Wonderful! “He is the propitiation for…the sins of the world.” Wonderful! “God pronounced absolution upon the world.” Where is that written?

The forensic nature of justification is, in fact, opposed to objective justification, as explained by Chemnitz. In order for God to justify any sinner (much less all sinners collectively!), he must see a “foreign righteousness” in them as the basis for his absolution (since they have no righteousness of their own). In other words, it is only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that the sinner is justified. Scripture clearly states that the righteousness of Christ is only imputed to faith.

I do appreciate the Marquart quotes, as I think very highly of him and so many things he has written and said. I don’t think he was entirely consistent with his own explanations, though, when it comes to objective justification. In one place, he defined the objective components of justification as “the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the promise of mercy for Christ’s sake.” Fine so far. But elsewhere, he adds this bit about the world’s absolution itself (apart from the means of grace) as part of the objective components of justification, with this absolution being a “perfected, past and present reality.” I think that’s going too far, and it’s not what Ap. IV explains, either.

Whenever our Confessions use the phrase (in English) “are forgiven,” it’s a present passive verb (in the Latin), not a perfect tense, not a past tense, not a stative verb (the same goes for Romans 3:24 in the Greek!). Why does God forgive sins? For the sake of Christ! When does God forgive sins? “…when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake” (AC:IV). Forgiveness is indeed a present-tense, forensic gift we receive from God.

And only in the following sense is it also a past reality. It is a past reality for those who have been baptized and brought to faith by the Gospel. This is what Paul says, for example, in Col. 2:11-14 (to which Ambrose is referring in his statement quoted in the Confessions), where he places our “being made alive” and our forgiveness at the time when we received the “circumcision done by Christ,” that is, in our Baptism. Baptism is such a glorious thing that it sends us back to the cross and to the tomb with Christ, and then, of course, out of the tomb as well. This is why the Apology so often equates justification with regeneration, and why Paul also places our justification in connection with our baptism in Titus 3 and Romans 6.

The fact is, we have all the objective truth necessary for our faith to rest securely in the plain reading of the Scriptures without adding all of our philosophical elaborations.

If we want a concise but thorough Lutheran definition of “justification,” I think this one from Chemnitz is the best I’ve ever seen, and I don’t think we can simply dismiss it as “merely referring to subjective justification.” This is how the 16th Century Lutherans understood justification in the “article of justification”:

The meaning of the word “justify” in this article is judicial, namely, that the sinner, accused by the Law of God, convicted, and subjected to the sentence of eternal damnation, fleeing in faith to the throne of grace, is absolved for Christ’s sake, reckoned and declared righteous, received into grace, and accepted to eternal life. (Chemnitz’ Examination of the Council of Trent, Vol. 1, p.474)
Paul Rydecki

Team Jeske - they are the wolves.
They start their meetings, "Let us prey."

GoPack has left a new comment on your post "Some Means of Grace Writers Are Trying To Steady t...":

"Session Title: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing-The Pathological Antagonists in our Midst

Presenter: John Johnson [one of the founders of Church and Chicanery]

This session is designed to help you recognize wolves, understand what drives their hunger, and learn how to keep them from forming a “pack” at your work or church. These wolves, sometimes known as “clergy killers,” have an underlying agenda to discredit and take down a leader. They always claim the best intentions, but build coalitions against the leader behind his back. Therefore, having authentic Christian brothers around you is even more critical today than ever before. Learn to protect yourself and your brothers. The Kingdom of God is at stake." http://www.menofhisword.org/?page_id=113

AKA watch out for anyone who doesn't agree with our approach to ministry!

Abraham - The Father of All Them That Believe

KJV Romans 4:3 For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God,
and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of

King James Version

Monday, January 30, 2012

VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - PHILADELPHIA: Fr. Moyer Denied Pathway to Papal-driven Ordinariate

VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - PHILADELPHIA: Fr. Moyer Denied Pathway to Papal-driven Ordinariate:

"Moyer's fortunes have been tied to those of TAC Australian Archbishop John Hepworth as Moyer was consecrated a bishop in the TAC in 2006 by Hepworth, a move that many Episcopalians and Anglicans seriously questioned and actively discouraged."

'via Blog this'

Two Discount Options on Lulu.
Note the Deadlines

Until February 3rd, 2012

Until January 31st, tomorrow.

This is where to order.

My 2012 project is to move all titles to Amazon and increase the e-book selection. I also have help from additional editors and contributors.

St. Paul Obliterates the UOJ Arguments

Michelangelo's Conversion of St. Paul

St. Paul Comments on Justification by Faith

Michelangelo - The Conversion of St. Paul.

Pietism in America today: the Emergents and the Purpose Driven Church « Churchmouse Campanologist

Pietism in America today: the Emergents and the Purpose Driven Church « Churchmouse Campanologist: "A couple of weeks ago, news appeared in the blogosphere that the well-known Baptist pastor John Piper and the Roman Catholic Lectio Divina proponent Beth Moore appeared recently at the Passion 2012 Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. (H/T: Anna Wood)"

'via Blog this'


GJ - The Jeske group (Church and Change) is deliberately pursuing this fad, and no one will stand up to them. The reason? - C and C already controls the schools, the magazine, and the Synod President.

The Real Presence

The Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion is effected by the Holy Spirit at work in the Word.

All of God's work takes place exclusively through His Word, and the Holy Spirit never works apart from the Word.

Justification, the declaration of our forgiveness, takes place through the Word of the Gospel. This forgiveness is received in faith.

WELS Church Lady Defeats Jack Kilcrease with One Quotation

WELS church lady has left a new comment on your post "The Purpose of Web Discussions - Censorship - Acco...":

Galatians Chapter 3:

8"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, IN THEE SHALL ALL NATIONS BE BLESSED."

14"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

22"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." 23"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." 24"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

25"But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." 26"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ."

In Christ,


GJ - I quoted from Robert Preus' final book and poor Jack Kilcrease used that as an excuse to make some more mocking comments. He did not deal with the content of the quotations because he could not.

I posted Rebecca's citation on Steadfast Enthusiasts. They cannot act like men, so they will have to be schooled by a woman.

I appreciate the discernment of the laity. The clergy have a burden in getting past the training they have had. Theories are proposed--which are bad enough--but worst of all is the pressure to conform when everyone is repeating the same fallacies.

UOJ was so foreign to me that I thought they were using "Objective Justification" as a synonym for the atonement. Laity alerted me to the facts and kept me working on the topic.


LPC has left a new comment on your post "WELS Church Lady Defeats Jack Kilcrease with One Q...":

We do well to refer to that blog site as Steadfast Enthusiasts or Steadfast Universalists or Steadfast Waltherians.


Walther the Divider

Walther divided Lutherans
and worked to create his own myth.

I keep reading early LCMS history. I have a pile of books I am sending to another researcher. The official LCMS books remind me of Mormon and Roman Catholic devotionals. Nevertheless, history has a way of leaving behind crucial details.

One detail is the incredible closeness of the pioneers and how they protected themselves from scandal and prison by keeping the secrets. C. F. W. Walther's brother married one Buenger sister and Ferdinand married another one. Walther's brother died and Ferdinand took his call in St. Louis. Ludwig Fuerbringer's father married the Walther widow, which made Ferdinand his uncle. The Buenger family was directly involved in the kidnapping of Walther's niece and nephew, which was illegal. The mother was kept in prison for a time, thanks to the Walther brothers. She is the mother of the Walther/Fuerbringer brides.

Walther left early to escape arrest warrants for the kidnapping. Mrs. Buenger was also involved in the Walther-led riot against Bishop Stephan. The Missouri devotionals lie about Stephan's adultery being discovered suddenly in a confession and acted up with great haste and bravery by Ferdinand. Zion on the Mississippi concedes that everyone knew Stephan was an adulterer in Europe. The bishop brought his mistress over, but not his wife and children (except his healthy son). The big riot was not caused by adultery exposed but by an outbreak of syphilis in the Saxon group.

Ludwig wrote two books about the origins of the LCMS, but skipped over the first years. He did reveal that the valuable chalice used at Uncle Ferdinand's congregation was a personal gift to Bishop Stephan. That means Walther gloried in using a stolen chalice for Holy Communion. Of course, Missouri denies this fact, but there it is in Fuerbringer's book.

On the basis of a four-year degree from Leipzig, Walther made himself the one and only theologian of Synodical Conference, the Field Marshal of the Lutheran Church of North America. Everyone had to agree with his rationalistic-Pietistic opinions. America was so far gone into the Olde Church Growth Movement (revivalism) that Walther seemed Lutheran to many, in comparison. Many good things were done by the Missouri Synod to advance Luther and Lutheran theology, but it was not as glorious as people pretend.

Walther kept Lutherans apart by denouncing everyone outside his franchise as false teachers. He broke up the Old Synodical Conference, driving away many different groups instead of allowing unifying discussions.


LPC has left a new comment on your post "Walther the Divider":

Walther kept Lutherans apart by denouncing everyone outside his franchise as false teachers. He broke up the Old Synodical Conference, driving away many different groups instead of allowing unifying discussions

This is typical of a cultic person. He persecuted those who did not agree with him and bad mouthed them. People did not agree with him because he was wrong but rather than admitting and receiving the correction, he branded those who corrected him as false teachers. He had prided himself as the champion of pure doctrine. This is what a cultic person does.

You know how I have believed that he was responsible for the fragmentation of American Lutheranism.

He was given too much power by his people and he was a legend in his own mind.



GJ - Yes, Dr. Cruz. You can see the Walther template at work among the Unsteady Lutherans. An ELCA trained "Lutheran" writes from the Roman Catholic college where he teaches religion, and he declares, "Do not listen to Meyer and Jackson."

Walther was ruthless from the beginning. His unethical, bizarre behavior began with the kidnapping of his niece and nephew from his father's parsonage. He involved his future mother-in-law in the felonies, and she was put in prison. But Mrs. Buenger was not allowed to sail with the Saxons because that might have hurt their image. One can imagine their image. They were attacked in the press at home and in St. Louis.

Walther resigned his call when he left for America, but he still called himself the pastor of that parish when he pledged obedience to Bishop Stephan and again, when he forced Stephan out with a riot five months later. A man is not the pastor of that church when he has resigned his call. Walther was not a Waltherian.

Walther defrauded the bishop by stealing back the landed given to Stephan. That was another felony. He changed the title while secretly plotting to remove Stephan, using the Buenger family once again. Did he confront the bishop? No, he avoided the bishop, although the cover story was that he suddenly knew about the adultery from a confession offered up by two women. The defense of his action is even more perverted than violating the seal of the confessional. He did not violate any confidentiality because "everyone knew Stephan was an adulterer." I suppose leaving Europe with a mistress and without a wife was one clue. Perhaps Stephan's trial and house arrest in Dresden were additional clues. Living with his mistress at the spa, in the same room? Late night walks with young ladies? Cell group meetings in odd places? Groups in Dresden and in St. Louis?

Walther took over leadership of the Saxons at the Altenburg debate and by accepting his brother's congregational call after his co-felon died. Both happened at about the same time.

Walther's ruthlessness and dishonesty have been duplicated many times over by Synodical Conference leaders. Lying is considered good management. Bullying people and threatening pastors is considered good form, especially when overlooking the gross immorality of special pals and big donors.

The Purpose of Web Discussions - Censorship - According to Roman Catholic Employee Jack Kilcrease - Paul McCain's Peritus


Steadfast Enthusiasts

Those of you who arguing with Jackson and Meyer, my suggestion would be that you simply ignore them. I’ve had this debate with them, and they have a pathological need to not understand the doctrine of objective justification. Jackson’s claim is that the word “justification” always means “to communicate salvation.” Historically, when Lutherans started to use this terminology in the 19th century, they used the term “justification” to mean both the declaration of forgiveness (objective justification) and the reception and communication of salvation through faith (subjective justification). The point of objective justification is that the Father has a reaction to the Son’s universal atonement- that is, he offers a universal word of forgiveness that is already actualized. The word of the gospel is already an actualized reality prior to my apprehension of it in faith. Hence, the preacher does not says “if you believe, then you will be forgiven” (this would be law), but “you are forgiven.” Of course, no one says that one does not need to receive this by faith- the point is that my faith does not make God justify me. Rather faith receives an already actualized reality.

As much as people explain this to Jackson and his followers, they refuse to accept that there are terminological distinctions at work here. They therefore insist that people who accept the orthodox doctrine objective justification are teaching universalism. This is because they claim that even though their opponents state otherwise, they must always be talking about the communication of salvation when they speak of justification (even when they directly tell them that they are not!). Jackson and Meyer believe that words always mean the same thing in every context. As everyone knows, this is obviously false. They then theorizes that when people do corrupt things in the Lutheran church bodies in America, it’s because they think they’re already forgiven (because everyone in the WELS, ELS, and LCMS are secret universalists) and therefore can do whatever they want. As I think we can all agree, this is a fairly problematic line of reasoning (to say the least). Nonetheless, they will never give it up because it is so central to their worldview. It gives them an easy explanatory model for voicing what they think is wrong with American Lutheranism.

Therefore, I would suggest no one respond to them, and they will leave pretty quickly. They’ve poisoned the discourse on a number of websites, and I hate for them to wreck this one.


GJ - McCain and Kilcrease would like to silence the justification-by-faith message. I do not keep track of Brett Meyer's publishing, but I seldom bother with other blogs or websites. Kilcrease seems to be imagining things. Lapdogs have a way of snarling at anyone who approaches the one who feeds them.

I appreciate the censorship efforts, Jack, because you transform required reading into forbidden reading. Nothing kills interest faster than "you have to read this." Nothing drives up interest faster than "avoid this site at all costs."

Most telling is the way every Stormtrooper avoids Robert Preus' repudiation of UOJ in Justification and Rome. That was where I suspected that the post-Concord theologians were arguing against an early UOJ opinion - and they were. P. Leyser (Book of Concord editor) and the Wittenberg faculty rejected Samuel Huber's everyone-is-forgiven falsehood. A researcher tells me there is another, earlier example as well.

All the heresies, according to Luther, are in three groups:

  • Attacking the divinity of Christ.
  • Attacking the humanity of Christ.
  • Attacking justification by faith.

LPC has left a new comment on your post "The Purpose of Web Discussions - Censorship - Acco...":

Jack has the pathological need not to understand justification by faith alone.

So each time he turns, there is always a Scripture that bites him in the face.

Goodness, his exegetical skills are quite appalling.

Notice how he argues historically in a fallacious way. He said that this UOJ terminology was started in the 19th century. With out admitting it, he then by default gave an argument that it is a later innovation.



LutherRocks has left a new comment on your post "The Purpose of Web Discussions - Censorship - Acco...":

Did you catch Pastor Rydecki's comments late this afternoon? They were stellar...


LPC has left a new comment on your post "The Purpose of Web Discussions - Censorship - Acco...":


Absolutely. Pr. Paul's comments were precious, polite but uncompromising.

That discussion provided a lot of excitement today.



GJ - One must assume the constant repetition of UOJ talking points. However, if justification by faith and the Means of Grace are given some visibility, some will take notice.

Kilcrease reminds me of the Prinz Eugen. He appears to be charging into battle, but he is really blowing smoke and retreating.

The academic hirelings like to parade their philosophical discussions, but their chattering is never edifying and seldom Biblical. Given some philosophical training, any academic can spin a yarn around any passage. I have noticed that almost all laity speak the language of the Bible and the Confessions. The pastors who do have struggled with the issues and overcome the limitations of their training.

In the LCA we did not pay any attention to the Book of Concord. We all owned one but that was it. I began to study the Confessions as I left the LCA, but the Columbus pastors really threw me into the briar patch of Lutheran doctrine. That was my Harvard and Yale, learning how supposed Lutherans could embrace UOJ and Church Growth while calling themselves "confessional" and "conservative."

A synodical conference pastor has to overcome training that assumed all synodical writers were infallible,  Holy Mother Synod indefectible. The Preus family cannot concede that Robert Preus continued to study the issues and repudiated UOJ in his final book. Their dancing around the facts is similar to Carson Kressley in Dancing with the Stars, flashy and funny at the same time.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - Episcopal Blogger Spins Fleeing Episcopalians to Rome Via Ordinariate

VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - Episcopal Blogger Spins Fleeing Episcopalians to Rome Via Ordinariate:

The drift of Episcopalians to the Roman Catholic Church via the Ordinariate is worrying some liberal Episcopal bloggers and ordinary Episcopalians who see the move getting more cyber ink and publicity than the flight deserves.

"Thus far, 100 priests and fewer than 1,400 people in 22 church communities have expressed an interest in the ordinariate. Gather them all in Washington National Cathedral, and the place isn't half full. Only six of these 22 communities have more than 70 members, which suggests that their long-term viability may be an issue. And there is no evidence to suggest that these small congregations are the thin edge of an as yet invisible wedge," writes Jim Naughton of Episcopal Café blog.

He is partly right. Most Anglo-Catholics and those in the Continuing Movement are not fleeing en masse to Rome as a safe haven for their catholicism, preferring to remain in TEC (though that group is rapidly diminishing.) or Forward in Faith, the Anglo-Catholic wing of TEC that is still very much alive and well. Forward in Faith North America defines itself as "a fellowship of Bishops, Clergy, Laity, Parishes and Religious Orders, who embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who uphold the Evangelical Faith and Catholic Order which is the inheritance of the Anglican Way, and who work, pray and give for the reform and renewal of the Church with 'no compromise of truth and no limitation of love' FiF/NA members include faithful Anglicans both within and outside ECUSA."

The prominence the ordinariate has achieved in the media has unsettled some Episcopalians. "As a denomination, we are still recovering from several years worth of news stories in which the departure of some three percent of our membership for a more theologically conservative body has been variously described as a 'schism' or an 'exodus,'" writes Naughton.

"This story has appeared in major newspapers across the country, often accompanied by commentary about the Vatican's bold move against the theologically liberal Episcopal Church. I am still trying to figure out what all of the fuss is about."

Naughton goes on to cite dubious figures that the departures both to Rome and the ACNA are but a small percentage of the whole.

He features the bogus figure of some 2, 248,000 members in The Episcopal Church when referencing those who have fled. The truth is most of those have long ago left TEC for other churches or going nowhere or who are dead and have never been taken off the rolls. The real and only figure is Average Sunday Attendance (ASA). That figure is now less than 700,000. These are the true Episcopalians paying parish, diocesan and TEC bills.

Naughton claims that some 228,000 former Roman Catholics are now in the Episcopal Church. What he doesn't say is that those who left TEC for Rome did so out of spiritual conviction, whereas those fleeing Rome did so more because they divorced and remarried but could not receive Holy Communion and could not get annulments. Many view The Episcopal Church as Catholic Lite.

"According to the 2004 U. S. Congregational Life Survey, 11.7 percent of Episcopalians were formerly Roman Catholic," writes Naughton. But that is out of 700,000 not 2.2 million.

One conservative blogger, Christopher Johnson noted that Episcopalians were fleeing to Rome decades before the Ordinariate was a gleam in the papal eye. "See if the American Catholic church has any figures about the number of ex-Episcopalians in its ranks," he writes.

Naughton admits that the Episcopal Church has shrunk some in the last seven years, and now has about two million members. Membership yes, actively Episcopalian no. Most of those are not remotely active and most no longer attend an Episcopal Church. The figure is less than 700,000. Naughton's own diocese is in free fall both in membership and money with the new bishop busy suing PNC bank to get its hands on the Soper Fund to keep the diocese afloat.

The 1500 he cites leaving TEC for Rome, and other mainstream denominations might be miniscule, but it doesn't include the thousands of ordinary Episcopalians who have quietly left TEC for Rome over the years, like my attorney and his wife who do not show up on any statistics. The Ordinariate is only months old after all.

He also omitted the fact that four, yes four bishops have left TEC and gone to Rome (with one returning) indicating that the theological Tsunami is deeper than he is prepared to admit.

Then of course there are the 100,000 plus who have left TEC to form the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) through such intermediary groups as the Diocese of Pittsburgh, CANA ET AL.

"There is no reason to fear the Ordinariate. Its creation is among the most overhyped religion stories of recent years. Some people swim the Tiber. Some swim the Thames. Media coverage suggests that reporters pay little attention until the Vatican tells them it's a big story," writes Naughton.

Again this is a half-truth. TEC has little to fear from these small groups departing. The bigger picture is the flight of TEC's parishes and parishioners to the AMIA and ACNA that continue to grow almost weekly. ACNA is working toward 1,000 new parishes and more than 100,000 new souls, most, for the moment, are ex-Episcopalians with or without their properties.

When the flight of all those in dioceses like Quincy, Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth and San Joaquin is added up the departures will be significant. They will leave behind skeleton Episcopal dioceses stripped of everything except empty buildings they cannot sell which they now have to maintain and pay taxes on. The Diocese of Pittsburgh has lost two-thirds of its entire membership. What sort of future does that diocese have in the Rust Belt? The rump diocese of Quincy cannot possibly last and will be forced to juncture in the coming year.

The newly anointed Bishop Eric Menees of the Diocese of San Joaquin is on the spiritual warpath for new souls and a revived diocese with increased evangelical fervor. The maintenance attitude of dwindling TEC dioceses shows little interest in evangelism preferring the bromides of inclusion and diversity to sustain them.

Naughton says that the 100 priests who have applied to join the Ordinariate is not evidence that the Catholic Church is winning priests from the Episcopal tradition. According to the Church Pension Group, 432 living Episcopal priests have been received from the Roman Catholic Church.

Be that as it may, a former Roman Catholic priest, now a TEC Bishop in the Diocese of Long Island, Lawrence C. Provenzano is showing absolutely no ability to grow his diocese. He has bought into TEC's liberal agenda and says he will let priests in Brooklyn, Queens and on Long Island officiate at same-sex weddings. That is the kiss of death spiritually and ecclesiastically for his diocese. It will only distance himself and his diocese from the Roman Catholic mainstream on Long Island. Even the Bishop of Albany, Bill Love, an ex-Roman Catholic, who is thoroughly orthodox, is finding it difficult to bring new converts into TEC in the bleak Adirondack region. It is tough pickin's all the way round, and he IS busy promoting ALPHA and Bible reading in his diocese.

The truth is the net effect of Bishop Gene Robinson's consecration in 2003 has caused shock waves around the US and across the Anglican Communion tearing the fabric of the Communion and no amount of spin can or will change that. The consecration more recently of an openly non-celibate lesbian in Mary Glasspool only tossed gasoline on an already raging fire.

The bottom line is that the Ordinariate is one small but increasing demonstration of a widening crack in the fabric of TEC that is only expanding with time. Nothing it seems can stop it.


'via Blog this'

Fox Valley Jimmy Flips His Wig, Reveals His Excellent WELS Training

WELS clergy are so fierce...when they can hide their identities.
They have mouse hearts and mouse parts. 

Fox Valley Jimmy said anonymously on the anonymous blog... [GJ - Graded, D-]

Anonymous- Bear in mind that the book of Mormon is also free. The WELS leadership doesn't want to talk with you [avoid using you, which is conversational slang] about UOJ because it's a moronic debate. No one who uses the phrase "objective justification" believes in universalism- because they're [Keep pronouns consistent]  not using the word "justification" in the same way as when one talks about justification by faith. Anyone who says otherwise is a dullard. Yes, that would include Jackson. His diatribes against UOJ is [are - subject/verb agreement] just a way of getting back at the various churches that got ride  [This is not the correct usage of this word. Please consult a dictionary for the word's definition and to find the right word for this context.]  of him because he was a deeply annoying person to have as a pastor. This was the case: 1. Because he has a pathological need to inform everyone about how smart he is (this is fairly transparent for people who have read even one post on his blog). 2. He divides congregations by creating a two-tired  [This is a repeated error. Please check the rest of your paper for similar errors.]  membership. There's [there are?] his people who hang on his every word and then there's everyone else. It's like the ancient Gnostics with their distinction between true "Gnostics" and "Pististics." [new term – diabetic test?] You can observe this on his blog as well- there's the inner circle that says everything he says is brilliant and then there's  [Agreement of subject and verb problem, plural subject, singular verb] the enemies, people who apply basic logic and a basic theological knowledge that transcends  [This is a repeated error. Please check the rest of your paper for similar errors.] Lenski and other hundred-year old texts books on the Lutheran Confessions, to his moronic [overuse of moron, moronic] theological proposals, bad historical scholarship (most of which is tied up with the brain-dead task of accumulating quotations from various sources without actually analyzing them), half truths, libel, and gossip. Notice that to stay in his good graces you can't contradict a single thing he says. Look through the posts- you'll never find Meyer or the rest of them saying "Well, I disagree with you on this one point because..." [Read the 16,000+ comments again. You are wrong.]  If you begin to say something like that, you have to repent eventually or you become an enemy. There's a number of examples of this I've observed down through the years. He's an incredibly insecure person and he can't stand even a small amount of contradiction.


GJ - I can tell when people are waking up to the toxic waste in Fox Valley. The anonymous blog kicks into action again, anonymously.

In fact, a layman in Milwaukee has told me that the laity are waking up to the poor leadership in WELS. They appreciated all the information about Church and Change, the stealth organization funded by WELS and organized in Fox Valley.

This is probably the only Lutheran blog with almost all comments allowed. One was quite telling, so obscene that the author apologized anonymously. (I did not publish it.) I get some spam. I also copy the rants from other locations because they are entertaining and revealing.

The truly pathetic comments stopped arriving on my blog when the writers realized I was tracking the area where they came from. They only want to write when they can hide their locations and identities. They are fierce mice who hide in their smelly lairs when the lights go on.


Strangely, Tim actually published this:

Anonymous said...
In the Confessions and Scripture it's pretty obvious that justification is always in a subjective sense. Justification is a declaring act. At best UOJ is false on paper but in practice some don't literally think that people in hell are saints. At worse it is a slippery slope to universalism because "where there is forgiveness of sins there is also life and salvation." I think it was Luther or someone in the Confessions who said that.

I agree with how 2138 on the linked blog (I think it was Meyer or Bruce or someone who linked it in a recent comment on Ichabod) talks about justification.

UOJ is confusing and seemingly contradictory. It shouldn't require this much pastoral care and teaching to teach the distinctions between OJ and SJ. JBFA is waaaaay more simple and is still orthodox. Forgiveness won and forgiveness distributed. It's as simple as that. No need for: forgiveness distributed (objective: because the declaration of forgiven is always subjective no matter how it's put) and forgiveness distributed again (subjective). "But if someone is unrepentant! Then God takes it back!" It's just asinine to me.

In the Spirit: Our Redeemer WELS still without leader

In the Spirit: Our Redeemer still without leader:

In the spring of 2010, the pastor of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Madison left the ministry to take a private-sector job in the funeral-planning business.

Parishioners thought it might take a few months to replace him.

Some 575 days later, the congregation is still trying to fill the vacancy. It has issued 13 calls for pastors and received 13 rejections.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religion/in-the-spirit-our-redeemer-still-without-leader/article_7396fdbe-490d-11e1-9fb1-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1ks4XCSp3

'via Blog this'


bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "In the Spirit: Our Redeemer WELS still without lea...":

WELS Answer Man said that exactly how the congregations housed the pastor was a "local matter." Now, however, that the housing market is down, no one wants to take a call and move and thus take a loss upon selling his house. So the entire call system is in gridlock due in large part to the synod's shortsightedness in not advising against selling parsonages and giving pastors allowances to buy their own houses.

By the way, our previous pastor wanted the congregation to sell the parsonage and give him an allowance for buying his own house, but thank goodness our congregation didn't even consider it for a second. That was just one bit of bad advice he gave, because he had his ear to the ground channeled whatever was the latest fad at the synod).

Of course what this means is our pastor can leave more easily and it will be harder to get another pastor, but trouble like that is par of the course in the WELS. At least our congregation isn't contributing to the problem:

WELS Answer Man on Selling the Parsonage:

This is a matter to be discussed and resolved on the local level. There is no right or wrong, nor is there really a better or worse approach to meeting the housing needs of all called workers in all situations. Both have potential advantages and potential disadvantages for the called workers and for the congregation.

The Displaced Parsonage
Why more pastors are choosing housing allowances rather than parsonages, posted 11/01/1999



1990 The parsonage is sold and Pastor Henke and his family purchase their own home. 


GJ - The easiest move is parsonage-to-parsonage. The most difficult is from a home "owned" but mortgaged, needing to get a new mortgage and buy another home. Add the difficulty of selling or renting the previous home and getting a new job for wifey, since that is now assumed.

Steadfast Lutherans Unsteady on Justification by Faith.
Another Preus Stormtrooper Launched

Rev. James Schulz responded to an ambiguous Andrew Preus UOJ post:

If we are going to call ourselves Confessional Lutherans, then it seems to me we ought to speak as the Confessions do about Justification. The Confessions do not use the terms “Objective” or “Subjective” when talking about Justification. Even Walther called the terms “the language of philosophers.” The terms confuse the doctrine of the atonement with the doctrine of justification.

When read in context, the Confessions – and the Scriptures! – always link the concept of “by faith” to the doctrine of justification. The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord speaks clearly as to what is necessary for a correct definition of Justification: “…justification, in and to which belong and are necessary only the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and faith, which receives this in the promise of the Gospel, whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, whence we receive and have forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, sonship, and heirship of eternal life” (“The Righteousness of Faith” III:25).


GJ -

Andrew, a member of the Lutheran Duggar family, responded by citing "Kittle." He must have meant Kittel, a giant collection of prolix opinions about individual words in the Bible. Why cite a little Kittle, when a little Norwegian would do as well. I suggest that Andrew Preus read his grandfather's book, Justfication and Rome, where UOJ is sent into the dustbin of Pietism. The Preus clan does not like to acknowledge the clear quotations of Robert Preus against Huberism, which emerged later as UOJ.

My current read on the 19th century European situation is that Protestantism was divided between the rationalists (who dominated the state churches) and the unionistic Pietists, who merged the atonement and justification. An "Old Lutheran" in that context was someone who believed in the articles of faith, as viewed by Pietism, especially Halle University's Georg Christian Knapp. I have read many examples of 19th century writers who assumed that the atonement equaled world absolution.


James Aall wrote to Schulz:
With all do respect, I disagree. I do not believe the two terms pit justification against itself or justification against atonement. I believe that it explains that justification is for all. One must never doubt that Christ loves him. One must also understand that justification is received by faith and by faith alone. I do believe that Christ justified the entire world on the cross. If, however, one does not want to use the terms “objective” and “subjective” and instead atonement and justification by grace, I don’t think that is a problem. I’m not sure that there is actually a disagreement though. Do you believe that a confessional Lutheran pastor in good standing in the LCMS can teach the distinction between objective and subjective justification?


GJ -

Aall allowed for atonement and justification by grace. Isn't that interesting? Justification by faith is now a toxic phrase among UOJ Stormtroopers, just as Merry Christmas is among the modernists. In effect, Aall is saying that the entire world is forgiven (Brief Statement, 1932; Knapp, 1831), but to avoid justification by faith, uses justification by grace to repeat the universal absolution assumption. That is how justification by faith drops out of the thinking of these Stormtroopers, obliterating the Gospel in the name of the Gospel.


Schulz wrote:

Re: “… Christ justified the entire world on the cross.”
Could you back that statement up with a quote from Scripture or the Confessions in context? In my reading of Scripture and the Confessions, I find that “by faith” is not very far away when the doctrine of justification is being discussed.

Whenever “objective justification” is qualified by “subjective justification” it by definition becomes “Justification by faith” effectively canceling out “objective justification.” The terms are just so foreign to the way the Scriptures, the Confessions, Luther, and Chemnitz speak. Why not just stick with the term: “Justification by faith alone?”


Aal, shocked:

Wait! You are actually denying that Christ justified the entire world on the cross?! I didn’t know you were actually denying objective justification! “that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” 2 Cor. 5:19. Christ first justified the entire world and we preach that justification so that it is received by faith (Rom 10:17). “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL men.” Rom 5:18. So to answer your previous question, if you can be a confessional Lutheran pastor in good standing in this synod and deny objective justification, the answer is no.



I think you are saying I deny the Atonement, which is not the same thing as Justification, and which I do not deny.

Reconciliation is not the exact thing as Justification. Luther hints at this when translating 2 Corinthians 5;19, he inserts an “and,” which Paul did not have. “And did not impute their trespasses unto them.” So Luther understands a consequence of reconciliation is to be expressed.

Now we’re getting to the crux of the issue. We condemn someone who believes the Atonement, but not the term “Objective Justification.” Could that be because the terms cause the confusion?


GJ - The UOJ strikeforce will continue to pounce on the Lutherans, but readers can see that their broken weapons are being handed back to them.

Transfiguration Sunday - 2012.
Matthew 17:1ff

By Norma Boeckler

Transfiguration Sunday, 2012

Pastor Gregory L. Jackson


Bethany Lutheran Worship, 10 AM Central Time

The Hymn #495               From Greenland’s Icy Mountains            3:23
The Confession of Sins
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual             2 Peter 1:16-21
The Gospel           Matthew 17:1-9
Glory be to Thee, O Lord!
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn #135            Tis Good              3:81

Transfigured – God Incarnate

The Hymn #307   Draw Nigh                3:72
The Preface p. 24
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #283   God’s Word                           3:90

KJV 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

KJV Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. 7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. 8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. 9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Sixth Sunday After Epiphany

O merciful and everlasting God, heavenly Father: We thank Thee that Thou hast revealed unto us the glory of Thy Son, and let the light of Thy gospel shine upon us: We pray Thee, guide us by this light that we may walk diligently as Christians in all good works, ever be strengthened by Thy grace, and conduct our lives in all godliness; through the same, Thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, one true God, world without end. Amen.

Transfigured – God Incarnate

The Transfiguration is universally known among Christians. More than any other event, this one showed the chosen disciples that Jesus was God in the flesh, God Incarnate, far beyond a teacher, or rabbi, a miracle-worker, or a prophet.

Peter already confessed, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This event portrayed what that confession meant. And it happened soon after.

Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

Three disciples witnessed the Transfiguration. That became important later when they told the others about the Transfiguration. It was not just one or two who saw it, but three.

The resurrection was witnessed by all the apostles, and this was a fore-runner to that victory over sin, death, and the devil. The ministry of Jesus consisted of teaching and building up their faith.
It is sad to see faith disparaged by the “Lutheran” ministers who cling to the recent past, ignoring the Word of God and the Confessions.

The purpose of the Bible is to create faith. The Word alone creates that faith in God, specifically trust in the love and mercy shown to us in Jesus. Trust is slowly built and deepened, but easily dampened by our emotions, our fears.

 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Jesus changed completely before His three disciples. His face was as brilliant as the sun, and His robes were shining brightly. That was one indication of His divinity.

This was not a slight change in appearance, but a complete change in form. With ultra-violet we can make something white glow in a supernatural way. Some rocks will glow in various colors when bathed in black light. But that is superficial compared to what the text says. This was letting the divinity of Christ shine through, to give the disciples a way to comprehend what was before them.

This glory came from the Father, for the Son always did what the Father commanded. It was not needed by Jesus but desired for the disciples. It is another instance of showing us how the divine nature of Christ was revealed at times but often not known and not fully appreciated.

We are tempted to say, “How could they not know from one example alone?” And yet we have all the examples, the complete story, from the beginning of time until the resurrection and ascension. And still we doubt and fret.

Either we doubt the divine power to help us or we doubt the personal interest of God in us. We have souls created by Him. We are baptized, owned, and redeemed by Him. Each believer has a name, and He knows us by name.

We should consider the irony of God the Father taking the time to show three disciples, citizens of a minor colony in the Roman Empire, the true nature of His Son. And yet He did and this is the Gospel. The Transfiguration goes together with the Confession of Peter, the cross, and the resurrection.

It was the power behind the apostolic preaching and teaching, as Peter wrote.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
What is more important than eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses?

The Apostle John expressed much of the same in his first letter.

KJV 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Just as God revealed His Son’s divine glory, so He revealed Moses and Elijah speaking with Jesus.

This reminds us of – “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Jesus is the eternal Son of God, now in flesh, active in the Old Testament – God speaking in the burning bush, the miraculous plant with two natures, burning and yet not consumed. As you recall the Angel of the Lord called Himself God.

Moses and Elijah were the most prominent in Old Testament – Moses as the giver of the Law of God, Elijah as the prophet taken into heaven. For Jesus to speak with them meant that the disciples were witnessing something impossible without God’s intervention. It gave them a view of eternity itself and God’s unlimited power.

4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Peter felt as though he and his fellow-disciples were very near to heaven. Though they were filled with deep awe they felt themselves in the presence of heavenly glory, with Jesus being glorified so unspeakably in divine majesty (2 Pet. 1:16), and two dwellers of heaven also appearing in glory (Luke 9:31). Peter’s one desire is to prolong this experience; hence his foolish suggestion that, if it please Jesus, he will erect three booths, one for each of the three glorious persons. The foolishness lies in the idea that beings who are in such an exalted state would need shelter for the night like men in the ordinary state of human existence. He says nothing of a shelter for the disciples; perhaps he felt so humble that he and the other two disciples would lie out in the open.
Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Minneapolis, MN. : Augsburg Publishing House, 1961, S. 657.

I have always connected the tabernacles or shelters with Jewish religious observance. In one of the festivals, outdoor shelters are set up. While impulsive Peter is offering a suggestion that shows his piety, it is strangely out of place for such an event. Mark, associated with Peter, wrote that the apostle did not know what to say. And who would?

5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

God the Father spoke to the disciples, and the message is especially significant. When Jesus was baptized, the Father said – “In whom I am well pleased.”

But hear He said, “Listen to Him.” Peter referred to both occasions in his letter. One is indicated by the words spoken, the other by the expression – the holy mount.

How do we know the Father sent the Son? – the initial believers asked as they were being taught. Peter, James, and John answered, “Because we heard the Father’s voice from heaven saying “This is My beloved Son.”

And so we are constantly reminded of the Trinity: the Father/Son relationship revealed by the Holy Spirit.

6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

I recall a church member who was angered by the concept of fearing God. I suggested thinking of it as respecting the unlimited power of God. There are consequences to going against God.

That is where I conclude that most church leaders today are unbelievers. They imagine they can do and say anything they want, without consequences. They are not God-fearing. They have forgotten the Small Catechism in rejecting the Word of God itself.

Children are like that. They will play around farm animals as if horses do not kick and cows do not trample. Their lack of fear is foolishness. People, in their greed, attack large power lines, to steal the copper, because they have no respect for the amps of electrical power about to surge through their fragile bodies.

The moment I toy with the Word of God, to distort it or prove it wrong, I am doing the same thing as the men tearing out live power lines. There will be consequences.

On the positive side, the power of God’s Word is so great that it can and does achieve His will constantly. The Word of the Gospel will settle in wherever it lands, and work faith or blindness, love of Christ or anger against the Christian faith.

I really try to avoid controversy about religion on Facebook, in my normal conversations with people. I link Ichabod but seldom go beyond that. However, atheists always have their fists up for a fight against religion. I had two atheists in class once and they went silent when I said “Merry Christmas” to them.  As I mentioned recently, “Merry Christmas” made one of my classmates furious.  

The power of the Gospel means that pronouncing us forgiven in Christ through faith gives us absolute certainty. To a believer, that is comfort and peace. To an unbeliever, it is an irritation and a source for bickering about the Word. How can that be?

All the miraculous events of the Bible coalesce in showing us how such things can be true. The Holy Spirit teaches us to realize that God’s love and power make forgiveness a reality.

We have only one book in the world where God speaks directly to us. It is His Word and He guides us as we read and study it. Augustine looked down upon the Bible as too plain, compared to the classical literature he knew so well. One day he heard a child's voice say "Take and read," because of a game. He picked up the Scriptures and was converted by the Holy Spirit at work in the Word. He did not debate inspiration, inerrancy, efficacy, because he knew and experienced it.