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.
LPC
---
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...":
Joe,
Absolutely. Pr. Paul's comments were precious, polite but
uncompromising.
That discussion provided a lot of excitement
today.
LPC
***
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.
