ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Left-wing, National Council of Churches denominations.
We laugh at dogma like this,
not at the sound doctrine of the Book of Concord.
Tim Glende:
On his blog the past several weeks, Dr. Gregory L. Jackson and his cronies Brett Meyer, Joe Krohn, Bruce Church and others have been mocking and laughing at the central Biblical teaching of universal objective justification.
---
Article V: Of the Ministry.
1] That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, 2] the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear 3] the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.
4] They condemn the Anabaptists [like Andy Stanley] and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.
I just wish they'd post my comments. My
most recent one was in response to their claim that they can't count "Jackson's
followers on one hand". I tried to comment in this simple way:
"That's
because they'll be excommunicated or forced to resign faster than you can say to
an openly impenitent parishioner, "You're already forgiven!"
***
GJ - I have heard from people who are attacked because they know me. Glende knows me - they should attack him.
Shunning is a Pietistic characteristic. It is also necessary to attack the person who does not go along with the shunning.
Hmmm. Let's see. A
LCMS member calls you to commiserate, AND you post a bio of hymnist who lost all
his worldly possessions. I'd say there's a good possibility that this is a
seminary student who was told after his vicar year that he won't be receiving a
call, and he up to his eyeballs in student loans from Concordia U and seminary.
I refer to the reader back to this Icha-post:
SP Harrison welcomes news
student to debtors' prison:
GJ - This hymn came to mind after I read a long, anguished message from a Missouri Synod layman. Details? The usual assaults from the usual clergy suspects.
"Zion Mourns in Fear and Anguish"
By Johann Heermann, 1585-1647
1. Zion mourns in fear and anguish,
Zion, city of our God.
"Ah," she says, "how sore I languish,
Bowed beneath the chastening rod!
For my God forsook me quite
And forgot my sorry plight
Mid these troubles now distressing,
Countless woes my soul oppressing.
2. "Once," she mourns, "He promised plainly
That His help should e'er be near;
Yet I now must seek Him vainly
In my days of woe and fear.
Will His anger never cease?
Will He not renew His peace?
Will He not show forth compassion
And again forgive transgression?"
3. "Zion, surely I do love thee,"
Thus to her the Savior saith,
"Though with many woes I prove thee
And thy soul is sad to death.
For My troth is pledged to thee;
Zion, thou art dear to Me.
Deep within My heart I've set thee,
That I never can forget thee.
4. "Let not Satan make thee craven;
He can threaten, but not harm.
On My hands thy name is graven,
And thy shield is My strong arm.
How, then, could it ever be
I should not remember thee,
Fail to build thy wall, My city,
And look down on thee with pity?
5. "Ever shall Mine eyes behold thee;
On My bosom thou art laid.
Ever shall My love enfold thee;
Never shalt thou lack Mine aid.
Neither Satan, war, nor stress
Then shall mar thy happiness:
With this blessed consolation
Be thou firm in tribulation."
Hymn #268 The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: Is. 49: 14-17
Author: Johann Heermann, 1636, ab.
Translated by: Catherine Winkworth, 1869, alt.
Titled: "Zion klagt mit Angst und Schmerzen"
Composer: J. Hermann Schein, 1623
Tune: "Zion klagt"
Johann Hermann lost all his possessions, many times, when Catholic forces repeatedly sacked his city during the Thirty Years War, one of the worst times for faithful Lutherans. He also wrote "Ah Holy Jesus, What Law Hast Thou Broken," #143, and "O God Thou Faithful God" #395.
"O Dearest Jesus, What Law Hast Thou Broken"
By Johann Heermann, 1585-1647
1. O dearest Jesus, what law hast thou broken
That such sharp sentence should on Thee be spoken?
Of what great crime hast Thou to make confession, --
What dark transgression?
2. They crown Thy head with thorns, they smite, they scourge Thee;
With cruel mockings to the cross they urge Thee;
They give Thee gall to drink, they still decry Thee;
They crucify Thee.
3. Whence come these sorrows, whence this mortal anguish?
It is my sins for which Thou, Lord, must languish;
Yea, all the wrath, the woe, Thou dost inherit,
This I do merit.
4. What punishment so strange is suffered yonder!
The Shepherd dies for sheep that loved to wander;
The Master pays the debt His servants owe Him,
Who would not know Him.
5. The sinless Son of God must die in sadness;
The sinful child of man may live in gladness;
Man forfeited his life and is acquitted, --
God is committed.
6. There was no spot in me by sin untainted;
Sick with sin's poison, all my heart had fainted;
My heavy guilt to hell had well-nigh brought me,
Such woe it wrought me.
7. O wondrous love, whose depth no heart hath sounded,
That brought Thee here, by foes and thieves surrounded!
All worldly pleasures, heedless, I was trying
While Thou wert dying.
8. O mighty King, no time can dim Thy glory!
How shall I spread abroad Thy wondrous story?
How shall I find some worthy gifts to proffer?
What dare I offer?
9. For vainly doth our human wisdom ponder, --
Thy woes, Thy mercy, still transcend our wonder.
Oh, how should I do aught that could delight Thee!
Can I requite Thee?
10. Yet unrequited, Lord, I would not leave Thee;
I will renounce whate'er doth vex or grieve Thee
And quench with thoughts of Thee and prayers most lowly
All fires unholy.
11. But since my strength will nevermore suffice me
To crucify desires that still entice me,
To all good deeds, oh, let Thy Spirit win me
And reign within me!
12. I'll think upon Thy mercy without ceasing,
That earth's vain joys to me no more be pleasing;
To do Thy will shall be my sole endeavor
Henceforth forever.
13. Whate'er of earthly good this life may grant me,
I'll risk for Thee; no shame, no cross, shall daunt me;
I shall not fear what man can do to harm me
Nor death alarm me.
14. But worthless is my sacrifice, I own it;
Yet, Lord, for love's sake Thou wilt not disown it;
Thou wilt accept my gift in Thy great meekness
Nor shame my weakness.
15. And when, dear Lord, before Thy throne in heaven
To me the crown of joy at last is given,
Where sweetest hymns Thy saints forever raise Thee,
I, too, shall praise Thee.
The Lutheran Hymnal
Hymn #143
Text: Luke 23: 20-24
Author: Johann Heermann, 1630
Translated by: Catherine Winkworth, 1863, alt.
Titled: "Herzliebster Jesu"
Composer: Johann Crueger, 1640
Tune: "Herzlebster Jesu"
Faithful laity need to be flogged regularly,
to keep them in the right frame of mind.
Whenever someone shows signs of thinking outside the synodical cesspool, the accusations start flying.
Various people have found this blog because they came to their own conclusions about UOJ. For instance, Brett Meyer must have doing some searching on the topic of UOJ, which I covered on a regular basis. Brett is the one who encouraged me to move up to video services. We had used phone teleconference before.
Rather than address the doctrinal issues, the UOJ wolves get out their flails and begin accusing, always in the most derogatory and nasty manner possible. I have heard it all before, from the same pack of wolves. I was a disciple of Larry Darby, or he was my disciple. I was a disciple of Walter Maier, although I did not read his material until recently.
Beating people up because they have posted on Ichabod should be called Icha-flogging. It will be entered into the official lexicon soon.
Many people have been chased away from this blog by a stern phone call or message from SP Mark Schroeder. The silenced ones are sworn to secrecy. And yet Mark is helpless to do anything about Jeske, Gunn, Glende, Ski, or Parlow. Church and Change has no better friend than Mark Schroeder, no better defender than the SP.
Anti-Ichabod is confirming that the denizens
of Sodom and Gomorrah are by their central doctrine of Universal Objective
Justification, declared by God to be sinless, justified and righteous. UOJ
teaches that they are now sinless saints in Hell. (W)ELS' Siegbert W. Becker
confirmed this in his foundational essay on Justification.
In response to
Kokomo #1
1) Objectively speaking, without any reference to an
individual sinner’s attitude toward Christ’s sacrifice, purely on the basis of
God’s verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it
or not, has received the status of a saint.
S.W. Becker states, "The
first statement can easily be misunderstood and has caused confusion. The Bible
never uses the word saint, when applied to human beings, in any other sense than
a converted Christian. Those who have read those words in the context of John
Meyer’s Ministers of Christ know what Prof. Meyer wanted to say in that
sentence. The key words are “objectively speaking” and “status.” Meyer simply
wanted to say that the sins of all men are forgiven. “Status of a saint” to him
meant “the legal state of a forgiven sinner.” While we may disagree with his use
of English, we cannot as biblical theologians surrender what he wanted to say.
Nevertheless it would have been better if he had not used the word saint in that
connection, especially since the word “received” is also a word that is often
used in describing the function of faith in justification. We receive the status
of saint for ourselves or accept forgiveness through faith.
The same
criticism can be directed against the second statement. One really becomes a
guilt-free saint only through faith, if we limit ourselves to the biblical
usage of the word. However, since our holiness, as Augustine says, consists
in sin’s remission rather than in life’s perfection, we could say that when God
forgave the sins of the whole world he regarded all sinners as guilt-free, but
if they are guilt-free we might also say that they are considered sinless in the
sight of God. But a sinless person is a holy person, a saint. The fact that
15 unbelievers do not consider themselves to be forgiven does not change the
truth of God’s Word that tells us that God does not impute the sins of all men
to them, or that through one man justification has come upon all
men.
Even the fourth statement can be defended even though it leaves much
to be desired. As we have said, the statement is not drawn from a WELS
source. If it is true that God has forgiven the sins of the world then it is
also true that he forgave the sin of Judas. When Jesus called Judas “friend” in
the garden, he was in effect treating him as a forgiven sinner. If Jesus took
away the sins of the world he also took away the sins of the people who died in
the flood. It is surely no more difficult to believe that God forgave sins
that were already being punished than to believe that at the time of the
resurrection he forgave sins that had not yet been committed. How that is
possible I do not know. It very likely finds its explanation in the divine
attribute of eternity. But while the statement can be defended as expressing
a biblical reality, yet it would be best not to speak in such terms. In
Scandinavia it is customary on the part of some to ridicule universal
justification with the remark, “The damned lie in hell with their forgiven
sins.” So this fourth statement is a caricature which has a tendency to make
universal justification look ridiculous.
Enjoy your central doctrine
of UOJ Anti-Ichabod it is an abomination.
Sensitive Tim Glende:
As we expected, Jackson responded to this last post of ours with a picture of Willy Wonka, as he bragged about how many posts he's made recently compared to our site. Dr. Jackson may have lots of time to post, and he may have plenty of viewers who check on his blog for their daily laugh, but we can count his followers on one hand.
Lulu has a mystery discount program going for this week. Click here for MCP books. This time you do not need to use a code. The discount will be applied as you add books.
All the books are also available as free PDF downloads. See the link on the left.
The fake blogger must write a lot of books and poems and songs, because there are thousands listed on the Net - all by Anonymous.
Strangely, he went farther than Deutschlander in ascribing UOJ to the Book of Concord, so I can see what his MDiv graduates are so fond of the same absurdities.
Some time ago, LaughQuest tried the Ambrose quotation on their skunk-patch audience. I quoted the passage immediately afterwards, to show how they were deliberately deceiving their readers.
This is their precious UOJ, copied from the Marquart essay:
Book of Concord, Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, The Righteousness of Faith:
103] Here and there among the Fathers similar testimonies are extant. For Ambrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the world was subject to Him by the Law for the reason that, according to the command of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the Law, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived, but guilt is not discharged. The Law, which made all sinners, seemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of His own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us. This is what he says in Rom. 5:20: "The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Because after the whole world became subject, He took away the sin of the whole world, as he [John] testified, saying John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
But they omit, as Marquart did, the section following immediately afterwards.
---
"And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," Ps. 32:1,104] These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free 105] through the blood of Christ. Let all the Sententiarists, who are adorned with magnificent titles, be collected into one heap. For some are called angelic; others, subtile, and others irrefragable [that is, doctors who cannot err.] When all these have been read and reread, they will not be of as much aid for understanding Paul as is this one passage of Ambrose.
106] To the same effect, Augustine writes many things against the Pelagians. In Of the Spirit and Letter he says: The righteousness of the Law, namely, that he who has fulfilled it shall live in it, is set forth for this reason that when any one has recognized his infirmity he may attain and work the same and live in it, conciliating the Justifier not by his own strength nor by the letter of the Law itself (which cannot be done), but by faith."
Besides this crime of ripping a quotation out of context, they follow the assumptions of Marquart, which contradict the Scripture and baffle anyone not inducted into UOJ thinking.
I kelmed this from Brett Meyer, who kelmed it from the essay.
“Logically there is
here at least the suggestion of a circle: On the one hand forgiveness is the
result of faith, and thus comes after faith, and on the other hand it
is the object of faith and therefore goes before faith.
One way of resolving
the paradox would be to say that by forgiveness as object of
faith here is meant not
anything actually existing before faith, but simply the principle of how sin is
or will be forgiven, namely by grace through faith. Forgiveness then would not
in any sense exist before faith. It would occur as soon as faith accepted the
principle that forgiveness occurs in this way. Thus, forgiveness as the
object of faith would not be
anything past or completed, but something essentially future or present. This
line of reasoning, however, suggests another "feedback circuit": "I am forgiven
when I believe that I am forgiven when I believe that I am forgiven, etc." page
3
Here is another false
UOJ statement:
It is very dear here
that forgiveness, in the form of the absolution, exists before and independently
of faith, and creates or gives birth to it. Forgiveness or absolution (that is,
the Gospel itself) creates faith; faith merely receives or accepts forgiveness.
Absolution can exist without faith (although its benefits of course go to waste
unless faith receives them), but faith cannot exist without absolution. Page
4.
Those statements are apparently the LQ source for saying, "Your faith is in faith." If anyone can follow the twists and turns in those statements, send me a telegram.
The Formula of Concord is lucid. This Marquart essay is opaque, a transparent effort to promote a dogma that gets lamer as time goes by, doubtless because the current crop of Enthusiasts are repeaters of class notes.
Ironically, the festschrift tried so hard to promote UOJ in honor of Robert Preus, but Hardt and Marquart simply revealed how shallow the argumentation is.
They go beyond the clear meaning of Scripture. Marquart definitely gives "forgiveness" the meaning of absolution, the declaration of forgiveness.
The Scriptures and the Confessions can use "forgiveness" in the sense of the atonement, but nowhere is the atonement confused with justification by faith. The two are separate. (The UOJ Enthusiasts scream "Limited Atonement" without a shred of evidence.)
So we have the same word - forgiveness- taken two different ways. One way is the Scriptural and Confessional use - Christ is our righteousness. He has paid for the sins of the world with His death on the cross. That is the Gospel, the reconciliation, the message by which the Holy Spirit plants and sustains faith.
The false and misleading use of forgiveness is a merger of two terms - atonement and justification, making them the same thing - that God declared the entire world forgiven of sin the moment Christ died on the cross, or the moment He rose from the dead.
The Enthusiasts have not decided which Moment of Absolution is true, although they consider themselves to be great experts on the Word.
The current crop of MDivs have no trouble complaining about Luther and Lenski, but they cannot handle their professors being wrong about anything. Watch them go ballistic on their blogs, which prove they can type - but not write.
Finding the furtive UOJ gets increasingly absurd.
Walther has many statements in Law and Gospel that
puncture the extremes of UOJ today.
General Justification - invented.
Objective Justification - invented.
UOJ - invented.
Sodom, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and everyone who died in the Genesis Flood?
Only in the NNIV, which WELS is still promoting.
Right out of the gate,
first paragraph, first sentence, first footnote, I think he's on to
something:
The term "objective justification" has only recently come
into standard Lutheran usage.1
Footnote:
1. The terminology
"objective" and "subjective" here is not altogether happy since "subjective
justification...is every whit as objective as objective
justification"
Can we agree to consign the terms to a footnote in
church history or to the circular file of unfortunate and misleading, if not
erroneous theological terminology?
In case you don't understand it,
"is not altogether happy" is a euphemism for:
"is a bad
idea!"
***
GJ - I caught that, Acey, but we must take into account the lack of reading comprehension among UOJ fanatics. They are so unhappy with the Bible that they need the NNIV porno-mytho-mainline version to certify their false doctrine.
While reading the Marquart &
Co. essay last night it struck me what the UOJ doctrine's object of faith is. It
is not Christ and His payment for the sins of the world. It is forgiveness.
UOJ's faith is created by and focused on the person's forgiveness, justification
and declaration of being righteous. Buchholz and Becker say the same thing, that
faith can't be created by a promise but must have something that is already a
reality for it to cling to. They reject the promise of the forgiveness of sins
in Christ as being a reality. For UOJists it must be the already divinely
pronounced absolution that faith can cling to. Marquart speaks of this as
forgiveness or justification as the object of faith. This is wrong and leads
people to reject the Holy Spirit's faith which does so much, works contrition
over sin, causes the individual to die to sin and through faith in Christ rise
to life under God's grace - quickening the spirit.
UOJ is a false gospel
and the more these guys talk about it the more they expose their errors.
Maybe the Jesuit contingent in the (W)ELS and LCMS will be bold enough
to write the official UOJ confession that every layman can read - but they are
too afraid to talk about this heinous doctrine openly in their churches.
***
GJ - Brett, they use the straw man fallacy to build their straw palaces, all dedicated to UOJ.
KJV 1 Corinthians 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay,
stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be
revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
Their work will turn to ashes - and much of it has already.
Right out of the gate,
first paragraph, first sentence, first footnote, I think he's on to
something:
The term "objective justification" has only recently come
into standard Lutheran usage.1
Footnote:
1. The terminology
"objective" and "subjective" here is not altogether happy since "subjective
justification...is every whit as objective as objective
justification"
Can we agree to consign the terms to a footnote in
church history or to the circular file of unfortunate and misleading, if not
erroneous theological terminology?
