Saturday, October 13, 2012

Calov Repudiates the UOJ Position, As Robert Preus Demonstrated in Justification and Rome

Given this statement quoted by Robert Preus,
should we assume that Calov repudiated his own clear statement
about justification by faith?

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Cannot Spell, Cannot Write, Cannot Grasp Justifica...":

That quote on Bellarmine and Calov is spurious. Marquart and Kilcrease are painting their own spin on the debate between Calov and Bellarmine.

What Calov was speaking about is the real-ness of the justification because... because... because of the Gospel because... because it is a Promise.

Even Marquart quotes Calov in his paper but Marquart puts his own spin on it...

[Justification] is the object of faith in that it is offered by God in the Gospel; it is the effect [of faith], to put it thus, in so far as grace having been apprehended by faith, the forgiveness of sins happens to us by that very act.

This is what Calov says, so says Marquart. This has to be checked for accurate quotation. Marquart said he took this from Calov's Commentary on the Apology of Augsburg.

At any rate a careful re-reading of Calov would reveal that since it is an offer, the justification of the person only happens upon faith. It does not thereby mean that the justification is already accomplished for the sinner before faith and it has already been conferred to him like what the UOJers think. Otherwise why would Calov call it an offer?

I hope people catch my sense.

LPC

***

GJ - Jack Kilcrease appeals to Paul McCain because the CPH blogger is no more advanced in English than his instructor. Both write, spell, and argue at the high school level - not the Moline High of the 1960s, but current public high schools. I know that from teaching writing to over 1,000 incoming university students.

Moreover, both UOJ Enthusiasts argue at a junior high level.

I will stick with the Intrepids' two-source argument. We have the Scriptures and the Confessions. One is the revelation of the Holy Spirit, clear enough for any person. The other is the witness to that truth from the finest Biblical teachers of Christendom:

  • Luther, 
  • Melanchthon, 
  • Chemnitz, 
  • Chytraeus, and 
  • Selnecker.


The only UOJ taught by a Lutheran before the Age of Pietism was from Samuel Huber, who was repudiated and fired by P. Leyser and the Wittenberg theologians.


Kilcrease Uses Classic Romanism To Promote UOJ

How is this different from quoting Edward Preuss favorably
or featuring the Miraculous Lactation of Mary?
McCain does both, while promoting the Apocrypha even more than his gun collection.


LPC has left a new comment on your post "Comments from Readers about the Delusions of Jack ...":

A. Berean,

This is classic Romanism. This is how Romanists have justified the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary.

They said it is not explicitly there but the Biblical authors intended it to be there. Hehehe. Treat the Bible as a work of art, where a human being does not fully know the impact of his work.

However, the Scripture is not the work of man but the work of God, if God wanted to teach it, he would have stated it.

More argument from silence.

LPC

***

Fill 'er up.
The inset is from Paul McCain's "Lutheran" blog.
The painting is The Miraculous Lactation of Mary.
St. Bernard is the recipient.


GJ - As I wrote before, McCain and Kilcrease and Scaer are the not so closeted Romanists and UOJ Enthusiasts of the LCMS.

Dr. Lito Cruz pointed out a well known tendency among the Roman Catholics. Their training is in philosophy rather than the Scriptures. If they take courses in the Scriptures, they follow the rationalists of the Protestant Left.

Philosophy can be used to engage in clever word tricks. UOJ Lutherans like to say, "If I am to believe in forgiveness, it has to be given to me first before I can believe in it. Therefore the entire world has been forgiven."

That argument came from Edward Preuss, who joined the Roman Catholic Church and argued for Roman dogma. He said, "Give me the documents and I can prove anything." (Fuerbringer) Indeed, but proving something in philosophy is not the same as teaching the Holy Spirit's wisdom in the Word.

Preuss also used this title for his odious booklet - The Justification of Sinners. There is nothing wrong with that by itself, but he meant - The Declaration of Forgiveness for Every Pagan and Atheist in the World.

Cascione is another UOJ Enthusiast
and counselor to Herman Otten.


Comments from Readers about the Delusions of Jack Kilcrease -
Paul McCain's Theological Expert



LPC has left a new comment on your post "Cannot Spell, Cannot Write, Cannot Grasp Justifica...":

Dr. Greg.

I read this from Jack Kilcrease --- Part of Rydecki's problem is that he does not understand that the word "justification" is being used differently when applied to OJ and SJ.

Is Kilcrease being serious? Aren't theologians also good at philosophy? I could not believe this guy ever said this.

I could not stop LOLing. I am now ROFLOLing.

Jack does not know what an equivocation is. Ohhhh, now I get it ha.... IT IS NOW RYDECKI's fault because Rydecki does not want to follow the equivocation on justification followed byf UOJers eyh?

A while back some moons ago, I alluded to Jack that I am concern about what his students are learning from him.

I won't recommend people go to his university to study.

LPC




LPC has left a new comment on your post "Do Not Play Games with Words - Or With the Word of...":

Yeah, Jack Kilcrease just admitted in his post that he and fellow UOJers practice equivocation.

We all know that but to be bold enough to "justify" themselves in their equivocation is not something I have seen so far.

People, equivocation is not a good thing.

I refer people to the book by Irving Copi, a classic in Logic 101, p.76-77.

Really UOJers should stop posting and stop arguing at this point, they should not go out of their homes until they have read this book on logic.




Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Do Not Play Games with Words - Or With the Word of...":

LPC -

I admire your courage to visit the Kilcrease site. I have not been there and never intend to do so.

But, be that as it may; I can't help but think that after this published Ichabod comment posting (of yours) about Kilcrease's self-admitted "equivocation," - he will now kilcrease that posted comment of his.

Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org




A. Berean has left a new comment on your post "Cannot Spell, Cannot Write, Cannot Grasp Justifica...":

What about this statement: "Rydecki seems to be operating with the rather odd perspective that the language set down by the Formula of Concord is authoritative for all time. "
Why wouldn't it be? "we have no intention of yielding aught of the eternal, immutable truth of God for the sake of temporal peace, tranquillity, and unity (which, moreover, is not in our power to do)." - FC, Election.

So then..the language set down by the scriptures might be authoritative, but the doctrine drawn from them can and has changed???

Do Not Play Games with Words - Or With the Word of God



Synod Bullies - The Problem and Solution - From Pastor Nathan Bickel



Out of petty spite, WELS got rid of their own mother church.


Ichabod –

Regarding the WELS bureaucracy intimidation and bullying:

The WELS meddling synodical bureaucracy will make war upon its own synod's clergy by acts of intimidation. These buggers know the nature of denominational clergy dependence. [After all, WELS clergy have their pension benefits vested in the WELS system] Hence, these meddlers will foist their non Scriptural dead weight upon clergy to attempt to drown out WELS pastors who correctly teach Scripture's justification by faith alone.

I propose a simple solution to this synodical bureaucratic bullying:

1) Parish pastors need to make it clear to those meddling into the local congregation, that there is no forum for them, unless it is granted to them [by vote] by the congregational assembly.

2) If such audience is given to any WELS bureaucrats whether it be circuit counselors; district presidents or the synodical president; strict guidelines will have to be observed. Should any synodical non parish pastor official be granted a forum either with the local parish pastor and / or with the pastor and his congregation, the following prime guidelines will have to be observed:

   a) No pastor or his congregation shall be bullied into answering synodical litmus questions; especially those questions which demand, a "Yes" or "No."

   b) An acceptable answer given by a pastor to synodical bureaucracy will be an answer in response to a trick and confining question, as Jesus Himself posed to the religious hypocrites of His day. Here, following, is an example:

Matthew 21:23-27:

"And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
 
And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." -  Matthew 21:23-27

Furthermore if such a forum is granted to any synodical official - especially on the issue of universal objective justification; that synodical official will be first expected to explain Scripture's teaching of justification by faith as set forth in the New Testament books of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews 11. They will be required to cough up their understanding of what Scripture intends in Romans chapter 4.

The general Number 1 rule of thumb for a Christian congregation and its pastor:  Treat synodical bureaucracy as you would a Jehovah Witness who wraps on your home's door. Do not by any means give them a foot in the door. Treat them as you would; wolves to the flock.

Finally, I offer the aforementioned advice in light of my own experience. I (regretfully and mistakenly) allowed a forum to the then Michigan District Vice President Erwin Kostizen to be District President, John Hein’s forerunner, into my parish’s church council meeting. He was the proverbial “Jehovah Witness” who gained a destructive cancerous foothold.

Even before the District had completed their congregational upheaval and scattering the sheep (as it did not stand by one of its own parish pastors) DP Erwin Kostizen was hot to trot out his District papers urging me to sign, thus forever legally shutting me up to share this LCMS district debacle. I stood by my desire to allow the congregation to set forth the terms of my severance package, as I resigned under the hounding stress for the sake of my family.

I encourage any WELS or any other Lutheran pastors:  Don’t by any means, sign synodical legal papers. Don’t put yourself into a future gag position. Rather, walk away and keep your integrity. And, resist the devilish charge that you as parish pastor are the one who is scattering the sheep. If you have been faithful in the charge of your under-Shepherd duties, it is church hierarchy which does the nasty in scattering the sheep.  [Jeremiah 23:1-2]

The whole situation was a bitter pill for me to swallow; and, it had its subsequent fall-out. My continued regret is that I was too nice and tolerant. I remember telling my congregation the last voter’s assembly:  [Paraphrase]: “If you allow yourselves to be led about by District and Synod, you won’t be a congregation in 50 years!” [I said this in 1996] While I was pastor of this small rural congregation; the Sunday attendance averaged about between 90 and 120. Now, the attendance is down to about 40-45 and the average age is about 60 years old. The Michigan District has not granted this congregation a pastor of its own in years. They are forced to share a pastor with St. John’s, 5 miles down the road. The church parsonage is rented out.

I mention the above, as church hierarchy most often plays the holier-than-thou. It comes in as the savior of a congregation, gains a foothold and then meddles in cloaked sheep fashion when it is actually playing the devil’s wolf.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel

www.thechristianmessage.org

www.moralmatters.org

Jack Must Kilcrease, Paul Must Increase




http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/10/cannot-spell-cannot-write-cannot-grasp.html

Few have the honor of seeing their last names turned into verbs in the Icha-slang Lexicon. Jack Kilcrease is one of them.

To kilcrease means to erase a comment, a post, or an entire blog. Another UOJ Enthusiast, Tim Glende, is known for kilcreasing the same blog twice, his other blog once. Blog me once, shame on you; blog me thrice,  what is your problem?

I hated to spoil Jack's immaculate post about UOJ, but he has no conception about Lutheran theology. How could he? Like his bosom buddies Paul McCain and David Scaer, he had an exceptionally parochial education. McCain went to a Roman Catholic high school and loved it, matriculating later at Missouri's blue collar seminary, Ft. Wayne. Either way, he was with Holy Mother Church.

David Scaer never left the confines of the LCMS, earning an in-house seminary degree, what they used to call an STD, except Martin Stephan ruined it for everyone. Scaer likes to posture as a priest one minute, an ELCA friend the next, an honored guest at an ELS gathering later.

Jack was born to the purple, as far as WELS is concerned. His father was a WELS pastor, a graduate of Mequon. Did the father long to join ELCA, which was largely created by the WELS Watertown apostate, Richard Jungkuntz? We can only guess - but we do know that Jack earned two degrees at ELCA schools - Luther College and Luther Seminary. He became a Jesuit in training at Marquette, finishing a PhD. He moonlights at an all-ELCA online seminary (not accredited) while serving as an adjunct at a Dominican girls college.

Kilcrease, McCain, and Scaer are UOJ Stormtroopers. Instead of teaching the Word of God, they utter philosophical nonsense.

Cannot Spell, Cannot Write, Cannot Grasp Justification by Faith:
Jack Kilcrease Calls Himself a Theologian of the Church




From Intellectualoid Jack Kilcrease, 
Theologian in Residence, 
Our Lady of the Spanish Inquisition Girls Academy

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2012


The Rydecki Situation


As many of you probably know, Rev. Paul Rydecki was suspended by the WELS for his rejection of objective justification this last week.  Generally I haven't commented on this because I thought that other people would do that for me.  The fact of the matter is that that hasn't happened and so I feel a need as a theologian within the Church to do this.

Why?  Specifically because I consider Rydecki to be dangerous theologically.  He's dangerous because unlike someone like Gregory Jackson, Rydecki has a lot of ecclesiastical support.  People who (sic) I know disagree with him theologically wouldn't say a word against him on Facebook or on other blogs.  Unlike Jackson, who is generally viewed as a dishonest, self-serving, and quasi-comical figure, Rydecki is a serious and honest person, who has earned a lot of capital by opposing Church-growth and contemporary worship in WELS.  Who could argue with that?  Also, unlike Jackson, Rydecki states his theological position in a calm and intelligent manner, rather than by lying about the position of his opponents or by making up falsehood (sicabout them personally.  For this reason, he gives a greater credibility to the rejection (sic) OJ than a person who's (sic) idea of an argument is to cut-and-paste a million short and uncontextualized quotations from the Book of Concord onto a banner with the head of some synodical official or theologian photo-shopped onto the body of a baby, animal, clown, or character from Star Wars. [GJ - Poor Jack asked for a Photoshop of him and never got one. His catechumen, Pope Paul the Plagiarist, said he welcomed more Photoshops. Can't please the UOJ Hive.]

In order to respond to what Rydecki is specifically teaching, here is his own response to his suspension: http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2012/10/suspended-from-wels-why.html

In response to his response, I have couple (sicobservations:

1. Rydecki seems to be operating with the rather odd perspective that the language set down by the Formula of Concord is authoritative for all time.  He also says something similar in the intro he wrote the the Samuel Huber book.  The first question is: why?  Obviously the Lutheran Confessions themselves show terminological evolution (justification in the Apology can mean either justification proper or sanctification, sacrament is defined differently in different documents- so the question of how many sacraments is answer (sicdifferent (sic) in different contexts- 4, the Apology; 3 the Catechisms; 2 the FC!).  The Bible is the same way.  Paul thinks of faith primary (sicas something directed to the past (what Jesus did on the cross for us)- Hebrews has that aspect, but then also includes eschatological expectation in this as well- what Paul would probably call this (sic) "hope."  Melanchthon and Calvin easily reconciled Paul with James by pointing out that what Paul means by "justification" is appearing righteous before God, whereas James is talking about appearing righteous (i.e. showing evidence of our faith) before other people!  The early Reformers understood what a lot of people (especially in the WELS, it would seem!) don't seem to get: Doctrines are concepts.  Concepts can be expressed in a lot of different ways.  Just because a word isn't present, doesn't mean that a concept isn't present.  Remember that Luther never uses the word "justification" in the Small Catechism.  Nevertheless, he teaches the doctrine on every page.

2. Nevertheless, why should we use different words in different situations?  Why doesn't the Church just decide on certain terms and keep with them forever?  The fact of the matter is that theological terminology develops over time in order to deal with issues at hand. Someone who didn't say homoousia in the 2nd century wasn't a heretic, but after 324 AD they (sicwere. The same goes for objective justification. The terminology of OJ and SJ is intended to deal with problems that developed in the mid-17th century and afterwards. Pleads to maintain a certain primitive terminology are problematic, in that language only functions appropriately in a particular context. Once new controversies arise, the Church must generate new language to deal with the problem either 1. To clarify certain points (think "nature" vs. "person" by the Cappadocians after 324). 2. Heretics take over certain language- for example, the Reformed use "this is my body"- hence in order to keep the true meaning, we must say "this is the true body of Christ" etc.  For this reason, what Rydecki fails to see is that innovation of theological terminology is necessary to maintain conceptual orthodoxy.  Old terms in new contexts will not function and therefore promote heresy.  If the Cappadocians had, for example, continued to insist that the anathema at the end of the original Nicene Creed had set down terminology for all time ("Let anyone who says that the Son is of a different hypostasis or ousia than the Father be anathema!") then in the new theological context of post-Nicene Christianity, they might have rightly been accused of Modalism.  Neither would they have been able to make the clear conceptual distinction between "person" and "nature" which ultimately made Nicene orthodoxy conceptually coherent in the minds of many people.  

This is Robert Preus' citation of Calov from Justification and Rome,
which papist Jack Kilcrease has not read.

3. What then was the situation that promoted the Church to use the terms OJ and SJ?  The terms seem to develop somewhat later.  Nevertheless, the sainted Kurt Marquart pointed out that the clear conceptual delineation of the terms came for the first time from Abraham Calov in response to the Catholic apologist Robert Bellarmine.  Bellarmine pointed out that justification by faith was contradictory because the person was supposed to believe that they were justified when they (sic) in fact weren't actually justified until they had faith. Abraham Calov responded to this in his commentary on the Augsburg Confession by pointing out that the word of God's grace is objectively true and pre-exists our faith. Actually, since it causes it, logically it must be objectively prior to our subjective appropriation of it (sic  four it's). Moreover, if one did not accept that it was objectively true in this way, faith wouldn't be a receptive organ , but a condition that somehow makes justification real. Hence, as Bellarmine pointed out, we wouldn't preach "your sins are forgiven for the sake of Jesus" but rather "if" you believe, then they will be. The gospel becomes a law!  

4. Part of Rydecki's problem is that he does not understand that the word "justification" is being used differently when applied to OJ and SJ.  When applied to OJ, the word merely means for God to pronounce a particular verdict on the human race.  It does not mean for them to receive it.  In the context of SJ, "justification" means to have receive that verdict.  That is, to appropriate it.  Because a check is written (OJ) does not mean that it is necessarily cashed (SJ).  Because I have beer in my basement, doesn't make me drunk.  His argument that having two justification (sicdoesn't make any sense because if the world was (sicalready justified at the cross and empty tomb why does it need to be justified again by faith (an old Jackson favorite as well!) is incoherent because it assumes that the word is being used the same way in both contexts (sic - run on and incoherent).  When one realizes that this argument rest (sic) on a very flat understanding of language (words mean the same things in every context) then the argument completely falls apart.
Rydecki is too ridged.

5. Lastly: Part of Rydecki's problem is that he tends to think about these issues in overly ridged (sic - hilariousand abstract terms.  In other words, he thinks of OJ as an abstract and general relationship that God somehow has with all human beings, rather than a description of what God does under his various masks within creation and through the means of grace.  For this reason, he finds it odd and incoherent to say that God in general and in some abstract sense is reconciled with the world when there's still wrath.   Much of this I suspect could be remedied by a good reading of 20th century Luther scholarship, which I don't believe many of the anti-OJ advocate have done (Jackson once admitted that he hadn't even read standard works like Paul Althaus' The Theology of Martin Luther- quite shocking!).  God doesn't interact with the world uniformly, but takes on different masks (larva Dei). In his mask of law and political order, he isn't a forgiving presence. When he wears the mask of the police officer and throws me against the hood of the car and hand cuffs me, that's not absolution. The point though is that when I come to the means of grace, God is a presence and a word that is already real and actual as forgiveness. God as he is present in the word of absolution that he gave the Church has already forgiven me objectively.  When I leave the sphere of the law and enter into the sphere of the gospel (i.e. the means of grace) then I merely enter into that sphere where God is already real as grace.  My faith doesn't actualize God as forgiving.  If it did, then it would be a requirement and not a gift.  Nevertheless, if I don't look for him in the means of grace, then I won't find his already forgiving presence.  Rather, I will find him as wrath, law, and hiddenness outside of them.  When it comes to grace and wrath, God in general, above the spheres of his dual activities (law and grace), cannot really be known.  Hence God is "hidden" above his masks, as Luther repeatedly states. 


---


http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/10/jack-kilcrease-as-humpty-dumpty.html

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/10/humpty-dumpty-threatens-in-private.html

Tossing Rydecki Under the Bus


If they can throw the SynCon President under the bus,
they can toss anyone else.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "DinoLutheran Asks about Samuel Huber and UOJ":

Ichabod -

I believe that it is most natural for church hierarchy to make war upon its own, principally because of two major reasons:

A - It has become comfortable with its own recent church tradition, founded in the [false doctrine] commandments of men. [You have pointed out such recent roots in the 1932 Doctrinal Statement which became a rallying point digressing from the days of Luther and the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord]

B - WELS church hierarchy feels it is too far vested in the very false doctrine which it has pushed and promulgated. It would be too humbling to admit its error and stand to be corrected by "outside" beggarly elements such as efforts by you and others. Such is beneath those who comfortably rule and reign in these non Scriptural parish pastor positions of man-made control and high regard.

The cowardly suspension of Pastor Paul Rydecki by the WELS church hierarchy, tells at least 3 things:

1) The WELS Council of Presidents and Synodical President Schroeder are unwilling to take a step back and witness how the WELS has drifted away from the Scriptural Christianity of their Lutheran forebears.

2) WELS church hierarchy is very concerned that many WELS pastors do not subscribe to their universal objective Justification mantra stance. Hence, this recent suspension to warn WELS pastors not to preach and teach the truth of Scripture; the Lutheran Confessions and Luther. This WELS intimidating action is a form of bully control over pastors who have so much invested in the church of their youth and seminary days.

3) WELS church hierarchy has now set forth a litmus test to its entire clergy. This is a very simplistic, yet devilish device to "encourage" and lean on all clergy to hue to the universal objective justification party line. These WELS ecclesiasts could be somewhat compared to our nation's liberal news media who have cast their lots (hook, line and sinker) behind a corrupted White House occupier. These head cheese churchmen will fight tooth and nail to rationalize and justify their pet false and corrupted doctrine. Come hell or high water, and no matter what, everything and everyone is but dust under their sanctimonious feet.

Nathan M. Bickel - pastor emeritus

www.thechristianmessage.org

www.moralmatters.org

Who Told A. Berean He Could Quote the Book of Concord against UOJ?




A. Berean has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Name-Calling at Its Finest - How They Avoid th...":

"But because the righteousness of Christ is given us by faith, faith is for this reason righteousness in us imputatively, i.e., it is that by which we are made acceptable to God on account of the imputation and ordinance of God, as Paul says, Rom. 4:3-5: Faith is reckoned for righteousness. Although on account of certain captious persons we must say technically: Faith is truly righteousness, because it is obedience to the Gospel. For it is evident that obedience to the command of a superior is truly a species of distributive justice. And this obedience to the Gospel is reckoned for righteousness, so that, only on account of this, because by this we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, good works, or obedience to the Law, are pleasing. For we do not satisfy the Law, but for Christ's sake this is forgiven us, as Paul says, Rom. 8:1: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. This faith gives God the honor, gives God that which is His own, in this, that, by receiving the promises, it obeys Him."

- Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg Confession, Art. III: "Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law"

DinoLutheran Answers the Tutor at the Convent School


DinoLutheran Asks about Samuel Huber and UOJ


UOJ Name-Calling at Its Finest - How They Avoid the Truth

This looks ridiculous, but so does a Lutheran espousing justification without faith
during Reformation - or the rest of the year.

Almost 30 years ago, when I began to look into UOJ - Forgiveness without Faith - the names began flying from Paul McNasty and his grace-filled friends, including Rolph Preus. "You are a Walter Maier disciple!" That sounded odd coming from men who studied under Walter Maier at Ft. Wayne - I didn't. The rainbow faculty at Ft. Wayne agreed they were all orthodox Lutherans, too.

And I was called a "Darbyite," because I knew Larry Darby. Paul McNasty wrote at least one letter accusing me of drawing an elderly California pastor into UOJ. The pastor in question wrote to me, but the facts never mattered to McNasty.

Corrupt fruit comes from a corrupt tree, so McNasty and his nasty circle of faith-deniers are still at it. This is an era where a Lutheran can make a career out of attacking Luther's doctrine and call himself  a "Confessional Lutheran," while praising the pope and promoting the Miraculous Lactation of Mary.

Now the name calling from the same nasties is just as odious. They do not admit their hatred of Luther's doctrine, their rejection of Gausewitz. Instead, anyone who reads the Book of Concord on his own, anyone who grasps the plain language of the Bible is a "Jacksonian" or worse.
McCain loved the essay where this was quoted favorably.
Preuss became a Roman Catholic theologian.

The name-calling assumes that individuals cannot study the Confessions and the Scriptures and make up their own minds. Poor me - I think the Word of God is efficacious, so the Word must teach them discernment. I have seen that almost all laity have no trouble with justification by faith as taught by the Apostle Paul. They find the apostate Paul...appalling.

The exceptions among the laity are those who have been brain-washed, verbally abused, and broken by their UOJ dominatrix pastors.

I was on one Facebook thread, where people were having a friendly exchange, when one UOJ lay-zombie began attacking me about his favorite topic. I tried to ignore him, but he kept going. I hadn't heard from him for years, when the LutherQuest (sic) denizens converted him with Sisera counseling.

One LCMS pastor told me that he could not find a single pastoral contact who agreed with UOJ. The WELS UOJ fanatics are much denser but not unanimous. Papenfus admitted to the families he excommunicated that he never heard of UOJ before seminary at the Sausage Factory in Mequon. Indeed, until the horrible Kuske catechism was introduced, the Gausewitz reigned supreme in WELS.

The issue is doctrine. No one can make someone else believe this or that. Doubtless some resent me a bit for staying up late at night to publish, for waking up early to publish. They have never written anything of note, so their brain muscles are rusty and flabby from lack of exercise. A few are irritated by good spelling and grammar, the residue of 15 years of higher education.

What should bother them the most is the writing of the WELS Church Lady. She is not seminary trained. Her prose needs a bit of editing. But she does more plain speaking than all the clergy put together.

The UOJ Stormtroopers make the issue personal so they can avoid discussing their own false doctrine. An honest approach from McNasty would be, "Romans teaches justification by faith, but I reject it. The Book of Concord teaches justification by faith, but I reject that too."


There Must Be Divisions

The UOJ Enthusiasts adore the Church Growth Movement,
and they love every denomination except their own.
The Moment of Desecration is one of the many myths of the Synodical Conference - that turning point when the three sects began to go liberal. Most would put the date around 1930, which is also when the rest of the Lutherans began to lose interest in being faithful. All of the Lutheran groups joined the mainline denominational turn toward universal absolution. Barth, Rahner, and the Lutherans sank their own boats.

The SynCons imagine that their turning point came from Francis Pieper dying, but it was really  his ascendancy--as the Great Prophet of C. F. W. Walther--that killed Missouri, WELS, and the ELS. Dying in 1931 was a great career move for Pieper, because he went from synodical to a near-divine status. His last words, appropriately, were "Puto ut fio deus." (I think I am become a god.)

The Brief Statement of 1932, one of many synodical statements, was elevated to canonical status. The consecrated and consecrating hands of Pieper touched it - so it was inspired. And Walther hand-picked Pieper to repeat the Walther-Stephan dogma of Pietism.

"Too bad he had to die at that point." I agree with that. No one can argue with a dead saint, so it was that much easier to turn UOJ into the New Gospel. Gausewitz did not teach it. The synodical catechisms did not enshrine it. The European catechisms lacked Walther's Huberian Easter absolution.

I realize that the Stephanite movement considered itself quite hard-headed about the Confessions, and they probably were for the times. But they never got there, because Stephan and Walther were not Lutheran - but only poorly educated Pietists. Stephan never finished school, after starting at Halle University, and Walther only had a college degree in rationalism. Pieper was trained by Walther, who demanded the same submission to his authority that Stephan insisted upon. Sadly, that is all that Walther knew as spiritual leadership - first one Pietistic overlord, then Stephan.

The Stephanites claimed they were the only true Christians in Germany. All others were to be shunned. Does that sound like Missouri, WELS, and the ELS today? In fact, ELCA has the same hoity-toity attitude, as the far Left example of holier than thou Pietism. You don't believe in gay marriage? Shun the unbeliever. Shun. Shun.

Why are Missouri and WELS so comfortable in the bosom of ELCA? They have the same confession of unfaith. Everyone is absolved, forgiven, saved.

When people discover the Confessions and Luther, there must be divisions. There is no bridge to connect UOJ with Biblical theology. UOJ is the opposite of the Gospel, using all the New Testament words (except faith). Never say faith. Never mention it - that is the UOJ mantra.

UOJ, after achieving dominance in all denominations, screams, "You are creating divisions. You must be silenced and shunned!" That is what happens from ignoring pests.

Some people were discussing the creatures that invade food supplies. Some are called pantry or flour moths. Bakers and grocers look for them all the time. The eggs are often in flour. They hatch into worms, pupate, mate and lay up to 300 eggs. One solution is common - every contaminated food source has to be removed from the building. Sex lures take care of the rest. As long as they are fed, they will multiply.

I have seen a 30 year war to promote UOJ and the Church Growth Movement. The worms are feeding from the congregations and money from Lutherdom.