Barnyard Humor - Gangnam Mequon Style

Fareed Zakaria apologizes for plagiarism - POLITICO.com. Suspended by Time and CNN. Removed from Yale Board, But CPH Rewards Plagiarism

Fareed Zakaria apologizes for plagiarism - POLITICO.com:

Fareed Zakaria apologizes for plagiarism

• 183
  
• Comments (137)

By DYLAN BYERS |

8/10/12 3:52 PM EDT

Time Magazine columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria has apologized "unreservedly" to Jill Lepore for plagiarizing her work in The New Yorker.

"Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore's essay in the April 22nd issue of The New Yorker. They are right," Zakaria said in a statement to The Atlantic Wire. "I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers."

(UPDATE: Time Magazine suspends Fareed Zakaria)

(UPDATE: CNN suspends Fareed Zakaria)

Zakaria's column about gun laws for Time's August 20 issue includes a paragraph that is remarkably similar to one Jill Lepore wrote in April for a New Yorker article about the National Rifle Association. (The similarities were first flagged by NRANews.com and first reported by Tim Graham of the conservative watchdog group Newsbusters, who leveled the plagiarism charge.)

From Lepore's New Yorker article:

As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.

From Zakaria's Time Magazine column:

Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the "mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man."

In its initial statement earlier today, Time Magazine said it "takes any accusation of plagiarism by any of our journalists very seriously, and we will carefully examine the facts before saying anything else on the matter."

UPDATE (4:22 p.m.): A Time Magazine spokesperson emails:

TIME accepts Fareed's apology, but what he did violates our own standards for our columnists, which is that their work must not only be factual but original; their views must not only be their own but their words as well. As a result, we are suspending Fareed's column for a month, pending further review.

This post has been updated to include Zakaria's comment.

'via Blog this'

---
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html

1,518

7341

GET MEDIA ALERTS:

SIGN UP

FOLLOW:

Fareed Zakaria, Time Magazine, Fareed Zakaria New Yorker, Fareed Zakaria Plagiarism, Time,Media News

Time editor-at-large and CNN host Fareed Zakaria was suspended from both places for a month on Friday after admitting to lifting parts of a story from the New Yorker.

Conservative media watchdog Newsbusters was the first to spot the similarities between a Zakaria piece on gun control and an article by Jill Lepore that appeared in the New Yorker in April.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/fareed-zakaria-resigns-yale-board_n_1814199.html

The Associated Press

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- A journalist recently accused of plagiarism has resigned from his position on Yale University's governing board to better focus on his work.

The New Haven Register reports (http://bit.ly/OIHJP3) that in a letter to Yale President Richard Levin, Fareed Zakaria said he needed to shed some of his responsibilities as he re-examines his professional life.

Levin thanked Zakaria for his time and service.

***

GJ - 

Paul McCain published another deceptive, copied post on November 11th -

http://cyberbrethren.com/2012/11/11/commemoration-of-martin-of-tours-soldier-pastor-and-bishop/#more-4057

The citation first read "source" at the bottom of the full article. Now it says Source: Catholic Cyclopedia.

That must be a co-inky-dink, that he changed it so fast. However, that does not spare him from the charge of plagiarism. The post is set up to look like he wrote it, with no indication on the main page that Roman Catholics wrote it for them.

As I wrote many times before, a citation at the end says, "I wrote the entire article, but I used this source as my research."

Here are references provided by the Church of Rome for publishing the article -

About this page

APA citation. Clugnet, L. (1910). St. Martin of Tours. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.Retrieved November 15, 2012 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09732b.htm

MLA citation. Clugnet, Léon. "St. Martin of Tours." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Nov. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09732b.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Michael C. Tinkler. In honor of the Societas Sancti Martini Episcopi Turonensis at Emory University.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Caleb To Cascione

Hello Dr. Jackson,

I see Black Jack Cascione is up to his tricks again. (Am I correct in this rant?)

Interesting that he never seems to see how UOJ’s residue inertia seems to open the door to let the Church Growth Movement slip in the back door; he still separates the two. I also find it amusing when describing the theologians craft as interpreting scripture on the basis of terms;-- which is great scholarship; but-- only if one includes the terms inclusive in the orthodox Lutheran Faith as guided by proper exegetical hermeneutics such as:

When did Christ absolve the whole world. Is Absolution and Forgiveness a tautologous act at the time of Christ’s Crucifiction? Did the act of absolution occur at the time of Crucifixion or Resurrection? What then is the prescribed path to condemnation? Is every body saved without faith? Is that where subjective justification comes in where one receives faith? How is that process described and detailed in the Lutheran confessions? How are the two justifications bridged? Support your answer in the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions.

Does any of that then diminish the importance of the means of Grace; Baptism where we are given the promise of salvation, the Divine Service where we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Confession/absolution, hearing Gods word, communion with Christ and the forgiveness of sins and the gift of faith and the resulting fruits of that faith.? (When was the last time he actually visited a parishioner?) If we are all saved, even though we do not believe it, then what good is the means of grace where the Holy Spirit works faith? Other terms that Pastor Cascione ought to consider reading? What is faith as defined by Chemnitz. Faith is a work of the Holy Spirit and not of ourselves. (no synergism here)

What is an individual’s assent to faith? How does an individual come to faith in conversion? Black Jack Cascione seems to think that you think that faith is a synergistic work rooted in the decision of man which leans toward the reformed concept of limited atonement. If he thinks that then he ought to re read Dr Jackson’s writings as well as Paul Rydecki ; that is if he has the theological ability of discernment and comprehension.

It seems that man’s assent to faith is as passive as water flowing through a pipe. Mankind cannot turn on the faucet, but he can obstruct its flow; hence the importance of the means of grace through the works of the Holy Spirit and those consequent gifts we receive in the divine service every Sunday.

That is why Lutheran doctrine, theology, a liturgical divine service with the Lords Supper every Sunday is critical to allowing the gifts of the Holy Spirit work every week in a sinners heart which includes all of us; I as Paul states, being the chief sinner of all. There is no crowds and subsequent money coming in from that kind of “dead Orthodoxy.”

That is why sects within LCMS, WELS, and ELS have abrogated that doctrine with the swill of church growth, contemporary worship, and happy clappy charismatic Karma substituting entertainment and personality with the means of Grace. Lets make them feel good and maybe they will open their wallets to keep ours “flush with mammon.”

This is a natural by-product of UOJ which distorts and twists Lutheran dogma into contemporary worship. It transcends the pastor’s role in the Office of the Holy Ministry into to “the facilitator, the entertainer, the CEO, the Marketer, the telethon Collector, the face of the “ Corporate Christian Shield.” He will talk down to the ecclesiastical church while simultaneously promoting a new ecclesiastical church which resembles a type of Christian Feudalism fueled by entertainment and gimmicks; both material and psychological, while steering the church with a totalitarianism reserved for Guatemalan Generals.

 This is formula the WELS has used in the past and will continue to use in the future to keep the troupes in line.Yet it keeps the Pastor off the hook for actual work in the church; spreading the fruits of the Gospel in visiting, consoling, teaching and preaching as John outlines the Sheppard in His church according to his Gospel.

 Any layman or Pastor that has had the audacity to question the WELS synod of Cardinals ,has been met with a litany of backstabbing, gossip, and the threat of financial ruin. Paul Rydecki’s treatment is the same. Instead of calling for a “ Free Conference” to discuss differences we must hold a stacked “Inquisition” where the verdict is already decided to be guilty. It’s the WELS way. I tell my WELS friends to find some reformed mega church and attend because since they are reformed anyway, at least the reformed do entertainment better. Yet the WELS/Cascione accuse Paul Redecki of reformed doctrine?

What is truly disturbing is that Black Jack Cascione who left the LCMS for the independent Association called ULMA based on principles of Lutheran doctrine, finds himself in bed defending the WELS who in comparison makes John Dillenger (LCMS) look like a choir boy in the race to apostasy.

 I truly hope that the next book he publishes using NPH, gives him fat residuals then it will have been worth it. But to accuse Paul Rydecki of false doctrine in characterizing his writings--without an open dialog in a “Free Conference” format--is typically the kind of “Kangaroo Court” justice the WELS gives its dissidents. 

It’s the kind of injustice Black Jack Cascione complained about when he exited the LCMS years ago.

Signed,

Caleb

VirtueOnline - News. New Bishop Consecrated

VirtueOnline - News:

DENVER, CO: PEARUSA Holds Inaugural Sacred Assembly. New Bishop Consecrated

By David W. Virtue 
www.virtueonline.org 
November 13, 2012

Some 200 lay delegates and clergy representing more than sixty churches and missions of PEARUSA gathered at Cherry Creek Presbyterian Church in Denver to hold their Inaugural Assembly that also saw the consecration of their first bishop.

PEARUSA is the House of Bishops under the Anglican Province of Rwanda recognized and united to the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). They met October 29 -31.

In attendance were nine of eleven Rwandan bishops attending including Rwandan Archbishop Onesiphore Rwaje. "We come as brothers to stand with those we have been in relationship with for many years. We also come in celebration to consecrate the Rev. Steve Breedlove of Chapel Hill, North Carolina as a bishop and leader of the PEARUSA mission." He was former rector of all Saints in chapel Hill. He will be the Presider bishop nationwide of PEARUSA.

Some 225 were registered to attend, however only 195 were present owing to Hurricane Sandy.

Also present at PEARUSA was ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan who preached at the consecration service. Also attending were five bishops from the Anglican Church in North America; Bill Atwood, John Guernsey, Todd Hunter, Neil Lebhar, and Bill Thompson, as well as Anglican priest Clark Lowenfield and Canon Jack Lumanog. 

PEARUSA met for worship, fellowship, prayer and meetings as three networks formed in the West, Mid-Atlantic and Southeast along with the East Coast as a Network in formation since last summer. PEARUSA celebrates being under the Anglican Province of Rwanda and being united to the Anglican Church in North America.

"We are under the authority of the Anglican Province of Rwanda. We are united to ACNA. We come as brothers," said Archbishop Rwaje, "to stand with those we have been in relationship with for many years and to encourage the mission of reaching North America with the gospel of Jesus Christ."

The PEARUSA relationship with Rwanda began in 1997 with the focus of making disciples of Christ in mission providing extraordinary opportunities to work together in ministry in both countries said a PEARUSA spokesperson.

PEARUSA came into focus following the breakup of the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMIA) with several bishops leaving the AMIA and wanting to stay under the Anglican province of Rwanda. Several chose to ally themselves directly with the ACNA. The two groups now work together in partnership. www.pearusa.org 

'via Blog this'

Jon Buchholz - You Owe Jay For the Additional Confusion about Justification

Duerer: All Saints.

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Jay Webber Cannot Articulate Justification by Fait...":

When reading the discussion of UOJ with (W)ELS Pastor David Jay Webber on Extra Nos in 2010 - note the admission that the object of UOJ's faith is the forgiveness of sins that occured when Christ died for the world's sins. UOJ's faith is not focused on Christ.

Buchholz claims that Subjective Justification is not a point of contention between the apostate UOJists and those defending one Justification solely By Faith Alone. In fact it is under contention because UOJ teaches falsely concerning the Righteousness of Faith (which they deny) and the object of faith. It is one of UOJ's tenets that faith cannot be created by a promise of the forgiveness of sins but only by the forgiveness of sins being declared. That's why Cascione drives the issue - which came first: forgiveness or faith. UOJ states it must be forgiveness otherwise faith cannot be created. Christ and the Lutheran Confessions declare the object of the Holy Spirit's faith, the righteousness of Christ, is Christ and Him crucified for the sins of the whole world.

UOJ is a damnable heresy in all of its parts.

Justification by faith in an Old Testament concept.
This is the Andromeda Galaxy, which holds two other galaxies in its gravitational field.
Count the starts indeed.

Jay Webber Cannot Articulate Justification by Faith

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Jay Webber Praises His Catechumen Jon Buchholz for...":

(W)ELS David Jay Webber, "All Confessional Lutherans should be able to accept what he says and be at peace with it."

This statement sure is loaded. Again, I love it when UOJists open their mouths to defend their chief man-made doctrine. UOJ contradicts Scripture in ALL POINTS. It is a catastrophic failure.

 

Buchholz' 2012 effort to bolster the false gospel of UOJ is another example. His claim that the whole unbelieving world has died to the Law in Christ is simply one of a thousand false teachings that UOJ produces. It proves that the entire doctrine is false, as well as showing that Buchholz is unable to write an essay about Justification that is in harmony with Scripture and the Confessions.

Pastor Webber proved that his inability to articulate the Lutheran doctrine of Justification years ago while debating with Dr. Cruz and myself on Extra Nos in Australia.
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/03/grinding-my-ax.html

It, in fact, was Webber's contention that all believers as well as unbelievers are under God's wrath over sin and simultaneously under His grace, having been forgiven all sin. It was the first time I had heard of UOJ's New Age teaching of God's multiple realities that Buchholz used to excommunicate faithful Pastor Paul Rydecki.

This is the time when the laity and clergy decide, by God's grace, to fill their lamps with oil and confront the false gospel of UOJ that is destroying their denominations or continue to pledge their allegiance to apostate men who've rejected the gospel of Christ and the faith of the Holy Spirit.

Galations 1:10, "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

UOJ Argument - Big Yolk - Not What It Is Cracked Up To Be. Eggsperts Scramble for Answer

"Where's my Thrivent grant?"

twissted_sisster has left a new comment on your post "Another Jack - Not Kilcrease - Suffers from Delusi...":

Pastor Rydecki has clearly stated his position on the Doctrine of Justification. Many other pastors and lay people, along with his own congregation have searched the Scriptures and concur with his belief and teachings. It seems the whole argument has been reduced to, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Please don't insult my intelligence.

***

GJ - Jack Cascione did not bother to ask me if I suddenly began writing anonymous articles to send to Herman Otten via another person. That is Jack's contention. Cascione proved he could not read with comprehension when he threw out his guesses about who dared criticize his precious UOJ.

Otten could have emailed the article to me, since he does contact me by phone and email. But he sent it only to UOJ Enthusiasts Cascione and Bartling.  Most of the clergy do not have enough faith to discuss issues out in the open, using their own names, so I get blamed whenever storm clouds appear over Cistern Flats, Iowa or Wanoocha Springs, Wisconsin.

I found it amusing that Otten had to feature two front-page stories against justification by faith while claiming later that he had no room for a Missouri pastor's critique of UOJ. How often have you heard, "Do not start your own publications. Send them to Christian News"? I have lost track. When people object to articles being deliberately spiked, the Otten response is - "Start your own paper."

That is a good summary of SynCon thinking, which not too discerning. If I had to plant my flag next to Walther, who was Stephan's pimp and later his kidnapper, I would be just as confused.

Who is the greatest Biblical expositor of all time, according to Protestants everywhere (and some Catholics)?

Answer - Martin Luther.

I would begin with Luther rather than a syphilitic bishop - and his enforcer and pimp. SynCon loyalists will spit out their coffee, choking on their Antabuse tablets and yelling, "How can he slander my beloved synod and the Great Walther?"

As Luther taught so clearly, we have to begin with the Holy Spirit teaching us through the Word, not by identifying with one mortal man or another. Walther, like Stephan, taught himself - not the Word.

Walther toppled the Bishop and appointed himself Pope. To this day, SynCons draw all their wisdom from the college graduate whose spiritual formation came from cell groups led by Halle graduates.

The UOJ Enthusiasts attach themselves to recent heroes, so they imagine their opponents must have a similar training academy and hazing rituals. My only purpose in taunting some and amusing others is to get them involved in Luther, the Book of Concord, and a few of the great theologians (Chemnitz, Chytraeus, Gerhard).

I am happy to publish the opinions of UOJ, because their wisdom makes me burst into tears - tears of laughter.

Do they reciprocate and say, "Jackson believes in justification by faith, so we must disagree because..."?

I cannot convince anybody. I am pleased if my posts have encouraged the study of the Word. The Scriptures judge all human books and all human authorities. That is why we must gasp in disgust when SynCons use Holy Mother Synod or a confused essay as the ultimate authority.

More on UOJ as a Liberal Philosophy - Plus Pietism

Spener led to Halle University, the fetid womb of UOJ.

Daryl Meyer has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Is a Liberal Philosophy - Not Biblical Doctrin...":

Perhaps one of the best quotes in Koehler's synod history is Hoenecke's remark about Walther: "He knew his Kant."

Halle would have done Seminex proud. Besides the customary Pietism and rationalism, it was also a dung heap for what we today know as 'intelligent design', espoused especially by one of Hoenecke's mentors, Julius Mueller. From Mueller's gem, The Christian Doctrine of Sin (1885): "Upon the principles of theistic metaphysics indeed, it is usually assumed that the production of new species does not take place in the progressive development of finite existence, but only at the beginning. But even supposing this opinion to be correct, the relation in which the various species stand to each other, very much favors the extension of this beginning itself in a series of successive moments, just as we find it represented in the Mosaic account of creation...whether the intervals between the successive moments be days only or thousands of years."

Given this sort of culture, it's no wonder the SynCon has long since distanced itself from schools like Halle, Basel, and Barmen in general and Pietism in particular, even as it clings fast to its precious vestige of Pietism, UOJ. The irony of ironies comes from the good old WLS essay files, Fredrich's Lutheran Pietism Comes to America (http://www.wlsessays.net/files/FredrichAmerica.pdf):

"If there is one characteristic Wisconsin Synod pastors have in common, it is a profound and congenital distaste for Pietism. The easiest way to win a debate on our conference floors is to charge the opponent with being a Pietist. On the enemies' list of most of us Pietism stands high in third place, just behind Satan and Antichrist. Such an attitude is understandable. A church body heartily committed to the truth of objective justification cannot help being turned off by the worst vagaries of Pietism." 

I can't make this stuff up.

False Dilemma's Are the Fuel of Foolish Arguments

A. Berean has left a new comment on your post "Another Jack - Not Kilcrease - Suffers from Delusi...":

"Does God give people faith through His word before He forgives them, or does God forgive the world before He gives people faith through His word?"

This is a false dilemma. Trying to set forgiveness before faith or faith before forgiveness is not what Scripture does or the Confessions. Remember what the Formula of Concord says in Article III:

"the righteousness of faith IS the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God's children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness."

These two things (Faith and Forgiveness) do not exist without each other. The atonement stands independent of faith (faith does not effect the atonement). But faith and forgiveness are intimately connected.

Rydecki Did Not Write This Article. I Did Not Write It. A Missouri Synod Pastor Did. Otten Refused To Publish It

HOW CAN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD SOLVE THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS FACED IN THE DOGMATICS, “BRIEF STATEMENT” AND A CTCR REPORT RELATED TO OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION?

      The greatest God-given treasure of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is pure doctrine.   This treatise is a serious call for awareness and understanding of theological issues and contradictions created in our Dogmatics, Brief Statement and a CTCR Report with realistic questions about the biblical and Lutheran accuracy of “Objective Justification” (OJ) and “Subjective Justification.”  This writer understands OJ as Jesus’ death and resurrection as giving full payment for all the sins of all people in the world, and “Subjective Justification” meaning that only those who by the Holy Spirit and God’s grace have faith and believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  If you at this time disagree with these descriptions, please list the scriptural passages that are violated. 

      This treatise will provide documentation that shows historical and present LCMS writings that tell that “Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ,” while at the same time contradicting such statements with the truth that only believers are saved eternally for Christ’s sake and are justified and counted as righteous and their sins are forgiven.

      God in His wisdom communicates primarily through words.  His first reported use of words brought this world into existence. Almighty God kept reinforcing His words with other evidence which He had planted into creation (Ps.19: Matt.6:26; Rom.1.18-20).  In the written and spoken Word, He shares His very self and certain attributes like power, permanence and His Holy Name (John 17:6-20) and gives everyone direct access to Him. 

DR. FRANZ PIEPER’S “OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION”

      1.  “Objective Justification” (OJ) was proclaimed by our founder, Dr. C.F.W. Walther in an Easter sermon in 1846.  He continued sharing his particular insight for the rest of his life.  He, our outstanding teacher, was elected to by Synod’s first president in 1847.  Dr. Franz Pieper, one of Walther’s most devoted and gifted pupils carried on his mentor’s mission.  This was easy for him because he became not only Missouri’s dominant professor, but also a Synod president.  His most lasting legacy is Christian Dogmatics, an awesome tome, more than a thousand pages, bristling with more than eight thousand Bible verses.  There can be no doubt that both fathers were totally committed to Sola Scriptura, but unfortunately sometimes we can force Scripture to bend to our own notions.  Christian Dogmatics contains one of these personal views, OJ, which conditioned the LCMS to adopt certain convictions without recognizing them to contradict other truths we hold dearly.  The undersigned will review about 100 pages in Volume II of Christian Dogmatics to portray clearly that unbelievers are not declared righteous, are not saints, and are desperately in need of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to give them saving faith.

      2.  Luther taught that every believer is both a saint and a sinner, but this does not mean that unbelievers are both justified and condemned (Rom. 8:1).  To introduce the contradiction and conflict introduced into the Missouri Synod in 1992 when the LCMS formally adopted Pieper’s Brief Statement, that document contains mutually exclusive teachings.  A statement which will be reviewed later, offers the following quotation, “Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation in the Article of Justification. 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,) that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the law, by grace for Christ’s sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all who believe in Christ, that is, believe, accept and rely on, the fact that for Christ’s sake their sins are forgiven.”

 

This paragraph has a serious contradiction:  “1. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ.”  2. God justifies, that it accounts as righteous, all who believe in Christ.  This statement “Wrought by Christ and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation in the article of justification.”  This treatise is a request of the LCMS to decide which statement is true doctrine in the LCMS – 1 or 2?  None of the three Scriptures cited support the statement underlined above that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous.  Christ paid for all their sins in His death and resurrection, but our Christian Dogmatics is correct only when it states that they become righteous with their sins forgiven by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

      The biblical doctrine of Justification is changed by inventing the concept “Objective Justification,” which is not in the Bible and therefore was not referred to during the Reformation or in the Book of Concord.  Since this is not in the Book of Concord, this enabled the LCMS to adopt OJ without openly violating its subscription to the Confessions.  OJ

      3.  Starting now with Volume II, page 321, we find perfectly valid statements and at the same time a contradictory statement, “… by this glorious resurrection act declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for (note: true), and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal” (note: untrue). This phrase makes a statement that declares sinners righteous without faith in Jesus Christ.  The latter “declaration” is not God’s Word, but “Haeck dixit Pieper.”  There is no scripture to support that last phrase.  The truth is that the sins of the whole world have been paid for by our Lord’s active and passive obedience which truth is known in Rom.5:6.  Salvation for all (Ez.18:23) is the purpose of His self-sacrifice and is achieved only in those who believe (Rom.4:25; Is.53:11).  The payment of an expiation or atonement is not effective in achieving its purpose until the sinner’s faith is generated by the Holy Spirit to accept the transaction that God made on his behalf (John 1:10-12).  Only upon conversion does God issue the proclamation that a given person is justified before the Divine Tribunal.  Then the celebration can begin (Luke 15:7).  Justification without faith is an alien theology to Scripture and to Lutheranism.  The Confessions summarize that truth by repeating “By faith alone we are justified.”  (Ap. IV, p.143, par. 74-89) 

      4.  We continue with page 321.  We asserted that Dr. Pieper offered no Scriptural support for the statement that “all mankind is now regarded as righteous,” but his quoting of Rom. 4:25 in his next sentence doesn’t support such universalism.  He writes, “This  gracious reconciliation and justification is clearly taught in Rom.4:25: ‘Who was delivered from our offenses and was raised again for our justification.”’ This Scripture in Romans reveals the necessity of faith does not prove that God declared the whole world righteous, but it is adopted as one of the three proofs of OJ in the Brief Statement.  Romans 3 begins with the fact that all men are deservedly under condemnation so their only hope lies in a sinners reliance on faith.  St. Paul used that word or its synonyms trust, or believing, no less that twenty four times leading right up to Verse 25, which therefore naturally applies to those who have faith.  Verse 24 emphasized that fact by describing their Christian character, ‘for us , to whom the Lord will credit righteousness – for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead…(25)…for our sins…for our justification…” 

      5.  The text on page 321 continues, “The term dikaiosis here means the act of divine justification executed through God’s act of raising Christ from the dead and it is for this reason called the objective justification of all mankind.  This truth Dr. Walther stressed anew in America.  He taught that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners.”  Romans 4 says nothing about unbelievers being justified by faith, but only believers.  If unbelievers are absolved from their sins, where in the Scriptures do we see that they are righteous and not absolved from their sins. This is not a rhetorical question.  The concept of an objective “absolution pronounced upon all sinners” is not in Scripture, for Romans simply contradicts it completely.  And when they say that justification was “executed through God’s act of raising Christ” for if “executed” were a valid verb here, the text would say that justification is “executed through faith.”  The alleged pronouncement of absolution at the Resurrection is an unbiblical statement or metaphor unsuited to establishing a doctrine.  The reference to Dr. Walther instead of to the Scriptures as authoritative makes no sense when both completely rule out the essential rule of faith by justification.  Romans not only contradicts but causes us to reject the claim that in Christ’s sacrifice all people in the world are declared righteous and absolved from their sin in Romans Ch. 6-10.  Chapter 10, which reveals that Israel rejected salvation through faith because they “did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”(Verse 3)  Referring to Christ’s resurrection, Romans 10:8-10 then reports, “But what does it say? “The Word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming.  That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.”  Romans here destroys any opening door for any church body, including the LCMS, to teach that God has declared all people in the world righteous because of Christ’s sacrifice without believing or having faith. Romans 10:11-13 adds an emphasis on blessing those who trust and call on the Lord being saved or righteous, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  OJ tells that that all people are righteous, but do not have to call on the Lord to be saved. 

      6.  At the bottom of page 347 Christian Dogmatics claims “Nineteen hundred years ago Christ effected the reconciliation of all men with God.”  This language is disconnected from divine revelation.  If those who crucified him had thereby been reconciled with God, why did their hostility continue after Easter Sunday?  Reconciled sinners would not keep fighting against everything God stands for by trying to exterminate His disciples!  Even true believers are desperately wicked (Jer. 17, 9;Rom.7,19) although their reconciliation began immediately when they are converted.  When it is written, “We are reconciled to God by the death of His son,” this truth applies to all who believe, not the rest of the world.  This contradicts one of the most precious doctrines in the Word (Eph.2:8-9). 

      7.  Page 351 illustrates that the text finds things in Scripture that are not there.  It asserts, “Doctrine loses its Christian character and becomes pagan work righteousness as soon as the full reconciliation of all men by Christ’s vicarious satisfaction is given up.”  The only connection between reconciliation and Christ’s vicarious satisfaction is justifying faith. Romans 9:30-32 contradicts OJ theology when it insists that faith is for righteousness and salvation, “What then shall we say?  That the gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.  Why not?  Because they pursued it not by faith …”  Here we learn that the gentiles did not gain righteousness, “Because they pursued it not by faith…” This is scripture that all men are declared righteous because of Christ’s sacrifice.

      8.  Pages 404 to 418 are absolutely glorious, as if written for an entirely different book.  They leave no room for OJ without faith, which have  been quoted earlier here.  However, page 419 contrasts and rejects that orthodoxy by asserting: “The Formula of Concord and the Lutheran theologians begin with the doctrine of objective reconciliation.”  Where is this found in the Formula of Concord?  The problem is, as we have seen, that we read consistently that objective justification is defined as God’s verdict of justification on the entire world of sinners, including those without faith. 

“THESES ON JUSTIFICATION,” a Report of the Commission of Theology and Church Relations – The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, May, 1983

      The CTCR Report, “THESES ON JUSTIFICATION,” is available from Concordia Publishing House.  Providing an analysis of this document, this writer learned that “Objective Justification” that was introduced into the LCMS by Dr. Walther and Dr. Pieper is reported in this book commits the LCMS completely to the unscriptural aspects of Objective Justification. The Introduction of the “Theses” does not mention that OJ is the big issue, but that quickly becomes very clear.  Significantly, little or no evidence is presented that the OJ affirmations in this report are quoted directly from Dr. Pieper’s Dogmatics. 

      It is said in this report that “The Theses are not intended to go beyond the pattern of thought and terminology of Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the presentations of our respected Lutheran theologians of the past.”  Recognize that objective justification is not found in the Lutheran Confessions, nor any statement that God has declared all men justified because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The teachings of Dr. Pieper on OJ are not referenced in the Lutheran Confessions.  Significantly, “Our respected Lutheran theologians of the past” are not named from the Reformation era.  Only the theology of Dr. Peiper and his methodology and OJ theory is the CTCR’s real model.

      The 1981 convention of the LCMS adopted a resolution (3-12) asking the CTCR, the joint faculties of the Seminary, and the Council of Presidents to make a study of the Doctrine of Justification within one year, which gives proper expression to “all the aspects of what the Scriptures teach on this matter.”  It is very important to notice that the request was not about what the Lutheran Confessions or what our LCMS theologians said and wrote about Objective Justification, but what the Scriptures say about justification.  The Introduction also states, “In keeping with the Synod’s recognition that “the need has been expressed to study anew what the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions say on this doctrine,” these theses have been formulated for the purpose of presenting the biblical doctrine of justification…” The CTCR Introduction continues, “The theses are not intended to go beyond the pattern of thought and terminology of Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the presentation of our respected Lutheran theologians of the past.” (Italics added)  There is no hint that OJ of Dr. Pieper’s Dogmatics would be included into the LCMS in 1981 or in 1983 with this report, which make declaration of OJ that is outside of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and Martin Luther and the Reformers.

      Thesis 3 emphasizes, “When used to refer to the sinner’s relationship to God, the term ‘justify’ is used throughout the Scriptures to denote a verdict, i.e., a forensic act whereby a person is counted righteous, declared righteous, reckoned to be righteous, absolved, or forgiven…” 

      Thesis 4 brings OJ out into the open by asserting that “Because it is Biblically and Confessionally correct to refer to the great sin-cancelling atoning work of the Redeemer as the “objective” or “universal” justification of the whole sinful human race.”  This is a total contradiction of subjective justification in the scriptures and the Confessions, all of which informs that only those who believe or have faith are justified and absolved of all their sins. The Scriptures and the Confessions never modify justification as “objective,” but the LCMS does this in its dogmatics that contradicts God’s Word.  Neither God’s Word or the Confessions labeled justification as “objective” and “subjective.” The LCMS dogmatics of “Objective Justification” is contradicted in John 3:16 where we learn that Jesus died and rose again “that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have ever-lasting life.”  John 3:18 teaches us, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” Scripture says that those who do not believe in the name of God’s Son are condemned already, not declared righteous.  The Scriptures listed here all reveal that only believers are saved and absolved, not non-believers, and that nonbelievers are not declared righteous – which the CTCR document on OJ contradicts. It should be noted that the disconnect between God’s inspired Word and Missouri’s theologians’ doctrine regarding “Objective Justification” is exemplified in Thesis 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54 and 55.  We must continually ask how anyone can be declared justified and absolved when they have no faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord. 

      Thesis 5 is a typical example of what strains credulity, stating that forgiveness “both as has been acquired for the entire human race by Christ’s work of obedience and in its stead declared by His resurrection…”  How can an unbeliever be justified without faith?  The LCMS makes its statement that non-believers are declared righteous without any biblical text declaring that!

      Thesis 19 records, “Christ is the Savior of all.  This means that the whole world of sinners has been redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled in Him.”  How can we accept this on the false premise that somewhere God has pronounced the whole world to be righteous, when the Scriptures reveal only that Jesus’ death and resurrection paid for the sins of all people. Romans 3:22 tells that “righteousness from God comes through faith, “and Verse 24-25 says that “redemption comes…through faith in His blood.”  These two Bible verses prove that righteousness comes from God through faith, even while the thesis after thesis keeps on repeating the false OJ statement which has Bible text that disprove it, and there are none that support OJ.  Romans 5:10 says nothing about the whole world of sinners being saved.

      When Thesis 20 states that “God’s wrath against all sinners has been and remains still, and Satan, death and hell have been and are conquered,” does this mean that unbelievers without faith will not be condemned to hell but will be in heaven as they the judgment throne on Judgment Day?  Repeatedly we read in this report theses which have no explanation related to declarations regarding theological declarations and contradictory statements of Scriptures against dogmatic theories without any defense.

      Thesis 21, “Complete and perfect righteousness and forgiveness have been acquired for all sinners,” which is a proper explanation of “Objective Justification,” which they only receive “perfect righteousness and forgiveness” and absolution of their sins by grace through faith, which is subjective justification.  Logic does not allow taking this thesis and turning it into a declaration that God through Jesus has declared the whole world to be righteous and forgiven. 

      Thesis 22 with its “has declared (as proclaimed in the Gospel), or reckoned, the whole world to be righteous” is the same OJ repeated over and over and over again in these thesis that is not “in the Gospel” as they claim, and certainly not in those Bible verses.  This would be righteousness and absolution without faith, or “faithless justification.”  Where does the Gospel declare the whole world to be righteous, beginning with John 3:16-18? This is LCMS dogmatics and interpretation of the Scriptures which absently contradicts and rejects every absolute statement in the Gospel that tells, like John 3:18 that tells that anyone who does not believe is damned and condemned! 

      Theses 23 once again keeps repeating the same statement about OJ’s declaration of forgiveness and absolution for all people in the world, but why say it again?  Does the LCMS believe that we will mindlessly accept their OJ false statement by repeating it over and over? How can the LCMS indicate that salvation is “procured” for all people and “in no way is dependent upon man’s response.”  But this is not only clouded but appears to be contradicted by the last two sentences, “God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven,” and the last sentence, “The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness.”  Repetitions and repetitions is very poor teaching. If anyone can find a Scripture that proves that, then we have a big problem that God contradicts Himself when Jesus states what He states in John 3:18. 

      Theses 24 – 36 has some excellent expressions of Scriptural and Gospel truth, although a few are not totally unalloyed. 

      Thesis  34 provides a good statement, but creates a basic contradiction when it states that “It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: That God’s verdict of justification of forgiveness is a conditional verdict which specifies that justification occurs only when a person believes.”  On what biblical basis can the LCMS provide scriptures that show that this is true doctrine?  What Scripture, verse or verses allows this statement to be confessed in orthodox Lutheran Church?  Assuming the Scriptural understanding of repentance and forgiveness through faith, how can this statement be made without telling that faith must be added.  This statement is made without any Scriptural reference about what a person must do besides “believe.”  The same is true of the second last “contrary” statement, “That the redemptive work of Christ only makes it possible to God to pronounce His declaration of forgiveness” – for how can a theological report by the LCMS state that salvation is dependent upon something else or more than “received by Faith”?   What’s the answer?

      Thesis 35, “Anyone who does not believe, teach, and confess that the sinner is justified alone through faith in Christ does dishonor to Christ and obscures the Gospel.”  This statement fully contradicts the teaching of OJ and declaration of righteousness in this document.  Can we agree that this pure Gospel statement totally contradicts the dogmatician’s various statements on OJ that God has declared all people justified and absolved while saying nothing about being saved through faith?

      Chapter VIII, The statement “Impenitent sinners are not justified or forgiven but condemned” is obviously true, but how can the “declaration of the entire world as justified” be made when many of are “impenitent sinners” who are “not justified and forgiven, but condemned,” which contradicts the OJ statement!  Very noteworthy is the “contrary statement” that it is not right to teach: “That it is proper to speak of saints in hell or to use similar expressions in describing justification.”  The CTCR must unravel this one!

      Thesis 38  But who can really understand what appears to be “word games” and “theological talk” when it is stated that “although faith does not cause justification,” but if that is true, then how can it be said that “the lack of faith does not cause damnation”?  Do our theological statements really need to be confusing or at least require serious explanations or questioning? 

      Thesis 39 simply is another way to say the same thing that is repeated over and over, that is, that “the justification of the world is Christ’s work accomplished once and for all to…Christ.”  Repeating this a thousand times does not make it true when it contradicts the saving Gospel.  The first sentence must be questioned, and the second sentence is true.   

      A number of the following THESES are pure Gospel and classic LCMS theology.  Significant is the “contrary statement” in THESIS 13, that “it is contrary…to teach: That anyone receives for himself the forgiveness granted in absolution without faith.”  Yet, the OJ dogmatic says that the whole world is forgiven and absolved, and says nothing about faith.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

      Consider the often repeated statement in these theses that God has declared all people in the world righteous and absolved from their sins, OJ theology, what interpretation are we to make of Roman 6, “If we have been united with Him like this and His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection.  For we know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be done away with…now if we died with Christ, we believe that we all also live with Him.  …in the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Verses 5-6, 8, 11).  The unbeliever is only the old man without baptism has no new man or is a new creature.  This document continues a confounding of biblical theology that not only offers nothing positive, but appears very offensive.  This CTCR report does not discuss the possibility of a universalism that all people in the world are saved because of Christ’s sacrifice, but they don’t know it.  Some Christian “universalists” in the past declared that only if when they have heard the Gospel that they are condemned, then it would appear proper to have anti-missionary societies to stop all who want to bring the Gospel to the unbelievers because if they hear the Gospel and reject Christ, they will be damned.  Can the LCMS and the CTCR unravel this?  Since these Romans 6 Scriptures apply only to believers, then OJ has a problem because unbelievers among all people are not united with Christ and are not alive in Him.

      Another problem is created with the Gospel statements in Romans 8 and the problem with OJ, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…in order that the righteous requirements of the Law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.” (8:1,4)   How can unbelievers which OJ claims are righteous and absolved from their sin meet the righteous requirements when they are condemned and guilty because they have not faith.  Or what about Verse 6, “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace (Verses 6-7); the sinful mind is hostile to God”?  If “Objective Justification” is an official doctrine of the LCMS as indicated in the CTCR report, then why are there not Bible studies proclaiming it, and why do not CPH publications and LCMS materials promote it instead of it appearing in an isolated document by the CTCR in May, 1983?  When will we start the talking?  

      An easy solution can change this issue into a very positive action by affirming the following: Objective Justification is the full payment and forgiveness of all the sins of all people in the world, which is available to them only when they receive faith by the Holy Spirit.  Subjective Justification is the receiving of the forgiveness of sins and absolution by all people who by God’s grace and the Holy Spirit’s power believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

     

 ***

GJ - My only thought is - A Missouri Synod pastor feels it necessary to publish secretly. The author has applied the term OJ to redemption or atonement. The UOJ Stormtroopers insist on merging the two and absolving the entire world without faith, without the Word, without the Means of Grace. Changing the meaning of the terms will not bring oil and water together, even if the mixture is shaken vigorously.