Friday, February 22, 2013

Another Plea for UOJ: Tragedy, Pity, Incomplete Sentences

roundtable

Pastors' Roundtable for Thursday, April 30, 2009. Todd Wilken; Pastor David Boisclair of Faith and Bethesda Lutheran, St. Louis, MO; Pastor Charlie Henrickson of St. Matthew Lutheran, Bonne Terre, MO.

David Boisclair has left a new comment on your post "David Boisclair, STM, Assigns Dr. Luther, Melancht...":

I find it a tragedy that in this day and age when most people find Christianity irrelevant, and that is Christianity in its least identifiable form (e.g. Unitarianism), that those who claim to be confessional Lutherans are at each other's throats for what may be a "war of words" (Logomachy). Of those of us who teach the scriptural doctrine of Objective Justification (sic) also teach salvation by grace through faith alone. No one receives the forgiveness of sins apart from God-wrought saving faith in Jesus Christ. I wonder if we are misunderstanding one another. All in all it is a pity. 


***

GJ - 

Writing under the pseudonym of David Clearwood, LCMS Pastor David Boisclair stated:


David Clearwood said...
Pastor Rydecki, I know heterodoxy when I hear and see it, and you are most certainly guilty of it. I shake off these calumnies that you put on me. 

You confuse Law and Gospel; you limit Christ's atonement, and you pervert the Scriptures and the Confessions by yours and Gregory Jackson's doctrine. You also bear false witness against those who believe, teach, and confess the Synodical Conference's doctrine, that is the Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

The Synodical Conference doctrine is the pattern of sound words, not your doctrine. As far as I am concerned I apply Romans 16:17 to you and to all who agree with you.


I do not claim to be a confessional Lutheran, because it is a meaningless term today. Richard J. Neuhaus, a product of LCMS education, called himself a confessional Lutheran until he became a Roman Catholic priest. The faculty members of Luther Seminary (ELCA) consider themselves confessional Lutherans, too.

According to Clearwood (nee Boisclair), the apostles were tragic and pitiable creatures, because they discussed doctrine openly when the entire Roman Empire was pagan and almost as corrupt as America today.

Let him who would teach theology first learn the English language. The following is an incomplete and muddled sentence that makes no sense. If only Clearwood would write clearly:

Of those of us who teach the scriptural doctrine of Objective Justification (sic) also teach salvation by grace through faith alone.

The Fox Valley UOJ stylists write the same way, so I should send the message there for a translation. Incoherent rage has a way of shaping words.

First of all, there is a position that can be elevated beyond the description of personal opinion - justification by faith alone. The straw man or Aunt Sally logical fallacy is bit too worn to be trotted out again in favor of universal absolution.

UOJ, the Helen of Troy in the Synodical Conference, is universal absolution, as enshrined in the Brief Confession of 1932, to wit, the entire world has been declared forgiven. 

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...LCMS, Brief Confession, 1932

There are several flavors of UOJ and some creative, bizarre applications of it, but that is the central thesis. For the UOJ Stormtroopers, the atonement is identical to the declared forgiveness of the entire world - without the Holy Spirit at work in the Word, without faith.



Like Stephan's syphilis, the bishop's Halle-bred version of justification (UOJ - Easter absolution) spread through the Synodical Conference by personal contact. Stephan taught UOJ to Walther and the clergy circle. They taught it to others. But justification by faith survived in the German Missouri catechism, the Gausewitz, and the KJV catechism.



Boisclair and the rest cannot have their UOJ and call it justification by faith, because they have already concluded that every pagan idol worshiper, snake-charmer, and polytheist is already forgiven. They are forgiven before birth, as Cascione and McCain say in harmony with the papist Eduard Preuss.

Walther liked to write "yea even" so this post is Waltherian in
its many yea evens.

Pastor Paul Rydecki must have come to his own conclusions about justification by faith, because he published on Hunnius when I was still thinking that was the Latin name for Atilla. I knew about P. Leyser, who squashed UOJ like a bug, but Hunnius was a mystery to me.

That is not a symmetrical argument, to call justification by faith a personal opinion tragically dividing the last few remaining Christians on earth, and to identify UOJ falsely with Lutheran doctrine or with with Synodical Conference teaching.

The hero of Kokomo, Papenfuss, confessed that he knew nothing of UOJ until he matriculated at the Sausage Factory in Mequon. WELS did not hyperventilate about UOJ until they had Gausewitz safely buried and forgotten.

Bob Preus taught UOJ at Ft. Wayne, as David Scaer still does, but Preus eviscerated the UOJ arguments in Justification and Rome, a turnabout still to be admitted by his sons.

LCMS education is so blighted that Todd Wilken calls justification by faith "Calvinism" with a chuckle, proving he does not grasp Calvinism or Lutheranism.

The biggest logical fallacy of the UOJ Enthusiasts is their special pleading:

Special pleading, also known as stacking the deckignoring the counterevidenceslanting, and one-sided assessment,[1] is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.[2] 

I have published, verbatim, the learned essays of their best and brightest. Sometimes I have laboriously converted PDFs into readable posts, moving the footnotes around and making nonsense appear pleasing to the eye.

But where do these UOJ Stormtroopers list the arguments of the other side? I see no evidence of them bothering to quote an alternative viewpoint. They are like the children who cite 18 reasons why they have to go to Disneyland, but react with shock and accusations if their parents try to offer objections to the plan.

The reliance on logical fallacies, to support UOJ, is amusing. I am banned and denounced on various "Lutheran" discussion sites, which means anyone is free to agree on UOJ alone. Likewise, all those who offer  a justification by faith statement are silenced, erased, and ridiculed as a "you morons" (Steadfast Lutherans).

Steadfast Lutherans should be called 1984 Lutherans, because entire threads are erased and tossed down the memory hole. Comparisons to Animal Farm are just as tempting. Snarling Yorkies are positioned to bark at anyone who departs from the One True Unfaith.

Today I learned - confessional Lutherans do not sign their names when they confess. They use pseudonyms to denounce people by name.

I also learned - the Brief Confession of 1932 is so good and perfect and pure that it sets aside and replaces the Word of God and the Book of Concord, yea even - common sense. For example, the Romans chapter on justification by faith is cited to prove the entire world has been declared forgiven - just the opposite of what Romans 4:24-25 teaches.

"Boys - we need a new paraphrase to get around these problems. Order up the New NIV. That will solve all our problems. Thanks."

Art by Norma Boeckler



10 comments:

Brett Meyer said...

The contradictions within the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ), regardless of the version (and there are many), are the only things that remain consistent. The discussion with Rev. Boisclair was a classic example of most discussions with UOJ fanatics. It was also excellent training, UOJ-101 if you will, for those who are just waking up to the massive, soul destroying fraud that the rational false gospel is.

It is no wonder that UOJists are unable to articulate clear confessions of what they believe and what their false gospel teaches. Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Take faithful Pastor Paul Rydecki who was recently excommunicated by (W)ELS DP Jon Buchholz for teaching that men are Justified solely by faith in Christ alone. His written and spoken confession is clear, concise and direct because he, being led by the Holy Spirit, confesses the one true Gospel of Christ. Those who confess the false gospel of UOJ are unable to contradict themselves because it is the nature of the false teaching. UOJ fence sitters have the same problem because they remain sympathetic toward the rational mammon of the Lutheran Synods.

No surprise that DP Jon Buchholz remains faithful to UOJ by holding the same position as the Antichrist of the Roman Catholic Church - anathema upon anyone who teaches men are Justified solely by Faith in Christ alone.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel said...

Ichabod -

The synodical Lutheran Universalists with their "objective justification" are forced to be schizophrenic. They are boxed into a Scriptural corner by virtue of their confusion of the Atonement. Hence, they will only extend (feigned) lip service to faith, the Holy Spirit and the Spirit's operation of initiating and cultivating saving faith in the life of the believer, through the means of grace. They won't admit it; but, I believe for many of them, they despise Scripture's teaching of "justification by faith alone" and Luther's treatise of "Bondage of the Will."

Having stated the above, I believe that those who subscribe to "universal objective justification" are those who have a very tough time accepting other Scriptural realities, - such as eternal damnation for those who do not possess saving faith.

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

LPC said...

It is amusing that Rev. Boisclair thinks this UOJ controversy is just a matter of words. Robert Preus prior to writing his book Justification and Rome taught that it was not just a matter of words. Their LC-MS self appointed fides difensor - Jack Kilcrease says that to deny OJ(UOJ) is to deny election. So this is not just a matter of words, because words carry meaning.

What should fence sitters do should be to go back to the sources, go back to the Bible to check out if the UOJ passages teach UOJ (but they don't)! Then go back to the BoC and try to find it there.

If I remember correctly, I believe at one time Kilcrease followed the Roman Catholic method of stating that UOJ as a concept is in Scripture in kernel form. This is the same way the RC theologians justify the Assumption of Mary. They say it is there in kernel form though Scripture has no explicit statements to that effect.

In my observation, anti-UOJers left UOJ because of Scripture. They left when they carefully examined the evidences alleged to support UOJ from Scripture and they found it to be wanting.

Some 5 years ago, in the Internet world I knew of no one who openly opposed it except Ichabod. Yet it was after examining Scripture that convinced me that the Scriptures given to adduce UOJ are complete mishandling of the the Scripture text. I even went to the Marquart paper and read it quite a bit. I liken that paper to coercing UOJ into Scripture and it raised more issues that it tries to solve. It was a damage control document to me.

It was not the Bible teaching it (UOJ), it was philosophy.



LPC

Brett Meyer said...

Read the UOJ discussion with Rev. Boisclair on Intrepid Lutherans blog. You will see that, in classic UOJ fashion, he never addresses the exposure of his false statements and fraudulent use of Scripture to defend the forgiveness of sins without faith. There is also a pronounced change in his articulation toward the end of the discussion - more robotic and reducing his responses to blunt repeat-after-me UOJ statements. It's a shame UOJists generally refuse to discuss their chief doctrine publicly. It's astonishing what they end up exposing when they attempt to defend it.

To reduce the eternal emnity between UOJ and Justification solely by Faith in Christ alone to "simply talking past each other" is to completely overlook the excommuncation of faithful Pastor Paul Rydecki from the (W)ELS by DP Jon Buchholz in 2012 and the excommunication of the Kokomo families by the (W)ELS.

David Boisclair said...

By my picture and posts being posted all over here makes me feel like Martin Luther: "I didn't know that this was going to happen!"

Well, I see when someone stands up for the truth of the Gospel, one has to expect being held up to ridicule.

I probably have brought this on by ratcheting up accusations of heterodoxy and false doctrine; however, I learned from Pastor Rydecki that one should allow the other person to state for himself what he believes, teaches, and confesses. Pastor Rydecki happily stated that he believed in the scriptural doctrine of Christ's atonement. I accept his confession as I would imagine Dr. Jackson believes the same thing.

Having said this I would humbly ask the Icabod bloggers to allow me to make my own confession of faith.

Yes, I believe in the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification on the basis of Romans 4:25 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 and Romans 5:18; however, I do not espouse Universalism, Pietism, or Enthusiasm. I reject the idea that for one to believe in Objective Justification one has to also reject Justification by faith alone or the Lutheran biblical doctrine of the means of grace.

The LCMS has dealt with the error of the Kokomo theses in its 1983 CTCR document on Justification: "It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: ... That it is proper to speak of saints in hell or to use similar expressions in describing justfication ..." (page 17).

It would be fair if we were allowed to define our own understanding of the Christian faith and not be subjected to caricatures of what we believe as I believe I am on this blog.

I think that if we were to listen to each other charitably we might find that there are misunderstandings on all sides.

David Boisclair said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Boisclair said...

I beg your indulgence in removing this post and, then, reposting it. I wanted to avoid errors. Here is my post corrected:

I thank the author of this thread for bringing to my attention--as well as that of every other person who reads this blog--my incomplete sentence in the specified post. What I wanted to say was:

We who believe in Objective Justification do not reject Justification by Faith Alone by believing in Objective Justification. We reject the "either ... or" approach followed on this blog for a "both ... and" approach. The implication of those who castigate our belief in Objective Justification is that we are Universalists and Enthusiasts. This is not true.

Also, in deploring this controversy I am merely expressing my sadness that we cannot all find more common ground. After all, we believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures. We believe that the Lutheran Confessions are a faithful exposition of the Holy Scriptures. We hold Luther, Chemnitz, and Gerhard and the other orthodox Lutheran theologians in high regard. Why don't we dispense with the ridicule and discuss the issues as Christians should, i.e. charitably? I am sorry to have caused any offense by my own posts and grammatical solecisms. I would like to read and learn the truth of all this. The doctrine of Justification is central to the Christian faith.

David Boisclair said...

Oh, and one thing more: I did not wish to hide behind a pseudonymn in posting my comments on Intrepid Lutherans. If one follows my comments they will note that I have put my actual name on at least one of those comments. They will also notice that I changed my blogging name to my actual name. "Clearwood" is the English translation of my French surname.

LPC said...

I imagine Rev. Bosclair knows the original text and was taught proper exegesis in Seminary such as respecting context, or was he?

Romans 4:25 refers to believers and it is prospective. In fact even if it is taken as retrospective, it is blocked by the meaning of "our" in that verse - it refers to believers. Ichabod pointed out also that the continuing verse in Romans 5:1 shows that there is no justification of the unbeliever while he is in the state of unbelief.



This is indeed where the UOJ Lutherans are so peculiar to the rest of the a.) the Lutheran world, b.) to the rest of the Protestant world also.

This dual justification idea and I (as a former Calvinist) admonish Rev. Bosclair -- that if he buys the dual justification scheme, he has adopted unwittingly the presuppositions of Calvinism's central doctrine of their church, predestination and rationalism, not Justification By Faith Alone.


LPC

David Boisclair said...

I appreciate the courteous conversation, which LPC continues. As to the "us" of Romans 4:25 it could also refer to the "us" of all humanity as well as to the "us" of the regenerated (renati).

LPC states, "...there is no justification of the unbleiver while he is in the state of unbelief" is true if one speaks of justification here as the conferral and reception of forgiveness by saving faith--such conferral and reception is necessary for salvation. When a person is an unbeliever, he is not saved (Heb. 11:6). I reiterate: I am not a Universalist.

The doctrine of Objective Justification is solidly opposed to Calvinism with its teaching of a limited atonement. Objective Justification is the perfect atonement of Christ that is the object of saving faith. Christ died for the sins of the whole world of sinners, and His resurrection is God's declaration that all sins are atoned for.

Lutheran doctrine also opposes the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace because it is the biblical doctrine of the resistibility of grace as it comes to us through means, the means of grace. While we teach the divine monergism that if a person is saved it is all God's doing (sola gratia) yet we believe that the person does have the power of resisting God's saving grace as it comes to him in the means of grace. I would add too that God only comes to us by Gospel Word and Sacrament. As you can see I am not an Enthusiast (Schwaermer).

Another point is that it is wrong to speak of two justifications: there is only one. It involves the following: 1) God's saving grace, 2) Christ's perfect vicarious atonement, 3) the Gospel of Christ, and 4) the Holy Spirit's gift of saving faith in the heart of the individual who hears that Gospel or who receives Baptism or the Lord's Supper.