Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Daniel Baker Needs Some Quality Time with the WELS Inquisition.
Ecclesia Augustana: Public Error Warrants Public Rebuke



 Ecclesia Augustana: Public Error Warrants Public Rebuke:

Monday, March 4, 2013

Public Error Warrants Public Rebuke

*Please note:  The views expressed below represent myself and not necessarily any of the other contributors of this blog.  I know some of you grow tired of hearing about universal justification all the time - I grow tired of writing about it over and over and over again.  But as much as I'd like to lull myself into thinking that the topic is entirely semantic like some of you do, I can't.  I constantly see public errorists like the ones exposed below criticizing and condemning faithful Ministers of God's Word and members of Christ's Church, and it needs rebuking.  So here we are.*

Earlier in the afternoon, Dr. Bethany Kilcrease (wife of Dr. Jack Kilcrease, self-proclaimed Theologian of the Church) posted an interesting discussion prompt in the “Confessional Lutheran Fellowship” Facebook group:

“I was just finishing Gerhard’s Theological Commonplace on the Ministry (II) last night. Chapter VIII was about heresy and section 371 is about dealing with heretics. Gerhard notes ordained clergy have an obligation to publicly ‘muzzle‘ public heretics (a vice made much more common by the internet). I was struck, and rather disgusted, but [sic] how very little any ordained clergy (with two exceptions I can think of) have had anything to say about the heresy of denying universal objective justification that seems to be gathering stem in the WELS and LCMS. Is it because some of the public heretics are really nice guys and you kind of like them because they don’t like CoWo either? Rant over.”

Her rant being over, she went on to say a few minutes later:

“To be fair, the WELS has done an admirable job dealing with this problem among their clergy. You don’t see LCMS publicly denying UOJ, I imagine because of [sic] the 1932 brief statement is pretty explicit. At least openly, this is more of a lay and WELS problem. The problem is that a tiny number of people are continually hammering on this on the internet and uneducated lay people are in danger of being led astray.”



While her posts are obviously a reference to this chain of events, Mrs. Kilcrease raises a good point: If the teaching that every sinner has been declared righteous for the sake of Christ is “the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends,” why are the glorious defenders of the One True Fatih™ so silent in their opposition against the pernicious heresy of Justification by Faith Alone? Why was Arch-Heretic Rydecki’s excommunication from the Holy Mother Church by Pope Buccholz worked out so quietly? Why hasn’t Rydecki been publicly exposed for the heretic that he is?  Doesn't public error warrant public rebuke?  Moreover, why does the Magisterium have to lie about what he teaches, insinuating that he somehow denies the universality and all-sufficiency of the atonement, instead of simply stating that he teaches the damnable lie of a God-given, justifying faith?



The answer, my friends, should be as obvious as the sarcasm in the preceding paragraph. The answer is that Pastor Rydecki is no heretic.  The reason so many pastors refuse to publicly castigate his doctrine is that they recognize him as no false teacher.  Why, then, don't they publicly support his position?  There are some pastors and laymen (I know them) who neglect to speak up out of fear.  There are also many pastors and laymen who, though they are familiar with this issue, have lulled themselves into the notion that the entire debate is semantic. But the topic is not semantic. If it was, Pastor Rydecki would not be excommunicated. If it was, the Holy Michigan See would not have found it necessary to place Intrepid Lutherans under interdict. If it was, there wouldn’t be people like Paul McCain, Dr. Kilcrease, and Mrs. Kilcrease floating around the internet castigating the “heresy” of justification by faith alone.



No, this issue is not semantic; rather, it boils down to the foundation of the Christian Church. It's the reason the Ecclesia Augustana is no longer part of the Papal Church. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one may boast.” “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved; whoever does not believe shall be condemned.” Yea, “whoever does not believe stands condemned already, for he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”  The sinner is justified - and only justified - by grace through faith.  The sinner is not justified on Mt. Calvary (St. Dismas notwithstanding).  The sinner is justified when the Holy Spirit works faith in his heart - faith in Christ and His merits - by Means of the Holy Gospel.  Grace of God. Promises of the Gospel. Merits of Christ.  Faith.  Period.
Posted by at 


'via Blog this'

---

Via Opus Ichabodi:

Bethany Kilcrease
I was just finishing Gerhard's Theological Commonplace on the Ministry (II) last night. Chapter VIII was about heresy and section 371 is about dealing with heretics. Gerhard notes ordained clergy have an obligation to publicly "muzzle" public heretics (a vice made much more common by the internet). I was struck, and rather disgusted, but how very little any ordained clergy (with two exceptions I can think of) have had anything to say about the heresy of denying universal objective justification that seems to be gathering steam in the WELS and LCMS. Is it because some of the public heretics are really nice guys and you kind of like them because they don't like CoWo either? Rant over.
Like ·  ·  · 19 hours ago near Grand Rapids, MI
  • Philippe DeBlois likes this.
  • Rafe Spraker Do Heresy trials happen? I am new but it seems that discipline is lax?
  • Bethany Kilcrease To be fair, the WELS has done an admirable job dealing with this problem among their clergy. You don't see LCMS publicly denying UOJ, I imagine because of the 1932 brief statement is pretty explicit. At least openly, this is more of a lay and WELS problem. The problem is that a tiny number of people are continually hammering on this on the internet and uneducated lay people are in danger of being led astray.
  • Rafe Spraker So as Luther, we have to deal with the Antimonians, Anabaptists, and enthusiasts!
  • Benjamin Rolf I'm surprised anybody takes the arguments seriously when the main advocate for the doctrine runs an internet church and makes his arguments by Photoshopping people's heads into digital art.
    18 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Bethany Kilcrease Me too Ben, me too.
  • Christian Schulz I've wondered that too. A while back I advocated for the synods to restate their position in clear affirmative theses and negative theses. Even better would be a public trial like was done with seminex. This way the laymen who go to church on Sunday and back to their vocations during the week who don't follow these kinds of things can get presented both sides. Every layman that I've talked to about UOJ said they've never even heard of it before. They believe in one justification that happens by the gift of faith. But then a UOJ snake will come in and confuse the hell out of them saying that there's actually a justification that happened before faith too. They're confused because the Scriptures don't speak this way and the theologians of the Christian Church of the last 2,000 years interpret the Scriptures, in their writings, as only one justification by faith -- not in addition to a justification of that sinner before he had faith. How come the same exact passages are interpreted in completely different ways (http://ecclesiaaugustana.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-elephant-in-room-romans-518-19.html)? Since when did the words and context change so that later theologians interpret the same passages as a universal justification without faith whereas the earlier ones think of it only is a justification by faith? The doctrine frankly doesn't pass the common sense test. Didn't know the lepers had to believe they were already healed to actually be healed. Didn't know the OT people had to believe themselves already healed from he snake bites to actually be healed when they looked up to the cross in the desert (http://www.faithalonejustifies.com/brief-response-to-dr-kilcrease/). To the newbie, please go to those links and make a decision for yourself, especially the last link. And please get the affordable book, Theses Opposed to Huberianism, which is about how Samuel Huber, an early formulator of this universal justification of the world, was condemned by the Lutherans of the late 1500s, not even 20 years after the Book of Concord was compiled. You can find the book on the right hand side of the page at the last link I provided. I mean honestly, the evidence is stacked so high against a universal justification of sinners before faith that I don't get why anyone could stand on that side unless you're worshiping the SynCon and choosing to forget the whole testimony of the 2,000 year old church. To those new to this, be objective and see which side you fall on. At first I didn't see much wrong with UOJ either, I thought it was a confusion of terms. But a firm reading of Scripture and the Fathers' plain words will land one against the Synods declaration that "all sinners have been justified."
    15 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like
  • Benjamin Rolf This would not be an issue and nobody would be confused if it wasn't for crackpots and their sockpuppets agitating in blog comments.
    16 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Christian Schulz More like, it wouldn't be an issue if people just accepted blindly whatever their synod says instead of reading the Scriptures and Fathers and testing the Spirits. Benjamin Rolf, why the contradictions of interpretation on the same passages as the first link shows? I've asked numerous people and have never gotten a real response (including pastors). Please show me why recent theologians (1800s+, and Huber) interpret those passages to mean that the whole world has been justified, objectively in God's heart, without faith, whereas the Church of 2,000 years have interpreted those key passages to mean a justification only by faith. Two different thoughts on the same Words and context. Weird. I thought Scripture and doctrine never changes. So which side is being novel, I ask the reader? By the way, Benjamin Rolf, have you read These Opposed to Huberianism?
  • Daniel Baker What an obnoxious post.
  • Daniel Baker That is also obnoxious, but it doesn't excuse the thinly veiled attack on a wrongfully excommunicated pastor that the OP so obnoxiously makes.
  • Christian Schulz If you have beef with Dr. Jackson and his pictures, take it to him. Deal with my words, unless you can't. If you can't then just admit it. I especially want to hear the response to the contradictions on Rom. 5: 18-19 (to name one passage). Not to mention Pr. Rydecki's post as the second link shows. But neither Jack Kilcrease responded to Pr. Rydecki's first post, as linked, nor has anyone given a response to my post cited by the first link. All you guys do is lump us with Dr. Jackson and call it a day. Real scholars...cool.
  • David Jay Webber Gerhard's teaching on the objective and subjective aspects of justification is not novel, and it is not from the 19th century. Among other things, Gerhard observed that "in 1 Timothy 3:16, God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit (namely through the resurrection by God the Father), that is, he was absolved of the sins of the whole world, which he as Sponsor took upon himself, so that he might make perfect satisfaction for them to God the Father. Moreover in rising from the dead he showed by this very fact that satisfaction has been made by him for these sins, and all of the same have been expiated by the sacrifice of his death" (Disputationes Theologicae [Jena, 1656], p. 1450). Also, there are many examples in the history of Lutheran exegesis where people interpret and apply various passages differently. Even in our subscription to the Confessions, we are bound to the doctrinal content of the Confessions, and not to every exegetical judgment. Luther may not have thought that certain passages cited by Synodical Conference theologians in favor of objective justification, actually teach it. But Luther did believe that other passages teach an objective and universal forgiveness of all those whose sins were borne by Christ, in the death and resurrection of Christ. Remember that ~Jesus~ is the only individual, as an individual, who was ~objectively~ justified. As the representative of humanity, he was condemned in his suffering and death; and as the representative of humanity, he was justified in his resurrection. In his vicarious condemnation, humanity was condemned; and in his vicarious justification, humanity was justified. All of this has to do with the full content and power of the Gospel that is now proclaimed to the world, and that individuals are invited to believe for their personal justification. These things are confusing only when people make an effort to try to make them confusing. Otherwise, they are immensely comforting to a forgiven sinner, who knows that his salvation was accomplished for him by his Savior, in his death and resurrection, and that this salvation is now delivered through the means of grace to be received by faith alone.
    14 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
  • David Jay Webber Many quotations from Luther's writings, teaching that the world is objectively forgiven in the death and resurrection of Christ, can be found here:http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/OJQuotations.pdf
  • Bethany Kilcrease Daniel, it's obviously not thinly veiled. I'm quite clearly talking about Paul Rydecki among others. He's a public heretic, so he can be publicly named. Nothing veiled here.
  • Bethany Kilcrease No Schleiermacher here.
  • Christian Schulz For the "newbies," Pastor Rydecki was suspended from the WELS (the LCMS teaches the same UOJ, by the way) for teaching this: http://www.godwithuslc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/justification_onepage1.pdf

    So it's obvious that those who call Pr. Rydec    ki a false teacher disagree with that one page summary and the other documents (below). Where do you (plural) stand? You be the judge.

    For more of what he teaches, go here:http://www.godwithuslc.org/documents/ -- or you can talk to him yourself. I'm not going to speak for him other than what he has publicly written.

    P.S. His congregation voted to leave the WELS and therefore also affirm the Scriptural teaching of justification by faith only and reject the WELS formulation that all sinners have been justified without faith, the means of grace, and the holy Spirit. Some above comments by Mrs. Kilcrease try to paint the picture that we are some small group of nobodies but in actuality there are a pretty solid group who don't buy into UOJ. Some remain anonymous for fear of being suspended by their respective synod (whether I agree with that or not, since doctrine is more than a paycheck, is whatever) and more so many laymen. Daniel and I are just the tip of the iceberg, really. Most other's are busy doing other things. This is why I think a public trial, if you will, like Seminex, would be beneficial and the laity could really take a side instead of all this being dealt with on the internet and behind closed doors.
  • Benjamin Rolf Here's what WELS says: "Paul has affirmed that he does not believe that “God forgave the sin of the world when Jesus died on the cross”"http://azcadistrict.com/sites/default/files/reports/Report-DP_2012-10.pdf
  • Christian Schulz I like how "Paul" could refer to Pr. Rydecki and Paul the Apostle -- both make sense 

    Sorry all, I couldn't resist that opportunity coming from my position 
    13 hours ago · Like · 2



*** GJ - The young ruffians did not like my gentle satire of the dysfunctional Walther family?
CFW and his brother kidnapped their niece and nephew from their father's parsonage.
They were kidnappers, felons, wanted by the police when they skipped to America.
CFW's future mother-in-law went to prison for a time, for hiding the kids for the Walther brothers.
Those facts are incontestable - Benjamin Rolf should read some LCMS history.
Even the hagiographers admit it.
 Which doctrinal graphics do the young'uns object to? The following Martin Luther quotation has been viewed 26,820+ times in less than a year. The second most popular post is the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, which the UOJ Storm-brownies have never read, have never understood.

26820

Paul McCain and Jack Kilcrease have both asked for Photoshops featuring their angelic countenances. I resisted Kilcrease for a long time, knowing how much he craves attention. But his dallying with words made him the perfect candidate for Humpty Dumpty.

The facts should offend the humorless UOJ Storm-brownies.
Why did WELS and the ELS support Stolzenburg and put him back in a parish, where he is unfit to serve?
---

Christian Schulz has left a new comment on your post "Daniel Baker Needs Some Quality Time with the WELS...":

I find your graphics hilarious. I just don't like when people bring you up when it has nothing to do with my argument and words.
Posted by Ichabod the Glory Has Departed at 5:19 AM
Labels: , , ,