LPCMarch 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Tarheel Paul,
LPC calls it a fence and that may be so but it is exactly the practice of the Church Catholic and what Christ commands us to do with those who would bring a different message, put up a fence of seperation
I think you are confusing the practice of the cults versus the practice of educating ministers. I do not even think you are aware of the Apostles knew what the false teachers of their day were teaching. St. Paul was aware of the false teaching of Judaizers, St John was aware of the Gnostics, St Jude contended with Nicolaitans etc. How can you fight something you do not know?
I am telling Rusch how to be a thorough scholar and the more educated he is, the more he is of service to his Lord and the people entrusted to him. I am telling him how to be useful in the Lutheran Church but also to the greater body of Christ. Rusch is studying to be a minister, that is serious work and yet you are telling Rusch to stay dumb.
The whole purpose of seminary education among other things is to spot heresy, not simply on others, but to spot heresy in himself!
1 Tim 4:16.
You seem to label yourself as among the Catholic Church (your capitalization). In a way you are indeed a functioning Romanist, except your Magisterium does not sit in the Vatican, they sit somewhere in Wisconsin.
I can only deduce that your throwing that label (Catholic Church) around must be a way comforting yourself in thinking you are orthodox. Yet by your comments I suspect you are not even aware that after awhile Augustine (himself considered a teacher of the the Church) wrote his Recantations.
Your questions to Rydecki are exactly applicable to Luther, but your biased critcism of Rydecki fail to go the whole way of comparison. For example Luther attempted to Reform his church without violating his Scriptural conviction, why can you not see the same possibility of that in Rydecki over the WELS?
Again, yes he did but Luther did not sit in a classroom for eight years and hear about both sanative and forensic justification, profess to believe sanative justification, only to change his mind at a later date and profess forensic justification. Also, Luther only had the Catholic Church. There were plenty of church bodies you could have joined that agreed with you about the chief doctrine of the church.
This is garbage. This is like telling St. Paul, he was not allowed to convert since he knew all things he needed to know about Judaism, since he was teacher of the Law, he knew what he was getting himself into. As usual fallacy of special pleading typical of UOJers.
Rev. Rydecki conformed to 1 Tim 4:16 when he abandoned UOJ. He stopped letting his Synod rule over his faith. He was not afraid to follow wherever the Scripture leads him. So should all of us.
LPC
LPC calls it a fence and that may be so but it is exactly the practice of the Church Catholic and what Christ commands us to do with those who would bring a different message, put up a fence of seperation
I think you are confusing the practice of the cults versus the practice of educating ministers. I do not even think you are aware of the Apostles knew what the false teachers of their day were teaching. St. Paul was aware of the false teaching of Judaizers, St John was aware of the Gnostics, St Jude contended with Nicolaitans etc. How can you fight something you do not know?
I am telling Rusch how to be a thorough scholar and the more educated he is, the more he is of service to his Lord and the people entrusted to him. I am telling him how to be useful in the Lutheran Church but also to the greater body of Christ. Rusch is studying to be a minister, that is serious work and yet you are telling Rusch to stay dumb.
The whole purpose of seminary education among other things is to spot heresy, not simply on others, but to spot heresy in himself!
1 Tim 4:16.
You seem to label yourself as among the Catholic Church (your capitalization). In a way you are indeed a functioning Romanist, except your Magisterium does not sit in the Vatican, they sit somewhere in Wisconsin.
I can only deduce that your throwing that label (Catholic Church) around must be a way comforting yourself in thinking you are orthodox. Yet by your comments I suspect you are not even aware that after awhile Augustine (himself considered a teacher of the the Church) wrote his Recantations.
Your questions to Rydecki are exactly applicable to Luther, but your biased critcism of Rydecki fail to go the whole way of comparison. For example Luther attempted to Reform his church without violating his Scriptural conviction, why can you not see the same possibility of that in Rydecki over the WELS?
Again, yes he did but Luther did not sit in a classroom for eight years and hear about both sanative and forensic justification, profess to believe sanative justification, only to change his mind at a later date and profess forensic justification. Also, Luther only had the Catholic Church. There were plenty of church bodies you could have joined that agreed with you about the chief doctrine of the church.
This is garbage. This is like telling St. Paul, he was not allowed to convert since he knew all things he needed to know about Judaism, since he was teacher of the Law, he knew what he was getting himself into. As usual fallacy of special pleading typical of UOJers.
Rev. Rydecki conformed to 1 Tim 4:16 when he abandoned UOJ. He stopped letting his Synod rule over his faith. He was not afraid to follow wherever the Scripture leads him. So should all of us.
LPC
-
LPCReply
I don't care to debate you on education. You think a theological education from liberal protestants is good. I do not. I do not care to debate you on your characterizations of the WELS. You believe that we in the WELS have some how taken the worst of calvinism, Rome, and cult practice and made it our own. I do not believe that. I do not care to debate you concerning justification. You do not believe God forgave the sins of the world. (which, for clarity, I don't believe is the same as Rydecki's teaching) I do believe God forgave the sins of the world. No amount of debating will get us any closer in any of these areas.
I will debate you in this one area and point to Scriptural truth since you brought up the example. After Paul's conversion he did not immediately get into the pulpit. Years went by where he studied and did not teach. If he had immediately gone to preach something just a year earlier he was condemning it would have probably caused quite a few problems. But as it was, Paul did not publicly preach in the first years after his conversion.
I never told anyone not to follow what their conscience tells them in regard to the Scriptures. My contention with Rydecki is that he either lied about his confession to get a pulplit or he "converted" or "changed" or "evolved" his confession. In which case he should follow the example of St. Paul and step out of the pulpit for a little while. -
Tarheel Paul,
St. Paul prior to his conversion did preach the Law. Rydecki prior to his conversion did preach precious UOJ.
Yet Luther out of force for fear for his life hid, but he did preach justification by faith alone if we go along and see that he wrote his disputations etc., and the things he published against the Pope.
You keep on moving the goal post of your debate.
First your contention was that no one should be allowed to convert. When I brought out St. Paul to you, now you say that Rydecki should be like St. Paul who did not preach after his conversion.
Now I am pointing to you that Luther did preach after his conversion, he published his 95 Theses and wrote tracts against the Papal Church. In fact how else could he be excommunicated if he were silent?
By your analogy, are we to say that Luther lied about his priestly confession to get a Roman pulpit?
Perhaps you should take up the argument levied by Romanists against Luther, he should have quietly disappeared and left the Roman Church. This argument, just like yours have been taken up by Roman Apologists before and frankly, if I were you, I would be bothered by the reasoning similarity with Romanists.
However, precious UOJers have been known to be fallacious in their reasoning abilities as for instance, the comment above is another example of special pleading. The more bothersome should be Romanized Lutheranism you have in your reasoning. Your argument is functionally Roman yet you claim to be Lutheran.
I am just wondering why is that?
You see Tarheel Paul, your argument against Rydecki is no longer about doctrine; your criticism is the style he went about in carrying out the effect of his conversion. Yet I tell you the effect would have been the same even if I bring again St. Paul in this discussion. However, style has no bearing on the argument, it just becomes a manner of discomfort or not etc. It has nothing to do whether or not Rydecki's JBFA is wrong or not, in which case you should really debate this area.
Anyhow,the final effect or outcome would have been the same, St. Paul still would have preached against Judaism whether he stayed silent for 3 years or not.
His epistles show that he knocked and attacked Judaism wherever he found it even claiming that Christ fulfilled the Law.
Criticism of one's style really does not make one's doctrine false or true. To think that way is to be dismally like the Romanist Apologists attacking Luther. It is to fall once more to more fallacies and this time, ad hominem.
If you or the WELS wish to make a dent against Rydecki, you should rebut the doctrine he now finds himself in, JFBA.
LPC
---
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Dr. Lito Cruz Opens Up a Can of Vegemite on the An...":
Dr. Greg,
Vegemite is so appropriate, cause you and I know it stinks.
My kids loved them though.
LPC
 |
| Some Australians like this as a spread. |
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Dr. Lito Cruz Opens Up a Can of Vegemite on the An...":
Dr. Greg,
Vegemite is so appropriate, cause you and I know it stinks.
My kids loved them though.
LPC
