 |
| Cascione: Rydecki sets up a number of straw dogs (sic - straw men?) in his paper. Yes, Huber was condemned in the 16the Century because he was a Universalist, not because he taught Objective Justification. |
From a senior Michigan Lutheran:
Of all the words about words in the above thread, there is one set that is remarkable.
From Franz Linden: "They like to say that they do not teach that their faith is in their faith, but Rydecki betrayed his denial when asked what a person is to believe. He said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." If that is what a person is to believe to be justified, it is exactly the same thing as saying faith must believe in itself."
How is it that a supposed Lutheran repeats the Lord's words and then denies they are to be believed? To say belief in the Gospel is faith in faith is incomprehensible if it isn't blasphemy.
---
     Tim Rake (Qaliph) Senior Member Username: Qaliph Post Number: 2558 Registered: 12-2004 |
Rydecki may indeed reject OJ, but seeing how Reclaim News doesn't reject yellow journalism, I simply can't trust the source... | ||
| Rick Strickert (Carlvehse) Senior Member Username: Carlvehse Post Number: 4194 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Rydecki may indeed reject OJ, but seeing how Reclaim News doesn't reject yellow journalism, I simply can't trust the source..." First, the Reclaim News article provides a link directly to Rydecki's paper on his own website, from which one can easily locate the quotes (and their context) discussed in the Reclaim News article. Second, the Reclaim News article provides the Scripture references used in its discussion of Rydecki's quotes. Third, the Reclaim News article provides references at the bottom for the statements from the Book of Concord or from Luther's writings. Fourth, the unsubstantiated accusation that Reclaim News doesn't reject yellow journalism, even it were true, does not demonstrate that the arguments presented against Rydecki's paper are false or untrustworthy. | ||
| Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 315 Registered: 1-2002 |
As I am sure you are all aware the scope of this heresy takes in the curious cult of Gregory Jackson, who cottons to vicious lampooning and libeling the Wisconsin Synod. I wonder if Heiser and Rydecki have for a long time been collaborators in that Heiser is impressed with Rydecki's expertise in the classical languages. I have studied the Rydecki translation of Aegidius Hunnius's Theses against Huberianism, and debated with him on his Intrepid Lutherans site, which is totally Rydecki's bailiwick. I am encouraged by the ACLC's staunch defense of the truth, and I am deeply grieved that ELDoNA has finally come out as heterodox in the worst way. | ||
| Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 316 Registered: 1-2002 |
Here is my debate with Rydecki of last February right around Ash Wednesday. As a result of this I have been barred from posting on that site, which I guess I am not entitled to do since I am not a WELS but an LCMS pastor. http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/luthers-t ranslation-of-2-corinthians-519.html I imagine that they will remove it if it is made over too much, but "c'est la guerre." It is too bad that Robert Preus is not alive to do battle with these Calvinists. | ||
| Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 317 Registered: 1-2002 |
Correction: de facto Calvinists. It is curious that they like the verdict of Justification not to be pronounced by God at the Resurrection of our Lord but in the "confessional" by the confessor. This is their enhanced view of confession and holy absolution, which gives the clergy greater spiritual authority. | ||
| Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 318 Registered: 1-2002 |
I have read through all of the postings on this thread, and I believe that George Mueller already assessed this serious problem well with his initial post. The Rev. Stephanski post was helpful to show us the tragedy as it unfolded. What this boils down to is WHAT DO THE SCRIPTURES SAY? The Confessions do not analyze the doctrine of justification from this specific angle, but Jackson, Rydecki, and their disciples interpret sola fide to be an "exclusive particle" that not only excludes our works from justification but also any consideration of justification apart from faith, even when it is all God's doing. Romans 4:25, Romans 5, 2 Cor. 5:18-21 clearly teach the doctrine of objective justification. The problem with the Rydeckian doctrine is that in locating justification only in our receiving faith locates it in a place other than outside ourselves (extra nos), which is the main aspect of the righteousness/justification of Christ. It is Christ who IS our justification (1 Cor. 1:30) because it says He is our "dikaiosune." While this is usually translated "He is our ... righteousness" in line with Jer. 23:6. You should not (sic) that Jackson accuses us of Enthusiasm because we speak of a justification that comes BEFORE the means of grace; however, if it is God doing such forgiving/justifying (2 Cor. 5:18-20), then it has not gone that far where it is APPLIED AND RECEIVED by saving faith created by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. |
| Franz Linden (Franz_mann) Senior Member Username: Franz_mann Post Number: 1767 Registered: 12-2004 |
A significant part of the problem of the deniers of universal objective justification, as the thread Rev. Bosclair links in his post above testifies, is that they do not know what to do with justified unbelievers. It's the same problem the Reformed have. It's not so much a question of how God can justify the ungodly, but more a question of how can God condemn those whom He has justified? The answer Holy Scripture gives to that question is too simplistic in their estimation. They, therefore, must jump through all kinds of hoops and do theological backflips in an attempt to make God's Word say something other than what it says. The irony of it all is that they end up making God much smaller than He truly is. In their mind, God simply cannot condemn forgiven sinners, so they fashion God into an impotent Savior who can only justify those who believe. They like to say that they do not teach that their faith is in their faith, but Rydecki betrayed his denial when asked what a person is to believe. He said, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." If that is what a person is to believe to be justified, it is exactly the same thing as saying faith must believe in itself. The faith of Mark 16:16 isn't in itself, though. It's in the God-man Savior who takes away the sin of the world. Rydecki's heresy isn't anything new; it's just an old hat packaged in a new box to give it the appearance of not being Reformed doctrine. Yet, for all his arguments about justification, redemption, forgiveness not being synonyms, he is nothing more than a Calvinist trying to dress in Luther's garb. Franz | ||
| Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 319 Registered: 1-2002 |
Thank you, Franz, for your insight into this! There is also Reformed exegesis afoot when they exegete Romans 4:25. "Who was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification." Who is meant by the genitive pronoun first person plural? They claim on the basis of context that the "our" refers to believers not to all of humanity. That understanding pushed to its logical conclusion leads to LIMITED ATONEMENT: Christ only died for believers (the elect) not unbelievers. If you look at the thread from Intrepid Lutherans, Rydecki is raising the possibility that Luther thought of God's action of reconciling the world as present not past. The Greek clearly shows the imperfect form of eimi/esthai ("to be"). In one edition of Luther's German Bible you have the present tense of "reconcile" rather than the past tense. This involves the absence of an "h" and an "e" in the editions that read this as present tense: versönet (present) as opposed to versöhnete. Rydecki wants Luther to have this verse say that God reconciles the world in Christ rather than God reconciled the world in Christ. He is grabbing at straws to set Luther and the orthodox Lutheran theologians against the biblical doctrine of objective justification. He does historical gymnastics in his paper about the "Throne of Grace" by giving the dates of the "Age of Orthodoxy" from 1515-1637 taking in Luther--even BEFORE HIS REFORMATORY DISCOVERY IN 1518! He ends with the death of Gerhard. This is clearly contrived: history according to Paul Rydecki. The Age of Orthodoxy, historically considered, is 1580-1713 (terminus a quo: the date of the publishing of the BOC; terminus ad quem: the death of David Hollaz). Rydecki has to be a revisionist of history. What is so tragic is that one gets the impression that Rydecki goes "cap in hand" to the ELDoNA "synod and colloquium" to present a paper, and it turns out to be ELDoNA's paper, their official paper. One would think that Heiser and ELDoNA would accept Rydecki's paper as HIS confession. This argues for Heiser and ELDoNA commissioning Rydecki to write a paper FOR THEM. Rydecki is the wunderkind, who translates the "fathers." They may say that they are faithful to the Scriptures, but what is patently clear: they only read the Scriptures through the lenses of THEIR conception of the doctrine of the orthodox Lutheran "fathers." |
***
GJ - Jack Kilcrease, another illiterate UOJ Enthusiast, taught me a new verb - to goat. Apparently I have goated SpenerQuest into attacking me by name. Their incoherent fury is matched only by their spelling and argumentation skills.
But not (LQ for note) this difference - I quote the opponents verbatim, because their theology is even worse than their writing. My best material has always come from the false teachers. WELS used to howl in fury that I quoted and cited their Church Growth heroes, from Paul Kelm to David Valleskey to Floyd Stolzenburg.
Tim Glende and the Fox Valley wolfpack did their best (which is not very good) to slander me into silence. They neglected one little fact - nothing energizes me more than a personal attack, since it proves they have nothing cogent to offer.
I hate to disappoint such a large audience - about 5,000 page-views a day lately - but I do not have a cult. Brett Meyer joined our congregation because he already saw through UOJ. I was the only one writing against it on the Net at that time. Various people participate in our tiny congregation, simply because we appreciate traditional worship with The Lutheran Hymnal.
We follow the historical readings, sing Lutheran and classical hymns, and study the Scriptures and Book of Concord. We have read through Luther's commentaries on Galatians (commended by the Book of Concord) and Romans.
I am constantly amused that people are afraid of a little blog that "no one reads." Perhaps I have missed someone actually quoting me in their rants and answering in sane, sober language, with a proper citation. Instead, there is a big effort to keep anyone from even mentioning this blog.
Nevertheless, Ichabod owns many categories on Google, as people tell me - after searching Lutheran graphics and topics. Someone must be clicking on the links.
