 |
| Read slowly, SpenerQuesters. React - not with your usual venom and unbelief - but with your ministerial reason. |
George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1070 Registered: 11-2012 |
Brett, you mocked my answer to your question about binding sins. Your mockery consisted in a rationalistic rejection of the gospel. Yet you accuse the orthodox of rationalism! You are the rationalist. You ask how all sins can be forgiven when Jesus paid for them if the sins of the impenitent are retained. That's a rationalistic argument. Your arguments against objective justification are not based on Scripture. They are based on your erring (and confused) human reason. Read article four of the Augsburg Confession. Here we Lutherans teach what justification by faith means. Read it carefully and see if you can find what the object of justifying faith is. In other words, what does the faith that justifies believe? "When they believe that . . ." Check it out and see for yourself what a Lutheran confesses. Justifying faith believes . . . what? Now this is a simple exercise, Brett. You claim to be a Lutheran and you claim to accept the Lutheran Confessions. So tell us, how does the text of the Augsburg Confession read? "When they believe that . . ." What? What is it that one believes when he is justified through faith? | ||
     Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 373 Registered: 1-2002 |
Brett, you are the only one of the people who are contending with us on this topic who is willing to take a serious look at the evidence. However, you need to see that the reason that we are contending for the "Synodical Conference" doctrine is that we believe that Scripture teaches that doctrine. It is not a matter of us rationalizing it. Rydecki and now ELDoNA have restricted their view of Scripture to what they perceive the 16th and 17th century Lutheran theologians to have interpreted Scripture to say. These classic Lutheran theologians have pointed out that Romans 5:18 (Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life) points out that condemnation is decreed by God over all people because of Adam's sin. Now, as you know not all people are going to hell, so even though the verdict of condemnation is pronounced in God's Law over all people that does not mean that all people have gone to hell. In the same way as the condemnation is universal so also is the verdict of acquittal in the Gospel: all people are encompassed in that verdict of God but not all have been regenerated to receive that verdict. That is the doctrine of the Gospel, the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification. You have Universal Objective Condemnation in the Law and Universal Objective Justification in the Gospel. This is the clear teaching of God's Word not rationalism. Gregory Jackson engages in Rationalism when he slanderously accuses us of Enthusiasm because he reasons this way: Justification can only be seen narrowly as an individual's being brought to faith by God the Holy Spirit through the means of grace. Those who view Justification in a broader manner as God's action in the historic work of Christ violate that narrow view; hence, those who view Justification in a broader manner are Enthusiasts who believe that God deals with people directly without means. Another thing you should keep in mind is that Christians are permitted to use their reason ministerially (of course, not magisterially). That is what we are doing. We use our reason to serve our understanding of the Holy Scriptures not to govern our understanding of the Holy Scriptures. | ||
| Joe Krohn (Jester) Member Username: Jester Post Number: 188 Registered: 4-2011 |
"You have Universal Objective Condemnation in the Law and Universal Objective Justification in the Gospel." Spot on. I don't mean to skew this discussion, but if one would want to really expose the doctrine of Brett Meyer et al, transition to the intertwined Doctrine of Election. |
 |
| SpenerQuesters, Jay Webber, his catechumen Jon Buchholz, and various ninnies see Rambach as their Reformer. |
