More Eructations from Jack Kilcrease - Illiterate Peritus for Another Grammar and Spelling Clown - Plagiarizing Editor Paul McCain

Chemnitz associated faith, justification, and election.
Walther divorced faith from justification.
Kilcrease separates grammar from the English language.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

To Reject Objective Justification is to Reject Election

I was looking at the Intrepid Lutherans blog earlier today (which has now pretty much turned into Paul Rydecki's own personal soap box) and I noticed a curious thing: LPC (a follower of Gregory Jackson) finally has let the cat out of the bag on election.  He doesn't believe in it!  Jackson and him have insinuated this in the past, but I've never been able to get a straight answer out of them.  Here is the statement:

"If I may, I wish to add what I view as the arrogance of C F W Walther when it came to the doctrine of election. Apparently his opponents kept on quoting to him the writings of the BoC writers. Here is what he had to say...

---

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "More Eructations from Jack Kilcrease - Illiterate ...":

Ichabod -

After reading Kilcrease's ambiguous piece on his website; I can understand why you titled this web article posting as such. I asked myself: "Did CPH'S McCain (aka, "McNasty") share too much of his mother Mary lactation milk with Kilcrease?"

Kilcrease's mistake is to attempt to reason with the Lord's grace of election. He attempts to explain the atonement and justification by faith alone; and, in the process to slight Dr. Gregory Jackson and the honorable Dr. Lito Cruz. I think that Kilcrease ends up putting words in Dr. Cruz's mouth.

Why can't these universal objective justification enthusiasts accept the atonement for what it is; and, also that a man is justified by faith alone? Why do they feel they must side step simple and direct Scripture and inject their own reasonings therein?

I like what Dr. Cruz stated some time ago. I included some of his comments in my topical message of, "Cheap Grace is a Worthless Substitute for a Faith That Saves:"

<<<<<<< ....... "That is what the UOJ [universal objective justification] preacher is saying. However, the Law condemns and says you are guilty and deserve to die as penalty for your sins. The Gospel says Jesus paid for your sins, The Law demands death, the Gospel says yes, death has been paid for. This is totally different from the UOJ Gospel, for them the Gospel skips the payment aspect and jumps over to forgiveness, skipping past what actually the Law demands - payment. In short, for them the Gospel is - God has already forgiven you.

It is not Jesus died for you, rather it is God has already forgiven you. So in UOJ, [universal objective justification] faith is not trust but mere assent to historical fact which they alleged to have already occurred, the blanket forgiveness of all sins without regard to faith. It is then the faith of the devil.

Just like Calvinism, they collapse the atonement for sins and justification or forgiveness of sins as one single event."

Answering the same person on his website, "LPC" also states:

"It is Jesus who says only those who believe will be saved, hence forgiven. In your case even those who do not believe are already forgiven and thus saved since faith had nothing to do with it (so you think),......Your mistake is that though Christ merited righteousness for all men, you think thereby, that automatically implies that this righteousness has already been transferred to all men without regard to faith......" - LPC - "Extra Nos" - "It's Outside Us" - extranos.blogspot.com/2012/06/

http://www.thechristianmessage.org/2012/06/cheap-grace-is-worthless-substitute-for.html

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

The Keys - The Concept Is Entirely Lost with UOJ

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/reconciling-worldbut-not-without-means.html#comment-form

Brett Meyer said...

Ministers indeed are said to loose and remit sins on account of the keys, that is, because they have the ministry through which God reconciles the world to Himself and remits sins.

In the doctrinal conflict over Scripture's teaching concerning justification it is critical to address the Office of The Keys. The quote in italics is significant since the Office of the Keys has not been addressed by those promoting and defending the doctrine of Objective Justification.

The Office of the Keys was given by Christ to the priesthood of believers - all those who have the Holy Spirit's faith in Christ alone. They contain the power to forgive sins of the repentant and to retain sins in the unrepentant - in the name and in the stead of Christ.

Since all variations of the doctrine of UOJ erroneously teach that, in Christ, God has forgiven the whole unbelieving world, declared them righteous and worthy of eternal life - what then is the effect of retaining an unrepentant unbelievers sins in the name of Christ? It creates another insurmountable contradiction to say that in Christ the whole unbelieving world is forgiven all sin - and that those same sins are retained in the unrepentant in the stead of Christ. UOJ creates yet another dilemma with it's teaching that God has made a declaration that in Christ the whole unbelieving world is justified: forgiven, righteous and worthy of eternal life.

The same dilemma is created regarding the Key to forgive sins. The Christian Book of Concord contends against UOJ concerning the Keys to forgive and retain sins here:
6] Let any one of the adversaries come forth and tell us when remission of sins takes place. O good God, what darkness there is! They doubt whether it is in attrition or in contrition that remission of sins occurs. And if it occurs on account of contrition, what need is there of absolution, what does the power of the keys effect, if sins have been already remitted…" http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_10_repentance.php

---

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "The Keys - The Concept Is Entirely Lost with UOJ":

Luther believed that the teaching of the Office of the Keys was important enough to include in the Small Catechism:
What is the Office of the Keys?

The Office of the Keys is the special authority which Christ has given to His Church on earth: to forgive the sins of the penitent sinners, but to retain the sins of the impenitent as long as they do not repent.

This points to Baptism, Holy Communion, Confession and Absolution, The Means of Grace. With the power of the Word, the Kingdom of Heaven is both opened and closed. Yet with UOJ, there really is no need for any of this. What is left for the Church to do amounts to busy work and moralizing from the pulpit. 

Ecclesia Augustana: WELS to Porth: Tear Down Your Name!

This bus don't carry no Lutherans, this bus.
Gausewitz is road-kill in WELS, even though he was the SynCon president.

Ecclesia Augustana: WELS to Porth: Tear Down Your Name!:

Thursday, February 7, 2013

WELS to Porth: Tear Down Your Name!

If you haven't noticed, there is one less author on the right side of this page. That author is David Porth. It all began a couple of months ago when it was announced that there was going to be a Christmas Vespers at St. John's Evangelical-Lutheran Church -- an independent parish in downtown Milwaukee. David had performed a couple of organ concerts at the church and had agreed to help direct the choir for the regional Christmas Vespers.

This magnificent church and pipe organ have been put on display
by young Lutheran men. This is the mother church of the Wisconsin Synod,
but a vindictive Church Growth DP got rid of the pastor and congregation.

Those in charge at Martin Luther College, the WELS ministerial school where David attends, got wind of the event.  Apparently there was pressure from the Seminary to do something about this. David was then asked to meet with MLC President Zarling and Vice President Schone. At the meeting they told him that he should not participate in the Vespers at St. John's. This was to be expected and is in accordance with the WELS' fellowship doctrines. The problem comes, in my opinion, when they, in addition, said that he could not perform organ concerts at St. John's either, in spite of the fact that he has participated in concerts at other non-WELS parishes along with MLC's own music Professors, who do so as well in their local AGO chapters. In the same meeting, they brought up this blog, Ecclesia Augustana. They suggested that he take his name down and listed the reasons: my name (Christian Schulz) is on here, which is problematic since my home congregation voted to leave the WELS. They also mentioned how Daniel's post on fellowship was a little "out there" and that it should be read with caution.

So David agreed to refrain from participating in the Vespers at St. John's. He did not, however, take his name down from this blog, because participating in a collaborative blog is not a declaration of church fellowship and thus not a violation of the WELS' fellowship doctrine. But as I'm announcing today, there seems to be an ex cathedra "blog fellowship" according to the WELS. VP Schone asked David for another meeting this week. They met and he told David that his name must come down because it will affect his future (in the WELS). He was told that the "DPs" (District Presidents) would be leery about seeing his name on a call list.  Schone cited the fact that Pr. Rydecki's name has shown up in some posts at this blog and that David should be aware that "he was removed from the WELS."

I ask the reader: since when is there any such thing as "blog fellowship?" How is this blog any different than a free conference (although more informal)? It's a group of people sharing their personal musings on Lutheran doctrine. It's understood that we may not all agree; it is, after all, our thoughts posted under our own names. How is this any different from Intrepid Lutherans (or Brothers of John the Steadfast)? Why haven't they asked the three MLC students listed on Intrepid Lutherans to take their names down (four if we include David)? Not to mention the WELS pastors and other laymen that have their names on there. (They have actually begun with the pastors as described here)

What's more, why should David take any threats about his future in the WELS seriously? We all know Pr. Jeske from Time of Grace gets to do whatever he wants without discipline. He participates in seminars with heretics on how to "do" Ministry. Even after the Conference of Presidents (CoP) told him not to participate, he did it anyway. And guess what happened? Absolutely nothing. The CoP supports him. They won't actually discipline him. But the WELS powers that be will find the time to pick on a college student who hasn't written a single controversial article here (very few articles at all, really).

I submit, as my personal opinion, that they're feeling the heat. The evidence is mounting more and more every day against their man-made doctrine that the whole world of sinners has been justified (imputation of Christ's righteousness) without the means of grace, therefore without faith. They're feeling the heat now that people are catching on to how the means of grace are downcast in the worship formats they encourage to grow the Church -- formats imported from heretical sects. They want to clamp down on him before he gets a mind of his own. Before he reads the Confessions and the Christian Church Fathers. Before he might agree with the whole catholic Church on justification and the theology of worship.

Alas, David has complied with their requests for fear of losing all the precious time and money he has applied to his degree at MLC.  As such, Ecclesia Augustana and I must honor his request and remove his name from our list of authors. We bid him adieu and thank him for participating in this free enterprise while he could.

MLC featured Randy Hunter, godfather of the Latte Congregation that closed , in spite of WELS promotion, Stroh's help, and multiple staff.

'via Blog this'

***

GJ - I changed the title because I asked myself, "What would Reagan say?"

---

Adolph Hoenecke has left a new comment on your post "Ecclesia Augustana: WELS to Porth: Tear Down Your ...":

Hmmmm, maybe this poor MLC student can get himself adopted by Mark Jeske. Then he can be on TV and do and say anything he wants. [GJ - Except - nothing Lutheran - Jeske rules]

United by a Common Set of UnbeliefsLutheran pastor apologizes for praying at Newtown vigil | Religion News Service

This calendar photo is more interesting than the story.

Lutheran pastor apologizes for praying at Newtown vigil | Religion News Service:

(RNS) A Lutheran pastor in Newtown, Conn., has apologized after being reprimanded for participating in an interfaith vigil following the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The Rev. Rob Morris, pastor of Christ the King Lutheran Church, prayed at the vigil the Sunday following the Dec. 14 shootings alongside other Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Baha’i clergy.

Morris’ church is a member of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, and the denomination’s constitution prohibits ministers from participating in services with members of different faiths.

President Barack Obama attends a Sandy Hook interfaith vigil at Newtown High School in Newtown, Conn., Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012. RNS photo by Pete Souza/The White House.

---

 Download or purchase this photo. For questions,contact Sally Morrow.

It’s not the first time a Missouri Synod pastor has been reprimanded for joining an interfaith prayer service; a New York pastor also was suspended for participating in an interfaith service after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

LCMS president Matthew Harrison wrote in a letter to the Synod that “the presence of prayers and religious readings” made the Newtown vigil joint worship, and therefore off-limits to Missouri Synod ministers. Harrison said Morris’ participation also offended members of the denomination.

'via Blog this'

WELS and Missouri Pastors - "I Thank God This Is Not True of Holy Mother Synod. Wait. What?"VirtueOnline - News - The Episcopal Church's Civil War on Its Orthodox Members

"You shall not pass."

VirtueOnline - News:

The Episcopal Church's Civil War on its Orthodox Members

COMMENTARY

By David W. Virtue 
www.virtueonline.org 
February 6, 2013To even the most impartial Episcopal observer and/or those suffering from peripheral blindness, the Episcopal Church's war on its orthodox members has reached new depths, unimaginable a few short years ago.

Politeness, civility, talk of via media or "why can't we all just get along" have vanished out the stain-glassed window; there is now no more pretense. Episcopal Church leaders like Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori have lined up their ecclesiastical bazookas and aimed them squarely at bishops like Jack Iker, Keith Ackerman, Bob Duncan and, more recently, Mark Lawrence with killer intent. There is now no mercy, no more attempt even to take prisoners, or be nice (a phony Episcopal doctrine now ended), or an offer of an ecclesiastical handshake to "go in peace to love and serve the Lord." 

A VOL reporter who visited 815 2nd Ave, the Episcopal Church's national headquarters while researching a book on The Episcopal Church, was told to "f**k off" by David Booth Beers, Jefferts Schori's personal attorney when she inquired into TEC's legal spending. Her eyes were opened never to close again.

It is now open warfare in The Episcopal Church with some of the harshest language ever uttered from the lips of an ecclesiastical leader. Not even the venal and hateful John Shelby Spong, former Bishop of Newark, who tried his best to reinvent Christianity in his own mind, degenerated to the depths of the recent rip by PB Jefferts Schori. As history now shows, it is Duncan's star that is in the ascendency while Spong's has faded. In time, his will die out completely.

Witness what PB Jefferts Schori said when she came to Charleston recently to inaugurate a new remnant Episcopal diocese. In her speech, she accused Bishop Lawrence (but did not mention him by name) of being a petty dictator and a wolf masquerading among the sheep.

"I tell you that story because it's indicative of attitudes we've seen here and in many other places. Somebody decides he knows the law, and oversteps whatever authority he may have to dictate the fate of others who may in fact be obeying the law, and often a law for which this local tyrant is not the judge. It's not too far from that kind of attitude to citizens' militias deciding to patrol their towns or the Mexican border for unwelcome visitors. It's not terribly far from the state of mind evidenced in school shootings, or in those who want to arm school children, or the terrorism that takes oil workers hostage."

Think about that. She is saying that the godly Bishop of South Carolina Mark Lawrence is a "local tyrant" and his state of mind is like the "school shooter", Adam Lanza who walked into an elementary school and slaughtered some 23 children in Connecticut.

REALLY!

Canon Phil Ashey of the American Anglican Council called on the Presiding Bishop to apologize to the leadership of the official Diocese of South Carolina and retract her remarks. 

She has not, of course, and apparently will not. Ashey cited Jesus' statement that it is out of the overflow of the heart of men (and women) that we truly speak (Mt. 12:34). He concluded his remarks by saying that her tremendous anger towards orthodox Episcopalians allows no room for them to practice their faith in the Episcopal Church. He is absolutely right.

Ironically the first half of that verse is even more damning. Jesus said, "You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart..."

Quite simply the words we speak and what we do are controlled by our thoughts and the passions of our flesh. These are the fruits of our minds. Thus, a person who does evil bears evil fruits; a person who does good bears good fruit in words, deeds and behavior. The point Jesus was making is that it is not possible for an evil person to bear good fruit and vice versa.

Jesus himself would call Mrs. Jefferts Schori the evil one and not Mark Lawrence. And what is the fruit of her labors? Is it a Church thriving and growing? Is it a Church at peace with the vast majority of the Global South who uphold the faith and order of the Church? Is it a Church proclaiming the gospel of God's salvation to all who will hear and repent?

Indeed not. In fact what is happening is the reverse. The Episcopal Church now has fewer than 700,000 practicing Episcopalians on any given Sunday, a figure that is steadily dropping. Its message is to save the world for God by doing good works (Millennium Development Goals and the Five Marks of Mission), but nothing remotely salvific. The vast majority of its parishioners are nearly 65; its parishes have fewer than 65 members. Its coffers are fast drying up causing apoplexy to House of Deputies President Gay Jennings who is trying desperately to rescue the institution by restructuring the church in the hopes that it can grow again. Its seminaries are contracting. Worst of all, liberal and progressive bishops are now saying they don't want any new ordinands unless they are financially self-sufficient because there aren't big enough parishes with budgets to support for them. "We need more laity," Washington Bishop Budde was heard to say recently.

In the "reap what you sow" department, we see the venality of certain bishops who are actually set on destroying their diocese in the hope that out of the ashes some new church will emerge. It won't, of course; those who say so only deceive themselves. Former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold gave an "appreciation and thanksgiving sermon" dropping the usual "sacred space", "sacred place" and "giving thanks for the sacred presence" when he eulogized at a memorial service for the cathedral in Delaware that will now join many others that have closed in The Episcopal Church from Kalamazoo in Western Michigan to Providence, Rhode Island and surely, in time, the Washington National Cathedral. Most Episcopal cathedrals are on life support. Over the next 20 years, they will quietly close and be sold off to developers.

Stupider bishops like Western Michigan's Robert Gepert seem to actually delight in sabotaging their best operating parishes, alienating orthodox parishioners and forcing them out to form more perfect unions in other jurisdictions.

It is as though the leadership of The Episcopal Church is holed up in a bunker. When orthodox global south primates and the ACNA surround them, they send out a message blaming ordinary Episcopalians for not doing enough to save the denomination. Then, sensing failure, they drink the Kool Aid.

Not even in their worst public moments did liberal presiding bishops like Ed Browning or Frank Griswold say the things that Jefferts Schori has said of orthodox Episcopalians. Browning and Griswold hated "narrow-minded" "uninclusive" orthodox Episcopalians, but they had the good sense to keep it to themselves, or say it in private. Their public face, however hypocritical, looked with contempt or benign serenity on lowly orthodox believers, but they never uttered words the like of which Mrs. Jefferts Schori has done.

This past summer the noose tightened to the point of strangulation when a revised canon was passed at General Convention placing clergy at a far greater risk of facing ecclesiastical discipline than ever before under revisions made to Title IV Canons of The Episcopal Church.

Michael Rehill, former chancellor of The Diocese of Newark, NJ, says that as a result of recent revisions to Title IV (Canons IV.3 or IV.4.), many more Members of the Clergy are now facing ecclesiastical discipline. "Not a week passes without our receiving at least one call from a Priest who is suddenly facing Title IV issues or a Title IV proceeding. We frequently hear Priests saying, 'I never thought it could happen to me.' But it can happen to any Member of the Clergy, regardless of age, gender, experience or Diocese. You need to be prepared before it happens to you."

Is it any wonder that Rome created the Ordinariate for disaffected Anglo-Catholics and the Global South has put its imprimatur on the Anglican Church in North America for Evangelicals and evangelical catholics?

An ecclesiastical and legal noose has been tied around the necks of orthodox Episcopalians. A new cry might well go up, "Will no one rid us of this meddlesome Presiding Bishop?" It is time. Who will take up the gauntlet?

END

'via Blog this'

"Justification by faith, you say?
Anathema sit!
I need some milk."

Mark and Avoid Jeske Has Become the Boss of Three Synods, Because He Is the Thrivent Paymaster and Their Occult Guru

Napoleon Hill is the founder of occult business philosophy,
and the Church Growthers lub, lub, lub him.
Schuller founded Church Growth,
and he is a Napoleon Hill Foundation Award winner,
for promoting this.
Besides, Hill is more interesting than Mark Jeske.

http://ecclesiaaugustana.blogspot.com/2013/01/decisions-decisions.html#comment-form

1. christfocusedJanuary 30, 2013 at 10:57 PM

   Looks like Elizabeth (commenter on the Dec. 10th TOG post) comments are now deleted from the post on the TOG website and she most likely joins the un-offical group of TOG blocked commenters that are confessional Lutherans (some of which are WELS pastor's wives).

   Reply
2. 
   christfocusedJanuary 31, 2013 at 12:24 AM

   "Do you feel surrounded by darkness and unsure of what to do? Let him speak to you.- PMJ"
   
   A Lutheran audience should know that God "speaks" to us in his WORD. TOG is reaching out to a mixed crowd of "Christian" and perhaps un-Christian people. I often see Christian people faced with a decision in life or for their New Year's Resolution write on Facebook something like "I need to really listen to God more." The problem is that they are not looking for an answer in God's Word or content that God will bless them and provide for them with whatever decision they make. They are looking for a feeling or a sign that will tell them which path to take.
   
   One of the most popular devotions books is "Jesus Calling" by Sarah Young. The book is written as if Jesus is talking. Sarah Young in an interview states:"My journey began with a devotional book (God Calling) written in the 1930's by two women who practiced waiting in God's Presence, writing the messages they received as they "listened." About a year after I started reading this book, I began to wonder if I too could receive messages during my times of communing with God. I had been writing in prayer journals for years, but this was one-way communication: "monologue." I knew that God communicates through the Bible (and I treasure His Word), but I wondered what He might say to me personally on a given day. So I decided to "listen" to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever I sensed He was saying. Of course, I wasn't listening for an audible voice; I was seeking the "still, small voice" of God in my mind/heart...It felt a little awkward the first time I tried it, but I did receive a short message." read more of the interview.. at http://www.cbn.com/entertainment/books/jesuscallingqa.aspx
   
   WELS affiliated Christian Life Resources sold the book in their spring 2012 catalog Clearly Caring http://www.clearlycaring.com/pdf/2012040506.pdf
   
   

   Reply
3. 
   Christian SchulzJanuary 31, 2013 at 12:45 AM

   "Therefore we ought and must constantly maintain this point, that God does not wish to deal with us otherwise than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments. It is the devil himself whatsoever is extolled as Spirit without the Word and Sacraments."(http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#part3.8.10)
   
   What troubles me is that "let him speak to you" means that we have to discern for ourselves what God wants for us. 1) He never says to look at Scripture to see what God says. 2) He seems to imply that we need to figure it out on our own. We need to look within ourselves to figure out what he wants. What again separates him from Joel Osteen? What separates him from the heresy of enthusiasm? 3) Considering that he implies we need to figure it out on our own, it shows that he doesn't realize his position. He is supposed to be Called to discern the Word -- Law and Gospel. But now since "everyone is a minister" you can figure it out on your own.
   
   Again people, this is WELS' vision. Do you agree? They certainly don't agree, and have shown they don't by the suspension of Pr. Rydecki, that sinners are only justified and considered righteous to God by the gift of faith.

   Reply
   
   

   Replies
   

   
   

   
   
   
   Benjamin JeskeFebruary 1, 2013 at 10:11 AM
   Greetings. I'm new to this blog-just found it today. I am an active WELS member who spent 3 years at Martin Luther College before deciding on a different path than the public ministry.
   I am not, however, one to "remain quiet" and take a side. The world is populated entirely of sinful human beings, including WELS pastors. You are spending a great deal of energy condemning WELS theology by the words of one man.
   Is he wrong? Yes definitely. Will I bring this to the attention of someone with authority make a change? Of course.
   And remembering that this is "My opinion, of course, and not necessarily anyone else's," it seems that those who would, perhaps, be described as anti-WELS find any and every opportunity to apply the mistakes one to all.
   I am WELS. I know what I believe and why. I question those in authority when something smells a little fishy. Do not lump us together into one sheepish, robotic, and nominal faith. Please.
   
   Benjamin JeskeFebruary 1, 2013 at 10:17 AM
   Just for the record- no relation.
   
   Daniel BakerFebruary 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM
   Mr. Jeske,
   
   Thank you for reading and offering your thoughts. I am an active member of a parish affiliated with the WELS as well. While I didn't attend MLC, I entertained the notion, and did spend 14 years in the WELS education system. As it so happens, some of the other authors on this blog have attended MLC. I bring this up to demonstrate that this blog certainly doesn't paint every person affiliated with the WELS with the same brush.
   
   The reality is, as I've tried to point out to some of my more zealous colleagues in the past, that the WELS is nothing more than a man-made institution. By its own Constitution, the WELS exists as a voluntary fellowship of those pastors and parishes claiming the Confessions of the Lutheran Church as a true exposition of Scripture, fully accepting them in terms of doctrine and practice. However, the current administration and teachers of the WELS do not share this vision. They have made that clear by their refusal to deal with the false teachings exposed by this blog post, as well as by their excommunication of faithful pastors and laymen (who did nothing more than teach the controversial doctrine of justification by faith alone). That smells more than a little fishy to me; it smells of decomposing flesh.
   
   I cannot sit idly by while the stench of rotting flesh surrounds me. I know there are good people in the WELS. I know that at its heart the WELS is supposed to be nothing more than a fellowship of Confessional Lutherans. But the people running it (and perhaps even the majority of the people constituting it) are not faithful to this end. So it's our job to raise the alarm on the walls of Zion, because the watchmen are apparently asleep, too afraid to talk, thrown off the wall, or in bed with the invading army.
   
   I hope that made a bit of sense. Thanks again for reading and commenting.
   Reply
4. 
   I. M. Abaldy IIJanuary 31, 2013 at 1:58 PM

   To paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:19, [If nothing else matters than the pastor loves his congregation], "we are of all people most to be pitied."
   
   

   

   Peace of mind from denying everything, especially his overlord - Satan.

Pastor Paul Rydecki - Chemnitz and Justification - Dangers of UOJ

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/chemnitz-on-judicial-or-forensic.html#comment-form

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2013

Chemnitz on judicial or forensic justification

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

I posted this article on Martin Chemnitz' definition of justification this morning.  He claims his definition to be the only true meaning of the word "justify" according to the Holy Scriptures, as justification is discussed in the doctrine of justification.  (See the link for Chemnitz' quote in context.)

I invite our readers to compare the following definitions of "forensic" or "judicial" justification.  One is by Martin Chemnitz.  The other is by WELS District President Jon Buchholz, as quoted in a comment on the previous post.

Chemnitz: The meaning of the word 'justify' in this article is judicial, namely, that the sinner, accused by the Law of God, convicted, and subjected to the sentence of eternal damnation, fleeing in faith to the throne of grace, is absolved for Christ’s sake, reckoned and declared righteous, received into grace, and accepted to eternal life."

Buchholz: "Here is the legal or juridical nature of justification, revealed at Calvary. The change does not take place in the sinner. The change takes place in the relationship or the status between a sinner and God.2 A verdict has been rendered, which declares man free of sin and guilt, righteous in God’s sight, and worthy of eternal life, for Jesus’ sake." Page 2
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BuchholzJustification1.pdf

Notice when this courtroom or judicial verdict is said to occur in each definition.  According to Chemnitz, the verdict is rendered when the sinner flees in faith to the throne of grace (i.e., Christ).  According to Buchholz, the verdict was already rendered for all people at Calvary, i.e., 2,000 years ago.

Some will claim that Chemnitz is describing what they call "subjective justification," while Buchholz is describing "objective justification," like "two sides of the same coin."    I find this explanation to be completely inadequate and arbitrary.  Chemnitz does not claim to be describing one side of some fictional "justification coin."  He is describing how sinners are justified, period.  Chemnitz's definition has the support of dozens of Scripture passages.  Buchholz's position has the support of (dare I say) none.  On the contrary, his position is directly contradicted by several passages of Scripture (John 3:16-18, John 20:23, John 5:22-24, Luke 18:14, John 3:5-8, John 3:36, Rom. 9:30-33,Rom. 10:10, 2 Cor. 6:14, Gal. 2:16-17, Gal. 5:4-5, Eph. 2:1-3, 1 John 5:11-12, etc.).

To assert that God did or declared something is a big deal, and one had better be able to support such a claim with clear passages of Scripture.  There are many passages that describe Christ's finished work at the cross, but "justification" is not one of them.  On the contrary, unbelievers throughout Scripture are said to be condemned, not "justified, whether they believe it or not."