Pastor Paul Rydecki - 2 Corinthians 5:19

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/11/the-lutheran-understanding-of-2.html#comment-form

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2013

The Lutheran understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:19

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

We Lutherans who hold to the Scriptural and Lutheran doctrine that sinners are only justified by God through faith in Christ (as opposed to the supposed universal justification of all men, whether they believe in Christ or not) are often accused of ignoring the Bible and elevating the Book of Concord to inspired status.  What these vain accusers fail to understand is that the doctrine confessed in the Book of Concord is the direct result of the Biblical exegesis of the Lutherans who originally published and subscribed it.  The Christian doctrine of justification by faith is taught everywhere in the Scriptures.  The supposed universal justification of all men apart from faith is said to be taught in a handful of passages.  Chief among this handful of passages is 2 Corinthians 5:19.

As I have demonstrated before (from the words of Chemnitz and of Melanchthon), the historic Lutheran Church never viewed that passage as teaching that God has declared all men righteous, whether they believe or not.  This fact is most emphatically demonstrated in the Censure of the Tübingen Theologians against Samuel Huber, and I agree wholeheartedly with their exegesis.  Tom Hardt's "Justification and Easter" essay contains one sentence reflecting the Lutheran Church's exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:19, where they state that "Paul never teaches universal justification."  I have finally acquired a copy of Hardt's source material in Latin, and I offer here the whole paragraph translated into English:

Actorum Huberianorum Pars Posterior, Tübingen 1597, p. 122-123.

Paul never teaches universal justification. For with regard to the passage in 2 Cor. 5, those words, “not imputing sins to them,” are not to be understood universally concerning all men without respect to faith. For although the Apostle does not expressly mention faith there, nonetheless no mention is ever made in the Scriptures of an imputation where a consideration of faith is excluded. For just as God imputes righteousness to no one except for the believer, so also it is to believers only that He does not impute sins.

Paul expressly teaches this very thing in Rom. 4: “Not to the one who works, but to the one who believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is imputed as righteousness.” And: “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin.” Paul refers these words to the justification of faith, through which sins are remitted to a man, or in other words, not imputed. And such a man is pronounced blessed. But no one is blessed and saved without faith. Now, if those words are to be understood universally concerning all men, according to Huber’s opinion, then all men would be blessed and saved, for he is said to be blessed to whom God does not impute sins.

How is it, then, according to the declaration of Christ, that “he who does not believe has been condemned already”? How does the wrath of God remain on him (John 3)? And since unbelievers have already been condemned, therefore their sins are imputed to them, and consequently those words of the Apostle are not to be understood universally and simply concerning any and all men, both believers and unbelievers. Rather, they include the means revealed in the Word of God, namely, a consideration of faith. That is, that God does not impute sins to men if they believe in Christ the Propitiator. If they do not believe, their sins are imputed to them, and they are condemned on account of them.

The same thing is revealed in the Book of Concord, page 657, where it says this: “For justification, these things are required and necessary: the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and FAITH, which embraces these very benefits of God in the promise of the Gospel. In this way (that is, through faith), the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.” And shortly before: “The righteousness of faith before God consists in the free and most gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ (apart from any merit of our works). That is, that sins have been remitted to us and covered, nor are they imputed to us.” The meaning, therefore, of the Apostle’s words is: “not imputing sins to them by the means ordained in God’s Word.” Indeed, if the words are to be understood simply, without a consideration of faith, then why does God condemn the world to which God, according to Huber’s opinion, does not impute sins?

Was I Serious about Intrepid Lutherans Closing Down?Yes.

Aren't we talking about the abusive sect that protects this clown
and his boss Tim Glende?

WELS closed down three versions of Bailing Water - three different editors.

WELS closed down and erased Issues in WELS.

Under Mark Schroeder, WELS expanded and funded Church and Change.

When someone blogged about Ski, the author was excoriated for publishing about Ski's public behavior - instead of sitting down with Ski, holding his hand, and telling him his sins. Of course, lots of people did that, but he just laughed them off.

Luther's explanation of the Eighth Commandment in the Large Catechism clearly teaches that public doctrine can be addressed in public.

I am simply guessing that constant pressure will be put on IL until the files are gone and the blog is closed.

More later. I am blogging from a secure, undisclosed location.

Schroeder could not muster enough faith
to speak against the NNIV, which is now
adopted by default.

Guess which false teacher is promoting
The Bridge?

SpenerQuest Continues To Misinterpret Scripture, Luther, and the Book of Concord.They Love To Make Unwarranted Claims - Cannot Bear To Quote or Link Sources - Except Wikipedia

Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 336 Registered: 1-2002	Posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 10:04 am:       The reason that ELDoNA takes a careful line with Walther and The Brief Statement is because they are made up of and have fellowship with congregations that used to be part of the LCMS. They put the complete "onus of error" on Franz Pieper, erstwhile chief theologian of the LCMS. In dealing with what they would do or not do with The Brief Statement they declare in Thesis 7: "While we may have had a 'received body of doctrine' beyond Scripture and the Confessions in a previous body of affiliation, the lack of ownership of the documents setting forth the same--and, thus, our inability to modify such non-binding documents where they have misspoken--prevents us from adopting the same as our own in such a way as to make them settlers of disputes. That is, the only way to adopt a non-binding document over which we do not have ownership (and, thus, cannot alter) is to adopt it as unalterable and binding ..." Even the Missouri Synod, which might be considered to "own" The Brief Statement, would never alter it. ELDoNA here is declaring its independence as a new denomination that can start afresh with writing and publishing their own doctrinal statements as they just have; however, they run the risk of not being a haven for confessional congregations and pastors, who want to maintain adherence to The Brief Statement. The Gregory Jackson connection comes in with their observation in their prefatory material: "While in practice we have often witnessed a minimizing of the Means of Grace in bodies that hold to this teaching, that is certainly not the intent of those who first promoted it, since such reception is done by means of faith that is created in the one receiving by the Holy Ghost’s use of the Gospel." Gregory Jackson accuses those who hold to the biblical teaching of Objective Justification of Enthusiasm in that he alleges that they in speaking of a justification of any kind irrespective of faith deny the scriptural doctrine of the Means of Grace. This, of course, is a "straw man" fallacy because in addition to confessing the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification we also confess the biblical doctrines of Subjective Justification through faith wrought by God through his Means of Grace. Jackson is also keen on using other logical fallacies such as "poisoning the well" and "post hoc propter hoc."
Rick Strickert (Carlvehse) Senior Member Username: Carlvehse Post Number: 4227 Registered: 10-2003	Posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 2:35 pm:       Can it be just last year that "Rev. Paul Rydecki Receives Sabre of Boldness 2012" from the Gottesdeinst editors?!?
George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1050 Registered: 11-2012	Posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 3:57 pm:       They should ask Rydecki to return it.
Joe Krohn (Jekster) Member Username: Jekster Post Number: 180 Registered: 4-2011	Posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 4:13 pm:       All men are saved unless they are in rejection of this salvation. I like this analogy alot (I would change 'acceptance' to 'receipt' so as not to sound like the Reformed): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wils on "United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833), was a trial in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail in Pennsylvania. Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The Supreme Court was thus asked to rule on the case. The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him." Therefore, Wilson was not released from prison early.[1]"
Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 341 Registered: 1-2002	Posted on Tuesday, November 05, 2013 - 4:45 pm:       Great analogy, Joe! Luther would be proud.

Philosophical Language Is Not Faith Language

Philosophy got the Episcopalians
women priests, a woman as Presiding Bishop,
gay and lesbian bishops.
Ditto ELCA.

I consider Halle University and Kantian philosophy to be the turning points in theology. Both ushered in the modern era of evolution and rationalism.

Dr. Lito Cruz, who knows something about formal and informal logic, wrote with some authority about the inherent Calvinism in Universal Objective Justification.

And the problem with Calvinism is placing human reason above the Word of God. Luther saw that in Zwingli (who preceded Calvin); Chemnitz dealt directly with Calvinism (Lord's Supper).

Luther always subordinated human reason to the Word, which is so clear in his explanation of the First Commandment in the Large Catechism.

In his explanation of the First Table of the Ten Commandments, Luther teaches the efficacy of the Word and the need for complete trust in that Word. We only know the true nature of God only through His revelation in the Scriptures.

But Calvin thought of the Word of God as a dead letter that needed human reason to make it come alive. This is what eventually divorced philosophy from theology, so much that virtually all philosophy professors are atheists. Nothing is true unless it can be proven apart from God, and they do not know what truth is.

Luther was wary of philosophical arguments, even though he could run circles around his opponents, using their vocabulary and studies against them. That was his method, to take away the weapons of his opponents and defeat the false teachers with their own argumentation.

Roman Catholic priests, nuns, and theologians are steeped in philosophy. Modern theologians see Kant as the pivotal figure for theology and philosophy.

Every time a UOJ advocate writes, I see a philosophical argument that all the modern theologians would be proud of - since they think the same way.

 Examples of the Philosophy of UOJ:

• If Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world, the entire world has been declared free of sin.
• If Jesus rose for our justification, everyone was justified when He rose from the dead.
• Grace cannot be grace if anyone adds a contingency like faith, so faith is a work and destroys the concept of God's graciousness.
• When Jesus took on our sinfulness, every single person took on His righteousness.

No one can penetrate the density of their logic, because their philosophical assumptions preclude any other conclusions than the ones that logically follow. But they have argued in circles, since Walther must be right and their sects must be infallible. They simply cannot face the fallibility of Walther, Valleskey, Olson, Kelm, or their sects.

Hidden in the turmoil of their soul-sickness is this clergy fear, "If I admit to justification by faith, everything about my synod is false, corrupt, and deceptive. And worst of all - I am out of a job, an easy and secure life."

Laity also fear shunning and FB unfriending.

Each denomination reaches the point where no one dares
to question the ordination of women.