 |
| What does this mean? "Never criticize the false teachers or question the fruit of their labors. Grapes do grow on thorns, if the thorns were developed at Fuller. We moderns bow to the new Walthers, Karl Barth and his mistress, the saints of Pasadena." |
[Colors were added below - red for false doctrine, blue for sound doctrine. Purple means - from the Purple Palace of Prurient Dogma.]
Pastor,
Some thoughts on the UOJ post on 06/28...
I read the quotes from the Bible Study series on Justification. When I was first exposed to this some 20 years ago, I more or less rolled with it. Y'know, "You say poTAYto, I say poTOTo.; we're talking about the same thing. We get to the same place." And it may, seem that way, but it only seems that way. It seems so reasonable after all.
For instance:
"Those who
reject this sacrifice of Christ as it is proclaimed to them as the
forgiveness of all their sins will get what they want. They do not want
to be forgiven, and so God will regard their sin as they want it to be
regarded — as not covered by Christ’s sacrifice. He who rejects God’s
absolution will be treated as one who has rejected God’s absolution and
will be judged according to the Law.
"
...and it's true that God gets all the credit, and man can make a choice for damnation (the only choice unregenerate man can make). But, if indeed man is unregenerate, then is he really justified at all? It's like that junk mail, "You won ONE MILLION DOLLARS!" ....but not really.*
And, while one can just guffaw it, and say "Meh, this is just semantics." after all, what's the difference? Subjective Justification seals the deal anyway. But, there's a consequence for not keep the details straight (short selling the Gospel, doing God a favor, etc.)
"GJ - Modern Missouri is doubly damned because they want to suggest their
Subjective Justification is Justification by Faith, so people mistakenly
believe Objective Justification is the Atonement. But both parts are
utterly wrong."
 |
| How strange that we cannot read this or even a hint of this in St. Paul, Augustine, Luther, or the Book of Concord. |
 |
| See Halle theologian Rambach below for the same nonsense. |
They may be triple damned because by confusing these terms, by starting people from here:
"God has declared the whole world to be righteous
for Christ’s sake and that righteousness has thus been procured for all
people. It is objective because this was God’s unilateral act prior to
and in no way dependent upon man’s response to it, and universal because
all human beings are embraced by this verdict."
Basically says, "Yay! We're all good! Just don't mess it up by rejecting your justification." What's damming about this is it really does cheapen the Gospel because one doesn't start at the foot of the Cross. We don't see our sins, and there's no law (except don't reject this) because "Yay! We're all good because (ripping the phrase out of context) 'God has declared the whole world to be righteous' Yay!!!!"
And herein lies, in my opinion, the biggest problem with with UOJ. The mortal wound to sound theology. UOJ takes a shortcut to Easter. Without as so much as acknowledging the law, the Gospel is diminished and cheapened. The effect is twofold: 1) Shallow Theology - low information Lutherans who take their kids to soccer games on Sunday morning wondering why their kids don't go to church years later after confirmation, and the 2) Ineffective Gospel in evangelism. "What do we need your dumb Gospel for?" say the man on the street. This is most damning, and the Low Information Lutheran has no clue how to evangel because he took the shortcut and has no way to convict the sinner. Eventually the church is full of people who want a good show and useful programs....but don't know the 6th commandment.
UOJ doesn't start at the foot of the Cross, but Christ's Atonement coupled with the Means of Grace and real Justification by Faith does. The Christian knows the value of the Gospel and treasures it. He wants to love God and his neighbor because he knows what is good and right and God pleasing. And, he wants to please God because of His precious gifts.
SDG,
Gideon
* This really blows up the analogy from a few days about about the man sitting in the jail cell with the door open. I submit, that if indeed the jail cell has an open door, the man is actually dead and cannot rise to walk out of the cell....he's incapable of making that choice (those who can't see this, should pick up a copy of Luther's "On the enslaved will" ....better know as "The bondage of the will."
***
GJ - This is a fine, clear analysis. I would like readers to notice that UOJ salesmen write and speak in tortured English, opaque and foggy, never in Biblical terms. Why? Because they draw their truths from modern philosophy and theology, which are essentially atheistic. If that sounds too harsh, think of modern theology as creative writing. Start with a theme and have fun with it.
In contrast, those who think and act in Biblical terms are clear and concise. Gideon and many laity who write are excellent in communicating the Gospel and pointing out problems with false doctrine. Also, the Book of Concord is a clear, concise witness to the truth of Scripture - with no attempts to evade issues or fog up the landscape with meaningless words. Much of this comes first from Zwingli and Calvin, who wanted to supplant Luther's Biblical doctrine.
Later, Karl Barth and his Commie mistress Charlotte Kirschbaum repeated the Zwingli/Calvin method in promoting a philosophy for Marxist revolution: faith without belief in God.
 |
| Wut? |
 |
| "Charlotte, your lips say Nein but your feet say Ja Wohl!" |
