Someone Asked about Rolf Preus' Ululation on UOJ. The Truth Comes Out. Kokomo Justification Exposed

 Confessional Lutheran Fellowship on Facebook - A Closed Group,But Open to ELCA and UOJ Apostates.

 More details about Kokomo UOJ are here.

Rolf's citation of "It is finished" is an old LCMS bromide to claim God pronounced the absolution of the world the moment Jesus died, but that is not what the verse says. Besides that, Rolf also uses "Raised for our justification!" - from the Halle-centric Easter absolution, based on the erroneous Pietistic understanding of 1 Timothy 3:16. Those two errors cannot be reconciled with each other, let alone with the Scriptures and Confessions.

The next part is accurate about the Word as a Means of Grace - God brings us salvation - but does Rolf mean it? He ululates between Objective Justification and Justification by Faith, but always comes to rest on OJ.

For example, he sounds Lutheran for several sentences and then retreats into OJ again - here - We were saved when Jesus died for us. That is pure Edward Preuss, as quoted favorably by his father in the attempt to crush and displace Walter Maier II.

That suggests to me that the middle part was another shell game, a swindle, a con, starting with OJ, switching to the Means of Grace, and ending with his true love - Enthusiasm.

Rolf Preus The so called Kokomo statements were compiled by deniers of objective justification to discredit the pure teaching. They snookered their pastor into acquiescing to statements written by a WELS theologian but taken out of context. It is dishonest to set forth the Kokomo statements a representative of anyone's teaching of objective justification.

3

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 4w

Jim Schulz Rolf Preus It is willful ignorance to say that no one is expressing Objective Justification in Kokomo ways.

This little paragraph by Rolf, from the same FB page, is another deception. I traveled to Kokomo and met with the two families WELS kicked out for rejecting the four Kokomo Statements. WELS and UOJ sects engage in willful deception about this.

Pastor Papenfuss (WELS) began teaching his Kokomo congregation that the entire world was declared forgiven. Two families were shocked by this, and Papenfuss gave them JP Meyer's Ministers of Christ (WELS, still in print). They copied the first three statements from the book and added a fourth one from an earlier debate. These men asked them, "Is this what WELS believes?" Papenfuss said "Yes" but added that he never heard of UOJ until he began studies at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary in Mequon.

That means Papenfuss had a Lutheran education and confirmation, probably with the Gausewitz (non-UOJ) Catechism, attended four years of Northwestern College (RIP) which was for future WELS pastors only. And yet never heard of UOJ.

Rolf - They snookered their pastor into acquiescing to statements written by a WELS theologian but taken out of context. It is dishonest to set forth the Kokomo statements a representative of anyone's teaching of objective justification.

Rolf - please stop lying. The two families took their case to WELS and WELS, headed by Armin Panning (chairing the Committee to Extend the Left Foot of Fellowship) agreed with the excommunication. The Four Statements were in the letter, saying (Thy Strong Word) that they were being removed for not accepting those four statements. Sig Becker supported that as well.

WELS re-published Ministers of Christ with the same offensive statements in the "new" version, edited by Armin Panning, president of Mequon and New Testament professor. Since Panning agreed with extending the Left Foot of Fellowship, was he also snookered? Poor Rolf - one should not put whoppers into print where they can be subjected to the truth.

In conclusion, without quoting everything Rolf has written, I can only conclude that he enjoys wearing fleece when confronted by someone who understands Justification by Faith. But he cannot resist letting the slavering lupine jaws and sharp claws emerge from his ovine camouflage. 

Court denies appeal in corruption case | NWADG

 The Paris family's Ecclesia College was going to expand, they claimed, so they needed more money than any other entity to do that. And what did they do with it? They bought 50 acres on top of the 200 they already owned. Meanwhile, the campus continued its Third World ambience from lack of improvements.

Court denies appeal in corruption case | NWADG:



"FAYETTEVILLE — A federal appeals court has refused to hear an appeal of an order to dismiss filed by defendants in the corruption case involving former state Sen. Jon Woods.

Woods, Oren Paris III, and Randell G. Shelton sought to have charges against them dismissed because FBI special agent Robert Cessario had a hard drive of a laptop computer used in the investigation erased after being ordered to turn it over for inspection in a evidence-related dispute.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks’ refused to dismiss the charges and the appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals followed.

A three-judge panel today denied the appeal in a two-sentence ruling."

Rusty Cranford is involved in this scandal too.

'via Blog this'

Answer the Fallacies of Forgiveness and Election without Faith. From the Artesian Well Called The Lutheran Library Publishing Ministry

After finishing Loy yesterday, I decided to take another look at the 3-books-in-one published by Schodde as The Error of Missouri. The middle one Intuitu Fidei was translated by Lenski. The following quote is from part one.

Alec

---

Dr. Jacob Andreae is, besides Chemnitz, one of the main authors of the Formula of Concord. He was far more active than even Chemnitz himself in bringing matters so far that the Formula was produced. In the year 1574 he published a disputation on predestination in which thesis 10 reads as follows: “Predestination and election by grace is the eternal decree of God, declaring that He will save those persons who are penitent and believe in Christ, the Savior and only Redeemer of the world.” Thesis 172: “It is God’s immutable will that all should believe in the Gospel, and that those who believe shall be saved,” Mark 16. Th. 173: “As it is likewise His immutable will, that those who do not believe shall be damned.” Th. 174: “Nor does the universality of the promises of the Gospel contradict the particularity of election” (i. e. by the fact, that election is restricted to a few, or that only a few are chosen). Thesis 175: “For God has not promised salvation to all promiscuously, but only to those who believe.” Thesis 176: “Hence the particular election is included in the universal promise.”

Moreover in this disputation of 1574 Andreae opposes an unconditional election in the following words: “Whoever seeks predestination in an absolute decree of God, because God’s foreknowledge is absolutely certain, leads men to think that such a decree necessarily brings about the salvation of certain persons who under no circumstances can be condemned, while it likewise effects the damnation of others so that they cannot be saved. The result of this is that believers, becoming perplexed when considering this divine foreknowledge, cannot be cheered by consolation; men of Epicurean mind, however, thereby open for themselves and others the door for transgression; because the hidden will of God has decided everything, all our efforts avail nothing. . . . The reason why all are not saved is this, that they spurn the divine grace, which God offers to all in Christ. 

The fact, that this grace cannot be accepted by our own reason or strength, does not overthrow our proposition. All indeed are to hear, and by hearing are to come to faith. Whoever despises preaching, must accuse himself, and not a hidden decree of God, just as his conscience accuses only himself. The doctrine of an absolute decree also renders the work of the Word and the Sacrament useless. Reprobation by an absolute will, without the foresight of unbelief, is blasphemous. Whoever hears the Word, which he indeed cannot believe by his own powers, to him the Holy Spirit is promised, and He works that all who hear may also believe. This coming to hear preaching, this willing and hearing, God demands as a piece of outward obedience, a leading, as it were by the hand, unto Christ, although in itself it does not effect conversion. But this man can do, hear the Word which is the organ of the Spirit, or stop his ears; but man has not the least measure of power for assent, as Erasmus claimed, assent is altogether the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Well, well, Andreae, what are you teaching here? Are you, the actual author of the Formula of Concord still really in such lamentable ignorance regarding the very first letter of the pure doctrine of predestination, which consists of the very opposite of what you teach in these propositions? Don't you know that predestination and the universal gracious will of God are two entirely different "sides" of God's will, which neither reason nor the light of grace is able to harmonize with each other? Let me tell you, my dear Andreae, you should have remained at home with your wisdom, which betrays a "rationalizing tendency"; you had better remain silent as long as you have no clearer light on the a b c of the pure doctrine of predestination. See, "it is impossible for us to mediate between, or to harmonize with our reason, these two scriptural doctrines concerning particular election and concerning universal grace. Not even the light of grace is able to remove this discord, we must wait for the light of glory" ("L. u. W.", 1880, 308). How then could you write such nonsense as this: "The universality of the promises does not contradict the particularity of election; for God has not promised salvation to all promiscuously, but only to those who believe; hence the particular election is included in the universal promise." Why, the thing is just the reverse! Election is "an altogether different thing" from this universal promise. And therefore the particularity of election contradicts the universality of the promise, and we cannot solve the contradiction, and you dare not, as you venture to do. harmonize the two by referring to passages like these: "He that believeth shall be saved," or: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." I am very much afraid, my dear Andreae, that you agree with the later dogmaticians who make "election depend on faith", although I know, of course, that you are the chief author of the Formula of Concord and that you ought to know how it is to be understood. Certainly we respect your Lutheranism otherwise: but when you include the particularity of election in the universal promise ("He that believeth shall be saved"), understanding the former by the latter, when thus you attempt "to explain somewhat and make plausible to our reason'" (!!) "this wonderful mystery of election" by mixing in foreseen faith, then, we are sorry to say, you too have "forsaken the Scriptures and the Symbol" and gone off on the wrong track of Pelagianism. Still one thing serves to excuse you somewhat: your co-workers on the Formula, as the extracts from Selnecker and Chytraeus show, were likewise not quite straight on this subject, and, to put it as mildly as possible, badly misunderstood their dear Formula of Concord in this a b c point of the pure doctrine of election! _Sapienti sat_. [Note from the I. F. proper. – Translator.] 

Two Terms To Understand - Justification and Forensic

 CFW and his brother kidnapped their niece and nephew from their father's parsonage. The Saxon migration was proud of the minors who came along with them on their merry adventure. CFW let his future mother-in-law go to jail while he escaped to America with the rest of the criminals. Pastor Martin Stephan took his main mistress - there were others - on the same ship he sailed.

CFW Walther and his brother grew up in the parsonage of a rationalist. They were also trained in rationalism when they were obtaining their credentials to be pastors. The men who examined them were rationalists because the state church was controlled by rationalists. Anyone else was considered a Pietist.

Needless to say, since Walther chose to associate with Pietistic circles, he must have been quite clever to give the accepted answers when examined for graduation and ordination.

Clearly, the entire Walther circle was trained in rationalism and drawn closer in cell group Pietism, led by two different abusive mentors. The first one died, so they gravitated to Pastor Martin Stephan, Bohemian Pietist pastor called to the Dresden congregation of Bohemian Pietists.

Pastor Martin Stephan was known early for promoting the Scriptures and the Book of Concord, but he also became known for corruption, spending a lot of late night hours with young women, and violating the state rules that allowed him to be called without a degree and serve cell groups as long as they practiced at their church property. He was often caught conducting his cell group work at other locations.

Calvinism is the primary source of rationalism in the state churches of Europe, and Lutheran Pietism served as a blend of Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrine.

Therefore, Walther's dogma is all the more suspect if we look at its origins and his unfettered devotion to a criminal that he helped to become a bishop-for-life. Rather than start with Walther and his infallible life, why not consider two important terms - justification and forensic.

Justification
The word Justification is used only in connection with a declaration, so its use as an addition to the Atonement is entirely suspect.

Robert Preus correctly declared that the Atonement is not Justification. That is because:

1. Objective Justification
2. The Justification of the World, and
3. General Justification

are expressions that "God's pronounced the entire world forgiven and saved."

Forensic
However, Melanchthon was the pioneer in expressing forgiveness as Forensic Justification. As many realize, forensic is a term commonly used today in crime - forensic expert, etc. Melanchthon's use of the term means that when the Gospel treasure is conveyed by the Word to someone, creating faith by the work of the Holy Spirit, that individual is declared forgiven by God.

Note how clever the false teachers are, using Calvinistic concepts (Enthusiasm) to improve upon the teaching of the Bible and Book of Concord by merging the Atonement and Forensic Justification.

I have read quite a few WELS treatments of their favorite dogma, their only dogma. They kidnap the term forensic to say that God held a trial and declared the whole world forgiven. As a veternal reader of Roman Catholic Enthusiasm, I have been struck by the parallel between papal inventions (the scapular) and UOJ - the "startling decree." Yes, we are startled and alarmed that so much foolishness is attributed to God, Who will judge those false teachers.

 Read this out loud to a Christian believer.
What?????

The Atonement/Justification Merger
When the UOJ Stormtroopers are done with their deceit, the individual is no longer declared forgiven (justified) through faith in Christ (forensic, as in a judicial proceeding). Instead, the entire world is declared by God to be forgiven and saved - apart from faith, without hearing the Word of the Gospel, without the Spirit at work in the Means of Grace.

Enthusiasm is defined in the Book of Concord as the foundation for all false doctrine, including the pagan religions of the world and the pope's creative and imaginative inventions. Let us move on to the second part, largely ignored, of OJ/SJ - Subjective Justification.

Subjective Justification
This term  was used by the Calvinist Woods to explain how one is forgiven-forgiven, because the entire world has already been forgiven. This is really a snipe hunt, because hardly anyone deals with the nonsense of Subjective Justification. Even though Lutherans supposedly are devoted to Subjective Justification, 99% of their effluence is devoted to Objective Justification.

The Lutheran Enthusiasts define their Subjective Justification as accepting or agreeing with the absolution of the world (OJ). So every single individual is born forgiven but not really forgiven until he accepts or decides that he is already forgiven. Asking someone to elaborate on such a contradiction is cruel and unusual punishment. That is why virtually all of mainline, liberal or apostate theology is Objective Justification. To talk about faith - these wise men say - is to deny God's grace. They are very skilled, like cows playing the harp.

This confession of false doctrine is in Valleskey's Church Growth textbook, which Herman Otten adores. Webber cannot find a connection between UOJ and Church Growth. But, he cannot find Luther's Galatians Lectures either.

UOJ
The excessive term Universal Objective Justification is an example of mission creep. If the entire world has already been forgiven and saved, why add Universal to Objective? WELS likes to be different, so they use UOJ while their partners in doctrinal crime commonly use OJ. The exception is John Sparky Brenner, who writes Justification of the World, more words to say the same thing - God has declared the entire world forgiven and saved. General Justification is the old German term, which does not mean the Atonement, but "every and every one" is forgiven and saved.

"Ach, vas dat dein Fuss, Liebchen, er Charlotte?"
Barth/Kirchbaum taught UOJ and passed on their cathedral of false doctrine to the grandees of Fuller Seminary.

Justification and Rome: Robert D. Preus: 9780570042648: Amazon.com: Books

Justification and Rome: Robert D. Preus: 9780570042648: Amazon.com: Books:

Justification and Rome Paperback – June 1, 1997

by Robert D. Preus  (Author)

5.0 out of 5 stars    5 customer reviews

---

See all 2 formats and editions

• Kindle 
  $23.99Read with Our Free App
 
• Paperback 
  from $7.0018 Used from $7.002 New from $73.00

This study does more than simply restate the respective positions of the Lutheran Church and Roman Catholic Church of the 16th century, it also examines the pertinent materials of our generation on the same issues. Preus clearly explains where Lutherans and Roman Catholics have equivocated and in the process presents a succinct and honest evaluation of the current Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. It also evaluates some of the various efforts of Lutherans and Roman Catholics to reconcile their differences and achieve consensus or "convergence" on the doctrine. 

'via Blog this'

Here Is the Punchline Folks - LCMS Pastors Call Justification by Faith "Calvinism". No Kidding! But Calvin Never Taught JBFA.

Meantime the crisis came in the Synodical Conference. The predestination controversy was raging with ever increasing ardor, and all were pressed to take sides on the burning question. I was editor, and of course, had to speak out. Not that I was disposed rashly to put myself forward. It was long before I admitted what seemed to lie so plainly before the eyes of all who were willing to see. For a long while I thought that there must be some mistake about it. Antecedently it looked improbable to me that such a man as Dr. Walther, with all his wide learning and profound devotion to Lutheran doctrine, would at last be caught in the snare of Calvinism. The confusion apparent in the first presentation of Missourian predestinarianism nourished this thought, and for months I entertained the hope that the mystery would yet be cleared up and Missouri would yet retrieve its honored Lutheran character. But I was disappointed. The Missourians defended their error, and it became ever more evident that their offensive statements were not slips of their tongues and pens, but were the expression of false doctrines which had entered their souls. As soon as I was convinced that they inculcated Calvinistic opinions, I did not hesitate to say so; and I accordingly was one of the first among us to incur their displeasure. The announcement was made that Missourians would not sit in conference with any who pronounced their doctrine Calvinistic, and that settled the matter for them as regards their future relations to opponents.

 Cat 1 - dog 0.

***
GJ - Pastor Loy perhaps felt compelled to call CFW "Dr. Walther" because his own Capital University gave the UOJist an honorary ThD in 1877. At any rate, Loy was unfailingly polite and respectful.


I agree with Stephan - Walther was a fox. He knew how to play the role of a humble layman, but he called himself "Pastor of Brauensdorf" after resigning that call, when he helped make Stephan a bishop by acclamation. Of course, no one could be a leader in the Stephanite cult unless he agree 100% with Stephan and subordinated himself entirely to Stephan's will. That is why CFW and the rest "did not know" about the bishop's adultery. Ha!


The Missouri sect played to the worst instincts of Walther, who duplicated the attitudes of Stephan, demanding 100% obedience. That made CFW even worse and closed him off to any corrective discussion and debate. There are stories about his tyranny, but they are smothered by his almost-divine status in the LCMS.

Is Matt the Fatt any better than Walther? Discussing LCMS doctrine - without having an official title - is enough to get one kicked out of the ministry and removed from one's congregation. Harrison only looks good in comparison with his campaign manager, Paul the Plagiarist. And yet the subservient LCMS puts up with them both, God's punishment inflicted on them for tolerating and promoting false doctrine.

Matthias Loy - On Dealing with the Infallible Walther. GJ - This Is What Wrecked the Synodical Conference

Walther anticipated the smartphone and the
Starbucks coffee mug.

From The Story of My Life by Matthias Loy. Chapter 8

Negotiations along this line were successful, and in 1872 the Synodical Conference was organized on a sound Lutheran basis and with principles that assured a consistent Lutheran practice. This was not only the largest of all the synodical bodies bearing the Lutheran name, but also the most thoroughly Lutheran in word and work. The Ohio Synod heartily joined in its formation, and I rejoiced in the attainment of a purpose which, in my sight, contained the promise of unspeakable blessings.

For years I was not disappointed in my expectations. We worked together with unanimity of purpose, and being one in our faith and our aim there was little collision in devising means for its attainment, and in the execution of our plans. Sometimes vestiges of feelings engendered by past conflicts cropped out, but the discussions were frank, and there was no need to withhold the expression of honest conviction. Yet all the while there was something which had a depressing effect on a large portion of the membership. The Missouri Synod dominated the Conference. It was numerically the strongest of the synods united in it, and it was the strongest in intellectual power and theological learning. Aside from the one master mind which dominated the Missouri Synod, this would not have been the case. Other synods had men of ability that rendered them the equals of the Missourians, with the exception of Dr. Walther, who towered above them all. As he was a man sincerely devoted to the Lord and to the Evangelical Lutheran Church, I was glad that we had him among us, and was thankful that God had given us so powerful an advocate of a cause so dear to my heart.

But the good thing had its drawbacks. The Missourians were conscious of their superiority, and some were manifestly proud of it. Among them were not lacking weak brethren who manifested this in ways bordering on insolence, as though they would say, We are the people, but who are you? That was not the spirit of Dr. Walther and of the chief men among them. But even Dr. Walther was not wholly free from contributing to the depression. I do not think that he was of an arrogant and domineering disposition, but his experience was such that his demeanor not unseldom assumed that appearance. He was accustomed to have his doctrinal statements accepted as indisputably correct and his judgment assented to as decisive and final. He could brook no public contradiction when he had spoken. He had become a dictator by habit, without claiming to be this or to have any authority for it. This had the effect of inducing men to be silent when they should have spoken, preferring not to express their dissent when this might be followed by unpleasant situations. Once an important subject of discussion was left in such a form that I was uneasy, and some others were evidently not satisfied. We secured the appointment of a committee, composed of one delegate from each of the synods represented, to draw up a paper which should clearly state what we desired and obviate the ambiguity to which objection was raised. The committee met and performed its task with perfect unanimity. When we reported, Dr. Walther, who was acting as moderator, took the paper, glanced over it, and laid it aside with the remark that it did not express what he contended for and did not furnish what was wanted. Nobody said anything, and the paper was not submitted to the Conference.

On another occasion I was constrained to oppose a position which he took in support of a thesis that he presented. In my judgment the thesis was all right, but the argument used to establish it seemed to me to involve a principle which I regarded as erroneous and which might prove dangerous in theory and practice. I could not maintain peace of mind without stating my objections. Modestly I ventured to speak against his position, most sincerely prefacing my remarks with the statement, that one thinks twice or thrice before openly expressing dissent from a man like my friend, Dr. Walther, but that with all his gifts he is not infallible, and we owe it to our God and our Church to speak in defense of the truth as we see it, even though it be against a man whom we all delight to honor. My introduction produced such a sensation that my speech hardly received the desired attention.

To my astonishment Dr. Walther was seriously offended at my remarking, as an excuse for what might seem presumption on my part, the fact that he was not infallible. He took it as an insinuation that he nursed the delusion of his own infallibility. He declined to take any further part in the discussion of the topic, and finally withdrew the part of his paper which had been the object of my attack, while the thesis itself was adopted. But for several sessions a pall hung over our deliberations, which was removed only after mutual friends arranged for a private meeting between us, that explanations might be made and misunderstandings removed.

With such difficulties to contend with, our work went on less joyously than our unity of faith and purpose would have warranted, though it went on prosperously notwithstanding these drawbacks. Some of our people were certainly less eager to take part in the discussions and transactions of the Conference, and less zealous in carrying out its plans, than they would have been in other circumstances. They did not feel as fully at home there as they did at the conventions of our own synod, where no one was afraid to say what he thought and felt.

 "Everyone has to agree with me, but just for the sake of good order."
PS - "Get those Jackson books outta here!"

Matthias Loy on CFW Walther's Calvinism. Thank You Alec Satin

Matthias Loy. And I was there. No, really.
I visited the retired pastor of Loy's parish in Delaware, Ohio.

Who explained Knapp so well that Walther loved the two categories - Objective and Subjective Justification? The Calvinist Woods wrote the explanation to Knapp's rather opaque and labored dogma. I would say that Walther's Calvinism came from Halle Pietism, which was dominant in CFW's life, especially his UOJ mentor Bishop Martin Stephan, STD.

From The Story of My Life by Matthias Loy, chapter 6.

Overburdened as I was with work after the Standard had become a weekly, circumstances in 1882 impelled me to undertake additional editorial labors. With the Missourians we had long been at peace, and our relations had become so cordial that we had united with them in forming the Synodical Conference. It had always been a favorite idea of mine that the Lutheran Church in this country should, so far as this could be done on the basis of her confession, join her forces and all parts work together for the spread and defense of the precious truth of the Reformation, and especially that different organizations professing the same faith should cease to place obstacles in each other’s way by occupying the same territory and pursuing special synodical interests at the expense of the Church’s welfare as a whole.

According to the will of God churches of the same faith must treat each other as brethren and help each other, and causing division and working against each other is sin. Whilst I knew quite well that the external union of churches into large organizations is not commanded, I regarded it as a requirement of Christian wisdom and love to form such unions in order to avoid interferences with each other’s work and to make the best possible use of the various gifts and opportunities for the common good.

I was therefore sincere in my desire to have our Synod unite with other Lutheran Synods in the General Council, and regretted that the position taken by that body rendered this impossible without sacrificing all that could make the union desirable. Any scheme of expediency, however wise it may seem, is merely human folly when it is set up against the wisdom of God. Therefore I contended against the Council when it declined to act in accordance with the good Confession which it formally adopted. It was the same principle that actuated me in my efforts towards securing a union with other Synods which, like our own, could not unite with the Council, and I was therefore glad when the Synodical Conference was organized, as I was sorry that, from my point of view, the Council had been a failure. But after six or eight years of harmonious co-operation in that body, troubles came. The elements united in the Conference were not in every respect congenial, but they were one in the same Lutheran faith and thus harmonious in all that is requisite for true unity in the Church.

Some of our ministers did not like the supercilious ways of some of the Missourians, and were not as cordial as might be wished even with some of the Missourian leaders. The Wisconsin and Minnesota men were even less enthusiastic in their admiration of Missourians, and occasionally something akin to antipathy was shown towards some of them, who sometimes conducted themselves as if they were not averse to being regarded as the princes of the court and the others their retinue. Notwithstanding these undesirable manifestations the synods were growing together nicely, and there was no serious jarring or jangling in prosecuting the work in which all were heartily engaged.

The trouble that came was of a doctrinal sort. Even before the formation of our Conference, some views of predestination had been published by Missourian pastors which had a Calvinistic taint. But this was not in their official organs. What these had published was acceptable to all of us. But in 1877 Dr. Walther began to advocate a theory which excited doubt and suspicion. On most of us what was published in the minutes of the Missouri Synod made little impression. It was a confused discussion of a difficult subject, and little notice was taken of it until it was made the subject of inquiries among the Missourians themselves. Prof. Schmidt, of the Norwegian Synod, finally made public his scruples about the doctrine of Dr. Walther and showed its inconsistency with that of the Lutheran Church.

Instead of revoking his error, Dr. Walther defended it. He was not accustomed to any dissent from his teaching among his own people, and was never inclined to yield a point when any of them ventured publicly to express a doubt, which as a rule was done, if done at all, in the way of a humble request for further light. So the predestinarian controversy began, and our Ohio Synod became entangled in it because of our connection with the Synodical Conference in which it had sprung up, and which must ultimately accept or reject the new doctrine.

From the beginning my sympathies were entirely with Prof. Schmidt, who defended the doctrine which the Lutheran Church had been unanimous in teaching for three hundred years; but it seemed to me that Dr. Walther had rather become confused in his expositions, and that when the matter should be cleared up he would correct his extravagant expressions and accept the uniform teachings of the old dogmaticians, from which he still quoted largely, as was his wont.

The printed Minutes by which the conflagration was started, show two irreconcilable lines of thought, and I was loathe to think that the Calvinistic line was designed to be dominant, and that the purpose was to introduce a mild form of Calvinism. But as the controversy continued I could not close my eyes to the fact, as it became more and more apparent, that Dr. Walther maintained a theory that was essentially Calvinistic. 

This was expressed in the Standard, and before the subject came before the Synodical Conference the Missourians, under Dr. Walther’s leadership, had adopted a plan by which all who were convinced that the new theory was a species of Calvinism should be denied a seat in that body. As they had a large majority in it, the Ohio Synod, seeing it to be useless under such circumstances to make any effort to secure the triumph of Anti-Calvinism in a body from which any one attacking Walther’s Calvinism was excluded, declared its withdrawal.

How To Detect False Teachers in the Lutheran Church. False Teachers and Ideas Are Conveniently Identified in Red. Biblical Terms and Teachers Are in Soothing Blue

 John Sparky Brenner says the Justification of the World was the key issue in the Synodical Conference breakup. He is correct about that, but sides with the false teachers.

False teachers in the church are easy to detect, but people shy away from doing so. Jesus ended the Sermon on the Mount with warnings about wolves in sheep's clothing. The Good Shepherd chapter in John's Gospel (chapter 10 for Mordor graduates) contrasts the Good Shepherd with thieves, robbers, wolves, and hired hands.

Likewise, Paul warned his congregations about the characteristics and actions of false teachers.

Luther elaborated in his Sexagesima sermon that I will post at the end.

First - Look at Their Authorities
One way or another, people give away their authorities through quotations, footnotes, and laudatory references.

1. Some start and stop with Walther, Pieper, and their fellow travelers. Any dead person in this circle is beyond criticism.
2. They may cite figures from the past whom they admire. That serves as a guide to their thinking. Rauschenbusch is a marker among Lutherans for socialists and Marxists. C. Peter Wagner, McGovern, and Win Arn are the original Shrinkers, along with Robert Schuller.
3. Others are obsessed with the power of the synod and the political actions taken through resolutions.
4. The Church Shrinkers flit from fading blossom to fading blossom. Search the names they use and see how many are directly connected to Fuller Seminary, Willow Creek, and Mark Jeske. Although this blog is fairly young, several of their superstars have already blown up or faded away.

Bonus Section - Who are the Bad Guys?

Even the false teachers follow the classic confessional formula of stating their beliefs and anathematizing the errorists. By observing the bad guys cited, we can see where the writer or speaker is with Christian doctrine.

• The Anti-Lutherans treat Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, and the Concordists as bad guys. They are ignored or pilloried as irrelevant.
• Gausewitz is never mentioned by the UOJ faction.
• Lenski is a bad guy - that needs to be mentioned whenever his name comes up. "He is not good on justification."
• The great leaders of ELCA's distant past are forgotten by ELCA and by the devious Synodical Conference: Jacobs, Krauth, Loy, Lenski, Schmauk, and Reu.
• In case anyone wonders - I am a BAD GUY to the UOJ/Shrinkage people who hate Luther.

Second - Take Note of Their Religious Phrases

What we read comes through in what we communicate. There are no thoughts without words. Try that some time.

1. Faithful Lutherans realize that the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace is foundational. Isaiah 55:8ff.
2. Faithful Lutherans also realize the work of the Church is to convict the world of sin, because "they do not believe on Me." John 16:8ff.
3. Every version of cell group is a marker for Pietism and Church Shrinkage: small, share, care, koinonia, affinity, home Bible study. These people hate pipe organs and love praise bands. Their favorite music is subjective, all about me.
4. Mission goals may sound religious but they come from Drucker's Management by Objectives, which Fuller Seminary and the apostate Lutherans love.
5. Spoiling the Egyptians was first used by Augustine, then borrowed by a Fuller intellectualoid, subsequently borrowed by David Valleskey.
6. Instead of writing about the treasure of the Atonement, they speak of the Justification of the World (John Sparky Brenner), Universal Objective Justification (Valleskey), Objective Justification (Webber, Buchholz, et al.), General Justification. They pretend they are talking about the Atonement, but they define their term otherwise, because it is "God's declaration of the entire world forgiven and saved."
7. Instead of writing about Justification by Faith, they use their term from Woods, the Calvinist - Subjective Justification. John Sparky Brenner cannot bring himself to write Justification by Faith, but uses this circumlocution - Individual Appropriation of Forgiveness. So JBFA is garlic for your dogma, Sparky? Sad.
8. Numbskulls - or liars - you choose, call Universal Objective Justification the "Chief Article of Christianity" and apply various phrases for JBFA to their hobby horse, UOJ.

 Frosty Bivens plagiarized Zarling's awful essay to argue that
UOJ is the Chief Article. I am seeing red, and that makes me blue. See the graphic below for the Chief Article, endorsed by Luther, Melanchthon, and the Formula of Concord.

 Melanchthon, Luther, and the Formula of Concord agree.

 Mark Zarling declared UOJ to be the "diamond" of Christian doctrine (his term) and the Chief Article, a designation he stole from sincere Christians, the Book of Concord.

 Valleskey and Bivens have two favorite dogmas - Church Growth and Universal Objective Justification.

Luther's Description of False Teachers - Based on Paul's Text for Sexagesima Sunday

PAUL’S DESCRIPTION OF FALSE TEACHERS. Sexagesima Epistle Sermon. Lenker.

9. Note the master hand wherewith Paul portrays the character of false teachers, showing how they betray their avarice and ambition. First, they permit true teachers to lay the foundation and perform the labor; then they come and desire to do the work over, to reap the honors and the benefits.

Glende had to have the right building for his ego, so he sold this one
for a song and went on synod welfare.

Jeske and Brug got Glende his big church building,
which Glende abandoned before the structure was finished. Now it is a thriving Baptist church that added onto Glende's original Cathedral for Coffee.

They bring about that the name and the work of the true teachers receive no regard and credit; what they themselves have brought — that is the thing. They make the poor, simple-minded people to stare open-mouthed while they win them with flowery words and seduce them with fair speeches, as mentioned in Romans 16:18. These are the idle drones that consume the honey they will not and cannot make. That this was the condition of affairs at Corinth is very clear from this epistle — indeed, from both epistles. Paul continually refers to others having followed him and built upon the foundation he has laid. Messengers of the devil, he terms them.

10. And such false teachers have the good fortune that all their folly is tolerated, even though the people realize how these act the fool, and rather rudely at that. They have success with it all, and people bear with them.

But no patience is to be exercised toward true teachers! Their words and their works are watched with the intent of entrapping them, as complained of in Psalm 17:9 and elsewhere. When only apparently a mote is found, it is exaggerated to a very great beam. No toleration is granted. There is only judgment, condemnation and scorn. Hence the office of preaching is a grievous one. He who has not for his sole motive the benefit of his neighbor and the glory of God, cannot continue therein. The true teacher must labor, and permit others to have the honor and profit of his efforts, while he receives injury and derision for his reward. Here the saying holds true: “To love without guerdon, nor wearying of the burden.” Only the Spirit of God can inspire such love. To flesh and blood it is impossible.

Paul here scores the false prophets when he says, “Ye suffer fools gladly”; in other words, “I know the false preachers often act as fools, nor can they help it, because their teaching is false; yet ye excuse them.”

Kelm copied Fuller Seminary slavishly,
and his Church and Changer group accused everyone else of not being with it,
not being creative, not hard-working like them,
not caring about Holy Mother WELS' future.

11. In the second place such teachers are disposed to bring the people into downright bondage and to bind their conscience by forcing laws upon them and teaching work-righteousness. The effect is that fear impels them to do what has been pounded into them, as if they were bond-slaves, while their teachers command fear and attention. But the true teachers, they who give us freedom of conscience and create us lords, we soon forget, even despise. The dominion of false teachers is willingly tolerated and patiently endured; indeed, it is given high repute. All those conditions are punishments sent by God upon them who do not receive the Gospel with love and gratitude. Christ says ( John 5:43): “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye shall receive.” The Pope, with his spiritual office, became our lord, and we became his captives, through his doctrine of human works. And our present-day schismatics pursue the same object with their fanciful doctrine concerning their works.

DP Jon Buchholz replaced another DP noted for kicking pastors out,
and he began doing the same thing - bu the Changers are spared.
Buchholz lied to the New Mexico congregation and then
tried - and fail - to steal their property through foreclosure.

12. In the third place, false teachers flay their disciples to the bone, and cut them out of house and home, but even this is taken and endured. Such, I opine, has been our experience under the Papacy. But true preachers are even denied their bread. Yet this all perfectly squares with justice! For, since men fail to give unto those from whom they receive the Word of God, and permit the latter to serve them at their own expense, it is but fair they should give the more unto preachers of lies, whose instruction redounds to their injury. What is withheld from Christ must be given in tenfold proportion to the devil. They who refuse to give the servant of the truth a single thread, must be oppressed by liars.

Bad enough to steal the property of a church just kicked out,
but to grab what was long ago thrown out?

Funny how often Mark Jeske's name comes up
in WELS/LCMS examples of false doctrine and perfidy.

13. Fourth, false apostles forcibly take more than is given them. They seize whatever and whenever they can, thus enhancing their insatiable avarice.

This, too, is excused in them. Thus, the great establishments of the Pope did not suffice for him; with various artifices, bulls, laws and indulgences, he has brought under his power land and people and all they possess, exhausting the world by usury. And so it should be, for this state of affairs was richly deserved by men for despising the Gospel and its preachers.

Mark and Avoid Jeske
teaches self-love and fellowship with everyone except Lutherans,
so Thrivent Insurance pays him $140k for being on the board and
making things worse.

The Institute of Lutheran Theology, ELCA-based,
trains women for ordination
and ELS Jay Webber for the ELCA dogma of universal salvation.
Thrivent Choice - a hint at their pro-abortion stance
or a reference to choice meat being second-rate?

14. Fifth, these deceitful teachers, not satisfied with having acquired our property, must exalt themselves above us and lord it over us. Not only do they possess all property, but they must for that very reason become our superiors; must have precedence and receive honor. We bow our knees before them, worship them and kiss their feet. And we suffer it all, yes, with fearful reverence regard it just and right. And it is just and right, for why did we not honor the Gospel by accepting and preserving it?

What can anyone say, except,
"What did WELS do to deserve these clowns, bullies,
camp-followers, and con-artists?"

15. Sixth, our false apostles justly reward us by smiting us in the face. That is, they consider us inferior to dogs; they abuse us, and treat us as footrags.

I venture to say we became sensible of such treatment when, under the Papacy, we were readily put in the van, cursed, condemned and delivered to the devil. We endured it all, suffered most patiently, and yielded up property, honor, body and soul. Fault in a sincere teacher, however, could by no means be tolerated. Very well, then; God is just, and it is his judgment that we must honor the messengers of Satan a thousand times more than his own, and do and suffer everything. “I speak by way of disparagement [speak as concerning reproach], as thought we had been weak.”

The congregations he kicked out or hated out
are begging to return, hoping the terms of surrender
are not too burdensome.
Thus the hirelings feed their sheep to the wolves.