Oregon Wrote:
Finally got free read the post after a busy day. Thank you for writing this, because if seems like lecture notes to me, and I have always wanted to learn.
GJ - "When I hear Lutheran pastors warn against "making faith a work of man," I am reminded of all those Calvinism liberal apostate theologians. They they" have their little slogans too, the chief one being, "Do not allow for a contingency, because then grace is no longer grace." A contingency clause starts with if, so the modern theologians and Synodical Conference blind guides emphasize universal grace, universal forgiveness, universal salvation. But that does not mean Universalism!?"
When I was reading this, I was reminded of Luther's "Bondage of the Will" (but I rather liked the more literal Latin On the Enslaved Will.). Certainly it was written primarily as a rebuke to Erasmus, but it could be a rebuke to Calvin as well because Luther speaks of the the only freedom we have...which does allow for that if. It's just not the if that Erasmus wanted, and it certainly wasn't one that Calvin wanted to hear either. It is a mystery, and the synodical conference seems to have fallen into that old trap of taking a position to comfort their sense of logic. Luther knew better; he didn't take either side-- rather he rested on faith in the scriptures. Again this fear of "if" is just as bad making faith a work of man. Chocolate or vanilla; heresy is heresy.
GJ - "Although it may be interesting to read the imaginative literature of C. S. Lewis, he was a neo, enchanted with his own views, which are are dog-eared ideas from Calvinism."
A good point! Although C.S. Lewis is insightful, I've learned to read him with care. He is indeed Neo, along with many others in the 20th century. Barth might be considered one....if we knew who Barth was.
GJ - PS Lewis has Aslan, the Christ figure say that people are saved by their own religion, so faith in Aslan is not necessary, which is commonly "confessed" by all ecumenists, dabblers, and rationalists.
---
GJ - "The Quasi-Lutherans are always looking for something, because they utterly neglect Luther and the Confessions. They see their Calvinistic Bible (probably NIV or ESV) as their guide, and grab anti-Means of Grace material as their snackfood."
Sad but true. It could be because by and large American Evangelicalism is Arminian, and so they distinguish their brand by separating themselves from that. It is indeed sad and true about Luther and the Confessions. Certainly we'll hear about Luther, but only as the reformer (What a great guy he was! So brave!), but never about the body of his work and that of the reformers. The confessions never saw the light of day in Sunday School in all my years except in very short anecdotal snippets when they were handy to support a point being made. They were never drawn upon as source material as they were intended when written over 400 years ago.
One donut to rule them all? Perhaps that's why they need a bishop?
I had to comment on the previous post as well (from the archive). It addressed in my mind what UOJ does, or put it another way the "The Marks of UOJ in the Church:"
GJ -
7. UOJ uses the terms "all are saved" in many different documents, so the Universalism is already there, though hidden behind the fig-leaf of you gotta believe it.
8. UOJ is Antinomian, teaching that the Law no longer exists, but you adherents are especially legalistic, making up more rules than the famous rabbis of old - not that the rules ever apply to you.
I've witnessed these two personally. #7 is interesting because on the surface it looks like JBFA, but what do you "gotta believe?" That's they key. And #8 is especially true. They almost come out and say it. I would always say, your Gospel has no value because what do we need it for?
GJ - You are conservative Pietists, you complainers, while they are the liberal Pietists.
Can you develop this further? I always observed they always seemed so pious, even without the law. And, I'd like to know more about the linkage to Calvin.
 |
| WELS never admitted to the entire synod that they had a District President in the state prison for decades of abuse. |
 |
| How can anyone read this without laughing out loud? |
GJ - Update on 7 and 8.
First of all, UOJ teaches Universal Absolution without Faith and then defines Subjective Justification (following Walther and Stephan) as accepting, or making a decision for this Absolution without Faith. That sounds like, "Don't say yes until I finish talking!" They wipe out faith in Christ and remove trust in the Means of Grace, replacing the Biblical message with infatuation with their wisdom. That is exactly what Luther says about Enthusiasts - they do not trust the Word but fill the world with their words. The WELS Holy of Holies, the Essay File, has 60 or more essays promoting this World Absolution without Faith.
Pietism is a blend of Calvinist substance and Lutheran style.
Hoenecke has a great definition of Pietism - roughly "confusing justification with sanctification and making sanctification the cause of justification."
UOJ pretends to be all grace, but all the UOJists I have known are pathological liars, legalistic Antinomians. They are legalistic by insisting that their view of sin is the right one, although it has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. Clergy adultery is bad, but not among their friends. Notice how Hochmuth was absolved publicly (without contrition, without faith) by Blind Guide Mark Schroeder . However, the same Mirthless Mark helped kick out Rydecki for teaching Justification by Faith. Legalistic Antinomians teach their law - at least for the moment - is binding, but all sins are forgiven in advance - if the circumstances favor them - in the name of unversal grace.
And to seal the irony, sanctimonious Schroeder and Hochmuch had previously condemned ELCA for their approval of homosexual marriage and ordination. I have that posted on the blog, because I knew WELS would make it disappear - and they erased it wherever it might be found in WELSland.
