Saturday, September 22, 2018

Luther's Sermon on Humility - Luke 14:1-11.
Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity

St. Luke, by El Greco



SEVENTEENTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY.




Text: Luke 14:1-11. And it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him. And behold, there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not? But they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him and let him go. And he said unto them, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day? And they could not answer again unto these things.

And he spake a parable unto those that were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief seats; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast, sit not down in the chief seat; lest haply a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him, and he that bade thee and him shall come and say to thee, Give this man place; and then thou shalt begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place; that when he that hath bidden thee cometh, he may say to thee, Friend, go up higher; then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat with thee. For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

1. This Gospel offers us two leading thoughts; one is general and is found in all our Gospel lessons, the other is peculiar to this one. First, in its general character, it shows who the Lord Jesus is and what we may expect of him, and in this is exhibited both faith and love.

2. Faith is here set forth in that this man, sick with the dropsy, looks to Christ and firmly believes he will help him. This faith he had as the result of his previous acquaintance with Jesus. He knows him as a kind, friendly and sympathetic man who always helps everyone and lets none go away uncomforted. Had he not heard such reports about the Lord he would not have followed him, even into the house. He must indeed have had some gospel knowledge and believed the wonderful things spoken about him.

3. And this is the Gospel, as I said, that must be preached and heard before there can be faith. We must know that God is kindly disposed toward us and has sent his Son from heaven to help us. This the conscience must hear and believe; for if God were unfriendly and unmerciful toward us, it would avail little to know that all his creatures sympathize with us. If God is satisfied with us, no creature can do us any harm, as St. Paul says in Romans 8:31: “If God is for us, who is against us?” Let death, devil, hell and all creation rage; we are safe. Therefore it is the Gospel that must present to us the God-man as merciful. This is the fountain from which our heart can draw faith and a friendly confidence toward God that he will help both the dying and the living in every distress.

4. We notice this here in the man afflicted with dropsy. He had heard of the kindness of Jesus to others and now believes that he will show the same to him. Had he not believed, it would have been impossible to help him. The Gospel resounds in all the world, but it is not heard by everybody. The Pharisees also sat there; they saw these things with their own eyes and failed not to notice what a friendly man Jesus was, but they believed not; hence the Gospel could neither reform them nor give them help and comfort. Thus the Gospel is very universal, but the true laying hold of it is very rare. So much in regard to faith.

5. Later we have here pictured to us also the love in Christ that goes forth and bears fruit, not for itself but for others, as is the nature of true love to do. This is now said on the first part of to-day’s Gospel.

6. However, this Pericope especially teaches us in the second place a necessary doctrine we must possess, if we are to make use of the laws that order the outward and temporal matters and affairs, which the church is to observe. Here we must act wisely and gently, if we wish to do the right thing, especially when weak and timid consciences are concerned. For there is nothing more tender in heaven and on earth, and nothing can bear less trifling, than the conscience. The eye is spoken of as a sensitive member, but conscience is much more sensitive. Hence we notice how gently the Apostles dealt with conscience in divers matters, lest it be burdened with human ordinances.

7. But as we cannot live without law and order, and as it is dangerous to deal with law since it is too apt to ensnare the conscience, we must say a little about human laws and ordinances and how far they are to be observed. The proverb says: “Everything depends upon having a good interpreter.” That is particularly true here where human ordinances are concerned. Where there is no one to interpret and explain the law rightly it is difficult and dangerous to have anything to do with it. Take, for example, a ruler who acts like a tyrant and abuses his authority. If he makes a law and urgently insists on the law being executed, he treats conscience as if he had a sword in his hand and were intent on killing. We have experienced this in the tyrannical laws of popery, how consciences were tormented and hurled into hell and damnation. Yea, there is great danger where one does not know how to temper and apply the laws.

8. Therefore we conclude that all law, divine and human, treating of outward conduct, should not bind any further than love goes. Love is to be the interpreter of law. Where there is no love, these things are meaningless, and law begins to do harm; as is also written in the Pope’s book: “If a law or ordinance runs counter to love, it will soon come to an end.” This is in brief spoken of divine and human laws. The reason for enacting all laws and ordinances is only to establish love, as Paul says, Romans 13:10: “Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.” Likewise verse 8: “Owe no man anything, save to love one another.” For if I love my neighbor, I help him, protect him, hold him in honor, and do what I would have done to me.

9. Since then all law exists to promote love, law must soon cease where it is in conflict with love. Therefore, everything depends upon a good leader or ruler to direct and interpret the law in accordance with love.

Take the example of the priests and monks. They have drawn up laws that they will say mass and do their praying and juggle with God in other ways at given hours according to the clock. If now a poor man should call and ask for a service at an hour when they were to hold mass or repeat their prayers, they might say: “Go your way; I must now read mass, must attend to my prayers,” and thus they would fail to serve the poor man, even if he should die. In this manner the most sanctimonious monks and Carthusians act; they observe their rules and statutes so rigorously that, although they saw a poor man breathing his last breath and could help him so easily, yet they will not do it. But the good people, if they were Christians, ought to explain the laws and statutes in harmony with love, and say: Let the mass go, let the sacraments, prayers, and the ordinances all go; I will dispense with works, I will serve my neighbor; love put in practice in serving my neighbor is golden in comparison with such human works.

10. And thus we should apply every law, even as love suggests, that it be executed where it is helpful to a fellow-man, and dispensed with where it does harm. Take a common illustration: If there were a housekeeper who made the rule in his home to serve now fish, then meat, now wine, then beer, even as it suits him; but perchance some one of his household took sick and could not drink beer or wine, nor eat meat or fish, and the housekeeper would not give him anything else, but say: No, my rules and regulations prescribe thus; I cannot give you anything else: what kind of a housekeeper would such an one be? One ought to give him sneeze-wort to purge his brain. For if he were a sensible man he would say: It is indeed true that my rules and regulations prescribe meat or fish for the table today, yet since this diet does not agree with you, you may eat what you like.

See how a housekeeper may adjust his own rules and make them conform to the love he entertains for his household. Thus all law must be applied as love toward a fellow-man may dictate.

11. Therefore, since the Mosaic law was not understood nor modified by love in the Old Testament, God promised the people through Moses that he would raise up a prophet who should interpret the law to them. For thus Moses says in Deuteronomy 18:15: “Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall harken.” God raised up prophets from time to time to explain the law and apply it, not in its rigor, but in love. Of this Moses himself is an example. He led the children of Israel out of Egypt for forty years hither and thither through the desert. Abraham had been commanded in Genesis 17:12, to circumcise every male on the eighth day. This commandment was plain enough that all had to observe it, yet Moses neglected it and circumcised no one the whole forty years.

12. Now, who authorized Moses to violate this commandment, given to Abraham by God himself? His authority was vested in his knowledge of the law’s spirit; he knew how to interpret and apply it in brotherly love, namely, that the law was to be serviceable to the people, and not the reverse. For, if during their journey they had to be ready day by day for warfare, circumcision would have hindered them, and he therefore omitted it, saying in effect: Although this law is given and should be observed, yet we will apply it in the spirit of love, and suspend its operation until we come to the end of our journey. Likewise should all laws be interpreted and applied as love and necessity may demand. Hence the importance of a good interpreter.

13. It was the same in the case of David when he partook of the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for anyone to eat, except the priest, Samuel 21:6; as Christ himself makes use of this example in Matthew 12:3. David was not consecrated, nor were his servants. When he was hungry he went to Ahimelech and asked for himself and men something to eat. Ahimelech answered: I have indeed nothing to give; the shew-bread of the tabernacle is for holy use. Then David and his men helped themselves and ate freely of it. Did David sin in the face of God’s ordinance? No. Why not? Because necessity compelled him, seeing there was nothing else to eat. It is in this way that necessity and love may override law.

14. That is what Christ also does in our Gospel, when he heals the suffering man on the Sabbath, although he well knew how strictly the Old Testament required the observance of the Sabbath. But see what the Pharisees do! They stand by watching the Lord. They would not have helped the sick man with a spoonful of wine, even if they could have done so. But Christ handles the law even at the risk of violating it, freely helps the poor man sick with the dropsy and gives the public a reason for his action, when he says, in effect: It is indeed commanded to keep the Sabbath day, yet where love requires it, there the law may be set aside.

This he follows up with an illustration from everyday life, then dismisses them in a way they must commend, and they answer him not a word. He says: “Which of you shall have an ox or an ass fallen into a well and will not straightway draw him up on the Sabbath day?”

15. As if to say: Ye fools, are ye not mad and stupid! If you act thus in the case of saving an ox or an ass which may perhaps be valued at a few dollars, how much rather should one do the same to a neighbor, helping him to his health, whether it be the Sabbath or not! For the Sabbath, as he says elsewhere, was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So that the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath, Mark 2:27.

16. Among the Jews there was a rigorous enforcement of the law, even their kings insisted on its strict observance. When the prophets came and explained the law in the spirit of love, saying: This is what Moses means, thus the law is to be understood, then there were false prophets at hand to side with the kings, insisting on the literal text and saying: There, so it is written; it is God’s Word; one must not interpret it otherwise. Thereupon the kings proceeded to kill one prophet after another. In the same way the Papists, priests and monks act now. If anyone says: We need not observe their laws literally, but we should rather interpret them in love; then they immediately cry, Heretic! Heretic!! and if they could they would kill him; yea, they do so already quite lustily.

17. As Christ here treats of the law relating to the Sabbath and makes it subserve the needs of man, so we should treat laws of that kind and keep them only so far as they accord with love. If laws do not serve love, they may be annulled at once, be they God’s or man’s commands. Take an illustration from our former darkness and sorrow under the Papacy.

Suppose someone had vowed to visit St. Jacob, and he remembers the words: “Pay that which thou vowest,” Ecclesiastes 5:4. He may have a wife, children or household to care for. What should such an one do?

Should he proceed to St. Jacob, or remain at home and support his family?

There, decide for yourselves which would be most needful and what harmonizes best with the spirit of love. I regard it best for him to remain home at work and attend to the care of his family. For his pilgrimage to St.

Jacob, even if that were not idolatrous and wrong in itself, would be of little profit to him, yea, he would spend and lose more than he could gain.

18. Another example. A mother is about to bear a child, who vowed to eat no flesh on Wednesdays, as many foolish women do. And perhaps because of this vow the mother may injure her offspring and her own body. Then the foolish confessional fathers come and say: Dear daughter, it is written in the Scriptures, what one vows, that must be kept; it is God’s command and thou must at any peril keep thy vow. Thus the good woman is soon taken captive and chained by her conscience, goes and fulfills her vow, and does harm both to herself and her offspring. Hence both have sinned, those who taught her thus, and the woman in that she did not esteem her love more than her vow, by which she neither served nor pleased God; yea, more than this, she thus provoked God to anger by keeping her vow.

Therefore we should say to such a foolish mother: Behold, thou art about to bear a child, and thou must serve it and desist from this foolish thing, so that great harm may not spring from it; for all laws find their end in love.

19. We should act in like manner toward the false priests, monks and nuns.

When they say: Yea, we have vowed so and so, and it is written: “Vow, and pay unto Jehovah your God,” Psalm 76:11, then say to them: Look, there is also a command: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” But in your vocation it is impossible to serve your neighbor, nor can you continue in it without sin. Therefore, forsake it openly and enter a state in which you are not so apt to sin, but where you may serve your fellow-man, help and counsel him; and do not bother about a vow which you did not give to God your Lord, but to the devil; not for the salvation of souls and blessedness, but for damnation and ruin of both soul and body.

20. If you are a Christian you have power to dispense with all commandments so far as they hinder you in the practice of love, even as Christ here teaches. He goes right on, although it is the Sabbath day, helps this sick man and gives a satisfactory and clear reason for his Sabbath work.

21. There is yet another thought in this Gospel about taking a prominent seat at feasts, which we must consider. When the Lord noticed how the guests, the Pharisees, chose to sit in the first seats, he gave them the following parable to ponder: “When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage least, sit not down in the chief seat; lest haply a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him, and he that bade thee and him shall come and say to thee, Give this man place; and then thou shalt begin with shame to take the lower place. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place; that when he that hath bidden thee cometh, he may say to thee, Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat with thee.”

22. This parable is aimed at the laws and precepts of the Pharisees and scribes which provide that honor should be paid to the great and powerful, giving them the preference and allowing them to sit at the head. Christ here reverses the order and says: “He that would be the greatest, let him take the lowest seat.” Not that a peasant should be placed above a prince; that is not what Christ means, nor would that be proper. But our Lord does not speak here of worldly, but of spiritual things, where humility is specially commended. Let rulers follow the custom of occupying the uppermost seats at festive boards, we have to do here with matters of the heart. Christ does not appoint burgomasters, judges, princes, lords; these stations in life he ignores as subject to civil order and the dictates of reason. There must be rulers and to them honors are due because of their position; but the spiritual government requires that its participants humble themselves, in order that they may be exalted.

23. Therefore the Lord said to his disciples when they disputed as to who should be the greatest among them: “The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them, and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve,” Luke 22:25-27. He then speaks of himself as an illustration, asking: “For which is the greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat! But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.”

And in another place, Matthew 20:26-28, he said: “Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

24. The Papists have commented on these verses in their own way and twisted this Gospel, saying: Yea, the Pope is to be the least or youngest, sitting at the foot and serving others; but that is to take place in the heart.

They pretended to sit at the foot and to serve others as the humblest; but withal they lorded it over all emperors, kings and princes, yea, trampled them in the dust; just as if emperors, kings, princes and rulers should not also possess in their hearts the humility of which the Lord here treats. They thus put on airs and make a show of their carnal interpretation. If they had any humility in their hearts their lives would bear testimony to it. Christ speaks here not of outward humility alone, for the inner is the source of the outer; if it is not in the heart it will hardly be manifest in the body.

25. Therefore the Gospel aims at making all of us humble, whatever and whoever we may be, that none may exalt himself, unless urged and elevated by regular authority. That is what the Lord wants to inculcate by this parable, directing it to all, be they high or low. In this spirit he reproves the Pharisees and others who desire high places and are ambitious to get ahead of others. They may accept honors when regularly elected and forced to accept high places. I make these remarks to contravene and discredit their false spiritual interpretations.

26. But now they go and mingle and confuse spiritual and worldly things, and claim it is enough if they be humble in heart when they strive for the chief seats. Nay, dear friends, heart-humility must manifest itself in outer conduct, or it is false. All should therefore he willing to take a lower seat, even to throw themselves at the feet of others, and not move up higher, until urged to do so. Anyone who regards this rule, will do well; but he who disregards it will come to grief by so doing. That is what our Lord desires to impress upon his hearers as he closes this parable. “For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

27. St. Augustine adds a comment here which I wish he had not made, for it savors of vanity, when he says: “A ruler must not abase himself too much, lest his authority be weakened thereby.” This is heathenish and worldly, not Christian; but we can pardon it in such a man, for even the saints on earth are not yet entirely perfect.

28. The sum of this Gospel then is: Love and necessity control all law; and there should be no law that cannot be enforced and applied in love. If it cannot, then let it be done away with, even though an angel from heaven had promulgated it. All this is intended to help and strengthen our hearts and consciences. In this way our Lord himself teaches us how we should humble ourselves and be subject one to another. [However concerning this virtue, what true humility is, I have said enough in former Postils c.] Let this suffice on to-day’s Gospel.

Friday, September 21, 2018

Bait and Switch - My Test for All Future Lutheran Potentates

 Didja know? We are supposed to read Luther - not Walther/Stephan - on Galatians for a more complete understanding of Justification.

Some of us did not graduate with a brain full of snake oil: UOJ and Church Growth. Naturally, there are many falsehoods to remove, once mature studying replaces required reading and the lectures of dysfunctional capons.

A distinctive quality of the Olde Synodical Conference is the citing of Justification while defining it in terms that would send shivers of delight through the Universalists, Barthians, New Theology Catholics, mainline Protestants, Willow Creek swindlers, and Fuller salesmen.

This happens so often that I imagine them being trained to talk and write about Justification as "the Chief Article, the Master and Prince, the article that judges all other articles of faith, the article on which the Church stands or falls" and then glide into all the Objective Justification language. Their OJ, UOJ, General Justification, or Justification of the World claims falsely that everyone was forgiven and saved (crucifixion or resurrection - they do not know), the world was absolved of all sin, the world was saved, everyone was born forgiven, everyone in Hell is a guilt-free saint.

The blue words above are appropriate for Justification by Faith, but they will not say Justification by Faith, the true doctrine they reject and despise. John Sparky Brenner defines JBF as the "individual appropriate of forgiveness." Work that definition into Romans 5:1-2, Sparky.
 Dishonest dealing is punished - sometimes - but rewarded in the denominations.


My Doctrinal Test for Lutheran Clergy, Potentates, and Editors

GJ - "Explain Justification in writing and cite your Scriptural foundaton, in Greek and English."

No Synod President or District President could pass, so they should leave the ministry. No Circuit Pastor faithful to the Word can be found in this Lutheran Babylon, so they should get jobs commensurate with their worthless degrees. We know that former best buddies Otten and McCain are UOJ fanatics. Otten's genuine scholar, Walter Maier, PhD from Harvard in Semitics, taught Justification by Faith and inerrancy.

"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue" and that applies especially in Christian doctrine.

There are parish pastors who know and teach the truth. They are so exposed to the venom of the Left - yes UOJ is ultra-Left, the pride of ELCA - that a solo battle against an army of snake oil salesman is daunting. The best faithful pastors can do is build up congregations and children in Biblical doctrine rather than synodical propaganda and mythology.


 The blind lead the blind in this Babylon of Enthusiasm.




Thursday, September 20, 2018

Fiber Optic Coming - New Phone Numbers


We will have an Internet phone, TV, and gigabit broadband for less than we pay for Cox + fliphone now. Therefore, we are dropping the flipphone, and probably won't get that number again. In the meantime, we will have a Trac phone - I think they are called burners - for the few times we are on the go.


From 2016 - Eponine Theology - A Useful Term Coined by Dr. Lito Cruz

 In the novel, Eponine is known for being the unblessed fruit
of the crooked innkeepers, the Thenardiers.
Dr. Lito Cruz and I are fans of Lea Salonga,
who played Eponine in the singing production of Les Miserables. Her famous solo is about her imaginary world, like the imaginary world of UOJ.


Dr. Lito Cruz is a Lutheran pastor, mathematics PhD.
His wife Lynne is an international Katie Luther. 


When I observed that Eponine's solo in Les Miserables reminded me of UOJ, Mainline, and Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, Dr. Lito Cruz asked if the term to use should be Eponine Theology. I quickly adopted it as useful and descriptive of the Biblical fantasies imposed on people by three groups that have one thing in common - ignoring the plain, clear language of the Scriptures.

Fundamentalism is a term employed with such sloppiness today that it no longer has any clear meaning in the media. The term came from a series of pamphlets - The Fundamentals - funded by a wealthy man, defining the basic doctrines of the Christian Faith. Reuben Torrey wrote them. So Fundamentalism is often defined by advocacy of the inerrancy of the Bible, but true Fundamentalism is Calvinistic and rejects the Sacraments and therefore the efficacy of the Word.

I once owned a number of those booklets named The Fundamentals and gave them to Jay Webber, who collected more publications than he read. In the media today, Fundamentalist is used for Muslims and Christians, but more often for the followers of Islam. Fundamentalist Muslim makes no sense at all, but the media uses it with alacrity.

Bill Gothard posed with the Duggar girls in this photo.
He has never served time for his crimes.

Today the Fundamentalist leaders are known for their fake degrees - similar to WELS and Missouri - and their long list of abusive crimes, another parallel.

Eponine Theology accurately describes the Fundamentalists because they will pick out a Biblical text and use it however they wish. Star power is their authority, so do not question them, or they will say, "Touch not the Lord's Anointed." I annoyed a Babtist professor for mentioning that his hero, Andy Stanley, is an advocate of gay marriage. Soon after I learned that the stars in Fundamentalism are just as bullet proof as they are in Synodical Conference. They cannot be wrong, so we must adjust our understanding of the Scriptures to fit the new insights.

Mainline Liberal Doctrine
Denying the plain meaning of the Word of God is the mainstay of mainline, liberal doctrine. Like the Fundamentalists and UOJists, they do not blatantly deny their rejection of the Scriptures, but play around with words and side-step the issues. Paul Tillich did that best when he began a short essay about the Nativity and switched the narrative to the miracle of childbirth. The Lutheran magazine loved that bait-and-switch so much, they reproduced it in their Christmas issue.

UOJ in WELS-ELS-LCMS-CLC (sic)
I shocked a WELS pastor's wife by describing what that synod teaches about Justification by Faith.

Here are samples from 2011 - 

Outrageous UOJ Quotations Refuted




David Scaer

“Whoever denies objective justification reduces justification to the act of believing and does not believe in it at all. Logically, he denies the atonement and preaches that man is responsible for his sins.”
LCMS Professor David Scaer, Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne

Jackson – Justification by faith means not believing in justification by faith? How the minions must drool as they listen to Scaer contradict himself, nudging them toward a priesthood in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. The two sentences quoted above are assertions without evidence or argumentation. Scaer’s logic is at war with Scriptural revelation.



Robert Preus
All this is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church,
We are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?'’ This is not the justification which we receive by faith...That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead. (Edward Preuss, "The Justification of a Sinner Before God," pp. 14-15)
LCMS Seminary President Robert Preus, 1981,


Jackson – The “old Lutheran theologian of our church” is deceptive, since Preuss abandoned teaching at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, to join the Church of Rome and promote papist doctrines there – all because God sent him the sign of a glorious sunset! (L. Fuerbring) This phrase should scream falsehood at people – “we were justified before we were born” – yet Cascione quoted this article with reverence and awe. Fortunately, Dr. Preus retracted this position in his final book, Justification and Rome. Lutherans should observe that he quoted a dead papist when Church Growth flourished at Concordia, Ft. Wayne and the faculty endorsed Church Growth principles. But when Preus wanted to warn his faculty and his synod against Romanism, just before he died, he argued for justification by faith and against UOJ.

Sig Becker, 1982
“It has been argued that the polloi of this verse clearly indicates that Paul did not mean to say that all would be justified in and through Christ. It has even been said that “many” means “not all.” This is an argument unworthy of Lutherans who have always opposed the Calvinistic notion that the words of Jesus in which he says that his blood was shed for many (Mt 26:28) and that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:45) are proof for the doctrine of limited atonement.”
Sig Becker, Objective Justification, 1982

Jackson – Polloi in Greek means many, and Greek is precise. This sounds like Alice in Wonderland, where words mean whatever Humpty Dumpty declares at the moment. Moreover, Becker claimed that the proper translation of the word polloi was an argument unworthy of Lutherans but typical of Calvinists, a quick shift from fantasy to guilt by association.

ELCA trained Roman Catholic adunct Jack Kilcrease teaches at the ELCA-centric ILT.


Sig Becker, 1984
“That God has punished the sins of all men in Christ finds few questioners among Lutherans who are still interested in such questions as those we are discussing today. But, sad to say, there are some Lutherans who want to be conservative and orthodox who find it very difficult to say with equal fervor and vigor that God has forgiven the sins of all men in Christ.

This is clearly a lie.
Gausewitz did NOT teach UOJ, but Justification by Faith.
Gausewitz was WELS and the head of the entire Synodical Conference.


Anyone who is at home in the literature of the old Synodical Conference surely must know that this was the unanimous and unquestioned position of our Synodical Conference fathers. We will make no effort to demonstrate that fact with actual quotations.”
Sig Becker, Universal Justification, 1984

Jackson – This claim is pure deception, since the Missouri Synod did not teach UOJ in its 1901 catechism, as shown by Pastor Vernon Harley’s translation. Also, UOJ was not taught in Missouri statements before the 1932 Brief Statement, which was one among many. The UOJ faction has elevated the 1932 document above all previous statements, which have disappeared down the memory hole. They also choose to emphasize their 1932 statement as if it transcends and replaces the Book of Concord. That is, they choose to teach UOJ from the 1932 statement while quoting the Book of Concord.

Sig Becker, UJ, 1984
However, we should be aware that also a Calvinist, who would most assuredly reject the doctrine of universal justification, could perhaps feel perfectly at ease with the concept of objective justification. Strictly speaking, the term objective justification means that a sinner is justified by God whether he believes it or not. Many Calvinists believe that this is true of the elect. While they might therefore be willing to accept our terminology when we speak of “objective justification” they would vehemently reject the concept of “universal justification” because that would conflict with their doctrine of limited atonement.

Jackson – Here Becker admitted what former Calvinist L. P. Cruz has contended many times, knowing this from his own training and experience: Objective Justification is Calvinism. Becker’s verbal backflips do not rescue any of his new terms from the influence of Calvin, since Luther taught justification by faith alone.

David Beckman
Previous to this development in the mid-19th century, Lutherans used the terms “universal justification” or  “general justification.’ Even Stoeckhardt, a contemporary of Schaller and Francis Pieper, is more comfortable  with the older term, “general justification.” In an article entitled “General Justification,” he states, 

The article of justification remains pure, firm and unshaken if we keep in mind the statement of  doctrine and faith concerning general justification, if we hold firmly that the entire world of  sinners has already been justified through Christ, through that which Christ did and suffered. (George Stoeckhardt, “General Justification,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 42 (April, 1978), p. 140.)
David Beckman, 1983

Jackson – “General” is a vague term to translate the original German word – allgemeine. The German adjective means “every single one,” so universal is the best translation. All these writers dance around the truth that they are promoting a new concept, alien to the Lutheran Church and the Confessions. However, Halle theologian George Christian Knapp taught it before Walther landed in America.

Bourman
But, sadly, Satan worked and continues to   work within the Lutheran ranks. Some wanted to make justification an act of God “at the moment of faith” and so   they denied and even rejected universal, objective justification. For instance, Gottfried Fritschel in his article Zur Lehre von der Rechtfertigungmade a false distinction between reconciliation and justification. He wrote that the whole world, with the exception of no one, has been reconciled with God in Christ. Forgiveness of sins is bought for all men. However, only when the sinner has experienced the wrath of God and in faith takes hold of Christ, only   then does God look on him in Christ. In regard to justification he uses phrases like “now and not before” in regard   to the act of justification.
Nate Bourman, 2010

Jackson – The Holy Spirit used two different terms. Most UOJ fanatics recognize that “justification” always means “justification by faith” in the Bible and the Book of Concord. From the context, reconciliation means the Atonement.  The Stormtroopers can make their argument work only by making the Atonement of Christ and justification by faith the same action. Therefore, they cannot articulate any meaning for the Means of Grace which is harmonious with their bizarre claims.



Deutschlander
Our Lutheran Confessions have no separate article on Objective Justification; the closest we can come to a paragraph of formulation for this doctrine is in Article IX of the Formula of Concord, under the doctrine of election. But even that is not really sufficient or suitable for stating the orthodox position in a clear and unequivocal manner. For our Fathers it was not difficult at all to consider objective and subjective justification under the same heading, and they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them. But such was and remained the case only so long as the orthodox had a clear understanding of the nature of faith; once that understanding was gone, it became necessary (at the end of the last century) to begin making such as distinction.
Daniel Deutschlander, 1977

Jackson – If only the greatest theologians of the Christian Church (Luther, Melancthon, Chemnitz, Chytraeus) had enjoyed the wisdom and foresight of the Synodical Conference! Lacking here is the fact that Pietism brought UOJ to the Lutheran Church, through Halle University. The Synodical Conference began attacking faith, the chief attribute of the Christian, according to Luther, while teaching justification without faith.




Buchholz
The forgiveness acquired by Jesus for all at the cross gives us confessional Lutherans, among all the church bodies of the world, the highest motivation to share our Savior. In contrast to the “Jesus Saves” churches, we don’t preach a salvation that is incomplete and just waiting for the sinner to do something to complete the transaction. We proclaim boldly, “Jesus Saved,” past tense, finished, certain… God’s objective justification not only saved us (sic – sentence fragment, automatic fail in Freshman English 101).
Jon Buchholz, 2005

Jackson – District President Buchholz told me, a few years after giving this paper, that “no one in WELS teaches that everyone is saved.” Not having this revelation from the Essay Files, I still replied, “There was an evangelism campaign in WELS recently. The banner for the public said – “I am saved, just like you.”

Reim

We have seen that the terminology of an objective and a subjective justification is common property within our Synodical Conference. There is no reason why we should not use it in our discussions with each other. Nevertheless we still have a preference for the simpler terminology of a general or universal, and of a personal justification, To use these simpler terms will show that we are concerned about the substance of the doctrine rather than one single mode of expressing it.
Edward Reim, 1955

Jackson – All the replacements for “justification by faith” mean “universal forgiveness, without faith.” A hog in a tuxedo is still a hog.



Jungkuntz

The direct consequence of this change in the relationship between God and man was the justification of the whole world, the declaring of every sinner righteous before God. For that is the meaning in positive terms of what St. Paul here states negatively: “not imputing their trespasses unto them.” It is impossible to overemphasize this statement. For in our own time, even in our own Synodical Conference, this vital truth is being endangered, both by direct attack and by neglect.
Richard Jungkuntz, 1954

Jackson – In fact, no aspect of the Christian faith should be emphasized at the expense of another. The chief characteristic of a sect is to make one concept their sole fake Gospel message – rapture, holiness code, ecstatic speech and behavior. UOJ has turned the revealed mystery of the Atoning death of Christ for the sins of the world into an alien opinion – universal forgiveness without the Word, without faith, grace without the Means of Grace. Where did God reveal this precious truth?

Wendland
On Romans 5, 19 he [Lenski] comes out with the flat statement: “Nowhere in the Bible is any man constituted or declared righteous without faith, before faith,” all asseverations and argumentations to the contrary notwithstanding.” Dr. Lenski plainly recognizes no biblical doctrine of objective justification and is very clear in stating so. His divergence from Dr. Stoeckhardt on this point cannot merely be passed off as an exegetical question of minor consequence, since it involves the central teaching of Scripture, the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae.
E. Wendland, 1951

Jackson – By calling UOJ a “biblical doctrine,” Wendland condemned Lenski by definition. OJ is "biblical," so anyone doubting it is against the Bible. And – Lenski disagreed with Stoeckhardt! But here, gentle readers, is where UOJ turns from heresy into lunatic, slapstick comedy – denying justification without faith is a sin against the Chief Article of the Faith, the central teaching of Scripture, the article on which the Church stands or falls. The Chief Article is “justification by faith” and not universal forgiveness without faith.

Zarling

We quote from President Mischke's newsletter of June, 1982.

A word of caution may, however, be in place. It may be well to remind ourselves not to divide "objective" and "subjective" justification as if they were two totally different things which can be treated in isolation from one another. They are rather the two sides of the same coin, and there can be no "saints" or salvation without faith. To teach otherwise would indeed be universalism. (Mischke, C.H. The President's Newsletter, June, 1982.)

Jackson - Jay Webber recites the same nonsense, “two sides of the same coin,” even though he makes fun of WELS all the time and mocks the Mankato leadership unless he is near the Little Vatican on the Prairie at the moment. SP Carl Mischke was the worst leader of WELS, ever, until Gurgel took over for 14 years. Mischke promoted UOJ and the Church Growth Movment, making Paul Kelm the theological leader of the sect. Update - Mark Schroeder is now the worst leader of WELS - ever. Schroeder is also a UOJ fanatic.

Becker asserts
We are not pressing the word beyond what it can bear if we say that, when Paul says that God justifies the ungodly, he is asserting that God declares the unbeliever just. The fact that the unbeliever by rejecting God's verdict deprives himself eternally of the joy and comfort that this message gives does not make the declaration of God untrue. (Becker, OJ, 1982, p. 3)

Zarling, 1983

Jackson – Judas Iscariot, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin are guilt-free saints too. That is still being taught at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. No wonder the Synodical Conference of today has rested its hopes of the money given them by a divorced adulterer.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/ZarlingJustification.pdf

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Ecclesia College Argued in Court That It Is a Church, But EC Asked for State Funds That Could Not Legally Go To a Church

 Oren Paris III said he knew the scheme was bad, but pled not-guilty until the last minute. Now he is in prison.



Attorneys still seeking release of Ecclesia documents under FOIA



Parsons is represented by attorneys Chip Sexton and Joey McCutchen.
Arkansas legislators gave more than $700,000 of taxpayers' money from the Improvement Fund to the Springdale school.
Originally filed Feb. 9, 2017, the lawsuit contends private organizations receiving public money, engaging in activities of public interest, carrying on work intertwined with a government body or receiving grants to promote economic development are subject to the requirements of the state Freedom of Information Act.
Ecclesia has contended the mere receipt of state money doesn't make the private school subject to provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Ecclesia also argued it's a church and nonprofit corporation and, therefore, entitled to constitutional protection.
The amended complaint drops a claim the grant money given to Ecclesia constituted the giving of state money to a religious institution in violation of the state Constitution.
An attorney for Ecclesia College in June turned over some records related to how state money the college received from the General Improvement Fund was used. But, Sexton said Tuesday, those documents weren't what they asked for.
The amended complaint filed Monday says Ecclesia hasn't released the documents requested by Parsons in early 2017 although the time allowed by law to respond has long since expired.
"As of the present date, Ecclesia has failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to produce such documents and has made clear in pleadings filed in this that it is not going to produce such documents without an order from this court," according to the amended complaint.
The complaint asks a hearing be set within seven days and the court order Ecclesia to release the requested documents.
Parsons and his lawyers are asking Ecclesia be ordered to pay back all the grant money it received, arguing the money wasn't used for the stated purpose.
"The funds were not used for the acquisition of land for student housing, nor were they used to build student housing," according to the complaint. "Instead, the funds were used to pay kickbacks to legislators, to purchase tracts of land which defendant promptly encumbered to acquire additional funds for the personal benefit of its officers, agents and employees."
The state Department of Finance and Administration also has asked state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge's office to sue Ecclesia College to reclaim at least $600,000 of kickback-tainted grants the college received from the General Improvement Fund.

I Have a Shrub That Smells Like a Donut Shoppe -
Summersweet or Pepperbush

Donuts: made for pennies, sold for dollars, and they are addicting. The future Mrs. Ichabod told me at Augustana College that I smelled like a bakery. I brought her pecan rolls.

"It has attractive bottle-brush shaped blossoms, it can tolerate shade or sun, it likes moist soils, it attracts butterflies, it is native to Maine and it blooms in summer — July to September, depending on location and variety.

The most wonderful thing about it, though, is its fragrance. When it is in bloom, you can smell the plant from 50 feet or more away. It is intoxicating. One of its common names is summersweet, which alludes to the fragrance, and another is pepperbush."

Child labor laws do not apply to children working for parents. My calendar modeling fee was "Thanks, you can eat one donut."

"The blossoms are an upright columnar shape rather than round. So many flowers are round, and it is nice to have a different size and shape.”


I had a call-back for a later Melo Cream calendar.


"What a romantic plant! Butterflies, bees, and other beneficial insects are drawn to the sweet nectar of the shrub’s fluffy, candle-like flowers. The flowers offer a strong, but never-cloying scent that recalls honeysuckle, rose, clove, and heliotrope."


I got what I wanted for my first birthday - a cake.
After the photo-op, they explained I had to share.

The name Clethra does not convey its fragrance so I like Summersweet or Pepperbush as alternatives.

I overlooked the two Clethra shrubs in the bird feeding garden, because the Chaste Trees outgrew them. Because Clethra is known for attracting butterflies and beneficial insects, I moved them to the rose garden. 

I did not think of their fragrance until I walked by when the breeze blew the aroma into my face. Pow! I smelled a combination of cinnamon and other sweet smells. Yes, that was a good move.

 The Chaste tree has a medicinal smell, loves lots of sun,
and does not respond well to watering.

I reported the death of the Chaste Tree too early. Its replacement came, so I tugged at one we moved. It had promptly wilted, so I dumped some rainwater on it and pruned the branches back severely. That worked once before but I did not see much hope. Tug. Tug. "This is really stuck in the soil!" - unlike the typical dead shrub. I looked closely at the plant and saw tiny new leaves all over the branches. 

I put its tiny replacement in the hole left by an Easy Does It rose that seemed to grow but died later in the season. That place was probably too sunny and dry for the rose, so it was good for the new Chaste Tree, more like a Chaste Twig for now.

We enjoy many beautiful fragrances in the garden. Rose perfume often fills the breezes in the front yard. They say Joe Pye is more of a vanilla, and no doubt the butterflies are wild for that.

The backyard gardens have Poke, Butterfly Bush, Beautybush, and Elderberry, so that area often smells like grape jelly. 

Hummingbirds also like Butterfly Bush.