 |
| "Come for a blessing, child. You seem stressed, worried, and befuddled." |
Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair)
Advanced Member
Username: Drboisclair
Post Number: 703
Registered: 1-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 - 7:47 pm: Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
"The lady doth protest too much methinks"--Shakespeare, Hamlet, act III, scene ii
Jackson covers his own logical fallacies by accusing others of committing them. He is the unmatched king of the fallacy of ad hominem argumentation. His website is a monument to that lamentable FALLACY.
His Achilles's heel is his total embrace of the Synergism of the Iowa and Ohio Synod's F.A. Schmidt and F.W. Stellhorn, who claimed that faith precedes God's gracious election to salvation. He has even firmed this up by his advocacy of the "later Melanchthon," who was Synergist par excellence. This dovetails nicely with his synergistic doctrine of justification.
Pope Jackson thinks that Martin Chemnitz supports his heterodoxy, but Martin Chemnitz taught that God's gracious election COMES BEFORE faith not after it as Jackson and his minions opine. Oops, no electio intuitu fidei finalis.
What is mystifying to me is Jackson's love for Luther, who would never have stomached Jackson's Synergism.
Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair)
Advanced Member
Username: Drboisclair
Post Number: 704
Registered: 1-2002
Posted on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 - 8:40 pm: Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Oh, and Pope Jackson is guilty of an historical error. John Bunyan (1628-1688), whom he is showcasing now with his study of The Pilgrim's Progress, fought on the side of Cromwell and the Long Parliament, not King Charles I. Sorry. His holiness Jackson said that Bunyan was on the side of the king and the Cavaliers.
Also, The Pilgrim's Progress is Calvinistic in its theology, see the Interpreter's exposition of the chicken and her chicks in the second part. John Bunyan was a Calvinist.
Here endeth the LutherQuack, anothe quack without Scripture or Luther.]
***
GJ - Bunyan was not concerned with leaving his life history, so his side in the war is debated, not confirmed. There is certainly evidence that he fought for the royalists and helped put Charles II on the throne.
There is a Jackson family story that an ancestor loaned Charles II money and sued to have the loan paid. The King put him in prison and ruined him, so the Jacksons have mixed feelings about Charles II, as Bunyan probably did. Charles bankrupted our ancestor, but that got one part of our family to America. The Huguenots were another branch, persecuted by France and lucky to only be exiled. We thrive under duress, so keep quacking, Luther Quackers.
David neglected the fact that Luther's Galatians was Bunyan's most read book after the Bible, an odd oversight since we are always listening to David's excited quacking about what a good Lutheran he is. I do not think I know any OJists who have a clue about the Galatians book.
But, like most nasty-grams from this dysfunctional cell, the posting misses the point. I am teaching the class and writing Understanding Pilgrim's Progress because it is a worthwhile Christian book to read. The people who defy Luther and condemn Justification by Faith might start with a careful reading of the Book of Concord and Melanchthon.
We belong to the Church of the Augsburg Confession. I consider myself a theologian of the Augsburg Confession, a term found in the Formula of Concord.
Perhaps David is so prone to find Calvinism where it is not because he is stuck on that dogma, inherited like Stephan's STD, passed on by Walther and his lick-spittles.
 |
| This is next, followed by a book on Luther's Galatians, then CFW Walther: The American Calvin. |
---
A Reader Responded -
Hi Greg,
In your post this morning "LutherQuackers are Quacking up." you quoted a Rev. Boisclair who said in part,
"What is mystifying to me is Jackson's love for Luther, who would never have stomached Jackson's Synergism."
Perhaps you could request that Bosclair provide proof of:
1. Your Synergism. How does he define this in his words?
2. Luther's rejection of "Jackson's Synergism"
Without this, it's all emotion and fear without anything real to grab hold of. You have written so much, it should be easy for him to provide quotes of "Jackson's Synergism", whatever that is.
This would let us all have a real discussion - or at least understand from both sides where the theological divide occurs.
If "Jackson's Synergism", whatever that is, is condemned anywhere in the Book of Concord, let's see it.
