Showing posts with label Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

Apologetics Start with the Scriptures, without Apology.
Dogmatic Declarations Ignore the Scriptural Truths

 


Apologetics are almost forgotten in Lutherdom. The seldom used term means a defense of the Christian Faith rather than synodical talking points (dogma).

Melanchthon's Apology of the Augsburg Confession is widely ignored, replaced by - don't laugh - Matt Harrison, Waldo Werning, Paul Kelm, Larry Olson, and David Valleskey.

Melanchthon is second only to Luther for identifying what is wrongly taught and for making the correct argument a Biblical response.

The Church of Rome Is the Exemplar of Dogma

I was directly connected to Roman Catholicism for seven years at the University of Notre Dame. I was in the minority in all the theology graduate classes, which included a few Lutherans and Calvinists. Some faculty were Protestants, but JP.2 (Pope John Paul II) ordered the Protestants off the theology faculty, and they were offed.

Roman Dogma is the official law of Holy Mother Church, and they employ canon lawyers to handle cases of canon law. Catholic dogma is considered something to obey, because it is enforced as infallible. The Pope can declare dogma ex cathedra (from his chair) and also use commissions to back his decisions and revelations. 

The Church of Rome has almost no use for the Scriptures, except to cherry-pick some verses to anchor its dogma, very much like WELS, LCMS, ELDoNUTS, and the ELS.

This is very important - Catholic and quasi-Lutheran leaders enforce their dogma, not the Scriptures. The proper attitude is obedience to the power structure rather than faith in Jesus Christ.

When the Church of Rome modified the role of nuns and sisters, 90,000 left their vocations in America alone, almost at once. Two of my ND professors were former nuns who married men. One man had been a Jesuit priest with a doctorate from Harvard.

ELCA bishops love their colorful and expensive costumes. 

Dogma Exists without Faith

American Roman Catholicism is overwhelmingly liberal Protestantism. I recall one ND seminary professor who recited Roman dogma in one lecture, everyone looking at the ceiling. My famous lay PhD Roman Catholic professor thought the adulterers Tillich and Barth were the ultimate theologians. He also disputed the infallibility of the Pope (sacre bleu!). The priests in training did too. An old-fashioned priest asked the class in a rage, "Why are you Catholics!?"

The Barthian theologian said, after my choice remarks about Tillich's dogmatics, "Lutherans do not understand Tillich." I asked, "Lutherans do not understand a Lutheran?" Silence. I once read Romans 5:1-4 to the class. Dead, uncomfortable silence.

Lutherans Doggedly Promote Dogmatics - Walther, Barth, Tillich, Braaten-Jenson, and the Faux Luther's Large Catechism

Walther thought he was saved from death by adopting the Pietistic dogma of Martin Stephan STD. Read carefully this nonsense, lovingly repeated by the ELS -

The ELS proudly backs Walther in making a decision for world absolution without faith.

In 1932, the LCMS voted for the same dogma, now called Objective (Faithless) Justification (F. Pieper):

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.

The addled 1932 convention failed to note that Romans 4 clearly teaches Justification by Faith and that omitting Romans 4:24 is far too clever, even for the beer-deprived delegates of yesteryear.

KJV Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

All three - Calvinism, Pietism, and Rationalism - contribute to the fallacies and blasphemies of Objective or Universal or Universal Objective or General Justification - or the pompous Justification of the World.

Fragments of ELCA taught Justification by Faith in the past, just as WELS and LCMS did, in spite of WELS-LCMS sniveling lies. 

Dogmatics for Everyone

Note what guides the ELCA and the Olde Synodical Conference - Dogmatics!

F. Pieper's Dogmatics is supposedly the guiding light of the LCMS and WELS. The Wisconsin Sect kept Hoenecke's Dogmatics under wraps until it no longer mattered. Adolph H. was too light on Church Growth and disliked Calvinism. I would say Hoenecke's book is much more of an apologetics book with Biblical explanations. 

No one has to think with dogmatics as the foundation. 

Why is Justification without Faith 100% correct? The answer is in dogma, absent in the Bible. Pieper cleverly blended efficacy, Means of Grace, Justification by Faith, and Justification Without Faith. The concise version is the 1932 Brief Statement. Dullards do not even need to ask, "What about Romans 4:24?" 

Note well that Melanchthon's Apology of the Augsburg Confession has a beautiful, Biblical section on Justification by Faith. Where are the Preus hordes and Harrison, all the Church Growth ninnies and the Mequon faculty? The ELS has the Book of Concord on the seminary tables! - but do they open it? Apparently not.

Dogma Is Obeyed Far More Than It Is Taught

Dogmatics are perfect for the lazy. Everything is categorized and indexed. Repeat after me is the guide to WELS-ELS-LCMS synodical success. However, the chatterboxes cannot explain the enormous gulf between their synod's dogma and the consistent, inspired, efficacious truth of the Scriptures.

Pietism tells them that the moment Christ rose from the dead, the entire world was declared innocent (albeit without the Word, preaching, or teaching). They get this notion from distorting 1 Timothy 3:16. See Rambach, below.

Rationalism tells people that God is so nice that everyone is forgiven and saved. Calvinism turns into Rationalism after savoring the dogmatics of Calvin and Zwingli, both prolific writers and entirely wrong.



Saturday, November 21, 2020

The Apology - Or Defense - Of the Augsburg Confession.

Melanchthon and Luther are on YouTube.



I.   Europe considered Melanchthon a genius. He could have gone many places to be Number 1 there.

II.  Luther thought of Melanchthon as an ideal partner in their religious work together. 

III. When Luther died, Melanchthon preached the sermon.

Those are three reasons people should have the highest regard for Melanchthon, the key person writing the Augsburg Confession and the author of its defense - The Apology of the Augsburg Confession. We should use the old-fashioned and perfectly good words - like Apology - so we do not end up like Dick, Jane, Sally, Spot, and Puff - endlessly repeating short words to make up for a lack of study.




The Internet has proven to be the greatest achievement in communication since a wine press was turned into a printing press. Every book became available at a low price, and illustrated lessons, like the Small Catechism, could be printed by the thousands. Radio and TV were intermediate steps but both require plenty of money for an individual to launch. Having a computer and broadband is cheaper now than owning a used car.

Listening to something worthwhile has grown as a hobby, even a necessity, for many people. If it is easy to access and free, time spent watching scripted celebrities can be converted to enjoying the treasures of the Gospel. 

Of course! If the leaders know and appreciate the Apology, so will their members. Lutherans have gone through many times when the Reformation was little more than a dimly remembered spark. Times of recapturing the witness - the Defense - of the Gospel has always been rewarding for those on the verge of becoming generic atheists.

Picture the classic church library. When I was tied to real estate and buildings, the library was invariably a collection of Reader's Digest Condensed Books that nobody read or wanted.  Our current church library  - on the Internet - has almost 300 classic books as PDFs and is moving toward 100 printed books.

We have over 100 people on Facebook looking for free Lutheran books for world missionaries.





Friday, June 26, 2020

The Augsburg Confession and Its Impact on the Midwestern Lutheran Sects

Matt the Fatt repudiates the Augsburg Confession. Mirthless Mark repudiates the Augsburg Confession. Pope John the Malefactor repudiates the Augsburg Confession. And - they rejoice in their unfaithful agreement -  Objective Justification.

Thursday, June 25, 2020

June 25, 1530 - Presentation of the Augsburg Confession

What makes the LCMS-ELS-WELS-CLC Papacy so antagonistic toward Melanchthon and the Augsburg Confession?

Melanchthon was a genius, so valuable to the Reformation that Luther never wanted his associate leave their partnership. Philip would have been the Reformer in any other country, such as England.



Lutheran clergy today - anxious that they might miss lunch or an appointment to the district camping committee - could never have endured the Reformation. Luther was still in danger of being roasted by His Holiness the Pope if he attended at Augsburg, so Melanchthon became the leader. The laity put their necks in the noose, too, insisting on signing it with the theologians.



If we pick 1517 as the start of the Reformation and 1530 as the establishment of Evangelical Biblical doctrine, then that is the span of time when Luther's life was in constant danger. He married in 1525, expecting to die a martyr.

Melanchthon is either ignored or hated. In typical LCMS fashion, there are so many inconsequential bits to engulf Phillip's reputation.



The real cause - Justification by Faith is clearly taught in the Augsburg Confession, elaborated in the Apology. The leaders would look foolish, even demonic, if they attacked the Confessions, the entire Book of Concord.

Luther and the Book of Concord editors considered themselves "theologians of the Augsburg Confession." That is the bedrock of the Bible and the Reformation.

The Lutheran Papacy - and ELCA - simply gloss over their opposition to the Chief Article of Christianity and promote Objective (without faith) Justification. Grassy weeds in my garden do the same thing, gradually displacing the roses with their shade and greedy roots. The results are inevitable.

Look at that - they made the Book of Concord disappear, and they got a bit chonky since then.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

A Sincere Apology


One scholar sent this - 
Tonight I was reading the conclusion of the outline of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XII Penitence (drawn from the Tappert edition, Book of Concord, #178, page 211,) when I read this passage, which seemed to be about the modern confessors of JBFA and their opponents, the teachers of UOJ:

"If devout men will compare our teaching with the complicated discussions of our opponents, they will see that our opponents have neglected to teach the faith that justifies and consoles hearts. (178)"

 Clyde Manschreck

Manschreck wrote about the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer:

"He supported the evangelical doctrines and practices with scriptural references and diligently traced the origin and development of the opposing views to expose them as human, scholastic additions. He showed that the Lutheran practices were not innovations at all but in complete conformity with the ways of the primitive church. For all the polemic in the writing, it was also dignified and respectful. A sense of deep feeling permeated the entire book, as if Melanchthon had experienced everything about which he wrote. Justification by faith keyed the contents, for not only was this itself copiously treated, but every topic was inevitably brought back to this central doctrine. No other document of the time affords a better view of the theology of the Reformation nor a better explanation of the Augsburg Confession than the Apology of Melanchthon." p. 212  [underlining added for the synodicals]

 The Apology of the Augsburg Confession -  the print version can be ordered here.


Free online version of The Apology of the Augsburg Confession can be downloaded here... soon.

And no, Luther did not disagree with Melanchthon about the Chief Article. 

 Roland Bainton earned his PhD at Yale and never left, adding to its fame in research and publishing church history.

In contrast, we have these clowns teaching - and no one objecting within their abusive sects - that Luther taught their favorite, their only dogma - Objective Justification.

 Why was nobody laughing or throwing vegetables at Webber and Buchholz for falsely claiming Objective Justification is Biblical and exactly what Luther taught? That is how dummified Lutherdom is today. (Emmaus Debacle)

 "Thrivent Builds...muttering morons.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Where Are the Lutheran Professors? And Synod Leaders?



Where have you gone, Luth'ran professors?
Our synods turn their lonely eyes to you
What's that you say, Luth'ran presidents,
Dr. Luther's left and gone away,
Hey, hey, hey,
Hey, hey, hey.




Objective Justification, as defined by WELS Professor Forrest Bivens, is the Chief Article of the Christian Religion.

What precisely is this “master and prince, lord, ruler and judge” over other doctrines? Justification is a declaratory act of God, in which he pronounces sinners righteous. As revealed in the Bible, this declaration of God is made totally by grace and on account of Jesus Christ and his substitutionary life and death on behalf of mankind. To phrase it somewhat differently, God has justified acquitted or declared righteous the whole world of sinners. He has forgiven them. They have been reconciled to God; their status in his eyes has been changed from that of sinner to forgiven sinner for the sake of Jesus Christ. Since all this applies to all people, the term universal or general justification is used. In our circles an alternate term, objective justification, is also used. If justification is universal, it must also be objective - sinners are forgiven whether they believe it or not. This is precisely what Scripture teaches in Romans 3:23-24, (sic) when it says, “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
(The Primary Doctrine in Its Primary Setting: Objective Justification and Lutheran Worship [Prepared for the WELS National Conference on Worship, Music and the Arts, Carthage College, ELCA, Kenosha, Wisconsin,)

We know this is not the universal confession of the LCMS, because they still use the KJV Catechism sold by Concordia Publishing House - not a word about UOJ there.

CPH also published a book by Robin Leaver, who spoke at Jay Webber's alma mater - Concordia Seminary in Ft. Wayne - Luther and Justification. Leaver does not argue the point, since scholars know this to be true, but simply deals with Luther's Biblical doctrine of justification by faith.

We also know that WELS and members of the Synodical Conference used the Gausewitz Catechism for decades - not a word about UOJ there. Papenfuss, who started the Kokomo turmoil in his congregation, told the families he excommunicated - he never heard of UOJ until he went to seminary at Mequon.

This tactic, promoted by Bivens, is very Roman Catholic, to pick up and promote a dogma, persecute the dissenters, and then argue it was taught from the very beginning. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a good example of that, even though the truth is published in their own books on the topic. I know Roman Catholicism fairly well, after using their Vatican owned seminary to write Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant.

When Pope Pius IX wanted to establish papal infallibility as official dogma, he promoted and sainted those who agreed with him. Those who disagreed found their careers ruined. Not one bishop joined the dissenters.

Many readers know full well that justification by faith is the Chief Article of the Christian Religion, the Master and Prince. After all, their seldom-read Book of Concord says so, and the reference can be found on the Net with ease.


6] This article concerning justification by faith (as the Apology says) is the chief article in the entire Christian doctrine, without which no poor conscience can have any firm consolation, or can truly know the riches of the grace of Christ, as Dr. Luther also has written: If this only article remains pure on the battlefield, the Christian Church also remains pure, and in goodly harmony and without any sects; but if it does not remain pure, it is not possible that any error or fanatical spirit can be resisted. (Tom. 5, Jena, p. 159.) 7] And concerning this article especially Paul says that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Therefore, in this article he urges with so much zeal and earnestness the particulas exclusivas, that is, the words whereby the works of men are excluded (namely, without Law, without works, by grace [freely], Rom. 3:28; 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9), in order to indicate how highly necessary it is that in this article, aside from [the presentation of] the pure doctrine, the antithesis, that is, all contrary dogmas, be stated separately, exposed, and rejected by this means.

And yet, the three "conservative synods" rejoice in their common apostasy -

Last but certainly not least, there was special joy to understand that we all hold to objective justification—that God declared the world righteous through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and that we all recognize it to be the urgent mission of the church to take this gospel to the entire world.

Has anyone in WELS, the ELS, or the LCMS read:
  • The Bible in Greek and King James English?
  • The Apology on Justification?
  • The Formula of Concord on Justification?
  • Luther's sermons?
  • Gausewitz before WELS "improved it"?
  • The CPH KJV catechism?
  • Hunnius?
  • Pastor Rydecki's many translations?
These are certainly "the last days of an insane, old world," as Martin Chemnitz wrote in his Examination of the Council of Trent.



Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Does Anyone Do More Than Copy and Paste in a Blog?
Ask Pope Paul the Plagiarist

McCain is an overpaid plagiarist
who cannot spell or edit his own material.
That is why CPH is a warning label.

Read Pope Paul the Plagiarist's blog post here:

http://cyberbrethren.com/2013/05/21/commemoration-of-constantine-and-his-mother-helena/


Now gaze in awe at all the copy and paste jobs on the same topic, here:

Constantine's mom - copy and paste.

---

Read Paul McCain's timeless garbled English here:

If you are interested, or nobody somebody who might be, here is a list of what’s up for sale right now on eBay.


Why not quote Augustine himself, on justification by faith?
---

 Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Does Anyone Do More Than Copy and Paste in a Blog?...":

Ichabod -

I went to McCain's website and viewed what you stated. No comment. But, be that as it may, I viewed the books he wishes to sell. I registered the following comment. Who knows if this CPH employee will publish it and follow my advice?

My submitted comment:

"You would be wise to retain the Chemnitz book. By God's grace (providing you read it); that book may help you. And, if you have read it; keep on reading it - providing you change your mind about getting rid of it." 

Ichabod - do you think that McCain will publish my comment? And, if he does; do you think that he will take this emeritus pastor's advice?

Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org

***



GJ - Pastor Bickel, you have a better chance of becoming the quarterback for Alabama than getting published on Cybercistern.

Ha. I can do homonyms too. Brethren, cistern. I can spell like McCain.

Here is the irony - When people let someone else filter the Scripture through some human expert's assumptions, they become increasingly blind to the best texts.

Look at how many SynCons have Luther at their fingertips and exclaim, "Look, Uncle Marty (as DP Buchholz called the Reformer at a church meeting) supports my opinion."

They become increasingly blinded and hardened by the efficacy of the Word. 


What do the UOJ fanatics abhor? They wage constant war against justification by faith.

What do they defend and excuse, or deny while knowing the truth? 
  1. Praise bands.
  2. Bar ministry.
  3. Plagiarizing Groeschel, Swindoll, and other swine.
  4. Studying at Fuller, Willowcreek, Denver Seminary, Trinity Deerfield, and worse.
  5. Working with ELCA, Thrivent, and the United Nations.
  6. Sexual harassment in the parish.
  7. Clergy adultery.
  8. Murder.
  9. Alcoholism and DUIs.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Grasping at Rambach Straws - Last Words of a Dying Dogma

Nothing to see here - move on dot org.


LPC has left a new comment on your post "Martin Chemnitz, Justification by Faith Theologian...":

It is interesting indeed to find Pr. Webber citing Rambach. Yet if you read Rambach's interpretation of 1 Tim 3:16, it is obvious he was not agreeing with Chemnitz, it is because he was adding to what Chemnitz. Whereas Chemnitz stopped where Scripture stopped Rambach added more... he added..
But since the Substitute was now justified, then in him also all debtors were co-justified."

This is clearly a deduction, a rationalisation. [GJ - Roman Catholic dogma uses the same approach. The papalists say - Mary offered up her Son at the crucifixion, much like a priest offering the sacrifice of the Mass, so she can justly be called the Co-Redeemer, the Mediatrix of all Graces.]

I can only say that UOjers wanted to a.) make Rambach look as if he agreed with Chemnitz, b.) to support the additional sentence, the justification of the co-debtors automatically.

Chemnitz implied no such thing as shown by Pr. Rydecki.

UOJers do not only twist Scripture, they  twist the words of orthodox Lutherans too.

LPC

**

GJ - Buchholz was so-o-o-o desperate in his latest UOJ pratfall that Rambach, a Pietist with sterling Halle credentials, became his life-preserver. The life-preserver was donated by the Portland Cement Company.

A Lutheran layman from way back contacted me. He reads Luther, the Book of Concord, Luther, Luther, and Luther. He was furious that anyone would promote forgiveness without faith. That is why  the Synodical Conference wants to keep this from being discussed. Their one and only dogma is contrary to Scripture, antithetical to Luther, and opposed to the Book of Concord.

The more they are pushed, the more the UOJ Enthusiasts rely on Pietists - as they must. Whatever the origins of UOJ, the petri dish was Pietism.

Marquart did not rely on Luther or the Concordists, because he could not. A natural way to find an earlier Easter absolution was to latch onto Rambach, who has a hymn in The Lutheran Hymnal. Quite a few Pietists do, because the Concord era was followed by Pietism, Halle University, and then rationalism.

Like No Call Paul McCain, Jay Webber has not matured beyond his days at Concordia, Ft. Wayne, when Church Growth and UOJ blossomed and set fruit. Webber became the midwife for Buchholz' reliance on Rambach. That finally caused a dust-up, some months ago on the Intrepid Lutherans, when Webber promoted Rambach and another obscure figure, Quistorp, to back his hellish dogma. If you think Rambach is unknown, then try to find Quistorp on the Google radar. Quistorp makes Rambach look like a rock star in comparison.


So here is the line of authorities: Rambach to Marquart to Webber to Buchholz. The foundation of Luther and the Book of Concord is missing. When Webber or Buchholz tries to fix that with a citation, the deception is obvious. Above is the complete section of the Apology, when they cite only what they imagine serves their demonic dogma.

Below is the justification by faith section, which Webber and Buchholz omit. This happened also on LutherQuest, and I pointed out the obvious head-fake attempted there.



When District President Buchholz spoke to the congregation in New Mexico, he referred to Martin Luther as "Uncle Marty" more than once, grinning like the con-artist he is.

I contend that the DP's  behavior is revealing - showing a contempt for Luther's doctrine at a serious moment in a congregation's life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgwGiF0-mlE


  1. I’d rather have Rambach with silver and gold;
    I’d rather be Pietist with riches untold;
    I’d rather have Rambach with houses and lands;
    I’d rather be led by the Halle U. band.
    • Refrain:
      And to be the king of a vast domain
      And be held in sin’s dread sway;
      I’d rather have Rambach than anything
      The Gospel affords today.
  2. I’d rather have Spener with men’s applause;
    I’d rather be faithful to UOJ's cause;
    I’d rather have Rambach and worldwide fame;
    I’d rather be true to Halle U's name.
  3. They're fairer than roses or sauerkraut;
    They're sweeter than Thrivent grants without doubt;
    They're all that my Old Adam needs;
    I’d rather have Rambach and let him lead.
---

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Grasping at Rambach Straws - Last Words of a Dying...":

Ichabod -

Excellent hymn, here:

"I’d rather have Rambach with silver and gold;......."

I would almost bet that if you would check with CPH'S, McNasty [Mary Lactation specialist enthusiast], that he could arrange his publishing company to publish your hymn. After all, isn't he and his CPH, publishing the Apocrypha?

Nathan M. Bickel

www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Note the Anti-Confessional Character of UOJ Enthusiasts


Rev. Guillaume Williams (Revhardheaded)
Senior Member
Username: Revhardheaded

Post Number: 4265
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 9:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Someone wrote: "Mr. Depenbrock, the BOC quotes provided during this discussion clearly show that the whole world was not reconciled to God through Christ's payment for the world's sins: the Atonement.

Reconciliation with God only occurs through faith in Christ alone."

If that is so then the BOC is wrong. God says:
2Co 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; (15) and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
2Co 5:18-19 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; (19) that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
This is what we would refer to as OJ.

OTOH, this is what we would call SJ
2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
2Co 5:20-21 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (21) For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
The Rev. Guillaume J. S. Williams, Sr
There can be only one!

---


This is the crown jewel of UOJ in the Book of Concord?
No, it is a repudiation of UOJ.


And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," Ps. 32:1,104] These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free through the blood of Christ. Let all the Sententiarists, who are adorned with magnificent titles, be collected into one heap. For some are called angelic; others, subtile, and others irrefragable [that is, doctors who cannot err.] When all these have been read and reread, they will not be of as much aid for understanding Paul as is this one passage of
Ambrose.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV: That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ,
#104ff.

***



GJ - When the UOJ Enthusiasts crack open the Book of Concord, it only opens to one spot, right here. And they only quote the first part of the paragraph, which suits their perverted Gospel - a Gospel, which is not Gospel, to fit a faith which is no faith.

Melanchthon was contending against justification by works, proving justification by faith from Ambrose, one of the Doctors of the Church for the papal party. This entire article on justification is a defense of justification by faith, and the title of this section makes that even clearer (for those who graduated from Mequon) -

That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ.

In the craft of writing, one does not simply make a point and let it hang. Melanchthon was a gifted theological writer and a scholar of Greek and Latin. He wrote paragraphs, not verses. A paragraph has a beginning, middle, and an end. This one builds to a climax focusing on Ambrose as a Doctor of the Church, a Doctor of Justification by Faith.  Jay Webber and his vicar, Jon Buchholz, take that justification by faith away through subterfuge, since the plain words of the paragraph condemn both MDivs as Sententiarists.

I have pity for Buchholz and Webber, because they have so little research and writing behind them. They are like children sent to Piggly-Wiggly with a credit card to buy groceries for the family. They come home with bags of marshmallows, candied apples, Fruit Loop cereal, orange juice, chocolate milk, Fritos, and hot dogs.  They have all the food groups, but selected with such ignorance that the results are junk. Their selective arguments are junk, too.

Webber and Buchholz are the new Sententiarists. They gather their self-serving quotations, to keep everyone in the dark. After a period of time, enough names and quotations can be collected and used selectively to prove anything.

Eduard Preuss, the Bo Derek of aging UOJ champions, knew how to do this. First he worked on Lutheran orthodoxy. Then he taught Walther's UOJ at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Finally, he taught papal falsehoods for the Church of Rome. Asked about his change, he said, "Give me the quotations and I can prove anything."

I have gathered as much UOJ material as possible, with the help of others, to show what has been taught and where it started. The UOJ Enthusiasts deceptively drill through the Pietism base to discover UOJ in the Book of Concord and in the NNIV. But their layer of proof is from Halle Pietism and the graduates of Halle Pietism. This can be clearly shown in the arguments in favor of universal forgiveness without faith: Rambach, Knapp, Tholuck, Schleiermacher, and Barth.

In other words, I want everyone to read UOJ statements.

But the UOJ Stormtroopers want justification by faith attacked, silenced, and metaphorically burned at the stake. The difference should be telling.


Wednesday, September 5, 2012

St. Ambrose Misquoted To Support UOJ

This is the crown jewel of UOJ in the Book of Concord?
No, it is a repudiation of UOJ.


And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is
covered," Ps. 32:1,104] These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free through the blood of Christ. Let all the Sententiarists, who are adorned with magnificent titles, be collected into one heap. For some are called angelic; others, subtile, and others irrefragable [that is, doctors who cannot err.] When all these have been read and reread, they will not be of as much aid for understanding Paul as is this one passage of
Ambrose.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV: That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ,
#104ff.

***



GJ - When the UOJ Enthusiasts crack open the Book of Concord, it only opens to one spot, right here. And they only quote the first part of the paragraph, which suits their perverted Gospel - a Gospel which is not Gospel to fit a faith which is no faith.

Melanchthon was contending against justification by works, proving justification by faith from Ambrose, one of the Doctors of the Church for the papal party. This entire article on justification is a defense of justification by faith, and the title of this section makes that even clearer (for those who graduated from Mequon) -

That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ.

In the craft of writing, one does not simply make a point and let it hang. Melanchthon was a gifted theological writer and a scholar of Greek and Latin. He wrote paragraphs, not verses. A paragraph has a beginning, middle, and an end. This one builds to a climax focusing on Ambrose as a Doctor of the Church, a Doctor of Justification by Faith.  Jay Webber and his vicar, Jon Buchholz, take that justification by faith away through subterfuge, since the plain words of the paragraph condemn both MDivs as Sententiarists.

I have pity for Buchholz and Webber, because they have so little research and writing behind them. They are like children sent to Piggly-Wiggly with a credit card to buy groceries for the family. They come home with bags of marshmallows, candied apples, Fruit Loop cereal, orange juice, chocolate milk, Fritos, and hot dogs.  They have all the food groups, but selected with such ignorance that the results are junk. Their selective arguments are junk, too.

Webber and Buchholz are the new Sententiarists. They gather their self-serving quotations, to keep everyone in the dark. After a period of time, enough names and quotations can be collected and used selectively to prove anything.

Eduard Preuss, the Bo Derek of aging UOJ champions, knew how to do this. First he worked on Lutheran orthodoxy. Then he taught Walther's UOJ at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Finally, he taught papal falsehoods for the Church of Rome. Asked about his change, he said, "Give me the quotations and I can prove anything."

I have gathered as much UOJ material as possible, with the help of others, to show what has been taught and where it started. The UOJ Enthusiasts deceptively drill through the Pietism base to discover UOJ in the Book of Concord and in the NNIV. But their layer of proof is from Halle Pietism and the graduates of Halle Pietism. This can be clearly shown in the arguments in favor of universal forgiveness without faith: Rambach, Knapp, Tholuck, Schleiermacher, and Barth.

In other words, I want everyone to read UOJ statements.

But the UOJ Stormtroopers want justification by faith attacked, silenced, and metaphorically burned at the stake. The difference should be telling.


Saturday, June 30, 2012

In 1530, Justification by Faith Prevailed.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Art by Norma Boeckler

Part 5


We think that even the adversaries acknowledge that, in justification, the remission of sins is necessary first. For we all are under sin. Wherefore we reason thus:-To attain the remission of sins is to be justified, according to Ps. 32, 1: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven. By faith alone in Christ, not through love, not because of love or works, do we acquire the remission of sins, although love follows faith. Therefore by faith alone we are justified, understanding justification as the making of a righteous man out of an unrighteous, or that he be regenerated.



It will thus become easy to declare the minor premise [that we obtain forgiveness of sin by faith, not by love] if we know how the remission of sins occurs. The adversaries with great indifference dispute whether the remission of sins and the infusion of grace are the same change [whether they are one change or two]. Being idle men, they did not know what to answer [cannot speak at all on this subject]. In the remission of sins, the terrors of sin and of eternal death, in the heart, must be overcome, as Paul testifies, 1 Cor. 15, 56 sq.: The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. That is, sin terrifies consciences, this occurs through the Law, which shows the wrath of God against sin; but we gain the victory through Christ. How? By faith, when we comfort ourselves by confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake. Thus, therefore we prove the minor proposition. The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake. Likewise Paul, Rom. 5, 2, says: By whom also we have access, and adds, by faith. Thus, therefore, we are reconciled to the Father, and receive remission of sins when we are comforted with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake. The adversaries regard Christ as Mediator and Propitiator for this reason, namely, that He has merited the habit of love; they do not urge us to use Him now as Mediator, but, as though Christ were altogether buried, they imagine that we have access through our own works, and, through these, merit this habit and afterwards, by this love, come to God. Is not this to bury Christ altogether, and to take away the entire doctrine of faith? Paul, on the contrary, teaches that we have access, i.e., reconciliation, through Christ. And to show how this occurs, he adds that we have access by faith. By faith, therefore, for Christ's sake, we receive remission of sins. We cannot set our own love and our own works over against God's wrath.


Secondly. It is certain that sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ, as Propitiator, Rom. 3, 25: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation. Moreover, Paul adds: through faith. Therefore this Propitiator thus benefits us, when by faith we apprehend the mercy promised in Him, and set it against the wrath and judgment of God. And to the same effect it is written, Heb. 4, 14. 16: Seeing, then, that we have a great High Priest, etc., let us therefore come with confidence. For the Apostle bids us come to God, not with confidence in our own merits, but with confidence in Christ as a High Priest; therefore he requires faith.



Thirdly. Peter, in Acts 10, 43, says: To Him give all the prophets witness that through His name, whosoever believeth on Him, shall receive remission of sins. How could this be said more clearly? We receive remission of sins, he says, through His name i.e., for His sake; therefore, not for the sake of our merits, not for the sake of our contrition, attrition, love, worship, works. And he adds: When we believe in Him. Therefore he requires faith. For we cannot apprehend the name of Christ except by faith. Besides he cites the agreement of all the prophets. This is truly to cite the authority of the Church. [For when all the holy prophets bear witness, that is certainly a glorious, great excellent, powerful decretal and testimony.] But of this topic we will speak again after a while, when treating of "Repentance."



Fourthly. Remission of sins is something promised for Christ's sake. Therefore it cannot be received except by faith alone. For a promise cannot be received except by faith alone. Rom. 4, 16: Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end that the promise might be sure; as though he were to say: "If the matter were to depend upon our merits, the promise would be uncertain and useless, because we never could determine when we would have sufficient merit." And this, experienced consciences can easily understand [and would not, for a thousand worlds, have our salvation depend upon ourselves]. Accordingly, Paul says, Gal. 3, 22: But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. He takes merit away from us, because he says that all are guilty and concluded under sin; then he adds that the promise, namely, of the remission of sins and of justification, is given, and adds how the promise can be received, namely, by faith. And this reasoning, derived from the nature of a promise, is the chief reasoning [a veritable rock] in Paul, and is often repeated. Nor can anything be devised or imagined whereby this argument of Paul can be overthrown. Wherefore let not good minds suffer themselves to be forced from the conviction that we receive remission of sins for Christ's sake, only through faith. In this they have sure and firm consolation against the terrors of sin, and against eternal death and against all the gates of hell. Everything else is a foundation of sand that sinks in trials.



But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3, 26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30.



In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul discusses this topic especially, and declares that, when we believe that God, for Christ's sake is reconciled to us, we are justified freely by faith. And this proposition, which contains the statement of the entire discussion [the principal matter of all Epistles, yea, of the entire Scriptures], he maintains in the third chapter: We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law, Rom. 3, 28. Here the adversaries interpret that this refers to Levitical ceremonies [not to other virtuous works]. But Paul speaks not only of the ceremonies, but of the whole Law. For he quotes afterward (7, 7) from theDecalog: Thou shalt not covet. And if moral works [that are not Jewish ceremonies] would merit the remission of sins and justification, there would also be no need of Christ and the promise, and all that Paul speaks of the promise would be overthrown. He would also have been wrong in writing to the Ephesians, 2, 8: By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works. Paul likewise refers to Abraham and David, Rom. 4, 1. 6. But they had the command of God concerning circumcision. Therefore, if any works justified these works must also have justified at the time that they had a command. But Augustine teaches correctly that Paul speaks of the entire Law, as he discusses at length in his book, Of the Spirit and Letter, where he says finally: These matters, therefore, having been considered and treated, according to the ability that the Lord has thought worthy to give us, we infer that man is not justified by the precepts of a good life, but by faith in Jesus Christ.



And lest we may think that the sentence that faith justifies, fell from Paul inconsiderately, he fortifies and confirms this by a long discussion in the fourth chapter to the Romans, and afterwards repeats it in all his epistles. Thus he says, Rom. 4, 4. 5: To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Here he clearly says that faith itself is imputed for righteousness. Faith, therefore, is that thing which God declares to be righteousness, and he adds that it is imputed freely, and says that it could not be imputed freely, if it were due on account of works. Wherefore he excludes also the merit of moral works [not only Jewish ceremonies, but all other good works]. For if justification before God were due to these, faith would not be imputed for righteousness without works. And afterwards, Rom. 4, 9: For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. Chapter 5, 1 says: Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, i.e., we have consciences that are tranquil and joyful before God. Rom. 10, 10: With the heart man believeth unto righteousness. Here he declares that faith is the righteousness of the heart. Gal. 2, 15: We have believed in Christ Jesus that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law. Eph. 2, 8. For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.



John 1, 12: To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 3, 14. 15: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish. Likewise, v. 17: For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned.



Acts 13, 38. 39: Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. How could the office of Christ and justification be declared more clearly? The Law, he says, did not justify. Therefore Christ was given, that we may believe that for His sake we are justified. He plainly denies justification to the Law. Hence, for Christ's sake we are accounted righteous when we believe that God, for His sake, has been reconciled to us. Acts 4, 11. 12: This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. But the name of Christ is apprehended only by faith. [I cannot believe in the name of Christ in any other way than when I hear His merit preached, and lay hold of that.] Therefore, by confidence in the name of Christ, and not by confidence in our works, we are saved. For "the name" here signifies the cause which is mentioned because of which salvation is attained. And to call upon the name of Christ is to trust in the name of Christ, as the cause or price because of which we are saved. Acts 15, 9: Purifying their hearts by faith. Wherefore that faith of which the Apostles speak is not idle knowledge, but a reality, receiving the Holy Ghost and justifying us [not a mere knowledge of history, but a strong powerful work of the Holy Ghost, which changes hearts].

Hab. 2, 4: The just shall live by his faith. Here he says, first that men are just by faith by which they believe that God is propitious and he adds that the same faith quickens, because this faith produces in the heart peace and joy and eternal life [which begins in the present life].

Is. 53, 11: By His knowledge shall He justify many. But what is the knowledge of Christ unless to know the benefits of Christ, the promises which by the Gospel He has scattered broadcast in the world? And to know these benefits is properly and truly to believe in Christ, to believe that that which God has promised for Christ's sake He will certainly fulfil.

But Scripture is full of such testimonies, since, in some places, it presents the Law, and in others the promises concerning Christ, and the remission of sins, and the free acceptance of the sinner for Christ's sake.

Here and there among the Fathers similar testimonies are extant. For Ambrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the world was subject to him by the Law for the reason that, according to the command of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the Law, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived, but guilt is not discharged. The Law, which made all sinners, seemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of His own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us. This is what he says in Rom. 5, 20: "The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Because after the whole world become subject, He took away the sin of the whole world, as he [John] testified, saying, John 1, 29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," Ps. 32, 1. These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free through the blood of Christ. Let all the Sententiarists, who are adorned with magnificent titles, be collected into one heap. For some are called angelic; others, subtile; and others irrefragable [that is, doctors who cannot err]. When all these have been read and reread, they will not be of as much aid for understanding Paul as is this one passage of Ambrose.

To the same effect, Augustine writes many things against the Pelagians. In f the Spirit and Letter he says: The righteousness of the Law, namely, that he who has fulfilled it shall live in it, is set forth for this reason that when any one has recognized his infirmity he may attain and work the same and live in it, conciliating the Justifier not by his own strength nor by the letter of the Law itself (which cannot be done), but by faith. Except in a justified man, there is no right work wherein he who does it may live. But justification is obtained by faith. Here he clearly says that the Justifier is conciliated by faith, and that justification is obtained by faith. And a little after: By the Law we fear God; by faith we hope in God. But to those fearing punishment grace is hidden; and the soul laboring, etc., under this fear betakes itself by faith to God's mercy, in order that He may give what lie commands. Here he teaches that by the Law hearts are terrified, but by faith they receive consolation. He also teaches us to apprehend, by faith, mercy, before we attempt to fulfil the Law. We will shortly cite certain other passages.

Truly, it is amazing that the adversaries are in no way moved by so many passages of Scripture, which clearly ascribe justification to faith, and, indeed, deny it to works. Do they think that the same is repeated so often for no purpose? Do they think that these words fell inconsiderately from the Holy Ghost? But they have also devised sophistry whereby they elude them. They say that these passages of Scripture, (which speak of faith,) ought to be received as referring to a fides formata, i.e., they do not ascribe justification to faith except on account of love. Yea, they do not, in any way, ascribe justification to faith, but only to love, because they dream that faith can coexist with mortal sin. Whither does this tend, unless that they again abolish the promise and return to the Law? If faith receive the remission of sins on account of love, the remission of sins will always be uncertain, because we never love as much as we ought, yea, we do not love unless our hearts are firmly convinced that the remission of sins has been granted us. Thus the adversaries, while they require in the remission of sins and justification confidence in one's own love, altogether abolish the Gospel concerning the free remission of sins; although at the same time, they neither render this love nor understand it, unless they believe that the remission of sins is freely received.

We also say that love ought to follow faith as Paul also says, Gal. 5, 6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. And yet we must not think on that account that by confidence in this love or on account of this love we receive the remission of sins and reconciliation just as we do not receive the remission of sins because of other works that follow. But the remission of sins is received by faith alone, and, indeed, by faith properly so called, because the promise cannot be received except by faith. But faith, properly so called, is that which assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost in the heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain]. Of this faith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the remission of sins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham] accounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the works of the Law, although love necessarily follows. Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. And because this faith alone receives the remission of sins, and renders us acceptable to God, and brings the Holy Ghost, it could be more correctly called gratia gratum faciens, grace rendering one pleasing to God, than an effect following, namely, love.

Thus far, in order that the subject might be made quite clear, we have shown with sufficient fulness, both from testimonies of Scripture, and arguments derived from Scripture, that by faith alone we obtain the remission of sins for Christ's sake, and that by faith alone we are justified, i.e., of unrighteous men made righteous, or regenerated. But how necessary the knowledge of this faith is, can be easily judged, because in this alone the office of Christ is recognized, by this alone we receive the benefits of Christ; this alone brings sure and firm consolation to pious minds. And in the Church [if there is to be a church, if there is to be a Christian Creed], it is necessary that there should be the [preaching and] doctrine [by which consciences are not made to rely on a dream or to build on a foundation of sand, but] from which the pious may receive the sure hope of salvation. For the adversaries give men bad advice [therefore the adversaries are truly unfaithful bishops, unfaithful preachers and doctors; they have hitherto given evil counsel to consciences, and still do so by introducing such doctrine] when they bid them doubt whether they obtain remission of sins. For how will such persons sustain themselves in death who have heard nothing of this faith, and think that they ought to doubt whether they obtain the remission of sins? Besides it is necessary that in the Church of Christ the Gospel be retained, i.e., the promise that for Christ's sake sins are freely remitted. Those who teach nothing of this faith, concerning which we speak, altogether abolish the Gospel. But the scholastics mention not even a word concerning this faith. Our adversaries follow them, and reject this faith. Nor do they see that, by rejecting this faith, they abolish the entire promise concerning the free remission of sins and the righteousness of Christ.


***

GJ - This is identical to the original post, since both have the graphics added. The UOJ spin-doctors should study this easy-to-read page and reveal how forgiveness without faith emerges from the Scriptures and the Confessions. Really - I am dying to find out.