More SpenerQuest Entertainment - UOJ Experts Rolf Preus and Jay Webber

If anyone needs to find out what is wrong with the Synodical Conference, reading SpenerQuest (aka LutherQuest) will create a great hunger to go back and read Lutheran books as an antidote.

First of all, Webber and Rolf show no evidence of exegetical ability but choose to circle around their SynCon heroes and throw quotes at each other. The quest for the historical Kidnapper - CFW Walther - continues.

Although both consider themselves UOJ experts for sticking to the same false dogma, they really loathe each other. And they are both loathed in their respective sects - Webber in the Little Sect on the Prairie, Rolf in the LCMS (at the moment). Webber was LCMS and Rolf was ELS. Such harmony! - and they both went to Ft. Wayne when Robert Preus was president of Ft. Wayne.

Loehe began that school and Walther asked for it as a gift to Missouri, plus continued cash. But Loehe is a bad guy to many in Missouri.

That reminds me of Madison in The Music Man. "He was a miser nobody liked." The Music Man, Harold Hill asked, "Madison Picnic Park? Madison Gymnasium? Madison Hospital? Who did he think he was?"

The Halle twins never seem to realize that the debate websty is named LutherQuest, not Walther-StephanQuest. They know less about Luther than they know about Scripture. To paraphrase the jibe about Shakespeare the actor - "Little Scripture and less Luther."

The Lutherans are wondering why their massive or tiny schools are emptying out. They should look to the Roman Catholics for the reasons why. Nothing is quite so unappealing as becoming a Catholic priest. The rare exceptions are those places where the school looks back to traditional Romanism. In those schools, candidates rush in from all over, and the bishops are offended. I read of one where the current Pope made it a point to close down a successful, traditional seminary that annoyed him.

Likewise, the "conservative" Lutheran leaders have fallen over each other to create copies of Fuller Seminary, even down to the prep school level. The boards and faculties are Fulleroids - pains in the neck who attended Fuller for some inane reason. The reading lists are Fulleroid. The assignments are Fulleroid. And the classroom are empty.

Luke 1:52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 

Notice that Webber and Rolf have never assaulted the Church Growth Movement. Jay the Furtive used to tell me what articles I needed to publish in Christian News - not that he would ever do the same.

Rolf specializes in mentioning his father often, without comprehending what his father wrote.

And there is Rolf Preus, on the left of Bishop Jim Heiser,
Ft. Wayne graduate.
What fun games to play, to UOJ or not to UOJ?
That is the question.

More ELDONA-Rolf Synod meetings.

Authoritarian Rule Is the Problem In the Church - Not the Solution

The Duggar clan was deep into Gothard's authoritarian lifestyle and business:
Josh and Anna met at an annual Gothard gathering.

A group of articles about Fundy Guru Bill Gothard include  -

1. This summary from Christianity Today,
2. Another from the Washington Post, and
3. The Cult Next Door from a Chicago magazine, where his headquarters were located.

Bill Gothard is being sued by 10 or more young women,
who were selected by him as "staff" and groomed at his headquarters.
Here he is posing with Duggar daughters - still welcome there.

Recovering Grace is a website about Gothard's methodical abuse.

Anticipating the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation, Lutheran leaders should be more aware of Luther's fight against the divine rights of the Pope - which included torturing and murdering opponents.

Pope Paul VI is supposed to be the last Pope to wear the tiara,
which is a crown for the pope-king.

The bishop's hat - the mitre - is supposedly more modest.
Popes no longer parade around in their tiaras,
but they claim divine infallibility for themselves -
and for all those who agree with their dogma.

The Episcopal Church, the Eastern Orthodox church, and others affect the cone-head look with the mitre. The term "episcopalian polity" is used for any group that makes the bishop (episcopos) the ultimate authority in the group. The Biblical term means "supervisor" - literally - not mini-pope. Richard Neuhaus' one sentence send-up of the AELC Seminex bunch was "a portable seminary and a superfluity of mini-popes."

The parts of ELCA adopted the episcopal titles and dress before the 1987 merger, claiming "nothing will change." They only become more dictatorial and corrupt.

A bishop's hat - modeled by Bishop and Mrs. Robinson -
is not necessarily a sign of orthodoxy.

Presiding Bishop Schori and her lady bishops in The Episcopal Church -
just try to gainsay these harpies.

Some wear an invisible mitre.

Bishop Matt Harrison controls the LCMS as an authoritarian,
down to censoring what he does not like on his PR blog Steadfast Lutherans -
open discussions for those who agree with Harrison.

ELDONA is the smallest group to adopt the mitre.

---

Acolyte Stefanski - "One of the things I enjoy about the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese (ELDoNA) is that it fosters independent thinking and expression. Our bishop, the Rt. Rev. James Heiser doesn't 'run' the pastors (much less the congregations) or assign them to do his bidding, but simply offers such correction as may be necessary from time to time as they study and proclaim. If we seem to walk in unity (or, if you wish to be derisive, "in lockstep"), it's not by his dictate, but by agreement in the Word of God. Interestingly, having been educated in various church bodies, schools, and academic eras, most of us did not start out on the same page, but have been brought together as we have studied and confessed individually and found that our confession was the same…for which, to God alone be the glory.

Ten years of the diocese, now, by God's grace; may the Holy Spirit ever cause us to walk as one!"

Bishop Heiser (profile picture - mitre, above) - "Thank you, Pr. Stefanski. And, suffice to say, such correction is very rarely needed." 

When someone dared to give away this book at the last ELDONA conference,
bully Oncken ordered it removed and Bishop Heiser was clearly outraged.
Heiser, Rydecki, and others interested had copies sent to them (no objections
raised) and draft sent free seven (7) months earlier.
Since then, ELDONA has lied about a pastor not even involved in anything
concerning them and magnified their hissy-fits into slander.

The Rolf Synod left the ELS, including Rolf Preus,
but Rolf left the synod, leaving them with an awkward name.
Note the details copied verbatim below.

---

The Ultra-UOJ Rolf Synod Was in Fellowship with ELDONA for Years!

As of Ascension Day 2010, the Evangelical Diocese of North America and the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches recognize fellowship with each other.

The 2010 General Conference of the ACLC was held April 20-21 in Princeton, MN.  It was hosted by Christ Lutheran Church

We joyfully and officially received Christ Lutheran as a member congregation, along with Rev. Robert A. Lawson, Sr.
We regretfully acknowledge the resignation of Rev. Rolf Preus as Superintendent of the ACLC and withdrawal from membership.
We unanimously adopted "A Statement on Confessional Fellowship."
We rejoice in moving closer to practicing fellowship with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
We carefully read through and discussed "Unity, Union, and Unionism."
On right our 2010 General Conference attendees (from left to right): Rev. Robert Lawson, Jr.,  Rev. Em. Walter Anderson, Mr. Richard Scott, Mr. Bob Schlesselman, Mr. Allan Kretzmann, Rev. Robert Lawson, Sr., Rev. Steven Brockdorf, Guest Rev. Mark Mueller of ELDoNA, Mr. Scott Markel, PhD., Mr. David Flitter, and Rev. Karl Heck.

***

GJ - One can only marvel at the way in which false teachers lead their people to and fro, in errors maze.

Yet More Laughable Lies from the Former Archbishop of the Rolf Synod

GJ - They are really hating on ELDONA at SpenerQuest.

Rolf Preus was the Archbishop of the Rolf Synod for a time. He led this group out of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod - the Little Sect on the Prairie - but they expelled him a bishop-for-life.

It is a good thing they did not treat him the way the Walther mob treated Bishop Martin Stephan.
They threatened Stephan with his life, robbed him of his gold, books, and personal possessions. Then they forced him out of his house to sleep on the bare soil all night, and kidnapped him at gunpoint to make him live - or die - in Illinois.

No, I did not forget about the land theft. Before Walther took the mob down from St. Louis to Perrysville, he came to the town and took back the land that the Saxons gave Stephan, changing the title.  Later, he talked Stephan's son into giving up the rest of the land that Stephan owned there - for nothing.

Here is the funniest lie of all, because it is so often repeated by those who gave sainthood to Walther. "No one knew about the adultery until a woman confessed her adultery after a particularly rough sermon on the topic. Or maybe two confessed."

Stephan's lawyers, his mistress, and his son were on the same ship traveling to America, but his sick wife and the dying children were left in Dresden. Walther's brother was on the same ship, but no one noticed anything? Yet Walther and his brother signed onto Stephan's elevation to bishop in New Orleans. To this day, the LCMS, WELS, and ELS pastors are rewarded and promoted for adultery, unless it gets their synod into trouble.

Bremen, Germany to New Orleans
21 January 1839

DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI - PORT OF NEW ORLEANS

I, H. W. Exter master of the Ship Olbers do solemnly sincerely & truly swear that the within list signed by me & now delivered to the Collector of this district contains the names of all the Passengers taken on board of the Said Ship at the Port of Bremen or at any time since and that all matters therein set forth are according to the best of my Knowledge & Belief just & true & I do further swear that Two of the Said Passengers died on the voyage.

Sworn before me this 21st Jany 1839 ~~ [signed] J. W. Exter-Master

List of Passengers on board of the bremer Ship Olbers H. W. Exter My bound from Bremen to New Orleans

Columns represent: Passenger number, Name, Relationship to the head of the family, Last dwelling place, Occupation, Age, Died on the voyage.

Cabin

  1  Martin Stephan                          Dresden         Preacher         61
  2  Martin Stephan                his son   Dresden                          16
  3  Theodore Julius Brohm                   Dresden         Candidate        30
  4  H. S. Fischer                           Dresden         Merchant         40
  5  Julie Fischer                 his wife  Dresden                          32
  6* Louise Gunther - mistress                         Dresden                          32

  7  Gustav Jaeckel                          Dresden         Cashier          32
  8  Francis Adolph Marbach                  Dresden         Attornay (sic)   40
  9  Louise Marbach                his wife  Dresden                          34
 10  Gustav Marbach                his child Dresden                          11
 11  Clara Marbach                 his child Dresden                           6
 12  Victor Marbach                his child Dresden                           5
 13* Martin Marbach                his child Dresden                           2
 14  Eduard Vehse                            Dresden         Recorder         35
 15* Mathilde Vehse                his child Dresden                           9
 16  Hermann Walther                         Dresden         Preacher         29
 17  M. Emil Julius Moritz Wege              Dresden         Candidate        38
 18  Sophie Schneiderin                      Dresden                          40
 19* Fred Loeschner                          *Konigsbruck    Painter          44

------

It is also an exercise in pride to think that you can escape the influences of your own generation and leap over the centuries to adopt the views of another generation without taking any of your baggage with you. Better to stay within the tradition that gave you the wisdom of the fathers. Walter is a good example of this. He learned his theology from Baier's Compendium, which distilled the theology of the Lutheran fathers. Walther didn't break with this tradition, but when he came to the New World and had to deal with issues in America that would not have arisen in the old country he did so. He led a revival of confessionalism in America that was reignited in the 20th century. To dismiss Walther and think that one understands Lutheran orthodoxy better than he did (as is the case with the ELDoNA crowd) is supreme arrogance, in my opinion.  
Pastor Rolf David Preus

Pope John the Malefactor Will Meet with the Rolf Synod

March, 2015 The Pope Speaks Newsletter - 
Phoenix, Arizona, Meeting

Rev. Robert Lawson, Jr., and Rev. Steven Brockdorf, former pastors of our synod, presently serving in the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (ACLC), met informally with Pres. Moldstad and ELS Pastor David Jay Webber on February 26, 2015, in Phoenix, Arizona. This meeting, occurring with the knowledge and approval of all five pastors in the ACLC, was an initial attempt to explore possible efforts toward peaceful resolution of issues that led to their departure from the ELS in 2006. At this initial session, 

Pastors Lawson and Brockdorf emphasized that their filing of a “state of confession” in 2006 was never intended as a rejection of the “Public Ministry of the Word,” adopted by the synod in 2005. We pray future meetings will provide opportunities to address in a God-pleasing manner items of concern, knowing how confessional unity in doctrine is necessary for restored relationships (1 Corinthians 1:10).

Robert Preus was the first graduate of Bethany Lutheran Seminary.
Too bad he is not here to explain this quotation to UOJ Stormtroopers.

ELDONA vs. the Rolf Synod - Part Three. Evidence Contrasted with Unwarranted Claims

Robert Preus quoted this for a reason,
and Calov was clearly arguing against the UOJ position.
UOJ is rejected here with precision and clarity.

PART THREE: QUESTIONS OF METHODOLOGY: THOROUGHGOING THEOLOGY VS. ‘SLAM DUNKS’

The ACLC accuses us of an unbiblical method—of mere Vater Theologie, which they condemn as fallaciously appealing to authority—because we fulfill the purpose of our “Theses” by presenting what the first generations of “Lutherans” taught regarding Justification and, especially, with regard to specific texts that are often adduced by those desiring to paint said theologians as supporting “Objective Justification.” Our theses were not meant to be a complete exegesis of the various texts, as such is not necessary to say what needed to be said. Indeed, were such a thing to have been our first offering, it would have resulted in an attempt to communicate exegetical findings with those who have a different hermeneutic: those who continue in the Synodical Conference tradition of dogmatics and exegesis have a hermeneutic that flows from the halls of rationalism and the cell groups of pietism, as they bind themselves to what was handed down to them by their founders who sprang from such backgrounds. Nonetheless, we shall engage in precisely that as we go forth from the “Theses” in the next several months and years.

When the ACLC makes this accusation, however, and then tries to claim that they have settled the whole issue by a quote from Gerhard and a quote from Calov (who was, actually, quoting Gerhard himself), we find that they are practicingUnehelichestiefkindtheologie, —by appealing to a non-authority, as it were—since they have not, indeed, even read and quoted either Gerhard or Calov, but only Pieper’s highly selective—and highly misconstrued—quoting of the same, as seen in the following from Calov’s Biblia Illustrata:

Verse 25. ὃς παρεδόθη
By God the Father. Into death, of course, which we likewise understand in 8:32. (See also our commentary on Matthew 18:22). He has in view the Greek version of Isaiah 53:6. κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν.

διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

He could have said, “…who both died and rose again so that He might justify or free us from sins.” But since he loves to employ contrasts, he combined sins with death, since they are the death of the soul. And he combined the obtaining of righteousness with resurrection, since righteousness is the resurrection of the soul. He wondrously brings us away from sins and leads us to righteousness, for we see that Christ was not afraid to die as a testimony to His teaching against sins and calling us to righteousness. And He was raised by God so that the ultimate authority might be established for that teaching. See 1 Pet. 1:3.

In what way did Christ die for the sake of our sins?

The death of Christ is not viewed only as a martyrium or testimony to His teaching, sealed with His death, but as a satisfaction for sins, as Grotius himself pointed out against Socinus in the defense of the Catholic faith de Satisfactione Christi, and as pointed out extensively by us in Socinismo Profligato. Nor is it only the bravery of Christ that brings us away from sin and leads us to righteousness in that He was not afraid to die for the sake of the testimony of His teaching against sins and calling us to righteousness. It wouldn’t have been necessary for the only-begotten Son of God Himself to undergo death in order to accomplish that, for such things have been witnessed in the case of many martyrs who were certainly not afraid to die as a testimony to their teaching. But the very death of Christ was a payment and ransom price for our sins, because they were laid upon Him; sins were the meritorious cause of His death. “Christ was delivered over to death for us, so that one might die for all” (2 Cor. 5:15). Nor is this referring to the bringing away from sins, but to the expiation of our sins made by the death of Christ, that is, the satisfaction furnished for our sins, which is the meritorious cause of our justification, not only a “cause that motivates us morally” to stop sinning.

In what way was Christ raised for the sake of our righteousness?

Again, the Apostle does not say that Christ was raised by God so that authority might be established for His teaching, which could have been sufficiently established for it by miracles and by the testimony from heaven, if the Jews had not been so hardened. But διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν, for the sake of our righteousness. And if the only-begotten Son of God was delivered over to death and raised from death only for the sake of confirming His teaching by the testimony of His death and by the miracle of the resurrection so that others might be set free from sin and death by His teaching, the same surely could have been accomplished by the death and resurrection of other martyrs, even as some of the early believers were raised and appeared to many, as St. Matthew testifies in 27:53. Why, then, would it have been necessary for the Son of God Himself—God, who is blessed forever and ever—to be delivered over to death and raised for this reason?

No, the Apostle teaches something far different, that the death of Christ surely took place, not only because of our sins, not merely for the sake of confirming the teaching of Christ which brings us away from sins, but on account of what our sins had deserved, for the words διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν infer the meritorious cause of the death of Christ, that He was delivered over, that, by divine counsel and decree, He sustained the penalty of our sins in such a way as to free us from them.

This is amply taught in Isaiah 53, that we have been reconciled to God by the death of Christ, and that we are justified, and consequently, just as the death of Christ was the motivating cause or reason for announcing to us the remission of sins, justification and salvation, so we are not justified before God nor do we obtain salvation in any other way but by laying hold of the satisfaction of the death of Christ. This is the goal of the apostolic teaching and instruction in this chapter. This is why he describes faith as he does, which is imputed to us for righteousness, that it is placed in God, who raised Jesus from the dead, just as He was delivered over on account of our sins. For that resurrection from the dead is the infallible proof of the complete satisfaction and expiation of our sins and of the reconciliation with God made through the death of Christ. If this reconciliation had not been made, then God would never have raised this Mediator and Bondsman of ours, who gave Himself as a ransom (1 Tim. 2:4), from the dead so that He might communicate and distribute His righteousness to us, that is, our justification.

Therefore, it does not at all mean that Christ was raised on account of our justification in the same way as He was delivered over by God to death on account of our sins. For this death of Christ is established as the meritorious cause of the expiation of our sins, even as our sins were the meritorious cause of the death of Christ, because by the merit of our sins He was delivered over into death in our place, so that by the merit of His death we might be freed from sin and its penalty, death. But, of course, it cannot be said concerning the resurrection of Christ that Christ merited righteousness for us by His resurrection; His exclamation from the cross, “It is finished!” (John 19:30), also confirmed that the earning of righteousness was finished at the time of His death. Therefore, Scripture speaks differently concerning the death of Christ than it does concerning His resurrection. For it says that Christ suffered and died both for our sake and in our place. However, He rose again, not in our place, but only for our sake. Therefore, although the theologians sometimes speak of the resurrection of Christ as the meritorious cause of our justification, they understand the term “merit” only in a general sense, even as Blessed Gerhard taught in his commentary on this passage in answer to the question, Does the resurrection of Christ pertain to the merit that has been provided for us? He replies in this way:

The word “merit” is understood either generally as all that pertains to our justification; or specifically as that which Christ has provided for us and which we ourselves were obligated to provide. In the first sense, the resurrection of Christ pertains to merit, because the resurrection of Christ was required for our justification in the ways explained thus far. But with regard to the second sense, it does not pertain to merit, because, although Christ arose for our sake, He did not arise in our place, whereas He suffered and died, not only for our sake, but also in our place.

In which respects Christ’s resurrection was required for our justification, Blessed Gerhard explains in this way:

1. (1) With respect to the manifestation and confirmation, because the resurrection of Christ is the clear testimony that full satisfaction has been made for our sins and that perfect righteousness has been procured. Chrysostom, Homily 9 on Romans: “In the resurrection it was demonstrated that Christ died, not for His own sins, but for our sins. For how could He rise again if He were a sinner? But if He was not a sinner, then He was crucified for the sake of others.”
2. (2) With respect to the application. If Christ had remained in death, He would not be the conqueror of death, nor could He apply to us the righteousness that was obtained at such a high price (Rom. 5:10, 8:34).
3. (3) With respect to the actual absolution from sin. Just as God punished our sins in Christ, which were imposed on Him and imputed to Him as our bondsman, so also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, He absolved Him from our sins that had been imputed to Him, and consequently He also absolves us in Him. The following passages refer to this: 1 Cor. 15:17, 2 Cor. 5:21, Eph. 2:5, Col. 2:12-13, Phil. 3:8-10, 1 Pet. 1:3.

Nevertheless, the following must be observed here: the manifestation and confirmation of the expiation of sins and the demonstration of victory over death is certainly useful for our faith, but not for the merit of Christ. He makes a definite distinction between the application of the righteousness of Christ and the merit of Christ, and he says that the risen Christ is the efficient cause of the application. But he does not say that the resurrection of Christ is the meritorious cause either of the righteousness of Christ or of its application. Finally, when he says that in the risen Christ we are absolved from sin, it is admitted to this extent, that since He was absolved from our sins that were imputed to Him, the expiation of our sins is certain, just as certain as our vivification and our blessed resurrection from the dead to blessed life. On account of this certainty that rests on the merit of the death of Christ, confirmed by the resurrection of Christ, we are said to be made alive in Christ and to have been raised with Christ (Eph. 2:5). But these things are not properly included in the meritorious cause of justification. For the resurrection is highlighted only for confirming faith on our part, or for the application through the Gospel of the righteousness obtained for us by Christ, but not meritoriously. Nor should we overlook the fact that the Apostle says, “Christ died for the sake of our sins,” but he does not say likewise that He was raised for the sake of our righteousness, which is in other places contrasted with sins, but for the sake of our justification. For if Christ had not been raised from the dead, neither could faith, which is invariably needed for justification, be certain, nor could righteousness be applied to us by Christ.

We will continue in a couple of days with a little bit of elaboration on the above and then begin to consider the various theses themselves (by means of the misguided critique of the same), as well as have a statement on another, related matter.

 

Please show where he "Always" supported UOJ,
as rolf continues to claim.
One objection to uoj destrays rolf's argument,
and robert's final book has many refutations
of uoj.

ELDONA Responded to the Rolf Synod's Accusations

The Rolf Sect gave justification by faith a frosty reception.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014

The ELDoNA Refutes the ACLC's Critique Concerning the Article of Justification, Part 1

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

As our readers know, I was suspended from the WELS ministerium back in October, 2012, for teaching the Scriptural, Lutheran Gospel that “all are sinners and are justified solely by faith in Christ” (cf. Luther’s Works, Vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, commenting on Galatians 1:10). The WELS insisted that I should teach the false doctrine of Universal “Objective Justification,” namely, that God has already declared all sinners to be righteous in His sight (whether they believe in Christ or not), but that this justification of all people not by faith in Christ, must be believed so that people can receive the benefits of it.

According to His great mercy, the Lord brought me safely out of the WELS and put me in contact with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA), among whom the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. But before I could join the diocese, it was agreed that I should explain my confession a bit more thoroughly, and that the diocese should explain its confession on this article of faith so that I would have no doubt what they believe and confess. I wrote an essay on the topic, and the diocese composed and adopted a set of Theses. In the end, we found ourselves to be in complete doctrinal agreement.

The Theses adopted by the ELDoNA and my essay have now been published, both online and in print.

Online: Theses on the Article of Justification and The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace

In print: Theses on the Article of Justification: and The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace in the Theology of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy

For some time, the ELDoNA had been in fellowship with the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (ACLC). The ACLC was not required to subscribe to the Theses on Justification, but they were asked to offer input on the Theses before they were finalized and adopted. Their initial input expressed disagreement with the fundamental conclusions of the Theses. Once the Theses were adopted, the ACLC offered a short response, which can be found here.

In this response, they promised to write up a more indepth critique, which they published about a month ago. It can be found here. In it, the pastors of the ACLC have declared themselves to be tentatively out of fellowship with the ELDoNA, pending final approval by their convention later this year.

Given the confusion created by the inaccuracies in the ACLC's response, the diocese has chosen to refute several of their claims in a series of posts on the diocesan website. The first was published yesterday.

http://eldona.org/theses-on-the-article-of-justification-a-refutation-of-the-aclcs-critique-part-one/

I encourage all Intrepid readers to give it a careful reading, and to follow the ELDoNA posts as we make our confession of faith as plain as possible, to the glory of the Triune God and for the edification of His holy Church.

Rolf Synod Argues the Way Bill Nye Does - Making It Personal

The atheist Nye used the weakest form of argument at his recent debate, assuming he was only talking to evolutionists. Although he should have been aware of a vast amount of Creation arguments, he kept referring to Creation as "Ham's Creation" and "Ham's concept."

This is a personal attack - plus guilt by association. I read it all the time at the skunk patch called LutherQuest (sic). The snide tone conveys the thought that the subject matter in not worthy of consideration. Associating it with one person says, "Anyone who believes in Creation is a foolish follower of Ham."

Before Megatron met its untimely death (when Tom-Tom software destroyed it), I had a list of Creation statements from well known scientists of the past.

The Rolf Synod did the same thing, constantly referring to "Rydecki's justification." In fact, they begin with Paul Rydecki being received into ELDONA and giving a paper on justification by faith. Told in hushed tones of outrage normally reserved for the Protest'ants, the history of Christian doctrine is brushed aside in favor Walther's hand-picked parrot, F. Pieper. Fuerbringer specified that Walther changed the rules to get Pieper the job.

For Walther, the divine call was "whatever CFW demands as the Missouri pope."

First, A Matter of Definition: 
“Objective Justification” has been variously presented 
• as merely a synonym for unlimited atonement, 
• as properly referring to justification as the object of faith, 
• and as the ‘proper’ understanding of the teaching.3

This last view states that it is a fact4 that Mankind has been not only atoned for by Christ, but actually declared free from sin by God prior to faith. In the resurrection, it is said, God actually absolved the world.5
Acta Apostolorum, Rolfus Synodum.

The footnotes refer to Pieper, F. Bivens!, and Sig Becker. Thus the only possible definition comes from that self-perpetuating fanaticism known as UOJ.

Since the Rolf Synod considers UOJ canonical, any variation from their Enthusiasm must be rejected as the demonic negation of their true Gospel.

Every so often I try out the UOJ dogma on Evangelicals, who invariably say, "They are Universalists." In fairness, I say, "Not quite, according to them. If someone believes in their world absolution without faith, that persona is saved. But everyone is forgiven, absolved, and guilt-free whether they believe or not."

That only brings puzzled looks. My English students were not fooled by the New NIV, Romans 3. When I showed them the extra "all" - all are justified (contrary to the actual text), they said, "No, it still says justified by faith."

But the dimwits at Mequon promoting the NNIV race past that fact and yell, "See that - all are justified. It is in the Bible. All are justified."

Rolf Synod's Nasty Little Introduction

The Rolf Synod began when Pope John the Malefactor began kicking pastors out of the Little Sect on the Prairie. Moldstad told Rolf's congregation they would be kicked out of the ELS if they did not fire Rolf, so they did.

This group calls themselves the ACLC, whatever that means, but they soon parted company with Rolf - who left the LCMS for the ELS, got kicked out of the ELS, formed the Rolf Synod, got pushed out there, and came crawling back to the LCMS, rejected at first but finally (and reluctantly) accepted. Nevertheless, Rolf publicly supports his former sect.

Those who teach a universal forgiveness and absolution - without faith - cannot get along with each other. Thus Rolf's synod broke with him. Paul McCain turned against his back channel pal Herman Otten, even though both adore UOJ and sneak in Romanism however they can.

The SkunkPatch called LutherQuest (sic) is famous for their Max und Morris behavior with their "friends," but they are united by UOJ.

WELS and the Little Sect on the Prairie despise one another, but they teach nothing except UOJ. The only thing they like about the LCMS (besides money) is UOJ.

I could tell this would be a weak piece of whining when the Rolf Synod began their report by complaining they were robbed by ELDONA.

The ELDoNA scheduled Rev. Rydecki as sole presenter on the topic of Justification at their 2013 Colloquium. Unfortunately, following his presentation of “The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace” only about 15 minutes of the scheduled time remained for discussion. At the beginning of Rev. Rydecki’s colloquy interview, the bishop of the ELDoNA, the Rt. Rev. James Heiser, stated that no questions on Objective Justification would be entertained. At the conclusion of the interview, Bishop Heiser informed Rev. Rydecki that the ELDoNA found no error in his theology at all, but nevertheless his application would be put on hold until the ELDoNA had adopted her theses on Justification. This, he said, was in order to be fair to Rev.
Rydecki so that he would know for certain the ELDoNA’s position on this doctrine before entering the diocese. Acta Apostolorum, Rolfus Synodum.

I have no connection with any of this, but I can guess why Heiser did not let the Rolf Synod or anyone else get on the topic of UOJ. I have experienced their madness whenever they latch onto the topic. They brush aside Luther's doctrine, Paul's epistles, the Bible itself, and the Book of Concord - to obsess about their one and only term, which did not appear until recently, coming from Calvinistic and Pietistic sources.

As one of their mindless leaders, F. Bivens, wrote - in harmony with all of them - UOJ is the Chief Article of the Christian Faith, the master and prince, etc - directly contradicting the Reformation.

Unbelief rages against faith, which explains why UOJ finds complete unity among all its allies (including ELCA) and opposes justification by faith with demonic wrath.

Navigation - Rolf Synod Rejection of Justification by Faith - Attacks ELDONA

Pastor Steve Brockdorf, Rolf Synod UOJ Advocate

ELDONA Justification by Faith Links

Free copy of Thy Strong Word - UOJ and JBFA Arguments Compared

Pastor Paul Rydecki's Scholarly Works on Justification

Rolf Synod Opposes Justification by Faith - Link to Report

Fresh Blast of Flatulence from SpenerQuest

Rolf Synod's Nasty Little Introduction

Using the Ad Hominem - "Rydecki's Justification"

"Steadfast Lutherans", Jay Webber, Etc - Pastor Rydecki Answers

Luther-Queasies at Work and Play

"Steadfast"Fallacies - Blaming Ichabod for Justification by Faith

Steadfast Author Scheer Picks Fight about UOJ

Hitler Tries To Quash Rolf Synod's Attacks on Justification by Faith

Unsteady Lutherans versus Brett Meyer

Rev. Paul Rydecki
February 24th, 2014 at 17:17
I haven’t kept up with the discussion, but I did note that someone above referenced Jack Kilcrease’s article from 2012 about me, so I figured I’d also link my two responses to him:

• http://www.faithalonejustifies.com/brief-response-to-dr-kilcrease/
• http://www.faithalonejustifies.com/why-would-i-want-to-debate-kilcrease-another-response-to-his-posts-about-me/

Jim Pierce, "Steadfast Lutherans" UOJ Stormtrooper

Author Archive -- Jim Pierce

Jim Pierce is a layman from Seattle, Washington. He is a blogger and author. He is a graduate of the University of Washington and has a career in systems administration. By the mercy and grace of God, his journey has taken him away from Pentecostalism into eighteen years of atheism, and he is now at peace as a Confessional Lutheran where he attends Messiah Lutheran Church in Seattle with his dear wife Suzanne and their two children.