No Bad Translation Will Efface the Word of God, Which Belongs To God Alone, And Judges All Books - Luther

LPC has left a new comment on your post "L.U.B.D. Answers Cascione - Suggests Possible Tran...":

Hunnius' work is not the only evidence against UOJ: the Scripture foremost and the BoC are the main evidences against it. So whatever coerced translation they make of Hunnius' work will not affect those that hold to One JBFA.

The Scripture has the habit of always confronting false doctrine face to face.

LPC 

***

GJ - Well stated, Dr. Cruz. Those who cannot read the plain Word and the clear Confessions will not be anxious to translate Latin. The Lutherans have had decades to create a modern Lutheran Bible, and it would sell, but they are too lazy to attempt it. A modest revision of the KJV, like the last one (the one we use) would have been relatively easy to do. But no-o-o-o-o. That would mess up the agenda of apostasy.

I continue to be staggered by the thousands of page-view of the Luther quotation that states exactly what you have said. Here it is:

"The Holy Spirit teaches man better than all the books; He teaches him to understand the Scriptures better than he can understand them from the teaching of any other; and of his own accord he does everything God wills he should, so the Law dare make no demands upon him."

Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 280. Pentecost Sunday John 14:23-31. 

   
Page-views in the last few months for "The Holy Spirit..."

Rev. A. Nony Mouse Hates These Sayings. But Loves ... Oct 3, 2007	9604
The Holy Spirit Teaches Man Better Than Books May 23, 2012	8792

---

Arizona California District Leadership

District Leadership

District Leadership

District Presidium

Rev. Jon Buchholz
President

Rev. Steven Degner
First Vice President

Rev. David Clark
Second Vice President

Rev. Daniel Schroeder
Secretary

Circuit Pastors

Apache Conference

Rev. Andrew Luehring
Apache Circuit

Black Canyon Conference

Rev. Paul Rutschow
Grand Canyon Circuit

Rev. Fred Casmer
Metro East Circuit

Rev. John Ehlers
Metro West Circuit

Rev. Martin Spaude
Superstition Mountain Circuit

Northern California Conference

Rev. Michael Carr
Golden Gate Circuit

Rev. Guy Marquardt
Sierra Circuit

Southern California Conference

Rev. Donald Pieper
Las Vegas Circuit

Rev. James Proeber
Los Angeles Circuit

Rev. David Salinas
Mountain View Circuit

Rev. Michael Foley
Orange Circuit

Rev. Aaron Boehm
San Diego Circuit

Gadsden Conference

Rev. Steven Spencer
Chiricahua Circuit

(Vacant)
Rio Grande Circuit

Rev. Nathan Kassulke
Saguaro Circuit

L.U.B.D. Answers Cascione - Suggests Possible Translation War

LutheranUniversalistsBeDamned has left a new comment on your post "Jack Cascione Dusts Off the Iron Maiden and Polish...":

GJ asks, "Has [Cascione] read the book that Rydecki translated?" It is difficult to tell, but there is so little of it mentioned by Casione, and that only in general terms, that GJ's conclusion, "I doubt it," seems correct. One thing is certain from Cascione's comments, however: others have read Hunnius' "Theses Opposed to Huberianism," and recognize the damage it does to the position of Universal Justification, prompting Cascione to publicly join "them" in questioning Rydecki's integrity as a translator. Cascione writes: "Pastor Rydecki is the translator (from the original Latin) of a 16th century, recently published book available from Amazon: 'Theses Opposed to Huberianism: A Defense of the Luther an Doctrine of Justification'... In this translation Rydecki shows that Hunnius, a follower of Luther, rejected the teachings of objective justification. However, in the opinion of many, including this author, Rydecki has misrepresented Hunnius’ position."

This statement from Cascione, which is also representing "the opinion of many," stands in direct contradiction to objections which immediately surfaced upon the publication of Rydecki's translation, that these Theses applied in any way to Objective Justification. One inconsequential person, who evidently hadn't read the book before he opened his mouth, was successful in spreading the rumor that "Huber only taught Universal Justification, not Universal Objective Justification," that Hunnius' work therefore does not apply to UOJ, and that Lutheran Universalists need not be concerned that their doctrine may actually significantly depart from the doctrine of Scripture and the Reformers. Not so, according to Cascione, as he points out that "the opinion of many" is that these Theses do in fact oppose Universal Justification (or UOJ, or OJ, or whatever), and, instead of even considering that Walther's stark departure from the "sound pattern of words" used by Lutherans for centuries might actually teach error, immediately assume that Rydecki is an unfaithful translator. This is profound arrogance at work. This is profound arrogance in positions of power.

Regarding Hunnius, I expect two things: one, a translation war. No doubt, further editions will be published by UOJ advocates for the purpose of exposing Rydecki's unfaithfulness. The response of faithful Christians in this case will be to disbelieve either party in this affair, and instead to turn to impartial Latin scholars, perhaps even outside the Church, who don't care what Hunnius said.

Second, I expect that we haven't heard the last from Hunnius on the subject of Universal Justification. It may be that, if there is yet any doubt what Hunnius actually said, or meant, in the 'Theses' translated by Rydecki, additional translation efforts will offer undeniable clarity on the position of Hunnius and the Wittenberg faculty.

***

GJ  - No translation war will develop. The UOJ Hive is lazy. They are the drones, not the worker bees.

I thought Hunnius sliced, diced, and pureed all possible versions of UOJ. One Enthusiast responded, "Did you have permission to quote the book?" That was asked repeatedly, robotically.

Hint - writers and translators want to be quoted, especially in book reviews.

---

Paul gets more miles to the gallon,
combining UOJ with Romanism,
after a fill-up at the altar of Marian worship.

LutheranUniversalistsBeDamned has left a new comment on your post "Jack Cascione Dusts Off the Iron Maiden and Polish...":

We can, however, charitably conclude that Cascione utterly failed to read one important work he cited in his public criticism of Rydecki: Rydecki's own recent essay, "Do we Want to be Dresden Lutherans?" Cascione writes, "Rydecki, an exceptional parish scholar, wants to be a Dresden Lutheran. This is his term for the Lutherans who migrated from Dresden Germany to the United States beginning in the late 1830’s." This is not only an error of fact, but its use is clearly calculated to serve his personal political purposes, to tie Rydecki to the same "LCMS sacerdotalists" against whom he has been struggling for quite some time (arguing in favor of Walther's congregational polity and issues of Church & Ministry related to it). This is most unfortunate for Cascione's credibility, as this error appears in the climax of his criticism and thus only succeeds in showing that his entire criticism of Rydecki was meant only to serve his own political purposes. This is a charitable conclusion, for if it should be discovered that Cascione did actually read Rydecki's paper, and still misrepresented Rydecki's use of the moniker "Dresden Lutheran" to serve his purposes, then he is also guilty of defamation.

If one cares to actually read Rydecki's paper (still available on the Intrepid Lutheran's blog, under the link to their Conference information), he will see plainly that the term "Dresden Lutheran" refers to the location of the BoC's publication 431 years ago. It refers to holding to the Confessions as Scripture's testimony, rather than holding to "Synod," a fickle political organization, as the source of such testimony. In fact, in no place in Rydecki's paper does the name "Walther" or the term "Missouri" even appear. Both Walther and Missouri were completely overlooked in Rydecki's paper, and rightfully so. It is a fitting rebuke to Synod worshipers like Cascione who evidently can't bear to have the names of Walther and Missouri and other celebrity figures from the old SynCon, absent from works addressing Confessional Lutheranism.

***

GJ - Please provide links, such as -

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2012/06/church-and-continuity-conference-review_4444.html

I am curious about who voted for the mob action that Walther organized against Stephan. Who voted to rob the bishop of all his gold, books, and personal belongings? Who voted to kidnap him at gunpoint and force him into starvation in Illinois?

Congregational polity among the Waltherians means - "Feel free to vote in favor of what I already decided. Signed, Your Pope."

---

Make a decision for UOJ.

LutheranUniversalistsBeDamned has left a new comment on your post "Christian News: The current debate in the WELS con...":

Judging by Herman Otten's prideful selling of The Facts about Luther, i.e., "I sell both side (sic), so people can be educated about both sides," one wonders if Herman will take equal pride in now dedicating an entire issue to JBFA, by allowing Rydecki, and those who side with him, the privilege of making their case unimpeded by the howling of Lutheran Universalists. My guess is, Otten is really not that dedicated to "educating" anyone. My further guess is that he not only fears, but knows, that the case for JBFA from Scripture and the Confessions is so straightforward and compelling, he dare not allow Rydecki such a platform, as most, the laity in particular, will be persuaded by it. Until Otten allows Rydecki and JBFA proponents such a platform, I will consider him a duplicitous coward, and his rag nothing more than party propaganda.

***

GJ - Otten did publish an entire issue where F. Pieper pretended to teach justification by faith. That is even more dangerous, to present UOJ as a new, improved, clearer version of justification by faith. As the raging Stormtroopers have proved, they hate Luther's doctrine, hate justification by faith, and hardly mention the Means of Grace.

Read Luther's commentary on Galatians before spouting such idiocy.

Christian News: The current debate in the WELS concerning universal, objective Justification

Christian News: The current debate in the WELS concerning universal, objective Justification:

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2012

The current debate in the WELS concerning universal, objective Justification

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2012

The current debate in the WELS concerning universal, objective Justification


Christian News, October 29, 2012, Vol. 50, No. 42

The conference of presidents, on the recent call list, Oct. 2012, reports that Paul Rydecki has been suspended from ministry of the WELS. No further information is given, and one is left to wonder what did he do????

On the Intrepid Lutherans web page there appeared the announcement that one of its contributors, Rev. Paul Rydecki, has been suspended from the WELS. Following articles and an explanation from Rydecki explained that the reason was because of Rydecki’s views concerning objective, universal, justification. He stated and defended his position in a paper given last June in Oshkosh, “Are You A Dresden Lutheran?” A copy of the DP letter of suspension to Rydecki was also posted.

One wonders why more information concerning suspensions for doctrinal reasons cannot be given. It seems that in order to understand what is going on in the Synod one must go to unofficial sources.

What Paul Rydecki (also the egocentric synergist Greg Jackson) is teaching on justification is nothing new to the Lutheran Church and something which Confessional Lutherans have always rejected.

The position that Rydecki is promoting has its origin back in Melanchthon’s teachings on the three causes of conversion — the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and the will of man. In the discussions in the 50s between the old American Lutheran Church and the LCMS concerning justification, the ALC wanted to teach that God had secured and provided salvation for all people. This is objective or universal redemption, not objective justification. The LCMS along with the WELS insisted on the words, that God has not only secured and provided salvation for all, but that God has declared the whole world righteous in Christ Jesus. This they called objective Justification. (A term that is preferred over universal justification, which can cause some misunderstandings.) By only saying “secured and provided salvation” the door is open for some cooperation or contributions on the part on man. Good, God has provided it, how do I get it? But by insisting on the term God has DECLARED the whole world righteous, all works or cooperation on man’s part are removed.

The men in the ALC, from the old Ohio Synod, wanted to teach “Erst muss der Mensch glauben, dann wird er gerechtfertigt (first must the man believe, then he becomes justified). This old error taught that first one must believe that Christ died for all, then he will be justified. This puts the cart before the horse, my faith before my justification. Against this old heresy Walther and others maintained the formula – Justificatio non post fidem, sed per fidem (Justification not after faith, but through faith). This is the position of Lutheran Orthodoxy. Today we use the term objective justification to teach this truth. God has declared the whole world righteous in Christ Jesus (God so loved the world, John 3:16; The Lutheran church sings, “Christ thou Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on me.”)

Of course now, the other side, the Holy Spirit working through the means of Grace must now change the hard and disobedient will of man which is dead in sin and an enemy of God. The Holy Spirit moves the will of man to accept and believe this objective justification. This we call subjective justification. The two must go together; — and you can’t have one without the other!!! If one rejects the objective, universal justification, he cannot be saved. He is lost. We do not believe in universalism, everyone is going to heaven.

The Bible connects universal redemption and universal, objective, justification and treats them as the same.For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Romans 5:5-7. Christ died for all. This Rydecki does not reject. But in the same book, a chapter earlier, Paul writes, But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, Romans 4:4-6

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many (i.e., all) were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many (i.e., all) will be made righteous. (Rom 5:18,19)

The Lutheran Confessions, although not using the term objective justification, teach this concept.

But when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all people the sin, which no one could avoid. … Christ took away the sin of the whole world, as John testified saying in John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” Apology, Art IV, Justification, 103 Concordia, page 99

Just as the preaching of repentance is universal, so also the promise of the Gospel is universal, that is, it belongs to all people. Formula of Concord, Art XI, 28, Concordia, p. 606

All have sinned and (all) are justified freely. Smalcald Articles, second part, Art. I,3, Concordia, page 263.

[GJ - He has to add his NNIV "all" to make UOJ show up where it is not - a bit dishonest.

3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f. SA, II, I, 3.]

By way of illustration: A man pays my entire debt, gives me a check, and declares me debt free. But I must believe this, cash the check. It does me no good until I cash it. But I cannot cash it before he declares me debt free. [GJ - Where is this lame analogy in the Bible - II Seymour?]

This clear teaching that God has declared all people righteous, Objective Justification (WELS catechism, question 253) Rydecki refuses to accept and teach. Thus he is rightly to be removed from the ministry of the WELS!

Pastor M.F. Bartling
Onalaska, WI, Oct. 2012

Mark Bartling hails the cowardly DP Buchholz action.
Here he is reading II Seymour to the DP.

'via Blog this'

***

GJ - I met Mark Bartling, former LCR pastor, retired as a WELS pastor. He had nothing bad to say about WELS until he was safely retired.

Obviously, Mark has no idea what synergism is. He is as bad as the pastors who equate justification by faith with Calvinism.

WELS has republished J. P. Meyer's Ministers of Christ, where the Mequon professor teaches--for all time--decision theology, like Walther. But what a decision! Walther  and Meyer-

1. The entire world of unbelievers is forgiven, absolved, and saved.
2. Now make a decision about this information.

Bartling is abusing Romans 4:25 without naming the passage.

His precious double-justification language is from Halle Pietist Georg Christian Knapp, not the Bible.

Early Warning - Christian News Will be Covering the WELS UOJ Conflict in the October 29th Issue

The last good St. Louis president was this Fuerbringer,
while his son Fibby brought the place down.

Herman Otten never answered my email to him, about promoting the bigoted anti-Luther book for Reformation - The "Facts" about Luther.

I posted this on his FB page, so the comments followed -

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/10/pastor-herman-otten-joins-forces-with.html

• John J Eberhart You might want to call Pastor Otten and get his side of the story before making rash judgments.

  October 20 at 9:28pm via mobile · Like
• 

  Gregory L. Jackson I got his paper with the full page ad, and I wrote him.

  October 20 at 9:29pm · Like
• 

  John J Eberhart .... and? His answer?

  October 20 at 9:34pm via mobile · Like
• 

  Gregory L. Jackson Waiting.

  October 20 at 9:41pm · Like
• 

  John J Eberhart I'll see him Monday and ask him his side of your coments

  October 20 at 9:46pm via mobile · Like
• 

  John J Eberhart .......his side of your comments.

  October 20 at 9:49pm via mobile · Like
• 

  Pastor Herman John Otten I sell both side (sic), so people can be educated about both sides.

  14 hours ago · Like
• 

  Gregory L. Jackson It's a poor excuse for promoting a rabid papist book in a Reformation ad. "A Roman Catholic view about Luther." Catholics were laughing about that book of lies over 30 years ago. And you are starting a 21st century Reformation by selling The Facts about Luther?

---

Otten indicates an article about Jack Cascione and another by Mark Bartling will appear in the October 29th issue.

I know David Becker sent one, but Otten is famous for spiking stories he does not like.

Wauwatosa - Ambiguous Language about UOJ. UOJ and Jon Buchholz Explained

August Pieper wrote Isaiah II,  got rid of Kohler.

He wrote Biblical Christology, a good summary.

Kohler was an architect and church historian,
a real brain, so WELS got rid of him.
He is the saint/martyr of the Protest'ants.

A Michigan reader asked:

Weren't Kohler, Schaller & A. Pieper responsible for the Wauwatosa Theology books?  I'm forgetting the early WELS details. 

Here is the last sentence from the first paragraph of your post:

  

If we find that the idea of reconciliation bears a close resemblance to those of propitiation and satisfaction, so that we slip from the one into the other almost without noticing it, we need not be disturbed; for we are not called upon to establish a regular logical sequence of these terms, but to accept each one at its full value without cavil.

The "without cavil" ending is good, but the flow of that sentence, one long 'if', suggests to me a reasoned extension allows the inclusion of justification though that might be outside of the broader context. 

Likewise, the last sentence in the second paragraph, when it includes the knowledge of justification with reconciliation in the giving of the Word, could be read as a hedge that would allow inclusion of justification in reconciliation, which would have happened at the crucifixion.

Thus the giving or establishing of this Word (of reconciliation) is a consequence of the reconciliation and therefore at the same time includes the knowledge of the justification of the sinner, which indeed is involved in the reconciliation, but is not identical with it. –

Maybe it is just his manner of presentation that I find suspicious.  Taking just his words, you are right; he is not selling UOJ.  But I can see that how he says it can be extended to become objective justification. 

Even Hoeneke can be read two ways.  Maybe it is just WELS writers have never been totally sure of what they wanted to say, or never careful enough to allow no misinterpretation.

Interesting quotations though.  Thanks. 

***

GJ - 

From - Essentially Lutheran, an Augie Pieper quote:

“ … we submit to no man, be his name Luther or Walther, Chemnitz or Hoenecke, Gerhard or Stoeckhardt, so long as we have clear Scripture on our side. . . . We esteem the fathers highly, far higher than ourselves as far more learned and more devout than we are. Therefore, we want to use them, particularly Luther, as guides to Scripture, and to test their doctrines a hundred times before we reject them. But authorities equal to Scripture or opposed to Scripture they may never become for us, or we shall be practicing idolatry. . "

More from the same blog:

They saw that the conservative synods of the Lutheran church were falling victim to the same error that Luther denounced - putting the authority of the church fathers above that of Scripture. Pieper called this authority-theology.

"We renounce this authority-theology anew. It causes so much damage to the church. It is unfaithfulness to the Lord; slavery to men; it brings errors with it. But it also makes the mind narrow and the heart small. . . . Dogmatic training perhaps makes one orthodox, but it also easily makes one orthodoxist, intolerant, quarrelsome, hateful, and easily causes division in the church.

. .

Scripture is at once narrow and broad. The study of it makes the heart narrow to actual false doctrine and heresies, but broad toward various human expressions and presentations. It does not accuse of false doctrine unnecessarily; it teaches us to bear and suffer in love the mistakes of the weak. It keeps the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Therefore we want to entirely do away with this dogmatic authority-theology, and to sink ourselves ever deeper into Scripture and to promote it above all else. We know that in doing so we will best serve the church.”

- August Pieper (1913), Quoted by Mark Braun in The Wauwatosa Gospel (2002). p 25.

---

This blog died five years ago, but it is fun to read the self-glorification of WELS, which leaves me gasping for breath - it is so funny:

http://wauwatosagospel.blogspot.com/2007/08/attempting-definition.html

***

GJ - No single word describes the dogma and attitude of WELS better than Wauwatosa. 

Their attitude, as revealed above, was typically anti-Confessional. In renouncing authority-theology, Augie made himself the authority, who could judge the two norms of Scripture (ruling norm) and the Confessions (the norm ruled by the Scriptures).

One Pieper to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them. Trying to explain the split is so complicated that few understand all the events that led to the president of the seminary being ousted over a paper. Could that happen today in WELS? It just did.

From Augie to John Jeske (same family - Kevin Hastings a has a great joke, which I cannot repeat) to Mark Jeske - identical arrogance, foolishness, and ego. People like that do not care how many bodies they trample on, how many congregations they divide and destroy.

Jon Buchholz announced that UOJ was "settled doctrine for 150 years" in WELS, even though the opposite is true. Besides that, Jon made it clear that HE was the authority.

Ambiguity and philosophical dancing-around are two characteristics of anti-confessional writing. 

Why are the Wauwatosans difficult to read, the Concordists easy to read? The Wauwatosans are wrapped up in all their modern philosophical training, German literature angst, and self-admiration.

WELS has always wanted to define itself as distinctly different from Missouri, and the green eyes of jealousy are never missing from that comparison.

Walther was very much their type of theologian - only a bachelor's degree but full of himself, a poor exegete, an Antinomian Pietist. The trouble is, he got a big operation going by controlling it all himself, and WELS kept tearing itself up with conflicts and ugly behavior.

Ambiguity about UOJ versus justification by faith is easy to find in:

• Hoenecke.
• Lenski.
• Schaller.

Two forces were at work:

1. The influence of Pietism and Halle made UOJ acceptable, so we find Marquart and Webber still citing the Halle Pietist Rambach to "prove" Easter absolution.
2. All American Lutherans were struggling with the Confessions to rectify the errors of the past. Thus they were either publishing Luther in English and German, printing the Book of Concord, and writing anew about the Reformation.

We do not have to defend any given theologian or writer, because there really are two authoritative sources - the Word and the Confessions.

The Intrepid Lutherans were good at stating that classic Lutheran concept, but the unspoken ruling authority there  is Holy Mother WELS, incarnate in Mark Schroeder. Thus real discussion is impossible, lest Holy Mother be offended. Holy Mother is easily and often offended - not by murder, file-swapping, clergy adultery, or false doctrine - but by Luther's doctrine.

Too bad Tim Glende kilcreased his blog, or I could promise another screaming post from him, echoes of Wauwatosa Pietism.

The following graphics explain the situation well.

The Church Shrinkers advocate open communion and no communion.

This describes Wauwatosa and WELS today.

Schmauk on Church Growth, Emergent Church, multi-culturalism.

 

This zipped all over Facebook after being posted.
Finally, one of my FB friends told me about its viral spread and said,
"Is that your graphic?"