 |
| Two years in the parish and he still calls himself a pastor - just like Walther. |
Comment Link: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=4190#comment-279717
Author: Rev. Paul T. McCain
Comment:
I see that the Jackson disciples have been hard at work here spreading the Gospel according to Jackson.
People should know that Greg Jackson is a false teacher. He was, at one point, a Lutheran pastor, but he is no longer. He was expelled from several Lutheran church bodies. [GJ - Note his lies about working with Herman Otten. Same old liar - Paul McCain. He was already in legal trouble in the 1990s with Larry Darby for trashing Larry, one of the more generous donors to his alma mater, Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne.]
He now claims to have a "church" on the Internet, providing "worship services" and even communion, via streaming video on the Internet, from a spare bedroom in his house. Meyer and Cruz are two of his "members" ... things are so bad that Jackson even coaches these people to hold elements up to the computer screen while he "consecrates" them. [GJ - Another delusion from McCain. He was recently forced to apologize to Norman Teigen for the vicious lies published on his crypto-Roman blog. He also said the congregation was named after my dead daughter, another false assertion. Why was this charmer banned from the ALPB's online forum?]
The best advice anyone could give to people who may be tempted to engage in conversation with Jackson or his small group of fanatic disciples is simply this: Mark and avoid them. Jackson and his followers are wolves in sheep's clothing, deceived and deceiving others.
We should have nothing to do with them, other than to rebuke them sharply and warn others.
I believe that the BJS site is doing no good service in providing a platform for these deniers of the Biblical and Lutheran doctrine of justification.
---
 |
| Jack Kilcrease, Roman Catholic employee, is Paul McCain's expert on UOJ. |
 |
| Carl Vehse strikes me as having a similar attitude. Vehse knew all about Bishop Stephan's adultery, like the Walther brothers and the rest of the Saxon Pietists. Syphillis was the deal-breaker. |
Dr. Jack
Kilcrease has left a new comment on your post "Investigating
Universal Objective Justification":
You write:
"Jack Kilcrease--trained by ELCA, employed by Roman Catholics to teach religion to papists--gave away his profound ignorance of Lutheran theology by his repeated references to "the doctrine of Objective Justification." David Scaer and Paul McCain think he is the bomb. The Lutheran Reformers avoided such terminology as "the doctrine of..." There is only one doctrine, a unified truth - in harmony with the entire witness of the Sacred Scriptures. Writing about "doctrines" in the plural suggests a modular view of Christianity, where some units can be changed, others dropped, and still others added."
SD V states:
"These two doctrines, we believe and confess, should ever and ever be diligently inculcated in the Church of God even to the end of the world"
Interesting how they use the word "doctrine" to describe separate articles of the faith (law and gospel).
What about Ep Rule and Norm section?:
"To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith."
Again, interesting how here the body of doctrine is call (sic) "doctrines." Very interesting indeed.
You write:
"Jack Kilcrease--trained by ELCA, employed by Roman Catholics to teach religion to papists--gave away his profound ignorance of Lutheran theology by his repeated references to "the doctrine of Objective Justification." David Scaer and Paul McCain think he is the bomb. The Lutheran Reformers avoided such terminology as "the doctrine of..." There is only one doctrine, a unified truth - in harmony with the entire witness of the Sacred Scriptures. Writing about "doctrines" in the plural suggests a modular view of Christianity, where some units can be changed, others dropped, and still others added."
SD V states:
"These two doctrines, we believe and confess, should ever and ever be diligently inculcated in the Church of God even to the end of the world"
Interesting how they use the word "doctrine" to describe separate articles of the faith (law and gospel).
What about Ep Rule and Norm section?:
"To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith."
Again, interesting how here the body of doctrine is call (sic) "doctrines." Very interesting indeed.
***
GJ - "To avoid" is not synonymous with "to never use." Poor Jack is so busy dazzling McCain and Scaer than he has lost his grip on the English language. Like the others, Kilcrease constantly makes a fool of himself by constantly going back to the absolution of the world, which is not taught in the Scriptures, never affirmed in the Book of Concord, and never taught with seriousness before Halle University's rancid Pietism began to take effect.
The double-justification language of OJ and SJ, lovingly stroked by the trio, is from the Calvinist Woods translation of the rationalist-Pietist Knapp's textbook. Walther later approved of the language and F. Pieper canonized it.
---
 |
| OJ trembled on Melanchthon's lips, Rolf would have us believe. No, this confesses exactly what Robert Preus wrote in Justification and Rome. |
LaughQuest has this gem from Rolf Preus:
As AC IV makes clear, the faith through which we are justified is the faith that believes that Christ suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. To believe that for Christ's sake our sin is forgiven is to believe in objective justification.
“I haven’t seen a clear Scripture passage that states that God ever absolved the world of sin, or that the sins of the world have been remitted – although they have certainly all been paid for!”
Romans 4, 25 clearly teaches that God absolved the world of sin.
***
GJ - Romans 4 is a chapter on Abraham as the father of faith, climaxing with believers being justified by faith. World absolution is definitely not taught in Romans 4 or 5.
---
Author: Dr. Jack Kilcrease
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=4190#comment-279752
Comment:
<a href="#comment-279742" rel="nofollow">@Jim Pierce #225 </a>
Apt analogy with the oneness penecostals. I've had the same experience.
I think everyone can see why I warned against engaging with the Jackson sect. Discussions and debates with them are highly fruitless since they simply endlessly accuse one of holding positions that they do not.
Comment:
<a href="#comment-279742" rel="nofollow">@Jim Pierce #225 </a>
Apt analogy with the oneness penecostals. I've had the same experience.
I think everyone can see why I warned against engaging with the Jackson sect. Discussions and debates with them are highly fruitless since they simply endlessly accuse one of holding positions that they do not.
---
Comment Link: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=4190#comment-279771
Author: Rev. Paul T. McCain
Comment:
Jack, you are entirely correct. Engagement is futile. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance and Jackson and his disciples are prime examples of it.
Author: Rev. Paul T. McCain
Comment:
Jack, you are entirely correct. Engagement is futile. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance and Jackson and his disciples are prime examples of it.
---
Gibbon - "They fought without discipline and ran without shame."
---
Dr. Jack Kilcrease has left a new comment on your post "Jack Kilcrease, Paul McCain, and Rolf Preus: Anti-...":
Actually, I believe it is you who has missed the point. I am aware the the term "avoid" need not mean "never." The point is that you haven't provided any evidence that the Reformers, Confessors, or the Lutheran scholastics "avoided" the use of doctrine as a pural or talk of individual doctrines. My use of the Formula of Concord was intentional: If it was their MO to "avoid" such a practice (as you assert), they would have tried not to use such terminology in central confessonal document. But of course they show no such aversion and very casually use the term "doctrine" for individual articles of the faith. Certainly they want to define doctrine as a coherence body (corpus doctrina), but that does not mean that they avoided talk of individual articles of the faith as doctrines.
Actually, if you've read Preus or Richard Muller's scholarship on the period of Reformed and Lutheran scholasticism, you would know that the loci-method actually tended to isolate individual doctrines within given treatises designated as "common places." As Preus and Muller note, the development of each doctine is self-contained. This would suggest that both Lutherans and Reformed folks often thought of and developed individual doctrines on their own, even if they thought the the given doctrine had a larger meaning within the corpus doctrina. Hence, the arrangment of these doctrines within larger systematic theologies of the period tends to be arbitrary. For this reason, I do not think you have much of a basis for making your claim.
Now, I know you probably won't publish this. But I thought that I would clarify my point any way.
I wish you all the best and that God may bless you in spite of your theological errors.
***
GJ - Jack, you need an account on LaughQuest. You would no longer feel like an outcast. Maybe McCain can recommend you - while denying that he did.
---
bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Jack Kilcrease, Paul McCain, and Rolf Preus: Anti-...":
Now that UOJ and McCain's evolution pandering to kids has been outed, he says everyone ought to mark and avoid the Ichablog. It's rather like the mafia telling people not to talk to the FBI and cops so they can get back to their business as normal, taking in money from people who think they are orthodox Lutherans.
---
Dr. Jack Kilcrease has left a new comment on your post "Jack Kilcrease, Paul McCain, and Rolf Preus: Anti-...":
Actually, I believe it is you who has missed the point. I am aware the the term "avoid" need not mean "never." The point is that you haven't provided any evidence that the Reformers, Confessors, or the Lutheran scholastics "avoided" the use of doctrine as a pural or talk of individual doctrines. My use of the Formula of Concord was intentional: If it was their MO to "avoid" such a practice (as you assert), they would have tried not to use such terminology in central confessonal document. But of course they show no such aversion and very casually use the term "doctrine" for individual articles of the faith. Certainly they want to define doctrine as a coherence body (corpus doctrina), but that does not mean that they avoided talk of individual articles of the faith as doctrines.
Actually, if you've read Preus or Richard Muller's scholarship on the period of Reformed and Lutheran scholasticism, you would know that the loci-method actually tended to isolate individual doctrines within given treatises designated as "common places." As Preus and Muller note, the development of each doctine is self-contained. This would suggest that both Lutherans and Reformed folks often thought of and developed individual doctrines on their own, even if they thought the the given doctrine had a larger meaning within the corpus doctrina. Hence, the arrangment of these doctrines within larger systematic theologies of the period tends to be arbitrary. For this reason, I do not think you have much of a basis for making your claim.
Now, I know you probably won't publish this. But I thought that I would clarify my point any way.
I wish you all the best and that God may bless you in spite of your theological errors.
***
GJ - Jack, you need an account on LaughQuest. You would no longer feel like an outcast. Maybe McCain can recommend you - while denying that he did.
---
 |
| "Enjoy our nuanced blend of Evolution and creation, Roman liturgy and Arminian content, on sale now at CPH." |
bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Jack Kilcrease, Paul McCain, and Rolf Preus: Anti-...":
Now that UOJ and McCain's evolution pandering to kids has been outed, he says everyone ought to mark and avoid the Ichablog. It's rather like the mafia telling people not to talk to the FBI and cops so they can get back to their business as normal, taking in money from people who think they are orthodox Lutherans.
