Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Jon Buchholz Lording It Over Others - The Iron Fist in the Iron Glove



Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "One Sane Voice on LutherQuest (sic)":

I like the Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) comment. He says in the last sentence:

>>>>>>......."The gospel does not permit DP to be lords over churches and to secretly remove their pastors from Christian fellowship." <<<<<<<

I ask:

"Since when did WELS or other church hierarchy ever allow the Gospel to interfere with their capricious, untoward and unloving actions?"

What happened to Pastor Rydecki is in keeping with 2 Timothy 3:1-5. Those who attempt [and do] please the Lord will be the ones hit upon by those who have no compunctions.

Nathan M. Bickel

www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org 

***

GJ - Several pastors told the previous Arizona-California DP to step down, and he did. Buchholz is even more heavy-handed than Jahnke was. The odd thing is - neither DP was heavy-handed about the Church and Changers.

Church and Change stars have never been disciplined.
They get the right hand of fellowship rather than the back-hand of the DP.

"Jesus is my rice" - a meditation by Jeff Gunn.

VirtueOnline - News - How Is WELS Different from the Episcopalians Who Shelter a Corrupt Bishop?

Bishop Bennison


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Bishop Charles Bennison Announces Retirement. Was he forced out?

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org 
October 10, 2012

The disgraced Bishop of Pennsylvania Charles E. Bennison told the diocese this week that he would retire from office at the end of the year. Bennison, 68, could have continued to serve until November 2015, when he turns 72, the church's mandatory retirement age for all clergy.

However, Bennison said in a letter to the diocese that the Rev. Ledlie I. Laughlin, president of the diocesan Standing Committee, told him that the committee wanted to elect a provisional bishop rather than either have Bennison call for the election of a coadjutor or have the diocese elect a diocesan who would be consecrated on the day of his retirement.


Church officials remain tightlipped, but sources have told VOL that he was told to resign or face disciplinary charges, a trial, and then be tossed out, based on a new canon passed at the church's recent General Convention. The 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church passed an historic resolution in Indianapolis, B021, recognizing that when the relationship between bishops and dioceses is severely strained, sometimes to the breaking point, there is a way out that includes getting rid of the diocesan bishop. Behind the scenes public pressure was put on him to make a public statement.

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania apparently used the new canon to finally get rid of Bennison without using any of the Title IV disciplinary canons.

"I believe that the interests of the diocese are best served if the process envisioned by the Standing Committee begins sooner rather than later and therefore I have informed the committee that I will retire on December 31, 2012." The Pennsylvania Standing Committee has been at odds with Bennison since the mid-2000s over concerns about how he has managed the diocese's assets and other issues.

Laughlin, who is the rector at St. Peter's Church in Philadelphia, wrote in a second letter to the diocese that the Standing Committee had decided in consultation with Bishop Clayton Matthews, head of the Episcopal Church's Office of Pastoral Development, that "the best interests of our diocese will be served by the prompt election of a provisional bishop." A provisional bishop exercises the full authority of a diocesan bishop, but is elected to serve for a set period of time, generally as an interim between bishops, Laughlin explained in his letter." Laughlin predicts that a special electing convention would be held in early 2013.

Bennison will go down as possibly the worst bishop since Arius. He once said that Jesus was a sinner who forgave himself. He was found guilty of covering up his brother's (a priest) abuse of a minor, but got off on a statute of limitations. He lied and deceived a small group of Anglo-Catholic priests over a flying bishop arrangement they had with a previous Episcopal bishop. He made life miserable for Evangelical priests in the diocese and got embroiled in multiple lawsuits with David Moyer, former priest at the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA. He managed to retain properties in disputes with those who chose to leave over the Episcopal Church's acceptance of pansexuality, but then admitted it cost $55,000 a year to maintain empty buildings - a cost of nearly half a million dollars a year to the diocese.

He upset the former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold over l'affair Moyer who told Bennison to resolve the issues between them and asked him to meet him on a plain beyond good and evil, citing Rumi the Sufi.

Bennison spent millions on a cathedral that draws less than 30 aging Episcopalians weekly. A building development project may keep the cathedral from closing down. He also spent thousands on a book he hoped would vindicate his time in office.

During Bennison's tenure, the Standing Committee called for his resignation more than once, including on the day he returned to work in August 2010 after the church's Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop overturned a lower church court's finding that he should be removed from ordained ministry because he had engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The review court agreed with one of the lower court's two findings of misconduct, but it said that Bennison could not be deposed because the charge was barred by the church's statute of limitations.

The review court said that Bennison failed to respond properly in the mid-1970s when he was rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Upland, California, and learned that his brother, John, who worked initially as a lay youth minister in the parish, had been having a sexual relationship with a member of the youth group that began when she was 14. John Bennison later was ordained a priest but deposed in 1977 for an unrelated offense. He was restored to the priesthood in 1980, but he was forced to renounce his orders again in 2006 when accusations of his abuse became public.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori inhibited Charles Bennison in October 2007 from exercising his ordained ministry when the church's Title IV Review Committee formally accused him of the inaction. The inhibition expired with the review court's decision.

In September 2010, the diocesan Standing Committee asked the House of Bishops for its "support and assistance" in securing Bennison's retirement or resignation. The bishops later that month called for Bennison's "immediate and unconditional resignation." The next day, Bennison refused to resign and has remained the diocesan bishop. At one point, the Bishop of Bethlehem Paul Marshall urged Bennison to step down. He refused.

The Pennsylvania diocese will meet on Nov. 10 for its 229th annual convention. Laughlin said in his letter that the standing committee was making plans to honor Bennison's tenure at the convention.

Question: what is there to honor?

'via Blog this'

One Sane Voice on LutherQuest (sic)


Daniel Gorman (Heinrich)
Senior Member
Username: Heinrich

Post Number: 1634
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 11:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Louis Benoit: "Can't we cut the WELS some slack for their alleged failures in the way they dealt with him? Perhaps it was his arrogant dismissal of the pure teaching he had been taught on this subject that provoked a response such as he got? Can we give the WELS a break on this one?"

What response? I've done many google searches. I have yet to find a single disparaging comment from the WELS Az-Ca DP regarding the content of Rev. Rydecki's public teachings.

Rev. Rydecki posts his sermons on the internet. If his sermons are so egregious, why hasn't the WELS Az-Ca DP publicly reproved him? "For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it." LC, 8th Commandment.

This isn't the first time the WELS Az-Ca DP has rendered a guilt verdict against a sitting pastor on secret charges at a secret trial without ever "telling it to church" http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/show.c gi?tpc=105754&post=267113#POST267113.

The secret removal of a minister from the roster of a district presumes a papist reservation of cases. The members of the district are powerless to overturn an unjust removal. The true cause of the removal is never made public by the district and open discussion of the issues is forbidden.

Secret removal of a sitting pastor is an offense against the unity of Christ's church and is never justified. We may confidently say that Pr. Rydecki was removed by the WELS Az-Ca DP for no biblical reason. The gospel does not permit DP to be lords over churches and to secretly remove their pastors from Christian fellowship.

This Made Fake Pastor Paul McCain Cheer,
And the UOJ Hive Hum with Excitement



------- S U S P E N D E D   F R O M   W E L S   M I N I S T E R I U M --------
    Rydecki, Rev Paul A        Emmanuel - Las Cruces NM             10/02/2012


















Intrepid Lutherans - Romans 4:25 - Johann Gerhard



Intrepid Lutherans:


LPC said...
Thank you, they are a lot of fun to read. Gerhard articulated well this passage, it is a joy to read.

My prayers are with you.

LPC, PhD
LPC said...
BTW, I was looking at one famous British NT exegete on this passage arguing for the necessity of Jesu' resurrection. I thought he was right, for really if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then there is nothing for us to believe and thus we could never be justified. This is tied to Romans 10:9.

Scripture is like fresh water to a thirsty soul, I got a lot of my thirst quenched on this.

LPC


TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2012


Johann Gerhard on Romans 4:25


Earlier today I posted a translation of Johann Gerhard on Romans 3.  Here's a translation of a portion of his interpretation of Romans 4:25.


(Translation copyright 2012 by Paul A. Rydecki.  All emphasis is in the original.)


Adnotationes ad priora capita Epistolae D. Pauli ad Romanos (1645)


Romans 4:25 (portion - pages 154-155)

What if someone further inquires: In what sense and respect, then, is our justification, which consists in the remission of sins, attributed to the resurrection of Christ?

We reply: This is how it is to be understood.

1. With respect to the manifestation, demonstration 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 achieved. Jerome says in h. 1:Christ rose in order that He might confirm righteousness to believers.  Chrysostom says in hom. 9 ad Rom.: In the resurrection it is demonstrated that Christ died, not for His own sins, but for our sins. For how could He be raised if He was a sinner?  But if He was not a sinner, then He was crucified for others.

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. 5:108:34).  But since He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, from there He also offers to the world, through the Word of the Gospel, the benefits obtained by His suffering and death, and applies the same to believers, and in this way He justifies them.  With respect to this application, Cardinal Toletus (in comm. h.1. and Suarez tom. 2, in part 3, Thom. disp. 44, p.478) acknowledges that our justification is attributed to the resurrection of Christ, writing thus: Christ, by His suffering, sufficiently destroyed sin.  Nevertheless, in order that we might be justified and that sin might be effectively remitted to us, it was necessary for the suffering of Christ to be applied to us through a living faith. Therefore, Christ rose on account of our righteousness, that is, in order that our faith might be confirmed and that we might be effectively justified.  The Apostle notably says that Christ died for our sins and was raised, not for righteousness, which is contrasted with sins in general, but διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν, for our justification, which consists in the absolution from sins.

3. With respect to the actual application from sin. Just as the heavenly Father, by delivering Christ into death for our sins, condemned sin in His flesh through sin (Rom. 8:3)—that is, condemned it because it had sinned against Christ by putting an innocent man to death, and so He withdrew from sin its legal right against believers so that it cannot condemn them any longer; or He also condemned it, that is, punished in Christ our sins that were imposed on Him and imputed to Him as a Substitute—so also, by raising Him from the dead, in that very deed absolved Him from our sins that were imputed to Him, and hence also absolves us in Him, so that the resurrection of Christ may be both the cause and the pledge and the complement of our justification.  The following passages pertain to this: 1 Cor. 15:172 Cor. 5:21Eph. 2:5Col. 2:12-13Phil. 3:8-101 Pet. 1:3.


'via Blog this'


Links about Justification by Faith 
and Justification without Faith (UOJ)


Luther's Galatians endorsed by reader

Luther's Galatians on Gnesio Lutherans

Roman Catholic adjunct Jack Kilcrease as Humpty Dumpty

Calov, quoted by Robert Preus, repudiated the UOJ position of WELS

Kilcrease, the McCain tutor, equivocates.

Buchholz is anti-Luther

Pastor Bickel on Tossing Rydecki Under the Bus

Church and Changer Jeff Gunn and His Mequon Class of Shrinkers

Paul McCain and Jon Buchholz - Bedfellows of Apostasy

Abraham Is the Common Theme in Justification - Justification by Faith

Pastor Rydecki's Account of His Suspension - October 9th

Intrepid Account October 6th- Pastor Rydecki Suspended

LutherQuest (sic) Opposes Justification by Faith

Warming Up the Tar and Feathers on LutherQuest (sic)

Pastor Bickel Answers Jon Buchholz

Kokomo Statements - WELS UOJ - JP Meyer

Jack Kilcrease Showing Signs of Stress

Dr. Lito Cruz and Brett Meyer Dispatch the UOJ Stormtroopers on Extra Nos

Hunnius repudiated an early form of UOJ,
backed by P. Leyser, an editor of the Book of Concord,
a biographer of Chemnitz, and an early expert on justification.


Intrepid Lutherans - Johann Gerhard on Romans 3



Intrepid Lutherans:



Anonymous said...
I would conclude from these words of Johann Gerhard that if he were alive today and a member of the WELS, he too would face prospects of being suspended. It seems like many other "fathers" of the Lutheran church would face a similar fate today.

Vernon



TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2012


Johann Gerhard on Romans 3


Since many folks across Confessional Lutheranism are discussing the meaning of Romans 3, I thought it would be interesting to hear what Johann Gerhard—one of the most highly respected Lutheran theologians of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy—had to say about these verses. So I translated a portion of his commentary from Latin to English, for general consumption.

Johann Gerhard
Adnotationes ad priora capita Epistolae D. Pauli ad Romanos (1645)
Romans 3:26 (final section, page 118)

In this passage the causes and the object of our justification before God are expressed.

1. The chief efficient cause (causa efficiens principalis) is the grace of God, that is, God’s free favor that takes into account our misery.

2. The meritorious cause (causa meritoria) is Christ in the office of redemption, which the Apostle describes with three very significant words.  First, with the word redemption (πολύτρωσιν), which regards the spiritual captivity in Satan’s kingdom, from which we have been redeemed by the precious ransom (λύτρ) of Christ.  Second, with the word mercy seat (λαστήριον), which regards the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament.  Third, with the phrase the blood of Christ (αμα τοχριστο), which, by way of synecdoche, signifies the entire obedience of Christ, active as well as passive.

3. The instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis) is faith, that receiving (ληπτικόν) medium that embraces the benefits of Christ offered in Word and Sacraments, those giving (δοτικος) means.

4. The formal cause (causa formalis) is forgiveness (πάρεσις), the remission of sins, which is joined by an indivisible connection with the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (Rom. 4:3).

5. The final cause (causa finalis) with respect to God is the demonstration of His righteousness (νδειξις τς δικαιοσύνης ατο).  In justification or the remission of sins, God remains just in that He justly punishes our sins in Christ, who took them upon Himself; and He justifies believers, since the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to them.

The object of justification is sinful man, but only such as believe in Christ, that is, those who know their sins from the Law, who seriously  grieve over them, and who by faith apply to themselves the promise of the remission of sins for the sake of Christ.


'via Blog this'


Links about Justification by Faith 
and Justification without Faith (UOJ)



Luther's Galatians endorsed by reader

Luther's Galatians on Gnesio Lutherans

Roman Catholic adjunct Jack Kilcrease as Humpty Dumpty

Calov, quoted by Robert Preus, repudiated the UOJ position of WELS

Kilcrease, the McCain tutor, equivocates.

Buchholz is anti-Luther

Pastor Bickel on Tossing Rydecki Under the Bus

Church and Changer Jeff Gunn and His Mequon Class of Shrinkers

Paul McCain and Jon Buchholz - Bedfellows of Apostasy

Abraham Is the Common Theme in Justification - Justification by Faith

Pastor Rydecki's Account of His Suspension - October 9th

Intrepid Account October 6th- Pastor Rydecki Suspended

LutherQuest (sic) Opposes Justification by Faith

Warming Up the Tar and Feathers on LutherQuest (sic)

Pastor Bickel Answers Jon Buchholz

Kokomo Statements - WELS UOJ - JP Meyer

Jack Kilcrease Showing Signs of Stress

Dr. Lito Cruz and Brett Meyer Dispatch the UOJ Stormtroopers on Extra Nos

Hunnius repudiated an early form of UOJ,
backed by P. Leyser, an editor of the Book of Concord,
a biographer of Chemnitz, and an early expert on justification.




---

A. Berean has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans - Johann Gerhard on Romans 3":

Wonderful! Thanks for the post.

In addition to Gerhard, look up Luther's Lectures on Romans (L.W. vol. 25, A.E.). Nothing about apart from faith there...

***

GJ - Humpty Kilcrease is not happy.

Day by Day: A Reproductive Manifesto

My Photo
Mary Abrahamson

Day by Day: A Reproductive Manifesto:


SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 2009

A Reproductive Manifesto

I often have people ask me why I have so many kids. Or, "Are you done now?" Or, "How did you decide?" These are the nice questions. As anyone who has a large family can attest, there are always plenty of snide or aghast questions. And again, those that are supposed to be funny and original, but really ought to be allowed to die a peaceful death after their overworked lifespan.

(For a humorous response to those worn out questions see thismusical anthology "quiverof7" put together.)

While these questions are certainly not original and sometimes tiresome, they are usually not ill intended. They are, however, indicative of the pervasive attitude within today's society for one to view oneself as the ultimate director of one's life. God works miracles all the time. He works out challenges that we sometimes think we can't get through. And He is ultimately in full control of our destiny. (That word, destiny, always sound like a bad seventies song. But hopefully you know how I intend it.)

I can immediately think of a quite large handful of people I know of who ended up with a different family than they planned. There are those who conceived a child while "on the pill," or after having a vasectomy or tubal ligation; children who were adopted after a couple was sure they were done; or any multitude of other family situations in which family size changes unexpectedly.

I know of women who are convinced they cannot bear children and men who have been told they'll never father a child, and yet they do. There are women for whom medical wisdom predicts or even seems to guarantee a difficult pregnancy, and they end up with a wonderful pregnancy. While some of these things are more miraculous than others, they are all unplanned and unexpected situations that God works into the lives of His people.

My point is that we just don't know. We can't say what will happen to us. Two Bible passages on this subject come to mind. Each is a favorite of mine. And both are excellent reminders that God in control and that our human wisdom is fallible.

James 4:13-15 so aptly points out both how little control we have in this life and also exhorts us toward the "God willing" attitude with which we must always seek to live our lives.
Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."
Malachi 3:10 is God's response to His people when they withhold offerings from him.
"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."
With that introduction to my views on family planning, I also offer this "statement insurance." I in no way cast judgment on another couple's decisions for their family size. With the exception of a few particular methods of birth control against which I feel no qualms about speaking, I will leave that decision to each couple to make prayerfully. I do, however, think the decision to plan pregnancies or lack thereof, is often made too lightly; and very often with the idea that we indeed control the outcome of such decisions.

My purpose is threefold. First, having seen the blessings God has heaped on me through my large family, I'd like to encourage others to give it a try. Test the Lord and see if He won't open the floodgates of heaven to you.

Second, I'd like to encourage any who are overwhelmed with what God has asked them to do in the area of family size. God will never give you more than you can handle (I Corinthians 10:13); He will never leave you or forsake you (Joshua 1:5); and His plans are to bless you not to hurt you (Jeremiah 29:11).

Thirdly, because often, in general conversation, I get the impression that others carry false ideas of why I have a large family. Some people think I'm some sort of super holy person, to accomplish this great thing. Others assume I'm self-righteous and legalistic about large families. There are some who see big families as a homeschool family corollary. And still others think its a plot to populate the world with descendants holding to my own "narrow world view."

In simplest terms, we refrain from planning our family, because it is a comfortable place for us. Does comfortable mean easy? Certainly not. It is comfortable in the sense that we don't have to worry about anything. It's easy in that way. We don't have to wonder if the kids are far enough apart, or too far apart. Or if we have enough. Or if a certain child would be better off with or without a sibling. Or if we're rejecting some little person God has in mind for us.

This is going to be hard to explain, but please stick with me. God not only knows what will happen, but also what might have been. Put that together with the passages that tell us that God sometimes gives people their own way, even though He might have better plans for them. This leads to the idea that God may have things in mind for us, and periodically not grant them to us, in order to allow us to pursue our own preferences, in contrast to the better thing He might choose for us.

Now we continue to those passages that remind us of our human weaknesses, especially those that point out our intellectual weaknesses. So how on earth could I possibly make the best decision in this. My reproductive capacity is just too big a thing to leave to my human whims and temptations and philosophies. What color to paint the house or what car to buy or what to have for supper? Yeah, that I can handle (although the supper thing is sometimes tough). But I just don't feel adequate to make the decision of how many kids to have.

There are many Christian couples who prayerfully decide to "try not to have children." They will often say something like this, "Well, if God wants me to have a child, He can overcome this deterrent I'm using and give me a child anyway." Absolutely true. But that truth can be turned on its head just as easily. "If God thinks this is not a good time to have a child, He can and will prevent me from having one."

So no, I did not set out to have ten kids. There is not some magic number or gender combination after the attainment of which we will "be done." I am not a supermom. I do not think birth control (except any abortifacient method) is sinful.

But I am a strong proponent of big families and the blessings they can be for individuals, and society, and God's kingdom.


'via Blog this'