The Post Referenced Directly Below - Posted for Your Convenience Here

From: Brett Meyer <pygmypoacher@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Intrepid Lutherans] New comment on Christian Charity and Provisions for Amiable Separ....
To: Intrepid Lutherans <intrepidlutherans@gmail.com>

Thank you for your response and explanation Mr. Lindee.  It is difficult to be objective about the situation when you don't know what I wrote.  In fact it was simply the Scriptural extrapolation of what Daniel Baker stated in the second most recent post - to the effect that Universal Justification is a heresy.  Does IL disagree that teaching a heretical gospel removes the individual from Christ, the forgiveness of sins and salvation?  General Justification does exactly that as DP Buchholz clearly showed - those who teach Justification solely By Faith Alone are heretics and anathema in the (W)ELS.  Am I really breaking new ground by stating that as a fact?

Five years ago I began discussing the doctrine of Justification with Lutheran laity and clergy online and in my personal life and the most common thread of thought was that the differences between JBFA and UOJ were insignificant, despite my contention to the contrary.  A few weeks ago my contention was proven correct in a most vile and violent way in an open and public attack on Christ and His Church from within the (W)ELS.  Since the doctrine of General Justification has no Scriptural or Confessional support can it not be said that those who truly believe and confess it, to the point of excommunicating those who reject it, are not of Christ and therefore are not forgiven of their sin or eternally saved?  Is the preaching of God's Law restricted to the clergy as in the RCC or was it given to the priesthood of all believers?

You state, "I'm not convinced that any of these men, having an honest disagreement with you over the central message of Scripture, are offended to the point of literally hating you for any of these reasons."

Since we're talking about complete disagreement concerning the central doctrine of Scripture: Justification I disagree with your statement and refer to John 7:7, "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."  Your statement implies that someone can teach a false gospel and not be affected to the point of hating by teaching contrary to the Triune God.  I am directly stating that I am correct in my confession of the doctrine of Justification and in the identification of those teachings that depart from it.  I have defended it from Scripture and the Confessions and have shown where the contrary teachings have contradicted both. 

I must disagree with your contention that I've condemned specific individuals to Hell.  That accusation is unfounded.  My public and private statements have always tied a specific confession to its Scriptural conclusion and not an individual as though I've decreed who is damned and who is saved.  There is a significant portion of the Lutheran Synod's slide into apostasy which is averse to absolutes.  I can no longer count the number of Lutheran's who disagree that those individuals in the Catholic church who truly confess and believe exactly what the RCC officially teaches stand condemned and under the wrath of God.  This is the same knee-jerk reaction that spawns the claim that I am condemning individuals to Hell.  You should ask them to prove it by providing my quotes. That being said,  I certainly hope that you are not saying that we cannot condemn confessions of belief that oppose the central doctrine of Scripture.

You state, "To be engaged in honestly, both parties need to display a willingness to be corrected."  I don't think I've ever engaged in a doctrinal discussion where the opposing view was not allowed to establish their contentions.  But if a Christian is defending verbatim quotations of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions how could there be a show of correctability?  In a discussion of subjective opinions, then yes, I agree completely.  But in regard to Scripture and the Confessions I disagree.  It is also typical of those who are teaching from authority that is not of Scripture to cry foul and claim their opponent is not willing to be corrected.  Was this same tactic not used against Pastor Rydecki?  You simply need to read the Bailing Water, LutherQuest and Extra Nos discussions concerning UOJ to see that I have been uterly patient and consistent in my defense of Scriptural and Confessional Justification while suffering the ad hominem and personal attacks so prevalent with UOJists.

I do appreciate the time you gave me in writing such a thorough response I find most of it to be driven by the opinions of third parities of which you received only their side of the story.  And considering the fact that most if not all of them have a long history of teaching and defending the false gospel of Universal Justification is it any wonder that they would "hate" me for publicly opposing their central doctrine?  Pr. Rydecki was just excommunicated by those men and women.  There are only a handful of men in the world (LITERALLY) who are publicly opposing the faith destroying false gospel of UOJ and IL chooses to reprimand me for being contentious to the point of people hating me.  Can there be enough opposition to that doctrine when your own IL founder has been excommunicated for opposing it?  And again, I have consistently condemned the doctrine and not the individuals. 

The problem Pastor Spencer has with me has been clearly taken to the point of utter childishness.  To remove one of my comments for the sole reason it was written by me, without regard to its veracity and faithfulness to Scripture is a practice that should be relegated to school yards and not theological blogs.  I'm offended that you recommend I apologize to Rev. Spencer when you don't even know what I'm being asked to apologize for.   That he would justify his deletions of my comments with the reason that I've offended him without explaining to the rest of the IL management what that justification entails is absurd.   I publicly contended against his public promotion of UOJ on the IL blog by posting a public statement against such promotion on Ichabod.  He complained to Pastor Jackson to which I replied and we exchanged two brief emails.  Neither of which contained any false accusations or false teachings and to which I cannot apologize.  (attached email files). 

You state, "Second, referring to those with whom you find yourself in disagreement as hell-bound reprobates, proclaiming them to be under Satan's dominion, declaring them the Gospel's enemy, or condemning them to an eternity of suffering in the torments of hell, simply will not be tolerated by us -- we can't tolerate such comments from anyone. And frankly, I'd suggest that you cease commenting on the internet like this in general."  I find this statement to completely disregard the specific doctrine at issue (Justification) which if one confesses faithfully to Scripture he is a Christian, receives the adoption of Sons, forgiven of all sin and saved eternally and which if one confesses contrary to Scripture he is not a Christian and remains under God's wrath and condemnation.  You may wish to boil the issue down to "those with whom you find yourself in disagreement" but it is wholly unfair, a false statement and slanderous.

In Christ,

Brett Meyer

***

GJ - I recall, since I got emails from Brett and Steve Spencer, that the issue was this - Brett saying UOJ was a minor or superficial matter was worse than Hochmuth's crime against children.

Spencer was extremely upset about that, even though that is precisely Luther's point about sins against the First Table. As Luther wrote, carnal sins harm the sinner (Hochmuth) but false doctrine murders souls. 

To cap the discussion, Spencer solemnly declared--about UOJ versus justification by faith--"a pox on both your houses."

In Shakespeare, a pox is syphilis. Spencer's prayer means - I hope you get syphilis. That may be Shakespearean, even Waltherian (given the STD of Bishop Stephan). 

I was extremely disappointed about this attitude of the Circuit Pastor and titular head of the Intrepid Lutherans. Indifference about the Chief Article of the Christian Faith makes me wonder, "Why be a pastor? To defend Holy Mother WELS? To get a classmate into the synod presidency?"

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Brett Meyer to the Intrepid Lutherans":

My exact statement to Pastor Spencer was, "If you won’t take a public stand against UOJ in the (W)ELS as your call requires of you then you’re no better than Hochmuth in the ongoing spiritual abuse of the laity you are responsible for."

The comparison is between WELS Communication's director Hochmuth sitting in Synod Headquarters watching young boys being homosexually raped and molested (specific charges by the United States FBI) and Lutheran clergy who have taken an oath before God to purely teach and defend Scripture and in accordance with the faithful Christian Book of Concord but instead sit silently by and refuse to publicly condemn the false gospel of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ) as their call requires. UOJ being a new and different gospel and way to righteousness before God which when truly confessed separates men, women and children from Christ, the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation - Galatians 1. Those who knowingly sit by and watch silently as the sheep are slaughtered are called hirelings in the Bible. That was true in the Apostle John's day as it is in ours - John 10:12-13.

As to Doug Lindee's contention, "Doctrinal discussion/debate between parties with opposing views amounts to mutual admonition and correction. To be engaged in honestly, both parties need to display a willingness to be corrected,..." - I quote Martin Luther:

"Therefore, do not speak to me of love or friendship when anything is to be detracted from the Word or the faith; for we are told that not love but the Word brings eternal life, God's grace, and all heavenly treasures." 19 " In matters concerning faith we must be invincible, unbending, and very stubborn; indeed, if possible, harder than adamant. But in matters concerning love we should be softer and more pliant than any reed and leaf and should gladly accommodate ourselves to everything." 20 "Doctrine is our only light. It alone enlightens and directs us and shows us the way to heaven. If it is shaken in one quarter (in una parte), it will necessarily be shaken in its entirety (in totum). Where that happens, love cannot help us at all." 21 " But this tender mercy is to be exercised only toward Christians and among Christians, for toward those who reject and persecute the Gospel we must act differently; here I am not permitted to let my love be merciful so as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order. Then it is my duty to contend in earnest and not to yield a hairbreadth." What Luther Says, II, 637f.

"However, if anything is undertaken against the Word, faith, and the honor of God, we are in no wise to preserve silence, are to bear it far less patiently. Then we should offer stubborn resistance."
What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, III, p. 1308. Sermon, 1523.