Showing posts with label LCMS UOJ Preus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LCMS UOJ Preus. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 2, 2025

Background on the Universal Objective Justification of CFW Walther, B.A.

 


Magic acts are a lot of fun. We all know that the magician distracts our eyes so that he can quickly do the trick where we are not looking.

The UOJ Magicians work the same way, but they are nasty and vindictive, not entertaining. Their energy comes from their hatred of the Word, which they cloak with fine words and sanctimony.


LCMS and WELS - Same History - Same Tricks
Missouri and WELS came from Pietism, which has a way of asserting itself again. The clergy who would rather be unionistic, because they love every doctrine but their own, bitterly resent the chains and shackles - as they see them - of the Book of Concord so they throw off those horrid Confessions.

Missouri and WELS both taught Justification by Faith for many decades.

JFBA Examples in WELS:

  1. Gausewitz was the catechism and no one talked of UOJ. The instigator of Kokomo never heard of UOJ before seminary.
  2. Some oldsters in WELS remember that they were taught Justification by Faith in the olden days, because they were.
  3. JP Meyer and other false teachers worked to supplant the Confessions and the Chief Article, so WELS clergy ignore and loathe the Book of Concord.
JFBA Examples in the LCMS:
  1. The 1905 German catechism of the synod taught Justification by Faith, not UOJ.
  2. They also used the Gausewitz Catechism, because he was the president of the Synodical Conference.
  3. The KJV catechism, lately in the CPH catalogue, teaches Justification by Faith - not UOJ.
  4. Dr. Walter A. Maier preached Justification by Faith and taught it as the foundational doctrine of Christianity, named before inerrancy in one quotation. See the graphic. He was praised by sister synods, not denounced as a false teacher.

The Magic Wand of Verbal Abuse

The UOJ Magicians have only one trick. They verbally abuse anyone who threatens their position, and they scare easily. They mask their fear with fake ferocity, always using their buddies to back them up, like shills in an audience helping with a mind-reading trick.


Robert believed in due process.  He repeatedly said that he would not be used to deny due process to Walter A. Maier.  He also expressed his opinion that his efforts to bring Maier to an orthodox formulation (sic) of this doctrine with the help of such eminent theologians as Dr. Harry Huth, the great Missouri Synod Confessions scholar, would bear more fruit than his brother’s approach. 

 WAM II, left, got the Preus "due process" treatment.
I do not have his academic achievements at this time.
He is with a bunch of Maiers. When I met WAM II, he was jolly and friendly.


Imagine yourself as a professor at the synod's seminary, the son of the world-famous preacher and Biblical scholar, Walter A. Maier, PhD, Harvard, who taught Justification by Faith and inerrancy.
  • Jack Preus, the LCMS president, sends a letter to every congregation, denouncing you as a false teacher - for teaching what built The Lutheran Hour, your father preaching on the radio. But the accusation is dishonest, because it does not say, "You teach the Chief Article and we reject that, agreeing with the rationalistic Pietists." No, it is "YOU deny our precious dogma doctrine of Justification without Faith Objective Justification."
  • Robert Preus, Jack's brother, as president of the Ft. Wayne seminary, denounces you to the entire LCMS, using the most ridiculous arguments for UOJ, even citing the UOJist who left teaching in the LCMS to be a Roman Catholic editor! That was Edward Preuss of precious memory, still quoted with a school-girl's sigh.
  • Instead of being the leading candidate for LCMS synod president, a big effort is mounted to deny you any votes because (wave the magic wands) both Preus brothers have unethically and illegally denounced you as a false teacher. And yes, that is indeed slander.
  • Ralph Bohlmann becomes the LCMS president, promotes Church Growth, and sees his daughter ordained as a UCC pastor and married to another woman.
  • Herman Otten, a supposed Maier friend, backs UOJ to the hilt, essentially agreeing with the Preus brothers. It took another magician, Paul Rodham McCain, to equal this level of hypocrisy and back-stabbing. Otten sells books against Luther, praises a Roman Catholic author for publishing the obvious, and specializes in promoting the thralls of UOJ.
The irony of this Preus team is that neither Preus brother earned an Ivy league degree or engaged in Biblical scholarship, as Walter A. Maier, WAM II, and WAM III did. Jack and Bob both studied Latin scholasticism at the University of Minnesota - the Icey League. Academic achievement in the Preus family stopped there. As The Right Reverend Bishop James Heiser said to me, "The Preus children are not known for their theological acumen."

The Preus brothers used the weakness of CFW Walther's education to their advantage, calling up the ghost of Stephan's thrall to pound WAM II into the ground. The weakness of LCMS clergy and laity always comes through when they line up like iron filings around the magnetic personality of their first pope, professor, publisher, and political expert, CFW Walther, BA.

The answer does not come from inane theses that beg the question, like Valleskey on Fuller and Church Growth. The answer comes from careful study of the Biblical text. Anyone can do that, but few take the trouble.

I am happy to say that the younger generations of men are willing to address what the Boomer men ignored.

 According to this former editor of Steadfast Lutherans,
Dr. Maier was "a moron" for teaching Justification by Faith.

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

More Shocking Revelations about the Antiquity of OJ in the Synodical Conference




First of all, a correction: The Foreward to the 1966 ELS CATECHISM says that the text of the previous ELS Catechism was from 1905, not 1906 as I had said.  The 1966 Foreward says that it has been
"61 years" since the previous ELS Catechism, which I previously quoted as teaching JBFA.



In the following passages one will be able to note how the Synodical Conference synods Catechisms from 1966 to the present have consistently taught UOJ, whether or not they actually use the terms "Objection/General Justification" or "Subjective/Personal Justification."


Ironically, the Norwegian Synod/ELS English Language Catechism of 1905 was the first English language Synodical Conference synod Catechism, and it clearly taught JBFA; the 1966 ELS CATECHISM was the first English language Synodical Conference synod Catechism to teach OJ/SJ.

[GJ - I believe this is the heart of the Madison (Opgjoer) Settlement issue. The Pieper OJ crowd want to be pure OJ, not OJ and JBFA. So the ELS marched off and took 1,000  OJ people from the Norwegian Synod to become the ELS or "Little Norwegians", a term they loathe. The Norwegian Preus clan adhered to OJ, so they imagined that made them orthodox rather than Pietistic. So when Jack and Bob Preus got fed up at Luther seminary, off to the ELS.]


All the following quotations will be taken from the Explanation of the Third Article, the Forgiveness of Sins of the different Catechisms; Bible passages are omitted: 


AN EXPLANATION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S SMALL CATECHISM (ELS) 1966. "Qu. 254: How were you justified?  A: I was justified by God the Father, when by His grace He DECLARED ME RIGHTEOUS.  Qu. 255: How can God declare the sinner righteous?  A: God can declare the sinner righteous because, on the basis of the redemptive work of Christ, He has ACQUITTED ALL MEN of the guilt and punishment of their sins, and has imputed to them the righteousness of Christ; HE THEREFORE REGARDS THEM IN CHRIST AS THOUGH THEY  HAD NEVER SINNED.   Qu. 256: How does the sinner receive this justification?  A: The sinner receives this justification when the Holy Ghost, through the means of grace, leads him to believe that God has forgiven all his sins for Christ's sake.  [Note: Throughout these passages it will be noted that the teaching of "Subjective Justification" BY ITSELF is acceptable, but NOT when joined to the teaching of Objective Justification.]


AN EXPLANATION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S SMALL CATECHISM (ELS) 1981.  "Qu. 206: Why do you "believe in the forgiveness of sins:?  A: I believe in the forgiveness of sins because the Bible assures me that God the Father has by grace FORGIVEN ALL SINNERS AND DECLARED THEM RIGHTEOUS.  207: How can God declare sinners righteous?  A: God can declare sinners righteous because, on the basis of the redemptive work of Christ, He has ACQUITTED ALL MEN OF THE GUILT AND PUNISHMENT OF THEIR SINS, AND HAS IMPUTED TO THEM THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST; HE THEREFORE REGARDS THEM IN CHRIST AS THOUGH THEY HAD NEVER SINNED (GENERAL OR OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION.)  Qu. 208: How do you receive this forgiveness or justification?  A: I receive this justification when the Holy Ghost through the means of grace leads me, the sinner, to believe that God has forgiven all my sins for Christ's sake (PERSONAL OR SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION.)" 


CATECHISM LESSONS PUPIL'S BOOK by Adolph F. Fehlauer (WELS) 1981.  "Lesson 49.  Forgiveness of Sins/The Third Article [I believe in] the forgiveness of sins.  What does this mean?  [I believe that in the Christian church the Holy Ghost] daily and fully forgives all sins to ME AND ALL BELIEVERS {Note: JBFA!!!  Then, note the teaching of OJ/SJ following:]...What did Jesus earn for all people?  Jesus earned forgiveness for all people.  On whom did Jesus put the sins of all people. (A. On Jesus)  God accepted Jesus' sacrifice for the sins of the world.  What did God do for all people?  (A. HE DECLARES THEM RIGHTEOUS.)  For whose sake does God declare ALL PEOPLE RIGHTEOUS?  GOD DECLARES THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE RIGHTEOUS FOR JESUS' SAKE.  What good news did Jesus tell the paralytic man?  (A. That his sins were forgiven)  What word do we use for the good news of forgiveness of sins?  (A. Gospel)  What does God offer through the Gospel?  Through the Gospel God offers forgiveness of sins.  Not all people accept this free offer of forgiveness.  Why didn't the Pharisee ask for mercy and forgiveness?  (A. He believed that he was just and needed no forgiveness.)  Why did the tax collector pray God to have mercy on him?  (A. He knew that he was a sinner and believed that God would forgive him his sins.)  Who gives us faith to believe in the forgiveness of sins?  The good news of forgiveness through faith is proclaimed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Who gives us faith to believe the Gospel?  The Holy Spirit gives us faith to believe the Gospel.  Summary: Jesus earned forgiveness of sins for all people.  GOD DECLARES ALL PEOPLE RIGHTEOUS FOR JESUS' SAKE.  Through the Gospel God offers forgiveness of sins.  The Holy Spirit gives us faith to believe the Gospel.  We receive forgiveness through faith in the Gospel.  What this means to me: In the Bible God tells me that all my sins are forgiven for Jesus' sake.  He is my holy and righteous Savior.  God looks upon Jesus' righteousness as my righteousness, and therefore He declares me just and holy (justified).  There is nothing I can do to earn my forgiveness and salvation.  Jesus has done all that can be done and need be done.  But in return for Jesus' love and God's mercy I will want to show my appreciation by thinking, praising, serving, and obeying my merciful Lord and Savior..."


LUTHER'S CATECHISM by David P. Kuske (WELS) 1982. "Qu. 253: How many people did GOD DECLARE RIGHTEOUS?  A: GOD DECLARED ALL PEOPLE RIGHTEOUS. (OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION)...Qu. 255: Why is it important, then, that the Holy Spirit work faith in me?  A: It is important that the Holy Spirit work faith in me so that I do not trust in my own works but only in the righteousness God gives by grace in Christ.
(SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION)"


MARTIN LUTHER'S SMALL CATECHISM: A HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE by Pastor Mike Sydow (CLC) 1988.  "Qu. 208: Whom has God justified--declared 'Not guilty'?  A: GOD DECLARED ALL PEOPLE IN ALL THE WORLD 'NOT GUILTY' OF THEIR SINS.  THIS IS SOMETIMES CALLED UNIVERSAL JUSTIFICATION (OR OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION)  For Personal Justification, cf. question 210...Qu. 210: How do the benefits of Christ's death become our own?  A: The Holy Spirit provides the benefits of Christ's death by giving people faith.  THIS IS SOMETIMES CALLED PERSONAL JUSTIFICATION (OR SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION).  Personal justification is believing that God has declared me 'Not guilty.'"  [Note: Same text in 2000 and 2006 (current) editions.]


LUTHER'S SMALL CATECHISM WITH EXPLANATION (LCMS) 1991.  "Qu. 180: Why do you say, 'i believe in the forgiveness of sins'?  A: I believe in the forgiveness of sins because through Christ God has DECLARED PARDON AND FORGIVENESS TO ALL SINFUL HUMANITY...Qu. 182. How is it possible for a just and holy God to declare sinners righteous (justification)?  A: GOD DECLARES SINNERS RIGHTEOUS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, THAT IS, OUR SINS HAVE BEEN IMPUTED OR CHARGED TO CHRIST, THE SAVIOR, AND CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS HAS BEEN IMPUTED OR CREDITED TO US.  Qu. 183: Where does God offer the forgiveness of sins?
A: God offers the forgiveness of sins in the Gospel.  Qu. 184: How do you receive this forgiveness of sins?  A: I receive this forgiveness through faith, that is, by believing the Gospel."  (Note: Does this sound similar to the 1981 ELS Catechism, but without the use of the terms "OJ/SJ"?)  (Same explanation in both 1991 LCMS Catechism with the NIV and the 2005 LCMS Catechism with the ESV.)


AN EXPLANATION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S SMALL CATECHISM (ELS) 2001:  (Note: "Qu. 210-212" are virtually the same as the 1981 ELS Catechism "Qu. 206-208."  2018 edition of 2001 ELS Catechism using the WELS/ELS  Wartburg Project's Evangelical Heritage Version translation has identical Explanation to the 2001 ELS Catechism.)


LUTHER'S CATECHISM: THE SMALL CATECHISM OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER (WELS) 2017: "Qu. 218: What did our gracious God do to overturn the judgement against our sin?  A: GOD RECONCILED THE WHOLE WORLD TO HIMSELF, THAT IS, HE DECLARED THE WHOLE WORLD NOT GUILTY.  Qu. 219: How is it possible that God, who is holy and just, would declare sinners righteous?  A: GOD CAN DECLARE SINNERS RIGHTEOUS without violating his justice because he declared Jesus to be guilty of every sin that has ever been or will ever be committed.  God made the only one who was without sin to be sin for us.  On the cross, Jesus was punished for every sin.  BECAUSE OF THE CROSS, THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS BEEN DECLARED TO BE NOT GUILTY.  THIS IS TRUE, NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE BELIEVE IT BUT BECAUSE IT TRULY HAPPENED (UNIVERSAL/OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION)...Qu. 222: How do we receive the forgiveness of sins that God DECLARED FOR ALL PEOPLE?  A: We receive the benefits of what CHRIST DID FOR THE WORLD when the Holy Spirit works the gift of faith in our hearts.  WE BELIEVE THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH, THAT GOD HAS DECLARED THE WHOLE WORLD JUSTIFIED BECAUSE OF JESUS' SACRIFICE.  THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF FORGIVENESS BY FAITH IN JESUS IS CALLED SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION."


LUTHER'S SMALL CATECHISM WITH EXPLANATION (LCMS) 2017: (Note: As with the 1991 and 2001 ELS Catechisms, the 1991 and 2017 LCMS Catechisms are very similar, not using the terms "OJ/SJ," but whereas the 1991 LCMS Catechism says in Qu. 180 "God HAS DECLARED..." the 2017 LCMS Catechism says in Qu. 206 "God DECLARES..."  


This 2017 LCMS edition of the Small Catechism frequently quotes from the Lutheran Confessions, the only English language Synodical Conference synod Catechism to do so since the J.C. Dietrich Small Catechism, printed by CPH for the LCMS.  However, when a quotation is given to support the teaching of the Forgiveness of Sins in the 2017 LCMS Catechism, the quotation which is given is FC Ep III:4, which says (LCMS CONCORDIA Edition, p. 480) "Our righteousness before God is this: God forgives our sins out of pure grace, without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or following.  He presents and credits to us the righteousness of Christ's obedience [Romans 5:17-19].  Because of this righteousness we are received into grace by God and regarded as righteous."  What is NOT quoted is what DIRECTLY FOLLOWS in FC Ep III:5: "3. WE BELIEVE, TEACH AND CONFESS THAT FAITH ALONE IS THE MEANS AND INSTRUMENT THROUGH WHICH WE LAY HOLD OF CHRIST.  So in Christ we lay hold of that righteousness that benefits us before God [Romans 1:17], FOR WHOSE SAKE THIS FAITH IS CREDITED TO US FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Romans 4:5)."


In summary: Before 1966 no Synodical Conference synod Catechism taught Objective/Subjective Justification.  That changed with the ELS Catechism of 1966.  The 1981 ELS Catechism influenced the 1991/2017 LCMS Catechisms as well as the 2001 (current) ELS Catechism.  The WELS Catechisms have been the most open in teaching Objective/Subjective Justification.


You've all heard of the fact that Mormons have to go to their "temples" for certain "ordinances" which teach "secrets" kept from both the "Gentiles" and other Mormons who haven't been to the "temple" themselves, thus creating a "dual Mormon membership," some of whom learn the "secrets" while others don't, and those who don't can't progress to "godhood" without "temple ordinances."  Why is it that the Synodical Conference synods taught Objective/Subjective Justification through their English language college and seminary doctrinal theology texts (e.g., A. Graebner, Th. Engelder, J.T. Mueller, EWA Koehler, F. Pieper ) since 1910 (and in their German and Latin language texts before 1910,) but only in their Catechisms for their laity and their children since 1966, if OJ/SJ is such a precious, necessary doctrine to know?  --Warren


Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Rolf or the Holy Word of God?




Pastor Rolf David Preus (Rolf)
Senior Member
Username: Rolf

Post Number: 9705
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2018 - 6:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Mr. Ames, you write:
So maybe a more capable writer could better state this than myself, the truth is you cannot ask for trust because one leader is a thoroughly confessional Lutheran pastor.
I agree! I don't think you should trust any synod. Synods aren't worthy of trust. Trust God and his holy word. When a man shows himself to be a faithful teacher of the word, you can trust him, but always provisionally. During the Battle for the Bible in the LCMS, Jack Preus took a stand and stayed with it. Many if not most of the faculty at CSL attacked him for his stand. Franzmann was a disappointment. He didn't want to offend his friends on the faculty and he didn't.

Missouri must resist the spirit of unionism. W/ELS must resist the spirit of sectarianism.


Pastor Rolf David Preus
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Pastor Rolf David Preus (Rolf)
Senior Member
Username: Rolf

Post Number: 9706
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2018 - 6:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


I don't want to revisit the arguments we had some time back on Luther Quest about the W/ELS doctrine of church and ministry. I will only point out that the official teaching of the W/ELS asserts things as doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the written Word of God. This is sectarian. On the other hand, many within Missouri give lip service to our "renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description," but remain unionists at heart.

We don't trust synods. We trust the pure and wholesome teaching of God's word taught in the Bible and confessed in the Book of Concord.


Pastor Rolf David Preus




Do We Trust Rolf? or the Holy Word of God?

Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

---

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Blind Guides at LutherQuest (sic)



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Erich Heidenreich, DDS (Erich)
Senior Member
Username: Erich

Post Number: 1257
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 9:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Right. And I confess once again that I shamefully fell into this same horrible error myself a decade ago here on LQ. When I argued against the universal objective imputation of Christ's righteousness, I thought I could do so while keeping faith from being man's contribution to the deal. However, if my faith, even if it is a gift, is what the object of my faith is, then it has nothing. Thanks to faithful members here, especially Pr. Rolf Preus, over a very long period of debate and argumentation, I learned the beautiful truth that everything that is true of subjective justification is true objectively, including the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Thus, the object of faith is Christ and His work. Faith is simply the instrument by which all these objective truths are applied subjectively by God to those to whom He gives faith. If they are not true objectively, they cannot be applied subjectively, and faith looks to itself instead of to Christ.

---







Robert Preus earned two doctorates - Rolf none.
Scaer's education was exclusively parochial,
and it shows.
Repeat after me - graduate!

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Signs of a Weak Argument Abound in UOJ




http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/09/congratulations-on-being-so-schtoopid.html

Typical UOJ argumentation can be found here.

Someone asked for Luther's castle analogy and got a copy of plus this odd remark

"This is a great quote, on which I have found deniers of Objective Justification to be incredibly silent,"

Deniers of OJ - that is begging the question, of course. The CLC (sic) UOJist imagines that his dogma is the gold standard of Christian doctrine.

Incredibly silent - "incredibly" is a funny, self-critical adverb to use, especially since this analogy has been addressed many times. Who are these deniers? No names.

The quotation destroys their delusions, but they cannot grasp that. Throughout Luther and the Book of Concord, the Reformer and the Confessors assert the universality of the atonement of Christ, the necessity of faith.

Their castle quotation does the same thing, but they pixelate the atonement by magnifying it until it is the only thing they want to teach, like Creation without the Trinity (Deism) or stewardship without Christ (Environmentalism).

The real point of UOJ is the entire world of pagans, polygamists, cannibals, head-hunters, and apostates being forgiven of all their sins and saved, without the Word, faith, or the Means of Grace. That is the message of modern liberal theology, which came from the fetid loins of Halle University, their common Alma Mater. Halle University was established for the movement called Pietism and gave birth to Biblical Rationalism.

The LQ (sic) denizens never deal with Robert Preus' rejection of UOJ in his final book. They do embrace such bizarre and pagan notions as these:

Cascione, illiterate, loves this quotation
and used it to prove how UOJ Robert Preus was.
Justification and Rome? - Mad Jack is silent on that book.

Can someone find a dumber statement than this?
 I doubt it.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The Categories Predetermine the Outcome with Universal Objective Justification


The finger-puppets of UOJ like to call justification by faith..."Calvinism." But their precious double-justification categories came from the Calvinist Leonard Woods, above, in his translation of Knapp's theology lectures from Halle University. The two categories in English were picked up in Germany, then used with approval by the Great Kidnapper, C. F. W. Walther.

Quoting my blog post from 2008:

Leonard Woods was quite famous as an American Protestant leader.

WOODS, Leonard, clergyman, born in Princeton, Massachusetts, 19 June, 1774; died in Andover, Massachusetts, 24 August, 1854. His father, Samuel, possessed "Puritanic piety," and his habits of serious thought on metaphysical subjects obtained for him the title of "Philosopher Woods." The son was brought up strictly, and while very young was conversant with the works of John Locke and Jonathan Edwards. He was graduated at Harvard in 1796, taught, studied theology at Somers, Connecticut, and in 1798 was ordained pastor at Newbury, Massachusetts When the Andover theological seminary was founded in 1808 he became professor of Christian theology there, holding that chair for thirty-eight years, and becoming professor emeritus in 1846. Dartmouth gave him the degree of D. D. in 1810. Dr. Woods was active in the establishment of the American tract society, the Temperance society, and the board of commissioners of foreign missions, of whose prudential committee he was a member for twenty-five years.

He ably defended orthodox Calvinism against Unitarian theology, and while he admitted improvements in theologians and theological science, thought theological truths were fixed and unalterable. His literary reputation dates from his contribution in 1805 of a series of papers in the " Panoplist," a religious periodical, in which he defended Calvinism against Joseph Buckminster, William Channing, and other Unitarian divines. Dr. Henry B. Smith says of him : "He is emphatically the' judicious ' divine of the later New England theology. He educated more than 1,000 preachers, who had neither crotchets nor airy aims." He left in manuscript a "History of Andover Seminary." His publications in-chide " Letters to Unitarians" (Andover, 1820) ; "Lectures on the Inspiration of the Scriptures" (1829); " Memoirs of American Missionaries" (1833); " Examination of the Doctrine of Perfection" (1841); "Lectures on Church Government" (New York, 1843);" Lectures on Swedenborgianism" (1846); and his collected works, containing lectures, essays, sermons, and reviews (5 vols., Andover, 1849-'50).

His son, Leonard, scholar, born in Newbury, Massachusetts, 24 November, 1807; died in Boston, Massachusetts, 24 December, 1878, was graduated at Union college in 1827 and at Andover theological seminary in 1830. In 1831-'3 he was resident graduate scholar at Andover, and in 1833 he was licensed to preach. His private pupil, Richard Henry Dana, says of him: " At the age of twenty-four years he had been the first scholar in the Phillips academy, the first in every branch at Union, had been graduated at the Theological seminary the acknowledged foremost man of his period, and had published a translation of Knapp's 'Christian Theology, ' enriched with a long and fully thought-out preface, with original notes showing profound scholarship. He was assisting Professor Stuart in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ' and aiding Professor Robinson in editing the ' Biblical Repository, ' then the most scholastic periodical in America, and was assistant instructor of Hebrew in the seminary." He edited the " Literary and Theological Review" in New York city in 18"34-'7, and although that periodical was the organ of the Presbyterian and Congregational churches, he directly opposed the opinions of many of its supporters, objecting to the proposals of temperance and anti-slavery societies and popular revivalists, and to the German Reformation, and defending the few and simple conditions of admission into the Anglican communion, as compared with the minute requirements of doctrine in his own church. He was professor of sacred literature in Bangor theological seminary in 1836-'9, and from 1839 till 1866 president of Bowdoin. He never accepted a pastoral charge, but occasionally delivered sermons and addresses.

He went abroad in 1833, and contracted friendships with eminent theologians in Rome and in Oxford. His familiarity with the classics caused him to be congratulated by Gregory XVI. for his "excellent Latin and the richness of his discourse," and the Oxford theology having won his approval, he was the theological champion and personal friend of Dr. Edward B. Pusey. "He was even more remarkable, perhaps, for his conversations than for his public addresses," says his biographer, Professor Edwards A. Park. Having resigned the presidency of Bowdoin in 1866 (see the accompanying vignette), he accepted from the legislature of Maine a commission to visit Europe to obtain materials for the early history of the state. "He engaged the assistance of Dr. John G. Kohl in the work, which subsequently assumed shape in his "Discovery of Maine" (Portland, Maine, 1868), and procured the Hakluyt manuscript of the "Westerne Planting."

Dr. Woods was preparing this document for the press when his health declined, and the papers were completed and published by Charles Deane, in the "Proceedings of the Maine Historical Society" (Portland, 1877). Dr. Woods furnished other valuable matter, which appeared in the 1st and 2d volumes of the publications of that society, and was engaged in further work when his materials were destroyed by a fire that consumed his entire library. Harvard gave him the degree of D. D. in 1846, and Bowdoin that of LL. D. in 1866. Besides the works already referred to, including his translation of George Christian Knapp's "Christian Theology" (2 vols., New York, 1831-'3), Dr. Woods published an "Address on the Life and Character of Parker Cleveland (Portland, Maine, 1859), and "Address on the Opening of the New Medical Hall of the Medical School of Maine" {1862). See a "Memorial " of him. by Edwards A. Park (Andover, 1880), and an article by Richard H. Dana in the "Century Magazine" for June, 1881.

Edited Appletons Encyclopedia, Copyright © 2001 VirtualologyTM

---

Leonard Woods is the Calvinist
who explained Knapp with OJ and SJ categories.
And the SynCons said - "Amen, brother!"


Leonard Woods (1807-78) was the fourth president of Bowdoin College.

Life and career - McCained from Wikipedia:

"Born in Newbury, Massachusetts, Woods attended Phillips Andover Academy before graduating from Union College in 1827. After having graduated from Andover Theological Seminary, he made a translation of George Christian Knapp's Christian Theology, which became long used as a textbook in American theological seminaries. "

---
From the Net

(7.) George Christian Knapp, Lectures on Christian Theology, trans. Leonard Woods Jr. (Philadelphia: J. W. Moore, 1851). According to Woods's biographer Edwards Amasa Park, the Lectures on Christian Theology was first published at Andover Theological Seminary in 1831. Park, The Life and Character of Leonard Woods (Andover, Mass.: Warren F. Draper, 1880), 8.

(8.) For a discussion of Knapp, see John Ker, Lectures on the History of Preaching (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1888), 224-25; and B. B. Edwards and E. A. Park, Selections from German Literature (Andover, Mass.: Gould, Newman, and Saxton, 1839), 204-5.

(9.) Woods's private papers show that as early as 1832 he was exchanging books in German by both Tholuck and Neander with John Yates, a professor at Union College. John A. Yates to Leonard Woods Jr., Nov. 6, 1832, and Yates to Woods, Dec. 5, 1832. In the first-named letter, Yates asked Woods, "when you visit Germany I wish you would bring back another copy [of Neander's Church History] in manuscript or (it maybe published) in print for which I will pay you the cost." Leonard Woods Papers, Bowdoin College Archives, Brunswick, Me. For the influence of the German mediating theology on American Congregationalism, see Robert T. Hardy, A History of Union Theological Seminary in New York (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), 2-25.

---

Where did Knapp teach? Halle University - the warm womb of Pietism.

---

Tholuck taught at Halle. He is far better known today than Knapp. Here is Wikipedia on Tholuck.

Here he made it his aim to combine in a higher unity the learning and to some extent the rationalism of Johann Salomo Semler with the devout and active pietism of A H Francke; and, in spite of the opposition of the theological faculty of the university, he succeeded in changing the character of its theology.

This he achieved partly by his lectures, but above all by his personal influence on the students, and, after 1833, by his preaching. His theological position was orthodox, but laid more stress upon Christian experience than upon rigid dogmatic belief.


Hoenecke was Tholuck's pupil, maybe even his star pupil.


  • So we have Knapp's book used all over America as a doctrinal book. The advantage it had for the Synodical Conference was its printing both in German and English.
  • Knapp's book was available in time for the Synodical Conference to form.
  • So the next question is - what did Knapp teach and did other influential (non-Lutheran) theologians teach the same thing?


---

L P Cruz said...

Pr. GJ. Thanks for this scholarship. I google the Knapp guy and his book is in Google.. http://books.google.com/books?id=lG0PAAAAIAAJ&dq=Knapp+Christian+Theology&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=nRA_vZoBAO&sig=PIphEEZwDDJ6CDPMDTuZD5ni0wI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA397,M1

 Will await your analysis. Thanks once again - this is solid proof that UOJ is pietistic.

 LPC



How Do We Apply This Scholarly Review?

Leonard Woods did not snatch his double-justification terms from his cerebral cortex. More than likely, those terms were already current. My point in the review is to show that a massively influential American Calvinist made double-justification the norm for Protestants in this country. Since Halle University was the mother ship of Pietism, the Knapp lectures were looked upon with favor by the mainline Protestants and Stephan-Walther cult.

Why did the Muhlenberg tradition fail to adopt double-justification terms? When the General Council split from the General Synod, the good guys were at war with the pan-Protestant dogma of their patriarchs. Muhlenberg was a Pietist trained at Halle University. S. S. Smucker and his cohorts wanted to abandon the distinctive nature of Lutheran doctrine (efficacy of the Word, the Means of Grace) for union with the Calvinists.

Therefore, the battle was waged from the start - my intuition. The General Council leaders were more inclined to review the history of the Reformation and rest their teaching on the Book of Concord - not on an all-Protestant synthesis that surrendered the Means of Grace, the liturgy, baptismal regeneration, and the Real Presence.

The General Council did not start with double-justification and work back to the Reformation, to theorize that Luther believed in OJ all along. They started with Luther, Melanchthon, and the Book of Concord to re-discover what it meant to be Lutheran. They rejected revivalism, but retained many characteristics of Pietism.

The four major leaders of this General Council tradition are:

  1. Krauth
  2. Jacobs
  3. Passavant
  4. Schmauk.

It is a pity that SynCons spend so little time in analytical thinking about the American Lutherans of the 19th century. They are quick to praise the Synodical Conference, to hide its origins as a syphilitic sex cult that went overseas so their bishop could abandon the dying Mrs. Stephan and her pitiful children. Zion on the Mississippi has most of the details in the opening pages of the book.

The Feeding of the Multitude, by Norma Boeckler

The truth of Zion makes me sick, because the book explains how SynCons today could:

  1. Re-install a clergy sex offender and work with him, without a shred of conscience. Ukraine.
  2. Replace discipline with cover-ups in the LCMS-WELS-ELS.
  3. Child rape is rewarded with a lay-pastoral position and the discussions silenced by the SP and DPs.Minnesota.
  4. Argue minor facts to deny justice to a boy, now grown, in Pennsylvania. LCMS.
  5. Work gladly with ELCA's gay clergy while denouncing ELCA's gay activism.
A corrupt tree bears corrupt fruit. The leaders of Missouri, WELS, and the ELS are the corrupt fruit of the process that replaced justification by faith with UOJ. 

What corrupt fruit grew from the UOJ takeover engineered by Walther-Pieper in Missouri and the Wauwatosans in WELS?
  • The Church Shrinkage Movement, plowing on without regard to its failures and abuse.
  • The Emergent Church Copy-Cats (The CORE, CrossWalk, CrossRoads).
  • Thrivent using all the Lutheran groups as marketing tools and fools, spending that loot on all religions.
  • Left-wing activism accepted as the norm, since ELCA calls the shots via Thrivent.
  • Synodical maggots living off the dead corpse of the Lutheran Church.



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

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Bedfellows of Apostasy - Paul McCain, FB Friends with DP Jon Buchholz.
The Editor Cannot Spell.

WELS DP Jon Buchholz is Facebook friends with McCain.



Lutheran Pastor Suspended.

It doesn't happen often, maybe, some would say, not often enough, but it was encouraging to me to learn that the Wisconsin Synod has suspended from its ministry one of its pastors, Paul Rydeki (sic), who denies the teaching that on the cross God paid for and forgave the sins of the world.

Yes, you read that right. I know, it's crazy, isn't it? How could any Lutheran pastor d
eny what Scripture teaches so clearly?

Pastor Rydeki 
(sic) was asked two simple questions and failed to answer yes to each:

1) “Did God forgive the sins of the world when Jesus died on the cross?”

2) “Has God justified all sinners for the sake of Christ?”

God has acted, very objectively, in Christ to forgive and justify the entire world through the death of Jesus. Each individual receives this gift of forgiveness and justification, subjectively, through the blessed means of grace. It's just that beautiful a truth and that simple.

Kudos to the WELS.



***

GJ - McNasty is infamous in all synods. At least this is making apostates give a clear confession of their confusion.

McCain's Roman Catholic expert, Jack Kilcrease, thinks the Book of Concord is primitive.

A feckless captain ran the Concordia onto shoals, because he was showing off.
Concordia Publishing House has the same kind of leadership.


Paul T. McCain Pastor Webber: Thank you for your extremely important comment, clarifying the flat-out lies and distortion being used by Rydeki (sic) and his supporters to try to bolster his position. Let us all pray he repents of his sinful rejection of Biblical truth.
***
GJ - Let us pray that McCain learns how to spell the names of the people he denounces with Satanic glee.

In McCain's world of rationalistic Pietism,
babies are born already justified, forgiven, absolved.
Why do we baptize the little saints?
Naturally, McCain lied about Rydecki, who
never denied the Atonement.

Monday, October 8, 2012

LutherQuest (sic) Opposes Luther's Justification by Faith.
The Reformation Was All About Beer and Cigars...Apparently

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/05/blog-post.html



Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 57
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 9:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


The Christian Book of Concord declares it is by faith alone through which we are accepted by God and not before faith as Objective Justification teaches.
BOC: 71] But when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it of the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of justification or preparation for justification, so that not faith itself is that through which we are accepted by God, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, That Faith in Christ Justifies.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justificati on.php

Joe Krohn, this BOC quote shows that your teaching that God has been propitious to those outside of faith in Christ is contrary to Scripture:
Apology to the Augsburg "80] ...Thus, therefore, we prove the minor proposition. The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins, when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for 81] Christ's sake."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justificati on.php

As does this quote from Luther:
74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems us from under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith. He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed. As he believes, so is it with him. Faith carries with it the child-making spirit. The apostle here explains by saying that Christ has redeemed us from under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sons. As before stated, all must be effected through faith. Now we have discussed the five points of the verse.</i>http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSe rmons/Galatians4_1_7.html

In perfect harmony with 2 Corinth. 13:5 and opposed to the doctrine of Objective Justificaiton I quote Martin Luther on Faith, Justification and Cain-like saints who persecute the Holy Spirit’s faith: the righteousness of Christ:
<i>12. As before said, they regard faith of slight importance; for they do not understand that it is our sole justifier. To accept as true the record of Christ--this they call faith. The devils have the same sort of faith, but it does not make them godly. Such belief is not Christian faith; no, it is rather deception.

15. ...You see how they make faith of no value to themselves, and so must regard as heresy all doctrine based upon it. Thus they do away with the whole Gospel. These are they who deny the Christian faith and exterminate it from the world. Paul prophesied concerning them when he said (1 Tim 4, 1): "In later times some shall fall away from the faith." The voice of faith is now silenced all over the world. Indeed, faith is condemned and banished as the worst heresy, and all who teach and endorse it are condemned with it. The Pope, the bishops, charitable institutions, cloisters, high schools, unanimously opposed it for nearly four hundred years, and simply drove the world violently into hell. Their conduct is the real persecution by Antichrist, in the last times.

22. Now, the Cain-like saints have not, as they themselves confess, theChristian faith which would assure them of being the children of God.
http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSe rmons/Galatians4_1_7.html

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 58
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 10:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Pastor Rydecki faithfully translated BOC Confessor Aegigius Hunnius' Theses Opposed To Huberianism from Latin into English. In it Hunnius, who signed the BOC, along with Leyser were theologians at the University of Wittenberg hired to promote and defend Lutheran doctrine and return the local churches to confessionalism. Samuel Huber was teaching the same Objective Justification doctrine that most here promote and teach. It was firmly renounced by Hunnius in this book as opposed to Scripture, Christ and the Christian Book of Concord.

The book is available via Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Theses-Opposed-Huberianism-L utheran-Justification/dp/1475186541/ref=sr_1_1?ie= UTF8&qid=1349747741&sr=8-1&keywords=hunnius

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 59
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 10:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Mr. Dortmund, through baptism rightly applied using God's Word a person dies to sin, is raised again in Faith toward Christ alone, is forgiven all sin and saved.

1 Peter 3:21, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..."

Those being baptised and who reject Christ do not receive the forgiveness of sins but rather remain in their sins, are condemned and under God's wrath for their unbelief.

You imply that unbelievers who are baptized and reject Christ are fogiven all sin. To be faithful to the Scripture I provided do you believe the unbeliever is saved? I would hope not - but then neither is he forgiven because of and on account of his unbelief. Those not rejecting Christ in baptism receive the promise of the Gospel - forgiveness of sins, adoption of Sons and salvation.

The BOC quotes I provide teach that no one outside of faith is accepted by God (forgiven and declared righteous).

Only faith worked graciously by the Holy Ghost, which Christ is the Author and Finisher of, makes of an unjust man a just man: a justified man.

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 10:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Joe, the Book of Concord states that reconciliation with God is only by faith graciously worked by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace and not as you teach - outside of the Means of Grace, before and without faith.

113] But faith, properly so called, is that which assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost in the heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain]. Of 114] this faith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the remission of sins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham] accounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the works of the Law, although love necessarily follows. 115]Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. 116]
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justificati on.php

86] But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26. We, therefore, will add testimonieswhich clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justificati on.php

Paul on the contrary, teaches that we have access, i.e., reconciliation, through Christ. And to show how this occurs, he adds that we have access by faith. By faith, therefore, for Christ's sake, we receive remission of sins. We cannot set our own love and our own works over against God's wrath.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justificati on.php


Christian Schulz (Schulzcj)
New member
Username: Schulzcj

Post Number: 3
Registered: 10-2012
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 10:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


The Gospel is not: all have been justified (imputed with Christ's righteousness) prior to faith. Show me a chronology of the Catholic Church where it is consistently shown that the Christian Church has always taught an absolution of the individual sinner prior to repentance and faith. The closest you get, with context, is in the 1800s-ish. You guys are the morons who are obviously wholly un-Catholic. It almost made me laugh when I quoted the BoC earlier about the "voice of the Gospel." Whoever responded, I don't remember who, said that the BoC was wrong and continued to demonstrate that the voice of the Gospel is NOT JBFA (as the quote stated clearly) but rather justification (imputation of Christ's righteousness) prior to faith. At that point I promised myself I'd bow out because if we can't even read the Confessions for what they are, then there certainly isn't a point to continue "discussion." Plus I think we're all big boys and have been around the block. We've been in, witnessed, or even conducted many "UOJ" debates. We know where we all stand. We're just blowing steam at this point. It's absolutely useless.

Again, universal imputation of Christ's righteousness (or justification) prior to faith is about as anti-Catholic as you can get. Put down Walther, Becker, et al. and what do you have? Random, out of context one liners. Sad.

Christ died for all -- it is true -- every single person on earth. Before Christ, during Christ's earthly life, and all people after Christ's death and Resurrection. It is true. The Treasure stays in a pile, as Luther says. God eagerly distributes it through the means of grace by the Holy Spirit. Once a sinner receives the Treasure he is justified, holy, and righteous in God's sight. Christ is now used as the Mediator and Mercy Seat against God's wrath. However, Christ did NOT justify (impute his righteousness) to the whole world prior to faith, as "OJ" claims. The moron in this debate is the one who can't fathom that Christ justifies sinners here and now, one by one, through the means of grace. Christ has not justified the world. He has only justified the whole world if the whole world has believed on Him (A. Hunnius, Theses Opposed to Huberianism). Put the devilish dichotomies down which produce the the whorish doctrine of world imputation/absolution prior to faith. Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy indeed.


Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 11:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Mr. Dortmund, I believe and confess according to Scripture and the Confessions:

32] In the third place, since we have learned the great benefit and power of Baptism, let us see further who is the person that receives what Baptism gives and profits. 33] This is again most beautifully and clearly expressed in the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. That is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive profitably the saving, divine water. For, since these blessings are here presented and promised in the words in and with the water, they cannot be received in any other way than by believing them with the heart. 34] Without faith it profits nothing, notwithstanding it is in itself a divine superabundant treasure. Therefore this single word (He that believeth) effects this much that it excludes and repels all works which we can do, in the opinion that we obtain and merit salvation by them. For it is determined that whatever is not faith avails nothing nor receives anything.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php

Mr. Pierson, do you reject the first, second or third statement which Huber was accused of?

I disagree with your assertion of the essential aberration. I believe it was Justification without and before faith as evidenced in OJ teaching of Universal Justification, Universal Election and the regeneration of hypocrites in baptism which Mr. Dortmund seems to be alluding to.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Daniel Baker (Livinthehylife)
New member
Username: Livinthehylife

Post Number: 12
Registered: 10-2011
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 11:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Funny you should bring up cruel jokes, Karl, because I have a good one for you: "I forgive you. ROFLMAO JK YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT, SO HA. You don't get to be forgiven. Too bad for you."
It's a meaningless proclamation.

"You are righteous, but since you don't believe it, you aren't really righteous, even though My Holy, immutable Word said you were."

This is how the universal justification heresy reads. If I'm missing something, please illuminate me.

---

LPC has left a new comment on your post "LutherQuest (sic) Opposes Luther's Justification b...":

UOJ Stormtroopers love to run to Tom Hardt's essay that tries to make Walther clean from Huber's influence but one can detect from the essay that it was a damage control document. Hardt never quoted from Hunnius' work, for example the one that Pr. Rydecki translated.

Why do I bring Hunnius up against Hardt? It is because Hunnius wrote a lot against Huber so says the Errors of Missouri authors.

LPC