.jpg)
ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - The antidote trusts the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10.
Showing posts with label LutherQuest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LutherQuest. Show all posts
Saturday, June 15, 2024
Monday, February 19, 2024
The Tree Was Slowly Killed by Cutting the Root -
Just Like LCMS-WELS-ELS-CLC(sic).
The Concordia University System schools appear to be following this "trend":
- Concordia University-Wisconsin has their "Diversity and Belonging."
- Concordia University-Ann Arbor has their Office of Multicultural Engagement."
- Concordia University-Irvine holds a "Unity Week" with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Coach, "Ms. Mo".
- Concordia University-Chicago has a course (EDU-6300 - Perspectives in Research and Literature Across all Grade Ranges) that includes using literature and research across all grades as "a basis for the promotion of diversity, equity and culturally responsive instruction."
- Concordia University-Nebraska has their "Acts 2 Commission" (a renamed Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity).
I posted long ago about the previous tenant of this house, now dubbed Ichabode III. He decided to cut the major root when pruning a small tree in the backyard. I slowly cleaned up the back and found that one small tree was wobbly. My neighbor across the fence said, "Do you know what happened? The guy before you cut the root. I told him that would kill it, but he did not listen."
I told my father-in-law about the same disaster, when he cut the roots sticking out of the ground. He finally told me it died and had to be removed.
Children were not allowed to climb on my wobbly tree. The tree remained for years before falling over from a gentle push. Some roots survived but even the branches were dead and brittle.
 |
| Some entities will be able to use facilities, repurposed, soon enough. |
Now - much too late - the crybabies are saying something must be done to keep their LCMS-WELS-ELS colleges alive. Nota bene - two new gymnasia are being completed - one for the ELS and one for WELS, about 35 miles away from each other.
The nation's colleges probably all imagined that online education would lift them up and give them more options for overpricing student tuition, board (?), books, and amenities. Everyone jumped on UOP's wagon and all were keen on educating a receding population. HotChalk (online services) and one LCMS are in the courts figuring out who wins.
ELCA colleges were tanking a few decades ago. Now it is time for LCMS-ELS-WELS to face the executioners. Church magazines went kaput too, even with Thrivent subsidies. The synods had their fun with the Campus Growth Movement, and it is failing.
The root cause is simple - faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, Teacher, miracle worker, Who healed the blind and deaf, raised the dead, and suffered torture and death to atone for the sins of the world, rising from the dead, ascending to Heaven, and governing His Church on the right hand of God.
ELCA is DOA, so let's ask about the Big Four above - LCMS-WELS-ELS-CLC(sic). They collectively followed ELCA into the Slough of Despond, gathering their demographics, stunned with fear and alarm, gobbling the business trash - "robbing the Egyptians" - at Fuller Seminary.
The Big Four do not teach faith in Jesus Christ. Without faith in Jesus Christ, nothing good happens. The supposedly conservative managers (not leaders, no guts) are crying like the disciples in a storm, the wind howling, the sky black, the waves crashing and swamping the boat.
They have made matters worse by creating their own Tower of Babel, a rainbow coalition of Scriptures. Some pastors who hate the NIV will use the ESV, which is like getting a better Edsel. The members and the youth may pick up on "Living" and "Amplified" Bibles, which are no better than badly written commentaries. The gay National Council of Unbelieving Churches have licensed the RSV, ESV, NRSV, etc. Everyone knows, anything goes.
Those who trust in Jesus Christ will be rewarded with many blessings. Lacking faith, they cannot even imagine the efficacy of the Word (an upcoming book). That is why Calvinists and Pietists succumb to the Unitarian-Universalist Creed.
Friday, February 16, 2024
Another Reason for the Conjoined Universities Going Broke - From LutherQuest
| Rick Strickert (Carlvehse) Senior Member Username: Carlvehse Post Number: 10981 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Plus they have gone full bore dei and crt and total wokeness. Go woke go broke." Here are just a few examples of how woke CUW and CUAA have become:
|
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
California and New York State Were Once Considered the Best Places for Public Education and Low Costs. Thank You - Rick Strickert and LQ
Rick Strickert (Carlvehse) Senior Member Username: Carlvehse Post Number: 10714 Registered: 10-2003 |
California heads toward hell in a handbasket Excerpted from The Daily Signal June 13, 2023, article, "State Senator Tells Parents to Flee His Own State Amid Bill That Would Take Kids Away From Non-’Affirming’ Parents": Excerpted from AB 957: Don't hold your breath waiting for imprecatory prayers in California Lutheran church worship services. |
Friday, May 26, 2023
Seminex Won - Get Over It - The Proof Is Everywhere in the LCMS-WELS-ELS-CLC, LutherQuest, Christian News, and the ALPB Ovaltines
 |
| "For radiant health." More Ovatine! |
The LCMS-WELS-ELS-CLC, LutherQuest, Christian News, and the ALPB Ovaltines
As their Father Below would say, in an ironic twist - "That they may be one, all mine."
Some of us remember Seminex, 1974 - when the established LCMS professors at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and most of the students started their own synod. They vowed they would win - and they did.
Look at the virtues of Seminex then and see how they are today.
- Seminex used the same formula as the ELCA - rejecting the Chief Article of Christianity, Justification by Faith and embracing Objective Faithless Justification. Everyone is forgiven and saved.
- Seminex included a gay professor who had been arrested in a St. Louis park. Deppe and the Seminex profs joined the LSTC. Seminex became the official seminary of the Metropolitan Community Church, and former WELS professor Jungkuntz was chairman of the Seminex board. He was also a rabid promoter of Objective Faithless Justification.
- Jack Preus, LCMS, was good at driving Seminex advocates wild about the objective truths of the Bible. Jonah was a key point. Now all the groups vary between Romanism, Fuller boosterism, and outright denial of the Scriptures. Given their disgust with the Traditional, Apostolic New Testament text, the various groups love every "translation" except the KJV, every version of the Tischendorf-Westcott-Hort amalgamation but not the 5,000 traditional witnesses of the New Testament.
- Seminex had no trouble with their men wanting to be women and teaching the Scriptures, and their women wanting to be pastors and bishops. Many Seminex veterans became key leaders in the LCA/ALC, and they worked as one, a miniature version of the Jesuits. If three Seminexers were at a local LCA conference, they sat together!
- When Seminex itself was broke, the professors moved north to mooch off the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, always voting as a block. Thus Seminex and their AELC mini-synod became an essential part of the ELCA merger, having a greater voice in the discussions than their total membership allowed.
Friday, September 3, 2021
Never Read Luther, Quest Continues Its Endless Pursuit of Dogmatic Error
 |
| Check Romans 4, which uses Abraham's Justification by Faith as an example, showing his Justification by Faith was not his alone but all those who believed in Him who raised Jesus from the dead. Then the comatose, poorly trained Missouri mules use 4:25 to claim the entire world, yea even the Inuits, were absolved of all sin the moment Jesus rose from the dead. |
Steve Ames (Sames) Senior Member Username: Sames Post Number: 1819 Registered: 11-2004 |
Dick Rockenbach: “it seems to me the LCMS was in merger mode with both the WELS and ALC and when the ALC began to ordain Women WELS immediately withdrew merger efforts with the LCMS.” Mr. Rockenbach, it is hurtful and offensive to suggest that the WELS would ever have considered merger with the ALC or tolerated the LCMS merging with the ALC. The short-hand explanation that the WELS broke church fellowship with the LCMS over fellowship leaves out the more troubling aspect of the LCMS practice of fellowship. That is for the LCMS what constitutes agreement on doctrine for the establishment of church fellowship. A WELS paper given in 1954 identified the false doctrine of the ALC as: • Rejection of the teaching of Objective Justification • Man cooperates in his conversion • The doctrine of Election as solely God from eternity knowing who would come to faith -- in view of faith • Inerrancy of the Bible as an open question • Rejection of papacy as the Anti-Christ “The Inadequacy of the Common Confession as a Settlement of Past Differences” -- By Ernst H. Wendland -- August 8-10, 1954 http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle /123456789/670/WendlandDifferences.pdf?sequence=1& isAllowed=y |
 |
| This Inuit girl (Eskimo) is carrying her husky puppy. |
 |
| The Latin for "in view of faith" is Intuitu Fidei. Somehow a graduate of the greatest seminary on earth, with its own annual hazing ritual, managed to turn the phrase into Inuitu Fidei, which comes comes to The Faith of the Inuits (Eskimo). Scholars are divided, because the Glende fractured Latin phrase can be understood several ways at once, like his famous lawsuit. |
Missouri addressed this in a classic roundabout, befuddled way - "There is no Scripture warrant for it, and though the phrase is capable of correct interpretation, it can be seriously misunderstood."
Missouri promoted this because CFW Walther knew more Latin than Scripture and barely knew the Biblical languages.
Monday, February 24, 2020
Lutheran Layman Responds to LutherQuest
Latest response from
“Lutheran Layman”. Edit, post or not as you think best.
Hope you and Chris
have a good day today.
The A Team
Thanks for posting
the earlier question, “Is Justification by Faith wrong?”, and
the answers from LutherQuest. For whatever combination of
reasons, there seems to be a repeated accusation/false belief
that Book of Concord/Confessional Lutherans who are not
convinced of Objective Justification somehow consider their
faith a work. Alan Lubeck implies this when he writes:
These justification
by Christ crucified deniers deny one truth to pervert another
truth. Salvation/justification is by Christ alone, By faith
alone, by Scripture alone. Enough with trying to separate our
justification from the atonement of Christ already.
Can anyone point to
anything in the Book of Concord which states that faith is a
work? Can anyone point to anything any BOC confessing Lutheran
has ever said which implies that faith is a work? Nobody
believes this.
So going back to Alan
Lubeck’s statement, we all agree our justification can never be
separated from the atonement. However, do we all agree
that justification is not the same as the atonement?
If we do not agree, then we can go back to our Book of Concord
and find out which position is correct. They cannot both be
right.
The implication of
making the atonement equal with justification results in one of
two errors. (Lito Cruz) The Calvinist makes the Atonement equal
Justification, and so must limit the Atonement to explain why
only some are saved. This is the false teaching of Limited
Atonement. The Universalist says that when one is atoned
for, they are automatically justified, and so all are saved.
What is the value of
faith in either position?
Since we would all
agree that faith is a major aspect of the Gospel and all through
the Scriptures, there must be a big problem with the idea that
the atonement and justification are the same.
This seems like it
might be the heart of the difference. Maybe the Luther Quest
crew will choose to speak to this.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
LutherQuest (sic) Bares Its Fangs.
How WAM II Was Beaten Like a Rented Mule for Teaching Justification by Faith
 |
| Exactly where in the Bible is this Dreck taught? |
Daniel Iwinski (Polishlutheran) Junior Member Username: Polishlutheran Post Number: 44 Registered: 12-2005 |
I know lots can and has been written about this subject, especially here on LutherQuest. I know Greg Jackson denies universal objective justification. I am assuming he believes Jesus died for the whole world and the world's sins have been atoned for. Is his take simply the "in view of faith" doctrine? Does he believe faith is still a gift of God created and worked in an individual? Thanks in advance for any insight. |
GJ - "In view of faith" is not a Biblical doctrine. It is a slogan used in a cowardly way to attack Justification by Faith, the Chief Article, which term they largely ignore, except when using it to confuse people with OJ, SJ, UOJ, General Justification, and Justification of the World. Pieper, Mueller, and David Scaer combine the three terms to confuse the issue and snarl for their own little hobby horse, Objective Justification.
---
Someone on LQ directed the probie to Robert Preus' pratfall.
Dr. Robert Preus on JustificationBy Rev. Jack Cascione
Dr. Greg Jackson has repeatedly stated on Luther Quest that Dr. Robert Preus was not in agreement with Objective Justification. [GJ - False - I repeatedly stated Preus was for OJ before he was against OJ - in Justification and Rome.]
I served as the PR Flack for Fort Wayne from 1978-1981. “Missouri In Perspective” the ELIM paper, criticized the LC-MS position on Objective Justification. As editor for the Concordia Theological Seminary - Fort Wayne “News Letters” I asked Dr. Preus to respond in the Spring 1981 Issue. [GJ - Note Jack's preening. Preus obeyed him!] The following is his reply, plus other relative excerpts.
 |
| McCain also pitched for this absurd statement. |
CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
NEWSLETTER – Spring 1981\
6600 North Clinton
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825
THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE – "OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION"
The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19). [GJ - Note that the Atonement is not OJ.]
Objective justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not identical with the atonement, it is not another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world. Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous.
THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT
According to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind. Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ'’ sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished atonement. [GJ - Notice all the "ifs" without any Scriptureal support.] But Christ said, "It is finished." And God raised Him from the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (I Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (Romans 4:25). [GJ - Romans 4:24 and Romans 5:1-2 demolish all this drivel.]
All this is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church, [GJ - who left for the Church of Rome] "We are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?'’ This is not the justification which we receive by faith...That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead." (Edward Preuss, "The Justification of a Sinner Before God," pp. 14-15)
 |
| The entire world is righteous at the resurrection of Christ - advocated by Halle Pietists, Rambach, Knapp, Bishop Stephan, Walther, Edward Preuss and Robert Preus. 1 Timothy 3:16 does not teach this - Chemnitz. |
OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
The doctrine of objective justification does not imply that there is no hell, that God’s threats throughout Scripture to punish sins are empty, or that all unbelievers will not be condemned to eternal death on the day of Christ’s second coming. And very definitely the doctrine of objective, or general, justification does not threaten the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. [GJ - So why did they ban WAM II from teaching Romans? Hmmm?] Rather it is the very basis of that Reformation doctrine, a part of it. For it is the very pardon which God has declared over the whole world of sinners that the individual sinner embraces in faith and thus is justified personally. Christ’s atonement, His propitiation of God and God’s forgiveness are the true and only object of faith. Here is what George Stoekhardt, perhaps the greatest of all Lutheran biblical expositors in our country, [GJ - hardly!] says, "Genuine Lutheran theology counts the doctrine of general (objective) justification among the statements and treasures of its faith. Lutherans teach and confess that through Christ’s death the entire world of sinners was justified and that through Christ’s resurrection the justification of the sinful world was festively proclaimed. This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God." [GJ - Thus the Chief Article is always "denying OJ."]
THE REALITY OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION
Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ. Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work "before" we come to faith in Christ. Nor is objective justification "merely" a "Lutheran term" to denote that justification is available to all as a recent "Lutheran Witness" article puts it – although it is certainly true that forgiveness is available to all. Nor is objective justification a Missouri Synod construct, a "theologoumenon" (a theological peculiarity), devised cleverly to ward off synergism (that man cooperates in his conversion) and Calvinistic double predestination, as Dr. Robert Schultz puts it in "Missouri in Perspective" (February 23, 1981, p. 5) – although the doctrine does indeed serve to stave off these two aberrations. No, objective justification is a clear teaching of Scripture, it is an article of faith which no Lutheran has any right to deny or pervert any more than the article of the Trinity or of the vicarious atonement.
THE CENTRAILITY AND COMFORT OF THE DOCTRINE
Objective justification is not a peripheral article of faith which one may choose to ignore because of more important things. It is the very central article of the Gospel which we preach. Listen to Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first president and great leader of our synod, speak about this glorious doctrine in one of his magnificent Easter sermons: "When Christ suffered and died, He was judged by God, and He was condemned to death in our place. But when God in the resurrection awakened Him again, who was it then that was acquitted by God in Christ’s person? Christ did no need acquittal for Himself, for no one can accuse Him of single sin. Who therefore was it that was justified in Him? Who was declared pure and innocent in Him? We were, we humans. It was the whole world. When God spoke to Christ, ‘You shall live,’ that applied to us. His life is our life. His acquittal, our acquittal, His justification, our justification….Who can ever fully express the great comfort which lies in Christ’s resurrection? It is God’s own absolution spoken to all men, to all sinners, in a word, to all the world, and sealed in the most glorious way. There the eternal love of God is revealed in all its riches, in its overflowing fullness and in its highest brilliance. For there we hear that it was not enough for God simply to send His own Son into the world and let Him become a man for us, not enough even for Him to give and offer His only Son unto death for us. No, when His Son had accomplished all that He had to do and suffer in order to earn and acquire grace and life and blessedness for us, then God, in His burning love to speak to us sinners, could not wait until we would come to Him and request His grace in Christ, but no sooner had His Son fulfilled everything than He immediately hastened to confer to men the grace which had been acquired through the resurrection of His Son, to declare openly, really and solemnly to all men that they were acquitted of all their sins, and to declare before heaven and earth that they are redeemed, reconciled, pure, innocent and righteous in Christ."
THE ISSUE AT OUR SEMINARY
Many of our readers know that our seminary, and one professor in particular, has been recently criticized for undermining this comforting and clear teaching of objective justification. The criticism and garbled accounts of the situation have become so widespread lately that I must now comment on the matter in this issue of the "Newsletter.
For over 15 years now Professor Walter A. Maier, Jr., has been teaching a course in the book of Romans, and, although he states he has always presented the doctrine of objective justification as taught in our synod (e.g. in the "Brief Statement"), he has taught in class that some of the key passages used in our church to support the doctrine actually do not speak to the subject at all. As a result some within the seminary community and some outside concluded that Dr. Maier did not in fact believe, teach, and confess the article of objective justification. A few – very few – complaints were brought against Dr. Maier and against the seminary for letting this go on.
The president of our synod, who has the responsibility for supervising doctrine in the synod, contacted me and asked me to try to settle the issue and to persuade Dr. Maier to teach an interpretation of the pertinent passages (Romans 4:25; Romans 5:16-19; II Corinthians 5:19) compatible with that which the great teachers of our church in the past (C. F. W. Walther, Francis Pieper, Theodore Engelder, George Stoeckhardt, Martin Franzmann, William Beck and others) publicly taught. Meetings and discussions immediately took place between Dr. Maier and myself. Later on the matter was considered in faculty meetings, in department meetings, and in special committees appointed to discuss and hopefully to settle the issue. During these meetings, which were always most cordial, Dr. Maier has remained unpersuaded that his interpretation of the pertinent passages is faulty. At the same time he has consistently assured all that he has always taught the doctrine of objective justification as understood in the Missouri Synod. He has, however, referred to other biblical evidence for the doctrine.
In the meantime the president of the synod, growing anxious for a clear solution to the problem wrote to the entire church body a letter cautioning congregations not to nominate Dr. Maier for president of the synod until the issue was cleared up to his satisfaction.
Now the issue became political, and protests and criticisms against the president of the synod for his action and also against Dr. Maier'’ teaching began to multiply all over the synod. People naturally began to take sides, not always so much on the doctrinal issue which was not always understood and is still being discussed at our seminary, but for ecclesiastical and personal reasons. We now know that the warning of our synodical president against Dr. Maier not only failed to dissuade congregations from nominating Dr. Maier for the presidency of our synod (as Fourth Vice-President Dr. Robert Sauer had forewarned when attempting to persuade the synodical president not to send his letter), but possibly gained more nominations for Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier is now one of the five men nominated for the presidency of our synod. [GJ - Now we begin to smell the potroast. This was a blatant sandbagging effort to destroy Walter A. Maier II for teaching what his father taught all over American - Justification by Faith.]
On January 30, 1981, the Board of Control met with Dr. Maier and three representatives of the synodical praesidium (which had severely criticized Dr. Maier’s doctrinal stance). We heard from two members of the praesidium and then from Dr. Maier and two faculty members who he had requested to accompany him. The results of this meeting, many of us believed, represented a real breakthrough in understanding, and the Board exonerated Dr. Maier of any false doctrine. It was my belief that the representatives of the praesidium present were also satisfied and happy with the report. In the discussions of this meeting Dr. Maier expressed many genuine concerns related to the doctrine of objective justification, e.g., that no one is saved eternally who is not justified by faith, that God is even now angry with those who reject Christ and do not repent, and that objective justification ought to be preached and taught in such a way that the biblical doctrine of justification by faith is always prominent. The report, in the form of a news release, is found on page 4 of the "Newsletter", and I urge the reader to read it because "The Reporter," "The Lutheran Witness," and most of the newspapers over the country which reported on the matter did not reproduce the report in its entirety. At the same meeting the Board of Control strongly expressed its disapproval of some of the actions of our synodical president in the matter.
Meanwhile the administration of the seminary, with the concurrence of the Board of Control, determined that it would be best for the seminary and for Dr. Maier if he not teach the course in Romans during the next academic year. At first I tried to keep this matter private, but later I decided to make a public report of the fact. My reason for this was threefold. First, Dr. Maier was reported in the news media all over the country as stating that he had not changed his position on the doctrine of objective justification, suggesting o many that three years of discussions with him had been quite fruitless and that he still did not wholeheartedly believe in objective justification. Second, several people sympathetic to Dr. Maier had threatened to withhold funds from the seminary and had even reported our action to the accrediting association of our seminary, "The Association of Theological Schools;" it was obvious to me that they would make the matter of Dr. Maier’s courses public whenever it served their purposes. Third, the president of the synod was preparing a release revealing the fact that Dr. Maier would not be teaching Romans during the next academic year. I thought it would be preferable that the president of the seminary make this fact known rather than those who have no business making such and announcement and who might make the announcement in a way detrimental either Dr. Maier or the seminary.
This is where the matter now stands. The Board of Control has stated its confidence in the doctrine of Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier is presently teaching Romans, will teach the course this summer, but is slated to teach courses other than Romans next year. The faculty will continue to discuss and try to achieve total agreement in the interpretation of those passages of Scripture which teach objective justification.
Judge for Yourselves - Robert Preus turned away from Pietism's Objective Justification in his last book.
Friday, December 14, 2018
LutherQuest Question - Answered!
 |
| Cover designed by Norma A. Boeckler |
Dick Rockenbach (Drock) Senior Member Username: Drock Post Number: 2378 Registered: 11-2004 |
is there a good resource that has a timeline for the changing early Catholic Church to the RC doctrine of Mary? |
| Steven Thomas Karp (Steven_karp) Junior Member Username: Steven_karp Post Number: 31 Registered: 5-2015 |
Without going into a lot of reference works, try the chapter 6 "Doctrines Concerning the Virgin Mary" in Gregory Jackson's Catholic Lutheran Protestant, pages 193-229, and on pages 225 is a handy comparison chart, showing "Doctrine," "Church Action," and :Accepted By." |
 |
| Free, public domain - at this link. Someone could easily look up all the references to Mary by downloading the PDF and using control-f "Mary" and "virgin" for a secondary search. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)