Rydecki Left One Author out of His Recent Article on Academia

 This is an exercise in verbal gymnastics.

I signed up for Academia.edu, so they email me more often than the others combined. I need the "pro" edition, which costs money, they advise me.

Recently they gave me the link to Rydecki's article on Romans 4:25. That website seems to be the only way ELDONA publishes. Heiser's Ft. Wayne pal, Paul McCain, banned them from the CPH fools-goldmine. "You gotta have distribution." Frank Fiorenza, Harvard University.

I looked over the references first, a habit acquired early. Guess whose name is missing on the list? Of course mine is - I will get to that later. Martin Luther! He wrote a commentary on Romans.

Perhaps there were no useful quotations for Rydecki, but the  practice of Lutherans bypassing Luther is strange to me.

His Serenity, Archbishop of ELDONA.

WORKS CITED 

• Becker, Dr. Siegbert W. Objective Justification: An essay delivered at the Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982. WELS UOJ.
• Bivens, Forrest. http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/october-2011/question-andanswer WELS UOJ, Fuller Seminary alumnus and proud of it.
• Calov, Abraham. Biblia Novi Testamenti Illustrata, Dresden and Leipzig: Zimmermann, 1719. 
• Gerhard, Johann. Annotations on the First Six Chapters of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Malone: Repristination Press, 2014. 
• Gerhard, Johann.  Summae Evangelii, hoc est, Aphorismi Apostolici Rom. 4 v.25 Consideratio. Wittenberg: M. Baltasar, 1635. 
• Hardt, Tom G. A. “Justification and Easter: A Study in Subjective and Objective Justification in Lutheran Theology.” A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus. Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 1985. ELS funded UOJ in a book lauding UOJ.
• Hunnius, Aegidius. A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians. Malone: Repristination Press, 2013. 
• Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–. 
• Leyrer, Daniel. http://www.wlsessays.net/files/LeyrerDia+TheAccusativeRomans4.pdf WELS UOJ.
• Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953. 

Looking up four WELS-ELS statements on the topic seems to be a waste of time, if Luther is neglected. The essay is a compilation of statements about this issue, so many references that anyone interested in the topic will give up. A clear, concise argument is lacking.

Why omit everything I have written? I am not offended, but pleased. This is the highest possible honor, one bestowed so often that people shock me when they name my publications in their hissy-fits.

People should know - I helped Rydecki when he was leaving WELS and UOJ at the same time. He favored UOJ at first, working on the Intrepid Lutherans, because WELS training is saturated with it. The frequent publishers on that blog came to the same conclusion, that WELS is completely wrong. That is the result of dealing with Biblical doctrine and its basic truths.

The move from teaching Justification by Faith officially to forcing UOJ institutionally was slow in WELS, as it was in the LCMS. Now the transition is complete, easing their shame at working with ELCA ("born forgiven!" Bob and Rolf Preus). The ELCA-WELS-ELS-LCMS synods share the same pestiferous dogma, which happens when sharing the same bed. "Lie down with dawgs, git up with fleas." (My Grampa)

Luther was quite distrustful of philosophy, which was the boat that floated the Medieval Papacy. He could argue philosophy with the best of them, as he did with Trinity in one sermon and on merit in his Galatians commentary. Luther's reliance on Scripture makes his works so useful today - and the reason why the Lutheran synods shun him so marvelously, even for the 500th anniversary, that I get the goosebumps. He is that good - and they are that corrupt.

I cannot get the false teachers to deal directly with Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4. They have an allergy to the Genesis passage and a blindness to the Abraham references in the New Testament. Surely they can get on their MyNIV database and find how often Abraham is a major figure in the New Testament. Where did poor Lazarus go when the angels carried him? - To Father Abraham! To be more precise, since hungry capons are always ready to pounce on a morsel - the rich man implored "Father Abraham." Jesus Himself referred to Lazarus' journey to Abraham, the man who believed the Messianic Promises and was justified by faith.

But I understand, having known so many theological types, including the most famous, such as Francis Fiorenza and Elisabeth Schuessler-Fiorenza, once at ND - both at Harvard, Stanley Hauerwas - Gifford Lectureship at St. Andrews, etc. They pile up so many authorities and compare so many scholars to each other! It is quite a show, but they remove themselves from the Word itself, as far away as possible.

The opportunity is far gone for delivering a glancing blow against the false exegesis of Romans 4:25. People need to know how to read the Bible as a unified truth instead of a meal ticket for theologians.

 Kilcrease likes to name a lot of philosophers at once, but he cannot compose a sentence without help from his wife. Philosophers, like lawyers, learn to twist words. He studied with the best ELCA and Rome have to offer.

Dr. Lito Cruz on UOJ and Romans 4:25

P. Leyser was an editor of the Book of Concord
and the biographer of Martin Chemnitz.
He knew something about justification by faith.

LPC has left a new comment on your post "David Clearwood Boisclair - Trying To Rescue Roman...":

Rev. Boisclair says
As to the "us" of Romans 4:25 it could also refer to the "us" of all humanity as well as to the "us" of the regenerated (renati).

Are we reading the same verse? There is no "us" in 4:25. There is "our", the our there - the "our" which harkens back to "us" in 4:24. Perhaps that is what you mean.

However, the "us" refers to the Romans including St. Paul who is addressing the Roman Christians. So the "us" there does not refer to generic humanity it refers to those who (present tense) believe in Jesus. The KJV "if" is euphemistic.

It refers to those who believe in God who raised Jesus from the dead, and note the "our" that can not refer to the whole world which includes unbelievers, St. Paul says "who raised Jesus OUR Lord from the dead".

That is the OUR that mitigates against your theory
of 1932 Article 17 of the LC-MS Brief statement which states

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25;

Because in this verse(v.24) it clearly speaks of a future justification not a past one that has already occurred without reference to faith as your LC-MS doctrine of 1932 teaches.

In view of this, Romans 4:25 means that Jesus was raised with the view of the justification of those who would believe, not that the whole world has already been justified as a past event which your UOJ doctrine is teaching.

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, there is nothing for the sinner to believe and having nothing to believe, he has no justification to have. This is the central testimony of Christianity as St. Paul says in 1 Cor 15:17.

You can talk about what is not common to Huber and your UOJ but let us not discount, that this is something you have in common with him - the belief that all have already been justified at Jesus's resurrection. Do not comfort yourself on the things you differ from Huber, instead be bothered in the things you have in common with him!!!

Let us deal with the passage you believe teaches a justification that first happened without reference to faith, we can talk about the BoC etc next time. Let us first agree that Scripture is prima facie evidence first in any doctrinal discussion.

LPC

Extra Nos: Romans 4:25 UOJ Fallacies

Extra Nos: Romans 4:25 UOJ Fallacies:

Yet Scripture teaches only one justification; namely, the one by faith in Christ, Romans 3:28. (Walter A. Maier II, A Summary Exposition of The Doctrine of Justification By Grace

Through Faith)

UOJ stands for Universal Objective Justification which teaches that there are two justifications. The first one is called objective justification, the one (so they say) was when Jesus was raised from the dead, God (according to LC-MS/WELS/ELS, American Synods) in Christ has declared the whole world already righteous. This has already passed and for all people. The other one is called subjective, this will come about when you believe what the first one says about you.

Make no mistake, they do not mean the object of your faith should be the Atonement, not that; they want you to believe the one past that, when (according to UOJers) God has declared you righteous/forgiven already. It has already passed and you believe that (so they say) past declaration that happened before you were born.

I asked one UOJ pastor the following and you will find the conversation here.

Me: Atonement you said in the previous comments that it is the object of faith.(sic)(?)

Response: I did not say that. I have always spoken of God's forgiveness, through and on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ, as the object of faith.

In my early years, I thought it was the Atonement that they meant and I thought it was a labeling mistake, I bought into UOJ before, until I looked deeper.

This is the reason why they won't buy the suggestion to rename OJ to OA, Objective Atonement, or OP, Objective Propitiation. Why not? It is because that is not what they believe! Atonement is not their object of faith, this is contrary to Romans 3:25, where Jesus as Propitiation is the object of faith in that verse. In fact one can say the object of faith in UOJ is not the person or work of Jesus but the justification that has already happened to you in the past when Jesus was raised from the dead.

Where did this idea of come from. Many verses have been alluded too but the famous one is their interpretation of Romans 4:25. According to LC-MS teaching (and the others like WELS/ELS etc.) the "our" mentioned in Romans 4:25 refers to "us human beings in general". You can find this in LC-MS Brief Statement 1932, Article 17b. This verse is extracted from Romans 4:24 and completely isolates it from its context as well as disrespects the nature of St. Paul' rhetorical expression of this verse. Indeed, this is where the LC-MS/WELS/ELS are isolated and cut off from the rest of the Protestant world because if you look at the way independent exegetes and even some Lutheran NT scholars interpret this (non LC-MS/WELS/ELS), there is no way you can responsibly take "our" as the whole unbelieving world. Indeed their interpretation of this verse is truly novel and unique, it stands alone in the Protestant world!

You do not need to be knowledgeable of the Greek to ascertain this. You just need to respect the overall context, "our" refers to believers and the verse is a rhetorical verse.

The first fallacy they claim is this - they say you have to believe in Limited Atonement if you do not accept their interpretation.

This is a non-sequitur bull. The other is that it is the fallacy of tertium non datur; it thinks there is no third possibility. This is a fallacy because there are other Scriptures that teach of Jesus' Atonement as for all people, for example, 1 John 2:1-2, John 3:16 etc., yet justification is not universal but only happens to those who receive by faith in that Propitiation (see again Romans 3:25).

Their (UOJer's) interpretation of Romans 4:25 is "quasi-universalistic" or "crypto-universalistic".

They do not want me to quote to them R. C. H. Lenski because they already branded and gave him a black propaganda, even though Evangelical scholars respect him! Remember what St. Paul said about Elders? He said that they should be respected by outsiders or have a good reputation from outsiders. Apparently this is not valued by UOJers despite the fact that Lenski fits what St. Paul required, to be respected by those outside one's sphere of influence. So I will quote another Lutheran, Peter Stuhlmacher, (Paul's Letter to the Romans, a Commentary, p. 75), on this verse:

Christ's act of sacrifice on the cross ordained by God and endorsed as valid by the resurrection, is and remains the legal ground for the justification of all those who, as the "ungodly", believe in the God who revealed himself in Christ. God's salvific righteousness comes to pass in the resurrected Christ from "now"(Romans 3:21) until the final judgement (Romans 8:33f).

The other fallacy that UOJers commit is to claim that - well if you believe that interpretation then you will have faith in your faith.

This is another fallacy which is called "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

I can not begin to unravel this fallacy, there is so much I could day.

Notice that the objections by UOJers stem not from what the Scripture says, they are not exegetical objections, they are rationalistic objections. The line goes "if you believe that, then you should believe this" etc. This fallacy is easy to spot if you step back for a moment and analyse the objection, the objection does not stem from the text of Scripture, it stems from not believing this or that. The objection is strewn into a straw man argument already and so if you get sucked in such reasoning, the conclusion is already drawn for you. You just have to slot in their paradigm that is why people will not release easily their crutch on UOJ. It is addicting.

We are to believe what Scripture says not believe what we want to believe. In the case of UOJ on this verse, the belief is already determined and so the verse is just coerced to fit that belief. Is this honest or right handling of Scripture?

The unfortunate and nasty thing about UOJers is that they are quick to label as "heretics" those who oppose or are skeptic of their views. Now how many times have I been called that? Take a good look at the exegesis of well known exegetes of the past on this verse. Go to Sanday and Headlam's, or C. K. Barrett's exegetical work. They all agree with Lenski and Stuhlmacher. I will even later go to a theological library and get C. E. B. Cranfield's work and check his take on this. The Book of Proverbs says that in the multitude of counselors there is safety.

The name calling tactic has been employed before by the arch UOJ promoter C. F. W. Walther. UOJers are like their father in the faith. He was cultic and branded those who opposed his cultic ideas as "heretics" so, it is not surprising to see his UOJ followers to be cultic too.

Remember, ex falso quod libet, from what is false, you can deduce anything. UOJ is filled with fallacy and from a falsehood, you can prove anything. That is not a strength, it is a weakness that should be rejected.

'via Blog this'

***

GJ - And the WELS experts say, "You don't know Greek, so you cannot argue with me about this." First of all, that is completely false and utterly arrogant - with no basis in fact. The typical WELS graduate knows a little Greek but not much.

After I tutored LI in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, he tutored students at Northwestern College (WELS, RIP) because their own professors could not get the students to grasp Greek. LI was cleaning up by tutoring four students at a time, which was allowed.

Secondly, as Dr. Cruz has stated, all doctrine can be shown to be true in plain English. Truly, it is horrifying that poorly trained ministers are teaching in the Roman Catholic style. They are the priesthood. No one can disagree with them. Holy Mama Synod agrees with them, so they are infallible. Just ask them. Wait. They will insist on it without being asked.

Meanwhile, they are inserting their doctrinal stupidity and errors between the sincere lay-member and the Word of God.

Why do they learn Spanish for missions? Portuguese? (Not Richard Starr, but the real missionaries) African languages? The WELS guys should teach everyone Greek (if they could) and preach in Greek, because Greek is required to catch to volatile essence of UOJ.

Here is the basis for WELS missionary work - telling people, from the start, "You are already forgiven, already saved.."

If you can say that without bursting into laughter, you can get free trips around the world.