***
***
*** RSSing Note: Article removed by member request. ***
***

Four lawsuits against their own church member failed. One was thrown out - Glende's lawyer waved the white flag on the other three. Why silence the victim's husband when they asked everyone at St. Peter in Freedom for their opinion about Ski's CRM status?

The presidium is NOT for Ski the way Engelbrecht and Schroeder are, so copy everyone.

Fox Valley (no pun intended) chose Ski to be their sexpert for the high school kiddies. He does his homework - here he is posing with a Playboy "model."

This graphic was donated by... I forget.

Is that Larry Olson, or David Valleskey, or Frosty Bivens, or Jim Huebner, or Joel Gerlach, or Norm Berg or most the LCMS leadership?

"Everyone has had impure Church Growth thoughts." I confessed that to DP Robert Mueller, who was startled and offended by my joke.

In 1987, I left the LCA - fairly clear about justification by faith, the Church Growth Movement, and modern theology. I had the luxury of years spent studying the Reformation, Schleiermacher, Barth, Tillich, Rahner, the origins of the Synodical Conference (the g-rated myth), and the Social Gospel Movement.

The LCMS, WELS, ELS, and the micro-mini sects insisted that they were the true Lutherans, unlike that nasty bunch forming the New Lutheran Church, aka ELCA.

My first experience was enduring a required week of Church Growth brain-washing at Mequon, followed by a return to Mequon for even more brain-washing in Church Growth. And where was I going for a parish? Columbus, where they had just started the first-ever Church Growth Agency in WELS - LPR! Appropriately, they put an ex-pastor, caught in adultery, in charge of that fiasco - and lied about it to everyone. That packet of Columbus lies just happens to parallel the founding of the Synodical Conference - no surprise since it was fueled with the same false dogma, known as UOJ.

Almost 30 years later, many ELS-LCMS-WELS pastors have made their careers wrinkling their noses about Church Growth while doing nothing about it, except to assassinate critics of the same. Some names immediately come to mind:

1. John Seifert
2. Jay Webber
3. Paul McCain.

Do they really want to be allied with Mad Jack? Cascione used to link McCain all the time on LutherQuest (sic).

DP Ed Werner went to the Big House for molesting girls in his parish, but that never happened.

Memes are popular among younger Internet readers. Bad Luck Brian is a favorite one about an awkward young adult whose every positive achievement is completely destroyed by bad luck. Some of them are based upon recent unfortunate incidents among various people who contribute them.

The star of this meme enjoys his fame.

This is definitely true of ELCA and the ELS. The message is mixed in the LCMS. The controlling regime is UOJ/papal, a perfectly lethal combination. Robert Preus wrote Justification and Rome to combat the growing Romanism at Concordia, Ft. Wayne.

I am amused and bedazzled by the LCMS pastors who jump up to defend Pope Frank, Society of Jesus, every time he speaks. Before this I did not realize that Lutheran pastors were called to defend the Antichrist, speak well of Him, and put the best construction on everything He does.
[GJ - divine pronoun used on purpose, because many teach that the pope is Christ-on-Earth].

Back to Justification by Faith Alone - there is a large group of LCMS pastors who have never heard of UOJ or who always teach justification by faith. Many realize what a sham the early history of Missouri is, a patently obvious mythification of a sex cult saturated with VD and false doctrine.

Walther deposed the Dresden bishop and became the Missouri pope.

St. Luke, by El Greco

Luther's Sermon for the SEVENTEENTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY. Luke 14:1-11


This sermon is found in all editions of the Church Postil. Erl. 14, 150; W. 11, 2233; St. L. 11, 1674.

Text: Luke 14:1-11. And it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him. And behold, there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy. And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not? But they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him and let him go. And he said unto them, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day? And they could not answer again unto these things.

And he spake a parable unto those that were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief seats; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage feast, sit not down in the chief seat; lest haply a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him, and he that bade thee and him shall come and say to thee, Give this man place; and then thou shalt begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place; that when he that hath bidden thee cometh, he may say to thee, Friend, go up higher; then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat with thee. For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

CONTENTS:

CHRIST HEALS THE DROPSICAL MAN, OR FAITH AND LOVE, THE LAW AND THE RIGHT USE OF THE LAW, AND HUMILITY.
* Contents of this Gospel. 1.

I. OF FAITH AND LOVE.

1. Of faith. a. How the example of the dropsical man teaches us faith. 2f. b. Faith must be wrought in us by the preaching of the Gospel. 3-4.

2. Of love. 5.

II. OF THE LAW AND THE RIGHT USE OF THE LAW.

1. How and why one should proceed with the use of the law wisely and prudently. 6-7.

2. All laws bind no farther than love goes. 8f.

3. How and why all laws should be interpreted according to love and our need. 9-11.

4. Love and need abolish all laws. 12-15.

5. How the prophets of the Old Testament explained the law according to the spirit of love and had to suffer much on account of it.

6. Where the laws do not serve love, we should quickly abandon them. 17f.

* Where a vow conflicts with love, it should be abolished. 17-19.

7. A Christian has power to dispense with all laws. 20.

III. INSTRUCTION IN HUMILITY.

1. What moved Christ to give this instruction.

2. The way and means, by which Christ gave this instruction. 22f.

3. How to defend this instruction against the false interpretation of the Papists. 23-26.

4. An opinion of the interpretation Augustine gives on this instruction.

* Love and need conquer all laws. 28.

SUMMARY OF THIS GOSPEL:

1. Here you see faith and love together. The heart of the man with the dropsy was right toward Christ; that is faith. Christ had mercy upon him and healed him, that is love.
2. Good works are to serve one’s neighbor.

3. Love dispenses with and suspends the public command of God; but the Pharisees did not believe this.

4. The outward Sabbath denotes the inner Sabbath, when we are quiet before God, and let his will be pleasing to us, and he does with us as he pleases. Of this Isaiah and the Epistle to the Hebrews speak.

5. We are all invited to divine grace; but the Pharisees sit high in their pride; because of their pharisaical hypocritical holiness.

1. This Gospel offers us two leading thoughts; one is general and is found in all our Gospel lessons, the other is peculiar to this one. First, in its general character, it shows who the Lord Jesus is and what we may expect of him, and in this is exhibited both faith and love.

2. Faith is here set forth in that this man, sick with the dropsy, looks to Christ and firmly believes he will help him. This faith he had as the result of his previous acquaintance with Jesus. He knows him as a kind, friendly and sympathetic man who always helps everyone and lets none go away uncomforted. Had he not heard such reports about the Lord he would not have followed him, even into the house. He must indeed have had some gospel knowledge and believed the wonderful things spoken about him.

3. And this is the Gospel, as I said, that must be preached and heard before there can be faith. We must know that God is kindly disposed toward us and has sent his Son from heaven to help us. This the conscience must hear and believe; for if God were unfriendly and unmerciful toward us, it would avail little to know that all his creatures sympathize with us. If God is satisfied with us, no creature can do us any harm, as St. Paul says in Romans 8:31: “If God is for us, who is against us?” Let death, devil, hell and all creation rage; we are safe. Therefore it is the Gospel that must present to us the God-man as merciful. This is the fountain from which our heart can draw faith and a friendly confidence toward God that he will help both the dying and the living in every distress.

4. We notice this here in the man afflicted with dropsy. He had heard of the kindness of Jesus to others and now believes that he will show the same to him. Had he not believed, it would have been impossible to help him. The Gospel resounds in all the world, but it is not heard by everybody. The Pharisees also sat there; they saw these things with their own eyes and failed not to notice what a friendly man Jesus was, but they believed not; hence the Gospel could neither reform them nor give them help and comfort. Thus the Gospel is very universal, but the true laying hold of it is very rare. So much in regard to faith.

5. Later we have here pictured to us also the love in Christ that goes forth and bears fruit, not for itself but for others, as is the nature of true love to do. This is now said on the first part of to-day’s Gospel.

6. However, this Pericope especially teaches us in the second place a necessary doctrine we must possess, if we are to make use of the laws that order the outward and temporal matters and affairs, which the church is to observe. Here we must act wisely and gently, if we wish to do the right thing, especially when weak and timid consciences are concerned. For there is nothing more tender in heaven and on earth, and nothing can bear less trifling, than the conscience. The eye is spoken of as a sensitive member, but conscience is much more sensitive. Hence we notice how gently the Apostles dealt with conscience in divers matters, lest it be burdened with human ordinances.

7. But as we cannot live without law and order, and as it is dangerous to deal with law since it is too apt to ensnare the conscience, we must say a little about human laws and ordinances and how far they are to be observed. The proverb says: “Everything depends upon having a good interpreter.” That is particularly true here where human ordinances are concerned. Where there is no one to interpret and explain the law rightly it is difficult and dangerous to have anything to do with it. Take, for example, a ruler who acts like a tyrant and abuses his authority. If he makes a law and urgently insists on the law being executed, he treats conscience as if he had a sword in his hand and were intent on killing. We have experienced this in the tyrannical laws of popery, how consciences were tormented and hurled into hell and damnation. Yea, there is great danger where one does not know how to temper and apply the laws.

8. Therefore we conclude that all law, divine and human, treating of outward conduct, should not bind any further than love goes. Love is to be the interpreter of law. Where there is no love, these things are meaningless, and law begins to do harm; as is also written in the Pope’s book: “If a law or ordinance runs counter to love, it will soon come to an end.” This is in brief spoken of divine and human laws. The reason for enacting all laws and ordinances is only to establish love, as Paul says, Romans 13:10: “Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.” Likewise verse 8: “Owe no man anything, save to love one another.” For if I love my neighbor, I help him, protect him, hold him in honor, and do what I would have done to me.

9. Since then all law exists to promote love, law must soon cease where it is in conflict with love. Therefore, everything depends upon a good leader or ruler to direct and interpret the law in accordance with love.

Take the example of the priests and monks. They have drawn up laws that they will say mass and do their praying and juggle with God in other ways at given hours according to the clock. If now a poor man should call and ask for a service at an hour when they were to hold mass or repeat their prayers, they might say: “Go your way; I must now read mass, must attend to my prayers,” and thus they would fail to serve the poor man, even if he should die. In this manner the most sanctimonious monks and Carthusians act; they observe their rules and statutes so rigorously that, although they saw a poor man breathing his last breath and could help him so easily, yet they will not do it. But the good people, if they were Christians, ought to explain the laws and statutes in harmony with love, and say: Let the mass go, let the sacraments, prayers, and the ordinances all go; I will dispense with works, I will serve my neighbor; love put in practice in serving my neighbor is golden in comparison with such human works.

10. And thus we should apply every law, even as love suggests, that it be executed where it is helpful to a fellow-man, and dispensed with where it does harm. Take a common illustration: If there were a housekeeper who made the rule in his home to serve now fish, then meat, now wine, then beer, even as it suits him; but perchance some one of his household took sick and could not drink beer or wine, nor eat meat or fish, and the housekeeper would not give him anything else, but say: No, my rules and regulations prescribe thus; I cannot give you anything else: what kind of a housekeeper would such an one be? One ought to give him sneeze-wort to purge his brain. For if he were a sensible man he would say: It is indeed true that my rules and regulations prescribe meat or fish for the table today, yet since this diet does not agree with you, you may eat what you like.

See how a housekeeper may adjust his own rules and make them conform to the love he entertains for his household. Thus all law must be applied as love toward a fellow-man may dictate.

11. Therefore, since the Mosaic law was not understood nor modified by love in the Old Testament, God promised the people through Moses that he would raise up a prophet who should interpret the law to them. For thus Moses says in Deuteronomy 18:15: “Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall harken.” God raised up prophets from time to time to explain the law and apply it, not in its rigor, but in love. Of this Moses himself is an example. He led the children of Israel out of Egypt for forty years hither and thither through the desert. Abraham had been commanded in Genesis 17:12, to circumcise every male on the eighth day. This commandment was plain enough that all had to observe it, yet Moses neglected it and circumcised no one the whole forty years.

12. Now, who authorized Moses to violate this commandment, given to Abraham by God himself? His authority was vested in his knowledge of the law’s spirit; he knew how to interpret and apply it in brotherly love, namely, that the law was to be serviceable to the people, and not the reverse. For, if during their journey they had to be ready day by day for warfare, circumcision would have hindered them, and he therefore omitted it, saying in effect: Although this law is given and should be observed, yet we will apply it in the spirit of love, and suspend its operation until we come to the end of our journey. Likewise should all laws be interpreted and applied as love and necessity may demand. Hence the importance of a good interpreter.

13. It was the same in the case of David when he partook of the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for anyone to eat, except the priest, Samuel 21:6; as Christ himself makes use of this example in Matthew 12:3. David was not consecrated, nor were his servants. When he was hungry he went to Ahimelech and asked for himself and men something to eat. Ahimelech answered: I have indeed nothing to give; the shew-bread of the tabernacle is for holy use. Then David and his men helped themselves and ate freely of it. Did David sin in the face of God’s ordinance? No. Why not? Because necessity compelled him, seeing there was nothing else to eat. It is in this way that necessity and love may override law.

14. That is what Christ also does in our Gospel, when he heals the suffering man on the Sabbath, although he well knew how strictly the Old Testament required the observance of the Sabbath. But see what the Pharisees do! They stand by watching the Lord. They would not have helped the sick man with a spoonful of wine, even if they could have done so. But Christ handles the law even at the risk of violating it, freely helps the poor man sick with the dropsy and gives the public a reason for his action, when he says, in effect: It is indeed commanded to keep the Sabbath day, yet where love requires it, there the law may be set aside.

This he follows up with an illustration from everyday life, then dismisses them in a way they must commend, and they answer him not a word. He says: “Which of you shall have an ox or an ass fallen into a well and will not straightway draw him up on the Sabbath day?”

15. As if to say: Ye fools, are ye not mad and stupid! If you act thus in the case of saving an ox or an ass which may perhaps be valued at a few dollars, how much rather should one do the same to a neighbor, helping him to his health, whether it be the Sabbath or not! For the Sabbath, as he says elsewhere, was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So that the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath, Mark 2:27.

16. Among the Jews there was a rigorous enforcement of the law, even their kings insisted on its strict observance. When the prophets came and explained the law in the spirit of love, saying: This is what Moses means, thus the law is to be understood, then there were false prophets at hand to side with the kings, insisting on the literal text and saying: There, so it is written; it is God’s Word; one must not interpret it otherwise. Thereupon the kings proceeded to kill one prophet after another. In the same way the Papists, priests and monks act now. If anyone says: We need not observe their laws literally, but we should rather interpret them in love; then they immediately cry, Heretic! Heretic!! and if they could they would kill him; yea, they do so already quite lustily.

17. As Christ here treats of the law relating to the Sabbath and makes it subserve the needs of man, so we should treat laws of that kind and keep them only so far as they accord with love. If laws do not serve love, they may be annulled at once, be they God’s or man’s commands. Take an illustration from our former darkness and sorrow under the Papacy.

Suppose someone had vowed to visit St. Jacob, and he remembers the words: “Pay that which thou vowest,” Ecclesiastes 5:4. He may have a wife, children or household to care for. What should such an one do?

Should he proceed to St. Jacob, or remain at home and support his family?

There, decide for yourselves which would be most needful and what harmonizes best with the spirit of love. I regard it best for him to remain home at work and attend to the care of his family. For his pilgrimage to St.

Jacob, even if that were not idolatrous and wrong in itself, would be of little profit to him, yea, he would spend and lose more than he could gain.

18. Another example. A mother is about to bear a child, who vowed to eat no flesh on Wednesdays, as many foolish women do. And perhaps because of this vow the mother may injure her offspring and her own body. Then the foolish confessional fathers come and say: Dear daughter, it is written in the Scriptures, what one vows, that must be kept; it is God’s command and thou must at any peril keep thy vow. Thus the good woman is soon taken captive and chained by her conscience, goes and fulfills her vow, and does harm both to herself and her offspring. Hence both have sinned, those who taught her thus, and the woman in that she did not esteem her love more than her vow, by which she neither served nor pleased God; yea, more than this, she thus provoked God to anger by keeping her vow.

Therefore we should say to such a foolish mother: Behold, thou art about to bear a child, and thou must serve it and desist from this foolish thing, so that great harm may not spring from it; for all laws find their end in love.

19. We should act in like manner toward the false priests, monks and nuns.

When they say: Yea, we have vowed so and so, and it is written: “Vow, and pay unto Jehovah your God,” Psalm 76:11, then say to them: Look, there is also a command: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” But in your vocation it is impossible to serve your neighbor, nor can you continue in it without sin. Therefore, forsake it openly and enter a state in which you are not so apt to sin, but where you may serve your fellow-man, help and counsel him; and do not bother about a vow which you did not give to God your Lord, but to the devil; not for the salvation of souls and blessedness, but for damnation and ruin of both soul and body.

20. If you are a Christian you have power to dispense with all commandments so far as they hinder you in the practice of love, even as Christ here teaches. He goes right on, although it is the Sabbath day, helps this sick man and gives a satisfactory and clear reason for his Sabbath work.

21. There is yet another thought in this Gospel about taking a prominent seat at feasts, which we must consider. When the Lord noticed how the guests, the Pharisees, chose to sit in the first seats, he gave them the following parable to ponder: “When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage least, sit not down in the chief seat; lest haply a more honorable man than thou be bidden of him, and he that bade thee and him shall come and say to thee, Give this man place; and then thou shalt begin with shame to take the lower place. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place; that when he that hath bidden thee cometh, he may say to thee, Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat with thee.”

22. This parable is aimed at the laws and precepts of the Pharisees and scribes which provide that honor should be paid to the great and powerful, giving them the preference and allowing them to sit at the head. Christ here reverses the order and says: “He that would be the greatest, let him take the lowest seat.” Not that a peasant should be placed above a prince; that is not what Christ means, nor would that be proper. But our Lord does not speak here of worldly, but of spiritual things, where humility is specially commended. Let rulers follow the custom of occupying the uppermost seats at festive boards, we have to do here with matters of the heart. Christ does not appoint burgomasters, judges, princes, lords; these stations in life he ignores as subject to civil order and the dictates of reason. There must be rulers and to them honors are due because of their position; but the spiritual government requires that its participants humble themselves, in order that they may be exalted.

23. Therefore the Lord said to his disciples when they disputed as to who should be the greatest among them: “The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them, and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve,” Luke 22:25-27. He then speaks of himself as an illustration, asking: “For which is the greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat! But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.”

And in another place, Matthew 20:26-28, he said: “Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

24. The Papists have commented on these verses in their own way and twisted this Gospel, saying: Yea, the Pope is to be the least or youngest, sitting at the foot and serving others; but that is to take place in the heart.

They pretended to sit at the foot and to serve others as the humblest; but withal they lorded it over all emperors, kings and princes, yea, trampled them in the dust; just as if emperors, kings, princes and rulers should not also possess in their hearts the humility of which the Lord here treats. They thus put on airs and make a show of their carnal interpretation. If they had any humility in their hearts their lives would bear testimony to it. Christ speaks here not of outward humility alone, for the inner is the source of the outer; if it is not in the heart it will hardly be manifest in the body.

25. Therefore the Gospel aims at making all of us humble, whatever and whoever we may be, that none may exalt himself, unless urged and elevated by regular authority. That is what the Lord wants to inculcate by this parable, directing it to all, be they high or low. In this spirit he reproves the Pharisees and others who desire high places and are ambitious to get ahead of others. They may accept honors when regularly elected and forced to accept high places. I make these remarks to contravene and discredit their false spiritual interpretations.

26. But now they go and mingle and confuse spiritual and worldly things, and claim it is enough if they be humble in heart when they strive for the chief seats. Nay, dear friends, heart-humility must manifest itself in outer conduct, or it is false. All should therefore he willing to take a lower seat, even to throw themselves at the feet of others, and not move up higher, until urged to do so. Anyone who regards this rule, will do well; but he who disregards it will come to grief by so doing. That is what our Lord desires to impress upon his hearers as he closes this parable. “For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”

27. St. Augustine adds a comment here which I wish he had not made, for it savors of vanity, when he says: “A ruler must not abase himself too much, lest his authority be weakened thereby.” This is heathenish and worldly, not Christian; but we can pardon it in such a man, for even the saints on earth are not yet entirely perfect.

28. The sum of this Gospel then is: Love and necessity control all law; and there should be no law that cannot be enforced and applied in love. If it cannot, then let it be done away with, even though an angel from heaven had promulgated it. All this is intended to help and strengthen our hearts and consciences. In this way our Lord himself teaches us how we should humble ourselves and be subject one to another. [However concerning this virtue, what true humility is, I have said enough in former Postils c.] Let this suffice on to-day’s Gospel.

SpenerQuest is full of celebrity theologians.

Franz Linden (Franz_mann) Senior Member Username: Franz_mann Post Number: 1795 Registered: 12-2004

Posted on Sunday, November 10, 2013 - 10:36 am:       Bret Meyer writes: Dr. Lito Cruz, "UOJers should realise that they share something in common with Calvinists, they share with them of lumping the Atonement with Justification as one and the same event."  This is nonsense! UOJ does not treat the atonement with justification as one and the same event. The atonement was necessary for the justification to take place. They aren't the same event, but they necessarily go together, like heads and tails on a coin. It is the deniers of UOJ that are the Calvinists, because they drive a wedge between the atonement and justification, trying to separate heads from tails, as it were. They give a passing nod to the atonement, but the thing they really crave is justification, as though it could be obtained for us in any other way than the atonement that was made for the sins of all on the cross. If you ask them how they can be certain that their sins are forgiven by God and that they stand justified, what answer can they give? They can't point to the cross, because they have already debased that act by their theology that so as to deny that it is a guarantee of their justification. Instead, they point to the Means of Grace, as if the Means of Grace do anything other than deliver to the sinner the very same forgiveness that was obtained by Christ at the cross for the sins of all. This is Calvinist theology. It's been repudiated again and again by faithful preachers of the Gospel. Alas, it must continue to be repudiated until the end of time. Sometimes I wonder if Calvin might not be the AntiChrist. He's got almost as many people believing the same lie as the papacy. Franz

Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Senior Member Username: Heinrich Post Number: 2048 Registered: 11-2004

Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 12:04 am:       Rev. David R. Boisclair: "Mr. Gorman, the anonymous pastor is Rev. Paul A. Rydecki, formerly a pastor of the WELS. He was removed from the ministerium of WELS for the false doctrine of denying the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification." Could you provide a link to an official WELS website that states that Rev. Rydecki was removed for "the false doctrine of denying the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification"? As far as I can tell, WELS has never publicly released the reasons for Rev. Rydecki's removal, the evidence against him, or any information on how he was tried and convicted. ELDONA says that the pastor in question was removed because his statements were considered "inadequate" because they did not fully express certain formulations demanded by the church body. ELDONA may have based this opinion on Rev. Rydecki's public after-the-fact account of his trial and removal. If so, ELDONA should footnote Rev. Rydecki's account. ELDONA should ask WELS to verify the accuracy of Rev. Rydecki's account and then document WELS's response or lack of response.

Doug Andersen (Lutherman) Intermediate Member Username: Lutherman Post Number: 357 Registered: 6-2006

Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 12:35 am:       The WELS never acknowledges why they kick out pastors let alone document the reasons...

George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1055 Registered: 11-2012	Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 8:05 am:       That the WELS has treated pastors unfairly does not mean that Rydecki was treated unfairly. Rydecki taught false doctrine and the WELS removed him for doing so. The WELS was right to kick him out. [GJ - Reading SpenerQuest is like being stuck in a locked ward. Let me out!]
George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1056 Registered: 11-2012	Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 8:22 am:       Who is Dr. Lito Cruz? Is he a Lutheran? It doesn't sound like it. Lutherans, no less than Calvinists, teach the intensive perfection of the atonement. Is he denying that we do? [GJ - Who is GM? Is he really Rolf Preus? He knows as much as Rolf does!]

"In no other way..." would clinch the JFBA argument, too.

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/11/johann-gerhard-on-1-timothy-316.html

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2013

Here is the latest Paul McCain copy and paste from the Catholic Encyclopedia. He cited it (but only at the end) and actually linked it properly - Ichabod effect. Before, he did everything possible to hide the fact of his copying and pasting.

Ironic from the editor who copied the entire post, minus some incriminating words - 

"If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! - See more at: http://cyberbrethren.com/2013/11/11/commemoration-of-martin-of-tours-soldier-pastor-and-bishop/#more-4057"

About this page - Not copied by McCain

---
- See more at: http://cyberbrethren.com/2013/11/11/commemoration-of-martin-of-tours-soldier-pastor-and-bishop/#more-4057

***

GJ - That last link, back to Cyberbrethren, is so ironic. McCain hides his sources as much as possible, but his blog automatically cites the source if someone copies a few words from it. Give McCain his due, even if he is cheating the Antichrist out of some glory.

Crist - ironic? - is chair of the bishops of ELCA. She preached at PB Elizabeth Eaton's enthronement.

Montana ELCA says "Good Riddance" to Churches Leaving the ELCA

by JD Hall |  November 5, 2013

http://www.reformationmontana.org/what-is-refmt/blog/montana-elca-says-good-riddance-to-churches-leaving-the-elca.html



Waiting for my seven year-old son to get out of surgery at my local hospital yesterday, I picked up the September issue of The Lutheran. The Lutheran is the official magazine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). I wasn't entirely surprised by the articles endorsing homosexuality and claiming that the Bible never addresses 'monogamous, committed' homosexual relationships and purporting that God 'made' homosexuals homosexual and therefore, they can't be blamed for whatever it is that's sinful because God said that what had had made "is good." Of course, this same logic can be applied to virtually any sin (including other sexual sins, lust, greed, or lying) to claim that a sinner's  sin is innate (which it truly is in our depraved and fallen natures - but only after the Fall of Adam,  absolving God of any complicit guilt), and sinners, therefore, cannot be rebuked for sin.

Catching my interest was a letter-to-the-editor that challenged the wording used by the Montana Bishop and current president of the ELCA Conference of Bishops, Jessica Crist, when in a previous issue she seemed rather dismissive of having lost 20 of the 145 ELCA churches in Montana. Writing to the The Lutheran this morning, they were kind enough to send me a link to the subscription-only section of their website so that I could see the article (and warned me they wouldn't give me another free article, so out of respect I won't post that article here). It is entitled "Looking Back, Leaning Forward" and can be found August's issue.

Wonder why Lutherans are in a death spiral? No other denomination is so captive to a business. And the littles are subservient to Big ELCA.

Cascione and his pig-stealing friend McCain love this passage from Preuss. McCain makes Cascione seem charming and honest, a good reason to keep the editor around.

McCain used to hang with the Cascione gang, but they read Ichabod once. They realized they were linking Paul's plagiarized Catholic Encyclopedia articles. SpenerQuest is very sharp on doctrine!

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer) Member Username: Brett_meyer Post Number: 109 Registered: 1-2008	Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 9:51 am:       Eduard Preuss - The Justification of the Sinner before God "So, then, we are reconciled (2 Cor. 5:18); however, not only we, but also Hindus, and Hottentots and Kafirs, yes, the world (2 Cor. 5:19). “Reconciled,” says our translation; the Greek original says: “placed in the right relation to God.” Because before the Fall we, together with the whole creation, were in the right relation to God, therefore Scripture teaches that Christ, through His death, restored all things to the former right relation to God. We, then, 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; yeah, 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” (2 Cor. 5:19)? This is not the justification which we receive by faith, but the one which took place before all faith…" That's not God's grace??! Dr. Lito Cruz defends Justification solely by faith alone using Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. It seems it takes a theology degree from a 'Lutheran' seminary to teach and confess the false gospel of UOJ.
Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer) Member Username: Brett_meyer Post Number: 110 Registered: 1-2008	Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 9:54 am:       Mr. Mueller, does your version of the doctrine of UOJ teach that God justified the unbelieving world outside of His grace? If that is true then God not only imputed Christ's righteousness without the Means of Grace but also forgave the unbelieving world without them being in His grace. And you reject the charge of Enthusiasm? It is to laugh.
George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1059 Registered: 11-2012	Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 10:19 am:       God justifies no one outside of his grace. The whole world has been justified by God's grace. Nobody but a believer stands in God's grace. Does this help? I'm curious, Brett. You quoted this guy Cruz. Why? I had never heard of him before and now it appears that he was trained as a Calvinist. So why are you quoting a crypto-Calvinist to attack the Lutheran doctrine? What's even worse is that this guy criticizes us orthodox Lutherans for agreeing with Calvinists on the intensive perfection of the vicarious atonement! So he thinks that as a "Lutheran" he has to abandon, not only the errors of Calvinism, but the truth they teach as well!

This is George Mueller logic at its murkiest, and yet it highlights justification by faith in a quirky way. Justification is believing in the atonement of Christ, as Luther and the Concordists always taught.

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer) Member Username: Brett_meyer Post Number: 112 Registered: 1-2008	Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 4:07 pm:       Mr. Mueller, "The law tells the unbeliever that God is angry with him. The gospel tells him that God is at peace with him. The law tells him that he is a damned sinner. The gospel tells him that God, for Christ's sake, forgives him all his sins." Rationalism. You worship a god that is not in Scripture. You worship the god of Universal Objective Justification.
George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1064 Registered: 11-2012	Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 5:03 pm:       Here is the object of justifying faith according to the Augsburg Confession: "they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins." You reject this confession and call it rationalism. You accuse me of worshipping a false god because I confess the Augsburg Confession.
Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 364 Registered: 1-2002	Posted on Monday, November 11, 2013 - 5:58 pm:       Uh, Brett, you misrepresented what I had stated in a previous post. You posted above: 'Rev. Boisclair stated in this discussion that Christ's righteousness was imputed to the whole world for the forgiveness of their sins. Boisclair at 9:31pm, “affirms that sinners are justified by the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ.' This was the actual paragraph I posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 9:31 pm: 'Sola fide is a exclusive particle that affirms that sinners are justified by the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ. Franz makes an excellent point that one doesn't always notice when one studies these chapters of Romans.' I DID NOT post that Christ's righteousness was IMPUTED to the whole world. As DP Jon Buchholz indicates in his masterful essay on Justification of the past year a theologian should avoid using the word "impute" when he is speaking of universal objective Justification. I commend to all the reading of this essay that sets out the biblical teaching on Justification.  Brett, Calvinism is spelled with a "i" in the second syllable, not an "a", and it should also be capitalized. Your pastor Greg Jackson, who is so keen on correcting his opponents' grammar should give his own congregation a course in English!

Who scurried up to Northern Wisconsin to nail down UOJ for the Ski and Glende Anything Goes District of WELS? Only Buchholz was shameless enough to exchange hugs and hosannas with that horde of peculators and pussilanimous polecats.

I see that the Hive is immune to Biblical doctrine but easily stung by references to their feeble grasp of English. They use a typo as an excuse to attack someone in public. One little (sic) shall fell them - Luther might say.

Our little congregation is doing a lot to undo the damage of SpenerQuest, to return Lutherans to the Sermons of Luther (published on Ichabod) and other Lutheran resources, including the seldom-studied Book of Concord.

I am thankful for those who faithfully confess the truths of the Word of God. One pastor expressed shock that Brett would put up with the abuse handed out on SpenerQuest. Brett and others see that his comments bring out the falsehoods of UOJ.

"Have you read Jon Buchholz's magisterial essay? He even calls the Kokomo Theses into question. If you haven't read it, when you do it will be a real eye-opener." Boisclair To Joe Krohn -  "Joe, continue to extol the Easter Absolution!"

---

Brett Meyer:

"My eyes were opened – in horror. DP Jon Buchholz’ second attempt to convince the world that UOJ is the heart of Christ’s Gospel message graces us with the following rationalistic exegesis. This is the doctrine which Jon Buchholz and the WELS excommunicated Pastor Rydecki over – branding him a heretic for teaching men are justified solely by faith in Christ alone."

Walther left Europe on a fast-ship, just ahead of warrants for his arrest, for kidnapping two children.

Those with a mild curiosity about American Lutheran history realize that Bishop Martin Stephan was a serial adulterer who surrounded himself with willing females. The police and church officials knew all about his escapades in Dresden. Stephan had no career left when he took his brain-bleached followers to America, leaving his dying wife and children behind, but careful to take his sex partners with him.

CFW Walther participated eagerly in this charade, serving as the enforcer for Stephan's edicts of punishments against any who questioned his word. Called a fox, Walther awaited his moment and stuck from St. Louis, when an outbreak of syphilis among the girlfriends imperiled all the clergy at once. Their Pietistic bishop must have earned an STD in the brothels of Dresden.

Walther organized the riot against Stephan, threatened the man's life via his subordinates, took away the bishop's land, robbed him of his gold, library, and possessions, and had him kidnapped and left to die in Illinois. Perhaps no one wanted to translate Walther's Pastoral Theology for a century because too many would think it was a joke book.

Walther and his gang were not done with Stephan. They excused their criminal neglect of the women and criminal actions against the bishop by leaving behind a pile of lies, which are still being told in Perryville, where Stephan took his harem and foolish followers. LCMS history is an accumulation of rubbish, always aimed at sanctifying Walther and vilifying anyone close to the truth about the sex cult.

SpenerQuest is a proud heir of this tradition. They are not horrified that Matt Harrison (another spin-doctor of Missouri history) has continued to work with ELCA, as he always has. They are disgusted that anyone would teach justification by faith.

The LutherQuest (sic) hog wallow is known only for the squeals that emerge whenever they hear the words justification by faith, for the aroma that emanates from their toxic excretions, and for the people they have trampled under their trotters in their search for baser deeds and more dubious claims.

Zion is the only scholarly history of the LCMS. The other attempts are travel brochures designed to make a sex cult look like paradise.

LCMS denounces their own historian - because he told the truth about Missouri in the mildest possible terms.

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/11/johann-gerhard-on-1-timothy-316.html#comment-form

Christian Schulz said...

Great post. I've always been baffled when universal justification advocates use 1 Timothy 3:16 as a proof passage. This passage has never been interpreted by the universal Church as the Christ being justified in the same way as we sinners need to be, yet this passage is essential to the philosophy that the world was justified "in Christ." Novel indeed.

I think Chemnitz sums up the catholic meaning well when he says:

"This is the forensic or legal meaning of this word. But just as is the case in all languages, words are transferred from the specific to the general. Thus 'justify' is sometimes used to approve, testify to, recognize, acknowledge, confess, and celebrate the fact that someone is righteous—granting, conferring, and attributing praise to his righteousness. Luke 7:29: 'The people and the publicans justified God, but the Pharisees spurned the counsel of God.' Luke 16:15: 'You justify yourselves before men.' Luke 10:29: 'The scribe, wanting to justify himself …' Jer. 3:11 and Ezek. 16:51: 'You have justified your sisters.' 1 Tim. 3:16: 'He was manifested in the flesh and justified in the Spirit,' that is, the humility of His flesh offended many, and He was crucified as a misleader and a seditious man; but because of His divine works and the sending of the Spirit, He was declared and approved as the Son of God and the Messiah." (Loci Theologici [CPH], p.478)

I guess Chemnitz forgot the true meaning of the passage, namely, that Christ was absolved of all our sins and so the world stands righteous and sinless before God's eyes now. Chemnitz would never be able to serve on the faculty of WLS or the Concordias.

How about John Cassian (c.360 – 435)? Could he serve on the faculties of those seminaries?

"And so as for your assertions that He was justified by the Spirit...and that He was taken up by the Spirit into heaven, they are all blasphemous and wild: not because we are to believe that in all these things which He Himself did, the unity and cooperation of the Spirit was wanting— since the Godhead is never wanting to Itself, and the power of the Trinity was ever present in the Saviour's works— but because you will have it that the Holy Ghost gave assistance to the Lord Jesus Christ as if He had been feeble and powerless; and that He granted those things to Him, which He was unable to procure for Himself. ...For to begin with this assertion of yours that the Spirit filled with righteousness (justitia) what was created, and your attempts to prove this by the evidence of the Apostle, where he says that He appeared in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, you make each statement in an unsound sense and wild spirit. For you make this assertion; viz., that you will have it that He was filled with righteousness by the Spirit, in order to show how He was void of righteousness, as you assert that the being filled with it was given to Him." (On the Incarnation, Book VII, Ch. XVIII)

John Cassian was right, what need does the Christ have to be absolved in any way like us? He was and is sinless. To say He needed to be justified in the same way we are justified is to assert that He was lacking righteousness. It's essentially a Trinitarian heresy -- that not all three persons were equally righteous.

The passage means as it has always meant, that Jesus was proven to be the Christ as opposed to just being a man. Bishop Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 - 368) explains:

"For the Apostle leaves no doubt that all must confess that the hidden secret of our salvation...[is]...the mystery of great godliness, and a mystery no longer kept from our eyes, but manifested in the flesh; no longer weak through the nature of flesh, but justified in the Spirit. And so by the justification of the Spirit is removed from our faith the idea of fleshly weakness;..." (On the Trinity, Book XI)

NOVEMBER 11, 2013 AT 5:49 PM

Joe Krohn said...

You are just plain wrong. When Satan is poking me in the chest so hard when I am weakest and my faith fails me, I find comfort in this verse. Rather I turn to these statements regarding Justification and find comfort. Your Gospel is of no comfort.

http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00225.htm:

"In his statement to the Board of Control Dr. Maier further stated: "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29(, and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made….to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, ‘made a curse for us’" (Galatians 3:13).

"In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and sacraments of Christ."

"Faith alone can receive this treasure offered in the Gospel, and this faith itself is entirely a gracious gift and creation of God through the means of grace. Faith adds nothing to God’s forgiveness in Christ offered in the Gospel, but only receives it. Thus, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him’" (John 3:30).

"My reservation concerning some of the traditional terminology employed in expressing the doctrine of justification are fully covered by the following statements from the major essay delivered to the first convention of the Synodical Conference, assembled in Milwaukee July 10-16, 1872:

"When speaking with regard to the acquisition of salvation (by Christ), God has wrath for no man any longer; but when speaking with regard to the appropriation, He is wrathful with everyone who is no in Christ ("Proceedings," p. 32). Before faith the sinner is righteous before God only according to the acquisition and the divine intention, but he is actually ("actu") righteous, righteous for his own person, righteous indeed, first when he believes ("Proceedings," p. 68.""

NOVEMBER 11, 2013 AT 8:11 PM

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Joe, are you saying I'm just plain wrong with my translation of Gerhard on 1 Tim. 3:16? If so, please point out where I mistranslated.

What are you trying to demonstrate with this series of quotations? That the Synodical Conference always had this strange "God has wrath for no man / God has wrath for unbelievers" teaching floating around, contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran doctrine?

NOVEMBER 11, 2013 AT 8:23 PM

Daniel Baker said...

The irony is palpable when all Joe has left to defend his innovative doctrine is the fleeting citations he pulls out of Synodical Conference theologians, which stand in stark opposition to the slew of quotes from Orthodox Lutheran and Early Church Fathers in the comment and article that precede his.

NOVEMBER 11, 2013 AT 9:24 PM

Brett Meyer said...

Where Scripture refers to Christ as the Righteous One, UOJ refers to Him as the greatest sinner.

Joe, "my faith fails me" Joe are you saying the Holy Spirit's faith fails you? Or, are you saying your faith fails you?

The doctrine of UOJ teaches people not to look to their faith in Christ, worked graciously by the Holy Spirit, for assurance when doubts arise but in the supposed declaration of forgiveness declared before they believed,
before they were born. Scripture directs Christians to the Holy Spirit's faith: 2 Cor. 3:15, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith, prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates."

NOVEMBER 11, 2013 AT 9:38 PM

Daniel Baker said...

Brett, your comment brings to mind more fully the way that UOJ distorts the work of all Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. First, it distorts the work of the Father, making Him an impotent Judge Whose declarations have no effect until believed by Man. Then, it distorts the work of the Son, making His righteousness insufficient to swallow up the sins of the world, instead needing absolution from the Holy Spirit (which, obviously, is in turn a distortion of what the H.S. does). And then the work the Holy Spirit actually does, creating and sustaining faith in Christ through Holy Baptism, is relegated to a category of "uncertain," being an "insufficient Gospel." Indeed, the forgiveness He gives there is rejected by UOJ fanatics, who point us instead back to the impotent declaration of forgiveness they imagine comes from the Father on account of the righteousness-lacking work of the Son. A sorry sight all around, if you ask me.

NOVEMBER 11, 2013 AT 10:08 PM

UOJ, Halle Pietism, Knapp, Stephan, Walther, and WELS leaders agree about this - against the Bible, Luther, Chemnitz, and the Concordists.

UOJ assassins have awakened the Gospel in the Synodical Conference.

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/fraternal-dialogue-on-topic-of.html

LutherRocks (Joe Krohn) said...

I had one more comment that I thought of last evening when I was skimming over this post; it is directed at Pr. Webber and those who seem to find this OJ lying next to SJ all the time in scripture and the BoC. I see the problem as a failure to look at Justification in context. UOJ works when you zoom in too far to certain passages; just like other heterodox religions do to make their doctrine work. Ironically, when I read the study notes from the Concordia NIV to a WELS heavyweight re: Romans 3:22-24, he thought it sounded like limited atonement...of course it was taken verbatim from the Zondervan NIV Study Bible. The irony is that Calvinists fall short with the 'all' and UOJers overshoot the 'all'.

Mr. Lindee made a great stride by putting the Ambrose quote in context from the letter. I would only add that where this quote appears in the Apology follows under these headings: Of Justification 1-47; What is Justifying Faith? 48-60; That Faith in Christ Justifies 61-74; That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ 75-121.

So you see it is always in the context of faith; justified by faith in the Propitiator, namely, Jesus Christ.

---

Mr. Douglas Lindee said...

...Continued from previous comment.

You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification -- certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating (subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching on the matter of Justification.

OCTOBER 12, 2011 AT 9:56 PM

David Jay Webber said...

I knew that Rambach was a pietist. I was not using his observations on this verse to discredit Chemnitz, but to supplement Chemnitz. His exegesis and reflections stand on their own, and should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of what he might have said on other topics on other occasions. And it is also clear that on this topic in particular, he was not inventing a new pietist notion, but was recapitulating the orthodox teaching of the orthodox theologian Quistorp. Theologians with pietist leanings were not wrong in everything they said, especially when they were repeating the sound teaching of orthodox theologians of earlier times.

OCTOBER 12, 2011 AT 10:49 PM

George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1067 Registered: 11-2012

Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 8:49 am:       Rydecki was being disingenuous. The WELS had taught objective justification long before Rydecki attended seminary, received instruction, and was ordained. It's not as if the WELS came up with a new doctrine that it imposed on its members. Rydecki abandoned the doctrine he had been taught and had previously accepted and then, when the WELS wouldn't tolerate it, he pointed the finger at them and accused them of sectarianism. For what? For confessing what he had previously confessed!

Look at the sign Ski is holding at this Timber Rattler game. Glende's cover photo on Facebook: Merkts beer cheese.

This photo shows Ski holding a Miller beer  - after he told everyone he quit drinking because he had a problem with it. He went on a cruise to perform a couple's marriage.

--

Ski and Jeske rank with Luther in page-views the last 30 days -

The Holy Spirit Teaches Man Better Than Books May 23, 2012,	1696
Where Did Ski Learn How To Ooze Jesus All Over Peo... Oct 16, 2013,	933

Idolatry of Walther is used to promote idolatry of the sect. Holy Mother Synod is never wrong, because her adulterous and thieving founders were never wrong.

http://extranos.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/be-sure-to-tell-linden-and-mueller.html

The efficacy of the Word.

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer) Member Username: Brett_meyer Post Number: 117 Registered: 1-2008	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 12:43 pm:       Joe, when are the Keys to Retain Sins to be used if God forgave the whole world at the cross?
Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 368 Registered: 1-2002	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 12:52 pm:       Brett, I think that you need to read Dr. C.F.W. Walther's "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel." Jon Buchholz answers this in his paper as well when he reminds us that Luther's scriptural doctrine of the two sides of Justification, i.e. Justification's acquisition and its application, are to be maintained. We do not believe that Christ's righteousness was applied or delivered at the cross or the empty tomb but that it is applied in the Gospel and Sacraments. db. Gregory Jackson should keep that in mind when he continually slanders us and our synods with the charge that we are Enthusiasts as the Schwaermerei of the 16th century. God does not deal with us in any other way than by Word and Sacrament, the Means of Grace. Lord, deliver us from the slanderer.
Joe Krohn (Jekster) Member Username: Jekster Post Number: 187 Registered: 4-2011	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 1:00 pm:       Brett, until you are willing to stop convoluting what is subjective and what is objective, there is nothing to say anymore.
Rick Strickert (Carlvehse) Senior Member Username: Carlvehse Post Number: 4239 Registered: 10-2003	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 1:12 pm:       Daniel Gorman: According to Rev. Rydecki, he was only required to confess the BOC Also, when Rev. Rydecki became a member of WELS he agreed to abide by the WELS constitution. On October 2, 2012, the WELS, in conformity to the WELS and District constitutions, suspended Rev. Rydecki from membership because it considered Rev. Rydecki's stated position on the doctrine of objective justification not congruent with Scripture, the BOC, and the position of WELS.
Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Senior Member Username: Heinrich Post Number: 2053 Registered: 11-2004	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 3:31 pm:       Rev. David R. Boisclair: "Mr. Gorman, are you saying that WELS IS guilty of popery or that Rydecki alleges WELS guilty of popery?" Rev. Rydecki accuses the WELS AZ-CA district president of popery: "So you admit that you were emboldened to break your word to my congregation by the support you received from the seminary faculty and from the COP. You have thus implicated them in your papistic attempt to establish new doctrine ex cathedra and to force your own made-up statements upon the pastors and congregations of the WELS on threat of suspension. One would think that those who bear the name of Luther would shun such behavior, but instead you have embraced it—to your shame and disgrace." My opinion on alleged popery by the AZ-CA district president would be outside the scope of the topic "ELDONA rejects Objective Justification."
Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer) Member Username: Brett_meyer Post Number: 118 Registered: 1-2008	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 3:34 pm:       Anyone, when are the Keys to Retain Sins to be used if God forgave/absolved the whole world at the cross? What sin can be retained that God already forgave?
George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1068 Registered: 11-2012	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 3:39 pm:       But Rydecki is being dishonest. He knows perfectly well that the WELS is not attempting to establish new doctrine. They are standing by what they have been teaching since long before Rydecki was born.
George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1069 Registered: 11-2012	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 3:52 pm:       Brett, the sins of the impenitent should be retained as long as they do not repent.
David Bickel (Drb) Intermediate Member Username: Drb Post Number: 496 Registered: 11-2009	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 4:18 pm:       Matthew 18:21-35 http://tinyurl.com/cfzml96 Brett, when did the king retain the debt of the unforgiving servant if the king already forgave/remitted that debt? What debt can be retained that the king already forgave? Theology of the Cross: http://DawningRealm.com
Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer) Member Username: Brett_meyer Post Number: 119 Registered: 1-2008	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 4:39 pm:       Mr. Mueller, thank you for your response. So if an unbelievers sins are retained while he remains an unbeliever, are you saying then that in the doctrine of UOJ God never really removed the sin when Christ paid for the whole worlds sins on the cross? Isn't the Christian who applies the Key to Retain Sin standing in the stead and on behalf of Christ? How is it that the doctrine of UOJ teaches that sins can be retained in an unbeliever but also teach the only way to create saving faith in the unbeliever is to tell him his sins are already forgiven/absolved? It's equal to saying, "Dear unbeliever, you will die in your unrepented sins that I in God's stead retain and you will go to Hell for eternity if you don't believe that God declared you forgiven, absolved of all sin, righteous and worthy of eternal life before and even if you never believe." Mr. Bickel, you answered my question with a question which makes it very hard to follow what you're trying to say.
Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 371 Registered: 1-2002	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 7:16 pm:       Brett, you are assuming that we who believe in the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification believe that it is a universal delivery of Justification regardless of faith. That is not what the Bible says nor is it what we believe. Forgiveness has been acquired by Christ's vicarious atonement. IN CHRIST God has reconciled the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:18-20); however, the whole world is not in Christ, only those whom the Holy Spirit regenerates through the means of grace. Hence, the person whose sins are retained is the person who has never come to faith or lost faith. This is the proper application of Law and Gospel. You should know that we teach that if someone does not trust in the universal objective justification that God has effected in Christ, delivered through the means of grace, that person does not benefit from this act of God's grace. While a human being is not able to come to faith, a human being can resist the Holy Spirit as He works in the means of grace. We certainly do not deny the Scripture passages like Mark 16:16: "he who believeth not shall be damned." In effect what you are accusing us of is Universalism, which even Samuel Huber rejected. Even ELDoNA in their theses does not accuse us of that error, so neither should you, Brett. One point should also be made: Christ said that the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, will convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Remember that He said, "Of sin, because they do not believe in me" (John 16:9). The only damning sin is unbelief since it rejects the forgiveness acquired by Jesus Christ. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe will be damned.
Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 372 Registered: 1-2002	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 8:04 pm:       Let's talk about analogies. Paul Rydecki in recent posts on his blog "Intrepid Lutherans" has come up with an analogy that he uses to oppose our doctrine of Objective Justification: suppose there were a mechanic who acquired engines to replace every engine on every car on earth, those who believe in universal objective justification would say that that would be the same as saying that the mechanic had actually replaced every engine on every car on earth. That would be tantamount to saying UNIVERSAL SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION, which we do not say. The installation of the engine would be the application and reception of the engine by the car owner that had the mechanic install it on his car, i.e. SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION. We who teach the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification would say that Objective Justification would be like the mechanic advertising over the whole world that he has free engines that he is willing to install on anyone's car which would be brought to him. Luther made a simpler analogy: a king gives you a castle. Even if you do not receive and accept it does not mean that the king did not give it to you. Gentlemen, the Bible teaches BOTH Objective/General Justification and Subjective/Individual Justification. We, in the synods that used to constitute the admirable and fondly remembered Synodical Conference, believe BOTH these biblical doctrines, and we strive to properly distinguish and proclaim them.
David Breitenfeld (Dbreitenfeld) Advanced Member Username: Dbreitenfeld Post Number: 791 Registered: 10-2004	Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 11:37 pm:       Eph 1:4 " even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." Even before sin came into the world, and before the fall of man, God's justification of sinful man was made just and available for the whole world. From Adam to the last person born, God redeeming work through Christ is for all people. He started it, He finishes it.
Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer) Member Username: Brett_meyer Post Number: 120 Registered: 1-2008	Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 7:38 am:       Rev. Boisclair, I thought about your 7:16pm comment for quite some time. I will reject and contend against it because you establish a false object of the Holy Spirit's faith "trust in the universal objective justification". Nowhere in Scripture does God direct men to trust in anything but Christ alone. UOJ - "The forgiveness of sins that was won at the cross when Jesus canceled the debt of the whole world is the object of faith." Page 35, Buchholz, Jesus Canceled Your Debt The trouble is that God never acquitted the unbelieving world as your gospel of UOJ teaches. God never viewed the unbelieving world as being in Christ since that is only a reality by the gracious gift of faith alone, worked through the means of grace. I read Buccholz' 2012 Jesus Canceled Your Debt essay again since you praised it so highly. I recommend everyone read it as it is a purely rationlistic exposition of the new gospel of UOJ and leads the reader through rational gymnastics, subjecting God's Word to human conditions, in order to establish a new way to righteousness before God and a false object of faith. The rationalistic quote I provided in an above comment is just the tip of the iceberg - so to speak. Another issue is the teaching that God has established multiple realities. Realities in which God declares the unbelieving world acquitted of sin, absolved of all sin and righteous - but they aren't until they believe they are. One reality in which God views the world in Christ and another outside of Christ - referring to believers and unbelievers in each instance. One reality in which God has removed all sin from the unbelieving world and another in which the unbelievers sins are retained because they don't believe the sins were removed. And the list goes on... UOJ has replaced Christ's Gospel with another false gospel. Galatians 1. Buchholz adequately defined UOJ's war against Christ's Gospel this way: "A Lutheran pastor who is unwilling to say, “God has forgiven the world in Christ,” is not only refusing to acknowledge a truth that is expressed in the Lutheran Confessions, he is denying the heart of the gospel itself. If anyone is reluctant to say, “God acquitted the world in Christ when he raised Jesus from the dead,” he is turning away from the central truth of Scripture. If a pastor preaches or teaches, “Your sins are forgiven only if you have faith,” he is directing his hearers’ focus inward, horribly confusing law and gospel, and ultimately leaving his listeners in doubt. If he says, “Your sins are forgiven when you believe in Jesus,” he is undercutting the simple truth that forgiveness was effected by Jesus for all people as an accomplished fact before any of us living today were even born." Page 36, Buchholz, Jesus Canceled Your Debt http://azcadistrict.com/sites/default/files/papers /Buchholz_2012-10.pdf UOJ is proof that rationalism is a religion.

Preaching the Gospel.

Welby and the Triune Fish.

Griswald