Quantcast
Channel: Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed
Viewing all 11617 articles
Browse latest View live

Unsteady Lutherans Continue Their Rant Against Steadfast Brett Meyer, Et Al.

$
0
0


  1. Jason Harris
    February 23rd, 2014 at 14:19 | #34
    2014 and this stuff still turns up like a bad penny
  2. Brett Meyer
    February 23rd, 2014 at 16:36 | #35
    Jim Pierce :In thinking about this whole discussion going on, I can’t help but wonder if what is being argued by Meyers and company is something metaphysical.
    Truth is that it is the doctrine of Objective Justification which promotes the metaphysical. Mr. Harris points to Roman Catholic professor, LCMS member and UOJ advocate Dr. Jack Kilcrease’ article skewering Pastor Rydecki’s rejection of UOJ
    As with all of the accusations you’ve waged against me – including slander – you have been guilty of each and every one. At the same time every doctrinal charge that you deny has been shown to be true by your own words and those of the individuals you point to for proof that UOJ is not a false gospel.
    In this article UOJ advocate Kilcrease states the following:
    “The early Reformers understood what a lot of people (especially in the WELS, it would seem!) don’t seem to get: Doctrines are concepts. Concepts can be expressed in a lot of different ways. Just because a word isn’t present, doesn’t mean that a concept isn’t present.”
    “(5.)For this reason, he finds it odd and incoherent to say that God in general and in some abstract sense is reconciled with the world when there’s still wrath. Much of this I suspect could be remedied by a good reading of 20th century Luther scholarship, which I don’t believe many of the anti-OJ advocate have done (Jackson once admitted that he hadn’t even read standard works like Paul Althaus’ The Theology of Martin Luther- quite shocking!). God doesn’t interact with the world uniformly, but takes on different masks (larva Dei). In his mask of law and political order, he isn’t a forgiving presence. When he wears the mask of the police officer and throws me against the hood of the car and hand cuffs me, that’s not absolution. The point though is that when I come to the means of grace, God is a presence and a word that is already real and actual as forgiveness. God as he is present in the word of absolution that he gave the Church has already forgiven me objectively.When I leave the sphere of the law and enter into the sphere of the gospel (i.e. the means of grace) then I merely enter into that sphere where God is already real as grace. My faith doesn’t actualize God as forgiving.”
    Kilcrease continues to explain the evolution which the UOJ advocates have undergone in order to promote their chief doctrine.
    “For this reason, what Rydecki fails to see is that innovation of theological terminology is necessary to maintain conceptual orthodoxy. Old terms in new contexts will not function and therefore promote heresy.”
    “4. Part of Rydecki’s problem is that he does not understand that the word “justification” is being used differently when applied to OJ and SJ. When applied to OJ, the word merely means for God to pronounce a particular verdict on the human race. It does not mean for them to receive it. In the context of SJ, “justification” means to have receive that verdict. That is, to appropriate it. Because a check is written (OJ) does not mean that it is necessarily cashed (SJ).”
    Definition: met•a•phys•ics
    /ˌmetəˈfiziks/
    noun: metaphysics1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space
    Kilcrease admits to his opinion of the Christian Book of Concord which is in harmony with many called workers in the (W)ELS and LCMS.
    “1. Rydecki seems to be operating with the rather odd perspective that the language set down by the Formula of Concord is authoritative for all time. He also says something similar in the intro he wrote the the Samuel Huber book. The first question is: why? Obviously the Lutheran Confessions themselves show terminological evolution (justification in the Apology can mean either justification proper or sanctification, “sacrament” is defined differently in different documents- so the question of how many sacraments is answer different in different contexts- 4, the Apology; 3 the Catechisms; 2 the FC!).”
    So in all of the charges of slander that have been falsely laid against me – where is the Confessional document (Book of Concord style ‘this we believe’ ‘this we reject’) for Objective Justification which the UOJ advocates claim is the heart of the Gospel and without which there is no gospel and there is nothing for their faith to cling to?
    Kilcrease on Universal Grace:
    ReplyDelete
    Dr. Jack KilcreaseOctober 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM
    “Joe, thanks for the comment. Rydecki does not believe in OJ in the sense that I do. Remember, he says that he believes in it if you mean universal atonement by it. But OJ is not universal atonement, but God the Father’s reaction to the Son’s universal atonement in the form of a universal word of grace.”
    Scripture on God’s Grace:
    Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
    Kilcrease and the doctrine of UOJ contradict God’s Word when Christ clearly states that God’s grace is only by faith in Christ and therefore no one is reconciled, in God’s grace, justified or righteous in Christ except by the Holy Spirit’s gracious gift of faith in Christ – Christ’s righteousness.
    In Christ,
    Brett Meyer
  3. February 23rd, 2014 at 18:41 | #36
    Elizabeth :
    “Only if it is unambiguously retained that justification is nothing else than the forgiveness of sin accepted by sinners in faith, does the doctrine of justification remain biblical and Lutheran.”
    Exactly. Without faith no justification. Makes sense to me. No bifurcation there, thankfully!
    Actually, you have it backwards. Without justification there is no faith. If we don’t have the justification Christ merited for all humankind through His death and resurrection, then there is nothing for the faith the Holy Spirit creates (Eph. 2:8) through the means of grace to latch onto. Indeed, there is no real means of grace unless absolution is there to be received.
    “10 These treasures are brought to us by the Holy Spirit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. Faith alone is the only means through which we lay hold on, accept, apply, and take them for ourselves. 11 This faith is God’s gift [Ephesians 2:8–9], by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel and trust in Him. We trust that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the Father, and are eternally saved. 12 Therefore, it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says (a) we are “justified by faith” (Romans 3:28) or (b) “faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:5) and when he says (c) “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) or (d) “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Romans 5:18). 13 Faith justifies not because it is such a good work or because it is so beautiful a virtue. It justifies because it lays hold of and accepts Christ’s merit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. For this merit must be applied and become ours through faith, if we are to be justified by it. 14 Therefore, the righteousness that is credited to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is Christ’s obedience, suffering, and resurrection, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law and paid for ‹expiated› our sins. ”
    McCain, P. T. (Ed.). (2005). Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (pp. 537–538). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. SD III, 10
  4. February 23rd, 2014 at 18:49 | #37
    Brett,
    The discussions of UOJ have been carried out for many years and seem to remain at their earlier impasse. One of the reasons could be that we never, so far as I know, back up to our theories, so to speak, of the atonement, and then work forward from there to see how they affect our idea of justification. In other words, the division might exist already at an earlier point in theology, and since we never discuss that, we never resolve anything.
    So I’d like to ask you, what is your understanding of how Luther dealt with two competing theories of the atonement, the penal substitution theory, and the Christus Victor theory?
    Have you tried to work forward from your theory of the atonement to your idea of justification? Would you trace that out for me?
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    [Please note: I am not a pastor. You can call me just T. R.]
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
  5. Pr. Jim Schulz
    February 23rd, 2014 at 19:50 | #38
    Jim, actually, in your quote the SD says faith “lays hold of and accepts Christ’s merit in the promise of the Holy Gospel.” SD III:13. That’s the doctrine of justification. Faith doesn’t lay hold of a doctrine. It lays hold of the promise of forgiveness and righteousness Christ earned for the world by His substitutionary life and death.
  6. February 23rd, 2014 at 20:06 | #39
    Help me to understand what you are saying with “Faith doesn’t lay hold of a doctrine.” Are you treating justification as a mere concept?
  7. Pr. Jim Schulz
    February 23rd, 2014 at 22:17 | #40
    Jim, no, justification is not a mere concept. Forgiveness doesn’t become “real” only when I receive it. It is real before I receive it, but I don’t HAVE it until I receive it.
    Justification is real God-given faith laying hold of Christ’s real merits on our behalf promised through the real means of grace. From this comes real forgiveness, life, and salvation.
    Faith doesn’t come after justification as if it were something separate from justification. Faith doesn’t lay hold of “justification,” because the doctrine of justification – as defined by the Confessions – must include faith.
  8. Brett Meyer
    February 23rd, 2014 at 22:46 | #41
    I confess that in regards to God’s Word and the unified doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture there is no such thing as a theory.
    Definition of theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
    UOJ is promoted and defended via contradictory teachings while excusing the contradictions by calling all doctrine concepts with words that flex in meaning depending on the interpretation of the individual but inconsistent with God’s singular Word.
    T.R., is there some part of the atonement revealed in Scripture that you find to be inconclusive and a mere idea or theory?
  9. February 23rd, 2014 at 22:49 | #42
    Well, you have lost me pastor. I don’t get what you were taking issue with.
    So let me ask you, do you plainly subscribe to the LCMS teaching on Objective Justification or don’t you?
  10. Brett Meyer
    February 23rd, 2014 at 23:19 | #43
    Elizabeth :Actually, you have it backwards. Without justification there is no faith. If we don’t have the justification Christ merited for all humankind through His death and resurrection, then there is nothing for the faith the Holy Spirit creates (Eph. 2:8) through the means of grace to latch onto. Indeed, there is no real means of grace unless absolution is there to be received.
    Mr. Pierce states, “If we don’t have the justification Christ merited for all humankind through His death and resurrection, then there is nothing for the faith the Holy Spirit creates (Eph. 2:8) through the means of grace to latch onto.
    This is another foundational tenet of UOJ and another one that defines it as a false gospel. The gospel of UOJ’s object of it’s ‘faith’ is the supposed previous declaration of absolution by God upon the unbeliever. Without this declaration UOJ’s faith has nothing to cling to. Another reason the faith of UOJ is false and not of the Holy Spirit. The object of Scriptural and Confessional Gospel of God is Christ alone. Compare the object of the false gospel of UOJ to Scripture:
    John 16:8-9, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me;”
    LCMS Brief Statement
    “Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:192 Cor. 5:18]21;Rom. 4:25
    WELS This We Believe
    “We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ.”
    The BOC rejects both of these foundational tenets of UOJ held by the LCMS and WELS.
    “because those who are accounted righteous before God do not live in mortal sin.”
    BOC: What Is Justifying Faith?
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
    71] “but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ’s sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because “to be justified” means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term “to be justified” is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins”.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
    Note that contrary to UOJ the BOC only acknowledges only two ways ‘Justified’ is used in Scripture and neither are before and without faith in Christ.
    UOJ is anti-Confessional.
    In Christ,
    Brett Meyer
  11. Sven Wagschal
    February 24th, 2014 at 05:53 | #44
    “To be sure, the judgment has been removed, and hell and God’s wrath have been removed. Security and peace between God and us have also been established through the Son, who did not come to condemn the world–the world was already condemned before His coming–but to save the world. All that is still lacking is the acceptance of the Son. … ”
    Luther on Joh 3,19 (Martin Luther, “Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 22,
    [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957] pp. 381-85)
    Luther was an anti-confessional UOJ-guy, I am shocked!
  12. Pr. Jim Schulz
    February 24th, 2014 at 07:20 | #45
    Jim, the sinner does not put his faith in a “prior justification,” because there is no justification of the sinner without faith. The sinner’s faith lays hold of the promise of forgiveness, which is a reality in Christ. That is justification, that is the gospel. The essentials for a confessional definition of justification are: God’s grace, Christ’s merit, gospel promise, gift of faith, forgiveness, heaven: that’s justification. Although “we theologians make these most simple truths so complex” (Sasse, as quoted by Harrison), at the end of the day, I believe that is the LCMS position. What confessional Lutheran would say that faith is NOT a part of the doctrine of justification?
  13. February 24th, 2014 at 11:14 | #46
    Pr. Schulz,
    You are using the term “promise of forgiveness” as the object of faith. So, is the “promise of forgiveness” an actual forgiveness that is received in faith? Or, are you saying that the “promise of forgiveness” becomes an actual forgiveness once our faith is added to it? Maybe you are trying to say something else? I get what you are saying “reality in Christ” but you are taking issue with the idea that justification is that reality in Christ prior to anyone’s having faith, and that is where I am confused as to what you then mean by “reality” at this point because you claim there is no justification prior to an individual’s having faith. So what is “real”, then? Just the promise?
    Now to be clear, there is no receipt of the forgiveness of sins by a particular individual without faith. Faith is the hand receiving God’s gift. I think that is what you are trying to say, but I am not sure. Do you agree with that statement?
  14. Pr. Jim Schulz
    February 24th, 2014 at 11:37 | #47
    Jim, yes, the promise of forgiveness is an actual forgiveness received in faith. It is “actual” before, during, and after faith. It is a treasure earned by Christ, distributed through the means of grace. I agree with the statement “there is no receipt of the forgiveness of sins by a particular individual without faith.” What I question is your statement to Elizabeth: “Actually, you have it backwards. Without justification there is no faith.” It seems to me you are using the term “justification” as a synonym for “forgiveness.” While forgiveness is a part of the doctrine of justification, it is not the only thing. “Forgiveness” – earned by Christ and offered in the gospel – not “justification” comes before faith.

UOJ Is Easily Crushed by Luther's Galatians Commentary. Devils Identified by Luther - They Are the Steadfast Lutheran Authors

$
0
0


  1. Brett Meyer
    February 25th, 2014 at 00:12 | #13
    T. R. Halvorson :
    Pr Schulz, may I ask some questions about the quotation of Luther you used from AE 40:214?
    2. The quotation says, the sacrament or the gospel “distributes, presents, offers, and gives” the forgiveness won on the cross. What forgiveness? How is a forgiveness that does not exist distributed, presented, offered, or given? Does it arise by operation of the distribution?
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
    T. R. Halvorson :
    4. Where does faith enter into the quotation? I don’t see Luther saying, don’t seek forgiveness in thoughts on the cross or Christ’s suffering, but seek forgiveness in faith. I see him saying, seek forgiveness in the means, since that is where the forgiveness already won on the cross is delivered.
    One of the troubles I am having with the arguments against UOJ is that they seem to say faith creates forgiveness rather than that faith receives forgiveness. Don’t the arguments make forgiveness contingent upon faith in such a way that forgiveness does not exist until faith does? So then, to what does faith cling, other than its own power to create forgiveness? Doesn’t faith have to cling to something besides itself?
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
    Jim Pierce
    February 18th, 2014 at 16:28 | #36
    “Just like the Devil himself, you twist the comfort of the Gospel as found in 2 Corinthians 5:19 into the evil doctrine that we must look inside ourselves for faith before we can know that God is at peace with us. You, Mr. Meyer, are a wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing.”
    Sven Wagschal expressing UOJ’s teaching concerning faith
    February 17th, 2014 at 08:10 | #14
    “It must be noted at this point that faith has no worth of its own”
    Jim Pierce
    February 18th, 2014 at 15:39 | #33
    “The Scriptural truth is that our sins are really forgiven prior to our ever having faith.”
    Christian Book of Concord:
    67] Concerning what is needful furthermore for the proper explanation of this profound and chief article of justification before God, upon which depends the salvation of our souls, we direct, and for the sake of brevity herewith refer, every one to Dr. Luther’s beautiful and glorious exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians.
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
    Martin Luther Galatians Commentary:
    “As before said, they regard faith of slight importance; for they do not understand that it is our sole justifier. To accept as true the record of Christ–this they call faith. The devils have the same sort of faith, but it does not make them godly. Such belief is not Christian faith; no, it is rather deception.”
    “You see how they make faith of no value to themselves, and so must regard as heresy all doctrine based upon it. Thus they do away with the whole Gospel. These are they who deny the Christian faith and exterminate it from the world. Paul prophesied concerning them when he said (1 Tim 4, 1): “In later times some shall fall away from the faith.” The voice of faith is now silenced all over the world. Indeed, faith is condemned and banished as the worst heresy, and all who teach and endorse it are condemned with it. The Pope, the bishops, charitable institutions, cloisters, high schools, unanimously opposed it for nearly four hundred years, and simply drove the world violently into hell. Their conduct is the real persecution by Antichrist, in the last times.”
    “Note, faith justifies the individual; faith is justification. Because of faith God remits all sins, and forgives the old Adam and the Cain in our nature, for the sake of Christ his beloved Son, whose name faith represents.”
    “You cannot extricate yourself from unbelief, nor can the Law do it for you. All your works in intended fulfilment of the Law must remain works of the Law and powerless to justify in the sight of God, who regards as just only believing children.”
    http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Galatians4_1_7.html
  2. Sven Wagschal
    February 25th, 2014 at 02:08 | #14
    If you do not understand me, do not quote me. By your quote you are shown to be a lier (sic) and a slanderer. Learn to read and to understand.
    But you are blind, and I fear, it is a sign of your damnation.

Jon-Boy Buchholz: How To Kick a Congregation and Pastor Out of WELS - And Lose the Property - By Teaching against the Christian Faith

$
0
0


 What: WLS Evening Lecture on the Doctrine of Objective Justification

(+ bonus time for Q&A on Losing a Congregation and Gaining a Gunn)
Who: Presented by District President Jon Buchholz (AZ-CA)
Why: There are lots of confusing messages “out there” about the 
objectivity of God’s forgiveness. For men and women who 
care about God’s people, we’ll want to be able to express 
ourselves clearly about this topic.

Where: Basement of Dormitory Building
When: Thursday, March 6th at 7PM.




++BONUS++: Tasty snacks and beverages will make an appearance!

Details and reminders coming soon…

—Nate Wordell & Paul Wilde
WLS Evening Lecture Committee


Nobody did more for Church and Change
than Jon-Boy Buchholz
and SP Mark Schroeder -
the reformers. Hahahahaha.





UOJ Drama Queens Fail To Dent the Doctrine of Justification by Faith

$
0
0


  1. Brett Meyer
    February 25th, 2014 at 08:52 | #24
    Dave Schumacher :@Pr. Jim Schulz #18 You have illustrated my point.I did not say that the atonement is the same thing as justification. The result of the atonement IS forgiveness. Forgiveness IS justification.
    And since Scripture and the Christian Book of Concord confirm:
    That Christ is our Mediator and Propitiation only through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…
    That God’s wrath and condemnation over sin is only mediated by Christ through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…
    That God’s grace upon, and acceptance of, an individual is only through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…
    That reconciliation with God through Christ occurs only through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…
    That men are justified solely by the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…
    Men are not considered by God to be forgiven, justified, except through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone.
  2. Pr. Jim Schulz
    February 25th, 2014 at 09:06 | #25
    Dave Schumacher, my mistake. I’m glad you are saying that the atonement is not the same thing as justification. However, the Confessions don’t allow for an understanding of justification where because both the atonement and justification include forgiveness that therefore an “individual is justified – whether they believe it or not.” Justification must always include faith (cf. Solid Declaration III:25). Or, to use the OJ/SJ terminology: SJ must be taught with OJ. The two go together, they must not be separated.
  3. February 25th, 2014 at 09:24 | #26
    “No one actually has forgiveness unless and until he receives it by faith.”
    So, “takes place” means “receives”? Or, “takes place” means “actually has”?
    By this does Prof Marquart mean that forgiveness does not exist until someone receives it by faith, until someone has it?
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
  4. February 25th, 2014 at 09:33 | #27
    In Col 2:15, are the disarming, triumph, and spectacle contingent upon someone having faith? Were the principalities and powers able to say, while being dragged along behind Christ’s chariot in his victory parade, “Not so fast Jesus, not until someone believes?”
    What is the connection between verse 15 and the one before it, verse 14, “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross?” Was the Judge able to say concerning the wiping out of the verdict, “Not so fast, Advocate, not until someone believes?”
    What connection did Luther make between them?
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
  5. Sven Wagschal
    February 25th, 2014 at 09:37 | #28
    Brett Meyer :
    When a verbatim quote is regarded as slander – I would spend more time considering what you are writing.
    Truth is that when clergy, professors and laity defend the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification there is no possible way to avoid inconsistencies and contradictions. It is the nature of the doctrine.
    More nonsense and rubbish. The verbatim quote means nothing, because the post you are alluding to says quite the opposite from what you are dreaming. By quoting out of context you twist my words to the exact opposite. Everyone but you can see that. But I know, you cannot or will not understand it.
    The post #14 on page 2 speaks of the worth of faith, wherein this worth lies, by whom faith gets its worth, and so on. It says the same as the Formula of Concord:
    “10 These treasures are brought to us by the Holy Spirit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. Faith alone is the only means through which we lay hold on, accept, apply, and take them for ourselves. 11 This faith is God’s gift [Ephesians 2:8–9], by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel and trust in Him. We trust that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the Father, and are eternally saved. 12 Therefore, it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says (a) we are “justified by faith” (Romans 3:28) or (b) “faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:5) and when he says (c) “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) or (d) “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Romans 5:18).
    13 Faith justifies not because it is such a good work or because it is so beautiful a virtue. It justifies because it lays hold of and accepts Christ’s merit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. For this merit must be applied and become ours through faith, if we are to be justified by it. 14 Therefore, the righteousness that is credited to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is Christ’s obedience, suffering, and resurrection, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law and paid for ‹expiated› our sins. ”
    McCain, P. T. (Ed.). (2005). Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (pp. 537–538). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. SD III, 10
    Luther in his great commentary on Galatians fights against those deny that we are justified by faith alone, because in their view faith is without worth if it is not perfected by love (fides caritate formata). This is just another form of self-righteousness. In contrast to the papists Luther points out that faith in Christ is enough for our justification, our works cannot do or complete anything in this regard.
    Your slanderous post above is fallacy by equivocation. Using the same words Luther and I are talking about different things.
    You are slandering me! (And others, too.) You are a lier and deceiver. Repent and learn to read so that you may understand what people are talking of.
  6. Pr. Jim Schulz
    February 25th, 2014 at 09:43 | #29
    T.R. Halvorson, since Marquart is no longer around to explain whether or not he means forgiveness does not exist until someone receives it by faith, I will take his “has” to mean “has.”
    has [haz; unstressed huhz, uhz] verb
    a 3rd person singular present indicative of have.
    have [hav; unstressed huhv, uhv; for 26 usually haf]
    verb (used with object), present singular 1st person have, 2nd have or ( Archaic ) hast, 3rd has or ( Archaic ) hath, present plural have; past singular 1st person had, 2nd had or (Archaic ) hadst or had·dest, 3rd had, past plural had; past participle had; present participle hav·ing.
    1. to possess; own; hold for use; contain: He has property. The work has an index.
    2. to hold, possess, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position: He wanted to marry her, but she wouldn’t have him.
    3. to get, receive, or take: to have a part in a play; to have news.
    4. to experience, undergo, or endure, as joy or pain: Have a good time. He had a heart attack last year.
    5. to hold in mind, sight, etc.: to have doubts.
  7. February 25th, 2014 at 09:55 | #30
    You used “has” to define “takes place.” Then you offer a dictionary definition of “has” that does not relate it to “takes place,” and thereby have not accepted the invitation to illuminate what “has” means in relation to “takes place.”
    This is the point where engagement ceases and circling begins. Do you wish to circle, or engage? Otherwise, you and I are only pouring ourselves down the sinkhole of avoidance.
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
  8. Joe Krohn
    February 25th, 2014 at 10:11 | #31
    Please frame your comments around 2 Peter 2:1 and show how they support the passage.
    “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
  9. Brett Meyer
    February 25th, 2014 at 10:12 | #32
    I did respond. Please review.
  10. February 25th, 2014 at 10:41 | #33
    Gentlemen,
    I quoted Dr. Marquart in an earlier comment above ours which deals directly with what he may have meant with “has.”
    “If all sins of all men have been truly and successfully expiated by Christ, then forgiveness is more than a possibility. The world’s sin has been decisively dealt with, and in that sense forgiveness is an accomplished fact. Luther therefore can have no hesitation in trans­lating the participles in 2 Corinthians 5:19 as if they were finite verbs: “For God was in Christ, and reconciled the world with Himself, and did not impute to them their sins ….” For Luther as for the New Testament (note the equation of “redemption” and “forgiveness” in Colossians 1:14 and the aorists and perfect inColossians 2:13-15) forgiveness, that is, cancellation of sin, or the change from divine wrath to divine grace, “has happened” in a way in which it has not happened either for Roman Catholicism or for Calvinism. ”
    Notice that Marquart states “The world’s sin has been decisively dealt with, and in that sense forgiveness is an accomplished fact.” Marquart also writes,
    “It is very clear here that forgiveness, in the form of the absolution, exists before and independently of faith, and creates or gives birth to it. Forgiveness or absolution (that is, the Gospel itself) creates faith; faith merely receives or accepts forgiveness. Absolution can exist without faith (although its benefits of course go to waste unless faith receives them), but faith cannot exist without absolution.”
    http://ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/MarquartReformationRootsofObjectiveJustification.pdf
    I find what Dr. Marquart writes compelling, showing that the world has been forgiven of all its sins and that forgiveness “exists before and independently of faith, and creates or gives birth to it.” This idea that Dr. Marquart did not teach a general justification (objective justification) is nonsense.
  11. February 25th, 2014 at 10:52 | #34
    I did respond. Please review.
    Do you mean in #13?
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
  12. Brett Meyer
    February 25th, 2014 at 13:21 | #35
    No, here:
    Brett Meyer :@T. R. Halvorson #38 
    I confess that in regards to God’s Word and the unified doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture there is no such thing as a theory.
    Definition of theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
    UOJ is promoted and defended via contradictory teachings while excusing the contradictions by calling all doctrine concepts with words that flex in meaning depending on the interpretation of the individual but inconsistent with God’s singular Word.
    T.R., is there some part of the atonement revealed in Scripture that you find to be inconclusive and a mere idea or theory?
    In regards to Marquart and his confession of UOJ – no surpise that I disagree with him based on the Scriptural and Confessional quotes provided in this discussion – but I did find interesting his favorable quote of a liberal Roman Catholic in his defense of faithless forgiveness.
    3. The Biblical Basis of “Objective/Subjective Justification”
    Rather than rehash “in-house” exegesis, let us look at the relevant biblical material as
    displayed by Hans Kueng, a world-class, liberal Roman Catholic New Testament scholar,
    who stands entirely outside any and all Lutheran debates.
     Page 4
    http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.marquartjustification.html
  13. Pr. Jim Schulz
    February 25th, 2014 at 13:31 | #36
    T.R. what I mean by “takes place” is “has” which means “receive, possess, own.”
  14. February 25th, 2014 at 15:22 | #37
    That is not an answer saying how Luther dealt with penal substitution and Christus Victor. That’s just a quibble with my use of the word “theory” and hence a disengagement from the discussion, retreating into circling and avoiding.
    Maybe I should have used the word Aulen uses, “idea,” or yet some third, fourth, or fifth word, such as understanding, explanation, or teaching. There is a right word, even if I don’t know what it is, and my selection of the wrong word did not consign to nonbeing Luther’s dealing with the two things.
    Do you contend that, since I applied the word “theories” to penal substitution and Christus Victor, and since there are no theories, therefore Luther did not deal with these two things?
    How did he deal with them? How do you trace from what he said about that to justification? This is the third time I’ve asked.
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
  15. February 25th, 2014 at 15:32 | #38
    Thank you for your patience, and for that answer. It does tie up the loose ends in my understanding of what you are saying.
    You and I have been careful enough and thorough enough in our communication for me now to draw some conclusions about whether to be persuaded of your position. I can’t be.
    In your position, there is nothing to believe, nothing for the Sacraments to deliver, nothing to be received by faith, nothing to be proclaimed. The terminology of truth is used, but with different meanings.
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
  16. Pr. Jim Schulz
    February 25th, 2014 at 15:44 | #39
    T.R. Thanks for the discussion. I’ll keep you in my prayers.
  17. February 25th, 2014 at 16:10 | #40
    Thanks to you as well, and for your prayers.
    This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
  18. February 25th, 2014 at 17:43 | #41
    In case some reading the comments here do not know the LCMS position on objective justification, please read the PDF titled “Theses on Justification” which can be found on the page linked here. I quote the relevant section below.
    VI THE UNIVERSAL AND FINISHED RESULTS OF CHRIST’S WORK OF OBEDIENCE
    19. Christ is the Savior of all. This means that the whole world of sinners has been redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled to God in Him. (Rom. 3:24-255:102 Cor. 5:191 Tim. 4:10Heb. 9:28; Ap IV, 103; XXIV, 22-24; FC SD III, 57; XI, 15)
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    That it is improper to speak of God being reconciled to man;
    That we can only speak of man being reconciled to God by man’s repentance or change of heart;
    That God has redeemed but not reconciled the world.
    20. God has accepted the vicarious offering and sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, in
    whom therefore God is propitiated and reconciled with all sinners, so that for Christ’s
    sake God’s wrath against all sinners has been and remains stilled, and Satan, sin,
    death, and hell have been and are conquered. (Rom. 5:18Col. 2:14-15;1 Thess. 1:10;
    Heb. 7:2710:121 John 2:2; AC III, 3; Ap XXIV, 22-24; FC SD XI, 28)
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    That God’s acceptance of His Son’s perfect sacrifice does not have as its
    necessary concomitant the propitiation of His wrath against all sinners.
    21. Complete and perfect righteousness and forgiveness have been acquired for all
    sinners. (Ps. 130:4Rom. 5:181 Cor. 1:30Heb. 10:1218; Ap IV, 103; LC II, 38; FC
    Ep III, 3; V, 5; FC SD III, 30, 57)
    22. God, by raising His Son from the dead, has justified Him, declared Him to be the
    Righteous One, and in Him (i e , for the sake of His finished work of obedience and
    satisfaction) has declared (as proclaimed in the Gospel), or reckoned, the whole world
    to be righteous. (Rom. 3:244:255:18-192 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3)
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    That forgiveness of sins and justification for all have not been declared by God
    when He raised His Son from the dead, but have merely been acquired or made
    a possibility through Christ’s atonement.
    23. By “objective” or “universal” justification one means that God has declared the
    whole world to be righteous for Christ’s sake and that righteousness has thus been
    procured for all people. It is objective because this was God’s unilateral act prior to and
    in no way dependent upon man’s response to it, and universal because all human
    beings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all
    people by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of
    forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:244:25;5:192 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    That God’s acquisition and establishment of forgiveness in objective justification is a conditional verdict, depending on faith or any other human response or activity;
    That it is not Biblical to speak of “objective justification.”
    Note: * Definitions in part II are preliminary to the material in the remainder of the document
    and should be cross-referenced with more detailed statements in the later theses. For
    example, theses 5 and 6 are elaborated in theses 19-22.
  19. Brett Meyer
    February 25th, 2014 at 20:44 | #42
    Jim Pierce :In case some reading the comments here do not know the LCMS position on objective justification, please read the PDF titled “Theses on Justification” which can be found on the page linked here. I quote the relevant section below.
    VI THE UNIVERSAL AND FINISHED RESULTS OF CHRIST’S WORK OF OBEDIENCE
    19. Christ is the Savior of all. This means that the whole world of sinners has been redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled to God in Him. (Rom. 3:24-255:102 Cor. 5:191 Tim. 4:10Heb. 9:28; Ap IV, 103; XXIV, 22-24; FC SD III, 57; XI, 15)
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    That it is improper to speak of God being reconciled to man;
    BOC: ”there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled to God and first obtain the remission of sin.”
    BOC: ”58] … because for Christ’s sake we have a sure and firm reconciliation, if you believe, even though sin inhere in your flesh.”
    BOC: ”61]… because by faith alone we receive remission of sins and reconciliation”
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php
    Jim Pierce :
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    That we can only speak of man being reconciled to God by man’s repentance or change of heart;
    That God has redeemed but not reconciled the world.
    BOC: Of 114] this faith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the remission of sins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham] accounted righteous for Christ’s sake
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
    Jim Pierce :
    20. God has accepted the vicarious offering and sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, inwhom therefore God is propitiated and reconciled with all sinners, so that for Christ’ssake God’s wrath against all sinners has been and remains stilled, and Satan, sin,death, and hell have been and are conquered. (Rom. 5:18;Col. 2:14-151 Thess. 1:10;Heb. 7:2710:121 John 2:2; AC III, 3; Ap XXIV, 22-24; FC SD XI, 28)
    Romans 3:23-26, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousess for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
    BOC: “The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith.
    BOC: “But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith.”
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
    Jim Pierce :
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    That God’s acceptance of His Son’s perfect sacrifice does not have as itsnecessary concomitant the propitiation of His wrath against all sinners.
    Refer to Romans 3:23-26 above showing Christ is only apprehended as propitiation against God’s wrath over sin through faith alone.
    BOC: Paul on the contrary, teaches that we have access, i.e., reconciliation, through Christ. And to show how this occurs, he adds that we have access by faith.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
    Jim Pierce :
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    22. God, by raising His Son from the dead, has justified Him, declared Him to be theRighteous One, and in Him (i e , for the sake of His finished work of obedience andsatisfaction) has declared (as proclaimed in the Gospel), or reckoned, the whole worldto be righteous. (Rom. 3:244:255:18-192 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3)
    Scripture: Romans 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
    BOC: 86] But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ’s sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God,
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
    Jim Pierce :
    It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
    That forgiveness of sins and justification for all have not been declared by Godwhen He raised His Son from the dead, but have merely been acquired or madea possibility through Christ’s atonement.
    23. By “objective” or “universal” justification one means that God has declared thewhole world to be righteous for Christ’s sake and that righteousness has thus beenprocured for all people. It is objective because this was God’s unilateral act prior to andin no way dependent upon man’s response to it, and universal because all humanbeings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for allpeople by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven. The acquiring offorgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:24;4:255:192 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)
    BOC: “For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life.”
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
    BOC: 6] Let any one of the adversaries come forth and tell us when remission of sins takes place. O good God, what darkness there is! They doubt whether it is in attrition or in contrition that remission of sins occurs. And if it occurs on account of contrition, what need is there of absolution, what does the power of the keys effect, if sins have been already remitted?…”
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_10_repentance.php
    BOC: “there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled to God and first obtain the remission of sin.”
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php
    Scripture: Romans 10:3-4, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
  20. Dave Schumacher
    February 25th, 2014 at 21:55 | #43
    Pr. Jim Schulz :
    Dave Schumacher, my mistake. I’m glad you are saying that the atonement is not the same thing as justification. However, the Confessions don’t allow for an understanding of justification where because both the atonement and justification include forgiveness that therefore an “individual is justified – whether they believe it or not.” Justification must always include faith (cf. Solid Declaration III:25). Or, to use the OJ/SJ terminology: SJ must be taught with OJ. The two go together, they must not be separated.
    A forgiveness that is not also justification is no forgiveness at all.
    You muddle with terms trying to harmonize what is true with what is not true.
    The scriptural doctrine of the LCMS does not agree with your false dichotomy of forgiveness vs. justification.
  21. Joe Krohn
    February 25th, 2014 at 22:14 | #44
    @Brett Meyer #42 
    You still have not responded to 2 Peter 2:1, Brett that says all men are redeemed; plain as the nose on your face.
  22. Brett Meyer
    February 25th, 2014 at 22:46 | #45
    Joe Krohn :@Brett Meyer #42 You still have not responded to 2 Peter 2:1, Brett that says all men are redeemed; plain as the nose on your face.
    Redeemed does not mean the same thing as Justified. Redeemed means to purchase, buy back. Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. Therefore in Christ is all righteousness for the forgiveness of sins (justification), regeneration, the adoption of sons and salvation.
    The BOC confirms this:
    4] In opposition to both these parties it has been unanimously taught by the other teachers of the Augsburg Confession that Christ is our righteousness not according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human nature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God’s children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness.
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
    Note the bolded section which per your false UOJ confession would read, “for He has justified, justified, and saved us from our sins…”
    Also note, that the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God which through faith alone is imputed for righteousness to all true believers. A complete and full rejection of the false gospel of UOJ.
    That BOC quote is worth repeating and rereading – UOJ is anti-confessional.
    In Christ,
    Brett Meyer

Ukraine Justification? - Facebook "Friend" Baits Me When I Discuss the Ukraine Battles

$
0
0


This has happened several times before. When I enter an Internet discussion, having nothing to do with their favorite obsession, a UOJ Drama Queen starts attacking me and calling me various names.

Last night it was a Facebook discussion about the hero of the Ukraine war, where this one Ukraine man gave an emotional speech and chased the dictator out of office.

I asked about the lack of leadership in America. Suddenly I was being attacked "not a Lutheran" for denying their precious UOJ. We were discussing leadership and heroics - and the Ukraine.

I only mention this because it has happened many times before. The UOJ Death Squad lights up and goes into action simply because I post something mild (and not about UOJ) on a blog, or on a FB discussion thread. Some do their deeds anonymously. Others actually use their own names. Their hatred is so irrational that they engage in all kinds of irrelevant arguments and silly behavior.

The UOJ Army is facing a very difficult situation. In spite of their dubious claim that everyone is justified, forgiven, and saved without faith (as Jon-Boy Buchholz writes), they energetically condemn anyone who disproves their apostate thinking.

1. The UOJsts have not convinced many Lutherans, regardless of their spittle-flying threats and name-calling. Their Church Growth, clergy-adultery-promoter Paul Kuske attacked them and their beloved  citadel of Satan in Mequon. Gausewitz is not on their side. Robert Preus abandoned them in time to receive eternal life through faith in Christ. Paul McCain backstabs them with his best-selling KJV catechism. It's hard to be a UOJ pimp in this town.
2. Their biggest, bestest, and most loyal allies are the mainline denominations, which also took over the language of Pietism to say that everyone is already forgiven without faith. That is precisely where the liberal Protestants place the meaning of grace. I read many of the great liberal classics of the 19th century at Notre Dame and studied the modern theologians like Barth and Tillich in great detail. My dissertation advisor was Stan Hauerwas, certain one of the best known modern theologians in the world. So - yes, I know. That is why no one tries to refute this simple assertion - UOJ is mainline, liberal Protestantism.
3. The traditional Universalists have the same UOJ argument and - oddly enough - they are often more conservative than the skirt-chasing, alcohol abusing WELS clergy who revel in their Antinomianism.


This shoots the UOJ philosophy to pieces,
so they ignore it.

Most Popular Posts on the Blog No One Reads

$
0
0

Virtue Online - A Lot More Gumption Than the "Intrepid Lutherans". VO Calls for Seminary Head To Resign

$
0
0
Dean Salmon Should Resign from Nashotah House

Editorial

By David W. Virtue MCS, DD 
www.virtueonline.org 
February 24, 2014

Bishop Edward Salmon, Dean and President of Nashotah House, the flagship Anglo Catholic seminary in Nashotah, Wisconsin should resign, having forfeited his right to continue to lead the seminary following an invitation to Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to address the student body there.

The theological views of the Presiding Bishop have been well documented. She has, over the course of seven years, made un-Biblical statements about the person of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Bible, heaven and hell, the Resurrection, attributing a demon to St. Paul and made the statement from the 2009 General Convention that the "great heresy of Western Christianity" is the belief that one can have a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

That he acquiesced to the request of three students to invite Jefferts Schori to "come and see" and then attempted to wash his hands of the event has been typical of the history of this bishop. He once famously said to his clergy, when he was bishop of South Carolina, that if TEC ever allowed the gay agenda to take hold he would take the diocese out of the Episcopal Church. He didn't and later denied saying that he ever said it. It was up to his successor Bishop Mark Lawrence to take that action.

In this latest debacle Salmon has revealed himself to be a prevaricator, a fence sitter and useful idiot for the episcopal administration.

In this ecclesiastical conflagration he has been called out by his predecessor Dean Robert Munday who says that what he did was totally contrary to the faith we are called to believe and teach.

"One of the things that saddens me most about this whole affair is what it models for students at the House. These students are no longer being taught to be valiant for truth and to take risks for the sake of the Gospel, they are being led by example to 'go along to get along,' and that dialogue with heretics and even having them in your pulpit is a good thing if it promotes better relationships."

Salmon is on record as saying, "The name of leadership is relationships - people connecting with each other and working together. Our broken relationships in the Church are a testimony against the Gospel."

Not true, wrote Munday. "The heterodoxy of the Episcopal Church, in general, and of Katharine Jefferts Schori, in particular, is a testimony against the Gospel. We are called to separate ourselves from false teachers; and a shepherd, whether of a diocese, a parish, or a seminary, is called to protect his flock from wolves. In the words of the ordination vows Bishop Salmon took: 'Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to do the same?' To lead a seminary like Nashotah House in these days, and to fail to keep that ordination vow, is to see your seminary turn into another Seabury-Western, or General, or worse."

What is doubly ironic is that the Presiding Bishop has spoken vigorously against students wanting to study at Nashotah House. The Presiding Bishop specifically told one of her Executive Council members not to seek his theological education at Nashotah House. This negative advice was also delivered to two other co-ed students while they were in discernment about their seminary training at The House.

Now ask yourself a question. Has the much ballyhooed "doctrines" of inclusivity and diversity ever led a liberal Episcopal seminary to invite an orthodox bishop to give a lecture on say the Trinity or a biblical view on human sexuality? It would be laughable to think that the "married" lesbian president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Massachusetts would ever make such an invitation. Hell would freeze over before that happened.

And the truly stupefying truth is that for over 30 years orthodox bishops in the Episcopal Church have drawn one line in the sand after another in order to appease liberals. I recall Central Florida Bishop John Howe voting for Resolution D039 that allowed homosexual fornication in the name of "holy love" to become part of the sexual fabric of the church. Other resolutions followed, orthodox bishops drew more lines in the sand till one day Bishop Barbara Harris stood up and demanded that all dioceses must ordain women to the priesthood (in the name of women's rights) thus nullifying the consciences of godly bishops like Keith Ackerman, William Wantland, Donald Davies, John-David Schofield, Clarence Pope, Edward MacBurney and Jack Iker and, with a stroke of the pen, forced them all out of the church they had spent most of their lives in.

And now Bishop Salmon thinks he can do it again. No you can't. That day is done. There are no more lines in the sand to be drawn. There is a new world ecclesiastical order. Jefferts Schori is a heretic and the NT is abundantly clear in several places that we should have nothing to do with them. St. Paul writing to the Galatians 1:7-9 is absolutely clear, "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." This is strong language that seemed to have slipped Bishop Salmon's mind.

As one blogger observed The Presiding bishop's Gospel can be defined as the acquisition of property by law, defrocking for disagreement, homosexual marriage and the holiness of the spirit of divination?

We must ask as Dean Munday did, "what were you thinking Bishop Salmon?" The days of go along to get along are long gone. What you did was not only reprehensible but you opened your orthodox academy to the "spirit of divination" that would have allowed any theologically weak students (and there are always one or two) to "hear" the Presiding Bishop and conclude that far from being a heretic she is a "nice person" who is either misunderstood or has a point of view worth hearing. 

I have watched this woman in action at press conferences at General Convention and she can parse her way through anything and anybody with answers that leave one scratching one's head, but NOBODY is prepared to challenge her. The last bishop to say anything was South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence who stormed out of the House of Bishops at the last General convention never to be seen again. Jefferts Schori went right along as though nothing had happened. Later the litigation began in earnest and continues to this day.

You, Bishop Salmon have failed the seminary, your supporters, some of your board members in the name of a false "inclusivity". You have no business running this seminary. You should do the honorable thing and resign.

END

***

GJ - The soi-disant Intrepids are more famous for their silence than for their speaking out. They silenced themselves:
1. When Rick Techlin was excommunicated for telling the truth about Ski/Glende/Engelbrecht.
2.  When Paul Rydecki was kicked out with his congregation for teaching the truth about justification by faith.
3. When everyone finally realized, at least five years late, that Thrivent is in bed with Planned Parenthood abortions.
4. When police raided the WELS headquarters for Hochmuth's man/boy rape graphics, after Mark Schroeder publicly absolved Hochmuth, and when Hochmuth offended again after displays of faux-repentance.
5. When Mark Schroeder went to Fox Valley to cut a deal with Engelbrecht, Glende, Ski, and St. Peter in Freedom.


WELS DP Buchholz Will Consecrate the NNIV Version of the Seminary Cornerstone

$
0
0
Grace alone,
Scriptures alone,
Without faith.
WELS - Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.
Two people were kind enough to send me a cornerstone photo from Mequon. I did not notice the new motto until today. I bow to their Photoshop abilities.

The Mequon faculty must be nervous about people asking difficult questions regarding forgiveness without faith (UOJ).

Justification by faith is too well documented in the Scriptures, Confessions, Luther, and the Concordists to dismiss.

If we had a Hunnius or P. Leyser, caught with a tract promoting UOJ, there would be reason to doubt the dominance of justification by faith. However, we have just the opposite - Samuel Huber teaching a position (based on his previous Calvinism) very close to WELS-ELCA-LCMS-ELS today. The response from the Concordists was volcanic. Huber was carefully unmasked as false teacher and removed from the Wittenberg faculty, as all the Mequon, St. Louis, Ft. Wayne, and Mankato professors should be today.

Instead, the Jar-Jar Binks of WELS, DP Jon Buchholz, will visit the dormitory basement to unleash his doctrinal ignorance on the poor, suffering students.

The more they make a show of their support for UOJ, the more students will suspect their insecurities.

Didn't Buchholz deliver the same nonsense to the Anything Goes District of WELS, where Ski is patiently waiting to get his job back from Engelbrecht?

Didn't Buchholz lie to the New Mexico congregation, promising to continue the discussion about justification at the upcoming conference, only to drive out their pastor and the congregation itself?

Didn't Buchholz brag at that same conference that he was foreclosing the loan on the New Mexico congregation, licking his chops?

Buchholz, like the rest of the WELS District Popes, has shown himself to be a man without faith, without principles, without integrity, but not without guile.

Meet the real Board of Governors of WELS -
John Parlow, Mark/Avoid Jeske, Paul Kelm, and Kudu Don Patterson.



Pine Bluff Transgender Episcopal Priest

$
0
0


Posted by David Virtue on 2014/2/26 9:10:00 (1335 reads)
ARKANSAS: Pine Bluff Episcopalian priest says he is transgendered

Rick Joslin
PINE BLUFF COMMERCIAL
http://pbcommercial.com/news/local/local-episcopalian-priest-says-he-transgendered
Feb. 24, 2014

The Rev. Greg Fry, priest-in-charge at Grace Episcopal Church in Pine Bluff, told his congregation Sunday morning that he is transgendered and identifies himself as a woman, apparently becoming the only working member of the Episcopalian clergy in Arkansas ever to make such an announcement.

Church members and officials at Grace Episcopal declined comment on Monday, while one member said church leaders in the vestry were scheduled to meet on Wednesday, after which they may be in a better position to discuss the matter.

The Rt. Rev. Larry Benfield, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas, said in a statement that he has met with the congregation's vestry.

"I think that the congregation will spend time in the coming weeks asking questions and becoming knowledgeable about the issue," Benfield said, "and I hope that thoughtful questioning will precede any decisions about Greg's long-term ministry at Grace Church."

The bishop's response "is congruent with a resolution of the 2012 General Convention of the Episcopal Church stating that people have an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of the Episcopal Church regardless of their gender identity and expression," the statement read.

According to various definitions, a transgender person is one who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one that corresponds to the person's sex at birth. Transgender orientation is independent of sexual orientation.

Grace Episcopal, located at at 4101 S. Hazel St., was established in 1959 as a mission of Trinity Episcopal Church, the only other Episcopal church in the city. Trinity's rector for the past 12 years, the Rev. Dr. Walter Van Zandt Windsor, stated disapproval of Fry's announcement when contacted by The Commercial for comment.

"I am appalled by what has taken place at Grace Episcopal Church, but I understand," Windsor said in telephone and email comments. "I am primarily appalled because the announcement comes as a shock and obviously without concern for the Episcopalians in our community. I think it might have been less upsetting if we had spent time participating in a discussion of what all of this means related to our unified witness as Episcopalians."

Windsor said he assumes Fry has the support of the diocese and Grace's congregation.

"Grace is a loving group of people," Windsor said, "and I am sure that any error on their part is one of affirmation and love for one undergoing such tremendous changes in their life, such as their pastor is apparently undergoing."

Trinity, Windsor said, "upholds family values."

"We adhere to the traditional values of the church," Windsor said, adding that Trinity may have "perhaps more traditional mores than Grace" on some issues.

Fry's declared sexual status is a new occurrence within the Episcopal church in Arkansas, but not elsewhere in the United States, according to the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas.

"There are a relatively small number of transgender members of the clergy in the Episcopal church," Benfield said in the statement to The Commercial in response to questions that were emailed to him. "They work in a variety of settings, some in congregations and some in chaplaincies or other similar settings.

"This situation in Arkansas is the first time that the church in Arkansas has had a priest announce his or her transgender status to a congregation where that priest currently works," the bishop continued.

The diocese, headquartered in Little Rock, comprises more than 14,000 members and 60 congregations.

Fry, who resides in Little Rock, contacted The Commercial by email Monday afternoon and said he would entertain questions. Several questions were emailed to him, but Fry did not respond to any of them within a four-hour period as a publication deadline neared.

Benfield said Fry is protected in his sexual status by an Episcopal Church canon that states: "No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship and governance of this church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified" by church law."

"There is not a church policy concerning transgender members of the clergy who announce their transgender status in a congregation," the bishop said. "Each situation is addressed individually."

The title of "priest-in-charge" at Grace Episcopal is a part-time position. Fry's wife, Lisa Fry, is a priest at an Episcopalian church in Little Rock.

*****

Fry: Hi Parishioners. Won't You Join Me On The Journey Toward My Sex-Change Operation?

That's all I can assume he means when he refers to "finalizing" the "transformation that has been working on me from the day I was born."

This letter was sent to the members of Grace Episcopal Church in Pine Bluff:

Dear friends,

The time has come for me to share something with you that is deeply personal. This is not easy, but important journeys never are, so let me just say what needs to be told and invite you to join me in this journey.

My entire life I have known that there was something different about me and the way I felt inside. It has been like my inner self was out of sync with my outer self and so I have always experienced (to use a technical term) dysphoria. As a child I prayed that I would wake up some day the whole person that I felt myself to be on the inside. I need to tell you that after years of self-searching and therapy I have come to accept in myself that I am transgender. And now I need to be honest with myself and all those I care about which includes you. I am going to begin the final stages of transitioning and I would like you to invite you to join me in this journey.

There will be plenty of time for talking this out and for education but for today.... I am the same person you have always known. I will continue to be that person you know and, if possible, I hope to grow and become even a better and more whole person and priest.

Do not pretend to have all the answers because I certainly don't have them all either.

My hope and my prayer is that you accept my sincere invitation to make the journey with me.

- To accept the challenge to grow as an individual and parish - To discover what transformations and transitions in your life are occurring and happening before our eyes
- To learn more about what transgender means and is, for many people - To walk with me as I complete (finalize) the transformation that has been working on me from the day I was born.

I hope that you will walk with me in faith, so that together we can discover and witness to that Love we are called to be, and bring into the world.

*****

Bishop Benfield: About This Transgender Priest... He's a faithful Pastor.

February 19, 2014

Dear members and friends of Grace Church:

For the past few months I have been talking with your priest, Greg Fry, after he revealed to me his awareness that he is transgender. I want to share with you my thoughts about what this situation means for Grace Church and Greg.

I have known Greg and his wife Lisa ever since we all attended Virginia Theological Seminary. I have respected and valued the ministries that they both bring to the church. In fact, I ordained Lisa as a priest as she began her work at St. Mark's Church in Little Rock.

The issue of being transgendered is not one with which many of us are knowledgeable. I have learned much since working with Greg and another transgender priest in Arkansas, as well as my encounters with other transgender members of the clergy throughout the larger church. It is an issue centered on a person's gender identity; it is not an issue of sexual orientation/attraction.

My hope is that we can spend our time in the coming weeks asking questions and becoming knowledgeable about the issue. Good and thoughtful questions always precede any decisions about long-term ministry.

I continue to value Greg's presence among all of you at Grace Church. he continues to be a faithful pastor. He and Lisa will be working on the next phase of their lives simultaneously with our working on learning more about this issue and how it is lived out in Greg's life.

With every best wish I remain

Faithfully yours,

Larry R. Benfield
Bishop of Arkansas

Stay Tuned for Shocking Announcement about Ski - WELS Fox Valley - Anything Goes District

$
0
0
The WELS high school also had him speak on his favorite subject,
since Ski can relate on the same emotional and academic level as high school students.


This is from DP Doug:


Wishing to demonstrate sensitivity to those who have concerns about James’ return to the public ministry, and at the same time reflecting the thoughts of those both inside and outside the district who have expressed a desire to see this brother return to the pastoral ministry, we have placed a number of stipulations on the granting of CRM status. One: that the granting of CRM status exists only to allow James the opportunity to receive a call into another district. This means that he would not use his CRM status to preach or perform acts of public ministry in the Valley or in the synod, which normally could be done by those who hold CRM status. Two: according to COP policy CRM status will lapse after three years. If no call has been received or accepted in this period of time, it would seem appropriate to counsel him to move on with a different vocation. Three: should James fail to honor the terms under which we are granting CRM status, his CRM status will be revoked immediately.

---

Translated by someone as:

"Yes, here is a man who is irreproachable (except in the Valley) and an approved candidate for representing Christ to His people (except in the Valley, where he is not approved), and if the Lord of the Church extends a call to him through a congregation in this part of the state of Wisconsin, we will determine that the Lord has no right to extend such a call of that man whom we have approved for ministry."

When politicians like A. Weiner inspire memes like this,
their careers are over.
In WELS - the only one with a problem  is the person who reports it.
Glende's ministry team took a member to court for
responding to a public request for advice about Ski's fitness.

PS - There are bets that St. Peter in Freedom will call Ski anyway.

"Steadfast" Has To Check Out Brett Meyer's Comments Before Letting Them Through - No So with the Atheist-by-the-Grace-of-God

$
0
0
The Torquemada of  "Steadfast Lutherans" - Jim Pierce,
ready to pounce on faith whenever it appears.
  1. Brett Meyer @Joe Krohn #5 
    No. Christ did not redeem the unbelieving world out from under the Law as UOJ teaches in its abuse of Scripture.
    Christ paid for the whole worlds sins. He paid for the iniquity of the whole world. Therefore all righteousness is in Christ and never apart from Him. If you’re implying the sense of the word redeemed means to pay for sins – yes, Christ paid for the whole world’s sins. If you’re implying the sense of the word redeemed means to justify – no, you are contending against Scripture and the Christian Book of Concord. This confession is clarified by the following quotes of the BOC recommended Galatians Commentary and the Solid Declaration.
    Luther’s Galatians Commentary:
    74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems usfrom under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith. He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed.
    As he believes, so is it with him. Faith carries with it the child-making spirit. Theapostle here explains by saying that Christ has redeemed us from under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sons. As before stated, all must be effected through faith.” Page 18
    Luther’s Galatians Commentary:
    “82. Note, the Son of God is put under the Law in that he redeemed us who were under it. For us, for our good, he effected all; not for himself. He purposed to manifest toward us only love, goodness and mercy. As Paul has it (Gal 3, 13),
    “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.” In other words: For us, Christ put himself under the law and complied with its demands, designing every believer of this fact to be redeemed from under the Law with its curse.” Page 20
    BOC: 4] In opposition to both these parties it has been unanimously taught by the other teachers of the Augsburg Confession that Christ is our righteousness not according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human nature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God’s children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness. 
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
    I hope this clarifies.
  2. February 26th, 2014 at 19:17 | #12
    Btw, when it is said that God is reconciled to the world in Christ, that is not some nominalistic move where the action takes part in the person receiving faith in Christ, that is an action that takes place in God. It is a real change in relation between God and the world. Of course, that doesn’t mean the world is reconciled to God; i.e. the world loves God!
    Indeed, those dead in sin hate God!
  3. Brett Meyer
    February 26th, 2014 at 21:14 | #13
    Jim Pierce :Btw, when it is said that God is reconciled to the world in Christ, that is not some nominalistic move where the action takes part in the person receiving faith in Christ, that is an action that takes place in God. It is a real change in relation between God and the world. Of course, that doesn’t mean the world is reconciled to God; i.e. the world loves God!
    Indeed, those dead in sin hate God!
    Mr. Pierce, in your faithful confession of Objective Justification you are teaching contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
    Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his
    71] “but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ’s sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God.And because “to be justified” means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term “to be justified” is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins”.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
    40] … Therefore it must follow that we are accepted with God, and justified by faith alone, when in our hearts we conclude that God desires to be gracious to us, not on account of our works and fulfilment of the Law, but from pure grace, for Christ’s sake. What can our opponents bring forward against this argument? What can they invent and devise against the plain truth?
    there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled to God and first obtain the remission of sin. Good God, how dare people call themselves Christians or say that they once at least looked into or read the books of the Gospel when they still deny that we obtain remission of sins by faith in Christ? Why, to a Christian it is shocking merely to hear such a statement.”
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php
    UOJ’s false teaching concerning reconciliation is another reason it is fair to charge the doctrine with Universalism. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
    The contradictions never end with Objective Justification.
  4. Joe Krohn
    February 27th, 2014 at 12:35 | #14
    @Joe Krohn #5 
    Since a day has gone by and Brett Meyer has not answered the question put to him, one can conclude he is unable to answer the question because:
    A.) Life obligations have taken him away from the discussion.
    B.) He has finally come the the conclusion he has been wrong all along and can not show his face.
    I pray that he has finally been able to make the objective connections of redemption, reconciliation, atonement and justification as they relate to mankind regardless of faith.
  5. February 27th, 2014 at 12:41 | #15
    @Joe Krohn #14 
    My apologies Joe, Brett is on moderated status so each of his comments has to be approved before it becomes public. I was not able to approve them yesterday. I have approved them now.
  6. Brett Meyer
    February 27th, 2014 at 13:02 | #16
    Thank you Pastor Scheer. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration you have provided me in allowing my confession to be presented and addressed in this public forum.
  7. February 27th, 2014 at 14:04 | #17
    UOJ’s false teaching concerning reconciliation is another reason it is fair to charge the doctrine with Universalism.Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
    The contradictions never end with Objective Justification.
    It is absolutely dishonest to “charge the doctrine with Universalism.” One of the many problems you are having Brett is in recognizing that the emphasis being placed on objective justification is in response to the false teaching that there is no such thing as a general justification. In other words, I would happily go along talking about subjective justification or about justification in general, if it weren’t for the fact that you and others in this thread are attacking objective justification.
    When asked to deal with the Scriptures, the Confessions, and scholarship showing you are wrong, you begin cutting and pasting quotations from the Book of Concord as if anyone posting in this thread disagrees with what is being stated in our Confession. That too is dishonesty on your part.
    What you are wrongly attempting is to harmonize what appears to be a contradiction. In the process you have flat out rejected the Scriptural truth of universal reconciliation. As a side note, are you aware that Pieper uses the terms “objective and subjective reconciliation” as synonymous with “objective and subjective justification”? He does that because he recognized just as Martin Chemnitz did that the vicarious satisfaction made by Christ is “a matter which belongs to the article of justification” (Examination of the Council of Trent, Vol., I, Art. VII, p. 497). So, are you going to say that Chemnitz is a heretic who teaches a false gospel, too? After all, Chemnitz is clear that the vicarious satisfaction “is the expiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), and hence Christ is the end of the Law for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4)” (ibid).
    When you attack and deny what is taught by OJ, you are attacking the teaching of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction, since you are saying that what Christ accomplished through His death and resurrection is not making full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world and hence you reject the sound teaching of God being reconciled to all of humankind in response to His Son. Indeed, you are in fact rejecting what is confessed in the Formula:
    “But, since it is the obedience as above mentioned [not only of one nature, but] of the entire person, it is a complete satisfaction and expiation for the human race, by which the eternal, immutable righteousness of God, revealed in the Law, has been satisfied, and is thus our righteousness, which avails before God and is revealed in the Gospel, and upon which faith relies before God, which God imputes to faith, as it is written, Rom. 5:19: For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous; and 1 John 1:7: The blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanseth us from all sin. Likewise: The just shall live by his faith, Hab. 2:4Rom. 1:17? (FC III, 57).
    When you reject, as you do, that Christ has made “a complete satisfaction and expiation for the human race” you gut out the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no righteousness of Christ to be imputed. There is no good news for faith to receive. All there is is a conditional forgiveness of sins turning upon the action of faith in the individual. Yes, your teaching is “If you believe, then you will be forgiven.” The Scriptural view is “Your sins are forgiven due to the merit of Christ, receive His free gift!” Yes, indeed this is what happens via the means of grace! Take and eat! The true body of Christ given to you for the forgiveness of sins! Drink of it all of you, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).
    Reject the teaching behind the term “objective justification” at your own peril. Ultimately you reject the vicarious satisfaction made by Christ and we have already seen that with your own words, Brett. For you reject a universal reconciliation.
  8. Joe Krohn
    February 27th, 2014 at 16:41 | #18
    @Pastor Joshua Scheer #15 
    No problem, Pr, Scheer!
    Brett, you are blind! In your Luther quote is embedded exactly what you are arguing against!
    “He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed.”
    Christ had to redeem us in order for us to believe we are redeemed. That is what Luther is saying! And if you are saying (which seems to be the case) that not all men are/were redeemed, them you are guilty of limited redemption because the ‘paying of the world’s iniquity’ effects something for all men.
    You clearly deny scripture. Furthermore what you confess is not Lutheran. Please do us all a favor and quit posting here for you are disgracing the Scriptures and the BOC by your twisting of the truth.
  9. Brett Meyer
    February 27th, 2014 at 16:41 | #19
    @Jim Pierce #17 
    Thank you for your response Mr. Pierce. The reason I quoted Romans 5:10 was to show that those reconciled to God are saved eternally. Which makes the purpose of the doctrine of OJ pointless. If OJ continues to teach God is reconciled to the whole unbelieving world they must bear the responsibility of also teaching the whole unbelieving world is saved eternally.
    You claim I’m attacking Christ’s doctrine by rejecting Objective Justification. Truth is I reject OJ because it’s not Scriptural. Because it’s not Scriptural – I’m not attacking Christ’s doctrine and in fact I’m upholding it.
    You quote Chemitz, ““a complete satisfaction and expiation for the human race”. I will make the same point as Pastor Schulz but the difference will be that I reject OJ in totality and am not attempting to retain any of it. Note the word ‘for’ which shows intent. Were it to state ‘of – the human race’ then it would teach OJ. But it doesn’t for it doesn’t communicate completion but intent.
    Everyone should note the twisting of Scriptural words that is occuring in the doctrine of Objective Justification. Saved but not heaven saved, God is reconciled to the unbelieving world but unbelievers are not reconciled to God, God declares the unbelieving world justified but they aren’t justified until they believe He made that declaration (the other OJ versions teach they don’t receive the benefit of God’s declaration until they believe He made it), God making a declaration but the effect of that declaration isn’t real until the subject of the declaration believes it, and the list goes on. There is no excuse for OJ’s ongoing abuse of God’s Word.
    You condemn me for rejecting OJ but you have never provided Scriptural or Confessional proof that it is a doctrine of Christ. In fact all of my quotes of Scripture and the Confessions are clearly teaching contrary to the tenets of UOJ with you promote. Condemn me for rejecting OJ if you wish but it is not a valid arguement when the validity of OJ is the issue.
    71] “but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ’s sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because “to be justified” means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term “to be justified” is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins”.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
    “by faith itself…we are for Christ’s sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God.”
    This single sentence from the Christian Book of Concord refutes the foundational tenet of OJ which teaches the unbelieving world was reconciled (accepted) by God for the sake of Christ before and without the Means of Grace working Godly contrition and Faith in Christ alone.
    I appreciate the discussion,
    In Christ,
    Brett Meyer
  10. Joe Krohn
    February 27th, 2014 at 16:54 | #20
    @Brett Meyer #11 
    Furthermore: (my comments in quotes)
    “82. Note, the Son of God is put under the Law in that he redeemed us who were
    under it. (Brett, this is all people.) For us, for our good, he effected all; not for himself. He purposed to manifest toward us only love, goodness and mercy. (To all people, Brett; John 3:16) As Paul has it (Gal 3, 13), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.”(Brett, a curse for all people…not just believers.) In other words: For us, Christ put himself under the law and complied with its demands, designing every believer of this fact to be redeemed from under the Law with its curse.”(Brett, no one here denies this…we receive the benefit of this redemption through faith…faith does not make redemption into a reality. It already happened!)
  11. February 27th, 2014 at 17:05 | #21
    Joe,
    Your comments sparked a thought for me. I really wish Brett would carefully read Scriptures such as Romans 5:12-21:
    ” Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
    But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
    Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”(Romans 5:12-21).
    I mean, just look at the language… “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” I don’t think Brett would reject the teaching that all men are condemned due to the sin of Adam, or at least I hope not. Yet, here, Brett (and others in this thread) reject the Scriptural language “leads to justification and life for all men.” That is they reject that what Christ did (as opposed to what Adam did) “leads to justification… for all men.” One can’t maintain all have been condemned and then say these Scriptures teach not all have been justified (in some sense) by what Christ has done.
    At any rate… I am definitely outta here for good. I have kicked this dead horse the final time. :)
    (*And there was much rejoicing!*)
  12. Joe Krohn
    February 27th, 2014 at 17:14 | #22
    @Jim Pierce #21 
    I know, Jim. Scripture is so undeniably clear. 2 Peter 2:1 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” It clearly says that Jesus redeemed false teachers; even those who deny Him. I just don’t get it. Yes, there has been much horse kicking. Time to hit the trail… :)
  13. Brett Meyer
    February 27th, 2014 at 17:24 | #23
    Joe Krohn :
    Brett, you are blind! In your Luther quote is embedded exactly what you are arguing against!
    “He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed.”
    And yet I can see the sentence that preceeded your quote which states,“74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems us from under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith.”
    The accomplishment of redeeming the individual is through faith and not before and without as you contend.
    for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God’s children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness.”
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
    Joe Krohn :
    Christ had to redeem us in order for us to believe we are redeemed. That is what Luther is saying! And if you are saying (which seems to be the case) that not all men are/were redeemed, them you are guilty of limited redemption because the ‘paying of the world’s iniquity’ effects something for all men.
    Prove from Scripture your UOJ teaching that Christ had to redeem us in order for us to believe we are redeemed.
    Prove from Scripture your UOJ teaching that (Christ’s) paying of the world’s iniquity effects something for all men. In the sense that you intend it – i.e. that the whole world of unbelievers were forgiven by God because of the atonement of Christ. The effect of the atonement was that all righteousness is in and of Christ. Those that are in Christ through faith have all that is His. Those who abide in unbelief have nothing of His and therefore remain under God’s wrath and condemnation.
    Your rationalistic UOJ assumptions are rejected by the clear teaching of Scripture and the faithful explanation of the BOC.
    Jim Pierce :
    I mean, just look at the language… “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”… Yet, here, Brett (and others in this thread) reject the Scriptural language “leads to justification and life for all men.” That is they reject that what Christ did (as opposed to what Adam did) “leads to justification… for all men.”
    Mr. Pierce, I’m glad you posted this Scriptural quote. The problem with this defense of UOJ’s teaching that all men are justified is that this verse states that all those justified are also saved eternally – “…and life for all men.” So you either have to back away from using this as a Objective Justification verse and, in classic UOJ style, teach it now is a Subjective Justification verse (just as it was once forbidden to eat meat on Friday’s yet it is now approved) or you must claim Universalism where all those thereby justified are also saved eternally. This is another clear example of UOJ’s eternal contradiction to Scripture.

Virtue Online - Episcoalian Leader in Africa Cites Pilgrim's Progress Against Apostasy

$
0
0
Christian left the City of Destruction with his Bible
and a heavy burden on his back.

Kenyan Primate Rips Church of England over Double Standard on Gay Marriage 
Jefferts Schori's honorary doctorate reveals 'torn fabric of the Communion'

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org 
February 27, 2014

The Anglican Primate of Kenya, The Most Rev. Eliud Wabukala has written a pastoral letter to GAFCON's members hitting out at the double standard of Church of England's leaders saying that Archbishop Justin Welby and Archbishop John Sentamu "lacked clarity" about the biblical understanding of homosexual relationships.

In a sharply written note, the evangelical Anglican leader said that while the Church of England's official teaching on marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman is affirmed, it is effectively contradicted by the permission given for prayers to be said for those entering same sex "marriages".

"After the praise that greeted the news that Oxford University is to honor the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States with an honorary Doctorate in Divinity, it was helpful to be reminded of the sober facts in the Statement issued by the Global South Primates Steering Committee last week recognizing that 'the fabric of the Communion was torn at its deepest level as a result of the actions taken by The Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church in Canada since 2003."

He also said and the Communion's London based Anglican Consultative Council (ACO) and the Lambeth Conference are "dysfunctional".

Citing John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Wabukala said the breadth of the wide gate can be dangerously appealing as an easy choice, avoiding the need for theological discernment and church discipline. "This is why I have already written a response (http://gafcon.org/news/a-response-to-the-statement-by-the-archbishops-of-canterbury-and-york) earlier this month to the Statement of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York about pastoral care for people who engage in same sex relationships.

"Sadly, the lack of clarity in that statement about the biblical understanding of such relationships has been repeated in the pastoral guidance issued subsequently by the Church of England's House of Bishops as same sex 'marriage' becomes legal in England and Wales next month. While the Church's official teaching on marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman is affirmed, it is effectively contradicted by the permission given for prayers to be said for those entering same sex 'marriages'.

"The lesson I believe we have learned from the failure of institutional attempts to restore unity by accommodation is that we must be more radical. We must return to the 'narrow gate' and come together on a strong and clear doctrinal basis. The GAFCON movement has been able to act as an instrument of unity in the Communion because it has the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration which together give us a clear, faithful and contemporary statement of Anglican identity. 

"I do strongly commend the continued study of both documents because they restore our focus on the gospel. The best way to be alert to the challenges of a counterfeit gospel is to become more and more immersed in the glory, power and wonder of the true gospel."

Wabukala is also chairman of the GAFCON Primates' Council.

The full letter can be found here: http://gafcon.org/news/chairmans-february-pastoral-letter

What Proves UOJ Is False? - They Live in the Law, Condemned by Their Own Law, and Bear No Fruit

$
0
0
This Torquemada is ever alert to condemn faith,
to ignore the Means of Grace,
to blaspheme the Biblical doctrine of the Holy Spirit
exclusively at work in the Word of God.
His autobiography condemns him as clueless
about the Christian Faith.


Author Archive -- Jim Pierce
Jim Pierce is a layman from Seattle, Washington. He is a blogger and author. He is a graduate of the University of Washington and has a career in systems administration. By the mercy and grace of God, his journey has taken him away from Pentecostalism into eighteen years of atheism, and he is now at peace as a Confessional Lutheran where he attends Messiah Lutheran Church in Seattle with his dear wife Suzanne and their two children.
  1. Brett Meyer
    February 27th, 2014 at 17:24 | #23
    Joe Krohn :
    Brett, you are blind! In your Luther quote is embedded exactly what you are arguing against!
    “He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed.”
    And yet I can see the sentence that preceeded your quote which states,“74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems us from under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith.”
    The accomplishment of redeeming the individual is through faith and not before and without as you contend.
    for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God’s children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness.”
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
    Joe Krohn :
    Christ had to redeem us in order for us to believe we are redeemed. That is what Luther is saying! And if you are saying (which seems to be the case) that not all men are/were redeemed, them you are guilty of limited redemption because the ‘paying of the world’s iniquity’ effects something for all men.
    Prove from Scripture your UOJ teaching that Christ had to redeem us in order for us to believe we are redeemed.
    Prove from Scripture your UOJ teaching that (Christ’s) paying of the world’s iniquity effects something for all men. In the sense that you intend it – i.e. that the whole world of unbelievers were forgiven by God because of the atonement of Christ. The effect of the atonement was that all righteousness is in and of Christ. Those that are in Christ through faith have all that is His. Those who abide in unbelief have nothing of His and therefore remain under God’s wrath and condemnation.
    Your rationalistic UOJ assumptions are rejected by the clear teaching of Scripture and the faithful explanation of the BOC.
    Jim Pierce :
    I mean, just look at the language… “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”… Yet, here, Brett (and others in this thread) reject the Scriptural language “leads to justification and life for all men.” That is they reject that what Christ did (as opposed to what Adam did) “leads to justification… for all men.”
    Mr. Pierce, I’m glad you posted this Scriptural quote. The problem with this defense of UOJ’s teaching that all men are justified is that this verse states that all those justified are also saved eternally – “…and life for all men.” So you either have to back away from using this as a Objective Justification verse and, in classic UOJ style, teach it now is a Subjective Justification verse (just as it was once forbidden to eat meat on Friday’s yet it is now approved) or you must claim Universalism where all those thereby justified are also saved eternally. This is another clear example of UOJ’s eternal contradiction to Scripture.

Transgender ELCA Pastor - Megan - Installed. LCMS and WELS Still Working with ELCA, Planned Parenthood, and the United Nations via Thnrivent

$
0
0

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

In the News: Bay Area Reporter

Lutherans install
first trans pastor

NEWS



Britney Wheat, left, holds a booklet as pastor Susan Strouse of First United Lutheran Church, right, installs the Reverend Megan Rohrer, center, as pastor of Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church.
(Photo: Jane Philomen Cleland)

A transgender person who runs a ministry for the homeless was installed last weekend as the spiritual leader at Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church of San Francisco, making them the first trans leader of a Lutheran congregation.

The February 22 service for the Reverend Megan Rohrer at the Sunset district chapel was well-attended.

Congregants joyfully took part in the service, which included praise songs set to the music of the Beatles. Dubbed Beatles Mass, the lyrics were written by Rohrer, sung to the beat of well-known tunes like "Across the Universe" and "Let it Be." The congregation sang "The Meal" to the tune of "Hey Jude," in preparation for receiving communion. As the congregation sang and clapped, Rohrer held up the bread and wine for all to see.

"The worship that we used at the installation was created for an evening worship at St. Aidan's Episcopal," Rohrer, 33, explained. "In hope of attracting young people and those new to the church, I created a Lady Gaga Mass. The service gained a lot of attention, and I was able to share it at congregations around the country. Many of the young people knew the tunes, but the older generation had a difficult time. I created the Beatles Mass because the tunes were recognized by both older and younger members and participants often leave the service feeling uplifted."

The reverend, who prefers the pronoun they, has been opening doors for years. In 2006, Rohrer was the first transgender pastor to be ordained by the Lutheran church.

In addition to their duties at Grace Lutheran, Rohrer is involved in transgender spiritual outreach.
"I meet annually with a group of about 150 transgender pastors and faith leaders from diverse faiths at a retreat hosted by the Center of Lesbian and Gay Studies in Berkeley," Rohrer said. "We talk about how we can support and learn from each other, and the best practices for sharing our stories, advocating for trans individuals and our own employment needs. There may be many more than that, but some people choose not to be open about their transgender status after they transition. This is why I use the word openly transgender in my identification."

Transgender pastors, Rohrer said, serve a very special need.

"Many transgender pastors and faith leaders work in specialized ministry to support vulnerable populations," Rohrer said. "When it comes to faithfully serving LGBT individuals or the homeless, being transgender is often an asset. Very few openly transgender pastors are able to find work leading a congregation. I believe this will change as society becomes more welcoming and understanding of transgender issues."

Part of Rohrer's work at Grace Lutheran will be to continue opening doors.

"We take the name Grace seriously, so we will be doing outreach to people of all shapes and sizes," Rohrer said. "The congregation is enthusiastic about welcoming everyone, particularly those who have been lied to and told they are not good enough to be part of a faith community. We even want people who feel uncomfortable stepping into a church to join us for our weekly worship and "Bible Study That Doesn't Suck" livestreams."

Beyond work at Grace, Rohrer is involved with Night Ministry.

"This is a group of pastors who provide a presence on the streets of San Francisco from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m.," Rohrer said. "The Night Ministry also operates a crisis line. The ministry is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year and was founded by a group of Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Methodist pastors who were working with homeless youth in the Tenderloin."

Rohrer added that the Night Ministry visits LGBT bars throughout the city and provides care and support to the drag court system.

Rohrer is happy to be a part of history.

"I am honored to be Grace's pastor and to be part of this historic new opportunity for transgender pastors," Rohrer said. "For over a decade I have been advocating and working toward a time when LGBT individuals would be welcome in the pews and behind the pulpits. Despite all my prayers, I never expected to see this kind of change within my lifetime."

For more information on Grace Lutheran, visit www.gracesf.com. For Rohrer's website, visit http://revrohrer.blogspot.com.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

In the News: Bay Area Reporter

News Briefs: Trans person to
pastor Lutheran church

NEWS





Megan Rohrer, a transgender person who has been running Welcome Ministry, a group that helps homeless people in San Francisco, will be installed as the pastor at Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, 3201 Ulloa Street (at 33rd) during a service Saturday, February 22 at 7 p.m.

Earlier that day, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. the Welcome Ministry will be hosting a health and vision event at St. Francis Lutheran Church, 152 Church Street. SF CARES will provide free glasses for those who need them. Rohrer said the event will be "like a mini LGBTQ Connect." Folks from Project Homeless Connect will help people sign up for cellphone service, a doctor will provide flu shots, and physical therapists will be on hand for free consultations.

As for Rohrer's installation, she said that she would be the first openly transgender pastor of a congregation in the Lutheran church.

On Sunday, February 23, Rohrer will be recognized with an honorable mention as an unsung hero of compassion by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who will be in San Francisco for the event, being held by Wisdom in Action, a Bay Area nonprofit.

Classic Ichabod - Karl Barth's UOJ - Smells like LCMS-WELS UOJ

$
0
0

Charlotte Kirschbaum was the Commie babe who bedded Barth in his own home, moving in shamelessly. Many Barthians claim she was a major contributor to the gaseous Church Dogmatics that Barth claimed as his own. Note the Church Growth parallels with adultery, apostasy, and plagiarism.


Karth Barth was so cute in his Swiss Army uniform - I had to post this photo for laughs. It looks like a scene from Laugh In.


My friend from Yale explored Barth's love for Marxism and his known affinities with the red cause. Barth-Kirschbaum is the official theologian for Fuller Seminary, where most of the leaders of WELS, Missouri, the ELS, and ELCA have attended.



Here ve haff da luffly Barth family, Karl mit Charlotte, und Kinder, und Frau Barth way over on da outside right. Das machen me schniffle ein bischen. Zo touching und varm. Der kleine Hans hat two mommies - eine Hausfrau und eine va-va-voom Commie. [Translated into German to keep the caption G-rated.]


Carl Braaten, the son of missionaries, latched onto Leftist theologians, incorporating Barth-Kirschbaum and Tillich (another adulterer) into Lutheran theology. Barth's $1,000 set now sells for $99. Tillich is a has-been, known chiefly for his promiscuity and sadistic fetishes.

Note the catchy subtitle, which came from an orthodox Lutheran.
The UOJ dimwits use that phrase in all their essays attacking justification by faith.

Carl  Braaten, Justification, 1990:

We cannot hold a universalism of the unitarian kind. People are not too good to be damned. There is no necessity for God to save everybody nor to reject anyone. God is not bound by anything outside of himself. He is not bound to give the devil his due. If we take into account God's love, he would have all to be saved. If we reckon with his freedom, he has the power to save whomsoever he pleases. This does not lead to a dogmatic universalism. But it does mean that we leave open the possibility that within the power of God's freedom and love, all people may indeed be saved in the end. This follows as a possibility from the fact that God is free from all external factors in making up his mind. (p. 139)

...

Then Why Evangelize? (heading, Braaten, p. 140)

...

Barth's doctrine is radically objective. [Bratten now quotes Barth-Kirschbaum verbatim.]

There is not one for whose sin and death he did not die, whose sin and death he did not remove and obliterate on the cross...There is not one who is not adequately and perfectly and finally justified in Him. There is not one whose sin is not forgiven sin in Him, whose death is not a death which has been put to death in Him...There is not one for whom he has not done everything in His death and received everything in His resurrection from the dead. (Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, 1, 638)
In the face of literally hundreds o fsuch beautiful passages, evangelicals understandably ask, Then what is the point of evangelism? If the heathen are already saved in Christ, and nothing more needs to be added, then where is the urgency in world evangelization? (Braaten, p. 140)


Universalism-Denying
The parallels with WELS, Jon Buchholz, Jay Webber, and Don Patterson are obvious. They deny they are Universalists while confessing the basics of Universalism. Texas WELS even featured an essay where someone read from the Universalist creed and said, "See - we are not Univesalists." The truth hurts.

The language is borrowed the Halle's Knapp, because Halle was pivotal in the transition from a Biblical Pietistic school to a Rationalistic university.

Earlier, Samuel Huber taught the same way, but the Wittenberg theologians crushed him like a bug. The same kind of Enthusiasm came back via Pietism, since that movement was allergic to orthodox confessions but overly fond of unionism. Spener was the first union theologian, but not the last.

UOJ makes anything possible (except rejection of UOJ). Take money from unrepentant adulterers? No problem? Plagiarize the false doctrine of Fuller Seminary? That is spoiling the Egyptians. Engage in child porn file swapping? You are forgiven because you are sorry you got caught again.

---

From Wikipedia and George Hunsinger:


Relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum

When Barth first met Charlotte von Kirschbaum in 1924 he had already been married for 12 years to his wife, Nelly, with whom he had also had five children.[14] In 1929, von Kirschbaum, with Barth's consent, moved into the Barth family household. This arrangement–described by one scholar as "convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys"–lasted for 35 years.[15]
A kind of household of three relationship developed between Barth, von Kirschbaum and Barth's wife, Nelly. The long-standing situation was not without its difficulties. "Lollo",[16] as Barth called the 13-year-younger von Kirschbaum, once wrote to Barth's sister Gertrud Lindt in 1935, where she expressed her concern about the precarious situation:
"The alienation between Karl and Nelly has reached a degree which could hardly increase. This has certainly become accentuated by my existence."[17]
The relationship caused great offence among many of Barth's friends, as well as his own mother.[18] Barth's children suffered from the stress of the relationship.[18] Barth and von Kirschbaum took semester break vacations together.[18] While Nelly supplied the household and the children, von Kirschbaum and Barth shared an academic relationship. Barth has fallen victim to criticism for his relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum. One critic has written: "Part of any realistic response to the subject of Barth and von Kirschbaum must be anger."[19] Hunsinger summarizes the influence of von Kirschbaum on Barth's work: "As his unique student, critic, researcher, adviser, collaborator, companion, assistant, spokesperson, and confidant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum was indispensable to him. He could not have been what he was, or have done what he did, without her."

  1. ^ George Hunsinger's review of S. Seliger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth: A Study in Biography and the History of Theology.
  2. ^ Hunsinger
  3. ^ Eberhard Busch, Karl Barths Lebenslauf, München: Kaiser, 177ff.
  4. ^ Karl Barth: Gesamtausgabe, Teil V. Briefe. Karl Barth – Eduard Thurneysen: Briefwechsel Bd. 3, 1930–1935: einschließlich des Briefwechsels zwischen Charlotte von Kirschbaum und Eduard Thurneysen, eds. Caren Algner; Zürich: TVZ, Theologischer Verlag, 2000, p. 839.
  5. a b c Busch, Karl Barths Lebenslauf, 199 = Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts (Fortress Press, 1976), 185-6.
  6. ^ S. Seliger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth; quoted in K. Sonderegger's review.
---

hunsinger, george
Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology
Department of Theology
102 Hodge Hall
Phone: 609.252.2114
Fax: 609.497.7728
Email: george.hunsinger@ptsem.edu
(Presbyterian)

Profile
George Hunsinger is Princeton Theological Seminary’s Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology. He earned his B.D. from Harvard University Divinity School and his M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Yale University. He served as director of the Seminary’s Center for Barth Studies from 1997 to 2001. He has broad interests in the history and theology of the Reformed tradition and in “generous orthodoxy” as a way beyond the modern liberal/conservative impasse in theology and church. An ordained Presbyterian minister, he was a major contributor to the new Presbyterian catechism. He teaches courses on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Reformed tradition, the theology of the Lord’s Supper, the theology of John Calvin, and classical and recent Reformed theology. He is the founder of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

---
George Hunsinger is an ordained Presbyterian minister and theologian. He is currently the Hazel Thompson McCord Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, NJ. Hunsinger was the director of the Center for Barth Studies at Princeton from 1997 - 2001. Hunsinger received a BD from Harvard University Divinity School and an MA, MPhil, and PhD from Yale University. His work has focused primarily on the theology of Karl Barth. Hunsinger was the recipient of the 2010 Karl Barth Prize and joins previous prize recipients Eberhard JüngelHans Küng, John W. de Gruchy, Johannes Rau, Bruce McCormack, and others.
Hunsinger has also been associated with the postliberal movement and is an authoritative interpreter of Hans Frei. He has a long history of anti-war and human rights activism and is also an open critic of the war in Iraq. Since 2003 he has been active in the Ecumenical movement through the Faith and Order commission and recently completed a book on The Eucharist and Ecumenism: Let Us Keep the Feast, published by Cambridge University Press in 2008.

---



Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth:
A Study in Biography and the History of Theology

Suzanne Selinger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth: A Study in Biography and the History of Theology (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), viii + 206pp. $29.00
Reviewed by: George Hunsinger

When Charlotte von Kirschbaum first heard Karl Barth lecture in 1924, she was 24 years old, financially almost destitute, and in poor health. Deeply religious and a voracious reader with a keen interest in theology, she had already devoured Barth's 1919 Römerbrief, at the recommendation of her pastor, shortly after it had appeared, and then avidly kept up with Barth's work through the journal Zwischen den Zeiten. At a time when only a tiny fraction of the general population, virtually all male, went on for a university education, she had been trained for a career as a Krankenschwester or Protestant nurse. It was George Merz, her pastor, who first recognized her intellectual gifts. After guiding her through confirmation in the Lutheran church, Merz included her in the intellectual circle he had gathered around him in Munich, which included Thomas Mann. It was also Merz, by then editor of Zwischen den Zeiten and godfather to one of Barth's children, who had taken her with him to that lecture, and who introduced her to Barth afterwards. Barth invited them both for a visit to his summer retreat, the Bergli, in the mountains overlooking Lake Zurich.

Merz and von Kirschbaum went to the Bergli that summer and returned the next. Von Kirschbaum made a very good impression. She was drawn into the circle of theological friends who spent their summers at the chalet. Pastor Eduard Thurneysen, Barth's closest friend, and Gerty Pestalozzi, owner with her husband of the Bergli, took an interest in furthering her education. (Becoming a Krankenschwester had required no special academic training or higher degrees.) Ruedi Pestalozzi, Gerty's husband and a wealthy businessman, paid for her to receive secretarial training, after which she became a welfare officer at Siemans, a large electronics firm in Nuremburg.

In October 1925 Barth switched university teaching appointments from Göttingen to Münster. His wife and family remained behind until a suitable residence could be found. In February 1926 von Kirschbaum visited Barth for a month in Münster, shortly before his family was to join him, but while he was still living alone. Barth's situation at this time is worth noting. He was 39 years old, had been married to Nelly (then aged 32) for nearly 13 years, and had five young children. The marriage, not a particularly happy one, had by his own account left him feeling resigned to loneliness. After his parents had prevented him in 1910 from marrying Rösy Münger, whom he deeply loved and never forgot -- and who died in 1925 -- he had submitted in 1911 to an engagement and then in 1913 to a marriage, with Nelly, that had in essence been arranged by his mother. (Barth always carried a photograph of Rösy with him for the rest of his life, sometimes wept when looking at it, and would continue over the years to visit her grave.) Although we do not know exactly what happened between Barth and Charlotte von Kirschbaum in that fateful encounter of 1926, we do know that from that point on they were in love with each other, that Barth immediately gave her manuscript after manuscript for advice and correction, and that she committed herself henceforth to doing everything she possibly could to advance his theological work.

After spending a sabbatical at the Bergli in the summer term of 1929, with von Kirschbaum at his side as his aide, Barth announced in October that she would be moving into the family household to be a member of it. This arrangement -- convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys -- lasted for nearly 35 years until 1964 when von Kirschbaum had to be admitted to a nursing home with Alzheimer's disease. These were exactly the years of Barth's most productive intellectual life. As his unique student, critic, researcher, advisor, collaborator, companion, assistant, spokesperson, and confidant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum was indispensable to him. He could not have been what he was, or have done what he did, without her.

The reverse would also seem to have been true. Von Kirschbaum was a strong, noble and unconventional woman who made her own choices and willingly bore their great costs. The costs of the arrangement with Barth were many, not least a total rejection by most of her own family, and a thousand constant humiliations from church, society, and the larger Barth clan (not excluding Barth's mother, who eventually tempered her harsh disapproval). Many real exits opened up along the way (such as a proposal of marriage from the philosopher Heinrich Scholz), but she never took any of them. What she once wrote in particular to a friend would seem to hold true of her whole life: "It is very clear to me that Karl had to act in this way, and that comforts me whatever the consequences." From her first encounter with his theology in her youth to the very end of her life, she felt gripped by a sense of the greatness of Barth's contribution, an excitement that she once described simply with the words, "This is it!" During one of Barth's last visits to her in the nursing home, she said, "We had some good times together, didn't we?"

We may well wonder also where Nelly Barth was in the midst of all this. There is undoubtedly much we will never know. But we do know that in her own way she never ceased to believe in her husband and his work. We know that the two of them experienced a reconciliation after Charlotte departed the household, that she and Karl both visited her at the nursing home on Sundays, that she continued those visits after Karl died in 1968, and that when Charlotte herself died in 1975, Nelly honored Karl's wishes by having Charlotte buried in the Barth family grave. Nelly herself died in 1976. Visitors to the Basel Hörnli cemetery today can see the names of all three together engraved one by one on the same stone.

The book by Suzanne Selinger is not the first to cover this territory, nor will it be the last. As a study in the history of theology, it succeeds reasonably well. The sections on how Barth and von Kirschbaum respectively viewed male/female relationships as bearing the image of God are interesting and worth reading. As a biographical study, however, the book seems less successful. The author seethes with so much resentment toward Karl Barth that as I closed the book I had an image of him as St. Sebastian. At the level of adjectives, he takes a lot of hits. Unfortunately, Charlotte von Kirschbaum fares little better. The author unwittingly undermines her purposes of sympathy and compassion -- unless one can persuade oneself that it is not demeaning to scorn the life that Charlotte von Kirschbaum actually chose for herself and openly affirmed, as opposed to one that could not have been and never was.

---

http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01824-0.html

---

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1465536?uid=3739536&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698978832417

---


 
Ichabod, Thank you for posting this about the late liberal esteemed Karl Barth. I say, "Liberal, esteemed," because, up until this Ichabod posting, I never knew anything much about Barth, except that he was highly regarded by some, to be, a first rate (questionable and liberal) theologian. I offer a few comments of this Ichabod posting regarding Suzanne Selinger's book, as it is reviewed by George Hunsinger. By reading his review, I think that it leaves the reader with more questions, than answers - most, likely, better, that way....: Hunsinger says the following: (1) "........This arrangement -- convoluted, extremely painful for all concerned, yet not without integrity and joys -- lasted for nearly 35 years until 1964 when von Kirschbaum had to be admitted to a nursing home with Alzheimer's disease. These were exactly the years of Barth's most productive intellectual life....... My comment: Oh! really? - I wonder why that was so? I thought Barth's attraction to this highly intelligent woman was her love of theology, - and that they "shared" this mutual "interest?" Hunsinger says the following: ........From her first encounter with his theology in her youth to the very end of her life, she felt gripped by a sense of the greatness of Barth's contribution, an excitement that she once described simply with the words, "This is it!" During one of Barth's last visits to her in the nursing home, she said, "We had some good times together, didn't we?"....... My comment: "Gripped?""Was Charlotte von Kirschbaum's "gripping experience" that mutual love for theological stimulation?" Hunsinger says the following: ......Nelly honored Karl's wishes by having Charlotte buried in the Barth family grave. Nelly herself died in 1976. Visitors to the Basel Hörnli cemetery today can see the names of all three together engraved one by one on the same stone...... My comment: "Were they all buried horizontally? And, if so, in what order? Right to left or left to right? Or, were they all buried vertically? And, if so, - in what order? As I intimated earlier, this review leaves much to be desired - many questions still linger..... Ichabod - Thank you for the great read! It has inspired me, enough now, that I feel that I can throw away all my drug store tabloids and save the 3 dollars plus per issue! I'd rather read about some past theological history, instead of all those drug store scandal sheets. Finally – I feel that I can now appreciate, Barth! I never knew how much effort, Barth put into all his liberal theology! How much he is to be admired! I wonder if he is (now) being commensurately rewarded for all of his endeavors. I suppose that last statement, could have ended with another question mark.....Or, maybe not...... Nathan M. Bickel - emeritus pastor www.thechristianmessage.org www.moralmatters.org


Quinquagesima Sunday, 2014.Where Is Love?

$
0
0

Quinquagesima Sunday, 2014

Pastor Gregory L. Jackson




The Hymn #27    O Bless the Lord                    4:21
The Confession of Sins
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual       
The Gospel              
Glory be to Thee, O Lord!
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn # 305:1-5               Soul Adorn Thyself             4:23

Where Is Love?

The Hymn # 305:6-9                             Soul, Adorn Thyself             4:23
The Preface p. 24
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #657               Beautiful Savior                    4:24   


The Epistle. 1 Corinthians 13

THOUGH I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.


The Gospel. St. Luke 18. 31.

THEN Jesus took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: and they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging: and hearing the multitude pass by, he asked what it meant. And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David. have mercy on me. And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou son of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus stood. and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him, saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee. And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.


Quinquagesima Sunday

Lord God, heavenly Father, who didst manifest Thyself, with the Holy Ghost, in the fullness of grace at the baptism of Thy dear Son, and with Thy voice didst direct us to Him who hath borne our sins, that we might receive grace and the remission of sins: Keep us, we beseech Thee, in the true faith; and inasmuch as we have been baptized in accordance with Thy command, and the example of Thy dear Son, we pray Thee to strengthen our faith by Thy Holy Spirit, and lead us to everlasting life and salvation, through Thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, one true God, world without end. Amen.

Where Is Love?

One of the signs of madness is to search for something in the wrong place and to continue to obsess about it.

Everyone is in favor of love. No one is against it. 

Rather than work through each verse of the love chapter in 1 Corinthians, I am going to point out where love comes from. As most people realize, Paul was pointing out to the Corinthians that they boasted of all their spiritual gifts, but were lacking in love. He did that with a great rhetorical flourish. He identified all the marks of love, leaving it unsaid that they were missing that in Corinth, no matter what they boasted.

According to the finest minds at Fuller Seminary, a lovey church will grow because everyone wants love. Everyone is drawn to love.

The LCA did a study of growing churches and found that the growing ones were known as "nurturing congregations." I knew one staffer who was at a designated nurturing church. After the study, he said, "We lost it."


The Synodical Conference congregations were once known for being relatively strong, but they decided they needed to be more loving. In fact, Fuller taught all their leaders that being loving was the key. 

This is all very basic and a sign of our present madness and blindness that no one knows where love is, to quote Oliver from the musical.

Love Is the Fruit of the Gospel
Although it is a favorite word, genuine love is not as popular as the term itself. TV has made love, love, love popular, but I have also heard love, love, love, love, love. In relationships, there is a greater quest for love but not the achievement of love.

Love grows from faith in Christ and the forgiveness of sins. Galatians 5 identifies love as the fruit of the Spirit - one of nine listed. But love is listed first.

Another way of saying this is - When love is lacking, there must be a lack of faith in the Gospel.

Fruit means the result of the Spirit. We have messed up the agricultural meaning, as I pointed out to a religion class. Fruit is far more than apples and oranges. Most plants (even grass) flower and fruit. That is - they form a flower to produce a seed. The formation of the seed is called fruiting, whether it is grass, wheat, corn, or strawberries. The food value feeds us and also helps spread the plant.

Luther often challenged his audience to consider their repentance and faith if they felt cold and lacking in love. He did not have programs and exercises for them to perform.

First We Love the Word of God
Obeying the First Table of the Ten Commandments comes from abiding in Christ through worship and desiring sound doctrine. It is not shocking to find that so many are confused today. They wander around looking for something to please them rather than seeking what is faithful to God's Word.

There is no excuse, because most have easy access to the Scriptures. Every single person is responsible to know the Word of God and trust that God speaks directly to us through His revealed Word. That is the voice of the Holy Spirit - never-changing.

Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice." Those who trust in the Savior follow Him, and Him alone. I know this is an age where someone is supposed to impress the crowds with being a guru, a shaman (medicine man), charismatic enough to make the cover of Time, Newsweek, or the Milwaukee Journal.

Sheep are smarter than a lot of people, sorry to say. Sheep follow the voice of their shepherd and run from others. If there is no choice available, everyone has a Bible as the guide, the ruling norm. No book judges the Bible, because the Bible judges all the books of man.

Holy Spirit - Always at Work in the Word
Since love is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, love is only going to come from the Word of God. 

I enjoy teaching non-Lutherans about the Spirit, because they are eager to hear about it, while the "conservative" Lutheran pastors are in constant rebellion against this basic teaching of the Bible.

Two parts of this are essential to know and to guard. Jesus said - Guard the Word. 
A. The Spirit always works in the Word.
B. The Spirit never works apart from the Word.

Lutherans have neglected A. Pentecostals are weak on B - but I hear they are abandoning their use of tongue-speaking as a required sacrament.

Both parts are essential, because the Christian Church is built upon one foundation alone - Christ, who comes to us through the Word. He does not rely on relationships, friendship programs, social programs, entertainment, youth programs, or snacks. If some pastor says, "We built up our church through baseball tournaments," (that's a quote) - then run away...screaming.

An abundance of the Word is an abundance of the Spirit - the Gospel. Taking away from the Word, by hiding the Sacraments, by turning the sermon into a coaching session - that is robbing people of the Spirit, the Gospel, faith, and love.

Spirit, Jesus, Gospel, Faith
The Bible is a sermon about Christ, as Luther often stated. The Spirit brings the Savior to us, showing us God's mercy and love in the forgiveness proclaimed by the cross. Because Jesus died for the sins of the world, no one needs to doubt this forgiveness.

Our problem with doubt is reflected in doubting God's complete forgiveness. Faith in Jesus means trusting this is completely true, not partially true. This Gospel does not mean forgiveness for minor sins only, for sins we can conquer (which is impossible) but for all sins forever. Nevertheless, we remain sinners until we die and need the daily forgiveness that comes from the Spirit at work in the Gospel.

Love does not grow where people harbor resentment and strive to get even. Every time something minor bothers us, we should ask, "Do I want the same things that I do be overlooked?" If the answer is yes, then it should be overlooked. If we fool ourselves into thinking we have no sin, then we need repentance.

Luther said the surest sign of repentance is not harboring resentment. It is far better to excuse and to cover for the slights of the moment, which are often unintended.

Why Are Things So Bad Everywhere in the Church?
Someone wondered where the Lutherans pastors will come from in the future. I know hundreds through various contacts and Facebook. Many are ex-pastors or wish they could be. Their own clergy have treated them like dirt.

Everyone wants to elect new leaders, who are just like the old leaders. The problem is lack of faith, not the right political candidate.

There is a great love for power and luxury, but not for the Word. Nothing is done according to the Scriptures, but according to business, money, and the fads of the day. A choir tour (MLC) notes that they will have an organ at only two churches on the tour. That is just one fad - entertainment instead of worship, tickling the ears instead of the Means of Grace.

If someone wants to address this problem, the unbelieving and corrupt clergy arise as one and begin to cast their stones, picking and choosing the best and most painful ones.



Best Book on Faith
The best book on faith is the Gospel of John. He also writes often about love - God's love, the love of the Savior for His sheep, love of the Word.

Since John's Gospel emphasizes faith in Christ so often and presents Christ in such an appealing way, there is no better book to strengthen faith and to produce the fruit of the Spirit, love. Because the Gospel is the energy of God, it will bear fruit.

Marvin Schwan Foundation - Big Money Losses for WELS, ELS, and LCMS

$
0
0


Marvin M. Schwan Foundation and Michael Ryan mystery



0

0
http://www.ieyenews.com/wordpress/marvin-m-schwan-foundation-and-michael-ryan-mystery/#comments


Marvin Schwan
If RC Cayman Holdings sells the Ritz-Carlton Cayman Development for less than the amount owing, which is in excess of $250M the biggest loser could be The Marvin M. Schwan Charitable Foundation.
Developer of the Ritz-Carlton, Michael Ryan, formed a company IRR Limited that was incorporated in the Cayman Islands on 21st April, 1998, to develop the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman project.
According to a 2009 US tax return The Marvin M. Schwan Charitable Foundation loaned IRR Limited $210,828,153 with an owing balance of $202,218,186. The Return says that IRR Limited were not in default.
The Foundation has a written agreement with IRR and the loan was approved by the Foundation Board.

Lawrence & Sue Burgdorf
The Executive Director of the Foundation is retired Lutheran priest Rev. Lawrence A. Burgdorf and his son, Erik Burgdorf is Associate Director.
Rev. Burgdorf attended Lutheran High School and College earning an associate in arts degree in 1950.
This is where Burgdorf met Marvin M. Schwan.
Marvin Schwan worked his way through Bethany Lutheran College in an ice cream factory. A factory he founded as part of Schwan’s Sales Enterprises, Inc. (SSE)
in Marshall, Minnesota, in 1948 that was first a milk processing operation.
SSE subsequently expanded, first to become a cafe and an ice cream manufacturer, and eventually into a profitable provider of both home and retail delivery of selected frozen foods.   By the early 1990s, SSE had become a sizable producer, wholesaler, and retailer of food products employing about 16,500 people.
SSE operates an estimated 2,300 computerized vans that deliver frozen food, including meat, vegetables and juices, to customers’ homes. The yellow vehicles, bearing a swan logo, have been described as traveling 7-Elevens.
The company also expanded into the nation’s leading supplier of frozen pizza to school cafeterias and grocery stores under the Tony’s, Better Baked and Red Baron brands. It also owns the Ram Center robotics company in Red Wing, Minn.
70th Richest American
Forbes magazine in the early 1990’s rated Mr. Schwan among America’s richest people. He ranked No. 70 on their 1992 year’s list, with an estimated worth exceeding $1 billion. Corporate Report magazine estimated the company’s annual revenues at $1.8 billion at about the same time.
Mr. Schwan’s personal life was reclusive and his company highly secretive.
Marvin died unexpectedly on May 9, 1993, at the age of sixty-four, leaving SSE without its founder and President. He left the bulk of his estate to church-related organizations principally to his foundation that bears his name. The foundation and his company was (sic) both managed by his brother, Alfred Paul G Schwan who has also died. Alfred Schwan was only listed as a Trustee in the 2009 Tax return.
SSE would fund the foundation by buying back the shares. Marvin’s children objected, but it was known that Marvin did not think much of his adult children. Obviously he did not think much of their mother, either.
Marvin’s children sued the trustees, one of which was Uncle Alfred, alleging that they had not followed Marvin’s wishes. The trustees indicated that they had done exactly what Marvin wanted and were bewildered that his children had filed a lawsuit.
Some settlement was reached, however, and the children stopped suing for more monies.
Marvin’s first wife committed suicide soon after they were divorced!
It was known that Schwan had a weakness for women and Cadillacs and this was borne out by the settlement. $1 million and a Cadillac! A pittance. All four of his children were from his first marriage and that might be the reason for his dislike of them.
He was having an affair with his manager, whom he married after the divorce, and gave lots of money to the Lutheran Church as part of its Church Growth Movement.
One of Marvin’s close friends, Herman Ottwen, said, “Wealthy adulterers love the Church Growth Movement, and the Church Growth Movement loves them.”
Schwan, in contrast of giving his divorced wife only $1M gave the Thoughts of Faith, a Lutheran Church Charity, given to bringing the message of the Gospel to European Communist Countries,  $15M!
So where is the connection with Ryan and Rev. Lawrence Burgdorf? Burgdorf is  an Advisory member of the Board of Regents Bethany Lutheran College. Is Ryan a Lutheran?
The 2009 Tax Return lists Marvin M. Schwan Foundation having investments in the Cayman Islands of:-
The Kings Foundation Investment Cayman Ltd.  Cost     $15,366,382
The Kings Funds Holding Company, LLC                           $19,199,929
Grand Cayman Condominium Units                                   $11,500,000
Real Estate Grand Caymans                                                 $     408,300
The Lutheran Church in the Cayman Islands is called Safe Harbour and meets at the Ritz-Carlton Conference Centre every Sunday at 10am.
That is the very least the Ritz-Carlton can do to host the Safe Harbour Lutheran Church there. But is this the only connection to Michael Ryan?
Why did Rev. Lawrence Burgdorf agree to it and how did Ryan and Burgdorf meet? Our calls to Burgdorf and Ryan have met with no success to solving the mystery.
Print Friendly

Speak Your Mind

Ski Gets Call to Round Rock, Texas, Seconds after Getting CRM Status.If You Covet CRM Status in WELS - Drink More Beer

$
0
0
"Ubi et Orbis, or whatever."

St. Peter in Freedom asked members to attend a meeting at The CORE where they were asked about Ski being suitable for CRM status or a call. Everyone concerned was invited.

One member objected on the basis of Ski's drinking on the job and sexual harassment of his wife. Ski, Glende, and several robots sued the man in court, for responding to the request.

Glende whined in court about a blog in Arkansas. The judge just about laughed poor Tim out of the building. Soon the other three lawsuits were dropped.

Mark Schroeder came to a meeting at The CORE to cut a deal with them and Deputy Doug, who feels that he and Ski are infallible. How many SPs do that? Pretty weak.

This reminds me of Kovo and Webber together in the Ukraine. Who was being punished?

Now Kudu Don Patterson is a bike ride from Ski in Round Rock - and his DP. Fortunately, Kudu Don is just as understanding about drunks as the other DPs are. A DUI in WELS is a resume enhancer, good for another call.

How convenient that the Round Rock pastor was whisked away in a call, moments ago. It's not Chinatown - it's a co-inky-dink.

So here's your divinely called pastor, Round Rock:
1. He had to pay for an appearance bond to show up in court in Milwaukee.
2. H excommunicated (with Tim Glende) Rick Techlin for telling the truth about St. Peter/CORE plagiarizing Craig Groeschel and lying about it.
3. He bragged about drinking on the job. Known for loutish behavior all over the synod, but especially in Fox Valley.
4. He sued a church member in court for telling the truth. (See #2 - different victim, similar truths)
5. He was fired and removed from the ministerium for his behavior, apparently while being counseled by WELS gurus like Patterson.
6. Deputy Doug says "He is a changed man," - but kept the CRM status from most of the clergy. No one had time to object before the call.

This reminds me of all the lying about Floyd Stolzenburg, who was adopted by the ELS for a time. Similar WELS lies. Similar behavior.

Tim Glende was one of Floyd's students at St. Paul in German Village, which is close to dead, thanks to the Church Growth Movement Floyd brought with him.

Steadfast Lutherans - Keeping the Thrivent Planned Parenthood Scandal Alive.What Say the Bookkeeper, Pope John, and Matt the Fat?

$
0
0

Thrivent: We Don’t Need Your Blood Money

February 7th, 2014Post by 
Judas
“Think of the things you can do with that money,
Choose any charity – give to the poor.
We’ve noted your motives – we’ve noted your feelings,
This isn’t blood money – it’s a fee nothing,
Fee nothing, fee nothing more…”
So said Caiaphas to Judas as they enticed him to betray Jesus in the 1970 rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar.  We all know the ending of Judas’ story.  There’s a similar tragedy for the unborn lurking in the wings of the real life drama know as Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.
BJS previously reported on Thrivent’s position allowing Choice dollars and the Gift Multiplier program to be used in support of pro-abortion organizations .  Thrivent has now had time to reflect on their policies and have issued a new “neutrality policy” which reads in part:
Thrivent Financial is a membership organization of Christians and works with many different members who hold a variety of – and at times divergent – views and beliefs. It respects the differences of its members and does not independently or on behalf of its members, advisors or employees provide outreach funding or support to organizations and issues that distract, or have the potential to distract, from its common purpose, which is to guide its members and society to be wise with money and live generously.
According to Thrivent, if I designate my Thrivent Choice dollars to go to an organization that protects the unborn (which they no longer allow) I would be distracting from their purpose “to be wise with money and live generously.”  I can’t think of a way to live more generously than by protecting another human being’s life.  Today my wife and I cashed in the remaining funds that we had with Thrivent – we want no part of your blood money.  Abortion is not “neutral.”
It’s likely that Thrivent’s decision will prompt Lutheran organizations to discontinue their acceptance of funds from the Thrivent Choice Program.  Please consider supporting these organizations in other ways.  For those organizations that continue to accept Thrivent funds, you might consider sending them a helpful note reminding them that there comes a time when principle overrides profit.  Thrivent, we don’t need your blood money.

Previous posts on Thrivent related to this issue can be found herehereherehere, and here.

The CORE Announcements

$
0
0

--

Ski had a call before most pastors knew he was
upgraded from fired to CRM status.
If you want a call in WELS, drink on the job -
DPs appreciate that in a pastor.


03/03/14             WISCONSIN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNOD             10:49 am

P A S T O R C A L L R E P O R T
02/25/2014 through 03/03/2014


----------------- N O D E C I S I O N S R E P O R T E D ----------------

Goetzinger, Rev Harland H  St Peter - Appleton WI               02/23/2014
Associate Pastor @ The CORE

Skorzewski, Rev James R    Christ the Rock - Round Rock TX      03/02/2014
Pastor and Barista

------------------------  C A L L S   A C C E P T E D  -----------------------
Doebler, Rev Matthew D     East Asia Administrative Committee   01/12/2014
Professor, Asia Lutheran Porta-Seminary



                       
Viewing all 11617 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>