Monday, January 14, 2008

I confess, I read Dr. Ichabod's

[Warning: long blah blah blah]

Yep, I do. I sometimes I blog surf and surf off at Dr. Ichabod's blog.

In the interest of scholarship and truth, from time to time we must read those who dissent. Before swimming the Rhine, I was in a Concordian list (and still am) in which debate was conducted in a sane manner that impressed me, I walked and said - hmmm, these people are not cultic, they are level headed. I suppose, Dr. Ichabod is one of those that keeps you from turning your Lutheranism into a cult. He is sometimes John the Baptist having now no Synod affiliation, (though before he was with the major Synods, perhaps a matter of being there, done that and kept the T-shirt?). He is now an independent Lutheran.

I may not always agree with him but (besides I have not read all) here are the points for me that proved helpful in challenging my thinking, his book Thy Strong Word is the usual source of his blog topics (I am still reading parts of it):

1. He is pro Majority Text, when it comes to the NT (and likes KJV because of it). Interesting some years back, I got my NKJV and marked its comments and it does appear that the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) contains explication of doctrine compared to the GNT (an eclectic text), which is at times minimal or more concise. I am not so sure of this strength, as some scholars believe you can deduce the teachings of the Majority Text from the GNT. There might be something to the thought that if you want an explication of orthodoxy go to the Majority Text. OK so I need to weigh this more.

2. He talks quite a bit about Synod goings on - ELCA, WELS, LCMS, ELS and ELDONA and has some critical things to say as to where these are leading. I do not understand all of the socio-political aspects of denoms, but one thing is for sure that I got --- the Church that has been reformed must continue to reform, because Synods being also saint and sinner means there is always an attempt by people to wander off from the Word.

3. His point on distinguishing justification from reconciliation is quite reasonable to me as an amateur logician. Most see 2 Cor 5:19 as justification, i.e. counting as righteous. However, this is stated in the negative i.e. not doing X, not counting sin, does that mean God is doing the opposite of X? Not quite. Let me illustrate assume you have a set {0,1}. If you say 0 is not the value of Y, then OK. You can conclude it has to be y=1, if y not = 0. Fine. But what if the set is {0,1,2,3,4,5}. To say that the value of y not = 0 does not say which of the values of y happens to be, it is not safe to assume y = 1 when you do not know the range. : Lest the reader misunderstands, I do not think he objects to universal objective atonement/reconciliation (UOA)[of course if he is reading he can correct me here, but I read his Chapter 5, unless I missed something], he does object to universal objective justification (UOJ) i.e. the treating of all as righteous in Christ without faith, because in the Bible justification is always linked with faith in that UOA. You reject UOA, you do not get J (if you know what I mean)[he again can correct me here]. You can sound universalistic with UOJ when in fact you mean UOA, but you can not be considered as such if JBFA in Christ alone is stressed. In my experience I did notice that some inquirers of mine did get the idea that perhaps UOJ is universalism too. Yet this is not what the Bible teaches. (BTW, there is no way you can misconstrue BoC with universalism, I had a look on justification and it is always through faith explicitly stated). I wanted to say too that it may lead to spiritual if not moral antinomianism, but that is another implication for someday. OK, I think he has strong points here that need prayerful considerations.

[UPDATE: See Dr. Ichabod's comments here, if interested]

4. Like other "confessing" Lutheran, Dr. Ichabod slices to bits Church Growth movement and Contemporary methods. But compared to other so called "confessing" Lutheran, who have nothing to blog but how evil modern worship is etc etc, (yawn), Dr. Ichabod has also said strong pointed words on Crypto-Papalist/Orthy Lutherans. This is what I do not see in other bloggers, they always have something bad to say about Enthusiasm of Evangelicals but have nothing to say about Romanizing tendencies of some Lutherites. Dr. Ichabod called such a specie of Lutherans doing "poping".

Following his lead, I had the idea that may be the crypto-Romanist Lutherans should be called "popesters" but that sounds like a rude word in Australian slang so I better not (this is a rated G blog site you know).

So take it for what it is worth, it is something healthy to listen from time to time to a dissenting voice and weigh their speech with Scripture--- after all were not the Reformers looked at that way -- dissenting voices?

34 comments:

jim cronfel said...

we are justififed by grace not faith.

Augustinian Successor said...

Bro. Lito, the crypto-papists seem to have an amnesia concerning Luther's response to Regensburg. Not only did Luther shied away from the proceedings, but his response was typically cold and unfavourable ... a scissors and paste job of sticking together side by side the Protestant and Papist view. Luther NEVER advocated reconciliation with Rome. Reconciliation was only put on the table as an agenda for sake of political unity in the face of Turkish threat.

And yet bearing mind that of all the Reformers, Luther was certainly the most eminently Catholic of all.

Secondly, the crypto-papists are also forgetful of the fact the word papist was a common term in vogue if I may so to refer to Romanists, whether by Lutherans, Continental Reformed or Anglican!

Thirdly, the high church Anglicans who looked to the Lutherans for friendship considered themselves Protestants, these very same churchmen that the latter Anglo-Catholics would want to claim. All Puritans were Protestant, but not all Protestants were Puritan. The high churchmen were not.

Brett Meyer said...

Jim Cronfel, I would counter that we are justified through faith wrought by grace. (Romans 5:1, Romans 3:28, Acts 13:39, Romans 8:30, Galations 3:24, Ephesians 2:8) That is freely does the Holy Spirit work contrition and faith in us to believe in the promise, the promise that Abraham believed in and it was counted unto him for righteousness (Romans 4:3, Galations 3:6-9) This another issue where Universal Objective Justification has its trouble. Faith does not lay hold of universal forgiveness already accomplished but the promise is layed hold of by faith. The promise that by faith are our sins forgiven because Christ died and paid for the sins of the whole world. Christ has made full atonement for all of our sins to God the Father. Christ is the propitiation.

In Christ,
Brett Meyer

jim cronfel said...

Dear Bret,

I am a Calvinist that accepts limited atonement (grace).

In Christ,
Jim

Doorman-Priest said...

....anyway. Dissent is good, but you do risk getting a slap.

Brett Meyer said...

Jim, do you then reject 2nd Corinthians 5:14-21? Christ died for all and God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

I pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Brett Meyer

L P Cruz said...

DP.

(LOL) Yes, the alternative to dissent is to conform and sing the party line, become a cult.

(LOL)

LPC

L P Cruz said...

Jim,

If you are worried about looking at faith as in faith in faith then I can see the concern.

From Dr. Jackson's book, quoting Dr. Preus in Justification and Rome
But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism adn the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfille and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith

And if I may add when we are brought to faith in that fact that our sins were imputed to Christ at he cross. He Christ paid for our sins at the Cross.

The debate is in trying to be precise with the concept of justification vs the atonement or reconciliation.

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Personally, I believe Bro. Jim is merely pointing the fact that, as we all would agree as Reformation Christians, that to be justified "by" faith precisely means to be justified a *through* faith. He is right, and we all can rejoice that we have been brought to believe that to be justified *by* grace means precisely that grace is UNCONDITIONAL. PURE and UNMERITED. Nothing on our part whatsoever. This is why contra the Arminians and Erasmians and Papists and Neo-Legalists, faith is just an instrument, and not hte beginning and complement of obedience or synedoche for good works. In fact, faith is Christ present here and now grasping us (and not the other way round)!

Perhaps, Bro. Lito might wish to post something about the nature of faith in the near future or something. Just a suggestion.

L P Cruz said...

AS

to be justified "by" faith precisely means to be justified a *through* faith. He is right, and we all can rejoice that we have been brought to believe that to be justified *by* grace means precisely that grace is UNCONDITIONAL. PURE and UNMERITED.

AMEN and AGREED! The reason we are justified by/through faith is because redemption is by Jesus Christ alone.

One thing that must be always looked at the JBFA, it can never and should never be divorced from the means of grace. Yes faith is required by God, but it is GOD himself who creates that faith in in the sinner and he creates this faith through a chosen means -- the very declaration of the Gospel - that Christ has taken cared of our sins, he has answered for us before God before we were born and before we can even do anything towards God, he went ahead of us, Jesus the Pioneer.

People may not like my wording, because it is so impersonal... but I am a maths guy and here is how I say it...

The Gospel proclamation carries with it the payload to create that faith that it requires, so instead of looking at faith, if that seems to be not there, then do not look anywhere keep looking at the promise.


Yes Bro. Jason, I hope to do something on faith in the future.

Blessings,


L P Cruz

L P Cruz said...

Bro. Brett,

We welcome you here.

Thanks for that debate experience you had and related by Dr. Ichabod. In fact I was just once again, mauling it over my head as I drove to work today, this morning.

The precision helps in evangelism better, Some blogging brothers I have read have considered universalistic ideas because of confusing UOJ with Universal Objective Reconciliation (UOR).

http://essentiallylutheran.blogspot.com/2007/06/can-lutheran-be-universalist-part-3.html

When I have time I will let that brother know of Dr. Ichabod's points he might consider as guard towards universalism.


LPC

jim cronfel said...

There is no difference between justification and reconsiliation.

It happened on Golgoatha.

Faith is mere assent and outward observance. If faith were more then it would be a work we perform or it would be psychological.

Faith merely recieves THE 2000 YEAR OLD NEWS of grace.

FAITH NIEGTHER JUSTIFIES NOR RECONCILES--which are synonyms.

IT IS MERE OBSERVATION AND ASSENT TO 2000 YEAR OLD GRACE.


Acts 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Acts 18:27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,

Romans 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 5:15 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.

Romans 5:17 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.

Romans 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Romans 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—

Titus 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

jim cronfel said...

Lito,

This Ichabod blog is talking about "Universlaism" -- the belief that no one will go to hell.

And it looks like he is accepting it.

I'm sorry but the only answer is that grace is limited. Becuase faith rests upon grace.

If the atonement is universal then all will comne to faith.

This Ichabod guy is commiting serious heresy.

---Jim

L P Cruz said...

Jim,

Can you be patient, and do the scholarly thing? Read chapter 05 of Thy Strong Word here
http://www.thystrongword.0catch.com/chap05just.htm

And it looks like he is accepting it[universalism].

Sorry Jim, you are not correct, it is precisely what he is countering!

Put it this way, the point he is making is this - the Lutheran confessions never said that people are justified without faith in the Son.

Yes indeed God was reconciled to the sinner at the Cross without faith or before they were born, i.e. Jesus paid for the sins of the world before you can do anything. This is reconciliation but this is not the same as justification, the same way that justification is not the same as regeneration or sanctification -- do you agree?

If people are justified already before faith, then why are there people in hell?

If you say because they did not believe, which is correct, but the there is another question, either God declared them righteous and now sending them to hell, then that means that God was not actually sincere when he declared them righteous in the first place without faith and then sends them to hell for not having faith. It seems to result in inconsistency, contradiction that produces some problems one of them is slump to universalism.

Your answer to that if you are a Calvinist is God destined them to hell. Which in the end robs you of comfort and certainty IMHO.


There is UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE ATONEMENT - this is affirmed by Dr. Greg.... he affirms this, but he is enjoining the distinction of this with justification.

Strictly speaking justification = the declaration or the accounting or the treating of the person as righteous.


If God forgives you of your sin, that precisely means you are guilty otherwise what is he forgiving you for? There is no need for forgiveness if you are not guilty.

On the other hand, if God says you are not guilty you may go, this is not the same as forgiving you, this is precisely another thing - it is saying that there is no wrong doing that can be pinned on you -- this is justification.

In the olden days, objective justification meant objective atonement, that was fair enough! But because justification has another hue -- treating people as innocent, not guilty of sin, or fulfilled all requirement, passed the mustard etc etc. Then people can get into equivocation.

There is a point in distinguishing justification from reconciliation.

Now I am still understanding all the points, one should take time and not jump on an explication remember I am also weighing in the evidence and arguments.



This needs careful study.

However, based on my evangelistic experience in articulating UOJ if you do not distinguish justification from reconciliation two things may happen:
1. Slump into universalism
2. Slump into antinomianism

Also please be patient and read Brett Meyer's experience in this too found here...
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2008/01/uoj-debated.html

Remember, when you read it, please understand that when the word justification is used it is not the same as atonement, justification is positive reckoning. Reconciliation is God coming to you in peace and saying to you we do not have to fight ----here is my son, I have punished him for you, now let us have peace. let us be reconciled.

We can draw back on it and say no, I can not accept your offer, I will work another way etc etc.

Please note that these are simplistic illustrations of mine and I may be imprecise still.

Lastly just to point out the cementing of reconciliation-faith- justification we go back to Rom 3:24 but let us not stop there but continue the whole context

24being justified as a gift (AL)by His grace through (AM)the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

25whom God displayed publicly as (AN)a propitiation (AO)in His blood through faith.


I see it this way, God declares to you reconciliation which produces faith in you, that faith also is treated by God in transferring to you the righteousness of Christ.

From Augsburg:
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.


LPC

L P Cruz said...

AS

crypto-papists seem to have an amnesia concerning Luther's response to Regensburg. Not only did Luther shied away from the proceedings, but his response was typically cold and unfavourable ...


Very very good point! I forgotten that. I recall that at Regensburg, Luther did not go.

I think there is deliberate re-writing of history that the Lutheran popings [to the RC reader this is not about you] are doing, this is to say that Luther was not really "protesting".


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Bro. Jim,

I'm afraid the extent of the atonement issue will always going to divide the Lutheran from the Calvinist. And even within the Reformed camp between the Calvinists and the Amyraldians.

Having said this, both Lutheran and Calvinist agree on the instrumentality of faith. And as Bro. Lito was saying, Pastor Gregory of Ichabod is precisely countering Universal Objective Justification - the idea that everyone, including Judas, those in hell, are declared saints at Golgotha - with the distinction between Reconciliation and Justification. I know this is unacceptable to the Calvinist, but we are all part of the same Reformation at the end of the day, contending for the Gospel of free grace.

Blessings to you and your ministry.

L P Cruz said...

Bro Jason,

I am not necessarily already in objection to the term UOJ. What I do note to which I grant Dr. Jackson the point is the result of experience in articulating the Gospel to inquirers.

In my experience, they did ask and did charge the presentation as being universalistic, but maybe it was just me too not doing a good job. I had to correct that impression due to people not having faith or calling God a liar is what causes people to miss heaven.

However, my point in this post is to bring the idea to the fore, so that it can be discussed and to make sure that I did not mis-characterize Dr. Greg's objections. That would not be fair and not Christian.

What must not I think should be forgotten is that according to him the old Lutherans ...when they asserted JBFA they always linked to the Means of Grace. When JBFA is disassociated with the Means of Grace, then all sorts of trouble comes, one can look at faith in faith.

Here is what my take is, justification is something that happens in God's heart, not a personal audible voice I hear in my heart. He reckons as the righteousness of Jesus in that faith. I do not listen to God saying to me - you are righteous, that is not what I hear, what I hear is I am reconciled or Jesus took care of you, answered for you, took your punishment. I am not to go looking around and ask -- boy has God declared me righteous yet?

I look to the reconciliation and let God think what he thinks of that. All I know for sure is Jesus died on the Cross for me, as a gift, to pay for my sins. It is fact to me/us or reality.

But we have not seen Jesus died on the Cross for us, we were not there, hence, we must simply be relying on the testimony of Scripture so I guess we must be relying on the Promise.

If I need adjustment in what I said here, I would appreciate your help too.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Since I am wearing two hats (I know it's tough doing so! ;-)), with the Lutheran hat being the bigger one and therefore the conspicuous one, I'll have to say I have no problems with Pastor Gregory of Ichabod's articulation. Earlier on when I visited his blog, I did try make a distinction between God's reconciling the world to Himself and mankind being reconciled to God. My take would follow the lines of the late Dr. Preus. i have no qualms or problems with the term, Objective Justification. i think the way forward for Lutherans is to insist in order for a sinner to be justified, he or she must receive the gift of declaration as applying to themselves. In other words, the ground of subjective justification is objective justification. And objective justification is the Good News which must be believed in order to be saved.

Augustinian Successor said...

Bro. Lito,

This was what I left at Pastor Gregory's Ichabod blog ...

"Dear Pastor Gregory,

Thank you for explaining the old Lutheran view on the difference between reconciliation and justification. If I understand you correctly, justification of the sinner qua SINNER comes through only by the MINISTRY of reconciliation. RECONCILIATION on the Cross provides the basis for JUSTIFICATION, but is not to be equated or conflated. In that sense, on the Cross, the wrath of God the Father was *propitiated* (God reconciled to the world as a matter of accomplished fact - IS)), but *expiation* (the world OUGHT to be reconciled to God) takes place by the action of the Holy Spirit in hypostatic conjunction with Word (Verbum dei est Gladiatus Spiritus)."

jim cronfel said...

THIS IS A NON-ESSENTIAL DEBATE AND IN THIS THING UNITY AND IN ALL THINGS CHARITY!!!!!!!!


BUT YEAH---I DON'T BLAME YOU GUYS!

IT ALL COMES DOWN TO IRRESISTABLE GRACE OR ELSE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE JUSTIFICATIONS AND JUDAS ISCARIOT IS IN HELL FULLY ATONED FOR YET WITHOUT BELIEF.


THIS ENITRE EVENT DEMONSTRATES THAT LUTHERANS THAT STRUGGLE WITH ASSURANCE MORE THAN CALVINISTS.

I was imupted with righteousness on the Cross 2000 years ago as according to a limited romans 4:25 AND MY ENTIRE PERSONAL EXISTANCE IN 2008 AND CONVSERION TO FAITH IS VANITY OF VANITIES.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU MAKE YOUR FAITH MORE OF AN INWARD STRUGGLE THAN I DO.

MY LIMITED ATONEMENT REQUIRES THAT I LOOK TO THE LIMITED CROSS EXTRA NOS. BUT YOUR CROSS+PERSONAL FAITH ADDS INWARD PSYCHOLOGY AND DOUBT TO THE THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS

ALL I NEED TO DO----IT IS LESS NOT MORE---IS ASSET TO THE ATONENMENT---NOT THAT IT APPLIES TO ME PER SE BUT MERELY THAT I COMPREHEND IT--I APRECIEATE ITS RATIONAL BEAUTY!

BUT YOU START WITH THE THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS AND THEN ACTIVATE IT WITH THE INWARD THEOLOGY OF GLORY--THE THEOLOGY OF DOUBT.

YOUR DEFINITION OF FAITH IS THE THEOLOGY OF PERSONAL GLORY AFTER YOU DEFINE GRACE AS A UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS.

BUT YEAH--IT IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU LUTERANS TO AVOID THIS INTERNAL DEBATE ABOUT TWO JUSTIFICATIONS AND STRUGGLE WITH *ASSURANCE* THAT WE CALVINISTS DON'T STRUGGLE WITH OR DEBATE ABOUT!!!!!

I LOVE WHEN ROD ROSENBLDT TALKS ABOUT THE MOVIE "A CHRISTMAS CAROL" WITH THE GHOST OF CHRISTMAS FUTURE AND SCROGGE ACCUSING IT OF BEING A PIECE OF "UNDIGESTED FAT". FAITH IS AS MUCH OF A WORK AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER WORK!

CALVINSISTS TEACH THAT GOD IS LOVE BUT (HUMAN) LOVE IS NOT GOD. SIMILARLY, FAITH IN THE END IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PIECE OF UNDIGESTED FAT IN COMPARISON TO 2000 YEAR OLD PENAL SUBSTITUTION.

LAZARUS WAS DEAD FOR FOUR DAYS IN THE TOMB---HE DID NOT COME BACK TO LIFE BY FAITH BUT BY IRRESISTABLE GRACE!!!!

**********************************************************************************************GOD BLESS YOU LITO CAUSE YOU ARE A GREAT BROTHER MORE SO THAN MANY CALVINISTS **********************************************************************

BUT I DON'T SRUGGLE WITH ASSURANCE AS YOU KEEP INSISTING.

THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL IS THE GREATEST BOOK OF ALL TIME AND I REJECT PROGRESSIVE SACTIFICATION WITH YOU BECASUE OF MY STRICT ADHEARANCE TO THE LAW/GOSPEL DISTINCTION...... BUT JOHN CALVIN STUPIDLY ACCEPTS IT IN THE INSTITUTES LIKE AN IDIOT.

L P Cruz said...

AS,

Yes indeed the basis for the subjective is the objective, no objective _FOR THE WHOLE WORLD , means no subjective guarantee _FOR YOU.

But there is objective FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, which means there is an (objective) subjective FOR YOU.

I think I know what is missing in the debate but I have to post it later.

God's peace bro.

LPC
LPC

L P Cruz said...

Jim,

Let me be clear I am not insisting YOU are struggling, specifically. I do not think at all you do. In fact I think you are ok and secure in your faith, far from it. I was talking in general of Limited Atonement, not necessarily you.

This issue which is an inter collegial debate amongst Lutherans is about the horn of universalism vs intuitu fidei. It is not exactly about assurance.

In fact the problem is reverse, there is TOO much assurance if universalism is correct. Remember, Lutherans are always critiqued with being almost antinomian but weak in sanctification.

The key of not slumping to universalism and not slumping to intuitu fidei is the phrase "IN CHRIST". I will explain later as I want to explain more fully.

LPC

L P Cruz said...

Jim,

BUT JOHN CALVIN STUPIDLY ACCEPTS IT IN THE INSTITUTES LIKE AN IDIOT.

You are funny bro, (LOL).

God bless too,

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Dear Bro. Lito,

It's funny how the crypto-papists are not really traditionalists ... because they refuse to take into account the circumstances existed at Regensburg, preferring only to take Vatican 2 as their starting point. Shouldn't they be labelled as modernists actually? At least in ecumenical terms? Or fundamentalists for reading church history in a such wooden term.

L P Cruz said...

Absolutely bro!

You can see the type of argumentation happening in Fr. Bollywood[sic] already. He picks and chooses Luther, but only that portion that promotes romancing the stone[Rome].

He said Luther considered them Zwinglians not Chritians, by bringing that in the discussion he poperizes Luther! Luther is not our Pope we are not bound by Luther's opinions, though he was a wise man, he ain't infallible.

So perhaps these ones might also like to drown the Anabaptists too! Such probing questions are not welcomed though, so a bias.

The reason why some Lutherans are not high but low is because they subscribe to the BoC, that is why there is fluidity and catholicity.

But these "cultic" ones [as Dr. Ichabod labels them] are indeed fundamentalist, I agree, in fact I gather it is historic fundamentalism.

jim cronfel said...

Lito,

(this is simply another plug for my book:

see me touch me feel me:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3C4VZPAE14URR/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm



I know that others can't see this unless you or I scan it in (I don't have a scanner) vbut see my Chapter IV On The Atonement subpoint on John Stott's view of the relatinship between the atonement and Communion--my pages 50-51.

He denies that the atonement by itself saves and he insists that it did not save and he insists that only his communion saves.

I counter with:

John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

and:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

and (concerning communion without atonement):

Hebrews 6:6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Do you see my movement from John 19:30 to Romans 11:6---and then tothe worthlessness of communion (without John 19:30) in Hebrews 6:6?


John 19:30 and Romans 11:6 are my response to you "two justifications struggle"--there is only one justification and it was by 2000 year old grace---which becomes irresistable regeneration in 2008.

regeneration and conversion is an irresistable drama in our personal lives.

But the importance of personal faith and THIS SECOND JUSTIFICATION YOU STRUGGLE WITH IS summarized in Hebrews 6:6.

(this is simply another plug for my book)



see me touch me feel me:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3C4VZPAE14URR/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Augustinian Successor said...

This Bollywood fella is a real deal joker. Luther NEVER denounced Zwingli, for all his Platonizing mentality, as ANTICHRIST, did he?? He reserved that for the pope.

Oh yeah, talking about the pope (papa) and father as titles ... Again, these jesters are either self-conceited or plainly confused. The title father as a term of endearment, that is a familial term used in an ecclesial context is a late comer. To my knowledge it only became fashionable in the mid-19th century and has its roots in Irish monasticism - father confessors. This where someone has some idea that the (religious) priest (and secular for that matter) is a mediator between God and man. The idea is in investing implicit trust in the priest because he si supposed to be in persona Christi. The sacramental expression comes poignantly in auricular confession. So, we are talking about a Semi-Pelagian theology behind this. This is the context that the crypto-papists are using the title. We reject this usage as unLutheran and unProtestant. Our Lord specifically commanded us to "call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

That makes that only two persons who are worthy of the term, i.e. God our Heavenly Father and our earthly father. (Our Lord cannot be contradicting the fourth commandment).

But term father as an official title, like Rev., Dr., is a different kettle. Historically, it was an "honorary title" RESERVED to revered ecclesial persons like bishops. NOT all priests/presbyters/ministers are reverend fathers, only the bishops (presiding presbyter) are designated as such. Blessed Dr. Martin Luther may have been addressed as Reverend Father, but NOT every minister in his day were so addressed. Else it would not have been an innovation in the first place! It's also a collective term for referring in the *third person pronoun*. I don't recall anyone directly addressing Augustine as Father Augustine in any of his writings or any accounts of that sort.

Practically speaking, it is the DUTY of ministers to gently tell the parishioner not to call him father, if the need arise. The term father as Our Lord hints at is not a term to be simply parade around or used lightly. The abuse is in the usage itself! The term father is not a metaphor or hyperbole since that would reasonably and accurately be used to refer to the minister and his relation to his parishioners. No, the term is used in a LITERAL sense of actually begetting - the Father begetting the Son and the father begetting the son. The Jews understood Jesus in that manner. Father Abraham! But lineal descent was no guarantee of salvation! Faith is! Faith which is given to children born not by the will of men, flesh and blood but by the power of God (the Father)!

No, the only other person who begets us other than the Heavenly Father is the Church, our Mother.

As for the title pope, since it's a common usage used to refer to the Bishop of Rome, we have no choice but to continue to use it!

Augustinian Successor said...

John Stott is no conservative evangelical. I know lots of young people like him. He's popular and well-known. But he's no conservative evangelical. He's an annihilationist. You cannot be an evangelical if you deny everlasting hell. That's an implicit denial of the Cross!

L P Cruz said...

A.S.

Again, these jesters are either self-conceited or plainly confused. The title father as a term of endearment, that is a familial term used in an ecclesial context is a late comer

Did you see the same point that was raised by The Fearsome Pirate in MetaLutheran.

I went to debate to discussion too with those who are justifying that title.

I will try to find it let me have a look...here it is...

http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2007/11/something-that-bugs-me.html

You can see right away the sophistry in trying to justify something not in Scripture.

LPC

L P Cruz said...

Jim,

I should post a bit more on this in a few days, I am just letting it brew in my mind.

I did see your video.

No worries for non shameful plug, I sometimes direct some comment in other blogs to something I said in this blog.


LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

"As to the use of "Church Fathers" label, that is a historical appellation, I do not recall the church calling Augustine, Father Augustine."

Haha amazing ... i don't recall ever reading this from you, Bro. Lito even though I have read the post by Josh S. But, I now I have, We said the same thing!

L P Cruz said...

A.S.

My observation is that once a person argues for the extra-romanum [no offense to my RC friends, I am not referring to them, I am referring to Lutherite popesters] the person begins to argue like a sophist , oops, I mean the person has become a sophist.

LPC

jim cronfel said...

The term "Church Fathers" simply means founding tradition. The Gree Orth always refer to the NT scriptures that use the term "tradtion" positively to defend thier demonic "ancient scared preseved worship tradtion".

But Augustine, Luther..... and Calvin (to Clavinists) are admired for defending the TRADITION OF SOLA FIDE AND NECCCESITY OF EVENTS.

I have read Luther explaing that one deserves a PHD if he understands the Theology of the Cross.

Is not the ***tradition*** of the apostles creed, two natures of Christ, and trinity... and Sola Fide to be honored and respected? a: YES!

But not the fully pelagian Greek Orth worship tradion from hell.


as far as the Scriptures go on the title of "father" itself goes it has been pointed out to me that:

as we move from Mark 10:29 to Mark 29:30 the word "father" is not recovered after we leave our "father" in Mark 10:29 for Christ and the gospel even though "brother, sisters, and mothers, children" are recovered.

But Jesus makes it clear that there is a gospel tradition and writers and PATRIARCS of the gospel that is to be honored, defended and even feared.

In Presbytrainism they have the New Perspective on Paul to worry about where they have radically departed from the tradition of Sola Fide.

I have a freind/associate who was the first to put a copy of Luther's Bondage of the Will in my hand who is a flaming Harold Campingite who believed that 1994 was the end of the world. And now thinks that it is the end of the Church age and... now that Camping is esposing annihilationism... even he is now an annihilationist with Harold Camping simply after Camping. And he was the first person to put Bondage of the Will in my hand.

He would do well to reject Harold Camping as not possesing a PHD in the Theolgy of the Cross (nor does John Stott who has honorary PHDS in three countries) and re-emrabace Luther's rejection of purgatory (which was fundamental to the 95 Thesis) (and all denials of hell) and the Theology of the Cross.

In other words my friend has departed from the community of the historic tradition of Sola Fide simply by his worship and veneration of Harold Camping and perhaps the only antitdote is the fear of the tradition of "THE CHURCH FATHERS".

It is related to the age old and troubling question of the history of the Cannon: is it from God or Man?

Not to long ago I was reading New Testament Apocrpha (Nag Hamandi) and I was thinking that it was inspired! Gasp! And I was struggling with the question of: did the Virgin pass on a sin nature to Christ?

But the answer in addition to Scripture and personal mental struggle was ultimately: That the historic community tradition must be accepted. All apocrapha is anathma in comparision to Scripture and only the male passses on the sin nature and tradition attests to this.

Even at Willow Creek you will hear that "There are no Lone Ranger Christians". And "If it is new it is heresy".

That is why "Father" is not always anathema or popish--if it is a tradion that safegaurds Sola Fide. The LCMS accepts the book of James.

But Peter's confession of the gospel was the rock that the Church was founded on not Peter himself who denied the name of Christ three times after he assured Christ he would never allow Him to be crucified and then after that he denied Paul's gospel by removing himself from eating with the gentiles.

But I would be in outer space if I did not fear this historic community on this very blog. No Scripture is of private interpretation--and that means Luther and even Lito.

jim cronfel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.