Sunday, June 13, 2010

Meyer on Kilcrease.

Dr. Jack Kilcrease of Theologia Crucis has been trying to engage us on the subject of UOJ and is not succeeding. He thinks we are a bunch of high school kids that do not know what terminologies nor concepts mean. Arrogance? He is being ignored - the reason? He does not have any passage from Scripture where the concept may be found and examined. All that is needed to do is to demonstrate from Scripture of God forgiving people without reference to faith - to demonstrate that someone got forgiven by God be they believe in Christ or not, be this an OT or an NT passage. IMHO Dr. Francis Pieper and Pr. Jay Webber are more sensible. The two knew that to enjoin others to believe you must be able to demonstrate the teaching from Scripture. They gave the most possibly strongest Scripture to back up UOJ (though they failed), mainly citing from Romans where Justification is pointedly discussed. I honestly admire them for this.

I am featuring Meyer's reply to Jack. Incidentally, I notice that Jack replied here and I am closing it to move the thread here. I got this already ready to post so as not to waste the posting here is Meyer on Kilcrease....

Dr. Jack Kilcrease said...
It is not a red herring. You ignore the context of my argument. You are reasoning from the perspective of God.
Here's the deal. For me to take your arguments seriously you need to stop appealing to specific language and start talking about conceptualities.


You've said this many times in the discussion on your blog site:
Jack said, BTW, quoting me million Bible verses and Confessional quotations will not some how overwhelm me. Defining our terms correctly and then debating actual conceptualities is a more meaningful way to respond.
One that I would highly encourage.
JUNE 9, 2010 9:45 AM


Jack, you reject God's Words in preference to what your reason deducts as concepts. You do not take God's Word for what it says but pervert it. That's why you confess:
This is why Luther says that we are already forgiven before we repent in the LC. JUNE 10, 2010 8:32 AM

Christ declared in Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

I post this here because what you have written on your blog serves as a testimony to the contradictions and sophistry of UOJ. That is of great benefit that you and many other people in the Lutheran Synods have been convinced that in order to confess Justification, as you falsely claim God does, you need to declare UOJ in it's fullest, in the glory of it's conceptualities. This will cause the clergy to stop feigning a confession of Justification by Faith Alone as the Scriptures declare and Confessions confirm but expose the false gospel for what it really is.

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Rejecting Christ's righteousness as clearly declared in His own Words you've gone about to establish your own way to righteousness as He says in Romans 10:3 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.

continued...

Jack, you've claimed that Luther taught the forgiveness of sins before repentance and faith worked by the Holy Spirit, outside of and without the Word.

Note here that in the BOC under Luther's Smalcald articles Luther declares the Chief Article of Christian faith:

Note in the Smalcald articles that Luther quotes common UOJ proof passages (all have sinned and are justified freely …) and having done so immediately makes the declaration in point four that faith alone justifies us. This is all in context and shows that Luther's confession and that of the BOC is that in Christ all sins are paid for - the Atonement. That all righteousness that avails against sin is in Christ and never apart from Him. That is the result of the Atonement. That Christ is everything. We are only in Christ through faith and thus are only forgiven by God through faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the gracious gift of the Means of Grace.

Part II, Article I: The first and chief article.
1] That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.

2] And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.

3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f

4] Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ.

5] Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.


Jack what you confess and UOJ teaches is condemned by the BOC here:
Part III, Article VIII. Of Confession.
3] And in those things which concern the spoken, outward Word, we must firmly hold that God grants His Spirit or grace to no one, except through or with the preceding outward Word, in order that we may [thus] be protected against the enthusiasts, i.e., spirits who boast that they have the Spirit without and before the Word, and accordingly judge Scripture or the spoken Word, and explain and stretch it at their pleasure, as Muenzer did, and many still do at the present day, who wish to be acute judges between the Spirit and the letter, and yet know not what they say or declare.

10] Therefore we ought and must constantly maintain this point, that God does not wish to deal with us otherwise than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments. 11] It is the devil himself whatsoever is extolled as Spirit without the Word and Sacraments.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#keys

In Christ,
Brett Meyer

11 comments:

Dr. Jack Kilcrease said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Jack Kilcrease said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Timid Lutherans said...

Jack, you need to forgive everyone for not agreeing with you. Then we could all get along better.

Boaz said...

I'm happy to see someone smarter than me reach the same conclusion about this debate that I did.

Anti-UOJers have the same position as UOJ, so far as I can tell, they just use the word "atonement" to describe UOJ. So I'm fine if I say Christ atoned for my sin 2000 years ago on the cross, or paid for my sin 2000 years ago on the cross, but I can't say Christ forgave my sin 2000 years ago on the cross or that after Christ died 2000 years ago, God no longer held my sin against me. Still waiting for an explanation for the difference. So far as I can tell, we all agree people are damned only for rejecting God and not because God refused to do anything.

The real problem with the anti-UOJers is that they accuse everybody who disagrees of heresy.

Boaz said...

And I'd say any objective referee would award Jack the victory in this debate. Simply devastating.

Jack, you ought to assemble those blog posts into a paper, so there is a definitive response to Jackson, Meyer, et al. to point to in the future, so no others become confused and fall into the mistaken belief that God is waiting for them to get more faith before he forgives their sins.

L P said...

Dear Jack

There are so many fallacious things in your comments and I cannot begin to start where. It is fallacy city.

I mean, has it occurred to you that all these critiques that you've waged only work if your opponents were to claim forgiveness was communicated apart from the sacraments and the word and apart from faith? But you admit your opponents don't claim this.


To the contrary they do on the objective justification issue! Have you not been reading? Do you not believe that man has been forgiven without faith or before faith, by the fact of the atonement? Thus forgiveness has already happened without faith and since the means of grace is the one that creates it,then forgiveness happens without the means of grace ... in your position of universal forgiveness without or prior to faith. Now if you deny this is your position we are not in the same debate and we better say farewell.

Now to your LC Luther quote:

In your quote of Luther's LC you presented this quote with your emphasis God has given us the Gospel, in which he offers free forgiveness before we prayed for it or even thought of it..


a.)Firstly did Jesus give this prayer to his disciples (meaning his believers) or to unbelievers?

b.)Can prayer to God and the praying of this prayer be looked at as an act of faith? If praying the Lord's Prayer is not an act of faith and hence presence of faith itself, then what is it? What would you call it?

c.) I notice Luther used the word "offer" which, I add you did not emphasize? This is crucial because the word "offer" means something has to be received to benefit from it.

c.) Luther adds this sentence to your quote: But the point here is for us to recognize and accept this forgiveness.. Then he goes on to say how our nature does not believe nor trust in God. Clearly Luther distinguishes the giving of the gift from the enjoyment of the gift itself, something that UOJers violate.

A believer who has been baptized when he prays this prayer can trust that his sins have been forgiven before he prayed because the means of grace has already been applied to him, in that baptism.


The problem I see in UOJers is that they do not deal with the entire context of their Luther passages. You, I am sorry to say exhibit the same, pull quotes out of context

....

L P said...

cont...

To counter your claims that there is forgiveness taught in the BoC without reference to faith I offer this quote from Meyer...

UOJ destroys the office of the keys as shown in the following BOC passage:
"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


In short, if remission of sins happened already then the absolution is meaningless.

Also, good work shutting down comments on the last post. It definitely shows that your not afraid of having an open and honest debate.

LOL. This is one thing I am beginning to like about you, you are so sure of yourself.

You are most welcome to cut and paste any posts or previous comments you may have from here. I pulled the plug on the previous post because the post had nothing to do with UOJ it had something to do with present Christian music phenomena. This post is the best place for the discussion. Also I shall comeback to your "kipper" or "kuppur" explanation of UOJ.

Lastly, saying that I have not backed up my position from Scripture or the confessions is false. I merely lack the patience to cut and paste a million little quotations from the Scripture or the confessions in to posts. I have repeated cited Biblical themes and made allusions to Biblical verse


Do you not realize I am in the same spot? You are virtually asking me to rehash 108 comments in one of my post? If your job is much harder then bad luck. You need to do this period. I cannot make your job easier for you, it is you who wants to debate, not me.

I have a reply to your fallacies, I am at a disadvantage by time and I admit you do have the upper hand in terms of time, I have another responsibility, theology is just a sideline for me, that is not my profession.

LPC

L P said...

Boaz,

And I'd say any objective referee would award Jack the victory in this debate. Simply devastating

*any objective referee*?

You are entitled to your opinion but the debate is not over, I just have not been answering and have been disinterested because it appears as a rehash of the past.

At any rate, I have no interest in winning points my aim is for proper understanding of what should be the object of faith, my faith.

I was a UOJer before, have you forgotten I am an ex-UOJer? All Jack could do is pull me back again or reconvert me. I am happy to if he gives me a non fallacious argument, so far, I have seen lots and showing them forth is a big job.

Truth has no dog in this fight. I will only be wiser.

The real problem with the anti-UOJers is that they accuse everybody who disagrees of heresy.

This is not true. If you go farther earlier it was the UOJers who are quick to label nay-sayers as heretics. It is because nay-sayers imply that Walther/Pieper could be wrong and as far as UOJers are concerned, Walther was infallible father of their synod.



LPC

Dr. Jack Kilcrease said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Jack Kilcrease said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
L P said...

Jack,

Yes, now it is.

I am not interested in winning points against you. It gives me no pleasure in doing that, if ever I did. I was a UOJer myself and I changed my mind.

In this debate I am not sure if I have debated people nor the issues themselves. I like to think the latter.

This issue affects me personally as a Christian, my interest is in the accuracy of the Biblical teaching. Biblical truth is ultimate to me.

Walther Maier's anti-UOJ paper is there in the internet. I have found this paper well written and well researched and well argued. His exegesis is also compelling in that paper.

So far I have not found anyone respecting this paper from LC-MS or any American Synodical Lutherans so much as to offer a rebuttal.

If you ever write write a rebuttal of his exegesis, I sincerely like you to inform me, I shall be happy to read it.

You have every right to follow your conviction to write against anti-UOJ position in your blog or books.

I will also write some more on the UOJ, please do not take them personally.


LPC