Called to “Test all things”

Eight days ago, we blogged about the opening of Faith Lutheran Church – a new, independant Lutheran congregation in the Portland, Oregon, area, formed by some 17 Lutherans who were recently compelled to leave WELS for a variety of reasons, and have now chosen to be served by pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). We also mentioned that these Lutherans now also feel compelled to provide a public explanation for their departure from the WELS. Last Monday, we posted the first such explanation: No Longer Alone: Perspective of a Confessional Lutheran Woman. Today, we post the second.

---

Called to “Test all things”
by Mr. Vernon Kneprath
The intent and agreement among those who chose to leave our WELS congregation was to leave peacefully and quietly. Concerns had already been expressed to the appropriate individuals over months and years, regarding what was being preached, taught and practiced throughout the synod. Most of those resigning their membership had stopped attending our local congregation weeks or months prior. When our common goal to return to confessional Lutheranism was realized, and a road to that end became available, it was determined to be prudent to resign our membership in our WELS congregation before working toward organizing a new congregation.

A simple, one sentence letter indicated the undersigned were resigning their membership. The letter was sent by certified mail to the pastor and president of the congregation. It was considered by our group to be more kind and considerate to send one letter rather than many, so that those receiving it would not be in a position of wondering when the next letter would arrive.

For nearly two months we generally avoided initiating dialogue. Some of us were contacted by various members and leaders of our local congregation. We listened carefully, and responded respectfully. Out of the communications that occurred during that time, there was a single individual who approached many of us in a respectful manner, and showed genuine care and concern for us.

The previous Intrepid post gave one individual’s reasons for leaving the WELS. While each of us had our own specific reasons for leaving, there were many shared concerns. Therefore, some of what follows may seem redundant. Unlike the author of the previous post, I had been a lifelong member of the WELS. I was instructed and confirmed with the Gausewitz edition of Luther’s Small Catechism, and remain convinced that it properly represents and teaches the truths of Scripture. But it had become increasingly clear in recent years that I was a confessional Lutheran in a Lutheran church body that seemed to no longer appreciate or desire to be confessional Lutheran.

The Bible teaches that we are to point out error where it exists, and to defend the truth of God’s Word at every opportunity.

”Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 NKJV)

Over time, and with a great deal of attention to what was going on among Lutherans in this country, it became apparent it wasn’t necessary to accept the deliberate changes being made to the teachings and practices of churches within the WELS. There is an alternative.

New Bible translations that glorify man and his wisdom rather than honoring God’s unchanging Word do not need to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that recognizes the potent efficacy of God’s Word in teaching AND in practice.

Contemporary worship, or blended worship, or whatever the latest worship fad, does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that unabashedly uses the historic liturgy without change or reservation.

An obsession with money, and a link to Thrivent and Planned Parenthood does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that focuses on teaching and preaching Law and Gospel, leaving it up to God to determine how and when the saints will be blessed.

Man-made gimmicks to fill the pews and the offering plates do not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that preaches the Means of Grace, and only the Means of Grace, as the way in which God grows the church.

Decisions to remove “Lutheran” from a church name, school or website, or other efforts to distance a church from the Lutheran Confessions need not be accepted or tolerated. There is a Lutheran church body that eagerly teaches the contents of the Book of Concord to its members.

The teaching of objective justification, which proclaims that “everyone has been justified, everyone has been forgiven, everyone has been saved,” does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that preaches, without hesitation or contradiction, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31 NKJV)

There is an alternative to a Lutheran church that no longer desires to be confessional Lutheran. The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America, (ELDoNA) is the Lutheran church that I have found to be unapologetically confessional Lutheran, in teaching AND in practice.


The Lutheran Hymnal - Hymn 260 verse 2 (verse omitted from the WELS hymnal, Christian Worship)

With fraud which they themselves invent
     Thy truth they have confounded;
Their hearts are not with one consent
     On Thy pure doctrine grounded.
While they parade with outward show,
They lead the people to and fro,
     In error's maze astounded.

 

What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea...

Certified Letter to Faith Church

The following letter was sent, Certified Mail, in response to the receipt of a Certified Letter from a Lutheran Congregation. While such letters are an official way for a congregation to terminate relationships with individuals and families they are releasing from membership, and an entirely appropriate form of rebuke when an estranged member cuts himself off from the congregation and refuses to respond to their overtures of evangelical concern, they are nothing but a callous expedient for the congregation which makes no attempt whatsoever to reach out to its members (who up to that point were supposedly considered their brothers/sisters in Christ) or to otherwise contact the intended recipient ahead of time to determine with certainty what their situation is; thus, such Certified Letters belie the congregation’s evangelical confession. That is what happened to the family, below. So perturbed were they with this callous expedient, that they returned the Certified Letter, unopened, along with a personally handwritten letter of their own that extended nine full pages of legal-sized paper. They had much to say, which they found important enough to deliver to their former congregation via Certified Mail. It is worth reading. As many readers may find it difficult to read human handwriting, rather than posting images of the handwritten letter, it has been transcribed, below (edited, of course, for public consumption).

---

Lxxxxx
1234 Anystreet Road
Nowhere, WI 54000

Faith Church
5678 Anyotherstreet Road
Next to Nowhere, WI 54000

To Whom It May Concern:

We received a piece of certified mail from you, postmarked March 11, 2015. We are returning it to you, unopened. We have very little interest in hearing what you may have to say in such a letter, that you could not preface with a demonstration of evangelical concern, or even basic courtesy, by making a simple phone call or sending an email. But, to be honest, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that you would have done otherwise.

At one point in time we were considered by the members of Faith Church to be Christian brothers. At least, we are pretty sure that we were. Feeling welcomed when we first joined, we were immediately drawn by them into the ministry of the congregation and put to work, and labouring closely with them, had established what we had considered to be close and meaningful relationships. This all came to an end after nearly seven years, when, in mid-2007, without explanation, we were shunned by the congregation. It was difficult to discern precisely, at first, as Mr. Lxxxxx was heavily involved with Church leadership, and was in constant communication with many of those who are now counted as our former friends. But by the end of 2007, his final year in any leadership capacity at Faith Church, it had become clear that the only communication being initiated by those “friends” was strictly related to church business. Beginning in 2008, the reality was unmistakable. Not just a few people, but everyone, including the Pastor, remained mysteriously aloof. He waited week after week for his friends to initiate with him some form of personal conversation. Weeks turned into months. Months turned into years. Nothing. All the while, the women of the congregation pretended to carry on as normal with Mrs. Lxxxxx, but she saw very clearly what was going on, and refusing to be socially separated by them from her husband, remained by his side. She was quickly disfavored, as well. By the time Pastor Sxxxxxxxx passed away in 2009, those former friendships were regarded by us as completely severed. As the years continued to pass, however, we once again began to enjoy some social involvement in the congregation, as other marginalized members of Faith Church recognized our situation and reached out to us in various ways. We also enjoyed conversation with new members, who had not yet been fully received into the labours of the congregation.

Accordingly, Mr. Lxxxxx’s last face-to-face meeting with the Rev. Wxxxx was unfortunate, but predictable. Having had to travel for work, he was unable to attend the October 2013 Voters’ Meeting, but discovered some weeks afterward – quite by accident – that there was some concern regarding the issue of Bible translations, and that the Board of Elders had been asked by the congregation to look into it. There was no hint that this was intended as any kind of formal investigation. Nevertheless, having himself been rather notoriously engaged in research and writing on the topic, he forwarded to the Rev. Wxxxx a number of articles and resources for the Board to consider. When, at the following Voters’ Meeting in January 2014, Mr. Lxxxxx was surprised to see that the issue of Bible translations was on the agenda, he enquired of the Rev. Wxxxx regarding the nature of the Elders’ report – as he was again unable to to attend due to business travel. He was stunned to learn that the Elders would not only be reporting their findings, but would move to officially adopt the NIV 2011. “Did the Board study any of the documents I forwarded to you, for them to consider?” he asked the Reverend.

“What documents?” was the reply.

Mr. Lxxxxx, realizing that he had been marginalized yet again, then clarified, “The documents and links I sent to you in an email not long ago.”

“Oh,” then after a long pause, “No. We only considered the documentation provided by Synod.”

“But that documentation was biased in favor of a single conclusion!”

“Yes, I know it was biased. It was biased on its face. But I don’t know why it was biased...”

Now incredulous, Mr. Lxxxxx proceeded to make clear, in sharp and conclusive terms, that he would allow neither himself nor his family to knowingly sit under teaching that proceeded from a document descending directly from post-Modern philosophies known to be perverting human language, and, along with it, human thought patterns; a document which is nothing more than the translators’ paraphrasing of the original languages (paraphrasing which is further edited downstream in the publication process by “readability committees”); a document which deliberately twists thousands of words of Scripture in ways that purposely accommodates liberal theology (feminism, in particular); and a document which, rather than clarifying the Scriptures for English readers, ultimately obscures their meaning by intentionally gutting the Bible of significant vocabulary and grammatical forms found in the original languages – that do have English parallels, if translators care to take into consideration not just the limits of “conversational English,” but the full capacity of the English language to carry objective meaning – making it ever more difficult for the English reader to find and rely on “direct positive statements of Scripture,” and thus also statements that are, by definition, clear. Such translation ideologies gravely endanger the Perspicuity of Scripture in the name of making it accessible for the marginally literate English reader, they threaten to drive the laity of the Church ever deeper into a general illiteracy and intellectual incapacity such as was common in medieval times, and they certainly ought not be vaunted in Christ’s Church as the standard English form of Holy Writ in all teaching and publications.

Nevertheless, Faith Church proceeded to officially adopt the NIV 2011 as the congregation’s translation.

This was not the reason we left Faith Church and the WELS, however; it was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

A few months prior, we were warned by the Rev. Wxxxx to “prepare” our sixth grade boy, who had just entered Catechism, for a discussion of the Sixth Commandment. Finding it a bit ridiculous to rush him through “sex-ed” just to prepare him for Catechism class, we refused to go to such lengths, insisting that such matters need to be handled delicately with children his age, that discussion of sexual activity in any direct terms would be entirely out of bounds, and that there is very little basis for understanding the Sixth Commandment anyway, without a thorough positive grounding in biblical courtship and marriage – deviation from which would itself serve as a glaring example of something that is sinful.

Then we read the catechism that would be used by the Reverend to instruct our young boy, which was written by one Rev. David Kuske. In comparison with the catechism resources we afterward recommended he use instead for the Sixth Commandment lesson (Gausewitz or Koehler), Kuske goes into excessively lurid detail of sexual intercourse, including what kind of sex to have, when to have it, and how enjoyable it should be. The Rev. Wxxxx forcefully rejected use of the alternative resources we suggested (which were, in our opinion, better by orders of magnitude, without all of the direct sex-talk and associated imagery), and when we opted to keep our son home rather than attend his lesson, were indirectly criticized by him for our parenting decisions. In retrospect, given all of the sexual scandals in WELS that have been made public over the past year, and the many more that are roiling just under the surface, we wonder now whether Kuske’s catechism might have something to do with it – whether, in our over-sexed day and age, introducing direct sex-talk with sixth-grade boys and girls is a bit premature for these youngsters, and puts images in their minds that they might otherwise be inclined to struggle against, had their pastor not been the one who put them there using Synod materials that carry the approval of the Church. Given this, it is no wonder the current generation of WELS theologians prefers the NIV 2011’s use of the phrases “make love” (Ge. 4:1,17,25; 29:21,23,30; 38:2; Ru. 4:13; 1 Sa. 1:19; 2 Sa. 11:11; 12:24; 1 Ch. 2:21; 7:23; Is. 8:3; etc.) and “have sex” (Ge. 19:5; Jud. 19:22; 1 Co. 6:9) – phrases and imagery thought in previous generations to be far too indelicate to implant in the minds of pious Christians, who were probably also averse to using such terms for fear that they would indirectly reinforce immoral standards cherished by the world and ignite fleshly desires, against which Christians already struggle.

About a month after Mr. Lxxxxx’s final face-to-face conversation with the Rev. Wxxxx, he was called by the Reverend on the telephone. Mr. Lxxxxx made clear that he meant what he had said in January, and that we were looking for another congregation. He told him that we were, at that time, investigating other WELS congregations, along with LCMS congregations. The Reverend assured him that we remained members in good standing, that if we found a suitable WELS congregation he would be glad to transfer us, and if not, then we would be simply released from membership. We never heard from him again. In all of this time, we were contacted by no one from the congregation out of evangelical concern, or even curiosity, over our extended absence, save one person. We received from the congregation what we had come to expect since 2008: near deafening silence.

We quickly found that there were no suitable WELS congregations within reasonable traveling distance. In the end, we found that among those WELS congregations which seemed intent upon demonstrating their Confession through a wholesome liturgical practice, seemed uncorrupted by ambitions of glory, seemed unwilling to give place to worldly entertainment standards in their worship chambers, seemed confident in the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace to Call, Gather and Enlighten His Elect, and seemed content to allow Him to work in His way, through His Means, in His time, unaugmented by their own innovations, Faith Church was to be most commended in regard to its NIV 2011 deliberations: where Faith Church actually had the courage to at least publicly identify “Bible translation” as an issue, and to go through the motions of publicly addressing that issue (although, with a predetermined outcome, given that a single source of admittedly biased materials was all that they consulted), all of the other WELS congregations we visited simply started using the NIV 2011 without discussion, without the people even knowing it – when we asked, we learned that the new Bibles just showed up in the pews one Sunday, and no one knew the difference. We could not abide such cowardice.

Of all the other options in our area, there was one ELS congregation and two LCMS congregations that were in many ways very suitable. But we ultimately decided that we were unwilling to dance around the issue of Universal Justification, merely for the convenience of attending those congregations.

“Universal Justification” is the teaching espoused by name in the WELS, and with one name or another by ELS and LCMS, as the centerpiece of Christian teaching – the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. It asserts that all mankind, including every individual, is righteous before God, and forgiven of his sins, whether he has faith or not. The natural, and fully accepted and confessed, consequence of this teaching is that those who die without faith, though they are righteous and forgiven by God, nevertheless spend an eternity barking in hell – not as punishment for their sins (since no one bears sin before God under the teaching of Universal Justification), but merely for their lack of faith. Thus they are willing to accept the teaching that righteous and forgiven saints spend an eternity in hell. The doctrine of Universal Justification, however, is nowhere named, described, or articulated in the Scriptures. It is a purely derived doctrine, without a single word of direct positive attestation in the entirety of Holy Writ.

In all, however, according to the Rev. Dr. Siegbert Becker in his essay Universal Justification, there are a total of three distinct doctrines of Justification taught by WELS. The first is Universal Justification. The second distinct doctrine of Justification, which is merely a corollary of Universal Justification, is “Objective Justification.” It teaches that God, and not man, is entirely responsible for man’s Justification. Such a teaching is not peculiar to WELS, or to Lutherans for that matter; for even the Calvinists do not deny that Justification is objective in this sense. However, WELS, ELS and LCMS seem to assert that Objective Justification also defines “faith” as “man’s work”, and therefore insist that claiming Justification comes by faith is thus to assert a doctrine of synergism. Normally, Universal and Objective Justification are conflated by them, and referred to as “Universal Objective Justification,” but, Becker makes clear, they are, in fact, distinct doctrines, with Objective Justification merely a happy consequence of Universal Justification.

The third distinct doctrine of Justification espoused by the old Synodical Conference Lutherans is so-called “Subjective Justification” – the only doctrine of Justification spoken of and articulated in the Scriptures, and the doctrine identified in the Lutheran Confessions as the main doctrine of Christianity. Except, the Scriptures don’t name it “Subjective Justification”; the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions refer to this doctrine interchangeably as “Justification” and “Justification by Faith Alone.” According to WELS, “Subjective Justification” is entirely superfluous. All of mankind is already righteous and forgiven before God (they say); Justification does NOT come though faith, since that is man’s work, and to suggest that faith is in any way the cause of Justification (even an “instrumental cause”, as it was defined by Leyser and Gerhard) only robs God of the glory He is due for the work He has already accomplished. Subjective Justification (they say), isn’t “Justification” at all, properly speaking – it’s merely “the reception of faith,” and with it merely “receiving the benefit” of the righteous and forgiven standing they, and all men, have had in the eyes of God since the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Prior to faith (they say), all of mankind is already Justified – fully righteous and forgiven before God – but individuals are denied “enjoyment” of this Justification until God gives them faith.

According to the Bible and the Confessions, however, “Justification by Faith Alone” is the only doctrine of Justification that is taught; mankind (including every individual) is NOT already Justified before God, he is already Condemned; the unbeliever is NOT already righteous and forgiven before God, but stands before God in the filth of his own sin, in need of righteousness and forgiveness; this Justification was earned by Christ in His Passion, and is now offered to mankind in the Message of the Gospel, via which the Holy Spirit works to produce faith; and a person is said to be Justified when the promise of Salvation has been appropriated to himself through the faith God gives him, and not before.

Frankly, it was a shock to us to learn that WELS, ELS and (it seems) LCMS all believe, teach and confess a doctrine of Universal Justification. This fact was withheld from us during Bible Information Class (adult catechism). The fact is:

• We reject the doctrine of Universal Justification as without a scintilla of Scriptural or Confessional support;
• We reject as Scripturally unfounded and as entirely fallacious reasoning the assertion that Justification must be Universal in order for it to be objective, or to be accomplished entirely outside of man;
• We, rather, fully embrace and confess the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone;
• We, further, confess and insist that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification taught by the Scriptures in direct positive terms, and that it is therefore the only Scripturally defensible doctrine of Justification that Christians may confess;
• We fully reject the assertion that faith is in any way man’s work (the Scriptures directly forbid this notion), and we therefore reject the assertion that Justification by Faith Alone is a doctrine of synergism;
• We reject the assertion that “Objective Justification” is a doctrine of Scripture which is taught in distinction from Justification by Faith Alone, and find it impermissible to define “Objective Justification” as any kind of justification at all;
• We, rather, confess that the objectivity of Justification is a defining attribute of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, and insist that Justification by Faith Alone does, indeed, constitute a fully objective Justification – that is, our Justification is accomplished fully outside of us, without any merit or participation of our own in any sense;
• We confess with confidence and rejoicing that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit;
• We reject as flippant hyperbole the assertion that saving faith, under the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is reduced to merely “a profound hope that man conjures within himself”;
• We further confess in this regard, that it is fully biblical to speak of faith being active (i.e., receiving, appropriating, trusting, etc.), without it also being considered volitional and thus synergistic;
• We recognize that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, and was the only doctrine of Justification directly named and taught by the orthodox Confessors and Concordists;
• We further recognize that a form of Universal Justification was asserted by a heterodox member of the Wittenberg Faculty, a teacher whose doctrine was roundly condemned by his orthodox peers, and who was dismissed in 1595 for clinging to his false doctrine – for denying that Justification is restricted to believers;
• We therefore reject as unfounded fiction and utterly preposterous all claims that Universal Justification is “implicitly taught in the Lutheran Confessions,” that it was understood, embraced and taught by the Confessors and Concordists without ever being named or articulated by them, and that it must therefore bind the consciences of any Christian today who would lay claim to an orthodox confession;
• We recognize the introduction of Universal Justification and its corollary teachings in American Lutheranism, as a biblically indefensible innovation of the old Synodical Conference.

Putting the best construction on our experiences, and despite any appearances that might cause some to conclude otherwise, we assume, Faith Church, that you are, in fact, possessed of great evangelical concern over our plight, and though, over the course of a full year, you exerted no effort to find out from us directly, we also assume that you are nevertheless deeply interested to know how we fare today.

We have found a Lutheran congregation. It is a congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). Of this congregation, we are happy to say:

• They are confessional – that is, they understand the dire need for a clear Christian confession in a sinful world where otherwise well-meaning believers, as victims of sin’s corruption, everywhere misunderstand and pervert the Scripture’s teaching;
• They fully subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, as articulated in the Christian Book of Concord, not insofar as they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, but boldly confessing before the world and other Christians, that they are so;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They positively reject the doctrine of Universal Justification, and instead, believe, teach and confess the single Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone – the very doctrine for which Luther and his fellow confessors struggled so mightily, risking their lives that it would be preserved to the Church for the eternal benefit of mankind;
  • They do not confuse laity with clergy – that is, laymen are NOT considered Ministers of the Word, and are NOT tasked with carrying out the functions of the pastoral Office;
  • They fully trust the Holy Spirit to work through His appointed Means, and being confident in the efficacy of those Means and content with His timing, do not feel compelled to augment His work with their own innovations;
  • Not merely mouthing the words of their confession, they endeavor to make manifest this confession, maintaining in the Divine Service a wholesome liturgical practice that unmistakably demonstrates Lutheran catholicity, rather than supplanting it with the obnoxious sectarian practices of pop-church evangelicalism.
  
  
• They are conservative – that is, rather than dispose of their Lutheran birthright (which, in order to keep it, requires much honour, trust, patience and a keen awareness of the past) for an immediately satisfying bowl of sectarian and worldly porridge (which, if it satisfies at all, does so merely for the moment, soon afterward requiring the satiation of new and different cravings), they endeavor to carry into the future that great deposit of wisdom wrought of Christian experience over the millenia. Thus they endeavor to conserve the past, rather than discard it as quaint, passé and irrelevant in favor of the wisdom of the day;
  
  in particular:
  
  
  • They reject (as far as we can tell) the post-Modern philosophies of contemporary times, which represent a full frontal attack on the very morality of language itself, mightily threatening the Church, not by changing the words She confesses before the world, but by dramatically altering that Confession in place – altering the meaning of Her Confession by altering the structures of language employed to express it;
  • They have chosen to use and promote a wholesome translation of the Scriptures which not just theoretically, but manifestly honours the doctrine of inspiration, retaining in English as much as practicable, both the grammatical forms and the vocabulary found in the Greek and Hebrew originals, and which honours the tradition of English ecclesiastical thought and expression by maintaining continuity with the English translation Received by English speaking peoples over 400 years ago as the Bible in English, and that continues to this day as a dominant Bible translation preferred by English speakers;
  • They hold that it is wise practice for the Church to maintain a sharp distinction from the world in Her practice, including the use of terminology in their catechesis and during the Divine Service, which maintains a continuity with the past and which reinforces the “other worldly” reality of the believer’s citizenship in the Kingdom of Grace.

And to top it all off:

• They – like Lutherans across the globe (in our experience) – are just plain nice folks.

Unfortunately, this congregation, being a two-hour drive for us, is not very conveniently located. We are not able to attend weekly, as we would like, but endeavor to attend at least twice monthly. When we are unable to attend, however, we do take time to worship as a family in our home, following a modified form of “The Order of Morning Service” from The Lutheran Hymnal (pg. 5), and reading from Luther’s Postils for the Sermon. This works very nicely.

If the truth be told, however, we started this practice of home worship years before finally leaving the WELS. We began to notice that there was a consistent dearth of Law in the preaching and teaching, not only of Faith Church, but in every WELS church we visited. The emphasis on the Gospel was so smothering that the Law, if present at all, was virtually indiscernible. While both of us had grown up within pop-church Evanglicalism and among confessing Pietists, were fully acquainted with the Law, and personally found Law-less Gospel preaching a sufficient (and welcome) balance to the smotheringly Gospel-less Law preaching we had been reared with, the impact on our children, who, over a decade had only become familiar with the Gospel, was unmistakably negative. Having literally no acquaintance with the Law, they failed to place any real significance on the Gospel, taking for granted that they were already forgiven and righteous regardless of what they do, as if they were entitled to it. The result was behaviour issues of various kinds, a general disregard for God’s Word, and a failure to respond to correction which was drawn from it. We appealed at various times to our WELS pastors for more Law in their preaching, so that there would be a more discernible balance between Law and Gospel, but when our requests were dismissed – sometimes with ridicule for being “lovers of the Law” – we realized that there would be no changing their nearly Law-less Gospel preaching. Mrs. Lxxxxx had finally grown so fed up with the fact that our children had not imbibed the Law in any significant way from our association with WELS, that she began taking them through the Book of Proverbs every month, and visiting with them other sections of the Bible that emphasize Law – like the Book of James. This had quite an impact. As the the older children would read the Proverbs, they would stop, read it again, gulp, and say things like, “Oh, boy...” They had no idea. At one point, Mrs. Lxxxxx even suggested, somewhat facetiously, that we leave Lutheranism entirely, and go back to Pietism, just so that our children could be acquainted with the Law through the teaching of the Church, and finally come to appreciate the Gospel. Needless to say, that is not what we did. Instead, we started reading Luther’s sermons for semi-regular family worship, in place of attending Faith Church every Sunday. Luther is very direct in his preaching of the Law, and equally so in his preaching of the Gospel, nearly every sermon being very well balanced between the two. It is unlike any preaching we had heard over the past four decades, including the last fifteen years of association with WELS. Acquaintance with the Law has helped with discipline in the home, too, and improved our family’s appreciation for the Gospel.

Finally – you may be interested to know – there is informal, though very serious, discussion of opening a Lutheran mission congregation in our area (River Falls, Hudson, New Richmond, Baldwin, etc.), of confessional and conservative character similar to the congregation in which we currently enjoy membership. The intent would be to use our family, and perhaps other interested individuals, to seed this mission. Efforts are underway, now, to investigate possible meeting places.

Ta Ta for Now,

Lxxxxx

Reposting of letter to the AZ-CA District Presidium of the WELS

The district convention of the AZ-CA District of the WELS is going on this week. This is the first district convention to take place since my removal from the WELS in October, 2012. It was brought to my attention that I am featured in the District President's report, which can be found here.

Since DP Buchholz references his suspension letter to me in his report, I thought it would be wise to repost my reply to him and the district presidium from October, 2012, exposing some of his errors.

Those who wish to study further the errors of Universal / Objective Justification are also encouraged to read all the essays and articles on the website of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA).

__________________________________________

October 15, 2012

To the presidium of the Arizona-California District of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, President Jon Buchholz, First Vice President Steven Degner and Second Vice President David Clark:

Dear members of the AZ-CA District presidium, I write to you in reply to your letter suspending me from the ministerium of the WELS, and also in response to your shameful behavior over the past year.  Since you have formally and publicly condemned me as a false teacher, I no longer address you as brothers in Christ.

Your shameful behavior

I was surprised, President Buchholz, to get a phone call from you on Tuesday morning, Oct. 2, announcing the presidium’s resolution to suspend me.  This surprised me because you stood in front of me and my congregation just six days earlier and explicitly promised, “We will continue to study this issue with your pastor.”  Many of my members expressed to me after that meeting on Sept. 26^th how encouraged they were by your promise to continue studying this doctrine with me.  But you have proven yourself to be a liar.

When one of my members questioned your dishonest behavior, you responded with this:

When I spoke with Pastor Rydecki this morning (October 2) we agreed that we are at an impasse.

That is a lie.  You asked me if I thought anything had changed between the meeting on Wednesday (Sept. 26) and that morning (Oct. 2).  I said that I didn’t think anything had changed in those six days.  I certainly did not agree that further study would be unproductive or unnecessary, especially given your public promise that such a study would take place.

You also wrote to my member:

Following last Wednesday’s meeting I took the opportunity to seek advice and counsel from the faculty of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary and from the Doctrine Committee of our WELS Conference of Presidents. All of the theologians agreed without hesitation or reservation that the statement “God forgave the sin of the world when Jesus died on the cross” (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2; Romans 5:18; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Apology IV, 103) teaches the truth of God’s Word and the historic teaching of the Lutheran Church in a simple, clear, and unambiguous way.

So you admit that you were emboldened to break your word to my congregation by the support you received from the seminary faculty and from the COP.  You have thus implicated them in your papistic attempt to establish new doctrine ex cathedra and to force your own made-up statements upon the pastors and congregations of the WELS on threat of suspension.  One would think that those who bear the name of Luther would shun such behavior, but instead you have embraced it—to your shame and disgrace.

I will mention more of your disgraceful behavior.  You had numerous communications with members of my congregation behind my back prior to my suspension, meddling in another man’s divine call.  You tolerated a pastor of this district making a public accusation against me of heresy on the district convention floor—in my absence, no less! —without denying his charge or clearing my good name before the assembly.  You have tolerated any number of slanderous accusations made against me behind my back by pastors of this district, knowing full well that not a single one of them has communicated with me in any way, even to seek clarification from me of my doctrine.  And if they are getting their impressions of my teaching from you, then they certainly are getting the wrong impression.

Your shameful misrepresentation and your confused doctrine

You have repeatedly misrepresented my doctrine, both to my congregation and to various pastors of our synod.  You have written:

Pastor Rydecki: Jesus died and rose again so that the sin of the world could possibly be forgiven.

Scripture: Jesus died and rose again, so that the sin of the world is forgiven.

“Could possibly be forgiven?”  You know I have never taught this.  But neither do you understand the Scriptural doctrine that God forgives sins through the Means of Grace, and that forgiveness is a present-tense divine promise made to “whoever believes and is baptized,” rather than some sort of past tense “reality,” as you like to call it.  All your talk about “possibilities” and “potentialities” and “realities” is worthless philosophical drivel.

Pastor Rydecki (a false and unLutheran teaching): Faith causes a person to become forgiven.

Scripture: Faith trusts the truth that Jesus has forgiven (1 John 2:2; John 1:29; John 19:30; Apology IV, 103; Apology XII (V),94; Smalcald Articles Part 2, Article 1).

Again, you do not understand the Gospel or the Lutheran Confessions, so you do not understand my teaching.  Whenever I have referred to faith as a cause of justification, I have been careful to point out its role as an instrumental cause, just as the orthodox Lutheran Fathers did. Faith is a cause of justification just as much as the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the Means of Grace are causes of justification.  They are not causes in the same sense nor do they have the same role, but they are necessary components of the article of justification, so that without any of these “causes,” sinners are not justified.  This is clearly explained in FC:SD:III:25.

Pastor Rydecki’s gospel is: You can be forgiven, if you believe.

The true good news is: Christ did forgive you. This is preached, so that you may believe.

My gospel is not the one that you state above. You knowingly corrupt both my teaching and the “true good news,” demonstrating again that you do not comprehend the concept of divine promise or the role of the Means of Grace.  The true good news is that “Christ did make satisfaction for your sins by His death.  Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins! Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”  Or, speaking to the baptized, the true good news is that “Baptism now saves you also,” or “In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins. Your sins are forgiven.  Go in peace.” Or, “Take; eat.  Take; drink…for the forgiveness of sins.”

Perhaps the most disturbing condemnation you have made is exemplified in your criticism of my Easter sermon, where you write:

Pastor Rydecki’s teaching is subtle and deceptive. In many cases it is found not in what he overtly says, but it is hiding behind what he refuses to say or in the ways he limits or qualifies the gospel. The following notes were drawn from Pastor Rydecki’s writings and sermons and compiled by Pastor Degner of our district. The highlighting is his:

Paul Rydecki:  Adding Faith to the Proclamation of Forgiveness

Compiled by Steven Degner to show how the incorrect teaching on justification by faith permeates the preaching and teaching of Paul Rydecki:

Easter Sermon

But for those who want a sure refuge from God’s wrath, for those who want to be reconciled to God, for those who want Jesus for a Savior, the gospel reveals this truth: that Jesus was delivered up for our sins and raised to life for our justification. His death was sufficient payment for all sin, for every sin, for the worst sinner, for his most bitter enemy; and his resurrection means that all who hope in him, all who trust in him, all who look to him for forgiveness of their sins are absolved before God’s courtroom in heaven. The empty tomb means the justification of all who believe in the risen One.

Here, Pastor Rydecki limits the work of Christ only to those who believe. He refuses to acknowledge that the empty tomb was for the justification of all people.

In person, you accused me of preaching a “conditional Gospel” here because I mentioned faith.  I am amazed that you have so directly condemned the Scriptural and Lutheran Gospel of justification by grace through faith and redefined the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to exclude faith from its proclamation.  Simply put, Pastor Buchholz, your “gospel” without faith is not the Gospel.

Your suspension letter

Now, addressing specifically your letter of suspension:

I am deeply disappointed that you have turned away from the teaching you learned in your ministerial training and have instead denied the truth and fallen into error.

On the contrary, my ministerial training prepared me in the Biblical and confessional languages so that I could search the Scriptures and the Book of Concord and study them in context.  My ministerial training taught me to rely on God’s Word alone and not on this or that seminary professor’s interpretation.  My ministerial training taught me that learning from God’s Word and from history is not to cease when one graduates from the seminary.  And thankfully, my ministerial training taught me that men and synods err; it taught me to avoid the Romish practice of ascribing infallibility to a human organization and of formulating new doctrines and then trying to read them back into the Scriptures and Confessions.

After numerous conversations with you and repeated efforts to admonish and instruct you from God’s word, you have made it clear that you are not in agreement with the doctrine of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).

You have never attempted to instruct me from God’s Word.  Instead, you have attempted to instruct me from your personal interpretations, rationalistic conclusions and philosophical assertions.  The doctrine of the WELS and the doctrine of God’s Word are not necessarily the same thing.  Neither I nor any pastor nor any congregation has ever subscribed unconditionally to the WELS doctrinal statements, and yet you have continued to insist that such a subscription is mandatory for all WELS pastors.  You have insisted that we must confess This We Believe as our “own personal confession,” in addition to the Book of Concord. This is pure sectarianism.

I have opened up the Scriptures to every supposed sedes doctrinae for your universal justification and attempted to walk through the exegesis with you and discuss the historical Lutheran exegesis of these same passages in context. But rather than showing me where my exegesis was faulty, you simply insisted that you have personally studied these things, written a synod convention essay on it, and therefore, you must be right.  You have boldly claimed that the WELS cannot be wrong on this issue, and that the doctrine of justification can only be studied to demonstrate how the WELS is right.  There can be no study done by the pastors of our district that might call into question the WELS position.  This is pure Romanism.

Specifically, you have refused to acknowledge and confess that God forgave the sin of the world when Jesus died on the cross (John 1:29; John 19:30; 1 John 2:2; Romans 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:19; Apology IV, 103).

First, I find it interesting that you have chosen the word “forgave” rather than “justified” or “declared righteous,” since this whole discussion has been over the article of justification.  Granted, “forgive” and “justify” are closely related and often used synonymously.  But then, justification is also used synonymously with “regeneration” throughout the Book of Concord.  Why the switch?  Is it perhaps because the Confessions so clearly teach that there is no justification apart from faith, and you have found one paragraph in the Apology (IV:103) that does use the words “forgave” and “all” in the same sentence?

Secondly, as I have confessed in your presence on numerous occasions, I believe and teach that Christ…

• has died for all people and paid for the sins of all people;
• has made atonement for the sins of the world;
• has been obedient to the Law for all people and has made satisfaction for the sins of all people;
• has earned and acquired righteousness, forgiveness of sins, life and salvation for all men;
• has redeemed the world;
• wants all men to be saved;
• truly offers and gives the forgiveness of sins in the Word of the Gospel, without any merit or worthiness on our part.

But you are correct. I have refused to acknowledge your made-up phrase that “God forgave the sin of the world when Jesus died on the cross,” because, as I have confessed in your presence, the Scriptures do not say this.  What they do say is that God forgives sin only through the ministry of the Word as the instrument through which the Holy Spirit alone creates faith in Christ the Reconciler and thereby justifies believers, not because faith is a good work, but because faith lays hold of Christ, the Mediator.  “Faith is imputed for righteousness.”  This is the “righteousness of faith” spoken of by the Apostle Paul in Romans and taught throughout the Lutheran Confessions.

Your made-up Scriptural support

I will address the passages you have mistakenly cited to support your contrived gospel of justification apart from faith.

John 1:29 (NKJV)   ²⁹The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

This is a beautiful passage that you have corrupted to force it to say more than it says.  It speaks clearly about the universality of Christ’s sacrifice, but it says not a word about the application of Christ’s sacrifice to the world, as if all men had already been forgiven or justified on account of it.  Christ surely bore the sin of the world and suffered for the sin of the world, and so has merited or earned forgiveness of sins for all people. “By His death, Christ made satisfaction for our sins” (Augsburg Confession:IV).  Therefore, John the Baptist rightly directs his disciples to “behold” the Lamb of God, that they might become partakers through faith in the forgiveness of sins that He merited for all (or, at that time, would merit) through His sacrifice.

The Apology explains it this way in Ap:XXIV:53-55:

The Levitical sacrifices for sins did not merit the forgiveness of sins before God. They were only an image of Christ’s sacrifice, which was to be the one atoning sacrifice, as we said before. To a great extent the Epistle speaks about how the ancient priesthood and the ancient sacrifices were set up not to merit the forgiveness of sins before God or reconciliation, but only to illustrate the future sacrifice of Christ alone. In the Old Testament, saints had to be justified by faith, which receives the promise of the forgiveness of sins granted for Christ’s sake, just as saints are also justified in the New Testament. From the beginning of the world all saints had to believe that Christ would be the promised offering and satisfaction for sins, as Isaiah 53:10 teaches, “when His soul makes an offering for sin.”

The Confessions clearly and consistently distinguish between the satisfaction made by Christ and the justification that results for those who believe in Him.  For maintaining this distinction, I have been branded a heretic.  It is hard to believe.

John 19:30 (NKJV)  ³⁰So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

I find it incredible that you cite this passage to prove your novel doctrine.  Just because you want to slip justification into the “It is finished” spoken by Christ does not make it so. 

It can properly be said that Christ finished earning or winning the forgiveness of sins on the cross, as you know I have said repeatedly, and as Luther also says in the Large Catechism.  But when I have explained my position in this way, you have said that it is still not enough.  According to you, one must also say that “God forgave the world” or “God justified the world” or even “Jesus saved the world. Past tense.”   To this I have objected.

Do you really mean to prove that God finished forgiving sins when Christ died, or that His work of forgiving sins and justifying sinners is the “it” that was “finished” when Christ died on the cross?  So much for the Absolution!  “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:23). So much for the Third Article of the Creed!  “In this Christian Church he daily and fully forgives all sins to me and all believers.”  And so much for Baptism that “works forgiveness of sin, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.”

The Lutheran Church has a name for the work of Christ that was “finished” on the cross.  It is called “Redemption” (cf. Small Catechism, Second Article). It is not called “justification” or the forgiveness of sins (cf. Small Catechism, Third Article).

For as much as you pay lip-service to the Means of Grace, District President, your inclusion of the forgiveness of sins in the “it is finished” of Christ nullifies any efficacy you might claim for the Means of Grace.  What you give with one hand, you take away with the other.  You know you should say that God “forgives” sins through the Means of Grace, so you say it when pressed (although not all of your followers are as quick to say it), but your doctrine of “forgiveness finished” and declared once-for-all from the cross negates whatever efficacy you might claim for the Means of Grace.

1 John 2:2 (NKJV)  ²And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

This is another beautiful passage that you have corrupted by inventing new definitions for words and by ignoring the surrounding context in order to prove your contrived doctrine.  That Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world is agreed upon without controversy, and you know very well that I confess this.  But propitiation is not the same thing as remitting sins or justification.  As Apology:XXI:31 says,

For we know that confidence is to be placed in the intercession of Christ, because this alone has God’s promise. We know that the merits of Christ alone are a propitiation for us. On account of the merits of Christ we are accounted righteous when we believe in Him, as the text says, Rom. 9, 33 (cf. 1 Pet. 2, 6 and Is. 28, 16): Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be confounded.

But we needn’t rely on the Confessions alone for this understanding.  The Apostle John himself in the immediate context of the verse you cite explains when and how and for whom sins are forgiven:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.  My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.  And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (1 John 1:8 - 2:2, NKJV).

Romans 5:18 (NKJV)  ¹⁸Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

This verse does not say (or even imply) that God has already justified or forgiven all men.  Adam’s offense earned condemnation for all men, but not all men are, in fact, condemned, for “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1) and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:24).  In the same way, Christ acquired the benefit of justification for all men, but not all men have been, in fact, justified or made alive, but only those who believe in Jesus Christ, as the Apostle teaches throughout Romans 3, 4, and 5, culminating in the first verse of this same chapter, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God…”

Gerhard says the same thing.  Hunnius says the same thing.  Luther teaches the same thing. Luther’s own interpretation of Romans 5:18 is rather embarrassing for those who swear by This We Believe, which cites this verse to prove that “God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ.”  Luther says,

For in the same manner also St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:18]: “As through one man’s sin condemnation has come over all men, so through one man’s righteousness justification has come over all men.” Yet not all men are justified through Christ, nevertheless he is the man through whom all justification comes. It is the same here. Even if not all men are illumined, yet this is the light from which alone all illumination comes (Luther’s Works: Vol. 52: page 71).

This is not only Luther’s consistent interpretation of Romans 5, but, even more importantly, it is the interpretation of the Book of Concord as well:

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). 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 (Formula of Concord:III:12-13).

The Book of Concord says that Romans 5:18 means the same thing as “we are justified by faith,” or “faith is counted as righteousness.”  This directly contradicts your assertion that God has already justified all people, whether they have faith or not.  It is you who are teaching contrary to the confessional writings.

2 Corinthians 5:19 (NKJV) ¹⁹that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

It is certain that Christ has made reconciliation between God and men.  He Himself, as the God-Man, is the perfect Mediator between God and Man.  “God was in Christ.”  He is where the two parties are brought together and reconciled with one another.  He is the One who has satisfied the offended party (God the Father) and who, through the ministry of the Word, continues to call out to the world, “Be reconciled to God!” (2 Cor. 5:20).

The present-tense participles in this verse in no way indicate a one-time act of “having forgiven” or “having justified” all people that supposedly took place at the cross.  God uses means to reconcile people to Himself.  Through the ministry of the Word, He brings people to Christ the Reconciler and does not impute sins to believers in Christ (clearly expressed in Rom. 4:5-8).  This verse from 2 Corinthians does not teach that the world has already been justified, and was never used by any of the Lutheran Reformers to teach such a thing.  Melanchthon, Chemnitz and the Wittenberg faculty all clearly taught that this verse does not mean that anyone was justified without faith (I would have been happy to study this exegetical question with you, but you were unwilling).  In fact, this “key” verse for your teaching of justification doesn’t make a single appearance in the whole Book of Concord.  Instead, here is the teaching of the Book of Concord:

Formula of Concord:SD:III:23-25

The righteousness of faith before God consists in the gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ, without the addition of our works, so that our sins are forgiven us and covered, and are not imputed, Rom. 4, 6ff.

But here very good attention must be given with especial diligence, if the article of justification is to remain pure, lest that which precedes faith, and that which follows after it, be mingled together or inserted into the article of justification as necessary and belonging to it, because it is not one or the same thing to speak of conversion and of justification.

For not everything that belongs to conversion belongs likewise to the article of justification, in and to which belong and are necessary only the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and faith, which receives this in the promise of the Gospel, whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, whence we receive and have forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, sonship, and heirship of eternal life.

Finally, you cite one section from the Book of Concord to support your “orthodox” teaching that God forgave/justified all unbelievers, without means, at the cross. And yet it is only one phrase in that entire paragraph upon which you base your novel teaching.  If that whole paragraph is cited in context, then your assertion falls to the ground.

Apology IV, 103-105

103] Here and there among the Fathers similar testimonies are extant. For Ambrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the world was subject to Him by the Law for the reason that, according to the command of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the Law, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived, but guilt is not discharged. The Law, which made all sinners, seemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of His own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us. This is what he says in Rom. 5, 20: “The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Because after the whole world became subject, He took away the sin of the whole world, as he [John] testified, saying John 1, 29: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed “whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,” Ps. 32, 1. 104] These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free 105] through the blood of Christ. Let all the Sententiarists, who are adorned with magnificent titles, be collected into one heap. For some are called angelic; others, subtle, and others irrefragable [that is, doctors who cannot err.] When all these have been read and reread, they will not be of as much aid for understanding Paul as is this one passage of Ambrose.

Both Ambrose and the Lutheran Reformers who cite him explain where and how exactly Christ “forgave to all sin which no one could avoid.”  He forgave to all and continues to forgive to all “after the laver of Baptism,” so that “faith is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”  Here Ambrose clearly states that the “all” whose transgression is forgiven are the same “all” who have been justified through Holy Baptism and faith.  Melanchthon summarizes this teaching of Ambrose in the words that follow, “He denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free through the blood of Christ.” 

I know you are not alone in citing this section from the Apology to retrofit your universal justification into the Book of Concord.  But an honest reading of the Apology does not permit it.  For you to assert that this snippet from the Apology somehow proves “the central message of the Bible” (as This We Believe calls it) that all people have been justified without means and without faith is not only absurd.  It is disingenuous.

Do not imagine that I have attempted to answer your claims exhaustively.  Many pages—indeed, many books! —could be written to demonstrate the folly of your position.  To be sure, the entire Bible and the whole Book of Concord teach that sinners are justified by faith alone in Christ.  But let these explanations suffice for now.

We expect you to acknowledge and confess the truth that God forgave the sin of the world when Jesus died on the cross, because this statement expresses the truth of God's Word and the historical teaching of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in simple, clear, and unambiguous terms.

If it were “the truth,” I would certainly acknowledge it. But as you teach it, it is neither the truth, nor the historical teaching of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, unless by “Evangelical Lutheran Church” you mean “The WELS.”   More sectarianism. 

Even so, there are many faithful pastors and congregations of the WELS that do not teach this absurdity that God has already declared all people righteous whether they believe in the Righteous One or not.  You would be surprised how many laymen understand the simple Gospel perfectly, without your confusing explanations and redefinition of terms.  Most WELS members, even lifelong WELS members—even multi-generational WELS families have never heard your “gospel” before. 

You would also be surprised how many WELS pastors do not claim This We Believe as their own personal confession.  Some still take their ordination vows seriously—to uphold the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, period.  Some still believe that the WELS is fallible.

As an aside, here is your teaching in “simple, clear, and unambiguous terms.”

• God has forgiven all people, but if you don’t believe, then you’re forgiven but not forgiven, even though all people are forgiven, and you stand both righteous and condemned before God at the same time.  ?????
• God declared all people righteous on Easter Sunday—which includes the wicked souls in hell.  ?????
• Jesus saved all people, but not all people are saved. ?????
• All people were justified before they were born, but stand condemned already at the time of their birth. ?????
• God has changed the status of all people to “righteous,” but still counts unbelievers among the “unrighteous.”  ?????
• God has declared all people righteous, either by imputing to all people the righteousness of Christ apart from faith (as many WELS statements teach), or by not imputing to them the righteousness of Christ at all (as Pr. Buchholz teaches).  ?????
• God has acquitted all people in his courtroom of divine justice, but sentences those who have been acquitted to eternal death if they don’t believe it. ?????

Can you not see the folly of your position?  It’s one thing to accept a paradox that is found in Scripture.  But your manmade paradox is recognized as folly by Jesus’ sheep, who do not hear their Shepherd’s voice when you speak about God having already justified sinners before His Holy Spirit brings them to faith in His Son.

You have stated openly that you reject the portion of the article on justification in our WELS confession This We Believe that says, “We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ” (Article IV, 1). You have publicly acknowledged your disagreement with WELS doctrine and have made it clear that you do not walk together with the WELS in your teaching.

Until now, I have treated you all as brothers and have been willing to study and discuss these doctrinal differences with you without condemning anyone as a heretic.  But in true papistic fashion, you have refused from the beginning even to admit the possibility that you could have erred or that the WELS doctrinal statements may be wrong.  You called me to repentance for preaching that “all who trust in Christ are absolved before God’s courtroom.”  You stood in front of my congregation and called me a false teacher for teaching the Gospel that sinners are justified by faith alone in Christ, and now you have suspended me from the ministerium of the WELS.

By your words and actions, President Buchholz, you have revealed yourself, together with the presidium of the Arizona-California District of the WELS, as enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I plead with you to turn from your human philosophies and return to the Word of God and the confession of the Church catholic, as summarized in the Augsburg Confession:

Article IV: Of Justification.

Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 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. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

I will pray for you, that the Holy Spirit may turn your hearts to see the error of your doctrine and of your actions, and may bring you back to repentance and faith in Christ.  I will also continue to pray for all the faithful pastors, teachers and congregations in the Arizona-California District and throughout the synod, that they may be encouraged to study this important issue, that they may be protected from persecution at your hand, and that they may be strengthened in the conviction and the confession that sinners are justified by faith alone in Christ. 

Lord, have mercy on the WELS!

 Christ’s unworthy servant,

+Rev. Paul A. Rydecki

The ELDoNA Refutes the ACLC's Critique Concerning the Article of Justification, Parts 6 and 7

Articles six and seven of ELDoNA's refutation of the ACLC's critique have been posted:

Theses on the Article of Justification: A Refutation of the aclc’s Critique: Part Six

Theses on the Article of Justification: A Refutation of the aclc’s Critique: Part Seven

All of the ELDoNA's posts on the the Article of Justification have now been compiled on one page on the diocesan website:

Articles on Justification

The ELDoNA Refutes the ACLC's Critique Concerning the Article of Justification, Part 5

A fifth article has been posted by the ELDoNA in their refutation:

Part Five: Treating Calov with respect by following his argument and paying attention to his words, Part 2

Previous articles in this series:
Part Four: Treating Calov with respect by following his argument and paying attention to his words, Part 1
Part Three: Questions of Methodology: Thoroughgoing Theology vs. ‘Slam Dunks’
Part Two: A Matter of Definition
Part One: Their Preamble and Our Preface

All of the ELDoNA's posts on the the Article of Justification have now been compiled on one page on the diocesan website:
Articles on Justification

The ELDoNA Refutes the ACLC's Critique Concerning the Article of Justification, Parts 3 and 4

A third article has been posted by the ELDoNA in their refutation:

Part Three: Questions of Methodology: Thoroughgoing Theology vs. ‘Slam Dunks’

And a fourth article has been posted as well:

Part Four: Treating Calov with respect by following his argument and paying attention to his words, Part 1

Previous articles in this series:
Part Two: A Matter of Definition
Part One: Their Preamble and Our Preface

The ELDoNA Refutes the ACLC's Critique Concerning the Article of Justification, Part 2

On Wednesday I reported on the beginning of a series of posts by the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America.

A second article has been posted by the ELDoNA:

Theses on the Article of Justification: A Refutation of the aclc’s Critique: Part Two

Previous articles in this series:

Theses on the Article of Justification: A Refutation of the aclc’s Critique: Part One

The ELDoNA Refutes the ACLC's Critique Concerning the Article of Justification, Part 1

As our readers know, I was suspended from the WELS ministerium back in October, 2012, for teaching the Scriptural, Lutheran Gospel that “all are sinners and are justified solely by faith in Christ” (cf. Luther’s Works, Vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, commenting on Galatians 1:10). The WELS insisted that I should teach the false doctrine of Universal “Objective Justification,” namely, that God has already declared all sinners to be righteous in His sight (whether they believe in Christ or not), but that this justification of all people not by faith in Christ, must be believed so that people can receive the benefits of it.

According to His great mercy, the Lord brought me safely out of the WELS and put me in contact with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA), among whom the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. But before I could join the diocese, it was agreed that I should explain my confession a bit more thoroughly, and that the diocese should explain its confession on this article of faith so that I would have no doubt what they believe and confess. I wrote an essay on the topic, and the diocese composed and adopted a set of Theses. In the end, we found ourselves to be in complete doctrinal agreement.

The Theses adopted by the ELDoNA and my essay have now been published, both online and in print.

Online: Theses on the Article of Justification and The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace

In print: Theses on the Article of Justification: and The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace in the Theology of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy

For some time, the ELDoNA had been in fellowship with the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (ACLC). The ACLC was not required to subscribe to the Theses on Justification, but they were asked to offer input on the Theses before they were finalized and adopted. Their initial input expressed disagreement with the fundamental conclusions of the Theses. Once the Theses were adopted, the ACLC offered a short response, which can be found here.

In this response, they promised to write up a more indepth critique, which they published about a month ago. It can be found here. In it, the pastors of the ACLC have declared themselves to be tentatively out of fellowship with the ELDoNA, pending final approval by their convention later this year.

Given the confusion created by the inaccuracies in the ACLC's response, the diocese has chosen to refute several of their claims in a series of posts on the diocesan website. The first was published yesterday.

http://eldona.org/theses-on-the-article-of-justification-a-refutation-of-the-aclcs-critique-part-one/

I encourage all Intrepid readers to give it a careful reading, and to follow the ELDoNA posts as we make our confession of faith as plain as possible, to the glory of the Triune God and for the edification of His holy Church.

Exploring Huber - The Dialogue Continues

(Continued from the dialogue in this post and subsequent comments.)

Lawson: I'm finally getting around to a response (wouldn't want you to think I've yielded the field after only one post!).

Rydecki: Not a problem at all. In fact, I’m sure you’re also busy putting together an evaluation of the ELDoNA theses, and I would rather that take precedence over your dialogue with me. But I am thankful for the dialogue!

Lawson:I think you're missing Walther's point. He was simply pointing out that the degree to which the faculties rejected Huber had some variance. Wittenberg (and, I take it, from your post today, finally also Tuebingen) adamantly rejected Huber's position on universal justification, while Wuerttemberg simply rejected the difference in terminology. Okay, fine. As you point out, it doesn't really matter. The fact is, all three faculties did reject him.

Rydecki: Please correct me if I’m wrong, Pr. Lawson, but isn’t the Württemberg faculty the same as the Tübingen faculty? Isn’t Tübingen the capital of Württemberg, and therefore, just two different ways of referring to the same faculty? As far as I can tell, there is no “third faculty” that simply rejected the difference in terminology.

Lawson: Nevertheless, their (salutary) reason for that rejection is not at issue in the present controversy, nor was it at issue for Walther.

Rydecki: It seems to me that it is at issue, because, regardless of the various aspects of Huber’s doctrine that may be different from that of Walther (and their teaching is obviously not identical), the Lutheran Church rejected Huber’s exegesis of Romans 5 and 2 Cor. 5 which led him to teach that all men have been justified and that God has “not imputed sins” to all men. These are the same passages used by Walther and the Synodical Conference to teach that all men have been justified and that God has “not imputed sins” to all men. That the Lutheran Church never taught such a thing (because the Scriptures do not teach such a thing) is the very issue at hand.

Lawson: It's not as if theology stopped with Hunnius, or even John Gerhard, though.

Rydecki: I don’t think anyone has claimed that “theology stopped.” The problem is that the theological paradigm of justification changed from Wittenberg to Walther.

The basic Lutheran paradigm for justification from the beginning and continuing through the controversies with Huber (indeed, the Christian paradigm since the time of the Apostles) is: (1) God, in His grace, sent His Son to redeem our fallen race. (2) Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all and earned righteousness for all, so that (3) whoever believes in Him has the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and, thus covered in the righteousness of Christ, sinners are justified before God.

The novel Waltherian paradigm for justification is: (1) God, in His grace, sent His Son to redeem our fallen race. (2) Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all and earned righteousness for all. (3) Therefore God has already justified/absolved/declared all men righteous. (4) Whoever believes that all men have been justified becomes a personal recipient of the one-time justification of all men.

Or, to approach it from another angle, the historic Lutheran understanding is: (1) God imputed the sins of all to Christ, who suffered and paid for them all. (2) God imputes the righteousness of Christ to believers in Christ / does not impute sins to believers in Christ. (3) God still imputes sins to all unbelievers.

The Waltherian paradigm is: (1) God imputed the sins of all to Christ, who suffered and paid for them all. (2) In this very act, God was already “not imputing sins” to all men and imputing to all men the righteousness of Christ, as He views all men “in Christ.” (3) At the same time, God does impute sins to all men, as He views all men “outside of Christ.” (4) The righteousness of Christ is imputed individually to believers in Christ.

Would you agree with the Waltherian paradigms as I have outlined them here?

Lawson: The election controversy btw, provides a contrary example of how a theological concept - in this case "God's election in view of faith" - that could be seen as orthodox at its origin, had to be rejected 250 years later .

Rydecki: That’s a false premise. If it was an orthodox expression 400 years ago, it didn’t “have to be rejected.” It just needed to be explained correctly and not in an Arminian way, since faith is among the eight things that the Formula of Concord tells us must never be excluded or omitted “when we speak about God’s purpose, predestination, election, and ordination to salvation.”

Lawson: That being the case, not just the terminology, but the substance of it had to be rejected, with all due respect to the venerable fathers.

Rydecki: So, are you saying the substance of Hunnius and Gerhard’s teaching concerning election was orthodox or heterodox? If the substance of their teaching was orthodox, how can you say “the substance of it had to be rejected”?

Lawson: Huber's worst error was that he taught universal election and that was a defect that tainted his whole theology. He also taught that it did not take divine action for an individual to come to faith to receive the universal justification that he was speaking of.

Rydecki: And what was the “universal justification” that anyone else at the time was speaking of?

Lawson: It is obvious that Huber taught a universal SUBJECTIVE Justification. THAT was what was objected to.

Rydecki: OK, you got me here. I have no idea what a “universal subjective justification” is. Has someone defined that somewhere? Could you explain it without using the words “objective” or “subjective”?

As I understand “subjective justification,” it is the individual reception of forgiveness, life and salvation by faith, no? Those who are “subjectively justified” (according to Walther) are going to heaven, right? But we have already seen from Huber’s own words that Huber’s universal justification did not teach that individuals "possessed" these benefits, and that Huber denied that all people are eternally saved and taught that all people still needed to be justified by faith (even if such was not said to be a work from God).

I also don’t think it’s helpful to put words into the mouths of those who wrote against Huber. They did not object to “universal subjective justification.” They objected to his teaching that God had justified all men equally, and to his teaching that God has “not imputed” sins to all men, based on 2 Cor. 5.

Lawson: The fact that Walther's teaching on OJ (and ours) bears some similarities to Huber's (and even uses the same words at times) matters not, because his (and our) doctrine diverges from Huber at precisely the point where Huber is condemned - at the point of using OJ as a synonym for universal election and as a cover for asserting man's free will to accept God's justification.

Rydecki: Did you notice what I wrote in the post above about the three accusations against Huber? Yes, he was condemned for asserting that justification by faith was not a divine work (I don’t know if he talked about free will). He was also condemned for teaching a universal justification in the first place, in which God had already justified all men. On what do you base your claim that the Tübingen theologians agreed with Huber on the universal justification part?

Lawson: It won't do to simply engage in the "guilt by association" fallacy and summarily condemn all the words of those who teach OJ simply because they sound similar to those of a condemned man (isn't that what Eck did with Luther?)

Rydecki: Actually, I (and the diocese) have done precisely the opposite of this. Who has summarily condemned all the words of those who teach OJ simply because of their similarity to Huber? On the contrary, we have pointed out similarities in terminology and teaching (and we recognize dissimilarities as well) in order to examine these teachings under the light of Scripture and the Confessions, and we are using the arguments of the Lutheran Church of the 1590’s to further illustrate the Lutheran paradigm of justification and how it differs from the Huberian paradigm and from the Waltherian paradigm. The fact that the Huberian and Waltherian paradigm overlap at various points is part of the picture. Walther’s intentional adoption of a pattern of words that was previously condemned by the Lutheran Church also necessitates further review and inquiry. But in the end, Walther was not wrong about his general justification because of its similarity to Huber’s general justification. He was wrong because the Scriptures and the Confessions only know of a justification that happens through the Word, as sinners are brought to faith in Christ and faith is imputed for righteousness in God’s sight.

Lawson: Even if Huber's doctrine sounds similar to our doctrine of OJ, so what? It only sounds similar.

Rydecki: That’s a claim that will be hard to substantiate based on the similar usage and interpretation of the Bible passages that supposedly teach OJ, like Rom. 5 and 2 Cor. 5.

Lawson: Nor does that fact that Huber taught an errant OJ mean that the Bible doesn't teach any such doctrine.

Rydecki: That's true. The fact that the Bible doesn't teach any such doctrine means that the Bible doesn't teach any such doctrine.

Lawson: For instance, if you are going to insist that the only type of Justification that exists with God is the one we call SUBJECTIVE Justification and hence, any talk of Justification in any other connection is a fiction, what do you do with the fact that the Bible speaks of Justification in another context even as early as Isaiah 53:11:

Rydecki: Actually, the Bible speaks of justification much earlier: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Lawson: "Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities." The word "many" here means all. When one speaks of those who truly believe they are the "remnant" or the "few" ("Many are called, few are chosen"). This is the reason that any of us can be certain that we are saved. It was only John Calvin that intruded doubt into this by saying "many, not all," but technically all sinners are "many" in contradistinction with Christ the "one." All of humanity is the "all": if you set Christ aside this all becomes "the many."

Rydecki: Huh? I’m sorry, but that is really convoluted logic. The word here is "many." The context does not necessitate interpreting it as "all." "Many" may refer to all, or it may simply refer to "many" as opposed to "few." The Church is not always referred to as "few." Sometimes it's referred to as "a great multitude which no one could number" (Rev. 7:9).

How about this? We let the word “many” inspired by the Holy Spirit in Is. 53:11 mean “many.” Period. Not a few. But “many.” And we let it refer to the same justification by faith that all the other Scripture passages talk about, letting the words mean what they say and letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

Then we’re left with something like this: “By the knowledge of Jesus (that is, by the many knowing what He will do/now has done) many shall be justified (by faith in Jesus, all to the glory of Jesus and not at all to their own glory). And He shall bear their iniquities (so that it may be so).”

And if we’re looking for an argument against the Calvinistic limited atonement, then we go to those passages that clearly and expressly make the atonement unlimited (Jn. 1:29, 1 Jn. 2:2, etc.).

Lawson: Hunnius is simply not the last word on this subject, but it appears to me that you have virtually made him the last word.

Rydecki: Actually, Hunnius, Leyser, Gesner, the Tübingen theologians, Gerhard, et al.

Lawson: There is theology after Hunnius (and Gerhard).

Rydecki: Where such theology is different than the theology of the Christian Church that preceded it, I think we refer to such theology as “novel.” There is a reason why confessional Lutherans bind themselves to the pattern of words in the Book of Concord. We’re sure that the theology contained therein is reliable, because we have tested it against Scripture and found it to be so. I have no such certainty with regard to Walther and the pattern of words and the exegesis of Bible passages he borrowed from Huber.

Lawson: Walther acknowledged that the orthodox Lutherans did not speak like Huber because of Huber's errors. But without Huber he thought they would have.

Rydecki: I wonder if he also thought they would have agreed with him on Rom. 5 and 2 Cor. 5, contrary to their expressed words and interpretation of those passages. It’s easy to speculate that dead theologians would subscribe to one’s doctrine. It’s another thing to prove it.

Lawson: They did later on. What do you make of Calov saying: "Christ's resurrection took place as an actual absolution from sin (respectu actualis a peccato absolutionis). As God punished our sins in Christ, upon whom He laid them and to whom He imputed them, as our Bondsman, so He also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him, and so He absolved also us in Him" (Bibl. Illust., ad Rom. 4:25; quoted in Pieper, vol. III)?

Rydecki: I refer you to Appendix 4 of the Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace essay, the section entitled, “Gerhard’s ‘absolved us in Him’ phrase,” where it has already been demonstrated that Gerhard (and Calov after him) was referring to believers only in the “us” who have been absolved, and even then, as we (ELDoNA) state in our Thesis 11 on Justification:

For example, to say, “Christ was absolved in the resurrection,” is to employ an illustration that is not truly apt, as an ‘absolution’ declares one innocent in spite of one’s guilt and inability to pay for his transgressions, but the Christ’s ‘justification’ is, rather, the vindication of One who both is innocent by nature and by conduct and who has paid for the sins of all others. The fact that the Christ was made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21) and bore our sins as His own (Psalm 69:5) does not require Him to be absolved, since, again, He was not forgiven for our sins (forgiveness requiring someone else to pay the debt). Instead, He Himself paid the debt.

Lawson: Even earlier and more clear (with regard to a "universal" absolution), Gerhard: "... Some bring in here the apostolic teaching in 1 Timothy 3:16, God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit (namely through the resurrection by God the Father), that is, he was absolved of the sins of the whole world, which he as Sponsor took upon himself, so that he might make perfect satisfaction for them to God the Father. Moreover in rising from the dead he showed by this very fact that satisfaction has been made by him for these sins, and all of the same have been expiated by the sacrifice of his death"

Rydecki: There is no “universal absolution” in Gerhard’s words. First, he says, “Some bring in here…” If “some” bring it in here, then obviously not “all” bring it in here. Are we really searching for the very foundation of justification and the very object of our faith in what “some” have “brought into” a discussion on a given passage? That’s hardly something to stake my soul on.

Second, see the above Thesis 11 on Gerhard’s use of the word “absolved” here.

Third, 1 Tim. 3:16 doesn’t say, “absolved of the sins of the whole world.” It lists “justified/vindicated in the Spirit” in a whole list of non-vicarious statements. To make this one phrase into a vicarious statement is an extrapolation for which we will not condemn Gerhard or anyone, but we certainly will not accept it as a proof passage that “all men have already been absolved by God.”

Lawson: After you presented your paper at the colloquium, I asked you if you had dealt substantively with the absolution and election controversies in the Synodical Conference and what might have led Walther et alii to use language (and substance) that bears similarities to Huber. You just sort of dismissed my inquiry at the time, and there wasn't time to pursue it (though I could have during the break). I would still like to see you deal with this.

Rydecki: And again I will put you off, because this response has been lengthy enough. But it is not a dismissal of you. You haven’t set forth anything in this regard except for a question. If you have some teaching or explanation to set forth from the absolution/election controversies, please share it. I will be happy to read it.