Saturday, July 12, 2014

Time to Spill the Beans

The Cult of Organization
The Cult of “The Organization”...
I stumbled across the following, rather old, exposé this morning while visiting the blog Polluted WELS. The author of that blog, a current WELS pastor who, understandably, finds it necessary to remain anonymous, included a link to it in his post, Conformity over Confession. While the details are dated, as a WELS pastor, he indicates that “all of the basics are absolutely accurate,” and that he “can personally verify that it’s true.” I’m sure that he can, as I’ve been told similar types of stories myself (though, hardly as detailed).

With these sorts of “bonding rituals,” rather than a common Confession and mutual commitment to Scripture and the Confessions, functioning as the seal of unity among WELS clergy, it is no wonder that all of the vigorous discussion over Lutheran confessionalism – the maintenance of orthodox teaching, the retention of distinctive Lutheran catholicity in practice – whether such discussion is engaged in private, or in public, leads to naught. Not only does such discussion “go nowhere,” worse, it’s as if it has never taken place, as if very well-founded concerns don’t exist, as if there isn’t an anxious expectation that these issues be dealt with openly and immediately. But all ears are deaf, just as all voices are mute.

I characterized this observation in a comment on Intrepid Lutherans last October:
    I no longer find it odd that such a thing [i.e., thoughtful, open and respectful disputation on matters of genuine disagreement, such that they would lead to resolution and genuine unity] does not, and will probably never, happen in WELS – on this or any other consequential matter of doctrine or practice – and have entirely ceased looking for or expecting that any such thing will ever happen among them. There is a continuing strident refusal to openly discuss important matters. Rather than find it odd, I recognize it for what it is – as a foreboding cultic tendency. People who get sucked into cults lose their self-identity – their concept of self becomes indistinguishable from the group, and apart from the group’s leadership they feel as if they have no guidance and no hope. Positional authority is a psychological weapon among such leaders, and they use it to retain the dedication of their followers and to urge them toward greater productivity in the interest of the group. I’m beginning to see now, what I denied existed when my friends and family first warned us about this sort of thing when we joined WELS over a decade ago.
Indeed, we have in the past featured on this blog one of the famous lectures of Dr. Walter Martin – renowned expert on Cults and the Occult – on the Cult of Liberalism, highlighting and exploring several sections from it in application to what is occurring now, before our very eyes: waning regard for the authority and perspicuity of the Scriptures as it continues to slouch toward greater uncertainty, the incremental shifts that seem to be occurring in ecclesiastical terminology, the theological language games that are suffered in response to serious questioning, and the apparent voicelessness of the laity. I encourage the reader to revisit this lecture: The Average Layman is Defenseless!

So who can a layman trust? That was the question asked by Mr. Vernon Kneprath on Monday. And he is right: our trust derives from the very Word of God; every pastor and every congregation is to be tested according to it. But the laity need pastors. Which ones can laymen trust to tell them the truth, given that the “Organization” they have been initiated into is corrupt? I’ll submit that a good place to start is with the ones who are willing to demonstrably exercise their confessional convictions in defiance of corruption, ultimately in open defiance of an “Organization” that perpetuates it. Whether or not such individuals are orthodox or truthful, at least one can be assured that they are not acting as puppets of the “Organization,” or speaking as its parrots. How else would a person know? A closed, unresponsive, impenetrable organization that wields, or at least arrogates to itself, power over individuals, whether physical, spiritual, psychological or financial, ought never be trusted.

I “Kelm'ed” the following from the link shared by “Matthias Flach,” on his post Conformity over Confession, adding images with corresponding commentary where I felt it appropriate. The original article can be found here. I see that it has been reposted, today, by the original author, here.



MARTIN CHEMNITZ PRESS
A MIGHTY FORTRESS LUTHERAN CHURCH

Pastor Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.

6421 W. Poinsettia Drive
Glendale, Arizona 85304-2419
602-334-8014; chemnitz@bigplanet.com

INITIATION ABUSE IN THE WISCONSIN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYOND

Earlier I sent around a review of two books about abusive churches. I thought the books would benefit people who had suffered from abusive clergy.

David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1991. 235 pages. Roland Enroth, Churches That Abuse, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. 231 pages.

Many congregations are abusive as well, led as they are by adulterers, thieves, and various types of criminals. I have served several congregations where a significant number of people had police records, extensive experience in the courts, or secret girlfriends. It is always strange to see such people act shocked over some imagined offense (pancakes, for instance) when they have been arrested, tried, and convicted of serious offenses, hiding the facts in some way.

It is also strange to see church officials working with and encouraging such characters to cause trouble in the congregation, then acting shocked that there is trouble. One church official, for instance, gave three divine calls to a family member who was a sex offender, a man who liked to sneak into bathrooms and watch young women take showers. When he got into trouble in his second call, the sex offender got a third call. I have the arrest record and the admission from this “conservative” Lutheran pastor that he had been in the girls’ dormitory and in their bathrooms on previous occasions. The synod president reported, after the arrest, that no one else was involved in the sex crime. However, I think that the young woman who was being leered at while she was taking a shower was involved as a victim of this pastor, his powerful relative, and his abusive synod.

WELS Initiation Rites

WELS has initiation rites at each level of schooling, although I do not know about teachers at Martin Luther College. This is what happens or has happened to boys who want to become WELS pastors:

Prep School Level
The WELS prep schools are residential high schools aimed at promoting church vocations, so that more students become parochial school teachers or pastors. The LCMS had a similar system and took it apart. WELS has eliminated two of its four prep schools in recent history.

Freshman prep students go through two kinds of initiation. One involves such things as dressing the boys as girls and making them wear makeup. The other is called sechsing, after a nickname for freshmen. If an upper classman yells “Sechs,” a freshman has to run errands and do various subservient things. It is a great situation for bullies, who push the freshmen to the limits and then scorn anyone who complains.

At one prep school, any boy who discussed problems with bullying was picked off the floor by his nipples. No one is allowed to “tell.” At the same time, the dean of men urged parents to have their children tell him who was being abusive. Boys either shut up to avoid the torture or they dropped out of school. The dean knew this. One board member’s wife heard about this and said she would never send her children to such a school. Her husband, a WELS pastor, said, “That’s how the system works.”

Physical abuse and bullying are common in such a situation, because no one can deal with the facts. If a boy is disciplined, he finds out the source of the information. He and his friends retaliate. The school’s staff members came through the same system, so they know how it works.

The Late Northwestern College
WELS merged Northwestern College in Watertown into Martin Luther College in New Ulm, Minnesota. That was only a few years ago, so most WELS pastors have gone through college and seminary initiation.

Northwestern College was an all male school. A woman could attend, but few did, because the curriculum was aimed at preparing men for the WELS seminary. Period. The courses were long on languages and short on math and science.

Freshman initiation could be fun, but bullies often took over and got their chance to get even with younger students. One student ran through a gauntlet of pillows. Each older student got to hit him with a pillow. A bit dusty, but harmless. One older student loaded the pillowcase with books and knocked the freshman out cold. That is assault.

Male Students of Martin Luther College (WELS):
Practicing for GA ...or just practicing?
Gay is as Gay does...
Homosexuality seems to be the “in-thing” these days among Christians having an ardent desire to present themselves to the world as “Real, Relational and Relevant.” Back in the 1970’s, the “in-thing” seemed to be young women having children out of wedlock. Now that neither of these appear “abnormal” to the world anymore (nor are they to “worldly Christians”), I wonder how GA rituals will be enhanced to replace these rather normative worldly-Christian behaviours? How will GA change when women are eventually admitted by WELS into the Office of the Holy Ministry? Sado-Masochism generally follows from boredom with “mere homosexuality” in a person's descent from a “narrow heterosexuality,” does it not? Is that going to be the new abnormality, i.e., the new mark of Christian “Real-ness, Relational-ness and Relevance?”
One freshman got his bare buttocks whipped with a wire coat-hanger. He is a subservient church leader today. Obviously, some of the initiation activities were not only sadistic but homosexual in nature. It was a custom to force the entire freshmen class to simulate anal intercourse with the famous “Runner on His Mark” statue at the college. The dean of men stopped statue sodomy only when a formal complaint was lodged.

Most parents were kept in the dark, because a student complaint would only bring wrath down on the freshman. The prep school graduates warned the non-preps what would happen if they talked. No one wanted to be accused of being a “sissy” who talked. All the students are told, “Only the tough survive here.”

Bone Cruncher
WELS even had pre-initiation initiation. I attended the Bone Cruncher, which is aimed at college seniors on their way to seminary at Mequon. Each senior is given some form of bone. The athletes get a large bone, to signify approval of the Mequon students. The studious types get bone ground up in water in a glass. Those who have escaped WELS realize that public humiliation is part of “the system.”

I attended the basketball game and dinner of Bone Cruncher but did not see some of the worst behavior others have described. It is difficult to worm out of men what they hated, because it is both embarrassing to admit it and dangerous to talk. Several facts came out about other events. One is that men are told to wear their best clothes, but they are forced to sit down on food, get on the floor, and in general wreck their clothes. They are told later to submit cleaning bills if they want to, but it is understood that only a sissy would do that. The seniors are given “new names” at the dinner. Many times these names are obscene renditions of their given names. (Is this a parody of baptism?) I pressed one man for examples. He said, “For instance, a man named Knollmueller will be renamed Hole-Filler.” All of these men are future pastors.

Another aspect of public humiliation is having wives and girlfriends at the Bonecruncher. Do men really want to sit down in food, act like fools, and get obscene names in front of their wives and girlfriends? There is also a “speech” of some type, full of inside jokes and mean remarks. It is supposed to be funny but it is often aimed at certain seniors.

Long before someone steps onto the Mequon campus, the message is clear, “We have a certain way of doing things. If you do not like it, go away. If you speak up about it, we will make your life Hell on earth.” When I spoke to the Northwestern College president about initiation, his criticism of one pastor was, “He didn’t go along with initiation when he was here.” This was many years later. A senior leader of WELS indicted a pastor for not liking initiation! Therefore, the pastor’s criticisms could not be taken seriously.

This same college president tried to fight against the merger of Northwestern College and Martin Luther College. I understand that he was not allowed to speak to the issue on the floor of the convention. He said it was the lowest point in his ministry. I saw it as the last bitter fruit of initiation rites. He did not conform to the synod vision-thing, so he was silenced.

GA at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Mequon
One must consider the vast amount of conformity imposed on WELS men before they step onto the Mequon campus. It used to be that students who qualified by going to Bethany had their own independent judgment and tended to be fairly Lutheran. Those students, who missed the thrill of Northwestern College, are called (their entire ministry) Bethany Bombers. It is not a compliment. WELS pastors routinely run down the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and make fun of “Bombers.” WELS pastors also distrust MLC graduates and figure all teachers are “trouble-makers.”

We were singing a hymn in chapel at Mequon. One seminary senior said, “See that guy’s name? His daughter is the bitch who started the Protest’ant crisis. That’s why pastors don’t trust teachers.” The crisis took place in the 1920s.

GA (for gemutliches Abend; friendly evening) began in the 1920s as a way to unify the seminary student body after a divisive split. The big-shots actually fired the seminary president and kicked him out. In a tiny synod where everyone is related, that can cause some friction and hard feelings.

A Church of the Lutheran Confession pastor told me that GA was stopped twice because “they went too far.” But it was started again each time. I do not believe it will ever stop until a lawsuit costs the seminary too much money. Many older CLC pastors have been through GA, because they were WELS. The toxic influence is easy to see.

Every single WELS pastor has been through GA. They are sworn to absolute secrecy. They are not allowed to tell anyone, including their wives, about GA. It is a tribute to the intimidation of WELS that many sons of WELS pastors go into GA without knowing the script. If students have found out the secrets of GA and let on, the upper classmen give them Hell.

The GA Experience
Round One is the great debate about whether to have GA. Recently a former lawyer gave the “speech.” Some students really believed he was against having GA, because he listed so many good reasons to not having initiation. The same kind of lying speech is arranged each year. The WELS pastors call it “mind games.” The phony debate is so serious that first year students phone home and say, “Dad, they aren’t going to have GA this year. They are really serious about canceling it.” That is when the father, a pastor, smiles. He knows they are doing a good job of mixing up the students.

The ideal GA victim has looked forward to it for many years. He has heard hints about it, but no one will say what it is. The ordained pastors will make cryptic remarks and laugh, adding to the mystery. One WELS leader, Vic Prange said, “It is our Masonic Lodge.”

After the great debate, a vote is taken and GA goes ahead as scheduled. (One WELS exile has GA minutes, but I could not pry them out of him. He and someone else complained about GA in advance. To whom? Remember the dean at the prep school, mentioned early? They went to him and were told to “give GA a chance.” The dean of men at the seminary (new job) told them, “The good outweighs the bad in GA.” Both men failed to graduate from the WELS seminary. One went elsewhere. The other dropped out at some point. I am not claiming that it was only because of GA. But it was a tactical error to complain in advance.

Hards and Softs (Pietists)
GA is not ordinary initiation. For a week, the freshmen are befriended by upperclassmen called “Softs” or “Pietists.” During the same time they are persecuted by “Hards.” Those who hated GA as freshmen are often put in the role of “Hards.” They think themselves very clever in having men do role reversals. It is a way of being accepted.

When people complain about being deceived by WELS pastors, I remind them that GA trains them to play these roles and take pride in them.

The Pope
Someone is elected pope of GA. This is an honor. James Tiefel was GA pope, a sign of future greatness. Tiefel is a professor at the seminary now. The pope issues orders to the freshmen. The pope I saw was one of the few Black WELS pastors. He clowned around, acted gay, and wore a costume.

The upperclassmen force the freshmen to do certain things, such as push a wagon up a hill or do pushups on the ground when ordered. I saw men pouring beer on freshmen as they did pushups.

At one point there is a meal in the darkened cafeteria. There is more “naming” of students. I saw some cryptic remarks on a chalkboard going into the cafeteria. I did not see this meal. Others told me that the seniors knocked cigar ashes into the chili and ordered the freshmen to drink it. Others were told to drink pond-water (which was thought to be tainted with human sewage).

Baptized into the Organization
Baptized into the...“Organization”
...while diving for bowling balls.
The behavior toward the new students is quite menacing, and the freshmen get caught up in the mood of GA. The Hards are out to get them and the Softs are helpful. They don’t know these are assigned roles.

I saw one annual event of GA. The students were told to put on old clothes. The pope ordered them to look for his bowling ball in the pond. It is not exactly fun in the fall in Wisconsin. One seminary faculty member was watching when this happened. He was smiling and enjoying GA. Most faculty members disappear completely during GA. The students had to immerse themselves to look for the imaginary ball lost in the tainted pond. When they returned to the dorm, soaking wet, they were told to strip outside. So there, in the courtyard, the entire freshman class stripped naked before going to their rooms to change. One pastor, now a circuit pastor, said, laughing, “The cafeteria ladies always clean vegetables near the windows of the kitchen when it’s time for the clothes to come off.”

I have been told that the students keep their clothes on now.

The sexual and sadistic overtones of Mequon initiation are fairly obvious. I know of one man whose tooth was knocked out. I have heard other stories, but the facts are quite vague. The brainwashing is so complete that one WELS pastor told me that all synods have initiation. I said, “I know about that than you do, and I can tell you they do not. No other synod has initiation for seminary students. I have joined several synods and I never had to take my clothes off to do so.”

GA Climax
The terror builds up during GA week. The final event takes place with the Softs guiding freshmen on a final escape. The freshmen are brought individually to a lounge which is described as the only possible way to get out. The upperclassmen are on the other side making a ton of noise. The freshman barrels into the room, terrified. The older students catch him, tell him it’s all over, and offer him a beer. Each student is brought to the closer door in the same way.

One pastor made an acute statement about GA, “Whether one hates GA or loves it, the moment he accepts the beer, his feet are set in concrete. He will always be one of them. A false sense of unity is created quickly by tricks rather than letting the Gospel unify men slowly.”

GA Syndrome
I have noticed a number of symptoms of GA, exceeding what can be found in most synods.
  1. Classmates can do no wrong. One WELS pastor was denouncing me to my face for writing in Christian News. I said, “Parcher does too.” He immediately began defending Parcher. Later I noticed from the wall of photos that he was a classmate of Parcher.
  2. Always obey the pope. The WELS pastors and the ELS leaders (trained at Northwestern College) will do whatever they are told to do. Once the Church Growth unionists got themselves into power, no one could stop them. To question is an admission of disloyalty to the synod and to classmates. One GA proponent, now a district president, spoke again unionism and declared WELS opposition to any form of unionism. Later, he urged all the pastors in his district to attend the WELS pan-denominational worship conference at Carthage College.
  3. Opponents must be publicly humiliated until they leave or give in. This makes WELS pastors and laity especially servile. When they were told to break with the LCMS because the LCMS tolerate the liberal Martin Marty, they broke with Missouri. Years later, when they were told to listen to Martin Marty (now in ELCA) in Florida at a Church Growth event with Missouri and ELCA, they listened to Martin Marty.
  4. WELS is considered co-terminous with the Kingdom of God, so dissenters are shunned. Their fear of being excluded keeps them obedient. As many pastors have said, erroneously, “If WELS is gone, there is nothing left.”
  5. Titles of WELS books are unintentionally funny: WELS and Other Lutherans, even though WELS is at best 5% of American Lutheranism; Biblical Interpretation, The Only Right Way, in spite of the fact that it was written by a man who endorses Pietistic cell groups.
  6. False teachers can casually endorse Calvinistic or liberal doctrine without fear of retribution. There are no retractions or corrections. Theodore Hartwig, Paul Kelm, David Valleskey, James Huebner, Larry Olson, Michael Albrecht, Iver Johnson, are some of the better known examples. One congregation was “kicked out” of WELS but is just as much a part of WELS as Herman Otten is part of the Missouri Synod.
  7. The WELS leaders were able to take all their world mission and American mission leaders through Fuller Seminary (or one of subsidiaries), adopt Church Growth doctrine and methods, and then deny they went to Fuller and had any CG at all in the synod.
Shoot Me
Some WELS pastors will be very upset that I have spilled the beans about GA so extensively. I think it is the only unforgivable sin in WELS. Nevertheless, I believe the truth will eventually come out in a lawsuit and close down the outward manifestation of abuse. It would take the proper preaching of the Law and Gospel to make the inward corrections necessary to stop the emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of initiation. Hardened hearts would have to experience godly contrition rather than world contrition. That can only come from God’s Word, not a lawsuit.

I would like to add that I consider many WELS pastors and members good friends. In fact, I hear from pastors in all synods, including ELCA. However, the insiders in all the conservative synods go out of their way to be unpleasant. There have been many efforts to keep my articles from being published at all. If I were wrong, they would welcome the publication of those articles, so they could refute them in public.

The response to what I write is strictly personal, not doctrinal. According to WELS leaders, I opposed the Church Growth Movement and unionism with ELCA because I was crazy, due to the death of our daughter Erin Joy. I have heard of pastors who do not know me who insist that this is true. Apparently, this has been the universal response of WELS to my articles. I suppose that having a WELS district president (Ed Werner) in prison for molesting little girls would make synodical leaders think that opposing clergy adultery is insane. After all, the district pastors knew about Werner for years, not letting their wives and daughters near him, but they kept electing him president until he was put away in the state prison.

WELS leaders also insisted that my wife was not sick, even though Social Security (a tough sell) judged her permanently disabled. Three insurance companies agreed with Social Security. WELS leaders insisted that our son Martin had left Northwestern College. My friends and his friends insisted it was so, to our faces, in spite of the obvious – he was still in class and graduated with honors. Imagine what it is like to be a WELS pastor, to visit your son at Northwestern College, and then see a nearby WELS pastor who says, “Your son dropped out of college!” Typical GA stuff. Even those who are deceived believe the deceivers.

I could go over a lot more things, but I think this is enough to show the toxic effects of WELS initiation. Many pastors get over it and try to avoid being absorbed by the pandemic doctrinal and moral corruption of WELS. Some have made valiant effort to change the synod, facing down evil and dishonest leaders. Some pastors finally left Lutheranism for good when their doctrinal errors were confronted. The errors were promoted by WELS leaders, who let their slavish acolytes take the hit.

The majority of members want to be served by orthodox pastors, but they have as much control over events as Roman Catholics do over who becomes their priest. The imposition of the NIV and Christian Worship are two examples of forcing bad decisions on the entire synod in the name of “loyalty.”

I have been struck at the Evangelical Lutheran Synod pastors who act more WELS than WELS pastors. One public example was Erling Teigen denouncing my review of the ELS hymnal, claiming that the WELS hymnal was never a joint project with the ELS. The back page calls the hymnal commission “The Joint Commission.” Are we to assume that it was a marijuana commission or an ELS-WELS commission? Many people verified what Teigen denied, that Christian Worship was designed to be a WELS-ELS hymnal from the beginning. The ELS got mad at WELS for being pushed around and backed out. Everyone knew that but it had to be denied by the one person, Erling Teigen, who complains so much about being pushed around by WELS.

One GA trick is to deny to obvious and provable, such as Church Growth in WELS. I asked ELS pastors why they took in Roger Kovaciny when he defended Church Growth, defended and covered up for the CG adulterer in Columbus, and published false doctrine. One pastor said, “Kovaciny isn’t ELS.” I said, “Why was he voted in at the ELS convention?” Later, several ELS pastors told me that Thoughts of Faith was not ELS. So I said, “Why did I observe the Thoughts of Faith people being installed by ELS President George Orvick at the ELS convention?” No answer.

The ELS covered up for a synod leader’s son, who was caught in a scandal. He was allowed to quit the college “voluntarily.” The college put out a false story about his abrupt departure. Later the same student, at a state school, fired a shotgun at his friend for waking him up abruptly at the dorm. The friend was wounded. The newspaper story ended, “He is expected to play on the football team this fall.” Why be tough on a guy who merely aimed a deadly weapon at a friend and fired at him?

I hope this helps a few people with some perspective. I know laity who have not recovered from the abuse they received in WELS. I believe some knowledge helps, but just as “Time heals all wounds,” so also “Time wounds all heels.” God is not mocked; what a man sows, he will reap.

Monday, July 7, 2014

In Whom Do You Trust?

In Whom Do You Trust?
by Mr. Vernon Kneprath

… “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). When people hear the words – prophet, pastor, minister, reverend, priest, pope, elder, deacon, monk, nun, religion, church – many automatically assume that whatever these people and groups say and do is God-pleasing truth. Not so fast Jesus says – don’t be fooled by outward appearances – watch out. Just because a person comes to you bearing the title pastor, just because a group of people claims to be a church or a religion, just because the music and pastor are hipper and trendier – that doesn’t mean they are providing eternally soul nourishing truth to those who are listening to them. Watch out for false prophets Jesus says and for good reason. “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness” (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) …

These words are taken from a sermon preached by a WELS pastor in recent weeks to his congregation. The words of this pastor sound familiar to me; and for good reason; they are familiar because they faithfully reflect the words of Scripture.

Compare the words above to the words from a WELS Devotional Essay and Discussion, “Outreach That Any Congregation Calling Itself ‘Evangelical Lutheran’ Will Do”, dated May 18, 2011:

… Evangelical Lutherans who are united in faith, trust one another. I trust my brothers in the WELS. Like me, they have been trained in the Word by the Word – all blessed by the Holy Spirit. They have been Called by God to serve in different communities as gospel-sharers to different cultures – ministering to a variety of Calling bodies. I can’t begin to know how they wrestle with the unique challenges in their congregations and communities. I trust they understand our Savior’s mission to preach and teach the gospel to those inside and outside their church’s walls. I trust they grapple with balancing their ministries and family lives like I do. I trust they, like me, work to nurture and reach out with the gospel – doing one without leaving the other undone. When I hear that a fellow pastor uses different worship styles than I do – I trust their use of Christian freedom and rejoice that they are sharing the gospel in a way they feel is best for their circumstances. When I hear that a fellow pastor is having a pumpkin-fest, a children’s carnival or some other unique gathering – I don’t think for a second that he believes pumpkins are creating faith or that his cleverness can make the gospel more powerful. I know exactly what he’s doing – he’s being shrewd in dealing with his community’s unbelievers so he can gather an audience. In time he will unleash the power of the gospel for the salvation of everyone who believes. I trust him. In the rare event that he gets a tad careless in his practices, I know he has a circuit pastor and a district president. I trust them too. And I trust that should these leaders offer loving cautions to a pastor/missionary that he would humbly take their cautions under advisement …

These words in this essay are unfamiliar to me, because I find no supporting Scriptural references. I see claims made to trust, but I find no evidence or basis upon which to place that trust.

Trust ...
    … is not blind.

    … is not automatic.

    … is the result of evidence seen and actions experienced.

    … is earned.
The Bible is clear that we are to put our trust in the Lord.

The Bible is clear that we are to test what we hear from men against what God has said in his Word.

Does membership in the WELS exclude anyone from the warnings Jesus gave? Surely we still recognize that there are hypocrites in every visible church - even the WELS.

Is association with a visible church body the basis for a “blind” trust?

Should variations in practice within a visible church, whether it be with regard to worship or any other church activity, not be tested against Scripture?

What are the lessons from Scripture regarding trust? How trustworthy did Israel prove to be throughout the Old Testament, in remaining faithful to God and his promises? How trustworthy did many of the Jews prove to be in Jesus’ time? History, whether it be recorded in the Bible or in history books since then, give us many examples of the visible church straying from God, over and over again.

There is only one deserving of our complete trust, the One and the Almighty. We have all the evidence we need for the basis of that trust in Holy Scripture. But, like the Thessalonians, we need to use God's Word to test everything of and from men, rejecting the harmful and holding on to the good (paraphrase of 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Friday, July 4, 2014

We Are the Sons of Liberty


NOTE: The following was originally published in June 2009 on the blog, The Finkelsteinery. It is reproduced here by permission,
with only minor revision (formatting, word order, spelling...).






from The Declaration of Independence

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, a separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. –

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. –

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. –

[...snip delineation of abuses...]

“In every stage of the Oppressions, We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. –

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the Good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. –

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

-----------------------------

A couple of points that may be worth pondering:
    (1) Notice that Jefferson repeatedly appeals to an Authority transcendent of Man, in defense of our position and actions. He starts with it, and he ends with it. In contrast, it is the political fashion these days to enforce a broad and impenetrable separation of politics from religion, and on this basis to adopt a belligerent posture toward the functions of Religion in society, and to censure religious speech in the public sphere. What happens, politically speaking, when “the governed” are denied an appeal to God before those who would govern them? That is to ask, what happens when “the governed” are denied an appeal to an Authority to Whom “their Sovereigns” owe accountability? Does not their accountability then rise no higher than themselves and their own political allegiances and objectives in this case? Under God, governors are Servants, not Lords. Without God, they are utilitarian Lords, and “the governed” are reduced to pleading, on the basis of mere human solidarity, in the name of “their Sovereigns’” kind benevolence. Given that mankind is fallen and sinful, can the People expect any such benevolence? What does history teach us? What is the sensible conclusion given the obvious testimony of Natural Law in this regard?

    (2) It is currently fashionable among Lutherans, it seems, to parrot Luther in applying Biblical teaching to the role of the Christian with respect to his government, to advocate near unquestioning obedience, with the only mitigating criteria being whether government takes on the role of the Church, or requires individuals to disobey God. They seem to equate individuals with political authority, rather than Law with political authority. This was a perfectly legitimate conclusion in Luther’s day, given the form of government he was under – a feudal system where individuals as Sovereigns were indeed the embodiment of political authority. Jesus, along with St. Paul and St. Peter, were addressing the Christian’s obligations to government in a political context incongruent with ours, as well: the Republic of Rome fell before the birth of Christ, becoming the Roman Empire (a military dictatorship) in 27 B.C., with the appointment of Augustus as Caesar.

    In our system of government, however, no individual has such political authority. The last vestiges of the Rule of Man were swept away by the People, themselves, with the Declaration of Independence, and it was replaced by the People with the Rule of Law, under the U.S. Constitution. Law, not any individual, holds political authority in our system of government. And individuals who occupy offices in our form of government, do so within strict boundaries under the Law, not as Sovereigns in any respect, but as manifest Servants of the People. In our system of government, the People are their own Sovereign, electing from among themselves Servants to Represent them within the boundaries of the Law. Such Representatives are not to be regarded as holding any form of political authority, but as mere Servants under the authority of the People, as the People derive and institute their own Law through them, placing all individuals equally under it. In our system of government, the People embody political authority, not individuals, and not institutions of government. This is called self-government. This is political Liberty.

    Thus, Representatives who act outside the purview of their office, whether collectively by passing un-Constitutional laws or laws which fundamentally militate against the People in favor of the State, or individually by creating laws through Judicial fiat or abuse of Executive privilege, do so as political enemies of both the People and of Liberty. Indeed, their actions are un-Lawful in the deepest sense of the word. They create chaos out of Order, and stand in rebellion against God and His institution of Government – which in our society is Of the People, By the People, and For the People. Remember that old phrase?

    While the obligation of obedience stands without question, the real questions for Christians in our society remain: To whom or what is obedience rightly rendered? and Are the People bound under Civic Duty to resist the un-Lawful? and if so, What obligations does this place on the individual?

    And I wonder, given that political Liberty was brought to us in the Modern Age, What will Liberty be like in the post-Modern Age?

    (3) Interestingly, our Declaration seems to stand as a form of “confessional unity” in the Political Estate. The intent was unity under the words and principles it declares, as the authors “mutually pledg[ed] to each other [their] Lives, Fortunes, and [their] sacred Honor.” Do we so pledge today? There was a time, I remember, when, despite differences of opinion (which create political parties and other factions) and the various actions of individuals proving motivations to the contrary, we could collectively be regarded as standing united under the principles of Liberty. Does this unity still exist? How important is such unity to the continuity and integrity of our nation? I, for one, being convinced of its vital importance, am seeing less and less evidence of this unity. What should happen when unity is broken? Do we continue in a state of manifest disunity, while paying lip-service to unity? Is rhetorical unity also manifest unity?


Previous Independance Day articles:
    The Fourth of July is God’s day (2011)
    “The focal point of all history [and of the future] is the birth of the man called ‘The Christ’, and the subsequent promulgation of His beautiful Gospel message, especially through the mediums created and put to use by the Anglo-American empires of the 19th and 20th Century’s... I believe that we could do no better today than to commit as much of history to memory as possible, and so prepare ourselves and our children to meet the new challenges that are sure to arise in the future. They are going to need the knowledge, understanding, insight, and courage that only a Christian view of history can give them. We will have to teach them. Only in this way will we preserve our civilization, and, more important, our freedom!”


Monday, June 9, 2014

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. 26th 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



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License