LutherRocks has left a new comment on your post "Joe Krohn's Free Blog":
One more thing...
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=45&cuItem_itemID=2835
Click on it or copy and paste.
Someone else needs to do some homework.
Joe Krohn
Q: What is the WELS teaching on objective justification? My friend and I have had a discussion, and he pointed me to the Kokomo articles, or theses, as an example of what WELS teaches. Being just a layman I was wondering if I should use these to teach others who may have the same question, as he did for me.
A: The teaching of objective justification is that God the Father declared the sins of the whole world forgiven because Christ had paid for all sin. To benefit from that payment and that declaration it is necessary that a person be brought to faith in Christ as his Savior (subjective justification) (2 Corinthians 5:18-21).
The so-called Kokomo Statements should not be taken as representative of WELS teaching. Much that has been put out and circulated about the Kokomo Statements has been a misrepresentation of the WELS position. The Kokomo Statements were not drawn up by anyone in WELS as a presentation of our position. They were drawn up by opponents of the WELS position. Three of the statements are taken from WELS sources, but taken out of context, they caricature the WELS position and should not be taken as as an adequate presentation of WELS teaching. Anyone circulating the Kokomo Statements as a representation of the WELS position is not giving a fair and balanced presentation of WELS teaching.
A brief evaluation of the so-called Kokomo Statements is contained in a 1982 paper by Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," which is available from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary library. Papers on objective justification also appear in Vol. III of Our Great Heritage, available from Northwestern Publishing House.
***
GJ - I traveled to Kokomo and talked to both families who were kicked out of WELS for rejecting the Kokomo Statements, three of which were almost verbatim from J. P. Meyer's Ministers of Christ, NPH.
I reproduced the letter in Thy Strong Word.
Sig Becker endorsed the Kokomo Statements. Sausage Factory President Panning was in charge of the appeal process, and he supported the Kokomo Statements.
Whenever convenient, WELS denies the Kokomo Statements, but they are official policy. As one Lutheran said, "Didn't they bind the conscience of people who did not agree?"
Someone is obviously feeding Joe Krohn the official, deceitful line about UOJ in WELS. Would that be a stealth member of Church and Chicanery?
---
dk, in plain spoken fashion, addressed Joe. This is what he has left a new comment on your post "WELS - Stop Lying about Kokomo":
Hey Joe,
I have to ask you to think about this: If the WELS do not accept the Kokomo statements as official doctrine (as the WELS Q&A claims) how much more despicable are they for kicking out those two families!
"Um, hey... we don't believe these statements but since you're laymen and acting with authority we're going to kick you to the curb"
Howdy Joe: What do you make of that? Isn't that a pretty blaring contradiction? I'm not thumbing my nose at you, but you have to agree at the inconsistency, right?
What is the best construction that we (as Christian people) can put on this collection of facts?
The Glory Has Departed
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
WELS - Stop Lying about Kokomo
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Just look at the confusion duplicity by so-called WELS pastor-leaders has wrought. Too bad such ignorant people got to be leaders.
WELS pastor-leaders, please get some integrity before preaching to others what they should do.
Joe, I'll address the statements in your WELS Q&A quote using the accepted (by WELS and the Q&A you quoted) essay Objective Justification written by WELSian Siegbert W. Becker. The essay can be found online here http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF
The Kokomo statements are as follows, 1) Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner’s attitude toward Christ’s
sacrifice, purely on the basis of God’s verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint. 2) After Christ’s intervention and through Christ’s intervention, God regards all sinners as guiltfree saints. 3) When God reconciled the world to himself through Christ, he individually pronounced forgiveness to each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not. 4) At the time of the resurrection of Christ God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all sin and gave unto them the status of saints.
Note that the WELS Q&A states, "(The Kokomo) Statements were not drawn up by anyone in WELS as a presentation of our position." Then it states, "Three of the statements are taken from WELS sources, but taken out of context," Becker confesses, "The first three statements are taken verbatim from WELS sources." This is a continuation of the constant double speak and contradiction this false doctrine produces in those who reject Scriptural Justification by faith alone.
Joe Krohn states on June 30, 2009 8:13am, "No WELSian should believe this garbage." Becker retorts, "The third statement is a basically good summary of our position" Becker follows with, "it is especially necessary to point out that the statements do not contain false doctrine." Joe Krohn states, "Someone else needs to do some homework."
Kokomo statement #1 - Becker, "the meaning of the statement is nevertheless clear and correct."
Kokomo statement #2 - Becker, "we could say that when God forgave the sins of the whole world he regarded all sinners as guilt-free, but if they are guilt-free we might also say that they are considered sinless in the sight of God. But a sinless person is a holy person, a saint."
Kokomo statement #3 - Becker, "The third statement is a basically good summary of our position,"
Kokomo statement #4 - Becker, "Even the fourth statement can be defended even though it leaves much to be desired. As we have said, the statement is not drawn from a WELS source. If it is true that God has forgiven the sins of the world then it is also true that he forgave the sin of Judas."
Joe, you are wrong to state that the WELS rejects the Kokomo statements. They are accepted by the WELS when it pleases them and works for them and moments later they will deny they ever said such a thing. The Kokomo statements are in perfect harmony with the doctrine of UOJ in all it's many definitions taught by the Lutheran synods.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Copied from my post during the recent Bailing Water UOJ discussion:
I wanted to provide this assessment of Siegbert W. Becker's essay on UOJ by inserting God's Word throughout Beckers discussion of faith as proclaimed by the WELS doctrine of UOJ. A Scriptural study of this WELS essay on UOJ shows the extreme blasphemy that the false doctrine promotes. Scripture references in quotations are mine - Brett Meyer
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF
Becker, "But universal and objective justification is one doctrine whose place in the victorious Christian life is clear. Wherever men teach that faith comes first as a condition that must be fulfilled or a work that must be done or even as a fact that must be recognized before forgiven(ess) is bestowed (Note here bestowed = imputed) (Mark 2:5, "When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.") or becomes real, (Mark 4:12, "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.") men will be trained to look into their own hearts for assurance rather than to the words and promises of God. If my sins are forgiven only if I first have faith (Acts 10:43, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.") then I have no solid foundation on which to rest my hope for eternal life (Romans 8:24, "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"). I must then know that I have faith before I can know that my sins are forgiven (John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.") But there are times when a Christian does not know that he has faith(Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.") (Romans 10:9, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."). And many people who think they have faith do not have it, and many that think they are not believers are believing children of God (Hebrews 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."). In regard to our own faith we may be in error or filled with doubt (Romans 14:23, "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.") But there is nothing uncertain in the truth that is proclaimed in the Gospel. Your sin is taken away, wiped out, forgiven, cancelled, swallowed up in the empty grave in Joseph’s garden. To that we must cling. To that we can cling. On that we can build a solid hope that will not make us ashamed.
Cont -
Cont -
In times of temptation when I am no longer aware of my faith, when my heart tells me that I am an unbeliever, I have no place to turn for assurance if faith must come before forgiveness (Romans 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all"). But if forgiveness comes first, if it is always there, if it is true whether I believe it or not, I do not need to know whether I have faith or not before I can cling to God’s promise (Romans 11:20, "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.") (2 Cor. 13:5, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?). I know that my sins are forgiven whether I feel forgiven or unforgiven. I know that my iniquity is pardoned whether I believe it or not (Romans 9:31-32, "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith"). And when I know that, then I know also that I am a believer (James 2:19, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Knowledge without faith does not make someone a believer - the devils know Christ paid for the worlds sin but are not believers). John teaches us that when he writes, “Brethren, if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things.” Take away objective and universal justification and you have gone a long way toward cutting the heart out of the Gospel message.
(Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.")
(Luke 7:50, "And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace")
(Luke 8:48, "And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.")
(Romans 4:5, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.")
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Mr. Brett Myer brought up Walther in another place, and commented that how sad it is that reading Law and Gospel is so rare in the WELS.
But what does Walther say about objective justification?
The 14th thesis reads: "In the tenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when faith is required as a condition of justification and salvation, as if a person were righteous in the sight of God and saved, not only by faith, but also on account of his faith, for the sake of his faith, and in view of his faith."
Again, in an Easter sermon on Mark 16, Walther says:
"Jesus, when He was raised from the dead, was absolved for all sin, but since it was not for Himself but for all people that Christ died, who was it really that was set free, who was it really that was absolved when Jesus rose from the dead? It was all people! Just as all Israel triumphed when David defeated Goliath, so all humanity triumphed when Jesus defeated sin, death and Hell. And so we hear Paul saying in his second epistle to the Corinthians, "We are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died." And again in his epistle to the Romans, "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men." Just as Christ’s condemnation was the condemnation of all mankind, Christ’s death the death of all mankind, Christ’s payment the payment for all mankind, even so Christ’s life is now the life of all mankind, His acquittal the acquittal of all mankind, His justification the justification of all mankind, His absolution the absolution of all mankind."
(Easter Day, 1846)
K
What can anyone trust from WELS?
When will WELS hold their pastor-leaders to higher standards of conduct?
K, I don't think Walther's 14th thesis (http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/theses.html) is a UOJ statement as you imply. You didn't clarify but I'm assuming you are emphasizing this statement, "the Word of God is not rightly divided when faith is required as a condition of justification and salvation," Taken alone this is would be a UOJ statement. Note though, as a continuation of the same sentence it says, "as if a person were righteous in the sight of God and saved, not only by faith," This confirms that a person is righteous by faith and not before faith. Also, if you were to still try and make it a UOJ statement (the world is justified by God without faith) it would also have to be a statement of universal salvation because it states, "justification and salvation". Now I know WELS recoils from being associated with universal salvation so you won't go there even though the false doctrine of UOJ teaches that very thing.
Understand too that I would not be surprised if Walther had another UOJ statement other than in his famous Easter sermon. I have consistently condemned that sermon for teaching UOJ and confess that if Walther died trusting in UOJ then he is condemned because UOJ teaches another gospel, another righteousness, and another justification than Scripture. At the same time I reference many of Walther's works for being faithful to Scripture and the Confessions.
This leads to Walther's 20th thesis, "In the sixteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a person’s salvation is made to depend on his association with the visible orthodox Church and when salvation is denied to every person who errs in any article of faith." Justification by faith alone is the central article of Christian faith such that without believing correctly removes or keeps a person outside of the body of Christ and therefore without the benefit of Christ's righteousness which removes a person's sins. If Walther also intended to refer to the central article when he said, "any article of faith" then he's wrong. But in context I believe he was referring to articles other than the central article which makes a person a Christian, justified in Christ and saved, and thus erring in other articles of Christian faith some were trying to deny them salvation.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Anonymous at 4:02AM - that's the point, trust no one complicitly. Test the spirits, all the spirits with Scripture and the Confessions to see if they are of God.
Hey Joe,
I have to ask you to think about this: If the WELS do not accept the Kokomo statements as official doctrine (as the WELS Q&A claims) how much more despicable are they for kicking out those two families!
"Um, hey... we don't believe these statements but since you're laymen and acting with authority we're going to kick you to the curb"
Howdy Joe: What do you make of that? Isn't that a pretty blaring contradiction? I'm not thumbing my nose at you, but you have to agree at the inconsistency, right?
What is the best construction that we (as Christian people) can put on this collection of facts?
Serious question:
Does anyone know of a WELS or ELS pastor who publicly or privately rejects UOJ?
Joe Krohn, you've got your radar up, do you know of any pastors in the WELS who reject UOJ?
Unfortunately they speak out of both sides of their mouths on UOJ leaving listeners annoyed and confused.
""Um, hey... we don't believe these statements but since you're laymen and acting with authority we're going to kick you to the curb""
That is what is all about, a challenge to their authority.
Ah, for a minute there I thought we lost Joe Krohn. Do not fear he showed up on Bailing Water on the New Blog thread to post this, "Brett, Time and time again you take my words; twist them, take them out of context and quite frankly I don't have the time to wade through every essay you post on the web."
That's unfortunate Joe. Oh, and you're wrong about me twisting your words. That's the way they come out of your heart and mouth.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Post a Comment