Pages 5-8
ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Left-wing, National Council of Churches denominations.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Some Readers Appreciate an Open Forum
rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "How To Talk Lutheran":
Pastor Jackson,
Without being the least bit patronizing, I will say this. We have never met each other in person. Yet, you have responded to every e-mail which I have sent you, often in a very timely manner. You have posted every comment that I have made on Ichabod, often in the main body of the post. Certainly, I am not the only one that you have treated this well. My point is that many who would have a similar background to yours are far too standoffish and aloof. The DP's have a fraction of this under their belt and witness the manner in which they treat laity who are concerned. They say "write a letter", but never show enough common courtesy to respond. It must be that some of us old timers had decent parents who taught us some manners.
***
GJ -
I find it easy to allow perspective. I only know my little corner of the world, so people are welcome to report their experiences. Several have shown that Church and Changers have manipulated congregations into wasting huge amounts of money on masonry evangelism (a dubious goal) and even more money by paying Changers to raise money for ruinous charges - even a commission on the offerings.
I take pride in posting as many hostile comments as possible. Most blogs will not do that. In fact, they will erase comments that do not fit their fetishes - or if their feathers are ruffled. I only erase a comment when bad judgment has led me to allowing an insulting comment come through (unless the person is insulting me).
I noticed a precipitous drop in anti-Ichabod insults once I started OpenID and identified the Appleton circuit as the source - not to mention Garland, Texas.
The UOJ team at the Intrepids blog could post all they want here, but they do not. Readers should ponder that. They could share in the 1600+ page reads a day, and present as freely as they wished. I would even feature their comments. But they remain mute and ask me not to copy their ruminations.
How To Talk Lutheran
I have been warned:
WELS Pastor Tim Glende is impressed with his own education, so much that no one is allowed to disagree with him.
No one on the Intrepids' blog has said "Boo!" about Glende's Ministry of Groeschel plagiarism. They even backed down from naming his Appleton neighbor for plagiarizing Chuck Swindoll (swindle all). But since the WELS pastors are all intoxicated by their own education, let me point out a few things.
Theologian, Not Just an MDiv
I also went to a Lutheran college, one of the best in America, still thriving. The State of Illinois paid most of my tuition because of my score on the college entrance exam. I also went to seminary, and finished a four year program in record time by taking a double-course load. I finished seminary with Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and German.
Yale University accepted me for an STM degree in Biblical studies, where I studied the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. I went to church with world-famous Lutheran scholars. Yale looked down on them because they were too conservative.
Notre Dame gave me a full tuition scholarship and a fellowship for their PhD program in theology. My professors were world famous in their fields, from various confessions (Lutheran, Mennonite, Roman Catholic). My dissertation concerned a Lutheran seminary professor, so I spent years writing about Lutheran history in America, defending the dissertation in front of a Mennonite, a Roman Catholic historian, a priest/theologian who specialized in Mary, etc. Martin Marty thought the disseration was good enough to be published, and it was.
I also took courses at Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne, plus a semester at The Sausage Factory, Mequon. I have written for 30 different periodicals, including FICKLE (nee The Northwestern Lutheran) and I have edited articles for some national theological journals. I lost count on the articles I have published, perhaps 400.
Northwestern Publishing House published my Liberalism: Its Cause and Cure, and still sells my Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant. I have written a few more books besides.
I teach religion at two universities, where I receive very high ratings from my students and supervisors. Teaching adults from all walks of life has given me a chance to get better at explaining difficult concepts.
Apparently this matters to the Lutheran audience, since my blog receives about 500,000 page reads per year at the current rate.
I have had unique opportunities in higher education, almost impossible to reproduce today. Someone can define Lutheran theology and discuss it as an academic field, but for me it is life and death, the truth that I believe because the infallible Word teaches it.
How To Talk Lutheran
Lutheran Confessional theology is Biblical theology, but since everyone wants to claim "Biblical," I have to write - How To Talk Lutheran. Every statement is clearly taught in the Scriptures and also in the Book of Concord.
- The Scriptures are clearly taught (perspicuity) so anyone can learn the basics of Christian doctrine, without knowing the Biblical languages or attending seminary. Let's face it, men - seminaries teach the synod more than they teach theology.
- Any layman or laywoman can ask questions and raise issues about Biblical doctrine. In fact, they are expected to discern doctrine and be Bereans in comparing the Word to what is being taught.
- Ministers, officials, and theologians cannot usurp the majesty of the Word and the Confessions by claiming authority by virtue of their office.
- All Biblical teaching must begin with the efficacy of the Word alone. Efficacy has not been taught or has been weakly taught in the Synodical Conference. Efficacy alone has been taught against by virtue of many Pietistic attitudes and claims.
- God only works through the Word, so His Holy Spirit is always united in His Word and Sacraments. Therefore, it is impossible that any divine activity could take place apart from His Word.
- Faith is good, because faith is trust in God's Word, God's mercy and loving-kindness. When people attack faith and ascribe divine benefits to non-faith, in the absence of the Word, they are Enthusiasts, not Lutheran.
- God creates faith through the preaching and teaching of the Gospel Word. He sustains faith and builds faith through the Word and Sacraments.
- Sins are forgiven because of God's grace, not because of man's virtue, and God's grace comes to us only through the Instruments of Grace, or the Means of Grace, the Word and Sacraments. Apart from the Means of Grace there can be no forgiveness.
- Therefore, every flavor of Universal Objective Justification is deadly wrong, because UOJ teaches grace without the Means of Grace, without the Word, its promoters lording it over the laity because people cannot follow their convoluted thinking.
Luther Rocks and the Intrepids' Role--or--"Rome Again"
LutherRocks has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans - An Uncertain Trumpet Sound - ...":
"You can only understand Justification if you are a theologian"
This has crossed my mind more than a few times. Never-mind the scriptures, we have theologians to tell us what it says. Huh? Sounds a bit like the Rome Luther fought against.
That goes right along with 'If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.'
I Visited with the Families in Kokomo, Indiana,
About the WELS Kicking Them Out
Rydecki wrote on the Intrepid Lutheran blog:
"Note: I can’t provide here a complete history of what happened in Kokomo, IN, in 1979. There are several articles out there describing what happened, and I’ve only skimmed a few of them. I’m not even sure that KM was fully briefed on the situation. It seems that a group of members at that WELS congregation found themselves in disagreement with the way the WELS had been teaching Objective Justification, and so wrote up some extreme statements to characterize this doctrine, not because they believed the statements, but in order to point out how ridiculous they perceived the WELS teaching to be."
Unlike Rydecki, I traveled to Kokomo and visited with the families involved. How strange that Rydecki would post more erroneous material after admitting how little he knew about it.
Two families were kicked out of WELS, not a group. The two families were shocked by Pastor Papenfuss teaching the tenets of UOJ. He admitted to them (in the kitchen where we were standing) that he had never heard of it until he went to seminary in Mequon.
The two men wrote up four statements based on what Papenfuss was teaching. Three of them were almost verbatim from Mequon Professor J. P. Meyers, Ministers of Christ. The fourth one they discovered from some research on the topic. They wrote these down and said to Papenfuss, "Is this what you are teaching?"
Papenfuss said it was.
Because these two families rejected what Papenfuss admitted to teaching, WELS kicked them out for false doctrine, stating that fact in a letter sent to both families. They gave me a copy of each letter, and I copied it in Thy Strong Word, with this background information.
The letter included the four statements. The elders of the congregation gave as their reason the two families' rejection of the Kokomo Statements.
The families appealed, and Panning was on the appeals board. The synodical appeal agreed with the expulsion of the two families for rejecting the Kokomo Statements.
So let us finally dispose of the falsehoods promoted once again by Rydecki:
- The first three statements were not made up by the two families but published by WELS, by a seminary professor of WELS, and taught by WELS at its seminary.
- The fourth statement was supported by Papenfuss and the appeals committee. It came from an earlier controversy over the same topic - UOJ.
- The four statements are not extreme UOJ but ordinary, synod-supported UOJ.
- The four statements are not a caricature of justification, unless one concedes that WELS has indeed published and taught a caricature for many decades (while lying about it).
- WELS has told quite a few lies to turn two families into evil, dishonest trouble-makers when they were doing what they should have done in discerning doctrine. That the clergy continue to slander them--whether they were right or wrong--is an indictment of the synod.
The Intrepids are falling back on the Sloppy Language argument to justify forgiveness without faith, an argument Jay Webber has been shopping around for a long time, with the recent help of DP Buchholz. Since they cannot get their facts right, should anyone trust them with doctrinal matters?
I think not.
Intrepids Confuse the Kokomo Justification Issue
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2010/11/justification-marquart-section-4-just.html
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2010
Justification - Marquart, Section 4 - Just say "no" to Kokomo
Section 4 of Marquart’s essay is a direct response to some points made in a letter by “Mr. Darby.” In this section, KM defends several of Mr. Darby’s statements and expresses his agreement with Mr. Darby’s complaints. We begin with his first and perhaps biggest complaint: the Kokomo statements.
Note: I can’t provide here a complete history of what happened in Kokomo, IN, in 1979. There are several articles out there describing what happened, and I’ve only skimmed a few of them. I’m not even sure that KM was fully briefed on the situation. It seems that a group of members at that WELS congregation found themselves in disagreement with the way the WELS had been teaching Objective Justification, and so wrote up some extreme statements to characterize this doctrine, not because they believed the statements, but in order to point out how ridiculous they perceived the WELS teaching to be.
In other words, their assertion was: (1) these four statements accurately represent the doctrine of Objective Justification, (2) these four statements are obviously unscriptural, therefore (3) we reject the doctrine of Objective Justification.
As Marquart will point out, they ended up creating a straw man – a false characterization of the correct teaching of Objective Justification, even though – and this is important – even though some of their statements did indeed reflect the incorrect presentation of the doctrine by some WELS teachers in the past.
Here are the statements drafted by the Kokomo members:
Here’s Marquart’s evaluation of them:
Apparently, the members who drafted the Kokomo Statements wrote letters to the entire synod complaining about the WELS doctrine (which they had formed into a caricature). This eventually resulted in some WELS theologians having to react to the Statements. Among them was Dr. Siegbert Becker, respected professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. In his essay, he expressed his dislike for the terminology of the Statements, but felt constrained to defend them in principle as statements that could indeed be understood correctly. It is my understanding (and I could be wrong!) that the Kokomo members were eventually given the ultimatum of accepting their own Statements as the true biblical doctrine, or be excommunicated. If someone can confirm or correct that, let him do so.
I disagree with some of Dr. Becker’s exegetical conclusions in his essay, and I also disagree with his defense of the Kokomo Statements, half-hearted though it may have been. In my opinion, he made a grave mistake, one that has given a degree of credence to the Kokomo description of Justification over the last 30 years, and has only served to further confuse the issue and disseminate the caricature.
From what Marquart says below, it seems that he initially wrote some things in defense of Dr. Becker’s defense of the Kokomo Statements. Looking back, he regrets doing that:
This is what Rev. Jon Buchholz had to say about the Kokomo Statements and Becker’s reaction in his essay presented to the WELS synod convention in 2005:
There’s no reason in the world to defend the Kokomo Statements, and every reason in the world to reject them and go back to a confessional Lutheran presentation of Justification:
“The Law of God condemns all mankind as unrighteous, for all have sinned. But God has provided another way for men to be judged by Him – not on the basis of our works, but on the basis of the works of Another Man. God, in his grace, has provided payment for the sins of all in the death of His Son, Jesus Christ, and has permitted the righteousness of Christ to stand in the place of the world’s unrighteousness, so that all may believe in Christ and be saved. In the Gospel, He holds out the promise of the free forgiveness of sins to all for the sake of Christ. To the poor sinners who believe God’s promise, the righteousness of Christ is imputed, and by faith alone in Christ, the unrighteous are counted as righteous before God – justified, forgiven, adopted, regenerated and saved.”
OK, the above is wordy and probably not concise enough for a formal doctrinal statement. It’s inferior to the wording we already have in the Confessions. But I’ll take it any day over the “repulsive Kokomo statements,” or any other statements that reflect the Kokomo caricature.
Some claim that the caricature IS the historical, prevalent teaching of Justification in the WELS. To the extent that such may be the case, my hope is that, as we move forward, we can return to the sound form of teaching found in our Lutheran Confessions, from which I fear we have strayed – in articulation at least, if not in actual belief. If, as Marquart states above, all that is meant by Objective Justification is that “forgiveness has been obtained for and is being offered to all in the Gospel — not that anybody has ‘received’ it,” then we should be careful to talk about it that way, without all the overstatements that often accompany it.
4. Defensible Theses of Mr. Larry Darby: 1. That the “Kokomo” notions about Judas and other inmates of hell being declared “innocent” and granted “the status of saints,” are an absurd and reprehensible travesty of Lutheran doctrine.
Note: I can’t provide here a complete history of what happened in Kokomo, IN, in 1979. There are several articles out there describing what happened, and I’ve only skimmed a few of them. I’m not even sure that KM was fully briefed on the situation. It seems that a group of members at that WELS congregation found themselves in disagreement with the way the WELS had been teaching Objective Justification, and so wrote up some extreme statements to characterize this doctrine, not because they believed the statements, but in order to point out how ridiculous they perceived the WELS teaching to be.
In other words, their assertion was: (1) these four statements accurately represent the doctrine of Objective Justification, (2) these four statements are obviously unscriptural, therefore (3) we reject the doctrine of Objective Justification.
As Marquart will point out, they ended up creating a straw man – a false characterization of the correct teaching of Objective Justification, even though – and this is important – even though some of their statements did indeed reflect the incorrect presentation of the doctrine by some WELS teachers in the past.
Here are the statements drafted by the Kokomo members:
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 guilt-free saints. 3. When God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, He individually pronounced forgiveness on 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.
Here’s Marquart’s evaluation of them:
It is mind-boggling that any Lutheran could ever have written such stuff, and Mr. Darby is completely right to denounce it as the mischievous nonsense which it is. Thesis 3 is perhaps the least offensive, although in its context it is thoroughly misleading. Thesis 1 confuses “objective” and “subjective” justification by saying of the former what may only be said of the latter, namely that sinners have “received” forgiveness. Objective justification means that forgiveness has been obtained for and is being offered to all in the Gospel—not that anybody has “received” it. The receiving can happen only through faith, sola fide. [emphasis added] Thesis 2, that after Christ’s sacrifice “God regards all sinners as guilt-free saints” is simply false, St. Jn. 3:36; 1 Jn. 5:12. And Thesis 4 about hell’s human denizens being pronounced innocent, given “the status of saints,” etc. is fantasy. An unbiblical logic has driven biblical language senseless: what can it possibly mean to have (or, worse, receive!) “the status of saints” in hell? The grace and forgiveness which Christ obtained for all, had been offered to the dead during their life-time, in the means of grace (St. Lk. 16:29; Heb. 9:27), but are in no way given to the godless in hell, where there is no Gospel, hence no forgiveness (Large Catechism, Creed, 56). The trouble with these repulsive “Kokomo” statements is that they ignore the pivotal significance of the means of grace and thereby abandon the proper distinction of Law and Gospel. [emphasis added]
Apparently, the members who drafted the Kokomo Statements wrote letters to the entire synod complaining about the WELS doctrine (which they had formed into a caricature). This eventually resulted in some WELS theologians having to react to the Statements. Among them was Dr. Siegbert Becker, respected professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. In his essay, he expressed his dislike for the terminology of the Statements, but felt constrained to defend them in principle as statements that could indeed be understood correctly. It is my understanding (and I could be wrong!) that the Kokomo members were eventually given the ultimatum of accepting their own Statements as the true biblical doctrine, or be excommunicated. If someone can confirm or correct that, let him do so.
I disagree with some of Dr. Becker’s exegetical conclusions in his essay, and I also disagree with his defense of the Kokomo Statements, half-hearted though it may have been. In my opinion, he made a grave mistake, one that has given a degree of credence to the Kokomo description of Justification over the last 30 years, and has only served to further confuse the issue and disseminate the caricature.
From what Marquart says below, it seems that he initially wrote some things in defense of Dr. Becker’s defense of the Kokomo Statements. Looking back, he regrets doing that:
In light of Mr. Darby’s citation of the late Dr. Siegbert Becker in support of the “Kokomo” theses (HD, p. 240), I now regret my editorial note (A Lively Legacy, p. 78) which attempted to shield Becker against criticism by Hardt on justification. However technically defensible my cavils may have been, the larger truth signaled by the “Kokomo” affair is that Hardt was right and I was wrong.
This is what Rev. Jon Buchholz had to say about the Kokomo Statements and Becker’s reaction in his essay presented to the WELS synod convention in 2005:
- Each of these statements is so poorly crafted that it cannot be accepted—regardless of authorship. Dr. Siegbert Becker, in an essay to Chicago area pastors, rightly lamented the poor choice of words, but he upheld the statements on principle. I would like him to have said, “Throw them out and start over!” The Kokomo Statements should be roundly rejected by the WELS as an incongruous ecclesiological mishmash.
There’s no reason in the world to defend the Kokomo Statements, and every reason in the world to reject them and go back to a confessional Lutheran presentation of Justification:
“The Law of God condemns all mankind as unrighteous, for all have sinned. But God has provided another way for men to be judged by Him – not on the basis of our works, but on the basis of the works of Another Man. God, in his grace, has provided payment for the sins of all in the death of His Son, Jesus Christ, and has permitted the righteousness of Christ to stand in the place of the world’s unrighteousness, so that all may believe in Christ and be saved. In the Gospel, He holds out the promise of the free forgiveness of sins to all for the sake of Christ. To the poor sinners who believe God’s promise, the righteousness of Christ is imputed, and by faith alone in Christ, the unrighteous are counted as righteous before God – justified, forgiven, adopted, regenerated and saved.”
OK, the above is wordy and probably not concise enough for a formal doctrinal statement. It’s inferior to the wording we already have in the Confessions. But I’ll take it any day over the “repulsive Kokomo statements,” or any other statements that reflect the Kokomo caricature.
Some claim that the caricature IS the historical, prevalent teaching of Justification in the WELS. To the extent that such may be the case, my hope is that, as we move forward, we can return to the sound form of teaching found in our Lutheran Confessions, from which I fear we have strayed – in articulation at least, if not in actual belief. If, as Marquart states above, all that is meant by Objective Justification is that “forgiveness has been obtained for and is being offered to all in the Gospel — not that anybody has ‘received’ it,” then we should be careful to talk about it that way, without all the overstatements that often accompany it.
Intrepid Lutherans - An Uncertain Trumpet Sound - Instead of Sound Doctrine
bored has left a new comment on your post "Gerhard and Calov in the Book of Concord? - Rydeck...":
I sent Pastor Rydecki a note in response to his comment in which he footnote-stole Gerhard and Calov. (New Ichaslang entry? "did he just rydecki some quotes from Preuss?") I asked him for something from the Book of Concord that supports universal absolution/forgiveness without faith. I look forward to seeing what he offers.
The rest of that comment, though, is a very interesting. It sort of sums up my experience with many other WELS pastors. (not, by any stretch, all)--WELS argumentation in a nutshell. (I'm not writing this comment to defend myself, but to continue to help expose how UOJ storm troopers argue)
First, he begs the question: "... toward men who have proven themselves to be fine theologians" Marquart hasn't 'proven' himself to be anything except a teacher false Justification(s).
Then he guilt-trips and puts words into my mouth: "Have a care how you speak of these men. They have never been categorized as heretics." I never said anyone was a heretic, spin-meister.
Then a little smattering of diaprax: " If you don't like Pieper and Walther's use of the word (which I don't really either)..." Read between the lines. Rydecki: I'm like you: I don't like Pieper and Walther either. We agree. We're buds. But you have to consider... (Then he asks you to accept the same thing he just said he doesn't like.) Which leads to logical fallacy #2: Appeal to authority: "...there are still Gerhard and Calov to address." If Calov and Gerhard said it must be true. Gosh.
Then, the coup de grace: You can only understand Justification if you are a theologian. Pr Rydecki wrote: "All that said, there is also a difference between those who have proven themselves as solid Christians and theologians, and those who have barely dabbled in theology." His thinly veiled insult is really directed at all laymen. It is right for laymen to give respect to their pastors but not at the expense of our own discernment. Need I mention that Rydecki's attitude is pretty common in the WELS?
Finally, the punch line: " All that said, there is also a difference between those who have proven themselves as solid Christians and theologians, and those who have barely dabbled in theology. Those who are infatuated with sectarian teachers already show themselves to be theologically bankrupt." (laughtrack) If you wait for it, WELS pastors, in the act of stomping on a discerning layman will usually offer a humorous sum-up. Here Rydecki is criticizing anyone who reads Ichabod, and accusing Dr. Jackson of false doctrine.
It's funny because Rydecki is the one defending sectarian doctrines. Rydecki is joining many others in a path that diverges from the BoC.
It's funnier yet because he runs to the LCMS for the ultimate defense of UOJ, though it's a WELS-only blog. He's not defending UOJ with WEL theologians. I wonder if that's who he's referring to as 'dabblers'. He calls the anti-UOJ people theologically bankrupt, but yet spends his time dancing around the arguments made by those who challenge UOJ, never proving them to be false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)