Challenge to the Intrepid Lutherans (sic)

bored has left a new comment on your post " Dear Gregory Jackson, First, thank you. Perhaps...":

I recently left this comment at Intrepid (sic):


How about saying it's WRONG for the Wisconsin Synod to allowing the many errant pastors to continue preaching false doctrine unchallenged? (Pastor Glende)

How about saying it's WRONG to issue false teachers new calls in different parts of the Synod? ( Paul Kelm)

How about saying that it is WRONG to treat a public sin as if it were a private sin? (not daring to speak an errant pastor's name ever) (Pastor Jeske)

How about saying it is WRONG that the synod has for years perfected the art of hiding every wart? (Pastor Ski)

You WELS pastors that speak the "official language" are as out of touch as the Washington Ruling Class. The Synod is changing under your feet because you refuse to use plain and honest language to deal with problems. I give the WELS 10 years. That's being generous.

Conformity Is First, But Fidelity to the Word - Who Cares?

ALPB Forum
And like the majority minority you represent, you would also be in the minority in your sentiments. The ELCA cannot have it both ways: they cannot want us to stay, but also tell us to shut up, which is PRECISELY what they are doing. Or, more commonly, as was heard on more than one occasion at our synod assembly (affirmed numerous times by others in this forum), when one was critical of the direction the synod was going, there were mutterings from the floor, "well why don't you just leave then?"

Like it or not, that is the prevailing sentiment in the ELCA, no matter how you or Charles attempt to sidestep, ignore, deflect, or otherwise challenge the issue.

***

GJ - Before ELCA formed, it engaged in a fully democratic process.  (Wink. Wink.) The plans were all degenerating into the worst of all possible mergers. I heard someone on the bus at the Toronto LCA convention keep saying, "Yes, but I believe in the process." Diaprax works.

The beloved process yielded up a monstrosity that could only deliver homosexual ordination and marriage. Nothing else was possible with a system of quotas.

A new biography of Arnold Schwarzenegger discussed the absolute conformity demanded in Austria when he was growing up. Physical abuse of children was normal and expected, because conformity was demanded.

Arnie:
"My hair was pulled. I was hit with belts. So was the kid next door. It was just the way it was. Many of the children I've seen were broken by their parents, which was the German-Austrian mentality. They didn't want to create an individual. It was all about conforming. I was one who did not conform, and whose will could not be broken. Therefore, I became a rebel. Every time I got hit, and every time someone said, 'you can't do this,' I said, 'this is not going to be for much longer, because I'm going to move out of here. I want to be rich. I want to be somebody.'"

That is why WELS can enjoy the same mindless conformity as ELCA, without a legalistic system of quotas. Often I have marveled at how WELS manages to be a parallel version of ELCA - with similar results.

Everyone is supposed to speak directly to the person in WELS. When I did that, DP Robert Mueller asked, "Why don't you just leave?" That was his response about his setting up an adulterous false teacher and sponsoring him to be a WELS pastor. How dare anyone object? No one else did.

The Intrepid Lutherans (sic) were quick to show that they would not veer from the path of conformity, especially when a Brenner-by-marriage confronted them about departed from "the clear teaching of our synod". I could almost hear the flick of the bullwhip.

Additional UOJ Questions

Dear Gregory Jackson,

First, thank you. Perhaps my fears about you were misplaced.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to answer my questions. If I may be so bold to ask a few more for clarification sake. I do not wish to be led astray by anyone, not the WELS, ELS, LCMS, or any other denomination.

From your recent post:

GJ -If "Jesus took away the sin of the world" is taken to mean that God declared the world free of sin, the statement is completely wrong. Universal absolution is the basis for Universalism, even if it is the demi-semi-Universalism of UOJ. I believe Rydecki backed away from that after I published all the WELS UOJ essays."

Would it be proper to say that the sins of the world were forgiven, understanding that sin still exists in this world and that by living a life of sin, that is a life without faith, condemns one to hell?

"Jesus atoned for the sins of the world. Jesus paid for the sins of the world. Jesus redeemed the world. However, this grace comes to individuals only through the Means of Grace. To say they are "already forgiven" as Kokomo and the Brief Statement do, is fallacious and dangerous."

Clarification: People are only forgiven the moment they come to faith?

"To speak about justification apart from the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace is unBiblical."

My intention was never to be unScriptural. Justification means a person is pronounced not guilty of his sins. Correct?

If you would answer these questions, again, I would be thankful.

I wish you and your family well.

The Lord's blessings,

Sine Nomine

***

GJ - I tell the humorless that they were potty-trained at gunpoint and weaned on a pickle - and they give me a bad reputation. I appreciate it when people ask real questions instead of creating an excuse to repeat the synod grapevine talking points. I have repeated the questions in blue, to answer them individually.

Would it be proper to say that the sins of the world were forgiven, understanding that sin still exists in this world and that by living a life of sin, that is a life without faith, condemns one to hell?

Luther uses expressions like that to say that Christ is all forgiveness, etc. All those statements are reflections on the atonement. UOJ people merge that with justification to say the entire world is forgiven without faith. They take their extreme statements to additional lengths to prove how Waltherian or Wauwatosan or Norwegian they are, as if deriding faith is good. Everyone continues to sin, but believers are forgiven the moment they believe in Christ, and continuously forgiven through faith by abiding in Christ. Not believing in Christ means condemning oneself to Hell. Falling away from the faith has the same consequences, but worse in that apostates are far more blinded and hardened against the Word than the typical unbeliever.

Clarification: People are only forgiven the moment they come to faith?

God declares us forgiven only through faith receiving the Gospel treasure, which is distributed through the Holy Spirit in the Means of Grace. The treasure, which is the atonement, lies in one heap, as Luther wrote, until the Word and Sacraments are employed by the church.

My intention was never to be unScriptural. Justification means a person is pronounced not guilty of his sins. Correct?

I did not think you were being unScriptural, but many church leaders are. Sadly, the Lutheran leaders cannot speak "Lutheran" anymore. They are obsessed with maintaining the errors of the recent past, so they build additional manure piles on top of the old ones. The Brief Statement of 1932 is just one more man-made document. People pretend it is the final, ultimate statement of Lutheran doctrine, so any departure from it (forget the Book of Concord or John's Gospel) is treated as heresy. I am glad these knuckleheads call me a heretic, because I do believe something other than the Enthusiasm which blinds them.

Justification is a judicial act (forensic) - that God has pronounced an individual innocent of all sins. That happens with each and every one of the Means of Grace, but never apart from the Instruments (Means) of God's grace.

Sine Nomine - For All the Saints

WELS workers driving to Andy Stanley Babtist conference, Drive 10.


Hello,

Long time reader, first time mailer.

Having grown up WELS I never once thought that unbelievers were saints. My understanding had always been that the world was reconciled to God through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, that Jesus took away the sin of the world, that the guilt of the world was placed on Christ and therefore he suffered the punishment for the sins of the world.

My understanding is then that forgiveness was won for all people, but only those who come to faith through hearing the message (the Holy Spirit creating faith, making the dead alive) receive that forgiveness and are covered by Christ's righteousness and thereby have eternal life. All of this is done purely by God's grace alone, we learn this in Scripture alone, and we are justified by faith alone.

The reason for the mail is that recently there has been a lot of comments back and forth. I figured I'd get your take.

The WELS has problems. But for the sake of those still confessional, I'm not willing to bail out of it just yet. Perhaps this next generation of pastors and teachers can change things around.

Keep us in your prayers.

Thank you


p.s.
I confess, I have seen some of your tactics and lest I have made some typo and said something you do not agree with, for the sake of my family, I would not wish to have them embarrassed by a public rebuke. I understand that you have full rights to anything in this e-mail once it is yours and so I leave you simply with "Sine Nomine". Forgive me if that is offensive to you. Perhaps next time I may become emboldened.

***

GJ - I replaced his pen name with Sine Nomine (without a name, Latin) and added "For All the Saints," to remind everyone of Kokomo. It is also the name of the tune for a great hymn.

I do not mind the omission of names. This writer gave me his real name and said he did not want to use it in the post. I respect that.

I only found two typos, so I question whether he is WELS. Just kidding, Sine.

"Jesus took away the sin of the world" is ambiguous, given the confusion created by Becker, Buchholz, Zarling, and Deutschlander. That is the equivalent of saying, "You would have made it to Chicago, but you made only one wrong turn. Now you are in Detroit, South Side."

If "Jesus took away the sin of the world" is taken to mean that God declared the world free of sin, the statement is completely wrong. Universal absolution is the basis for Universalism, even if it is the demi-semi-Universalism of UOJ. I believe Rydecki backed away from that after I published all the WELS UOJ essays.

Jesus atoned for the sins of the world. Jesus paid for the sins of the world. Jesus redeemed the world. However, this grace comes to individuals only through the Means of Grace. To say they are "already forgiven" as Kokomo and the Brief Statement do, is fallacious and dangerous.

To speak about justification apart from the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace is unBiblical.

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Sine Nomine - For All the Saints":

Sine states, "Perhaps this next generation of pastors and teachers can change things around."

It is to be hoped, but reality reveals a different future. The false gospel of UOJ is the bedrock of your future pastors. DP Buchholz, MLC Pres. Zarling, The entire South Central (W)ELS Clergy etc. etc. have made sure of that. Simply read the UOJ essays from (W)ELS theologians linked on the top left-hand side of Ichabod to find out what your future pastors have been taught.

The next generation of pastors and teachers will be even worse. Simply look at how the students from the various (W)ELS schools created, promoted and defended the homo-erotic MLC version of the Fire Island Pines video. That is your future. And the Emergent New Age administration of those schools who are in charge of these students and activities continue to condone and enable them.

Kelm, Becker, Jeske, Ski, Glende are simply the advanced New AGe Emergent scouts as the (W)ELS marches toward their future, your future.

---

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "Sine Nomine - For All the Saints":

Mr. Meyer,
I agree with your assessment. False doctrine is now spreading throughout the WELS like cancer in its last stages. The spread of false doctrine rarely begins with the laity, at the grass roots level. When you pointed us to the products of the present worker training system, we see the proof as to why improvement at the synod wide level is nigh unto impossible.

Assumptions

The pyramids have not given up their secrets.
How were they constructed, and when?

Pyramid Power
History is fun, because more than 99% is lost for all time, as C. S. Lewis observed. We are even hazy about recent events, such as how JFK and FDR died, and whether Amelia Earhart died in the Pacific.

Assumptions determine conclusions, so all we need to do is start with the wrong assumptions and all the conclusions will be in error. For example, many books show broken down pyramids and caption them as "early pyramids, before they learned how to build one correctly." I was thinking, since we do not understand how they were built, the broken down ones may be examples of a later age trying to build them to recapture the golden era of monumental construction.

The old assumption was that pyramids were built from enormous carved stones, hauled up to gigantic heights. A new pyramid construction theory is gaining some traction, thanks to MIT, the NY Times, and a Frenchman. The Egyptians might have invented poured concrete, a building method used with great success by the Romans, who invented very little but borrowed a lot from their conquests. ( Old saying - "The Romans had the drains, but the Greeks had the brains.")

We do not even know when the Great Pyramid was built, although most experts cheerfully date it at 2000 BC. They call it the Pyramid of Cheops, so everyone assumes the pharaoh Cheops built it, limiting its date to his years. The Great Pyramid is a tomb, they claim, but no body was found buried there. Nevertheless, the monstrous pile of masonry was the tallest man-made construction in the world until the Eiffel Tower - unless we count other pyramids built in various locations, raising even more questions.

False Assumptions about Lutherdom

When people try to prove their conclusions by starting with their assumptions, I think of the pyramids. Universalism can be proven just as easily as justification by faith, depending on the assumptions. The Glories of My (fill in the blank) Holy Mother Synod can also be taught the same way.

UOJ Has Always Been Taught
Unfortunately for the glassy-eyed, UOJ is limited to the most recent era, as Sig Becker and others have admitted.

Missouri Has Always Taught UOJ
The Brief Statement of 1932 certainly teaches UOJ, but earlier statements did not and the 1905 catechism omitted that precious doctrine, teaching justification by faith instead.

Robert Preus always taught UOJ
If we burn all the copies of Justification and Rome, that might be true. But he repudiated UOJ in his last book, in spite of the best efforts of Dan and Rolf (editors).

Luther Taught UOJ
Fortunately, Luther knew the difference between the atonement and justification, so he never taught UOJ. In fact, even the most ardent UOJ fans have to admit that "justification" in the New Testament and the Book of Concord always means justification by faith.

Liberals Wrecked the Synodical Conference
That is true, except that UOJ was the bad liberal yeast of the Synodical Conference, based upon weak teaching of the efficacy of the Word.

When Synod Became Church, That Spelled the End
Soon after UOJ became Law in Missouri, the synod adopted mainline apostate Biblical teaching on everything. Labels do not have the destructive effect of Enthusiasm, and UOJ is pure Enthusiasm. So is Receptionism, which still clings to the Synod Conference like soap film. Brief Statement, 1932. Missouri a mainline sect - the 1940s.

They Could Not Wait for F. Pieper To Die
The sainthood and apotheosis of Walther was probably far more destructive than the death of Pieper. Missouri is not the most "God-glorifying church" in history, as Walther claimed, but the most navel-gazing. The Book of Concord teaches the Gospel, not the synod. The Synodical Conference still glorifies itself.