LutherQuest (sic) Dogpile - Experience the Love

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

I had the same experience on Luther Quest (sic). I brought up a question about UOJ which initiated and susstained what might be described as an LQ Dog Pile.

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/69842/68185.html?1200691900

***

GJ - LQ devotes itself to attacking Luther's doctrine. They are so dense that they cannot even spot Robert Preus' repudiation of UOJ.

Calov, The Book of Concord, The Scriptures - All Are in Harmony about Justification by Faith.All Are Opposed to Enthusiasm

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

71] "but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins". http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

29. You cannot extricate yourself from unbelief, nor can the Law do it for you. All your works in intended fulfilment of the Law must remain works of the Law and powerless to justify in the sight of God, who regards as just only believing children.

37. Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing. Through faith it is instantaneously enjoyed, not in part, but all. Truly is it plain, then, that faith alone affords such blessings of God, justification and salvation-- immediately and not in process as must be the case with works

74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems us from under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith. He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed. As he believes, so is it with him. Faith carries with it the child-making spirit. The apostle here explains by saying that Christ has redeemed us from under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sons. As before stated, all must be effected through faith. Now we have discussed the five points of the verse.
http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Galatians4_1_7.html

By the BOC confession above (71) the false gospel of UOJ is destroyed and shown as being false and contrary to Christ and His Righteousness. The doctrinal statements of the ELS, WELS and LCMS all declare the entire unbelieving world righteous in Christ, before and without faith. The BOC states, "by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God." Luther's confession is also clear on Justification and Righteousness by faith alone, "God, who regards as just only believing children."

AC V Declares Debate on Justification Closed - The Fat Lady Has Sung

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Calov on Justification by Faith Alone - Prolific G...":

BA-ZING! Case closed. Game over. The fat lady sang.

Calov on Justification by Faith Alone. Prolific Genius of the Post-Concord Theologians

Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.[1]

---

[1] Apodixis Articulorum Fidei, Lueneburg, 1684. Cited with approval in Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n.       

                                                                                                       

***

GJ - See this excellent essay on Calov, by Timoth Schmeling, quoted in part below.

ABRAHAM CALOV (1612-1686): SAINTED DOCTOR AND DEFENDER OF THE CHURCH
Timothy R. Schmeling

It has been said that Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) was third in the series of Lutheranism’s most preeminent theologians and after him there was no fourth (Fischer. The Life of Johann Gerhard. 98-99). First and second place naturally belong to Martin Luther (1483-1546) and Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) respectively. If one were to speak of a fourth in this distinguished list, the position would no doubt have been assigned to Abraham Calov.

Abraham Calov ranks not only as one of the greatest theologians in Lutheranism, but also as one of the greatest teachers in Christendom. He was a man of exceptional learning and scholastic tendencies. At the same time, he was a man of deep piety and practicality. Very few were impartial in their assessment of Abraham Calov. He was a very polarizing individual. His opponents feared him, but his adherents loved him.

The legacy of Abraham Calov has been tarnished over time. Prior to the recent renaissance, sparked by the rediscovery of missing portions of the Codex Epistolarum theologicarum (his collected letters), Calov research had depicted him as the prototype of a controversialist and a preacher of an unattainable doctrinal orthodoxy. This questionable caricature can be explained by a number of factors. First of all there has been a strong bias against Lutheran Orthodoxy even within Lutheranism. Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781) writes, “Many people want to be Christians, but certainly not Wittenberg Lutheran Christians; certainly not Christians of Calov’s grace” (Lessing. Gesammelte Werke. 170).

In his revisionist History of Lutheranism, Eric Gritsch [GJ - Jim Heiser buddy] denounces the doctrines of verbal inspiration and fellowship as taught by Calov and finally writes him off as Ultraconservative (Gritsch. A History of Lutheranism. 135). Second, the chief nineteenth century biographer of Abraham Calov was a mediating theologian named August Tholuck (1799-1877). This Prussian Union historian [GJ - Halle University, Hoenecke mentor] had more in common with Calov’s syncretistic arch-nemesis than with Calov. Third, there is very little primary source material available on Calov and much of it may not have survived the war or is possibly buried somewhere in the Bibliotheca Gdanska PAN (formerly Stadtsbibliothek Danzig). Finally Calov’s research is a difficult task due to the linguistic, cultural, and intellectual barriers that divide us from this critical juncture in Lutheran history. In spite of these facts, it is the purpose of this paper to help familiarize Lutheranism with one of its lost teachers.

F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part I":

Pr Greg,

Firstly thank you for this Sunday's sermon, it was such a blessing. If only the critics of Ichabod would also take time to listen to your sermons, they would know of a different Greg Jackson.

People should compare what Calov said with the LC-MS Brief Statement 1932 Article 17 (authored by F. Pieper?)

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ,.

They should see how different this article is from the statement made by Calov.

LPC

***

GJ - What irritates me most is the UOJ Stormtroopers using Calov and Gerhard to advance their cult. Neither theologian is well known or read by clergy. One might as well claim the ancient Egyptian oracle as an ally, saying "She was 100% UOJ."

The Scripture citations for the Brief Statement declaration are utterly deceitful, but I have always found UOJ followers to be dishonest. I find it shocking that this Pieper statement was accepted by people reading Gausewitz and the old Missouri catechism. That suggests that teaching the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace was supplanted by teaching worship of the synod.

The personal attacks only mean that I have pulled the rug out from under their Enthusiasm. The most significant response is the unspoken "You do not exist and therefore I do not need to acknowledge anything you have written." I only wish they would acknowledge Luther and the Book of Concord. I do not mind enraging them if they have to run to the Confessions to support their dubious claims.

I went a few rounds with people on LutherQuest (sic). They were consistently dishonest. For instance, one would quote the Book of Concord and exult - "UOJ!" I would cite the same passage with the next sentence where justification by faith was clearly taught. They were citing atonement passages as UOJ proof.

Rolf Preus was a curious example. He asked for the justification chapter in Thy Strong Word while I was working on it. He wrote back that he agreed. When TSW was barely finished, he told the LQ denizens that he had already read the book (640 pages) and denounced it. That was before sending PDFs or downloading them through Lulu, which I was not yet using.

I responded to Rolf, pointing out the facts (no one had the book) and quoting his email. His pals immediately buried my comment with a ton of theirs. That happened often. A friend of mine said, "Why bother with that skunk patch?" so I quit.

Of course, not one of them can grasp what Robert Preus wrote in Justification and Rome.

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

I had the same experience on Luther Quest (sic). I brought up a question about UOJ which initiated and sustained what might be described as an LQ Dog Pile.

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/69842/68185.html?1200691900

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part I

Robert Preus, Justification and Rome

Dr. Robert Preus is known for advocating UOJ in the 1980s, when Concordia Seminary in Ft. Wayne was also deep into Church Growth Enthusiasm.[1] In his last book, edited after his death by his sons Daniel and Rolf, his clear stance against UOJ is obvious.

When does the imputation of Christ’s righteousness take place? It did not take place when Christ, by doing and suffering, finished the work of atonement and reconciled the world to God. Then and there, when the sins of the world were imputed to Him and He took them, Christ became our righteousness and procured for us remission of sin, justification, and eternal life. “By thus making satisfaction He procured and merited (acquisivit et promeruit) for each and every man remission of all sins, exemption from all punishments of sin, grace and peace with God, eternal righteousness and salvation.”[2]

But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism and the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfilled and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith.[3] 

Quenstedt says, It is not the same thing to say, “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us” and to say “Christ is our righteousness.” For the imputation did not take place when Christ became our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is the effect of His office. The imputation is the application of the effect of His office. The one, however, does not do away with the other.  Christ is our righteousness effectively when He justifies us. His righteousness is ours objectively because our faith rests in Him. His righteousness is ours formally in that His righteousness is imputed to us.[4]

Preus quoted this statement from Calov with approval, which is worth repeating -

Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.[5]

I understand these two passages to be a repudiation of UOJ and an apology for all the harm done in the name of that fad.

---

[1] "In an initial burst of enthusiasm reflecting Preus's concern for missions, the Fort Wayne faculty had petitioned the 1977 convention of the Missouri Synod to have each of its subdivisions or districts ‘make a thorough study of the Church Growth materials.’ What is more, the districts were to be urged to ‘organize, equip, and place into action all of the Church Growth principles as needed in the evangelization of our nation and the world under the norms of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.’ By the time of the 1986 synodical convention, however, the same faculty, while appreciating the ‘valuable lessons of common sense’ to be learned from Church Growth, asked that ‘the Synod warn against the Arminian and charismatic nature of the church-growth movement.’ Kurt E. Marquart, "Robert D. Preus," Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed., Walter A. Elwell, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995, pp. 353-65. Reprinted in Christian News, 6-26-95, p. 21.                                               

[2] R. Preus footnote: Systema, Par. II, Cap.3, Memb. 2 S. 1, Th. 44 (II, 363). Cf. Abraham Calov, Apodixis Articulorum Fidei (Lueneburg, 1684), 249: “Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God’s children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.” Justification and Rome, footnote 74, p. 131.

[3] Robert D. Preus Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 72.

[4] Systema, Par. III, Cap. 8, S. 2, q. 5, Observatio 19 (II, 787). R. Preus footnote #76, Justification and Rome, p. 132.

[5] Apodixis Articulorum Fidei, Lueneburg, 1684. Cited in Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n.           

                                                                                                   

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part II

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part IIII

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part IV

Melanchthon - On the Sacraments

"If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments...Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ's sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Romans 10:17: 'Faith cometh by hearing.' But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same..." [Luther, Babylonian Captivity, 3 sacraments] Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII,#3. Number/Use Sacraments. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 309. Tappert, p. 211. Heiser, p. 94.

Religious Freedom and Suing Their Jackboots Off

grumpy has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Scott,

I disagree strongly with your statement that Rick should sue the congregation. Perhaps you simply meant that as a joke.

In our society where freedom of religion is protected (at least for now, sometimes, well you get the idea), I believe that such an action, although it may be seen as cruel and unjust, is still within the rights of a church body to do so.

On the other hand, I believe that Rick has the right to speak and write about the actions that were taken against him by his church. As long as what he says is truthful and non-slanderous of course that is protected by free speech.

It's kind of like when I tell Dr. Jackson that no preps or colleges are closing and then give him a "BA-ZING-OO"...

Grumps

***

GJ - State law varies. Minnesota lets denominations get away with all kinds of abuse. That is why ELCA is incorporated there. The exception in Minnesota is kicking a member out. Use a pastor like a foot-rag and toss him out, violating the call contract. No problem. But kick a member out and he has the right to sue and be compensated.

I think a situation like this demands legal advice, even though Rick is an attorney himself. The great thing about a lawyer is that he removes 99% of the stress. Having a lawyer means being able to say, "I already discussed this with my attorney." That statement has removed many obstacles, saved thousands of dollars, and proved once again that the Law creates contrition.

They say that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. There is nothing unChristian about having an attorney be a spokesman in this kind of situation. One shady agency tried for several years to nail me for a $10,000 car loan taken out by a man with a different name, social security number, and race. I paid a lawyer $100 to phone this dude and say, "You could face credit libel charges, etc etc." Justice rolled down like a river. I could have sued and won, but I was assured that collecting from a guy like that was another matter.

All the clergy have a conflict of interest. Intrepid pastors have been told they will be kicked out if they step out of line - a threat never heard by Jeske, Kelm, Glende, or Ski, I am sure.

I am quite certain that WELS is sued on a regular basis and counter-sues, as they did when Team Gurgle looted the MilCraft Estate and the widow wanted the promised money. What does the Bible say about robbing widows and orphans? All in a day's work with WELS. That is why they promoted Gurgle from incompetent DP to incompetent SP. WELS did not give back the money willingly, but the court forced them to fork over $1 million. WELS actually went to court to keep the widow from getting the money due her. Try not to smirk when WELS talks about not suing a fellow-Christian. Under Gurgle, who now works for Kudu Don Patterson:

1. The MilCraft Estate was ruined.
   
2. They refused to pay the widow.
   
3. WELS went to court to keep from paying the widow.
   
4. WELS wasted a ton of money paying a lawyer to fight this widow in court.
   
5. WELS had to pay the million in cash anyway, on top of legal expenses.
   
6. Yes, that is Patterson's kind of guy, SP Gurgle.

But I agree with Grumpy about not bothering to sue WELS. Make them sweat, beg for mercy. Apologize? That would be a miracle.

Grumpy's dare is open-ended, so I get to say "Bah-zing" when the next school closes, or when Mary Lou College moves to Watertown and Milwaukee, a plan already seriously discussed.
4 preps, 2 colleges, 1 sausage factory = 7 schools.
3 preps, 2 colleges, 1 sausage factory = 6 schools.
2 preps, 1 college, 1 sausage factory = 4 schools.
The next number is either 3 or 2.

Melanchthon - Ordination as a Sacrament

"But if ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has God's command and glorious promises. Romans 1:16 The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise, Isaiah 55:11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please...And it is of advantage, so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost is given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of their own...." Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII. #11. Number/Use Sacraments, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 311. Tappert, p. 212. Heiser, p. 95. Romans 1:16; Isaiah 55:11.

Melanchthon - Adorn the Ministry of the Word

"And it is of advantage, so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost is given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of their own, if they sit unoccupied and silent in obscure places, waiting for illumination, as the Enthusiasts formerly taught, and the Anabaptists now teach." Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII. #13. The Sacraments. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 311. Tappert, p. 213. Heiser, p. 95.

Emmaus Question and Answer

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Emmaus Photograph":

Harrison: "Why are you guys so obsessed with whether or not you can pray with your non-WELS grandmother at a Thanksgiving dinner?"

Jackson (voice from the www.): "Because WELS is an anti-Lutheran abusive sect."

Responses to the Defenestration of Rick Techlin

Jimmy James has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Dear Rick:

Irony of ironies, our family chose NOT to join the fellowship of WELS because they were not practicing what they preached as far as fellowship/unity!

We told them that as long as they were involved in the Lutheran version of the "Knights of Columbus" lodge (that being "Thrivent for Lutherans") we could not, in Biblical good conscious, be in unity with WELS because we knew being in a brotherhood fellowship with Thrivent (as WELS was) was complicit with sin.

There are other smaller Lutheran conferences you can look into, Rick. WELS may have just saved your soul!

---

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Intrepids said on February 6, 2011:

"This layman has gone above and beyond what is necessary to follow the Scriptural procedures. All the editors at Intrepid Lutheran stand behind him one hundred percent."

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/02/why-i-no-longer-attend-my-wels-church.html

Does this mean St. Peter has declared Intrepid Lutherans out of fellowship with itself and WELS?

Who will stand? Who will fall? Who will care?....

***

GJ - Was Al Just excommunicated for murdering his wife and lying about it? No, WELS clergy are still claiming he was innocent.

Was Tabor excommunicated for aiding and abetting his mistress in the murder of his wife? No, he moved to Escanaba to a new parish call.

Was DP Ed Werner excommunicated for decades of abusing girls in his congregation? No, he was arranging for adoption of babies, born to young girls in his congregation, from the state hoosegow.

Was Vicar Scott Zerbe excommunicated for having an affair with a minor girl at Fred Adrian's church? I do not think so.

---

bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Responses to the Defenestration of Rick Techlin":

That's the WELS for you. If someone writes a letter and says that if the WELS church doesn't give even an inch, I'll probably have to find another church, that's just waving a red flag in front of a bull. Immediately they'll say that person declared himself out of fellowship with the WELS. Then after the person has left, they'll say that so and so has left only because he couldn't get his way.

Ironically, after a while they might have second thoughts about doing what was contentious, and end it, but they'll say they changed course only for financial or legal reasons, not because it was wrong, wrongheaded, or sinful. So they'll never give the disfellowshipped person a call asking him to come back, saying "we've changed."

So if The CORE closed operations tomorrow, they'd say it was only because of financial reasons or some such, but Rick Techlin will never be invited back.

Dangerous

Read all about it.

The most dangerous place for a baby in America is his mother's womb.

The most dangerous place for a Lutheran is in the Wisconsin Sect.

Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. Write a Letter! See How an Abusive Sect Responds

Terminated from WELS Fellowship

May 10, 2011 by Rick

On April 11, 2011, the voters of St. Peter congregation met, and voted to terminate my fellowship with St. Peter Church and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).  I was not aware of this meeting, no members of my family were present, and I was not afforded any opportunity to defend myself.

Out of the blue and without any warning right before Holy Week of 2011, I received a certified letter informing me that my membership in St. Peter and the WELS was terminated.  (April 12, 2011 letter from St. Peter Church).  That certified letter said:

April 12, 2011
Dear Fredrick (Rick) Techlin Jr.,
In your letter titled “Letter to WELS 2011″ dated January 20, 2011 and published on your blog a few days later, you made the following statements:

“However, during our attempts to resolve the doctrinal differences reiterated by that letter, it became apparent that I disagree doctrinally not only with Pastor Glende and my Church Council, but also District President Engelbrecht, and other leaders in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).”  (page 1)

“I do disagree with my pastors and Church Council over doctrine.”  (page 11)

“My doctrinal differences with my congregation have been known by me for well over two years.”  (page 29)

“Should I continue in fellowship with synod leaders who counsel laymen not to pray with other non-WELS Christians, but then defend WELS pastors who plagiarize the sermons of our theological enemies?  The answer is no.  I should not continue in fellowship with the theological blackguards of the WELS…’  (page 31)

Rick, by your own words you have declared that you are no longer in fellowship with St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church and the doctrine of the WELS.  On the basis of your published statements, St. Peter’s Board of Elders and Church Council recommended to the Voter’s Assembly that your membership in our congregation be terminated.  At the Voter’s Meeting of St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church on April 11th, 2011, this recommendation was acted upon and unanimously approved.  In carrying out this action, St. Peter is simply acknowledging what you have already declared to be true in your “Letter to WELS 2011″.  This action is in keeping with St. Peter’s Constitution, Article V, Section 5 – Termination of Fellowship.
We commend you to your own spiritual care and will continue to keep you in our prayers.
Sincerely,
St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church Voters, Board of Elders, & Church Council

According to St. Peter Church’s certified letter, “by your own words you have declared that you are no longer in fellowship with … the doctrine of the WELS” and that “St. Peter is simply acknowledging what you have already declared to be true in your ‘Letter to WELS 2011′.”  However, my 2011 letter to the WELS also said:

… if I am wrong about the doctrine, then how am I supposed to be corrected if I cannot attend any meetings where these issues are being discussed?  …
Therefore, I am sending this letter to the WELS Conference of Presidents (COP) in the hope that maybe I do not have to leave the WELS over doctrine.  These are important issues, and if I am wrong, then I should be properly instructed so that I can be convinced by God’s Word…  My strongest desire is not to leave the WELS, rather I more strongly desire that these doctrinal conflicts would be resolved with unanimous agreement.  To that end, there needs to be discussion, and that is one of the primary purposes of these letters…

1.  Is it the WELS doctrine that Christians can choose to believe God’s Word?
2.  Is it the WELS doctrine that from our perspective God needs our service?
3.  Is it the WELS doctrine that the sin of plagiarism is not a sin?  …

If the WELS Conference of Presidents answers ‘yes’ to any of these questions, please have some kind person explain the doctrine to me in a way that I can understand.  If I am wrong, then I will be wrong.  I have no personal stake in being infallible, and neither should any other Christian.  Further it is not my desire to leave the WELS without serious effort to at least understand these positions, even if I am unable to agree.
I cannot simply choose to believe that which I actually believe is false.  I must be shown the truth in the light of plain reason or the Scriptures.  This points to the fifth consequence of post conversion Decision Theology:  There has been very little (virtually no) effort put into showing me the ‘light.’  I have been simply expected to choose to believe the St. Peter & The CORE doctrine.  And if praise songs, popcorn, and big screen TVs are not enough positive motivation, then other negative motivators are applied.  The goal is not to reveal the light of truth, but to motivate a choice…

(See also “WELS Northern Wisconsin District Doctrinal Issues“).  The entire letter dated January 20, 2011 is basically a description of my efforts to discuss doctrine, and the total rebuffing of those efforts.  This final act of terminating fellowship means that I am no longer a member of the WELS or of any visible Christian church.
St. Peter Church terminated my fellowship with the WELS under Article V, Section 5 of St. Peter Church’s Constitution.  That section deals with Christians who are not accused of any willful sin (and thus can still go to heaven), but are still nonetheless guilty of false doctrine, and therefore must be excluded from the fellowship of the orthodox.  It states:

Termination of Fellowship
A.  Members who persist in an error that in itself does not make the presence of saving faith impossible and who otherwise are not under church discipline (cf Article V Section 2D and Section 3) may be excluded from the fellowship of the congregation

1.  after they have been evangelically admonished by their fellow Christians in the spirit of Matthew 18:15-16; and

2.  when their adherence to error becomes public and a matter of divisiveness (Titus 3:10) and thus an offense and obstacle to the truth of God’s Word (Romans 16:17-18).

B.  This action shall not be used for removing inactive members as a substitute for the loving act of excommunication when impenitence is clearly evident.
C.  Members thus excluded from fellowship shall lose all rights in the congregation and in its property.

That section of the Constitution cites Titus 3:10 and Romans 16:17-18.  There Paul says: “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (KJV).  Also:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.  [KJV.  Emphasis added].

The Scriptures cited by the St. Peter Church constitution contain the phrase: “mark … and avoid.”  This means that St. Peter Church has marked me as a persistent errorist and a teacher of false doctrine that all WELS congregations and members should avoid.

St. Peter Church says I declared myself out of WELS fellowship.  That is false.  If I thought the WELS doctrine was wrong, and I believed that I could not be convinced of that doctrine, then I would gladly leave.  I would not need to be without warning kicked out right before Easter.

In terminating my fellowship, St. Peter Church cited only my letter to the WELS dated January 20, 2011.  That letter also references another letter dated November 1, 2009.  Here are links to both letters:

• November 1, 2009
• January 20, 2011

People can judge for themselves whether there is false doctrine in those letters.  I believe those letters accurately represent the doctrine of the Scriptures as interpreted by the Lutheran Confessions and as subscribed to by the WELS.

·

After the January 20, 2011 letter, the only meeting I had with the pastors of St. Peter Congregation was on March 25, 2011.  The five concerned area WELS pastors had been trying to meet with the pastors of St. Peter & The CORE for over a year.  However, the pastors of St. Peter refused to meet without the District Presidium, and the District Presidium refused to meet together with all the pastors.  Finally, as a courtesy to the Synod President, the Northern Wisconsin District Presidium scheduled a meeting for March 25, 2011.  The five concerned pastors were also able to secure an invitation for Tony Kubek Jr. and me.  (See the post: “An Update“).

The Northern Wisconsin District Presidium continues to maintain that these public matters cannot be handled in a brotherly way if we publicly discuss them.  However, St. Peter Church has publicly terminated my fellowship with the WELS, therefore, I should be able to at least say that the conclusion of this meeting was not: that I should leave the WELS.
No agreement was reached on any issue, nonetheless, I did not leave this meeting thinking that my fellowship with the WELS was about to be terminated.  District President Engelbrecht encouraged everyone to keep our discussions private and to be willing to engage in further meetings.  Nonetheless, two weeks later, St. Peter Church publicly terminated my fellowship in the WELS as a persistent errorist.

·

In their certified letter, St. Peter Church concluded: “We commend you to your own spiritual care …”  I have done my best to resolve these matters Scripturally by attempting to discuss them.  However, the leadership of St. Peter Church has been steadfastly adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong at St. Peter Church, and therefore these matters will not be discussed in any way in which my concerns would be given any legitimate consideration.  By their words and deeds the leadership of St. Peter Church has officially declared that we are not walking together, we do not have the same doctrine, and we do not belong in the same synod.  Their persistence has forced me to agree, that we do not belong in the same synod.

I have appealed this wrongful termination of my WELS fellowship to the Appeals Board of the Northern Wisconsin District.  That is as high as a layman can appeal.  (WELS Constitution § 8.50(e)).  If I lose this appeal and no other WELS congregation steps in to intervene, then my days in the WELS will be over.  But at least I would know where the Northern Wisconsin District officially stands on doctrine.
Win or lose, the spiritual battle belongs to the Lord.  (Ephesians 6:12).
Kyrie eleison.

·

Holy Week

It is unfortunate that the leadership of St. Peter Church in Freedom, WI chose to take these actions without warning right before Holy Week.  As a result, I did not have time to find a place to receive the Lord’s Supper on Maundy Thursday in an orderly fashion.  This was the first year since my confirmation that I was not able to receive the physical essence of our faith (the Lord’s body and blood) on Maundy Thursday.  After hearing all the pleas to “take, and eat,” I felt like just watching the Lord’s Supper was hardening my heart, so I did not attend Good Friday or Easter Divine Services.
A number of faithful WELS pastors graciously promised to commune me if I came forward, but I decided that it would be best to refrain.  The last thing I wanted to do was give District President Engelbrecht a technical excuse to discipline faithful pastors for communing non-WELS members.  (Open communion is a serious infraction of the ordained ministry).  Nor did I wish to spark a confrontation or a confessional crisis between two WELS congregations during Holy Week.

On Maundy Thursday, I received a second letter from St. Peter Church saying that if I disagree with my termination of WELS fellowship, then my only option was to write a letter to District President Engelbrecht.  Anything else would be disorderly.  (April 18, 2011 letter from St. Peter Church).

On Good Friday afternoon, I wandered around for awhile looking for a church to attend, but then gave up.  I stopped at another Christian church in Freedom, WI in the hope that I could touch the water to just physically remind myself that I am baptized, but their baptismal font in the entrance was dry.

On Saturday, April 30, 2011, I wrote a letter to District President Engelbrecht announcing my appeal, and dropped it in the mail.  In that letter, I also asked him to give me written permission to commune at any WELS church pending my appeal.

---

May 9, 2011 11:27 PM

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

For those who are following Rick's situation, he has just posted an update. http://vdma.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/terminated-from-wels-fellowship/

May 10, 2011 10:20 AM

Mr. Douglas Lindee said...

I stated above: "It seems ridiculous that in an “apolitical” institution, such our Synod, “lobbying” for one’s position en masse seems to garner the most attention and respect from leadership – and the greater the numbers, the greater the attention and respect, while the fewer the numbers, the greater the risk, even to one's continuation in fellowship. In principle, this should not necessarily be the case, but observation over time has shown this to be true." How many laymen in the NWD have come to Mr. Techlin's aid? How many are going to now? By my recollection of this ongoing issue, based on its public documentation, representatives of his congregation, including his pastor, refused his overtures to meet and discuss these issues, requiring escalation to the District President. This meeting finally occurred, as Rev. Lidtke stated above, but "did little to bring the two sides closer to a real agreement on the issues before us." Following the meeting, still without meeting to discuss any issues directly with Mr Techlin, his congregation terminated his fellowship. In my post, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease, posted yesterday, I quoted Dr. Walter Martin as he provided analysis of similar events and movements in other church bodies: "But how do you see the... professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith!" Are we seeing the same practices played out here in Freedom, WI? We'll need to watch closely, and as Dr. Martin advised, start asking questions! -- beginning with our own fellow laymen and church councils, our pastors, Circuit Pastors, etc.

May 10, 2011 10:58 AM

Daniel Baker said...

This is unacceptable in the highest degree. As I said on Rick's blog, so I say here: Anathema to the leadership and voting members of St. Peter's, Freedom.

May 10, 2011 11:48 AM 

Scott E. Jungen said...

Well, if you ever had questions about some of the underhanded things that go on in WELS, take a look at what happened to Rick Techlin. All you laity out there can be assured that that was orchestrated by Pastor Glende, and was "rubber-stamped" by Church Council and Voters' Assembly. To some of you out there who were wondering, you can't make it any clearer. Scott E. Jungen PS- I urged Rick to sue the congregation.

More on Appleton from the Intrepids

May 9, 2011 6:08 PM

LutherRocks said...

I am deeply disturbed by the comments of the sponsors of this forum. Initially Mathew 6:24 came into focus...but as the ensuing comments came in...there is just an utter lack of faith in the Means of Grace. I am appalled and astounded. I truly believe that the problem of all of this is rooted in the doctrine of justification...that doctrine by which the church stands or falls. I will be blogging about this soon enough from my corner of WELS as experienced through the portal of Holy Word Austin, Texas...May the Lord have mercy. Joe Krohn

May 9, 2011 6:34 PM

Daniel Baker said...

The 'worship' methods illustrated by a number of the above commentators are "unLutheran" for a number of reasons, most obviously because they directly contradict the sentiments and prescriptions of the foundational confessions of the Lutheran Church: "At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things" (Ap:XII:1). This in and of itself would not make these 'worship' methods non-Christian or sinful, however - only "unLutheran" (or, more appropriately, different than the Churches of the Augsburg Confession). Unfortunately, and perhaps in a graver sense, these 'worship' methods are dangerous and apostatic because of their origins. Although Article X of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - referenced by Mr. Lund above - was written with the papists in mind, the same principles can be applied to the radical Evangelical and Reformed sects that are arguably more threatening to the Church in America today. Although Mr. Lund declined to bore us with long blocks of text quoted from the Solid Declaration, in light of the recent discussion I find certain portions worth noting, namely: "When under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel]. For in this case what Paul writes, 2 Cor. 6:14-17, shall and must obtain: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference" (FC:SD:X:5-7). Copying the practices of the erroneous sects around us (which, as I have personally experienced, Pastor Ski does not only in 'worship' practices but also in use of graphics, bulletin content, and sermon outlines) is not only a violation of the principle of being unequally yoked, but such practices as popcorn munching during prayers are also "useless, foolish displays" that are not in the best interests of the "evangelical propriety" of the Church, as condemned above. I hope this begins to clarify why abandoning the historic, traditional, and Christ-centered tradition of the catholic Church is not only "unLutheran," but why it is also dangerous and unbiblical.

They love Stetzer in WELS because he cannot spell or edit!
Hooked on Phonics worked for me.

Luther to Zwingli - "You Have Another Spirit."Why the Syn Conference Will Not Face the Truth

Luther refused to shake hands with Zwingli at the end of the Marburg Colloquy, because Zwingli denied the Real Presence and therefore the efficacy of the Word.

At Mequon, in the senior year, one student answered in class that it was Luther's fault, not Zwingli's. The church history professor was shocked and alarmed. I answered - instead of looking bored and irritated, the proper Sausage Factory attitude.

Missouri, WELS, and the Little Sect on the Prairie will continue to decline, because they cannot face their foundational problem - rejecting the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit through the Word. God does not work through fads, gimmicks, clever Satan-centered billboards, programs, rock music, chancel drama, liturgical dancing, or clown ministry.

The so-called conservatives in the Syn Conference want to nibble politely around the edges of apostasy, careful lest someone be offended. The problem is that the dedicated apostates, drama queens all, know how to play the offended card and network their rage into a classic manufactured meltdown. The Intrepids experienced that when they dared to suggest that a canned Love Shack sermon offered grace without the Means of Grace. Days of rage followed. White flags of surrender began flapping on the blog.

The Word of God must be used to rebuke.

Against the Law-mongering Shrinkers:
KJV Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Pastoral Charges
KJV Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

KJV 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Jesus rebuked with the Word, too:

KJV Mark 8:32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

The Enthusiasm of the Syn Conference is the foundational error supporting all the various heresies that dominate each sect. Not teaching the efficacy of the Word alone opens the door to Pentecostalism, Romanism, Church Shrinkers, the Maggot Church (aka Emergent Church), and every other disgusting blasphemy, including UOJ.

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Another Response to Wisconsin Sect's Refusal To De...":

Copying the practices of the erroneous sects around us

for instance - from the CA/AZ district (how many things are just like the other: MINISTRIES Music and Drama - that's one, MEDIA View Our Latest Sermon Video - that's two...:
First Baptist Fulton
http://www.fbcfulton.org/events/

Crown of Life Lutheran Church - (W)ELS
http://www.crownoflifechurch.net/about/

Time To Say Goodbye To ELCA

"We have our own armored division - Lavender Leopard Tanks."

Lutheran CORE - News and Discussion

Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Renewal) is a group of individuals, congregations and reform groups, working for biblical and confessional integrity in the Lutheran church. On this News and Discussion page, you will find the most recent updates regarding Lutheran CORE, and our partner organizations. Click on "comments" at the end of a posting to add your own response.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

ELCA council proposes changing rules to make it harder for congregations to leave

Leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are proposing changing rules to make it harder for congregations to leave the church body.

At its Nov. 12-14 meeting, the ELCA Church Council proposed amendments to ELCA constitutions that would make the process of leaving the church body more difficult for congregations. The changes must be approved by the 2011 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

“How ironic that ELCA leadership is so committed to disregarding the Law of God on sexual ethics but so determined to use the law of humans to coerce congregations to remain in the ELCA ,” said the Rev. Mark Chavez, director of Lutheran CORE.

Many congregations are considering whether to remain affiliated with the ELCA as they have seen the church body move away from the teaching of the Bible.

Some have cited ELCA publications that question the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus and promise salvation to non-believers as examples of the ELCA’s move away from Scripture. Many have pointed to recent changes in church teaching and policy to allow pastors to be in same-sex sexual relationships in spite of the Bible’s clear teaching to the contrary. Still others have cited ELCA congregations and synods that have utilized a radically rewritten Lord’s Prayer that addresses God as “our mother who is within us.”

The ELCA announced Nov. 3 that nearly 300 congregations have already completed the required two votes to leave the ELCA and 140 additional congregations have taken a first vote but have not yet taken their second vote.

These congregations represent a loss of more than 200,000 ELCA members, according to an online tally. Many individuals have left congregations that remain in the ELCA, so the total membership loss is much larger.

The current process requires two votes to leave the ELCA at least 90 days apart. The votes must each be approved by a two-thirds majority. The synod’s bishop must consult with the congregation during the 90-day period. In addition, congregations that had been members of the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) or that were established by the ELCA must also receive approval from their synods to end their ELCA affiliation.

The proposed changes — all of which make the process more difficult for congregations — include the following:

+ A congregation must hold a 30-day consultation period with its bishop before taking a first vote to leave the ELCA, in addition to the current 90-day consultation after a congregation’s first vote.

+ The synod bishop is given authority to determine how the consultation will be conducted “in consultation with” the congregation’s council.

+ The bishop will be able to appoint “designees” with whom the congrega-tion will be required to consult.

+ The bishop or his/her designee must be granted the opportunity to speak at special congregational meetings regarding ending ELCA affiliation.

+ A congregation will be required to vote by a two-thirds majority to join a new Lutheran church body, or else it will be “conclusively presumed” to have become an independent Lutheran congregation, potentially forfeiting its property.

+ Congregations will be required to meet any financial obligations to the ELCA before leaving.

+ Congregations must wait at least six months before taking another first vote if the original first vote does not achieve the required two-thirds majority.

+ Congregations must wait at least six months and restart the process if their second vote does not achieve the required two-thirds majority.

+ Congregations which fail to follow the specified process must obtain synod council approval in order to leave the ELCA.

4 comments:

Recovering Lutheran said...

It would appear that the doctrine of bound conscience actually means "bound to the conscience of the ELCA's leadership" - literally. At any rate, perhaps Christians should render unto the ELCA's leadership that which belongs to them, and render unto God the things that belong to God. Let the ELCA take the property and the money. The ELCA's new god of radical secular politics is a greedy god as well as a jealous one, and the pennies the ELCA manages to wring out of poor congregations will not be enough slake their god's ravenous thirst.

7:54 PM

Anonymous said...

Thank you for reporting this, and thanks to the NALC for making this page-one news in the Nov 2010 newsletter. No such details appear in the ELCA's official news release on the recent Church Council meeting. How else will folks find out what's going on before it's too late?

Another Response to Wisconsin Sect's Refusal To Deal with Plagiarized False Doctrine

y 9, 2011 6:08 PM

Daniel Baker said...

The 'worship' methods illustrated by a number of the above commentators are "unLutheran" for a number of reasons, most obviously because they directly contradict the sentiments and prescriptions of the foundational confessions of the Lutheran Church: "At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things" (Ap:XII:1). This in and of itself would not make these 'worship' methods non-Christian or sinful, however - only "unLutheran" (or, more appropriately, different than the Churches of the Augsburg Confession). Unfortunately, and perhaps in a graver sense, these 'worship' methods are dangerous and apostatic because of their origins. Although Article X of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - referenced by Mr. Lund above - was written with the papists in mind, the same principles can be applied to the radical Evangelical and Reformed sects that are arguably more threatening to the Church in America today. Although Mr. Lund declined to bore us with long blocks of text quoted from the Solid Declaration, in light of the recent discussion I find certain portions worth noting, namely: "When under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel]. For in this case what Paul writes, 2 Cor. 6:14-17, shall and must obtain: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference" (FC:SD:X:5-7). Copying the practices of the erroneous sects around us (which, as I have personally experienced, Pastor Ski does not only in 'worship' practices but also in use of graphics, bulletin content, and sermon outlines) is not only a violation of the principle of being unequally yoked, but such practices as popcorn munching during prayers are also "useless, foolish displays" that are not in the best interests of the "evangelical propriety" of the Church, as condemned above. I hope this begins to clarify why abandoning the historic, traditional, and Christ-centered tradition of the catholic Church is not only "unLutheran," but why it is also dangerous and unbiblical.