David Becker has left a new comment on your post "LiveLeakers - The WELS COP Minutes - Mostly Boring...":
This is still the entire statement of faith of Time of Grace, as stated at http://www.timeofgrace.org/statementoffaith.php:
“We believe in the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe that God has revealed himself through his word, the Holy Bible, and that the Bible is divinely inspired and without error. We believe that all human beings are terminally sinful and that only through the innocent life and death of Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. We believe we are here on this earth to spread the good news of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible.”
----
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/01/the-witch-hunt-has-officially-begun.html
TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2013
The Witch Hunt Has (Officially) Begun
The following paragraph is from WELS District President Doug Engelbrecht’s summary of the recent meeting of the WELS Conference of Presidents, sent out to the pastors of his district:
PD.02 Intrepid Lutherans
· Another item involved the Intrepid Lutheran website. There is a concern that those who still wholeheartedly support this group by being “signers” are also supporting a pastor who has been removed from the ministerium of the WELS for doctrinal reasons, because he has been given a forum on their website. The consensus was that each district president should approach pastors in their district who are listed as “signers” on the website and determine whether or not they are in support of the false doctrine that the suspended pastor espouses.
As for me being "given a forum on their website,” the fact is, it’s our website. I am still part of it (actually, still the chairman of Intrepid Lutherans, Inc.), much to the chagrin of the WELS leadership. No one is "authorizing" my posts here. Each of us posts independently, sometimes running our articles by one another for input, sometimes not.
Also, I don’t know how much clearer we can make this so that the COP will understand, but “being signers” on this blog has never meant anything more or less than what we have stated from the beginning on our Stand With Us page:
In what do we invite you to join “with intrepid heart, willing to appear before the judgment seat of Christ?” To what do we ask you, with great consent, to subscribe your name? To the Biblical and Confessional contentsof What We Believe. We are not asking you to subscribe to the contents of every post and comment that will appear on this blog.
No error or false doctrine has ever been identified or pointed out to us on our What We Believe page, which has not changed since the first day Intrepid Lutherans rolled out.
The only change we have recently made to our Stand With Us page is to remove the reference to ourselves and our signers as “members of WELS.” This was never entirely accurate in the first place, because, technically, even lay members of a WELS congregation are not “members of WELS,” since only pastors, male teachers and whole congregations can be “members” of the synod. As it now stands, there is at least one fully and unmistakably non-WELS member who is an Intrepid signer: Yours Truly.
Of course, it was not my choice to be a non-WELS member. That decision was made for me by DP Buchholz back in October. During one of his visits to my congregation in which he labeled me a heretic and tried to convince my flock to rescind my call (before my suspension), one of my members told him point blank, “This sure seems like a witch hunt.”
DP Buchholz was visibly agitated by that comment, and referred back to it several times over the following weeks. He assumed that it originated with me, but it didn’t. My members—most of them, anyway—could see with their own eyes what was going on. He was indignant at being accused of orchestrating a witch hunt. The truth hurts, as they say.
Now the witch hunt has become official. I don’t know what else you call the above “consensus” that was reached by the WELS COP. Apparently there is some new doctrine of “blog fellowship” lurking around out there in the shadows. Apparently, since DP Buchholz has labeled me a heretic to be “marked and avoided” (Rom. 16:17), the entire COP has reached a consensus that every WELS pastor must “mark and avoid” me and my "false doctrine," even in the blogosphere, on threat of interrogation and other more sinister repercussions.
Let’s remember what, again, they would have me “marked and avoided” for. What was that wicked heresy that I was teaching—that unscriptural, unlutheran, “novel” doctrine?
That sinners are justified before God by faith in Jesus Christ, and only by faith in Jesus Christ. Grace alone. Faith alone. Scripture alone. Sola gratia. Sola fide. Sola Scriptura.
Luther has surely turned over several times in his grave.
But since the COP apparently wants to continue the discussion about justification with WELS pastors, I will assist them by attempting, over the coming months, to make my position crystal clear here on this blog, so that they can judge for themselves whether “the suspended pastor” espouses “false doctrine,” or whether the suspended pastor is the one proclaiming the true Gospel, the doctrine confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, the faith once delivered to the saints. Then readers of this blog will have all the information necessary to make an informed judgment about whether I am someone to “mark and avoid” or someone with whom to stand in solidarity.
In either case, although being a signer of Intrepid Lutherans doesn’t mean you agree with everything I say or write, it has, nonetheless, just become a little more dangerous. Dear WELS reader, you should be outraged at the witch hunt that has been enacted by the COP. This is no time for fear. It’s time to be intrepid!
2 COMMENTS:
1) cults tend to centralize power in the hands of a single individual or small group that is considered beyond question
2) they treat all questions about the group and its beliefs as intolerable challenges to the group's authority and authenticity
3) they demean all those who do not share their beliefs and sow fear and mistrust amongst their believers about all such people
4) they typically cut off all or most opportunities for members to interact freely with those outside the group
5) they take revenge upon those who choose to leave the group in ways which include cutting them off from all relationships with those who remain inside, confiscation of material goods and even physical harm
From "The Thin Line between Religions and Cults"
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/brad_hirschfield/2009/04/the_bright_line_between_religions_and_cults.html
+ Pr. Jim Schulz
Oh, and by the way...I have been a non-WELS signer now since 2011. I am in good company. :)
I will become more active again...It's time to shed the slide down the slippery slope..and let others know not to go down it.
Tim Niedfeldt
Point is, yes, you aren't even allowed to have your name next to someone who presents topics for discussion that may differ from the WELS' doctrine. If the WELS would ever be consistent, MLC should then, logically, stop hosting free conferences. WELS pastors should never present papers at any free conferences. I guess it's okay if they're live streamed and hosted at physical locations but once it's a blog it's criminal. It's also okay when it's Mark Jeske teaching alongside those outside of WELS' fellowship on how to do Ministry at the Change or Die conference (http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/03/change-or-die-issues-etc-comments.html). They also should ask their brother in the ELS, Pastor Joseph Abrahamson, to stop contributing on Brothers of John the Steadfast (steadfastlutherans.org) or any WELS/ELS pastor from ever contributing a single comment on any forum where there are also people outside of WELS' fellowship. This is scary stuff if you really think about it. My mind keeps going back to the first comment on this thread. Well, at least DPs are actually examining the pastors in their District. Too bad it's not with Chemnitz's Enchiridion and too bad it's not to weed out those who are killing souls with the third use of the Law. Instead, it's to weed out those who teach along with the whole Catholic and Apostolic Church that sinners are justified and considered righteous by God, freely, by faith alone (Ap IV, 88-89) Witch hunt indeed, witch hunt indeed...
Christian Schulz
"The Holy See of Milwaukee"
Fellow laymen, ensure your pastor is preaching the Scriptures and upholding the Confessions. There is more at stake than congregational identification; our pastors have a unique responsibility for our souls and will be held accountable by God. Support these good pastors through your prayers and your voices.
Spenglergeist.
Joel Dusek
Aurora, Colorado
The book by Ronald Enroth, "Churches that Abuse", should be updated with this recent development.
LPC
1. An insecure leadership or governing authority who for some reason feel threatened. A historical example would be the Puritan ministry in 1690s Salem after the colony had lost its charter.
2. The perception (and only perception) of some secret, internal enemy that is blamed for all that is wrong with society (or in this case church). This enemy is organized, there is never just one, and there is some leader. At Salem, former minister George Burroughs was thought to be the leader or a secret society of witches.
3. An inquisition of some sort, meaning an effort to uncover members of this secret organization. Guilt or innocence is never the issue at these "trials". The point is to get the accused (who is already presumed guilty) to name names.
4. Overreach. Eventually, the witch hunt goes too far, and slowly the absurdity and flat out wrongness of it all becomes apparent. It usually takes some very brave souls to stand up to it, often to go down for it, for the thing to end. Giles Corey was pressed to death at Salem for refusing to offer a plea before the witch hunting court. His brave stand was a turning point. Guilty people do not die for principle.
It seems that Intrepid Lutherans have now become the "enemy within" as John Demos calls the victims of witch hunts. Let us hope that the absurdity of an inquisitorial witch hunt in WELS will become quickly apparent and that a rising swell out outrage will shame the powers that be into stepping back from the cliff.
Dr. Aaron Palmer
I can't see how, as a matter of principle, the actions of the WELS Council of Presidents can be faulted.
It seems only natural that the WELS would wish to assure itself that those who participate on this forum do not share in the opinions and positions of the person who was recently removed from the WELS.
And if they do, would they not also be duty bound to leave the WELS and find their church fellowship elsewhere?
I have been hearing this argument over and over. It is based on logical fallacy and faulty assumptions.
This silly notion of blog fellowship is rooted in a classic fallacy: Pastor Rydecki believes X. Pastor Rydecki is a member of Intrepid Lutherans. Therefore, all Intrepid Lutherans believe X. It would be like saying, Thrivent gives financial support to WELS. Thrivent gives financial support to ELCA. Therefore, WELS and ELCA are in full doctrinal agreement. The fallacy isn't even then applied consistently.
Moreover, why is it so difficult for people to read the original statement that we endorsed when we signed onto Intrepid Lutherans. It clearly explains what a signature here means and what it does not mean. So why is it logical to assume anything different? You are talking about pure "guilt" by association here, which was actually one of the strongest forms of evidence used against so-called witches in the early modern period.
I agree that the COP's job is to oversee doctrine and practice in WELS. I wish they would in fact! I would like someone, for example, to explain to me why it has allowed questionable (the kindest word I can use) practices adapted from heterodox sects to freely flourish in WELS. I hear the LCMS has the same problem. Seems like selective prosecution to me.
Dr. Aaron Palmer
Christian Schulz
"Owing to the Lutheran emphasis on justification and faith, it is natural that among us doctrinal presentation receives emphasis for the purpose of preaching the gospel. . . . by this term I understand such adhering to orthodoxy where the stress is shifted from faith to correct faith. . . . Such adherence to orthodoxy is primarily of an intellectual kind and functions by demanding and with an admixture of consciousness of one’s own being in the right or having everything right.
This bravado of orthodoxy feeds on the factious spirit which opposes the ecumenical spirit. For that reason it gets caught up in words instead of living in the facts. The result is traditionalism which has lost the spirit of the words, the spirit of the gospel. All of this is of a legalistic nature and opposes the gospel, and shows that in the course of doctrinal controversy the adherence to orthodoxy has deserted the basis of the gospel."
+ Pr. Jim Schulz
In regards to justification and Fr. Rydecki, again, the Lutheran Confessions are all (including the Scriptures of course) the pastors subscribe and swear to, as I hope you are aware. Not other booklets produced in the 90s or 30s, etc. So according to the WELS' doctrine, Article II of their constitution, Fr. Rydecki has done absolutely nothing heretical.
So with these two anecdotes, it should be be shown that neither of these men have violated WELS' doctrine according to Article II of their own/previous constitution. If the WELS wants to be honest they should include This We Believe in Article II of the constitution and get on that stat. Same with their old, and now ex cathedra, theses on fellowship.
Christian Schulz
To all readers, especially those engaged in this current discussion -
Many times over the past several months, I have said that I will not allow this blog to become absorbed in the justification debate going on in the WELS. I have said this to proponents on both sides and to various of our synod's leaders.
Upon further consideration, I have come to believe that I was wrong. I was being stubborn and arrogant. Who am I, after all? I do not "own" Intrepid Lutherans. It does not belong to me. If people want to debate this issue and want to do so on this blog, they should have the right to do so. While I may not think it is as important as, say, the translation issue, others may feel different. This is, after all, a "discussion forum," not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pastor Spencer. I for one am not beyond admitting when I make a mistake or act arrogantly and prideful. This was not always the case in my younger days. I hope I have grown and matured in this regard, at least somewhat.
In addition, I believe I am following the thinking of Gamaliel, which God the Holy Spirit inspired St. Luke to record in Acts 5:33-42. Let Pastor Rydecki thoroughly explain exactly what he believes, and what he does not, and why. Let others argue and debate with him as much as they want. If his ideas are truly opposed to the Gospel of Christ, they will come to nothing. However, perhaps in the process we can all learn something, deepen our understanding, explain God's plan of salvation even better, and grow in our faith. Thus, I see it as a win-win situation. Again, if people don't want to debate this or even hear about it or see it on this blog, they will "vote" with their keyboards and wallets, and we will go out of business post haste!
Oh, and no one has asked me to step aside and allow this discussion, and I have not received any pressure or "advice" from either side. This is my own decision. For myself, I still hope to remain on the good Lutheran middle path, and serve mainly as a referee.
One thing: I urge both sides to keep your comments civil and brotherly. You can be firm, make strong statements, and even be strident and passionate. However, there is a big difference between a heretic and a damned heretic! If I see any comments which declare people on either side as "going to hell" or words to that effect, and I can reach the delete button first, they will not see the light of day. I hope my fellow moderators will follow me in this. Marquis of Queensberry debate rules, if you please.
OK, go to your corners and come out punching. And may God defend the right!
Pastor Spencer
Justification is by faith alone.
nnuf said.
Cf. Formula of Concord - Solid Declaration III:25
+ Pr. Jim Schulz
Rod Dietsche
In the spirit of fraternal admonishment,
Joe
So, to the IL signers, show your colours when they come around to ask you through your pastors whether or not you stand or oppose Pr. Paul Rydecki on Justification. It is not Pr. Rydecki who is forcing this, it is the COPs, so OK fair enough. I am quite glad that it is not Pr. Rydecki who is forcing the issue for it shows he has no interest in being divisive, but just to articulate his faith, his conviction, as to what he believes the Scripture teaches.
IMO, I do not think any IL can be in the middle here; at least if we read the statement made by the COPs as documented in this post. It appears an IL signer is required to state where he/she stands.
By not showing where you stand, by default you have announced your colour - it is yellow. Thus, let them know. This is a great opportunity to make your confession known.
LPC
So, to the IL signers, show your colours when they come around to ask you through your pastors whether or not you stand or oppose Pr. Paul Rydecki on Justification. It is not Pr. Rydecki who is forcing this, it is the COPs, so OK fair enough. I am quite glad that it is not Pr. Rydecki who is forcing the issue for it shows he has no interest in being divisive, but just to articulate his faith, his conviction, as to what he believes the Scripture teaches.
IMO, I do not think any IL can be in the middle here; at least if we read the statement made by the COPs as documented in this post. It appears an IL signer is required to state where he/she stands.
By not showing where you stand, by default you have announced your colour - it is yellow. Thus, let them know. This is a great opportunity to make your confession known.
LPC
What does this mean, to laity, who signed, those deemed non members?
What exactly, is being done & what are those who stand fast & firm, in for?
Heidi Stoeberl
I'm not sure, frankly, what this means. I have spoken to the synod President about this. It is my understanding that each District President will handle this in his own way.
I can say this much: I have had dozens of contacts from Pastors around the synod who have said they are not going to change the way they preach and teach, namely, that we justified freely by grace and saved by faith in Jesus given by the Means of Grace. To a man, they have deemed this debate "an argument over words." Ovbiously, Pastor Rydecki does not see it that way, and neither does the CoP. So, exactly how this will play out in the end - God alone knows. Again, I say, let Pastor Rydecki explain his position thoroughly and completely, and let the Pastors and people "test the spirits." (First John 4:1)
Thank you.
Pastor Spencer