Friday, September 13, 2013

Denial That WELS Condemns Justification by Faith.
Why Is JBFA Labeled Misleading in the Mequon Dog Notes?
Why Were Rydecki and His Congregation Kicked Out?

Like ·  · 
  • Bryan Lidtke WELS abuse?!?! As Forest Bivens would say, "may The Lord rebuke you!" 
    17 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
  • Daniel Baker May the Lord rebuke the WELS. No smilie.
    17 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Jonathan Pierre Cariveau Bishop, Pastors, Deacons.
    17 hours ago · Like
  • John Albanese ...when their was a dispute over praise bands in the Divine Service, he did not presume to pass judgment but said, "The Lord rebuke thee!"
    17 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Beckie Grunewald It's not abuse to expect your clergy to teach the correct doctrines. He refused, so he could no longer be a pastor or a member of the WELS. It's pretty cut and dry.
    17 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
  • Daniel Baker Because Justification by faith alone is the incorrect doctrine in the WELS.
    17 hours ago · Like
  • Daniel Baker sigh.
    16 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Past Elder What in all flaming Judas is this about? WELS is pietistic to the core, judt with a more liturgical veneer in recent decades.
    16 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3
  • Beckie Grunewald Since when, Daniel?
    16 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Daniel Baker Since Pastor Rydecki was expelled for refusing to deny it.
    16 hours ago · Like
  • Landon Utterback Since when is justification by faith along incorrect doctrine in the WELS?
    16 hours ago · Like
  • Past Elder He was expelled for refusing to deny justification by fsith alone, is that it?
    16 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Tim Niedfeldt Justification by faith alone is indeed condemned in the WELS. Rydecki was kicked out for affirming the confessions exposition of Justification. WELS now uses "This We Believe" and two synod essays to define the WELS belief in universal justification.
    16 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2
  • Past Elder WELS has been off track since Wauwatosa. Getting kicked out by it is meaningless.
    15 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2
  • Gregory L. Jackson No, it is the highest honor, Past Elder. Being their media guru is the lowest spot of all, especially since it involves being the bagman for ELCA via Thrivent.
    15 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Beckie Grunewald Haha, Past Elder. Apparently people disagree with you on that. Apparently it's a really big deal that is tantamount to abuse! Ah well. I've never seen anything that points to the WELS condemning justification by faith alone. I think what Rydecki *says* the WELS teaches is not actually what the WELS teaches. But that's all pretty moot, isn't it? He disagreed with the synod and the synod expelled him. Did anyone truly think he could remain a member in good standing? Let's be realistic here. Hes not the martyr some seem eager to make him out as.
    15 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Landon Utterback I was looking at the What We Believe on the Intrepid Lutheran blog and I don't see how these positions are different from the WELS. I've gone to WELS congregations my whole life, went K-12 in the schools, had personal discussions with my pastors and I have heard many sermons saying what makes a church alive is not numbers or style but the preaching of the gospel (which is exactly part of the Intrepid Lutheran point of view).
    15 hours ago · Like
  • Past Elder As usual, looking for clarity in anything re WELS is a fool's mission. ELCA? Thrivent? This was somewhere in the discussion of Lutheran orthodoxy? WELS is pietist from inception, never confessional, more overtly so since Wauwatosa, more covertly so in recent decades, and to be kicked out by such a body is meaningless, certainly not an elevation to martyrdom. After ten years in WELS I kicked myself out.
    14 hours ago via mobile · Like · 3
  • Daniel Baker "I think what Rydecki *says* the WELS teaches is not actually what the WELS teaches. But that's all pretty moot, isn't it? He disagreed with the synod and the synod expelled him." 

    It's more like the opposite. To the best of my knowledge Pr. Rydecki never spoke out against the WELS or said it was in error prior to his censure (he can correct me if I'm mistaken). The problem, I believe, is that what the WELS *says* Pr. Rydecki is teaching is not actually what he is teaching. I have heard a bunch of slanderous things said against him, such as that he denies the unlimited atonement or that Christ's merits are for all. All of this is untrue. If you read his essays on justification, they're chock full of citation after citation from the Lutheran Fathers. His view is literally a regurgitation of their position. This leads me and many others to believe that the Synod is not teaching this orthodox position, or else they would have left Pr. Rydecki alone. I'll not comment more on his situation, since I don't want to speak for him. He's more than welcome to chime in if he wishes. 

    What I will say, however, is that - as Past Elder points out - the WELS as an institution has proven time and time again that it is nothing other than a Pietistic sect. That's how it started and it appears that's how it will remain. It would behoove orthodox members of the Synod to wake up and smell the coffee. The WELS is dead, and I don't think it was ever alive.
    12 hours ago · Edited · Like · 4
  • Past Elder Just so one doesn't go from being a Baptist with sacraments to trying to be Catholic without the pope and join ELDoNA or something. Oh wait ...
    12 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Gregory L. Jackson Selective excommunication is the most hypocritical part of a bad organization like WELS. Michigan Ex-VP also objected to UOJ, quite vociferously. All he got was a little wrist slap - withdrawal of his emeritus status - a meaningless gesture. Send James and Christel Michigan DP John Seifert makes sure all Michigan District members are removed from the list on the Intrepid Lutherans.
    9 hours ago · Like
  • Beckie Grunewald Daniel given what you say here I'm sure you've begun to look for a new synod then correct? If I were you though I'd distance myself from Ichabod. Unless of course you have no issues with how they break the 8th commandment nearly daily.
    8 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Paul Rydecki Those who have followed the goings-on of the past year know that I taught that God justifies sinners through faith alone in Christ. The WELS demanded that I also teach that God justifies sinners, apart from the Word, whether they believe in Christ or not. I refused, because the Bible contradicts the latter statement, as do the Lutheran Confessions.

    Beckie's comment above demonstrates the sect that the WELS is. While overtly claiming only the Book of Concord and Scripture as its doctrinal norms, the WELS actually dismisses the Book of Concord and insists, rather, on its own sectarian This We Believe doctrinal statement. The BoC speaks extensively on the article of justification, and my teaching conforms to it precisely. WELS said that was wrong, because, essentially, times have changed and doctrine has evolved, so that the former (i.e., 1580) articulations are no longer adequate or clear.
    6 hours ago · Like · 3
  • Beckie Grunewald Interesting. That's not what the WELS is teaching over in my neck of the woods. But again, not really the crux of the point here. You disagreed with the synod. I am not sure how it amounts to abuse for them to remove you from your position and expell you. It's sort of like expressing surprise that the Catholic church excommunicated Luther
    5 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
  • Jon Brown-Schmidt The biggest problem here is twofold. 1) Calling out the WELS as abusive, dead or a pietisitc sect runs the strong risk of creating doubt in the faiths of those members either new to their faith or struggling with their faith. 2) It places the confessions and the words of the early Lutherans on the same level of the Bible. (as example, the Father of my Lutheran faith created the world, he did not live in the 1500's) Those early Lutheran writings serve a great purpose as commentaries and historical reference, but were never written as and addendum to God's Word. Much of those works were written period specific to address issues that existed then and if those same men lived today, the confessions would almost definitely hold a different tone and structure to address issues today. Thus when current WELS Christians, who believe the Bible, read these posts, regarding the WELS departure from its orthodoxy, it can easily be misunderstood to be departure from God's Word. WELS has not strayed from God's Word; however, they may rely less on the 1500's era confessional that holds less relevance in today's society. Ro 5:18 ----- I pray these discussions cause people to dig deeper into their Bibles and not further from their faith.
    5 hours ago · Like
  • Daniel Baker "Daniel given what you say here I'm sure you've begun to look for a new synod then correct?" 

    Quite so. ELDoNA looks promising. Just wish they had an established parish a bit closer to my area. Still, at the moment my parish is orthodox on this matter, and since I'm a member of it and not the Synod, I stick with it - for now. 

    Also, thanks for the Ichabod red herring. That was rich.
    4 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Christian Schulz "Thus when current WELS Christians, who believe the Bible, read these posts, regarding the WELS departure from its orthodoxy, it can easily be misunderstood to be departure from God's Word."

    As confessional Lutherans we believe the formulations and explanations of God's Word as contained in the Lutheran Confessions are a correct expression of God's Word. So to stray from them is, to confessional Lutherans, to stray from God's Word.
    3 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Beckie Grunewald It is no red herring. They remind me of atheists who spend the bulk of their time blustering about something they don't believe in. They prefer to slander and insult and then any point they have had is lost.
    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Daniel Baker I don't disagree. The red herring is bringing it up at all, since I'm not associated with Ichabod.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Beckie Grunewald I do not believe the WELS' doctrine on the matter departs from scriptures or from the confessions.
    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Daniel Baker You can believe what you want, but the facts speak for themselves. WELS teaches that God views the unbelieving as righteous. Scripture teaches His wrath abides on them. The discrepancy is pretty obvious.
    3 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Beckie Grunewald I simply told you to distance yourself from them. I brought them up because Gregory references their blog here.
    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Beckie Grunewald Jesus died for all. Do you dispute that?
    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Past Elder Can't speak for Mr Baker, but I do not deny that Jesus died for all -- which is not the same statement as all are saved.
    3 hours ago · Like
  • Beckie Grunewald Then I don't see what the problem is with the WELS teaching, unless you try to make it say something it doesn't, which is what I believe Pastor Rydecki has done. And I've watched how you are influenced at different times by different people. Be careful with that.
    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Beckie Grunewald Nor does the WELS teach Universalism!
    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Paul Rydecki I certainly do not deny that Jesus died for all. To say that is the same thing as "God has declared all people righteous" is unbiblical.
    3 hours ago · Like · 3
  • Past Elder Ipse dixit.
    3 hours ago · Like
  • Paul Rydecki For a bit more explanation, I posted this comment on the link in the OP:

    http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/...
    Intrepid Lutherans: A Home in the ELDoNA
    www.intrepidlutherans.com
    Comments will be accepted or rejected based on the sound Christian judgment of t...See More
    3 hours ago · Like · 2
  • Past Elder Judas H Priest OSB, the words of institution themselves make this clear re intention as distinct from effect in the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood. The four Gospel accounts give two expressions, both of which are used: pro vobis (for you, a familiar plural, thus, addressed to those present) and pro multis (for many, which, Latin not having a definite article, addresses The Many, the remnant). As usual the RCC leads the way in obfuscation and bullshittery. When they ashcanned the traditional liturgy for the novus ordo, the English translation read "for you and for all", which is supported by neither Scripture nor even the Latin original of the novus ordo -- and actually, at first it read "for you and for all men" until the "inclusive" types got it abbreviated to "for you and for all" and now they congratulate themselves a generation later on a corrected translation. Scripture records God's intention that all be saved, to which end he became Man, died and rose again, but also records the sacrament of that body and blood applying to those who are actually saved. Therefore, the two are not the same and one cannot read from God's intention that such intention is realized.
    3 hours ago · Like
  • Beckie Grunewald Again: The WELS does NOT teach universalism. We don't say all men are saved. We say that Christ died for all. His death in the cross was sufficient for all. See Romans 5:18. But the forgiveness and righteousness comes from faith. So for those who don't believe, don't have faith, it is forfeit. John 8:24 show's us that. How is this not biblical?
    3 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Paul Rydecki Beckie, 1) this is not about "universalism"; that is a red herring. 2) It is about the WELS claiming that God has already declared all people righteous (which is false), and that the God who has justified all people sends some of these justified people to hell anyway (those who don't believe they're already justified). 3) Go back and read the first paragraph of the WELS TWB statement on justification. It says more than what you said above, and the wording matters.
    2 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Beckie Grunewald You guys and your red herrings. Someone earlier made a statement about WELS believing that all men are saved. That's universalism. As for the rest of your repkt,tell me...how would you view Romans 5:18? I see it like this: everyone has a $100 in their pocket. Nothing they did warranted this money, but everyone gets it. The believers enjoy the benefits of that $100 while unbelievers don't. Now, we know that not all men will be saved. It is not Gods fault, which is what you seem to be saying. We know that *we* can do nothing to gain salvation but everything to lose it.
    2 hours ago via mobile · Like
  • Paul Rydecki I would take Rom. 5:18 as the Lutheran Church always took it before the Synodical Conference butchered it. I would take it, for example, as Luther did:

    "For in the same manner also St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:18]: “As through one man’s sin condemnat    ion has come over all men, so through one man’s righteousness justification has come over all men.” Yet not all men are justified through Christ, nevertheless he is the man through whom all justification comes."

    Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 52: Luther's works, vol. 52: Sermons II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.) (71). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

    Or as Gerhard took it, saying that it refers to what Christ earned for all men, not that God has in any way justified all men or declared all men righteous.
    2 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
  • Past Elder The last few hundred years of Christian history is full of those saying they are true to Scripture excommunicating others who say they are true to Scripture and people stomping out saying they are being true to Scripture from those saying No you aren't...See More
    about an hour ago · Like
  • Beckie Grunewald It makes me chuckle to hear you say that the WELS is not confessional. We (because I believe as a member of a WELS church I also hold membership in the synod) have scripture for every doctrine we profess and teach. There's no guessing. And it still doe...See More
    about an hour ago via mobile · Like
  • Christian Schulz When one is suspended for speaking and teaching in unity with the Lutheran Confessions -- Confessions he took an oath to uphold -- the Synod ceases to be confessional or orthodox (that is assuming it was orthodox on paper to begin with, which I agree with Past Elder, it wasn't [OHM, etc., etc.])
    37 minutes ago · Like
at