Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Just and Sinner

Home
Evangelical
A lethal cocktail: down with Kokomo

A lethal cocktail: down with Kokomo

Last updated on: August 1, 2014 at 1:29 pm by nathanrinne

A lethal cocktail: down with Kokomo 2014-08-01T13:29:13-06:00 nathanrinne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

That’s where we wanna go, way down in Kokomo… ?

One of the things I remember about my seminary years (before I dropped out) was reading a paper by Kurt Marquart defending objective justification – the teaching that

[Justification] is the object of faith in that it is offered by God in the Gospel; it is the effect [of faith], to put it thus, in so far as grace having been apprehended by faith, the forgiveness of sins happens to us by that very act. (from Calov’s classic commentary on the Augsburg Confession, 1665)

When I heard persons talk about “objective justification” I automatically thought about Kurt Marquart and this article.

Therefore it is particularly interesting, in this piece recently posted by Trent Demarest, to read Marquart denouncing what we might call a notion of objective justification which has fallen off one side of the horse (we recall that Martin Luther talked about how humanity is like a drunk man who falls off one side of a horse, only to get on it again and to fall off of the other side).

Without further ado, this is Kurt Marquart, on the “Kokomo” theses, which he describes as “mischievous nonsense” and “an absurd and reprehensible travesty of Lutheran doctrine” (I do not bold so you will not be tempted to skip any of this!):

Here are the four “Kokomo” theses forced on some hapless Indiana Lutherans (Wisconsin Synod) in 1979, on pain of excommunication:

Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner’s attitude toward Christ’s sacrifice, purely on the basis of God’s verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint.

After Christ’s intervention and through Christ’s intervention, God regards all sinners as guilt-free saints.

When God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, He individually pronounced forgiveness on each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not.

At the time of the resurrection of Christ, God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all sin and gave unto them the status of saints.

Thesis 3 is perhaps the least offensive, although in its context it is thoroughly misleading. Thesis 1 confuses “objective” and “subjective” justification by saying of the former what may only be said of the latter, namely that sinners have “received” forgiveness. Objective justification means that forgiveness has been obtained for and is being offered to all in the Gospel—not that anybody has “received” it. The receiving can happen only through faith, sola fide. Thesis 2, that after Christ’s sacrifice “God regards all sinners as guilt-free saints” is simply false, St. Jn. 3:36; 1 Jn. 5:12. And Thesis 4 about hell’s human denizens being pronounced innocent, given “the status of saints,” etc. is fantasy. An unbiblical logic has driven biblical language senseless: what can it possibly mean to have (or, worse, receive!) “the status of saints” in hell? The grace and forgiveness which Christ obtained for all, had been offered to the dead during their life-time, in the means of grace (St. Lk. 16:29; Heb. 9:27), but are in no way given to the godless in hell, where there is no Gospel, hence no forgiveness (Large Catechism, Creed, 56).”

(end quote from Marquart)

In Marquart’s piece he not only deals with the Kokomo theses but also takes on another person responding critically to those these, Mr. Larry Darby. It seems to me that what this writing of Marquart’s shows is that he was a master – a very careful scholar and amazingly insightful student of both the Scriptures and confessional Lutheran theologians. I have never heard anyone accuse Marquart of being careless in his scholarship (or his life for that matter).

Particularly interesting is that Marquart quotes all of these remarks from Mr. Darby… :

“… Whether one likes the change or not, most honest Lutherans will admit that the de facto leading message of modern Lutheranism is “you are already forgiven” (p. 15)”

and

“Do we Christians live a life of daily repentance (contrition brought on by the Law and faith renewed/strengthened by the Gospel) or do we anesthetize our consciences by repeating the mantra “God has already forgiven the whole world, and I am certainly included in that”?

and

“Anyone who has ever tried to speak the words of God to an impenitent sinner knows that “you’re already forgiven” goes over a lot better than “you’re a wretched sinner on the road to hell.”

and

“… I encourage you to test the widespread acceptance of this doctrine for yourself: ask fellow professing Lutherans what they “do” when spiritual doubts arise. See if they talk about the means of grace, word and Sacrament, or the “fact” that all sins are already forgiven. Ask them what they “do” when they find themselves stuck in a particular sin . . . see whether their answer includes contrition, confession and absolution (pp. 251-252).”

…and goes on to simply say:

“These are very astute and relevant observations. Given the self-indulgent outlook of the times, the “Kokomo” views are just the twisted sort of version of objective justification one would expect to arise. The undercutting of the means of grace is its chief theological flaw and spiritual peril.”

Near the end of the paper, Marquart writes:

“The logic is not, “I am forgiven because all are forgiven,” but: “I can rely on forgiveness in the Gospel and Sacraments, because it is there for all.” If forgiveness did not exist in Christ and His Gospel objectively for all mankind, how could I possibly presume to think that I receive it in the means of grace?”

Am I wrong in suggesting that there might be a particular temptation for many of us to do this today? Mea Culpa. Also, I like to read the blog of Alvin Kimel, the Eastern Orthodox priest who was formerly Roman Catholic and before that Anglican and who has an affinity for Gerhard Forde, Robert Jenson and other ELCA (formerly in Jenson’s case) Lutherans. There is no doubt that Father Kimel, a highly astute, intelligent, and humane man, has been giving voice to ideas very similar to this on his blog, where he has basically been arguing for a revamped universalism that makes hell into purgatory.

I think it is understandable that Lutherans proclaiming the Gospel might want to try to especially highlight the grace of God to those who have convinced themselves that even if God exists they would not want to know him anyways… “Who did Jesus die for?… How many sins did He pay for?… Which of your sins did Jesus forget to pay for?”, etc. And not only with words, but by going out of one’s way to treat all persons with gentleness, kindness, respect, and the compassion that Christ felt in His guts.

Nevertheless – in our efforts to “shake people up” and disrupt false understandings of God, I come away from this post more aware that how we do this is critical – perhaps not necessarily because we are concerned about giving false impressions to the particular persons that we attempt to reach in concrete situations, but rather because we are concerned with what the broader church hears. We do not want to – should not want to – create impressions like those Darby lists above, and we certainly do not want to – should not want to – give encouragement to persons who might aim to construct and/or support systematic understandings of theology that are built, in large part, on false or misleading understandings of objective justification.

FIN

Blog Posts

Theology Proper

Kokomo Theses

Objective Justification

Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart

WELS

Previous Post

July 31, 2014

The Lutheran Manual by Junius Remensnyder, American Lutheran Classics Volume 8

Next Post

August 1, 2014 Episode 8: All Along the Watchtower

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category American Lutheran Classics Blog Posts Book Review Christian Dogmatics Course Church Resources Curtis Leins Dogmatic Theology Ethics FAQs Historical Theology Just & Sinner Publications Luther Quotations Podcast Sermons The American Lutheran Theological Journal The complete works of Revere Franklin Weidner Theology Proper Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2019 September 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What caused the kingdom to split after Solomon's death?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Famine Idol worship Rehoboam's harsh policies Prophet's curse