In View of Faith

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Fruits of UOJ":

Dr. Jackson:

Since you don't agree with the old Synodical Conference on objective justification, what is your position on election? Are you a follower of the "intuitu fidei" theology?

Thank you.

***

GJ - It does not follow that rejecting one false doctrine means embracing another one. I know many are on the lookout for intuitu fidei while comatose about Reformed doctrine and Church Growth marketing madness, not to mention UOJ. I can usually predict where someone is going in an essay when the experts cited are Walther, Pieper, Walther, more Pieper, and a recent seminary professor or two. Daniel Preus has an essay posted where he embraced the magical and non-existent Easter Absolution (from Walther's sermon). Am I the only one to think it strange to base a doctrine on a recent sermon? I know the Methodists do that with Wesley's sermons, but at least they admit how weak they are in doctrine.

"In view of faith" comes from truncating the original formula, that we are saved "by the merits of Christ apprehended by faith." Leaving the merits of Christ out left a phrase "saved in view of faith"

From Thy Strong Word, Justification by Faith:

If the new Lutherans are correct in claiming ancient truths, then their doctrine should be found consistently in dogmatic statements about justification. Error is not proved by its popularity or unpopularity, but we can expect that the central doctrine of Christianity has been taught properly by various church fathers through the ages. However, we can also assume that some statements are misunderstood or distorted in time, perhaps in spite of good intentions or as a result of doctrinal shorthand. The issue “in view of faith” (intuitu fidei) began with a correct statement truncated and repeated until it became institutionalized.[46]

a. Correct – We are saved in view of faith apprehending the merits of Christ.

b. Incorrect – We are saved in view of faith. The shortened version made people think that faith itself saves, as if faith were a virtue or a frame of mind generated by man.

If we are to avoid being tangled in endless disputes about words, we must avoid being wedded to each word of every single dead Lutheran, since our confession rests upon the Scriptures as the ruling norm of faith (norma normans) and the Book of Concord as the norm ruled by the Scriptures (norma normata).


The false view was promoted by the catechism of Erik Pontippidan (1698-1764), the same catechism used later to justify the Church of the Lutheran Confession’s “holy self-love” doctrine. Pontippidan was a Danish-Norwegian Pietist. The truncated “in view of faith” issue led to the formation of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod in 1918 when the majority of Norwegian Lutherans merged by compromising on this topic. In time, “in view of faith,” became the majority view in the larger Norwegian Lutheran Church. The larger Norwegian church eventually became part of the ELCA.

I have not involved myself in denominational history for some time, so feel free to correct me if I am rusty on the details.

I was asked about this in WELS colloquy, but I should have questioned the people questioning me. Professor Brug has supported the Church Growth Movement and women's ordination (women's ordination in the Quarterly, no less). DP Mueller supported Church Growth, stealth missions, but rejected the Sixth Commandment as obsolete in practice.