Are those bees flying around his head?
Lectures on Christian Theology, p. 318.
1833 - in English!
By Georg Christian Knapp (Halle University), trans. Leonard Woods.
Translator's note• [This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he proffers pardon to all through Christ; subjective is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the gospel. The former is universal, the latter not.]
Knapp's Halle lectures were first read in 1789, so we have the remnants of the Synodical Conference using a formula from a Pietistic book translated in 1833 but written 40 years before. Knapp was a standard Protestant theology book throughout the 19th century and remains in print today.
Walther started in 1847, although Loehe really began the Missouri Synod. Can we believe that Walther had no knowledge of Knapp in German, when Walther himself was a Pietist?
The great scandal of Midwestern Lutheranism comes from their anti-Luther Pietism embodied in Woods' double-justification scheme.
Anything else is Calvinism to them, and that proves how little they know about Christian doctrine.
2 comments:
They finally have the Nate Bourman paper up at the WELS essay site--the one on the origin of the terms SJ and OJ.
I just perused the Bourman paper on the history of the term OJ and SJ, and did a search on the name Knapp. Nothing. Another thing that's missing is the entire p. 6 (lines 91-122)! I doubt the missing page mentioned Knapp.
Here's a statement: "They may even argue that the forgiveness of sins is not the same as justification." I've never heard anyone make that claim. The BoC says that the forgiveness of sins is the same as justification, according to my recollection. However, this statement comes out of the confusion caused by UOJ since the UOJers say someone is justified and forgiven but doesn't benefit thereby.
The whole Texas conference on UOJ turned out to be a circling the wagons, and dodging issues. Bourman asks us to believe that UOJ came fully formed out of Walther's head in 1872, and didn't come from Knapp and the many Halle U graduates and Knapp readers in the Synodical Conference.
Another example is when Ichabod says that UOJ is 99% on the way to universalism, Schleicher writes a paper on the differences, but neglects to admit there isn't a whole lot of difference. Also, he writes about universalist churches with their strange doctrines, but this is all irrelevant.
Once again Mequon graduates show their dependence on their indoctrination. On the universalism paper, Schleicher listed in the bibliography: "Seminary Dogmatics Notes, cf. the Seminary mimeo company."
http://scdwels.wordpress.com/essays-papers-presentations/
Justification by faith alone since the Reformation: the use and emergence of “objective” and “subjective” in relation to justification
Just a question:
When the terms SJ and OJ are used they seem to me to be the same as imputing of faith and atonement. (OJ and atonement being equal terms.) That is how I learned it from my pastor and how I continued to learn as I studied on my own.
"Words of Dr. E. W. A. Koehler (A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Second Edition, p. 149): “Justification is that forensic” (judicial) “act of God, by which He, on the basis of the perfect vicarious atonement wrought by Christ, declared the whole world to be justified in His sight (objective justification), and transmits and imputes the effect of this declaration to all whom He brings to faith by the work of the Holy Ghost through the means of grace (subjective justification).”
Can you explain to me how this is incorrect? My son led me to your blog 2 days ago and we have been discussing this issue. He seems to agree with your view, but while talking about it it sounds the same as what I have listed above.
Thanks for your answer.
Les Baker
Post a Comment