Thursday, November 18, 2010

Introduction to the Deutschlander UOJ Essay, 1977


Professor Daniel Deutschlander was one of the highly respected teachers at the late Northwestern College. No one wanted to admit it at the time, but the merger of Dr. Martin Luther College and NWC (nicknamed the Anschluss, after Hitler's annexation of Austria) was designed to end opposition to Church Growth and encourage feminist Enthusiasm. After all the lies and deceptions settled into the dust of history, the twin goals of the Anschluss proved to be overwhelmingly successful.

Deutschlander was known for opposing Church Growth and "Whoopee Worship." Some may remember that Ski's blog about going to the Babtist Drive conference was distinguished by his accidental meeting with Deutschlander, who thought Ski was in Atlanta to hear him speak at a WELS conference. Silly professor! Lavish grants are for worshiping with Babtists, not Lutherans.

Although Deutschlander's opposition to Church Growth is commendable, and his Theology of the Cross worth studying, his UOJ essay is another bow to the false doctrine of Pietism.

The end of the first paragraph is illuminating, because it was written before Kokomo, and J. P. Meyer's own words ignited the Kokomo controversy:


On the subject of this paper the author is aware of only one English language commentary that clearly expresses, distinguishes, and warns against the errors on the doctrine of Objective and Subjective Justification, namely our own J. P. Meyer’s commentary on II Corinthians, Ministers of Christ (cf. especially pp. 98-103). As Meyer points out, even the English translation of Pieper’s Dogmatics is subject to misunderstanding on this vital point.

From Thy Strong Word:

The Kokomo conflict began in July, 1978, in Kokomo, Indiana, at Faith Lutheran Church, WELS, served at that time by Pastor Charles Papenfuss, who was newly called to the congregation. When the parable of the Prodigal Son was being discussed by David Hartman for the upcoming Vacation Bible School, Pastor Papenfuss argued that the story “taught that God the Father has pronounced the entire world of lost sinners forgiven of all sins and that at the time of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection gave unto all sinners the ‘status of saints’…Pastor Papenfuss said that even Judas and all people in hell were declared righteous, holy, innocent of all sin and given the ‘status of saints.’ He said that they too were declared to be guilt-free saints at the time of the resurrection of Christ.”[33] Hartman was surprised at the pastor’s statements and asked if that was the teaching of the WELS seminary. Papenfuss said it was. The pastor recommended J. P. Meyer’s Ministers of Christ to David Hartman. The conflict continued and the congregation voted on June 20, 1979, to endorse the four statements quoted below and to suspend the Hartman and Pohlman families from membership.

*33 Open letter published by Mr. and Mrs. David Hartman and Mr. and Mrs. Joe Pohlman, March 6, 1982.

---
From Deutschlander's essay:
The Treatment of Objective Justification by our Confessions 
Our Lutheran Confessions have no separate article on Objective Justification; the closest we can come to a paragraph of formulation for this doctrine is in Article IX of the Formula of Concord, under the doctrine of election. But even that is not really sufficient or suitable for stating the orthodox position in a clear and unequivocal manner. For our Fathers it was not difficult at all to consider objective and subjective justification under the same heading, and they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them. But such was and remained the case only so long as the orthodox had a clear understanding of the nature of faith; once that understanding was gone, it became necessary (at the end of the last century) to begin making such as distinction. (A possible reason for the loss of such an understanding we shall consider below in Part III.) But having said all that, we shall not go wrong in assuming that, had we asked then for it, they would have had little difficulty in making the distinction; indeed, given their clear and concise formulations on faith and its relation to justification, one can only conclude that they considered the distinction all but self-evident. We take note of this silence in the Confessions at this point and on this matter, lest someone charge us with indifference to the problem, or ignorance of its existence, or failure to take it into account.

GJ - So that means the Book of Concord is not orthodox because it does not include the Pietistic OJ/SJ formulation from Halle University! This paragraph simply screams for the attentions of LP Cruz. The Concordists would have done a Kokomo if they had been wiser and orthodox. Their silence on the double-justification formula proves they already accepted it

***

GJ - I doubtless speak for everyone in my happiness that J. P. Meyer cleared up that thorny issue.

Deutschlander 1977 Essay, Pages 1-3.
Post a Comment