Tuesday, February 8, 2011

False Support of UOJ Exposed by Layman


"Are they misquoting me again?"


Pr. Greg,

I missed this one "Are they misquoting me again?"

..and I started laughing out loud - I cannot wipe off the grin in my face even as I type.

This is humor is enough to carry me through the day.

LPC



---
That excerpt from Humann (40:366) is the third or fourth time I have seen that particular portion of Luther's commentary pulled from its theme and used badly in support of UOJ.

It is from Luther's writing: The Keys.

The whole section is proving that binding and loosing is binding and loosing. If that is not believed, action of the keys is still true. Here is the section from which that small portion is pulled and misused. The boldface is mine.

On page 366 there is more from Luther:

Rely on the words of Christ and be assured that God has no other way to forgive sins than through the spoken Word, as he has commanded us. If you do not look for forgiveness through the Word, you will gape toward heaven in vain for grace, or (as they say), for a sense of inner forgiveness.

But if you speak as the factious spirits and sophists do: “After all, many hear of the binding and loosing of the keys, yet it makes no impression on them and they remain unbound and without being loosed. Hence, there must exist something else beside the Word and the keys. It is the spirit, the spirit, yes, the spirit that does it!” Do you believe he is not bound who does not believe in the key which binds? Indeed, he shall learn, in due time, that his unbelief did not make the binding vain, nor did it fail in its purpose. Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it. St. Paul says in Rom. 3[:3]: “Their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God.” We are not talking here either about people’s belief or disbelief regarding the efficacy of the keys. We realize that few believe. We are speaking of what the keys accomplish and give. He who does not accept what the keys give receives, of course, nothing. But this is not the key’s fault.
Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (40:366). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the Atonement, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, but describes a special application of the Word. The misquoters ignore the sentence just preceeding the boldface portion, misunderstand 'binding' and Luther's pointed underscoring, and skip the reference to faithlessness in the Romans 3:3 excerpt that follows.

Far be it from me to get into an argument with Mr. Humann. You, Brett, LPC, and now Rick, are well more able than I at that. It is clear that Humann is misusing Luther's words just as the UOJ Enthusiasts misuse quotations from Scripture, which he also did.

The quotation I sent is the two sentences immediately before the above section. Thank you for thinking my effort worthy of emphasis.

What great lengths those folks go to as they try to bolster their erroneous teachings.

GreyGoose

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "False Support of UOJ Exposed by Layman":

Grey Goose, here are additional quotes from the Confessions which clearly show that the Office of the Keys to remit sins applies only to those who have faith in Christ alone. Also, Luther confirms that changing anything that God instituted, as he instituted it, including the keys, removes God from it and makes it invalid.

Book of Concord
6] Let any one of the adversaries come forth and tell us when remission of sins takes place. O good God, what darkness there is! They doubt whether it is in attrition or in contrition that remission of sins occurs. And if it occurs on account of contrition, what need is there of absolution, what does the power of the keys effect, if sins have been already remitted? Here, indeed, they also labor much more, and wickedly detract from the power of the keys.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_10_repentance.php

From the Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests, “For we must believe and be sure of this, that baptism does not belong to us but to Christ, that the gospel does not belong to us but to Christ, that the office of preaching does not belong to us but to Christ, that the sacrament (of the Lord’s Supper) does not belong to us but to Christ, that the keys, or forgiveness and retention of sins, do not belong to us but to Christ. In summary, the offices and sacraments do not belong to us but to Christ, for he has ordained all this and left it behind as a legacy in the church to be exercised and used to the end of the world; and he does not lie or deceive us. Therefore, we cannot make anything else out of it but must act according to his command and hold to it. However, if we alter it or improve on it, then it is invalid and Christ is no longer present, nor is his ordinance.”

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "False Support of UOJ Exposed by Layman":

Grey Goose is correct - the Lutheran Confession's teaching concerning the Office of the Keys has been perverted by those wanting to establish the false gospel of UOJ as the central article of Christian faith. Here are a few.

Pastor Steven P. Dorn, WELS
Exegesis of Objective Justification Passages
2010 Spring Pastoral Study Conference, April 2010
"Reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself; meaning, he no longer counts against the people of the world, their "trespasses."
In his discourse on the Ministry of the Keys, Luther explains the objective nature of God's verdict of forgiveness apart from faith. …
Page 8
http://scdwels.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/dorn-exegesis-paper.pdf

Pastor Schleicher quoting Siegbert W. Becker
Is Objective Justification Universalism
And the Lord Jesus also promises to stand behind the word of those who speak for him. “Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them.” “They are remitted” is a perfect tense, and we can really say ‘”They have been forgiven long ago,” or as Luther says, “before we prayed or before we ever thought of it.”
Page 11
http://scdwels.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/schleicher-paper.pdf

Siegbert W. Becker
Justification
Page 2
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF

Pastor Kurt Marquart
JUSTIFICATION-0BJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE: A Translation of the Doctrinal Essay Read at the First Convention of the Synodical Conference in 1872
So then the Absolution is an object for our faith and not a mere pointer to faith . The promise must always stand before our eyes, and in it all terrified souls are to seek consolation and forgiveness and be lifted up by it. On the other hand, if faith must be there first , then faith is made into something quite different from what it really is; it is then no longer a grasping and accepting of the existing benefits. [GJ - This is the Eduard Preuss argument, which is never associated with his switch to being a Roman Catholic theologian.]
Page 35
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.marquartjustification.html

(W)ELS CA/AZ DP Pastor Jon Buchholz
Justification, given at the 2005 WELS Convention
“God has forgiven the whole world. God has forgiven everyone his sins.” This statement is absolutely true! This is the heart of the gospel, and it must be preached and taught as the foundation of our faith.
Page 7

“God has forgiven all sins, but the unbeliever rejects God’s forgiveness.” Again, this statement is true—and Luther employed similar terminology to press the point of Christ’s completed work of salvation.16 But we must also recognize that Scripture doesn’t speak this way.
Page 8
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BuchholzJustification.pdf

---

LPC has left a new comment on your post "False Support of UOJ Exposed by Layman":

GreyGoose,

Thanks for the full quote. Your observation is correct, it is the habit of UOJers to pull quotes out of context.

As usual, a text without a context is pretext for promoting false notions and teachings.

Now these people are no ordinary non-seminary trained pastors. No, they are very trained and seminary graduates and yet, and yet, and yet... their arguments and methods are so high-schoolish that a layman applying a bit of discernment will notice how their method is so faulty and scholarship so unreliable.

We would be fools to hand over the health of our souls for their care.

There is such as thing as quack doctors;by analogy, these people are quack pastors.


LPC
Post a Comment