"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 (sic) distinction."
Daniel Deutschlander, 1977
7 comments:
Don't the Americans have a name for this reasoning?
I think they call it 'lame'.
Well if the understanding of faith was gone, what is the solution? Just go back to on the way they understood it and not invent new categories.
LPC
"...they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them."
If Justification is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, don't you think the Fathers would have covered UOJ as an Article?
I would give the Fathers more credit for knowing what the doctrine of Justification is and is not than Daniel Deutschlander, 1977 does.
I was astounded too. Deutschlander is very respected as a teacher. He hated Church Growth. This shows the pervasive influence of Pietism, which I suspect had the most influence through Wauwatosa.
"Ad fontes" was the clarion call of the Wauwatosa theologians. "The BoC is skewing our understanding of Justification and the Ministry. We must look to the Scriptures alone."
The Wauwatosa "ad fontes" got us "UOJ" and "Every Member a Minister."
The Fathers went "ad fontes" too, and they gave us AC IV and V, crystal clear confessions of Justification by faith alone and the Ministry by which faith comes.
Ad fontes is not the problem, the problem is bad exegesis. Ad fontes is very laudable.
We should not fault the principle of going back to the Scriptures, it is the corrupt taking of Scriptures, that is the problem.
LPC
LPC,
I appreciate your point. I wonder, however, how seriously the Wauwatosa Theologians appreciated this phrase (in bold) from the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession:
"Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches."
While being careful not to give them the same authority as Scripture, it seems to me the Fathers considered the beneficial traditions of the "Church Catholic" to be very important in maintaining the true faith.
There is a way of worship and ecclesiology that by long use has proved most beneficial in proclaiming and maintaining pure doctrine.
New ways of worship and ecclesiology that are far different from those of the "Church Catholic" usually are a reflection of "ungodly doctrine creeping into our churches."
The "ad fontes" of the Wauwatosa theologians ought to have included the "ceremonies" and "Church Catholic" of the AC Conclusion, not above or equal to the Scriptures, but as a testimony of the Spirit's working in the Church.
These two passages come to mind from St. Paul:
"All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up" (I Cor. 10:23).
And:
"For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (I Cor. 11:19).
Post a Comment