LutherQuest (sic) Dogpile - Experience the Love

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

I had the same experience on Luther Quest (sic). I brought up a question about UOJ which initiated and susstained what might be described as an LQ Dog Pile.

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/69842/68185.html?1200691900

***

GJ - LQ devotes itself to attacking Luther's doctrine. They are so dense that they cannot even spot Robert Preus' repudiation of UOJ.

Calov, The Book of Concord, The Scriptures - All Are in Harmony about Justification by Faith.All Are Opposed to Enthusiasm

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

71] "but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins". http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

29. You cannot extricate yourself from unbelief, nor can the Law do it for you. All your works in intended fulfilment of the Law must remain works of the Law and powerless to justify in the sight of God, who regards as just only believing children.

37. Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing. Through faith it is instantaneously enjoyed, not in part, but all. Truly is it plain, then, that faith alone affords such blessings of God, justification and salvation-- immediately and not in process as must be the case with works

74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems us from under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith. He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed. As he believes, so is it with him. Faith carries with it the child-making spirit. The apostle here explains by saying that Christ has redeemed us from under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sons. As before stated, all must be effected through faith. Now we have discussed the five points of the verse.
http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Galatians4_1_7.html

By the BOC confession above (71) the false gospel of UOJ is destroyed and shown as being false and contrary to Christ and His Righteousness. The doctrinal statements of the ELS, WELS and LCMS all declare the entire unbelieving world righteous in Christ, before and without faith. The BOC states, "by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God." Luther's confession is also clear on Justification and Righteousness by faith alone, "God, who regards as just only believing children."

AC V Declares Debate on Justification Closed - The Fat Lady Has Sung

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Calov on Justification by Faith Alone - Prolific G...":

BA-ZING! Case closed. Game over. The fat lady sang.

Calov on Justification by Faith Alone. Prolific Genius of the Post-Concord Theologians

Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.[1]

---

[1] Apodixis Articulorum Fidei, Lueneburg, 1684. Cited with approval in Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n.       

                                                                                                       

***

GJ - See this excellent essay on Calov, by Timoth Schmeling, quoted in part below.

ABRAHAM CALOV (1612-1686): SAINTED DOCTOR AND DEFENDER OF THE CHURCH
Timothy R. Schmeling

It has been said that Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) was third in the series of Lutheranism’s most preeminent theologians and after him there was no fourth (Fischer. The Life of Johann Gerhard. 98-99). First and second place naturally belong to Martin Luther (1483-1546) and Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) respectively. If one were to speak of a fourth in this distinguished list, the position would no doubt have been assigned to Abraham Calov.

Abraham Calov ranks not only as one of the greatest theologians in Lutheranism, but also as one of the greatest teachers in Christendom. He was a man of exceptional learning and scholastic tendencies. At the same time, he was a man of deep piety and practicality. Very few were impartial in their assessment of Abraham Calov. He was a very polarizing individual. His opponents feared him, but his adherents loved him.

The legacy of Abraham Calov has been tarnished over time. Prior to the recent renaissance, sparked by the rediscovery of missing portions of the Codex Epistolarum theologicarum (his collected letters), Calov research had depicted him as the prototype of a controversialist and a preacher of an unattainable doctrinal orthodoxy. This questionable caricature can be explained by a number of factors. First of all there has been a strong bias against Lutheran Orthodoxy even within Lutheranism. Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781) writes, “Many people want to be Christians, but certainly not Wittenberg Lutheran Christians; certainly not Christians of Calov’s grace” (Lessing. Gesammelte Werke. 170).

In his revisionist History of Lutheranism, Eric Gritsch [GJ - Jim Heiser buddy] denounces the doctrines of verbal inspiration and fellowship as taught by Calov and finally writes him off as Ultraconservative (Gritsch. A History of Lutheranism. 135). Second, the chief nineteenth century biographer of Abraham Calov was a mediating theologian named August Tholuck (1799-1877). This Prussian Union historian [GJ - Halle University, Hoenecke mentor] had more in common with Calov’s syncretistic arch-nemesis than with Calov. Third, there is very little primary source material available on Calov and much of it may not have survived the war or is possibly buried somewhere in the Bibliotheca Gdanska PAN (formerly Stadtsbibliothek Danzig). Finally Calov’s research is a difficult task due to the linguistic, cultural, and intellectual barriers that divide us from this critical juncture in Lutheran history. In spite of these facts, it is the purpose of this paper to help familiarize Lutheranism with one of its lost teachers.

F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part I":

Pr Greg,

Firstly thank you for this Sunday's sermon, it was such a blessing. If only the critics of Ichabod would also take time to listen to your sermons, they would know of a different Greg Jackson.

People should compare what Calov said with the LC-MS Brief Statement 1932 Article 17 (authored by F. Pieper?)

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ,.

They should see how different this article is from the statement made by Calov.

LPC

***

GJ - What irritates me most is the UOJ Stormtroopers using Calov and Gerhard to advance their cult. Neither theologian is well known or read by clergy. One might as well claim the ancient Egyptian oracle as an ally, saying "She was 100% UOJ."

The Scripture citations for the Brief Statement declaration are utterly deceitful, but I have always found UOJ followers to be dishonest. I find it shocking that this Pieper statement was accepted by people reading Gausewitz and the old Missouri catechism. That suggests that teaching the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace was supplanted by teaching worship of the synod.

The personal attacks only mean that I have pulled the rug out from under their Enthusiasm. The most significant response is the unspoken "You do not exist and therefore I do not need to acknowledge anything you have written." I only wish they would acknowledge Luther and the Book of Concord. I do not mind enraging them if they have to run to the Confessions to support their dubious claims.

I went a few rounds with people on LutherQuest (sic). They were consistently dishonest. For instance, one would quote the Book of Concord and exult - "UOJ!" I would cite the same passage with the next sentence where justification by faith was clearly taught. They were citing atonement passages as UOJ proof.

Rolf Preus was a curious example. He asked for the justification chapter in Thy Strong Word while I was working on it. He wrote back that he agreed. When TSW was barely finished, he told the LQ denizens that he had already read the book (640 pages) and denounced it. That was before sending PDFs or downloading them through Lulu, which I was not yet using.

I responded to Rolf, pointing out the facts (no one had the book) and quoting his email. His pals immediately buried my comment with a ton of theirs. That happened often. A friend of mine said, "Why bother with that skunk patch?" so I quit.

Of course, not one of them can grasp what Robert Preus wrote in Justification and Rome.

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "F. Pieper versus Calov and the Book of Concord":

I had the same experience on Luther Quest (sic). I brought up a question about UOJ which initiated and sustained what might be described as an LQ Dog Pile.

http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/69842/68185.html?1200691900

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part I

Robert Preus, Justification and Rome

Dr. Robert Preus is known for advocating UOJ in the 1980s, when Concordia Seminary in Ft. Wayne was also deep into Church Growth Enthusiasm.[1] In his last book, edited after his death by his sons Daniel and Rolf, his clear stance against UOJ is obvious.

When does the imputation of Christ’s righteousness take place? It did not take place when Christ, by doing and suffering, finished the work of atonement and reconciled the world to God. Then and there, when the sins of the world were imputed to Him and He took them, Christ became our righteousness and procured for us remission of sin, justification, and eternal life. “By thus making satisfaction He procured and merited (acquisivit et promeruit) for each and every man remission of all sins, exemption from all punishments of sin, grace and peace with God, eternal righteousness and salvation.”[2]

But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism and the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfilled and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith.[3] 

Quenstedt says, It is not the same thing to say, “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us” and to say “Christ is our righteousness.” For the imputation did not take place when Christ became our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is the effect of His office. The imputation is the application of the effect of His office. The one, however, does not do away with the other.  Christ is our righteousness effectively when He justifies us. His righteousness is ours objectively because our faith rests in Him. His righteousness is ours formally in that His righteousness is imputed to us.[4]

Preus quoted this statement from Calov with approval, which is worth repeating -

Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.[5]

I understand these two passages to be a repudiation of UOJ and an apology for all the harm done in the name of that fad.

---

[1] "In an initial burst of enthusiasm reflecting Preus's concern for missions, the Fort Wayne faculty had petitioned the 1977 convention of the Missouri Synod to have each of its subdivisions or districts ‘make a thorough study of the Church Growth materials.’ What is more, the districts were to be urged to ‘organize, equip, and place into action all of the Church Growth principles as needed in the evangelization of our nation and the world under the norms of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.’ By the time of the 1986 synodical convention, however, the same faculty, while appreciating the ‘valuable lessons of common sense’ to be learned from Church Growth, asked that ‘the Synod warn against the Arminian and charismatic nature of the church-growth movement.’ Kurt E. Marquart, "Robert D. Preus," Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed., Walter A. Elwell, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995, pp. 353-65. Reprinted in Christian News, 6-26-95, p. 21.                                               

[2] R. Preus footnote: Systema, Par. II, Cap.3, Memb. 2 S. 1, Th. 44 (II, 363). Cf. Abraham Calov, Apodixis Articulorum Fidei (Lueneburg, 1684), 249: “Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God’s children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.” Justification and Rome, footnote 74, p. 131.

[3] Robert D. Preus Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 72.

[4] Systema, Par. III, Cap. 8, S. 2, q. 5, Observatio 19 (II, 787). R. Preus footnote #76, Justification and Rome, p. 132.

[5] Apodixis Articulorum Fidei, Lueneburg, 1684. Cited in Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n.           

                                                                                                   

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part II

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part IIII

Robert Preus - Justification by Faith, Part IV