 |
| Bivens and Valleskey always networked. Both went to Fuller and denied it. Both are UOJ advocates. |
AC V has left a new comment on your post "Caution! Caution! - Ignore the Clear Justification...":
Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (WELS) professors sure are allergic to even a hint of justification by faith. Here's Forrest Bivens cautioning readers to a statement Adolf Hoenecke made in his commentary on Quenstedt's view of Christ's righteousness:
He says that the imputation is so powerful that through it the sinner is considered righteous before God's judgment just as if he had rendered the obedience himself (or, just as if he had done it himself). This thought he then develops in this way: The essence of imputation is a real assessment, which absolves the sinning man who believes in Christ [N.B.: this could be misleading] from all his sins before the divine tribunal and actually ascribes to him in a judicial way the righteousness of Christ. - (Hoenecke III, pp 344-345, English edition pp 328-329)
"Getting The Right Message Out – And Getting It Out The Right Way With Special Emphasis on Public Worship and Classroom Instruction" By Forrest L. Bivens; Prepared for and delivered to the Pastor-Teacher-Delegate meeting of the Ohio Conference of the Michigan District on January 20, 2003 in Cincinnati, OH.
---
AC V has left a new comment on your post "Caution! Caution! - Ignore the Clear Justification...":
Now I don't know if Bivens' "[N.B.: this could be misleading]" is quoting Hoenecke or Meyer, Hoenecke's student. Either way, it seems the "cautions" to justification by faith alone just keep getting passed on generation after generation.
4 comments:
According to the Formula of Concord author's, "As announced above, all teachings are to be conformed in this way. What is contrary to these confessions is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith."
I, myself, find that what the "extremist" UOJ-ers (as I like to define them as) speak of is nothing like how the Concordist's speak. They don't speak in the terms or even the ideas of UOJ. This can be proved by even looking at the early Church Fathers.
Just my opinion.
I meant, "They don't speak in the terms or even ideas of [The Book of Concord]. That's what I meant to say.
1580, from my experience all UOJers are extremists. In what way are you differentiating them?
I changed my profile name. I used to be "1580" and now I am the following.
In my experience, there are some who still try to stick to the terms of UOJ yet still say that we receive the Spirit (forgiveness of sins, salvation, etc.) through the Means of Grace. To me, these are the conservatives.
At the same time, there are those, who, in their pastoral theology, teach that all are forgiven before repentance and the Means of Grace (which is of course pure Enthusiasm). With this teaching it degrades the Means of Grace and opens the door to a pure Calvanistic thinking of the Means of Grace (just a remembrance and symbol of what happened 2,000 years ago)
If it were up to me, I would do away with the terms UOJ (to prevent confusion) and just stick to how the BIBLE (yes I capitalized that on my own) and the Confessions speak. Luther warned against using the language of Philosophers to teach the laymen. Because of UOJ it has led us to Calvinism (just a remembrance of the forgiveness of sins already distributed at Calvary) or at best it says that Objective Justification is the Atonement. Either way it's a dangerous way to speak, in my opinion. I say that we should stick to how the Bible teaches and how the Confessions speak of Justification.
Post a Comment