Leonard Woods Junior
|Here's your Calvinist inventor of Objective and Subjective Justification.|
He was a superstar and translated Knapp's Halle University dogmatics book,
which summarized Knapp's lecture content.
Stephan studied at Halle, and Walther learned UOJ from Stephan.
Biography of Leonard Woods, Senior and Junior - 1911 Encyclopedia.
Luther was wary of wedding Biblical theology to ancient philosophy. Melanchthon loved philosophy. As I recall, he published an edition of Aristotle shortly after Luther died.
Luther could argue Medieval philosophical theology with the best. See his Galatians Commentary for an example. However, his writing never depended upon it. Paul did the same thing with eloquence. He could showboat when needed but eschewed it.
Melanchthon and Chemnitz kept the philosphical terms under control, but the later orthodox theologians got more involved with complicated Latin terms. Some think this tendency spawned Pietism, because divinity students were taught to have philosophical arguments instead of studying the Bible.
Spener and his followers were radical in introducing Biblical studies and people flocked to them. Walther joined a Pietistic cell group that drifted over to Martin Stephan's cell group ministry, once the earlier leader moved away and died within the year.
Walther and Pieper introduced a Talmudic approach to theology at Concordia Seminary. F. Pieper is a good example of the mummification of Waltherian theory. There seems to be a Latin term for everything, with various sub-divisions, detours, and dead ends.
The Talmud gets Jewish readers so far away from the original text that no time is spent on God's Word, but much is spent with what various people said about various people addressing some of the original scholars.
|This nonsense comes from seminary students never learning the Means of Grace,|
never trusting in the Gospel.
Subjective and Objective Are Philosophical Terms
No one can find "objective" and "subjective" justification in the Bible or the Book of Concord. Even the UOJ Enthusiasts admit that the Bible only speaks of justification by faith. The Book of Concord never mentions this mysterious "objective justification," because the term and the concept were foreign to Luther and the Concordists.
UOJ was around, at least from Samuel Huber's time. He was semi-converted Calvinist who taught at Wittenberg until the faculty rejected the very concept that Jay Webber and David Valleskey champion - a universal declaration of forgiveness, without the Word, without the Means of Grace, without faith.
P. Leyser rebuked Huber, and Leyser was an editor of the Book of Concord. No one is forgiven without faith in Christ.
Strangely, Walther did not introduce double-justification, but he adopted it later, as the English terms drifted across the Atlantic and lodged in German theological literature. Walther saw the double-justification terms and solemnly decared, "It is good."
Walther and Pieper had a nifty system for locking students into thetical, philosophical statements. By the time they graduated, they had more answers than questions. My tentative theory, borrowed from a researcher, is that Walther generated the election controversy to back up his UOJ scheme. That way he could accuse everyone of false doctrine without dealing with the content of the Book of Concord.
Do the UOJ fanatics deal with the Scriptures and Confessions? No, they go back to their OJ and SJ, and quickly yell "intuitu fidei." If they are Mequon graduates, they may write that as Inuit Fidei, as Glende did. Can they even explain that concept? They do not need to, because that is the response.
One good test of doctrine is whether the concept can be communicated in a simple, easy to understand way, so that child-like faith can grasp it. But UOJ is just the opposite. When the Lutheran Talmudists are done, the audience says, "Your kidding." (Remember, they are WELS, so don't knock the spelling.)
|Make a decision for UOJ.|
|Romans 4:24? Romans 4? |
Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
|UOJ and Church Growth go together like ketchup and french fries.|
|Luther said the same thing, in various ways,|
but who was he compared to Walther,
the devoted follower of the syphilitic bishop?
quercuscontramalum (http://quercuscontramalum.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Philosophical Terms Are Not Necessary And Can Be H...":
The quote from WELS Stewardship gets my goat. "If God's people aren't regularly using their talents at worship, should it really be called worship?"
Ps51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
GJ - When I see garbage like that from synodical pets, it makes me laugh, because those individuals are just dying to prove they went to Fuller, Trinity Divinity, and Willow Creek.