ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Left-wing, National Council of Churches denominations.
Martin Luther Sermons
Bethany Lutheran Hymnal Blog
Bethany Lutheran Church P.O. Box 6561 Springdale AR 72766 Reformation Seminary Lectures USA, Canada, Australia, Philippines 10 AM Central - Sunday Service
We use The Lutheran Hymnal and the King James Version
Luther's Sermons: Lenker Edition
Click here for all previous YouTube Videos
Friday, November 9, 2012
Security Breach at WELS Love Shack
Someone sent me a parish distribution of WELS material, called Missions Update. I thought it was going to brag about the WELS gift to The CORE to buy the stinky old bar for more than $500,000, plus a loan to remodel it. But no. Ski bragged about it in the local Appleton, Wisconsin newspaper, but WELS is keeping it a secret.
And if it is a secret, it never happened.
DP in the hoosegow? Never happened. Murders? Never happened.
And here is the clincher on the bottom of the fancy hand-out.
For security reasons, please do not use any part of the newsletter information in your congregation's publicity--either online or in emails.
WELS is deathly afraid of people finding out the truth, even when they brag about the news to raise more funds.
---
bruce-church (https://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Security Breach at WELS Love Shack":
Well, they say they don't want the Chinese or Muslims, etc., to find out about their mission successes for fear of interference. For bulletin inserts, they sometimes purge the flyer of identifying details, and even leave the country out. The pastor (or WELS Connection video) is [missing "not"?] supposed to verbally mention the country.
***
GJ - No new secrets were spilled in this post.
Grasping at Rambach Straws - Last Words of a Dying Dogma
Nothing to see here - move on dot org. |
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Martin Chemnitz, Justification by Faith Theologian...":
It is interesting indeed to find Pr. Webber citing Rambach. Yet if you read Rambach's interpretation of 1 Tim 3:16, it is obvious he was not agreeing with Chemnitz, it is because he was adding to what Chemnitz. Whereas Chemnitz stopped where Scripture stopped Rambach added more... he added..
But since the Substitute was now justified, then in him also all debtors were co-justified."
This is clearly a deduction, a rationalisation. [GJ - Roman Catholic dogma uses the same approach. The papalists say - Mary offered up her Son at the crucifixion, much like a priest offering the sacrifice of the Mass, so she can justly be called the Co-Redeemer, the Mediatrix of all Graces.]
I can only say that UOjers wanted to a.) make Rambach look as if he agreed with Chemnitz, b.) to support the additional sentence, the justification of the co-debtors automatically.
Chemnitz implied no such thing as shown by Pr. Rydecki.
UOJers do not only twist Scripture, they twist the words of orthodox Lutherans too.
LPC
**
GJ - Buchholz was so-o-o-o desperate in his latest UOJ pratfall that Rambach, a Pietist with sterling Halle credentials, became his life-preserver. The life-preserver was donated by the Portland Cement Company.
A Lutheran layman from way back contacted me. He reads Luther, the Book of Concord, Luther, Luther, and Luther. He was furious that anyone would promote forgiveness without faith. That is why the Synodical Conference wants to keep this from being discussed. Their one and only dogma is contrary to Scripture, antithetical to Luther, and opposed to the Book of Concord.
The more they are pushed, the more the UOJ Enthusiasts rely on Pietists - as they must. Whatever the origins of UOJ, the petri dish was Pietism.
Marquart did not rely on Luther or the Concordists, because he could not. A natural way to find an earlier Easter absolution was to latch onto Rambach, who has a hymn in The Lutheran Hymnal. Quite a few Pietists do, because the Concord era was followed by Pietism, Halle University, and then rationalism.
Like No Call Paul McCain, Jay Webber has not matured beyond his days at Concordia, Ft. Wayne, when Church Growth and UOJ blossomed and set fruit. Webber became the midwife for Buchholz' reliance on Rambach. That finally caused a dust-up, some months ago on the Intrepid Lutherans, when Webber promoted Rambach and another obscure figure, Quistorp, to back his hellish dogma. If you think Rambach is unknown, then try to find Quistorp on the Google radar. Quistorp makes Rambach look like a rock star in comparison.
So here is the line of authorities: Rambach to Marquart to Webber to Buchholz. The foundation of Luther and the Book of Concord is missing. When Webber or Buchholz tries to fix that with a citation, the deception is obvious. Above is the complete section of the Apology, when they cite only what they imagine serves their demonic dogma.
Below is the justification by faith section, which Webber and Buchholz omit. This happened also on LutherQuest, and I pointed out the obvious head-fake attempted there.
When District President Buchholz spoke to the congregation in New Mexico, he referred to Martin Luther as "Uncle Marty" more than once, grinning like the con-artist he is.
I contend that the DP's behavior is revealing - showing a contempt for Luther's doctrine at a serious moment in a congregation's life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgwGiF0-mlE
- I’d rather have Rambach with silver and gold;
I’d rather be Pietist with riches untold;
I’d rather have Rambach with houses and lands;
I’d rather be led by the Halle U. band.- Refrain:
And to be the king of a vast domain
And be held in sin’s dread sway;
I’d rather have Rambach than anything
The Gospel affords today.
- Refrain:
- I’d rather have Spener with men’s applause;
I’d rather be faithful to UOJ's cause;
I’d rather have Rambach and worldwide fame;
I’d rather be true to Halle U's name. - They're fairer than roses or sauerkraut;
They're sweeter than Thrivent grants without doubt;
They're all that my Old Adam needs;
I’d rather have Rambach and let him lead.
---
Pastor emeritus
Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Grasping
at Rambach Straws - Last Words of a Dying...":
Ichabod -
Excellent hymn, here:
"I’d rather have Rambach with silver and gold;......."
I would almost bet that if you would check with CPH'S, McNasty [Mary Lactation specialist enthusiast], that he could arrange his publishing company to publish your hymn. After all, isn't he and his CPH, publishing the Apocrypha?
Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org
Ichabod -
Excellent hymn, here:
"I’d rather have Rambach with silver and gold;......."
I would almost bet that if you would check with CPH'S, McNasty [Mary Lactation specialist enthusiast], that he could arrange his publishing company to publish your hymn. After all, isn't he and his CPH, publishing the Apocrypha?
Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org
The Outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury. VirtueOnline - News
VirtueOnline - News:
AUCKLAND, NZ: Analyzing Rowan
By David W. Virtue in Auckland
www.virtueonline.org
November 7, 2012
In his final presidential address Sunday evening, the Archbishop of Canterbury told the Anglican Communion not to accept second best, but to seek a balance between "corrective authority" and "enabling authority" while still doing God's work.
VOL: That's a bit like driving the family limo into a lake and then denying you did it. The NT makes no such distinction. If Jesus had told the woman caught in adultery "go and sin no more" (corrective authority) without the first part "neither do I condemn thee" (enabling authority), He would have only gotten it half right. He didn't. Williams did.
Speaking in St Mary's Church, Auckland, Williams opined that the fellowship of Anglican churches worldwide needs to "be aware of the danger of becoming less than we aspire to be as a Communion. I think that we do aspire to be a consensual catholic and orthodox family."
VOL: About the only thing consensual in Anglicanism is the western half of the communion approving of consensual sex between people of the same sex. We are not remotely catholic except in the generic sense of being universal, but certainly not in theology and we are not (laughably) orthodox. About 90% of the folk here at ACC-15 are liberals and revisionists with at least two homosexuals (one male the other female). Only a small handful is orthodox. They put out a statement condemning this whole event. You can read it here: http://tinyurl.com/auh4fbm. What "orthodox family" is he talking about? It is laughable to think that Katharine Jefferts Schori is orthodox in ANY sense of the word.
RW: I believe we do aspire to be a family that lives in mutual respect and recognition. And to step back from that simply into a federal model ... doesn't seem to me to be the best and the greatest that God is asking from us as an Anglican family.
VOL: Mutual respect... How much respect does he think Katharine Jefferts Schori has for the dwindling orthodox in The Episcopal Church? Is he being serious? She has just inhibited South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence, (with deposition to follow). She has issued summons, notices, and what amounts to cease and desist orders to nine other orthodox bishops in TEC demanding conciliation, whatever that means? This is "mutual respect and recognition". What world is Rowan living in?
Archbishop Williams said he believed Anglicans have a message to give the Christian world about how they can be "both catholic and orthodox and consensual, working in freedom, mutual respect and mutual restraint, without jeopardizing the important local autonomy of our churches."
VOL: That all depends on who is delivering the message. The message from the Global South who make up 75% to 80% of the communion is solidly evangelical - a message of sin and grace. The Western (read northern) Liberal Anglican part of the communion has no discernible gospel. It is about inclusion, diversity, interfaith, social action and much more. It has nothing to do with the Great Commission and fighting for lost souls. There are TWO very distinct and different messages coming forth from the Anglican Communion: one comes from the Bible and the other comes a combination of the New York Times, The Advocate (world's leading gay magazine), and National Public Radio. The two are not remotely connected.
Williams stressed that the Anglican Communion needs to work on the convergence of the different schemes and systems across member churches and find "a legal spirit, an ethos that they share by consent and exploration and discovery rather than by kicking the whole issue upstairs to some higher legal authority."
VOL: What the blazes does that mean? If Scripture is not the church's final authority in all matters of faith and life, "kicking the whole issue upstairs" sounds like a transcendent answer, but it is not what Rowan is looking for. He wants a humanist one where we muddle around and stir the pot in community of course, till something emerges out of the Communion cauldron that looks vaguely like the answer. If that is true, where does that leave his Covenant?
Rowan Williams returned to the theme of authority time and again. He suggested that the Instruments of Communion should not only have reactive or corrective authority, but also enabling authority. "When people say of Jesus he speaks with authority ... I don't think they mean he's just a good problem-solver; those words occur when Jesus has performed spectacular acts of liberation. The authority in question is an authority to act and an authority to make a difference, an authority that enables and empowers."
VOL: What authority does the fourth Instrument of Unity really have or the arechbishop for that matter? There were less than 80 people here. The handful of orthodox in attendance did not believe much of what came out of here. Witness their statement here: http://tinyurl.com/auh4fbm.They said the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council avoids the real crisis in the Anglican Communion. "Since Lambeth Conference 1998, the ongoing conflict in our beloved Communion continues to be a crisis of Gospel truth, not only regarding matters of human sexuality but the authority of Holy Scripture as the Word of God written and the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ the Son of God."
RW: When I look back over ten years in this office, it does seem to me that every attempt we've made to pin down exactly how reactive or corrective authority works in our Anglican family has run into the sand in one way or another. We've tried to pin it down clearly here or there ... but that frustration, that discovery that it's actually very hard to find absolutely clear sources of authority, has to do of course with the fact that we are a family of churches, each one of which has its own ways of reacting, correcting and setting boundaries."
VOL: The Global South thinks the church has a clear source of authority: HOLY SCRIPTURE. The Global South did set boundaries with Lambeth 1:10 and a number of books on the state of the Anglican Communion, including To Mend the Net, all of which were ignored. The "family of churches" argument is disingenuous. The "family" in Nigeria under Archbishop Okoh has the same authority as the "family" in Pittsburgh under Bishop Duncan. It's the other families who are out of step with them as they have no authority but themselves, their feelings and "my pain" of exclusion. The liberals have no objective authority and neither does Rowan Williams.
Admitting that the Instruments of Communion are "less than they might be," Archbishop Williams said examples of their desire to enable included such proactive projects as the Anglican Alliance, the Bible in the Life of the Church Project, Continuing Indaba, and promoting theological education. These are, he said, attempts by the Instruments to change a situation by being creative. Archbishop Williams also suggested that younger Anglicans seemed more interested in one kind of authority over another.
VOL: This is all smoke and mirrors. None of the above will ever hold the communion together. Continuing Indaba is all about "relationships", "process" and "context" but never about conclusion because that would mean someone was right and someone was wrong and Indaba won't allow that, according to Philip Groves who heads The Listening Process. In the words of St. Paul to Timothy, "...ever seeking but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3:7) Theological education is being done by and for liberals, there are virtually no orthodox voices doing the kind of theological education the orthodox west or Global South will accept or buy into. The very fact that most TEC dioceses will not permit graduates from Trinity School for Ministry (TSM) into their dioceses says it all. Some liberal TEC bishops openly despise evangelicals even though they are the only priests capable of making churches grow. Witness the birth and growth of the Anglican Church in North America.
RW: So we stand at a very interesting and, I would dare to say, in spite of everything a very promising moment in our Communion, when we are thinking again about how our Instruments of Communion assist us to be the Church ... how to be the Body of Christ. That's what the Instruments have to serve. "In other words, the Instruments of Communion are there so that our Anglican family and Anglican faithful will show to the world that the new creation truly is new, that the Church truly is different."
Archbishop Williams gave thanks to God for the flourishing of Anglican Communion Networks, which were represented at this 15th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council.
VOL: That's a fiction. The Global South is not buying any of this. They smell a skunk in the room. They are totally fed up with the Instruments of Unity they are now baying at the gates of Lambeth palace and the Houses of Parliament saying they want an orthodox Primate to run the Communion. They don't want another archbishop handpicked by liberals from the Crown Nomination Commission and the PM to decide who should be their next leader. The Truth is the Anglican Communion is standing on the cliff edge and unless a solid evangelical takes the helm of the Church it will tumble right over the edge.
RW: I believe that the creativity of those networks at the moment is a sign that God is stirring up in our Communion deeply different ways of working which will not, of course, immediately solve the problems I began with, the problems that require the reactive or the corrective, but which at least tell us that God does not necessarily wait until we've solved our problems to enable us to be effective disciples.
VOL: Yes. The Communion is being stirred up and it is God working through men like Archbishop Okoh, Orombi, Zavala, Anis and others like Bishop Nazir Ali and Lord George Carey who are doing it. The latter two are on the front edge of the Culture Wars in England. Yes, God is working through his disciples however weak they might be, but even the weakest disciple who loves Jesus has the gospel in his or her bones while the liberals have no message at all to proclaim.
RW: When we stand before the throne of God, it will be a very poor answer if when God says 'Why did you not preach the gospel and serve the poor?' we say, 'We had too many internal problems to resolve, we couldn't quite decide who had the authority to pronounce things.' God expects us to be disciples today, not the day after tomorrow.
VOL: Good question Rowan. Your best. The truth is the mostly pro pansexual West is not preaching the gospel and that's the problem. And yes we do have scriptural authority to say, "thus saith the Lord". We have an obligation to preach the gospel, to announce Good News and judgment when that news is rejected. Thus it ever was.
END
'via Blog this'
AUCKLAND, NZ: Analyzing Rowan
By David W. Virtue in Auckland
www.virtueonline.org
November 7, 2012
In his final presidential address Sunday evening, the Archbishop of Canterbury told the Anglican Communion not to accept second best, but to seek a balance between "corrective authority" and "enabling authority" while still doing God's work.
VOL: That's a bit like driving the family limo into a lake and then denying you did it. The NT makes no such distinction. If Jesus had told the woman caught in adultery "go and sin no more" (corrective authority) without the first part "neither do I condemn thee" (enabling authority), He would have only gotten it half right. He didn't. Williams did.
Speaking in St Mary's Church, Auckland, Williams opined that the fellowship of Anglican churches worldwide needs to "be aware of the danger of becoming less than we aspire to be as a Communion. I think that we do aspire to be a consensual catholic and orthodox family."
VOL: About the only thing consensual in Anglicanism is the western half of the communion approving of consensual sex between people of the same sex. We are not remotely catholic except in the generic sense of being universal, but certainly not in theology and we are not (laughably) orthodox. About 90% of the folk here at ACC-15 are liberals and revisionists with at least two homosexuals (one male the other female). Only a small handful is orthodox. They put out a statement condemning this whole event. You can read it here: http://tinyurl.com/auh4fbm. What "orthodox family" is he talking about? It is laughable to think that Katharine Jefferts Schori is orthodox in ANY sense of the word.
RW: I believe we do aspire to be a family that lives in mutual respect and recognition. And to step back from that simply into a federal model ... doesn't seem to me to be the best and the greatest that God is asking from us as an Anglican family.
VOL: Mutual respect... How much respect does he think Katharine Jefferts Schori has for the dwindling orthodox in The Episcopal Church? Is he being serious? She has just inhibited South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence, (with deposition to follow). She has issued summons, notices, and what amounts to cease and desist orders to nine other orthodox bishops in TEC demanding conciliation, whatever that means? This is "mutual respect and recognition". What world is Rowan living in?
Archbishop Williams said he believed Anglicans have a message to give the Christian world about how they can be "both catholic and orthodox and consensual, working in freedom, mutual respect and mutual restraint, without jeopardizing the important local autonomy of our churches."
VOL: That all depends on who is delivering the message. The message from the Global South who make up 75% to 80% of the communion is solidly evangelical - a message of sin and grace. The Western (read northern) Liberal Anglican part of the communion has no discernible gospel. It is about inclusion, diversity, interfaith, social action and much more. It has nothing to do with the Great Commission and fighting for lost souls. There are TWO very distinct and different messages coming forth from the Anglican Communion: one comes from the Bible and the other comes a combination of the New York Times, The Advocate (world's leading gay magazine), and National Public Radio. The two are not remotely connected.
Williams stressed that the Anglican Communion needs to work on the convergence of the different schemes and systems across member churches and find "a legal spirit, an ethos that they share by consent and exploration and discovery rather than by kicking the whole issue upstairs to some higher legal authority."
VOL: What the blazes does that mean? If Scripture is not the church's final authority in all matters of faith and life, "kicking the whole issue upstairs" sounds like a transcendent answer, but it is not what Rowan is looking for. He wants a humanist one where we muddle around and stir the pot in community of course, till something emerges out of the Communion cauldron that looks vaguely like the answer. If that is true, where does that leave his Covenant?
Rowan Williams returned to the theme of authority time and again. He suggested that the Instruments of Communion should not only have reactive or corrective authority, but also enabling authority. "When people say of Jesus he speaks with authority ... I don't think they mean he's just a good problem-solver; those words occur when Jesus has performed spectacular acts of liberation. The authority in question is an authority to act and an authority to make a difference, an authority that enables and empowers."
VOL: What authority does the fourth Instrument of Unity really have or the arechbishop for that matter? There were less than 80 people here. The handful of orthodox in attendance did not believe much of what came out of here. Witness their statement here: http://tinyurl.com/auh4fbm.They said the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council avoids the real crisis in the Anglican Communion. "Since Lambeth Conference 1998, the ongoing conflict in our beloved Communion continues to be a crisis of Gospel truth, not only regarding matters of human sexuality but the authority of Holy Scripture as the Word of God written and the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ the Son of God."
RW: When I look back over ten years in this office, it does seem to me that every attempt we've made to pin down exactly how reactive or corrective authority works in our Anglican family has run into the sand in one way or another. We've tried to pin it down clearly here or there ... but that frustration, that discovery that it's actually very hard to find absolutely clear sources of authority, has to do of course with the fact that we are a family of churches, each one of which has its own ways of reacting, correcting and setting boundaries."
VOL: The Global South thinks the church has a clear source of authority: HOLY SCRIPTURE. The Global South did set boundaries with Lambeth 1:10 and a number of books on the state of the Anglican Communion, including To Mend the Net, all of which were ignored. The "family of churches" argument is disingenuous. The "family" in Nigeria under Archbishop Okoh has the same authority as the "family" in Pittsburgh under Bishop Duncan. It's the other families who are out of step with them as they have no authority but themselves, their feelings and "my pain" of exclusion. The liberals have no objective authority and neither does Rowan Williams.
Admitting that the Instruments of Communion are "less than they might be," Archbishop Williams said examples of their desire to enable included such proactive projects as the Anglican Alliance, the Bible in the Life of the Church Project, Continuing Indaba, and promoting theological education. These are, he said, attempts by the Instruments to change a situation by being creative. Archbishop Williams also suggested that younger Anglicans seemed more interested in one kind of authority over another.
VOL: This is all smoke and mirrors. None of the above will ever hold the communion together. Continuing Indaba is all about "relationships", "process" and "context" but never about conclusion because that would mean someone was right and someone was wrong and Indaba won't allow that, according to Philip Groves who heads The Listening Process. In the words of St. Paul to Timothy, "...ever seeking but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3:7) Theological education is being done by and for liberals, there are virtually no orthodox voices doing the kind of theological education the orthodox west or Global South will accept or buy into. The very fact that most TEC dioceses will not permit graduates from Trinity School for Ministry (TSM) into their dioceses says it all. Some liberal TEC bishops openly despise evangelicals even though they are the only priests capable of making churches grow. Witness the birth and growth of the Anglican Church in North America.
RW: So we stand at a very interesting and, I would dare to say, in spite of everything a very promising moment in our Communion, when we are thinking again about how our Instruments of Communion assist us to be the Church ... how to be the Body of Christ. That's what the Instruments have to serve. "In other words, the Instruments of Communion are there so that our Anglican family and Anglican faithful will show to the world that the new creation truly is new, that the Church truly is different."
Archbishop Williams gave thanks to God for the flourishing of Anglican Communion Networks, which were represented at this 15th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council.
VOL: That's a fiction. The Global South is not buying any of this. They smell a skunk in the room. They are totally fed up with the Instruments of Unity they are now baying at the gates of Lambeth palace and the Houses of Parliament saying they want an orthodox Primate to run the Communion. They don't want another archbishop handpicked by liberals from the Crown Nomination Commission and the PM to decide who should be their next leader. The Truth is the Anglican Communion is standing on the cliff edge and unless a solid evangelical takes the helm of the Church it will tumble right over the edge.
RW: I believe that the creativity of those networks at the moment is a sign that God is stirring up in our Communion deeply different ways of working which will not, of course, immediately solve the problems I began with, the problems that require the reactive or the corrective, but which at least tell us that God does not necessarily wait until we've solved our problems to enable us to be effective disciples.
VOL: Yes. The Communion is being stirred up and it is God working through men like Archbishop Okoh, Orombi, Zavala, Anis and others like Bishop Nazir Ali and Lord George Carey who are doing it. The latter two are on the front edge of the Culture Wars in England. Yes, God is working through his disciples however weak they might be, but even the weakest disciple who loves Jesus has the gospel in his or her bones while the liberals have no message at all to proclaim.
RW: When we stand before the throne of God, it will be a very poor answer if when God says 'Why did you not preach the gospel and serve the poor?' we say, 'We had too many internal problems to resolve, we couldn't quite decide who had the authority to pronounce things.' God expects us to be disciples today, not the day after tomorrow.
VOL: Good question Rowan. Your best. The truth is the mostly pro pansexual West is not preaching the gospel and that's the problem. And yes we do have scriptural authority to say, "thus saith the Lord". We have an obligation to preach the gospel, to announce Good News and judgment when that news is rejected. Thus it ever was.
END
'via Blog this'
Labels:
Apostasy,
Church of England,
Episcopal Church
The Double-Talk They Learn from Their Secret Initiation Ritual
Is Useful for Double-Justification
Woods was a Calvinist and Knapp a Pietist, so people who agree with Luther's justification by faith are Calvinists? Please explain. |
Although
a thorough study of the entire Universal Objective Justification essay is
beneficial it is not necessary to move beyond the first page in order to skewer
the primary focus and objective of this heretical essay. I’ll even
quote Buchholz to disprove Buchholz.
Buchholz,
“Nevertheless, the primary focus in this paper is showing that the basis for the
doctrine is Scripture itself. Additionally helpful in treating the subject,
the writings of church fathers, Lutheran dogmaticians, the Lutheran
Confessions, and Luther himself, speak in harmony with Scripture in teaching
that the whole world was forgiven and acquitted in Christ at the cross and empty
tomb.” Page 1
Today McCain is honoring Chemnitz as a great theologian. Recently he mocked those who promote Romanism. As St. Bernard, lower left, said - "I'll drink to that!" |
The
Lutheran Confessions – The Christian Book of Concord
67]
"Faith cometh by hearing. And proof can be derived even from this that faith
justifies, because, if justification occurs only through the Word, and
the Word is apprehended only by faith, it follows that faith
justifies."
“69]
Now we will show that faith [and nothing else] justifies. Here, in the
first place, readers must be admonished of this, that just as it is necessary to
maintain this sentence: Christ is Mediator, so is it necessary to defend that
faith justifies, [without works]. For how will Christ be Mediator if in
justification we do not use Him as Mediator; if we do not hold that for His
sake we are accounted righteous? But to believe is to trust in the merits of
Christ, that for His sake God certainly wishes to be reconciled with us.
70] Likewise, just as we ought to maintain that, apart from the Law, the promise
of Christ is necessary, so also is it needful to maintain that faith justifies.
[For the Law does not preach the forgiveness of sin by grace.] For the Law
cannot be performed unless the Holy Ghost be first received. It is,
therefore, needful to maintain that the promise of Christ is necessary. But this
cannot be received except by faith. Therefore, those who deny that faith
justifies, teach nothing but the Law, both Christ and the Gospel being set
aside.
71] But
when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it of the
beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of justification or preparation
for justification, so that not faith itself is that through which we are
accepted by God, but the works which follow; and they dream, accordingly,
that faith is highly praised, because it is the beginning. For great is the
importance of the beginning, as they commonly say, Arch; h{misu pantov", The
beginning is half of everything; just as if one would say that grammar makes the
teachers of all arts, because it prepares for other arts, although in fact it is
his own art that renders every one an artist. We do not believe thus concerning
faith, but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are
for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. 72] 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.
80] AAC
That We Obtain The Remission of Sins By Faith Alone In Christ, "The wrath of God
cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has
been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become
reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by
faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins when we comfort
our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake."
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?…"
Martin Luther faithfully taught justification by faith. |
Martin
Luther
12. As
before said, they regard faith of slight importance; for they do not
understand that it is our sole justifier. To accept as true the record of
Christ--this they call faith. The devils have the same sort of faith, but it
does not make them godly. Such belief is not Christian faith; no, it is rather
deception.
15.
...You see how they make faith of no value to themselves, and so must regard as
heresy all doctrine based upon it. Thus they do away with the whole Gospel.
These are they who deny the Christian faith and exterminate it from the world.
Paul prophesied concerning them when he said (1 Tim 4, 1): "In later times some
shall fall away from the faith." The voice of faith is now silenced all over the
world. Indeed, faith is condemned and banished as the worst heresy, and all who
teach and endorse it are condemned with it. The Pope, the bishops, charitable
institutions, cloisters, high schools, unanimously opposed it for nearly four
hundred years, and simply drove the world violently into hell. Their conduct
is the real persecution by Antichrist, in the last times.
22.
Now, the Cain-like saints have not, as they themselves confess, the Christian
faith which would assure them of being the children of God.
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.
2005
Buchholz
"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. But here’s where the caveat comes in: In Scripture,
the word "forgive" is used almost exclusively in a personal, not a universal
sense. The Bible doesn’t make the statement, "God has forgiven the
world."
"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."
"God has declared the
entire world righteous." This statement is true, as we understand it to mean
that God has rendered a verdict of "not-guilty" toward the entire world. It is
also true—and must be taught—that the righteousness of Christ now stands in
place of the world’s sin; this is the whole point of what Jesus did for us at
Calvary. However, once again we're wresting a term out of its usual context.
In Scripture the term "righteous" usually refers to believers."
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BuchholzJustification1.pdf
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "The Double-Talk They Learn from Their Secret Initi...":
(W)ELS DP Pastor Jon Buchholz is called on the carpet for his false teaching of UOJ which is blatantly contrary to Christ and His Word.
Buchholz, "What does it mean to take away the sin of the world? If the sin of the world is laid upon Jesus and taken away, then it is removed completely. The transfer of the world’s guilt onto the Lamb of God indicates complete, objective, universal forgiveness accomplished by Christ, the world’s sin-bearer."
Scripture: John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "The Double-Talk They Learn from Their Secret Initi...":
(W)ELS DP Pastor Jon Buchholz is called on the carpet for his false teaching of UOJ which is blatantly contrary to Christ and His Word.
Buchholz, "What does it mean to take away the sin of the world? If the sin of the world is laid upon Jesus and taken away, then it is removed completely. The transfer of the world’s guilt onto the Lamb of God indicates complete, objective, universal forgiveness accomplished by Christ, the world’s sin-bearer."
Scripture: John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
Labels:
Book of Concord,
Jon Buchholz,
Justification by Faith,
UOJ
Martin Chemnitz - Happy Birthday.
Martin Chemnitz has a birthday today. Most Lutherans do not know who he is or what he accomplished in his lifetime of faithful scholarship. Many Lutherans who fake their respect of Chemnitz reject what he taught.
Labels:
Martin Chemnitz
New ABC for Church of England
Evolving. |
- Associated Press/PA, Owen Humphreys, File - FILE - In this Nov. 11, 2011 file photo, the Bishop of Durham, the Right Reverend Justin Welby. The next archbishop of Canterbury will be officially introduced Friday, …more
LONDON (AP) — A former oil executive with experience in conflict resolution has been chosen to lead a global Anglican Communion riven by sharply divided views on gay people and their place in the church.
Prime Minister David Cameron announced Friday that Justin Welby, 56, a fast-rising priest with only a year's experience as a bishop, had been picked to succeed Rowan Williams as archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England and spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans.
Welby, the 105th holder of a post that stretches back to the 6th century, will take over after Williams retires in December.
Welby said he felt privileged, and astonished, to be chosen to lead the church at "a time of spiritual hunger."
"It's something I never expected," Welby told reporters, saying he had been "overwhelmed and surprised" to be offered the job.
"My initial reaction was 'Oh no,'" he said.
Welby said he supported the ordination of women as bishops, and indicated his thinking on same-sex marriage — which he has opposed — was evolving.
"We must have no truck with any form of homophobia in any part of the church," he said, adding that he planned to "listen to the voice of the LGBT communities and examine my own thinking."
Cameron welcomed the selection of Welby, who was chosen by a church commission and formally approved by Queen Elizabeth II.
"The Church of England plays an important role in our society, not just as the established church, but in the provision of education, help for the deprived and in furthering social justice," Cameron said. "I look forward to working with the Archbishop in all of these areas and I wish him success in his new role."
Welby, appointed last year as bishop of Durham, worked for 11 years in the oil industry, rising to treasurer of Enterprise Oil, before deciding he was called to the priesthood.
Even before formally becoming archbishop, Welby could face a test of his mediation skills later this month when the church's governing General Synod votes on allowing women to serve as bishops. Welby supports that change, but the latest proposed compromise has drawn fire from activists on both sides of the issue — either as being too weak or going too far.
He was recently appointed to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which is examining possible reforms of the industry, and he serves as ethical adviser to the Association of Corporate Treasurers.
Welby has denounced multi-million executive pay packages in big British companies as "obscene" and has said the Occupy movement "reflects a deep-seated sense that something is wrong."
His views on corporate responsibility, he has said, "came out of working in an extractive industry often in developing countries where ethical questions were very frequent."
Before seeking ordination, Welby spent six years with French oil company Elf Aquitaine and then as treasurer of exploration company Enterprise Oil in 1984. He resigned in 1989 to study for the priesthood.
"During my time there I came to realize there was a gap between what I thought, believed and felt was right in my non-work life and what went on at work," he said.
Following ordination in 1993 he was a parish priest for nine years before moving to Coventry Cathedral, as co-director of international ministry. In 2005, he became co-director of the cathedral's conflict reconciliation ministry in Africa, where he had experience in the oil industry.
He has spoken of having to "establish relationships with killers and with the families of their victims, with arms smugglers, corrupt officials and more."
In 2007 he was appointed dean of Liverpool Cathedral, Britain's largest church. He caused a bit of controversy there by allowing the tune of John Lennon's "Imagine" to be played on the cathedral bells.
Welby was schooled at Eton College and Cambridge University. His mother was a private secretary to Winston Churchill. But his father went to the United States during Prohibition and became a bootlegger, the Mail on Sunday newspaper quoted Welby as saying.
Welby and his wife, Caroline, have two sons and three daughters. Their first child, a 7-month-old girl, was killed in a traffic accident in 1983.
__
Associated Press Writer Jill Lawless contributed to this report.
Labels:
Church of England,
Episcopal
Martin Chemnitz, Justification by Faith Theologian,
Was Born Today, November 9, 1522.
Buchholz and Webber - "I'd Rather Have Rambach."
Martin Chemnitz died in 1586, a fact worth noting because of his work as the senior editor of the Book of Concord. That was his last great effort as a theologian.
Chemnitz studied under Melanchthon and Luther. He is best known for his Examination of the Council of Trent, where he studied all the issues of Trent versus orthodox Christian (Lutheran) doctrine. His extensive knowledge of the patristic fathers allowed him to take away the weapons of the papacy (Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose) and defeat their false doctrine.
His Two Natures of Christ is a masterpiece of theological scholarship. Two Natures is a work to be read slowly, to appreciate and comprehend the Gospel and those who oppose it.
Chemnitz also argued against the Calvinists, who were the chief opponents of Lutheran doctrine on the Protestant side. The Lord's Supper is written against those who doubt the Real Presence of Christ, the sacramental nature of Holy Communion.
The extensive knowledge of Chemnitz and his mastery of theology made the Second Martin the ideal person to lead the Book of Concord effort. Chemnitz blended the elegant precision of Melanchthon with the pugnacious humor and insights of Luther.
Chemnitz is talked about more than read, I am sorry to say. He must be too deep or too faithful for someone like WELS District President Jon Buchholz.
Shamefully, Buchholz openly sided with the Halle Pietist Rambach to buttress his fallacious argument that Christ absolved the entire world of sin when He rose from the dead. That error comes from the Pietistic spin on 1 Timothy 3:15.
This is a fairly good summary on Pietism. Mentioned is Sebastian Schmidt, whom Robert Preus quoted favorably on UOJ, when Preus was still a UOJ Enthusiast. |
Buchholz:
“But even some pietists were able to articulate the universal and objective nature of justification correctly. Johann Jakob Rambach (1693-1735)42 is sometimes flamed in the blogosphere today as one of the supposed inventors of universal objective justification, but in fact he taught in accord with the orthodox Johann Gerhard on the matter of vicarious justification in Christ, and he wrote nothing different than what Luther himself had written against the heavenly prophets in 1525 regarding justification acquired and justification appropriated. Rambach writes:
Christ was in His resurrection first of all justified for His own Person, Is. 50:5, 1 Tim. 3:16, since the righteousness of God declared that it had been paid and satisfied in full by this our Substitute, and issued Him as it were a receipt thereof, and that happened in His resurrection, when He was released from His Debtor's prison and set free. But since the Substitute was now justified, then in him also all debtors were co-justified" (Ausführliche Erklärung der Epistel an die Römer, p. 322). The same to Rom. 5:19: "The justification of the human race indeed also occurred, in respect to the acquisition, in one moment, in the moment in which Christ rose and was thus declared righteous; but in respect of the appropriation it still continues till the last day" (Ibid., p. 386) [italics and references in the original].43 Page 17
ELS Pastor Jay Webber, UOJ advocate |
Doug Lindee, Intrepid Lutherans, made this point against Jay Webber, which is good to read in its entirety. I am going to post the link and copy the quotation verbatim, below -
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/fraternal-dialogue-on-topic-of.html
O.K., one more post, and then I will try to honor Paul's wishes and not post anything else beyond his topical restriction...
I can understand why Chemnitz would read 1 Timothy 3:16 in this way. But his reading does not rule out what I would consider to be a necessary corrolary to such a "personal" justification of Jesus. The 18th-century Lutheran theologian Johann Jacob Rambach makes the following observation in his Ausfuehrliche Erklaerung der Epistel an die Roemer (p. 322), regarding the Lord's payment and satisfaction of sinful humanity's "debt" to God:
"Christ was in his resurrection first of all justified for his own person, Is. 50:5, 1 Tim. 3:16, since the righteousness of God declared that it had been paid and satisfied in full by this our Substitute, and issued him as it were a receipt thereof; and that happened in his resurrection, when he was released from his debtor's prison and set free. But since the Substitute was now justified, then in him also all debtors were co-justified."
Later in that commentary Rambach also writes (in a way that shows that he has 1 Tim. 3:16 in mind):
"The justification of the human race indeed also ocurred, in respect of the acquisition, in one moment, in the moment in which Christ rose and was thus declared righteous; but in respect of the appropriation it still continues till the last day."
Rambach is here echoing the teaching of the 17th-century Lutheran theologian Johannes Quistorp, who had said:
"The word justification and reconciliation is used in a twofold manner: 1) in respect of the acquired merit, 2) in respect of the appropriated merit. Thus all are justified and some are justified. All, in respect of the acquired merit; some, in respect of the appropriated merit."
All of this is from F. A. Schmidt, Justification: Subjective and Objective (1872) (translated by Kurt Marquart) (Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1982), p. 21. This essay was, by the way, read at the inaugural meeting of the Synodical Conference. F. A. Schmidt (of the Norwegian Synod) had not yet had his falling out with Preus, Koren, Ottesen, and Walther over election. He was in this essay articulating the public doctrine of the Norwegian Synod, as that doctrine had been hammered out in its controversy over absolution with some synergistic Swedes and others. This way of understanding and explaining justification in all its aspects became the public doctrine of the whole Synodical Conference.
Some theologians outside the Synodical Conference, such as C. H. Little of the United Lutheran Church in America, also later embraced this comprehensive manner of teaching justification. Little said in this respect:
"If personal or subjective Justification is the acceptance by faith of objective Justification, it is manifest that it does not take place 'in view of faith.' Thus a synergistic view of Justification is avoided. This is the chief advantage in treating the subject under these two forms."
I can understand why Chemnitz would read 1 Timothy 3:16 in this way. But his reading does not rule out what I would consider to be a necessary corrolary to such a "personal" justification of Jesus. The 18th-century Lutheran theologian Johann Jacob Rambach makes the following observation in his Ausfuehrliche Erklaerung der Epistel an die Roemer (p. 322), regarding the Lord's payment and satisfaction of sinful humanity's "debt" to God:
"Christ was in his resurrection first of all justified for his own person, Is. 50:5, 1 Tim. 3:16, since the righteousness of God declared that it had been paid and satisfied in full by this our Substitute, and issued him as it were a receipt thereof; and that happened in his resurrection, when he was released from his debtor's prison and set free. But since the Substitute was now justified, then in him also all debtors were co-justified."
Later in that commentary Rambach also writes (in a way that shows that he has 1 Tim. 3:16 in mind):
"The justification of the human race indeed also ocurred, in respect of the acquisition, in one moment, in the moment in which Christ rose and was thus declared righteous; but in respect of the appropriation it still continues till the last day."
Rambach is here echoing the teaching of the 17th-century Lutheran theologian Johannes Quistorp, who had said:
"The word justification and reconciliation is used in a twofold manner: 1) in respect of the acquired merit, 2) in respect of the appropriated merit. Thus all are justified and some are justified. All, in respect of the acquired merit; some, in respect of the appropriated merit."
All of this is from F. A. Schmidt, Justification: Subjective and Objective (1872) (translated by Kurt Marquart) (Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1982), p. 21. This essay was, by the way, read at the inaugural meeting of the Synodical Conference. F. A. Schmidt (of the Norwegian Synod) had not yet had his falling out with Preus, Koren, Ottesen, and Walther over election. He was in this essay articulating the public doctrine of the Norwegian Synod, as that doctrine had been hammered out in its controversy over absolution with some synergistic Swedes and others. This way of understanding and explaining justification in all its aspects became the public doctrine of the whole Synodical Conference.
Some theologians outside the Synodical Conference, such as C. H. Little of the United Lutheran Church in America, also later embraced this comprehensive manner of teaching justification. Little said in this respect:
"If personal or subjective Justification is the acceptance by faith of objective Justification, it is manifest that it does not take place 'in view of faith.' Thus a synergistic view of Justification is avoided. This is the chief advantage in treating the subject under these two forms."
[on the same thread]
Doug Lindee, WELS Layman |
Rev. Webber,
I've been away from my desk for several hours now, and I notice that I have been addressed in several posts, above, but your last post is foremost on my mind at the moment. I am disappointed. Of course, none of us have ever heard of this theologian you quote with distinction, Johann Jacob Rambach, and use to discredit the orthodox theologian Martin Chemnitz in his exegesis of 1 Tim. 3:16. One of us Intrepids -- not me, not Rev's Rydecki or Spencer, but one of us who does a lot of work behind the scenes -- began feverishly researching this theologian, to find out who he is. You quote Rambach from Schmidt/Marquart, so perhaps you don't really know who he is, either. I assume, in all charity, that you don't.
What our fellow Intrepid found is that Rambach was a confessing Pietist. In fact, several essays from the WELS essay file identify and criticize him as such:
Pietism’s Teaching on Church and Ministry: As Evidenced in its Pastoral Practice
After Three Centuries - The Legacy of Pietism
Agreement on the Correct View of the Authority of Scripture as the Source of Doctrine: The Way to Unity in the Church
A Historical Survey and Brief Examination of the Hymnbooks Used Within the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
The Confessional Lutheran Emigrations From Prussia And Saxony Around 1839
When I found out about this, I immediately pulled my copy of Loescher's Timotheus Verinus off the shelf, only to discover that Loescher really had nothing to say about the man. But when I pulled Schmid's History of Pietism down, and search for Rambach, I discovered that he was no ordinary Pietist. He was a Halle Pietist, and a close associate of Hermann August Franke. Schmid, on page 319, identifies Rambach as a Halle Pietist and compatriot of Franke, and credits Rambach for his accomplishments in the area of hermeneutics -- which is, no doubt, how it is that we find him prominently mentioned in F.S Schmidt's work. However, on page 320 Schmid qualifies his praise of such pietists, stating that their accomplishments are low compared to the harm caused by them: thee use of such accomplishments was for the purpose of discrediting orthodoxy. And here we are now, treated to the authoritative work of a German exeget of whom we were happily ignorant, who is marshaled for the purpose of discrediting Chemnitz and elevating UOJ, only to discover that this man was a bona fide Halle Pietist, and that he engaged his work, alongside that of Franke and other radical Pietists, to serve the design of toppling Lutheran orthodoxy.
Continued in next comment...
I've been away from my desk for several hours now, and I notice that I have been addressed in several posts, above, but your last post is foremost on my mind at the moment. I am disappointed. Of course, none of us have ever heard of this theologian you quote with distinction, Johann Jacob Rambach, and use to discredit the orthodox theologian Martin Chemnitz in his exegesis of 1 Tim. 3:16. One of us Intrepids -- not me, not Rev's Rydecki or Spencer, but one of us who does a lot of work behind the scenes -- began feverishly researching this theologian, to find out who he is. You quote Rambach from Schmidt/Marquart, so perhaps you don't really know who he is, either. I assume, in all charity, that you don't.
What our fellow Intrepid found is that Rambach was a confessing Pietist. In fact, several essays from the WELS essay file identify and criticize him as such:
Pietism’s Teaching on Church and Ministry: As Evidenced in its Pastoral Practice
After Three Centuries - The Legacy of Pietism
Agreement on the Correct View of the Authority of Scripture as the Source of Doctrine: The Way to Unity in the Church
A Historical Survey and Brief Examination of the Hymnbooks Used Within the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
The Confessional Lutheran Emigrations From Prussia And Saxony Around 1839
When I found out about this, I immediately pulled my copy of Loescher's Timotheus Verinus off the shelf, only to discover that Loescher really had nothing to say about the man. But when I pulled Schmid's History of Pietism down, and search for Rambach, I discovered that he was no ordinary Pietist. He was a Halle Pietist, and a close associate of Hermann August Franke. Schmid, on page 319, identifies Rambach as a Halle Pietist and compatriot of Franke, and credits Rambach for his accomplishments in the area of hermeneutics -- which is, no doubt, how it is that we find him prominently mentioned in F.S Schmidt's work. However, on page 320 Schmid qualifies his praise of such pietists, stating that their accomplishments are low compared to the harm caused by them: thee use of such accomplishments was for the purpose of discrediting orthodoxy. And here we are now, treated to the authoritative work of a German exeget of whom we were happily ignorant, who is marshaled for the purpose of discrediting Chemnitz and elevating UOJ, only to discover that this man was a bona fide Halle Pietist, and that he engaged his work, alongside that of Franke and other radical Pietists, to serve the design of toppling Lutheran orthodoxy.
Continued in next comment...
...Continued from previous comment.
You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification -- certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating (subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching on the matter of Justification.
You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification -- certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating (subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching on the matter of Justification.
I knew that Rambach was a pietist. I was not using his observations on this verse to discredit Chemnitz, but to supplement Chemnitz. His exegesis and reflections stand on their own, and should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of what he might have said on other topics on other occasions. And it is also clear that on this topic in particular, he was not inventing a new pietist notion, but was recapitulating the orthodox teaching of the orthodox theologian Quistorp. Theologians with pietist leanings were not wrong in everything they said, especially when they were repeating the sound teaching of orthodox theologians of earlier times.
Leyser was the nephew of Andreae, who began the Book of Concord, the biographer of Chemnitz, an editor of the Book of Concord, and an expert on justification by faith at an early age. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgwGiF0-mlE
- I’d rather have Rambach with silver and gold;
I’d rather be Pietist with riches untold;
I’d rather have Rambach with houses and lands;
I’d rather be led by the Halle U. band.- Refrain:
And to be the king of a vast domain
And be held in sin’s dread sway;
I’d rather have Rambach than anything
The Gospel affords today.
- Refrain:
- I’d rather have Spener with men’s applause;
I’d rather be faithful to UOJ's cause;
I’d rather have Rambach and worldwide fame;
I’d rather be true to Halle U's name. - They're fairer than roses or sauerkraut;
They're sweeter than Thrivent grants without doubt;
They're all that my Old Adam needs;
I’d rather have Rambach and let him lead.
One line of thinking about justification by faith includes Paul the Apostle, Ambrose, Augustine, Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Andreae, Leyser, and many more.
UOJ has a family tree that begins with Samuel Huber and Rambach, various Pietists, Halle University, Georg Christian Knapp and his Calvinist translator, Schleiermacher, Bishop Martin Stephan, C. F. W. Walther, Karl Barth, No Call Paul McCain, Jay Webber, Jon Buchholz, and mainline Protestants.
Labels:
Jay Webber,
Jon Buchholz,
Justification by Faith,
Pietism,
Rambach,
UOJ
Buchholz Identifies with Halle Pietist Rambach's False Doctrine
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Johann Gerhard - Another Justification by Faith Th...":
I'm reading Buchholz' 2012 UOJ essay that you link above. He's certainly trying to address every refutation of UOJ that has been published - and fails miserably. Here he states that Gerhard and Rambach teach UOJ.
Buchholz,
“But even some pietists were able to articulate the universal and objective nature of justification correctly. Johann Jakob Rambach (1693-1735)42 is sometimes flamed in the blogosphere today as one of the supposed inventors of universal objective justification, but in fact he taught in accord with the orthodox Johann Gerhard on the matter of vicarious justification in Christ, and he wrote nothing different than what Luther himself had written against the heavenly prophets in 1525 regarding justification acquired and justification appropriated. Rambach writes:
Christ was in His resurrection first of all justified for His own Person, Is. 50:5, 1 Tim. 3:16, since the righteousness of God declared that it had been paid and satisfied in full by this our Substitute, and issued Him as it were a receipt thereof, and that happened in His resurrection, when He was released from His Debtor's prison and set free. But since the Substitute was now justified, then in him also all debtors were co-justified" (Ausführliche Erklärung der Epistel an die Römer, p. 322). The same to Rom. 5:19: "The justification of the human race indeed also occurred, in respect to the acquisition, in one moment, in the moment in which Christ rose and was thus declared righteous; but in respect of the appropriation it still continues till the last day" (Ibid., p. 386) [italics and references in the original].43 Page 17
More on Pietist Rambach (Halle alumnus, along with Muhlenberg, Bishop Martin Stephan STD, Schleiermacher, and Hoenecke) here:
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/05/quenstedt-died-today-may-22-1688-he.html [GJ - slight edit on who went to Halle University, center of Pietism and Rationalism. The Piepers went to another Pietistic school, Northwestern College, Watertown.]
--
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Johann Gerhard - Another Justification by Faith Th...":
Compare Buchholz to Gerhard's quote I posted above:
Buchholz,
"We cannot help but be struck by the parallel structure of Paul’s sentence. He lays out side by side the condemnation of all through the transgression of Adam and the justification of all through the work of Christ. The judgment in each case is both objective and universal. Whether a sinner acknowledges it, or not, he stands condemned through Adam’s sin; the sin and condemnation are an objective and universal reality, regardless of personal perception. Whether a sinner acknowledges it, or not, he was acquitted through Christ’s work; the atonement and accompanying not-guilty verdict are an objective and universal reality, regardless of personal perception.
Page 11
Make a decision for UOJ - Buchholz is recycling J. P. Meyer's false doctrine, which Buchholz once claimed to reject. But Buchholz was also against Gunn and Rick Johnson...supposedly. |
Labels:
J. P. Meyer,
Jon Buchholz,
Justification by Faith,
Paul Rydecki,
UOJ,
WELS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)