http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=33162
October 15th, 2013 at 13:20 | #3 Reply | Quote
Objective justification pertains to the truth that the gospel is offered efficaciously to all, not just to some. Election pertains to the truth that the gospel is received effectively just by some, not by all. The mystery of a particular election in Christ is hidden within the universal offering of Christ to all. By nature, the corrupt heart of un-regenerated man will always reject the gospel. God’s election in Christ determines that in the case of some, this rejection will be overcome by the grace of God, and faith will be engendered.
We do not know who the elect are, so we preach law and gospel to everyone – as we have been told to do. And it is through this universal offering of the gospel that God’s Spirit regenerates and preserves the elect. We preach the gospel as a universally-applicable gospel, since that is the gospel Christ has given us to preach, and through this gospel his Spirit works faith in those who do in fact believe. In the gospel, we do not tell the elect as such to believe in Christ, because they are elect. Again, we don’t know who the elect are. Rather, we tell all those who repent to believe in Christ, because Jesus died and was condemned for the sins of all, and because Jesus rose and was justified for the forgiveness of all.
---
From Dr. Lito Cruz -
Hi Pr. Greg,
I also wonder why ELDONA had to go soft on Walther. They need not be. There
is no reason for playing soft with him; let the Waltherian groupies get
offended. There is no other way but to break away from the false premises of
Walther.
Is Webber a Calvinist? Hehehe. His argument rings familiar to me as an
ex-Calvinist. I have heard this kind of argument from Calvinists, I was not
expecting it from a "Lutheran" to be this philosophical. I can come back and
tell him, well if they are elect anyway, they will come to the Gospel with or
without you.
Jesus said go into all the world and preach the Gospel. He offered no
rational premise because we do not know who the elect are. We preach the Gospel
to all because all are under sin, I thought that was our motivation.
When I read Walther's treatise on predestination, it seems to me he dipped
his theological hand into the American controversy which was happening amongst
the Revivalists that surrounded him. He had no business doing so for compared to
Revivalism of his day, the Lutherans had a relative peace and not much
controversy on the issue. He need not say anything for no one was asking. Yet he
dabbled and formulated statements that rather than create peace, it created
confusion and turmoil. So now division has happened amongst American
Lutherans.
This is just one example of Walther's fruit of schism. He was a schismatic
(technically heretic).
LPC
 |
| Bad Luck Brian |
***
GJ - When I was reading the latest revelation from God's Counselor, Jay Webber, MDiv, I thought of the wretched little booklet by Walther on election, recently translated. The Missourians now have the albatross of papal infallibility hanging around their necks, stinking up every discussion.
The first attempt at creating papal infallibility failed, because the pontiff was too savvy to let himself be fenced into all the decisions of his predecessors. That was Pope John XXII - long, long ago. As soon as they passed it under Pope Pius IX, the Protestants wisely said, "Aha. You have made a host of contradictory statements infallible, including those of heretical popes."
Every SynCon discussion begins with "What Did the Great Walther Say?" They might as well ask, "What does the fox say?" - since Bishop Stephan wisely called Walther a fox who needed to be watched.
Webber does not answer ELDONA because he cannot. Therefore, he returns to his Calvin versus Arminius argument once again, as though he never read the theses. Since they are obsessed with a limited atonement, they must think Luther taught the same, since nothing in Luther agrees with them. But that would not be obvious to someone innocent of serious Luther study.
The UOJ Hive is no longer so anxious to use Romans 4:25 as universal absolution, since some of us have actually read Romans 4:24 and the entire chapter in context. Nevertheless, Webber's last sentence hints at the old Pietistic and rationalistic claim that Rambach voiced from the bowels of Halle University - that Christ justified the world when He rose from the dead. Chemnitz did not reveal that peculiar insight in his discussion of the same topic - but the Formula of Concord editor was not a Halle Pietist.
Webber does not answer ELDONA because he cannot. Therefore, he returns to his Calvin versus Arminius argument once again, as though he never read the theses. Since they are obsessed with a limited atonement, they must think Luther taught the same, since nothing in Luther agrees with them. But that would not be obvious to someone innocent of serious Luther study.
The UOJ Hive is no longer so anxious to use Romans 4:25 as universal absolution, since some of us have actually read Romans 4:24 and the entire chapter in context. Nevertheless, Webber's last sentence hints at the old Pietistic and rationalistic claim that Rambach voiced from the bowels of Halle University - that Christ justified the world when He rose from the dead. Chemnitz did not reveal that peculiar insight in his discussion of the same topic - but the Formula of Concord editor was not a Halle Pietist.
On his Walther OJ post, Webber praised DP Buchholz' balanced and careful approach to SynCon passions.
God's Counselor:
"And I have already noted that this is the balanced and careful approach of Jon Buchholz in the WELS as well." [GJ - Embedded - so you can read it. Good! Try not to laugh while reading it.]
Free Dictionary
flummery [ˈflʌmərɪ]
God's Counselor:
"And I have already noted that this is the balanced and careful approach of Jon Buchholz in the WELS as well." [GJ - Embedded - so you can read it. Good! Try not to laugh while reading it.]
Free Dictionary
flummery [ˈflʌmərɪ]
n pl -meries
1. Informal meaningless flattery; nonsense
2. (Cookery) Chiefly Brit a cold pudding of oatmeal, etc.
Since Webber has always broadcast his hatred for WELS, his unctuous approach to doctrine seems a bit odd and self-serving. Perhaps he is looking for a safe landing, as McCain called it, when the ELS catches on to him.
Links to the individual ELDONA Justification by Faith Posts.
