-
-
Speaking of rationalism in interpreting Scripture. Here is a quote from WELS DP Jon Buchholz which highlights the exegesis which gives birth to Objective Justification. It is from his second essay attempting to convince the world they were declared by the omnipotent God to be justified, righteous and worthy of eternal life before and without faith in Christ.This quote is found on page 5 of Jesus Canceled Your Debt, delivered at the Anything Goes District meeting:"Immediately preceding this passage, in Romans 4:23, 24, Paul writes, “23The words ‘it was credited to him’ were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (NIV). The ἡμῶν fits perfectly with “for us who believe in him.” Understood this way, our sins means the sins of believers and our justification means the justification of believers. Yet throughout Scripture the Word teaches consistently that Jesus died for the sin of the world. Why would Paul limit Jesus’ death in this context only to believers? If we understand παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν to refer only to “us who believe,” Paul would be speaking of the death and atonement of Jesus in terms of its applicability to only a limited group.Granted, saying here that Jesus died for “our [believers’] sins” need not negate universal atonement, but if everywhere else Scripture refers to Jesus’ death as being for all human beings, why would Paul not speak in consonance with the rest of Scripture?9 Since Scripture speaks elsewhere of Jesus’ death being for all, it is harmonious with all of the testimony of God’s Word to understand this passage in the same way. It follows then that if ἡμῶν in the first clause refers ultimately to all people, then the ἡμῶν in the second, parallel clause also refers to all people: Jesus was given over to death for all; he was raised to life for the justification of all. Grammatically, either understanding of ἡμῶν (as referring only to “us who believe” or to all people) is possible."
Note the: Why would...? If we...? Granted... But if .... Why would...? It follows then.... Either understanding...is possible. And wah-la there's the Scriptural evidence for the false rationalistic gospel of UOJ.
Stan Hauerwas was my professor - and a reader for my dissertation at Notre Dame.
The rationalistic-philosophical approach is typical of mainline Protestant
and Roman Catholic theology.Dr. Lito Cruz is correct about the Calvinistic flavor of UOJ thinking. Briefly, Calvinism amalgamated with Lutheran doctrine and worship after the Huguenots (French Calvinists) were persecuted and driven from their country, finding refuge in Germany.Although Pietism did much to revive interest in Biblical studies, the Calvinistic component took over and the movement became rationalistic, philosophical, and Unitarian. The UOJ of Halle University--which Walther learned from Martin Stephan STD--exemplifies this approach and lives on in Wauwatosa and Waltherian dogma.Walther never had much of an education - and it certainly was not Lutheran. He was trained in rationalism for his bachelor's degree. That was the end of his formal education. Two different abusive Pietistic cell group pastors taught him to be a cell group slave until he toppled Bishop Stephan and became the pope. Only in the wilderness of a new cult could someone so poorly educated become the dictator of all matters doctrinal and practical. Walter, like Teddy Roosevelt later, had to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.The UOJ leaders of today are truly Waltherian - poorly educated and devoted to the dictatorial model established by the syphilitic bishop and his fawning subordinate, Walther.
When I was a Calvinist, the one doctrine that was sacred was God's Sovereignty which he acts out in his Sovereign Decree. Carried to its final conclusion, you won't be able to distinguish by this emphasis the Christian God from Allah, the God of Muslims. They become the same person. God is Great after all, since both reasonings go that way.
So when I was a Calvinist, I concluded that the only one worth having is the Calvinism which is Supralapsarian , all else is inconsistent Calvinism to me. .
Coming now to Lutheran Theology, I myself would not have a problem in Hunnius saying we are elected "in view of faith". My argument here is very simple. In Romans 8:29 it states "For whom he did foreknew, he also did predestinate...". If God foreknew you then there are a lot of things God foreknew about you and one of them is your faith as well as other things. That stands to reason.
Here is my bit, if you do not like Hunnius' "in view of faith", and you believe that God predestines in view of NOTHING , your logic requires you to accept Supralapsarianism. That is the perfect alternative of all grace no faith. In Supralapsarianism, technically you are already saved before you were born, since you were predestined before you are born. Thus your salvation is just an after-effect.
As a former Calvinist, I can see where Huber got his logic. He would be prone to Calvinise Lutheranism. In my view he was still a Calvinist in spirit even when he entered Lutheranism. There were things he could not let go, one of them was his rationalism in interpreting Scripture.
LPC