 |
| Look upon the UOJ stars of WELS and weep for the souls they have murdered. |
     Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 334 Registered: 1-2002 |
The research behind the ELDoNA Justification theses comes from Paul A. Rydecki the anonymous “pastor” mentioned in the preface to the theses. Pastor Rydecki had translated, and Repristination Press (ELDoNA’s publishing house) had published two treatises connected with the controversy over Election and Justification between Samuel Huber and the Wittenberg faculty of the 1590s. It is plainly evident even from reading Rydecki’s translations of these documents that Huber’s error on Justification involved whether or not the forgiveness of sins is conferred, i.e. applied to, appropriated by, or received by, upon an individual penitent. Paul Rydecki’s presentation of this controversy is incomplete as if he had not “read through” Huber and Hunnius. The late Pastor Tom G.A. Hardt in his learned essay in the Robert Preus festschrift “A Lively legacy” (pp.52-78), entitled “Justification and Easter: A Study in Subjective and Objective Justification in Lutheran Theology” shows that he has “read through” the treatises connected with this controversy. All of the pieces of the puzzle are put together. It is totally mystifying that the bishop and pastors of ELDoNA have ignored the wider research available. It may certainly be said without doubt that Rydecki and ELDoNA believe that those who hold to the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification are tainted in greater to lesser degree with Huberianism. This is a gross falsehood. Huber believed that God had universally justified all people through Christ irrespective of saving faith. He further believed that any individual human being who wanted to take advantage of that universal justification had to appropriate it for himself without such action involving an act of God. The Wittenbergers rightly asserted that justification is received by God-wrought saving faith. This Huber denied, and was accordingly accused of Pelagianism. In the printed material Pastor Hardt shows that the Wittenbergers spoke of an “individual justification” as distinct from a “general justification.” If one were to read through this material they would see that the Wittenbergers would have no problem with the doctrine of those who have believed, taught, and confessed The Brief Statement. Pastor Hardt points out that C.F.W. Walther certainly understood what was involved with the Huber/Hunnius Controversy over Justification. We of the synods that used to constitute the Synodical Conference hold the orthodox Lutheran theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries with no less reverence than ELDoNA does; however, we do not elevate them to eminences to which they are not entitled. We recognize that their private writings are not sources of theology. We take care that our use of them will not make of them a norm of exegesis as apparently ELDoNA makes of them. They are merely witnesses in so far (quatenus) they are consistent with the Holy Scriptures and the Book of Concord of 1580. ELDoNA’s recent theses on Justification demonstrate that they have exalted sacred “Tradition” above the Formal Principle of Christian theology despite their fervent disclaimers to the contrary. | ||
| Rev. Stephen Kurtzahn (Hville79) Advanced Member Username: Hville79 Post Number: 994 Registered: 6-2008 |
Pastor Boisclair, you wrote: "We of the synods that used to constitute the Synodical Conference hold the orthodox Lutheran theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries with no less reverence than ELDoNA does; however, we do not elevate them to eminences to which they are not entitled. We recognize that their private writings are not sources of theology. We take care that our use of them will not make of them a norm of exegesis as apparently ELDoNA makes of them. They are merely witnesses in so far (quatenus) they are consistent with the Holy Scriptures and the Book of Concord of 1580. ELDoNA’s recent theses on Justification demonstrate that they have exalted sacred “Tradition” above the Formal Principle of Christian theology despite their fervent disclaimers to the contrary." This is one of the more profound statements I've read on LQ in a very long time. Thank you very much! | ||
| George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1048 Registered: 11-2012 |
The Scriptures are the norm that norms, the Confessions are the norm that is normed, and the writings of the orthodox fathers are witnesses to the truth revealed in the Scriptures and confessed in the Confessions. The fathers must not be made a norm. Indeed, to elevate their words to normative status would be in direct conflict with their purpose in writing those words. But EDLoNA, breaking free from the tradition that bore them, seeks a tradition for its own, ironically, distorting the tradition they claim. On Pastor Boisclair's point about following the fathers only insofar as they are consistent with the Holy Scriptures, just consider the development of the doctrine of election from the unfortunate verbiage of John Gerhard to the error manifested in Pontoppidan's Catechism. The poor Norwegian-American Lutherans were caught between a Catechism with no normative authority (except insofar as it agreed with Scripture and the Confessions) and the Formula of Concord! The ELDoNA men should read AC IV as it reads and ask themselves what it means to believe that you are received into favor and that your sins are forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins. What can this possibly mean but that we are received into favor and our sins are forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins? But ELDoNA says that what we believe isn't true until we believe it. | ||
| Rick Strickert (Carlvehse) Senior Member Username: Carlvehse Post Number: 4226 Registered: 10-2003 |
Under Thesis 9 in his Blogia article, "Theses on Infant/Toddler Communion," Prof. John Pless stated: "The Lutheran Confessions honor the church fathers. When their testimony is in agreement with Holy Scripture, they are gratefully cited as confessing the apostolic faith. However the Confessions also realize that the teachings of the patristic writers are fallible. They can and do disagree with one another. They certainly do not represent an unbroken continuity with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, which alone are the rule and norm for church teaching and practice. The fact that one or another or even the majority of patristic writers support the communion of infants does not establish the practice for Evangelical Lutherans. Unlike the Lutheran Confessions, which are received because they are in agreement with sacred Scriptures, the church fathers are received in so far as they concur with the biblical Word."For some who have departed Lutheranism, either across the Bosporus or the Tiber, their yearnings for the patristic traditions of the early church overrode their quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. And from comments one can easily find on Lutheran blogs, there are those in the Lutheran Church who do lean toward a confessional subscriptiion to those patristic traditions. | ||
| Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Intermediate Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 335 Registered: 1-2002 |
Thank you, brothers, for continuing the discussion and for your grave concern. When one wants to be a "good Lutheran" one has to begin with the basics: the Holy Scriptures as the ONLY source and norm of theology, i.e. sola scriptura. One also recognizes the hermeneutical principles championed in the Reformation: the clarity of Scripture and Scripture being its own interpreter. Those of us who have subscribed the Book of Concord of 1580 have studied the Scriptures and the Book of Concord and have come to the conclusion that the Book of Concord is a faithful exposition of the Holy Scriptures; hence, we subscribe the Book of Concord because (quia) it is such a faithful exposition. From time to time when we are called upon as a church to confess our faith against error and support such confession we compose and publish doctrinal statements. By speaking of them as DOCTRINAL statements we are saying that they are statements of what the Bible teaches. The ELDoNA theses are a doctrinal statement, but they are not set forward as BIBLICAL doctrine. At least not in a straightforward manner that cites scriptural warrant for setting them forward. Rick Strickert has provided an illustrative analogy with the question of Infant Communion. Those who advocate Infant/Toddler Communion argue that because many of the Early Church "fathers" have strongly held to such a practice, we have to recognize that these august "fathers" were closer to Christ and the apostles than we are, and we have to conform to their practice because they have not found it to be contrary to Christ and the apostles. The argument here is that the part of the stream closer to the source has purer water than further down. This is exactly the argument of ELDoNA regarding the doctrine of Justification. Of course, what I for one question is whether or not they have Luther, Chemnitz, Ae. Hunnius, and John Gerhard so much to support their contentions. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter because the Holy Scriptures have the complete and final word as far as doctrine is concerned in the Church (sola scriptura). George Mueller has put his finger on an important point that the Jackson-Rydecki-ELDoNA doctrine of Justification flies in the face of clear passages of Scripture (John 1:29, Romans 4-5, 2 Cor. 5:18-21 among others). Their doctrine interposes doubt into the clear proclamation of the Gospel and harms the consciences of poor sinners. | ||
| George Mueller (Mueller) Senior Member Username: Mueller Post Number: 1049 Registered: 11-2012 |
Our Lutheran Confessions base their doctrinal assertions, not on complicated exegesis, but on the clear, plain, natural sense of the biblical text. This is how so may Bible-believing Christian people have been won over to Lutheranism by reading the Lutheran Confessions. No Lutheran in America was more devoted to the Lutheran Confessions as the norm that is normed than C. F. W. Walther. And he taught objective justification! He found it in the clear Scriptures. |
 |
| Pretzel dogmatics - very German, Ja? |
