Repudiation of the Jay Webber OJ Essay
B. Justification in the Narrow Sense
and in a Broader Sense
Another thing to take note of
in the theology of this period, is that the term “justification”
was almost always interpreted
and used in a very strict and narrow sense, as referring to the personal
application of the righteousness of Christ to an individual through the means
of grace; and to the appropriation and reception of that righteousness by an
individual through faith. We generally do not see the term “justification”
being employed according to a broader sense…p 36 GJ – more like – never.
This statement minces around the basic
fact – justification always means justification by faith, in the Bible, during
the Reformation, and in the post-Reformation era. The Huber amalgamation of his
Calvinistic past meant that the substance of Objective Justification was
introduced, but P. Leyser, Hunnius, and others quashed it and ejected Huber.
The error of Objective Justification was
first the Easter absolution (based on 1 Timothy 3:16 being rationalized), but
the first use of the terms Objective
Justification and Subjective Justification came from the late era of Pietism.
The first use in a well known book is the Calvinist Woods’ translation of Knapp
– the Halle Pietist.
So the false teachers have reversed the
meaning of the term justification, so they assume or pretend that the Chief
Article of the Christian Faith, the Master and Prince, the article on which the
Church stands or falls – is justification without faith!
And yet Webber, who has quarreled about
words for several decades, warns pastors not to quarrel about words, p 38. The
UOJ Enthusiasts have bent over backwards to force their philosophy on everyone,
to excommunicate those who disagree, and to normalize this blatant rejection of
the Christian Faith.
Webber even uses the obscure Quistorp to
prop up his OJ, even though no Lutheran body, congregation, or cell group has
subscribed to the writings of Qustorp – or heard of him. Suddenly Little in
Canada and Quistorp in Rostock supplant and improve upon Luther, Melanchthon,
Chemnitz, and Gerhard.
C. Luther and the Missouri Synod, p.
38
Also during the discussion of
the theses, someone asked this question:
The tenet has always been
declared and confessed by us that through Christ’s resurrection from the dead
God has absolved the whole world, that is, pardoned its sins. If, according to
this, the whole world has already been absolved and its sin pardoned long ago,
what exactly is absolution or the preaching of the Gospel in the church? Is it
also a pardon, or merely an announcement of the pardon which has already
occurred?
Brohm replied, in effect,
that the good news of our absolution does not do us any good if we do not hear
it. And God has ordained that the Gospel be proclaimed, so that we can hear
it. But when we do hear this message, we are not merely being informed about
something from long ago and far away. p 39
Missouri took over the Easter absolution
language of Pietism from Walther, who learned it from Martin Stephan, a student
but not a graduate of Halle University.
Pietism filtered the lessons of the
Reformation so celebrity leaders like Spener and Franke displaced Luther,
Melanchthon, and Chemnitz. Cooperation was judged more important than sound
doctrine, and the Sacraments could be defined by non-Lutherans to make that
cooperation happen.
We can see that Pietistic effect in the
former Lutheran Church in America, where the Formula of Concord era was ignored
completely in favor of the unionism and compromises of Pietism. The General
Synod had revivals, mourners’ benches, and a very low view of the liturgy and
creeds. An era of confessionalism sparked by the General Council helped, but
Pietism and rationalism re-emerged after the 1918 merger of all the Muhlenberg
groups into the United Lutheran Church in America.
 |
| This alone destroys Webber's essay, so he ignored the entire book. |
D. The Norwegian Synod and the Pietists
p. 41
The heading is confusing, because all Lutheran
groups in America were Pietistic. The Swedish Augustana Synod was profoundly
influenced by the generosity and doctrinal integrity of William Passavant, a
giant of American Lutheranism – strangely not mentioned at all. Passavant
brokered the creation of the Chicago Seminary (often called Maywood, ULCA), but
the seminary professors had to sign their allegiance to the Confessions to
teach. Passavant insisted on that because he came out of and grew out of revivalism.
He rejected Pietism for loyalty to the Confessions and influenced Augustana in
that direction.
Augustana did not accept the
Stephan-Walther formula of the Easter absolution of the world – without faith. For
the blindly loyal Missouri member, the Norwegian acceptance of Easter
absolution was wonderful. But the same basic dogma was being read in the
English version of Knapp textbook used in all Protestant schools.
Now we begin to smell the roast. The
Norwegian Synod is “orthodox” and the Swedes are “Pietists.”
The
Norwegian Synod pastors gently warned their Augustana Synod friends that “If
the Gospel and Absolution contained nothing more than what man by faith put
into them, then man really had to depend on his faith – he had to have faith in his own faith –
and not in the Gospel.”56
p. 42
This shows that the Norwegians had no
more grasp of justification than Webber, so he approves, but what a damaging
approval. Walther stated clearly that he was teaching faith in universal
forgiveness, which is only one step away from Universalism.
Webber:
The
contours of this debate between these two synods – one consciously rooted in
Reformational
thinking, and the other influenced by Pietism more then they probably realized –
are essentially the same contours that manifested themselves in succeeding
years, when the synods that would or did make up the membership of the Synodical
Conference continued to defend their Confessional teaching about the
objectivity of the gospel, and the objectivity of the forgiveness of sins
within the gospel, against various attacks and misrepresentations from other Lutheran
groups in America. P. 42
Webber
admitted before that the Reformation taught justification by faith, the “narrow”
view. The straight and narrow version is far better than the broad and popular version
of the World Council of Churches. Therefore, his clumsy narration betrays the
Pietism of the Norwegians and hides the correct position of the Swedes by vilifying
it.
Webber omits
the fact that this conflict produced the fourth Kokomo Statement, which WELS
made mandatory for membership, kicking out the families who disagreed.
Rolf Preus
recorded the martyrdom of Herman Amberg Preus, another reason for the Preus
brothers Jack and Robert, and Robert’s sons, to remain loyal to absolution
without faith. The Anti-Missouri Brotherhood’s agitation led to the removal of
Preus from his congregation.
The last parts
are equally pathetic, a transparent attempt to rewrite doctrinal history while
ignoring the Biblical truths rescued from the papacy.
The UOJ clowns
have created their own interlocking papacy. Like the Marian salesmen, they say,
“The Church has always taught this,” but it is absolution without faith –
except faith in that universal absolution – instead of the Assumption and
Immaculate Conception of Mary.
As their hero
Edward Preuss said upon leaving his St. Louis seminary professorship for Rome, “Give
me the documents and I can prove anything.”
That is
especially true of someone with little training, no serious publications, and
no spiritual discernment.
 |
| Don't listen to him, he read Luther's Galatians Commentary. |
