One of Our Readers Sent This
1. I'm confused as to the following:
1) Atonement
2) Expiation
3) Propitiation
4) Satisfaction
5) Redemption
...are all being conflated with justification. How can this be with an honest reading of Scripture?
___________________________
1) Atonement
2) Expiation
3) Propitiation
4) Satisfaction
5) Redemption
...are all being conflated with justification. How can this be with an honest reading of Scripture?
___________________________
The words "reconciling" and "not imputing their trespasses" from 2 Cor. 5:19 are the other hobby horses of the OJers in this thread. They simultaneously claim that Chemnitz is on their side. This is either out of ignorance or disingenuity because, as Dr. Walter A. Maier references in his essay "A Summary Exposition of the Doctrine of Justification by Grace Through Faith" (which can be found in the otherwise putrid WELS essay archive: www.wlsessays.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/3210/MaierJustification.pdf), on p. 28, quoting Examination of the Council of Trent, II, 72, Chemnitz viewed 2 Cor. 5:19 to be referring to the hosts of believers in the world. Chemnitz explicitly says, "“God the Father reconciles the world to Himself, accepts the believers, not imputing their sins to them."
The dogmatic reason reason of the Waltherites prevents them from seeing the plain meaning of this verse, which does not contradict Romans 4:24. Like Catholics get hung up on James 2:24, they refuse to listen to the overall sense of the passage and of Scripture as a whole. God did not send sinners straight to hell, but rather gave them a sacrifice through which, if they believe, they might be forgiven, declared righteous.
___________________________
3. Steve Schmidt claims (3:04 pm, May 14, 2019) that Luther never taught intuitu fidei in Bondage of the Will. The very first time I read (listened on audiobook actually) Bondage of the Will, the first thing that leapt out at me was when he says that we can know nothing, reason nothing, and have no faith in the hidden God, the one to whom all of these "unconditional," timeless counsels are attributed. Yet, the Waltherians, etc. want to have the hidden God for the unbelieving and the revealed God for the believing. It's almost like a kind of Zoroastrian dualism.
In his lecture on Genesis 29:9 (https://acroamaticus.blogspot.com/2009/07/luthers-last-word-on-predestination.html; LW 5:43-50), Luther warns of those who would use thing he has said about the hidden God as supposed theology. He offers as evidence that he has contradicted these abusers of Scripture such things he has said as, “Jesus Christ is the Lord of hosts, and there is no other God.” Luther views these supposed attributes of the hidden God, such as "unconditional election," as so out of touch with his view of Jesus Christ, that simply proclaiming the sole deity of Jesus Christ is enough for him to consider his hands clean from the blood of those who would twist his writings.
Furthermore, the broken record of those who say that the "unconditional" part of "unconditional election" is necessary for grace... Have you ever considered that the conditions in question under intuitu fidei are provided by and met by God alone? Saying there are no conditions is simply lawless, and promotes an antinomian God. In fact, it rules as inconsistent that God would provide the conditions and their fulfillment himself, which is a blatant attack on the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who have eyes to see can see this for what it is.
____________________
4. LutherQueasies, please find any one place in the book of Acts where "the ministry of reconciliation" consists of preaching the forgiveness of sins prior to faith.
***
 |
| "You did not go to Fuller, and neither did I." Even the pastors that told me about WELS and Fuller backed away from their stories. So did an ELS source. |
GJ - I am amused that the Watherines manage to write against the Chief Article, Justification by Faith, without using the proper term - an act of spiritual cowardice that cannot be exaggerated.
They fill the world with their words to display their doctrinal acuity, but they get everything wrong. They would flunk any academic exam outside of their parochial schools.
Their beloved Election without Faith is a mirror image of Calvin's Unlimited Grace, and Walther used that concept to buttress the inanity of his Universal Forgiveness without Faith.
"How God's Unlimited Grace Leads Us to Heartfelt Obedience."
"How God's Unlimited Grace Leads Us to Heartfelt Obedience."
Walther doubtless felt the inadequacy of Halle's Pietistic Objective Justification. The footprints are all over LCMS history, where the early catechisms in German were clearly, plainly Justification by Faith - like Gausewitz' catechim (used in WELS and the Synodical Conference). So was Schwan's, with perhaps an even larger audience.
What do we see now? LCMS-WELS-ELS-CLC (sic) - All are dying to work with ELCA and be like ELCA. They are glued together by Barth's liberal Calvinism, which simply skips the part about faith. No wonder they felt liberated by Fuller Seminary, where Lutheran doctrine and worship was disparaged, matching the attitude of the overpaid synodical staffers who spent offering and Thrivent dollars to have their apostasy reinforced.
