 |
| Webber seems to know Calov better than Dr. Robert Preus, who quoted Calov against UOJ. Webber thinks Calov belong to his group of Halle cheerleaders. |
 |
| Webber and WELS want to make Chemnitz co-laborer a UOJ Stormtrooper, but does this passage support their claim? WELS labels all justification by faith quotations as MISLEADING! in their dogmatics notes for poor, stupid seminary students. |
Repudiation of Jay Webber's OJ Essay at Emmaus
G. The
Formula of Concord’s Teaching and Luther’s Teaching
Webber declared:
At the end of Article III
of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, which deals
with the subject of the
righteousness of faith, we read: “For any further, necessary
explanation of this lofty and sublime article on justification before God, upon
which the salvation of our souls depends, we wish to recommend to everyone the
wonderful, magnificent exposition by Dr. Luther of St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Galatians, and for the sake of brevity we refer to it at this point.”28 That is
a pretty weighty endorsement of Luther’s Lectures on Galatians! And it is a
worthy endorsement, because these lectures do indeed embody some of the best
material produced by the older Luther – on justification itself, and on the
other articles of faith that are organically connected to justification. (p. 23)
Every UOJ writers lays down a
smokescreen of praise for Luther, as if the Reformer invented their strange,
anti-Christian, dual-justification labels. As expected Webber employs the same
trick, conjuring the name Luther while imposing the dogma of Stephan’s Pietism –
Webber:
And
as we would expect, the Galatians Lectures do address the subject of
justification and forgiveness according to the objective and subjective categories
– even though that terminology is not employed in so many words. (p.
23)
How fascinating! Unknowing, Luther
anticipated the discovery of UOJ and even addressed it in his most important
commentary. Has Webber read the Galatians Commentary, word for word? Or has he
only glanced through it to find his imaginary seeds of UOJ, ready to sprout at
the culmination of all ecclesiastical history – the formation of the ELS?
The theme of the commentary is to
contrast justification by faith with justification by works. Webber strains to
emphasize the death of Christ for “all sinners” as if he is arguing with
someone. Justification does not deny the Atonement, the Redemption of the
world. But the Biblical teaching of justification by faith does reject the
skewering of forgiveness by having OJ pronounce a universal absolution as the
true Gospel, a justification -
- Without the Spirit,
- Without the Word,
- Without the Means of Grace,
- Wthout faith.
This doctrinal incompetence puts Webber,
Buchholz, Pope John the Malefactor, and others in a quandary. Following the
early Robert Preus, the Atonement is not Objective Justification. But Webber
and the entire clown cast – from Stephan-Walther-Pieper to Valleskey to
Cascione-McCain – jump on every Atonement passage in the Bible, the
Confessions, and Luther and exclaim with boyish delight – “Another OJ passage!
Lutheran justification is indeed OJ/SJ!”
But they are terribly wrong and
confusing everyone who tries to comprehend their delusion while comparing it to
simple, clear Biblical truths. The Atonement is the Gospel, and this Gospel
fulfillment of Isaiah 53 produces faith when the Spirit works through the Word
to distribute the treasure – Christ’s death for all sinners.
Portraying justification as universal
absolution reduces the Means of Grace to a label. Given the origin of Objective
Justification outside of the Lutheran Church, and observing its continued
existence among the cults and mainline apostates, it is not surprising to find
the Means of Grace discarded, disregarded, and disrespected in the worship life
– or rather the entertainment seeker services – of the “conservative”
Lutherans. Nor have the demi-semi-high church Lutherans found any weapon
against the rapid encroachment of this true revelation of the evil of UOJ.
This dogma of Calvinists and Pietists
could not stop the radical attack on the Bible in the LCMS and WELS, the
blossoming of the Pentecostal movement among Lutherans, and the putrification
of Church Growth in all of them – from the dying ELCA to the equally moribund,
tiny Church of the Lutheran Confession (sic).
Webber is so intent on making Luther a
UOJ Stormtrooper that he says this:
“The objective consequence
of Christ’s work, and the content of the gospel that is now to be preached for
salvation, is that in Christ there is no more judgment, no more wrath, and no
more damnation. The gospel is not a message
merely that a way for these things to be abolished in the future is now available.” (p. 26f.) GJ – The second
sentence is a muddled mess.
This MDiv is truly befuddled by
Christian doctrine. He continually labels the entire world “in Christ” when
that Biblical phrase only applies to believers - frequently used in the New
Testament. Is there a single reference to unbelievers being “in Christ”?
But there is condemnation, as Luther
observed. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin – because they do not
believe on Him. John 16:8f. Moreover, as Luther taught, this is the
foundational sin, unbelief, from which all sin is derived.
Webber - again:
Luther very artfully
compares and contrasts what we would describe as the objective and subjective
aspects of God’s forgiveness. (p. 27)
Now Webber has thrown his lot in with
Luther and admires the Reformer for using the OJ/SJ labels without knowing it.
I have no issue with Luther, but if Webber agrees with Luther – how can he agree
with Woods-Knapp, Stephan, Walther, Pieper, JP Meyer, Valleskey, and Buchholz?
Another question is even more obvious –
If Webber agrees with Luther, then why does he disagree with all of us who
know, understand, believe, and teach justification by faith – the Chief Article
he mocks so often in this endless, pointless paper.
Webber climaxes this section with an
amusing paragraph, where he looks at Luther and sees himself in the mirror –
And yet, as Luther also
emphasizes, it is only in the application, and in the faith which the Holy
Spirit works in Christians, that believers are personally liberated from
the kingdom and tyranny of sin and death. Without the converting and
regenerating work of the Spirit – through the means of grace – the absolution
of “everyone” does not actually benefit everyone. Ultimately, that absolution
benefits only those who do eventually receive it by faith. (p. 29)
Thus Webber teaches a justification without
faith, without real forgiveness, and an absolution without effect – prefiguring
his doctrinal essay without Christian doctrine, except in the Luther and Book
of Concord quotations he parodies in other places.
Part II: Why Objective Justification Matters to Us
A. Luther and the Theologians of the Age of Orthodoxy p. 29
This reminds me of being lost on the way
home to Springdale. The signage was confusing because of the new I-49
designation being incomplete. We passed the same elegant bridge twice in one
hour of wandering. Not again!
After displaying complete ignorance of
Luther and incomprehension of the Reformer’s message, Webber raises up Luther
again.
Once again Webber offers the class notes
or Cliff Notes version of church history. Those after Luther used philosophical
categories. Melanchthon is cited as guilty, but I have never read an essay more
grace-filled than Phillip’s treatment of justification by faith in the Apology.
Has Webber read it with discernment? I think not.
Another consideration is worth noting
for those who only graduated from seminary and never defended a real
dissertation, a book, an article, or a review. Was it not God’s will that the
Gospel would be conveyed in the Greek language, thanks to Alexander the Great
creating a Hellenistic culture and Constantine a Christian, Greek empire?
The Reformation took place after 15
centuries of philosophical development, in Greek and Latin. The greatest early
theologian was Augustine, master of the culture of his time, author of The City of God, which blended all
things classical with Biblical teaching. Much more could be said about Aquinas,
who used Aristotle as his basis, defending Rome in clear Medieval Latin. Therefore,
the Reformation had to speak to the culture of the time, especially when
Protestant and Roman Catholic opponents sought to defeat the Lutherans with these
philosophical tools. Luther could and did use those tools against his
opponents, and he had the greatest respect for Melanchthon’s grasp and teaching
of the Gospel. Luther hurled some barbs about Aristotle, but theology and
philosophy were joined together then and still are today. Unfortunately, almost
all modern theologians are post-Kantian Halle rationalists, who use the
religious terms without believing anything.
Webber compares the simplicity of Luther’s
expressions with the complexity of Gerhard’s, (p. 32) but I could easily quote
the simplicity of Gerhard against the complexity of Luther at his finest – in the
Galatians Commentary, which Webber
has not read. Luther uses many pages explaining the obscure terms of congruous
and incongruous grace, Roman Catholic terms, precisely as the papists define
the terms, but then deconstructing every possible prop for those terms.
Gerhard taught justification by faith
and his definition allows no room for UOJ, so perhaps Webber has not forgiven
Chemnitz’ co-laborer for slighting Jay’s favorite dogma. Webber is the genius
who offered Rambach’s Pietist perspective over Chemnitz’ – in dealing with 1
Timothy 3:16, so we all know the cards are being dealt from the bottom of the
deck.
 |
| I would ask Pastor Paul Rydecki, who translated Gerhard and Hunnius, but English-only Webber wanted Rydecki kicked out of WELS. |
Webber cited Rydecki on page 32, but
where is Rydecki in the references? Such sloppiness would get a paper tossed
out of a graduate school class. It is dishonest and craven. Aegidius Hunnius, Theses Opposed to Huberism: A
Defense of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification (translated by Paul A.
Rydecki) (Malone, Texas: Repristination Press, 2012), p. 57. Emphases in
original.
Ho hum. Webber tries to extricate
himself from his basic agreement with Huber, the first Lutheran to teach OJ.
Walther made the same attempt, but he was the born-again founder of the
Missouri Synod who conceded that Stephan was “a bit of a Pietist.” (Servant of
the Word, humor section)
And Gerhard taught OJ, says Webber –
just like Luther? Once again there is a paradox, where someone mocks justification
by faith and declares he is one with a teaching of Biblical justification.
 |
| Robert Preus is quoted many times in this essay, but never from his final book. |
Calov is also cited in this section (p.
36) as being one with UOJ Enthusiasts, an old claim exploded by Robert Preus
himself. As mentioned before, Webber’s years at Ft. Wayne preclude his denial
of Justification and Rome’s message. An ELCA pastor would not know or care
about Robert Preus, but Webber took his diploma from Preus. How can this major
book be ignored when none of us can claim the knowledge of the post-Concord
theologians that Robert Preus had.
Let me pose a question. Does anything think
a man who knows neither Luther, nor Melanchthon, nor the Book of Concord is
magically an expert on the incredibly productive Gerhard and Calov? Each man’s
work is like the Great Pyramid. We would not believe it humanly possible except
for the fact that the dual monuments of Biblical scholarship exist today as
proof of their prolific genius.
B. Justification in the Narrow Sense and in a Broader Sense
p. 36
 |
| Preus quoted this later theologian with approval, but Webber was too timid to quote from his own teacher's last book. Why? |
