Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair) Advanced Member Username: Drboisclair Post Number: 658 Registered: 1-2002 |
One of the deceptions of those who preach and teach against the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification is that it is a doctrine of Pietism. This is foolishness since Pietism militates against the objective deeds and promises of God. Pietism focuses on human works. God's objective justification of the world (cf. "kosmos" in 2 Cor. 5:19) in Christ is God's action that is completed and then reported by the preaching of the Gospel. If Pietists or the Reformed simply repeat the teaching of the Scriptures, that teaching is not thereby tainted. The Fideists commit the fallacy of "guilt by association" when they allege that because a Pietist or a Reformed theologian speaks of Objective Justification, Objective Justification is thereby a Pietist or a Reformed doctrine. Pietism deflects the focus from God and His Word and works to man. The Fideist unscriptural understanding of faith is a Pietistic understanding. |
Rambach - Halle Pietist
Quistorp - Pietist
Lindee
You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification -- certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating (subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching on the matter of Justification.
I knew that Rambach was a pietist. I was not using his observations on this verse to discredit Chemnitz, but to supplement Chemnitz. His exegesis and reflections stand on their own, and should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of what he might have said on other topics on other occasions. And it is also clear that on this topic in particular, he was not inventing a new pietist notion, but was recapitulating the orthodox teaching of the orthodox theologian Quistorp. Theologians with pietist leanings were not wrong in everything they said, especially when they were repeating the sound teaching of orthodox theologians of earlier times.
51 Johann Quistorp; quoted in C. F. W. Walther, Justification: Subjective and Objective (translated by Kurt E. Marquart) (Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1982), p. 21.
 |
| The Calvinist Woods in translating the Halle Pietist Knapp used these two terms to explain Justification. Any questions? |
 |
| The Holy Spirit, says Luther, denies Objective Justification. |
From a reader who reads the classics, including the KJV:
Hi Greg,
I find it interesting in your latest post http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2019/07/we-have-to-view-lutherquislings-as-weak.html
how there is yet again argument(s) presented which are tangential to the real subject at hand, which includes the questions:
- Is Objective Justification equal to the Atonement? Why or why not?
- Is Subjective Justification the same thing as faith? Why or why not?
- What is faith?
There is no Biblical proof presented. Instead there is name calling (Fideists) and talk about Pietism. I personally don't care that much about who is and who is not a Pietist. What I do care about is what the Scriptures teach.
As a Lutheran I know the Book of Concord explains accurately the Scriptures. It talks about Justification by Faith. If Justification by Faith is so evil and heretical, as these we assume God-fearing men you are quoting from LutherQuest believe, why can't they provide clear Biblical arguments as to why the Book of Concord is wrong?
...The name “Walter A. Maier” as the speaker of the Lutheran Hour was a symbol of what to many were the Missouri Synod’s golden days. Here was a potentially deadly potion of historical, theological, political, emotional and family issues. At the time of the faculty’s conversations with Maier II, Robert Preus looked for support and found it among conservative friends in the Evangelical movement who admired him for his defense of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, including several faculty members of Westminster Seminary—Escondido, California, with its renowned Reformed scholar Michael Horton (b. 1964). Preus must have been aware, but chose to ignore that the Reformed see objective justification as a component of their doctrine of election, but it was hardly universal in scope as Lutherans have historically held it.
Scaer, David P.. Surviving the Storms: Memoirs of David P. Scaer . Luther Academy. Kindle Edition.
I find it interesting in your latest post http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2019/07/we-have-to-view-lutherquislings-as-weak.html
how there is yet again argument(s) presented which are tangential to the real subject at hand, which includes the questions:
- Is Objective Justification equal to the Atonement? Why or why not?
- Is Subjective Justification the same thing as faith? Why or why not?
- What is faith?
There is no Biblical proof presented. Instead there is name calling (Fideists) and talk about Pietism. I personally don't care that much about who is and who is not a Pietist. What I do care about is what the Scriptures teach.
As a Lutheran I know the Book of Concord explains accurately the Scriptures. It talks about Justification by Faith. If Justification by Faith is so evil and heretical, as these we assume God-fearing men you are quoting from LutherQuest believe, why can't they provide clear Biblical arguments as to why the Book of Concord is wrong?
 |
| The OJists truly hate Dr. Walter A. Maier. |
...The name “Walter A. Maier” as the speaker of the Lutheran Hour was a symbol of what to many were the Missouri Synod’s golden days. Here was a potentially deadly potion of historical, theological, political, emotional and family issues. At the time of the faculty’s conversations with Maier II, Robert Preus looked for support and found it among conservative friends in the Evangelical movement who admired him for his defense of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, including several faculty members of Westminster Seminary—Escondido, California, with its renowned Reformed scholar Michael Horton (b. 1964). Preus must have been aware, but chose to ignore that the Reformed see objective justification as a component of their doctrine of election, but it was hardly universal in scope as Lutherans have historically held it.
Scaer, David P.. Surviving the Storms: Memoirs of David P. Scaer . Luther Academy. Kindle Edition.
