Finally, we share here a story that is incorporated into Luther's works from Kirchner's, Selnecker's and Martin Chemnitz's Gründlicher, wahrhaftiger Historie von der Augsburgischen Confession [view online; now available in English by James L. Langebartels here] (or “Historie des Sacramentsstreites”) from 1584. It reads as follows:
.jpg "Georg Major")
“Since [Georg] Major wanted to travel to Regensburg, he came to Dr. Luther to bless him, and in the entrance to his study room he found these words written in Dr. Luther's handwriting: 'Nostri Professores examinandi sunt de Coena Domini', i.e., ‘our professors are to be examined regarding the Lord's Supper.’ So he asked: ‘Venerable Father, what do these words mean?’ To which the great Doctor answered him: ‘What you read and what they say, that is the opinion; and when you return home and I too, an examination will have to be taken, for which you will be required just as much as others.’ But when Dr. Major wanted to rid himself of the suspicion with great reassurance and clear confession, he finally got his answer: ‘You make yourselves suspicious by your silence and cloaks; but if you believe as you speak before me, speak such things in the church, in lectionibus, concionibus, et privatis colloquiis, [in lectures, sermons, and private conversations], and strengthen your brothers and help those who are lost back on the right path, and contradict the wanton spirits; otherwise your confession is only a larval work and of no use. He who holds his teaching, faith, and confession to be true, right, and certain, cannot stand in a stable with others who hold such false teaching or are devoted to it, nor can he still give good words to the devil and his scales. A teacher who keeps silent on errors, and yet wants to be a real teacher, is worse than a public fanatic, and does greater harm with his hypocrisy than a heretic, and is not to be trusted; he is a wolf and a fox, a hireling and a belly servant. He may despise and hand over doctrine, word, faith, sacrament, churches, and schools; either he lies secretly in cahoots with his enemies, or he is a doubter and a weather vane, and wants to see where it will lead, whether Christ or the devil will prevail; or he is completely unsure of himself, and not worthy that he should be called a disciple, let him be called a teacher, and let him anger no one, nor speak Christ's Word, nor woe to the devil and the world’ etc. Dr. Major considered such things (LuW 372) and faithfully promised to follow them and thus blessed Luther, and has often himself recited and told such serious discourses which the great man of God gave him.” (Tom. Hal. XVII, 1476. f. [StL 17, 1179 f.])
Whether Luther wrote the words: “Nostri Professores examinandi sunt de Coena Domini,” also for Melanchthon's sake, above the entrance to his study, we do not want to decide; in any case, if Luther had returned alive to Wittenberg, he would not have dispensed with having to do such an examination.
(Riley, 17:28): Now that means then this is a fine distinction, but important one, “Who does Jesus die to redeem from sin, death and Hell — everybody: (17:38) "Behold the Lamb of God who dies for the sin of the world" [John 1:29], the Cosmos, therefore everyone is saved in Jesus's blood, I should say "justified", I guess that's a better way of saying it, everyone is justified, everyone is forgiven in Jesus's death, and resurrection. (17:52) Now we call that "Objective Justification". [Very good!! Pr. Riley could have also used the term “Universal Justification” as this was just explicitly taught.] Subjective Justification then follows as a consequence of the preaching of the Gospel, the reception of Baptism, (18:04) Lord's Supper, and the forgiveness of sins [Absolution; also the reading of the Word of Grace] [NB: Pr. Riley could have mentioned of how it is subjective, by faith, i.e. sola fide, Pieper CD II, 349; Subjective Justification is in distinction from the Objective Justification, what happens on the recipient side of the Means of Grace.] but for Lutherans this is all done publicly, it is all done through the work of the Holy Spirit [who also works also through the written of Word to create faith, “Be ye reconciled to God” 2 Cor. 5:20], [18:11] Third Article of Apostle's Creed Explanation in the Catechisms and thus when the question comes "How do I know if I'm a sheep or a goat?", we point to the cross and say “you are elected, you are chosen, God chose you in Christ.” (18:26) For Calvinsts, traditionally when you ask that question the answer is "Well we can't just know, but we can look for signs". So what happens is that for Lutherans, Election points us to Jesus and thus comfort and assurance; in Calvinism, it points us back to ourself, where there is no comfort or assurance. (Gillespie) (18:45): And that is the key distinction you know "How can I know and you've a few conversations, maybe they wouldn't consider themselves Calvinists, but they are part of a church that kind of adheres to the tradition. (Right) And they will even have problems with the word of forgiveness like I hear you say "I forgive you our sins" but how can I know that I'm really forgiven... because Jesus said it? (Huh!)
(19:08) (Riley) so if you want to find out more about this, it's in Calvin's Institutes Book 32, chapter 21, where he argues that preaching equals Predestination and Predestination equals evidence of Election, and so what happens is that you take the preaching and you internalize it and this is a sign of your conversion, your regeneration. (end of clip)
- Why would they condemn Bente when he is a vigorous defender of what these podcasting pastors teach — Objective Justification?
- Where did they get this teaching if not from Walther, Pieper, Stoeckhardt and… Bente?! Did they get it from Dr. Scott Keith, the sponsor of their podcast? (I don't think so.) Did they get it from Bo Giertz (Swedish) or Wilhelm Pauck (German) or from Jaroslav Pelikan's book From Luther to Kierkegaard — their promoted historians for Lutheran history? Although I have not been a student of the first 2 European theologians, I am aware that Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, who eventually left Lutheranism, did not teach Objective Justification, at least not properly. (Since this doctrine is largely missing in Europe, I suspect the 2 European theologians actually fought against this doctrine of Objective, Universal Justification.)
- How can your history sources give true Lutheran history if they are known for "Pietism" and "Neo-Lutheranism", being "closer to Harnack than to Luther", etc.? Indeed, how can they teach "Objective Justification" purely with these designations?
- How can your teaching of Objective Justification avoid your own charge (Part 15) of being "filtered through that particular time and that particular debate and that particular context" as the Old Missouri Synod faced from their opponents? (Only the Synodical Conference upheld this doctrine in the whole world…)
- If you cannot reconcile your express teaching with your promoted theologians, why would you call into question your own teaching, presented in this very same podcast, by this contradiction?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.