The resurrection appears 95 times in Today's Business, and the atonement never. Scaer called the aberration this May & Schwan named it in 1862. Our working vocabulary keeps proving them right.
I am open to a properly informed and intended rebuke here, and I'm sure I am bad, but I have started to bristle when _expected_ to exclaim "He is risen indeed" more than a couple of times, even on Easter.
It's not to the point of the response demanded for "Amen?" but I guess it could get there.
Maybe every Lutheran should do time in an SBC church for a few months. Some might be lost, so I can't be sure this is a great idea, but it's sure tempting.
Thanks for the article. I have some questions I'm hoping Pastor Koontz might be able to answer.
In his 1862 theses/speech found in the book At Home in the House of My Fathers, then-LCMS President Henry Schwan evidently said:
-legalism [is] a way of justification having to do with the use of the law to justify rather than the gospel.
-the legalist believes that the gospel is there to get you to fulfill the law.
It seems that there is an important distinction here in these definitions.
I wonder what kinds of practical examples of legalism Schwan saw in hi day (I will try to track down the book)
I think the the following two questions are critical for Lutherans today, and I wonder how Schwan would have responded to them:
"Do you agree that the Apostle’s Creed is intended to help us do that which according to the 10 Commandments we ought to do? Increase in us faith and the fulfilment of the Ten Commandments, and that God would remove everything that is in our way and opposes us therein?”
Given the content of Schwann's essay, would he agree with this? Or is this “gospel… there to get you to fulfill the law”?
Back in 1994, a book called The Goal of the Gospel was published by CPH. It was removed for doctrinal reasons shortly thereafter. I do believe it is appropriate to talk about goals of the Gospel.
The ten uses of the bare word, "justification", in Today's Business blur the distinction between the understanding of "objective justification", that is Christ's complete accomplishment of atonement on the cross for everyone in the world, and the understanding of "subjective justification", that is the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification in bringing justification to each individual person by the means of grace through faith.
I think the passive obedience of Christ in the vicarious satisfaction doctrine needs to be distinguished from the penal substitution doctrine though I think both doctrines are true What makes Christ suffering on the cross righteousness is not that he was punished but that he was obedient in submitting to this horrific death. It is this passive obedience or righteousness which in union with Christ's active obedience that satisfies the demands of God's justice and which is imputed to us as righteousness through faith. Understanding His passive obedience this way lines the doctrine up with the doctrine of justification in a way that is not clear with penal substitution. If you are emphasizing justification as the forgiveness of sins the penal substitution doctrine works very well. If you are emphasizing imputed righteousness then vicarious satisfaction preaches better. I think both doctrines as well as Christus Victor are true. There is even truth in the ransom theory. Vicarious satisfaction should predominate though because it is pivotal to the doctrine of justification and rightly relates Law and Gospel.
I am open to a properly informed and intended rebuke here, and I'm sure I am bad, but I have started to bristle when _expected_ to exclaim "He is risen indeed" more than a couple of times, even on Easter.
It's not to the point of the response demanded for "Amen?" but I guess it could get there.
Maybe every Lutheran should do time in an SBC church for a few months. Some might be lost, so I can't be sure this is a great idea, but it's sure tempting.
AC,
Thanks for the article. I have some questions I'm hoping Pastor Koontz might be able to answer.
In his 1862 theses/speech found in the book At Home in the House of My Fathers, then-LCMS President Henry Schwan evidently said:
-legalism [is] a way of justification having to do with the use of the law to justify rather than the gospel.
-the legalist believes that the gospel is there to get you to fulfill the law.
It seems that there is an important distinction here in these definitions.
I wonder what kinds of practical examples of legalism Schwan saw in hi day (I will try to track down the book)
I think the the following two questions are critical for Lutherans today, and I wonder how Schwan would have responded to them:
"Do you agree that the Apostle’s Creed is intended to help us do that which according to the 10 Commandments we ought to do? Increase in us faith and the fulfilment of the Ten Commandments, and that God would remove everything that is in our way and opposes us therein?”
Given the content of Schwann's essay, would he agree with this? Or is this “gospel… there to get you to fulfill the law”?
Back in 1994, a book called The Goal of the Gospel was published by CPH. It was removed for doctrinal reasons shortly thereafter. I do believe it is appropriate to talk about goals of the Gospel.
+Nathan
The goal of the Gospel, to create saving faith in we sinners, is accomplished by the Gospel.
Does the gospel gives us both pardon for our sins, and power to live the Christian life?
I remember my pastor giving an intense Bible class focusing on Jesus' suffering on the cross.
It was Easter morning. It was not easy for me to process but I'm sure he ended on the resurrection.
The ten uses of the bare word, "justification", in Today's Business blur the distinction between the understanding of "objective justification", that is Christ's complete accomplishment of atonement on the cross for everyone in the world, and the understanding of "subjective justification", that is the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification in bringing justification to each individual person by the means of grace through faith.
Was there a time when the Missouri Synod seemed so close to being taken over by lightweight, bad theologians? Oh. Seminex. Never mind.
Numbers were always to be ignored, and still are. Even if there's only one good man left at one seminary, I pray he will stand up, and keep standing.
I think the passive obedience of Christ in the vicarious satisfaction doctrine needs to be distinguished from the penal substitution doctrine though I think both doctrines are true What makes Christ suffering on the cross righteousness is not that he was punished but that he was obedient in submitting to this horrific death. It is this passive obedience or righteousness which in union with Christ's active obedience that satisfies the demands of God's justice and which is imputed to us as righteousness through faith. Understanding His passive obedience this way lines the doctrine up with the doctrine of justification in a way that is not clear with penal substitution. If you are emphasizing justification as the forgiveness of sins the penal substitution doctrine works very well. If you are emphasizing imputed righteousness then vicarious satisfaction preaches better. I think both doctrines as well as Christus Victor are true. There is even truth in the ransom theory. Vicarious satisfaction should predominate though because it is pivotal to the doctrine of justification and rightly relates Law and Gospel.