No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
As Taught in Later Lutheran Orthodoxy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
During the history of the Lutheran Church the doctrine ofjustification has been spoken of commonly and rather loosely as the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. This was certainly the conviction of Luther, as many of his statements testify.The purpose of this study is to examine the teaching of JohnAndrew Quenstedt, the most prominent and able representative of the later seventeenth-century Lutheran orthodoxy, on this doctrine and to learn how closely the dogmatics of his time approximates the emphasis and terminology of Luther. Quenstedt is the ‘book-keeper’—one might say the Aquinas—of Lutheran scholasticism, and he quite accurately sums up the theology of the entire century. It might be said by way of introduction that modern Lutheranism owes much to the dogmaticiansof the age of orthodoxy for the manner in which it deals with this doctrine; and for this reason I feel justified inpresenting an article of this nature.1 I propose merely to summarise Quenstedt's treatment of the doctrine of justification, and to offer comments when I deem them necessary.2 I believe that the reader will find that Quenstedt's presentation is quite well balanced and that it gives the impression of being consistently drawn from Scripture. At least it is obvious that this is Quenstedt's persuasion as he develops the doctrine.
page 262 note 1 cf. Koeberle, , The Quest for Holiness, N.Y., 1936;Google ScholarF. Pieper, , Christian Dogmatics, St. Louis, 1951;Google ScholarElert, , Der Christliche Glaube, Hamburg, 1956, pp. 470ff"; et al.Google Scholar
page 262 note 2 All references and quotations from Quenstedt's Theologia Didactico-Polemica sive Syslema Theologicum, de justificatione, sect. 1, unless otherwise stated.
page 263 note 1 Quenstedt also cites similar statements of Luther. Erl. ed. Lat., 21.12, 20.
page 263 note 2 Church Dogmatics, IV, i, p. 522.
page 263 note 3 Chemnitz in his Loci Theologici devotes no less than 100 folio pages to the doctrine of justification and often calls this the central teaching of Christian theology. Gerhard too is very thorough in his treatment of the doctrine and in his discussion on justification (Loci Theologici, Tom. VII) he includes his presentation of the work of Christ.
page 264 note 1 Baier, , Compendium Theologiae Positivae, prol. I,33Google Scholar. Hollaz, , Examen Theologicum Acroamaticwn, prol. quaes. 19–24.Google Scholar
page 264 note 2 cf. Erl.Aufl., 50.26–29, 48.18, 40.324ff.
page 270 note 1 cf. Formula of Concord, Thor. decl. III , 13ff.
page 271 note 1 This agress with the Formula of Concordia, Art. III.
page 273 note 1 Loci Theologici, Cotta ed., Tuebingen, 1762, VII, 11.
page 274 note 1 Sermo de duplici iustitia, 1519. WA 2.245-6.
page 274 note 2 Erl. Aufl., 14.204. 1 Advent, 1522.
page 274 note 3 Erl. Aufl., 10.18ff. Sermon on Matt. 9.1-9.
page 274 note 4 cf. supra. Also Gerhard, op. cit., VII.8.13.
page 274 note 5 Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 7 and can. 11.
page 275 note 1 Disputationes, Tom. 4, de justificatione, I, III.
page 275 note 2 Praelectiones Theologicae, ed. 27, Ratisbonae, 1856, II, 229.
page 277 note 1 cf. Baier, Compendium, de justificatione, par. 3. Dannhauer, Hodosophia, ed. 1713, p. 461.
page 277 note 2 Die Disputation de iustificatione (1536). WA 39.97-98.
page 277 note 3 cf. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, 1.95; Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 87; Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 276.
page 277 note 4 Ev.-Luth. Dogmatik, Milwaukee, 1912, III, 345.