DK has left a new comment on your post "Trying To Fathom the Newest ELCA Breakoff":
Hi Professor, this is a little off topic, but I was wondering if you'd help me parse out a quote from David P. Scaer's essay "The two sides of justification".
>>"Unless justification is prior to faith but without ever denying that it actualizes itself in faith, the gospel is no longer indicative in describing an already existing condition of God’s contentment with the world, but it becomes a conditional offering of terms that must first be fulfilled before and in order for the sinner to be justified. Conditional justification, even if it is dependant (sic) on faith, is no longer an act that God universally accomplished for all men in Christ: it degenerates into separate happenings occurring in the life of each individual believer. The theocentric or Christocentric view of justification is lost to an anthropocentric one."<<
Maybe I'm slow, but I can't shake the feeling that this is a circular argument. Isn't he really saying that: "justification must happen prior to faith (i.e. it's Universal) otherwise it wouldn't be Universal."?
In any event I disagree with him. If Faith is created solely through Word and Sacrament, how can he claim that "justification given as a result of faith" makes justification Anthropocentric?
***
GJ - Scaer began with the assumption that Walther's Easter Absolution sermon is the ruled norm. When I took Klemet Preus' class on argumentation, we had to list logical fallacies we heard. I listed a few from Scaer's class. Klemet said, "That was too easy, using Scaer."
This Scaer quotation is a Straw Man fallacy. Scaer offered up a false version of justification by faith and demolished his own Straw Man. In fact, he poured scorn on the Biblical concept - not a good way to build up UOJ. So it does appear to be circular reasoning. The trouble with logical fallacies is that their definitions overlap so much.
The boogey-man is faith. The UOJ Stormtroopers assume faith is a virtue or a meritiorious work. In this case, the argument misses the entire emphasis upon receiving the Means of Grace in faith. Therefore, Scaer made forgiveness conditional, gliding from justification by faith to synergism. And yet his own final result is synergism or semi-pelagianism.
The Holy Spirit creates faith through the Gospel Promises. Man receives forgiveness in faith (justification by faith). The Atonement means that Christ has already paid the price, not that the entire world has been pronounced forgiven. Confusing the Atonement with justification is typical of Calvinists, who cannot grasp the Means of Grace.
In the double-justification scheme of Knapp, Walther, Kokomo, and Scaer, everyone is already forgiven. But to be really forgiven they have to accept the truth of universal absolution. That is synergism at best, although most synergists would be shocked at the universalism of UOJ. Synergism means that man cooperates in his salvation.
No wonder Ft. Wayne pastors run screaming to Rome and Constantinople! A few lost along the way turn to Pentecostalism and Babtist dogma. UOJ, Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Pente-babtistry are flavors of Enthusiasm.
16 comments:
DK,
You cannot conduct a sane discussion with UOJers.
For UOJers, UOJ is true, end of story.
In my field, if you offer no proof for your theorem, this is called hand waving. Also you cannot get away and say "this is obvious or trivial".
LPC
Thanks a bunch. I'm appreciative of your insight.
DK,
but I can't shake the feeling that this is a circular argument.
Yes indeed DK, in UOJ, you believe you are already righteous and so you are. Try suggesting that to a UOJer and see if you do not get bullied to submission.
I was a babstistcostal before, we had the same type of reasoning from the stable of Kenneth Copeland and Kenneth Hagin, the prosperity preachers.
Believe that you are already healed, prosperous etc and so you are and if you are not, it is your fault, you just did not exercise your faith enough.
This is the reason why UOJ to me, after a while, sounded similar to the Word-Faith Prosperity preachers.
LPC
Whoa, the order those comments were posted came in the wrong order.
LPC, I wasn't being confrontational to you, I was actually thanking Jackson.
But to address what you said, I hope you're wrong. I probably wouldn't waste my breath on someone who clearly didn't want to converse. Thant being said, I'm engaged in a discussion with a Confessional Pastor. This guy is actually willing to read about and talk about UOJ. He provided me with the Scaer essay in defense of UOJ. I wrote him a response condemning Scaer's viewpoint with the knowledge I've gained (I cited my sources, Prof.! No kelming for me) here and elsewhere. His response? Thoughtful comments and a promise too study the matter.
Was this Pastor blowing smoke? I trust not.
I will continue to engage people (total strangers too) in this discussion. My role as a layman, as I see it, is to ask the clergy questions that will force them to a)not care or
b)do the homework.
I think a good many Pastors and laymen believe UOJ because they were taught it at an impressionable age. That's not an excuse, but it's understandable why it's part of their fabric. LAYMEN: GET EDUCATED. CHALLENGE YOUR PASTORS IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN. There's more than enough info on this site and in Jackson's books to converse intelligently about UOJ
LPC wrote:
"Yes indeed DK, in UOJ, you believe you are already righteous and so you are."
Clever way of phrasing that. I think you're dead on with your comparison to faith healers
sorry for the typos.
(hanging hed in sham)
DK,
LPC, I wasn't being confrontational to you, I was actually thanking Jackson.
Yes I know and no offense taken.
Thank the Lord this pastor you are conversing with is open.
I have had no such luck. In my experience there are also zealous laymen out there who hyperventilate and pounce right away if you even mildly suggest that UOJ could be a wrong way of putting justification.
I agree with you - about being of an impressionable age. In my early walk into Lutheranism, I thought UOJ was another way of speaking about the Atonement too, until I read Dr. Greg's blog posts. Then I confirmed what they are saying, collapsing and mixing Atonement with Justification or making Atonement Justification itself.
The more of us discussing this issue, I think the better.
LPC
Right on.
That Scaer paper "The Two Sides of Justification" is on p. 24-27 of volume 2 of his collected works, and sells for $25:
http://www.peacesussex.org/CCA/scaer01.html
volume 2:
http://www.peacesussex.org/PDFs/In%20Christ%20Vol2%20TC.pdf
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Are you saying that Jesus does not grant forgiveness unless there is a desire for repentance?
In other words; If someone wrongs me, I don't have to forgive them unless they say they are sorry? Seems I could go on being angry for the rest of my life with some people.
Why attend church when you have UOJ? With UOJ the Word of God does nothing that has not already been done. Do anything you please and you are forgiven.
Anon @ 9:39:
Forgiveness is always withheld from the unrepentant. Withholding forgiveness, however, has nothing to do with one's anger against them, but with one's love and concern for their eternal welfare. The withholding of forgiveness is announced to the unrepentant as a preachment of Law against his sin, that it may do what it is supposed to: strike terror in the heart of the sinner, that he would turn from his evil and run to the open arms of a gracious and loving God, and receive His forgiveness. When we announce forgiveness of sins to the repentant, it is not us forgiving them, really, but a preachment of the Gospel -- that God in heaven has forgiven them.
So how is it that God forgives us? How can we repent before we are granted forgiveness? In the waters of Baptism, we are granted faith, which by definition is a turning from evil toward God, as by it we lay hold of and appropriate to ourselves His promises. Hence it is often said that in Baptism we are granted repentance and faith, and our sins are thus forgiven. Acts 2:38-41 is often interpreted this way.
To withhold and grant forgiveness is to use the Keys that Christ himself gave to the Church (Matt. 16:17-19). To forgive someone without telling them is to completely omit the preachment of Law against their sin followed by a preachment of the Gospel, and is therefore to deprive them of the message of Justification -- which comes only through Law and Gospel -- and to utterly fail to edify them and strengthen their faith. To forgive someone without telling them does them no good, but is only selfishly done for the psychological benefit of the one who only secretly is offended and who secretly forgives.
Freddy Finkelstein
"I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Are you saying that Jesus does not grant forgiveness unless there is a desire for repentance?
In other words; If someone wrongs me, I don't have to forgive them unless they say they are sorry? Seems I could go on being angry for the rest of my life with some people."
You know, I have been on here before and asked questions about things I have been struggling with and it seems they get passed over. For someone who claims that he is a Pastor, his 'bedside' manner is lacking.
Anon @ 11:10 AM: UOJ does not reject that one can be condemned. UOJ is only half of the doctrine of justification. Subjective justification must also be present. One must have faith worked into their heart by the Holy Spirit through the Word and Sacraments. "Do anything you please and you are forgiven," implies cheap grace which is rejected by Lutheranism.
Anonymous at 3pm, sorry for not addressing your questions earlier.
I believe that what you are referring to and what you are asking are two different things. The Office of the Keys which all Christians have been given by God, and were described well by Mr. Finklestein, are used when a Christian stands in Christ's stead or place, and are required to either withhold forgiveness from an unrepentant sinner or grant forgiveness to a repentant sinner. Key here is that we are withholding or bestowing Christ's forgiveness.
In the example you give I believe you are speaking of your personal forgiveness of someone who has offended you. You can and should bestow your forgiveness on them even though they may not be sorry. This however is not the same as exercising the Office of the Keys. This is differentiated in the Lord's Prayer where it states, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" Also Matt 6:15, "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
I hope this helps. Post again if you have additional questions. Again, accept my personal apology if your earlier questions weren't addressed and please continue to ask for clarification.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Mr. Finkelstein, I appreciate your post. You come close to full disclosure of your confession concerning UOJ. Would you care to share that confession here as I've often wondered where you stood on that doctrine.
Holding my breath,
Brett Meyer
Post a Comment