UOJ Twister
- Put you hand on everyone in the world is forgiven.
- Good, now emphasize that everyone in Hell is a guilt-free saint.
- Next - explain how each person has to make a decision about this eternal truth.
- Now for the big stretch - Luther taught this! Watch it, watch it, watch it, you are going to fall.
L P has left a new comment on your post "Scaery Rationalism - Typical Non-Biblical UOJ Argu...":
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
---
L P has left a new comment on your post "Scaery Rationalism - Typical Non-Biblical UOJ Argu...":
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
34 comments:
Regarding the danger of UOJ.
‘This article concerning justification by faith (as the Apology says) is the chief article in the entire Christian doctrine, without which no poor conscience can have any firm consolation, or can truly know the riches of the grace of Christ, as Dr. Luther also has written: If this only article remains pure on the battlefield, the Christian Church also remains pure, and in goodly harmony and without any sects; but if it does not remain pure, it is not possible that any error or fanatical spirit can be resisted. (Tom. 5, Jena, p. 159.) And concerning this article especially Paul says that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.’ Formula of Concord, SD, III. 6, Righteous of Faith before God, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 917.
Highlighted section rejects the doctrine of UOJ which declares the righteousness of Christ was presented, offered and distributed to the entire human race before faith and before the work of the Holy Ghost through the Means of Grace.
1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life. 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments. 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith. 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life.’ Formula of Concord, SD, XI. #15. Of God's Eternal Election, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 1069. 2 Corinthians 5:19ff
The highlighted section of the BOC below rejects UOJ when the false doctrine declares that the whole world was declared by divine verdict to be righteous and acceptable in God's sight. It goes on to destroy UOJ by declaring a person just in God's sight only by faith. UOJ contends that God declared all unbelievers forgiven of all sin, justified and righteous in the blood of Christ.
‘We do not believe thus {that faith is just a beginning of justification} concerning faith, but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because 'to be justified' means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term 'to be justified' is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous.] Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i. e., receives remission of sins.’ Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV. 71, Of Justification. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921,p.141.
http://www.lutherische-bekenntnisgemeinde.de/The%20Lutheran%20Confessions%20on%20Justification.htm
Since the well has been adequately poisoned, there should be no harm in my encouraging anyone confused about this topic to spend time carefully reading the source documents themselves. Here are a few passages from the Scriptures and Lutheran confessions that have been cited in support of the position that God in Christ reconciled (past tense) the world (not just part of the world) to himself, exhorting sinners to be reconciled to him (no Universalism here) -- 2 Cor. 5:19-20. I already pointed out Luther's agreement in a comment on a post from a few days ago.
These LCMS Theses on Justification succinctly distinguish objective justification from subjective justification and give the sedes doctrinae for the good news that God absolved the world by the work of his Son:
'In normal Biblical and ecclesiastical usage the terms "justify" and "justification" refer to the ("subjective") justification of the individual sinner through faith (Rom. 4:5, 5:1, etc.; AC IV, 3; FC SD III, 25). But because theologically justification is the same thing as the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 4:1-8; Ap IV, 76; FC Ep III, 7), it is Biblically and confessionally correct to refer to the great sin-cancelling, atoning work of the Redeemer as the "objective" or "universal" justification of the whole sinful human race. (John 1:29; Rom. 5:6-18; 2 Cor. 5:19; Col 2:14-15; 1 Tim. 3:16; Ap IV, 103-105; LC V, 31, 32, 36, 37; FC SD III, 57)'
That is the position of the Lutheran confessions (e.g., Ap IV, 103-105; FC SD III, 57), not a later development. More important, it is the position of the apostle, as can be seen from 2 Cor. 5:19-20, unless one either follows the Calvinists in changing the meaning of the word "world" or follows the synergists in changing the meaning of the word "reconciled."
DRB, I take it you haven't read through the UOJ discussions on this board or having read enough to comprehend the Scriptural and Confessional opposition to UOJ you have decided to continued in your attempt to defend it.
I will focus my comments to the Confessional references in your fourth paragraph which you state are supportive of UOJ.
AP IV, 103-105 can be found here
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
From those sections I quote, "Because after the whole world became subject, He took away the sin of the whole world, as he [John] testified, saying John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," Ps. 32:1,104] These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free 105] through the blood of Christ."
I believe this encompases the section you feel promotes UOJ. Note that "He took away the sin of the world" is shown to mean the atonement - that Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. This is so since in context it goes on to declare (bold lettering) and define how we obtain the forgiveness of sins which is in Christ, "he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ," It is faith that sets us free through the blood of Christ. Your references reject UOJ.
The following BOC quotes reject and condemn UOJ for declaring the unjust just without the Word which is distributed only through the Means of Grace.
BOC: We maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous.] Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins.
BOC: Accordingly, justification occurs through the Word, just as Paul says, Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing. And proof can be derived even from this that faith justifies, because, if justification occurs only through the Word, and the Word is apprehended only by faith, it follows that faith justifies.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
Mr. Meyer, your citations of instances of subjective justification support the LCMS statement I quoted above since it explicitly says that Scripture and the confessions when speaking of justification usually emphasize its subjective aspect. It does not follow that they do not also teach its universal, objective aspect.
It seems that your argument rests mainly on the premise that if Scripture teaches subjective justification received through faith then it thereby denies any universal objective justification since there are not two justifications, but one justification. Thus, I ask you again, does 2 Cor. 5:19-20 teach one reconciliation or two reconciliations? Does reconciliation with God take place before faith, by faith, or both? Does the use of the terms "church militant" and "church triumphant" necessarily imply that there are two churches, contrary to the Creed?
Thank you for your response. I would suggest that if Scripture and the Confessions only speak of Subjective Justification then there is no other justification that could or should be introduced as coming from God. You do modify the statement with 'usually' so please present a Biblical passage in context which specifically teaches Objective Justification. A Confessional statement in context would be helpful also. It is important to agree that neither Scripture nor the Lutheran Confessions (as historically and previously agreed is 100% correct in it's explanation of Scripture) contradict themselves or each other. Scripture doesn't because it is the perfect and testament of God given to us through the Holy Spirit. Confessions do not because they merely explain Holy Scripture which is inerrant.
The Lutheran Confessions declare that they are the explanation of the Chief Articles of the Christian faith. There is no article of Objective Justification taught in the Confessions. The contention stating that it doesn't because of the RCC focus on works righteousness caused the Confessions to be focused on SJ is incorrect. UOJ is even more abhorrent to the RCC than SJ and thus would have had it's own chapter - it doesn't. The fact that Scripture doesn't teach Objective Justification makes the lack of it in the Confessions a confirmation, albeit unnecessary, that no such doctrine has been taught by God. I contend that if rationalist theologians extrapolated UOJ as a thought or concept of Scripture and proceed to do the same to the Confessions than it's a scam. A baseless rational doctrine of man earning the condemnation of God.
2 Cor. 5:17-22, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
There is only one reconciliation. "we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" shows that the whole unbelieving world isn't reconciled. "To wit" is to say the Ministry of Reconciliation is defined by "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" That's the Gospel promise in Christ - that through Christ we become reconciled to God and forgiven of sin. Christ is our mediator. Understanding that the reconciliation that God purchased for the world through Christ is in fact IN Christ for the whole world if they would obtain him, by grace through the work of the Holy Spirit, as their Mediator. "we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
Cont...
Cont...
The following quotations are taken from the Lutheran Confessions http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php and confirm that reconciliation to God is only through faith in Christ.
"But the remission of sins is received by faith alone, and, indeed, by faith properly so called, because the promise cannot be received except by faith. But faith, properly so called, is that which assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost in the heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain]. Of this faith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the
remission of sins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham] accounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the works of the Law, although love necessarily follows. Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. And because this faith alone receives the remission of sins, and renders us acceptable to God, and brings the Holy Ghost, it could be more correctly called _gratia gratum faciens_, grace rendering one pleasing to God, than an effect following, namely, love."
"But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3, 26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him,"
"Is not this to bury Christ altogether, and to take away the entire doctrine of faith? Paul, on the contrary, teaches that we have access, i.e., reconciliation, through Christ. And to show how this occurs, he adds that we have access by faith. By faith, therefore, for Christ's sake, we receive remission of sins. We cannot set our own love and our own works over against God's wrath. Secondly. It is certain that sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ, as Propitiator, Rom. 3, 25: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation. Moreover, Paul adds: through faith. Therefore this Propitiator thus benefits us, when by faith we apprehend the mercy promised in Him, and set it against the wrath and judgment of God."
"The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake." This BOC quote shows that UOJ changes the meaning of 2 Cor. 5 by saying that God is now at peace with the world and has declared them righteous. The verses actually teach, and confessions confirm, that the reconciliation for the entire world is IN Christ and thus the promise of forgiveness of sins, justification and righteousness is through faith, when we by grace obtain Christ as our propitiation through faith.
Dear Mr. Meyer,
Thank you for answering my first two questions. Your answers have helped me better understand your line of thought.
Since no one here is disputing that several passages of Scripture (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:20) and the confessions refer to subjective justification, which only takes place through faith, I will focus on the real point of disagreement: whether or not the whole world is already reconciled to God in an objective sense.
Since you deny "that God is now at peace with the world and has declared them righteous," you said "the whole unbelieving world isn't reconciled."
By contrast, 2 Cor. 5:19, says "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," about which I have two questions:
1. What does the word "reconciling" mean in the passage if it excludes becoming at peace with and declaring righteous?
2. What does the word "world" mean in the passage if not the whole world, including "the whole unbelieving world"?
2nd Cor. 5:19, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
"To wit" shows that what follows explains what came before. 2nd Cor. 5:18, "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;" Verse 19 is an explanation of the Ministry of Reconciliation - the Gospel. That God is certainly willing to be reconciled to us as Christ has paid for the worlds sins. Scripture declares that only when we obtain Christ as our redeemer through faith do we receive the reconciliation that is only in Him.
BOC quoted above at 11:52AM, "faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3, 26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely"
To your second question, yes world means the whole world excluding no one, every individual person.
Your attempt to show that God can in one sense declare something and in another contradict that declaration is blasphemy.
Mr. Meyer,
Thank you for your honest, straightforward answers. We agree on the meaning of "world" in the passage and the need for subjective reconciliation by faith in the good news announced in the means of grace (2 Cor. 5:18, 20). However, I cannot agree that the work of God "in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses" (2 Cor. 5:19) actually means merely that "God is certainly willing to be reconciled to us as Christ has paid for the worlds sins," in which case Paul would have said, "God was in Christ, wanting to reconcile the world unto himself, not wanting to impute their trespasses unto them," something most synergists could gladly affirm. By the non-imputation of sins, Paul means forgiveness or justification, as seen in the way he cited the Psalm on the blessedness of forgiveness (Romans 4:1-8).
What does the Ministry of Reconciliation (the Gospel) promise? It promises the forgiveness of sin, reconciliation with God through faith in Christ. The BOC confirms that God hasn't reconciled the world to Himself before faith, outside of Baptism and the Word.
69] Now we will show that faith [and nothing else] justifies. Here, in the first place, readers must be admonished of this, that just as it is necessary to maintain this sentence: Christ is Mediator, so is it necessary to defend that faith justifies, [without works]. For how will Christ be Mediator if in justification we do not use Him as Mediator; if we do not hold that for His sake we are accounted righteous? But to believe is to trust in the merits of Christ, that for His sake God certainly wishes to be reconciled with us.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
This quote confirms that God is not reconciled before faith. That God wishes to be reconciled through Christ to the whole world. It is only through faith that we obtain Christ as mediator.
DRB,
Romans 4:1-8 is an argument by Paul to back up the justification by faith found in Romans 3:21-31. In that chapter he will explain and illustrate that Abraham enjoyed Romans 3:21-31. God will not impute Abraham's sin anymore because Jesus's righteousness has been imputed already, to him upon faith.
As I said, even if God imputed our sins to Christ, man needs the imputation of righteousness of Christ.
To equate non-imputation of sin with the imputation of righteousness is again a leap of logic, which is begging the question, an assumption.
Dear LP,
The connection I have in mind between Romans 4:1-8 and 2 Cor. 5:18-20 is explained here:
World's sins not imputed
Mr. Meyer provided clear, succinct answers to two questions I now put to you in case your own position differs from his:
1. What do "reconciling" and "not imputing their trespasses unto them" mean in the following passage if they exclude forgiveness, the covering of sins, justification, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness?
2. What does the word "world" mean in the following passage if not the whole world, including those who reject the means of grace?
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19).
DRB, this is looking more like an interrogation by you and not a discussion. I've provided the Confessional support for my contention that God wishes to be reconciled to the world, has set Christ as the mediator through faith. You do not address that statement but move along to reiterating your question to LPC. Explain why you do not agree, according to the evidence provided, that God remains wrathful toward unbelievers, and that this wrath precludes reconciliation without faith in the Gospel promise, outside of the Means of Grace. Again, the doctrine you promote makes a perfectly consistent triune God into one who sees the whole unbelieving world as sinless, forgiven by the blood of Christ, and yet will condemn them to hell for eternity if He doesn't create the faith in them to believe that He already declared them forgiven, sinless and at peace with Him.
Mr. Meyer, my questions are sincere: I pose them to LP because, finding them useful for understanding your position, I hope they can help me understand his position better than I could in a recent discussion on his blog. As I explained just before my message to LP, I find that your interpretation of the passage truncates the meaning of its words taken in its context.
Posing the questions a second time is by no means redundant: I have reason to think his position differs from yours in that, since he does not call the reconciliation of the world a false doctrine, he finds himself in complete agreement with the doctrine, only disagreeing with the terminology used to express it. By contrast, you seem to condemn not only the terminology but also the doctrine itself. However, I am not sure he agrees with the doctrine since, to the best of my knowledge, while he does not explicitly condemn it, neither does he explicitly condemn its denial. Thus the questions.
DRB.
To answer your question to me.
1.) I refer you to these verbs and they are in participial form. The Greek has no past participle from what I understand. Further there is the "was" word which is a literal "ἦν". These verbs "reconciling" and "not imputing" are still on going actions of God that started in the past and continues to go on till today. He is still doing it today. Christ's atoning sacrifice is God's message of reconciliation to the world, God is not imputing the sins of the world and now the injunction of Paul 2 Cor 5:20 for people to be reconciled to God. He is favorably disposed to sinners and in that he is bringing the reconciling message of the Gospel (if you will) to sinners that they might come to faith and now be imputed with the righteousness of Christ - this is borne out by 2 Cor 5:21. He became sin for us (the non imputation). That is the link to "not imputing sin" (v.19 and 21 are linked together) So this act of God is still on going and I think to see 2 Cor 5:19 as a completed work is where the UOJ position makes a blunder in deduction. As I said though our sins have been imputed to Christ, Christ's righteousness is not automatically imputed to us for Christ's righteousness is imputed to us only by faith in that Atonement, for to reject the Gospel is to reject the reconciling action of God. Even if you take v.19 and stop there to support UOJ it is still shot down by the present participle, but the verse does not stop there, v.20 comes in play and this is the reason why I say that the whole 2 Cor 5:18-21 together is about JBFA. It is similar to Romans 3:21-31 which speaks of the object of faith- atonement and how faith justifies or how faith then reconciles man to God.
2. The world is the whole world.
DRB, in my observation, UOJ language is an engagement in equivocation. When JBFAers present JBFA passages, of course UOJers agree. Hence, UOJ language is able to slide back and forth and JBFAers would have to play catch up.
Therefore UOJ is able to prove too much. But this is not a strength of the position but a weakness. Hence, in the case of Rome, the Reformers charged them of sophistry. It is a weakness because it means the existence of a contradiction is present in the reasoning method employed.
What I mean is that ex falso quodlibet is in action in the UOJ way of speaking about justification.
So can you summarize why you disagree?
LPC
DRB,
Although I have not yet condemned UOJ doctrine, some UOJers have condemned me already by my questioning and challenging UOJ's presentation specially challenging the infallibility of American Lutheran church fathers. My synod for your info has no official statement of similar to LCMS-1932. We do have pastors influenced by the American Lutheran fathers and hence, UOJ is lurking in some of their psyche but officially my synod has no such statements.
Brett has more experience with UOJ than I and has interacted longer in time with UOJers than I have been.
He has formed that opinion based on his experience and wisdom. Further, we may differ in some specifics of our own way of articulating our opposition to UOJ but the objection remains and I think you should address that.
For the whole point is the correctness of UOJ in Scripture, because if it is correct the our objections are all wrong no matter how we differ in our
opposition.
Playing up our differences is just red herring.
LPC
DRB,
Lastly if you are asking me if I reject LCMS-1932 UOJ article 17 as worded, namely
17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, accounts as righteous, all those who that is, believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: "There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law," Rom. 3:28.
Yes I do reject this article because of the bolded words.
LPC
Oops I forget the bolded words... here they are and I consider this statement in error ...Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ.
The whole world has been paid for by Christ, but the whole world is not in Christ, therefore God has not declared the whole world to be righteous.
LPC
LPC, thank you for your clear answers.
You seem to imply the passage was mistranslated since it uses the "present" participle. Voelz puts quotation marks around "present" because what is called the present participle in Greek does not indicate present absolute time but rather connection (Fundamental Greek Grammar) or continuity (Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek). The past tense of the Greek word for the main verb ("was") indicates that the apostle had past time in mind since the time of the present participle is the same as the time of the main verb. In the previous verse, to which I will return, the participle correctly translated "reconciled" is aorist, indicating past relative time.
In short, I disagree with your interpretation in part because the correctly translated text reads, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them," not "God is in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." The message of reconciliation is not that God is reconciling the world by working faith inside us, but that he was reconciling the world in the work of Christ outside of us. In other words, the good news announced by the means of grace is the message of the cross, not the message of my faith. As I see it, your message (summarized below) lies somewhere between those two extremes, the first of which is apostolic: Paul proclaimed nothing but Christ crucified, urging his hearers to believe the good news of the cross.
Your interpreting 2 Cor. 5:19 to mean that God began reconciling the world in the work of Christ but continues reconciling the world through faith does not fit the context of "reconciled" (past time) in the previous verse; your interpretation violates the following parallel structure of the two verses. As the words "that is" (ESV) imply, "God... hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ" means "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself"; "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation" means "hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (If you do not see the parallel structure, I would be happy to draw a table to illustrate the point I am trying to make.) In conclusion, the parallel structure between the verses connected by "that is" implies that the time of "was... reconciling" in 2 Cor. 5:19 is the same as "reconciled" in 2 Cor. 5:18, namely, past time.
LP, in saying you reject the bolded words, do you mean you reject the doctrine expressed by those words or that you accept the doctrine but believe it should have been stated more clearly?
DRB,
The issue is not the "was" in 2 Cor 5:19, the issue as I said is the participle. It was you who asked me what those participles meant - "reconciling" and "not imputing". These are the critical participles that are in present on going. 2 Cor 5:19 is explaining expanding on the story of v.18.
The second point is the "us" in 2 Cor 5:18 and 19, is the "us" in those passages a referent to the whole world or to the apostles and believers? Please note that before these verse, Paul was speaking of those who are IN Christ that they are new creatures.
Since the "world" is mentioned in 2 Cor 5:19 and which I affirm, the whole world, there is a distinction with the "us" in verses 2 Cor 5: 18/19 to this "world".
For the UOJ to hold, the first "us" in 2 Cor 5:18 must be the whole world and will collide with the second "us" in that verse - also this would be an absurdity in that it means God has given the ministry of reconciliation to the world including Muslims/Hindus/Budhist i.e non-believers.
BTW, thanks, my understanding here is becoming even clearer on what Paul meant. The hard work chasing this Scripture has been good.
LPC
DRB,
Ideas have consequences...
I reject the doctrine found in these words - "Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ".
Words teach something and they imply something. In fact when I was agreeing with UOJ in my early walk in Lutheranism, I was thinking - hmm, may be that Muslim down there is my 'brother too', he has been declared righteous by God he has not believed it yet. This produced an earthquake in my spirit a disconnect. Internally I was vomiting.
I believe it is much safer to use the words the way the Bible uses them. Take the example of predestination, it is always linked with believers but you do not see it linked with unbelievers, and hence, though the BoC affirms single predestination it does not fall into reasoning that there is double predestination which Calvinists do. Hence, BoC is more responsible and correct with Scripture.
So justification is reserved for those who believe the Gospel and so we should limit that word and what it means to them too.
LPC
LP, to answer your question about "us" and "world," Paul did not mean "world" when he said "us" and yet did not exclude the world from the accomplished reconciliation, as seen in the parallel structure noted above. Whereas some Calvinists would reason "'us' therefore not 'world,'" the Lutheran (following Paul) reasons "'world' therefore 'us.'" The former is of course a logical fallacy.
The interpretation of the participle cannot be separated from the tense of the main verb since the time of the participle is relative to that of the main verb. See Voelz or Mounce.
I am sorry to hear you reject the doctrine (not just the wording of the doctrine) that God has already declared the world righteous, for it is no different than the doctrine that God in Christ reconciled the world to himself, not imputing their sins against them. I hope that is because you misunderstand the doctrine to teach everyone in the world is also in Christ.
The main problem with limiting ourselves to the words of Scripture is that heretics use the same words of Scripture but give them new meanings, forcing the church to use extra-scriptural terms like "Trinity," "communion of attributes," "justification by faith alone," and "human nature" in order to clearly reject error and confess the truth.
DRB,
"us" and "world," Paul did not mean "world" when he said "us" and yet did not exclude the world from the accomplished reconciliation, as seen in the parallel structure noted above
The point I am making is that since "us" in v.18 refers to the apostles and believers then their reconciliation has finished already, since they are now in Christ, v.17. Yet the rest of the world is yet to be reconciled, in effect, the on going work of God. v.18 & 19 cannot be extracted from the whole argument surrounded by v.17 and 20 and 21. And specifically for this reason - v.20 the appeal of St Paul. Hence, of course, God is taking people from the World and are putting them into Christ by the means of grace.
Re: Voelz or Mounce, but I checked my interpretation of this with other commentators before I replied to you which I now conclude is different from Voelz or Mounce. I am thus far though convinced that I have handled the text responsibly as it fits the overall context of Scripture, I took into account the surrounding passages. My problem with UOJ as you presented it here is that v18/19 is chopped off or isolated from the other verses and UOjers just latch on to them as if they were stated by St Paul without intervening discussions.
I am sorry to hear you reject the doctrine (not just the wording of the doctrine) that God has already declared the world righteous, for it is no different than the doctrine that God in Christ reconciled the world to himself, not imputing their sins against them
I believe this statement means you equate the imputation of our sins to be one and the same thing that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to the world. I believe this is a deduction that they are the same, hence an assumption.
In my reading of the Scripture and BoC, the imputation of Christ's righteousness is confined to those who believe in Him. I said before when I see justification used, faith in Christ is lingering around.
The main problem with limiting ourselves to the words of Scripture is that heretics use the same words of Scripture but give them new meanings, forcing the church to use extra-scriptural terms like "Trinity," "communion of attributes," "justification by faith alone," and "human nature" in order to clearly reject error and confess the truth.
I consider this a fallacy.
Heretics do not limit themselves too with the words of Scripture they also invent terms and concepts -LDS has "investigative judgment", Charismatic preachers have "soaking in the Spirit", "slain in the Spirit", they have a thing such as "seed faith" etc. I can give you more examples of invented words and categories.
Lastly - the statement of 1932-Article 17 is an overstatement (in reference to my bolded words) as Maier pointed out by extension from Pieper.
LPC
LPC, true, heretics do invent new terms. I was trying to explain why the church historically has also invented new terms. See, e.g., Pieper's explanation of why the church uses various technical terms related to the two natures of Christ.
I have appreciated your civility. If I have anything further on this topic in the coming months, you may find it on my blog.
DRB, I'm requesting that you don't leave just yet. I wanted to allow LPC's discussion with you continue without interruption but I want to understand you confession concerning the following.
The Gospel promise is the promise of forgiveness of sins through faith alone in Christ alone. 2nd Cor. 5:18b-19, "and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." Based on your earlier point I would stress that verse 19 is an explanation or description of the Ministry of Reconciliation which is the Gospel. Through the preaching of the Gospel, which works contrition and faith, God reconciles individuals to Him in Christ.
You need to address the contradictions that exist because of your understanding of these verses. All Scripture is in perfect harmony because it is from God. UOJ though creates many contradictions, these are just a few:
According to your understanding of 2nd Cor. 5:19 God has declared the whole world righteous and reconciled to Him - and applying Romans 5:17, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." the whole world will reign in life meaning the whole world will be saved eternally. This is consistent with your confession. Do you agree? Are you saying that there is more than one righteousness that is from God? Is there a righteousness that exists that is not the righteousness of Christ?
According to your understanding of 2nd Cor. 5:19 God has declared the whole world righteous and reconciled to Him and yet Scripture declares that God's wrath abides on all those who do not believe in Christ. John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Your doctrine of UOJ states that upon Christ's sacrifice God no longer imputes sin to the world. UOJ declares that God is now completely at peace with the unbelieving world through Christ. How then does His wrath continue to abide on them? How can God's day of judgement come upon the world if He has declared the world righteous, forgiven of all sin and at peace with Him?
John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." How does God who, per your confession, does not impute sin unto the unbelieving world condemn anyone unless he imputes their sin unto them? Note that the verse declares those who don't believe in Christ are "condemned already". If they are still in sin then how does a perfectly just God declare them righteous?
To remain consistent with your understanding of 2nd Cor. 5:19 and the doctrine of UOJ you would then understand Romans 5:18, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." to mean that the whole world has been given the free gift of righteousness. The contradiction here is that with that understanding you must also confess that the whole world is saved for eternity. That is what "upon all men unto justification of life" means - salvation. Is this your confession?
Do you confess that the Kokomo statements are faithful to Scripture as Siegbert W. Becker has?
DRB, in reviewing your website I initially see two issues that come from your support of UOJ. First you attempt to show that Martin Luther promoted UOJ. You do this by quoting his statements on the efficacy of the Word in and through the Office of the Keys. This has been fully covered on this blog and others showing that the Office of the Keys to forgive sins is declared to an individual who is contrite and confesses faith in Christ. The forgiveness of Christ isn't declared to an unrepentant sinner as you attempt to show. In fact the Office of the Keys to retain sins is used in that case. Luther's statements are distorted and perverted in order to try and prove his support for UOJ. This should be retracted.
In the posting "Blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit" you state, "The unforgivable sin is not merely final unbelief or blasphemy against the person of the Holy Spirit, but also willing blasphemy against the work of Holy Spirit with full knowledge of doing so." Naming unbelief as part of the unforgivable sin shows another error of UOJ which is a confession that Christ didn't die and pay for all sins. The whole world is guilty of the sin of unbelief the moment they are concieved. Christ paid for the sin of unbelief. Romans 11:23 and Romans 11:32 So according to UOJ this sin was not imputed to the world. UOJ says all sins were forgiven the world. They stand as righteous and perfect in God's sight as Christ does. How then can they be condemned to hell? For what are they condemned to hell? Your comment above states they're condemned for their willing blasphemy against the work of the Holy Spirit with full knowledge of doing so. What of the Amazon tribes members (insert your isolated people here) who live and die without any knowledge of Scripture. According to your claim and the doctrine of UOJ they are in heaven because they didn't commit the "unforgivable sin" by your definition since they had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit.
I'll continue to review the statements on your blog.
Mr. Meyer, I will now answer as many of your questions as time allows.
Regarding 2 Cor. 5, there is no contradiction between subjective and objective justification -- the two terms were introduced precisely in order to affirm all that Scripture teaches regarding justification while avoiding contradictions. Subjective reconciliation by faith cannot take place without an objective reconciliation to have faith in. Otherwise, faith must to some extent rest in faith, which brings me to the keys.
Since the pastor cannot ever know with certainty that the confessor is truly repentant, the pastor will sometimes absolve the unrepentant. That seems to be what Luther had in mind since he says the absolution was not believed. Since the sacraments are visible words of absolution, essentially the same situation occurred when Jesus told Judas to eat and drink his body and blood for the forgiveness of his sins. In both cases, the valid absolution was rejected. As Luther said regarding baptism, the misuse of a sacrament does not render it invalid. If the validity of absolution (the promise of the gospel) depended on my faith, then I must to some extent have faith in my own faith, as I argued here in more detail:
Faith in faith or in the reconciliation of the world? (PDF)
I am not prepared to provide a careful exegesis of Rom. 5:18-19. It is my understanding that LCMS theologians who affirm that the world has been reconciled to God disagree on whether the passage is one of the proof texts of the doctrine. Likewise, I will not comment on the Kokomo statements since I am unfamiliar with them.
Unbelief is not the unforgivable sin since, as a transgression of the first commandment, unbelief is forgivable and in fact has been forgiven, e.g., in the apostle Paul. I do not believe, nor does my post on the topic imply, that all of the eternally damned have committed the unforgivable sin.
Then why is anyone finally damned if the world has been reconciled to God? Your citations of the fourth gospel are very relevant to that question: John attributes damnation to unbelief in the Son, as explained in an interesting article by Scaer that I cannot locate at the moment but that I hope to reference in a future post on the reconciliation of the world.
As I trust you can understand, other responsibilities make it impossible for me to meaningfully contribute more to this thread. I hope to have the opportunity to further discuss the topic with you in the future.
Here is the Scaer article (CTQ 69 (2005), 237-257):
The Third Use of the Law: Resolving the Tension (PDF)
The reconciliation of the world is treated in Section VI.
The following are quotations from DRB's suggested essay by Prof. David P. Scaer. There is much that could be contended with in this essay. The scythe of UOJ cuts a wide swath through the Word of God. I've provided quotes from the last few pages of the essay as they bring out some of the more heinous errors. All quotations are found on Page 20-22, http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaerthirduseresolvetension.pdf
VI. Gospel Over Law: A Resolution in Pieper If there ever was a theologian of the gospel, it was Francis Pieper, who never tired of saying that the gospel is a word of God superior to the law.d9
This forced him to wrestle with how contradictory words could both claim to be God's word. The dilemma was a crux theologorurn, a question which theologians are incapable of answering.50
BM - UOJ's contradictions with the rest of Scripture have now been embraced as dilema's incapable of being answered.
52 ...God is doing what he really wants to do in the gospel, while in the law he is doing only what he has to do. An answer is already present in the definition of law as opus alienurn, God's foreign or strange work? Condemnation and threat no longer belong to his essence."
BM - Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." How can Condemnation no longer belong to God's essence? He is perfectly just and unchangable. God said, "The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23)." John 3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." UOJ believes in a different god and not the eternal God of the Bible which hasn't changed. Because UOJ has rejected the Holy Spirit's faith as the God ordained means to reconcile us to Christ, and through which He washes us in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, they go about to establish their own way to righteousness, Romans 10:3, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."
(52) ...Claiming that God still counts sin against the world denies both the atonement and justification. By Christ's atonement all mankind appears to God as righteous...but subjective justification has no life of its own; it makes objective justification personal, which is only a facet of the universal atonement.
BM - 1 Cor. 6:9a, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" Note how UOJ condemns Justification by faith alone saying that it is dead and lifeless only obtaining it's purpose from UOJ's declaration that Christ's righteousness, innocence and blessedness was comingled with the carnal, alive to sin unbelieving world before faith, before the Means of Grace.
55 Whoever denies objective justification reduces justification to the act of believing and does not believe in it at all. Logically, he denies the atonement and preaches that man is responsible for his sins.
John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
Cont...
Cont...
58 This view is not without difficulty because it makes the law the last or eschatological word of God in the judgment. This means that for unbelievers God reinstates the law. This would nullify the atonement and deny objective justification; however, these are fixed realities with God. If they were not, Christ would lose his place of prominence as the all-in-all. The answer to this dilemma lies in seeing unbelief as not one sin among others, but the final sin (and in a sense the only sin) by which the unbeliever cuts himself off from salvation.
BM - Galations 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." You see how UOJ has perverted the Word of God. Since UOJ has the whole unbelieving world justified without faith then the Law has become obsolete - useless to the point where UOJ removes the Law from unbelievers and then says God "reinstates the law". But Scripture says that only after faith are we no longer under the Law. Galations 3:25-27, "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." UOJ screams "NO!" because Justification by Faith Alone rejects Objective Justification. I say, "Amen."
The elimination of the Law creates a contradiction for UOJ since how does God execute righteous judgement upon unbelievers if He's already declared them sinless. UOJ then states that unbelievers are then only guilty of unbelief which is the unforgiveable sin for which the sinless are condemned to Hell. But every person was guilty of the sin of unbelief when they were concieved. Scripture even states that unbelievers will be forgiven if they do not continue in unbelief. Romans 11:23, "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."
UOJ is a false gospel and stands condemned by God.
2nd Cor. 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
Post a Comment