Our Zinzendorf

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Hoo-Hah from UOJ":

Justification is not difficult.

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [all] are justified freely by the redemption that came through Christ Jesus."

All sinned... all justified.

The passage cannot mean: "All have sinned.... and some with faith are justified." Or "when they have faith they are justified." Such renderings just plain change the clear Word.

Part of the problem with this whole discussion is that there is a confusion of dogmatic loci (spheres). UOJ belongs in the locus on "Basis of Salvation" and JBF belongs in the locus on "Order of Salvation."

It is the Pietists who would love the emphasis on faith. Historically, that's all they wanted to talk about. Pietists find their comfort and security in their faith. Read Timothy Verinus Vol. 1 Ch. 5 (and note that the "double justification" mentioned there is NOT a reference to UOJ.)

Also, the Greek word for preach is "khrusso" - "to proclaim." Preaching is a proclamation, an announcement of what God has done. In order for a proclamation to be made, there must be an objective truth to proclaim. The Gospel is an announcement of what God has done for the world in Christ. What has he done? Forgiven all their sins. That is why the risen Lord Jesus said (Luke 24) that "repentance for the forgiveness of sins" be proclaimed in his name.

Both sides here are talking past each other. True, UOJ could be wrongly used to support some idea of universalism, but JBF could also wrongly be used to promote the idea that some condition must be met in man before God forgives him. (Then we're back to the intuitu fidei controversy...)

Just because some people (apparently) misuse the phrase doesn't mean that the phrase is inherently wrong. UOJ is properly taught to emphasize the truth that our salvation is entirely God's own work -- "extra hominum", as our Lutheran forefathers put it -- and is emphasized to guard against man taking any tiny bit of credit for his salvation. (read Koberle, Ch. 3, on this)

***

GJ - I am glad our Zinzendorf posted this, so people could see how the UOJ Pietists operate. The posturing reminds me of several people, but I will not venture to guess which one it is. Zinzendorf came to America, using a false name. All...all the Shrinkers and Pietists use the same name - Anonymous.

He wants to build his castle on all, without citing the actual passage. Let me quote one of their favorite UOJ passages:

KJV 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. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

This means that judgment came to all men, through Adam, so also the free gift of salvation comes to all men for justification. Of course, the Gospel of salvation comes to all men, because the Atonement is universal. However, the UOJ magic is lost in the next verse - "shall many be made righteous." No one can turn many into all. Our Zinzendorf is a false teacher, an Enthusiast, a liar who uses the Word of God to overturn the Scriptures - maladroitly, of course.

Zinzie has to reword verse 19 to refute it - a lame Straw Man fallacy. The plain meaning of the passage trumps the faux-intellectual version of Z.

"It is the Pietists who would love the emphasis on faith. Historically, that's all they wanted to talk about."

Guilt by association! Faith talk - why that be Pietistic. "Historically..." - more unwarranted assumptions from a gasbag. The Pietists were obsessed with visible results - Shrinkers of their day, just as divisive and destructive as the Shrinkers of our day.

"What has he done? Forgiven all their sins."

Begging the question! The Scriptures clearly say - He has paid for their sins, quite different from pronouncing absolution on Hottentots and Hindoos (I like the old spellings, like Eskimaux.)

"Both sides here are talking past each other."

Reu correctly identified the marks of a unionist as including the desire to erase doctrinal differences. La-dee-dah. There are no real differences here, not in substance. A few more Latin references, from me, and vague citations of deep books read, by me, and a blueprint of Toad Hall, by me, and all questions will be resolved.

Lenski wrote in his Romans commentary:

If a world justification were intended, the word employed would have to be dikaioma. Paul even adds zoe, for this justifying action admits "to life" everlasting, which only those receive who "receive the gift of the righteousness" by faith although Christ won it for all men. Romans, 5:18, p. 379.

---

L P has left a new comment on your post "Our Zinzendorf":

Why is it that UOJers love to chop off Scripture?

Here is the actual quote in context:

Romans 3:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


The often leave out verse 25.

LPC

***

GJ - The UOJ Stormtroopers do not comprehend the Means of Grace, so they cannot harmonize their Enthusiasm with hundreds of Scriptural passages. Why do they chop verses? They are Antinomians who imagine the Law is obsolete, so whatever they do to advance their cause is meet, right, and salutary, at all times and places.

Luther and Ordination

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Worship and Lectionaries - Also Worth a Post on Lu...":

Luther sagt:
"Let everyone, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian, be assured of this, that we are all equally priests, that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and the sacraments. However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior. (For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he is called.) And therefore this “sacrament” of ordination, if it is anything at all, is nothing else than a certain rite whereby one is called to the ministry of the church. Furthermore, the priesthood is properly nothing but the ministry of the Word—the Word, I say; not the law, but the gospel. And the diaconate is the ministry, not of reading the Gospel or the Epistle, as is the present practice, but of distributing the church’s aid to the poor, so that the priests may be relieved of the burden of temporal matters and may give themselves more freely to prayer and the Word. For this was the purpose of the institution of the diaconate, as we read in Acts 5 [6:1–6]."

Note also AC XIV: Ordination maketh not the pastor. The divine call maketh the pastor.

***

GJ - I wonder why some want to insist "ordination is not a sacrament." The Book of Concord disagrees with that claim. I find Lutherans staking a claim on one little part of the plant and calling it the entire Church, something Krauth observed about the sectarians.

If "the call makes the pastor," then almost everyone in WELS is a pastor. Everyone gets a call, even the kindergarten teacher.

WELS and the ELS enablers did their best to enforce a Reformed view of the pastoral ministry. The worst Shrinkers are the ones who are quick to correct anyone who fails to use their terms their way, but they are happy to dream away in Fuller Fantasy land.

The WELS view of the ministry can be called Papo-Babtist. They are eager to be little popes in their parish, but their doctrine is Babtist lite.

Another Hoo-Hah from UOJ

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Justification Book, First Installment":

Pastor GJ or Brett, can you explain this example of justification that a WELS pastor has used many times:

"The supermarket is giving away free turkeys for everyone. However, you have to go to(drive or walk) the supermarket to receive the turkey".

I know that their are others in the WELS that understand this as the proper teaching. Correct me if I am wrong, but I read Luther's works all the time and I just do not see how the example is fully orthodox.

In Christ,
from WELS chuch lady

***

GJ - "All analogies limp," as Gawa taught us at Mequon. This analogy stumbles and falls. The comparison is very J. P. Meyer-ish. Synergism (Reformed doctrine ) is exemplified by "God has done this, so you must do that." Some Reformed teachers say, "You must complete the transaction." What is the Means of Poultry in this example?

The Word of God teaches that God conveys Christ to us through the Holy Spirit working in the Means of Grace (the invisible Word of preaching and teaching, the visible Word of Baptism and Holy Communion) - to plant faith in our hearts and to nurture that faith. WELS is thoroughly Pietistic, so many are in the dark about the Means of Grace.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Hoo-Hah from UOJ":

What is so difficult about justification that MLC and Mequon graduates do not get it? I fail to see how they can go on and on about UOJ, and then get it wrong. Is the quality of the instructors, the students, what?

***

GJ - One little window in their souls was provided in the October issue of FIC. Bivens, one of several Shrinkers published in that issue, was denouncing sodomy while MLC students were posting their version of the gay video from Fire Island Pines - and defending their version!

Bivens:

"Look at the passages

Genesis 19:5-8 and Jude 7 confirm that the Sodomites were guilty of homosexuality. Both references, in their original Hebrew and Greek, use idiomatic language to identify and describe homosexual sin, and it pays to be aware of this. Those who deny that homosexuality was involved seek linguistic loopholes from the idiomatic language. Nevertheless, biblical language dictionaries confirm that homosexuality prevailed in Sodom and its surrounding towns.

Ezekiel 16:49,50 does not explicitly mention sodomy or homosexuality as the cause of divine judgment on these lost cities but tells us that they were guilty of additional immoralities. Arrogance and social injustice are highlighted. Second Peter 2:6,7 leaves the nature of their ungodliness unspecified.

Letting all of these passages speak leads us to conclude that Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of homosexuality; arrogance; violence; inhospitality; and a self-centered apathy toward others, especially the poor and needy. These cities impenitently spurned God’s grace in a number of ways and invited divine judgment.

People who have already made up their minds that homosexuality is morally acceptable desire to understand the biblical testimony differently. Invariably, modern defenders of homosexuality conclude that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their violent and greedy behavior. They interpret Genesis 19 as condemning homosexual rape, which would be parallel to heterosexual rape. These texts are said not to apply to consensual homosexual activities. These defenders say that “loving, committed, same-sex relationships” are approved.

Advocates of homosexuality also say that Jude’s words “strange flesh” (the idiomatic expression he uses in the King James Version for sexual perversion) refer not to homosexuality but to the desire to have sexual relations with angels. It takes some exegetical mind-bending to arrive at this conclusion, but powerful presuppositions are able to pave the way for these advocates.

Look for balanced conclusions

You ask if God’s severe judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah teaches us that homosexuality is a worse sin than others and perhaps qualifies as unforgivable. Here is where other Bible sections guide us to a balanced conclusion. In Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus denounces other cities for being unrepentant despite the miracles he performed among them. While he does not excuse or deny the guilt of Sodom, he makes it clear that others may sin even more grievously and pay a greater price on the Last Day. First Corinthians 6:9-11 confirms that homosexuality is a serious sin that calls for divine judgment, but it also affirms that it is fully forgivable and that many former homosexuals enjoy new life and heavenly citizenship through faith in Christ. In Romans 1:21-27, Paul uses homosexuality as an example of how God may deal with hardened sinners and use sexual perversions as a judgment. But other passages remind us that homosexuality, like other sin, is forgivable despite deserving God’s anger and punishment.

For a balanced biblical perspective on this important subject, I hope that all interested readers will take the time to examine the Bible sections mentioned above and walk away with a renewed appreciation of the seriousness of all sin and the greatness of God’s love in Christ.

Contributing editor Forrest Bivens, a professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Mequon, Wisconsin, is a member at Calvary, Thiensville.

Author:
Forrest L. Bivens


Subscribe to FIC

This monthly magazine, sent to almost 50,000 subscribers, addresses important issues facing Christians today.
Order online
Search the Archive
Begin by entering a topic. Then press "GO".
"

Offer from ELS Pastor A. Ring

Alexander Ring has left a new comment on your post "A. Ring on the Lectionary":

I find it hard to object to free publicity. I will even make the offer to send a .pdf version of the paper to anyone interested; it will have the Hebrew and Greek intact and make dealing with the footnotes an appendices a little easier. You can email me at akring@me.com.

Veterans Day Salute