John has left a new comment on your post "Un-Emerging Theology Book Given to Confirmands in ...":
WELS Church Lady says: "...our friends at CPH allowed for the word objective justification. No place in the body of the book is this term mentioned. Needless to say it is not found in the Concordia Triglotta."
Isn't Scripture the norm?
Aren't there many things that the Book of Concord does not address, specifically?
Does the Book of Concord specifically address abortion?
I am not commenting here on any subject other than what the norm is.
John
***
GJ - Scripture is the ruling norm, while the Confessions are the ruled norm.
Lutherans are the only ones with a coherent, harmonious confession of faith, but the BoC is neglected by all the synods today.
Father Neuhaus called himself a confessional Lutheran, right up to the point where he became a Roman Catholic priest. He was an ELCA pastor when he called himself confessional. I wrote to him, "You are really just less liberal, not confessional." He conceded that point.
John is flirting with the logical fallacy called the "argument from silence." There is no OJ content in the BoC. What people claim for that is always another passage about the Atonement of Christ.
The argument from silence has been used for Preus' Justification and Rome, where UOJ is clearly repudiated. I would love to see the original manuscript, before Dan and Rolf Preus got their UOJ hands on it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of justification by faith alone comes through clearly.
There is only one justification, justification by faith, as Preus wrote.
UOJ Stormtroopers are avoiding two key issues:
- George Knapp invented double-justification, which is a testament to the Calvinistic basis of Pietism.
- Robert Preus repudiated his earlier stance in favor of UOJ.
There may be UOJ fans who tell the truth, but I have not found one yet.
33 comments:
The abortion issue among Lutherans has only been raised in recent years. The anti-abortion movement is driven by right-wing political ideology. Lurking in the shadows is millennialism. Unfortunately, some conservative Lutherans have confused the politics of the right with the confession of the Church.
The problem with this is that those who so strongly posture their anti-abortionism would bind the consciences of those of us who do not go along with their line of thought.
Some of us consider ourselves Confessional while standing aside from the partisanship of the anti-abortionists.
Norman Teigen
ELS layman
Norman, I disagree with you completely. Calling the pro-life position "right wing politics" is unconvincing and irrelevant. God is the source of all life and we have not been given His role to end innocent life. Thrivent, ELCA, and Red China all love abortion. It is the heart and soul of the Democrat Party and country club Republicans. Margaret Sanger promoted abortion to cut down the Black population.
46 Million babies were murdered world wide last year.
Mr. Tiegen writes, "The problem with this is that those who so strongly posture their anti-abortionism would bind the consciences of those of us who do not go along with their line of thought."
Mr. Tiegen, do you support abortion, the murder of unborn babies?
The Lutheran Confessions covered all the Chief Articles of Christian Faith and some. UOJ is not detailed nor mentioned even in description. To underscore this and refute the UOJists use of their terms Subjective and Objective, niether does the BOC declare Christ's righteousness distributed before faith. So far the apostate sects have not come up with an Objective or Subjective righteousness.
I must say, I've reading your blog for a few weeks now and I read the materials that you sent me, and I still don't get what the obsession with UOJ is. First, you seem to charge it's universalism, but no one who advocates it is a universalist as far as I can tell. Neither does it negate the need to have have faith- even though he keep on saying it does for some reason and then admit that people who hold to it still think you need to have faith to gain forgiveness. All it seems to amount to is awkward way of talking: "people are forgiven, but wait, they're not forgiven until they have faith."
Is this some sort of WELS thing? I mean, I've read Hoenecke and the Wauwatousa people, and that's about it. They don't have any debate on this topic. Maybe is this sort of debate in the WELS that happened later on and that's how you got onto the thing? Is that how everyone on here got obsessed with it? I mean, I really don't get the point. At worst, it's just an awkward way of talking that can be misinterpreted.
You are right, Jack. You do not get it.
Perhaps you should explain it better. I invite you to comment on my critique and commentary on the materials you sent me on my blog. I merely want to understand your objection to this. It's really strange I think and really just a logomachy. I would also invite any of you with this same UOJ fever to do the same. It's under last months posts. Thanks.
Buy the book when it comes out, or download the free PDF.
Hey, we've really got something going here this morning, don't we?
Here's an example from Walther. I don't agree with Walther's views on slavery from where this idea came to me, but I do agree with him on the principle: 'Aliud jus poli, aliud jus so i." This means that there is one law for heaven and a different one for earth.
Lutherans who feel strongly in their opinions on the subject want the government to endorse their position. They want the Supreme Court to rule as they would have them. This is wrong. There are two kingdoms and the distinction between the two is often missed by well-meaning believers.
This heartfelt belief means that the faithful can fall prey to unscrupulous organizations like Christian Life Resources. CLR will take your money under the pretext of doing something to take away the sin of the world as manifested in abortion.
Norman Teigen,
ELS layman (I do not claim to be a spokesman for the ELS on this question although I am regarded as an official spokesman on just about everything else)
BTW, I think you're mistaken about Preus and his debate with Walter A. Maier. My wife and I read the article regarding their debate about UOJ. They both agree that it is doctrinally correct, the only question was whether or not the proof texts traditionally used to posit it were the correct ones. Maier said no, Preus said yes. But I think you've mischaracterized Maier position. I'm also not seeing a great shift in Preus' thinking in Justification and Rome. Sorry.
Dr. Kilcrease, I personally spoke at length with Dr. Maier. You are incorrect.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
In any case, that's what the essay said. WAM might very well have seen things differently.
In any case, forgive me if I'm not entirely impressed by an anonymous person (I can't read your profile or see any of your credentials) telling me that they had a conversation once upon a time with WAM. That's pretty thin evidence, it seems to me.
Dr. Jack Kilcrease,
So you think that teaching that the Father said the whole world is justified on Easter Day when that's not really in Scripture, and goes against the grain of Scripture, is no big deal?!
This just goes to show that UOJ is a self-sustaining false doctrine, for only those who believe that the Father said the whole world is justified would think that being a "false witness about God" (1Co 15:15) is no big deal.
The reason that Norm can take that position reference abortion, and that Walther could have taken his callous position regarding slavery, is they both believe in UOJ, and thus don't take sin and evil as seriously as non-UOJers do.
If Robert Preus' Justification and Rome was changed during editing, this wouldn't be the first time a Preus manuscript was changed. Check this out:
http://lutherchips.com/2008/03/20/linka%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2s-diary.html
excerpt: Slind became involved with this project after Grindal found out the archives had recently acquired Linka's diary. Slind was charged with translating the diary to English, while Grindal worked on Linka's sketches. This is not the first time the diary was translated to English. The first translation had been edited by Linka's grandson in 1952, who changed references of drinking and playing cards to more acceptable activities like playing chess. Slind says this is a representation of the grandson's preferences.
On another note, Norm Teigen says he's put 137,000 miles on his SUV, a 2001 Mercury Mountaineer. That has a 15mph average, so if gas was an average of $2.25 during that period, he's spent $20,550 just on gasoline to date:
15mpg combined milage:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/17162.shtml
http://normanteigen.blogspot.com/2010/06/zappenin-at-1106.html
Bruce- Join in the discussion over at my blog. Frankly, Mr. Meyers hasn't given me anything new or really explained why your fighting about anything other than words. Perhaps you can give me some reasons. I look forward to hearing a response over at my blog.
Hi Dr. Jackson, More handwaving from Dr. Jack Kilcrease, I see. The whole concept of UOJ is fictitious, and yet he thinks that its just a fight over words!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving
Gregory L. Jackson said...
You are right, Jack. You do not get it.
Dr. Kilcrease,
Thanks for coming over here and I saw you are following also in my blog.
I want to ask if you have seen the Maier paper for I find Maier's arguments from exegesis highly compelling. This paper is found in http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MaierJustification.pdf
I would like to see if possible your points of disagreement with Maier if you have some.
In another light, can I put it to you in summary form.
Do you accept Statement 17 of the LCMS-1932 brief statement in toto?
Or alternatively...
What do you answer to this question:
Are the whole world automatically forgiven of theirs sins when Jesus died/rose again?
If you answer Yes, then fair enough you believe in UOJ. If you answer NO then you don't and maybe we should have more discussion to be clear on your position why the answer is NO.
I doubt if this issue is mere semantics. I was a UOJ unbeknown to myself until I looked into the issue deeper and looked for it in the BoC.
LPC
I'll have to look at the article in question. In any case, Maier did orally say that he agreed with Preus.
Part of the difficulty here is that none of you appear to understand how divine agency functions in Luther's thought and the Confession.
Asking me a question like "Did God forgive everyone when Christ made his sacrifice" is considering the question from the perspective of God. Humans must consider this from the perspective of the dialectic of diving agency via law and gospel.
God, in Luther's thought, interact with the world through different spheres. "God in Christ" (as Theodosius Harnack describes it) is one who interacts with the world as grace and forgiveness. The work of Christ is fully completed and therefore in Christ he has forgiven the whole world. One enters this realm through faith.
Outside of "God in Christ" (yes, an awkward way of talking, but it works), God is operative as law. He works through the masks of his creatures as law. So, the police, are God's masks and interact with those who break the law as law. So do tornadoes and all other forms of natural disaster. They destroy because they punish us for sin.
These two spheres are held together by divine hiddenness which exists above the two realms of law and gospel. How and why God persists as law, hiddenness, and wrath when he has established himself as grace and unilateral forgiveness in Christ is not known to us. It will be, Luther tells us, "in light of glory."
From what I can see, you UOJ critics are simply trying to look at things from God's point of view. So, someone comes to you and says "hey, everyone is forgiven in Christ" and you say "what, but how can that be, God is still operative as law! You have to have faith to be saved!" But, then you make faith a condition and not a receptive organ. Your concept of faith as a work essentially functions in such a way as to resolve the dialectic of law/gospel, hidden/revealed.
So, yes, God in Christ did forgive the whole world as a result of the cross and the empty tomb. I will interact with him on that basis, if I enter that sphere by faith. It is how God has actualized himself in relationship to the world "in Christ." Nevertheless, realm of the law persists and therefore "God external to Christ" persists as law, hiddenness and wrath.
It's paradoxical. Again, absolutely none of you have demonstrated that anything is going on here other than not liking certain expressions. You chief argument appears to be "well, if we use these words and impute a meaning to them that our opponents don't impute to them, then they're problematic." This is a strawman pure and simple.
I'm still trying to figure out how this make believe problem arose. Is this simply a Jackson invention (which I suspect it is) or was there some earlier debate about it that I haven't read about? I'm beginning to suspect the former.
Again, I invite you to comment on my blog.
Dr Kilcrease,
Part of the difficulty here is that none of you appear to understand how divine agency functions in Luther's thought and the Confession
I am not asking for a lecture on what or what not I do not understand for I will understand better when my questions are answered. Jesus said let your yes be yes and no be no, all others is from the evil one.
If we are going to debate then we are to refer to a proposition and your avoiding questions I find to say the least un-convincing. We need a reference point and that reference point must start from a proposition answerable by the affirmative or negative.
You said It's paradoxical.
A convenient excuse but not a meaningful point.
I "debated" this issue with Pr. Jay Webber and to his credit he was man enough to give me Scriptures to back up his UOJ claim and they all were found exegetically wanting. Look at our debate in my blog, there were no strawman arguments there. It was exegetically based.
Can you do the same?
Since you are in the positive side of UOJ then the onus is on you to prove it, we on the negative only have to shed doubt about it and our case is already won.
Since you are just saying these are just word misunderstanding etc then are you saying we are really talking about the same thing and there is no big deal about this.
In positing this, you are mildly conceding already the anti-UOJ position.
You also said So, yes, God in Christ did forgive the whole world as a result of the cross and the empty tomb
Now is that atheist down the street who is denying God confessing so, forgiven?
You keep on saying we are looking at it from God's point of view, goodness, the Scripture is God's revelation of HIS POINT OF VIEW. What is wrong with that?
Is this simply a Jackson invention (which I suspect it is) or was there some earlier debate about it that I haven't read about? I'm beginning to suspect the former.
I assure you Dr. Jackson has many fine qualities, originating the debate on UOJ did not start off with hime. It started long ago between General Council and Synodical Conference. Some WELS folk have documented this.
LPC
it's good that someone has finally clarified that this is a WELS debate primarily.
The atheist is forgiven from within the sphere of God in Christ, but because of his unbelief he remains within the sphere of God external to Christ. He remains within law, wrath, and hiddenness, and consequently interacts with God not preached and therefore does not receive that forgiveness.
Dr. Jack.
The atheist is forgiven from within the sphere of God in Christ, but because of his unbelief he remains within the sphere of God external to Christ. He remains within law, wrath, and hiddenness, and consequently interacts with God not preached and therefore does not receive that forgiveness.
I do not think you will understand why there are anti-UOJs like me.
You fail to see the equivocation and sophistry in the above statements.
So once again, the atheist is forgiven and not forgiven.
A contradiction. This is not a paradox.
This is ex falso quod libet. Hence UOJ can swing any other way and can agree and disagree with us. Something I have seen time and again with UOJ defenders.
LPC, PhD
Lastly Dr. Jack, there is no forgiveness outside of Christ, you just affirmed there is.
It contradicts Scripture.
LPC
No I'm not- you're making up a disagreement to prove there's something to fight about. Again, you're saying "if we use words in ways that our opponents are not using them, then we get these horrible results." So what, there's nothing of substance here. If you want to not apply the word "justification" to universal atonement be my guest. Who cares. It's a meaningless if you do or don't.
This debate is absurd. I'm done.
BTW, this UOJ is one of the most bizarre obsessions I've read about in American Church history. This is even weirder than the Protestant Reformed/Christian Reformed split over common grace. I mean, at least there they were really arguing about whether or not their kids could go to movies and dances. But you guys are furious because you don't like how some people are apply the word "jusitification" to "atonement"- even though as you admit it has no practical bearing on whether or not a person is saved and justified apart from faith. Good lord, who cares!
See, I assumed that there was really something there because of how seriously everyone was taking this. But not liking how a certain group of people are using the word "Justification" is really what this is about.
I'm done. This is completely silly.
Thanks, Jack, for a few days of laughs. Who is obsessed?
I am sure you got two or three people to look at your blog, doubling the daily readership. Congratulations. Some Miley Cyrus tags might work better.
That's rather ungenerous and unkind.
Also, I've yet to hear from you. Is there a reason why you won't debate?
You are right. I just tweeted my apologies to Miley.
Jack states, But you guys are furious because you don't like how some people are apply the word "jusitification" to "atonement"- even though as you admit it has no practical bearing on whether or not a person is saved and justified apart from faith. Good lord, who cares!"
Those who reject the false gospel of UOJ also reject this statement. Taking only the core words you stated, "...how some people are apply the word "jusitification" to "atonement" ...has no practical bearing on whether or not a person justified apart from faith..."
Jack, your statement is self contradictory and complete nonsense. How God uses the Word Justification and our proper understanding and confession of it is of supreme importance as to His doctrine of Justification.
You have been another excellent example of a person who confesses the false doctrine of UOJ and lack of any Scriptural or Confessional defense of it.
I will post my comment that I left on your blog this morning as I see that you are no longer interested in discussing the doctrine of UOJ.
Cont...
Cont...
Jack, Justification is the forgiveness of sins. In my quotes of Scripture and the Confessions I've shown where it is through Christ's righteousness alone that a man's sins are forgiven, that Christ's righteousness is only ours through Faith worked graciously by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace. That only through faith is an unjust man declared just by God. That no one is righteous in God's sight before faith. At this point you said that if we are only forgiven through faith then it makes faith a work of man. I proved the point that faith is from Christ and not of ourselves, God provides what he requires. Yet you never supported your false statement concerning faith with Scripture or the Confessions.
Jack you state, But if a sin is paid for, why is not forgiven? I would suggest that it is. I mean, if you deny that payment=forgiveness, what sort of ontological status does the payment have? To clarify: If a sin is "washed away" then how can it still be around? Did Jesus only potentially make a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, which we then activate via the means of grace?
You have the burden to prove from Scripture and the Confessions that Christ's payment for all sins equals the immediate forgiveness of all sins outside of the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace. I refer to my quotes of the BOC on the Office of the Keys on this. Speaking of the BOC on the Christian article of the keys - this was your only use of the BOC to support your doctrine of UOJ. And I showed that you had taken Luther's quote out of context in order to attempt support for forgiveness before and regardless of faith. Clearly UOJ is the chief article of the Lutheran Synodical doctrines. Quote the BOC under Justification and show everyone the Confessional teaching of forgiveness before and without faith. Show everyone from the BOC that faith is a work of man if by faith alone God forgives sin. Show everyone from the BOC that it's heresy to say "if you believe on Christ, your sins will be forgiven."
We agreed that Scripture will be the norm for this discussion and the BOC the ruled norm and yet you state, See, your difficulty is that you haven't responded to me as I have established my position. You've not dealt with the framework that I've set up regarding divine agency that escapes this linguistic problems that you're hung up on. You've created your own foundation for this discussion apart from the Norm and Ruled Norm.
It's unfortunate that you are swayed by the opinions of WELS and LCMS clergy who work quietly with personal emails and won't make their claims publicly as comments and sign their names. It's shameful that they take that approach. I and LPC have done nothing but approach discussing the doctrine of UOJ with Scripture and the Confessions (A little Luther too, from his sermon on Galatians no less). I haven't even come close in this discussion to making the assertion that they accuse me of.
Cont...
Cont...
You state, I'm just not interested anymore.
Were you really from the beginning? I mentioned that I'm not 'hung up' on anything in the previous comment in order to see if you were sincere in your offer to discuss the doctrine of UOJ. I'm not personally offended by your description but your continued use of the term shows that you are simply trying to push perceived buttons instead of an honest discussion. Now that you're in a corner to defend your treatment of the Holy Spirit's faith, Christ's righteousness distributed for the forgiveness of the unbelieving worlds sin without the Means of Grace, having God declare the whole unbelieving world, who are under the Law, dead to sin, justified by God all while his wrath and judgment remain on them because of their unbelief, you tire of the discussion. I've proven my position. Take Scripture and the Confessions and show where I'm wrong.
Is anyone, as UOJ teaches, declared righteous and just by God before faith? No.
Christ declares in Romans 4:22-24, "And therefore it (faith) was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;"
Luther confesses, "29. You cannot extricate yourself from unbelief, nor can the Law do it for you. All your works in intended fulfillment of the Law must remain works of the Law and powerless to justify in the sight of God, who regards as just only believing children." http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Galatians4_1_7.html
The BOC, "71] 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." http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
And Mr. Teigen, spokes person for the (W)ELS, you are not off the hook for your support of the murder of unborn babies.
Dr. Jack,
You said I'm done.
I am a bit sad, I was hoping we could have a meaningful dialogue, but to borrow your words, I am done too.
I am done because you do not seem to appreciate the fact that words do carry certain meanings. It is silly indeed if we cannot agree about this fact. The Reformation was the battle between what Justification and Sanctification was all about. The RCC claimed they are the same, the Lutherans said no.
If you want to not apply the word "justification" to universal atonement be my guest.
Correct I for one do not want to apply or equate the two because equating the two:
a.) follows the idea of Calvinism. For Calvinists justification and atonement are effectively the same; seeing that justification is not for all, they conclude the atonement is not for all. UOJs do the same, seeing that atonement is universal, they conclude justification must be universal too.
b.) is just plain falls because Scripture does not equate the two. Instead, Scripture teaches that justification is grounded on the atonement. If something is grounded on another thing, the two are not the same. See Romans 3:21-26.
c.) is reductionistic. This is a faulty method and it is an attitude of expediency or pragmatism. It leads to false views and actions, because, let us face it - ideas do have consequences. As an example, today ecumenical RCs and Lutherans promote the idea that the Reformation was just a misunderstanding and was just a war on words. They promote the idea that the two camps really are saying the same thing.
LPC.
Just so people can find this comic via the search box, here's some keywords: Knapp, UOJ, Walther, LCMS, I'm with the plagiarist, Matthew Harrison, In the House of My Fathers, CPH
Post a Comment