From Intrepid Lutherans <--This the link, Mequonites. Left-click for illumination.
If you got the impression that I was downplaying the sacrament, I apologize. As I said...whether you increase or decrease the frequency you need to question the motive. Personally, I go whenever I can because I know I need it. My church does not offer it every week. If they did, I would go every week.
Pastor Samuelson,
I don't deny the objective work of Jesus on the cross. But let's call it what it is. There is a reason that the two justifications have a bad history. When we use words to describe that work such as justification, righteousness or forgiveness, we are trying to put a round peg in a square hole. That is why Wycliffe invented the word atonement because there was no word in English that accurately describes the work of the cross. Those words don't work separately or in combination. There is no maybe about what words John the Baptist chose. What he said fits with atonement. Jesus takes away the sin of the world. He died that all would be saved and his death makes salvation possible for all men. But none are forgiven unless they receive faith through hearing the word and repent of their sin. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus sets aside salvation for those who believe in his promises. How can anyone with a straight face say that the souls in hell have their sins forgiven and are justified? This is why the sin against the Holy Spirit is so damning. The hard heart denies the word and the messenger (Holy Spirit) that brings the good news of salvation. The Ministry of the Keys shows us how repentance and forgiveness work.
I have to disagree about this being the right place. It needs to be discussed and as long as the Intrepid Lutherans provide a platform for discussion and call attention to these matters, we should take advantage of it. There should be no sloppiness when it comes to a sermon coming from synod. I think it exposes symptoms of a bigger problem. To me this notion of an objective justification on all of mankind hints at universalism.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Krohn
---
Pastor Jeff Samelson had said:
This is perhaps not the thread for this kind of discussion, but what you're talking about here is the distinction between objective and subjective justification. We always need to tread very carefully here, because if we deny the objective (or universal, or general) effect and significance of Christ's work, we diminish the gospel in a horrible way. [This issue has a long -- and not entirely pleasant -- history in American confessional Lutheranism, especially in the WELS.]
[Ask your pastor or a trusted WELS source for more information. Most definitely do not ask for or trust the answers of someone who only wishes to bash the WELS.]
But this isn't the place for a drawn-out discussion of the issue. Just consider one verse: John 1:29 -- "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Maybe John the Baptist didn't use the word "forgive" here, but he clearly connects Christ with the removal of all the world's sins. So yes, that means my sins are forgiven, your sins are forgiven, and my neighbor's sins are forgiven in Christ.
But that forgiveness doesn't do me, you, or my neighbor any good without faith -- and with faith, there will, of course, be repentance.
***
GJ - The UOJ minders will always trot out their talking points, but they cannot get past a layman who has studied the Word of God and examined the UOJ claims. The Tepid Lutherans will not post Brett Meyer's perceptive comments, but dauntless Ichabod has.
Here are some additional excuses for ignoring the issue, paraphrasing what I have recently read:
1. Sig Becker and JP Meyer were beloved professors, so criticizing their published words will only annoy their admirers in the Wisconsin sect. Sig and JP are the ruling norm now.
2. When Sig and JP wrote what they did about guilt-free sinners in Hell, they did not really mean it. That means we should trust in an unsupported claim rather than their repeated publications? JP even published a lie about what the European orthodox Lutherans believed.
3. The UOJ Enthusiasts and the justification-by-faith faithful are "talking past each other." If two parties conclude the opposite about this invented notion of Universal Objective Justification, they are really saying the same thing?
UOJ used to start flame wars, initiated by the Stormtroopers. Now they are trying to make UOJ a non-issue. That is a good sign, meaning we are at the third stage of debate.
A. The first stage is agreement, so it was not worth stating in the first place. Many sermons stay at this level of Methodist irenics rather than Lutheran polemics.
B. The second stage is angry denunciation. That means the opponents have understood the message and are alarmed by it. They believe but their hides bristle.
C. The third stage is apparent indifference and silence. When a debate has reached this level, the opponents are so terrified or mystified that they refuse to participate in any serious discussion at all. They joke. The cavil. They flim-flam.
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Sloppy Synod Sermon":
Justification by Faith Alone is the doctrine upon which a person is a Christian or not a non-Christian. It is the sole doctrine upon which your sins are forgiven by grace through faith in Christ alone. To reject and pervert this doctrine is to separate yourself from Christ and His righteousness which is only ours through Faith worked graciously by the Holy Spirit through the Word alone. UOJ is a perversion of God's Word, a man made doctrine which wages war against the chief articles of Christian faith revealed in Scripture and confirmed in the Lutheran Confessions.
How the Intrepid Lutherans deal with this most critical doctrine and their confession towards UOJ and Justification by Faith Alone will determine if they are truly BOC Confessional, Christian, Lutheran and if their efforts on all doctrinal fronts will ever be fruitful and God pleasing.
