twissted_sisster has left a new comment on your post "Justification by Faith Quotations":
"Christ did indeed suffer for the whole world; but how many are there who believe and cherish this fact? Therefore, although the work of redemption itself has been accomplished, it still cannot help and benefit a man unless he believes it and experiences its saving power in his heart."
- - - - - - - - -
In these words, Martin Luther goes right to the heart of the matter. Here he has simply and clearly refuted UOJ. Enough said.
8 comments:
From my experience no UOJist will deny the statement quoted by twissted-sisster.
I believe Adam Peeler made a similar statement on IL recently.
The issue is that all righteousness is in and of Christ. Scripture declares that you must be in Christ through faith and He in you (to be a child of God) for you to have Christ's righteousness which avails against God's wrath over sin. With Christ's righteousness you have everything that is in Christ, you are righteous in Christ, the forgiveness of sins as Christ is sinless, justified in God the Father's eyes and salvation. All this is instantaneously yours through the gracious work of the Holy Ghost working faith through Word and Sacrament alone.
UOJ's failing is in teaching another Gospel. Teaching that God, by His divine verdict, has declared the whole world righteous, justified and forgiven of all sin is the gospel message which alone can create faith in a person's heart. UOJ teaches it's only trust in the completed and previousely declared righteousness that can create faith, it teaches faith can't cling to a promise in Christ but only a completed reality so they pervert the faith of the Holy Ghost to make one more in line with their human reason.
Scripture and the Confessions declare that the Gospel is the promise of the forgiveness of sins, if in God worked contrition you trust alone in Christ, God's Son who paid for the worlds sin. Faith is that righteousness of God through which man trusts alone in Christ and receives His righteousness, the forgiveness of sins and is saved. The justification Christ declares in Romans 5:18 is that justification that brings salvation - it's not the justificaiton of UOJ (Objective Justification which justifies but doesn't save).
So UOJ perverts Christ's righteousness by making it a righteousness that doesn't save, justifies but doesn't really provide forgiveness of sins, saves but not heaven saved (this little gem quoted from a WELS CDS principal).
UOJ's faith which is man's faith and not of the Holy Ghost is what saves - this is true since UOJ teaches nothing changes when someone comes to faith - remember kids, UOJ teaches that if faith does anything in man then it's a work of man and synergistic. So UOJ teaches you were, by God, justified once, declared righteous once, forgiven of all sins once - it just didn't do you any good until you believe it!
Scripture on the other hand teaches that faith makes of an unjust man a just man. Faith makes a sinner a child of God. Faith justifies because it trusts alone in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. God's declaration of the forgiveness of sins through faith, Christ's righteousness through faith and salvation through faith is instantaneous and supremely effective the first time God declares you justified in Christ - through the Holy Ghost's faith!
UOJ is a perversion and blasphemy on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Council of Trent. So UOJ and (W)ELS This We Believe can declare the whole unbelieving world righteous in Christ but they aren't until they believe they are. Really? Christ's righteousness is, per UOJ, limp and ineffective until a person believes.
The problem seems to be, after viewing a number of "UOJ" apologists on Intrepid Lutherans now, that when you get to the heart of the matter (namely, the ridiculous quotes like "all are declared righteous" and "guilt-free saints in hell"), the professors of this terminology admit that these statements are radical and not confessional or biblical (like Jay Webber just did), and are only rationalized through heavy mental exercise. What's more, they clearly admit that the terminology of "objective" and "subjective" justification is not in any way, shape, or form biblical and confessional. Finally, they assert (like Samuel Thrace did) that the difference between "UOJ" and unlimited atonement is so minuscule, that those who raise qualms with "UOJ" are virtually idiots.
In light of these revelations, I simply ask: Why persist in this admittedly unbiblical/unconfessional language, when we could simply use the words of Scripture/the Confessions - particularly since our viewpoints are (apparently) virtually the same anyways?
It seems to me that the only possible answers are !) there truly is difference between "UOJ" and universal atonement, or more likely 2) adherents of this terminology are unwilling to admit that WELS and its early theologians uses/used questionable terminology - because WELS can NEVER be wrong.
Daniel is getting close to a critical yet difficult realization. The repeated use of "sloppy language" and "poor wording" that is in itself consistent in teaching from one generation to another, from one (W)ELS theologian to another, can no longer be attributed to clumsy writing, poor theological training or idiocy. The words used to frame the entire doctrine of UOJ are precise and consistent from one public (W)ELS confession to another as demonstrated with quotes from Zarling, Buchholz, Becker and the (W)ELS This We Believe etc.
Anyone who states that the (W)ELS doesn't teach fogiveness before faith here the (W)ELS doctrinal book of public confession, Our Great Heritage, states, "And yet many Lutherans still labor under the delusion that God does not forgive us unless we believe. Instead of seeing faith as nothing more than the spiritual hand with which we make the forgiveness of God our own, they see it as a reason why God forgives us. They believe that Christ has indeed provided forgiveness for all men, that God is willing to forgive them, but before he really forgives he first of all demands that we should be sorry for our sins and that we should have faith. Just have faith they say, and then God will forgive you. All the right words are there. The only thing wrong is that the words are in the wrong order. God does not forgive us IF we have faith. He has forgiven us long ago when he raised his Son from the dead." (p. 59)"
I shouldn't leave out quotes from Siegbert W. Becker whose classic essay on Justification is universally accepted in the (W)ELS. One current (W)ELS pastor told me this of S.W. Becker - "I did have Sig Becker for a professor, for a number of classes, and I can say, and will say from the roof-tops if called upon to do so, that his man is so far away from UOJ that he's not even in the same universe."
Becker, "One really becomes a guilt-free saint only through faith, if we limit ourselves to the biblical usage of the word. However, since our holiness, as Augustine says, consists in sin’s remission rather than in life’s perfection, we could say that when God forgave the sins of the whole world he regarded all sinners as guilt-free, but if they are guilt-free we might also say that they are considered sinless in the sight of God. But a sinless person is a holy person, a saint. The fact that unbelievers do not consider themselves to be forgiven does not change the truth of God’s Word that tells us that God does not impute the sins of all men to them, or that through one man justification has come upon all men." Page 14
The Kokomo statements are as follows:
1) Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner’s attitude toward Christ’s sacrifice, purely on the basis of God’s verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint.
2) After Christ’s intervention and through Christ’s intervention, God regards all sinners as guilt free saints.
3) When God reconciled the world to himself through Christ, he individually pronounced forgiveness to each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not.
4) At the time of the resurrection of Christ God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all sin and gave unto them the status of saints.
Kokomo statement #1 - Becker, "the meaning of the statement is nevertheless clear and correct."
Kokomo statement #2 - Becker, "we could say that when God forgave the sins of the whole world he
regarded all sinners as guilt-free, but if they are guilt-free we might also say that they are considered sinless in the sight of God. But a sinless person is a holy person, a saint."
Kokomo statement #3 - Becker, "The third statement is a basically good summary of our position,"
Kokomo statement #4 - Becker, "Even the fourth statement can be defended even though it leaves much to be desired. As we have said, the statement is not drawn from a WELS source. If it is true that God has forgiven the sins of the world then it is also true that he forgave the sin of Judas."
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF
I shouldn't leave out quotes from Siegbert W. Becker whose classic essay on Justification is universally accepted in the (W)ELS. One current (W)ELS pastor told me this of S.W. Becker - "I did have Sig Becker for a professor, for a number of classes, and I can say, and will say from the roof-tops if called upon to do so, that his man is so far away from UOJ that he's not even in the same universe."
Becker, "One really becomes a guilt-free saint only through faith, if we limit ourselves to the biblical usage of the word. However, since our holiness, as Augustine says, consists in sin’s remission rather than in life’s perfection, we could say that when God forgave the sins of the whole world he regarded all sinners as guilt-free, but if they are guilt-free we might also say that they are considered sinless in the sight of God. But a sinless person is a holy person, a saint. The fact that unbelievers do not consider themselves to be forgiven does not change the truth of God’s Word that tells us that God does not impute the sins of all men to them, or that through one man justification has come upon all men." Page 14
The Kokomo statements are as follows:
1) Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner’s attitude toward Christ’s sacrifice, purely on the basis of God’s verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint.
2) After Christ’s intervention and through Christ’s intervention, God regards all sinners as guilt free saints.
3) When God reconciled the world to himself through Christ, he individually pronounced forgiveness to each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not.
4) At the time of the resurrection of Christ God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all sin and gave unto them the status of saints.
Kokomo statement #1 - Becker, "the meaning of the statement is nevertheless clear and correct."
Kokomo statement #2 - Becker, "we could say that when God forgave the sins of the whole world he
regarded all sinners as guilt-free, but if they are guilt-free we might also say that they are considered sinless in the sight of God. But a sinless person is a holy person, a saint."
Kokomo statement #3 - Becker, "The third statement is a basically good summary of our position,"
Kokomo statement #4 - Becker, "Even the fourth statement can be defended even though it leaves much to be desired. As we have said, the statement is not drawn from a WELS source. If it is true that God has forgiven the sins of the world then it is also true that he forgave the sin of Judas."
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF
The relentless defense of UOJers is like the relentless defense of Calvinists in defending Calvin's theology and TULIPian language.
I defend something problematic, you do not have eternity to do this stuff, I figured early a problematic concept and an absolutely Scripturaly baseless doctrine, is just a project in futility.
LPC
What I meant was that UOJ is not worth defending because a.) It has no basis in Scripture, b.) a doctrine which is considered to be "gospel" should have been articulated well in the BOC, yet you do not see it there, c.)It is problematic in the first place (see a and b).
The project is an exercise in raising up the Titanic. They found it at the bottom of the ocean yet no one dares to bring it back to life.
LPC
This is not a question.
Post a Comment