in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology.
I prefer Melanchthon to Webber, Rydecki, and Kokomo.
- Dennis, Thanks for the info on the wider and narrower senses of sanctification and repentance. I am aware of them, and their usages – Professor Lyle Lange's commentary on this subject was most helpful in this regard! However, Scripture does not consistently speak of Justification in multiple senses. Theologians do, and they do so in the same way that they divide Scripture into "fundamental" and "non-fundamental" doctrines – when Scripture doesn't do this either. That is what makes these distinctions entirely synthetic, and not exegetically necessary.
Despite the words of Hoenecke, Schaller and others, I understand perfectly well from Scripture that there is only one Justification, but this is not what the words of these men say, as described above and as written elsewhere. Further, there is no attempt in the entirety of these works – none – to explicitly show that by using these synthetic distinctions, they are merely describing two sides of one Justification. The reader has to filter their words and divine their intent to arrive at this conclusion, because their words, on their face, say no such thing. In contrast, Professor Lange, in his commentary on Sanctification, was very careful to explicitly define the distinctions he was using, and how those distinctions clearly descended from usages in Scripture.
But understand how these synthetic distinctions have created, or threaten to create, an anthropocentric Gospel. One of the most egregious abuses of the Gospel is to make man a part of the work that saves him. This is synergism, and semi-pelagianism. In an effort to avoid the charge of synergism (the charge that man’s faith constitutes a work by which he merits justification), the distinctions of OJ/SJ were explicitly created in order to emphasize Christ’s objective work and eliminate any hint that man’s work is involved in his own justification.
Christ blood and righteousness is all-sufficient, faith is created in man by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace and passively receives the gifts offered to man in the Gospel of Christ. Fine. But what have the gifts become? By needlessly extending Christ’s acquittal/absolution/justification to the whole world, the gift is no longer “Christ’s righteousness,” but “my righteousness,” “my sinlessness,” “my justification.” Christ possesses what is already mine, and offers it to me in the Gospel. Stated another way, Christ withholds what is rightfully mine until the criterion of faith is satisfied. And so man has found his way into the Gospel, not as one performing the work, but by making himself part of the gift. This is anthropocentrism in the extreme. This is, of course, ridiculous.
It is not what the Scriptures teach, but is the consequence of words describing “Objective Justification” as “forgiveness and/or righteousness that is already ours in Christ,” “I have already been justified, and receive the benefit through faith,” or “I am saved by Jesus Christ, just like you.” As I stated above, the truth of these statements is not universal, they depend on who “I” am. – Am “I” or “you” or “us” among the regenerate, or not? The fact is, what Christ possesses is entirely His own. What He freely offers in the Gospel is entirely His own. I appropriate this gift, and it becomes mine, through faith, and through faith alone. It is not mine prior to this, but is Christ’s alone. Douglas Lindee ---
---- Pr. Paul, This is also why I think we should say that the Atonement alone is not quite sufficient for describing the object of our faith. This is where we split the road. I disagree with you here. I disagree because this necessitates a different understanding of what the Law condemns us of. Also I disagree with you on exegetical grounds as found in Romans 3:25-26. In the whole paragraphs of Roman 3:21-26, links Atonement, Faith and Justification. There the object of faith is the Atonement but what the verse says is that when that object of faith is the right object, the result is Justification of the believer.
The KJV shows this forth plainly in Romans 3:25, faith in his blood, atonement. Indeed you and Pr. Jay are in the same boat because your object of faith has an extra item and negates Romans 3:25. In this position of yours, faith in Justification is to you, Justification! Rather what Luther always contended, is against this in his Galatians Sermon, rather Luther says - Faith IS Justification, it is Justification because the object of faith is THE Righteous One who gave his life as Atonement. Through faith HIS blood, i.e., the righteousness of the one who was making Atonement, the believer gets imputed to him, this Righteousness of Christ, it IS Christ's Righteousness that gets credited to the believer.
Hence now and I close... the position you and Pr. Jay have is indeed Waltherian - all have already been absolved in Christ, what is left is for the sinner is to access this verdict which already happened in the past and access this indeed by faith. I appreciate your struggling with this but what is happening to you (if I may respectfully say) is the same thing that is happening with Calvinist Federal Visionists. The Federal Visionaries wants to go Lutheran on the Sacraments! They come very very close to the finish line where the Lutherans are standing, but the fumble? Why? because their ankles are chained to the starting post.
For your case - it would be the Waltherian post... to quote Walther but not to endorse him when he says.... "For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is--faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him." C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 J-5 p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.Thanks for publishing my posts, I appreciate your doing that. LPC
- Pr. Paul, This is also why I think we should say that the Atonement alone is not quite sufficient for describing the object of our faith. This is where we split the road. I disagree with you here. I disagree because this necessitates a different understanding of what the Law condemns us of. Also I disagree with you on exegetical grounds as found in Romans 3:25-26. In the whole paragraphs of Roman 3:21-26, links Atonement, Faith and Justification. There the object of faith is the Atonement but what the verse says is that when that object of faith is the right object, the result is Justification of the believer.
***
GJ - Error loves ambiguities. The Confessions provide clarity and precision.
I am drawing a blank about this Lange author. Was he part of the Book of Concord? Syn Conference members should stick to the ruled norm for citations. Otherwise we will end up with a blog discussing the collected wisdom of Dennis Rardin.
