Manthey Denies There Are Two Justifications in WELS - Intrepid Lutherans

Intrepid Lutherans

Daniel Baker said...

The first point of "This We Believe" leaves room for contention with regard to its blanket "declaration of righteousness." As Mr. Lindee suggests, I believe this is a prime example of "sloppiness" in terminology. Would it REALLY be that hard to simply state that Christ's merits are credited as righteousness to those in whom the Holy Spirit has created faith by means of the gospel? That would be a perfectly biblical and confessional alternative to the questionable statement we have here. The way in which we pull verse 18 out of chapter 5 amidst a plethora of other verses that state faith is credited as righteousness is startling. It seems highly reminiscent of certain other religious factions who like to pull select verses out of Romans 9 to promote what we find "blasphemous" per point 10 above. We are righteous in God's sight because when He looks at us, he sees Jesus (at least that's what I was taught in my 14 years of WELS education). If He has declared unbelievers righteous, why would they be going to hell? Christ bore the sins of all on Calvary, yes, but his merits are not applied unless the Holy Spirit has created faith - hence crediting righteousness. Am I wrong in my above assessment? I admit that this whole topic is mind boggling to me, and I have not thoroughly studied all the content that pertains to it. If I err in some way, please reproach me.

October 6, 2010 2:31 PM

LutherRocks said...

Oh praise the Lord...and I mean that in the most Lutheran of tone!!! This is good...this is STELLAR!!! Now we are getting to the heart of the matter...to the meat! 2929 N. Mayfair Rd. are you listening? Mequon...are you getting this? It is my opinion that a lot of this goes back to the residual effects of the LCMS (A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod [Adopted 1932]) and undoubtedly much further.(There are glaring problems in Kretzmann circa 1921.) This passage puts it all in perspective and context: Genesis 15:6 (King James Version) And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness. In the spirit of the Reformation! Joe Krohn

October 6, 2010 7:20 PM

Brett Meyer said...

I agree with the statements of Daniel Baker and Joe Krohn. I do, however, believe that when the official confession of the (W)ELS states, "1. We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ." it is not a matter of sloppy writing or confession. It is a precise confession with words carefully chosen to convey a specific declaration, that all people, believers and unbelievers, have been declared by God to be righteous. My reason for believing this is that it is in perfect harmony with other WELS confessions concerning the central doctrine of the (W)ELS. I provide quotes to support this and also quotes from the Norm, the normed norm and Martin Luther that reject this confession as it is opposed to God's pure Word. WELS President of MLC, Mark Zarling, "Perhaps such a distinction is helpful if it assists us in understanding the glorious Gospel: In Jesus, God has declared the entire world righteous and forgiven, irregardless of whether or not the world believes it. Such is the jewel described by objective, universal, or general justification." Page 2 http://www.wlsessays.net/files/ZarlingJustification.pdf WELS CA/AZ District President, Pastor Jon Buchholz 2005 Convention Essay "God has declared the entire world righteous." This statement is true, as we understand it to mean that God has rendered a verdict of "not-guilty" toward the entire world. It is also true—and must be taught—that the righteousness of Christ now stands in place of the world’s sin; this is the whole point of what Jesus did for us at Calvary." Page 17 http://www.wlsessays.net/node/390 WELS Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Prof. Forrest L. Bivens "To phrase it somewhat differently, God has justified, acquitted or declared righteous the whole world of sinners. He has forgiven them. They have been reconciled to God. Their status in his eyes has been changed from that of sinner to forgiven sinner for the sake of Jesus Christ. Since all this applies to all people, the term universal or general justification is used. In our circles an alternate term, objective justification, is also used. If justification is universal, it must also be objective; sinners have been forgiven whether they believe it or not." http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BivensMessage.pdf SCRIPTURE, THE CONFESSIONS AND LUTHER: Romans 4:5, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Cont...

October 6, 2010 7:50 PM

Brett Meyer said...

Cont... Apology of the Augsburg Confession, That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ. "But the remission of sins is received by faith alone, and, indeed, by faith properly so called, because the promise cannot be received except by faith. But faith, properly so called, is that which assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost in the heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain]. Of this faith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the remission of sins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham] accounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the works of the Law, although love necessarily follows. Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. And because this faith alone receives the remission of sins, and renders us acceptable to God, and brings the Holy Ghost, it could be more correctly called _gratia gratum faciens_, grace rendering one pleasing to God, than an effect following, namely, love." "But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3, 26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him," http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php The Defense of the Augsburg Confession What Is Justifying Faith? 48] "The adversaries feign that faith is only a knowledge of the history, and therefore teach that it can coexist with mortal sin. Hence they say nothing concerning faith, by which Paul so frequently says that men are justified, because those who are accounted righteous before God do not live in mortal sin." http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php Luther's Commentary on Galations "Paul's words contain the implication of contrast. When he quotes Scripture to the effect that all nations that share the faith of faithful Abraham are to be blessed, Paul means to imply the contrast that all nations are accursed without faith in Christ. VERSE 10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. The curse of God is like a flood that swallows everything that is not of faith. To avoid the curse we must hold on to the promise of the blessing in Christ." "Paul goes on to prove from this quotation out of the Book of Deuteronomy that all men who are under the Law are under the sentence of sin, of the wrath of God, and of everlasting death." "I cannot tell you in words how criminal it is to seek righteousness before God without faith in Christ, by the works of the Law. It is the abomination standing in the holy place. It deposes the Creator and deifies the creature." http://www.bibleteacher.org/luthercom_3.htm In Christ, Brett Meyer

October 6, 2010 7:50 PM

Brett Meyer said...

Not to jump ahead, only to clarify for the moment, the issue taken with "God has declared all sinners righteous" is not the only confession in the (W)ELS This We Believe under Justification By Grace Through Faith that is contrary to Scripture and the Confessions and should be discussed at some point. In my opinion the the following quotes are also at issue and are inseparable from the confession that "all sinners are declared righteous". (1.)All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified, for "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (7.)We reject all efforts to present faith as a condition people must fulfill to complete their justification. (BM - this needs to be clarified in order to be addressed appropriately. ie: Does it intend to state, we reject declarations that faith must be present to be justified by God, as the WELS has taught and is currently teaching)

October 6, 2010 10:39 PM

Gregory L. Jackson said...

The Holy Spirit only works through the Word (Isaiah 55) and never apart from the Word. Calvin and others taught that the Holy Spirit did God's work without the Word. Grace comes to man only through God's appointed Instruments of Grace, the invisible Word of preaching teaching, the visible Word of the sacraments. To claim otherwise is pure Enthusiasm, which is utterly condemned by the Book of Concord. As Paul clearly teaches in Romans 10, preaching the Gospel moves people to faith, who are declared righteous by God, receiving forgiveness of sin and the promise of eternal life. Therefore, there cannot be two justifications, one without the Means of Grace and without effect - the other where faith as God's own creation is diminished and ridiculed. Only one justification is taught in the Bible and the Book of Concord. The heresy of grace without the Means of Grace came from Calvinism via the Pietism of Halle University. Halle quickly turned from Pietism to rationalism, eventually absorbing Wittenberg University, which no longer exists. That should serve as a warning to all those who excuse, promote, or ignored UOJ. Forgiveness without faith is a cancer. Galatians 1:8.

October 7, 2010 6:14 AM

Anonymous said...

I need to read everything more in depth still. Christ died once and for all, isn't that correct. Scripture says, "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation" --2 Corinthians 5:19 In some sense, I would think that Christ death justifies the world. Faith is entirely the work of God. Christ's atonement is not limited. If it were so, we would be suscribing to the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. Not only did he die for the sins of the Christian, but the sins of the whole world. So, in some sense, I believe he has justified the whole world. Yet, we are saved by grace through faith. I, however, am unsure how Scripture can both say that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, and yet only some are to be chosen to go to heaven. This is my question. Levi Powers

October 7, 2010 8:54 AM

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Levi, I'm trying to let the discussion continue without chiming in at every comment or at every assertion. But there are some questions I don't want to leave hanging in midair. You're absolutely right that Christ has died to pay for the sins of the world. The atonement he made on the cross is NOT limited to those who believe, or who will believe. There can be no question about this. In the same way, the paradox remains in the doctrine of election, and Lutherans have no problems with the paradox: God elected some to salvation, but he elected no one to condemnation. If someone believes and is saved, it is 100% the work of God. If someone disbelieves and is condemned, it is 100% the fault of man. Perhaps the words of Luther Against the Heavenly Prophets will shed some light on the discussion, "We treat of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is achieved and won. Second, how it is distributed and given to us. Christ has achieved it on the cross, it is true. But he has not distributed or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the supper or sacrament. There he has distributed and given it through the Word, as also in the gospel, where it is preached. He has won it once for all on the cross. But the distribution takes place continuously, before and after, from the beginning to the end of the world. For inasmuch as he had determined once to achieve it, it made no difference to him whether he distributed it before or after, through his Word, as can easily be proved from Scripture. But now there is neither need nor time to do so. "If now I seek the forgiveness of sins, I do not run to the cross, for I will not find it given there. Nor must I hold to the suffering of Christ, as Dr. Karlstadt trifles, in knowledge or remembrance, for I will not find it there either. But I will find in the sacrament or gospel the word which distributes, presents, offers, and gives to me that forgiveness which was won on the cross. Therefore, Luther has rightly taught that whoever has a bad conscience from his sins should go to the sacrament and obtain comfort, not because of the bread and wine, not because of the body and blood of Christ, but because of the word which in the sacrament offers, presents, and gives the body and blood of Christ, given and shed for me." (Luther's Works: Vol. 40, p.213).

October 7, 2010 9:21 AM

Brett Meyer said...

In This We Believe posted above the WELS confession concerning Justification Romans 5:18 is used to contend that God declared the whole unbelieving world Justified by Christ whether they believe it or not. "All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified, for "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (Romans 5:18)." KJV - "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." It's important to point out that if this verse is to be used as proof of universal Justification then to remain consistent it also is proof of universal salvation because the Justification that came upon all men is that Justification which brings eternal life. ie: "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." "unto justification of life." KJV The exegesis that UOJ uses to declare the whole world Justified has in the same verse declared them saved, "life for all men." Christ declares in this verse that the very same Justification brings life for all men. Note there aren’t two justifications here as UOJ teaches, Objective and Subjective. The one Justification brings life. Anyone who is declared Justified by God is saved. Now I understand that every UOJist will wreathe in anguish over this and say they do not teach Universal Salvation but then they cannot use this verse in an attempt to prove Universal Justification either. It's by God's grace that in this one verse there is the refutation of UOJ's claim that the whole world was Justified. It's important to remember the Lutheran method of exegesis which is that no verse is to be interpreted alone, Scripture interprets Scripture (2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.) and with this method the clarity, unity and perspicuity of Scripture is brought forth by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit working through the Word. I hope this helps the discussion.

October 7, 2010 11:43 AM

Mathetes said...

(Apologies to the moderators. I forgot to put my John Hancock on my comment.) Thanks to all of you "Impavidissimos" for getting to this heart of Lutheranism! Any discrepancies in this doctrine seem to appear "like maggots on firewood that come with a gentle touch, but have the hardest teeth, and gnaw away at the core of the firewood, yet resulting that it still appears undamaged on the surface." (Also Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, Locus on Poverty. Translation own.) It is so very easy to think of atonement and saving as the same thing. It is not. The wonderful phrase "Christ died for the whole world" does not mean that the whole world is heaven-bound. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13-14) Mr. Benjamin Rusch

October 7, 2010 11:51 AM

Brett Meyer said...

Correction: I wrote "wreathe" and should have written "writhe". Forgive me, I didn't mean to imply that UOJists are in the holiday spirit.

October 7, 2010 12:07 PM

Michael Sullivan said...

Because of his promise to Abraham, God declared all Old Testament Israel to be his chosen people. And yet only those who believed His Word were the true children of God. In the Old Testament the promise made by God was offered to every Israelites; it was objectively declared. But it only benefited those who received it by faith, those who heard the promise and in whose heart faith was created by means of the Word . Isn't this similar to justification? God declared the whole world forgiven, but only those who believe this promise receive forgiveness and are truly forgiven. Only those who hear the Gospel and in whose heart faith is created by means of the Gospel, truly receive the promise of salvation and forgiveness. My point is this: The argument against universal objective justification being that it sounds silly ("God saying you are forgiven, but not really") is not really an argument. God said something similar to his Old Testament people when He declared them to be his own, and yet only those who received this promise by faith were truly his own. Isn’t there a parallel here? (If not, I am willing to be corrected with an explanation.) Another question I have is this: Every time I read Romans 3:23,24 I see Universal Objective Justification. If the subject of the participle of δικαιούμενοι in verse 24 is not πάντες of verse 23, than what is? I really would like to see a brief explanation of this verse from someone who says universal objective justification is not in Scripture. In Christian love, Michael Sullivan

October 7, 2010 1:08 PM

Anonymous said...

I think part of the misunderstanding as well is the context. We must remember that Paul is writing to the Christians in Rome. They are already saved. There is a premise in place because of this. Paul is not addressing John Q. Public. Peace in Jesus, Joe Krohn

October 7, 2010 1:12 PM

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Pr. Sullivan, I would add a comment here about Romans 3:23-24 as a matter of exegesis. (Obviously a brief comment like this can't do exegetical justice to this section in Romans, but for what it's worth...) It's not quite as simple as saying πάντες = all people, always, period. The context will reveal who the "all" are. In v.22, Paul has just described what this "righteousness" is that has been revealed, and how it comes: a "righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to πάντας those who believe." Faith is already identified as key to this justification that comes from God. In v.23, the πάντες clearly refers to "all" those whom Paul has already proved to be under sin, i.e., "the whole world" (c.f. v.19), both Jews and Gentiles. No question there. But in v.24, the verb is a present tense, δικαιούμενοι, "being justified." One would think that if these "all" have already been justified, Paul would have used a perfect tense here. The present seems to indicate the status change that takes place as people are brought to faith in Jesus through the gospel. In Luther's Commentary on Romans, he adds a gloss here: "all, as many as are justified" (quotquot justificantur in Latin). As many as are justified are justified, not by works, but freely by his grace...through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus...through faith in his blood. Paul wraps up the whole thought of the paragraph in v.26, δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ, "justifying the one who is of the faith in Jesus." I just don't see how faith is not an essential part of Paul's whole argument here - not faith as "that which man brings to the table," but faith as that gift of God through which a man's status before God changes from "wicked" to "righteous."

October 7, 2010 2:19 PM

Brett Meyer said...

Michael, I believe your initial example is pointing to two very different things. God’s chosen people were the Isrealites, the decendents of Abraham. Chosen, meaning chosen to be the people through whom God would bring the promised Messiah. Not chosen as to those who would be His children and receive the forgiveness of sins since there were people of other nations who were children of God through faith in the promised Messiah, and because, as you correctly point out, there were those within the nation of Isreal who rejected the promise. Now this is separate from how God declared how the Old Testament people could become the children of God and receive the forgiveness of their sins. That way was through believing in the promised Messiah. Your statement, “In the Old Testament the promise made by God was offered to every Israelites; it was objectively declared. But it only benefited those who received it by faith”, is a good example of why this distinction needs to be made. You bring in a critical consideration concerning when a person is considered Justified, further, at what point is God’s wrath over a person’s sin removed, and he becomes a child of God. Christ declares in Galations 3:6-9, “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” Romans 3:23-25, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood…” Note that verse 24 declares, “redemption that is in Christ Jesus” and teaches that in Christ is redemption from sin and death, in Christ is all righteousness and, in fact, the only righteousness that exists is in Christ and never apart from Him. Verse 25 shows how we have access to Christ’s righteousness, how He becomes the propitiation for someone’s sins, and that is through faith in His blood, through faith in Christ we are in Him and He in us. Through faith we have all that is His, His righteousness which avails against God’s wrath, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Instantaneously through faith worked graciously by the Holy Ghost through the Word and Sacraments, the Means of Grace. Pastor Rydecki’s quote of Luther’s faithful Against the Heavenly Prophets confirms this also. More importantly the Confessions of the Lutheran Church confirm this here, The Defense of the Augsburg Confession What Is Justifying Faith?, 48] "The adversaries feign that faith is only a knowledge of the history, and therefore teach that it can coexist with mortal sin. Hence they say nothing concerning faith, by which Paul so frequently says that men are justified, because those who are accounted righteous before God do not live in mortal sin." http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php Those who are accounted righteous before God do not live in mortal sin. This is a faithful confession which is in harmony with Scripture, anything contrary to this is not of God. I hope this helps, In Christ, Brett Meyer

October 7, 2010 2:37 PM

Marcus Manthey said...

As I read this thread, I must admit to being more than a little perplexed. I was unaware that there was, among us, such profound confusion over this vital doctrine of Scripture. Some of the statements here – particularly those that refer to “two justifications,” demonstrate a shallowness of thinking that is inconsistent with the level of theological concern and involvement typically displayed on this blog. Where has this idea come from? Is not the language sufficiently plain to make clear that what is called “objective justification” or “subjective justification” is simple short-hard for “justification viewed from an objective, or general, perspective” and “justification viewed from a subjective, or personal, perspective?” These are not two justifications, nor has any WELS statement or confession of which I am aware ever claimed as much. It is, rather, two ways of speaking about the one justification that Scripture teaches. It acknowledges that Scripture itself speaks about God’s act of justification in two distinct, though related, ways. That’s why, in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul can write in v.18 of “God, who reconciled us (i.e. believers) to himself through Christ,” then in the very next verse and say “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ.” Paul isn’t talking about two reconciliations; he is only viewing God’s act of reconciling from two different points of view. Think of justification as a magnificent banquet God has prepared. He intends all the delicious food and drink to be for all people. He has issued banquet invitations to all people. He isn’t kidding; the banquet really is for all. However, some people don’t know about the invitation so they don’t come to the banquet. Some don’t believe the invitation is meant for them so they don’t come. Some convince themselves that they won’t like or don’t need the food being served at the banquet so they don’t come. A fortunate few hear God’s invitation and believe it; they come to the banquet and enjoy all it has to offer. Then God lets them go out and tell those who don’t know it yet just how wonderful God’s banquet is. The banquet that God prepares for all and the banquet that is enjoyed by the few are not two different banquets. It’s the same banquet, viewed from two points of view. The banquet as God sees it is for everyone; the banquet as the believer views it is just for him or her. Same banquet. That’s justification, and if you read Scripture and the Confessions (and the WELS writers quoted above) with that in mind, you will find that all the pieces fall into place.

October 7, 2010 4:16 PM

LutherRocks said...

"These are not two justifications, nor has any WELS statement or confession of which I am aware ever claimed as much." There are scads; as recent as last June at the South Central District Convention. Go to their website. Go to the WELS website. Go to the seminary website. There are essays/statements/confessions galore. Joe Krohn

October 7, 2010 4:40 PM

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Marcus, Thanks for your comments. They are much appreciated and well stated. The banquet analogy seems appropriate (reminiscent of a certain parable, of course). I think the questions arise more when the forensic analogy is applied. For example, some would ask, "Is that atheist over there considered by God to be righteous or unrighteous - innocent or guilty - saint or sinner - saved or condemned?" At least, that's how I've heard the question phrased. I'll step out of the discussion again for awhile and allow others to answer.

October 7, 2010 5:23 PM

Some People Understand Calvinism - Hint - They Are Not Syn Conference MDivs

"OK, smart guys. Put your hands on the desk, palms up."


LPC has left a new comment on your post "Lutheran UOJ Advocates Use Calvinistic Thought":

Pr. Greg,

You are right in your posts here. Calvin is confusing that is why it is a lost cause to defend him. Case in point - take any two Calvinists, one Paedobap and another Credobap, and both will find support from Calvin on their positions!

Why? It is because Calvin as you said separated the Means of Grace from the Holy Spirit - as a guarantee. For Calvin, it is a hit or miss proposition when it comes to the sacrament. For example in Baptism, only the elect is regenerated. Many lines of categorical deviations did he make from Lutheran doctrine which he himself once signed - the Augsburg Confession. For example he deviated on his understanding of faith, repentance, the nature of regeneration from Luther as well.

His idea of repentance for example was somewhat a compromise with Rome.

Take this example of a testimony I have heard - "I got saved looking at a beautiful sunset". In general both Arminians and Calvinists will accept this testimony of salvation. Lutherans will not!

Both Calvinists and Arminians think that Baptism and Supper are not related to JBFA! Yet for the Lutheran, they are absolutely JBFA in action.

I could have stayed in Calvinism and listened to the defense of people of how Calvin really did not believe in for example Limited Atonement etc etc. However, my reading of him is that he fails too low in precision compared to Luther who never swayed with regards to the Sacraments. Luther was thorough going and not double tongued on this issue.

LPC

---
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Lutheran UOJ Advocates Use Calvinistic Thought":

continued...

UOJ at the end of the day is like Calvinism in principle. Here is my argument, take the case of Eph 2:8-9.

The passage reads: 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

This passage is actually truncated in practice and in exposition by UOJ and Calvinists Dogmatics... to

8For by grace are ye saved it is the gift of God:

UOJ speaks this way because people have been saved before faith already.

Calvinists Dogmatics should not have a problem with this if one looks at their ordo saludis because for them regeneration comes prior to faith in logical order. For them regeneration is the seizing of the elect irresistibly by the HS. To Calvinism, faith is actually an after thought since salvational decree is the main thing.

Does not that ring a bell? For in UOJ faith is an after thought too ie, one just has to believe he is justified already and so he is but if he does not believe, then he is not.

Lutheran exegetes in that passage point to FAITH as that gift whereby one is saved by grace.

I like to know if any Calvinist reading this could spot where I misrepresented general Calvinist expositions on this issue.

LPC
---

churchmousec (http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Lutheran UOJ Advocates Use Calvinistic Thought":

Thank you, Dr Jackson, for the kind invitation to respond to your post on Calvinism!

First, excerpts on the Sacrament from 'A Short Treatise on the Supper of Our Lord':

http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/the-sacrament-of-the-lords-supper-for-non-calvinists/

Here are a few excerpts (much more at the link):

'We have only to receive in faith the grace which is there presented to us, and which resides not in the sacrament, but refers us to the cross of Jesus Christ as proceeding therefrom.'

But he was at odds with Martin Luther on the idea of sacramental union — consubstantiation — where Christ is ‘in, with and under’ the elements of bread and wine.

'I only wished to observe, in passing, that to fancy Jesus Christ enclosed under the bread and wine, or so to conjoin him with it as to amuse our understanding there without looking up to heaven, is a diabolical reverie.'

Calvin said that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the Sacrament of the Last Supper was ‘a secret too sublime for my mind to understand or express. I experience it rather than understand it.’ That seems so unlike John Calvin — who normally framed a reasoned argument for all things Reformed. However, he also wrote:

'Our Lord, wishing to give a visible appearance to his Spirit at the baptism of Christ, presented him under the form of a dove. St. John the Baptist, narrating the fact, says, that he saw the Spirit of God descending. If we look more closely, we shall find that he saw nothing but the dove, in respect that the Holy Spirit is in his essence invisible.'

Therefore, to a Calvinist, the bread and wine are symbols. Yet, when partaking of the Sacrament, Christ comes to the communicant and is truly present in them thanks to the gift of faith.

'We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all his blessings.'

Finally, he urged frequent Communion — more frequent than that of the Catholics of the day, some of whom received it only once a year. (They did not believe they needed to receive it often.) Calvin wrote:

'However, if we duly consider the end which our Lord has in view, we shall perceive that the use should be more frequent than many make it: for the more infirmity presses, the more necessary is it frequently to have recourse to what may and will serve to confirm our faith, and advance us in purity of life; and, therefore, the practice of all well ordered churches should be to celebrate the Supper frequently, so far as the capacity of the people will admit.'

In order to receive the Supper properly, the communicant must:

* Have ‘a desire and an ardent longing to be fed’
* Conform his life to ‘the example of Jesus Christ’
* Be united with one’s neighbour in ‘indissoluable friendship’
* Recognise that our imperfections should encourage him to frequent Communion.

Link to original document in the post and here:

http://www.the-highway.com/supper1_Calvin.html

I think I have an irate comment from a Catholic following the post.

More soon
Churchmouse

---
churchmousec (http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Lutheran UOJ Advocates Use Calvinistic Thought":

Hello, Dr Jackson -- Many thanks for your kind invitation to post a comment on your post about Calvinism.

Have just cut and pasted several paragraphs, but they were too long to go through.

Whilst I locate more information, here is my link on Calvin's writings about the Lord's Supper (what I would refer to as Holy Communion):

http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/the-sacrament-of-the-lords-supper-for-non-calvinists/

Questions or opinions welcome.

Many thanks
Churchmouse

---

churchmousec (http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Lutheran UOJ Advocates Use Calvinistic Thought":

Hello, again!

A summary of Calvin's beliefs for the non-Calvinist here (supporting docs in the post):

http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/calvins-beliefs-for-the-non-calvinist/

An excerpt:

'# Justification by faith: Good works alone will not be enough for us to enter into God’s Kingdom. We must also have faith, which is the chief work of the Holy Spirit. On this point Calvin and Martin Luther agree.

'# Predestination: Calvin would be upset with so many of us for misinterpreting this doctrine. I have met no one outside the Calvinist faith who can explain it. It does not mean that the elect or predestined can do whatever they want in life — e.g. go on crime sprees — and still enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Election is not a selection based on merit but on God’s gratuitous grace. This means two things: a) not all will be saved and b) no one knows who the predestined are.'

Qualifier: I was still just a beginner there, but it was around Calvin's 500th anniversary, so wanted to start to get to grips with all the posts I had been reading at the time.

Churchmouse

---
churchmousec (http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Lutheran UOJ Advocates Use Calvinistic Thought":

Hello!

Excerpted thoughts on TULIP from Dr R Scott Clark, Westminster Seminary California:

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/the-trouble-with-tulips/#more-6258

'For “the non-Reformed, TULIP provides a wonderfully convenient box into which Reformed theology can be placed—and criticized.” He raises the question whether the TULIP provides an “adequate or even accurate distillation of Reformed theology.” He reminds us that the TULIP is a modern summary of the Canons of the Synod of Dort, which were “never intended as a summary of Reformed theology.” Further, he argues, the TULIP acronym does not “not provide an accurate summary of Dort itself. While acronyms work well as memory aids, in this case the acronym is misleading on key points within the canons themselves.” He notes that the phrase “total depravity” tends to communicate misanthropy rather than the Reformed doctrine of sin. He charges that the expressions “limited atonement’ and “irresistible grace” are also liable to serious misunderstanding.

'The greatest problem of the acronym TULIP is that it “perpetuates a basic misunderstanding about the Reformed tradition: that predestination is the center of Reformed theology from which all else flows.” Here Todd is echoing the criticism by Richard Muller and others against the “Central Dogma” theory of the history of doctrine, i.e., that the Lutheran “Central Dogma” was justification and the Reformed “Central Dogma” was predestination and that two distinct, parallel systems were deduced from these dogmas. This historiography has been thoroughly debunked but it continues to undergird the way many evangelicals and mainliners (and too many sideliners!) think about Reformed theology, piety, and practice.'

Solas explained and contrasted with TULIP here:

http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/the-5-solas-of-calvinism-for-non-calvinists/

Churchmouse (only a layperson!)

Will the Conference of Pussycats Shut Down the Intrepid Lutherans?Church and Change? Pots of Pietism? Time of Generic Grace?

The WELS Conference of Pussycats will meet soon. A hot topic is shutting down Church and Change? - No! - Mark and Avoid Jeske? - No! - Intrepid Lutherans? - YES!

The eee-vul Intrepid Lutherans have discussed doctrine and questioned the sloppy, floppy false doctrine promoting Synod Sunday sermon, spawned by the Guilt Factory formerly known as The Love Shack.

Now they have touched the Third Rail - UOJ. Zap. Electrocution execution. Worst of all - the WELS laity are wise to the UOJ scam. They can do their own research and thinking.

Defense of UOJ Eviscerated

Following are arguments in defense of UOJ, from a pastor. I have often read and heard flip remarks like this, so consider them generic in the Syn Conference. I despair of the clergy ever coming to grips with their favorite false doctrine.

1. "Both sides are talking past each other."

Answer - That is a classic unionistic statement, where the speaker tries to merge two entirely different concepts. The UOJ Stormtroopers are always on the attack. The difference today is that many laity are armed with a complete list of absurd UOJ statements and the Confessional, Biblical passages that refute them.

2. "Bashing dead WELS guys, especially greatly beloved ones like Meyer and Becker, will not get you any sympathy or even so much as a hearing among 95% of WELS people. So, if you want to actually make any points or any progress, stick to the living."

Answer - Lutherans once emphasized Galatians 1:8. KJV Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Now dead WELS professors are elevated higher than the Apostle Paul, above the Word of God and Confessions. Moreover, no one will listen if someone suggests these saints were ever wrong about anything.

Luther prayed to Mary in his commentary on the Magnificat. Does that mean we should pray to Mary as well, since he is beloved as the greatest theologians of the Christian Church? If a Lutheran argues against Marian devotion, should I be offended because Luther once engaged in it himself? At least the Roman Catholics content themselves with the infallibility of the pope. Lutherans now embrace the infallibility of all dead professors. Forget Biblical exegesis and studying the Confessions.

By all means, do not say anything that will offend anyone at any time. That is a recipe for the current state of the Syn Conference. The ELS is divided among Emergent Church, Emulsifiers, and Lutherans. Ditto WELS and Missouri.

False doctrine is not advanced so much by the false teachers themselves, as hard as they try, the poor little devils, but by the emulsifying pastors who argue that oil and water do mix quite well together and should never be separated.

3. "If you have a gripe with anyone in WELS, have it out with them directly, until its either settled or you agree that you'll never agree - at which time you might as well leave it alone, because picking at it won't do any good."

Answer - I am so glad Luther did not follow this sage advice, which contradicts the Book of Concord, Large Catechism, Eighth Commandment. Published false doctrine can be refuted in public without violating the Eighth Commandment. Matthew 18 applies to private sins.

Therefore, if a WELS pastor has published false doctrine, he can be refuted in public. Also, if he is convicted as a sex criminal or murderer, his case can be discussed as a warning against others. There is not statute of limitations on false doctrine. If that were so, the Protestants would have let the Antichrist off the hook for his false doctrine. I forgot - they have. WELS and the ELS have invited papists to teach them the Word. At least that battle is over. Now the Syn Conference can move against the real enemy - those who teach justification by faith alone.

This blog has shown that many arguments need to made repeatedly. The reason is that people discover it, get offended, come back, read some more. The first page is most commonly read. Many posts are good for readership, but they overshadow each other. The only solution is to publish a gem, the way Fake-O-Bod does, once a month. Of course, he has more outstanding warrants than readers.

Doctrine is our only light. If false doctrine cannot be addressed, the Word of God is obsolete and useless. The invisible Church has never been an organization devoted to public relations efforts. I take as my example John Bunyan, who was released from prison, as long as he promised not to preach again. He said, "You might as well put me back in, because I will preach immediately."

The statements I highlighted in blue are reasons why WELS, Missouri, and the ELS will never face their doctrinal problems. They choose leaders who are safe, passive, and non-threatening.

Lutheran UOJ Advocates Use Calvinistic Thought

John Calvin established a counter-argument to Luther, based on Zwingli's initial rationalistic efforts.

I am soliciting the opinions of Church Mouse and Extra Nos on this, because both know Calvinism well. Unfortunately, most of the "conservative" Lutherans addressing these issues do not go beyond the talking points they learned at seminary.

Otto W. Heick's History of Christian Thought was in print for a long time and used by WELS pastors. There was nothing else quite like his work. He was our friend at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary. He took us out to eat and to his wife's grave. He ate at our home more than once. He would come up to me after a chapel and express alarm or amusement at what was said. For instance, one young woman called herself a backslider but also claimed, "Once God has touched you, He never lets you go." He quoted her and grinned. When I used the seminary library, I found his markings in the reference works - tiny pencil notes for the revision of his book.

I was reading Heick's History at the doctor's office when I came across the section on Calvinism versus Arminianism. In a few words, Arminius provoked a break in Calvinism, which culminated in the Synod of Dort. Calvinism defined itself at Dort as TULIP:
1. Total depravity.
2. Unconditional election.
3. Limited atonement.
4. Irresistible grace.
5. Perseverance of the saints.

Heick:
"Arminius, then, considered faith not primarily as the instrument by which man accepts the grace of God, but rather as the first cause of justification. The faith which resides in man as a potential quality is what is imputed to the sinner as righteousness...This view flatly contradicts what Melanchthon said in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, - 'For faith does not justify or save because it is a good work in itself, but only because it accepts the universal mercy.'"
History of Christian Thought, II, pp. 73ff. Emphasis in original.

Notice that Calvinism never taught the efficacy of the Word or the Means of Grace. Rock-ribbed Calvinists are opposed to the efficacy of the Word and treat the sacraments as empty labels - ordinances to be obeyed, following Zwingli. In fact, a Calvinist sermon could be utterly useless unless the Holy Spirit decides to stop by. The same is true for communion. That is why Calvinists pray "Sovereign Lord." The term reflects their separation of the Holy Spirit from the Word. For them, God works independently of the Word and Sacraments, although not utterly apart from them. Naturally, the Real Presence is denied. So is baptismal regeneration.

The Arminians were also called Remonstrants. My advisor at Notre Dame was a Dutch Remonstrant. The Remonstrants began as the minority in Holland and eventually became the majority opinion. I studied Calvin and modern manifestations of Calvinism under him. He wrote his Harvard dissertation on a conservative Calvinist, under H. Oberman.

Calvinism necessarily has a strange concept of faith. The Synodical Conference MDivs do not understand this because they hardly understand Lutheran doctrine. They do not comprehend the foundation (the efficacy of the Word) so they satisfy themselves with repeating their seminary talking points.

The Heart of the Matter
This is the part where the UOJ Enthusiasts need to slow down and read out loud, to aid their reading comprehension.

1. Calvin denied that the Holy Spirit always works exclusively through the Word, rejecting the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments. He made fun of the Real Presence in his Institutes. Calvin - the "finite is incapable of the infinite." That motto renders the Incarnation impossible. Calvin locutus est, causa finita est. (Calvin has spoken, the case is closed).
2. Calvin was confused about the Two Natures of Christ, thinking that Jesus had to come in a secret entrance to be in the locked room after the Resurrection. That is also why Calvinist art shows the angels letting Jesus out of the tomb by opening it.
3. Calvin simply declared his ideas to be true, in defiance of clear Scriptural passages.
4. Calvin created a rationalistic approach, which inevitably leads to Unitarianism, Universalism, and atheism. Two WELS Church Growth pastors have followed that path already. Curtis Peterson's essays are still in the sanctum sanctorum, the WELS Essay Files.
5. ELCA also teaches UOJ because of its common heritage of Pietism.

UOJ is Calvinism
The classic statement of double-justification came from Knapp, a Halle University professor, in lectures and in print before Walther landed in America.

UOJ is the concept--alien to most Christians--that God has already declared every single person forgiven of sin. That appeals to people who have no grasp of the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace.

Most Christians know from the Word that faith comes from preaching the Gospel.

UOJ continues to be taught because many Lutheran clergy do not understand the basics of the Faith. They have been trained to worship their synod, so any departure from that veneration is known to be dangerous.

Thoughts On Another Emergent Church Kicking The SORE Out of their Rented Movie Theater

Another emergent church has captured the lease for the movie theater where The SORE has been festering.

Ski and Glende will get to watch a new operation take the same New Age ideas and do "much better" with them - i.e., send more souls to Hell.

That reminds me of this passage:

KJV Matthew 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.