Michael has left a new comment on your post "Mequon Student Stopped and Searched. TriglottaDisc...":
Doesn't this quote from Lenski seem to teach "objective" justification? It is from his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:30. "The aorist passive ἐγενήθη “became,” “was made,” has the force and the meaning of the middle ἐγένετο; the Koine coined many such passive forms and loved to use them. The sense is, of course, not passive. The tense is historical. No stress at all rests on ἡμῖν, “us.” Paul now joyfully includes himself and, in fact, all his fellow Christians. That means that we should not refer “became” to the moment when the Corinthians were joined to Christ, i.e., when he subjectively became theirs by faith; but to the moment when Christ wrought out our redemption on the cross, then for the Corinthians, for Paul, and for all of us he “became” objectively what Paul now states. And the phrase “from God,” like “of him” (God), once more stresses the divine source over against anything that comes from “the world.” The preposition ἀπό has the thought of transition from God to us."
Lenski, R. C. H. (1963). The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians (81–82). Minneapolis, MN.: Augsburg Publishing House.
The above quote is how I understand objective justification: objectively, Christ became our righteousness, holiness and redemption when He announced, "it is finished" and died on the the cross. He is, objectively, the righteousness, holiness and redemption for every single person in the world, but, even-though this is who He objectively is for all, it does us no good unless His work is received by faith (subjectively).
Would you agree with Lenski's quote above and my understanding of the objective nature of Christ's work?
***
GJ - Do not let Tim Glende know you are reading Lenski! He will go Medieval on you. Not that he has ever read Lenski.
You need to switch to Groeschel, the way Glende and Ski have. That will keep you ganz WELS.
I have said before that some portions of Lenski lend themselves to the double-justification scheme, because he tried to bridge the gap in some places. That is why I find it odd that WELS spits out that "Lenski is not good on justification" when they could make so much of certain passages.
However, Lenski himself makes it very clear that justification is never spoken of in the New Testament where faith is omitted.
The turning point is the merging of justification and atonement. They are not the same, a fact abundantly clear to everyone except MDivs of the Syn Conference (and a few fragments thereof - CLCs and who knows what else).
You are simply trying to quote Lenski to pound the OJ/SJ theme again. There is only one justification - justification by faith.
There is no absolution of the entire world. You can find that error in writings of Charlotte Kirschbaum and her sugar daddy, Karl Barth. Your OJ is Calvinism, as Sig Becker admitted in print.
Even if Lenski did double back-flips for UOJ, no one who is serious about the Scriptures and the Confessions would accept it.
I suggest removing the farce of a quia subscription when Syn Conference pastors actively oppose the little they have read of the Confessions.
6 comments:
To be fair, I think that the "little" they have read is so minuscule that they can actually claim a wholehearted subscription to the Confessions with a straight face.
If that's not the case, then perhaps it's because the few portions that they did read (probably as homework) are such a distant memory that they have had sufficient time to effectively delude themselves. Continually "spoiling the Egyptians," as it were, undoubtedly lends itself toward that end.
Thank you for the reply. Here are some points I want to clarify:
1) I agree that Lenski always seems to tie in justification with faith. He clearly does this when defining the terms of this verse. However, he does seem to bridge a gap here - as you said. I am trying to gain a better understanding of what he is saying and you are teaching. This is why I asked specifically about this quote from Lenski. Do you agree with it? If not, why not?
2) Regarding the comment about me pounding the OJ/SJ theme: No, I am not. Scrolling down your blog, I think you are doing enough of that for the both of us. Again, I am just trying to get a better understanding of your teaching - specifically in this section where Lenski does tie justification to faith. Notice that, in the quote, he does not mention non-Christians as part of the "us". My confusion is this: Is Lenski, by saying that Jesus "became" our righteous the moment he wrought our redemption on the cross, applying this only to those who believe (the "us" being believers) or is he he saying that Jesus objectively became wisdom, righteousness, holiness and redemption for all through his death on the cross, but this wisdom, righteousness, holiness and redemption is our possession only through faith in him.
3) Do "I" believe that the term justification in Scripture is exclusively applied to those who believe? My answer is this: I still have not heard a good explanation why δικαιούμενοι in Romans 3:24 does not apply to the "all" of verse 23.
3) Regarding Synodical Conference pastors not reading the confessions: Though there may have been a few breaks, I have been reading the Book of Concord devotionally for 15 minutes per day, five mornings per week, for 8 out of the the past 10 years. For me, reading the confessions is not something praiseworthy, but something that every Lutheran pastor should be doing - especially considering the fact that every call letter I have received, calls for me to conduct my ministry (both in teaching and in practice) to be in accordance with the Lutheran Confessions.
I am not here to argue, but just get information. So please answer the following reworded questions (preferably with out the fallacious logical trickery you wrote about in your book "Liberalism", which I do notice you employing now and then).
1) What exactly is Lenski saying when he refers to Christ objectively becoming all "Paul now states" for us through his redemption on the cross?
2) Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
Respectfully,
Michael
Michael, Lenski is not teaching UOJ in the quote you provided.
1 Corinthians 1:30, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:"
Lenski, "Paul now joyfully includes himself and, in fact, all his fellow Christians. That means that we should not refer “became” to the moment when the Corinthians were joined to Christ,
Note that the subject of Lenski's quote is not mankind, and specifically the Christians at Corinth, but rather it is Christ and the Atonement. He is explaining what "is made" means - that Christ didn't atone for the worlds sin at the moment of the Corinthians conversion. For this to be a Pro-UOJ quote the subject would have to be man.
i.e., when he subjectively became theirs by faith;
Lenski here makes a faithful confession of Justification by Faith Alone. In clarifying when Christ atoned for the worlds sin he also confesses that men are joined to Christ through faith alone. They only have Christ, in Him all righteousness for the forgiveness of sins and salvation through faith alone.
but to the moment when Christ wrought out our redemption on the cross, then for the Corinthians, for Paul, and for all of us he “became” objectively what Paul now states."
Here Lenski confesses that Christ atoned for the worlds sin on the cross. This was the objective of Lenski's statement - it was to define when Christ atoned for the worlds sin.
You do touch on an important point - what is a Scriptural and Confessional definition of Objective Justification. Simply put, Christ's perfect life, innocent death for the sins of the whole world and His resurrection was all outside of any involvement by mankind. What devious UOJists will not admit is that when those God has called are brought to faith in Christ, through the Means of Grace, by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, it is also completely and fully Objective - solely the work of God. It is the quality of decision theology in the doctrine of UOJ which keeps them from admitting that there is no need for their new doctrine - if the perversion of Christ's central doctrine isn't proof enough of that.
Never mind my last "unpublished" post, when I asked what Lenski was saying (although I am still interested in your assessment of it). I found the answer in His sermon study for Quinquigesima or Estomihi on page 410, where he says: "The entire thought deals with what Christ actually is for believers (ὑμεῖς and ἡμῖν), not only with what Christ is objectively for all men, although this lies back of our subjective possession."
What they did or didn't read of the Lutheran Confessions is inconsequential when they have admitted the Confessions are... well let me quote Wayne Mueller, "We apply the Confessions as a limited standard to judge those doctrines which they directly or incidentally addresses." For the (W)ELS the Confessions are a "Limited Standard".
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2011/01/wels-allergic-reaction-to-book-of.html
Dear Brett,
We may have been writing at the same time when I referred to my "unpublished" post, which since has been published and you addressed.
In his Eisenach Gospel, which I, unfortunately, read after I posted my questions instead of before, Lenski explains himself much better.
You are right on target with my questions in your last paragraph, when you wrote: "what is a Scriptural and Confessional definition of Objective Justification". I agree with your definition of objective justification. I also agree when you wrote: "those God has called are brought to faith in Christ, through the Means of Grace, by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, it is also completely and fully Objective - solely the work of God."
So if I agree with you on those points, does this make me opposed to objective justification? I guess I am really confused now as to why people are against the term objective justification?
Post a Comment