Frederick said...
"We have misgivings", "deep misgivings", "seem to allow"
It is a travesty of our current time in the history of the world, and specifically in the history of the Lutheran Church, that there is a hesitancy to make clear statements identifying specific teachings as being false. Perhaps it is a result of being so near the end of the age that the current climate within the Lutheran Synods inhibits open discussion of doctrine and practice that directly or indirectly exposes the Synods to Scriptural and Confessional scrutiny. In my opinion the opening of this post is a reflection of this climate negatively affecting the ability to call a spade a spade for the benefit of the Church. "We have misgivings", "deep misgivings", "seem to allow" are all used in reference to doctrinal teachings made by theologians of the LCMS, ELS and Wels which are not taught in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions and, in fact, stand opposed to them. Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12 are applicable to this issue. We should be bold in Christ, slaves to Him alone and speak clearly and plainly the pure Word, letting our yea be yea and our nay be nay. May we never equivocate on what the clear Word of Scripture declares.
"we are yet convinced that it is necessary to recognize in our justification both objective and subjective aspects."
I don't believe this is true. This is a solution in search of a problem. I would defend my contention by pointing directly to the Lutheran Confessions. As Pastor Rydecki clearly stated in an earlier post, the BOC fully and faithfully explains everything that Scripture teaches concerning Justification. Acknowledging that the BOC does not treat Justification as Objective and Subjective but as one Justification declared by faith alone in Christ. There are no false doctrines that are not adequately dealt with using Scripture and the BOC without having to parse the doctrine with the Objective and Subjective nature of Justification. This is proven by the fact that Subjective Justification is equally Objective. There is no aspect of Justification that is not Objective. Even my believing is worked solely by the Holy Spirit through the efficacious Means of Grace, lest any man should boast. This Scriptural truth really makes the differentiating terms of Objective and Subjective misleading from the very beginning. Again, OJ and SJ are solutions looking for a real problem and leading souls away from Christ's pure doctrine in the process.
"On the other hand, all of God's subjective work, His work in man, must constitute nothing other than the distribution of God's completed work in Christ, and not itself be any part of His work on man's behalf. If man's faith completes God's work, the wicked falsehood of synergism prevails."
To say that, "His work in man (is) not itself any part of His work on man's behalf" is incorrect. How can it be said that the gracious gift of faith with which man clings alone to Christ for the forgiveness of his sins, through which a man dies to sin and is raised again, just as Christ, to Life in Him and through which a man becomes a child of God, is not a part of Christ's work on man's behalf? It is true that the Atonement was completed by Christ at Calvary: Christ's righteousness paid for all sins. As a man's full trust in Christ is an Objective work of God in those He has called, it cannot be said that the gracious working of that faith is not a part of Christ's work on man's behalf. This sentiment and confession concerning faith is a fruit of the root of the weed called Universal Objective Justification (UOJ). Please allow me to explain by addressing the latter half of the quote. To say that, "if man's faith completes God's work, the wicked falsehood of synergism prevails" is incorrect. Quite possibly as a hyper reaction to works righteousness, Objective Justification (OJ) teaches that if faith does anything ie: justifies the individual or is righteousness, then it is synergistic and becomes a work of man to justify himself. Because of this, OJ teaches that faith is nothing but an open and outstretched hand receiving what was already declared to be true: that the sinner was already forgiven, justified and declared righteous by God without and long before faith. Faith is of the Holy Spirit, it is Christ's righteousness graciously worked in man through Baptism and the Word purely taught and strengthened through Word and Sacrament. Because it is solely of the Holy Spirit the Confessions say that faith justifies, faith is that righteousness whereby the unjust are declared just, Justified. Synergism can never be applied to anything that faith does since it is a gracious gift of God. The quoted confession concerning faith is a consistent teaching of the false gospel of Objective Justification, neither of which are found in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.
This error is extended further in the post when it is stated, "If, in the atoning work of Christ, God has only met half-way, so that now He is merely able to forgive us our sins; if justification itself is not accomplished until faith is in the sinner’s heart: why, then the atoning work of Christ is not sufficient to effect forgiveness and justification, but our faith must also contribute something to this end. Ohio’s position in this matter is shared by Iowa. Both synods deprive justifying faith of its Biblical character, that of simply receiving, accepting, and grasping, the forgiveness of sins which is in store for all the world in Christ Jesus;"
The Synodical Conferences error was to teach the forgiveness of sins of those upon whom the wrath of God, over sin, still abides: the whole unbelieving world who stand outside of Christ. The Ohio Synods error was in "met half-way" which teaches synergism of man's required work to complete his own justification. Your error was in attributing faith to man and thus stripping it of the nature and work that God has given it. You all have deprived justifying faith of its Biblical character.
Thank you,
Frederick Schroeder
It is a travesty of our current time in the history of the world, and specifically in the history of the Lutheran Church, that there is a hesitancy to make clear statements identifying specific teachings as being false. Perhaps it is a result of being so near the end of the age that the current climate within the Lutheran Synods inhibits open discussion of doctrine and practice that directly or indirectly exposes the Synods to Scriptural and Confessional scrutiny. In my opinion the opening of this post is a reflection of this climate negatively affecting the ability to call a spade a spade for the benefit of the Church. "We have misgivings", "deep misgivings", "seem to allow" are all used in reference to doctrinal teachings made by theologians of the LCMS, ELS and Wels which are not taught in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions and, in fact, stand opposed to them. Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12 are applicable to this issue. We should be bold in Christ, slaves to Him alone and speak clearly and plainly the pure Word, letting our yea be yea and our nay be nay. May we never equivocate on what the clear Word of Scripture declares.
"we are yet convinced that it is necessary to recognize in our justification both objective and subjective aspects."
I don't believe this is true. This is a solution in search of a problem. I would defend my contention by pointing directly to the Lutheran Confessions. As Pastor Rydecki clearly stated in an earlier post, the BOC fully and faithfully explains everything that Scripture teaches concerning Justification. Acknowledging that the BOC does not treat Justification as Objective and Subjective but as one Justification declared by faith alone in Christ. There are no false doctrines that are not adequately dealt with using Scripture and the BOC without having to parse the doctrine with the Objective and Subjective nature of Justification. This is proven by the fact that Subjective Justification is equally Objective. There is no aspect of Justification that is not Objective. Even my believing is worked solely by the Holy Spirit through the efficacious Means of Grace, lest any man should boast. This Scriptural truth really makes the differentiating terms of Objective and Subjective misleading from the very beginning. Again, OJ and SJ are solutions looking for a real problem and leading souls away from Christ's pure doctrine in the process.
"On the other hand, all of God's subjective work, His work in man, must constitute nothing other than the distribution of God's completed work in Christ, and not itself be any part of His work on man's behalf. If man's faith completes God's work, the wicked falsehood of synergism prevails."
To say that, "His work in man (is) not itself any part of His work on man's behalf" is incorrect. How can it be said that the gracious gift of faith with which man clings alone to Christ for the forgiveness of his sins, through which a man dies to sin and is raised again, just as Christ, to Life in Him and through which a man becomes a child of God, is not a part of Christ's work on man's behalf? It is true that the Atonement was completed by Christ at Calvary: Christ's righteousness paid for all sins. As a man's full trust in Christ is an Objective work of God in those He has called, it cannot be said that the gracious working of that faith is not a part of Christ's work on man's behalf. This sentiment and confession concerning faith is a fruit of the root of the weed called Universal Objective Justification (UOJ). Please allow me to explain by addressing the latter half of the quote. To say that, "if man's faith completes God's work, the wicked falsehood of synergism prevails" is incorrect. Quite possibly as a hyper reaction to works righteousness, Objective Justification (OJ) teaches that if faith does anything ie: justifies the individual or is righteousness, then it is synergistic and becomes a work of man to justify himself. Because of this, OJ teaches that faith is nothing but an open and outstretched hand receiving what was already declared to be true: that the sinner was already forgiven, justified and declared righteous by God without and long before faith. Faith is of the Holy Spirit, it is Christ's righteousness graciously worked in man through Baptism and the Word purely taught and strengthened through Word and Sacrament. Because it is solely of the Holy Spirit the Confessions say that faith justifies, faith is that righteousness whereby the unjust are declared just, Justified. Synergism can never be applied to anything that faith does since it is a gracious gift of God. The quoted confession concerning faith is a consistent teaching of the false gospel of Objective Justification, neither of which are found in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.
This error is extended further in the post when it is stated, "If, in the atoning work of Christ, God has only met half-way, so that now He is merely able to forgive us our sins; if justification itself is not accomplished until faith is in the sinner’s heart: why, then the atoning work of Christ is not sufficient to effect forgiveness and justification, but our faith must also contribute something to this end. Ohio’s position in this matter is shared by Iowa. Both synods deprive justifying faith of its Biblical character, that of simply receiving, accepting, and grasping, the forgiveness of sins which is in store for all the world in Christ Jesus;"
The Synodical Conferences error was to teach the forgiveness of sins of those upon whom the wrath of God, over sin, still abides: the whole unbelieving world who stand outside of Christ. The Ohio Synods error was in "met half-way" which teaches synergism of man's required work to complete his own justification. Your error was in attributing faith to man and thus stripping it of the nature and work that God has given it. You all have deprived justifying faith of its Biblical character.
Thank you,
Frederick Schroeder
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2010/11/carl-manthey-zorn-on-justification.html
