SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2011
The WEB: A viable English Bible translation?
Here's a plea to our readers, whether trained in Hebrew and Greek or not: Check out the World English Bible (WEB) and let us know what you think of it.
It's available online at: http://ebible.org/web/
I posted a few initial thoughts in a previous comment. I admit that I have not studied this translation very thoroughly, but on the surface, it's at least intriguing, especially for the fact that it's in the public domain and can be changed if necessary. That means NPH could publish a Bible in this translation without having to pay any royalties to anyone and without ever being beholden to the whims of publishers like Zondervan.
48 COMMENTS:
Some observations I made:
Participles in the Greek can occasionally be given certain "shadings". Take for example "ἀκούων". Depending on the context, it could be translated "because he is hearing", "while he is hearing", "as he is hearing", "the one who is hearing", or many others. WEB occasionally decides to give these participles no obvious shading. This causes the apostle Paul's typically long sentences become longer, more wooden, and more difficult to read if no interpretation is offered for these commonplace participle constructions.
As Pastor Rydecki did, I noticed an interesting phenomenon. In what seems like every place, the word εὐαγγέλιον is translated "Good News". The NIV translated this word most often "gospel". Sweeping through the books "The Good News According to Matthew" and "The Good News According to Luke", I found not one instance of the word "gospel". So "gospel" is rendered "Good News". Okay, what about other cognates of εὐαγγέλιον? What about εὐαγγελίζομαι in the Christmas account of Luke 2:10? WEB translates "I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people." Wait, isn't this the gospel Good News message, too? Where are the capital letters? The whole construction is a nice thought, but it's not consistent, and removes an important word from the Bible's vocabulary.
I noted some mistranslations in Philemon. You can read about them in the aforementioned document. This also includes some bad interpretation in Philemon, such as using the word "beg", when Paul is obviously not begging in his letter.
What a load of hooey! If there were not forces in the WELS with a wrong and foolish understanding of how to translate Scripture, if there were not a contingent in the WELS who promote church growth practices, and who go unchallenged, and unrebuked, there would be no question. The problem lies in the fact that heterodox doctrine and practice has been allowed to fester and grow for decades in the WELS.
So, as much I appreciate Koester's crystal clear analysis of the NIV 2011, (He really did a great job) I wish he'd have had the Intrepidity to point out the Systemic problem in the WELS.
I've been criticized in the past for saying the problems of the WELS are due to systemic doctrinal rot, so let me reiterate: The failure to deal with doctrinal error is a doctrinal error itself. And I submit that anyone who disagrees with the statement that the WELS has a cultural problem of refusing to deal with problems, is simply not credible.
The WELS has huge problems, evidenced by the fact that a panel of Seminary Faculty endorsed a gender-neutral (and academically and historically inaccurate) translation of Scripture...and the Synod leadership and the supposed conservative President, remains silent. Scary and Sad. Intrepid Lutherans too, for all your good work, are only willing to condemn the works of the false teachers, but remain silent about the false teachers themselves. Why? Any Conservative Lutheran oughta be calling for the resignation of any man standing in support of the NIV 2011.
This issue is going to be the WELS Waterloo unless IL and other conservative will get down to the nasty business of actually cutting out and throwing away the men who are the rot in synod. The Sem professors who recommended the NIV 2011 have proved they lack the wisdom to train young pastors. Time to eject them.
Andy Groenwald
You encouraged that, ". . . IL and other conservative will get down to the nasty business of actually cutting out and throwing away the men who are the rot in synod."
Sorry, no can do! No mere group of Pastors and laymen can "cut and throw away" anyone in the WELS. For better or worse, WELS is organized on the "democratic" model. Major decisions, including to "get rid of" certain individuals are made either by congregations, district and/or synod convention, or by those elected at those meetings, or by those appointed by those elected at those meetings. In other words, if anyone is to be "thrown out" of the WELS, it has to be done by Voters, Councils, Pastors, Circuit Pastors, District Presidents, or the Synod President, or by those empowered by such people to carry out this action. To put even more simply - it must be done by YOU and men like you! Each congregation has an equal vote along with the pastors and male teachers to elect Circuit Pastors. The same is true at District and Synod conventions where the Presidia of Districts and the Synod are elected, along with many other administrators. Thus, the root of the problem actually lies with the laymen of the congregations of the synod. It is they, along with their willing accomplices - the majority of Pastors and male Teachers, who keep electing, and then re-electing, year after year after year after year, those who steadfastly refuse carry out Scriptural and doctrinal discipline within their areas of responsibility. If you're looking for the cause of the "rot" over the past many decades, that is it! Now, as to WHY these laymen, pastors, and teachers continue to elect and re-elect such non-functioning leaders - well, that will have to be the subject of another post.
Again, thank you for your comments. I too lament what is happening to the WELS. We at IL are doing what we can to educate and encourage laypeople, pastors, and teachers to hold their leaders accountable to proper confessional doctrine and practice.
Pastor Spencer
You don't need the WELS. The Synod offers you nothing that you don't already have. I hate to say it that way, but if the WELS iis a kettle of boiling water we frogs should get out of the pot.
Andy
Just a quick reply, and then I MUST get back to parish work.
Leaving WELS, and for where or what, is - like the issue of "incumbentitus" - grist for another post at some future time.
Let me just say that one part of this issue that concerns us Pastors especially is providing for our "replacements" when and and if that time comes. Yes, we understand that Christ could return before such becomes necessary, and yes, we trust the Lord of the Church to provide. Still, it is only good stewardship to plan for this. Indeed, this was the main reason that synods in American were formed in the first place; i.e. to control who is and who is not "eckt" enough to be a Lutheran Pastor, and to provide for new Pastors. Secondary were the concerns for missions and Christian education. While even a very small group can carry out and maintain professional clerical oversight and discipline, producing new Pastors is somewhat more problematic. Of course, such is not impossible for a small group, but has to be entered on with good planning and forethought. Thus, I would ask you and others who feel strongly about this to understand this concern, and to be patient as we seek to reclaim a system that once served us so well for so long. With God's help it can be done, and we must try before we "jump ship!"
Now - I must get back to work! Sermons don't write themselves - well, at least mine don't!
Pastor Spencer
Heard at coffee hour: Gee, Pastor was really cooking with gas this morning! Simple, yet deep. (ha ha ha)
God's blessings with your sermon.
Andy
From Romans 5: 18 So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life.
Joe
Here is NIV2011:
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
When you believe Objective Justification you are blinded to the truth, but once the cobwebs are cleared away from your eyes regarding UOJ it's almost laughable how a perverse translation like the NIV 2011 furthers the UOJ agenda. It is so terribly obvious.
Andy Groenwald
What I mean is that Luther's translation can just as easily be used (and has been) by those who find UOJ in this verse. Of course, Luther's commentary on the verse makes it clear that he sees no such thing. But it's not a matter of a translation playing to an agenda.
Here's Luther's translation:
"wie nun durch eines Sünde die Verdammnis über alle Menschen kommen ist, also ist auch durch eines Gerechtigkeit die Rechtfertigung des Lebens über alle Menschen kommen."
"So then, as through one man's sin, condemnation has come upon all men, so also through the righteousness of one man, justification of life has come upon all men."
And you are dead wrong about the ambiguity of that wording. The NIV clear states "one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people". Resulted in. (A transliteration of Luther into modern English proves nothing)
So now the righteous requirements necessary for life are met for everyone through the righteous act of one person, just as judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person. CEB
18 So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification [a] for everyone. HCSB
18Therefore, as one trespass[a] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[b] leads to justification and life for all men. ESV
18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. ASV
18Therefore 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. KJV
Andy
What it also proves is that Luther understood a certain sense in which justification has "come upon" all men. Not to say that "all people have already been justified," not to say that "you were already forgiven before you were born." Those are false statements, no matter who has made them. (I'm appalled at the actions of Joe's congregation in this matter.)
As Luther explains this section of Romans, Adam sinned and earned condemnation for all his descendants. All who are connected to Adam (which is all people by nature) receive Adam's condemnation. But Christ, the Second Adam, has gotten it right and earned justification for all men. Those who are connected to Christ (by faith) receive Christ's justification as the sinner's Substitute.
After all, the very heart of UOJ depends on the supposition that when Christ died he justified all people, past present and future. Numerous WELS potentates have defended this plainly and, as we see, it is inherent in WELS doctrine.
Luther certainly didn't believe ALL are justified and righteous, no matter how he translated Rom 5:18. Yet people (I'm not referring to you) would take a translation of a translation, and take the words "has come upon all men" and try to build a case that ALL people are therefore Justified and Righteous. Similarly, UOJ defenders quote clauses or verses out of context to prove Universal Justification.
In present day English, there is a big difference between the meaning of the phrases "earned justification for all men" and "Resulted in Justification for all." or " has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous" The WELS, WEB and the NIV espouse false doctrine by referring to the verb "justify" in the past tense. The has been no declaration of innocence for those who hate Christ, and no matter how a person might fudge the wording in question, the meaning is plain.
So, what I'm saying is that certain factions in the WELS are supporting the NIV 2011 because the new wording of verses like Rom 5:18 supports their previously-held erroneous doctrine which they developed by quoting verses out of context. They like the NIV because it fits the WELS program.
Andy G.
Andy, your conspiracy mongering would be laughable if it weren't evil.
Dennis Rardin
Dennis
Reading the surrounding chapters (especially ch. 3) shows this context very clearly. I just don't understand the use of this verse as some sort of end-all proof-text for UOJ, since the context of the verse is not justification itself, but rather the all-inclusive nature of Christ's salvific acts (as in, available to all). Am I missing something here?
No, you're not missing anything, Daniel.
Nothing, that is, except a prejudice in needing to see Biblical support for so-called UOJ, even if it has to be manufactured!
Keep thinking the way your're thinking and applying those excellent critical-thinking skills, and you'll be just fine.
Thank you for the spot-on comment!
Pastor Spencer
I don't know if I can improve much upon the translation of Romans 5:18 given in Chemnitz' Loci Theologici (I suppose Preus was the one who put it into English?).
Rom. 5:18, “As through the sin of one man (guilt came) upon all men unto condemnation, so through the righteousness of one man (the blessing came) unto all men unto justification of life.” Therefore, they argue, by the merit of Christ original sin was entirely taken away from the nature of things. The answer to this is that there is a difference between the merit of Christ and the application of this merit, for otherwise, because Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, all the ungodly without penitence and faith would be saved. And in Rom. 5:17 the application of Christ’s merit is clearly being dealt with: “… receiving the abundance of grace and the free gift [of righteousness] they shall reign in life through Christ.” (Vol 1, p.301)
I really don't think you're on solid ground divorcing the early Luther from the late Luther on Romans 5. Chemnitz also indicates that the righteousness that comes upon all men refers to the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to faith, just as Luther taught in his commentary.
In this whole discussion, I think Chemnitz is the most helpful, because he puts everything in terms of Christ, whose righteousness is complete. Justification is nothing other than the imputation of that complete righteousness of Christ to believers.
This from Vol. 3 of his Loci,
But the Gospel brings to believers both Christ and the Holy Spirit. Those who believe in Christ have through imputation the perfection which the Law requires before God. For “Christ is the completion of the Law unto salvation to everyone who believes,” Rom. 10:4. Indeed, those who believe in Christ have more than the Law requires. For “through the obedience of one many were made righteous,” Rom. 5:19. But this obedience is the obedience of the person who is God and man, a person who owes nothing to the Law, since the Law requires perfection from men who are subject to the Law. In regard to this statement Luther is correct in saying that those who believe in Christ have as much as the Law requires, indeed they have more, by imputation through faith. (Vol. 3, p.600)
Regarding Luther, I think you'll find no one who thinks that Luther has his mature view of justification in 1516. Boehmer, Obermann, and the other heavy hitters in Luther studies would certainly not think so. I'd considered my P.S. to be a stating of the obvious, but apparently not. Can you cite any Luther scholar who would consider Luther's Romans a mature statement of his theology of justification?
Regarding the passage, the question is simple: On what grammatical or linguistic basis can you claim that the group upon whom justification of life comes is different than the group upon whom condemnation comes? Chemnitz' translation, with its supplied subjects, really won't help you.
If you like Chemnitz' translation, (I have no particular quarrel with it), the question simply becomes: On what basis do you claim that the "all men" who received "the blessing for justification of life" is different than the "all men" upon whom "guilt came unto condemnation?"
You mangle Chemnitz if you want to marshall him against Objective Justification here. He's arguing against the Papists who claim that this passage means original sin is simply gone, because they teach that justification is a "making just." Chemnitz' answer in that discussion is fine. It misses the mark in this one.
There have been some unguarded and one-sided things said about the objective side of justification. The solution is not to eviscerate the sedes doctrinae of their meaning -- a meaning the orthodox theologians did not do adequate justice to, or they'd have never talked of election intuitu fidei, with its latent synergism.
Do not think that the strawman so many make of UOJ is the great danger in this regard. As Siegbert Becker wrote in "The Foolishness of God," the danger here for Lutherans has been synergism, not universalism or Calvinism.
Dennis
Can you show me a passage in the Bible that says that justification is available to all? "Available," as you speak of it, is an addition to the text of Scripture, isn't it?
In point of fact, in Romans 5, justification of life is not merely "available" to all people, any more than the condemnation resulting from original sin is merely "available" to all people. Romans 5, like Romans 3, does not speak of potentialities or possibilities. It speaks of realities.
Thanks,
Dennis
Joe and Lisa Krohn
Joe
In the interest of full disclosure, we have not posted every single comment that has come through on this topic (sorry, Andy). If the rhetoric gets more heated than we're comfortable with, we won't put it through.
Blessings to you and your family.
I know of no passage in Romans 3 that speaks of Justification as a reality for all people, as if all people have already been justified. That is certainly not what Romans 3:24 says. It is a reality in that Christ has earned forgiveness of sins for all. As Luther says, he has acquired forgiveness for all. But that is not the same as saying that he has distributed or applied it to all. It is applied through the Means of Grace and received by faith. Those who do not believe have no righteous status before God.
You asked about the "two groups" of Romans 5. The Apostle Paul is the one who distinguishes between the two groups: those who are condemned in Adam (which is all people by nature) and those who are justified in Christ (which is those who are reborn through baptismal regeneration which he'll refer to a few verses later, those who trust in him, as he has been saying for three chapters). It's a real injustice to the rest of Romans 3-8 to speak of justification apart from faith.
To say that the orthodox theologians dropped the ball and left the door open for intuitu fidei is just ridiculous. The Confessions clearly repudiate intuitu fidei - before it ever existed. Chemnitz' Examen clearly repudiates it, too. It did not arise as a false doctrine because the Church never understood justification correctly before the Synodical Conference swept in to finally explain it correctly. It arose as a false doctrine because the devil always comes back around and attacks the clear word of God.
"You will surely die" in the Garden of Eden became the devil's "you will not surely die." There was no deficiency in God's word or in Adam and Eve's understanding of his Word. Just unbelief. That's always been the problem.
How about some late Luther?
ca. 1541
"How can the Turk and all his devils really harm us? Just how far can he go, anyhow? He can neither take nor give us life, for we have forfeited our life long ago at the beginning of the world in the garden of Eden through Adam’s sin. All of us who are descended from Adam have already died in him, as we read in Romans 5. This includes the Turk as well as us. But Christ our Savior has long ago restored us and given life to all who call upon him in faith and long for him. But not the Turk, the unbelievers, nor the devils. They abide in death." Luther's Works, vol. 43:Devotional Writings pg. 238
That sounds pretty consistent with what he wrote on the topic in his Romans commentary of 1516.
For the most part, I defer your question to Pr. Rydecki's response, which is much better than the one I could provide.
But to address your general point - the availability of righteousness, life, and salvation *through faith* is predicated throughout Holy Writ. If one is justified, as we know from Romans 8:30, he has also been predestined and called to that very same faith. Therefore, the context of Romans 5 must not be creating a pseudo-universalistic justification. Rather, it must be hearkening back to the context of chapters 3-4, which indicate that Christ's work was for "all men," i.e. not solely Jews. Just as all men, not just Jews, were subject to death through Adam, so too all men, through Christ, are subject to life. However, and this is the key to this entire debate: NOT ALL MEN ARE IN CHRIST. Only those who have been grafted into Christ by the washing and renewal of Holy Baptism are justified by grace. To sum this up, I will defer to a quote from St. Basil the Great that I read today on an LCMS pastor's blog (weedon.blogspot.com):
"The water receives our body as a tomb, and so becomes the image of death, while the Spirit pours in life-giving power, renewing in souls which were dead in sin the life they first possessed. This is what it means to be born again of water and the Spirit: the water accomplishes our death, while the Spirit raises us to life" (St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, par. 35, as quoted on: http://weedon.blogspot.com/2011/09/patristic-quote-of-day_21.html).
Those who are dead in sin are still subject to the effects of the first Adam. Only the regenerate are subject to the effects of the Second.
Of course not all are in Christ. Of course the Spirit's work of conversion must occur in hearts through the Gospel. Who in the WELS denies these things?
The question is, what is the message that converts people? What is the good news I believe? Is that message, "I forgive your sins if you believe that I want to do so?" Does the Gospel say, "You are justified if you believe that you are justified?" Or does it say, "You have been forgiven. You have been justified. Believe it!"
Sorry, I also forgot to ask again ... can you tell me a Bible passage which says that justification is "available?" I find no passage that speaks this way.
Your argument from Romans 8 doesn't work. "Those he predestined, he also called." Does the Holy Spirit also call those who are not predestined? Yes, he does; only a Calvinist deny that.
You answer my question about Romans 5:18 by appealing to "the context of chapters 3-4, which indicate that Christ's work was for "all men," not only Jews."
First of all, "all people" means more than simply "Gentiles as well as Jews." "All people" means "all people." It really does say, and mean, "all people." Paul goes to great lengths to say that this "all people" is the very same "all people" condemned by their guilt in Adam. You are trying to use your understanding of the context to change or limit the clear meaning of the actual words.
The Bible talks about being saved in exactly the same way. Whom did Jesus save? All people. (John 3:18 -- "... to save the world through him.") Whose sins did Jesus take away? "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Who, then, will be saved? "Whoever believes and is baptized."
In the one sense, the whole world is saved. The sin of the world has been taken away. The removing of sin is not potential; forgiveness of sins is not merely available. God's forgiveness is not sitting there, incomplete, awaiting the human act of faith to finish the deal. "I'll forgive you if you believe."
In the other, only those who believe are saved. The one is the message we believe, "God has saved the whole world -- even me." The other is the message about those who believe -- "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." "Whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life."
I would encourage you to read, "The Foolishness of God" by Siegbert Becker. He deals with how necessary it is to silence our "common sense" in such matters, and simply believe that both statements are true, because Scripture teaches both -- even though they contradict one another in our little brains.
Dennis
3] 1. Against both the errors just recounted, we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that Christ is our Righteousness neither according to the divine nature alone nor according to the human nature alone, but that it is the entire Christ according to both natures, in His obedience alone, which as God and man He rendered to the Father even unto death, and thereby merited for us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, as it is written: As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous, Rom. 5, 19.
4] 2. Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that our righteousness before God is (this very thing], that God forgives us our sins out of pure grace, without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or following, that He presents and imputes to us the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, on account of which righteousness we are received into grace by God, and regarded as righteous.
5] 3. We believe, teach, and confess that faith alone is the means and instrument whereby we lay hold of Christ, and thus in Christ of that righteousness which avails before God, for whose sake this faith is imputed to us for righteousness, Rom. 4, 5.
Just that simple. Christ is our righteousness before God. Yes, he stands as the righteousness for all men. And he is presented to us in the Gospel. And faith, worked by the Holy Spirit, lays hold of Christ, so that now the righteousness of Christ is mine.
(continued in next comment)
Dennis, neither of the "Gospel" messages you put forth above are correct. The Gospel absolutely does not say, "You are justified if you believe that you are justified." Neither does the Gospel say, "You have been forgiven. Believe it!" I don't know where in Scripture you're getting these things from, or what apostle ever preached the Gospel in either of those ways.
Peter said on the day of Pentecost, "Repent and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins." He did not say, "You have been forgiven! Believe it!"
When Jesus appeared to his disciples on the night of his resurrection, he did not say, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins and they really believe it, they are forgiven." But neither did he say, "If you tell someone his sins have already been forgiven and he believes it, then they are really and truly forgiven."
No, what did he say, "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Forgiveness - that is, Christ - is, just as the Formula says, really and truly held out to people in the word of Absolution. Christ is presented to people in the Gospel, and faith apprehends him and a person stands righteous (i.e., is justified) before God. Where there is unbelief, then a person still stands under his own record of sin.
Now, if I am speaking to a baptized believer, I may well say, "Your sins have been forgiven. You have been justified. Believe it!" That person has already received baptism, and thus the Gospel, and thus Christ. That person will still, however, actually receive the forgiveness of sins "richly and daily in this Christian Church," even as the pastor pronounces the absolution, and the forgiveness of sins is actually distributed in the Holy Supper.
But to an unbaptized unbeliever, no one should ever say, "You have been justified. Believe it!" That is unscriptural. Just as the Apostle Paul did not say to the jailor in Philippi, "You have been saved by Jesus Christ! Believe it!" He said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!"
Why do people think they have the right to reverse the preaching of the Apostles?
I am well aware that Arminians view that act of believing as a decision and as the use of one's natural powers to believe. They are wrong.
But they are also wrong who put a person's forgiveness, life and salvation before and apart from the Means of Grace and apart from repentance and faith. Christ merited forgiveness for all people objectively, whether one believes it or not. But God's forgiveness and righteousness and life are in Christ and are only distributed in the Gospel of Christ. No one is justified apart from faith in him.
Scott E. Jungen
Romans 3:24 certainly does say that the same "all" who have fallen short of glory from God "are justified freely, by his grace, through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
Pastor Rydecki, what is the subject of the participle dikaioumenoi, "are justified?"
Romans 5:18, what is the correct translation of "pantas anthrwpous?" Does it exclude anyone?
The reason I asked about the two groups in Rom. 5:18 is that it is painfully clear the two groups are the same. "All people" means "all people," Paul. You say things like, "I know of no passage in Romans 3 that speaks of Justification as a reality for all people, as if all people have already been justified." Well, then what does "dikaioumenoi" mean inRom. 3:24? You've said what you believe it does not mean. What DOES it mean, not in general terms, but in terms of the vocabulary and grammar of the text? If you've dealt in any detail with the grammar and vocabulary of these passages already, please point out to me where I can read it. "It's a real injustice to the rest of Romans 3-8 to speak of justification apart from faith." No, sir, it's not. Rather, it's a real injustice to the inspired apostle not to take his words in Rom. 3:24 and 5:18 (and a number of other places also, lest we forget) to mean what they plainly and clearly say. Then we are to wrestle with the relationship between these statements, and the statements which speak about justification by grace through faith -- and especially to wrestle with how utterly intertwined the two are.
One more before I go on to other tasks in my day. You say, "To say that the orthodox theologians dropped the ball and left the door open for intuitu fidei is just ridiculous." The orthodox theologians invented the term "intuitu fidei" in the first place! ALL of the orthodox dogmaticians taught election intuitu fidei, beginning with Hunnius in the late 16th century, through Gerhard, Quendstedt, Calov, all of them. It's not ridiculous, it's a matter of historical fact.
Dennis
I did not say that I think the Gospel says, "You are forgiven if you believe I want to forgive you." I asked, "Does the Gospel say this, or does it say that?" I believe it says the second, "You are forgiven -- believe it!"
Christ was the Second Adam, the representative and substitute for all mankind. Thus, when he was justified at his resurrection, all mankind by necessity was justified in Christ (emphasis on "in Christ"). If all mankind was not justified in Christ at his resurrection, then Christ could not have been the representative for all mankind. If Christ was not the representative for all mankind, then our salvation is in grave danger.
Keeping the focus on Christ argues against errors on both sides. It argues against the rabid anti-UOJ crowd who almost claim that the words justification and mankind must never be used in the same sentence. It also argues against extreme UOJ supporters who almost grant justification to individuals apart from Christ.
So, yes, justification is objective in the sense that all mankind was justified in Christ. And, yes, justification is subjective in that individuals do not receive the benefits of it until they are put into Christ through the Means of Grace.
The pastors here can feel free to correct me if I'm in error.
Mr. Adam Peeler
Luther, quoting Augustine, understands the "all" there to be the same way it is used in Romans 5:18 and that it must be understood from context.
Also, what is your understanding of Romans 5:19, which expounds on vs. 18, i.e. Why did the disobedience of Adam make(aorist) many sinners, but the obedience of Christ will make (future) many righteous?
The way UOJ is often explained you would expect them to both be aorists, wouldn't you?
The parallelism is obvious in that verse, too, but why the aorist/future and are "the many" the same(all) people?
David Brandt (that's "Vicar" to you, Dennis;)
"Yes, justification is objective in the sense that all mankind was justified in Christ. And, yes, justification is subjective in that individuals do not receive the benefits of it until they are put into Christ through the Means of Grace."
Exactly so.
Herr Pastor David Brandt,
The problem with vicars is that if you put them in a dark closet and think they're safely sent off to Mequon atain, they become uppity pastors. ;-)
I take the future tense of "will be justified" in 5:19 to refer to the great "Not Guilty" pronounced once and for all on the Last Day, and the condemnation of Adam, and the death that comes from it, is swallowed up in life. This is by no means the only place in Scripture where the inspired writers slide effortlessly between past, present, and future, and we try to keep up wheezing and gasping.
In John 1:9, "all men" means "all men." (At least I'm consistent.) Jesus came into the world as the Light who would shine the truth about God. As Jesus himself points out in John 3, the fact that people hate the light, and won't come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed, doesn't change the fact that Jesus is the True Light, and is shining brightly.
It is also true that John sometimes (not in 1:9, but sometimes) uses sweeping statements to which he will immediately point out exceptions. "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him ..." I'm not aware of any in which he uses "all people" that way. In any event, when the inspired author says there are exceptions, then and only then do we limit the scope of the general, all-inclusive statement.
Dennis
I agree with you about letting the divine author define who the people are to whom they are referring. Paul does just that in Romans 3:21-26:
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
If you'll just follow your own advice here, you'll see that those who are justified are those who have faith in Jesus. No one else.
Paul does not say anywhere here that all the same people who sinned have been justified. (Haven't we had this discussion before?) He says how all people "become justified" (pres. passive participle), that is, freely, through the redemption of Christ Jesus, by faith in him.
That is how all people become justified. There is no other way for a person to become justfied. That doesn't mean that all people end up being justified, because not all people believe in Christ who is our righteousness.
Also, if the future tense in Romans 5:19 is looking to Judgment Day, who then are "the many?" Is it the same "many" from the first half of the verse? Is it all people?
Here is Luther's comment on John 1:9:
It is however, remarkable, that he says: “it enlightens all people who come into this world.” If this is said of the natural light, his words are contradicted that it is the true light; for he said above: “the darkness does not comprehend it,” and all his words are aimed at the light of grace. Then follow the words: “He came into the world and the world did not recognize him and his own did not accept him.” But he whom the true light illumines, is illumined with grace and recognizes the light. On the other hand, one is driven to believe that these words are not spoken about the light of grace because he says “it enlightens all people who come into this world”; this is without a doubt said of all human beings who are born. St. Augustine says one must interpret the passage to mean that no man is enlightened except by this light, in the same way that one customarily says of a teacher in a city, where there is no other teacher, that this teacher teaches everyone in the city, i.e., there is no teacher in this city except this one. He alone has all the pupils. Saying this does not mean that he is teaching all the people in the city, but merely that there is only one teacher in the city and that nobody is taught by another person...
I do not know how to disagree with this interpretation; for in the same manner also St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:18]: “As through one man’s sin condemnation has come over all men, so through one man’s righteousness justification has come over all men.” Yet not all men are justified through Christ, nevertheless he is the man through whom all justification comes. It is the same here. Even if not all men are illumined, yet this is the light from which alone all illumination comes. The evangelist has freely used this manner of speaking; he did not avoid it even though some would stumble over the fact that he speaks of all men. He thought he would take care of such offense by explaining before and after and by saying that “the darkness has not comprehended it,” and that the world has never recognized him and his own have never accepted him. Such passages should have been strong enough so that nobody could say he had intended to say that all men are enlightened, but that he alone is the light which enlightens everybody and that, without him, nobody is enlightened.
Luther's works, vol. 52:Sermons II pg. 71
This is from his Kirchenpostille,written in the Wartburg, ca. 1521)
David
(Mr. Rardin, we both know there is only one of us that wheezes and gasps to keep up with the Greek...and it's not you.)
[9]...His obedience is credited to us for righteousness. [10]These treasures are brought to us by the Holy Spirit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. Faith alone in the only means through which we lay hold on, accept, apply, and take them for ourselves [11] This faith is God's gift... We trust that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by god the Father, and are eternally saved. [12]Therefore, it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says (a) we are "justified by faith" (Rom. 3:28) or (b) "faith is counted as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5) and when he says (c) "by one mans's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19) or (d) "so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Rom. 5:18). [13] Faith justifies not because it is such a good work or because it is so beautiful a virtue. It justifies because it lays hold of an accepts Christ's merit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. For this merit must be applied and become ours through faith, if we are to be justified by it
Not my merit, not my righteousness in Christ, but His righteousness which becomes mine the moment I believe. Not a moment sooner. To speak of my righteousness at any other point, in any other way, at any other time is heresy and blasphemy -- it robs Christ of His office and the merit that is His alone, it robs the Holy Spirit of His work, through which alone the Christian stands as beneficiary of Christ's work. The Christian is not regarded by God as righteous or forgiven at any moment prior to faith. On this, the Scriptures and the Confessions are clear.
The Concordists continue in SD Article 3 explaining that Justification is equivalent to Regeneration ([18]), but because the term "regeneration" is also used in Scripture to mean "renewal," it's equivalence with justification is taken only when what is necessary to justification ("only God's Grace, Christ's merit, and faith... are necessary to the article of justification" [25]) is in view in its use (SD Art.3 uses Titus 3:5 as an example, and states that in the Apology, the term "Regeneration" most often means "Justification"). The Christian's regeneration is accomplished, not at the cross, but in time through the free gift of faith.
Further still, in Article 4 of the Solid Declaration, concerning our Preservation in the Faith, the question of when we are first regarded by God as righteous must be addressed, before the question of how we are preserved in this righteousness can be addressed:
[34]... the promise, not only of receiving, but also of retaining righteousness and salvation, is firm and sure to us. St. Paul (Rom. 5:2) ascribes to faith not only the entrace to grace, but says that we stand in grace and boast of the future glory. In other words, he credits the beginning, middle and end, to faith alone...
Faith is the beginning of our righteous standing before God. It is error to have faith in our righteous standing before it has been imputed to us through faith.
Going back to the original post here, how about going back to the King James, or the New King James?
Scott E. Jungen
Scott, after having looked a bit more at the WEB and received some helpful comments on it, I think it's probably not the best option. I personally don't think it's wise to go all the way back to the KJV, but NKJV is certainly a good choice.
I still think there is a need for a new translation in the spirit of Luther that can speak even more clearly than the NKJV.
That's exactly right. It seems to me that the whole problem is created when people try to speak about objective justification using inherently subjective terminology. When speaking of objective justification, one cannot speak of particular individuals or groups (e.g. people in hell). Once you start talking about individuals, you have, by definition, crossed the line from objective to subjective. When speaking about objective justification, one must use only objective terms (like "mankind"). When speaking about subjective justification, one must only use subjective terms (like "me, you, them," etc). If people would keep that straight and speak precisely, much of the whole justification issue would evaporate.
Mr. Adam Peeler
I'm not sure that's the solution. Let me give you a sample conversation between someone who's trying to maintain your objective/subjective distinction and an inquirer:
"So, is all mankind justified?"
"Yes."
"What about that atheist over there?"
"No."
"But isn't he part of mankind?"
"Yes."
"But I can't say he as an individual has been justified?"
"No."
"So, isn't he included in mankind's justification?"
"Yes."
"But he isn't justified?"
"No. Well, yes and no. As part of mankind he is, but as an individual, he isn't."
"Huh?"
The conversation breaks down quickly when one tries to maintain "objective" language, as if individuals were excluded.
What's the difference between "the world," "mankind," and "all people of all time"? If "all people" have been justified, then how can someone say that "this person" hasn't? Is he somehow not included in "all people"?
Instead of this, it is more accurate simply to say that Christ has been given and now stands as the Representative for all mankind. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Whoever does not believe will be condemned." And we trust the Holy Spirit, working through the Means of Grace, to create faith when and where it pleases God. Just that simple.
Point taken, and yet, aren't there plenty of Christian truths that might seem to break down in such a line of questioning? I can envision the same sort of back and forth over the Trinity or predestination or a host of other doctrines. Just because something isn't easily explainable to an inquirer doesn't make it false.
Let me expand on the example of predestination. It is a doctrine with a very specific application. It is given to us to give comfort to worried and doubting souls. In this context, it's very useful. We can't, however, apply it out of context, as Calvinists do, to explain why others are damned. I've heard a pastor explain it as a one-sided coin. The doctrine is given for one purpose, to provide comfort. If you try to flip it over and see what's on the other side, it simply disappears.
In some ways, I see objective justification the same way. It's a doctrine with a very specific context--the justification of Christ as the representative of all mankind. Once you try to divorce it from that context and apply it to individuals, it simply disappears, thus sparing the embarrassment of talking about justified, guilt-free saints in hell, among other things.
I guess what it comes down to is that I'm uncomfortable with the insinuation that while most of Christ's redemptive work was for all mankind, part of Christ's redemptive work (namely, his justification on Easter) was only for some. If Christ was only justified as the representative of those who one day would come to faith, then perhaps he only died for those who one day would come to faith. This leads to very dark places.
Mr. Adam Peeler
I, too, would be uncomfortable with that insinuation, but I'm not sure who's insinuating it.
I think part of the problem is that someone has taught you somewhere along the line that justification is part of Christ's redemptive work. It is not. His work of redemption for all mankind was "finished" when he died on the cross, hence the "It is finished." At that point, he had fulfilled all righteousness for all people of all time. Nothing was lacking to complete that righteousness, not even his own resurrection from the dead. He did not have to wait till the third day for God the Father to decide whether or not to accept his sacrifice. After it was "finished," he commended his soul to the care of his "Father," not the "my God, my God" who had forsaken him a few hours before.
Justification is the work of the Holy Spirit as he brings Christ to man in the Gospel. It is the forgiveness of sins. It is a Third Article doctrine. Christ was indeed raised for our justification, that the risen Christ might send his Holy Spirit out into the world in the preaching of the Gospel, that men might believe in Christ as their Righteousness and so have their faith imputed to them as righteousness.
I'm obviously out of my depth here since I don't know Greek, but I've been told that Romans 4:25, which you quote above, is better translated "he was raised again because of our justification". I believe this is how the NASB translates it. This would mean that Christ wasn't raised to make justification possible, but was raised because justification had taken place.
I agree that that justification in the subjective sense is a Third Article doctrine, but justification in the objective sense is a Second Article doctrine. The Second Article states objectively what Christ has done to save mankind, and the Third Article states subjectively what the Spirit does to give that salvation to individuals.
Mr. Adam Peeler
Adam
Much is made by some people of the preposition in Romans 4:25, because somehow they think they have finally discovered (after 1900 years of no one ever understanding this before) what Paul really meant to say in that verse, namely, that all people have already been declared righteous apart from faith.
The simple Greek of the verse does not make their case for them. The preposition "dia" with the accusative occurs twice in that verse. "On account of" or "for" is a proper translation for both. "who was delivered over on account of our trespasses and raised on account of our justification."
The exact same preposition + accusative occurs in v. 23 and again in v. 24, and makes plain the meaning of v.25. I'll put it below in bold, and I'll translate each phrase the same to show the relationship among them.
23 Now it was not written on account of him alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But on account of us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered on account of our offences, and was raised again on account of our justification.
Now, I don't think anyone would read v.24 and say, "Ah, God recorded in 1500 BC how Abraham was justified (through faith) on account of us, that is, because we already existed." No, "on account of us" looks forward, not backward. Way back in 1500 BC God had Moses record how Abraham was justified (by faith) on account of us, that is, that we might one day read it and understand that we are justified in exactly the same way as he was, namely, by faith.
Joe
Mr. Adam Peeler
"I think part of the problem is that someone has taught you somewhere along the line that justification is part of Christ's redemptive work. It is not."
Seeing a Lutheran pastor say that justification is not part of Christ's redemptive work is a remarkably disheartening thing to come home to. Seeing a WELS pastor do so is doubly so. Anyone who knows me knows I am rarely at a loss for words, but upon reading this, words simply fail me.
I can't even think of a profitable place to start, especially in this sort of venue. If I do, I'll come type out another message. In the meantime, this will have to do: Pastor Rydecki has either badly mis-stated what he was trying to say, or else he has so utterly confused justification with conversion that I don't know how he can teach catechism class.
Justification is the verdict of "not guilty," God acquitting us of sin for the sake of Christ's perfect life and innocent death. Justification is not the Spirit's work through the Means of Grace.
The Spirit's work in our hearts does not cause the Father to declare us not guilty. Jesus living and dying as our Substitute caused and causes the Father to declare us not guilty. The Spirit, working through the Gospel, causes us to believe that God's declaration in the Gospel is the truth. That's not justification. That's conversion, or regeneration.
Wow.
Dennis
Do you consider the teaching of the WELS and LCMS on this topic to be false doctrine? What you've written here certainly flies in the face of everything that has been taught in the WELS and LCMS. In fact, your position is even condemned by the LCMS:
"It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: That forgiveness of sins and justification for all have not been declared by God when He raised His Son from the dead, but have merely been acquired or made a possibility through Christ's atonement.
It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: That it is not Biblical to speak of "objective justification.""
Source: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/just-01.html#jst-6
Mr. Adam Peeler
The Spirit's work in our hearts does not cause the Father to declare us not guilty. Jesus living and dying as our Substitute caused and causes the Father to declare us not guilty. The Spirit, working through the Gospel, causes us to believe that God's declaration in the Gospel is the truth. That's not justification. That's conversion, or regeneration."
Double wow...you need perspective...
By your confession you would have the Apostle's Creed and explanation re-written, Mr. Rardin...and Abraham unrighteous until Jesus' death...
We're going to the source and talking about what the Scriptures say. We need a real exegesis of the passages in question to arrive at the Scriptural doctrine. Together with that, we look at what the ruled rule (the Confessions) says. Only then can we get into modern times to analyze what an American Lutheran synod has said.
So far I've appreciated all the discussion and the various passages that have been brought up: Romans 5, Romans 3, Romans 4. You brought up John 1:29, and now 1 Timothy 3:16. I'll give some more thought to and add my understanding of those passages when I get a chance. It's been a pretty busy day of commenting, and I won't have a chance anymore today to get to it.
I realize that some of my comments fly in the face of what others have said. My conscience is bound by the Scriptures, and I cannot refuse to confess when asked. At the same, all of us, myself certainly included, need to keep sitting at the feet of Jesus to listen to his Word on this matter. For me, the sources I trust go in this order: Scripture, the Confessions, the Lutheran Reformers, the Church Fathers, the theologians of orthodoxy, and only then the respected theologians of the Synodical Conference (early or late). We have a lot of listening and learning to do.
Talk about straw men! Let's take your question regarding Christ's status as the Lamb of God to its logical conclusion:
"By the way, since we're talking about this, there's a question I've always wanted to ask people who deny [universalism]. If Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who has taken away the sins of the world, [and if all people are justified on account of the same], then on what basis are some people in the world not [saved]? If, objectively speaking, all people have had their sins taken away, [and], objectively speaking, [if God has declared] all people "not guilty", [how can hell be populated by man]? God would seem to be an unjust judge if he himself removes mankind's offenses [and renders] a verdict of "not guilty" [but refuses to grant them eternal life]."
See where that sort of logic leads? Right into universalism. If God's a big meanie for not declaring everyone "not guilty," then He is also a big meanie for not letting them into heaven. However, contrary to this false logic, Lutheran orthodoxy dictates that the fault lies with the degenerate, not with the immutable will of God. Christ has indeed taken away the sin of the world, and in Him forgiveness exists for all people, but not all people have been united to Christ via the Means of Grace. And, lest we think of God as unfair for somehow prohibiting some from receiving the Means of Grace, St. Paul would quickly remind us that man is without excuse because God's invisible qualities, yes, His very will, is known to men's hearts.
--
Mr. Rardin,
You asked, for the second time, where Scripture specifically states Christ attained justification for all. I cede the point that this particular English sentence is not found in Holy Writ. But I think I stated my case for the use of this phraseology as clearly as I can. Since you have accused Pr. Rydecki, whose views I believe I share in this matter, of either gross stupidity or flirting with heresy, I'm not sure how much more I can contribute from my humble station in this matter.
Would you care to demonstrate how I'm doing that?
Joe, I totally agree with you on your concerns about church growth methodology in the WELS, but your assertion that this comes from teaching objective justification is simply untenable. The fact is that church growth methodology comes from Arminianism which puts emphasis on subjective faith and downplays the objectivity of the gospel. So, if anything, the argument could be made that church growth methodology springs from a denial of objective justification.
It's easy to see how, if you downplay the objective facts of salvation, and instead focus on the subjective "faith experience" of each individual, as Arminianism does, you end up with "upside down evangelism...church growth methods...eliminating the liturgy...abolishing Holy Communion, etc."
The solution to these issues isn't to try to make things even more subjective, but instead to focus on the objective: it doesn't matter how you feel, it doesn't matter how uplifting the music is, it doesn't matter warm and cozy a congregation is, etc--the objective fact of Christ crucified is what matters.
Mr. Adam Peeler
I think you misunderstood my question. You seem to be doing what I talked about before--taking the objective and trying to frame it in subjective terms. Let me try to rephrase it:
You would agree, I hope, that Christ died to take away the sins of the world--that on the cross he really and truly did away with the sins of all people.
If this is objectively true, then why, objectively speaking, would God not declare the world to be righteous? If Christ has really and truly done away with the sins of the world, why would God not declare this to be so? That's what objective justification really is--God simply declaring that his Son, as the representative of all mankind, really has done away with the sins of mankind.
Please note that this question is completely within the objective sphere. Subjectively, of course, I believe exactly what you stated--that God justly punishes all unbelievers, those who reject Christ and his salvation and choose to remain in their sinful state.
I'm not sure if that makes the intent of my question any clearer.
Mr. Adam Peeler
Joe
"By the way, since we're talking about this, there's a question I've always wanted to ask people who deny [universalism]. If Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who has taken away the sins of the world, [and if all people are justified on account of the same], then on what basis are some people in the world not [saved]?
I believe he answers his own question, but is missing it somehow:
..."St. Paul would quickly remind us that man is without excuse because God's invisible qualities, yes, His very will, is known to men's hearts."
I yearn for Lutherans to boldly state that unbelief is not simply some little thing, viz. the lack of belief. It is an active, militant, ungrateful, offensive, disgusting, miserable active sin of rejecting what Christ has done for them. God is most just in sending to hell whoever dares to spit in the face of Christ by not appreciating what he has done, and believing in Him who is Love personified and defined, and trusting in the atonement he has attained at the cost of His own innocent blood.
Again: Unbelief is not the lack of faith. It's the active sin of spitting God in the face, deeming Christ's sacrifice useless, telling the Holy Spirit to take a hike, mocking the revealed will of God in Scripture, etc., etc., etc. And THIS is not worthy of damnation?!!