 |
| The prince of theologians or a WELS DP? I am working on that. |
AC V has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Turns the Gospel into Law: WELS Stewardship Pr...":
WELS UOJ confusion:
WELS theologians should consult with each other before they publish. In the October 2011 edition of Forward in Christ contributing editor Forrest Bivens, a professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, states: "The astonishing reality is that God has forgiven the sins of the whole world, whether people believe it or not" (p.9).
Yet WELS CA/AZ District President Jon Buchholz states in his paper entitled Justification Expounded by Scripture presented to the synod in convention in 2005:
"The doctrine of objective justification is a defining doctrine for the Wisconsin Synod and for the old Synodical Conference. In our zeal to expound the true, biblical doctrine of objective justification against those who oppose the doctrine, we have, at times, 'pushed the envelope,' and employed words and phrases in imprecise and incorrect ways. ... I offer the following as a loving critique of some wording and phraseology which has circulated in our midst:
'God has forgiven the whole world. God has forgiven everyone his sins.' This statement is absolutely true! This is the heart of the gospel, and it must be preached and taught as the foundation of our faith. But here’s where the caveat comes in: In Scripture, the word 'forgive' is used almost exclusively in a personal, not a universal sense. The Bible doesn’t make the statement, 'God has forgiven the world.' Rather, the Spirit of Inspiration overwhelmingly uses the word 'forgive' (Greek: afihmi) within the context of repentance and faith, effected through the means of grace. There are good reasons why the Spirit chooses a particular word to be used in a particular context. Using the word 'forgiveness' in the atypical sense, apart from repentance and faith, one might easily find himself in the incongruous position of saying to the impenitent or unbelieving, 'God has forgiven your sins [objective gospel], but your sins are not forgiven [Ministry of the Keys].'"
Note to Jon Buchholz, if in Scripture, the word "forgive" is used almost exclusively in a personal, not a universal sense, then it should not be used in a universal sense, i.e. UOJ. Maybe it's because we are justified by faith alone?
3 comments:
Buchholz said, "...one might easily find himself in the incongruous position of saying to the impenitent or unbelieving, 'God has forgiven your sins [objective gospel], but your sins are not forgiven [Ministry of the Keys].'"
And yet this is exactly what Bivens does in his Q&A answer quoted in his paper entitled "Getting The Right Message Out – And Getting It Out The Right Way With Special Emphasis on Public Worship and Classroom Instruction" presented to the Ohio Conference of the Michigan District of WELS in 2003.
"But the fact remains-From God's standpoint Christ died for them and took away their guilt. We tell people this whether they are believers or unbelievers."
So, we tell unbelievers, "Your guilt has been taken away, you are forgiven, just believe it?"
Ever hear of casting "pearls before swine?" Repentence must be preached to unbelievers before the atonement of sin! But that goes out the window because of UOJ.
What belong and are necessary to of the article of Justification?
1) "the grace of God" (check)
2) "the merit of Christ" (check)
3) "and faith, which receives this" (i.e. 1&2) "in the promise of the Gospel" (check)
The result?
"...whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, whence we receive and have forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, sonship, and heirship of eternal life." (Priceless!)
Look it up: Formula of Concord, Art. III:25 "The Righteousness of Faith. Not a hint of UOJ. You swear by it, don't you?
This is bouncing around the blogosphere. Have you read it? Quotable Luther contra UOJ:
"Thus here, too, the evangelist did not intend that John or any other human being or any creature should be the light, but that there is only one light which illumines all men and that not a single human being could come upon the earth who could be illumined by anybody else. 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." - Martin Luther (1999). Vol. 52: Luther's works, vol. 52 : Sermons II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (71). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Post a Comment