From the Little Vatican on the Prairie

Grants Approved
We have been informed by the Marvin M. Schwan Charitable Foundation that grants for the year of 2011 have been made for our synod’s Mission Advancement Project (MAP): $515,000 for general work of Thoughts of Faith (TOF); $180,000 for LMSI (India); $75,000 for Helping Hands; $10,000 for rainforest schools (Peru). In addition to these grants, an extra $30,000 has been given for bi-vocational training in TOF fields and $100,000 for the TOF matching challenge. We are grateful to the Schwan Foundation for these generous gifts that enable us to carry out the life-saving Gospel work of our Lord Jesus Christ in other lands.

UOJ Insights From Grumpy

grumpy has left a new comment on your post "Outrageous UOJ Quotations Refuted":

If everyone is forgiven, why does WELS get so uptight when you worship with other Christian denominations (or even other religions such as Islam or Buddhism).

Also, why do they get so upset when you decide not to give them so much money?

Hey, we're all forgiven, LET'S GO TO THE CASINO !!!!

***

GJ - I have no idea who Grumpy is, but I created a Photoshop for him, to encourage additional doctrinal insights.

---

klange (http://klange.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Insights From Grumpy":

While you are at it, take the weekly offerings to the casino, too, and get them multiplied. Casinos offer better odds than the leaders do.

***

GJ - I will have to warn away people with incontinence problems.

Outrageous UOJ Quotations Refuted

Child abuse - Teaching your child that he was justified before he was born, turning infant baptism into a meaningless ordinance.Yet Eduard Preuss is hailed as an orthodox Lutheran genius. In fact, he poped and wrote Roman Catholic doctrinal books.

Outrageous UOJ Quotations Refuted

David Scaer

“Whoever denies objective justification reduces justification to the act of believing and does not believe in it at all. Logically, he denies the atonement and preaches that man is responsible for his sins.”

LCMS Professor David Scaer, Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne

 http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaerthirduseresolvetension.pdf

Jackson – Justification by faith means not believing in justification by faith? How the minions must drool as they listen to Scaer contradict himself, nudging them toward a priesthood in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. The two sentences quoted above are assertions without evidence or argumentation. Scaer’s logic is at war with Scriptural revelation.

Robert Preus

All this is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church,

We are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?'’ This is not the justification which we receive by faith...That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead. (Edward Preuss, "The Justification of a Sinner Before God," pp. 14-15)

LCMS Seminary President Robert Preus, 1981,

Jackson – The “old Lutheran theologian of our church” is deceptive, since Preuss abandoned teaching at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, to join the Church of Rome and promote papist doctrines there – all because God sent him the sign of a glorious sunset! (L. Fuerbring) This phrase should

scream falsehood at people – “we were justified before we were born” – yet Cascione quoted this article with reverence and awe. Fortunately, Dr. Preus retracted this position in his final book, Justification and Rome. Lutherans should observe that he quoted a dead papist when Church Growth flourished at Concordia, Ft. Wayne and the faculty endorsed Church Growth principles. But when Preus wanted to warn his faculty and his synod against Romanism, just before he died, he argued for justification by faith and against UOJ.

http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/jmc00225.htm

Sig Becker, 1982

“It has been argued that the polloi of this verse clearly indicates that Paul did not mean to say that all would be justified in and through Christ. It has even been said that “many” means “not all.” This is an argument unworthy of Lutherans who have always opposed the Calvinistic notion that the words of Jesus in which he says that his blood was shed for many (Mt 26:28) and that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:45) are proof for the doctrine of limited atonement.”

Sig Becker, Objective Justification, 1982

Jackson – Polloi in Greek means many, and Greek is precise. This sounds like Alice in Wonderland, where words mean whatever Humpty Dumpty declares at the moment. Moreover, Becker claimed that the proper translation of the word polloi was an argument unworthy of Lutherans but typical of Calvinists, a quick shift from fantasy to guilt by association.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF

Sig Becker, 1984

“That God has punished the sins of all men in Christ finds few questioners among Lutherans who are still interested in such questions as those we are discussing today. But, sad to say, there are some Lutherans who want to be conservative and orthodox who find it very difficult to say with equal fervor and vigor that God has forgiven the sins of all men in Christ.

Anyone who is at home in the literature of the old Synodical Conference surely must know that this was the unanimous and unquestioned position of our Synodical Conference fathers. We will make no effort to demonstrate that fact with actual quotations.”

Sig Becker, Universal Justification, 1984

Jackson – This claim is pure deception, since the Missouri Synod did not teach UOJ in its 1901 catechism, as shown by Pastor Vernon Harley’s translation. Also, UOJ was not taught in Missouri statements before the 1932 Brief Statement, which was one among many. The UOJ faction has elevated the 1932 document above all previous statements, which have disappeared down the memory hole. They also choose to emphasize their 1932 statement as if it transcends and replaces the Book of Concord. That is, they choose to teach UOJ from the 1932 statement while quoting the Book of Concord.

Sig Becker, UJ, 1984

However, we should be aware that also a Calvinist, who would most assuredly reject the doctrine of universal justification, could perhaps feel perfectly at ease with the concept of objective justification. Strictly speaking, the term objective justification means that a sinner is justified by God whether he believes it or not. Many Calvinists believe that this is true of the elect. While they might therefore be willing to accept our terminology when we speak of “objective justification” they would vehemently reject the concept of “universal justification” because that would conflict with their doctrine of limited atonement.

Jackson – Here Becker admitted what former Calvinist L. P. Cruz has contended many times, knowing this from his own training and experience: Objective Justification is Calvinism. Becker’s verbal backflips do not rescue any of his new terms from the influence of Calvin, since Luther taught justification by faith alone.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerUniversal.PDF

David Beckman

Previous to this development in the mid-19th century, Lutherans used the terms “universal justification” or  “general justification.’ Even Stoeckhardt, a contemporary of Schaller and Francis Pieper, is more comfortable  with the older term, “general justification.” In an article entitled “General Justification,” he states, 

The article of justification remains pure, firm and unshaken if we keep in mind the statement of  doctrine and faith concerning general justification, if we hold firmly that the entire world of  sinners has already been justified through Christ, through that which Christ did and suffered. (George Stoeckhardt, “General Justification,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 42 (April, 1978), p. 140.)

David Beckman, 1983

Jackson – “General” is a vague term to translate the original German word – allgemeine. The German adjective means “every single one,” so universal is the best translation. All these writers dance around the truth that they are promoting a new concept, alien to the Lutheran Church and the Confessions. However, Halle theologian George Christian Knapp taught it before Walther landed in America.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckmanUniversal.PDF

Bourman

But, sadly, Satan worked and continues to   work within the Lutheran ranks. Some wanted to make justification an act of God “at the moment of faith” and so   they denied and even rejected universal, objective justification. For instance, Gottfried Fritschel in his article Zur Lehre von der Rechtfertigung made a false distinction between reconciliation and justification. He wrote that the whole world, with the exception of no one, has been reconciled with God in Christ. Forgiveness of sins is bought for all men. However, only when the sinner has experienced the wrath of God and in faith takes hold of Christ, only   then does God look on him in Christ. In regard to justification he uses phrases like “now and not before” in regard   to the act of justification.

Nate Bourman, 2010

Jackson – The Holy Spirit used two different terms. Most UOJ fanatics recognize that “justification” always means “justification by faith” in the Bible and the Book of Concord. From the context, reconciliation means the Atonement.  The Stormtroopers can make their argument work only by making the Atonement of Christ and justification by faith the same action. Therefore, they cannot articulate any meaning for the Means of Grace which is harmonious with their bizarre claims.

Link needed

Deutschlander

Our Lutheran Confessions have no separate article on Objective Justification; the closest we can come to a paragraph of formulation for this doctrine is in Article IX of the Formula of Concord, under the doctrine of election. But even that is not really sufficient or suitable for stating the orthodox position in a clear and unequivocal manner. For our Fathers it was not difficult at all to consider objective and subjective justification under the same heading, and they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them. But such was and remained the case only so long as the orthodox had a clear understanding of the nature of faith; once that understanding was gone, it became necessary (at the end of the last century) to begin making such as distinction.

Daniel Deutschlander, 1977

Jackson – If only the greatest theologians of the Christian Church (Luther, Melancthon, Chemnitz, Chytraeus) had enjoyed the wisdom and foresight of the Synodical Conference! Lacking here is the fact that Pietism brought UOJ to the Lutheran Church, through Halle University. The Synodical Conference began attacking faith, the chief attribute of the Christian, according to Luther, while teaching justification without faith.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/DeutschlanderDistinction.pdf

Buchholz

The forgiveness acquired by Jesus for all at the cross gives us confessional Lutherans, among all the church bodies of the world, the highest motivation to share our Savior. In contrast to the “Jesus Saves” churches, we don’t preach a salvation that is incomplete and just waiting for the sinner to do something to complete the transaction. We proclaim boldly, “Jesus Saved,” past tense, finished, certain… God’s objective justification not only saved us (sic – sentence fragment, automatic fail in Freshman English 101).

Jon Buchholz, 2005

Jackson – District President Buchholz told me, a few years after giving this paper, that “no one in WELS teaches that everyone is saved.” Not having this revelation from the Essay Files, I still replied, “There was an evangelism campaign in WELS recently. The banner for the public said – “I am saved, just like you.”

http://www.wlsessays.net/node/390

Reim

We have seen that the terminology of an objective and a subjective justification is common property within our Synodical Conference. There is no reason why we should not use it in our discussions with each other. Nevertheless we still have a preference for the simpler terminology of a general or universal, and of a personal justification, To use these simpler terms will show that we are concerned about the substance of the doctrine rather than one single mode of expressing it.

Edward Reim, 1955

Jackson – All the replacements for “justification by faith” mean “universal forgiveness, without faith.” A hog in a tuxedo is still a hog.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/ReimHistory.pdf

Jungkuntz

The direct consequence of this change in the relationship between God and man was the justification of the whole world, the declaring of every sinner righteous before God. For that is the meaning in positive terms of what St. Paul here states negatively: “not imputing their trespasses unto them.” It is impossible to overemphasize this statement. For in our own time, even in our own Synodical Conference, this vital truth is being endangered, both by direct attack and by neglect.

Richard Jungkuntz, 1954

Jackson – In fact, no aspect of the Christian faith should be emphasized at the expense of another. The chief characteristic of a sect is to make one concept their sole fake Gospel message – rapture, holiness code, ecstatic speech and behavior. UOJ has turned the revealed mystery of the Atoning death of Christ for the sins of the world into an alien opinion – universal forgiveness without the Word, without faith, grace without the Means of Grace. Where did God reveal this precious truth?

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/JungkuntzReconciliation.pdf

Wendland

On Romans 5, 19 he [Lenski] comes out with the flat statement: “Nowhere in the Bible is any man constituted or declared righteous without faith, before faith,” all asseverations and argumentations to the contrary notwithstanding.” Dr. Lenski plainly recognizes no biblical doctrine of objective justification and is very clear in stating so. His divergence from Dr. Stoeckhardt on this point cannot merely be passed off as an exegetical question of minor consequence, since it involves the central teaching of Scripture, the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae.

E. Wendland, 1951

Jackson – By calling UOJ a “biblical doctrine,” Wendland condemned Lenski by definition. OJ is biblical, so anyone doubting it is against the Bible. And – Lenski disagreed with Stoeckhardt! But here, gentle readers, is where UOJ turns from heresy into lunatic, slapstick comedy – denying justification without faith is a sin against the Chief Article of the Faith, the central teaching of Scripture, the article on which the Church stands or falls. The Chief Article is “justification by faith” and not universal forgiveness without faith.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/WendlandJustification.pdf

Zarling

We quote from President Mischke's newsletter of June, 1982.

A word of caution may, however, be in place. It may be well to remind ourselves not to divide "objective" and "subjective" justification as if they were two totally different things which can be treated in isolation from one another. They are rather the two sides of the same coin, and there can be no "saints" or salvation without faith. To teach otherwise would indeed be universalism. (Mischke, C.H. The President's Newsletter, June, 1982.)

Jackson - Jay Webber recites the same nonsense, “two sides of the same coin,” even though he makes fun of WELS all the time and mocks the Mankato leadership unless he is near the Little Vatican on the Prairie at the moment. SP Carl Mischke was the worst leader of WELS, ever, until Gurgel took over for 14 years. Mischke promoted UOJ and the Church Growth Movment, making Paul Kelm the theological leader of the sect.

Becker asserts

We are not pressing the word beyond what it can bear if we say that, when Paul says that God justifies the ungodly, he is asserting that God declares the unbeliever just. The fact that the unbeliever by rejecting God's verdict deprives himself eternally of the joy and comfort that this message gives does not make the declaration of God untrue. (Becker, OJ, 1982, p. 3)

Zarling, 1983

Jackson – Judas Iscariot, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin are guilt-free saints too. That is still being taught at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. No wonder the Synodical Conference of today has rested its hopes of the money given them by a divorced adulterer.

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/ZarlingJustification.pdf

LCMS Pastor Vernon Harley - Acknowledging the Opposition

The Thankful Man, by Norma Boeckler

I met Pastor Harley and his wife, around 1998, in Fairmont. He is with his Savior now.

I had a chance to look at his writing as I re-worked the format on his articles. He is an ideal writer, especially for someone dealing in theological topics. He teaches the Scriptures much better than the seminary professors.

First of all, he acknowledges the opposing argument and presents it fairly. The UOJ writers never do this. They ignore and refuse to name anyone who disagrees with them. Worse, they construct one straw man logical fallacy after another and heroically knock it down. Those anonymous people who teach justification by faith are "synergists" and "Calvinists." Their "faith is in faith." They "stab the Gospel in the heart." The UOJ fanatics never support their accusations with citations from the opposition. I dare readers to go through the list of UOJ essays and find one author who does this - the most elementary of all theological methods.

Paul acknowledged the opposition with his "God forbid" responses, not to mention many other examples throughout his epistles.

Pastor Harley wrote, "This is what they claim" and quoted the opponents with the citation. Anyone can find the complete essay. Moreover, he is fair in his assessment.

Logical fallacies do not exist alone. A weak argumentation is always short on facts, research, and citations, but long on personal attacks - the ad hominem. The idea behind yelling "Synergist!" and "Calvinist!" is to reduce the opposition to unworthy slime not worthy of a serious reply. Both terms are used properly when supported. Pastor Harley carefully pointed out what synergist means and how that term fits UOJ so well.

Pastor Harley's style reminds me of other old-time LCMS pastors, and traditional WELS pastors too. I mentioned Pastor Lehenbauer to someone recently and learned he was still alive, retired. I remember him describing a conflict and his calm response to it, not bragging at all, just describing how he handled it. Harley's writing is like that - calmly addressing the issues.

I challenge the UOJ Stormtroopers to follow Pastor Harley's example and deal with the actual issues, instead of citing the same old talking points. Readers - look over the citations in a UOJ essay. You will see from the footnotes that they endlessly recycle unwarranted claims about their precious fad, from:
1. C. F. W. Walther.
2. Stoeckhardt.
3. Engelder.
4. Eduard Preuss, who became a Roman Catholic theologian - a fact never mentioned in the quotation.
5. The early Robert Preus, during his Church Growth phase, not the final work of the theologian.
6. Luther, when he wrote about the chief article of the Faith, but never admitting that he meant justification by faith, not UOJ.

Now WELS has an ever-growing pile of UOJ essays stored in their anointed WELS Essays File. They can--and do!--cite one another, like pot smokers inhaling the thick haze in the room while admiring their own drug-fueled wisdom.

LCMS Pastor Vernon Harley - Colossians 1:13ff - Saints

Word and Sacrament, by Norma Boeckler



EXEGETICAL DEVOTION BASED ON COLOSSIANS 1: 13 FF


Dear Saints in Christ:


My reason for addressing you in this manner is derived from the manner in
which St. Paul speaks of believers in Christ in the chapter to which I would now
direct your more careful attention. He calls them saints, a title reserved for the
holy, the perfect. In v. 12 he gives thanks to the father who made us, the
believers, fit or “meet to be partakers of the saints in light.” Only believers in
Christ are spoken of in this way. We are worthy and fit to partake with all the
other holy ones, not because of any merits of our own, but purely because
through faith we have the redemption (v. 14), even the forgiveness of sins.


This fact is of utmost importance to us who are gathered here. Indeed
we are here to be strengthened in our faith, to grow in knowledge and
understanding, as Paul prayed that the believers at Colossa should, but we are
also deeply concerned that this title of “saints” is mistakenly being applied
either directly or by implication to all mankind, whether they ever come to faith
or not. And so in our meeting here we have chosen both for our own benefit
and that of others to study what Scripture has to say about being given the
status of saints, about being made “ meet to be partakers” of this glorious title.
The section chosen for this morning’s devotion should be of great help in this
respect.


Verse 13 is actually a continuation of the previous thought, even part of
the same sentence. Here Paul lays the basis for the hope we have of reaching
heaven and tells us again why we are able to be called saints and share with all
other saints the glorious inheritance of God’s eternal light. He, God the Father
Himself, delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the
kingdom of His dear Son. This is a thing that happened in the past. The
deliverance here spoken of is that which took place at our conversion, the same
spoken of in 2 Cor. 4: 6 when “God who commanded the light to shine out of
darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give us the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. Compare this also with 1 Pet. 2: 9, 1
John 1: 5-7. The darkness is that of sin and unbelief, of being without hope and

without God in the world; the light which we share is that of faith through which
we have fellowship with God in Jesus and the hope of eternal light and life. By
conversion we are taken out of Satan’s kingdom of darkness and put into the
kingdom of God’s Son of His love.


All this, of course, took place only because of the redemption through His
blood. He was made to be sin for us; our sins were laid upon Him and He died,
shedding His blood to wash away our sins, so that God is able to pronounce us
righteous for Jesus’ sake. In v. 14 it is said of believers: “In Him we have the
redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” Redemption and
forgiveness of sins are not the same thing. Redemption is paying the price for,
or buying back those who were lost, sold out to sin. Forgiveness of sins is the
actual freeing from sin, the aphesis . Redemption took place through the blood
of Christ, when He shed it on Calvary. We “have” the redemption the moment
we come to faith, and with it our forgiveness, God’s release pronounced upon us
from sin, His declaration of our being saints, our justification. Without the
redemption there could be not forgiveness of sins; but when we by faith are
made partakers of the redemption we also have the forgiveness of sins and
become partakers of the inheritance of God’s saints.


The next verses explain how it was possible for us to become saints and
have an inheritance in the kingdom of light. It is the Father who effects this
through His Son Jesus Christ; and He does this not through an ordinary
creature, but through the Son of His love, the One who is the express image or
likeness of Himself. He is identical with God in glory, honor, power and majesty.
He is God. Here He is called the “firstborn of every creature” (prototokos, not
protoktisis). Prototokos indicates that He is of the very nature and essence of
the Father, of God. Pasas ktiseoos (of every creature) is not a partitive
genitive, as though He were taken out from among the creatures. He was
before all creation. But He is the One of Whom and through Whom and for
Whom they all came into being, as the next two verses so beautifully explain.
This is why the Father sent Him to be the Redeemer. Only one such as He
would be able to conquer and subdue the powers and dominions which revolted
against God and which had enslaved us in the darkness of sin, unbelief and
death. No ordinary creature could have overcome and routed these enemies;
but by His perfect life, by His fulfillment of the Law for us, by His suffering,

death and resurrection He redeemed us. These verses make Jesus Christ God in
every respect, pre-existing all created things. He is the Creator of them all, also
their Preserver. All creatures consist and exist by Him. To interpret this
passage as the Arians (Jehovah’s Witnesses in our day) did would do violence to
this text and undo all that St. Paul is telling us here. It would demote Christ
even in His Pre-incarnate existence to a mere creature who then presumes and
attempts to take upon Himself the honor, glory and the works of God. Instead,
then, of having a Redeemer, we would in effect have a second devil in Christ,
who, though he is not God, attempts to be God.


Verse 18 brings out another aspect of Christ’s redemptive work and
person. He is the head of the body, the church. The church is none other than
the Communion of Saints, the total of those who have been “translated out of
darkness into His marvelous kingdom of light”. It is called His body. This
picture is used here and elsewhere (Eph. 4:1, 1 Cor. 12) to portray the
relationship of our Savior to all who are His subjects in the kingdom of light. He
is their Ruler, also their assurance of continued life and final victory. “ He is the
beginning, the first-born from the dead.” Archee and again prototokos are used
not in the sense of Him being the first of the dead, but in the sense that He
overcame death; He is the source of life and resurrection; in Him all life that
breaks forth from death has its origin. Chronologically in the course of human
history, others rose from the dead before He did; but He is the beginning and
first-born, the One in whom all others have their beginning and resurrection unto
new life. His preeminence, therefore, over all things does not pertain only to His
pre-incarnate state, but to His entire being as God-man, especially now also to
His human nature in which He died and rose again.


V. 19 continues: “For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness
dwell.” It is true that Christ according to His human nature can also be called a
creature, a man, one who had a beginning, who exercised limited powers. Yet it
is precisely of this human nature of which it is stated that; “It pleased the
Father that in Him all fulness should dwell.” In this Man who was conceived,
born, who suffered, died, and was buried and rose again everything resided that
God is. God was made flesh; Christ is the One in whom God and man become
one person.


It was, therefore, none less than God who died and made peace through
the blood of His cross. He had to be God to accomplish the purpose of His
being sent by the Father--that of making peace and of reconciling all things
unto Himself by Him. It should be noted that here we have a series of aorist
tenses which of themselves, particularly as infinitives and a participle, do not
express time-action, except in relation to each other. The finite verb is
eudokesen (“It pleased Him,” namely, the Father). The use of the aorist,
however, expresses completeness, finality. It was not a becoming thing that
fulness should dwell in Christ, but something complete though ongoing into all
eternity. It was not a thing that had to be done over and over; but “making
peace through His cross”, that is, providing through His death on the cross
everything needed for making peace, was accomplished once and for all by His
cross. The enmity spoken of still exists, and the peace-making effected by His
cross is still going on. That was the purpose of His cross. The hina clause with
the aorist infinitive apokatallaxai , likewise expresses purpose--that of reconciling
all things unto Himself, full and complete as far as Christ’s redemptive work is
concerned, but still being effective as through the gospel ministry men are
brought into a relationship of peace with God.


It should be noted that “to reconcile” has “ta panta” (all things) as its
object. Scripture never has God as the object of the reconciliation, as though
God had to be made over or “thoroughly other,” which is the basic meaning of
the verb katallassein . The “apokatallaxai” re-enforces the idea of reconciling out
from. It is significant that “all things” is the object of “to reconcile.” Already v.
21 gives us a clue as to when the actual reconciling takes place when it explains
the reconciliation - the making thoroughly other - as something that has taken
place already in those who now believe. They were “enemies in their mind.”
Their wicked works, specifically mentioned, put them under the wrath of God.
Scripture tells us that when man sinned, not only man, but all of God’s universe
created for the sake of man fell under the curse (Rom. 8: 20-21). The “ta
panta” extends even further, as we see from V. 16, to include even the powers
created in the heavens--all created powers and dominions. a different,
estranged relationship came about because of man’s sin, not only between men
and God, but between all created things and God. The evil angels by their sin
were forever cast out and reserved in the chains of darkness (2 Peter 2: 4) and
so excluded from any return to God. The inanimate creatures, the animals, etc.,
even the heavenly bodies were affected by the curse placed upon them because
of man’s sin. The good angels too, though not under any curse, found
themselves involved in the battle on God’s side, as Scripture teaches, now
ministering to sinful humans, particularly those who are the heirs of salvation. It
was to change this estranged relationship, to reconcile all things back to God,
that the Father sent His Son, not only to pay the price of reconciliation, but by
that payment to be the power effecting reconciliation. How such reconciliation
brings about a changed relationship in respect to some of God’s creatures is not
explained in detail in Scripture. But it does make plain that everything that is
involved in that reconciliation was effected, made possible, and is being
completed by virtue of Christ’s atoning work. Ultimately, this reconciliation in
its full effect upon God’s creation will be completed at the end of time, as we
see in 1 Corinthians 15: 28, “when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then
shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him,
that God may be all in all.”


Full understanding of all that is involved in this universal reconciliation
which is spoken of here as God’s purpose in sending Christ will never be ours in
this life. But what concerns us poor sinners, especially us believers, is that our
reconciliation unto God brought about by the death and resurrection of His Son
has become an actuality through our conversion, when we, as V. 21 tells us,
who “were sometime alienated and enemies in our mind by wicked works”
experienced a change of heart and mind, were taken out from under the wrath
of God and brought under His forgiving mercy in Christ Jesus. It was then that
we were “presented holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight.” None
of this was brought about by anything we had done or could do. It was not
effected by our faith, but our faith which also involved a change of heart and
mind toward God was brought about by the atoning work of Christ just as much
as was our justification or acceptance by God, our being presented “holy
unblamable and unreprovable in His sight.” It is not scripturally correct to
identify justification with redemption, or even with reconciliation, nor to make
justification universal and complete, or even to think of reconciliation as being
fully completed. Redemption was accomplished “by His cross” and completed
nineteen hundred plus years ago; reconciliation is the result of the Redemption
and will continue to be effected by virtue of His cross until the consummation
of all things; justification takes place when the sinner is brought to faith and as

long as he continues in faith, being presented holy and acceptable to God by
virtue of the righteousness of Christ which is his by faith. It is also not
scripturally correct to ascribe only justification to Christ’s atoning work and to
make that universal when Scripture ascribes everything involved in ultimate and
complete reconciliation, including our justification by faith and our final salvation
to the atoning work of Christ.


That the actual reconciliation brought about by the atoning work of Christ
is effected and in effect for us only as long as faith exists is clearly brought out
in v. 23. Picking up the main verb from v. 21, we have: “Yet now hath He
reconciled (you)... if you continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and be not
moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, and which was
preached to every creature which is under the heaven”. The effect of this “if”
is not to make faith the effective or effecting power and cause of reconciliation.
Christ’s atoning work is and will always remain that; but faith is, as our
Confessions say, a “necessary and essential element of justification .” It
belongs to the very essence of our being justified and has therefore properly
been termed the “instrumental” means through which reconciliation and its
purpose are accomplished. This is why Paul now concludes this section by
stressing his ministry, the ministry of the Gospel here, as he also does elsewhere
so often (see 2 Cor. 5: 18). If men do not continue to hear the word of the
cross, they do not come to faith and do not remain in faith. They revert back
to or remain in their minds the enemies of God. Thus, even though they were
redeemed, though the work accomplished for the reconciliation of all mankind
was completed, unbelievers live under the wrath of God rather than under His
loving mercy and forgiveness in Christ, and so they die in their sins. May God
preserve us from this and grant that we may never be “moved away from the
hope of the Gospel which we have heard.”



Vernon H. Harley
511 Tilden, Fairmont, MN 56031


August, 1984

John Gresham Machen: Introducing Christianity and Liberalism « Churchmouse Campanologist

John Gresham Machen: Introducing Christianity and Liberalism « Churchmouse Campanologist

This post begins a series on John Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism.

Although he wrote it for the layman, he discusses a variety of subjects in a highly learned way which I think you’ll enjoy reading. Christians of all denominations will appreciate his orthodox views and love of scriptural truth. Libertarian secularists will admire his ideas on the state, education and why Western society gravitates towards the lowest common denominator. You would never think that he wrote this volume in 1923.

Read more at the link.

John Gresham Machen on societal decline and the State « Churchmouse Campanologist

John Gresham Machen on societal decline and the State « Churchmouse Campanologist

Yesterday, in the first chapter — Introduction — to Christianity and Liberalism, John Gresham Machen set forth his reasons for writing it and indicated why modernism, or liberalism, is a theological error.

Today’s post provides further excerpts from the Introduction. In it, we will read of Machen’s dismal view of Western society, despite its technological advances. Libertarians, with whom Machen seemed to empathise, will enjoy this entry.

Read more at the posted link. Machen saw the turning point in American Protestantism. The Lutherans began to go apostate at that time, though few acknowledged it.