The false extreme teaching of Objective Justification teaches that everyone in the world is forgiven; even before they are born. So my question naturally is; 'Including all those who ever lived? Including those before Christ's death/resurrection? Was Adam forgiven before he was created? This false teaching seems to find it's grounding in the work of the cross. For us A.D. folks, I can sort of buy it; until of course you examine the work of the Holy Ghost, the forgiveness of sins and the Means of Grace; all of which the Holy Ghost is present in. So if this is true for us New Testament believers and we know God's relationship with His people never changes, it goes that even though the the O.T believers did not have the sacraments, they still had the Holy Ghost in and with the Word spake by the prophets; the Means of Grace.
As the Church Catholic we believe this statement to be true and the hallmark of our faith:
"The sinner is justified by grace for Christ’s sake through faith." We know this to be absolutely true by these words in Romans 4 leading into chapter 5: "
16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”
19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead.
20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God,
21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”
23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone,
24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God."
The keyword throughout those passages is key. Promise. What is that promise? That God will justify the sinner by grace for Christ's sake through faith. This statement is true for all men of all time. God promised in Eden that he would provide for mankind a Savior, namely Christ who would expiate the sin of the world in man's place.
(Gen. 3:15) From the very beginning God was reconciling men to him through Christ.
(2 Cor. 5:19) Note here that at the end of verse twenty, Paul says 'be reconciled to God'. That is key. It can only mean that all men are not reconciled (hence unforgiven) to God and that the only way is through faith in Christ and His promise (there's that word again) of forgiveness.
But that is not what Pastor Patterson is preaching when he says in a sermon on January 30, 2011 that we were forgiven before we were born...before we ever heard the Word of God; or were baptized into faith by the Holy Ghost.
Or when he says:
May 26, 2011 in an email Patterson said:
"If I understand all of your recent emails correctly, you wish to remain members of Holy Word only if you can convince us of the errors of our ways in regard to my preaching that "we were forgiven by God in Christ before we believed that we are forgiven"
From an email exchange of 4-4-2011:
"But you have to understand that forgiveness, reconciliation, justification, atonement - all describe the amazing grace of God given for this whole world irrespective our faith or repsonse. (sic) God loves us all and forgives us all long before we do anything at all -"
From an email exchange of 2-4-2011. I could almost buy into this one, except when you hear what he preaches along with the more recent quotes, you can see he is equating justification with forgiveness as in universal absolution:
"That the Bible speaks of justification by faith I will not disagree (how could I) but unless he had already done all the work objectively- then we have no hope - he objectively justified the whole world 2 Corinthians 5:19 and only those who beleive (sic) receive the benefits -John 3:16."
And there are others teaching this false doctrine.
This paper came highly recommended by Pastor Patterson. He emailed it to me and asked me to read it. Pastor Buchholz (AZ/CA District President) summarily discredits Prof. Sig Becker in his defense of the Kokomo Statements in the appendix, but spends the essay defending the very theology of Becker. Here are some excerpts from the Buchholz essay:
"Let’s begin by considering the word justification. The basic meaning of justify is to prove something to be right, just or valid; to absolve; or to free a person from guilt or sin. Justification is the act of justifying, absolving, or declaring free from guilt. To be justified is to be forgiven"
"Here is the legal or juridical nature of justification, revealed at Calvary. The change does not take place in the sinner. The change takes place in the relationship or the status between a sinner and God. A verdict has been rendered, which declares man free of sin and guilt, righteous in God’s sight, and worthy of eternal life, for Jesus’ sake."
It is here where the theology goes wrong. The status was never changed at Calvary. He is making it a Second Article forgiveness of sins and this is wrong. The relationship with God and man was changed in the Garden of Eden when God made a promise (there's that word) to provide an out for man through faith in Christ as Savior (it was as good as done); worked by the Holy Ghost preached by the prophets; the message of repentance and the remission of sins. We know this to be true as before Christ even died on the cross, there was Moses and Elijah with Him at the Transfiguration. Or when He told the thief on the cross that he would be with Him that very day in Paradise."
"Faith lays hold of the completed work of Christ for comfort and the certainty of salvation. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned” (John 3:18a). “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1)."
Again he has made a statement that only applies to A.D. believers, but uses verses that refer to B.C. Christians too.
There is so much more from the paper that contradicts itself and shows what an utterly disjointed theology this is like this one:
"In speaking of objective and subjective justification we may never use these terms to imply that there are two justifications. There is one justification; it is an objective, universal reality, completed by Christ at Calvary, and appropriated subjectively through faith."
A Patterson email of 4-20-2011 says,
“Truly, so much that we proclaim about the work of Christ cannot be said in the exact same words about the OT saints and their faith.”
This is how Wikipedia defines
Dispensationalism: "Dispensationalism is a nineteenth-century evangelical development based on a futurist biblical hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically successive "dispensations" or periods in history in which God relates to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants."
Now I realize that the dispensationalism described in the article refers to a specific theology, but the spirit of the term seems to fit this extreme teaching of Objective Justification. It never deals with it's workings in regards to OT believers as evidenced by Pastor Patterson's quote. Is this not preaching God relating to mankind in different ways regarding His covenant of forgiveness, by grace for the sake of Christ through faith alone?
***
GJ - Kelm is the sterling example of double-speak in WELS. In fact, many of the Church and Change leaders have probably used this method quite deliberately, to fool everyone. Part A is - Of course we know... Part B reverses that position. In the Kelm quote above, the Lutheran approach is mentioned first as justification for using magisterial reason from the Calvinists: Lewis, Schaeffer, and Josh McDowell. The climax is the absurd "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" sales pitch. Either Jesus was the Lord, or He was a liar, or He was a lunatic. Pick one. Lord? Now you can make a decision for Christ. Pray for Him to enter your heart by reciting this prayer.
I am thankful these brave pastors have chosen to do the God-pleasing thing and offer you Holy Communion. I will continue to keep them as well as you in my prayers.
Scott E. Jungen
The under-shepherd District President is demonstrably less generous and yielding with your employ of words, Mr. Techlin, than with his own musings. You see, he insists that your words need to be taken “at face value,” and that they bear “consequences” not readily shorn. Yet he says that the opinions of “your former pastors” should be consulted, before you are allowed to secure the consolation of the Cup of the new testament in the Lord’s blood, which is shed for you.
What sort of innovation is this, to Lutheran practice? If his friends are indeed your “former pastors,” they have no say in guiding you with their crooks (or with their borrowed Power-points, as it is). Our Lord Himself observes that “No man can serve two masters.” Other under-shepherds have the pastoral obligation to examine, and serve as the gateway to the meal at which heaven meets earth. You former pastors do not, at the moment, as their meandering leading of their flock has accomplished. The word “former,” too, has “consequences.”
It may be an excess of meticulousness to demand such precision in fluency, but we must grant this: even the titanic struggles of the Nicene fathers hinged greatly, over the matter of an iota. If we can’t get the communication down right, the mischief will continue, affecting others who sympathize with your struggles, until things are completely ripped apart.
By the way: I think clerics should find the time to respond to the open mouths of the flock, in reasonable time, or seek other employ as ones being skilled in the marks of hirelings.
Michael L. Anderson MD, PHD
Either you and the Pastors and congregations who commune you are wrong, or President Englebrecht and the Pastors and congregation of St. Peter are wrong. It has to be one of the other. There is no “half-way” in this case.
I believe the case is clear. Thus, I support you thoroughly and completely.
God bless you and keep you!
Pastor Spencer
In Christ,
Rebecca
No, the “sin” here is not that Mr. Techlin’s words were misunderstood by some unidentified people. The “sin” is that the words were made public to begin with, and we all know that nothing of importance can be discussed in WELS outside of official and closed meetings.
I’m glad that there are at least some pastors up there who are not afraid. Thank God for them.
Dr. Aaron Palmer
Your treatment by your former parish and your DP is outrageous. I left the WELS for Eastern Orthodoxy for doctrinal reasons, but rest assured — I never witnessed anything remotely like this.
How, exactly, are the former “pastors” who, let us remember, “commend[ed] you to your own spiritual care,” in any position to give their “blessing” to anything? They kicked you out! And they did so in such a manner as to exhibit raw, naked exercise of power over and against the Gospel of Christ. If you are commended to your own spiritual care, what say do these so-called “shepherds” have in whether or not another communes you? And why should the DP take sides in their favor and against you when the issues you have raised have not even been dealt with?
Your faithfulness to your own principles and the Lutheran Confessions is to be commended. May the Lord be with you as you bear His cross. I am pleased there are good pastors in your area willing to act in accordance with their Office instead of their ambitions.
Kyrie eleison.
I have heard that one of the reasons to deny women the vote in the congregation is because of the possibility of Excommunication. How, the reasoning seems to be, can we allow women the vote if someday we might have to excommunicate someone? How, indeed.
I suppose that all of us at some time or another might be heretics deserving of excommunication. How can one not be of an inquisitive nature and not find something which we do not understand? How can we be thinking persons and not find something that seems strange to us? How can we be certain that, apart from the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, we are told things that make sense?
Well, I do not know the circumstances of your situation and do not wish to intrude where I have no understanding. I do wish you well in your life, and as one who might be as guilty as you are, I stand in the door and wait for the knock from the church police to take me away. There is an open area near my home where a bonfire could be made.
Norman Teigen
Hopkins MN