 |
Paul McCain, Concordia Publishing House blogger,
needs to explain why he posted a version of this idolatrous painting.
One of my clever readers kelmed Paul into the painting - expert job.
|
From Paul McCain's odious blog:
It has come to my attention that there are some laypeople who read my blog, and follow my Facebook page, who have had the unfortunate experience of stumbling across very negative and harmful discussions on the Internet of what is called the doctrine of “objective justification.” There is a former Lutheran pastor [GJ - I preach every Sunday and teach a Bible class, Paul. I have a congregation. Do you?] who has made it his life’s mission to attack this comforting doctrine. I urge and warn all those who read this blog and my Facebook page to avoid any such discussions and to flee from any false teachers who would rob you of the comfort of the Gospel. They like to insert themselves everywhere they can on various forums where justification is discussed. Pray for their repentance and restoration to a true and living faith. They are the very kind of persons whom the Apostle warns us about when he urges us to make sure we are “keeping Faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith” (1 Timothy 1:19). Mark and avoid anyone who casts doubt on the doctrine of objective justification, and particularly mark and avoid any pastor who does so Do not be deceived. Cling to the truth. [GJ - Paul, you do not obey your own commandments. You are a regular reader, sending another of your nasty little comments today -
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:08 PM
Subject: [Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed] New comment on UOJ War
Against Faith Is a War Against Luther.
Paul McCain has
left a new comment on your post "
UOJ
War Against Faith Is a War Against Luther":
Oh, boo hoo
Greg
Jackson, insurance salesman.
Delusional nut job.
Now working
for a non-denom internet university. Cracks me up
LOL
Publish
Delete
Mark
as spam
Moderate
comments for this blog.
Rejoice in this beautiful explanation of the doctrine of objective justification written by the Rev. Dr. Robert Preus, in 1981.
“The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (
Romans 5:17-19).
“Objective justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not identical with the atonement, it is not another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world. Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous.
THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT
“According to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind. Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ’’ sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished atonement. But Christ said, “It is finished.” And God raised Him from the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (
I Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (
Romans 4:25).
“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)
OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
“The doctrine of objective justification does not imply that there is no hell, that God’s threats throughout Scripture to punish sins are empty, or that all unbelievers will not be condemned to eternal death on the day of Christ’s second coming. And very definitely the doctrine of objective, or general, justification does not threaten the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. Rather it is the very basis of that Reformation doctrine, a part of it. For it is the very pardon which God has declared over the whole world of sinners that the individual sinner embraces in faith and thus is justified personally. Christ’s atonement, His propitiation of God and God’s forgiveness are the true and only object of faith. Here is what George Stoekhardt, perhaps the greatest of all Lutheran biblical expositors in our country, says, “Genuine Lutheran theology counts the doctrine of general (objective) justification among the statements and treasures of its faith. Lutherans teach and confess that through Christ’s death the entire world of sinners was justified and that through Christ’s resurrection the justification of the sinful world was festively proclaimed. This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God.”
THE REALITY OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION
“Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ.
“Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work “before” we come to faith in Christ. Nor is objective justification “merely” a “Lutheran term” to denote that justification is available to all as a recent “Lutheran Witness” article puts it – although it is certainly true that forgiveness is available to all. Nor is objective justification a Missouri Synod construct, a “theologoumenon” (a theological peculiarity), devised cleverly to ward off synergism (that man cooperates in his conversion) and Calvinistic double predestination, as Dr. Robert Schultz puts it in “Missouri in Perspective” (February 23, 1981, p. 5) – although the doctrine does indeed serve to stave off these two aberrations. No, objective justification is a clear teaching of Scripture, it is an article of faith which no Lutheran has any right to deny or pervert any more than the article of the Trinity or of the vicarious atonement.
THE CENTRALITY AND COMFORT OF THE DOCTRINE
“Objective justification is not a peripheral article of faith which one may choose to ignore because of more important things. It is the very central article of the Gospel which we preach. Listen to Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first president and great leader of our synod, speak about this glorious doctrine in one of his magnificent Easter sermons: “When Christ suffered and died, He was judged by God, and He was condemned to death in our place. But when God in the resurrection awakened Him again, who was it then that was acquitted by God in Christ’s person? Christ did no need acquittal for Himself, for no one can accuse Him of single sin. Who therefore was it that was justified in Him? Who was declared pure and innocent in Him? We were, we humans. It was the whole world. When God spoke to Christ, ‘You shall live,’ that applied to us. His life is our life. His acquittal, our acquittal, His justification, our justification….Who can ever fully express the great comfort which lies in Christ’s resurrection? It is God’s own absolution spoken to all men, to all sinners, in a word, to all the world, and sealed in the most glorious way. There the eternal love of God is revealed in all its riches, in its overflowing fullness and in its highest brilliance. For there we hear that it was not enough for God simply to send His own Son into the world and let Him become a man for us, not enough even for Him to give and offer His only Son unto death for us. No, when His Son had accomplished all that He had to do and suffer in order to earn and acquire grace and life and blessedness for us, then God, in His burning love to speak to us sinners, could not wait until we would come to Him and request His grace in Christ, but no sooner had His Son fulfilled everything than He immediately hastened to confer to men the grace which had been acquired through the resurrection of His Son, to declare openly, really and solemnly to all men that they were acquitted of all their sins, and to declare before heaven and earth that they are redeemed, reconciled, pure, innocent and righteous in Christ.”
Source:
CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
NEWSLETTER – Spring 1981
6600 North Clinton
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825
***
 |
| Quoted by Dr. Robert Preus in Justification and Rome |
GJ - The actual source was probably
my recently posting on Ichabod. I copied it from
Jack Cascione's material, but McCain does not want to associate himself with them at the moment. Perhaps they objected to the plagiarized Roman Catholic articles he was linking from LutherQuest (
sic) to his Romanizing blog.
Since McCain wants to plant his flag on that 1981 essay, instead of Preus' later, published essay - or Preus'
Justification and Rome, I will post my analysis of the 1981 essay. The trajectory is plain. The 1981 effort was truly a double-handspring Halleluia! for UOJ, but the Preusian treatments afterwards were just the opposite. They obliterated UOJ claims. Unfortunately, Preus did not make his repudiation as clear as he should have. He should have overturned the 1981 essay. However, our ruling norm remains the Scriptures and the ruled norm the Confessions.
Preus 1981 quotes are in purple:
"The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19).
This declaration of universal pardon is not found in Romans 5:17ff or anywhere else in the Bible or the Confessions. Just the opposite is true. Romans 4 emphasizes justification by faith, the imputation of righteousness only through faith, using Abraham as the example. This argument climaxes with Romans 5:1-2:
KJV Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of
God.
"Objective justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not identical with the atonement, it is not another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world. Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous.
As Preus pointed out from the writings of orthodox Lutheran fathers (post-Concord, not post-Perryville), the imputation of righteousness only takes place through faith. The bolded wording duplicates Karl Barth's, the Swiss adulterer, and also the language of the Halle rationalist Schleiermacher. All the mainline, Leftist denominations made this their banner of grace. But where are the Means of Grace in this essay? Where is the efficacy of the Word?
THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT
“According to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind. Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ’’ sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished atonement. But Christ said, “It is finished.” And God raised Him from the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (I Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (Romans 4:25).
This rationalistic argument is typical of UOJ, a poor substitute for the Means of Grace. Count all the if clauses. The core thesis is - "If there is no universal absolution, regardless of faith, then the atonement is invalid." Any Universalist would bow to that one. In addition, the exegetical proof is pure hogwash. "It is finished" does not mean "All unbelievers are declared righteous, forgiven, and saved." Note also that 1 Timothy 3:16 is used, as the Pietist Rambach did, to support an Easter absolution. Which one is it? Good Friday or Easter. Finally - Romans 4:25 is simply listed, as if part of a sentence can be used to prove the entire sentence and doctrine wrong. These are evil tactics, still being used today.
Here is an
if clause - a better one than the fancy footwork of 1981 -
KJV Romans 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was
about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise
of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what
he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for 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 for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
“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)
Eduard Preuss left Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, as a professor, to join the Roman Catholic Church and to write books for them.
Take a deep breath. This is Paul McCain, Concordia Publishing House editor, endorsing an incredibly stupid, anti-Christian claim of universal absolution - justified in Christ before we are even born. Say goodbye to original sin, the need for infant baptism, or anything else. The first justification is without faith, which is not the same as justification with faith. Since we are already justified, righteous, and as innocent as Adam and Even before they turned into orchard thieves, why do we need a second justification? There is no answer.
As before, when 1 Timothy 3:16 was cited, this Preuss quotation takes up the fantasy of Pietist Rambach in having the world absolved on Easter. Tucked inside this error is a bizarre notion that God condemned Jesus as the greatest of all sinners, creating a moral equivalency where there is none. Jesus took our sin upon Himself. That did not make him condemned as the greatest of all sinners, in need of an absolution. Paul does compare the first Adam to Christ, but the two are not symmetrical or equivalent.
OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
“The doctrine of objective justification does not imply that there is no hell, that God’s threats throughout Scripture to punish sins are empty, or that all unbelievers will not be condemned to eternal death on the day of Christ’s second coming. And very definitely the doctrine of objective, or general, justification does not threaten the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. Rather it is the very basis of that Reformation doctrine, a part of it. For it is the very pardon which God has declared over the whole world of sinners that the individual sinner embraces in faith and thus is justified personally. Christ’s atonement, His propitiation of God and God’s forgiveness are the true and only object of faith. Here is what George Stoekhardt, perhaps the greatest of all Lutheran biblical expositors in our country, says, “Genuine Lutheran theology counts the doctrine of general (objective) justification among the statements and treasures of its faith. Lutherans teach and confess that through Christ’s death the entire world of sinners was justified and that through Christ’s resurrection the justification of the sinful world was festively proclaimed. This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God.”
This paragraph, above, contains more nonsense typical of UOJ argumentation. Although UOJ came primarily through Halle University's Pietism, after being repudiated by P. Leyer and A. Hunnius, the proponents of universal forgiveness still force it upon the Reformation and the Scriptures. This UOJ fetish is peculiar to the Synodical Conference, especially the Walther-Stephan circle of Pietists. Bishop Stephan studied at Halle University and taught his version of justification to a morbidly obsessed C. F. W. Walther. The Great Walther never had Lutheran training. His university work was rationalistic and his social network was exclusively Pietistic. He lacked Adolph Hoenecke's Confessional and Scriptural insights.
THE REALITY OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION
“Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ.
“Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work “before” we come to faith in Christ. Nor is objective justification “merely” a “Lutheran term” to denote that justification is available to all as a recent “Lutheran Witness” article puts it – although it is certainly true that forgiveness is available to all. Nor is objective justification a Missouri Synod construct, a “theologoumenon” (a theological peculiarity), devised cleverly to ward off synergism (that man cooperates in his conversion) and Calvinistic double predestination, as Dr. Robert Schultz puts it in “Missouri in Perspective” (February 23, 1981, p. 5) – although the doctrine does indeed serve to stave off these two aberrations. No, objective justification is a clear teaching of Scripture, it is an article of faith which no Lutheran has any right to deny or pervert any more than the article of the Trinity or of the vicarious atonement.
This is pure Romanism, an invention of dogma that never existed, with ridiculous claims about it always being true of the Reformation and the Scriptures. The bolded statement sounds just like Roman Catholic theology books (approved by The Church) claiming - the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption were always taught, all the way back to the Scriptures. They elevated those two dogmas to the level of the Trinity and the atonement. Does that sound familiar?
THE CENTRALITY AND COMFORT OF THE DOCTRINE
“Objective justification is not a peripheral article of faith which one may choose to ignore because of more important things. It is the very central article of the Gospel which we preach. Listen to Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first president and great leader of our synod, speak about this glorious doctrine in one of his magnificent Easter sermons: “When Christ suffered and died, He was judged by God, and He was condemned to death in our place. But when God in the resurrection awakened Him again, who was it then that was acquitted by God in Christ’s person? Christ did no (sic) need acquittal for Himself, for no one can accuse Him of single sin. Who therefore was it that was justified in Him? Who was declared pure and innocent in Him? We were, we humans. It was the whole world. When God spoke to Christ, ‘You shall live,’ that applied to us. His life is our life. His acquittal, our acquittal, His justification, our justification….Who can ever fully express the great comfort which lies in Christ’s resurrection? It is God’s own absolution spoken to all men, to all sinners, in a word, to all the world, and sealed in the most glorious way. There the eternal love of God is revealed in all its riches, in its overflowing fullness and in its highest brilliance. For there we hear that it was not enough for God simply to send His own Son into the world and let Him become a man for us, not enough even for Him to give and offer His only Son unto death for us. No, when His Son had accomplished all that He had to do and suffer in order to earn and acquire grace and life and blessedness for us, then God, in His burning love to speak to us sinners, could not wait until we would come to Him and request His grace in Christ, but no sooner had His Son fulfilled everything than He immediately hastened to confer to men the grace which had been acquired through the resurrection of His Son, to declare openly, really and solemnly to all men that they were acquitted of all their sins, and to declare before heaven and earth that they are redeemed, reconciled, pure, innocent and righteous in Christ.”
Where is the language of the Bible, the witness of the Book of Concord? This is the mawkish and erroneous Enthusiasm of Pietism, lovingly passed on from a syphilitic bishop to a fawning disciple to a Preus and to McCain, whose Roman Catholic parochial education shows up all too clearly.
I am happy to say that Robert Preus wrote much better works on justification by faith. McCain should read them and quote them. For some reason, that never happens.
---
LPC has left a
new comment on your post "
Serious
Laughter from Paul McCain. Plagiarist Ratt...":
At the very least,
comparing Preus' 1981 Essay vs. Justification and Rome, Robert Preus
contradicted himself. For in the
Justification and Rome book Preus did not follow his own dogmatic
pronouncements found in the 1981 essay. In JaR he avoided the language of OJ so
called.
May be the UOJ fans are finding it hard to swallow that fine
teachers such as Preus are guilty of self contradiction. Even Augustine had his
Retractions so why be so sensitive with apparent retractions?
Why is it
hard to grant that Preus, who avoided his own OJ language and not dealing with
it in his
Justification and Rome, might have had a change of heart.
So the onus is on the
Preus brothers to answer why OJ, which is so adamantly promoted by R. Preus in
his 19981 essay, is not found in
JaR, their father's last book?
LPC
***
GJ - Not least is this simple argument - no one is bound to any or all of a theologian's work. Those who say they are Confessional, and claim a
quia subscription to the Book of Concord, have to wiggle out of this clear definition of justification from the Formula of Concord - in the graphic below.
