Serious Laughter from Paul McCain. Plagiarist Rattled by Ichabod Readers. Ichabod Banned by McCain, Who Still Reads It

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.

http://www.art-breastfeeding.com/rel2/bern.htm

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 - 

From: Paul McCain

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.

Tricks of the Romanists Cited by Krauth: Still Used Today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Porterfield_Krauth

Pastor Joshua Scheer

Dear BJS readers:
I have moderated most of the comments away from this posting. I left the honest and civil discussion that begin this thread and showed some promise of actually resolving some of the differences in beliefs on Justification. When the conversation turned to speaking past one another, attacks on persons, and unsubstantiated claims, I and Editor Tim Rossow decided to do some editing. If you want to know the teachings on Justification, read Andrew Preus’ article again. Several commenters have been put on moderated status and I am closing down commenting on this post. In the future, I plan on introducing a more moderated venue for discussion of certain points of this centered on specific definitions of words (since folks here started to make it up as they went on, claiming silly things like universalism). One of these times maybe there might be civil and fruitful discussion on this important topic. Until then, go and read the Confessions on it (see the AC IV, Apology IV specifically).

When I read the comments by Pastor Scheer, about ending the discussion and deleting 85 comments, I thought of the Krauth quotation in Megatron, the legendary database.

Scheer was ambiguous and vague, but seemed to join UOJ Enthusiasts in claiming "the two sides are really saying the same thing." ELS Pastor Jay Webber likes to claim this, although he clearly does not believe it. No one is  more active in search and destroy missions against justification by faith than Webber, the Torquemada of the Synodical Conference.

UOJ Enthusiasts employ both tricks that Krauth described in the Romanists. When someone uses the Biblical meaning and words justification by faith, they scream:

• You are teaching works.
• Your faith is in faith.
• Intuitu fidei - or among Mequonites - Inuitu Fidei.
• Calvinist!

Thus innocence is made to be a heinous crime.

When the Stormtroopers are done with their verbose explanations about every atheist, polytheist, and pygmy poacher being absolved, forgiven, and saved, they argue unctiously:

• We teach justification by faith because you have to decide to believe this.
• We are really talking about the same thing.
• We are showing you two sides of the same magical coin.
• We want to protect the Gospel with our language and exalt grace.

Thus the same differences that drive them into towering rages are really nothing at all, just talking past one another. Justification by faith is so dangerous that anyone suspected of making a good case from the Scriptures and Confessions must be banned so UOJ can be taught in peace and dignity.

Someone asked me to design a medal for those banned by Steadfast Lutherans for being Lutheran, since I was banned without a notice first. I decided against any version of a medal, because I respect our military heroes and know quite a few from teaching. Instead, I borrowed a favorite from the past.

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Tricks of the Romanists Cited by Krauth: Still Use...":

The recent Steadfast thread recently underwent another round of editing where they removed all of my comments except for the one where I recommend the Hunnius theses.

I still maintain the likely reason the thread was frozen was that Pastor Diers made a concise confession of what he believed Objective Justification meant and it was purely One Justification By Faith in Christ alone. UOJ is the pinhead upon which the Lutheran Synods teater - the black abyss of abject enthusiasm on all sides.

McCain could only hurl tirades against the Holy Spirit's faith and ad hominem attacks on those promoting One Justification solely by faith in Christ alone.

The Steadfast information managers quickly posted another attack against the Holy Ghost, Christ and God the Father on Friday. Their little treatise craftily titled "We are not declared righteous by Christ dwelling in our Hearts". [GJ - I am not sure, but I imagine they are trying to identify justification by faith with Osiandrianism, but those are the same clowns who think JBFA is Calvinism.]

Osiander is the new UOJ boogey-man,
but who follows him?

Really? And they use quotes from Paul McCain to substantiate the doctrine - a man who publicly stated he shares a common confession of Christ with RCC Pope worshipping Father Richard Neuhaus.

It's important to translate what it means for Christ to dwell in our hearts - Faith in Christ. Faith is the righteousness of Christ given by the Holy Spirit solely through the Means of Grace which trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins.
Ephesians 4:22-24, "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

The Steadfast group are anything but that. They are enemies of Christ's doctrine and therefore of His Church. The BOC clearly refutes their latest attempt to pervert the Righteousness of Christ: the Faith of the Holy Spirit. It is the persecution of the Antichrist in the last days.

9] Concerning the righteousness of faith before God we believe, teach, and confess unanimously, in accordance with the comprehensive summary of our faith and confession presented above, that poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, absolved and declared free and exempt from all his sins, and from the sentence of well-deserved condemnation, and adopted into sonship and heirship of eternal life, without any merit or worth of our own, also without any preceding, present, or any subsequent works, out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obedience, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obedience is reckoned to us for righteousness. 10] These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php

Also, 71] "but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins". http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

64] But since we speak of such faith as is not an idle thought, but of that which liberates from death and produces a new life in hearts [which is such a new light, life, and force in the heart as to renew our heart, mind, and spirit, makes new men of us and new creatures,] and is the work of the Holy Ghost; this does not coexist with mortal sin [for how can light and darkness coexist?]
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

8] Therefore, in order to explain this controversy in a Christian way by means of God's Word, and, by His grace, to settle it, our doctrine, faith, and confession are as follows: 9] Concerning the righteousness of faith before God we believe, teach, and confess unanimously, in accordance with the comprehensive summary of our faith and confession presented above, that poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, absolved and declared free and exempt from all his sins, and from the sentence of well-deserved condemnation, and adopted into sonship and heirship of eternal life, without any merit or worth of our own, also without any preceding, present, or any subsequent works, out of pure grace,because of the sole merit, complete obedience, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obedience is reckoned to us for righteousness. 10] These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. 11] This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him, 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 that we are justified by faith, Rom. 3, 28, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4, 5, and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5, 19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith came to all men, Rom. 5, 18. 13] For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel; for this must be applied and appropriated to us by faith, if we are to be justified thereby. 14] Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid for [expiated] our sins. 15] For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life. 17] Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ's righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith, Phil. 3, 9. For this use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Prov. 17, 15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Is. 5, 23: Woe unto them which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Rom. 8, 33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, that is, absolves from sins and acquits.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php

Graphics for Hebrews 12 - Lenski Commentary

Moses wrote of Christ (John 5:46), Abraham saw Christ’s day (John 8:56), all the Old Testament believers believed in the promised Messiah. As the object of faith Christ is the cause of faith; even secular faith is kindled by its object. The statement that chapter 11 names nothing but examples of faith, and that thus Christ, too, is such an example, is more specious. Christ should then be mentioned in chapter 11, but without the designation τελειωτής, this second designation being here even connected with the first by one article.

Rationalism and modernism rob Christ of his deity, reduce him to a mere man, and thus depict him as being no more than a perfect example for us to follow. But what good does a perfect example do us who cannot possibly achieve perfection? We need vastly more than a perfect example, which by its very perfection may well cause us to cry in despair: “We cannot hope even to approach such an example!” From start to finish we need the divine Christ as the One who can fill us with faith, keep us in faith, and finally crown our faith.

The relative clause states what makes Christ the One who causes and completes the faith of believers: he is the One “who for the joy lying before him perseveringly endured (the) cross, despising (the) shame, and has sat down at the right (hand) of the throne of God.” “The joy lying before him” is the glorification that followed the sufferings plus his kingship over all believers.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 427.

“By the sinners against himself.” These contrasting phrases are abutted in order to let us feel the contrast: sinners—against the Sinless One. He who as the sinless One should have merited the highest praise from all men, who were not sinless, received the most terrible opposition at the hands of “the sinners,” whom the readers well know. As he has persevered through it all, the readers surely ought to consider him well now when they, who are saved from sin by him, are asked to put away the hampering sin and to manifest perseverance in running their race to a successful issue. What Christ did for them is to inspire them “in order that you may not grow tired (aorist, ingressive: get to the point of tiredness) by relaxing in your souls” (present participle, probably middle, picturing the gradual letting down of effort). The imagery of the ἵνα clause appears to be that of the runner letting himself get tired of the effort and thus quitting.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 431.

The readers were shrinking from further inflictions such as those mentioned in 10:32–34, which they gladly endured while they now thought to escape them by turning back and again becoming Jews. They had forgotten what God says about chastisement. God might have had the higher distinction of martyrdom in mind for them as he had for other believers, and now these readers foolishly shrink from even this lower and universal distinction which God finds necessary in the case of all his sons. The implication is that certain other believers had, indeed, been called to bloody martyrdom. Who these others were we have attempted to show in the introduction: they were the believers in the old congregation in Rome. As far as the martyrs referred to in 10:35b are concerned, we need not exclude them although they belong to the Old Testament period; Jesus is, however, in a class by himself as we see from the expression “contending against the sin,” nor is Jesus ever regarded as a martyr in Scripture.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 433.

The comparison covers three points: 1) the kinds of fathers 2) the time of their fatherhood 3) our relation to them. The one kind were “the fathers of our flesh,” the other is “the Father of the spirits.” These genitives have been referred to when we were discussing the question of creationism and traducianism, a question that is not even touched here much less decided in favor of the conception that our flesh or body is procreated by the earthly father while our immortal spirit is created by God in the instant of our bodily procreation and in that instant joined to our body. Both body and spirit are derived from our parents, and God is the creator of both. “He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my members, my reason and all my senses, and still preserves them,” a simple Catechism truth on which no erudite, speculative commentator shall confuse us. These genitives do not elucidate the questions as to from whom and in what way we originate; they are genitives of relation and no more: the fathers who have to do with our bodily nature and themselves have this nature; the Father who has to do with far more than our flesh, with the spirits, both the bodiless, angelic spirits and the embodied human spirits, ourselves, all human spirits. This one divine Father is thus infinitely above all human fathers.

Hence we only “had” the latter fathers; in the case of most of us they are dead and gone, their whole father activity is ended. While the writer naturally says “fathers,” the word by no means intends to exclude mothers who also certainly were our “chastisers.” In v. 8 “son” and “sons” in no way exclude daughters—or is this writer speaking only to males and of males? This other Father is spoken of with a future tense which reaches from the present into the indefinite future: “shall we not much rather be in subjection” to him? His is to be an eternal fatherhood for us. But this is a question that is directed to our volition and not one about a fatherhood (creatorship) that simply exists but about a filial relation and attitude that we should assume, acknowledge and assume gladly. The question does not deal with a parallel: “We had earthly fathers; shall we not have a heavenly Father?” The question goes beyond that: “We respected our earthly chastisers; shall we not be subject to our heavenly Father?”

The point dwells on our relation, which our will may alter to our terrible detriment or may retain in the normal way to our great advantage. We should not be misled by the verbal correspondence: καὶ ἐνετρεπόμεθα—καὶ ζήσομεν. The tenses warn against making these two parallel: an imperfect that lies wholly in the past, a future that continues into eternity.

Much more should the meaning of the verbs prevent such a paralleling. Our having respected the earthly fathers is greatly advanced by asking about being subject to the heavenly Father. While being subject to him includes our willing acceptance of his chastisements it means far more, namely willing acceptance of our entire relation to him as our Father, we being his sons. It is thus that “we shall live”; the verb is used as it was in 10:38. This is a question, and hence the two future tenses are deliberative (see R. 875 on this use of the future): “Do the readers want this result of their relation to the heavenly Father?” Surely, they do.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 436.

In v. 12 the wording alludes to Old Testament language such as that found in Isa. 35:3, and v. 13 alludes to Prov. 4:26. Allusion is not quotation. The figurative language cannot be made physical, for a man who has paralyzed knees cannot straighten them up so as to bear him. The readers are allowing themselves to grow disheartened amid the persecutions that have been coming upon them. This laming, paralyzing discouragement they are fully able to shake off and so are able to straighten themselves up again in the full strength of faith. In the preceding verses the writer furnishes them full power to do this, and we may add all that this epistle has presented as the basis for these verses. He, therefore, now issues the peremptory (aorist) call: “Brace up!”

13) With this goes the allied call to make straight tracks for their feet (not “with” their feet). These tracks or paths are the thoughts of the readers, which are to be true, straight, leading directly to their spiritual goal. All false and even inadequate thoughts about persecution are like twisted paths that run off in all directions so that the feet do not know where they are going. To the order: “Brace up!” there is added the second: “Go straight!” Both apply to the heart and to the mind.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 441.

The thought is greatly reduced when it is referred only to the moral life, to sins of various kinds. It goes far deeper, it denotes the defilement that is due to the loss of God’s grace, to sinking back into the filth and the guilt of sin, to the bitterness which scorns Christ and his blood and his righteousness. The writer is in no way blind to the danger which would ensue for the mass of his readers if even a single one of them should fall away from Christ and return to Judaism. We may say that the danger was the greater because the readers were a compact body, all of them Jewish Christians, all worshiping in their old synagogues in Rome, which had now become Christian churches. By returning to Judaism some influential former rabbi among them might draw a large number with him. In fact, as these synagogues had become Christian, so they might again become Jewish. Obsta principiis! Resist the beginnings!

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 446.

Some commentators leave us under a wrong impression, namely that as Jews the readers had had only Moses and the law while they now have Christ and the gospel. This view is unhistorical. Chapter 11 corrects it. The Jews had Abraham and the Abrahamitic covenant with all the Messianic promises, and we are told in 11:39, 40 that, although God fully attested their faith in his Messianic promises, all the Old Testament saints died without seeing these promises fulfilled in Jesus (Matt. 13:16, 17). In the development of God’s plans, when the children of Abraham became a nation and were brought out of Egypt under Moses (11:27, etc.), the Jews had come only as far as Sinai and the giving of the law 430 years after Abraham (Gal. 3:17), this law being given to them because of transgression in order to keep them in the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20).

But the readers have come to the actual fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, to Jesus Christ and to all that he has actually brought. This is the history of grace. The present paragraph must be read in the light of this history. The tragic mistake of the Jews was the fact that they clung to Sinai and Moses, to the law, and were blind to the covenant of Abraham with its promise of the Messiah and thus blind also to the fulfillment of this promise in Jesus. The readers who had made this mistake and had been rescued from this mistake were inclined to fall back into it in order to escape the persecutions that were connected with their faith in Jesus. This entire epistle seeks to keep them from taking this fatal step.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 450.

There is an intentional contrast in these directly opposite phrases, and no less a contrast than that God’s present communication is far, far superior to the one he at one time made to the Israelites on Sinai. Although all those manifestations at Sinai were so stupendous they were, nevertheless, only “on earth,” in that one locality. They magnified the law mightily indeed, yet this law came only because of transgression (Gal. 3:19), as an adjunct to the Abrahamitic testament and promise. Great as this communication was, its greatness only makes this other stand out as being vastly greater even as it comes to us “from heaven.”

We see its exalted contents in v. 22–24, to which there must be added the consummation indicated in v. 26, 27. It is asked how this communication comes from heaven. We find the answer in John 15:26, 27; 16:7–15; Acts 2:11: “We hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” The Holy Spirit conveys the divine gospel communication which begins at Pentecost. As now being embodied in the New Testament writings this revelation speaks to us. These readers in Rome had heard Paul and then also Peter for a brief time (see the introduction); but the entire gospel is God’s voice from heaven. The refusal to hear at Sinai was severely punished (Exod. 32:28, 35); the refusal to hear the gospel shall certainly not escape punishment. The trajection of ἐπὶ γῆς by separating it from τὸν χρηματίζοντα has been called unprecedented, but all efforts to connect it with the intervening participle cancel the contrast with ἀπʼ οὐρανῶν; we shall have to learn that the Greek is flexible enough to do what it plainly does here.

26) The contrast, one communication made on earth, the other coming from heaven, is only preliminary; it is the relative clause that brings the main contrast, which lies in what the voice did at Sinai and in what it declares it will yet do when bringing in the consummation of all that v. 22–24 contain: whose voice shook the earth at that time but now has given promise, declaring: Yet once again I will rock not only the earth but also the heaven. Now this yet once again indicates the change of the things shaken as things that have been made in order that there may remain the things not shaken.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 462.

The fact that the great rock-mass of Sinai shook and quaked is attested by Judges 5:4, 5; Ps. 68:8, 9; 77:18; 114:7. The writer combines this with Hag. 2:6, the promise which the same voice of God made and which, as the perfect tense implies, still stands: “Yet once again I will rock not only the earth but also the heaven.” The writer quotes, not verbatim, but correctly, and inserts “not only but also” in order to emphasize the truth that this “once” will include also the visible heaven itself. To shake something is to show its instability and therefore its temporary nature. Sinai shook, it was not the final, unshakable place for Israel, who also left it behind soon enough. What happened through the voice of God at Sinai is only an advance sign of what, according to that voice, shall happen again, namely the whole earth and the very heaven about the earth shall be made to rock (σείω).

Although the earth and the firmament with its heavenly bodies seem so stable and permanent they are really transient; God founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of his hands, “they shall perish” (1:10). Being shakable and unstable, they cannot endure in this condition. When time ceases, when only eternity, which means timelessness, exists, no shakable things will remain. Thus, as far as the earth is concerned, the Scriptures point us to every earthquake that occurs as a sign of the transient condition of the earth, Matt. 24:29. We read still more in 2 Pet. 3:10–13. This is, however, promise: “the voice has promised” us this mighty coming change (v. 27). We are to look forward to it with joyful anticipation. We are to long for it as we long for the coming of the beautiful springtime when the fig tree buds and puts forth its leaves, Matt. 24:32, 33.

Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 463.