 |
| Three Volumes of Wauwatosa! |
One of those blog-for-about-a-week blogs and then quit. <<<---Mequon graduates. That is an embedded link for the Wauwatose Gospel of Universal Salvation. Click on it.
How are the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 4:9,10 to be understood? "This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."
It seems to me that St Paul is making a distinction here between believers and unbelievers, but that it would be proper to say on the basis of this passage that, objectively speaking, Jesus is the Savior of unbelievers, that the Father's wrath over against all sin has been appeased by the perfect, once for all, sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus is "especially" the Savior of those who believe, because they will actually benefit from his saving work. But, objectively speaking, Jesus is also the Savior of those who do not believe, right?
Also, isn't the basis of an unbeliever's ultimate judgment the fact that he stubbornly refused to believe something that was objectively true? (Mt 23:37) If something is not really true until I believe it, how can I be condemned for not believing it? I can't be held accountable - can I? - because it wasn't true/real, since I never believed it. (I hope that makes sense).
Help me understand what I'm missing.
It seems to me that St Paul is making a distinction here between believers and unbelievers, but that it would be proper to say on the basis of this passage that, objectively speaking, Jesus is the Savior of unbelievers, that the Father's wrath over against all sin has been appeased by the perfect, once for all, sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus is "especially" the Savior of those who believe, because they will actually benefit from his saving work. But, objectively speaking, Jesus is also the Savior of those who do not believe, right?
Also, isn't the basis of an unbeliever's ultimate judgment the fact that he stubbornly refused to believe something that was objectively true? (Mt 23:37) If something is not really true until I believe it, how can I be condemned for not believing it? I can't be held accountable - can I? - because it wasn't true/real, since I never believed it. (I hope that makes sense).
Help me understand what I'm missing.
Pete, those are good questions.
First, the question about 1 Tim. 4:9. “…the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” Melanchthon and Chemnitz (in their respective Loci) both conclude that God is the Savior of all men in the sense of divine Preservation, that is, with respect to the earthly gifts He gives to all men such as sunshine, rain, harvests, etc., while He is the spiritual Savior of believers in Christ.
Gerhard cites several other Fathers who share this understanding, such as Ambrose and Jerome. He cites Theophylact who explains this verse as a parallel to 1 Tim. 2:4, “God wants all men to be saved.” Gerhard’s personal understanding is that “God is the Savior of all on account of the universal acquisition of salvation obtained through Christ, and because of the universal mercy of God who seriously desires the salvation of all; but He is especially the Savior of believers on account of both the acquisition and the application of salvation.”
I am happy with any of these interpretations, though I favor Gerhard. I am more than willing to speak of Christ having obtained or acquired salvation for all, just as I am willing to say that Christ obtained or acquired righteousness for all, or that Christ has acquired eternal life for all. But not all have been made alive, not all have been declared righteous, and not all have been saved, because that includes the application of the benefit.
But I am equally persuaded by Luther’s interpretation of John 1, which would apply just as well to this passage:
He says “it enlightens all people who come into this world”; this is without a doubt said of all human beings who are born. St. Augustine says one must interpret the passage to mean that no man is enlightened except by this light, in the same way that one customarily says of a teacher in a city, where there is no other teacher, that this teacher teaches everyone in the city, i.e., there is no teacher in this city except this one. He alone has all the pupils. Saying this does not mean that he is teaching all the people in the city, but merely that there is only one teacher in the city and that nobody is taught by another person.
Thus here, too, the evangelist did not intend that John or any other human being or any creature should be the light, but that there is only one light which illumines all men and that not a single human being could come upon the earth who could be illumined by anybody else. I do not know how to disagree with this interpretation; for in the same manner also St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:18]: “As through one man’s sin condemnation has come over all men, so through one man’s righteousness justification has come over all men.” Yet not all men are justified through Christ, nevertheless he is the man through whom all justification comes. It is the same here. Even if not all men are illumined, yet this is the light from which alone all illumination comes. (AE:52:71)
Continued…
First, the question about 1 Tim. 4:9. “…the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” Melanchthon and Chemnitz (in their respective Loci) both conclude that God is the Savior of all men in the sense of divine Preservation, that is, with respect to the earthly gifts He gives to all men such as sunshine, rain, harvests, etc., while He is the spiritual Savior of believers in Christ.
Gerhard cites several other Fathers who share this understanding, such as Ambrose and Jerome. He cites Theophylact who explains this verse as a parallel to 1 Tim. 2:4, “God wants all men to be saved.” Gerhard’s personal understanding is that “God is the Savior of all on account of the universal acquisition of salvation obtained through Christ, and because of the universal mercy of God who seriously desires the salvation of all; but He is especially the Savior of believers on account of both the acquisition and the application of salvation.”
I am happy with any of these interpretations, though I favor Gerhard. I am more than willing to speak of Christ having obtained or acquired salvation for all, just as I am willing to say that Christ obtained or acquired righteousness for all, or that Christ has acquired eternal life for all. But not all have been made alive, not all have been declared righteous, and not all have been saved, because that includes the application of the benefit.
But I am equally persuaded by Luther’s interpretation of John 1, which would apply just as well to this passage:
He says “it enlightens all people who come into this world”; this is without a doubt said of all human beings who are born. St. Augustine says one must interpret the passage to mean that no man is enlightened except by this light, in the same way that one customarily says of a teacher in a city, where there is no other teacher, that this teacher teaches everyone in the city, i.e., there is no teacher in this city except this one. He alone has all the pupils. Saying this does not mean that he is teaching all the people in the city, but merely that there is only one teacher in the city and that nobody is taught by another person.
Thus here, too, the evangelist did not intend that John or any other human being or any creature should be the light, but that there is only one light which illumines all men and that not a single human being could come upon the earth who could be illumined by anybody else. I do not know how to disagree with this interpretation; for in the same manner also St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:18]: “As through one man’s sin condemnation has come over all men, so through one man’s righteousness justification has come over all men.” Yet not all men are justified through Christ, nevertheless he is the man through whom all justification comes. It is the same here. Even if not all men are illumined, yet this is the light from which alone all illumination comes. (AE:52:71)
Continued…
…Continued
When you say “the Father's wrath over against all sin has been appeased by the perfect, once for all, sacrifice of Jesus,” that is true wherever Christ is. But where Christ is not, there the Father’s wrath abides (John 3:36). Or as Luther says, To the extent that Christ rules by His grace in the hearts of the faithful, there is no sin or death or curse. But where Christ is not known, there these things remain. (AE:26:282), or This does not mean that there is no sin in us, as the sophists have taught when they said that we must go on doing good until we are no longer conscious of any sin; but sin is always present, and the godly feel it. But it is ignored and hidden in the sight of God, because Christ the Mediator stands between; because we take hold of Him by faith, all our sins are sins no longer. But where Christ and faith are not present, here there is no forgiveness of sins or hiding of sins. On the contrary, here there is the sheer imputation and condemnation of sins. (AE:26:133).
You asked, “isn't the basis of an unbeliever's ultimate judgment the fact that he stubbornly refused to believe something that was objectively true?”
Well, yes, but what is it he is supposed to believe? That all people, including he, have already been justified, or that Christ has already saved him? Not at all, but that “whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.” He is to believe a promise. He is to believe in the objective reality that is Christ Jesus and the satisfaction He made for sin and the righteousness that He offers in the Word of the Gospel.
But no, the thing promised does not already have to have happened in order for someone to believe a promise. One does not have to believe he has already been justified in order to be justified. In the same way, Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness. He believed a promise. The promise is objective. Again, “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,” (or any number of promises). God makes a promise of justification to all who believe (Rom. 3:22,26). In the same way, the Ten Lepers did not need to believe that they were already healed before they came to Jesus for healing. They came trusting in His Word, His power, and His will to heal them. Christ Himself was the object of their faith, and Jesus said to the one who returned, “Your faith has saved you.”
When you say “the Father's wrath over against all sin has been appeased by the perfect, once for all, sacrifice of Jesus,” that is true wherever Christ is. But where Christ is not, there the Father’s wrath abides (John 3:36). Or as Luther says, To the extent that Christ rules by His grace in the hearts of the faithful, there is no sin or death or curse. But where Christ is not known, there these things remain. (AE:26:282), or This does not mean that there is no sin in us, as the sophists have taught when they said that we must go on doing good until we are no longer conscious of any sin; but sin is always present, and the godly feel it. But it is ignored and hidden in the sight of God, because Christ the Mediator stands between; because we take hold of Him by faith, all our sins are sins no longer. But where Christ and faith are not present, here there is no forgiveness of sins or hiding of sins. On the contrary, here there is the sheer imputation and condemnation of sins. (AE:26:133).
You asked, “isn't the basis of an unbeliever's ultimate judgment the fact that he stubbornly refused to believe something that was objectively true?”
Well, yes, but what is it he is supposed to believe? That all people, including he, have already been justified, or that Christ has already saved him? Not at all, but that “whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.” He is to believe a promise. He is to believe in the objective reality that is Christ Jesus and the satisfaction He made for sin and the righteousness that He offers in the Word of the Gospel.
But no, the thing promised does not already have to have happened in order for someone to believe a promise. One does not have to believe he has already been justified in order to be justified. In the same way, Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness. He believed a promise. The promise is objective. Again, “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,” (or any number of promises). God makes a promise of justification to all who believe (Rom. 3:22,26). In the same way, the Ten Lepers did not need to believe that they were already healed before they came to Jesus for healing. They came trusting in His Word, His power, and His will to heal them. Christ Himself was the object of their faith, and Jesus said to the one who returned, “Your faith has saved you.”
Just wanted to add an observation regarding this statement, "If something is not really true until I believe it, how can I be condemned for not believing it? I can't be held accountable - can I? - because it wasn't true/real, since I never believed it. (I hope that makes sense)."
This is a dilemma caused by the doctrine of Objective Justification establishing a false object of faith. UOJ teaches that the object of faith, the only thing that can create faith, is that the individual has already been declared by the omnipotent God to be justified: forgiven all sin, guiltless, righteous and worthy of eternal life.
But the true object of the Holy Spirit's faith is Christ, and Him crucified for each individual's sins. The promise is that by believing in Christ the individual will die to sin, die to the Law, be raised again to live under God's grace being Spiritually minded, receive Christ's righteousness for the forgiveness of all sins and eternal salvation. But mark this - the object of the faith of Holy Scripture is Christ. It is not sins already forgiven.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Clearly these are but a few of the Word's of God which declare the object of faith is Christ and not the forgiveness of sins.
Understanding this critical part of Christ's Gospel eliminates any need for the terms Objective and Subjective. Especially in light of the fact that the work of the Holy Spirit graciously working Godly contrition over sin and faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life is equally as Objective as Christ's atonement for the world's sins in that it is all a work of God without any contribution from man. There has never been a need or reason for differentiating between Objective and Subjective when faithfully confessing God's Word.
I hope this helps clarify these critical issues.
This is a dilemma caused by the doctrine of Objective Justification establishing a false object of faith. UOJ teaches that the object of faith, the only thing that can create faith, is that the individual has already been declared by the omnipotent God to be justified: forgiven all sin, guiltless, righteous and worthy of eternal life.
But the true object of the Holy Spirit's faith is Christ, and Him crucified for each individual's sins. The promise is that by believing in Christ the individual will die to sin, die to the Law, be raised again to live under God's grace being Spiritually minded, receive Christ's righteousness for the forgiveness of all sins and eternal salvation. But mark this - the object of the faith of Holy Scripture is Christ. It is not sins already forgiven.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Clearly these are but a few of the Word's of God which declare the object of faith is Christ and not the forgiveness of sins.
Understanding this critical part of Christ's Gospel eliminates any need for the terms Objective and Subjective. Especially in light of the fact that the work of the Holy Spirit graciously working Godly contrition over sin and faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life is equally as Objective as Christ's atonement for the world's sins in that it is all a work of God without any contribution from man. There has never been a need or reason for differentiating between Objective and Subjective when faithfully confessing God's Word.
I hope this helps clarify these critical issues.
Providing examples that the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification teaches a false object of faith which is contrary to the object of the Holy Spirit's faith. Compare these quotes to God's Word quoted above:
District President Jon Buchholz
“But the concept of an entirely Christocentric, completed forgiveness for all people that exists before faith and as the object of saving faith is found even in the writings of the ancient church fathers.” Page 11
Kurt Marquart being approvingly quoted by Pastor Jon Buchholz
“Absolution is prior to, and creates faith, not vice versa.” Page 32
Marquart
“On the one hand forgiveness is the result of faith, and thus comes after faith, and on the other hand it is the object of faith and therefore goes before faith.” Page 34
Buchholz
“It is very clear here that forgiveness, in the form of the absolution, exists before and independently of faith, and creates or gives birth to it. Forgiveness or absolution (that is, the Gospel itself) creates faith; faith merely receives or accepts forgiveness. Absolution can exist without faith (although its benefits of course go to waste unless faith receives them), but faith cannot exist without absolution.107” Page 35
http://azcadistrict.com/sites/default/files/papers/Buchholz_2012-10.pdf
Jon Buchholz
“The general justification accomplished in God’s great exchange at the cross provides the object for justifying faith which personally grasps the objective truth.” Page 6
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BuchholzJustification1.pdf
District President Jon Buchholz
“But the concept of an entirely Christocentric, completed forgiveness for all people that exists before faith and as the object of saving faith is found even in the writings of the ancient church fathers.” Page 11
Kurt Marquart being approvingly quoted by Pastor Jon Buchholz
“Absolution is prior to, and creates faith, not vice versa.” Page 32
Marquart
“On the one hand forgiveness is the result of faith, and thus comes after faith, and on the other hand it is the object of faith and therefore goes before faith.” Page 34
Buchholz
“It is very clear here that forgiveness, in the form of the absolution, exists before and independently of faith, and creates or gives birth to it. Forgiveness or absolution (that is, the Gospel itself) creates faith; faith merely receives or accepts forgiveness. Absolution can exist without faith (although its benefits of course go to waste unless faith receives them), but faith cannot exist without absolution.107” Page 35
http://azcadistrict.com/sites/default/files/papers/Buchholz_2012-10.pdf
Jon Buchholz
“The general justification accomplished in God’s great exchange at the cross provides the object for justifying faith which personally grasps the objective truth.” Page 6
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BuchholzJustification1.pdf
Thanks, Paul, for your kind attention to my question and comment.
Much as I appreciate what "the fathers" had to say about 1 Timothy 4:9,10, I'm more interested in what our Savior says through the inspired pen of the Apostle. I have a hard time understanding how most of the commentators you quoted could argue that Paul's words are analogous to Jesus' words in Matthew 5:45, that Jesus is the "Savior of all men" only with respect to their material well-being. There is absolutely nothing in those words or within the context of those words to suggest that the Apostle Paul was calling Jesus "the Savior of all men," only with respect to divine providence. Is that the message for which Paul and Timothy were "laboring and striving," that Jesus provides for your earthly needs, whether you believe in him or not? No, they were laboring and striving to proclaim the eternal salvation that is found in Christ Jesus alone, whether you believe it or not. They were called to proclaim, "Jesus is your only Savior" (whether you believe it or not, though I wouldn't suggest that you NOT believe it). I agree with you that Gerhard's understanding is the best of those of whom you quoted. The others, in my estimation, can be kindly disregarded.
As for John 3:36, I understand those words to be saying that the reason for the Father's wrath is NOT that Jesus' work of salvation for all people is somehow incomplete ("It is finished."), and I know that you yourself clearly assert that Jesus has made atonement for the sins of all people. The reason for the wrath described inJohn 3:36 is that an unbeliever "rejects the Son," who is, in fact, the Savior of all men. In other words, they will not be saved, even though, for all intents and purposes, salvation was theirs in Jesus. That reality highlights just how sad and stubborn unbelief is (and that God's eternal judgment is so many ways self-inflicted), as Jesus himself expresses in Matthew 23:37.
In the end, I think it's real important that we define our terms when controversy arises, otherwise we are very likely to talk past one another. It is also beneficial, I believe, to heed the advice of Prof. Joh. Ph. Koehler: "This must be observed above all in controversy. Fairness demands that we seek to understand our opponent, not as his words can or must be understood, but as he wants them to be understood. That provides first the right basis for the same understanding of the terms, without which an agreement is impossible from the outset" ("The Analogy of Faith," The Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 1, p. 263).
I'm signing off, as I don't think I have much more to add to this discussion.
Much as I appreciate what "the fathers" had to say about 1 Timothy 4:9,10, I'm more interested in what our Savior says through the inspired pen of the Apostle. I have a hard time understanding how most of the commentators you quoted could argue that Paul's words are analogous to Jesus' words in Matthew 5:45, that Jesus is the "Savior of all men" only with respect to their material well-being. There is absolutely nothing in those words or within the context of those words to suggest that the Apostle Paul was calling Jesus "the Savior of all men," only with respect to divine providence. Is that the message for which Paul and Timothy were "laboring and striving," that Jesus provides for your earthly needs, whether you believe in him or not? No, they were laboring and striving to proclaim the eternal salvation that is found in Christ Jesus alone, whether you believe it or not. They were called to proclaim, "Jesus is your only Savior" (whether you believe it or not, though I wouldn't suggest that you NOT believe it). I agree with you that Gerhard's understanding is the best of those of whom you quoted. The others, in my estimation, can be kindly disregarded.
As for John 3:36, I understand those words to be saying that the reason for the Father's wrath is NOT that Jesus' work of salvation for all people is somehow incomplete ("It is finished."), and I know that you yourself clearly assert that Jesus has made atonement for the sins of all people. The reason for the wrath described inJohn 3:36 is that an unbeliever "rejects the Son," who is, in fact, the Savior of all men. In other words, they will not be saved, even though, for all intents and purposes, salvation was theirs in Jesus. That reality highlights just how sad and stubborn unbelief is (and that God's eternal judgment is so many ways self-inflicted), as Jesus himself expresses in Matthew 23:37.
In the end, I think it's real important that we define our terms when controversy arises, otherwise we are very likely to talk past one another. It is also beneficial, I believe, to heed the advice of Prof. Joh. Ph. Koehler: "This must be observed above all in controversy. Fairness demands that we seek to understand our opponent, not as his words can or must be understood, but as he wants them to be understood. That provides first the right basis for the same understanding of the terms, without which an agreement is impossible from the outset" ("The Analogy of Faith," The Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 1, p. 263).
I'm signing off, as I don't think I have much more to add to this discussion.
I'm more interested in what our Savior says through the inspired pen of the Apostle.
Come on, Pete. Let's not pretend that Chemnitz and Melanchthon weren't interested in what their Savior had to say. We're not talking about reprobates here. Perhaps they were simply relying on the analogy of faith, which makes it clear that God has not already "saved" all men, since most men remain condemned in Satan's kingdom and will never be "saved" at all--which isn't God's fault, but it's still the reality.
The work of "salvation," as defined by Scripture, is "finished" when the Holy Spirit brings people into the kingdom of Christ. The Holy Spirit has a vital role in God's plan of salvation. Father, Son and Spirit.
Christ's completed work was the earning or meriting or acquiring of the gift of salvation. He was not finished "saving" people at Calvary. To say that salvation was "finished" at Calvary is, at best, imprecise. That's why the Scriptures rightly say that "Baptism now saves you."
You can't say that the wrath of John 3:36 is only for "rejecting" the Son. You can't reject something that has never been presented to you, and children when they are conceived and born, like all who have never even heard the Gospel, cannot be said to "reject" the Son about whom they have never heard. Nevertheless, the Scriptures say that they are born in sin and are children of wrath until they are converted. Surely you are not saying that people are born with a righteous status before God until they hear the Gospel and reject it?
The simpler answer is that they are born as sinners, condemned because they have no righteousness with which to be justified. Since they do not know Christ, they do not trust in Christ and so do not receive His righteousness, which comes only by faith. Therefore, they remain under wrath and were never justified in the first place.
Come on, Pete. Let's not pretend that Chemnitz and Melanchthon weren't interested in what their Savior had to say. We're not talking about reprobates here. Perhaps they were simply relying on the analogy of faith, which makes it clear that God has not already "saved" all men, since most men remain condemned in Satan's kingdom and will never be "saved" at all--which isn't God's fault, but it's still the reality.
The work of "salvation," as defined by Scripture, is "finished" when the Holy Spirit brings people into the kingdom of Christ. The Holy Spirit has a vital role in God's plan of salvation. Father, Son and Spirit.
Christ's completed work was the earning or meriting or acquiring of the gift of salvation. He was not finished "saving" people at Calvary. To say that salvation was "finished" at Calvary is, at best, imprecise. That's why the Scriptures rightly say that "Baptism now saves you."
You can't say that the wrath of John 3:36 is only for "rejecting" the Son. You can't reject something that has never been presented to you, and children when they are conceived and born, like all who have never even heard the Gospel, cannot be said to "reject" the Son about whom they have never heard. Nevertheless, the Scriptures say that they are born in sin and are children of wrath until they are converted. Surely you are not saying that people are born with a righteous status before God until they hear the Gospel and reject it?
The simpler answer is that they are born as sinners, condemned because they have no righteousness with which to be justified. Since they do not know Christ, they do not trust in Christ and so do not receive His righteousness, which comes only by faith. Therefore, they remain under wrath and were never justified in the first place.
Brett, you highlighted a major sticking point in this whole discussion.
You quoted DP Buchholz as saying, "The general justification accomplished in God’s great exchange at the cross provides the object for justifying faith which personally grasps the objective truth."
The second point has to do with "God's great exchange." There is a critical difference here between the two sides. The UOJ side teaches that God's great exchange was "finished" or completed 2,000 years ago.
But that is not what Luther taught about the "blessed exchange" (as he called it). More importantly, it is not what the Scriptures teach.
The Scriptures teach (2 Cor. 5:21) that God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
UOJ proponents read (or at least treat) this verse as saying that "all people were in Christ when He died on the cross and all people became the righteousness of God at that moment." In other words, the sins of all were charged to Christ, and His righteousness, in turn, was imputed to all people.
(Buchholz tries to run away from the term "imputed" here because the imputation of Christ's righteousness is so clearly tied to faith alone. But one cannot have the justification of sinners apart from the imputation of righteousness.)
The Scriptures teach that the sins of all were charged to Christ and He suffered for them all on the cross. But the other part of the "exchange," where His righteousness is imputed to sinners, was not completed 2,000 years ago, but only takes place as the Holy Spirit brings people to faith in Christ. His righteousness is only credited or imputed to believers, although He suffered for the sins of all.
The dangerous teaching of UOJ creates a fictional "completed exchange" at the cross and makes it the object of faith, so that, unless you believe that you, together with all people, were justified before you were born, you have no saving faith. I know that sounds extreme, but I have heard it put just that way from some of the more vehement supporters of UOJ.
Dear Paul:
I also know that you know how the Ohio and Iowa men armed themselves with so-called "Analogy of Faith" in the early 20th century in order to ignore what the clear Scriptures say about the doctrine of election. My only point is that we should have our discussion on the basis of what the inspired writer has to say. Just because Paul's words in 1 Timothy 4:9,10 don't square with your fixed formula/sytem (or someone else's, for that matter), you're not allowed to dismiss clear words of Scripture by means of the so-called "Analogy of Faith." VDMA.
Grace and peace,
Peter
I also know that you know how the Ohio and Iowa men armed themselves with so-called "Analogy of Faith" in the early 20th century in order to ignore what the clear Scriptures say about the doctrine of election. My only point is that we should have our discussion on the basis of what the inspired writer has to say. Just because Paul's words in 1 Timothy 4:9,10 don't square with your fixed formula/sytem (or someone else's, for that matter), you're not allowed to dismiss clear words of Scripture by means of the so-called "Analogy of Faith." VDMA.
Grace and peace,
Peter
Peter, that's a red herring. If you really want to stick with what the inspired writer says in 1 Tim. 4:9-10, then you will leave it at "Savior of all men" and let it refer to who the living God is, rather than interpret it to mean "the One who has already objectively saved all men and declared them righteous in His sight." I daresay, such an interpretation comes neither from the inspired text nor from the analogy of faith, but from the Analogy of UOJ.
Peter said:
"In the end, I think it's real important that we define our terms when controversy arises."
I also think that's vitally important especially in this debate.
The Book of Concord defines Justification as taking place "by grace alone, through faith alone, through the Word alone" (Solid Declaration III:25 et al.).
Today we have a new definition - or new way of parsing the definition - of Justification that does not include faith or the Word (i.e. "Objective Justification"). Hasn't this new definition been what causes confusion and contributes to faulty ways of explaining how a person is saved (righteous saints in hell, etc.)?
What was inadequate with the "old way" of defining Justification that we needed to come up with a "new and improved version." If it's because there is confusion about the role of faith in a person's salvation, how about re-affirming the definition and role of faith - as the Book of Concord does adequately.
These theologians have a definition of Justification that seem to be at odds with each other. Who's right? Who's wrong? Can there be a compromise position?:
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/chemnitz-on-judicial-or-forensic.html
+ Pr. Jim Schulz
"In the end, I think it's real important that we define our terms when controversy arises."
I also think that's vitally important especially in this debate.
The Book of Concord defines Justification as taking place "by grace alone, through faith alone, through the Word alone" (Solid Declaration III:25 et al.).
Today we have a new definition - or new way of parsing the definition - of Justification that does not include faith or the Word (i.e. "Objective Justification"). Hasn't this new definition been what causes confusion and contributes to faulty ways of explaining how a person is saved (righteous saints in hell, etc.)?
What was inadequate with the "old way" of defining Justification that we needed to come up with a "new and improved version." If it's because there is confusion about the role of faith in a person's salvation, how about re-affirming the definition and role of faith - as the Book of Concord does adequately.
These theologians have a definition of Justification that seem to be at odds with each other. Who's right? Who's wrong? Can there be a compromise position?:
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/chemnitz-on-judicial-or-forensic.html
+ Pr. Jim Schulz
