Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed: Some Comments from Intrepid Lutherans. Anonymous David Clearwood (David Boisclair) Cites Another Anonymous Writer (Jay Webber?)

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Some Comments from Intrepid Lutherans.
Anonymous David Clearwood (David Boisclair) Cites
Another Anonymous Writer (Jay Webber?)

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/luthers-translation-of-2-corinthians-519.html?showComment=1360692978067#c5810984708481476783

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...: David,

When you say, Objective Justification is simply the forgiveness of sins won by Christ in His vicarious atonement,this is not accurate, nor is it how the WELS is treating OJ. I clearly, repeatedly and emphatically confessed before the WELS presidium that Christ won the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation for all people by the satisfaction for sins that He made on the cross. There was no doubt as to my confession of this.

Nevertheless, the WELS condemned that confession as heretical and called me to repentance for it.

It is not enough for OJ to say that Christ won forgiveness for all. OJ requires that one also say that "winning forgiveness for all" means that "God forgave all people and declared all people righteous, whether they believe in Jesus or not."; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 9:29 AM
Brett Meyer said...: Thanks for your reply David.

You ask, “Why must OJ be seen as a contradiction of SJ?” The contradictions are established between the entire doctrine of UOJ and Scripture. And because the Lutheran Confessions are a faithful explanation of Scripture the contradictions are visible there as well. Here are a few:
According to UOJ, Christ’s atonement was the justification of the entire unbelieving world. According to Scripture Christ’s atonement was the payment for the world’s sins – and thereby all righteousness resides in Christ and obtaining Christ as Mediator through faith alone that righteous robe washes the individual from all sin. (it’s rationalism to extrapolate if/then doctrinal statements from this when Scripture clearly teaches differently: Buchholz teaches the unbelieving world’s debt of sin has been canceled and God is at peace with them. Scripture teaches outside of the gracious gift of faith the world remains under God’s wrath and condemnation over their sin and they will die in them if they remain in unbelief – never obtaining Christ as their Mediator through faith alone.)

According to UOJ, the object of faith is Objective Justification. UOJ teaches the only thing that can create faith is something that was true before faith. It teaches that faith clings to God’s declaration that the individual was already justified: forgiven all sin and righteous before they believed. Scripture teaches that the object of faith in Christ and Him crucified.

According to UOJ, faith is only an empty hand which simply receives the benefit of what was already declared to be true. It teaches was true was the unbelievers reconciliation with God, the adoption of sons, forgiveness and righteousness. The benefit it receives is eternal salvation. Scripture teaches faith is Christ’s righteousness which is created solely through Word and Baptism, strengthened in Holy Communion and through which an individual dies to sin, is raised to Life as an adopted son of God, regenerates the individual to be Spiritually minded, receives Christ’s righteousness for the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation. (UOJ teaches that if faith does anything but receive then it becomes a work of man and that is condemned as synergism).

The list goes on.

Would you agree that if any of the tenets doctrine of Objective Justification were to fail when compared to Scripture that the whole doctrine needs to be questioned for its faithfulness to Christ and His Word?

Cont...; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 10:08 AM
Brett Meyer said...: Cont...

The following are failings that have been shown in the doctrine of UOJ (both OJ and SJ):
UOJ establishes the forgiveness of sins as the object of faith. Scripture establishes Christ and Him Crucified as the object of faith.
UOJ teaches God canceled the debt of sin to the whole unbelieving world. Scripture teaches the unbelieving world remains under God’s wrath and condemnation because of their sin and will die in them if they do not repent and believe on Christ alone.
UOJ teaches God has reconciled the world unto Himself through Christ. Scripture teaches the unbelieving world is not reconciled because they have not obtained Christ as their Propitiation or Mediator through faith alone.
UOJ teaches that God canceled the world’s debt of sin at Christ’s atonement. But they will go to Hell for the sin of unbelief if they don’t believe they’ve been forgiven, declared righteous and worthy of eternal life. Scripture teaches Christ died and paid for the sin of unbelief which the whole world was born with. By faith in Christ alone all sins are forgiven by God – even unbelief.

You state, “Yes, an unbelieving eating and drinking of the Lord's Supper is an eating and drinking of judgment on such a communicant. In such a case the forgiveness of sins/justification is not received by such an unworthy (unfaithful) communicant.”
Actually UOJ teaches the unbelieving communicant is already forgiven through the body and blood of Christ (OJ) but they do not receive the benefit of that forgiveness without faith. Scripture teaches that Christ’s body and blood do not impart forgiveness (nor the benefit of it) to unbelievers but, in fact, the unbeliever is condemned by it. UOJ teaches in opposition to Scripture regarding the effect of Christ’s body and blood to unbelievers. “For Christ’s sake” is reserved only for those with the Holy Spirit’s faith as the Confessions faithfully explain.

In response to your last question – the Lutheran Synods teach that faith is not a cause by which God forgives the individual. In fact UOJ teaches forgiveness must already be in the individuals account. If only the individual would believe it was in their account then they would benefit from it and if forgiveness was conferred only by faith then faith becomes a synergistic work. This is the exact same doctrine that Huber was teaching and which the defenders of the Lutheran Confessions – the Wittenberg theologians condemned.; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 10:09 AM
David Clearwood said...: Paul, you run the risk in denying Objective Justification of casting doubt on the extensiveness of Christ's atonement. I know you and I disagree on the exegesis of 2 Cor. 5:18-20 which I believe clearly teaches Objective and Subjective Justification. You disagree. That is at the center of this controversy.

Let me ask you this question: Does the Wisconsin Synod or any of its theologians ever aver what you have just posted: "God forgave all people and declared all people righteous, whether they believe in Jesus or not"?

The problem is that you stop there. There is more to be said. Jesus said it, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be damned" (Mark 16:16).

Christ Himself is our "justification" (1 Cor. 1:30), whom we receive by faith. [I am taking "dikaiosyne" in one of its several meanings, "justification." In Christ the entire world is justified through His death and resurrection. However, this does no one any good if he does not believe in it by the grace of God.

What is involved here is the proclamation of Law and Gospel properly distinguished. I am certain that any time the Wisconsin Synod speaks of Objective Justification, they properly divide Law and Gospel and point out that just because the world of sinners is justified that does not mean that all are saved regardless of whether they have faith or not.

One thing that all of us can agree on is that anytime one confesses the faith or teaches the faith one should be very careful how one expresses it so as to remove doubt and misunderstanding.; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 10:27 AM
David Clearwood said...: Brett, thanks for your response.

I think that the problem with many of your statements is that they betray confusion of Law and Gospel.

This statement is a conspicuous example:

"UOJ teaches God canceled the debt of sin to the whole unbelieving world. Scripture teaches the unbelieving world remains under God’s wrath and condemnation because of their sin and will die in them if they do not repent and believe on Christ alone."

First of all, UOJ does not deny the second part of this statement.

The way this statement is phrased it has the Law contradicting the Gospel. Under the Gospel the whole world is forgiven in Christ, otherwise Christ did not atone for all sins. Under the Law "the unbelieving world remains under God’s wrath and condemnation because of their sin and will die in them if they do not repent and believe on Christ alone."

What I find troubling with your position is a denial, at least, of God's being reconciled to the world through Christ. Leaving aside the concept of Justification, which, of course, I believe to be general as well as individual, AT THE VERY LEAST, it is unscriptural to assert that in Christ God is not reconciled to the entire world, and that is what I hear you saying.

What I find troubling is the accusation that those of us who believe, teach, and confess Objective Justification DO NOT proclaim Christ as the object of faith.

It would be good for those who compose these theses to make sure that they properly distinguish between Law and Gospel and not let the Law control and silence the Gospel.; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 10:59 AM
Brett Meyer said...: David, you make the right deduction that I confess that God is not reconciled to the world through Christ. I would add...through Christ outside of the Holy Spirit working solely through the Means of Grace to work faith in Christ alone.

You are also correct to pivot this discussion concerning the true and faithful teaching of Justification - Christ's Gospel message - on reconciliation. As with other points of contention it is critical to our confessions.

You state, "What I find troubling with your position is a denial, at least, of God's being reconciled to the world through Christ."

I offer the following evidence that the unbelieving world is not reconciled to God through Christ outside of and before faith:

The Christian Book of Concord
"The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

"Paul on the contrary, teaches that we have access, i.e., reconciliation, through Christ. And to show how this occurs, he adds that we have access by faith. By faith, therefore, for Christ's sake, we receive remission of sins. We cannot set our own love and our own works over against God's wrath."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

"86] But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, becausethose reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, butthrough mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

"113] But faith, properly so called, is that which assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost in the heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain]. Of 114] this faith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the remission of sins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham] accounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the works of the Law, although love necessarily follows. 115]Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. 116]"
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

"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."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 12:33 PM
David Clearwood said...: Brett, thanks for the Confessions quotations.

I can see the difference as this:

I affirm these passages as speaking about individual justification, but I do not see them as ruling out a prior general justification while you are maintaining that the Confessions teach merely a justification by faith that rules out any prior justification.

Me: both and
You: either or

This is important to point out too: Even if A. Hunnius were condemning the doctrine of the Lutheran synods on Objective Justification, which I do not believe he is doing, his theses are not norma normata; hence, they are not authoritative.

Our salvation is all Jesus Christ, who is our justification, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). As the Christmas carol "Hark, the Herald Angels sing" puts it: "Peace on earth and mercy mild/God and sinners reconcilED"; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 4:34 PM
Brett Meyer said...: David, you make this statement, "I affirm these passages as speaking about individual justification..."

Note that according to the doctrine of UOJ, Objective Justification is the teaching that the whole unbelieving world has been reconciled to God as a result of Christ's atonement. Therefore God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven the whole unbelieving world. In fact, it is this reconcilation and justification declared to unbelievers which creates faith to believe it was true before they ever believed - Subjective Justification. OJ preceeds SJ according to UOJ.

Yet, you believe the BOC quotes I provided only deal with Subjective Justification - the side of the coin where God has already been appeased and the unbelieving world is reconciled to God. But in the quotes I provided God is not appeased. God is not reconciled. The unbelieving world has not been declared acceptable to God on account of Christ's atonement. And all of this at the very point where UOJ says God is appeased, reconciled and has accepted the world on account of Christ - Subjective Justification.

BOC
80] AAC That We Obtain The Remission of Sins By Faith Alone In Christ
"The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

Objective Justification is rejected by the Lutheran Confessions when it is solely by faith in Christ alone that men are acceptable to God.
BOC
71] But when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it of the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of justification or preparation for justification, so that not faith itself is that through which we are accepted by God, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, That Faith in Christ Justifies.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 8:09 PM
David Clearwood said...: In these quotations from Apology IV the statements affirming justification by faith are in contrast to work righteousness and not against our doctrine of Objective Justification. It is opposed to the Romanist contention that man can propitiate God with his own righteousness. Justification is an actus forensis (forensic act) by which the merciful God declares the sinner righteous for the sake of the Person and work of Jesus Christ, more specifically His vicarious satisfaction.

The doctrine of Objective Justification is centered in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. It is affirmed on the basis of Romans 5:15-18 and 2 Cor. 5:18-20. It affirms the extensive perfection of Christ's vicarious atonement that His atonement propitiates God as a ransom for ALL sins. On the basis of 1 Cor. 1:30 we believe that Christ Himself is our righteousness (justification), sanctification, and redemption. The object of faith is Jesus Christ and His vicarious atonement.

The statement that God is not reconciled to the world for the sake of Christ's perfect redemption is false because it is contrary to Scripture.

Objective Justification is a Gospel doctrine, not a Law doctrine; hence, it must not be subject to modification by the Law, which reveals the wrath of God.

Those who are in Christ receive His forgiveness by Spirit-wrought faith through the means of grace. Those who are not in Christ are not justified individually, though Christ died for them (Rom 14:15) and paid a ransom for them (2 Peter 2:1). Faith does not add anything as a ground for justification, the vicarious atonement of Christ is sufficient extensively and intensively. Faith is merely the receiving organ given by God the Holy Spirit. When we believe, teach, and confess sola fide, we are believing, teaching, and confessing that we are not justified by anything other than the perfect righteousness of Christ.

The long and short of it is that these passages from the Confessions do not rule out Objective Justification, and I do not believe that Aegidius Hunnius's theses against Huberianism condemn the doctrine of the Lutheran synods. Huber could be said to teach an objective justification of a sort, but he excluded faith. This the Lutheran synods do not do nor have never done. Huber can be said to be a Universalist, which was the offense that Hunnius was polemicizing against. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11:6; Mark 16:16) because faith is the organum leptikon that receives Christ's perfect righteousness (Justification). This view of Huber that I have comes from the Hunnius theses against Huberianism, and these theses indicate that Huber excluded faith from Justification. I must assume that Huber absolutely excluded faith from Justification unless there is further evidence from other things that he wrote.; FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AT 11:18 PM
Christian Schulz said...: Okay, I guess simply, I'd ask of both, even though it's been stated before in varying fashions, what's the *object of justifying faith* and *what is the meaning of the phrase "to justify"* in historic, confessional, and therefore biblical theology.

If these two definitions/answers can't be agreed on from both sides, then no wonder there is a split.

Again, what is the object of justifying faith and also what does it mean "to justify" a sinner? Or what does it mean when God is said to "justify a sinner" or "declare them righteous?"

Christian Schulz; FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 12:44 AM
Christian Schulz said...: As far as Huber and faith, I understand that he required it just as much as it is today:

Samuel Huberus: Confutatio brevis, Libri, sub alieno nomine editi, de controversia in Theologos Wittebergenses, & Samuelem Huberum de ELECTIONS, Mulhusij 1595, p. 52:

“nondum tamen ipsa participatione in status salutis & felicitatis aeternae adducit, nisi fide per verbum & sacramenta, hoc beneficium sibi applicet, atque eo modo participet.” (“Does not yet through this participation [in universal atonement] bring man to the state of eternal salvation and blessedness, if he does not apply this benefit to himself through faith in the Word and the Sacraments and participates in that way.”); FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 8:43 AM
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...: Christian, those are good questions. Let's start with the historic definition of the word "to justify."

These are the two positive definitions of the word in the Book of Concord:

The word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins and to absolve a person from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ’s righteousness, which is credited by God to faith (Philippians 3:9). This use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. (Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration:III:17)

To receive the forgiveness of sins is to be justified, according to Psalm 32:1, “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven.” By faith alone in Christ…we receive the forgiveness of sins, although love follows faith. Therefore, by faith alone we are justified. We understand justification as the making of a righteous person out of an unrighteous one, or that a person is regenerated. (Apology to the Augsburg Confession:IV:76-78); FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 8:53 AM
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...: And just as a reminder, here is Chemnitz' definition. Notice that in all of these, they are actually defining the word "justify" as it is taught in the article of justification. To assert that they were only attempting to define *half* of the broader concept of "justification" is without evidence.

The meaning of the word 'justify' in this article is judicial, namely, that the sinner, accused by the Law of God, convicted, and subjected to the sentence of eternal damnation, fleeing in faith to the throne of grace, is absolved for Christ’s sake, reckoned and declared righteous, received into grace, and accepted to eternal life."; FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 9:01 AM
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...: Christian, as to your other question as to the object of justifying faith:

As often, therefore, as mention is made of mercy, we must keep in mind that faith is there required, which receives the promise of mercy. And, again, as often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to be understood, namely, the promised mercy. 56] For faith justifies and saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only because it receives the promised mercy. (Ap:IV:55-56)

Yet if any one wish a distinction to be made, we say that the object of hope is properly a future event, but that faith is concerned with future and present things, and receives in the present the remission of sins offered in the promise. (Ap:V:191)

Notice that the object of faith is not a verdict that was pronounced before we were born, but the divine promise of receiving forgiveness now, in the present tense, for the sake of Christ (who certainly made satisfaction for sins before we were born).; FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 9:08 AM
David Clearwood said...: I cannot improve on Paul Rydecki's answers to Christian Schulz. I also cannot deny the orthodoxy and salutary doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions and Martin Chemnitz.

What I disagree with is the disjunction between justification as it is cherished within God (Objective Justification) and justification as it is conferred and received by the person with Spirit-wrought justifying faith (Subjective Justification).

At least Pastor Rydecki avers: "for the sake of Christ (who certainly made satisfaction for sins before we were born)." At least he believes in the extensiveness of Christ's vicarious atonement. Without it the Gospel could declare no certainty.

Justification is an actus forensis (forensic act) by which a sinner is declared righteous, acquitted of sin. Since the 19th century the distinction was made between analytic and synthetic justification. Analytic justification would be the declaring righteous of one who is inherently righteous by his own works (God justified Christ analytically in His resurrection), and synthetic justification is what God does in justifying the ungodly for the sake of Christ (Romans 4:5): it is purely forensic in that the righteousness is an alien righteous (i.e. that of Christ) which is imputed to the sinner by faith.

The object of saving faith is the vicarious satisfaction of Christ. I demur from Pastor Rydecki's exclusion of God's general justification from this perfect redemption.

Sadly, there is a doctrinal difference.; FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 10:13 AM
David Clearwood said...: I would ask Mr. Schulz what he sees Huber saying in the quotation:

“nondum tamen ipsa participatione in status salutis & felicitatis aeternae adducit, nisi fide per verbum & sacramenta, hoc beneficium sibi applicet, atque eo modo participet.” (“Does not yet through this participation [in universal atonement] bring man to the state of eternal salvation and blessedness, if he does not apply this benefit to himself through faith in the Word and the Sacraments and participates in that way.”)

What is Huber's response to the implicit question here: is someone brought to eternal blessedness if he does not apply ...?; FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 10:17 AM
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...: David,

The object of saving faith is the vicarious satisfaction of Christ. I demur from Pastor Rydecki's exclusion of God's general justification from this perfect redemption.

That's interesting. You state the vicarious atonement as the object of faith, with which I agree. Then you "demur" from my exclusion of general justification, which you have yet to prove is actually taught in the Holy Scriptures, and was roundly rejected, by name, by the Lutherans in the 1590's. You haven't yet demonstrated either the Scriptural inclusion of this "general justification," or the orthodox Lutheran (that is, confessional) inclusion of it, and yet you fault me for excluding it.

You have invented doctrine that supersedes the Holy Spirit's revealed doctrine. I "exclude" this general justification from my doctrine, because the Holy Spirit doesn't include it in His divine teaching. I define justification with the Scriptures and the Book of Concord. You define it differently. I'm glad you recognize a doctrinal difference here. There surely is one.; FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 10:40 AM
David Clearwood said...: Well, Paul, I guess we agree to disagree in a gentlemanly way. I respect and admire your scholarship not to mention your love for the Lutheran Symbols, Luther, and his orthodox doctrinal heirs; however, I am dismayed that you make use of this gift to limit the Gospel in this appalling way. Your theology confuses Law and Gospel.

You did not adduce any evidence of Huber's connecting faith to justification in any way. We disagree on what I consider to be a significant difference between Huber and DP Buchholz's doctrine of justification in that Huber contended that it was conferred and received while DP Buchholz did not say any such thing. I believe that you bear false witness against the Lutheran synods of the former Synodical Conference.

Ultimately it all depends upon what Scripture says. You say that Romans 5:15-18 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 do not speak of a general justification on the part of God of the entire world. I maintain they do.

As to inventing doctrine I maintain that you have done so in excluding the scriptural doctrine of general justification. While you accuse me of adding to Scripture, I accuse you of subtracting from Scripture.

The question comes in on whether there is one justification or two, and it can be said as Phinehas Aaronson has put it on the thread of Huberianism and Justification that there is only one justification. It is cherished in God within Himself as His saving grace for the sake of Christ, and it is conferred and received through the means of grace upon the sinner by saving faith ("by grace through faith").

I stand with the Scriptures and the Confessions, but you contradict them. Yes, there is an extreme doctrinal difference because I believe that such a perversion of the articulus stantis et candentis ecclesiae is apostasy pure and simple.; FEBRUARY 12, 2013 AT 11:16 AM