Brett Meyer Asks - What Is the Object?

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/comparing-huberianism-and-lutheranism.html#comment-form

Brett Meyer said...

I'd like to add a few observations.

The Christian Book of Concord, the Lutheran Confessions, which all who accept divine calls from the Lutheran Synods have taken an oath to uphold, speak clearly that solely through faith in Christ alone are individuals accounted as acceptable to God the Father.

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

Note here that in this crystal clear doctrinal statement the entire contention as to whether the doctrine of Objective Justification - in any formulation - is faithful to Scripture is emphatically decided:
"by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God."

UOJ teaches that "for Christ's sake" the entire unbelieving world has been accounted righteous by God objectively without faith. But the Lutheran Confessions close the door on that teaching by stating "by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous". And by that righteousness, Christ's righteousness, believers are acceptable to God.

Therefore without faith, without the gracious gift of faith worked by the Holy Spirit solely through the Means of Grace, no man is acceptable to God.

Also note in the BOC quote above that the Lutheran Confessions only detail two ways in which "justified" is used in Scripture and neither apply to unbelievers. Justified only applies to believers in Christ. Yes, Christ died and paid for the sins of the whole world, the iniquity of the world was laid upon Him and he paid the accepted price. The result of that payment is that all righteousness resides in Christ and never apart from him. It is, in fact, this righteousness which exists in Christ which brings justification to those who obtain Christ as their Propitiation and Mediator through faith alone.

Again, it is a misdirection from the doctrine of UOJ which teaches justification and a declaration of the forgiveness of sins which resides in Christ due to his atonement. I contend that it is Christ's righteousness which resides in Him. This is the same type of misdirection UOJ commits when it places the forgiveness of sins as the object of faith and not Christ and Him crucified as Scripture teaches. Acknowledging this removes the dilemma UOJ creates and again removes all necessity for the contradictory terms Objective and Subjective.

FEBRUARY 6, 2013 AT 3:49 PM

Phinehas Aaronson said...

Brett,

I'm not sure that you've completely grasped the point I'm trying to make. You say, "The result of that payment is that all righteousness resides in Christ and never apart from him." I totally agree with you. I'm not sure who is claiming that righteousness resides apart from Christ, but it certainly isn't me. If you meant your post as a response to mine, perhaps you could reread what I've written and address what I've written. Thanks!

FEBRUARY 6, 2013 AT 4:54 PM

Brett Meyer said...

Phinehas, I appreciate your response and clarification.

Although your statement, "If you mean by "material sense" that justification actually and really exists in Christ regardless of and prior to the existence or nonexistence of faith, then I would be in agreement." triggered my consideration of the issue but the comment was directed toward the Lutheran Synod's teaching of Objective Justification and what the Confessions declare about "for the sake of Christ."

I would contend that Justification of the unbelieving world doesn't exist in Christ.

As you affirm, all righteousness exists in Christ.

The difference is that UOJ teaches God has made a declaration concerning the unbelieving world that "in Christ", or "for the sake of Christ" they are forgiven, righteous and worthy of eternal life. But the fact is they are not in Christ and may never be in Christ, since Scripture teaches Christ is a man's Propitiation and Mediator only, solely, through faith in Christ alone. It is a grave error for the doctrine of UOJ to teach that God has declared a divine verdict of not guilty on the unbelieving world who are not in Christ through faith.

That is why I believe it is incorrect to say that the unbeleiving world's justification exists in Christ. Scripture teaches that it's the righteousness of Christ which believers recieve through faith and that righteousness washes us from all sin. It is not the forgiveness of sins in Christ that washes us from all sin.

The key to this is understanding that the doctrine of UOJ falsely applies "for the sake of Christ" to a teaching that for the sake of Christ the whole unbelieving world has been declared forgiven, righteous and worthy of eternal life. In opposition to this teaching the BOC (as I quoted in my comment above) teaches that only by faith are we accounted anything that comes from Christ and are acceptable to God, "by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God."

This is in complete harmony with Galatians 5:4, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Christ is of no affect to unbelievers - God does not consider anyone in Christ except by faith alone.

As stated in the comment above, this is another example of the doctrine of UOJ establishing a different object than what Scripture teaches and declares.

I hope this helps explain the points I was trying to make. I appreciate your question and clarification.

FEBRUARY 6, 2013 AT 6:03 PM

Phinehas Aaronson said...

Brett, you're reacting to and arguing against what I have already described as overly broad formulation of UOJ.

The narrow (and correct, I believe) formulation of UOJ is that, in his resurrection, Jesus Christ, as a representative of every human being, was declared not guilty of the sins of every human being, which he had taken upon himself on the cross. It is universal in that Christ represented every single human being. It is objective in that this declaration took place completely within the Godhead and this righteousness is located only in the sphere of Christ.

Thus, the only way to access, receive, enjoy, possess, or benefit from this righteousness is to be "in Christ" through faith. 

***

GJ - I wonder how many of these UOJ experts have carefully read Luther's Galatians Commentary.

Some people would like to say they have a better, more subtle version of UOJ, but they agree on one thing - forgiveness of sin apart from faith - which is contrary to Scripture, especially the passages they cite.

Walther made a lot of noise about his great love for Luther and the Book of Concord. But he was marketing the Pietism of Halle that he learned from his own Pietistic endeavors and his syphilitic bishop, Martin Stephan.

Pietism taught universal righteousness from the resurrection of Christ. The Book of Concord, following the Apostle Paul, teaches justification by faith. Walther followed the thinking of Pietism, not Luther and not the Book of Concord.

---

Brett Meyer - Comment on Romans 5:18

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/more-questions-answered.html#comment-form

Brett Meyer said...

To what Pastor Rydecki wrote I would add this observation. In his response to Question #1 the WELS This We Believe confession is quoted in which they use Romans 5:18 to establish their doctrine of Objective Justification.

"All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified, for "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (Romans 5:18)."
http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/statements-beliefs/this-we-believe/justification

Note that WELS uses Romans 5:18 to establish their doctrine of Objective Justification where the whole unbelieving world has been justified: forgiven all sin. Note particularly that 5:18 is used to establish the objective side of the entire doctrine and not the subjective side (Subjective Justification) which they teach is when the individual accepts by faith their Objective Justification and is then saved by trust in that object.

The Catch22 is that if the justification in Romans 5:18 is Objective then the result of that same justification is Objective too. And the result is "...life for all men." Scripture reveals in the very same verse that the result of the justification in Romans 5:18 is eternal life.

To apply the justification in Romans 5:18 to the justification of the whole unbelieving world is to apply eternal life to the whole unbelieving world.

This is another example of why some people who contend against the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification believe that it teaches that the whole world has been justified unto eternal life. Individuals may confess the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification and deny that unbelievers are eternally saved but the doctrine's use of Romans 5:18 teaches that they are.

Romans 5:18, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." KJV

FEBRUARY 5, 2013 AT 1:06 PM

POST A COMMENT

Pastor Paul Rydecki - Intrepid Lutherans: Reconciling the world—but not without means

Intrepid Lutherans: Reconciling the world—but not without means:

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2013

Reconciling the world—but not without meansMore Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

I offer here another piece of Lutheran history on the Lutheran Church's historical understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

Some assert that God "finished" reconciling the world to Himself 2,000 years ago, and that He justified all people at that time ("not imputing to them their sins").  Now, they say, He has entrusted the ministers of the Word with the task of announcing that God finished reconciling the world to Himself in the past, and in this way, they say, people become "individually" or "subjectively" reconciled to God.  They claim that Paul is teaching two separate things in these verses:  (1) that God finished reconciling the world (i.e., all people) to Himself at the cross, and (2) that by preaching this truth, ministers of the Word enable hearers to become "subjectively" reconciled as well.

But that this is not how 2 Corinthians 5 should be understood is made clear by Martin Chemnitz's treatment of it in theExamination of the Council of Trent.  He ties the reconciling of the world to the means of grace, specifically to the Ministry of the Word.  God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself through the preaching ministry of Christ.  So also Christ is present in the authoritative preaching ministry of the apostles, still reconciling the world to Himself.

It is not as if God actually "completed" the reconciling of the world to Himself 2,000 years ago, and then gave the Apostles the ministry of telling the world that the reconciliation was completed.  Instead, God even now continues His work of reconciling men to Himself through this ministry.

I sense that some who balk at this understanding do so, for one reason, because the thought of such an authoritative Office of the Holy Ministry is repulsive to them.  They would rather see the Pastoral Office as simply announcing the fact that pardon has already been issued, so that the pastors are simply passing on information or communicating what was already true.  They don't like the fact that God actually and personally works through the ministry of the Word to pardon sins and to effect reconciliation.  But this is exactly what God says of the Office of the Holy Ministry, not that the apostles/pastors are to announce something that was already done in heaven long ago, but "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

 

10 Now this power of forgiving sin must not be understood to have been given to the priests in such a way that God had renounced it for Himself and had simply transferred it to the priests, with the result that in absolution it is not God Himself but the priest who remits sin. For Paul expressly distinguishes between the power and efficacy of reconciliation which belongs to God, and the ministry which was given to the apostles, so that it is God who reconciles the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19) and forgives sins (Is. 43:25), not however without means but in and through the ministry of Word and sacrament.

Ministers indeed are said to loose and remit sins on account of the keys, that is, because they have the ministry through which God reconciles the world to Himself and remits sins. Thus Paul says (2 Cor. 1:24) that although he has authority, he nevertheless does not lord it over their faith but is a servant and steward of the mysteries of Christ (1 Cor. 4:1), so that he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but He who gives the increase, namely God (1 Cor. 3:7). Nevertheless, he shows that the use of the ministry is useful and necessary, for, says he, we are co-workers, that is, assistants, whose labors God uses in the ministry, but where nevertheless all the efficacy belongs to Him. We are servants, says he, through whom you have believed. Likewise: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). Paul treats this distinction clearest of all in 2 Cor. 5:18–20. It is God who reconciles us to Himself through Christ, not counting our sins against us. To the apostles, however, He gave the ministry of reconciliation. But how so? “He entrusted to us,” says Paul, “the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

Thus this distinction honors God and gives Him the glory that properly belongs to Him; it also claims for the ministry the honor and authority it has according to the Word of God. For even as it is Christ who baptizes through the ministry and also imparts His body and blood, so also it is Christ who through the ministry absolves and remits sins.

Chemnitz, M., & Kramer, F. (1999). Vol. 2: Examination of the Council of Trent (electronic ed.) (559–560). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

'via Blog this'

LCMS/ELCA - Canadian Lutheran Online » Blog Archive » Lutheran Church–Canada and Roman Catholics begin talks

Participants of February’s meeting between LCC and the CCCB (left to right): Rev. Nolan Astley, Rev. Timothy Scott, Dr. Michael Attridge, Bishop Gerard Bergie, Rev. Dr. Thomas Winger, Mr. Jonas Abromaitis, Rev. Dr. John Stephenson, Rev. Warren Hamp

Canadian Lutheran Online » Blog Archive » Lutheran Church–Canada and Roman Catholics begin talks:

NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario – Representatives of Lutheran Church–Canada (LCC) and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) met together February 1 in an attempt to chart a course for formal talks between LCC and the CCCB. Participants of the Working Group have suggested “Christian marriage” in general and “pastoral preparation and support for Christian marriage” in particular as possible topics to guide ongoing discussions.

First steps toward conversation began through informal connections in the St. Catharines area, and were followed by a brief meeting between representatives of both sides in May 2012 to discuss the possibility of formal discussion. After conferring with its Permanent Council and Commission for Christian Unity, the CCCB has approved a three-year dialogue with LCC. LCC entered into the discussions at the recommendation of its President, Rev. Dr. Robert Bugbee, and the Commission for Theology and Church Relations.

At the Working Group’s February meeting, the Lutherans were represented by Rev. Nolan Astley (First Vice-President, LCC), Rev. Warren Hamp (Chairman of LCC’s Commission for Theology and Church Relations), Rev. Dr. Thomas Winger (President, Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary), and Rev. Dr. John Stephenson (Professor, Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary).  Representing the Roman Catholics were Bishop Gerard Bergie (Bishop of St. Catharines), Rev. Timothy Scott (General Councilor, The Basilian Fathers), Dr. Michael Attridge (Professor, St. Michael’s College), and Mr. Jonas Abromaitis (Senior Advisor for Ecclesial and Interfaith Relations, CCCB).

In September 2011, the International Lutheran Council (ILC)—of which LCC is a member church—met in Niagara Falls for its world conference. There it adopted a resolution seeking official dialogue with Roman Catholics on the international level, and encouraged member church bodies to seek out such discussions on the national level as well. Bishop Bergie was on hand for the event and brought greetings to the ILC on behalf of the CCCB.

——————–

'via Blog this'

Stand Up to Synodical Bullies - They Are Sore Afraid of the Word

I have changed permanently to a larger text size. My classmate calls me Mr. Magoo. I said, "John Milton is more dignified for a nickname."

This is 16 point Arial. It was 12 point before. I was changing text size after the initial editing and decided I liked it better.

I will  carefully consider all comments in a democratic and diapraxic way, thank everyone for the input, and continue to post in 16 point.

I have learned from my betters at The Love Shack, The Purple Palace, and The Little Vatican on the Prairie. As long as people think they are involved in the decision, they can be fooled into approving anything.

Close-up of Pope John the Malefactor.

WELS has two of these, both for sale.
Enroll in their money management seminar - today!

---

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "Stand Up to Synodical Bullies - They Are Sore Afra...":

"As long as people think they are involved in the decision, they can be fooled into approving anything."
A friend of mine calls this process "sham democracy". It seems to be very effective in implementing an agenda. Directly dictating to folks can make them feel powerless. If you hoodwink them into being an apparent stakeholder, they will feel empowered. Likewise, one should be cautious of studies, steering committees, facilitators, alleged groupthink exercises, etc. They are all rarely neutral. Once again, the church kelms the tactics of the corporate realm.

Loyal WELS Member - On the NNIV.Diaprax Says, "When Do You Want To Approve the NNIV? Now or Next Convention?"

Moo, the NNIV salesman from Wheaton College,
is the WELS expert on the NNIV's superiority.

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/02/wels-your-diaprax-is-showing.html


Yup. NIV2011 or <b>else!</b>

Even if they do vote for option 2, do we really expect to see anyone who gets published in official synod propaganda to admit that the NIV2011 is inferior to the ESV or HCSB by using either of those translations? 

Why limit it to just those 3 options? Why not add the KJV in? We used it for decades, or is the KJV now heresy, since it is clear on justification by faith alone?

So yeah, the translation of this report from WELS-speak to normal
English is:

"Vote for the NIV2011 now, or vote for option 2 and we'll continue complaining about how bad the ESV and HCSB are compared to the NIV2011 until the next synod convention, where, since all articles and materials will have been published with the NIV2011, we'll bring this vote thing up again. And don't you dare think about using something other than these three!"

Dr. Lito Cruz - Comment on CFW Walther and the Book of Concord

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/luthers-translation-of-2-corinthians-519.html#comment-form

LPC said...

If I may, I wish to add what I view as the arrogance of C F W Walther when it came to the doctrine of election. Apparently his opponents kept on quoting to him the writings of the BoC writers. Here is what he had to say...

The principal means by which our opponents endeavor to support their doctrine, consists in continually quoting passages from the private writings of the fathers of our Church, published subsequent to the _Formula of Concord_. But whenever a controversy arises concerning the question, whether a doctrine is Lutheran, we must not ask: "What does this or that 'father' of the Lutheran Church teach in his private writings?" for he also may have fallen into error; 

Is it likely the BoC writers erred on the topic of election as Walther supposed? Is that the only possibility?

Granted the BoC fathers were not fallible and they could have been inconsistent with themselves, but is that likely they deviated from what they wrote?


What about the possibility that it was Walther himself who misunderstood the teaching of the BoC when it came to election?

Which possibility do you test first, I say test first Walther before you test the BoC Fathers.


This is like saying the framers of the US Constitution should not be consulted when you want to understand what they meant as they might have been confused in their writings.

Is the BoC an art work that you can extrude it from those who framed it?

That is the height of folly.

LPC

***

After worshiping at the shrine of Walther,
many LCMS pastors now worship at Marian shrines.
They wait, like Paul McCain, for their miraculous lactation experience.

GJ - Dr. Cruz has a perfect example of SynCon thinking today - 

"Start with our guys and make that the gold standard of orthodoxy, no matter how much it deviates from the Confessions and the Scriptures. Ignore the Book of Concord and its authors, then wait for our new porno-paraphrase of the Bible to be ratified by a supine synod membership."

Pope Walther upgraded that by saying, "Start with me and judge all others by what I just wrote." His fake modesty is a fitting reflection of his fake congregationalism.

From Pastor Paul Rydecki - More Intrepid Lutheran Discussion on Justification by Faith

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/more-questions-answered.html#comment-form

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013

More questions answered

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

Mr. Lindee asked some questions in a comment on a previous post.  They are answered here.

Rev. Manthey-Zorn characterizes the position of the Synodical Conference regarding Justification, as follows:

In Christ forgiveness of sins, or justification, is already accomplished and is held in store for the entire world. When God accepted Christ’s atoning sacrifice for the entire world, He forgave the sins of all the world and justified the world unto eternal life. This forgiveness of sins and justification, which is in Christ, God offers to all the world by means of His Word and Holy Spirit. And whosoever receives this forgiveness of sins and justification possesses it. In this manner we receive, by faith, the forgiveness of sins and are justified and saved.

So, in the interest of "helping" a fruitful discussion, I pose a few questions for Rev. Rydecki:

1. How would you explain the difference between Manthey-Zorn's characterization of SC doctrine, and the doctrine you defend?

The first two sentences in the above definition confuse what Luther calls “the achievement of the forgiveness of sins” with “the function of the forgiveness of sins.”  (See, for example, his commentary on 1 Timothy 1:8, AE:28.) That Christ has achieved or won or merited or obtained the benefit of forgiveness (for all men) by His once-for-all sacrifice is witnessed throughout the Book of Concord, and I wholeheartedly confess this.

But as soon as someone says that “God forgave the sins of all the world,” now he has entered into the “function” or the “application” of the forgiveness of sins (that is, applying the forgiveness won by Christ to the world), and as all Scripture, Luther and the Book of Concord clearly teach, this application of what Christ won is only by the Word of God and only by faith.  

The phrase above “He forgave the sins of all the world and justified the world unto eternal life” is practically a paraphrase of the This We Believe interpretation of Romans 5:18. “We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ. This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends. It is a message relevant to people of all times and places, of all races and social levels, for "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18). All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified, for "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (Romans 5:18).

The problem is, the WELS interpretation of Romans 5:18 differs from Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Hunnius, and the Book of Concord.  If the WELS would admit that it is teaching differently from the Lutheran Confessions, I could at least respect its “rugged individualism.”  The fact that it continues to claim that it teaches nothing other than what the Confessions teach on this is becoming more and more untenable.

I have no problem with the third sentence from Manthey-Zorn above, except that the context makes clear that the Synodical Conference position was that the “trial” itself ended 2,000 years ago with a blanket pardon having been issued to all sinners. This negates any sort of “justification” taking place through the Word and by faith, since the actual “declaring sinners righteous” is said to have taken place 2,000 years ago.  In other words, “justification by faith” is a misnomer.  No one is justified by faith. They only receive the verdict already rendered in God's courtroom toward all men.  The Scriptural position, however, has the sinner standing in God’s live courtroom (see the post on Chemnitz’s forensic definition of justification) and being absolved by God as he flees in faith to the Throne of Grace.

And whosoever receives this forgiveness of sins and justification possesses it. In this manner we receive, by faith, the forgiveness of sins and are justified and saved.  These final two sentences indicate a distinction between the verdict that God supposedly rendered once for all and the sinner’s actual “possession” of that verdict.  It’s like God hit a baseball (called justification) into the air 2,000 years ago, and whoever catches it is said to “possess” justification.  In the language of Scripture, however, it is in time that God justifies sinners, and not “in time” as in, 2,000 years ago, but “in time” as in when a person believes in Christ.   To use my little analogy above, the position outlined by Manthey-Zorn calls it “justification” when God hits the ball, and he calls it “justification” when a person catches the ball.  Is this a "double justification"?  Is it using the word "justification" in two different senses?  Where is the "justification" for doing so?

The problem all along is that the Bible does not say anywhere that the trial itself is over, or that God issued a one-time verdict of justification on all men.  It does say repeatedly that sinners are justified when they believe in Christ.

2. What differences (if any) between Manthey-Zorn's characterization of SC doctrine and the variety of current UOJ positions can you identify?

There are several.  I’ll start with this idea of “possession.”  Marquart re-popularized this concept in asserting that all are forgiven, but no one actually “has” or “possesses” forgiveness until he believes.  But one of the original sources of UOJ, Eduard Preuss, states that it is not at all a matter of “possession” or “non-possession.”  He says that all “possess” forgiveness already, but not all “enjoy” it.  This mimics the langauge of WLS seminary professors, too.  All are forgiven (objective), but not all “enjoy” their forgiveness (subjective).

“Pray do not deceive yourself by making a distinction between possession and enjoyment. The whole earth has been in possession of forgiveness since the death of Christ on the cross. In the justification of the individual person the point is always the enjoyment, the fact that the righteousness of Christ saves me, is for my benefit, is enjoyed by me.”

Other UOJ proponents do not accept Marquart’s distinction at all and think he went too far in limiting God’s “unconditional” declaration of forgiveness upon all sinners, whether they believe in Christ or not. (See this link, for example:http://backtoluther.blogspot.com/2012/07/justification-darby-situation-part-9b.html)

I might lump current UOJ views into two general categories, with notable variations in each.  The first is probably more the understanding in WELS and the second is probably more the understanding in the LCMS.

(1) God imputed the righteousness of Christ to the world 2,000 years ago.  All (as many as were condemned by the sin of Adam) have been justified and forgiven as an immediate result of the work of Christ.  Justification actually “happened” once and only once, before any of us was born.  When sinners believe that they have already been justified, then they get to enjoy the status they already had, as far as God is concerned.  When sinners are said to be “justified” by faith, this is really a euphemism, since it is taught that justification already “happened” long before anyone heard the Word or believed.  Sinners aren’t really “justified” by faith at all.  They only receive the benefit of the “accomplished” justification.

(2) God imputed the righteousness of Christ back to Christ after He suffered on the cross.  And (logically) since He bore the sins of all, then (logically), when His righteousness was imputed back to Him, it was actually imputed to the whole world of sinners that was said to be “in Him.”  Therefore, through the Substitute, all people were justified.  That act of God 2,000 years ago is called by them “justification.”  When the Gospel of Christ is preached and this “general justification” is proclaimed, that is also called by them “justification.”  And when a sinner believes the Gospel, that is a third kind of “justification.”  So they speak of sinners being “justified,” but they mean the word differently in all three cases.

Both of these versions are confusing and have strayed from the language and the teaching of Scripture and the Confessions.  The teaching that sinners are only justified by faith in Christ is not only much simpler to understand.  It is Biblical through and through.

3. Some accuse those who hold to Justification by Faith Alone of Synergism. This is, apparently, a consequence of an in-time work of God in the Justification of the sinner, outside of the sinner himself – i.e., God does something objectively for man, then some condition is met in man (whether that condition is met in man by God, or in man by his own effort), to which God responds with a further “objective” work (i.e. an “in-time” declaration of forgiveness). Many are accusing you of Synergism on this account. How do you handle this? Do you say that Synergism is a Biblical doctrine, or do your accusers operate from an improper definition of Synergism? (Or have I, in this question, entirely botched the definition they are working from...?)

Synergism is the “working together with God” in one’s conversion/salvation.  It is not Biblical doctrine.  It seems to me that the Iowa and Ohio men slipped into this language, at least, and possibly the false doctrine itself.  For example, I reject this saying of Ohio (taken from the article you linked earlier), “We believe and confess that in the atoning work of Jesus Christ holy and merciful God has met us half-way, as it were.”

Ohio also went too far when they asserted that “had he (man) properly conducted himself — a thing he was able to do in the strength of such grace at work upon his heart — he would have been converted and saved without fail. From this it follows as a thing beyond dispute that in a certain respect conversion and salvation depend also upon man and not upon God alone. (Theol. Zeitblaetter, 1887, p. 325.)”

Iowa went even further in the wrong direction.  I completely reject this:  “Whether a man will be saved or lost depends, in the last analysis, upon that man's own free decision either for or against God’s grace. (Brobst, Theolog. Monatshefte, 1872, p. 49.)”

I further reject: “That two men may hear the Gospel and one of them come to believe while the other does not, this, according to the Bible, has its cause solely and entirely in man's decision (for or against the Gospel). (Ibid., p. 82.)”

And further: “The sober truth that man decides for or against salvation must be strongly emphasized. (Ibid., p. 98.)”

This is all rightly termed “synergism,” for it actively credits the free will of man with the ability and power to cooperate with God in his conversion.  This is very similar to Arminianism.  It is not remotely similar to what I teach.

But this is important:  To say that Iowa and Ohio got it wrong on this point does not mean that, de facto, the Synodical Conference got everything right.  A third option exists:  They both got some things wrong, especially where the Synodical Conference started formulating new language and novel interpretations of Scripture to defend their arguments.

Faith is the only divinely appointed means for justifying sinners.  It is God the Holy Spirit’s gift to men who were previously spiritually dead.  He works through the Word alone to make willing men out of unwilling men, to take men who are hostile to Christ by nature and turn them into men who look to Christ for mercy.  To Him alone belong the power, the credit, and the glory for a man’s conversion, and to His Word alone belongs the efficacy for creating and sustaining faith, whereby He justifies sinners.  To man alone belongs the fault for his sin, his unbelief and his damnation.  That is enough to understand.  Trying to figure it out beyond that is what has gotten people into trouble.