 |
The Chief Article, the Master and Prince,
the Article on which the Church stands or falls, is Justification by Faith Alone,
not the UOJ of rationalistic Pietism. |
Thesis 7
While we may have had a ‘received body of doctrine’ beyond Scripture and the Confessions in a previous
body of affiliation, the lack of ownership of the documents setting forth the same—and, thus, our
inability to modify such non-binding documents where they have misspoken—prevents us from adopting
the same as our own in such a way as to make them settlers of disputes. That is, the only way to
adopt a non-binding document over which we do not have ownership (and, thus, cannot alter) is to adopt
it as unalterable and binding; any other adoption is simultaneously both a burden and a waxen nose. Indeed,
the Confessions are subscribed
in toto and as is (that is, therefore,
quia), since there is no other
way truly to subscribe them.
Thesis 8
It is helpful to understand how a new (or refined) formulation of an article came to be—or, absent that
insight, to see how one might have seen justification for the new terminology in that which already existed.
“Objective Justification” may charitably be seen as a development from what Lutheran orthodoxy
confessed concerning the Throne of Grace (
Gnadenthron; i.e., the Mercy Seat, i.e., Christ), the ‘new location’ at which the sinner may be judged due to the Christ’s bearing of all sin, rather than being judged
at the seat of justice by the Law.
12
Yet, “Objective Justification” is a gross overstatement of this concept. The creation of such an alternate
place of judgment in Christ has the same effect for the sinner (in terms of providing an already established
reality to which one can look and which can be given through the Means of Grace) as would the postulating of a forensic declaration of mankind’s righteousness, but without the unfortunate baggage
13 of the latter and in accord with the clear ‘mercy seat’ language of both Testaments (Cf. Exodus 25:22; Hebrews 9:5 and Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2, etc.).
14
12 Cf., e.g., Aegidius Hunnius: “Justification is the act of God by which He deigns to consider the man who is frightened by the awareness of sins and who flees to the Throne of Grace with pure mercy, through and for the sake of the merit of Christ, apprehended by faith; and, having forgiven him his sins, He reckons him as righteous, free from damnation, and also an heir of eternal life, without any human merit and without any view of God toward the virtues or the works of man” (as quoted in Rydecki, “The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace,” p. 20). So, Chemnitz: “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. And although John does not employ the word ‘justify,’ yet he describes the doctrine in judicial terms: ‘He that believes is not judged; he does not come into judgment.’ ‘He sent His Son into the world, not that He should judge the world.’ And 1 John 3: ‘We have passed from death to life.’ In Acts 3 Peter says that ‘sins are blotted out.’
Paul explains this when he says, Col. 2, that the hand writing which was against us has been blotted out.” (Examination, Vol.1, 474).
13 “Baggage”; that is, the baggage of asserting a justification apart from faith, which the fathers expressly rejected: Hence Paul, when he expressly discusses justification in Romans 3 and 4, does not know of a justification apart from faith, and especially as Galatians 2 plainly says, “Man is not justified except by faith in Jesus Christ.” (Hunnius, Theses Opposed to Huberianism, Concerning Justification, Thesis 6)
“But how did the righteousness of Christ overflow to all men for justification, since not all men are justified?
We reply:
The Apostle is not talking about the application of the benefit, but about the acquisition of the benefit. If we want to descend to the application, that universality must be restricted to those who are grafted into Christ by faith. For as the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to all those who are descended from him by carnal generation, so the righteousness of Christ is communicated to all those who are grafted into Him through faith and spiritual regeneration.” (Gerhard,Adnotationes, on Rom. 5:18)
“3) If we wanted to go beyond the limits of the Apostolic comparison, someone could infer from the same that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to us through carnal generation, since the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to us in that manner. Likewise, one could infer that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to all men together, without any regard for faith or unbelief, since the sin of Adam is propagated to all through carnal generation.
“4) But since that is absurd, a distinction must fully be made between the acquisition and the application of the merit of Christ; or between the benefit itself and participation in the benefit. The acquisition of the merit, or the benefit itself obtained by the death of Christ is general. For as Adam, by his disobedience, enveloped all of his posterity in the guilt of sin, so Christ, who suffered and died for the sins of all, also merited and acquired righteousness for all. But this benefit is only applied to those who are grafted into Christ by faith, and only they become participants in this benefit.” (Adnotationes, Rom. 5:19)
Note, then: when Hunnius and Gerhard say that St. Paul knew of no justification apart from faith and that the righteousness of Christ being propagated to all men (i.e., a general, universal, or objective justification) is “absurd,” this is no mere treatment of the verses under consideration in a narrow use that allows for a broader use, but a declaration that a ‘broader use’ is not tenable.
14 We note that the Rev. Dr. Robert Preus also came to this conclusion late in his life, writing in his posthumously-published
Justification and Rome (St. Louis, Concordia Academic Press, 1997):
Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe. (Justification and Rome, p. 132, quoted approvingly from Calov, Apodixis Articulorum Fidei,Lueneburg, 1684)
Quenstedt says, It is not the same thing to say, “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us” and to say “Christ is our righteousness.”
For the imputation did not take place when Christ became our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is
the effect of His office. The imputation is the application of the effect of His office. The one, however, does not do away with the other. Christ is our righteousness effectively when He justifies us. His righteousness is ours objectively because our faith rests in Him. His righteousness is ours formally in that His righteousness is imputed to us. (Justification and Rome, p. 132, where fn. 76 gives the source as Systema, Par. III, Cap. 8, S. 2, q. 5, Observatio 19 (II, 787))
When does the imputation of Christ’s righteousness take place? It did not take place when Christ, by doing and suffering, finished the work of atonement and reconciled the world to God. Then and there, when the sins of the world were imputed to Him and He took them, Christ became our righteousness and procured for us remission of sin, justification, and eternal life. “By thus making satisfaction He procured and merited (acquisivit et promeruit) for each and every man remission of all sins, exemption from all punishments of sin, grace and peace with God, eternal righteousness and salvation.”
(Justification and Rome, p. 131, where in fn. 74 Preus gives the source of the quote and this note: “Systema, Par.
II, Cap.3, Memb. 2 S. 1, Th. 44 (II, 363). Cf. Abraham Calov, Apodixis Articulorum Fidei (Lueneburg, 1684), 249: ‘Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God’s children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.’”)
But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism and the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfilled and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith.
(Justification and Rome, p. 72)
***
Thesis 7
Thesis 7 is a significant statement, which should be praised and reproduced in all Lutheran groups, sects, and factions. An attitude exists in the Synodical Conference and ELCA, an attitude assuming that anything voted upon in the past has canonical status and cannot be disputed. Instead, that precious item, the product of political
toing and
froing, must determine the nature, language, and philosophy of all future publications.
WELS has the peculiar obsession with making an essay canonical, and the Little Sect on the Prairie supports this fantasy. Here is Jay Webber's endorsing the fatuous rant of WELS DP Jon Buchholz, whose new godson is Jeff Gunn (Jesus is my rice):
God's Counselor, Jay Webber:
And I have already noted that this is the balanced and careful approach of Jon Buchholz in the WELS as well.
Notable is Webber's long-standing public mockery of WELS; Jay is also known for making fun of ELS leaders, until he is 100 miles from Mankato, when he starts bowing and scraping. But this endorsement of Buchholz is really self-approval, since Webber has been feeding UOJ lines to the DP for some time. Jon-Boy is too busy with his real estate business and home improvement projects to study the Word or the Confessions, and Jay stopped reading anything deeper than Kilcrease decades ago. And someone said in another context years ago - "What a pair!"
Thesis 7 correctly disposes of all that pseudo-canonical nonsense and turns the audience back to the one and only confessional statement that is established as the voice of Christian Lutheran doctrine - the Book of Concord.
PS - Some recent outbreaks of humor in WELS - UOJ is "settled doctrine" - according to Jon Buchholz. According to Marcus Mantei, it is "the clear teaching of our [Holy Mother] synod."
Thesis 8
Rolf Preus, who twice agreed with the Book of Concord (by email to me and once on SpenerQuest) has tried to argue that his father always taught and endorsed UOJ, even though Rolf is listed as an editor of
Justification and Rome.
Members of the Great Kidnapper faction have to agree with UOJ, so they are compelled by the dogma of Waltherian infallibility to stick with the Easter absolution of the entire world, as taught by Walther's syphilitic bishop, Martin Stephan, student of Halle University.
But I am stuck with the actual documents - what Rolf wrote
twice and what his father published. Yes, Robert did endorse some of the worst, ignorant, Pietistic nonsense ever - from distant relative Edward Preuss. Paul McCain and Jack Cascione never moved off that pile of dung, as shown repeatedly on this blog.
 |
Paul McCain also endorsed
"justified before we were born."
That may also justify his plagiarism of Roman Catholic dogma. |
I also have an essay by Robert Preus where he combined the Pietistic quotations with these quotations. That essay was reprinted at Ft. Wayne (Xerox room) and sold to LI at Bethany. Brett Meyer now has it in his archives.
Everyone can buy
Justification and Rome, to check out the quotations in this thesis. The quotations are from the era of Lutheran Orthodoxy, after the Book of Concord but before the Age of Pietism.
Several things grew out of Pietism:
- Halle University.
- Unionism.
- Biblical rationalism as the new "scientific" approach to the Scriptures.
- Cell groups.
- UOJ.
So - if anyone tries to claim a consistent endorsement of UOJ as the heritage of the Lutheran Church, that can be easily refuted. The opposite is true. The Lutheran Church only taught justification by faith:
- During the Reformation.
- During the Book of Concord era.
- After the Book of Concord era.
 |
Leyser was an editor of the Book of Concord
and an early expert on justification by faith. |
The exception was one
Samuel Huber, a former Calvinist who was fired for teaching a version of UOJ at Wittenberg. That happened immediately following the Book of Concord and included in its refutation of Huber an editor of the Book of Concord (P. Leyser).
I cannot find any UOJ eructations again until Rambach, a Jay Webber favorite, and George Christian Knapp, a dominant professor of theology at Halle University. Knapp's lectures were a key resource for American Protestants throughout the 19th century. The original in German would have been a European staple as well. The double-justification scheme loved by SynCons can be found in the English translation of Knapp (by Calvinist Woods); Walther endorsed the language, which traveled to Europe and became known in German.
 |
Note - this was a key book in Europe - in German,
and available in English before Bishop Stephan brought his harem
to America. Woods was a superstar among Calvinists. |
Thus the modern birth of UOJ can only be discovered among the Pietists and Calvinists. Shame on Wilken and the rest for calling justification by faith "Calvinism."
 |
Luther had the SynCons pegged.
The Church Growthers in Columbus were my Harvard and Yale.
They forced me to study the Confessions and Luther,
to create Megatron the Database, to refute them. |
Links to the individual ELDONA Justification by Faith Posts.
