 |
| Is it an accident that UOJ and Church Growth Enthusiasm gush from the same people? |
Thesis 13
Thus, to make the ‘justification of the Christ’ in any way similar to our justification in connection with
Christ is to cheapen the merit of Christ.19
Thesis 14
Again, to make the justification of the sinner anything less than the ‘justification of the Christ’ is to
cheapen the merit of Christ.20
Thesis 15
We must distinguish between what a passage could, conceivably, mean, what it most probably means,
and what it must mean. Failure to do so leads to eisegesis and the amassing of passages that ‘could possibly
fit’ under either understanding being used as if they proved one’s point and, worse, using those that
definitely do not fit as if they were intending to say something that they do not. Such is the case with,
e.g., the ELS’s explanation of the Small Catechism, where Question 210 asks, “Why do we say, ‘I believe
in the forgiveness of sins?’” and answers, “…because the Bible assures us that God the Father has
by grace forgiven all sinners and declared them righteous in Christ,” and attempts to use Romans 3:24
(as presented, “[All] are justified freely by His grace…”) in a way that completely divorces it from its
context.21
19 Since His justification is won by His own righteousness, whereas ours is given to us apart from any righteousness of our own.
20 Since what the justified have is the very righteousness of Christ Himself.
21 Catechism & Explanation: An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism, 2001, Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Mankato, MN. Question #210 is found on p. 143.
Thus far the ELDONA Justification by Faith Theses.
***
 |
| The Pietistic interpretation of 1 Timothy 3 is the one adopted by UOJ fans like Stephan, Walther, Jay Webber, and the rest. |
GJ -
KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy [our common confession - JLB]
great is the mystery of godliness:
God was
- manifest in the flesh,
- justified in the Spirit,
- seen of angels,
- preached unto the Gentiles,
- believed on in the world,
- received up into glory.
UOJ Enthusiasts, agreeing with Halle rationalists, argue that the moment Jesus was justified/raised, the entire world was also justified. Jay Webber, who tutors DP Jon Buchholz, likes to emphasize in Him, but in Him only applies to believers.
The JLB is the Jackson Living Bible, a constantly changing paraphrase of the New Testament, a parallel companion to the Jackson Literal Translation. The original Greek has one word, a positive word, used for confessing faith - as John the Baptist did in confessing he was not the Christ. Lenski has the word translated as confessedly, which is definitely an improvement over without controversy, closer to dynamic equivalency that most expect the Authorized Version.
The metrical phrasing suggests that this verse was a hymn or a hymnic confession used by many congregations. They agreed with these truths taught by the Holy Spirit.
The Halle gambit, taught to Stephan during his short stay, and passed on to Walther, rests upon the Easter absolution of the world. UOJ Enthusiasts never reconcile their Easter timeline with their other claim that this universal forgiveness and salvation happened the moment Christ died on the cross, because He said, "It is finished."
The Enthusiasts are creative copyists, borrowing false doctrine from one source and then another.
Theses 13 and 14 lack clarity. Once again, I am perplexed by the intention of #14, which seems to be clear only to the authors. The two theses seem to strike a chord, but I am not sure what that chord is.
Number 15 is quite good, because the paragraph gets at the heart of the problem. The Little Sect on the Prairie has maladroitly shoehorned UOJ into the clear teaching of justification by faith.
Pope John the Malefactor is a fanatic about this. He is so dishonest about UOJ that he answered a question about UOJ by turning the letter into "How can someone who denies OJ even call himself a Christian?" That was not the question, but it was certainly the agenda of Pope John, who was inept as a seminary professor and even more inept as a synod pope.
 |
| Karl Barth was content with one mistress, Charlotte Kirschbaum, next to him. The LCMS founder, Martin Stephan, had a flock of willing females; Walther did not know! - as his heirs keep saying today about their cover-ups. |
Knapp, who promoted double justification (Objective Justification and Subjective Justification) denied the Biblical basis for the Trinity - and he was considered an old guard Pietist. Later, Tholuck, Adolph Hoenecke's mentor, confessed he was a Universalist.
Thus the double-justification of Knapp easily became the justification of the entire world, without faith. Schleiermacher and Barth continued this line of rationalistic thinking. Barth made Jesus the Elect One in whom all the world was justified. Barth experts, including my former ND professor, now at Harvard, conclude that Barth's mistress wrote most of the famous Dogmatics. Kirschbaum shared Karl's bed and his passion for Marxism.
Barthian rationalism is the theology of Fuller Seminary today.
As Luther wrote, heaven and earth depend on one point of doctrine. This Rambach/Knapp error (so much more appealing from a Halle Pietist) became the Synodical Conference's UOJ.
This came up on Intrepid Lutherans in a most illuminating way:
...Continued from previous comment.
You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification -- certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating (subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching on the matter of Justification.
You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification -- certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating (subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching on the matter of Justification.
 |
| Enthusiast. |
I knew that Rambach was a pietist. I was not using his observations on this verse to discredit Chemnitz, but to supplement Chemnitz. His exegesis and reflections stand on their own, and should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of what he might have said on other topics on other occasions. And it is also clear that on this topic in particular, he was not inventing a new pietist notion, but was recapitulating the orthodox teaching of the orthodox theologian Quistorp. Theologians with pietist leanings were not wrong in everything they said, especially when they were repeating the sound teaching of orthodox theologians of earlier times.
Pastor Paul Rydecki had earlier observed:
To answer Rev. Webber's questions from before about 1 Timothy 3:16,
If Jesus' justification in the Spirit, as described in 1 Timothy 3:16, is not a vicarious justification that pertains to those whose sins he had carried to the cross, then is it a justification that pertains to Jesus personally? Did Jesus die for his own sins after all? Is the resurrection God's declaration to Jesus that Jesus' own sins are forgiven?
1 Timothy 3:16 is one of those stretches to find UOJ in Scripture, I think. Here's how Chemnitz interprets 1 Timothy 3:16 in his Loci. I agree with Chemnitz, and I think his explanation is so solid that it should resolve the issue for us:
This is the forensic or legal meaning of this word. But just as is the case in all languages, words are transferred from the specific to the general. Thus “justify” is sometimes used to approve, testify to, recognize, acknowledge, confess, and celebrate the fact that someone is righteous—granting, conferring, and attributing praise to his righteousness.Luke 7:29: “The people and the publicans justified God, but the Pharisees spurned the counsel of God.” Luke 16:15: “You justify yourselves before men.” Luke 10:29: “The scribe, wanting to justify himself …” Jer. 3:11 and Ezek. 16:51: “You have justified your sisters.” 1 Tim. 3:16: “He was manifested in the flesh and justified in the Spirit,” that is, the humility of His flesh offended many, and He was crucified as a misleader and a seditious man; but because of His divine works and the sending of the Spirit, He was declared and approved as the Son of God and the Messiah. (Loci Theologici, p.478).
If Jesus' justification in the Spirit, as described in 1 Timothy 3:16, is not a vicarious justification that pertains to those whose sins he had carried to the cross, then is it a justification that pertains to Jesus personally? Did Jesus die for his own sins after all? Is the resurrection God's declaration to Jesus that Jesus' own sins are forgiven?
1 Timothy 3:16 is one of those stretches to find UOJ in Scripture, I think. Here's how Chemnitz interprets 1 Timothy 3:16 in his Loci. I agree with Chemnitz, and I think his explanation is so solid that it should resolve the issue for us:
This is the forensic or legal meaning of this word. But just as is the case in all languages, words are transferred from the specific to the general. Thus “justify” is sometimes used to approve, testify to, recognize, acknowledge, confess, and celebrate the fact that someone is righteous—granting, conferring, and attributing praise to his righteousness.Luke 7:29: “The people and the publicans justified God, but the Pharisees spurned the counsel of God.” Luke 16:15: “You justify yourselves before men.” Luke 10:29: “The scribe, wanting to justify himself …” Jer. 3:11 and Ezek. 16:51: “You have justified your sisters.” 1 Tim. 3:16: “He was manifested in the flesh and justified in the Spirit,” that is, the humility of His flesh offended many, and He was crucified as a misleader and a seditious man; but because of His divine works and the sending of the Spirit, He was declared and approved as the Son of God and the Messiah. (Loci Theologici, p.478).
 |
| Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz never divorced the Word from the work of the Holy Spirit. They - not Rambach or Knapp or Stephan - gave us the Book of Concord. |
