 |
| The Torquemada of "Steadfast Lutherans" - Jim Pierce, ready to pounce on faith whenever it appears. |
- Brett Meyer @Joe Krohn #5
No. Christ did not redeem the unbelieving world out from under the Law as UOJ teaches in its abuse of Scripture.Christ paid for the whole worlds sins. He paid for the iniquity of the whole world. Therefore all righteousness is in Christ and never apart from Him. If you’re implying the sense of the word redeemed means to pay for sins – yes, Christ paid for the whole world’s sins. If you’re implying the sense of the word redeemed means to justify – no, you are contending against Scripture and the Christian Book of Concord. This confession is clarified by the following quotes of the BOC recommended Galatians Commentary and the Solid Declaration.Luther’s Galatians Commentary:
74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems usfrom under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith. He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed.
As he believes, so is it with him. Faith carries with it the child-making spirit. Theapostle here explains by saying that Christ has redeemed us from under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sons. As before stated, all must be effected through faith.” Page 18Luther’s Galatians Commentary:
“82. Note, the Son of God is put under the Law in that he redeemed us who were under it. For us, for our good, he effected all; not for himself. He purposed to manifest toward us only love, goodness and mercy. As Paul has it (Gal 3, 13),
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.” In other words: For us, Christ put himself under the law and complied with its demands, designing every believer of this fact to be redeemed from under the Law with its curse.” Page 20BOC: 4] In opposition to both these parties it has been unanimously taught by the other teachers of the Augsburg Confession that Christ is our righteousness not according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human nature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God’s children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness.
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.phpI hope this clarifies. - February 26th, 2014 at 19:17 | #12Btw, when it is said that God is reconciled to the world in Christ, that is not some nominalistic move where the action takes part in the person receiving faith in Christ, that is an action that takes place in God. It is a real change in relation between God and the world. Of course, that doesn’t mean the world is reconciled to God; i.e. the world loves God!Indeed, those dead in sin hate God!
- February 26th, 2014 at 21:14 | #13Jim Pierce :Btw, when it is said that God is reconciled to the world in Christ, that is not some nominalistic move where the action takes part in the person receiving faith in Christ, that is an action that takes place in God. It is a real change in relation between God and the world. Of course, that doesn’t mean the world is reconciled to God; i.e. the world loves God!
Indeed, those dead in sin hate God!Mr. Pierce, in your faithful confession of Objective Justification you are teaching contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his71] “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.php40] … Therefore it must follow that we are accepted with God, and justified by faith alone, when in our hearts we conclude that God desires to be gracious to us, not on account of our works and fulfilment of the Law, but from pure grace, for Christ’s sake. What can our opponents bring forward against this argument? What can they invent and devise against the plain truth?“there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled to God and first obtain the remission of sin. Good God, how dare people call themselves Christians or say that they once at least looked into or read the books of the Gospel when they still deny that we obtain remission of sins by faith in Christ? Why, to a Christian it is shocking merely to hear such a statement.”
http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.phpUOJ’s false teaching concerning reconciliation is another reason it is fair to charge the doctrine with Universalism. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.The contradictions never end with Objective Justification. - February 27th, 2014 at 12:35 | #14@Joe Krohn #5
Since a day has gone by and Brett Meyer has not answered the question put to him, one can conclude he is unable to answer the question because:A.) Life obligations have taken him away from the discussion.B.) He has finally come the the conclusion he has been wrong all along and can not show his face.I pray that he has finally been able to make the objective connections of redemption, reconciliation, atonement and justification as they relate to mankind regardless of faith. - February 27th, 2014 at 12:41 | #15@Joe Krohn #14
My apologies Joe, Brett is on moderated status so each of his comments has to be approved before it becomes public. I was not able to approve them yesterday. I have approved them now. - February 27th, 2014 at 13:02 | #16Thank you Pastor Scheer. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration you have provided me in allowing my confession to be presented and addressed in this public forum.
- February 27th, 2014 at 14:04 | #17UOJ’s false teaching concerning reconciliation is another reason it is fair to charge the doctrine with Universalism.Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
The contradictions never end with Objective Justification.It is absolutely dishonest to “charge the doctrine with Universalism.” One of the many problems you are having Brett is in recognizing that the emphasis being placed on objective justification is in response to the false teaching that there is no such thing as a general justification. In other words, I would happily go along talking about subjective justification or about justification in general, if it weren’t for the fact that you and others in this thread are attacking objective justification.When asked to deal with the Scriptures, the Confessions, and scholarship showing you are wrong, you begin cutting and pasting quotations from the Book of Concord as if anyone posting in this thread disagrees with what is being stated in our Confession. That too is dishonesty on your part.What you are wrongly attempting is to harmonize what appears to be a contradiction. In the process you have flat out rejected the Scriptural truth of universal reconciliation. As a side note, are you aware that Pieper uses the terms “objective and subjective reconciliation” as synonymous with “objective and subjective justification”? He does that because he recognized just as Martin Chemnitz did that the vicarious satisfaction made by Christ is “a matter which belongs to the article of justification” (Examination of the Council of Trent, Vol., I, Art. VII, p. 497). So, are you going to say that Chemnitz is a heretic who teaches a false gospel, too? After all, Chemnitz is clear that the vicarious satisfaction “is the expiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), and hence Christ is the end of the Law for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4)” (ibid).When you attack and deny what is taught by OJ, you are attacking the teaching of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction, since you are saying that what Christ accomplished through His death and resurrection is not making full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world and hence you reject the sound teaching of God being reconciled to all of humankind in response to His Son. Indeed, you are in fact rejecting what is confessed in the Formula:“But, since it is the obedience as above mentioned [not only of one nature, but] of the entire person, it is a complete satisfaction and expiation for the human race, by which the eternal, immutable righteousness of God, revealed in the Law, has been satisfied, and is thus our righteousness, which avails before God and is revealed in the Gospel, and upon which faith relies before God, which God imputes to faith, as it is written, Rom. 5:19: For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous; and 1 John 1:7: The blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanseth us from all sin. Likewise: The just shall live by his faith, Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17? (FC III, 57).When you reject, as you do, that Christ has made “a complete satisfaction and expiation for the human race” you gut out the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no righteousness of Christ to be imputed. There is no good news for faith to receive. All there is is a conditional forgiveness of sins turning upon the action of faith in the individual. Yes, your teaching is “If you believe, then you will be forgiven.” The Scriptural view is “Your sins are forgiven due to the merit of Christ, receive His free gift!” Yes, indeed this is what happens via the means of grace! Take and eat! The true body of Christ given to you for the forgiveness of sins! Drink of it all of you, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).Reject the teaching behind the term “objective justification” at your own peril. Ultimately you reject the vicarious satisfaction made by Christ and we have already seen that with your own words, Brett. For you reject a universal reconciliation. - February 27th, 2014 at 16:41 | #18@Pastor Joshua Scheer #15
No problem, Pr, Scheer!Brett, you are blind! In your Luther quote is embedded exactly what you are arguing against!“He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed.”Christ had to redeem us in order for us to believe we are redeemed. That is what Luther is saying! And if you are saying (which seems to be the case) that not all men are/were redeemed, them you are guilty of limited redemption because the ‘paying of the world’s iniquity’ effects something for all men.You clearly deny scripture. Furthermore what you confess is not Lutheran. Please do us all a favor and quit posting here for you are disgracing the Scriptures and the BOC by your twisting of the truth. - February 27th, 2014 at 16:41 | #19@Jim Pierce #17
Thank you for your response Mr. Pierce. The reason I quoted Romans 5:10 was to show that those reconciled to God are saved eternally. Which makes the purpose of the doctrine of OJ pointless. If OJ continues to teach God is reconciled to the whole unbelieving world they must bear the responsibility of also teaching the whole unbelieving world is saved eternally.You claim I’m attacking Christ’s doctrine by rejecting Objective Justification. Truth is I reject OJ because it’s not Scriptural. Because it’s not Scriptural – I’m not attacking Christ’s doctrine and in fact I’m upholding it.You quote Chemitz, ““a complete satisfaction and expiation for the human race”. I will make the same point as Pastor Schulz but the difference will be that I reject OJ in totality and am not attempting to retain any of it. Note the word ‘for’ which shows intent. Were it to state ‘of – the human race’ then it would teach OJ. But it doesn’t for it doesn’t communicate completion but intent.Everyone should note the twisting of Scriptural words that is occuring in the doctrine of Objective Justification. Saved but not heaven saved, God is reconciled to the unbelieving world but unbelievers are not reconciled to God, God declares the unbelieving world justified but they aren’t justified until they believe He made that declaration (the other OJ versions teach they don’t receive the benefit of God’s declaration until they believe He made it), God making a declaration but the effect of that declaration isn’t real until the subject of the declaration believes it, and the list goes on. There is no excuse for OJ’s ongoing abuse of God’s Word.You condemn me for rejecting OJ but you have never provided Scriptural or Confessional proof that it is a doctrine of Christ. In fact all of my quotes of Scripture and the Confessions are clearly teaching contrary to the tenets of UOJ with you promote. Condemn me for rejecting OJ if you wish but it is not a valid arguement when the validity of OJ is the issue.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“by faith itself…we are for Christ’s sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God.”
This single sentence from the Christian Book of Concord refutes the foundational tenet of OJ which teaches the unbelieving world was reconciled (accepted) by God for the sake of Christ before and without the Means of Grace working Godly contrition and Faith in Christ alone.I appreciate the discussion,
In Christ,
Brett Meyer - February 27th, 2014 at 16:54 | #20@Brett Meyer #11
Furthermore: (my comments in quotes)“82. Note, the Son of God is put under the Law in that he redeemed us who were
under it. (Brett, this is all people.) For us, for our good, he effected all; not for himself. He purposed to manifest toward us only love, goodness and mercy. (To all people, Brett; John 3:16) As Paul has it (Gal 3, 13), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.”(Brett, a curse for all people…not just believers.) In other words: For us, Christ put himself under the law and complied with its demands, designing every believer of this fact to be redeemed from under the Law with its curse.”(Brett, no one here denies this…we receive the benefit of this redemption through faith…faith does not make redemption into a reality. It already happened!) - February 27th, 2014 at 17:05 | #21Joe,Your comments sparked a thought for me. I really wish Brett would carefully read Scriptures such as Romans 5:12-21:” Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”(Romans 5:12-21).I mean, just look at the language… “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” I don’t think Brett would reject the teaching that all men are condemned due to the sin of Adam, or at least I hope not. Yet, here, Brett (and others in this thread) reject the Scriptural language “leads to justification and life for all men.” That is they reject that what Christ did (as opposed to what Adam did) “leads to justification… for all men.” One can’t maintain all have been condemned and then say these Scriptures teach not all have been justified (in some sense) by what Christ has done.At any rate… I am definitely outta here for good. I have kicked this dead horse the final time.
(*And there was much rejoicing!*) - February 27th, 2014 at 17:14 | #22@Jim Pierce #21
I know, Jim. Scripture is so undeniably clear. 2 Peter 2:1 “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” It clearly says that Jesus redeemed false teachers; even those who deny Him. I just don’t get it. Yes, there has been much horse kicking. Time to hit the trail… - February 27th, 2014 at 17:24 | #23Joe Krohn :
Brett, you are blind! In your Luther quote is embedded exactly what you are arguing against!
“He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed.”And yet I can see the sentence that preceeded your quote which states,“74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems us from under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith.”
The accomplishment of redeeming the individual is through faith and not before and without as you contend.
for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God’s children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness.”
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.phpJoe Krohn :
Christ had to redeem us in order for us to believe we are redeemed. That is what Luther is saying! And if you are saying (which seems to be the case) that not all men are/were redeemed, them you are guilty of limited redemption because the ‘paying of the world’s iniquity’ effects something for all men.Prove from Scripture your UOJ teaching that Christ had to redeem us in order for us to believe we are redeemed.Prove from Scripture your UOJ teaching that (Christ’s) paying of the world’s iniquity effects something for all men. In the sense that you intend it – i.e. that the whole world of unbelievers were forgiven by God because of the atonement of Christ. The effect of the atonement was that all righteousness is in and of Christ. Those that are in Christ through faith have all that is His. Those who abide in unbelief have nothing of His and therefore remain under God’s wrath and condemnation.Your rationalistic UOJ assumptions are rejected by the clear teaching of Scripture and the faithful explanation of the BOC.Jim Pierce :
I mean, just look at the language… “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”… Yet, here, Brett (and others in this thread) reject the Scriptural language “leads to justification and life for all men.” That is they reject that what Christ did (as opposed to what Adam did) “leads to justification… for all men.”Mr. Pierce, I’m glad you posted this Scriptural quote. The problem with this defense of UOJ’s teaching that all men are justified is that this verse states that all those justified are also saved eternally – “…and life for all men.” So you either have to back away from using this as a Objective Justification verse and, in classic UOJ style, teach it now is a Subjective Justification verse (just as it was once forbidden to eat meat on Friday’s yet it is now approved) or you must claim Universalism where all those thereby justified are also saved eternally. This is another clear example of UOJ’s eternal contradiction to Scripture.
