 |
| If one part is off, then the rest are also in the wrong place or order or emphasis. |
A Dialogue on Justification
Several people have suggested that I look to the ELDoNA in my search for Confessional Lutheranism. I admit that I have looked to the ELDoNA with a great deal of interest and agreement over the past several years.
My biggest question is their position on the doctrine of justification, specifically their rejection of universal objective justification.
I'll admit that I'm torn on the issue. I read some Synodical Conference writers and am convinced that UOJ is Scriptural. Then I read ELDoNA writers and am convinced that UOJ is unscriptural. I am convinced that some Synodical Conference writers have gone to improper extremes in explaining UOJ. I am worried that some ELDoNA writers might go too far to the other extreme.
For these reasons, I'd like to devote this post to an open discussion on UOJ. I've seen other such discussions run quickly off the rails, so I'll establish a few ground rules:
1. Please avoid dominating the discussion by posting frequent, lengthy comments.
2. Please don't question the faith or the salvation of others.
3. Please base your arguments on Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
4. Please assume the best rather than the worst about other positions.
5. If you post anonymously, please use some sort of pseudonym.
To begin the discussion, I'll ask for reactions to the following statement:
Justification can be viewed universally and objectively in this sense: that the sins of the world were imputed to Christ on the cross, but in his resurrection, they were no longer imputed to his account. This non-imputation of the world's sins to Christ's account is universal and objective in the sense that Christ is the Substitute for the entire world. This justification was declared upon Christ and exists only in Christ, and does not apply to those who, because of unbelief, are outside of Christ.
My biggest question is their position on the doctrine of justification, specifically their rejection of universal objective justification.
I'll admit that I'm torn on the issue. I read some Synodical Conference writers and am convinced that UOJ is Scriptural. Then I read ELDoNA writers and am convinced that UOJ is unscriptural. I am convinced that some Synodical Conference writers have gone to improper extremes in explaining UOJ. I am worried that some ELDoNA writers might go too far to the other extreme.
For these reasons, I'd like to devote this post to an open discussion on UOJ. I've seen other such discussions run quickly off the rails, so I'll establish a few ground rules:
1. Please avoid dominating the discussion by posting frequent, lengthy comments.
2. Please don't question the faith or the salvation of others.
3. Please base your arguments on Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
4. Please assume the best rather than the worst about other positions.
5. If you post anonymously, please use some sort of pseudonym.
To begin the discussion, I'll ask for reactions to the following statement:
Justification can be viewed universally and objectively in this sense: that the sins of the world were imputed to Christ on the cross, but in his resurrection, they were no longer imputed to his account. This non-imputation of the world's sins to Christ's account is universal and objective in the sense that Christ is the Substitute for the entire world. This justification was declared upon Christ and exists only in Christ, and does not apply to those who, because of unbelief, are outside of Christ.
45 comments:
I'll not respond to your statement. It looks good to me, but I'll leave that to others. I wish to comment instead on this endeavor, and on the who recent "controversy."
My impression -- after some study, but not as much as others have done -- is that this whole thing is an unfortunate mix of some semantics, some talking past each other, some regrettable overstatements, and some uncharitable assumptions.
Jesus died for the sins of the world - no one disputes that.
Only those who have been brought to faith by the Holy Spirit working through the means of grace are saved - no one disputes that (despite accusations to the contrary).
So the debate becomes about the terms we use, how we express this - specifically the fact that the unbeliever's sin is paid for by Christ, yet through unbelief they are still in their sins. Much like Law and Gospel, so much seems contradictory, but we must let the two seemingly contradictory statements both stand (e.g., "God hates sinners." "God loves sinners." Both are true statements from Scripture, yet it seems that they cannot both be true. We must let both stand and Law and Gospel.).
It seems that when Scripture is talking in the universal sense, that it doesn't usually (maybe ever) use the word "justification." It uses words like "atonement" instead. "Justification" is used primarily (maybe exclusively) in what we call the subjective sense.
So we need to choose our terms carefully. Clearly there are some terms in Scripture used in a universal sense, there are some used in a subjective/individual sense, and there are some that ride the fence. Herein lies the challenge - defining our terms, speaking as Scripture speaks, without overstating things.
At one extreme lies universalism, at the other extreme is a limited atonement (that Jesus' death was only for believers). I don't know of any in our circles who teach either extreme (although some of Jackson's disciples seem to sound like they're coming pretty close to a limited atonement, but to make that accusation would be uncharitable). Yet there are accusations all around. WELS might have at times gone too far in stressing the objective nature of justification (the Kokomo deal, the very regrettable "I am saved, so are you" campaign from a few years back), but WELS does not teach universalism, or an individual forgiveness apart from faith, despite accusations to the contrary.
So while I think the WELS has overstated things at time, I don't see false teaching there, nor reason to break.
To me, it seems like a whole lot of semantics, which when we're talking about Scripture, isn't unimportant, but probably doesn't need the level of venom that we see too much today.
And that we will probably see in further comments on this post. I wish you God's blessings in trying to have a civil discussion...
OCP
As a fellow pastor I've also been torn on the issue (an issue which seemed so simple as a kid. Believe in Jesus as your only savior and you go to heaven. I seem to recall Jesus saying something about faith like a child...I digress). I've read both sides of the issues. Some gentlemen from both sides have seen to go to extremes to tear down the other.
I guess, when I preach to my members and make prospect visits, I explain sin. According to God's laws, God's requirement for heaven is simple. Be perfect as I the Lord God am perfect. Then we look at the Ten Commandments and see how poorly we failed. Then we come quotes from Ezekiel 18 - the soul who sins will die and from Romans 6 - the wages (payment) for sin is death and the terrifying reality sets in. I deserve death. Physical death and eternal death, for I have sinned against the eternal God.
Then along comes this message of good news: Jesus is my substitute.
He lived a perfect life in my place. He paid my penalty by suffering death and hell on the cross.
Atonement was made. Everything needed to make up for my sins and failures is there in Christ.
To reject Him is to reject my substitute and the forgiveness and freedom he won for me.
To believe in Him, hold him up as my only savior and substitute is to receive as a free gift from Him his perfect life and the forgiveness of sins, and all of this according to his own promises (Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Whoever does not believe will be condemned from Mark 16:16).
Now, as you noticed nowhere in there did I use words like objective or subjective justification. Those are words I expect to find in dogmatics books. But if I'm trying to witness to someone I want to put it as simply as possible.
Romans 3 - All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...
(maybe take some time in witnessing to reveal the person's personal sins)
...and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
(Any person who is not grafted to the Vine, is cut off from the only source of life and forgiveness. Only in Jesus is a person saved)
I'm not sure if this adds anything to the conversation. But frankly, I have grown tired of listening to both sides of the argument. All I want to do is continue to point my members and my prospects to Jesus Christ, who was crucified for the sins of the world- myself included and who was raised from the dead as He promised, showing that sin, death and the devil have no power over Jesus and therefore, have no damning power over those who are in Christ Jesus.
So long as a person remains outside of Christ, they remain on the one way track to hell. Once, through the Gospel message of what Jesus has done, the Holy Spirit brings that person to faith/trust in the saving work of Christ (standing as our substitute for both a needed perfect life and a needed sacrifice for sin)that person is on the track to heaven.
A tired and worn pastor, seeking to shepherd his sheep.
-Mr. Overhill
p.s. Matthias- thank you for dedicating a post to this topic, as well as laying down some ground rules. God's blessings in your continued effort to be a faithful shepherd.
-Mr. Overhill.
Justification is by faith in Christ and the Promise alone. Those without faith are not justified, though their sins have been atoned for.
"This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends."
Yet different WELS pastors will teach justification as if there are different teachings. How can this be, with a teaching that is a central message of Scripture? I've heard WELS pastors say that the WELS "This We Believe" statement on justification is poorly worded, everyone knows this, even the writers of the statement would agree. How can this be? They accept that a statement they wrote poorly is OK when it is a central message of Scripture?
I think the explanation for the confusion is simple, just as I believe the Biblical teaching of justification is simple. Things get complicated when people feel the need to add and subtract from Scripture. The problem begins by using the word "objective", and it only gets worst when people try to justify the use of the word.
I believe Jesus died for the sins of the world. I believe those who have faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, a gift of the Holy Spirit given to us through the Means of Grace, have forgiveness of sins. I think Scripture teaches this. I think the Creeds and Confessions reflect this.
How do people subtract from Scripture with regard to justification? They do this by diminishing the importance of faith. I just don't see Scriptures diminishing the importance of faith. But I see some WELS pastors, as they stumble over their definition of objective justification diminishing faith.
Faith is one of the three solas, alongside grace and Scripture. I don't see faith being diminished there. When we say we believe in the forgivenss of sins in the third article of the Apostles Creed, what are we thinking? How else can we explain the forgiveness of sins in the third article of the Apostles Creed, if it is not in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit, the gift of faith?
I said in an early comment on this blog that the teachings are changing in the WELS. Go back and look at my earlier comparison of the Gauswitz and Kuske catechisms. Needless to say, I was raised and taught with the Gauswitz catechism, by WELS pastors. And when the Kuske catechism was introduced, I found it peculiar and disturbing that some WELS pastors insisted that the Kuske catechism be used to train our children. Why the insistence of one over the other?
Vernon
Thus, it doesn't seem possible to call this a matter of overstatements and semantics (though, like OCP, I often get the impression it is). There must be some substantive difference, I'm just having trouble figuring out what it is.
For the record, I can't agree with WELS that UOJ is the central message of Scripture, when it only seems to be found in some debatable exegesis of a few passages. It seems to me that the vicarious atonement is the central message of Scripture.
The first part of what you have presented here is more or less the Waltherian/Preusian version of UOJ. The most common version taught in the WELS is not a justification declared upon Christ, but a justification declared upon all sinners *for the sake of Christ.* I contend that both positions are wrong.
The Scriptures do not speak of a "justification of Jesus" in any forensic or vicarious sense. Jesus did not need to be forgiven of our sins. On the contrary, He was sorely punished for our sins. What does it mean to be "forgiven" if He had already suffered the full penalty for the crimes? It is very poor exegesis to take the words from 1 Tim. 3:16 and apply them to a forensic justification from sin, as the Waltherians have done. Besides, I contend that it is a philosophical and non-scriptural leap to take what is true "in Christ" and apply it to the whole world of sinners who are not "in Christ."
As for the concluding sentence of your statement, it cannot be reconciled with the teaching of UOJ, because the essence of UOJ is that the "whole world" or "all sinners" have been absolved, justified, and forgiven. UOJ teaches that all people *are* in Christ (and somehow outside of Christ at the same time!).
It is a very harmful thing to teach, as UOJ does, that only *some* of those whom God has forgiven and justified will be saved, namely, believers. I teach my people that "forgiven" means "forgiven," and "justified" means "not condemned to hell." These truths apply to believers only.
To assert that God has declared the whole world to be righteous in His sight, while at the same time God damns some of these justified people to hell, is incongruous with the inspired record. Faith lays hold of Christ, whose merits are imputed to faith. This is how sinners are justified. Period.
For those who want to pretend that this is all a non-issue or an argument over words or not divisive of fellowship, they need only look at the official actions of the WELS against those who teach justification by faith alone. I'd be happy to recount the events of the past two years to anyone who wants to listen. The WELS insists (upon threat of removal from office) that its pastors must proclaim that God forgave and declared all sinners righteous 2,000 years ago, in opposition to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.
I appreciate your willingness to carry on a dialogue, and since you seem to be serious about studying and investigating this issue, I would guess you've already read the publications available on the ELDoNA website. If you are interested, I have also written an exegetical paper on Romans 3-4 which can be found here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4826137/Romans%203-4%20Exegesis_2014.pdf
I admit that I really do not care for anonymous dialogue, especially since I have already paid dearly for my non-anonymity (and yet the Lord has gracious given me something far better than what I formerly had). "Matthias," I would be more than happy to carry on an actual dialogue with you via e-mail, phone, or in person, and I think I have proven to be trustworthy when it comes to guarding the anonymity of others. I hope to hear from you.
This is where you go off the tracks.
Jesus said that he did not come to condemn the world, but to save it. And He did that. It is man who condemns himself.
Isn't it interesting that on the basis of a 'perceived' central teaching of Scripture that is not the 'real' central teaching of Scripture (I agree with you), WELS would choose to remove pastors. But when it comes to the matter of practicing theology of glory over theology of the cross, there is no action. Theology of glory is, after all, much of what Church Growth and Contemporary Worship is about, focussing on what people do, instead of focussing on what God did and still does.
A WELS pastor can go on public record of how authentic he feels to be able to wear jeans instead of a robe in a worship service. But it's not the jeans or the robe that is the biggest issue of concern, it's that a WELS pastor believes by his stated words that this action, his action, makes him authentic. And so, one is led to believe that because this pastor wears jeans, he will pave the way for hearts to be receptive to the Holy Spirit. And the synod heads who would remove a pastor for teaching justification by faith, take no action with a pastor who seems to act like wearing jeans is part of the Means of Grace.
This is where the whole plea to "trust your brothers in the WELS" no longer holds water, but leaks like a rusty bucket.
Side A says, "How can God condemn some if he has already justified all?" To which side B replies, "That's just the distinction between law and gospel."
Side B says, "How can God make atonement for the sins of the world but still refuse to justify the world?" To which side A replies, "That's just the distinction between law and gospel."
In both controversies, the errorists have placed man's faith in front of God's grace and thereby put sinful man and what he does at the center of the Christian doctrine of salvation rather than God in Christ's "grace for grace," (John 1:16.) In both controversies the errorists have sincerely thought that, by exalting man's faith, even over God's grace, they have kept "Sola Fide" in its proper place in Lutheran teaching, forgeting that "Sola Gratia" must come BEFORE "Sola Fide," even as Scripture teaches: "By GRACE you have been SAVED, THROUGH faith..." (Eph. 2:8.) It is truly tragic when, as is seen in both controversies, Christians who otherwise might be standing shoulder to shoulder against heterodoxy find themselves at odds over such fundamental doctrines. Consider this historical fact: the descendents of those church bodies which in the 1880s taught or tolerated the error of "intuitu fidei finalis" against the orthodox teaching of "sola gratia"--the Ohio and Iowa Synods--ultimately merged into other heterodox church bodies and ended up in...today's ELCA. If one subscribes to one error, even trying to champion Lutheranism's "Sola Fide," it becomes that much easier to fall for another. Let those who deny Objective Justification tell us where they stand on the doctrine of Election, and one can see the historical parallel.
That was one of the best, most concise, arguments in favor of Objective Justification I think I've ever read. Very well done!
Besides, if someone is going to teach a doctrine, shouldn't the onus be on them to prove from Scripture that such a doctrine exists?
I guess what I'm sick of is hearing WELS people defend UOJ by saying, "Well, if you don't believe in UOJ, you're automatically making faith a good work...you're automatically guilty of teaching intuitu fidei...you're automatically rejecting the gospel..." and so on.
My invitation still stands: ask those who deny Objective Justification what they believe about the reason for their election (hint: look for such terms as "GNADENwahl.")
I can share your sense of nausea; I also get sick of listening to the "confessional Lutherans" who are utter Pharisees about worship forms, in direct violation of FC X.
I also love the Common Service and the treasury of Lutheran hymnody, but when rank traditionalism regarding forms of worship is elevated to doctrinal orthodoxy, the Gospel Itself is being replaced with a human idol.
Regarding Joel's comment, this wasn't an argument for objective justification, it was an argument against justification by faith, defining faith as a work by man. What's interesting is that many who teach objective justification also teach subjective justification, which is justification by faith. Does this mean that subjective justification is justification by faith where faith is a work by man? I hope not, but it's a logical conclusion to draw, since the most ardent supporters of objective justification, at least their version of objective justification, almost always define faith as a work by man. It is not a Scriptural definition of faith, it is not my definition of faith, nor is it the stated definition of faith by many others on these blogs.
I would be very interested to know who it is, to your knowledge, teaches Objective Justification but denies Subjective Justification. I have NEVER heard of such individuals.
Subjective Justification follows Objective Justification: "By grace are you saved, through faith," (Eph. 2:8.) The Apostle Paul speaks of both being "justified by grace" as well as being "justified by faith," and those are Objective and Subjective Justification.
But with reference to your remarks, you are creating a false analogy regarding "justification by faith." Those who believe in Objective and Subjective Justification do not believe that Subjective Justification or justification by faith is a "work by man," they believe in what Eph. 2:8 teaches. What you are talking about is the problem of those who deny Objective Justification; they take the passages which speak of "justification by faith" as contrasted with justification by works and put them into opposition to God's objective grace in Christ, His "Easter Absolution," thus making faith by default a "work by man" and rejecting the meaning of the very verses which they quote and cite.
And don't say that someone hasn't warned you!
Now, to the substance of your argument. You state:
The Apostle Paul speaks of both being "justified by grace" as well as being "justified by faith"
That simply isn't the case. Your exegesis is flawed. Paul speaks of being "justified by grace, through faith". I've never heard anyone try to use that passage to teach UOJ.
My references were to individual verses which say "justified by grace" (Rom. 3:24, Titus 3:7) and those which say "justified by faith," (Rom. 3-5.) I have REPEATEDLY quoted and cited Eph. 2:8 ("by grace, through faith,") or haven't you noticed?
Just because YOU haven't heard of anyone use a certain verse a certain way doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate use of Scripture. Do you do independent study of Scripture, or only according to "the tradition of the fathers"?
Pastor Rydecki--who had to be "pried out" of the WELS because he lacked the integrity to enter into a state of confession over against its teachings and leave the synod himself, along with some others who will remain nameless--rejects the clear teaching of Rom. 4:25 that Jesus was "raised again for our justification." That is the "Easter Absolution" of our Lord. QED
I'm sorry that I have to ask you now not to post here anymore.
Warren's response to my questions does bring to mind another question that I've often wondered about.
I've long noticed there seems to be a great deal of reluctance in the WELS to discussing UOJ. I've often gotten the impression that UOJ is simply settled doctrine, not something to be questioned or discussed by anyone.
Has anyone else noticed this? If so, why is this? Insecurity? Another reason? I honestly don't know.
Augsburg Confession, Article IV: Of Justification.
1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
Pretty simple. Leave it alone.
Mr. Flach, indeed. I believe the reluctance is not just in discussing UOJ, the reluctance is in opposing official WELS teachings. Some are convinced WELS is right no matter what. You have referenced the cultish Papist mentality of WELS elsewhere on this blog, and I applaud you for that. (As I like to call it, "The Holy See of Milwaukee".) A reasoned and calm discussion in WELS is only available at WELS approved conferences and symposia.
Keep up the good work.
Matthias, whoever you are, this is correct. Please do not inquire of P. Rydecki. Please.
But because saying the name of "Greg Jackson" immediately gets a reaction apparently, preconceived notions materialize. It is same as a liberal not agreeing with a conservative on a topic and calling the conservative a "racist". The word is a touchstone and immediately plants prejudice.
Because apparently "Greg Jackson" is the same as "Boogeyman" in certain circles, they resort to pigeonholing others. Frankly I admire the discussion going on with this blog. The blogger is honest about his motivations and the only ones taking cheap shots are those that cannot argue effectively.
So to claim that this writer of this blog is Greg Jackson is quite disingenuous.
Matthias, as stated before, I am also torn on the issue. It took Luther several years to figure things out. If you would like another example, look to the disciples. I will not fault you for wanting to look into the matter. In fact every pastor should desire to look more deeply into justification.
So to your question, why does it seem that many in the WELS are reluctant to discuss UOJ? I fear that anyone who wants clarification is cast as dissident. Perhaps the root of this can be found in past problems like Kokomo. At our most recent conference a paper as given on UOJ. The presenter allowed questions. Many were willing to ask for clarification, but no one was willing to ask "is this truly scriptural" or "is this the best way to speak of justification"? I am in the camp that our language does need to cleaned up-as seen from the example of the "this we believe" quote mentioned earlier.
As before, my prayers are with you and your sheep. Keep pointing them to Christ alone, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross.
God be with you,
Mr. Overhill
"When we speak of objective justification, we mean that justification is complete. It does not need to be completed by faith or any other work. It is finished, perfect. God has declared the world righteous for Jesus' sake. This is an objective reality, whether anyone believes it or not. Even if the whole world rejected the message of the gospel, it would still remain an objective raelity that god had acquitted the world of sin."
"God justified the world on the basis of Christ's substitutionary life, death, and resurrection. Therefore, God tells us to announce to all people that their sins are forgiven. This is what Jesus did to the paralytic. He said to him, 'Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven' (Matthew 9:2). He did not say to him, 'Your sins are forgiven IF you believe.' The announcement was simply one of good news: your sins are forgiven. It is done; there are no strings attached. The old Adam with its work-righteous attitude is so active that people always want to attach conditions to the gospel. They want to believe that God's justification of sinners won't be complete until they have done their part. However, Scripture is clear. There is nothing we can do; there is nothing we need do. Jesus did it all. God justified the world because of Christ's work. On the cross, Jesus declared, 'It is finished' (John 19:30). In Hebrews 10:10-14, the writer declares three times that Jesus made one sacrifice for the sins of all. There is no need for any further sacrifice. God has justified the world freely apart from anything we do (Romans 3:24-25)."
"Faith is not a good work that completes what Christ did. Justification does not depend on faith to be completed. Rather, through faith God gives to believers the benefit of what Christ did. It is, as our dogmaticians have said, the receiving instrument. Faith is what God works in us that we may receive the benefit of justification."
From the Formula of Concord:
"For faith does not make people righteous because it is such a good work or such a fine virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in thep romise of the holy gospel. For this merit must be applied to us and appropriated through faith if we are to become righteous through it. Thus, the righteousness that out of sheer grace is reckoned before God to faith or to the believer consists of the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ because he has satisfied the law for us and paid for our sins." (Formula of Concord Solid Declaration III:13,14)
I am a WELs member. I am an MLC student. I believe this is what the Bible teaches about objective justification. I believe this is what the Confessions support about objective justification.
- Mr. Abbott
http://azcadistrict.com/sites/default/files/papers/Buchholz_2012-10.pdf
"Scripture makes it clear that all people by nature are born in sin and are under the wrath of God. Sin is universal. Paul wrote, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Paul continues by stating, "and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24). For whom did Jesus die? Scripture tells us that Jesus died to pay for the sins of the world:
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'" - John 1:29
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one ando nly Son, that whoever beleives in him shall not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16
"God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2 Corinthians 5:19-21
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1 John 2:2
"The context of each passage is clear. Jesus did not die to pay for the sins of only those elected to salvation. There is no inclination of a figure of speech in any of these passages. 'The world' equals all people. God punished every sin in Christ, and he forgave every sin in Christ."
"Scripture indicates God earnestly desires the salvation of all sinners (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). In fact, God is so serious about saving sinners that he takes an oath to make this clear (Ezekiel 33:11). No one will go to hell because God did not want him saved. The Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah's mission was to save all people. The Lord promised Abraham that through his descendant all nations of the earth would be blssed (Genesis 12:3). Peter told Cornelius, 'All the prophets testify about him that everyone who beleives in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name' (Acts 10:43). The New Testament also makes it clear that salvation is for all people. The angels and Simeon declared that the good news about Jesus was meant for 'all people' (Luke 2:10,31,32). Jesus declares that 'whoever believes' will be saved (John 3:16,18). Jesus commands the gospel be proclaimed to all the world. The apostles indicated that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world."
From the Formula of Concord:
"Therefore, if we want to consider our eternal election to salvation profitably, we must always firmly and reigidly insist that, like the proclamation of repentance, so the promise of the gospel is universalis, that is, it pertains to all people (Luke 24:47). Therefore, Christ commanded preaching 'repentance and the forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations.' 'for God so loved the world that he gave his only Son' for it (John 3:16). Christ has taken away the sins of the world (John 1:29); his flesh was given 'for the life of the world' (John 6:51); his blood is 'the atoning sacrifice for...the whole world' (1 John 1:7; 2:2). Christ said, 'Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest' (Matthew 11:28). 'God has imprisoned all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all' (Romans 11:32)." (Formula of Concord Solid Declaration XI:28)
I am a WELS member. I am an MLC student. I believe this is what the Bible teaches about universal justification. I belive this is what the Confessions support about universal justification.
- Mr. Abbott
- Mr. Abbott
Someone mentioned Rom. 4:25. I'm willing to defend the exegesis I provided in the link to my paper, if anyone wishes to deal with it. I didn't get to Romans 5 in this paper, but will at some point in the future.
Here is something interesting that I didn't include in that paper, but that illustrates well Paul's usage of the phrase "raised for our justification."
We confess every Sunday about Christ in the Nicene Creed: "...who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven..."
The phrases "for us men" and "for our salvation" in the Greek of the Nicene Creed are exactly the same construction as the phrases Paul uses in Rom. 4:25, using the preposition dia + accusative, clearly expressing the purpose (final cause) of Christ's coming, not that "our salvation" already "existed" before He came down.
In other words, Christ was raised for the purpose of justifying us (by faith), just as Abraham was justified by faith in Him who raises the dead.
As God punished our sins in Christ, because they were laid on him and imputed to Him as our Substitute, so in the same
manner He, by raising Him from the dead, absolved Him by this very act of our sins which had been imputed to Him, and thereby He absolved in Him also us."
- Mr. Abbott
Many times in academia, individuals want to play the "great mind". They come up with some theory that in actuality is not uniquely different, and then spend the rest of their lives defending it.
So, an article gets published in Forward in Christ in which UOJ is supported (Christ's death covered the sins of the entire world), but no mention is made that this gift is only made effective when the Holy Spirit brings a person to faith by the means of grace (Word and Sacrament).
Rather than going the extra distance with a few extra sentences, the apologist of UOJ leaves the reader hanging.
You can almost hear the tone of "Oh, I am just so educated and smart...bask in my wisdom".
Perhaps this is because our Seminary primarily only has professors with Master's degrees that their may be a feeling of inferiority. Doctoral dissertations are often dismissed for what is in essence unoriginal research.
Another example is when WELS was trying to adopt the new NIV edition. What was the rush. One statement was "we need to be able to cite biblical references in the papers presented at the Seminary". You can't use another edition, like the King James version, for that without worrying about copyright infringement. I don't mean to slam the WELS educational institutions, but they are not Harvard, Princeton, or Yale.
His whole statement from the Romans commentary is as follows:
But if someone further inquires: In what sense and respect, then, is our justification, which consists in the remission of sins, attributed to the resurrection of Christ?
We reply: It should be taken in this way.
(1) With respect to the manifestation, demonstration and confirmation, because the resurrection of Christ is the clear testimony that full satisfaction has been made for our sins and that perfect righteousness has been procured. Jerome on this passage: “Christ rose in order that He might confirm righteousness to believers.” Chrysostom, Homily 9 on Romans: “In the resurrection it is demonstrated that Christ died, not for His own sins, but for our sins. For how could He rise again if He were a sinner? But if He was not a sinner, then He was crucified for the sake of others.”
(2) With respect to the application. If Christ had remained in death, He would not be the conqueror of death, nor could He apply to us the righteousness that was obtained at such a high price (Rom. 5:10, 8:34). But since He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God, He thus also offers to the world, through the Word of the Gospel, the benefits obtained by His suffering and death, applies them to believers, and in this way justifies them. With respect to this application, Cardinal Toletus (in his commentary on this passage, and Suarez, Vol. 2, in part 3, Thom. Disputation 44, p.478) acknowledges that our justification is attributed to the resurrection of Christ, writing thus: “Christ, by His suffering, sufficiently destroyed sin. Nevertheless, in order that we might be justified and that sin might be effectively remitted to us, it was necessary for the suffering of Christ to be applied to us through a living faith.” Christ arose, therefore, for the sake of our righteousness, that is, so that our faith might be confirmed, and in this way we might be effectively justified. The Apostle notably says that Christ died for our sins and was raised, not for the sake of δικαιοσύνην [righteousness], which is contrasted with sins in general, but διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν, “for the sake of our justification,” which consists in absolution from sins.
(3) With respect to the actual absolution from sin. By delivering Christ into death for the sake of our sins, the heavenly Father condemned sin in His flesh through sin (Rom. 8:3). He condemned it because it had sinned against Christ by bringing about His death, even though He was innocent, and so He withdrew from sin its legal right against believers so that it cannot condemn them any longer. He also condemned it, in that He punished our sins in Christ, which were imposed on Him and imputed to Him as to a bondsman. So also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, He absolved Him from our sins that were imputed to Him, and consequently also absolves us in Him, so that, in this way, the resurrection of Christ may be both the cause and the pledge and the complement of our justification. The following passages pertain to this: 1 Cor. 15:17, 2 Cor. 5:21, Eph. 2:5, Col. 2:12-13, Phil. 3:8-10, 1 Pet. 1:3.
Will the District Pope kick him out?