- February 23rd, 2014 at 16:36 | #35Jim Pierce :In thinking about this whole discussion going on, I can’t help but wonder if what is being argued by Meyers and company is something metaphysical.Truth is that it is the doctrine of Objective Justification which promotes the metaphysical. Mr. Harris points to Roman Catholic professor, LCMS member and UOJ advocate Dr. Jack Kilcrease’ article skewering Pastor Rydecki’s rejection of UOJJason Harris :2014 and this stuff still turns up like a bad penny
http://jackkilcrease.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-rydecki-situation.htmlAs with all of the accusations you’ve waged against me – including slander – you have been guilty of each and every one. At the same time every doctrinal charge that you deny has been shown to be true by your own words and those of the individuals you point to for proof that UOJ is not a false gospel.
In this article UOJ advocate Kilcrease states the following:
“The early Reformers understood what a lot of people (especially in the WELS, it would seem!) don’t seem to get: Doctrines are concepts. Concepts can be expressed in a lot of different ways. Just because a word isn’t present, doesn’t mean that a concept isn’t present.”“(5.)For this reason, he finds it odd and incoherent to say that God in general and in some abstract sense is reconciled with the world when there’s still wrath. Much of this I suspect could be remedied by a good reading of 20th century Luther scholarship, which I don’t believe many of the anti-OJ advocate have done (Jackson once admitted that he hadn’t even read standard works like Paul Althaus’ The Theology of Martin Luther- quite shocking!). God doesn’t interact with the world uniformly, but takes on different masks (larva Dei). In his mask of law and political order, he isn’t a forgiving presence. When he wears the mask of the police officer and throws me against the hood of the car and hand cuffs me, that’s not absolution. The point though is that when I come to the means of grace, God is a presence and a word that is already real and actual as forgiveness. God as he is present in the word of absolution that he gave the Church has already forgiven me objectively.When I leave the sphere of the law and enter into the sphere of the gospel (i.e. the means of grace) then I merely enter into that sphere where God is already real as grace. My faith doesn’t actualize God as forgiving.”Kilcrease continues to explain the evolution which the UOJ advocates have undergone in order to promote their chief doctrine.
“For this reason, what Rydecki fails to see is that innovation of theological terminology is necessary to maintain conceptual orthodoxy. Old terms in new contexts will not function and therefore promote heresy.”“4. Part of Rydecki’s problem is that he does not understand that the word “justification” is being used differently when applied to OJ and SJ. When applied to OJ, the word merely means for God to pronounce a particular verdict on the human race. It does not mean for them to receive it. In the context of SJ, “justification” means to have receive that verdict. That is, to appropriate it. Because a check is written (OJ) does not mean that it is necessarily cashed (SJ).”Definition: met•a•phys•ics
/ˌmetəˈfiziks/
noun: metaphysics1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and spaceKilcrease admits to his opinion of the Christian Book of Concord which is in harmony with many called workers in the (W)ELS and LCMS.
“1. Rydecki seems to be operating with the rather odd perspective that the language set down by the Formula of Concord is authoritative for all time. He also says something similar in the intro he wrote the the Samuel Huber book. The first question is: why? Obviously the Lutheran Confessions themselves show terminological evolution (justification in the Apology can mean either justification proper or sanctification, “sacrament” is defined differently in different documents- so the question of how many sacraments is answer different in different contexts- 4, the Apology; 3 the Catechisms; 2 the FC!).”So in all of the charges of slander that have been falsely laid against me – where is the Confessional document (Book of Concord style ‘this we believe’ ‘this we reject’) for Objective Justification which the UOJ advocates claim is the heart of the Gospel and without which there is no gospel and there is nothing for their faith to cling to?Kilcrease on Universal Grace:
ReplyDelete
Dr. Jack KilcreaseOctober 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM
“Joe, thanks for the comment. Rydecki does not believe in OJ in the sense that I do. Remember, he says that he believes in it if you mean universal atonement by it. But OJ is not universal atonement, but God the Father’s reaction to the Son’s universal atonement in the form of a universal word of grace.”Scripture on God’s Grace:
Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.Kilcrease and the doctrine of UOJ contradict God’s Word when Christ clearly states that God’s grace is only by faith in Christ and therefore no one is reconciled, in God’s grace, justified or righteous in Christ except by the Holy Spirit’s gracious gift of faith in Christ – Christ’s righteousness.In Christ,
Brett Meyer - February 23rd, 2014 at 18:41 | #36Elizabeth :
“Only if it is unambiguously retained that justification is nothing else than the forgiveness of sin accepted by sinners in faith, does the doctrine of justification remain biblical and Lutheran.”
Exactly. Without faith no justification. Makes sense to me. No bifurcation there, thankfully!Actually, you have it backwards. Without justification there is no faith. If we don’t have the justification Christ merited for all humankind through His death and resurrection, then there is nothing for the faith the Holy Spirit creates (Eph. 2:8) through the means of grace to latch onto. Indeed, there is no real means of grace unless absolution is there to be received.“10 These treasures are brought to us by the Holy Spirit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. Faith alone is the only means through which we lay hold on, accept, apply, and take them for ourselves. 11 This faith is God’s gift [Ephesians 2:8–9], by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel and trust in Him. We trust that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the Father, and are eternally saved. 12 Therefore, it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says (a) we are “justified by faith” (Romans 3:28) or (b) “faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:5) and when he says (c) “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) or (d) “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Romans 5:18). 13 Faith justifies not because it is such a good work or because it is so beautiful a virtue. It justifies because it lays hold of and accepts Christ’s merit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. For this merit must be applied and become ours through faith, if we are to be justified by it. 14 Therefore, the righteousness that is credited to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is Christ’s obedience, suffering, and resurrection, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law and paid for ‹expiated› our sins. ”McCain, P. T. (Ed.). (2005). Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (pp. 537–538). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. SD III, 10 - February 23rd, 2014 at 18:49 | #37Brett,The discussions of UOJ have been carried out for many years and seem to remain at their earlier impasse. One of the reasons could be that we never, so far as I know, back up to our theories, so to speak, of the atonement, and then work forward from there to see how they affect our idea of justification. In other words, the division might exist already at an earlier point in theology, and since we never discuss that, we never resolve anything.So I’d like to ask you, what is your understanding of how Luther dealt with two competing theories of the atonement, the penal substitution theory, and the Christus Victor theory?Have you tried to work forward from your theory of the atonement to your idea of justification? Would you trace that out for me?Thank you for your time and attention.[Please note: I am not a pastor. You can call me just T. R.]This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
- February 23rd, 2014 at 19:50 | #38Jim, actually, in your quote the SD says faith “lays hold of and accepts Christ’s merit in the promise of the Holy Gospel.” SD III:13. That’s the doctrine of justification. Faith doesn’t lay hold of a doctrine. It lays hold of the promise of forgiveness and righteousness Christ earned for the world by His substitutionary life and death.
- February 23rd, 2014 at 20:06 | #39Help me to understand what you are saying with “Faith doesn’t lay hold of a doctrine.” Are you treating justification as a mere concept?
- February 23rd, 2014 at 22:17 | #40Jim, no, justification is not a mere concept. Forgiveness doesn’t become “real” only when I receive it. It is real before I receive it, but I don’t HAVE it until I receive it.Justification is real God-given faith laying hold of Christ’s real merits on our behalf promised through the real means of grace. From this comes real forgiveness, life, and salvation.Faith doesn’t come after justification as if it were something separate from justification. Faith doesn’t lay hold of “justification,” because the doctrine of justification – as defined by the Confessions – must include faith.
- February 23rd, 2014 at 22:46 | #41I confess that in regards to God’s Word and the unified doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture there is no such thing as a theory.Definition of theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.UOJ is promoted and defended via contradictory teachings while excusing the contradictions by calling all doctrine concepts with words that flex in meaning depending on the interpretation of the individual but inconsistent with God’s singular Word.T.R., is there some part of the atonement revealed in Scripture that you find to be inconclusive and a mere idea or theory?
- February 23rd, 2014 at 22:49 | #42Well, you have lost me pastor. I don’t get what you were taking issue with.So let me ask you, do you plainly subscribe to the LCMS teaching on Objective Justification or don’t you?
- February 23rd, 2014 at 23:19 | #43
Elizabeth :Actually, you have it backwards. Without justification there is no faith. If we don’t have the justification Christ merited for all humankind through His death and resurrection, then there is nothing for the faith the Holy Spirit creates (Eph. 2:8) through the means of grace to latch onto. Indeed, there is no real means of grace unless absolution is there to be received.
Mr. Pierce states, “If we don’t have the justification Christ merited for all humankind through His death and resurrection, then there is nothing for the faith the Holy Spirit creates (Eph. 2:8) through the means of grace to latch onto.”This is another foundational tenet of UOJ and another one that defines it as a false gospel. The gospel of UOJ’s object of it’s ‘faith’ is the supposed previous declaration of absolution by God upon the unbeliever. Without this declaration UOJ’s faith has nothing to cling to. Another reason the faith of UOJ is false and not of the Holy Spirit. The object of Scriptural and Confessional Gospel of God is Christ alone. Compare the object of the false gospel of UOJ to Scripture:
John 16:8-9, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me;”LCMS Brief Statement
“Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18]21;Rom. 4:25″
WELS This We Believe“We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ.”The BOC rejects both of these foundational tenets of UOJ held by the LCMS and WELS.
“because those who are accounted righteous before God do not live in mortal sin.”
BOC: What Is Justifying Faith?
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php71] “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.phpNote that contrary to UOJ the BOC only acknowledges only two ways ‘Justified’ is used in Scripture and neither are before and without faith in Christ.UOJ is anti-Confessional.In Christ,
Brett Meyer - February 24th, 2014 at 05:53 | #44“To be sure, the judgment has been removed, and hell and God’s wrath have been removed. Security and peace between God and us have also been established through the Son, who did not come to condemn the world–the world was already condemned before His coming–but to save the world. All that is still lacking is the acceptance of the Son. … ”Luther on Joh 3,19 (Martin Luther, “Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 22,
[Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957] pp. 381-85)Luther was an anti-confessional UOJ-guy, I am shocked! - February 24th, 2014 at 07:20 | #45Jim, the sinner does not put his faith in a “prior justification,” because there is no justification of the sinner without faith. The sinner’s faith lays hold of the promise of forgiveness, which is a reality in Christ. That is justification, that is the gospel. The essentials for a confessional definition of justification are: God’s grace, Christ’s merit, gospel promise, gift of faith, forgiveness, heaven: that’s justification. Although “we theologians make these most simple truths so complex” (Sasse, as quoted by Harrison), at the end of the day, I believe that is the LCMS position. What confessional Lutheran would say that faith is NOT a part of the doctrine of justification?
- February 24th, 2014 at 11:14 | #46Pr. Schulz,You are using the term “promise of forgiveness” as the object of faith. So, is the “promise of forgiveness” an actual forgiveness that is received in faith? Or, are you saying that the “promise of forgiveness” becomes an actual forgiveness once our faith is added to it? Maybe you are trying to say something else? I get what you are saying “reality in Christ” but you are taking issue with the idea that justification is that reality in Christ prior to anyone’s having faith, and that is where I am confused as to what you then mean by “reality” at this point because you claim there is no justification prior to an individual’s having faith. So what is “real”, then? Just the promise?Now to be clear, there is no receipt of the forgiveness of sins by a particular individual without faith. Faith is the hand receiving God’s gift. I think that is what you are trying to say, but I am not sure. Do you agree with that statement?
-
February 24th, 2014 at 11:37 | #47Jim, yes, the promise of forgiveness is an actual forgiveness received in faith. It is “actual” before, during, and after faith. It is a treasure earned by Christ, distributed through the means of grace. I agree with the statement “there is no receipt of the forgiveness of sins by a particular individual without faith.” What I question is your statement to Elizabeth: “Actually, you have it backwards. Without justification there is no faith.” It seems to me you are using the term “justification” as a synonym for “forgiveness.” While forgiveness is a part of the doctrine of justification, it is not the only thing. “Forgiveness” – earned by Christ and offered in the gospel – not “justification” comes before faith.
