Wednesday, March 12, 2014

ELDONA Responded to the Rolf Synod's Accusations

The Rolf Sect gave justification by faith a frosty reception.


WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014

The ELDoNA Refutes the ACLC's Critique Concerning the Article of Justification, Part 1


As our readers know, I was suspended from the WELS ministerium back in October, 2012, for teaching the Scriptural, Lutheran Gospel that “all are sinners and are justified solely by faith in Christ” (cf. Luther’s Works, Vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, commenting on Galatians 1:10). The WELS insisted that I should teach the false doctrine of Universal “Objective Justification,” namely, that God has already declared all sinners to be righteous in His sight (whether they believe in Christ or not), but that this justification of all people not by faith in Christ, must be believed so that people can receive the benefits of it.

According to His great mercy, the Lord brought me safely out of the WELS and put me in contact with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA), among whom the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. But before I could join the diocese, it was agreed that I should explain my confession a bit more thoroughly, and that the diocese should explain its confession on this article of faith so that I would have no doubt what they believe and confess. I wrote an essay on the topic, and the diocese composed and adopted a set of Theses. In the end, we found ourselves to be in complete doctrinal agreement.

The Theses adopted by the ELDoNA and my essay have now been published, both online and in print.
For some time, the ELDoNA had been in fellowship with the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (ACLC). The ACLC was not required to subscribe to the Theses on Justification, but they were asked to offer input on the Theses before they were finalized and adopted. Their initial input expressed disagreement with the fundamental conclusions of the Theses. Once the Theses were adopted, the ACLC offered a short response, which can be found here.

In this response, they promised to write up a more indepth critique, which they published about a month ago. It can be found here. In it, the pastors of the ACLC have declared themselves to be tentatively out of fellowship with the ELDoNA, pending final approval by their convention later this year.

Given the confusion created by the inaccuracies in the ACLC's response, the diocese has chosen to refute several of their claims in a series of posts on the diocesan website. The first was published yesterday.

http://eldona.org/theses-on-the-article-of-justification-a-refutation-of-the-aclcs-critique-part-one/

I encourage all Intrepid readers to give it a careful reading, and to follow the ELDoNA posts as we make our confession of faith as plain as possible, to the glory of the Triune God and for the edification of His holy Church.



Mid Week Lenten Service. March 12, 2014.
The Hebrews Worship Passage






Mid-Week Lenten Vespers


Pastor Gregory L. Jackson

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bethany-lutheran-worship

Bethany Lutheran Worship, 6 PM Phoenix Time

The Hymn #649       Jesus Savior                           3.80
The Order of Vespers                                             p. 41
The Psalmody                   Psalm 23                    p. 128
The Lection                            The Passion History

The Sermon Hymn #145    Jesus Refuge of the Weary     3.52




The Sermon –     The Worship Passage in Hebrews
 
The Prayers
The Lord’s Prayer
The Collect for Grace                                            p. 45

The Hymn #653              Now the Light Has Gone Away      3.30


Hebrews 4:12 For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.



"That was the time of blindness when we knew nothing of God's Word, but led ourselves and others into misery by our own idle talk and dreams. And I was one of those who indeed bathed in this sweat or in this bath of anxiety. Therefore let us give heed that we may thoroughly grasp and retain this doctrine, if other fanatics and false spirits wish to attack it, so that we may be fore-armed and learn, while we have the time and the beloved sun again enlightens us, and buy while the market is at our door. For it will come to this when once these lights, which God now gives, have departed, Satan will not take a furlough until he raises up other fanatical spirits to do harm; as he has already commenced to do in many places during our generation. What shall take place after we are gone?"
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 192. Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity, Matthew 22:34-46.



LAW AND GOSPEL


"All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the Law and the promises."
Apology Augsburg Confession, IV. #5. Justification. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 121. Tappert, p. 108. Heiser, p. 32.

"They teach that by contrition we merit grace. In reference to which, if any one should ask why Saul and Judas and similar persons, who were dreadfully contrite, did not obtain grace, the answer was to be taken from faith and according to the Gospel, that Judas did not believe, that he did not support himself by the Gospel and promise of Christ. For faith shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and of Peter. But the adversaries take their answer from the Law, that Judas did not love God, but feared the punishments."
Apology Augsburg Confession, XII. #8. Penitence. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 255. Tappert, p. 183. Heiser, p. 79.

"But the chief office or force of the Law is that it reveal original sin with all its fruits, and show man how very low his nature has fallen, and has become [fundamentally and] utterly corrupted; as the Law must tell man that he has no God nor regards [cares for] God, and worships other gods, a matter which before and without the Law he would not have believed. In this way he becomes terrified, is humbled, desponds, despairs, and anxiously desires aid, but sees no escape; he begins to be an enemy of [enraged at] God, and to murmur, etc. This is what Paul says, Romans 4:15: 'The Law worketh wrath.' And Romans 5:20: Sin is increased by the Law. [The Law entered that the offense might abound.'] Smalcald Articles, Third Part, II. #3. The Law.
Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 479. Tappert, p.303. Heiser, p. 142. Romans 5:20; Romans 4:15.



"But the only thing that was taught and advocated was: Invoke the Virgin Mary and other saints as your mediators and intercessors; fast often and pray much; make pilgrimages, enter cloisters and become monks, or pay for the saying of many masses and like works. And thus we imagined when we did these things we had merited heaven."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 191. Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity, Matthew 22:34-46

"The Law continually chastises us as sinners and transgressors, and threatens us with death and hell, until Christ comes and bestows His Spirit and His love, through the faith preached in the Gospel. Then we are freed from the Law. No longer it demands, no longer chastises, but lets the conscience rest. No more it terrifies with death and hell. It has become our kind friend and companion."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VI, p. 281. New Year's Day, Galatians 3:23-29

"It is now plain to whom Paul addresses the words of this verse--the work-righteous, who would become godly through the Law and its work, who consider the first office of the Law sufficiently effective to make them righteous. This doctrine gives rise to a class who might be styled 'Absalomites.' For as Absalom remained hanging by his head, in an oak tree, suspended between heaven and earth (2 Samuel 18:9), so this class hang between heaven and earth. Shut up by the Law, they do not touch the earth; they are restrained from the things their evil nature ardently desires. On the other hand, since the Law, powerless to improve their nature, only irritates and provokes it, making them enemies to the Law, they are not godly and so do not reach heaven."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VI, p. 277. New Year's Day, Galatians 3:23-29; 2 Samuel 18:9

"The Spirit is the ink or the inscription, yes, even the writer himself; but the pencil or pen and the hand of the writer is the ministry of Paul. This figure of a written epistle is, however, in accord with Scripture usage. Moses commands (Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 11, 18) that the Israelites write the Ten Commandments in all places where they walked or stood--upon the posts of their houses, and upon their gates, and ever have them before their eyes and in their hearts."
Sermons of Martin Luther, ed. John Nicolas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VIII, p. 225. Twelfth Sunday after Trinity 2 Corinthians 3:4-11; Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 11, 18.


"But now, if we are to know Christ as our helper and Savior, then we must first know, out of what He can help us, not out of fire or water, or other bodily need and danger, but out of sin and the hatred of God. But whence do I know that I lie drowned in misery? From no other source than from the Law, that must show me what my loss and disease are, or I will never inquire for the Physician and His help."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 192. Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity, Matthew 22:34-46

"Since we are unable to keep the Law and it is impossible for the natural man to do so, Christ came and stepped between the Father and us, and prays for us: Beloved Father, be gracious unto them and forgive them their sins. I will take upon Me their transgressions and bear them; I love Thee with my whole heart, and in addition the entire human race, and this I will prove by shedding My blood for mankind. Moreover, I have fulfilled the Law and I did it for their welfare in order that they may partake of my fulfilling the Law and thereby come to grace."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 188. Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity, Matthew 22:34-46

"I have often told you, dearly beloved, that the entire Scriptures consist of two parts, of the law and the Gospel. It is the law that teaches us what we are required to do; the Gospel teaches where we shall receive what the law demands. For it is quite a different thing to know what we should have, and to know where to get it. Just as when I am given into the hands of the physicians, where it is quite a different art to tell what my disease is than to tell what medicine I must take so as to recover. Thus it is likewise here. The law discovers the disease, the Gospel ministers the medicine."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 31. Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity, Luke 10:23-37

"I would much rather have people say that I preach too sweetly and that it hinders people from doing good works (even though my preaching does not do that), than that I failed to preach faith in Christ, and there was no help or consolation for timid, fearful consciences."
Sermons of Martin Luther, The House Postils, 3 vols., ed. Eugene F. A. Klug, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996, II, p. 115. Ascension Day Acts 1:1-11

"When we examine the laws of Moses, we find they all treat of love. For the commandment: 'Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me,' I cannot explain or interpret otherwise than: Thou shalt love God alone. Thus Moses himself interprets it in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, where he says: 'Hear, O Israel; Jehovah our God is one Jehovah; and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.' From this passage the lawyer has taken his answer."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 21f. Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity, Luke 10:23-37; Deuteronomy 6:4-5

"For if I love God I love also His will. Now, when God sends us sickness, poverty, shame and disgrace, that is His will. But what do we do under such circumstances? We thunder, scold and growl, and bear it with great impatience...But God does not want this. He wants us to accept His will with joy and love, and this we are too tardy in doing."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 26. Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity, Luke 10:23-37

"But there is not a man on earth who thus fulfils the law; yea, we all do just the opposite. Thus this law here makes us all sinners so that not the least letter of this commandment is fulfilled, even by the most holy persons in the world. For no one clings so firmly to God with all the heart, that he could forsake all things for God's sake. We have, God be praised, become so competent that we can almost not suffer the least word, yea, we will not let go of a nickel for the sake of God."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 25. Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity, Luke 10:23-37

"For God is a jealous God and cannot suffer us to love anything above Himself. But to love anything beneath Himself, He of course allows. Just as a husband can easily allow his wife to love the maid servants, the house and house utensils, cattle and other things; but to love with the love she should have for him, he will not suffer her to love anyone besides himself; yea, he desires her to forsake all things for his sake; and so again the wife also requires the same from her husband."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 24. Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity, Luke 10:23-37

"That was the time of blindness when we knew nothing of God's Word, but led ourselves and others into misery by our own idle talk and dreams. And I was one of those who indeed bathed in this sweat or in this bath of anxiety. Therefore let us give heed that we may thoroughly grasp and retain this doctrine, if other fanatics and false spirits wish to attack it, so that we may be fore-armed and learn, while we have the time and the beloved sun again enlightens us, and buy while the market is at our door. For it will come to this when once these lights, which God now gives, have departed, Satan will not take a furlough until he raises up other fanatical spirits to do harm; as he has already commenced to do in many places during our generation. What shall take place after we are gone?"
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 192. Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity, Matthew 22:34-46

"Let a prince give a person a castle or several thousand dollars, what a jumping and rejoicing it creates! On the other hand, let a person be baptized or receive the communion which is a heavenly, eternal treasure, there is not one-tenth as much rejoicing. Thus we are by nature; there is none who so heartily rejoices over God's gifts and grace as over money and earthly possessions; what does that mean but that we do not love God as we ought?"
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholaus Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, V, p. 190 Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity, Matthew 22:34-46

 

ELCA Seminaries and Student Debt



ELCA presiding bishop offers four emphases in understanding church

3/10/2014 12:00:00 AM
            ITASCA, Ill. (ELCA) -- The Rev. Elizabeth A. Eaton, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), introduced four emphases that she has invited leaders to consider in their work as an understanding of this church.
            During her Feb. 28 report to the ELCA Conference of Bishops, an advisory body of the church that includes 65 synod bishops, the presiding bishop and secretary, Eaton defined these understandings: "We are church, we are Lutheran, we are church together, and we are church for the sake of the world."
            As she expounded on each of the four emphases, Eaton said that at the center "of our life together is worship, and at the center of our worship is the crucified and risen Christ. We are in the faith formation business; not to get more members, not to get more market share, but to know Christ and Christ crucified."
            Eaton shared that it is critical for the Conference, the Church Council (the ELCA's board of directors) and others to "understand ourselves as communities of spiritual discernment. It is not just about strategic plans," she said, "but have we been quiet enough to listen to the Holy Spirit? How can we regain the patience and tending to what the Spirit has said to us?
            "We need to be engaged as individuals and as models to the church in the spiritual disciplines (of) prayer, silence, worship, giving, service and Scripture study," she said.
            In her report to the Conference, which met here Feb. 26-March 4, Eaton also highlighted some significant conversations and new endeavors happening across this church, such as the Feb. 1 launch of Always Being Made New: The Campaign for the ELCA. The five-year effort is the first comprehensive campaign for the ELCA, and "the invitation has been sent out to the church," she said.
            The presiding bishop noted the work of the ELCA Ecclesiology of a Global Church Task Force in her written report. Assembled this past fall, the task force is exploring the ELCA's "relationship as part of the communion of churches that is The Lutheran World Federation," Eaton wrote. "How do we understand ourselves to be part of the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church'?" The federation is a global communion of 142 churches representing more than 70 million Christians in 79 countries. The ELCA is the communion's only member church from the United States.
            Eaton noted the work of the ELCA Theological Education Advisory Council, which is "studying all the ways we can be effective as a church in helping all the baptized to be theologically grounded," and she also noted the "Declaration on the Way" as a "significant contribution to the United States and international Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues. The intent is to find areas of significant agreement between our two churches and have that ready by the observance of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation" in 2017.
            "There is tremendous and creative ministry going on across this church," Eaton told the synod bishops, expressing "the joy of being with several of you in your synods. It is heartening and humbling to see how hard you and your people work."
            Shortly after her report, the ELCA Conference of Bishops engaged in conversations with representatives of the Lutheran World Federation.
            "We met in closed sessions with (general secretary of the federation) Martin Junge and members of the Lutheran World Federation Council, sharing perspectives on complex and valuable relationships," said the Rev. Jessica R. Crist, bishop of the ELCA Montana Synod and chair of the conference.
            The visit with the ELCA "is the first in a series of three following a decision by the (federation's) council in June 2013," according to a March 4 communique issued by the federation. The council asked the communion's office, based in Geneva, to offer an accompaniment process to the three member churches "affected by a rupture of relations over the issues of family, marriage and sexuality."
            "Our unity in Christ is a precious gift. It is precisely this gift of unity that makes it possible for members of the communion to have deep and even difficult conversations," said Eaton. "The ELCA Conference of Bishops holds the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus, the Church of Sweden and the Lutheran World Federation Communion Office in prayer during this accompaniment process."
            "As a global communion of churches, we believe it is healthy and normal to respectfully engage with each other in discussing complex issues," said Junge. "In the LWF we are grateful for being able to uphold the values of being a communion in a time characterized by fragmentation, withdrawal and communication breakdown. The accompaniment visits are an expression of these values in the LWF."
            According to the communique, accompaniment visits have been scheduled with the Ethiopian Church Mekane Yesus and the Church of Sweden in the coming months.
            In other business, the bishops received a report from the Theological Education Advisory Council authorized by the ELCA Church Council to address, in a holistic way, issues on theological education, leadership development, candidacy, call and rostered leaders.
            The Rev. Herman R. Yoos III, bishop of the ELCA South Carolina Synod, told the conference that the Church Council approved three working committees with the following objectives: to study the financial stability for both leaders and institutions, cultivate vocation and lay theological education, and identify emerging and continuing adaptive educational practices.
            On the topic of financial sustainability, the Rev. James E. Hazelwood, bishop of the ELCA New England Synod, said that "the current model of how we prepare future leaders is not sustainable." He said that in 1991, slightly less than half of ELCA seminary graduates carried an average debt of $9,000. Today, 20 percent of all seminary graduates have at least $70,000 in debt and as a result, many view their first call as directly related to getting out of debt.
            In a discussion on the future of theological education, the Rev. William O. Gafkjen, bishop of the ELCA Indiana-Kentucky Synod, said, "When we're thinking about theological education, it is for the sake of the world, for the hope and healing of the world. A question I ask is, what does the theology of the cross have to do with this conversation? We have to ask that question and all of its aspects as a lens to these conversations."
            A final report and recommendations from the advisory council to the ELCA Church Council is slated for 2015.
- - -
- See more at: http://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/7649#sthash.jnuowGd1.dpuf

Nashotah House - Where Gaylin Schmeling Earned His STM - Downgrades Presiding Bishop Schori




NASHOTAH, WI: Episcopal Presiding Bishop Will Give Eulogy Only for Deacon Star
She will not preach in St. Mary's Chapel nor will she participate in any liturgical event

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
March 11, 2014

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori will give the eulogy for Terry Star, Executive Council member and deacon in the Diocese of North Dakota, when she appears at Nashotah House in May. Star died of a heart attack the morning of March 4 at the Anglo-Catholic seminary, where he was studying for ordination to the priesthood. He was 40.

Amidst heavy criticism that Jefferts Schori, whom many consider to be heretical in her views of basic Christian doctrine, had been invited, Seminary Dean Edward Salmon seems to have backed down and now says she will not preach in St. Mary's Chapel nor will she participate in any liturgical event, nor will she preside at anything.

A source told VOL that she will only give a eulogy for Mr. Star in Adams Hall, and then have conversations with faculty and students about life and education at Nashotah. "It's just a visit with a chance to speak about a member of executive council."

The Presiding Bishop has been publicly critical of the orthodox seminary having persuaded students not to attend the orthodox seminary for their theological education.

"If they are going to keep the doors open to TEC students and train a new generation of orthodox students who are trained to preserve our prayer book tradition this makes sense," said the source.

"There will be no 'charm offensive' allowed by the Presiding Bishop. She certainly won't charm anyone into thinking other than they already do," he said.

UOJ Enthusiasts Prove They Are Not Biblical Lutherans

To be dedicated by DP Buchholz, SP Schroeder,
and the faculty of the Sausage Factory at Mequon.


Every time a UOJ Enthusiast labors to pull together another philosophical pretzel, he reveals his anti-Lutheran stance.

The Word of God is clear and plain, capable of teaching anyone the basics of salvation. 

Their strained words and careful explanations of absurdities are not unlike the Church of Rome's. Yes, one must call upon one of these experts to explain all the details, since the Bible definitely teaches the opposite of what they say.

Ignore that, they say. Listen to me. I will show you how the Bible and the True Church has always taught forgiveness without faith.

They are frantic. They jump to condemn everyone who denies that "everyone is saved without faith." They bear no fruit. They are sourpusses with one hobbyhorse to ride. They are clouds without rain.


Don't Be a Dusek,
Giving the Guilt by Association Fallacy Credibility

Has anyone read Luther's Galatians Commentary?
The Book of Concord commends this work twice,
but never mentions anything by Knapp, Stephan, or Buchholz.

Joel Dusek:
For the record, I don’t know Greg Jackson, don’t follow him, and don’t read his blog. Also, this is the only subject I have found where I disagree with Mr. Pierce, and much enjoy his writings on this site.

But we can see that Joel reads Pierce, with great appreciation, even while identifying him as a false teacher.

Dusek's nonsensical and irrelevant comment reflects the constant guilt by association fallacy worked upon the malleable minds of WELS laity and pastors. 

WELS leaders constantly wig out whenever someone has a pertinent question about their criminal activities, their unethical behavior, or their false doctrine. The purpose is to divide and conquer, to intimidate, to silence - and it works well.

Dusek is proof. So are the misnamed Intrepid Lutherans, who are little more than a Ladies Aid group now, meeting to knit and discuss trivia in a non-offensive way. The WELS DPs (Drunk Presidents, as one laymen called them) insisted that everyone quit the list of IL, so they did. Mark Schroeder did not want his little lobbying group out of control, so they thanked him for his crab-walking compromises into Church and Change euphoria by becoming synodical zombies.

Luther warned George Major and others against staying in the same stall with false teachers. The effect is obvious. "I want to disagree with you, mildly, while you trash the Chief Article of the Christian Faith, so you will continue to like me and post my tepid objections to your crypto-atheism."

Note well that nobody objects to Buchholz on the Net, even though he declared ex cathedra that every single person on earth is already saved. Period. End of story.

No matter what flavor of UOJ one pretends to like or discuss, all UOJ degenerates into atheism, which is why Pierce is so in love with the dogma of Knapp and Stephan. Knapp denied the Biblical basis for the Trinity and Stephan denied his marital vows.

The librarians of doctrine will hasten to gasp, "But Universalism and Atheism are not the same. We have you there. Our dog notes will prove it." 

But lo, the old-fashioned Universalists have merged with the Unitarians to become obnoxious, condemning, Atheists (aka Humanists, aka Ethical Society, aka Bill Nye the Science Guy.)

Universalists used to be quite conservative about social norms, and their hymns were often the same as ours. And Unitarians used to emphasize God but not the Trinity. But both groups devolved into the radical faction it is today - very high income, very high educational level, very hostile to traditional Christianity.

LCMS and WELS are just a step behind, wagged by the big tail of ELCA and Thrivent.

Those who support or tolerate UOJ are also behind working with ELCA, the United Nations, and Planned Parenthood. Their dogma allows it, approves it, and promotes it.

I am not writing about theory but the actual practice of WELS and Missouri.




Daniel Baker Takes on the Academy of Universalism.

The Universalist crowd has never comprehended the efficacy of the Word
in the Means of Grace, a foundational Biblical truth.
Until then, they will continue to sound like geese startled by cheap firecrackers.


Some Clarifications in Articulating Objective Justification

March 11th, 2014Post by  - Canadian Seminary Student, eh?
First, Objective Justification and Subjective Justification are not two different justifications, but rather two parts of the act of Justification.   My brother David has put it well:  Objective Justification = God justifies the sinner [through faith].  Subjective Justification = [God justifies the sinner] through faith.
[GJ P. Leyser put it well - "This is rubbish." The Calvinist translator of Knappe would love this, since his modern terms have suddenly become canonical, right from the Bible.]
agnusdei-lambofGod
Objective Justification refers to the work of God in Christ as well as the proclamation of the gospel and administration of the sacraments.  Subjective Justification refers to faith, which is created by that proclamation and receives the benefits.  Subjective Justification does not refer to the administration of the means of grace.  While it is true that when we speak of the application of the the accomplished act of Christ we certainly speak of faith, nevertheless the application of the righteousness of Christ  in the means of grace as such is objective.   God, in Christ, reconciles the world to himself… entrusting the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19).  It is all one motion.  This is why the pastor can pronounce absolution on a sinner even though he does not know for sure –outside of the sinner’s confession — if he truly has faith.  
[GJ - Thus WELS absolves its murderers, adulterers, New Agers, and child porn file swappers, but condemns JBFA to Hell and back again.]
Article three of the Formula of Concord lists the necessary parts of justification (SD III, 25): the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and faith, which receives the righteousness of Christ in the promise of the gospel.  The grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the promise of the gospel are all part of Objective Justification.  Faith receiving the righteousness of Christ refers to Subjective Justification.
Obviously the means of grace are involved when we discuss Subjective Justification, since it is in them that faith receives the righteousness of Christ.  Similarly, the plan and work of our redemption are discussed as well.  After all, they are not two different justifications.    However, when we speak of Objective Justification, we are not only speaking of what God did back then, but also what he declares today in the promise of the gospel.  When we speak of Subjective Justification, we are speaking specifically of faith receiving what is objectively given.  
[GJ - Article III, which the Preus Kinder do not grasp, never speaks of justification apart from faith, before faith or without faith.]
The discussion of Objective and Subjective Justification is simply a distinction within one act.  God quenches our thirst.  This is one act.  Nevertheless, we can distinguish between God preparing the water and pouring it into our mouths on the one hand, and us receiving it in our mouths on the other.  It doesn’t change the fact that it is one act.  The fact that a sinner can know that he is justified through faith presupposes that the righteousness of Christ is accomplished for all sinners and offered to all sinners.  
[GJ - This is a fine tautology, proving that A is A because a Preus says so. But Grampa said otherwise. You should all get together and read it some day.]

Cited by Dr. Robert Preus, Justification and Rome -
not Just a Vacation in Rome, as the Preus kids read it.

  1. March 11th, 2014 at 17:01 | #1
    The problem arises when individuals state that the first half of the equation (“God justifies the sinner”) can be stated as a completed event to all those who do not meet the requirements of the second half of the equation (“through faith”). More specifically, those of us who object to the terminology take issue with the notion that God has declared all people righteous whether they believe it or not. The issue is *not* whether God has acquired the three components you call “objective justification” for all people, to wit, the grace of God, the merits of Christ, and the Promise of the Gospel. These most certainly have been acquired for all people whether they believe it or not. The question is whether or not these three components result in forgiveness and a declaration of “not guilty” before the Throne of God whether one receives them through faith or not. That is the issue.
  2. March 11th, 2014 at 17:53 | #2
    Daniel,
    Do you believe it is Scriptural to talk about the sins of the whole world being punished in Christ? If so, can you explain what that means? If not, would you explain why? Thanks.
  3. Craig Cooper
    March 11th, 2014 at 18:16 | #3
    When discussing Objective Justification I find it helpful to talk about the sins of the whole world being atoned for by Christ’s shed blood. Subjective Justification would be God the Holy Spirit, working through the message of atonement, so that some believe and personally realize the benefit.
  4. March 11th, 2014 at 18:49 | #4
    Meeting the requirements is not what faith does. Faith receives the fulfilled requirements given to all in the word of the gospel.
    If this decree is not completed in an individual, then the that is a defect on the part of the individual, not God. I’m sure we would agree on that. But that doesn’t change the fact that God, in the ordained will and redemptive work and preached gospel, is favorable toward all sinners for Christ’s sake. It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus took away the sin of the world.
  5. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 18:49 | #5
    Jim, I have come to the conclusion that there is no way that a certain group people will ever accept this teaching, even though it is true and no matter how thoroughly you explain it and support it with Scripture. Jim, you are a much more patient man than I am. Bless you for your efforts. A certain faction’s obstinate refusal to accept the obvious just aggravates gets to me.
    Either Christ took all the worlds (sic) sins to the cross or he didn’t. If you say He didn’t, then you advocate a limited atonement. It’s as simple as that. Yet the deniers of O/S justification claim there’s some sort of hazy third option. What that option is, I have no idea. Anyway, thanks for your able defense of the truth. You’re a great Lutheran.
  6. Joe Krohn
    March 11th, 2014 at 18:53 | #6
    I’d be curious what Daniel thinks of the Hunnius quote provided in the earlier post here on BJS. To say “…has freed each and every mortal, without any exception at any time or in any place, from sin, death and eternal damnation.” means exactly what Daniel is speaking against. Indeed for every mortal to be freed from sin means all mortals are “not guilty” prior to belief or unbelief for the sake of Christ. If this is not so, Christ’s work is incomplete.
  7. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 18:55 | #7
    I mean, really, what is so freaking complicated about this? The refusal to accept a gift doesn’t mean the gift wasn’t offered. God wants all men to be saved. That salvation is available to all by God’s grace through faith in the Son by the power of the Spirit. Okay, so a sinner rejects this free gift. Tragic. But the gift was still offered. The gift continues to be offered until the sinner is dead.
  8. March 11th, 2014 at 18:57 | #8
    You’re too kind, Thomas. I am really not patient.
    I am just as puzzled as you are by those who reject OJ/SJ. I hope Daniel will entertain my question, because I don’t understand what it could mean that the sins of the whole world were put onto Christ, He who knew no sin was made to be sin, and then was punished for the sins of the whole world, God’s wrath was poured out on Christ. And, then at the same time talk about Christ rising from the grave in victory, but the sins of the whole world aren’tactually forgiven? What kind of victory is that? I hope Daniel can explain this for me. The other option is as you point out, limited atonement.
  9. March 11th, 2014 at 19:07 | #9
    Yes, it is Scriptural to say that Christ was punished for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Peter 3:181 John 2:2, etc.). This means that Christ bore the weight of the whole world’s sin by His Passion, swallowing it and its consequences (ultimately death) in the totality of His perfection. By virtue of the same perfection and the fullness of His Deity, He also acquired complete righteousness for all people. These truths stand whether one believes them or not.
    Faith is a requirement for salvation whether one wants to use the word “requirement” or not. If one does not have faith, one is not saved. I’m sure we all agree on that. Therefore, if it is necessary unto salvation, it is a requirement for salvation. Anything beyond that is equivocation.
    The righteousness of faith is certainly dependent on what Christ does, insofar as an individual’s faith does not create Christ and His merits. But faith is required in order for the forgiveness that is granted on account of Christ’s merits to be applied to the individual. Just as the blind man was healed when he believed on Christ (cf. St. Luke 18:42, “thy faith has saved thee”), so too we are healed/justified/forgiven when we believe on Christ – not because faith is a meritorious work on our part, but because it is the life-giving work of the Holy Spirit. When we cling to Christ by virtue of God-given faith, we are no longer judged according to our own merits before the Throne of God’s Justice, but we are judged by Christ’s merits before the Throne of Grace.
  10. March 11th, 2014 at 19:10 | #10
    Thank you for your response, Daniel. But I am still puzzled by your answer. You write, “acquired complete righteousness for all people.” Can you explain what you mean by “acquired”?
  11. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 19:13 | #11
    Well, you’re more patient than I am (though, admittedly, that’s not exactly a high bar). I guess for me, at a basic level, I just can’t understand what it is that these people are arguing against. It just doesn’t seem to make any sense. I realize that I’m not a stupid man, but I’m certainly not the smartest by a long shot. But are the deniers of OJ/SJ really claiming to have considered this issue more deeply than Pieper and found him to be in error? His Dogmatics is one of the most impressive intellectual achievements I’ve ever encountered. Granted, it doesn’t have any hacky photoshop jobs of Synodical officials, but it explains this issue in such exhaustive and meticulous detail that it astonishes me that people could really try to find fault with his analysis. I guess that is the fallacy of the appeal to authority or something, but in this case, Pieper really is an authority worth appealing to. The man was simply a master of orthodox Lutheran theology.
  12. March 11th, 2014 at 19:16 | #12
    I mean that He lived a perfect life on behalf of the entire human race, and in Himself possesses complete and sufficient righteousness for all people.
  13. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 19:19 | #13
    So you’re a supporter of Objective/Subjective Justification?
  14. March 11th, 2014 at 19:20 | #14
    So, if I understand you correctly, the Father punishes the sins of the whole world in Christ, and the result is that Christ comes to possess in Himself “complete and sufficient righteousness for all people”?
    Is there any verdict that the Father reaches towards the world once Christ makes satisfaction for all sin?
  15. March 11th, 2014 at 19:27 | #15
    Sure, I agree. It is a requirement. But the forgiveness offered is not contingent upon it. If that is what you mean by requirement, then I disagree. But it is a requirement for the forgiveness received. If that is what you mean, then I agree.
  16. March 11th, 2014 at 19:28 | #16
    You are reading me correctly.
    As it pertains to your second question: Not that I’m aware of, unless you are familiar with some declaration in Holy Writ that I have not heard.
  17. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 19:32 | #17
    It seems like one of the clearest Scriptural verses in this debate is the proclamation of John the Baptist. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This is God the Holy Spirit talking. The Word of the Triune God. The sins are “taken away.” That is, gone. Not potentially gone, or maybe gone under certain conditions. But the Lamb takes away the sins of the whole world. The sinner gains access to the salvation and forgiveness that has been earned for the whole whole by God’s grace through faith in the Son without the works of the Law. A sinner many reject that free gift, but the gift is still offered. Where have I erred? Isn’t this correct?
  18. March 11th, 2014 at 19:33 | #18
    Perhaps our disagreement pertains to the definition of “forgiveness.” I do not believe that forgiveness is a commodity that exists to be dispensed. Forgiveness is the result of faith that receives the objective components of justification. Whereas it seems like you’re calling the objective components themselves “forgiveness.” However, just as the blind man’s sight did not have to exist prior to the God-given faith that healed him, so too our forgiveness does not have to exist in order to be forgiven/justified by the gift of God-given faith.
  19. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 19:35 | #19
    Our faith does not create God’s forgiveness. It exists beforehand. It was won by the Son on the cross for the whole world.
  20. March 11th, 2014 at 19:37 | #20
    No, because Christ’s righteousness being sufficient for the entire human race does not equate to an unbiblical universal declaration of righteousness regardless of faith.
  21. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 19:39 | #21
    Unbiblical? That’s pretty rich.
  22. March 11th, 2014 at 19:41 | #22
    Forgiveness is “acquired” on account of Christ’s merit in the sense that He atoned for the sins of the entire world. However, it is *applied* to individuals on the basis of faith, whereby sinners are actually declared righteous and forgiven on account of faith that believes the promises of Gospel backed by the merits of Christ and the grace of God.
  23. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 19:42 | #23
    The Son of God earned salvation and forgiveness for the whole world on the cross. That salvation and forgiveness is applied individually by God’s grace through faith in the Son. It doesn’t get anymore Biblical than that.
  24. March 11th, 2014 at 19:44 | #24
    Please provide the chapter and verse where God says “I declare the entire world not guilty and righteous in My sight whether it believes it or not.” I will recant right here and now after you provide such a verse.
    To the contrary, we know from Scripture that the wrath of God has never ceased toward the unbelieving world, vis a vis St. John 3:36.
  25. March 11th, 2014 at 19:46 | #25
    I can agree with that statement, insofar as we are talking about the Atonement, so long as we agree that no one is actually declared righteous, forgiven, or justified (much less saved!) outside of faith.
  26. Thomas
    March 11th, 2014 at 19:53 | #26
    This is exactly were this debate always breaks apart. No one is advocating universalism. What’s being said is that the sins of all the world have been taken upon Christ and His resurrection is proof that God has accepted His death as payment for this sins. Of course, if the sinner chooses to reject that earned forgiveness, he is lost. By the way, 2 Corinthians 5:19Romans 3:22-241 John 2:2.
  27. March 11th, 2014 at 19:56 | #27
    I never accused you of advocating universalism. But what’s being said is not simply that Christ bore the sins of the world and that God accepted this sacrifice as sufficient. We all agree with that. The issue, as I stated in the initial comment on this thread, is whether or not God declared the entire unbelieving world righteous in His sight regardless of faith. That is the crux of the matter, and something I consider an unbiblical tenet (provided you don’t provide me that chapter and verse, of course).
  28. March 11th, 2014 at 20:03 | #28
    Daniel Baker :
    @Jim Pierce #14 
    You are reading me correctly.
    As it pertains to your second question: Not that I’m aware of, unless you are familiar with some declaration in Holy Writ that I have not heard.
    Sure there are two Scriptures in particular that show God reaches a verdict in response to His Son’s sacrifice… Romans 5:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:19.
    The Son’s atoning sacrifice is a work that makes satisfaction for the guilt and punishment of the sins for the whole world. The result of His sacrifice is that God is reconciled to the world, those sins being forgiven in Christ (John 1:29).
  29. March 11th, 2014 at 20:06 | #29
    @Daniel Baker #18 
    Yes, our forgiveness does need to exist before faith. By forgiveness, I mean the favorable disposition of God toward us. It exists in Christ. Yet, when we talk about the role of faith, I also agree that it is not proper to talk about being forgiven prior to faith. Also, we don’t talk about forgiveness on account of faith or after faith. You seem to be saying that we are forgiven after faith. We are not forgiven after faith. Rather, we are forgiven through faith.
    So in a sense, we can understand forgiveness as something that exists before faith. It exists in the merits of Christ. The Dogmaticians speak of acquired righteousness. It is helpful to an extent to speak abstractly in this way. But forgiveness is one action of God. It happens through faith. It is based on the atoning death of Christ and declared in the risen body of Christ and the Gospel.
    What I mean by it being declared in the risen body of Christ is that his resurrection is an absolution from sin. Calov writes:
    “Christ’s resurrection took place as an actual absolution from sin. As God punished our sins in Christ, upon so He also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him, ans so He absolved also us in Him.” (Biblia Illustrata ad Rom 4:25; quoted in Pieper II:321).
    So faith is required, but that doesn’t change the fact that the absolution existed before faith in the resurrection of Christ. Nevertheless, I am personally absolved through faith, not before faith nor after nor on account of faith.
  30. March 11th, 2014 at 20:16 | #30
    I certainly agree that forgiveness happens through faith. But the ministry of reconciliation is an ongoing process. The Means of Grace literally offer absolution, not just an assurance of an absolution that already existed, or an absolution that was declared previously and merely needed to be “realized” or “received.” When God says “I forgive you” in the Word and Sacraments, He is actually forgiving us in real-time on account of the extra-time events of Calvary, etc.
    This is why I disagree with the Pieper citation of Calov you quoted. First of all, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Christ did not need to be absolved of the world’s sin, since He paid the penalty for them and ultimately swallowed them by virtue of His own righteousness and resurrection. This was not an absolution from sin, but a satisfaction and defeating of sin. And then, of course, I disagree with the notion that we were absolved on Calvary, since I believe absolution occurs in real-time in the Means of Grace.
  31. March 11th, 2014 at 20:20 | #31
    Those verses do not contain a universal declaration of righteousness regardless of faith.
    Also, please explain how God’s wrath abides on forgiven sins (forgiven sin seems to imply the satiation of wrath). Thanks.
  32. March 11th, 2014 at 20:24 | #32
    Daniel Baker :
    To the contrary, we know from Scripture that the wrath of God has never ceased toward the unbelieving world, vis a vis St. John 3:36.
    The Scripture you cite is most certainly true, but it doesn’t demonstrate that God is not reconciled to the world. Rather, it shows that there will be those in the world who will not reconcile with God and as a result of their unbelief they will suffer God’s wrath.
  33. March 11th, 2014 at 20:26 | #33
    Daniel Baker :
    @Jim Pierce #28 
    Those verses do not contain a universal declaration of righteousness regardless of faith.
    Also, please explain how God’s wrath abides on forgiven sins (forgiven sin seems to imply the satiation of wrath). Thanks.
    Looks like I answered your later question in my last comment above.
    Regarding the Scriptures I provided, you are right, there is no explicit statement such as “I the Father now absolve ye the world!” However, those Scriptures plainly tell us that God is reconciled to the world because of what Christ has done. Don’t they?
  34. March 11th, 2014 at 20:33 | #34
    You didn’t really answer my question. The verse doesn’t say “God’s wrath will return to the unbelieving.” It says His wrath abides. That means it never left. It wasn’t removed. If it wasn’t removed, how could their sins have been forgiven?
    Regarding the reconciliation of the world, the verses tell us that God was *reconciling* the world, an ongoing process that continues with the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, whereby individual sinners are reconciled to the Father by virtue of the Means of Grace. This does not, however, mean that the entire unbelieving world is reconciled to God. This is why the Solid Declaration can tell us that “the unbelieving and unconverted [. . .] person is not reconciled with God” (VI:8).
  35. March 11th, 2014 at 20:45 | #35
    Daniel Baker :
    @Jim Pierce #32 
    @Jim Pierce #33 
    You didn’t really answer my question. The verse doesn’t say “God’s wrath will return to the unbelieving.” It says His wrath abides. That means it never left. It wasn’t removed. If it wasn’t removed, how could their sins have been forgiven?
    Regarding the reconciliation of the world, the verses tell us that God was *reconciling* the world, an ongoing process that continues with the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, whereby individual sinners are reconciled to the Father by virtue of the Means of Grace. This does not, however, mean that the entire unbelieving world is reconciled to God. This is why the Solid Declaration can tell us that “the unbelieving and unconverted [. . .] person is not reconciled with God” (VI:8).
    I believe I did answer your question, but perhaps my answer wasn’t clear enough. You are right, God’s wrath continues to abide upon unbelievers. Yet, the Scripture is quite clear “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Romans 5:10)
    Indeed, the quote from the SD makes the point that there is a relationship being expressed that I am pointing out. Christ’s vicarious satisfaction results in a complete satisfaction for the sins of all humanity. God is reconciled to the world as a result of that satisfaction. However, that doesn’t in no way shape or form mean that every individual is reconciled to God. Hence, your quote from the SD. We explain this under Law and Gospel.
    I think it important to clarify the point you seem to be making, though. Are you really saying that God is NOT reconciled to the whole world? That is, He is only reconciled to those who believe in Him?
  36. March 11th, 2014 at 20:59 | #36
    The context of your Romans 5:10 reference clearly demonstrates that the “we” St. Paul is talking about is believers. We certainly were God’s enemies when He called us by the Gospel and enlightened us with His gifts.
    As for your other questions, I do not draw an abstract distinction between “the world” and the individuals of which “the world” is comprised. If each and every individual that constitutes “the world” is not reconciled to God, then in no meaningful sense is “the *WHOLE* world” reconciled to God. When Saint Paul tells us that God was in Christ *reconciling* the world to Himself, he means exactly what I wrote above: Christ’s work of Atonement earned/acquired all things necessary for the reconciliation of the human race; He now, in turn, commits this Ministry to us, which is applied to individuals by virtue of the Blessed Means of Grace. It is an ongoing process, not a once-for-all completed fact (as demonstrated by the reality that not all people are once-for-all reconciled).
    When we are judged on the Last Day, all who stand at the Throne of God’s Justice will be judged and condemned according to their works. They will be condemned for their own sins. All who stand in Christ will escape this judgment entirely, since they will be tried by the Throne of Grace. Their names are in the Book of Life, and their merits are Christ’s. They are righteous because Christ is righteous. The same does not go (and never has gone) for those who are not in Christ.
  37. Joel Dusek
    March 11th, 2014 at 20:59 | #37
    Messrs. Baker, Pierce, and Preus are having a polite, beneficial, discussion which I hope continues. I’m apprehensive to jump into this, lest I be misunderstood or accused of being a “jerk” by Thomas or a “Jacksonite” by Mr. Pierce. But, here I go. (For the record, I don’t know Greg Jackson, don’t follow him, and don’t read his blog. Also, this is the only subject I have found where I disagree with Mr. Pierce, and much enjoy his writings on this site.)
    Mr. (Rev?) Preus,
    I appreciate your use of the word “articulating” in your title, and the clarity with which you have stated your position. There’s entirely too much talking past each other due to the articulation of synonymous and non-synonymous terms. For certain, Justification is one act, the declaration of righteousness which is the forgiveness of sin, from God’s grace, due to the merits of Christ alone, and received through Faith in the promise of the Gospel. As your quote from the BOC indicates, there are actually four, not two, components of the one act (grace, merit, faith, and promise). Justification is always objective IN THAT the entirety of righteousness is not dependent on the work and merits of man, but Christ alone.
    I do disagree with the terminology used in describing Justification. It seems historically in part as a response to the Limited Atonement of Calvinism, the teaching of the doctrine of Justification was split into two categories. Atonement, Reconciliation, Propitiation, and Redemption were categorized as Objective Justification and “Universal” which correctly refers to these, was applied to Justification. The reception of Christ’s merits through Faith was then categorized as Subjective Justification. I think these distinctions unnecessarily muddle the one act of the declaration of righteousness. In fact, just last week in Bible Class on the Second Article my pastor mentioned Atonement, Propitiation, and Reconciliation, and said next week we’ll talk about Justification, I’m assuming in the Third Article concerning faith. They should simply not be understood or taught as synonymous.
    I think UOJ/SJ are, at best, incorrect methods of attempting to teach correct doctrine. At worst, they are used as weapons. If these semantic distinctions are removed, Scripture and the Confessions are clear that all are redeemed, all sins atoned for, and God wants all to be saved, AND only believers are justified, by faith, and that justification is due to Christ’s work on the cross. This splitting of Justification into Objective and Subjective has since led to the miscommunication, confusion, strawmen arguments, fallacies, accusations, condemnations, excommunication, and general malady. My skeptical-Spidey-sense tingles when a person (or Synod) teaches Justification based on these terms.
    Anyway, God bless, keep up the good discussion.
  38. March 11th, 2014 at 21:19 | #38
    Well said, Mr. Dusek. I heartily concur with your sentiments!
  39. March 11th, 2014 at 21:19 | #39
    So, if I understand you correctly, the death and resurrection of Jesus secures the proper conditions for the forgiveness of the sins of those who ultimately have faith. Please correct me if I have restated your position incorrectly.
    I wholeheartedly disagree with you and I am sorry to read your rejection of the Scriptural teaching that God is reconciled to the world through Christ. Christ is the world’s mercy seat and that is why He can be my mercy seat. Christ is the mediator and atoning sacrifice for the entire world against God’s anger. The Gospel teaches that through faith in Christ the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation Christ has won for the world is received. What you have unwittingly done is gutted out the gospel, leaving an empty gift box being offered to individuals and if faith is added to the gift box, then forgiveness and reconciliation is really there for the individual. Indeed, what does it even mean for Christ to be our mediator, if He is only the mediator for some? How do we have access to the Father if He is still angry? What did Christ’s death and resurrection accomplish? You say, He won the conditions making it possible to be forgiven.
    Yours is the last word. Thank you for the dialogue.
  40. Joe Krohn
    March 11th, 2014 at 21:22 | #40
    @Daniel Baker #24 
    I’ll be glad to produce it when you show me the one that refers to God as the Holy Trinity…
  41. March 11th, 2014 at 21:33 | #41
    You do not understand me correctly. Christ’s work, the grace of God, and the promises of the Gospel exist objectively for all people, not just for “those who ultimately have faith.” However, these objective aspects of justification are not justification proper without the God-given subjective aspect. Unless received by faith, they are not justification or forgiveness. Forgiveness is certainly only applied and given to believers, but the components by which forgiveness was earned, i.e. the objective aspects of justification, were earned for all.
    With regard to your other statement: “I wholeheartedly disagree with you and I am sorry to read your rejection of the Scriptural teaching that God is reconciled to the world through Christ.”
    Please cite the passage which states that the ministry of reconciliation is a past-tense completed event. Thanks
    “Christ is the world’s mercy seat and that is what makes it possible for Him to be my mercy seat.”
    This is true, I’ve never denied it. Christ exists as the Throne of Grace for all. But only those who cling to the Mercy Seat through faith receive the benefits thereof, namely, justification.
    “Christ is the mediator and atoning sacrifice against God’s anger. The Gospel teaches that through faith in Christ the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation Christ has won for the world is received.”
    These are facts.
    “What you have unwittingly done is gutted out the gospel, leaving an empty gift box being offered to individuals and if faith is added to the gift box, then forgiveness and reconciliation is really there for the individual.”
    Hardly. The gift box offers the promise of the Gospel (backed by the grace of God and the merits of Christ), just as surely as Christ promised the blind man faith. But without faith, he would not have had his sight. So too the promises of the Gospel offer forgiveness, but no forgiveness is actually given outside of faith. Faith saves; Jesus said it, not me.
    “Indeed, what does it even mean for Christ to be our mediator? How do we have access to the Father if He is still angry?”
    Christ’s anger is satiated toward those who believe, because when He sees us, He sees His Son. When He sees the world, He sees its sin, which is why His wrath abides upon it.
    “What did Christ’s death and resurrection accomplish? You say, He won the conditions making it possible to be forgiven.”
    Christ’s death and resurrection accomplished everything I’ve said throughout this thread, namely, the bearing of the sins of the entire world and the acquisition of complete righteousness sufficient for the entire world.
  42. March 11th, 2014 at 21:35 | #42
    Sure thing. St. Matthew 28:19.
    There’s a difference between me asking to see the term “UOJ” in Scripture and me asking to see the doctrine behind it in Scripture. Quite the false analogy there, Joe.
  43. Joe Krohn
    March 11th, 2014 at 22:47 | #43
    @Daniel Baker #42 
    No Daniel, there isn’t. You’re asking for ‘UOJ’ and I’m asking for’Trinity’. They are specific ‘terms’ that can be extrapolated from scripture. We have shown you and you deny it. Do you agree with the Hunnius quote in the other post; that all men are free from sin?
  44. March 11th, 2014 at 23:01 | #44
    “Holy Trinity” is the traditional term for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” I demonstrated the latter from Sacred Scripture. UOJ is the term for God’s universal declaration of righteousness regardless of faith. You have failed to demonstrate anywhere in Sacred Scripture that God declares anyone righteous outside of faith. Sorry, but that is not comparable by any stretch of the imagination.
    Regarding the Hunnius quote posted earlier, I agree with it whole-heartedly. But I do not think it means what you think it means, since Hunnius adamantly, repeatedly, and forcefully condemns the Huberian error that all men are justified without respect to faith.
  45. Joe Krohn
    March 11th, 2014 at 23:49 | #45
    @Daniel Baker #44 
    On the contrary, I do not think you understand the ramifications of redemption and the freedom from sin that it declares as Hunnius, the BoC and Scripture bear testimony to.