The way to
improve Biblical knowledge and memorization, to make Scripture readings in
preaching and teaching consistent, is to use the King James Version or the
slightly updated KJV12. Below are KJV21 readings with an explanation of why
they are test examples in my examination of Bible translations, paraphrases,
and stream-of-consciousness living amplified nonsense.
Mark 16 does not break off at
verse 9 but retains the entire chapter.
This
is consistent with the best evidence and does not relegate half of Mark 16 to a
footnote.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
Teach
all nations is the correct translation and grammar, and it avoids the Fuller
Seminary agenda of making soul-winning disciples who will growth the church.
Fuller teaches against inerrancy, against the efficacy of the Word, and for
women’s ordination. Their agenda is suspect.
Acts 3:21 21 whom Heaven must
receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by
the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
The
Calvinists have the risen Christ trapped in Heaven, so He cannot be present in
both natures in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. The verb is definitely
“receive” but The New RSV carries on the Calvinist perspective with remain -
”who
must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God
announced long ago through his holy prophets.” Acts 3:21 NRSV
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of
blessing which we bless: is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break: is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
The
KVJ tradition uses the correct word – communion – twice, but that is horrifying
for those who deny the efficacy of the Sacraments, reject infant faith, and question
the Real Presence. Others use “a participation in,” a vague and wordy phrase
for one word in Greek, used in the Pauline benediction, 2 Corinthians 13:14 –
communion. The various translations use communion of the Holy Spirit, not a
participation in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 3:21 But now the
righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the
Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of
Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all those who believe. For there is no
difference,23 for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, 24 being
justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
The
old NIV did not have a second “all” but the New NIV has all as sinners
(correct) but “all” are justified,
the second “all” found only in the
imagination of mainline apostates.
23 for
all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and “all”
are justified freely – New NIV.
1 Peter 3:21 21 The like
figure to this, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ,
The
anti-Sacrament denominations are not against baptism, just against the efficacy
of the Word in baptism. The clear witness to the power of baptism is reduced to
symbolism by the NIV
21 and this water symbolizes
baptism that now saves you also…NIV
WELS is talking about making up their own translation,
which will be done in 2217, if it goes as fast as the Hoenecke translation did.
Lutherans should climb down from their Tower of Babel and resolve to use a
faithful translation. The KJV may be a bit antique for some, but the answer to
that problem is KJV21, with very modest changes, not unlike the modest changes
made in the first version of the KJV from 1611.
Many traditional Lutherans have been caught up with the
game of manuscripts and changing the original readings to suit their interests.
That problem is solved with the KJV and the KJV21. The time is here to invoke
the adiaphora article of the Formula of Concord, as it should be in times of
confessional crisis.
But
the other side contended that in time of persecution, in case of confession,
especially when it is the design of the adversaries, either through force and
compulsion, or in an insidious manner, to suppress the pure doctrine, and
gradually to introduce again into our churches their false doctrine, this, also
in adiaphora, can in no way be done, as has been said, without violence to
conscience and prejudice to the divine truth.
Book
of Concord, Formula of Concord, Article X, Solid Declaration, 3.
The Germans sought to have a
single Bible to unify the Christian Church. Luther’s was not the first. The
English also sought unity with one Bible rather than many versions, so King
James I authorized the unified effort, honoring Tyndale’s martyrdom and
Luther’s influence.
Owning the right Bible translation is not enough. We should
avail ourselves of the Means of Grace, and apply the lessons of the Holy
Scriptures to our daily lives.
Luther:
Therefore I beg such lazy paunches or presumptuous saints to be
persuaded and believe for God's sake that they are verily, verily! not so
learned or such great doctors as they imagine; and never to presume that they
have finished learning this [the parts of the Catechism], or know it well
enough in all points, even though they think that they know it ever so well. For
though they should know and understand it perfectly (which, however, is
impossible in this life), yet there are manifold benefits and fruits still to
be obtained, if it be daily read and practised in thought and speech; namely,
that the Holy Ghost is present in such reading and repetition and meditation,
and bestows ever new and more light and devoutness, so that it is daily
relished and appreciated better, as Christ promises, Matt. 18:20: Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I
in the midst of them.
Besides, it is an exceedingly effectual help against the devil, the world, and
the flesh and all evil thoughts to be occupied with the Word of God, and to
speak of it, and meditate upon it, so that the First Psalm declares those
blessed who meditate upon the Law of God day and night. Undoubtedly, you will
not start a stronger incense or other fumigation against the devil than by
being engaged upon God's commandments and words, and speaking, singing, or
thinking of them. For this is indeed the true holy water and holy sign from
which he flees, and by which he may be driven away.
Now, for this reason alone you ought gladly to read, speak, think and treat of
these things, if you had no other profit and fruit from them than that by doing
so you can drive away the devil and evil thoughts. For he cannot hear or endure
God's Word; and God's Word is not like some other silly prattle, as that about
Dietrich of Berne, etc., but as St. Paul says, Rom. 1:16, the power of God. Yea, indeed, the power of God which gives the
devil burning pain, and strengthens, comforts, and helps us beyond measure.
The Book of Concord, The
Large Catechism, 9-11.
Thank you. I needed the laugh!
Alec
Reposted today at Humor | Hitler loses the Universal Objective Justification (UOJ) War
Hope many more people enjoy it and learn. Thanks Greg (and Lilo).
Thanks for reposting, Pr. Greg is one heck of a witty writer.
Blessing to you brother.
LPC
It is in the Preus' book 'Justification and Rome'. Preus sites old Lutherans and the quotation from them are denials of UOJ.
It is denial by default - that is by quoting the statements of orthodox Lutherans involved in the BoC. One has to have a wild perverted imagination to read UOJ in to the statements of Calov or Quenstedt etc.
LPC
What do you think of this statement?
"Then God, in His infinite grace, took action. He sent His Son, who was the radiance of His glory and the express image of His person (Hebrews 1:3), to become man (John 1:14) and to redeem the world (Galatians 4:4) and restore it to glory and communion with Him (John 3:17). For Christ’s sake God, who was angry with the sinful world, was reconciled, propitiated, and at peace with the world (1 John 2:2; Luke 2:14)."
You were asking "Have you read the book" and also "Have him read the book?"
So I answered using your grammar. You simply want to post some unthinking accusations. You should get some rest, eat some prunes, and grow up a bit.
Yes , I have read it and my copy is filled with notes. If Preus intended to promote UOJ then he should have not used quotes from orthodox Lutherans that question or put the teaching in to doubt.
Dr, Jackson made pictures of these quotes and let me give you an example...
In p. 131 #74 quoting Calov - "Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to faith..."
This runs roughshod against the LC-MS Brief Statement 1932 Article 17 which says that God has declared the whole world ALREADY righteous in Christ.
LPC
On your blog you have posted a quote by Rev. Jack Cascione in a graphic many times. I see no difference in what the graphic says and the quote I gave you. The quote appears on page 32 in the Preus book, Justification and Rome. Why would Preus say that if he denied objective justification?
Mr. LPC: Your line of reasoning is absurd. Of course the quotes are appropriate in the book. Preus wholeheartedly believed in Justification by Faith. All true orthodox Lutheran Christians believe this. Faith justifies us when we believe all the things the atonement and redemption accomplish. This is ever so evident in the Smalcald Articles Part II Article 1:
"1] That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.
2] And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.
3] Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f
4] Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ."
Do you believe that people who reject UOJ are your brothers in Christ?
I ask this because as someone new to Lutheranism, the carte blanche rejection of Timothy 5 in the discussion of this issue is startling.
Of course, if UOJ people do not believe Justification by Faith alone Lutherans are brothers, then the behavior makes sense.
Hope you will answer me.
Alec
It would depend on your definition of 'brother'. I could not be in fellowship with one who denies objective justification. I would not be able to commune with him. Since I can not commune with him, I would not consider him a brother. That is not to say that there are not true believers who will be in Heaven from across all denominations.
I do not understand how 1 Tim. 5 bears credence to the discussion.
Gregory Jackson should on the other hand recant his false accusations regarding Robt. Preus as I have shown here that he is in error.
The problems with him and Mr. Lito are this: They view that people are saved because of their faith and not through faith by grace for the sake of Christ. There is a difference and I hope you are able to see it.
I do not think you understand what UOJ teaches. Do you believe the whole world including those who are to be born and the atheist etc are justified in Christ now, this very moment. Do you believe that the Muslim in your are is also already justified, meaning declared righteous? That is these people have been declared righteous already before faith and before they could repent and believe?
I do not think you have read the Brief Statement 1932 article 17. This statement has been discussed many times in this blog. But I will repeat it for you a problematic and erroneous sentence there...
"in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God HAS ALREADY declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, "
How could the whole world be righteous in Christ when in fact the whole world is not IN CHRIST.
My reasoning is not absurd for if you supper impose the Calov quote, Calov denies that statement.
LPC
Ah I see now your problem for sure and I claim it is you who is absurd. On the one hand you stated...
"Faith justifies us when we believe all the things the atonement and redemption accomplish".
Yet on the other you claim against us --- "They view that people are saved because of their faith and not through faith by grace for the sake of Christ"
First this is a straw man, I believe that a person is saved by faith in the finished work of Christ. Not faith per se but man is saved by the object of his faith in Christ and only and upon when faith in Christ happens. Faith has an object and if that object is Christ, then man is saved, declared righteous or justified.
The problem we have with UOJ is that they have an absurd view as to when Justification of Man happens. Do you believe man is justified before faith, before he was born or anytime before faith? Mr. Don Vega, we obviously have a problem because if you DO BELIEVE this. Kindly answer this so we can have an intelligent discussion.
I hope you do not believe that man is already justified when Jesus died on the cross or was raised from the dead, for that would mean that everyone since the Cross has already been justified - which makes that position Universalist.
LPC
Don't run away scared - you are deflecting the discussion.
I asked you questions which if you answer will prove whether or not Preus believed in UOJ in his Justification and Rome book.
I take it you have not yet read the book - so why don't you run away in a corner read it and comeback when you have done that.
We can hit these right off the park - define for me what you believe is the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification.
Then we can now debate whether or not in Preus' last days he believed in your doctrine on the basis of his book Justification and Rome.
Let me warn you - your type of running away from my questions is typical of other UOJers I dealt with. Show me you are someone I can take seriously, for if you simply evade, you will be another nail in the coffin why I reject UOJ.
LPC
It is you who is evading. A gentleman should answer questions hurled at him and yet you do not answer my questions. I have been answering your questions now be polite and answer mine. I have page 59 in front of me. Why don't you provide an actual quote from the text itself? Give me an actual text.
P. 59 talks about the righteousness of Christ, none of them in categorical terms imply UOJ in the sense that God has already imputed righteousness to the whole world, prior to faith or before faith or before they were born, none.
Of course the atonement of Christ is the basis for the salvation of man, the question is WHEN does this benefit get to man. Lutheran exegetes who do not even believe in UOJ have affirmed and so do I that the basis for man's justification is Christ's atonement. The question is WHEN does this justification of man happen?
Here is what Preus says:
"It is precisely this righteousness which is imputed to the SINNER WHO BELIEVES and thereby becomes his righteousness . It is the purpose of the Formula of Concord to affirm just this fact"
Am I any better than Preus' family members? Are you familiar with scholarly procedures? In law as well as in scholarly circles, what you verbally say does not count, what counts is what you have written down. Even Augustine himself had to write his Retractions.
Preus prior to this book I could say he believed in UOJ. This book was written at the end or even posthumously. When I was reading his book the minimum I could conclude if ever Preus believed in UOJ was that he was confusing because the quotes he used in his book were quotes from orthodox Lutherans who can not be believed to have taught UOJ.
The fact that you can not even articulate with me what you believe about UOJ shows to me you yourself have a shaky understanding of it. Your evasion does not promote your cause.
LPC
"Then God, in His infinite grace, took action. He sent His Son, who was the radiance of His glory and the express image of His person (Hebrews 1:3), to become man (John 1:14) and to redeem the world (Galatians 4:4) and restore it to glory and communion with Him (John 3:17). For Christ’s sake God, who was angry with the sinful world, was reconciled, propitiated, and at peace with the world (1 John 2:2; Luke 2:14)." Pg 32 Justification and Rome
"This righteousness of Christ, this vicarious obedience under the Law and vicarious obedience unto death, results in the redemption of the world and the reconciliation of the world to God. This righteousness which constitutes the vicarious atonement is the basis of the sinner’s justification before God. " Pg 59 Justification and Rome
I believe these thing the same as Robt. Preus.
"This article concerning justification by faith (as the Apology says) is the chief article in the entire Christian doctrine, without which no poor conscience can have any firm consolation, or can truly know the riches of the grace of Christ, as Dr. Luther also has written: If this only article remains pure on the battlefield, the Christian Church also remains pure, and in goodly harmony and without any sects; but if it does not remain pure, it is not possible that any error or fanatical spirit can be resisted. (Tom. 5, Jena, p. 159.) 7] And concerning this article especially Paul says that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Therefore, in this article he urges with so much zeal and earnestness the particulas exclusivas, that is, the words whereby the works of men are excluded (namely, without Law, without works, by grace [freely],Rom. 3:28; 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9), in order to indicate how highly necessary it is that in this article, aside from [the presentation of] the pure doctrine, the antithesis, that is, all contrary dogmas, be stated separately, exposed, and rejected by this means." Formula of Concord, SD
As I said, at a minimum my conclusion is that Preus was being confusing but the mass of his quotations of orthodox old Lutherans negate the UOJ doctrine that God has already declared the whole world righteous in Christ.
Your quote has lots of past tenses.
So you and Preus believe that God is now reconciled (a finished event) with the whole world. He is no longer angry with the unbeliever, he is at peace with them. The unbeliever has no more need to fear God? Do people still go to hell today based on your doctrine?
LPC
You are very mixed up, which is why you are so angry.
It is you who needs to stop and calm down you are very excitable. You do not appreciate the points being made to you.
The reason Pr. Greg quoted to you John 3:36 is because you claim that God is at peace with the world, he is not angry with the whole world anymore.
Can you see why he quoted that to you? I should have not asked -- you don't see it do you.
You do not even realise why I said most of your quote about God being reconciled to the world and no longer at war is IN THE PAST TENSE, which I intend to imply as unbiblical.
In Luke 2:14 God is declaring peace, but with God if you do not want his peace, you will receive his war. That does not mean God is at peace with the whole world, he is announcing Isaiah 1:18. Also God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself 2 Cor 5:19, this reconciling started in the past but it is still going on today, it is not in the past tense, a completed event, no way. Only believers are reconciled with God, for they are the only ones in Christ and that is where God's peace is located.
So your answer to me is that God who is at peace with the world wants the unbeliever to fear him even though God is not mad anymore with him, and yet, when this unbeliever fails to fear a God who no longer is mad at him, this God (so you suppose) sends that unbeliever to hell.
Hehehehe, Mr. Vega, hell is the ultimate expression of God's wrath. You make God inconsistent in himself. Which is which, Mr. Vega? Is God no longer mad, and yet he sends people to Hell (the expression of his ultimate wrath) for those who do not fear his anger which does not exists anymore?
You are confused about God. You have swallowed UOJ sophistry (you probably do not know what that means since you reason that way).
I recommend you eat a lot of peanuts, it is know to cure morons of their stupidity.
Sincerely yours,
LPC
You were running well in taking the discussion to the Scriptures away from Preus for after all what we do think about him are opinions and thus is irrelevant. You can get everything in the world right, you can even be right about Preus, but if you get Justification wrong you are still in deep pooh.
I can not conclude he remained a solid UOJer if I look at the last few chapters of his book.
For one reason, he discusses faith in not only in 1 chapter of the book but the vital last 4 chapters of the book.
In UOJ the object of faith is the (imagined) justification that has presumed to have already happened to the world either when Christ died on the cross or was raised from the dead. According to Pr. Jay Webber in this blog(I am too busy to cite it for you but you can find his comments in this blog), that is the object of faith in UOJ. UOJ confuses and conflates the Atonement with Justification, much like the Calvinists do. They conclude that since Christ died for the world, that automatically means God has also justified or forgiven the whole world.
In p.86 Preus quotes Quenstedt.
"When the terms grace or mercy of God are set forth as the object of our trust, this does not exclude Christ our Mediator and His ATONEMENT for our sins from being object of our faith, but includes it".
The emphasis is mine. This is nothing more but the exposition of Rom 3:21-26 which JBFA people have always asserted.
So in so quoting Quenstedt, I can hardly say Preus is being a UOJist here.
LPC
UOJ is not universalism. I believe (as do others) faith is required for salvation; or to put it another way; a lack of rejection (unbelief) saves since all are declared innocent on the account of Christ's blood. A lack of rejection = faith since one is either quick or dead.
Let me ask you something. Since you confess repeatedly that the sins of the world are not forgiven in the atonement; what assures you that your sins are indeed forgiven, Mr. LPC?
UOJ is indeed the universalism of Huber. For you like UOJ I have encountered believe that all are now saved and have been forgiven by God (with out the means of grace) after the cross but then he un-forgives people who do not believe in UOJ. So you got God acting against his character who only forgives people who are in Christ. So you got forgiven people who wind up in hell.
UOJ is the word of faith heresy, believe that you are already forgiven and so are, believe you are not forgiven and so you are not - you are what you believe, a demonic teaching akin to Christian Science.
The Word and the Sacraments assure me that my sins are paid for. In Cor 15:3 Scripture says that Jesus died for my sins. This is what I confess and believe as per testimony of God - according to Scripture Rom 3:21-26 such faith in the blood of Christ tells me that I am justified.
The Augsburg Confession Article IV, complies with Romans 3/4 as I stated above.
God regards the person's faith in the atonement of Christ as righteousness because it apprehends Christ's person and work. Why would God do this? Because the person has never seen Christ died on the Cross and yet he believes the testimony of Scripture. Thus it is faith in the promise of God - that Christ died for his sins.
UOJ people and JBFA people clearly do not have the same object of faith.
LPC
Does atonement pay a debt?
UOJ depicts as if God was in FaceBook, he begins to friend everybody and then when these people reject God's message, only then does God un-friend them.
Your UOJ masters teach you that it is a paradox, you are being fooled, no - it is an absurdity which Christianity does not accept. It is not like the doctrine of the Trinity which says there is one essence of God in three persons. It is not like the God and Human nature of Christ for in UOJ, we have an assertion A and at the same time the assertion NOT A, in the same sense.
There are two things wrong about UOJ, a.) Justification is not objective it is always subjective in the Bible, b.) Justification is not universal for justification is exclusive only to those who believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
In both counts UOJ contradicts the Bible twice. UOJ makes Atonement and Justification to be equal and the same, similar to the way Calvinists look at these two subjects. It is also similar to how the medieval Roman Church treat one and the same, Justification and Sanctification.
UOJ is confused universalism.
You should notice why you simply ignored Pr. Greg's John 3:36 scripture to you. It shows you are not able to rebut or explain it under your UOJ salvation scheme.
Listen, every person born in this world is under sin, under God's curse, even if Jesus died for that person's sins. The job of the HS is to use the means of grace so that person might be IN Christ, so that person might be brought under the covering (another meaning of the Atonement) of Christ. The HS uses the Law and the Gospel to bring that person to repentance and faith. If that person denies the truth that Jesus died for his sins, the person is calling God a liar 1 John 5:10, that person REMAINS in His sin - John 8:24. John 3:36. When the person agrees with the testimony of Scripture that Jesus died for his sins, i.e. believes as per Romans 3:21-26, that person is justified. That faith itself as Luther says, IS justification.
UOJ has a two tier justification that the Bible never talks about, it is a rational pietistic concoction of those who are afraid and allergic to the mention of faith. UOJ has sola gratia but no sola fide just like the Calvinists. UOJ does not realise the means of grace that it is connected to the atonement and the message of the Gospel is part and parcel of the Atonement of Christ. God delivers the message/offer of peace to sinners. They reject this offer of peace, they get what they want, war from God. They remain un-reconciled with God.
It is God who sends them to Hell - Lk 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
So it is God who un-friends them.
You do not possibly know what you are agreeing with. If something is subjective it can not be objective and vice versa. So you are a sophists accepting something is A and NOT A at the same time.
Because of this, you can prove anything - ex falso quodlibet. So there is no sense in conducting a dialog with someone who does not recognise sophistry in his belief system.
LPC
Am I the one who believes that the Atonement and Justification are one and the same thing? What do you think?
You are way out of the mark. I can assert that Atonement is the one that is universal and objective it is Justification that is neither universal nor objective. That is why I am not a universalist unlike you.
Your argument shows your UOJ paradigm is just like the Calvinist.
The Calvinist equates the Atonement and Justification to be one and the same thing. The Calvinist seeing that Justification is particular and since to them Atonement and Justification are the same, conclude that the Atonement must be Limited.
You the UOJ also equates the Atonement and Justification to be one and the same thing. The UOJer seeing that the Atonement is universal and since to them Atonement and Justification are the same, conclude that the Justification must be Universal too - making themselves Universalists.
They try to solve their embarrassing predicament that there is objective and subjective Justification. It does not work and is only a form of sophistry.
UOJ is cut from the same cloth as the Calvinist same premise, different conclusion but nevertheless same (wrong) presupposition or assumption.
Do not mistake me for your paradigm of equating the Atonement with Justification. I deny that Atonement and Justification are one and the same thing categorically. That is why I am not a Calvinist neither a UOJer.
In quoting 1 Tim 1:15 which says "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners", you mean to imply that Jesus has saved the world - meaning, ALL ARE NOW SAVED. Thus you are a Universalist and a Huberian.
Even your question did Jesus succeed in His mission or not, is a typical Calvinistic question.
LPC