Brett, you're reacting to and arguing against what I have already described as overly broad formulation of UOJ.
The narrow (and correct, I believe) formulation of UOJ is that, in his resurrection, Jesus Christ, as a representative of every human being, was declared not guilty of the sins of every human being, which he had taken upon himself on the cross. It is universal in that Christ represented every single human being. It is objective in that this declaration took place completely within the Godhead and this righteousness is located only in the sphere of Christ.
Thus, the only way to access, receive, enjoy, possess, or benefit from this righteousness is to be "in Christ" through faith.
The narrow (and correct, I believe) formulation of UOJ is that, in his resurrection, Jesus Christ, as a representative of every human being, was declared not guilty of the sins of every human being, which he had taken upon himself on the cross. It is universal in that Christ represented every single human being. It is objective in that this declaration took place completely within the Godhead and this righteousness is located only in the sphere of Christ.
Thus, the only way to access, receive, enjoy, possess, or benefit from this righteousness is to be "in Christ" through faith.
Phinehas,
You can't fault Brett for reacting to the very real definitions and explanations of UOJ that are given by the larger synods (I think he takes you at your word as to your personal views). Your version of OJ is not the same as the version shared by many others, and I would say that your version is not at all the general belief of the WELS.
I ask this sincerely, who gets to decide what “the teaching” of OJ is supposed to be? You claim this “substitutionary justification” as the true Biblical teaching, but it certainly isn’t clearly taught in any passage of the Scriptures, nor did the early Church discuss it, nor did the Lutheran Reformers find it in Scripture or mention it, to the best of my knowledge. It isn’t in the Book of Concord. The closest I’ve seen to any historical reference to it is one sentence from Gerhard that may or may not suggest this as his own private opinion (but certainly not the dogma of the Lutheran Church).
It’s kind of like trying to give the “true teaching” of the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary. One can try to explain it in a way that doesn’t utterly destroy the Scriptures, but there is a historical definition to it that makes such a definition nothing more than a contrived personal attempt to salvage the unsalvageable.
For example, I don’t think Walther’s famous explanation fits your definition:
“For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is—faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him."
Walther doesn’t say that God forgave Jesus for your sins. He says God “has already forgiven you your sins.” He extends this “absolution” to all men, and while they don’t all yet “possess this gift” by faith, their forgiveness has already been—not just won by Christ, but “pronounced.” His teaching of “general absolution” sounds like the very “general justification” that Huber taught and that the Lutheran Church rejected at the beginning. And as he says, it is this “general absolution” which people are to accept as their “individual absolution.”
I’ll look for some Pieper quotes. I’m quite sure Pieper’s definition goes beyond yours, from what I’ve read in the past.
The WELS statement doesn’t agree with your definition:
We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ. This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends. It is a message relevant to people of all times and places, of all races and social levels, for "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18). All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified.
...Continued
You can't fault Brett for reacting to the very real definitions and explanations of UOJ that are given by the larger synods (I think he takes you at your word as to your personal views). Your version of OJ is not the same as the version shared by many others, and I would say that your version is not at all the general belief of the WELS.
I ask this sincerely, who gets to decide what “the teaching” of OJ is supposed to be? You claim this “substitutionary justification” as the true Biblical teaching, but it certainly isn’t clearly taught in any passage of the Scriptures, nor did the early Church discuss it, nor did the Lutheran Reformers find it in Scripture or mention it, to the best of my knowledge. It isn’t in the Book of Concord. The closest I’ve seen to any historical reference to it is one sentence from Gerhard that may or may not suggest this as his own private opinion (but certainly not the dogma of the Lutheran Church).
It’s kind of like trying to give the “true teaching” of the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary. One can try to explain it in a way that doesn’t utterly destroy the Scriptures, but there is a historical definition to it that makes such a definition nothing more than a contrived personal attempt to salvage the unsalvageable.
For example, I don’t think Walther’s famous explanation fits your definition:
“For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is—faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him."
Walther doesn’t say that God forgave Jesus for your sins. He says God “has already forgiven you your sins.” He extends this “absolution” to all men, and while they don’t all yet “possess this gift” by faith, their forgiveness has already been—not just won by Christ, but “pronounced.” His teaching of “general absolution” sounds like the very “general justification” that Huber taught and that the Lutheran Church rejected at the beginning. And as he says, it is this “general absolution” which people are to accept as their “individual absolution.”
I’ll look for some Pieper quotes. I’m quite sure Pieper’s definition goes beyond yours, from what I’ve read in the past.
The WELS statement doesn’t agree with your definition:
We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ. This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends. It is a message relevant to people of all times and places, of all races and social levels, for "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18). All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified.
...Continued
...Cont.
The ELS catechism doesn’t agree with your definition. Adding the phrase “in Christ” regarding those who are not “in Christ” by faith is, as Brett mentioned, erroneous.
210. Why do we say, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins”?
We say, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins,” because the Bible assures us that God the Father has by grace forgiven all sinners and declared them righteous in Christ. (Eph. 1:7, Rom. 3:24)
211. How can God declare sinners righteous?
God can declare sinners righteous because, on the basis of the redemptive work of Christ, He has acquitted all people of the guilt and punishment of their sins, and has imputed to them the righteousness of Christ;
He therefore regards them in Christ as though they had never sinned (general or objective justification). (See Questions 158-159). (Romans 4:25, 2 Corinthians 5:19,21, Rom. 3:23-24)
God regards all unbelievers “in Christ”? “As though they had never sinned”? God has “imputed to all people the righteousness of Christ”? This is simply false.
What a huge mess has resulted since the synods took it upon themselves to abandon the language of the Scriptures and the Book of Concord!
The ELS catechism doesn’t agree with your definition. Adding the phrase “in Christ” regarding those who are not “in Christ” by faith is, as Brett mentioned, erroneous.
210. Why do we say, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins”?
We say, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins,” because the Bible assures us that God the Father has by grace forgiven all sinners and declared them righteous in Christ. (Eph. 1:7, Rom. 3:24)
211. How can God declare sinners righteous?
God can declare sinners righteous because, on the basis of the redemptive work of Christ, He has acquitted all people of the guilt and punishment of their sins, and has imputed to them the righteousness of Christ;
He therefore regards them in Christ as though they had never sinned (general or objective justification). (See Questions 158-159). (Romans 4:25, 2 Corinthians 5:19,21, Rom. 3:23-24)
God regards all unbelievers “in Christ”? “As though they had never sinned”? God has “imputed to all people the righteousness of Christ”? This is simply false.
What a huge mess has resulted since the synods took it upon themselves to abandon the language of the Scriptures and the Book of Concord!
I was addressing the UOJ statement that you were actually comfortable with - "If you mean by "material sense"that justification actually and really exists in Christ regardless of and prior to the existence or nonexistence of faith, then I would be in agreement."
My point was that Justification does not exist in Christ (for Christ's sake) for those without faith. All righteousness exists in Christ. All those who by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace alone have faith in Christ alone receive Christ's Robe - His Righteousness - for the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation. If the whole world were to have the Holy Spirit's faith in Christ alone they would all recieve Christ's righteousness and thereby, for Christ's sake, be justified and saved eternally. But we know that most reject the Gospel and will remain under God's wrath and condemnation and will be in the torments of Hell for eternity.
No one is in Christ except by faith - how then can the omnipotent and omniscient God declare unbelievers justified for Christ's sake? The Confessions confirm, as quoted above, "by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God."
Phinehas, you state, "Jesus Christ, as a representative of every human being, was declared not guilty of the sins of every human being,"
I don't believe this narrow formulation of UOJ statement is correct. I agree that it is specificly limiting it's scope and that it is a UOJ statement, but disagree with what you are teaching by it.
You state Christ was declared not guilty of the sins of every human being but in fact the atonement was not a matter of guilty and being declared not guilty, but Christ being made sin for the whole world, making satisfaction for those sins and Christ's triumphant resurrection. Christ was never guilty of those sins and so a declaration of not guilty doesn't apply. Christ paid the price for the whole worlds sins - separation from God the Father and death. I believe this is another twisting of Scripture that the doctrine of UOJ makes in it's attempt to relate Christ's work to unbelievers as though this "great exchange" took place on the cross - I believe Pastor Rydecki also challenges this assertion.
There wasn't a great exchange on the cross - Christ taking on the whole world's sins in exchange for His righteousness and justification (to the whole unbelieving world). The iniquity of the whole world was laid upon Christ and He paid for those sins.
What the doctrine of UOJ avoids is Scripture's clear teaching that Christ is man's Propitiation and Mediator through faith alone. How can a great exchange take place on the cross with the unbelieving world when Christ is only obtained as Mediator through faith and that worked solely through the Means of Grace.
I don't disagree with your last statement but I would change it, due to the justifiable controversy over the doctrine of Justification, to read: Thus, the only way to be reconciled to God, access, recieve, enjoy, possess, or benefit from this righteousness is to be "in Christ" through faith.
I'm still at a loss to understand the Scriptural need for defining any part of Justification as being Objective since all of it is God's work - the atonement, godly contrition, faith in Christ alone, justification and eternal life.
My point was that Justification does not exist in Christ (for Christ's sake) for those without faith. All righteousness exists in Christ. All those who by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace alone have faith in Christ alone receive Christ's Robe - His Righteousness - for the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation. If the whole world were to have the Holy Spirit's faith in Christ alone they would all recieve Christ's righteousness and thereby, for Christ's sake, be justified and saved eternally. But we know that most reject the Gospel and will remain under God's wrath and condemnation and will be in the torments of Hell for eternity.
No one is in Christ except by faith - how then can the omnipotent and omniscient God declare unbelievers justified for Christ's sake? The Confessions confirm, as quoted above, "by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God."
Phinehas, you state, "Jesus Christ, as a representative of every human being, was declared not guilty of the sins of every human being,"
I don't believe this narrow formulation of UOJ statement is correct. I agree that it is specificly limiting it's scope and that it is a UOJ statement, but disagree with what you are teaching by it.
You state Christ was declared not guilty of the sins of every human being but in fact the atonement was not a matter of guilty and being declared not guilty, but Christ being made sin for the whole world, making satisfaction for those sins and Christ's triumphant resurrection. Christ was never guilty of those sins and so a declaration of not guilty doesn't apply. Christ paid the price for the whole worlds sins - separation from God the Father and death. I believe this is another twisting of Scripture that the doctrine of UOJ makes in it's attempt to relate Christ's work to unbelievers as though this "great exchange" took place on the cross - I believe Pastor Rydecki also challenges this assertion.
There wasn't a great exchange on the cross - Christ taking on the whole world's sins in exchange for His righteousness and justification (to the whole unbelieving world). The iniquity of the whole world was laid upon Christ and He paid for those sins.
What the doctrine of UOJ avoids is Scripture's clear teaching that Christ is man's Propitiation and Mediator through faith alone. How can a great exchange take place on the cross with the unbelieving world when Christ is only obtained as Mediator through faith and that worked solely through the Means of Grace.
I don't disagree with your last statement but I would change it, due to the justifiable controversy over the doctrine of Justification, to read: Thus, the only way to be reconciled to God, access, recieve, enjoy, possess, or benefit from this righteousness is to be "in Christ" through faith.
I'm still at a loss to understand the Scriptural need for defining any part of Justification as being Objective since all of it is God's work - the atonement, godly contrition, faith in Christ alone, justification and eternal life.
Pastor Rydecki, if you're simply going to dismiss my position with a wave of the hand so that you can argue against Walther's sermon and the ELS Catechism, then I think I'm done here (unless Mr. Lindee wants to continue our earlier discussion).
Phinehas, I don't know what you mean about dismisssing your position with a wave of the hand. We're not dealing with anyone's particular position, including mine. That's the whole problem I was highlighting in my last comment. If we've gotten to the point where everyone has a personal take on the Biblical doctrine of justification, we are really in a sad state.
I'll ask you to explain this vicarious justification position further.
The common understanding of "substitionary atonement" is that, since our substitute suffered for our sins, therefore we, the guilty ones, will never suffer for them. Christ tasted death for all of us, so that we will never taste death. That's the Biblical view of what it means to have a substitute fill in for us, that He might take on Himself what we deserved.
But when it comes to "being justified," I do not want a substitute. I do not need a substitute. Heaven help me if someone else is justified in my place! I am the one who needs justification. I don't want someone else to be justified for me. I want to be justified.
What I do need, however, is for someone else to be righteous for me and give me His righteousness so that I may be the one who is justified.
So to speak of Christ as having been justified in our place is really a scary thing. Righteous in our place? Yes. Justified in our place? No. He received the condemnation I deserved. I receive the justification He deserved. The Biblical doctrine does not need Christ to be justified from my sins in order for me to be justified from my sins. That's a strange twist on the meaning of "substitute." It's also not how the BoC defines "justification," which is "the making of a just man out of an unjust man" (by imputation).
But if you can explain this substitutionary justification differently, please do.
I'll ask you to explain this vicarious justification position further.
The common understanding of "substitionary atonement" is that, since our substitute suffered for our sins, therefore we, the guilty ones, will never suffer for them. Christ tasted death for all of us, so that we will never taste death. That's the Biblical view of what it means to have a substitute fill in for us, that He might take on Himself what we deserved.
But when it comes to "being justified," I do not want a substitute. I do not need a substitute. Heaven help me if someone else is justified in my place! I am the one who needs justification. I don't want someone else to be justified for me. I want to be justified.
What I do need, however, is for someone else to be righteous for me and give me His righteousness so that I may be the one who is justified.
So to speak of Christ as having been justified in our place is really a scary thing. Righteous in our place? Yes. Justified in our place? No. He received the condemnation I deserved. I receive the justification He deserved. The Biblical doctrine does not need Christ to be justified from my sins in order for me to be justified from my sins. That's a strange twist on the meaning of "substitute." It's also not how the BoC defines "justification," which is "the making of a just man out of an unjust man" (by imputation).
But if you can explain this substitutionary justification differently, please do.
Mr. Aaronson,
I'm finally back in my chair... You asked me for some further definition of my terms.
I'm including the entire chain of reasoning we are entertaining, here. If we accept that the "Justification of Christ" in 1 Tim. 3:16 is the ONE Justification in which sinners participate only through faith, then the phrase you express comfort with, i.e. "the World is Justified," or equivalently "the World is Justified in Christ" (yes,equivalently – the only point at issue being is it or is it not Justified, not how, or why, or by what process, or "in" what or who), needs to be understood either as a material Justification (i.e., "actually Justified, really, and for real – the World possessing full forgiveness and righteous standing before God"), or only figuratively (i.e., "NOT actually Justified, etc."). If it is Justified in a material sense, then, (1) in order to avoid the accusation of Huberianism (according to Thesis 1 of Hunnius' "Theses Concerning the Huberian Universal Justification of Believers and Unbelievers"), and (2) in order to remain consistent with what has already been established in this chain of reasoning – that individuals are not, in fact, Justified apart from faith, but are Justified only in the moment they come to faith, i.e., in the moment in which they become participants in the declaration already issued to Christ, not prior to or apart from faith in any way, shape or form – you must find some way of meaningfully and Biblically separating "the World" from "the individual souls which comprise the World". I would assert that there is no way to coherently establish from Scripture (or even from naked reason for that matter) a material "Justification of the World" apart from an equally material "Justification of all the individual souls that comprise the World." But I've been wrong before, so I'm certainly willing to here you out on that, along with all of the direct positive statements of Scripture you can adduce to prove it.
If, however, this "Justification of the World" is merely figurative, then your challenge is to defend the necessity of this phrase in the first place. If this figurative speech cannot be proven necessary, then I would suggest that the only way to understand a figurative "Justification of the World" is the way in which Hunnius admitted in Thesis 5 of his "Theses on Huberian Universal Justification...":
[W]e most willingly grant that there is a righteousness that avails before God for the entire human race, a righteousness that has been gained an acquired through Christ, so that if the whole world were to believe in Christ,then the whole world would be justified. (bold emphasis mine)
So again, if you argue for a material "Justification of the World," you would have to prove that there is a coherent and Scriptural distinction between "the World" and "the individual souls which comprise the World" – not merely concede that there is a distinction. Why do you need to prove the distinction? Because I and many others see no distinction between "the World" and "the individual souls which comprise the World", and so cannot merely concede that there is one. If, on the other hand, you argue for a figurative "Justification of the World," then you would need to prove that this pattern of figurative speech is necessary. If it isn't necessary, then I would suggest that Hunnius' Thesis 5 is a better way to express the Bible's teaching on the matter.
Hopefully this clarifies what I am trying communicate with the terms material and figurative.
Thanks!
I'm finally back in my chair... You asked me for some further definition of my terms.
I'm including the entire chain of reasoning we are entertaining, here. If we accept that the "Justification of Christ" in 1 Tim. 3:16 is the ONE Justification in which sinners participate only through faith, then the phrase you express comfort with, i.e. "the World is Justified," or equivalently "the World is Justified in Christ" (yes,equivalently – the only point at issue being is it or is it not Justified, not how, or why, or by what process, or "in" what or who), needs to be understood either as a material Justification (i.e., "actually Justified, really, and for real – the World possessing full forgiveness and righteous standing before God"), or only figuratively (i.e., "NOT actually Justified, etc."). If it is Justified in a material sense, then, (1) in order to avoid the accusation of Huberianism (according to Thesis 1 of Hunnius' "Theses Concerning the Huberian Universal Justification of Believers and Unbelievers"), and (2) in order to remain consistent with what has already been established in this chain of reasoning – that individuals are not, in fact, Justified apart from faith, but are Justified only in the moment they come to faith, i.e., in the moment in which they become participants in the declaration already issued to Christ, not prior to or apart from faith in any way, shape or form – you must find some way of meaningfully and Biblically separating "the World" from "the individual souls which comprise the World". I would assert that there is no way to coherently establish from Scripture (or even from naked reason for that matter) a material "Justification of the World" apart from an equally material "Justification of all the individual souls that comprise the World." But I've been wrong before, so I'm certainly willing to here you out on that, along with all of the direct positive statements of Scripture you can adduce to prove it.
If, however, this "Justification of the World" is merely figurative, then your challenge is to defend the necessity of this phrase in the first place. If this figurative speech cannot be proven necessary, then I would suggest that the only way to understand a figurative "Justification of the World" is the way in which Hunnius admitted in Thesis 5 of his "Theses on Huberian Universal Justification...":
[W]e most willingly grant that there is a righteousness that avails before God for the entire human race, a righteousness that has been gained an acquired through Christ, so that if the whole world were to believe in Christ,then the whole world would be justified. (bold emphasis mine)
So again, if you argue for a material "Justification of the World," you would have to prove that there is a coherent and Scriptural distinction between "the World" and "the individual souls which comprise the World" – not merely concede that there is a distinction. Why do you need to prove the distinction? Because I and many others see no distinction between "the World" and "the individual souls which comprise the World", and so cannot merely concede that there is one. If, on the other hand, you argue for a figurative "Justification of the World," then you would need to prove that this pattern of figurative speech is necessary. If it isn't necessary, then I would suggest that Hunnius' Thesis 5 is a better way to express the Bible's teaching on the matter.
Hopefully this clarifies what I am trying communicate with the terms material and figurative.
Thanks!
