LPC said...Just wanted to add...
We need pastors who are prophetic, not pastors who are politicians.
LPC
We need pastors who are prophetic, not pastors who are politicians.
LPC
Stuart Wood said...Dear LPC,
I agree. A pastor is a true pastor to the extent that he proclaims and remains true to the Word of God. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11), that is, be the very mouthpiece of God to his congregation. Anything outside of this or inconsistent with this is of no benefit to the true Christian.
The true Christian is a child of light and ever comes to the light of God’s Word, while the hypocrites are children of darkness and flee the light lest their deeds be exposed (John 3:20,21). It is the nature of the true Christian to desire, regard, and continue in the Word of God and to progress in it’s truth and purity. Jesus said, “If ye continue in My Word, then are Ye My disciples indeed” (John 8:31).
The Christian cannot abide indefinitely with error. He will eventually expose it and become separated from it. Either opposition will force this separation or he will separate himself. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). “And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10:5). The Apostle John writes, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6). “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
While Christians may be found in Gospel-teaching (but otherwise false churches), they will not continue in such communities. Like migrating salmon they will make their way from the salty oceans of the world to the brackish waters of heterodoxy to the pure sweet springs of orthodoxy. This journey is against the current and very wearisome, but the true Christian knows no other course. From pool to pool, denomination to denomination, he seeks the upward course to be gathered together with the saints of God who have gone before him.
Stuart
I agree. A pastor is a true pastor to the extent that he proclaims and remains true to the Word of God. "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11), that is, be the very mouthpiece of God to his congregation. Anything outside of this or inconsistent with this is of no benefit to the true Christian.
The true Christian is a child of light and ever comes to the light of God’s Word, while the hypocrites are children of darkness and flee the light lest their deeds be exposed (John 3:20,21). It is the nature of the true Christian to desire, regard, and continue in the Word of God and to progress in it’s truth and purity. Jesus said, “If ye continue in My Word, then are Ye My disciples indeed” (John 8:31).
The Christian cannot abide indefinitely with error. He will eventually expose it and become separated from it. Either opposition will force this separation or he will separate himself. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). “And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (John 10:5). The Apostle John writes, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6). “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
While Christians may be found in Gospel-teaching (but otherwise false churches), they will not continue in such communities. Like migrating salmon they will make their way from the salty oceans of the world to the brackish waters of heterodoxy to the pure sweet springs of orthodoxy. This journey is against the current and very wearisome, but the true Christian knows no other course. From pool to pool, denomination to denomination, he seeks the upward course to be gathered together with the saints of God who have gone before him.
Stuart
LPC said...Dear Stuart,
It is sad that today's modern Lutheran pastor does not take his cue from Luther. They all want to be winsome. They do not offend, they also do not risk anything.
Talking about Synods, I encountered in the Internet, an ex-Calvinisticus turned Lutheranus. He actually believes that the LC-MS is THE VISIBLE church.
Initially most of the readers of my blog came from there but I had to write where the pieces fall and then they turned off.
What is this, theology of glory?
LPC
It is sad that today's modern Lutheran pastor does not take his cue from Luther. They all want to be winsome. They do not offend, they also do not risk anything.
Talking about Synods, I encountered in the Internet, an ex-Calvinisticus turned Lutheranus. He actually believes that the LC-MS is THE VISIBLE church.
Initially most of the readers of my blog came from there but I had to write where the pieces fall and then they turned off.
What is this, theology of glory?
LPC
Stuart Wood said...Hi LPC,
I have heard of this "theology of glory" but have never understood what it is. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us to this. As to the LC-MS being the "VISIBLE CHURCH" I would not agree with that at all. They are at best a heterodox Lutheran group, having long ago gone wrong on the doctrine of church fellowship. From what I have read and understand they went especially bad with the "Statement of the 44" in 1945 where they redefined Romans 16:17,18, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." In 1945, they defined this verse as referring only to those who overtly denied the Gospel (rather than all false doctrine), and thus opened the flood-gates to false teachers. They have never been the same since, and all of their pastors and members are in disobedience unto the Lord's Word unto this very day. To be the true "VISIBLE CHURCH" means to hold to the Word of God in all of its truth and purity. This, the LC-MS does not do.
L. W. Spitz writes, “Purity of doctrine is, therefore, the criterion for orthodoxy. This implies the preaching, teaching, and profession of divine truth in all its purity, and the administration of the Sacraments in full accordance with their divine institution. The church which does this is an orthodox church. To the extent that any church does not do this, it is a heterodox church. This difference must never be ignored, particularly in our time when the slogan "not creeds, but deeds" is so generally adopted and religious indifference and the spirit of unionism are rampant, frequently cloaked in the guise of charity… To qualify as an orthodox church, a church must be faithful to all the doctrines of the Bible.” (The Abiding Word, Vol. 1, p. 285.)
Francis Pieper adds, “It is God’s will and command that in His Church His Word be preached and believed in purity and truth, without adulteration. In God’s Church nobody should utter his own, but only God’s Word (1 Pet. 4:11). Chaff and wheat do not belong together. All “teaching otherwise,” heterodidaskalein, is strictly forbidden. 1 Tim 1:3: ‘As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.’ It is important to point out again and again that in all Scripture there is not a single text permitting a teacher to deviate from the Word of God or granting a child of God license to fraternize with a teacher who deviates from the Word of God. God is against the prophets who proclaim their own dreams (Jer. 23:32 ff.). And all Christians without exception are commanded to avoid such (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.).” (Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p. 422)
I have heard of this "theology of glory" but have never understood what it is. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us to this. As to the LC-MS being the "VISIBLE CHURCH" I would not agree with that at all. They are at best a heterodox Lutheran group, having long ago gone wrong on the doctrine of church fellowship. From what I have read and understand they went especially bad with the "Statement of the 44" in 1945 where they redefined Romans 16:17,18, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." In 1945, they defined this verse as referring only to those who overtly denied the Gospel (rather than all false doctrine), and thus opened the flood-gates to false teachers. They have never been the same since, and all of their pastors and members are in disobedience unto the Lord's Word unto this very day. To be the true "VISIBLE CHURCH" means to hold to the Word of God in all of its truth and purity. This, the LC-MS does not do.
L. W. Spitz writes, “Purity of doctrine is, therefore, the criterion for orthodoxy. This implies the preaching, teaching, and profession of divine truth in all its purity, and the administration of the Sacraments in full accordance with their divine institution. The church which does this is an orthodox church. To the extent that any church does not do this, it is a heterodox church. This difference must never be ignored, particularly in our time when the slogan "not creeds, but deeds" is so generally adopted and religious indifference and the spirit of unionism are rampant, frequently cloaked in the guise of charity… To qualify as an orthodox church, a church must be faithful to all the doctrines of the Bible.” (The Abiding Word, Vol. 1, p. 285.)
Francis Pieper adds, “It is God’s will and command that in His Church His Word be preached and believed in purity and truth, without adulteration. In God’s Church nobody should utter his own, but only God’s Word (1 Pet. 4:11). Chaff and wheat do not belong together. All “teaching otherwise,” heterodidaskalein, is strictly forbidden. 1 Tim 1:3: ‘As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.’ It is important to point out again and again that in all Scripture there is not a single text permitting a teacher to deviate from the Word of God or granting a child of God license to fraternize with a teacher who deviates from the Word of God. God is against the prophets who proclaim their own dreams (Jer. 23:32 ff.). And all Christians without exception are commanded to avoid such (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3 ff.).” (Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3, p. 422)
LPC said...Dear Stuart.
Actually, they go further earlier than that. In Brief Statement 1932 Article 17, I highlight to you the offending unBiblical statement,
17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: 'There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,' Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,' Rom. 3:28."
The bolded words are wrong and is referred to as UOJ. No where does Scripture teach that by the Atonement of Jesus - God has automatically declared everyone righteous be alive, going to be alive at that event. The Whole World is NOT in Christ. Yes indeed Jesus died for everyone /person of the World. He paid for their sins, but those who reject this atonement are not declared righteous (Justified) by God. Never has been.
Justification and Atonement are not the same and co-equal. The former is grounded and is the benefit of the Atonement. UOJ is a confusing term, and confusing concept. It says that God declares someone righteous without the application of the Means of Grace at the Cross and then once again at the point the Means of Grace is applied and believed. It is a two headed monster.
This is what Dr. Ichabod, Brett Meyer and I have been contending as it is the source of Enthusiasm in the churches, - Church Growth and Seeker Sensitivity etc. Others are also now contending against this though they have not come out blantantly vocal about this. Do read lots of materials of Dr. Ichabod on UOJ. There are also lots of discussion here for you to consider for example this one and its comments to start off the controversial words...
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/03/grinding-my-ax.html
My church is in the LCAus Synod and fortunately has no such official statements, hence, we are able to argue and protest of any move towards this. Though of course, many pastors in it are influenced by LC-MS on the conservative side.
LPC
Actually, they go further earlier than that. In Brief Statement 1932 Article 17, I highlight to you the offending unBiblical statement,
17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: 'There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,' Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,' Rom. 3:28."
The bolded words are wrong and is referred to as UOJ. No where does Scripture teach that by the Atonement of Jesus - God has automatically declared everyone righteous be alive, going to be alive at that event. The Whole World is NOT in Christ. Yes indeed Jesus died for everyone /person of the World. He paid for their sins, but those who reject this atonement are not declared righteous (Justified) by God. Never has been.
Justification and Atonement are not the same and co-equal. The former is grounded and is the benefit of the Atonement. UOJ is a confusing term, and confusing concept. It says that God declares someone righteous without the application of the Means of Grace at the Cross and then once again at the point the Means of Grace is applied and believed. It is a two headed monster.
This is what Dr. Ichabod, Brett Meyer and I have been contending as it is the source of Enthusiasm in the churches, - Church Growth and Seeker Sensitivity etc. Others are also now contending against this though they have not come out blantantly vocal about this. Do read lots of materials of Dr. Ichabod on UOJ. There are also lots of discussion here for you to consider for example this one and its comments to start off the controversial words...
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2010/03/grinding-my-ax.html
My church is in the LCAus Synod and fortunately has no such official statements, hence, we are able to argue and protest of any move towards this. Though of course, many pastors in it are influenced by LC-MS on the conservative side.
LPC
Stuart Wood said...Dear LPC,
I actually have never heard of this controversy, so please bear with me as I try to give at least my initial take on this. First, I see your point, and this statement, taken in the sense in which you are taking it, does look wrong to me also. However, I don't think that Pieper means this in the way it's being taken. I say this for a number of reasons.
1) I have read everything available in the English language by Pieper and I know for a fact that he would not consider a person "justified", that is, "forensically declared righteous" in the technical sense of the term, until that person believes in the atoning work of Christ. So we have to cut him some slack as to perhaps poorly wording something and thus inadvertently leaving it open to misunderstanding.
2) You can see from what immediately follows this statement what Pieper believes about justification. He writes, "He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven." I think we all would accept that statement as correct.
3) The Lutheran fathers sometimes spoke of "justification" and "being declared righteous" in a looser, less technical sense than what they mean by "justification" in the sense of being “forensically declared righteous” at the point of one's faith. For instance, I am currently reading Jakob Andreae, whose six sermons provided a foundation to the Formula of Concord, and he commonly equates justification with the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, is it not true that the whole world's sins have been forgiven through Christ's suffering and death on the cross? Is it not true that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19).
4) You feel that Pieper misspoke because, as you say, "not the whole world was in Christ". I think Pieper would agree with you. But it is true that the whole world is justified in Christ if they would but believe it. Just as a person who refuses to open his eyes does not change the fact that the sun is shining, so the world which refuses to acknowledge Christ's glorious work on their behalf does not negate the fact that Christ died for the forgiveness of their sins.
My main point in all this is to say that if you had Francis Pieper at your side for a conversation about this, I believe that he would surely agree with you and explain what he meant. He perhaps spoke too loosely here, without realizing how that could be wrongly taken, but do we not all do the same at times? Let us in Christian charity put the best construction on what a person says and move on. From my end, there is enough real error to combat without involving ourselves in these sorts of sophistries.
Thanks again,
Stuart
I actually have never heard of this controversy, so please bear with me as I try to give at least my initial take on this. First, I see your point, and this statement, taken in the sense in which you are taking it, does look wrong to me also. However, I don't think that Pieper means this in the way it's being taken. I say this for a number of reasons.
1) I have read everything available in the English language by Pieper and I know for a fact that he would not consider a person "justified", that is, "forensically declared righteous" in the technical sense of the term, until that person believes in the atoning work of Christ. So we have to cut him some slack as to perhaps poorly wording something and thus inadvertently leaving it open to misunderstanding.
2) You can see from what immediately follows this statement what Pieper believes about justification. He writes, "He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven." I think we all would accept that statement as correct.
3) The Lutheran fathers sometimes spoke of "justification" and "being declared righteous" in a looser, less technical sense than what they mean by "justification" in the sense of being “forensically declared righteous” at the point of one's faith. For instance, I am currently reading Jakob Andreae, whose six sermons provided a foundation to the Formula of Concord, and he commonly equates justification with the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, is it not true that the whole world's sins have been forgiven through Christ's suffering and death on the cross? Is it not true that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19).
4) You feel that Pieper misspoke because, as you say, "not the whole world was in Christ". I think Pieper would agree with you. But it is true that the whole world is justified in Christ if they would but believe it. Just as a person who refuses to open his eyes does not change the fact that the sun is shining, so the world which refuses to acknowledge Christ's glorious work on their behalf does not negate the fact that Christ died for the forgiveness of their sins.
My main point in all this is to say that if you had Francis Pieper at your side for a conversation about this, I believe that he would surely agree with you and explain what he meant. He perhaps spoke too loosely here, without realizing how that could be wrongly taken, but do we not all do the same at times? Let us in Christian charity put the best construction on what a person says and move on. From my end, there is enough real error to combat without involving ourselves in these sorts of sophistries.
Thanks again,
Stuart
Gregory L. Jackson said...Stuart, I am afraid you are wrong. Pieper probably did more to establish absolution without faith than any other person. Walther taught it, but it was not LCMS boiler-plate until the Brief Confession of 1932, Pieper's last work. I believe UOJ is the best single explanation for the doctrinal apostasy of Missouri, WELS, and the ELS. Proof is the inability of their pastors and leaders to say one peep against Church Growth.
Stuart Wood said...Dear Gregory,
My guess is that we're on the same side here, and I am happy to be proven wrong. In all honesty, though, I have trouble accepting that Pieper "did more to establish absolution without faith than any other person". I have never seen even the slightest tinge of that in any of his writings, and if I had, I would have dropped him like a hot potato.
Also, just so you know where I am coming from, I do not belong to the LC-MS, and have no loyalties to their luke-warm, compromising, apostate Lutheranism today. I have had plenty of run-ins with them, and I have found nothing but hard-heartedness towards the Word of God and arrogance. But that being said, I do respect some of their fine teachers and pastors of the past before they went down hill.
Now as we compare notes as to what went wrong with them, I think there is a better explanation than this issue of objective/subjective justification, which I do consider a bit of a subtlety. I think the problem began when they redefined Romans 16:17,18 on the doctrine of church fellowship in 1945. It was this error that opened the door to false teachers in their seminaries and false pastors in their churches. This also accounts for the Church Growth movement and their many other ridiculous compromises with modern-day Fuller-led Churchianity.
But as I said, I came into this from the outside, and whether the LC-MS has fallen for this or some other reason is not that crucial to me. It's somewhat of an in-house Lutheran fight which I have never had any skin in. Most of what I have now shared has come from what I have learned about this from the pastors of the ELCR, and at this point, those explanations seem more compelling to me than this issue of Pieper going bad on the doctrine of justification.
Thanks for whatever feedback and clarity that you can give.
God's Blessings,
Stuart
My guess is that we're on the same side here, and I am happy to be proven wrong. In all honesty, though, I have trouble accepting that Pieper "did more to establish absolution without faith than any other person". I have never seen even the slightest tinge of that in any of his writings, and if I had, I would have dropped him like a hot potato.
Also, just so you know where I am coming from, I do not belong to the LC-MS, and have no loyalties to their luke-warm, compromising, apostate Lutheranism today. I have had plenty of run-ins with them, and I have found nothing but hard-heartedness towards the Word of God and arrogance. But that being said, I do respect some of their fine teachers and pastors of the past before they went down hill.
Now as we compare notes as to what went wrong with them, I think there is a better explanation than this issue of objective/subjective justification, which I do consider a bit of a subtlety. I think the problem began when they redefined Romans 16:17,18 on the doctrine of church fellowship in 1945. It was this error that opened the door to false teachers in their seminaries and false pastors in their churches. This also accounts for the Church Growth movement and their many other ridiculous compromises with modern-day Fuller-led Churchianity.
But as I said, I came into this from the outside, and whether the LC-MS has fallen for this or some other reason is not that crucial to me. It's somewhat of an in-house Lutheran fight which I have never had any skin in. Most of what I have now shared has come from what I have learned about this from the pastors of the ELCR, and at this point, those explanations seem more compelling to me than this issue of Pieper going bad on the doctrine of justification.
Thanks for whatever feedback and clarity that you can give.
God's Blessings,
Stuart
LPC said...Hi Stuart,
Pieper going bad on the doctrine of justification.
For me the doctrine of justification is the most crucial of all. Luther said you can get everything in Scripture right but if you get the Gospel wrong, you are still in error.
At least you have been made aware of the controversy and you can study for yourself. Ichabod has plenty of resources from both sides of the fence on this.
I object to Pieper on exegetical grounds. Pieper was not naive, he knew if he is to be believed he had to ground his teaching from Scripture and he did misread the exegesis of Scripture at key strong passages which he believed where UOJ was taught.
When I first became Lutheran, I thought UOJ was just another way of speaking about the atonement until I discovered that they equate the atonement to be the same as justification. I walked away from this after reading more exposition on this. In my discipline (maths/logic) you are not to mix categories unless you have clear grounds of evidence that the categories are the same. UOJers to me, made a fallacious move in their methods when they equated and interpreted passages as teaching justification co-equal with the Atonement.
UOJers hate with utmost hatred Calvinists when in fact both their theological methods are the same, like a thief hating another thief, since they compete for the same loot. Calvinism assuming that Atonement and Justification are the same and seeing not all have faith pulls Atonement to the side of Justification declaring that the Atonement is subjective - hence, Limited. UOJers seeing the same thing but noting that Atonement is universal pulls Justification to the side of the Atonement declaring Justification to be universal too. JBFA properly distinguishes these two from one another.
A few years ago one of well known Reverend Doctor of LCAus in my state was consulted by my young pastor about what I said of UOJ. This theologian encouraged him in UOJ against my opposition. That theologian has now left LCAus and has become a Papist. UOJ is functional universalism. I say functional because though UOJers deny it, the effect is the same. Hence, Rome since Vatican II has some compatibilities with it, absurdity.
Absurdity is the opposite of rationalism and Christianity is neither of these.
There is a break way group from LCAus, the AELC which broke away because they thought LCAus will ordain women, but LCAus did not accept this and so the LCAus today will not have women pastors, at least perhaps for another some years, we know liberals never stop until they get what they want or simply leave. Anyway, I could not touch AELC because of their UOJ statements. At least with LCAus, there is no official such statements hence, it is an open fight, for now.
May the Lord guide you in your study of these matters.
LPC
Pieper going bad on the doctrine of justification.
For me the doctrine of justification is the most crucial of all. Luther said you can get everything in Scripture right but if you get the Gospel wrong, you are still in error.
At least you have been made aware of the controversy and you can study for yourself. Ichabod has plenty of resources from both sides of the fence on this.
I object to Pieper on exegetical grounds. Pieper was not naive, he knew if he is to be believed he had to ground his teaching from Scripture and he did misread the exegesis of Scripture at key strong passages which he believed where UOJ was taught.
When I first became Lutheran, I thought UOJ was just another way of speaking about the atonement until I discovered that they equate the atonement to be the same as justification. I walked away from this after reading more exposition on this. In my discipline (maths/logic) you are not to mix categories unless you have clear grounds of evidence that the categories are the same. UOJers to me, made a fallacious move in their methods when they equated and interpreted passages as teaching justification co-equal with the Atonement.
UOJers hate with utmost hatred Calvinists when in fact both their theological methods are the same, like a thief hating another thief, since they compete for the same loot. Calvinism assuming that Atonement and Justification are the same and seeing not all have faith pulls Atonement to the side of Justification declaring that the Atonement is subjective - hence, Limited. UOJers seeing the same thing but noting that Atonement is universal pulls Justification to the side of the Atonement declaring Justification to be universal too. JBFA properly distinguishes these two from one another.
A few years ago one of well known Reverend Doctor of LCAus in my state was consulted by my young pastor about what I said of UOJ. This theologian encouraged him in UOJ against my opposition. That theologian has now left LCAus and has become a Papist. UOJ is functional universalism. I say functional because though UOJers deny it, the effect is the same. Hence, Rome since Vatican II has some compatibilities with it, absurdity.
Absurdity is the opposite of rationalism and Christianity is neither of these.
There is a break way group from LCAus, the AELC which broke away because they thought LCAus will ordain women, but LCAus did not accept this and so the LCAus today will not have women pastors, at least perhaps for another some years, we know liberals never stop until they get what they want or simply leave. Anyway, I could not touch AELC because of their UOJ statements. At least with LCAus, there is no official such statements hence, it is an open fight, for now.
May the Lord guide you in your study of these matters.
LPC
LPC said...Stuart,
I wanted to add that I have not found any rebuttal to Walther Maier's anti-UOJ exegesis of Pieper's Scripture. Up to now, I still yet to find direct statements from Maier repudiating the things he wrote in this paper which criticizes Pieper passages...
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MaierJustification.pdf
LPC
I wanted to add that I have not found any rebuttal to Walther Maier's anti-UOJ exegesis of Pieper's Scripture. Up to now, I still yet to find direct statements from Maier repudiating the things he wrote in this paper which criticizes Pieper passages...
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MaierJustification.pdf
LPC
Brett Meyer said...Hi Stuart, I've been happily following your conversation with LPC. I like the "I'll side with Christ, let the world pass away" approach that you have. It is one that you have by the grace of God and one that will endure, grounded on the pure Word.
I see that you are new to the UOJ controversy and was in agreement with your statements until your Point #3 on Tuesday the 23rd. You state, "For instance, I am currently reading Jakob Andreae, whose six sermons provided a foundation to the Formula of Concord, and he commonly equates justification with the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, is it not true that the whole world's sins have been forgiven through Christ's suffering and death on the cross? Scripture and the Confessions agree that Justification is the forgiveness of sins. What you can't find is the UOJ statement that the whole world's sins were forgiven by Christ on the cross - paid for in full, YES, absolutely. Forgiven, no, not without the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace to work contrition and faith. This is how subtle the doctrine of UOJ has been creeping into the world. Thanks to Pastor Jackson, LPC and others there is a plethora of discussions covering this specific example and all other false teachings of UOJ to review.
Again, very nice having a chance to follow this discussion.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
I see that you are new to the UOJ controversy and was in agreement with your statements until your Point #3 on Tuesday the 23rd. You state, "For instance, I am currently reading Jakob Andreae, whose six sermons provided a foundation to the Formula of Concord, and he commonly equates justification with the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, is it not true that the whole world's sins have been forgiven through Christ's suffering and death on the cross? Scripture and the Confessions agree that Justification is the forgiveness of sins. What you can't find is the UOJ statement that the whole world's sins were forgiven by Christ on the cross - paid for in full, YES, absolutely. Forgiven, no, not without the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace to work contrition and faith. This is how subtle the doctrine of UOJ has been creeping into the world. Thanks to Pastor Jackson, LPC and others there is a plethora of discussions covering this specific example and all other false teachings of UOJ to review.
Again, very nice having a chance to follow this discussion.
In Christ,
Brett Meyer
LPC said...Stuart,
Actually I wish to commend Brett Meyer's writings to you which you will find here and also at Dr. Ichabod's. Both of them showed me first the inconsistencies and caused me to check the points from Scripture, it made me realize the beauty of the means of grace in that exercise. They have suffered more than I have in contending against this error.
This controversy actually happened more than a hundred years ago in American Lutheranism- You will not find the language of objective and subjective in the BoC neither its concepts. Even during C F W Walther's days there have already been those who opposed the promotion of UOJ. Walther formalized this concept and made this a part of the lingo. If there is anything objective it is the Atonement but this is not the same as Justification. Justification is founded on the Atonement and through faith in that Atonement and hence, anywhere Justification is found in Scripture its twin - faith is hanging around near by. Just look at this in Romans.
I think you and Dr. Ichabod are right in pointing the defects of the Synods, but where you differ is in pointing out where they went south.
We believe they went south at UOJ.
LPC
Actually I wish to commend Brett Meyer's writings to you which you will find here and also at Dr. Ichabod's. Both of them showed me first the inconsistencies and caused me to check the points from Scripture, it made me realize the beauty of the means of grace in that exercise. They have suffered more than I have in contending against this error.
This controversy actually happened more than a hundred years ago in American Lutheranism- You will not find the language of objective and subjective in the BoC neither its concepts. Even during C F W Walther's days there have already been those who opposed the promotion of UOJ. Walther formalized this concept and made this a part of the lingo. If there is anything objective it is the Atonement but this is not the same as Justification. Justification is founded on the Atonement and through faith in that Atonement and hence, anywhere Justification is found in Scripture its twin - faith is hanging around near by. Just look at this in Romans.
I think you and Dr. Ichabod are right in pointing the defects of the Synods, but where you differ is in pointing out where they went south.
We believe they went south at UOJ.
LPC
Stuart Wood said...Hi LPC/Brett,
Thank you both for your comments. LPC, I'll plan to read some of these sources you have cited and get back to once I have more to say. I am going to be away for a few days for the Thanksgiving holiday, so I did not want to keep you waiting.
Brett, I have always taken the word "justification" (in its strictest sense) as referring to the fact that God judicially "declares us righteous" at the moment that we believe in Christ and His atoning work in our behalf. As Luther says, a foreign righteousness, that is, the righteousness of Christ is imputed (reckoned) to our account. God now sees us "clothed" in Christ's righteousness. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21). Or, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Rom. 10:3). This is what I understand by the expression "subjective justification".
As for the universal atonement of Christ and what the theologians call "objective justification", I have taken this as the fact that Christ via His suffering and death at the cross, paid for our sins, yea, even the sins of the whole world. With His own blood, He has purchased for us the forgiveness of sins and a perfect righteousness. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19). In God's sight, the doors of heaven have been flung wide open and He, on His part, has declared a full and free pardon for all men and for all sins that ever have or ever will be committed. He has declared a full acquittal to all the world in spite of their many offenses because of the work of His Son on their behalf. In this sense the world is seen as "forgiven" and "righteous" in God's sight, that is, through the lens of Christ and His atoning death.
The unbelieving, however, do not become possessors of this forgiveness and righteousness because they through their own hard hearts and willful unbelief refuse to take refuge under the lens and choose of their own perverted will to remove themselves from God's loving and reconciled smile that ever radiates through this lens.
I probably have not said anything that you do not already know, but I wanted to express it so that you would better understand where I am coming from.
One last thing, I do not believe in Christ IN ORDER TO be forgiven, but rather I believe in Christ BECAUSE I am forgiven. The whole matter stands "extra nos", outside of me. I am only believing what God Himself says is already true, and for me not to believe would be to make God a liar.
God's blessings to you all,
Stuart
Thank you both for your comments. LPC, I'll plan to read some of these sources you have cited and get back to once I have more to say. I am going to be away for a few days for the Thanksgiving holiday, so I did not want to keep you waiting.
Brett, I have always taken the word "justification" (in its strictest sense) as referring to the fact that God judicially "declares us righteous" at the moment that we believe in Christ and His atoning work in our behalf. As Luther says, a foreign righteousness, that is, the righteousness of Christ is imputed (reckoned) to our account. God now sees us "clothed" in Christ's righteousness. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21). Or, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Rom. 10:3). This is what I understand by the expression "subjective justification".
As for the universal atonement of Christ and what the theologians call "objective justification", I have taken this as the fact that Christ via His suffering and death at the cross, paid for our sins, yea, even the sins of the whole world. With His own blood, He has purchased for us the forgiveness of sins and a perfect righteousness. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor. 5:19). In God's sight, the doors of heaven have been flung wide open and He, on His part, has declared a full and free pardon for all men and for all sins that ever have or ever will be committed. He has declared a full acquittal to all the world in spite of their many offenses because of the work of His Son on their behalf. In this sense the world is seen as "forgiven" and "righteous" in God's sight, that is, through the lens of Christ and His atoning death.
The unbelieving, however, do not become possessors of this forgiveness and righteousness because they through their own hard hearts and willful unbelief refuse to take refuge under the lens and choose of their own perverted will to remove themselves from God's loving and reconciled smile that ever radiates through this lens.
I probably have not said anything that you do not already know, but I wanted to express it so that you would better understand where I am coming from.
One last thing, I do not believe in Christ IN ORDER TO be forgiven, but rather I believe in Christ BECAUSE I am forgiven. The whole matter stands "extra nos", outside of me. I am only believing what God Himself says is already true, and for me not to believe would be to make God a liar.
God's blessings to you all,
Stuart
LPC said...Hello Stuart,
I highlight One last thing, I do not believe in Christ IN ORDER TO be forgiven, but rather I believe in Christ BECAUSE I am forgiven. The whole matter stands "extra nos", outside of me. I am only believing what God Himself says is already true, and for me not to believe would be to make God a liar
There is sense that this might be taken properly. I do have a question, does belief do anything to your status with God, does it carry andy change of status at all?
I am just wondering if God has already declared you righteous before you even before you believe, why will he now get angry at you if you do not believe? He has already been good to you in the first place before you believe so why would God now be angry if you don't?
Further, is a person under God's wrath before the person believes? If the answer is YES, how is that then related to the fact that God has already declared him righteous (forgiven), it is inconsistent under this scheme to say YES then. For that would mean God is delcaring him righteous prior to faith and at the same time angry with him because he has not got faith yet.
I am asking these question to provoke thought. In this then it seems now after the Cross every one starts off forgiven and only become unforgiven if they do not believe. Is that the right picture?
Rather I think every one starts off under God's wrath and then the means of grace brings us INTO christ so we are now under blessedness rather than curse.
LPC
I highlight One last thing, I do not believe in Christ IN ORDER TO be forgiven, but rather I believe in Christ BECAUSE I am forgiven. The whole matter stands "extra nos", outside of me. I am only believing what God Himself says is already true, and for me not to believe would be to make God a liar
There is sense that this might be taken properly. I do have a question, does belief do anything to your status with God, does it carry andy change of status at all?
I am just wondering if God has already declared you righteous before you even before you believe, why will he now get angry at you if you do not believe? He has already been good to you in the first place before you believe so why would God now be angry if you don't?
Further, is a person under God's wrath before the person believes? If the answer is YES, how is that then related to the fact that God has already declared him righteous (forgiven), it is inconsistent under this scheme to say YES then. For that would mean God is delcaring him righteous prior to faith and at the same time angry with him because he has not got faith yet.
I am asking these question to provoke thought. In this then it seems now after the Cross every one starts off forgiven and only become unforgiven if they do not believe. Is that the right picture?
Rather I think every one starts off under God's wrath and then the means of grace brings us INTO christ so we are now under blessedness rather than curse.
LPC
Stuart Wood said...Hi LPC,
These are excellent questions that you have and provide a great opportunity to bring clarity to this matter. First, you ask, "does belief do anything to your status with God, does it carry any change of status at all?" My answer would be, "No". Our belief does not do anything to our status with God. Our faith is simply the means (conduit) that brings the already-reconciled God's good will and forgiveness to us. The living water in the reservoir is what it is - life and eternal refreshment purchased for our souls by the blood of Christ. But faith is the conduit by which this gracious stream comes to us and becomes our own.
You ask, "if God has already declared you righteous before you even believe, why will he now get angry at you if you do not believe?" This is not the right way to look at this. God declared you righteous in Christ before you believed, but this righteousness is not effective to you personally until you believe. Again, think of the reservoir analogy. The water exists. It was wrought by God for you and is sincerely intended for you, but without the conduit of faith you remain without it.
God has declared you forgiven and righteous "in Christ", but the problem is that you in your unbelief are not yet "in Christ" but "in Adam". When you believe you are "delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Col. 1:13), you are no longer "in Adam", but now reside "in Christ". You now are a partaker of all the benefits that Christ purchased for you by His atoning death.
Next you ask, "is a person under God's wrath before the person believes?" The answer is "Yes", because through his unbelief he has not appropriated all of the blessings (forgiveness, righteousness, life, etc,) which only reside "in Christ". He has, in fact, been "declared righteous in Christ" (as Pieper says), but he himself is not yet "in Christ" where this declaration has been made and is effective.
A good way to think of all this is the analogy of an umbrella in a storm. Christ is our umbrella. If we by faith stand under the umbrella (in Christ) and look up through the umbrella, we see the face of God with a friendly smile. However, if we, of our own depraved unbelief, reject the umbrella, and stare into the skies without Christ, we rightly see nothing but fury and wrath on the face of God (the storm). This same analogy would hold true with the Passover house. Stay in the house, you have warmth, protection, grace and life. Venture outside the house, and you have death and damnation.
Hope this all helps.
God's blessings,
Stuart
These are excellent questions that you have and provide a great opportunity to bring clarity to this matter. First, you ask, "does belief do anything to your status with God, does it carry any change of status at all?" My answer would be, "No". Our belief does not do anything to our status with God. Our faith is simply the means (conduit) that brings the already-reconciled God's good will and forgiveness to us. The living water in the reservoir is what it is - life and eternal refreshment purchased for our souls by the blood of Christ. But faith is the conduit by which this gracious stream comes to us and becomes our own.
You ask, "if God has already declared you righteous before you even believe, why will he now get angry at you if you do not believe?" This is not the right way to look at this. God declared you righteous in Christ before you believed, but this righteousness is not effective to you personally until you believe. Again, think of the reservoir analogy. The water exists. It was wrought by God for you and is sincerely intended for you, but without the conduit of faith you remain without it.
God has declared you forgiven and righteous "in Christ", but the problem is that you in your unbelief are not yet "in Christ" but "in Adam". When you believe you are "delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Col. 1:13), you are no longer "in Adam", but now reside "in Christ". You now are a partaker of all the benefits that Christ purchased for you by His atoning death.
Next you ask, "is a person under God's wrath before the person believes?" The answer is "Yes", because through his unbelief he has not appropriated all of the blessings (forgiveness, righteousness, life, etc,) which only reside "in Christ". He has, in fact, been "declared righteous in Christ" (as Pieper says), but he himself is not yet "in Christ" where this declaration has been made and is effective.
A good way to think of all this is the analogy of an umbrella in a storm. Christ is our umbrella. If we by faith stand under the umbrella (in Christ) and look up through the umbrella, we see the face of God with a friendly smile. However, if we, of our own depraved unbelief, reject the umbrella, and stare into the skies without Christ, we rightly see nothing but fury and wrath on the face of God (the storm). This same analogy would hold true with the Passover house. Stay in the house, you have warmth, protection, grace and life. Venture outside the house, and you have death and damnation.
Hope this all helps.
God's blessings,
Stuart
It’s no secret. Their true intentions are out in the open.
Today, we look at an Evangelical institution,
Notre Dame is obliged to report any serious accusation of sexual assault, or other on-campus crime, to the county police and prosecutor. We await further revelation of facts as to whether this obligation was fulfilled in this newly-disclosed case of Elizabeth Seeberg. One gets the impression, however, that little confidence can be reposed in the Notre Dame administration to fulfill its obligation of simple candor in prosecutorial matters.
Consider, for example, the continuing prosecution of the ND88, the pro-life protestors who, on the complaint of Notre Dame, were arrested at the graduation events of 2009 at which President Obama received Notre Dame's highest honor. The criminal prosecution of those ND88 continues because Notre Dame refuses to request that it be discontinued. Father John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, claims that Notre Dame cannot ask the prosecutor to dismiss the charges because the university treats all demonstrators equally.
William Dempsey, president of the Sycamore Trust, demonstrated in extensive correspondence with Father Jenkins and Dennis Brown, his spokesperson, in February and March 2010, that Notre Dame had declined to prosecute gay-rights and anti-ROTC demonstrators as recently as 2007 and there were no contrary examples up to the time of the Obama commencement.
Despite the careful and irrefutable demonstration to Father Jenkins by Mr. Dempsey of the non-prosecution of those gay-rights and anti-ROTC demonstrators, Father Jenkins later restated forcefully on April 30, 2010, that 'the [u]niversity cannot have one set of rules for causes we oppose, and another more lenient set of rules for causes we support. We have one consistent set of rules for demonstrations on campus — no matter what the cause.' That statement is untrue. And, unless he has the excuse of delusion, Father Jenkins had to know it was untrue.
If we are dealing with a knowingly and unequivocally false statement by Notre Dame's president on a subject seriously affecting Notre Dame, that is an extremely grave matter for which resignation or dismissal is the only remedy. Notre Dame, in reliance on the patently false claim that it treats all demonstrators equally, continues to subject the ND88 to legal prosecution and serious costs that it never imposed on politically correct gay-rights and anti-ROTC demonstrators.
There was a day when a Notre Dame administrator's word could be taken to the bank. But that was 'back in the day.' This is, today, a university governed by academic ruling class 'wannabes' who have made political correctness, in dominant respects, the official religion of Notre Dame. So: Pray for Elizabeth Seeberg and her family, as well as her alleged assailant, as we ought to pray for Declan Sullivan, another victim of university fault, and for his family. Pray for the ND88, who deserve the respect — rather than the prosecution — of the university. Pray for Notre Dame and its administrators. And, while you're at it, pray for our country.
