bored has left a new comment on your post "Critical Thinking Needed with Intellectual Honesty...":
Pastor Rydecki has offered a challenge to look into pre-1580 Christians and their understanding of Justification. I was hoping to hear your opinion of my (very) quick analysis of a certain quote:
Chrysostom wrote:
[5.] Ver. 19. “To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their tresspasses.”
Seest thou love surpassing all expression, all conception? Who was the aggrieved one? Himself. Who first sought the reconciliation? Himself. ‘And yet,’ saith one, ‘He sent the Son, He did not come Himself.’ The Son indeed it was He sent; still not He alone besought, but both with Him and by Him the Father; wherefore he said, that, “God was reconciling the world unto Himself in Christ:” that is, by Christ. For seeing he had said, “Who gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation;” he here used a corrective, saying, “Think not that we act of our own authority in the business: we are ministers; and He that doeth the whole is God, Who reconciled the world by the Only-Begotten.” And how did He reconcile it unto Himself? For this is the marvel, not that it was made a friend only, but also by this way a friend. This way? What way? Forgiving them their sins; for in no other way was it possible. Wherefore also he added, “Not reckoning unto them their tresspasses.” For had it been His pleasure to require an account of the things we had transgressed in, we should all have perished; for “all died.” But nevertheless though our sins were so great, He not only did not require satisfaction, but even became reconciled; He not only forgave, but He did not even “reckon.” So ought we also to forgive our enemies, that ourselves too may obtain the like forgiveness.
“And having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
For neither have we come now on any odious office; but to make all men friends with God. For He saith, ‘Since they were not persuaded by Me, do ye continue beseeching until ye have persuaded them...." (Schaff, Philip: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XII. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, 1997, S. 333)
Sure, I'll take that challenge.
2 Cor. 5:19 is one of the main verses used in the defense of Objective Justification. It has been argued by many that a combination of "the world" and "not counting people’s sins against them."(NIV) means that God "has declared them (all sinners) righteous for the sake of Christ" (This We Believe, section IV point 1).
John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407) disagrees with that understanding of verse 19. Rather, when he describes it in his commentary of 2 Cor., he speaks about the 'not counting' (or reckoning) in reference to Christians. His use of pronouns convinces me of this. He says "we should have all perished" and "we also to forgive our enemies". Chrysostom is speaking to Christians, and implies that verse 19 is not a blanket statement about the supposed (declared) innocence of the whole world, but rather a description of what happens to those who are reconciled: their sins are not counted against them.
***
GJ - Thank you for that contribution. The entire Christian tradition followed that understanding until Pietism merged Calvin with Lutheran lite and invented UOJ.
Now the benighted Synodical Conference starts with an assumption of UOJ and tries to work backwards to the Reformation and the Bible.
I have seen the effect in discussing this with Lutheran students. They start with universal absolution instead of the efficacy of the Word and the Means of Grace.
Once UOJ is assumed, nothing else matters. Everything becomes an adiaphoron, including the most heinous sins.
---
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Critical Thinking Needed with Intellectual Honesty...":
Bored/Pr Greg,
I offer another analysis why UOJ in method and practice is actually Calvinism in method and practice!
Calvinism, when it sees the word "all" in Scripture, fails to read it as all in the sense of all the world indiscriminately when it SHOULD BE!
UOJ when it sees "all", does the opposite mistake of the Calvinist, they read it as all also indiscriminately when it SHOULD NOT BE!.
Lutheran JBFA, in my reading of the BoC and Luther/Chemnitz, properly reads the use of "ALL" because they follow proper exegetical methods.
They know when ALL means all indiscriminately and also when ALL means - all who believe only.
In otherwords UOJers and Calvinist, when it comes to exegesis, do not apply discernment or distinction properly when they see the word ALL.
This is the reason why I LMAO when UOJers claim anti-UOJ people are Calvinists! It is UOJ that is Calvinistic in philosophy and method!
Actually I now ask amongs Lutherans, the joke I used to ask Calvinists - could the REAL Calvinist please stand up!
LPC