With all due respect, they don’t confuse me. They used to, but it was Robert Preus’ book “Justification and Rome” that was foundational in getting me to think and teach in terms that the Book of Concord uses to describe Justification.
Are you sure I’m really free not to use them? The terms “heresy” and “heretic” have flown around a little too loosely when this topic comes up.
Walther’s admonition is one to take to heart: “Bear this in mind, dear friends . . . it is your duty not only to believe as the Church believes, but also to speak in harmony with the Christian Church.” (Law and Gospel, 276-277) The vocabulary of the church I swore to uphold is the Book of Concord. So, thank you for the affirmation that I am free not to use the terms “Objective” and “Subjective” when teaching the doctrine of Justification! Not everyone feels that way.
Rev. James Schulz
---
If I may respond from the Anti-UOJer side of things.
We know the answer to those questions and the answer proves UOJ is a concept filled with fallacy.
In fact, when you ask “Can I be saved”? According to C F W Walther, your question is ill formed, you should not be even asking if you “can be saved”. Because YOU ARE ALREADY even before you believe whatever it is you want to believe.
Here is a quote from http://www.franzpieper.com/ quoting Walther.
C.F.W. Walther wrote in 1868: “…you often hear pastors preach, ‘You are saved if you believe.’ What they should be saying is, ‘You are saved so that you might believe.“
Jack says that UOJ is not Christianized Universalism.
Don’t you guys in the US have a saying, if anything walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck? See Mk 16:16.
LPC
---
The forgiveness exists *in Christ*, because it is Christ who earned that forgiveness by His perfect life and atoning death. That forgiveness becomes ours when we become one with Christ through Baptism/faith. What we believe in is Christ; what becomes ours is His merit.
Just because the forgiveness exists in *Christ*, it does not follow that I was forgiven (or righteous) before I was born (much less the world). The world stands condemned already because it has not believed on the name of God’s one and only Son. However, people are not condemned only for rejecting the Gospel (certainly this is a condemnable offense, but not the only offense). People are condemned because they are sinful. Otherwise, it places one in the peculiar position of explaining the eternal state of the millions and millions of people who never had an opportunity to hear the Holy Gospel.
Dan Baker
---
To UOJers
We won’t go around in circles if you can provide Scriptural evidence for your UOJ theory.
I even grant to you that subjective Justification is not the issue here, because you have the fallacious advantage and the sophistic mechanism to agree with JBFAers when we speak about JBFA, so that is not the issue.
The issue and the foremost one is the declaration of the whole world as righteous ALREADY on account of the Jesus death (and to some on account of his resurrection, as per F. Pieper)
The issue is this…1932 Brief Statement Article 17.
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
Does Romans 4:25 teach it? No, it is part of a larger context where faith is mentioned.
Does Romans 5:19 teach it? No, again see above.
Does 2 Cor 5:18-21 teach it? No, for firstly in 1 Cor 5:17, it speaks of those in Christ. Secondly, v.19 does not say that righteousness has been imputed, rather our sin has been imputed to Christ, v.19 speaks of the Atonement.
So the problem with UOJ is that it thinks when God imputed the sins of the world to Christ, right there it also meant the whole world has been declared righteous already., i.e. the righteousness of Christ was imputed to the World already.
Now, according to UOJ teaching, one must only have to believe this.
Even your precious idol C. F. W. Walther said this and I quote:
“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.”
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, “Christ’s Resurrection—The World’s Absolution” Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978, p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.
So Walther teaches, Word of Faith, believe you have been absolved already and so you are. Believe you are not absolved then so you are not. You are what you believe.
Kenneth Hagin and his followers said something similar to this in regards to healing. Your healing already happened at the Cross, believe you are healed and so you will be, believe you are not healed and so you would not. If you do not get healed, your problem is your faith.
Jack [Kilcrease] specializes in missing the point. The issue is not your precious UOJ does not teach, our issue is WHAT IT DOES TEACH!
I hope you get it.
LPC
---
@Daniel Baker #103
Yes Daniel,
UOJ has a mistaken, even a warped view of faith as taught by Jesus and the Apostles. They think that when one mentions faith, one is a synergist.
This was the blunder of Walther. Remember he struggled with his assurance of salvation when Bishop Stephan found him. Though Walther did not eliminate faith all together, because that would be too obvious a Scriptural teaching, what he did promote made faith superfluous.
Did Jesus or the Apostles shy away from using that word?
In fact, Jesus said strong things to people about faith. See Luke 7:50, Luke 18:42
LPC
---
@Jim Pierce #101
Mr. Pierce,
I was a UOJ advocate in my early years in Lutheranism. I thought it was another way of saying the atonement not until I discovered that they were equating the atonement with justification.
In logic, this is called a category mistake, hence a fallacy.
You said But, it is certainly possible that I don’t understand what it means to say that Christ “paid for the sins of the world” and yet, all sins are not forgiven in Christ
The first procedure is to distinguish the Atonement from Justification, that is the first consideration. Just follow the procedure in high school maths, two names are not necessarily the same, i.e. an identity, unless you have evidence that they are so. Equality is to be proven not assumed.
In UOJ, they reverse the process, Equality is assumed and not proven.
The mistake of UOJers is to collapse Atonement with Justification, they assume this and they proceed to see what their assumption wishes to see.
Calvinism does this too, they collapse the Atonement with Justification but they go to the right side of that assumption, concluding that Atonement is Limited because they see Justification is limited, because they are one and the same thing. In UOJ it pulls the quality left ward, concluding that Justification is universal because Atonement is.
Thus UOJ is functional universalism despite the protestation of Jack Kilcrease that it is not.
UOJ makes one progress in its ambiguity and so it even makes one hate even the mention of faith, or pooh poohs faith, yet Jesus considered this something that He gets excited about, for after all, He is the author of faith.
Walther even said the preacher does not even have to mention faith at all in his preaching as if it is wrong if the preacher mentions it. Thus Walther went against the Apostles. For example, when the eunuch wanted to be baptized in Acts, what did Philip say? Did he say, great, lets do it. No. See Acts 8:36-38.
LPC
---
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=4190#comment-278343
Jack,
When Jackson speaks of Justification as communicating salvation, is he speaking Biblically or historically? He is speaking biblically. Which should take precedence in theological discussion, Scripture or philosophy?
Show us from Scripture that the Biblical writers equated Atonement with Justification. Is there any place in Scripture when Atonement is mentioned, God has declared the whole world already righteous, without faith, prior to faith or even prior to being born?
Few attempts were made from Waltherians like you to address challenge from Scripture citing Romans 4:25 but they miserably fail because no reputable exegete would sign his name and say that was the justification of the world, except perhaps from LC-M-ess.
The terminology and concept of UOJ whether originated, borrowed or stolen was foreign to Scripture and the Confessions. One thing for sure, it did not come from orthodox old Lutheran Concordians. In fact you have to cite 19th century of how the word justification is taken differently.
Your argument against this does not work in your favor but actually digs you in a hole because you are admitting it did not come from Scripture nor from the Concordian writers themselves.
UOJ was promoted by your fathers below – C F W Walther , originated by Samuel Huber and aided by the Halle Pietists.
C F W Walther was really like Calvin, he borrowed ideas and stamped them as if it was his own. He wanted to be peculiar and genius. This is the sad mark of Calvinism. Guess what Huber was a Reformed pastor turned Lutheran but he never got rid of his philosophical paradigm. Walther was the same, he was Pietistic and he never got rid of the separation of the Means of Grace with Justification.
In UOJ every one starts off as already forgiven since the Cross. You get unforgiven if you do not believe you are forgiven and you are forgiven if you believe you already are.
What is this but Word of Faith theology.
Mr. Pierce,
You often quote what St John the Baptist said about Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and so, no more sin.
Yet in John 5:34 this is what Jesus said…
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
In UOJ therefore, faith in justification IS justification.
Yet in Scripture, as said by Jesus, faith IN Him is Jusitfication.
This is a world of difference.
LPC
---
Daniel Baker makes an important objection to the teaching of UOJ.
Dr. Kilcrease states, “When a preacher says things that are conditional, he is always speaking law-words. When a preacher says “if you believe, you will be forgiven.” Or “just believe” this is law, even if he’s talking about salvation. These words will not create faith because they are conditional law-statements.” And, “Other doctrinal formulations turn gospel-statements into law statements: “If you believe, then you are saved.”
This is contrary to Scripture where Christ declares in Acts 16:31, “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
UOJ teaches that Christ is using the Law here but He is not. Christ is declaring the Gospel.
But according to UOJ Christ was declaring the Law when he declared in Romans 10:9, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
This is not a teaching faithful to Scripture and the Confessions. Dr. Kilcrease and the doctrine of UOJ confess that Christ’s statements above are Law because they attribute faith as a work of man. Since faith is solely the gracious work of the Holy Ghost who only works through the Word purely taught the declarations are pure Gospel.
Brett Meyer
---
@Dr. Jack Kilcrease #104
Dr. Kilcrease,
“A number of points need to be clarified for all of us. So let’s break it down. First, here’s rules of preaching: When a preacher says things that are conditional, he is always speaking law-words. When a preacher says “if you believe, you will be forgiven.” Or “just believe” this is law, even if he’s talking about salvation. These words will not create faith because they are conditional law-statements. The human mind under sin hears these words, it will then try to work itself into faith, convince itself that it has achieved it, and feel good at having done a good work. The only statements that create faith are gospel-statements which promise Christ and his benefits unconditionally. The point is using the terminology of objective justification is that they safe-guards the preacher being able to make unconditional gospel-statements. Other doctrinal formulations turn gospel-statements into law statements: ‘If you believe, then you are saved.’”
Thank you for the attempted clarification. However, when contrasted to the actual examples and preaching of the Apostles, I think it falls short. I would be interested in hearing your response to the citations and argument I asserted in my previous post. The “human minds” of the crowd St. Peter preached to in Acts 10 didn’t try to “work themselves” into faith; to the contrary, St. Peter said “believe in Christ and you will receive forgiveness,” and lo, while he was still speaking they received the Holy Spirit (and thus forgiveness)!
“Also, to clear the air, objective justification does not teach the following things:
1. That everyone is automatically saved. (pronouncing and receiving are different things. This is fairly obvious).
2. That God’s forgiveness is not mediated through the means of grace. (God’s declaration though already actualized as objective and universal in eternity, is mediated through the means of grace, and communicated to faith. It is not communicated apart from them- this is a key distinction).
3. That faith is unnecessary for the reception of Christ and his benefits. (Again, reception and communication are different than actualization).
So, if the conversation is going to go forward and not just go in circles, those who reject Objective justification need to stop asserting that some how we are claiming these things. We have repeated stated that we do not hold these things and neither, in light of our description of what OJ is can you really claim that these things are the implication of our claim.”
I do not recall asserting that Universal Justification advocates make any of these claims. Whether or not the doctrine of Objective Justification lends credibility to any of these three points is another matter entirely, but we can agree that the doctrine does not, as currently posited, advocate any of the three enumerated points.
Daniel Baker
---
Hi, Jim! Please don’t take any of my words as a “charge” against you or anyone. This is a good and important discussion.
I haven’t seen a clear Scripture passage that states that God ever absolved the world of sin, or that the sins of the world have been remitted – although they have certainly all been paid for! I think it’s the modern failure to distinguish between the payment and the absolution (based on the payment) that has muddied the waters. And to speak of absolution apart from the Means of Grace is simply not known in the Scriptures. If we stick to the language of Scripture, we’ll be fine. “God so loved the world…” Great! “Christ bore the sins of the world.” Wonderful! “He is the propitiation for…the sins of the world.” Wonderful! “God pronounced absolution upon the world.” Where is that written?
The forensic nature of justification is, in fact, opposed to objective justification, as explained by Chemnitz. In order for God to justify any sinner (much less all sinners collectively!), he must see a “foreign righteousness” in them as the basis for his absolution (since they have no righteousness of their own). In other words, it is only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that the sinner is justified. Scripture clearly states that the righteousness of Christ is only imputed to faith.
I do appreciate the Marquart quotes, as I think very highly of him and so many things he has written and said. I don’t think he was entirely consistent with his own explanations, though, when it comes to objective justification. In one place, he defined the objective components of justification as “the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the promise of mercy for Christ’s sake.” Fine so far. But elsewhere, he adds this bit about the world’s absolution itself (apart from the means of grace) as part of the objective components of justification, with this absolution being a “perfected, past and present reality.” I think that’s going too far, and it’s not what Ap. IV explains, either.
Whenever our Confessions use the phrase (in English) “are forgiven,” it’s a present passive verb (in the Latin), not a perfect tense, not a past tense, not a stative verb (the same goes for Romans 3:24 in the Greek!). Why does God forgive sins? For the sake of Christ! When does God forgive sins? “…when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake” (AC:IV). Forgiveness is indeed a present-tense, forensic gift we receive from God.
And only in the following sense is it also a past reality. It is a past reality for those who have been baptized and brought to faith by the Gospel. This is what Paul says, for example, in Col. 2:11-14 (to which Ambrose is referring in his statement quoted in the Confessions), where he places our “being made alive” and our forgiveness at the time when we received the “circumcision done by Christ,” that is, in our Baptism. Baptism is such a glorious thing that it sends us back to the cross and to the tomb with Christ, and then, of course, out of the tomb as well. This is why the Apology so often equates justification with regeneration, and why Paul also places our justification in connection with our baptism in Titus 3 and Romans 6.
The fact is, we have all the objective truth necessary for our faith to rest securely in the plain reading of the Scriptures without adding all of our philosophical elaborations.
If we want a concise but thorough Lutheran definition of “justification,” I think this one from Chemnitz is the best I’ve ever seen, and I don’t think we can simply dismiss it as “merely referring to subjective justification.” This is how the 16th Century Lutherans understood justification in the “article of justification”:
The meaning of the word “justify” in this article is judicial, namely, that the sinner, accused by the Law of God, convicted, and subjected to the sentence of eternal damnation, fleeing in faith to the throne of grace, is absolved for Christ’s sake, reckoned and declared righteous, received into grace, and accepted to eternal life. (Chemnitz’ Examination of the Council of Trent, Vol. 1, p.474)
Paul Rydecki
---
 |
| Team Jeske - they are the wolves. They start their meetings, "Let us prey." |
GoPack has left a new comment on your post "Some Means of Grace Writers Are Trying To Steady t...":
"Session Title: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing-The Pathological Antagonists in our Midst
Presenter: John Johnson [one of the founders of Church and Chicanery]
This session is designed to help you recognize wolves, understand what drives their hunger, and learn how to keep them from forming a “pack” at your work or church. These wolves, sometimes known as “clergy killers,” have an underlying agenda to discredit and take down a leader. They always claim the best intentions, but build coalitions against the leader behind his back. Therefore, having authentic Christian brothers around you is even more critical today than ever before. Learn to protect yourself and your brothers. The Kingdom of God is at stake." http://www.menofhisword.org/?page_id=113
AKA watch out for anyone who doesn't agree with our approach to ministry!
