Book Review:
by Dr. Gregory Jackson
by Jack Cascione
This writer wishes to thank the following for council, editing, and corrections: Rev. Paul Fleischer CLC, Rev. Steven Spencer WELS, Rev. Joel Baseley LCMS, Rev. Adam Mueller WELS, Rev. Jerome, Cascione LCMS, Dr. Andrew Cascione ELS, Mrs. Dale King WELS, Karl Randolph LCMS, and Mrs. Virginia Cascione LCMS.
The editors of Christian News requested that I review Dr. Gregory Jackson’s new book, The Path to Understanding Justification. Jackson earned his PhD from Notre Dame and colloquized from what is now the ELCA to the WELS ministerium where he is no longer rostered. This book is a large print, 100-page, easy-to-read, distillation /outline of Jackson’s voluminous, long-standing opposition to the Doctrine of Objective Justification. [GJ - Jack B. got one thing right.]
Jackson’s book is recommended for any reader seeking a thoroughly researched, documented, resource opposed to Objective Justification if, for no other reason than to see how opponents of this doctrine turn the Bible against itself. It is a collector’s item, but leads one to ask, “What drives Jackson to such intense opposition to Objective Justification?”
[GJ - Possible answers - the Scriptures, Luther, Melanchthon, The Book of Concord, Chemnitz, Gerhard]
 |
"I'd rather have George Knapp with silver and gold,
I'd rather teach OJ and SJ so bold.
I'd rather teach George Knapp than Luther or Paul,
Yes I'd rather teach Halle or nothing at all." Mad Jack |
Jackson references numerous verses from the Bible dealing with the Justification of the sinner by faith. He opposes any attempt to divide this doctrine into two categories, Objective Justification--God’s declaration that the world is righteous because of Christ’s sacrifice; and Subjective Justification—God’s gift of righteousness to the individual sinner through faith in Christ. [GJ - no, making a decision for OJ: see JP Meyer and Walther.] Jackson rejects this division and views Subjective Justification and Justification by Faith Alone as one and the same. He falsely accuses the LCMS, WELS, ELS, CLC, and LCR of teaching Universalism, that all people have eternal salvation no matter what they believe, when they teach Objective Justification.
[GJ - Why does Jack B. Simple assume OJ is faithful to the Bible and the Book of Concord? He argues in a circle without any Scriptural support, the only path to the truth.]
Three Suggestions to Improve Jackson’s Argument Against Objective Justification
Before criticizing Jackson’s book, we offer three suggestions on how he might make his argument against Objective Justification more effective.
First, Jackson Should also Debunk Synonyms of Objective Justification
Jackson could strengthen his argument against Objective Justification by debunking any biblical support from supposed corollaries and synonyms for Objective Justification. Jackson needs broader support from the Bible demonstrating limitations to the supposed universality of Grace, Freely, Gift, Salvation, Forgiveness, Gospel, Blessing, Love, Imputation, Redemption, Reconciliation, Propitiation, Vindication, Mercy, Sacrifice, and Ransom. If God has not declared the whole world righteous in Christ without faith, it also follows that the God does not give the benefits of all these synonyms without faith. In other words, Jackson needs to demonstrate that his opposition to Objective or Universal Justification is not an isolated example but also pertains to the objective application of the above synonyms.
[GJ - One must swallow the poison to appreciate OJ? No thanks.]
Second, Jackson Should Address the Function of Works in Justification
Jackson bases his rejection of Objective Justification on the fact that God counts Abraham righteous by faith:
Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (Gen 15:6 NAS)
And therefore it was imputed to him [Abraham] for righteousness. (Rom 4:22 KJV)
He also references
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
(James 2:21-24 NAS)
This is where Jackson has the opportunity (on page 76) to demonstrate that both faith and works are components of Justification, but he neglects to make the point. Because Justification by faith, as Jackson points out, is always accompanied by works, why doesn’t Jackson show that Objective Justification is void of both Abraham’s faith and works, instead of keying in only on faith?
[GJ - Jack sprays the field with more skunk spray, but that does not rescue his ravings. He sets aside the plain meaning of the Word of God for some pseudo-intellectual props for Walther's unearned reputation.]
Thirdly, Jackson Should Investigate Problems with Atonement and Expiation in Justification
Jackson could have delved into the inconsistent and imprecise uses of Atonement, and Expiation. In his Christian Dogmatics, Volume II, Page 378, Pieper speaks about “objective expiation of sins [to be] wrought by Christ.” Yet, Expiation is not listed as a Lutheran or biblical term in the Lutheran Cyclopedia, while theologians often define Atonement as Expiation. When searching for a basis of Atonement, there is no word in the five books of Moses listed in Lutheran dogmatics as the Hebrew equivalent for Atonement. Atonement and Expiation are not listed in the Book of Concord but dogmaticians like Pieper use these words to define Justification. Lutheran Theologians describe Atonement in terms of the Vicarious Satisfaction while Atonement has no consistent definition in Lutheran theology.
[GJ - The OJ Fan Club has its piles of documents, proving the OJ Fan Club is smarter than Luther and the Holy Spirit. However, the LCMS began by teaching Justification by Faith, and so did WELS. The Halle OJ of the felon Walther and his syphilitic bishop do not prove anything except their Enthusiasm.]
 |
| The Halle Pietists connected universal salvation with the resurrection of Christ, the same formula used by Stephan, who taught it to Walther. |
Insurmountable flaws in Jackson’s Opposition to Objective Justification
First, Jackson Ignores Objective Justification in the Garden of Eden
Jackson’s slice and dice approach to the Bible is akin to, “and he went away and hanged himself” (Matt. 27:5 NAS), and Jesus said, "Go and do the same" (Luke 10:37 NAS).” The Bible can be made to say nearly anything when taken out of context. Just look at Satan’s misquoting of Scripture in his wilderness temptations of Christ. Because any clergyman worthy of his Call can see the fallacies in Jackson’s writing, his spacious typesetting, simple sentence structure, and limited explanations are apparently designed to persuade the lay reader.
[GJ - I ignored what was not there. Congratulations for using a joke older and more worn-out than great-grandma's nighties. A good jeremiad should be original, not plagiarized from Paul McCain's sermon barrel.]
Jackson starts his argument against Objective Justification—God declaring the world righteous in Christ—in the Garden of Eden (page 23). Jackson quotes Genesis 3:15 where God speaks the first Gospel to the fallen Adam and Eve, who were hiding from God, feared God, and hated God. There were only two people in the world when God spoke to them, therefore God is speaking to the whole world. In the entire account of the Fall and first promise, there are no comments about Adam and Eve repenting and coming to faith. Jackson will not acknowledge that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God until Eve expresses her faith at the naming of Cain in Genesis 4:1. Here the Bible contradicts Jackson’s thesis that there is no forgiveness before faith, when God clearly forgives Adam and Even before they have faith. The object of faith must precede faith or faith has nothing to believe in. If Jackson admits that Adam and Eve were forgiven in the Garden of Eden, he will have to agree that the Bible teaches Objective Justification. The question remains as to why Jackson is driven to place himself in such an inane theological conundrum.
[GJ - Given the incautious expansion of OJ, do Jack and his Hive consider the moment of universal absolution without faith to have begun at Genesis 3:15?]
Second, Jackson Ignores Universality of Synonyms for Justification
The reason Jackson avoids references to numerous corollaries and synonyms of Justification in his opposition to Objective Justification is that he would have to deal with too much evidence contrary to his thesis. We had to limit the following data because there are so many verses that describe Christ’s initiative in universal terms before faith.
For God so loved the world, (John 3:16 KJV)
this One is indeed the Savior of the world (Joh 4:42 NAS)
reconciling of the world, (Rom 11:15 KJV)
namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, (2Co 5:19 NAS)
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1John 2:2 NAS)
Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29 NAS)
Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (Heb 9:26 NAS)
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, (Gen 22:18 KJV)
In thee shall all nations be blessed. (Gal 3:8 KJV)
proof to all men by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:31 NAS)
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31 KJV)
with righteousness shall he judge the world, (Psa 98:9 KJV)
he shall judge the world with righteousness, (Psa 96:13 KJV)
And he shall judge the world in righteousness (Psa 9:8 KJV)
And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth. (Isa 54:5 NAS)
at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (Rom 5:6 NAS)
having concluded this, that one died for all, (2Co 5:14 NAS)
And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; (John 16:8 NAS)
Notice the forensic action in John 16:8 above, where the Holy Spirit will convict the world of righteousness—that is, a declaration of righteousness by God. Also notice four verses which state that the world will be judged in righteousness. It is crystal clear that these verses are not speaking about God’s inherent righteousness but His righteousness for us.
[GJ - Using John's Gospel for OJ, especially 16:8 is a level of stupidity and ignorance never before witnessed in print. It takes a village...of idiots.]
There are also a number of verses where universality is implied by the context but not directly stated as in the above. Pronouns in these verses (such as many, our, them, and we) must apply to all of humanity or the work of Christ is intended only for a fraction of humanity, thus giving us the false doctrine of a limited Atonement.
[GJ - If the "go thou" joke was old and lame, step back, the limited atonement argument, aka the Straw Man fallacy, is even older and lamer. Tis the Calvinists who have universal grace without the Means of Grace, sorta kinda OJ-like.]
much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (Rom. 5:15 NAS)
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (1Cor. 15:3 KJV)
"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34 NAS)
He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. (Rom 4:25 NAS)
if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Rom 5:10 NAS)
[GJ - Some means all, according to Jack B. Many means all, according to Jack B. Them and we mean all, according to Mad Jack. Did he advise the New NIV on Romans 3?]
Third, God Loves His Enemies
According in Romans 5:10 above, God has no enemies on earth because He died for them. He loves everyone, even though everyone is born hating God. He died for all. Therefore, if the lack of faith does not prevent Christ dying for them, saving them, forgiving them, reconciling them, redeeming them, loving them, then how can the lack of faith prevent Christ's act of self-sacrificing love from being their Justification? Romans 3:23 and 5:18-19 say all have sinned and died in Adam but in the second Adam “… through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” How much clearer does the Bible have to make this?
[GJ - The gyrations to skip Romans 4 - 5:2 - I am agog, once again.]
Faith is not a cause; it is a recipient. Therefore, the cause of damnation is unbelief, not a lack of righteousness but the rejection of God’s grace, sacrifice, and righteousness. Hell is populated with untold numbers of souls who reject Christ’s gift of righteousness on their behalf. Jackson’s denial of Objective Justification flips all of this and makes sinful man incapable of rejecting God’s declaration of righteousness because God never declared that unbelievers are righteous in Christ. The world cannot send back a Christmas gift it did not receive.
Jackson's definition requires that God cannot initiate the act of Justification until an individual comes to faith. Accordingly, one of Jackson’s proofs that God did not justify the world in Christ is that all the people in the world do not have faith. The inevitable result Jackson will not speak about is that his definition for Justification requires the believer to cooperate in his own Justification by faith before God forgives him. His reasoning is that first Abraham believes God and then God credits Abraham with righteousness.
For Jackson the entire Doctrine of Justification requires action on both the part of God and man. God did not need man in order to create the world, but He does need a believer in order to initiate the Doctrine of Justification. Why does Jackson put himself in such an untenable position? Luther’s explanation to the Third Article of the Apostle’s Creed clearly states: “I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him, but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel…”
[GJ - Jack did not learn much at Ft. Wayne, like most of the graduates. Faith is not an action on the part of man, except in Walther and JP Meyer, his heroes in rationalistic dogma.]
 |
Decision theology - embraced by Cascione, WELS,
ELS, CLC (sic). |
 |
Decision theology - embraced by Cascione, WELS,
ELS, CLC (sic). |
Fourth, Jackson Ignores Justification in the Doctrine of Election
Jackson conveniently ignores those chapters and narratives that contradict his opposition to Objective Justification. He focuses on Justification by faith in Romans 3, 4, and 5, but ignores the Doctrine of Election in Romans Chapter 8 and Article xi in the Formula of Concord.
In Romans 8, God says He elected certain people for salvation before they had faith and before they were born and before there was a world. In other words, Predestination precedes Objective Justification. Many are called but few are chosen (Matt. 22:14). Thus, Christ died for all but not all will receive eternal life. He is the Savior of the world but not all will be saved. There is no Universalism here. We certainly cannot say we are saved because we did not reject or because we have faith in Christ. The total work of Justification must belong to Christ alone without human cooperation. When Jackson claims the cause of salvation is Justification by faith, he makes faith a cause in cooperation with the work of Christ. In verses that say our faith has saved us, faith must be the recipient of salvation, faith is not the cause of salvation. Christ is the cause and the only cause.
[GJ - Walther used his Election without Faith to tear up the Synodical Conference and make himself the Pope. Cascione's blabbering is more Straw Man, verging on slander, especially with his bachelor's level theology degree.]
 |
| Jack has spent his life attacking Justification by Faith. |
John Calvin agreed with the flawed ancient axiom regarding the vicarious satisfaction of Christ: Sufficient for all, efficient for some. He simply equated the "some" to mean "the elect.” Calvin’s error is that there are no qualifiers in the Gospel and God does not cause unbelief. On the other hand, the Reformed are challenged by the confession of the father who asked Christ to heal his son when he proclaimed — Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief — because they question whether Christ died for everyone's sins including the sin of unbelief. But the fact is, the entire Law of Moses was nailed to the cross! Colossians 2:14.
[GJ - Calvin was an Enthusiast. The first OJist, Sam Huber, was a Calvinist teaching at Wittenberg. Walther got his "life-saving" OJ from Stephan, who was too lazy to finish a degree but apparently learned his OJ at Halle. Did that contribute to Stephan being the Jeffrey Epstein of the Lutheran Church? and CFW Walther his pimp?]
Romans 8:30 is Jackson’s nemesis: Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. With Jackson’s understanding of Justification, God only Justifies the chosen, but with Objective Justification all are Justified without regard to Predestination. Jackson is trying to explain the Doctrine of Election for which God has not given us an explanation. All attempts to answer the question either lead to Double Predestination (God chooses the saved and the damned) or Pelagianism (I earned heaven by believing in God and doing His will). Jackson’s definition of Justification makes faith a cause, when the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only cause for why anyone believes and is saved. The fact is that in Christ, God loves you, died for you, forgives you, and wants you in heaven. Why does Jackson make this so complicated?
[GJ - Cascione enjoys covering up the path to understanding Justification by using up all his dogma notes from Scaer. Both are entirely grace-less in their attacks on the Means of Grace.]
Jackson’s book should not be titled The Path to Understanding Justification, but vacillates between two other possible titles, The Path to Understanding John Calvin or The Path to Armenian Semi-Pelagian Justification. When it suits him, he follows one or the other.
Much of Jackson’s position is stated by R. C. Sproul as follows:
The so-called “Five points of Calvinism” (growing out of a dispute with Remonstrants (Arminians) in Holland in the early seventeenth century) have been popularized by the acrostic T-U-L-I-P, spelling out the finest flower in God’s garden: T — Total Depravity; U — Unconditional Election; L — Limited Atonement; I — Irresistible Grace; P — Perseverance of the Saints. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/biblical-scholasticism/
The article from which this quote was taken is posted below. Jackson can find better support for his position from R. C. Sproul than any of the Lutheran Synods he condemns. We have one question for Dr. Jackson, “Yes or no, did God declare the world righteous in Christ?”
[GJ - I cannot help Cascione with his honesty or anger issues. I do not have time to read the Calvinist Sproul, the Calvinist Walther, the Calvinist Pieper, the Calvinists Cascione and Scaer. Cascione published with the Banner of Truth! Isn't that a Calvinist outfit?]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biblical Scholasticism
In an age wherein the ground of theology has been saturated by the torrential downpour of existential thinking, it seems almost suicidal, like facing the open floodgates riding a raft made of balsa wood, to appeal to a seventeenth-century theologian to address a pressing theological issue. Nothing evokes more snorts from the snouts of anti-rational zealots than appeals to sages from the era of Protestant Scholasticism.
“Scholasticism” is the pejorative term applied by so-called “Neo-Orthodox” (better spelled without the “e” in Neo), or “progressive” Reformed thinkers who embrace the “Spirit” of the Reformation while eschewing its “letter” to the seventeenth-century Reformed thinkers who codified the insights of their sixteenth-century magisterial forebears. To the scoffers of this present age, Protestant Scholasticism is seen as a reification or calcification of the dynamic and liquid forms of earlier Reformed insight. It is viewed as a deformation from the lively, sanguine rediscovery of biblical thought to a deadly capitulation to the “Age of Reason,” whereby the vibrant truths of redemption were reduced to logical propositions and encrusted in dry theological tomes and arid creedal formulations such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The besetting sin of men like Francis Turretin and John Owen was their penchant for precision and clarity in doctrinal statements. As J. I. Packer observed in his introduction of John Owen’s classic work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: “Those who see no need for doctrinal exactness and have no time for theological debates which show up divisions between so-called Evangelicals may well regret its reappearance … . Owen’s work is a constructive broad-based biblical analysis of the heart of the gospel, and must be taken seriously as such … . Nobody has the right to dismiss the doctrine of the limitedness of the atonement as a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic until he has refuted Owen’s proof that it is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text.”
The “monster” created by Calvinistic logic to which Packer refers is the doctrine of limited atonement. The so-called “Five points of Calvinism” (growing out of a dispute with Remonstrants (Arminians) in Holland in the early seventeenth century) have been popularized by the acrostic T-U-L-I-P, spelling out the finest flower in God’s garden: T — Total Depravity; U — Unconditional Election; L — Limited Atonement; I — Irresistible Grace; P — Perseverance of the Saints.
Many who embrace a view of God’s sovereign grace in election are willing to embrace the Tulip if one of its five petals is lopped off. Those calling themselves “four-point Calvinists” desire to knock the “L” out of Tulip.
On the surface, it seems that of the “five points” of Tulip, the doctrine of limited atonement presents the most difficulties. Does not the Bible teach over and over that Jesus died for the whole world? Is not the scope of the atonement worldwide? The most basic affirmation the Evangelical recites is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world … .”
On the other hand, it seems to me that the easiest of the five points to defend is limited atonement. But this facility must get under the surface to be manifested. The deepest penetration under that surface is the one provided by Owen in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
First, we ask if the atonement of Christ was a real atonement? Did Jesus really, or only potentially, satisfy the demands of God’s justice? If indeed Christ provided a propitiation and expiation for all human beings and for all their sins, then, clearly, all persons would be saved. Universal atonement, if it is actual, and not merely potential, means universal salvation.
However, the overwhelming majority of Christians who reject limited atonement also reject universal salvation. They are particularists, not universalists. They insist on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. That is, only believers are saved by the atonement of Christ.
If that is so, then the atonement, in some sense, must be limited, or restricted, to a definite group, namely believers. If Christ died for all of the sins of all people, that must include the sin of unbelief. If God’s justice is totally satisfied by Christ’s work on the cross, then it would follow that God would be unjust in punishing the unrepentant sinner for his unbelief and impenitence because those sins were already paid for by Christ.
People usually get around this by citing the axiom, “Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for some. What does this mean? The Calvinist would interpret this axiom to mean that the value of Christ’s sacrifice is so high, His merit so extensive, that its worth is equal to cover all the sins of the human race. But the atonement’s benefits are only efficient for believers, the elect. The non-Calvinist interprets this axiom in slightly different terms: Christ’s atonement was good enough to save everyone — and was intended to make salvation possible for everyone. But that intent is realized only by believers. The atonement is efficient (or “works”) only for those who receive its benefits by faith.
As I said, this is still a form of “limited atonement.” Its efficacy is limited by human response. Sadly, this kind of limit puts a limit on the saving work of Christ far greater than any limit of the atonement viewed by Reformed theology.
The real issue was the design, or purpose, of God’s plan in laying upon His Son the burden of the Cross. Was it God’s purpose simply to make salvation possible for all but certain for none? Did God have to wait to see if any would respond to Christ to make His atonement efficient? Was it theoretically possible that Jesus would die “for all” yet never see the fruit of His travail and be satisfied?
Or was it God’s eternal purpose and design of the Cross to make salvation certain for His elect? Was there a special sense in which Christ died for His own, for the sheep the Father had given Him?
Here our understanding of the nature of God impacts strongly and decisively our understanding of the design and scope of the Atonement. To deal with every biblical text that bears on those questions, the best source I know of is John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
.jpg)
