Recent Intrepid Lutheran comments on Luther and Justification by Faith
Talking about reconciliation being completed and received you also have Romans 5:10-11: "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
By saying that Christ's death does not reconcile the world to God contradicts this Scripture.
By saying that Christ's death does not reconcile the world to God contradicts this Scripture.
Wow, you guys are truly showing your colors. This is great for the laity reading. Keep talking, it helps us explain how ridiculous you are being. Look at this compilation and comparison of commentary on the same passages of Scripture. The two divisions are directly contradicting one another. How come one side says Rom. 5:18 means the justification of the world apart from faith whereas the orthodox side attributes these passages to only one justification -- the justification by faith through the Sacraments to individual sinners.
Could you guys please explain the complete disconnect as shown by these quotations?
Here: http://ecclesiaaugustana.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-elephant-in-room-romans-518-19.html
Could you guys please explain the complete disconnect as shown by these quotations?
Here: http://ecclesiaaugustana.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-elephant-in-room-romans-518-19.html
Rev. Boisclair, please detail where I confused Law and Gospel in the quote you highlighted.
You confess that Romans 5:18 teaches Objective Justification. The justification Christ declares in that verse is that justification with which an individual is eternally saved. You have repeatedly insisted that it teaches OJ - therefore to be Objectively justified as the doctrine of UOJ says the whole unbelieving world is - means that the whole unbelieving world is eternally saved.
Romans 5:18, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
Just reading your post at 3:40pm.
Again, this Scripture passage is speaking of believers in Christ and not the unbelieving world. Unless you accept the charge of Universalism since 'we were reconciled to God' and 'now that we are reconciled' results in 'shall we be saved by his life'.
Saved by His life is eternal life for all those reconciled to God. If you intend this to be a OJ verse than the we is the whole unbelieving world which is reconciled unto eternal life. This same issue is established when UOJ usesRom. 5:18 as an OJ verse. The entire chapter starts with, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
Leave it to the doctrine of UOJ to attempt to turn a Justification by Faith Alone chapter into a justification without faith confession.
You confess that Romans 5:18 teaches Objective Justification. The justification Christ declares in that verse is that justification with which an individual is eternally saved. You have repeatedly insisted that it teaches OJ - therefore to be Objectively justified as the doctrine of UOJ says the whole unbelieving world is - means that the whole unbelieving world is eternally saved.
Romans 5:18, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
Just reading your post at 3:40pm.
Again, this Scripture passage is speaking of believers in Christ and not the unbelieving world. Unless you accept the charge of Universalism since 'we were reconciled to God' and 'now that we are reconciled' results in 'shall we be saved by his life'.
Saved by His life is eternal life for all those reconciled to God. If you intend this to be a OJ verse than the we is the whole unbelieving world which is reconciled unto eternal life. This same issue is established when UOJ usesRom. 5:18 as an OJ verse. The entire chapter starts with, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
Leave it to the doctrine of UOJ to attempt to turn a Justification by Faith Alone chapter into a justification without faith confession.
Brett makes a valid point about Rom. 5:10. The "we" who have been reconciled by the death of Christ are the very same "we" who will be saved from God's wrath through His life, according to that verse. As Gerhard says in his commentary on these verses, Paul is talking "cum renatis et de renatis." He is speaking "to the reborn and about the reborn." And Gerhard is correct. Paul is speaking to the Roman believers in the entire context of this chapter.
Yes, even before Paul or any of the Roman Christians believed in Christ, God demonstrated His love by giving His Son into death for those who were, at that time, still His enemies. (If we want to speak of "universal" or "objective" anything, let's use the words of Scripture and speak of the objective "love" of God that was demonstrated toward the entire world in the giving of His Son unto death.)
But now God has found His enemies with the Gospel (as when He found Saul on the road to Damascus and ministered to him through Ananias), and united Paul and the Roman Christians to His Son through the ministry of the Word, through faith (Rom. 5:1). Now, as believers in Christ, they (together with all believers in Christ) have received the benefit of His death and have been justified and reconciled with God.
Whenever the Holy Spirit regenerates a person through the ministry of the Word (e.g., Baptism), that person is justified/reconciled by the blood of Christ, by the death of Christ. Paul does not say that all the unbelievers in the world were reconciled to God at the time of the death of Christ, but that it is the death of Christ that, even now, justifies and reconciles sinners to God. But, as Chemnitz points out, not without means.
Yes, even before Paul or any of the Roman Christians believed in Christ, God demonstrated His love by giving His Son into death for those who were, at that time, still His enemies. (If we want to speak of "universal" or "objective" anything, let's use the words of Scripture and speak of the objective "love" of God that was demonstrated toward the entire world in the giving of His Son unto death.)
But now God has found His enemies with the Gospel (as when He found Saul on the road to Damascus and ministered to him through Ananias), and united Paul and the Roman Christians to His Son through the ministry of the Word, through faith (Rom. 5:1). Now, as believers in Christ, they (together with all believers in Christ) have received the benefit of His death and have been justified and reconciled with God.
Whenever the Holy Spirit regenerates a person through the ministry of the Word (e.g., Baptism), that person is justified/reconciled by the blood of Christ, by the death of Christ. Paul does not say that all the unbelievers in the world were reconciled to God at the time of the death of Christ, but that it is the death of Christ that, even now, justifies and reconciles sinners to God. But, as Chemnitz points out, not without means.
Since I deleted my last post but one because I thought it unmannerly for which I ask the pardon of the posters on this blog. I would still like to courteously respond to Rev. Rydecki's post.
First of all, having me say that the Synodical Conference has a unique pattern of sound words, implying, of course, that they do not hold to Scriptures words is putting words into my mouth, which I did not say.
Secondly, the Synodical Conference doctrine does nothing more than follow the sedes doctrinae of Objective Justification (2 Cor. 5:18-20 and Romans 5:15-18).
Thirdly, the theses and antitheses against the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification are patently confusions of Law and Gospel. This "t/a" is a conspicuous example: "UOJ teaches God has reconciled the world unto Himself through Christ. Scripture teaches the unbelieving world is not reconciled because they have not obtained Christ as their Propitiation or Mediator through faith alone." This is a confusion of Law and Gospel and egregiously anti-Scriptural.
Fourthly, the position of Rev. Rydecki limits Christ's atonement by making it open ended, not being completed without faith.
And fifthly, Rev. Rydecki misrepresents Rev. Buchholz and WELS's position when he accuses them of teaching that God reconciled the world irrespective of Christ's righteousness or any righteousness.
These are serious insufficiencies of doctrine, and they are certainly not in accord with the scriptural "pattern of sound words."
First of all, having me say that the Synodical Conference has a unique pattern of sound words, implying, of course, that they do not hold to Scriptures words is putting words into my mouth, which I did not say.
Secondly, the Synodical Conference doctrine does nothing more than follow the sedes doctrinae of Objective Justification (2 Cor. 5:18-20 and Romans 5:15-18).
Thirdly, the theses and antitheses against the biblical doctrine of Objective Justification are patently confusions of Law and Gospel. This "t/a" is a conspicuous example: "UOJ teaches God has reconciled the world unto Himself through Christ. Scripture teaches the unbelieving world is not reconciled because they have not obtained Christ as their Propitiation or Mediator through faith alone." This is a confusion of Law and Gospel and egregiously anti-Scriptural.
Fourthly, the position of Rev. Rydecki limits Christ's atonement by making it open ended, not being completed without faith.
And fifthly, Rev. Rydecki misrepresents Rev. Buchholz and WELS's position when he accuses them of teaching that God reconciled the world irrespective of Christ's righteousness or any righteousness.
These are serious insufficiencies of doctrine, and they are certainly not in accord with the scriptural "pattern of sound words."
To those who won't bother to go to the link I provided, here's a short excerpt to make my point;
"God no longer looks upon sinful man with wrath, but 'before His divine tribunal' forgives the sins of mankind... God’s action in not imputing their sins unto men, in forgiving them their sins, in justifying men in His heart, this is the meaning of objective reconciliation, as taught in 2 Cor. 5:19, Rom. 5:18; 5:10; 4:25. (CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS, by Francis Pieper, Volume 2, pages 398 & 399)
Compare this statement, of which our UOJ proponents above love to death to "prove" their beloved UOJ, as compared to the interptation of the very same passages of the very reformers themselves.
The Lutheran Confessions, the only thing Lutheran pastors have an oath to:
"Therefore it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says that we are justified by faith,Rom. 3:28, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4:5, and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5:19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith came to all men, Rom. 5:18. 13] For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel..." (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php#para11)
And even more damning a statement from Gerhardt: "If we wanted to go beyond the limits of the Apostolic comparison, someone could infer from the same that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to us through carnal generation, since the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to us in that manner. Likewise, one could infer that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to all men together, without any regard for faith or unbelief, since the sin of Adam is propagated to all through carnal generation.
But since that is absurd, a distinction must fully be made between the acquisition and the application of the merit of Christ....[You ask,] But how did the righteousness of Christ overflow to all men for justification, since not all men are justified? We reply: The Apostle is not speaking about the application of the benefit, but of the acquisition of the benefit."
If those reading want even more testimonies which include Luther, Chemnitz, and Augustine follow the link.
So again, to all I ask, why do Chemnitz and the Confessions SPECIFICALLY regard these passages as regarding only justification by faith (so called "subjective justification"). Did they forget about the justification of the world that occurred before the justification by faith (so called "objective justification")? Of course not, because it doesn't exist in the testimonies and minds of the Church for the past 2,000 years. In addition, to the claim that, "well, the Confessors in the Lutheran Confessions weren't dealing with that time." My butt, I say. OJ would be a slam dunk against the Papist's infused grace, but this slam dunk of OJ is mysteriously absent from the Confessions themselves and from the works of those same teachers.
The only thing that comes close to OJ is from a heretic, Samuel Huber, who was condemned by the Lutheran Church in the late 1500s. I often wonder of those who spew UOJ how it feels to how more in common with a heretic than the testimony of the catholic and Lutheran Church. As I've shown above, as cited by Hardt in his paper (Justification and Easter, footnote 27 as I've cited above in this thread), Huber did in fact insist on faith in addition to his universal justification of the world apart from faith. If the evidence isn't obvious enough to make one repent then they truly are hardened to the SynCon.
Continued...
"God no longer looks upon sinful man with wrath, but 'before His divine tribunal' forgives the sins of mankind... God’s action in not imputing their sins unto men, in forgiving them their sins, in justifying men in His heart, this is the meaning of objective reconciliation, as taught in 2 Cor. 5:19, Rom. 5:18; 5:10; 4:25. (CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS, by Francis Pieper, Volume 2, pages 398 & 399)
Compare this statement, of which our UOJ proponents above love to death to "prove" their beloved UOJ, as compared to the interptation of the very same passages of the very reformers themselves.
The Lutheran Confessions, the only thing Lutheran pastors have an oath to:
"Therefore it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says that we are justified by faith,Rom. 3:28, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4:5, and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5:19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith came to all men, Rom. 5:18. 13] For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel..." (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php#para11)
And even more damning a statement from Gerhardt: "If we wanted to go beyond the limits of the Apostolic comparison, someone could infer from the same that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to us through carnal generation, since the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to us in that manner. Likewise, one could infer that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to all men together, without any regard for faith or unbelief, since the sin of Adam is propagated to all through carnal generation.
But since that is absurd, a distinction must fully be made between the acquisition and the application of the merit of Christ....[You ask,] But how did the righteousness of Christ overflow to all men for justification, since not all men are justified? We reply: The Apostle is not speaking about the application of the benefit, but of the acquisition of the benefit."
If those reading want even more testimonies which include Luther, Chemnitz, and Augustine follow the link.
So again, to all I ask, why do Chemnitz and the Confessions SPECIFICALLY regard these passages as regarding only justification by faith (so called "subjective justification"). Did they forget about the justification of the world that occurred before the justification by faith (so called "objective justification")? Of course not, because it doesn't exist in the testimonies and minds of the Church for the past 2,000 years. In addition, to the claim that, "well, the Confessors in the Lutheran Confessions weren't dealing with that time." My butt, I say. OJ would be a slam dunk against the Papist's infused grace, but this slam dunk of OJ is mysteriously absent from the Confessions themselves and from the works of those same teachers.
The only thing that comes close to OJ is from a heretic, Samuel Huber, who was condemned by the Lutheran Church in the late 1500s. I often wonder of those who spew UOJ how it feels to how more in common with a heretic than the testimony of the catholic and Lutheran Church. As I've shown above, as cited by Hardt in his paper (Justification and Easter, footnote 27 as I've cited above in this thread), Huber did in fact insist on faith in addition to his universal justification of the world apart from faith. If the evidence isn't obvious enough to make one repent then they truly are hardened to the SynCon.
Continued...
Continued from previous...
My final appeal here, would you, dear reader, feel more assured agreeing with the testimony of the Church for the past 2,000 years or would you feel better by agreeing with a "universal justification" which is more in common with the heretic Samuel Huber and with the Lutherans of only the past 150 years? You decide.
My final appeal here, would you, dear reader, feel more assured agreeing with the testimony of the Church for the past 2,000 years or would you feel better by agreeing with a "universal justification" which is more in common with the heretic Samuel Huber and with the Lutherans of only the past 150 years? You decide.
Again, please explain in detail how I confused Law and Gospel.
This pair of thesis/antithesis:
"UOJ teaches God has reconciled the world unto Himself through Christ. Scripture teaches the unbelieving world is not reconciled because they have not obtained Christ as their Propitiation or Mediator through faith alone."
is a confusion of Law and Gospel because it quotes the Law from Scripture to counter a Gospel statement of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ).
It is the Law which declares that the world is not reconciled that it is lost, but it is the Gospel that speaks of reconciliation. This pair of theses/antitheses has the Law of the antithesis contradict the Gospel of the thesis. The Gospel statement is the same as 2 Cor. 5:18: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself ...." I would imagine that my respondents would say that this refers to the elect or the regenerate (?) while it must refer to the whole world of sinners in that before regeneration there must reconciliation. This is part of my response to Mr. Meyer.
"UOJ teaches God has reconciled the world unto Himself through Christ. Scripture teaches the unbelieving world is not reconciled because they have not obtained Christ as their Propitiation or Mediator through faith alone."
is a confusion of Law and Gospel because it quotes the Law from Scripture to counter a Gospel statement of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ).
It is the Law which declares that the world is not reconciled that it is lost, but it is the Gospel that speaks of reconciliation. This pair of theses/antitheses has the Law of the antithesis contradict the Gospel of the thesis. The Gospel statement is the same as 2 Cor. 5:18: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself ...." I would imagine that my respondents would say that this refers to the elect or the regenerate (?) while it must refer to the whole world of sinners in that before regeneration there must reconciliation. This is part of my response to Mr. Meyer.
There is a point that I have made that no one has responded to, and that is that Huber asserted that justification was conferred and received by the world. This was not stated by us at any time. This is the proof that what Huber said and what WELS says, for instance, are not the same regarding Justification. We have always maintained that justification is not conferred and received apart from faith worked in people by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace.
Perhaps the fact that we speak of the world being JUSTIFIED gives the implication to our opponents that we are saying that justification has been conferred to everyone that is part of the world, that everyone has received God's justification in Christ.
The reason for our use of the word "justified" is in keeping with our understanding of 2 Cor. 5:18-20.
It is significant that the Greek perphrastic "een ... katalasson" is not "estin ... katalasson," if it were our opponents, Revs. Jackson and Rydecki, would be right in referring it to what we call subjective justification; however, the main verb is in the past tense not the present tense.
Perhaps the fact that we speak of the world being JUSTIFIED gives the implication to our opponents that we are saying that justification has been conferred to everyone that is part of the world, that everyone has received God's justification in Christ.
The reason for our use of the word "justified" is in keeping with our understanding of 2 Cor. 5:18-20.
It is significant that the Greek perphrastic "een ... katalasson" is not "estin ... katalasson," if it were our opponents, Revs. Jackson and Rydecki, would be right in referring it to what we call subjective justification; however, the main verb is in the past tense not the present tense.
David,
You talk about Huber teaching that God "conferred justification" on people. Would you please reference what you're talking about? I have searched the Theses and cannot find where Huber is said to teach this.
What he is said to teach in Thesis 1 in the justification section is that God has "conferred redemption" on the human race. Please note the difference.
Huber did not teach that an already-pronounced justification had been conferred on the world. He taught that Christ's work of redemption had been conferred on the whole world, and thus the whole world was justified in God's sight.
This distinction you try to make between an already-pronounced verdict on the world that "exists in the Godhead" and the "non-conferring" of this verdict is artificial and contrived.
Huber, like modern UOJ, taught that God had applied the righteousness of Christ (or the redemption of Christ) to the world's account and thus justified the world.
And to clarify, I, for one, have never asserted that modern UOJ is exactly the same as what Huber taught. I have, however, noted several similarities. So you're creating a straw man to point to one area where you think Huber and UOJ are different. What you have not at all proved is that the doctrine UOJ was ever accepted or taught by the Lutheran Church of the 16th Century.
You talk about Huber teaching that God "conferred justification" on people. Would you please reference what you're talking about? I have searched the Theses and cannot find where Huber is said to teach this.
What he is said to teach in Thesis 1 in the justification section is that God has "conferred redemption" on the human race. Please note the difference.
Huber did not teach that an already-pronounced justification had been conferred on the world. He taught that Christ's work of redemption had been conferred on the whole world, and thus the whole world was justified in God's sight.
This distinction you try to make between an already-pronounced verdict on the world that "exists in the Godhead" and the "non-conferring" of this verdict is artificial and contrived.
Huber, like modern UOJ, taught that God had applied the righteousness of Christ (or the redemption of Christ) to the world's account and thus justified the world.
And to clarify, I, for one, have never asserted that modern UOJ is exactly the same as what Huber taught. I have, however, noted several similarities. So you're creating a straw man to point to one area where you think Huber and UOJ are different. What you have not at all proved is that the doctrine UOJ was ever accepted or taught by the Lutheran Church of the 16th Century.
So, Paul,
You admit that Huberianism and the Synodical doctrine of Objective Justification are not identical. Good, because they are most certainly not identical.
I apologize for misquoting the first thesis on Huber's doctrine of Justification. So, let's look at it:
Huber professes such a justification, for the sake of which Christ has properly, actually and practically CONFERRED redemption on the entire human race in such a way that sins have been EQUALLY remitted to all men, including the TURKS, and that all men (including unbelievers) HAVE RECEIVED remission of sins, and that the whole human race has IN ACTUAL FACT, been received into the grace and bosom of God (emphasis original; however, transposed from italic bold letters to capital letters). This coupled with the following theses speak of what we mean by SUBJECTIVE Justification. We most certainly do not teach Universalism, and this is Universalism. How is it not universalism? Everyone is saved according to Huber. That is the offense that Hunnius was reacting to.
I think that you raise a good point in saying that I have not proved that the doctrine of UOJ was ever accepted or taught by the Lutheran Church of the 16th century. I can safely say that in my reading of 16th and 17th century Lutheran theology I have not come across that distinction, viz. OJ/SJ. Then the question pops into mind: is it possible that they taught such a distinction using different terminology?
Let's suppose that it is true that the Lutheran Church of the 16th century never accepted or taught OR HEARD ABOUT AND UNDERSTOOD UOJ, what if Scripture accepted and taught it? How would you answer that question?
You admit that Huberianism and the Synodical doctrine of Objective Justification are not identical. Good, because they are most certainly not identical.
I apologize for misquoting the first thesis on Huber's doctrine of Justification. So, let's look at it:
Huber professes such a justification, for the sake of which Christ has properly, actually and practically CONFERRED redemption on the entire human race in such a way that sins have been EQUALLY remitted to all men, including the TURKS, and that all men (including unbelievers) HAVE RECEIVED remission of sins, and that the whole human race has IN ACTUAL FACT, been received into the grace and bosom of God (emphasis original; however, transposed from italic bold letters to capital letters). This coupled with the following theses speak of what we mean by SUBJECTIVE Justification. We most certainly do not teach Universalism, and this is Universalism. How is it not universalism? Everyone is saved according to Huber. That is the offense that Hunnius was reacting to.
I think that you raise a good point in saying that I have not proved that the doctrine of UOJ was ever accepted or taught by the Lutheran Church of the 16th century. I can safely say that in my reading of 16th and 17th century Lutheran theology I have not come across that distinction, viz. OJ/SJ. Then the question pops into mind: is it possible that they taught such a distinction using different terminology?
Let's suppose that it is true that the Lutheran Church of the 16th century never accepted or taught OR HEARD ABOUT AND UNDERSTOOD UOJ, what if Scripture accepted and taught it? How would you answer that question?
Paul,
You posted: Huber, like modern UOJ, taught that God had applied the righteousness of Christ (or the redemption of Christ) to the world's account and thus justified the world.
However, if we were to maintain that Huber and the 16th century Lutheran theologians did not know of the distinction between OJ and SJ, how is it possible for there even to be a comparison between "modern UOJ" and Huberianism? It is like comparing apples and oranges.
You posted: Huber, like modern UOJ, taught that God had applied the righteousness of Christ (or the redemption of Christ) to the world's account and thus justified the world.
However, if we were to maintain that Huber and the 16th century Lutheran theologians did not know of the distinction between OJ and SJ, how is it possible for there even to be a comparison between "modern UOJ" and Huberianism? It is like comparing apples and oranges.
 |
| Zwingli was a bold Enthusiast - and no theologian. He also separated the Holy Spirit from the Word. |
David, you continue to miss Huber's teaching. Maybe this will be cured by future publications, which are forthcoming.
Huber was not saying that everyone is saved, as in, going to heaven. He taught that God has saved everyone, and people must believe this in order to be regenerated and saved. If they reject it, then they fall back under condemnation. In order for their justification to count so that they are eternally saved, they must have faith. (This can be easily adduced from Hunnius' arguments against Huber, but again, I promise, future publications are forthcoming on this. Until then, I suggest you do some digging into other writings of or about Huber.)
In that respect, he is very much like modern UOJ. The WELS teaches and insists that its pastors teach that "God has saved all people," since God has imputed the work of Christ to the world and thus justified it. Yes, "saved." "Saved, forgave, justified, declared righteous." Past tense. All people, everywhere. Then the WELS adds that people must believe this in order to enjoy the benefits of it. Not very different from Huber at all.
I realize that some in the Synodical Conference churches like to make a distinction about forgiveness being "declared on all but not received by all," as if people can be forgiven and righteous before God in His divine courtroom, but it doesn't count until they "receive" it. That's strange and not presented in Scripture anywhere. But even then, that is not the uniform teaching of UOJ, especially in the WELS.
You asked, Let's suppose that it is true that the Lutheran Church of the 16th century never accepted or taught OR HEARD ABOUT AND UNDERSTOOD UOJ, what if Scripture accepted and taught it? How would you answer that question?
I would say you have presented an impossibility. The Lutheran Reformers worked meticulously to demonstrate that their doctrine was the doctrine of the Church catholic, that it had always been taught in the Church, including justification by faith alone in Christ. I believe they were right. If anyone comes along with novel interpretations of Scripture that have not been taught in the Church in its first 5800 years of existence, then I will not believe it. Rather, I would contend that modern interpreters are the ones who have erred, while the language of the Confessions got it exactly right.
This is the whole point to the "pattern of sound words." That phrase means using the actual words and phrases that have been passed down to us and teaching the Scriptures with those very words and phrases. Again, I am convinced that the Formula of Concord presented justification in exactly the right words and phrases, and I have committed to teaching it according to that pattern of words. Where modern Lutherans define justification differently, I will at best say that it is unnecessary and useless, and at worst, harmful and wrong. We were supposed to have an agreement in the Lutheran Church to teach according to the words of the Book of Concord. Those are my words and my teaching, and no other.
Huber was not saying that everyone is saved, as in, going to heaven. He taught that God has saved everyone, and people must believe this in order to be regenerated and saved. If they reject it, then they fall back under condemnation. In order for their justification to count so that they are eternally saved, they must have faith. (This can be easily adduced from Hunnius' arguments against Huber, but again, I promise, future publications are forthcoming on this. Until then, I suggest you do some digging into other writings of or about Huber.)
In that respect, he is very much like modern UOJ. The WELS teaches and insists that its pastors teach that "God has saved all people," since God has imputed the work of Christ to the world and thus justified it. Yes, "saved." "Saved, forgave, justified, declared righteous." Past tense. All people, everywhere. Then the WELS adds that people must believe this in order to enjoy the benefits of it. Not very different from Huber at all.
I realize that some in the Synodical Conference churches like to make a distinction about forgiveness being "declared on all but not received by all," as if people can be forgiven and righteous before God in His divine courtroom, but it doesn't count until they "receive" it. That's strange and not presented in Scripture anywhere. But even then, that is not the uniform teaching of UOJ, especially in the WELS.
You asked, Let's suppose that it is true that the Lutheran Church of the 16th century never accepted or taught OR HEARD ABOUT AND UNDERSTOOD UOJ, what if Scripture accepted and taught it? How would you answer that question?
I would say you have presented an impossibility. The Lutheran Reformers worked meticulously to demonstrate that their doctrine was the doctrine of the Church catholic, that it had always been taught in the Church, including justification by faith alone in Christ. I believe they were right. If anyone comes along with novel interpretations of Scripture that have not been taught in the Church in its first 5800 years of existence, then I will not believe it. Rather, I would contend that modern interpreters are the ones who have erred, while the language of the Confessions got it exactly right.
This is the whole point to the "pattern of sound words." That phrase means using the actual words and phrases that have been passed down to us and teaching the Scriptures with those very words and phrases. Again, I am convinced that the Formula of Concord presented justification in exactly the right words and phrases, and I have committed to teaching it according to that pattern of words. Where modern Lutherans define justification differently, I will at best say that it is unnecessary and useless, and at worst, harmful and wrong. We were supposed to have an agreement in the Lutheran Church to teach according to the words of the Book of Concord. Those are my words and my teaching, and no other.
Rev. Boisclair stated, “(my quote) is a confusion of Law and Gospel because it quotes the Law from Scripture to counter a Gospel statement of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ).”
Reverend, this is clearly not a confusion of Law and Gospel. Your ‘gospel’ statement is not found in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions – as such it is the antithesis to Christ’s Gospel of one Justification solely By Faith in Christ Alone.
My quote is a clear statement of the Law which all those who do not believe in Christ are under. Simply put, a confusion would have been to use the Law as a means of forgiveness or to use the Gospel as a requirement of man. The issue of Christ as Mediator only through faith is being avoided by the doctrine of UOJ. God does not see the unbelieving world as though they were in Christ (“…for Christ’s sake”) because they are not – and most never will be. The plain words of the Confessions that I quoted above clearly state that God’s wrath over an individual’s sin is only appeased by faith in Christ alone – God’s grace is only by the Holy Spirit’s faith.
You state that 2 Corinthians 5:18 refers to the whole unbelieving world, “…while it must refer to the whole world of sinners in that before regeneration there must (be) reconciliation.” What you fail to quote is verse 17,“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”>/b> Reconciliation is in and through Christ alone. But Christ is only obtained as Propitiation for sin and Mediator with God through faith alone, not before and without faith as UOJ confesses.
All of your OJ passages have been shown to really be Justification solely by faith alone passages.
You claim, “We have always maintained that justification is not conferred and received apart from faith worked in people by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace.”
This is not true. The Lutheran Synods have always taught as a central tenet of UOJ that the forgiveness of sins occurred at the Cross. It is only the benefit of the forgiveness of sins and righteousness which is received by faith – salvation.
WELS AZ/CA DP Pastor Jon Buchholz
"Faith doesn’t bring anything into existence that doesn’t already exist. Faith doesn’t cause something to happen. Faith simply grasps— trusts—something that already is in place." Page 14
http://archive.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=1161&contentID=76707&shortcutID=26388
WELS MLC President Mark Zarling, "Faith does nothing more than receive the forgiveness which is offered in the Gospel. It is not a condition we fulfill nor is it a cause of forgiveness. We are already forgiven. God's message of justification in Christ is there whether we believe it or not. Faith then receives the blessings." Page 7
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/ZarlingJustification.pdf
WELS Siegbert W. Becker
"Faith does nothing more than accept the forgiveness proclaimed in the Gospel. It is not a condition we must fulfill before we can be forgiven. It is not a cause of forgiveness on account of which God forgives us. The forgiveness comes first. Faith is merely the response to the message. God says to us, “Your sins are forgiven.” This is objective justification, and God’s message to us is true whether we believe it or not. Faith makes God’s message its own and says, “My sins are forgiven.” This is subjective justification. The whole doctrine is just as simple as that." Page 12, The Place of Faith
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF
Cont...
Reverend, this is clearly not a confusion of Law and Gospel. Your ‘gospel’ statement is not found in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions – as such it is the antithesis to Christ’s Gospel of one Justification solely By Faith in Christ Alone.
My quote is a clear statement of the Law which all those who do not believe in Christ are under. Simply put, a confusion would have been to use the Law as a means of forgiveness or to use the Gospel as a requirement of man. The issue of Christ as Mediator only through faith is being avoided by the doctrine of UOJ. God does not see the unbelieving world as though they were in Christ (“…for Christ’s sake”) because they are not – and most never will be. The plain words of the Confessions that I quoted above clearly state that God’s wrath over an individual’s sin is only appeased by faith in Christ alone – God’s grace is only by the Holy Spirit’s faith.
You state that 2 Corinthians 5:18 refers to the whole unbelieving world, “…while it must refer to the whole world of sinners in that before regeneration there must (be) reconciliation.” What you fail to quote is verse 17,“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”>/b> Reconciliation is in and through Christ alone. But Christ is only obtained as Propitiation for sin and Mediator with God through faith alone, not before and without faith as UOJ confesses.
All of your OJ passages have been shown to really be Justification solely by faith alone passages.
You claim, “We have always maintained that justification is not conferred and received apart from faith worked in people by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace.”
This is not true. The Lutheran Synods have always taught as a central tenet of UOJ that the forgiveness of sins occurred at the Cross. It is only the benefit of the forgiveness of sins and righteousness which is received by faith – salvation.
WELS AZ/CA DP Pastor Jon Buchholz
"Faith doesn’t bring anything into existence that doesn’t already exist. Faith doesn’t cause something to happen. Faith simply grasps— trusts—something that already is in place." Page 14
http://archive.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=1161&contentID=76707&shortcutID=26388
WELS MLC President Mark Zarling, "Faith does nothing more than receive the forgiveness which is offered in the Gospel. It is not a condition we fulfill nor is it a cause of forgiveness. We are already forgiven. God's message of justification in Christ is there whether we believe it or not. Faith then receives the blessings." Page 7
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/ZarlingJustification.pdf
WELS Siegbert W. Becker
"Faith does nothing more than accept the forgiveness proclaimed in the Gospel. It is not a condition we must fulfill before we can be forgiven. It is not a cause of forgiveness on account of which God forgives us. The forgiveness comes first. Faith is merely the response to the message. God says to us, “Your sins are forgiven.” This is objective justification, and God’s message to us is true whether we believe it or not. Faith makes God’s message its own and says, “My sins are forgiven.” This is subjective justification. The whole doctrine is just as simple as that." Page 12, The Place of Faith
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF
Cont...
Cont...
WELS - Our Great Heritage
"And yet many Lutherans still labor under the delusion that God does not forgive us unless we believe. Instead of seeing faith as nothing more than the spiritual hand with which we make the forgiveness of God our own, they see it as a reason why God forgives us. They believe that Christ has indeed provided forgiveness for all men, that God is willing to forgive them, but before he really forgives he first of all demands that we should be sorry for our sins and that we should have faith. Just have faith they say, and then God will forgive you. All the right words are there. The only thing wrong is that the words are in the wrong order. God does not forgive us IF we have faith. He has forgiven us long ago when he raised his Son from the dead." (p. 59)"
In clear opposition to the promotion of UOJ the Christian Book of Concord teaches in harmony with Scripture:
71] "but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins".
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
Note the BOC confirms only two ways in which Scripture uses the term “justified” and neither one describe Objective Justification.
Also consider that the doctrine of OJ applies to the whole world - those who died before and after Christ atoned (paid) for the sins of the world and those who are still alive today. Therefore per the doctrine of UOJ God declared, by His divine verdict, that all the denizens of Hell at that time of Christ's resurrection to be justified: forgiven all sin, righteous and worthy of eternal life. Because those who spend eternity in the agonies of Hell for eternity are also part of the whole unbelieving world. Kokomo was the logical extension of UOJ and was deemed by WELS' father of UOJ, Siegbert W. Becker as not containing any false doctrine.
WELS - Our Great Heritage
"And yet many Lutherans still labor under the delusion that God does not forgive us unless we believe. Instead of seeing faith as nothing more than the spiritual hand with which we make the forgiveness of God our own, they see it as a reason why God forgives us. They believe that Christ has indeed provided forgiveness for all men, that God is willing to forgive them, but before he really forgives he first of all demands that we should be sorry for our sins and that we should have faith. Just have faith they say, and then God will forgive you. All the right words are there. The only thing wrong is that the words are in the wrong order. God does not forgive us IF we have faith. He has forgiven us long ago when he raised his Son from the dead." (p. 59)"
In clear opposition to the promotion of UOJ the Christian Book of Concord teaches in harmony with Scripture:
71] "but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins".
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
Note the BOC confirms only two ways in which Scripture uses the term “justified” and neither one describe Objective Justification.
Also consider that the doctrine of OJ applies to the whole world - those who died before and after Christ atoned (paid) for the sins of the world and those who are still alive today. Therefore per the doctrine of UOJ God declared, by His divine verdict, that all the denizens of Hell at that time of Christ's resurrection to be justified: forgiven all sin, righteous and worthy of eternal life. Because those who spend eternity in the agonies of Hell for eternity are also part of the whole unbelieving world. Kokomo was the logical extension of UOJ and was deemed by WELS' father of UOJ, Siegbert W. Becker as not containing any false doctrine.
Paul, thank you for continuing to dialogue with me. Yes, in opining that the 16th and 17th century Lutheran theologians did not know at least the concepts behind terms that we have used today posits a "novum," which must always be suspect to the confessional theologian, so if as I and "Synodical Conference" theologians believe the doctrine of UOJ is biblical it cannot have been unknown to our 16th and 17th century forebears.
For the sake of more fully informing the Church of today, whose knowledge of medieval Latin and German is nil, I consider it a boon to have this material translated.
Unless we follow the pattern of sound words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are ignoramouses (1 Tim. 6:3-4). Of course, in order to understand those words it is helpful to talk about them using our own words carefully.
For the sake of more fully informing the Church of today, whose knowledge of medieval Latin and German is nil, I consider it a boon to have this material translated.
Unless we follow the pattern of sound words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are ignoramouses (1 Tim. 6:3-4). Of course, in order to understand those words it is helpful to talk about them using our own words carefully.
Brett, in pointing out that the thesis/antithesis pair was a confusion of Law and Gospel I was indicating that your antithesis should have been a Gospel statement rather than a Law statement to show what you actually believe the Scriptures teach in contradistinction to what you say UOJ teaches.
I fail to see how passages of the Confessions declaring justification by faith rule out the doctrine that the world is reconciled at the cross and the empty tomb. Luther said that our redemption was accomplished at the cross but it is not given out there. The Wisconsin Synod theologians that you quoted are merely saying that. You have to be very careful not to limit universal grace, which is the biblical companion of sola gratia. All sins were atoned for by Christ in his active and passive obedience. The Wisconsin Synod theologians are simply saying that when they espouse UOJ.
You have an interesting paragraph that I would like to unpack with you in my next post.
I fail to see how passages of the Confessions declaring justification by faith rule out the doctrine that the world is reconciled at the cross and the empty tomb. Luther said that our redemption was accomplished at the cross but it is not given out there. The Wisconsin Synod theologians that you quoted are merely saying that. You have to be very careful not to limit universal grace, which is the biblical companion of sola gratia. All sins were atoned for by Christ in his active and passive obedience. The Wisconsin Synod theologians are simply saying that when they espouse UOJ.
You have an interesting paragraph that I would like to unpack with you in my next post.
FWIW, I will not be posting any comments or replies today (except for this one), since it is Ash Wednesday and the Office calls for local diligence.
Brett, in your third full paragraph you write:
The issue of Christ as Mediator only through faith is being avoided by the doctrine of UOJ. God does not see the unbelieving world as though they were in Christ (“…for Christ’s sake”) because they are not – and most never will be. The plain words of the Confessions that I quoted above clearly state that God’s wrath over an individual’s sin is only appeased by faith in Christ alone – God’s grace is only by the Holy Spirit’s faith.
First of all I would ask, "Is Christ the Mediator only through faith?" Yes, His mediation is only accepted by faith, but He would still be the Mediator/Savior before faith in accordance with God's plan of salvation. You probably meant that His mediation is only accepted through faith.
Let's move on:
God does not see the unbelieving world as though they were in Christ (“…for Christ’s sake”) because they are not – and most never will be. UOJ does not maintain that God sees the world as in Christ or "as though they were in Christ." Looking just at objective justification it is not understood to mean that the entire world is "in Christ." Being "in Christ" means being a regenerated believer.
Then we come to the phrase "for Christ's sake." That is how God considers Christ's work of redemption. We can affirm that "for Christ's sake" God is graciously disposed to the whole world. This is the premiss on which He sends out heralds of the Gospel into the world to tell of His love "for Christ's sake." The "for Christ's sake" does not kick in only when faith is present. It precedes faith. Granted, only faith can RECEIVE God's mercy "for Christ's sake," but "Christ's sake" is taking something into consideration because of and in view of what Christ has done for the whole world of sinners.
Then comes:
The plain words of the Confessions that I quoted above clearly state that God’s wrath over an individual’s sin is only appeased by faith in Christ alone – God’s grace is only by the Holy Spirit’s faith.
Brett, no, the wrath of God is only appeased by the vicarious satisfaction of Christ. God's grace and Christ's redemption precede faith.
Now, here is something for you to consider: I have read here and there the idea that those who espouse UOJ are espousing a reconciliation with God APART from the vicarious atonement of Christ as if it were a nude action of God hanging alone out there. If there is such a conception of UOJ out there, that conception is wrong. It would be as wrong as the idea that your doctrine of reconciliation were not about reconciliation for the sake of Christ but reconciliation through the means of grace and faith apart from Christ. Faith and the means of grace reconcile no one APART from the vicarious atonement of Christ. Just some thoughts.
The issue of Christ as Mediator only through faith is being avoided by the doctrine of UOJ. God does not see the unbelieving world as though they were in Christ (“…for Christ’s sake”) because they are not – and most never will be. The plain words of the Confessions that I quoted above clearly state that God’s wrath over an individual’s sin is only appeased by faith in Christ alone – God’s grace is only by the Holy Spirit’s faith.
First of all I would ask, "Is Christ the Mediator only through faith?" Yes, His mediation is only accepted by faith, but He would still be the Mediator/Savior before faith in accordance with God's plan of salvation. You probably meant that His mediation is only accepted through faith.
Let's move on:
God does not see the unbelieving world as though they were in Christ (“…for Christ’s sake”) because they are not – and most never will be. UOJ does not maintain that God sees the world as in Christ or "as though they were in Christ." Looking just at objective justification it is not understood to mean that the entire world is "in Christ." Being "in Christ" means being a regenerated believer.
Then we come to the phrase "for Christ's sake." That is how God considers Christ's work of redemption. We can affirm that "for Christ's sake" God is graciously disposed to the whole world. This is the premiss on which He sends out heralds of the Gospel into the world to tell of His love "for Christ's sake." The "for Christ's sake" does not kick in only when faith is present. It precedes faith. Granted, only faith can RECEIVE God's mercy "for Christ's sake," but "Christ's sake" is taking something into consideration because of and in view of what Christ has done for the whole world of sinners.
Then comes:
The plain words of the Confessions that I quoted above clearly state that God’s wrath over an individual’s sin is only appeased by faith in Christ alone – God’s grace is only by the Holy Spirit’s faith.
Brett, no, the wrath of God is only appeased by the vicarious satisfaction of Christ. God's grace and Christ's redemption precede faith.
Now, here is something for you to consider: I have read here and there the idea that those who espouse UOJ are espousing a reconciliation with God APART from the vicarious atonement of Christ as if it were a nude action of God hanging alone out there. If there is such a conception of UOJ out there, that conception is wrong. It would be as wrong as the idea that your doctrine of reconciliation were not about reconciliation for the sake of Christ but reconciliation through the means of grace and faith apart from Christ. Faith and the means of grace reconcile no one APART from the vicarious atonement of Christ. Just some thoughts.
David, you state, “The Wisconsin Synod theologians that you quoted are merely saying that. You have to be very careful not to limit universal grace, which is the biblical companion of sola gratia. All sins were atoned for by Christ in his active and passive obedience. The Wisconsin Synod theologians are simply saying that when they espouse UOJ.”
Scripture teaches that the atonement is Christ’s payment for the worlds sins. The atonement is not synonymous with Justification: the forgiveness of sins. The atonement is synonymous with Redemption which is also the payment for the world’s sins. Redemption is also not synonymous with Justification. I believe you are clearly wrong in your assessment of the WELS doctrinal statements above. WELS version of UOJ as they have published it for the last several years remains consistent that the whole unbelieving world has had it’s sins removed – debt canceled – such that they are regarded by God as forgiven all sin, sinless, guiltless, righteous and worthy of eternal life and that faith simply receives the benefit of being justified – eternal life. If you disagree it simply means you teach yet another version of the foundationless doctrine and gospel of Universal Objective Justification.
You state, “Yes, His mediation is only accepted by faith, but He would still be the Mediator/Savior before faith in accordance with God's plan of salvation. You probably meant that His mediation is only accepted through faith.”
No, I disagree, this is more UOJ speak as though Christ has already mediated reconciliation with God for the whole unbelieving world which is then accepted through faith. Scripture teaches and the BOC confirms that Christ is obtained as Mediator only through faith alone. Therefore there is no pre-reconciliation with God before faith in Christ alone.
The remainder of your statements can be summed up when you wrote, “God's grace and Christ's redemption precede faith.”
There are varying uses of the word ‘grace’ in Scripture. One being God’s love for all men. The other use is in reference to being justified and reconciled to Him through Christ. I believe it is this grace that you confess precedes faith. Yet, Scripture teaches that only believers are in this grace – not the unbelieving world. The unbelieving world has access through faith alone, outside of this grace unbelievers remain under the Law and God’s wrath and condemnation.
Romans 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,”
Romans 5:2, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
Scripture teaches that the atonement is Christ’s payment for the worlds sins. The atonement is not synonymous with Justification: the forgiveness of sins. The atonement is synonymous with Redemption which is also the payment for the world’s sins. Redemption is also not synonymous with Justification. I believe you are clearly wrong in your assessment of the WELS doctrinal statements above. WELS version of UOJ as they have published it for the last several years remains consistent that the whole unbelieving world has had it’s sins removed – debt canceled – such that they are regarded by God as forgiven all sin, sinless, guiltless, righteous and worthy of eternal life and that faith simply receives the benefit of being justified – eternal life. If you disagree it simply means you teach yet another version of the foundationless doctrine and gospel of Universal Objective Justification.
You state, “Yes, His mediation is only accepted by faith, but He would still be the Mediator/Savior before faith in accordance with God's plan of salvation. You probably meant that His mediation is only accepted through faith.”
No, I disagree, this is more UOJ speak as though Christ has already mediated reconciliation with God for the whole unbelieving world which is then accepted through faith. Scripture teaches and the BOC confirms that Christ is obtained as Mediator only through faith alone. Therefore there is no pre-reconciliation with God before faith in Christ alone.
The remainder of your statements can be summed up when you wrote, “God's grace and Christ's redemption precede faith.”
There are varying uses of the word ‘grace’ in Scripture. One being God’s love for all men. The other use is in reference to being justified and reconciled to Him through Christ. I believe it is this grace that you confess precedes faith. Yet, Scripture teaches that only believers are in this grace – not the unbelieving world. The unbelieving world has access through faith alone, outside of this grace unbelievers remain under the Law and God’s wrath and condemnation.
Romans 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,”
Romans 5:2, "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
