There were some helpful Bible and Confessions quotes in this section, describing the all-sufficiency of the work of Christ. The reader can evaluate Section 3 for himself.
Before we get to Section 4, let me try to summarize some of the extreme ends of the spectrum that have revealed themselves so far in our discussion of this important doctrine:
- UOJ extreme: “Justification must always be spoken of as ‘objective’ and 'subjective.' Those who do not conceive of it this way teach that the work of Christ is incomplete. They are false teachers - either Calvinists who teach a limited atonement, or Arminians who turn faith into a work of man. Period.”
Anti-UOJ extreme: “There is no sense in which justification can be spoken of as ‘objective.’ Those who say there is are false teachers and Universalists. Period.”
UOJ extreme: “God has no more wrath for anyone. All sins were forgiven 2000 years ago. People aren’t actually ‘forgiven’ through the Means of Grace. The Means of Grace merely inform people of what happened before they were ever born.”
Anti-UOJ extreme: “God’s wrath against sinners is not appeased until someone comes to faith. Faith satisfies God’s wrath and so He’ll forgive a believer’s sins.”
UOJ extreme: “All people are forgiven, whether they believe it or not.”
Anti-UOJ extreme: "There is no forgiveness for anyone prior to faith."
UOJ extreme: “The only way to be sure of my salvation is if all people are already saved.”
Anti-UOJ extreme: “The only way to be sure of my salvation is to look to my faith.”
UOJ extreme: “Because of Christ’s Atonement, God has already saved all people.”
Anti-UOJ extreme: “Christ’s Atonement made salvation a possibility for all people.”
The fact is that all of these statements are either inaccurate, insufficient or simply wrong. It's hard to know how prevalent these extreme positions are in our synod, but there appears to be a disturbing lack of unity regarding how to talk about justification. One of our subscribers told us that he once asked his three pastors (separately) to explain the doctrine of objective/subjective justification to him, and he got three different (and conflicting) answers.
The next post (look for it on Monday!) will address some famously extreme statements written some 30 years ago, and will hopefully help readers to identify the absolutely wrong way to teach and understand objective justification. Section 4: Part 1 – Just say “no” to Kokomo.
33 comments:
Pr Rydecki: According to you, the follow statement is wrong: "There is no forgiveness for anyone prior to faith." By saying this statement is wrong, aren't you implying that there is forgiveness apart from faith? If God chooses to deal with man only through the Word (which creates faith) wouldn't the above statement be 100% correct? Without the Word, there is no faith, without faith there is no forgiveness.
Andy Groenwald
Andy,
This is one of those "inaccurate" statements. Why? Because it is proper to speak of "forgiveness won for all," (cf. Luther's Works, Vol. 41) even though it is only distributed through the Word and received by the one who believes.
"There is" forgiveness for all, this treasure won or acquired or obtained or merited or purchased (choose your word) by Christ. It is truly there being offered in the Gospel, whether or not such is believed.
"There is" forgiveness for all in Christ. But those who refuse Him refuse his forgiveness, and remain unforgiven. In other words, they do not "have" forgiveness or "possess" a forgiven status before God, even though the sacrifice of Christ was fully sufficient to merit their forgiveness.
Rev. Paul Rydecki, having read Pastor Marquarts essay I see that he teaches that forgiveness comes before faith. Whereas you support him and this essay but state in a response to Andy, "they do not "have" forgiveness or "possess" a forgiven status before God.." Your position seems inconsistent. It may be a mistake on my part. Could you elaborate?
Pastor Kurt Marquart's statement, "Faith does not create forgiveness but only receives, accepts, appropriates it. Absolution is prior to, and creates faith, not vice versa."
He teaches that absolution, the forgiveness of sins, comes before faith and is what creates faith. This seems contradictory to your statements.
Thank you,
Freddy
Freddy,
Would you do us a favor and include your last name next time you comment?
This is just the point that's been emphasized over and over again. A distinction is being made between "forgiveness won" and "forgiveness distributed." Marquart is very right to say that faith does not create forgiveness. Christ's atonement creates forgiveness - wins forgiveness, obtains it, acquires it, etc. Faith appropriates forgiveness.
Marquart is teaching that the forgiveness of sins - as merited and obtained by Christ - comes before faith. He is not teaching that the forgiveness of sins - distributed to the sinner - comes before faith.
Here are a couple of other quotes that emphasize this:
Quoting Carpzov: The forgiveness of sins is considered in a twofold manner. First, as it has been acquired by Christ and is offered as a benefit promised and intended by God for sinners, to be sought and had in the Word and Sacraments. Afterwards [forgiveness is considered] as it has already been accepted by faith, has been applied, and is possessed. . . In the first manner the forgiveness of sins is the object of faith insofar as it justifies
Quoting the Large Catechism: The work is finished and completed, Christ has acquired and won the treasure for us by His sufferings, death, and resurrection, etc.
Citing Luther: Fourthly, Luther expressly distinguishes forgiveness (which always equals justification) as won in Christ then and there, and as offered and given to our faith here and now in the Gospel:
We treat of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is achieved and won. Second, how it is distributed and given to us. Christ has achieved it on the cross, it is true. But he has not distributed or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the supper or sacrament. There he has distributed and given it through the Word, as also in the gospel, where it is preached. He has won it once and for all on the cross. But the distribution takes place continuously, before and after, from the beginning to the end of the world (Luther’s Works, vol. 40, pp. 213-214).
Concluding paragraph of essay: If it is granted, on the one hand, that “No orthodox Lutheran disputes the fact that Christ’s vicarious satisfaction reconciled God toward all men, since that is the clear language of Scripture itself,” that “the forgiveness of sins is ‘universal,’ as long as that is understood to mean only that Christ’s vicarious satisfaction procured this forgiveness for all mankind.
Thank you for your reply. You interpret Marquart's statement, "Absolution is prior to, and creates faith, not vice versa." as him saying that the forgiveness of sins that Christ merited comes before faith but that's not what the term Absolution means. The nature of the word Absolution applies to the absolving or removing of individual sins, and in this case the removal of sins from the whole world. Absolution is a personal and specific to each person. Christ's payment for the worlds sins can't be referred to as the Absolution of the world - isn't that the part of UOJ you don't like?
Dictionary.com states Absolution means the act of absolving, a freeing from blame or guilt; release from consequences, obligations or penalties. (interestingly it also states, 4. Protestant Theology: a declaration or asssurance of divine forgiveness to penitent believers, made after confession of sins - except in the way Marquart uses the word Absolution it applies to the whole world who haven't confessed thier sins - I know this is a secular source, but still)
This is an interesting dilemma that Marquarts got himself into.
Thanks for the conversation,
Frederick Schroeder
Freddy,
I do agree with you that the word "absolution" is normally used specifically for the application of the forgiveness of sins to individuals, as opposed to the obtaining aspect. I think that's how the Confessions use the word throughout. I think Marquart was echoing Pieper and Walther in using it to refer to the world being "absolved" on Easter Sunday.
I don't think "absolution" is the right word for the obtaining or meriting or winning of forgiveness by Christ for the world. I think that, at best, it causes far more confusion than anything else, and at worst, it abolishes the very distinction that has been made between forgiveness won and forgiveness distributed. "Absolution" is universally understood as the distribution of forgiveness.
That said, the quotes I included in my previous comment were Marquart's own explanation of what he meant to say, so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that what he meant by the word "absolution" (as something that's already happened) is nothing other than what he explained in all those other quotes with "forgiveness procured for all, not applied to all."
This has been the problem throughout the history of the discussion. Even the most careful theologians end up using words in contradictory ways, creating for themselves (and for us!) these "interesting dilemmas."
Thanks again, I agree that the term Absolution or Absolved shouldn't be used to describe Christ's meriting the forgiveness of sins. This kind of language is quite prevalent in most papers on Justification. I have been reading many Wels essays on another blog that's non-Wels and on the Wels essay internet file server. It seems that your understanding of Justification and the terms used to describe it is quite a bit different from all the other theologians within the Synod. How can I direct other people to see it your way when you seem to be going against what the Wels has been teaching? Can we really come to the conclusion that so many people are incapable of speaking and writing correctly about Justification? It seems slanderous to make that implication.
Thanks,
Frederick Schroeder
Fredrick.
I too see the inconsistency between what Pr. Rydecki writes and what the rest of the WELS teaches.
If the best construction is put on the situation, it is that the Relativism of the 1960s has snuck its way into how the WELS teaches Justification. (That's not an accusation that any one person is trying to make truth relative, it's just an acknowledgment that we inadvertently or advertently share in the sins of our secular culture) We engage in linguistic relativism when we give fellows like Kurt Marquart a free pass on the false use of the word 'absolution'. Freddy, you are right on the money that 'absolution' is a personal word in the vast history of Christian writings. We should not allow anyone to use it otherwise.
Kurt Marquart, despite what he believed in his heart, wrote false doctrine in this paper because he states that Absolution happens before faith. Also corrupt is his statement that Absolution causes faith. Defintionally false.
I'll assume the best and assume the WELS UOJ imbroglio comes from assuming the best: That is to say, I assume we assume the best. But assuming the best about Marquart's use of language, assuming the best about Sig Becker's assertion that "all are forgiven whether they believe it or not", is a cultural naiveté whose final end is heterodoxy.
If we do not hold our scholars accountable, if we do not hold to a concrete definitional standard of language, the substance of our Doctrine will change under our feet.
Look at how more and more WELS congregations are flirting with Non-dom garbage. Mars Hill and Andy Stanely and Craig Groschel are practically idols to some pastors. To my way of thinking, (assuming the best) this happened because sloppy language allowed certain unscrupulous pastors to cover their hides with words like "Oh, Gosh did I say that??? Well, what I really meant was..." (insert orthodox doctrine here) I'm not saying it's all devious either!! I'm sure that most often it comes from the wiles of Satan making unsound doctrine sound good to Christians. Over time, perspectives change imperceptibly.
This poor use of language is perhaps the most subtle way that we are a synod of our generation. Let's fight it!
In Christ,
Andy Groenwald
Andy,
There's a difference between linguistic relativism and simple charity shown toward men who have proven themselves to be fine theologians. Have a care how you speak of these men. They have never been categorized as heretics. That doesn't mean they couldn't err. Anyone who writes volumes of theological material is bound to state something wrong, or even fall into an incorrect way of speaking about something, or even an incomplete understanding of something. Most of the Church Fathers did, too. But when Luther disagreed with something Augustine had written - for as absolutely false as it may have been - he showed a high degree of respect and charity.
You may disagree with this or that word or phrase Marquart used, but when he explains himself correctly throughout his own essay, it's not blindly assuming the best about his meaning. He says it over and over.
And he's not alone to speak of absolution this way. If you don't like Pieper and Walther's use of the word (which I don't really either), there are still Gerhard and Calov to address. I like that they add, "in him" when they speak of an absolution prior to faith, but they do still use the word.
"By raising Christ from the dead God absolved him for our sins which had been imputed to him, and consequently he also absolved us in him. In the resurrection of Christ we are absolved from our sins, so that they are not able to condemn us any more before God." (Excitando Christum a mortuis absolvit eum Deus a peccatis nostris ipsi imputatis, ac proinde etiam nos in ipso absolvit. - In Christi resurrectione a peccatis nostris sumus absoluti, ut non amplius coram Dei iudicio nos condemnare possint.) – Johann Gerhard
"Christ's resurrection took place as an actual absolution from sin (respectu actualis a peccato absolutionis). As God punished our sins in Christ, upon whom He laid them and to whom He imputed them, as our Bondsman, so He also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him, and so He absolved also us in Him." – Abraham Calov
All that said, there is also a difference between those who have proven themselves as solid Christians and theologians, and those who have barely dabbled in theology. Those who are infatuated with sectarian teachers already show themselves to be theologically bankrupt.
Freddy,
This kind of language is quite prevalent in most papers on Justification.
To be honest, I haven't read most of the essays in the seminary essay files. Of those I have read, some are better than others. It's certainly not meant to be the vault of pure Christian knowledge.
It seems that your understanding of Justification and the terms used to describe it is quite a bit different from all the other theologians within the Synod.
No, not different from all the other theologians. Again, I don't know what all makes up the essay files, but other WELS pastors and also laymen speak of justification as I have here, because it's how the Confessions clearly speak of justification, rooted in the clear language of the Scriptures. It's when we start emphasizing things that Scripture doesn't emphasize that we get into trouble. Most modern Lutheran presentations on justification begin and end with the "objective/subjective" distinction. Neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions made it a point to talk so emphatically and constantly about what we have without faith or prior to faith.
I certainly hope no one construes anything said by us on IL to be slanderous. We're just a few humble people running a humble blog. Things won't be solved in the synod by us at IL. If we can bring some of these issues to light to be further discussed at conferences and in congregations, we will have done all we're able to do.
Pastor Rydecki and the Intrepid Lutherans...I see five names in the mast head of this blog. Seems Pastor Rydecki has been left hung out to dry and by his post of 8:32pm, 11-12-10 and all previous posts concerning justification. He looks like a leaf twisting in the wind. He is trying to make a gallant effort and yet I am having trouble discerning just where he stands as well as the rest of you.
"Things won't be solved in the synod by us at IL. If we can bring some of these issues to light to be further discussed at conferences and in congregations, we will have done all we're able to do."
I was actually hoping and praying for the opposite. This seems like a cop out. I am disappointed.
I have a couple of sayings that are quite apropos that most Lutherans can relate to that pertain here: Fish or cut bait; S*** or get off the pot.
But the Bible always has the last Word...
Revelation 3:14-16
14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
JK
Pastor Rydecki, I believe you're mistaken to quote Gerhard as a complimentary use of "Absolve" to Marquarts errored use of Absolve ("Absolution is prior to, and creates faith, not vice versa.").
You quote Gerhard's statement, "By raising Christ from the dead God absolved him for our sins which had been imputed to him [the Atonement], and consequently he also absolved us in him [believing Christians who are in Christ by faith]." I [enclosed my comments].
It's also important to recognize that Gerhard is not talking about the whole world when he refers to absolution here, "In the resurrection of Christ we are absolved from our sins, so that they are not able to condemn us any more before God." The Lutheran Synods have taught through Objective Justification that the world was absolved of their sins when Jesus Christ said, "It is finished" on Calvary. This is not supported by Gerhard since he then states, "...so that they [sins] are not able to condemn us any more before God." As you rightly pointed out before, no unbeliever was absolved of sins at Christ's Atonement. It would be a ghastly error to apply Gerhard's stated use of "Absolve" to unbelievers as the Bible clearly states that those who reject Christ will, in fact, die in their sins.
I believe you touch on what might be the most important point in this discussion as I've tried to follow it. You state, "Neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions made it a point to talk so emphatically and constantly about what we have without faith or prior to faith."
This is correct in two ways but maybe not to many people's liking. First neither the Scriptures nor the Lutheran Confessions attribute Christ's righteousness to anyone before faith. Neither do they assign justification or the forgiveness of sins to anyone before faith worked through the Means of Grace by the Holy Spirit. Outside of Christ - outside of the righteousness which brings forgiveness of sins, justification and salvation. Second, the Scriptures and Confessions actually do speak at length and consistently that "what we have without and before faith" is condemnation and God's abiding wrath over sin. Christ is only a Mediator, to appease God's wrath, for an individual through faith. Without faith a person stands alone in front of God with no righteousness and thus condemned.
So your statement is a critical one and in the one sense of the statement you're completely correct and in the other you are completely incorrect.
I hope this makes sense. Again, appreciate that this discussion is taking place. It's imperative that the Wels and in fact all Lutheran synods clarify their teaching on Justification.
Thanks,
Frederick Schroeder - Freddy
Although I may not have used such forceful language, I echo Joe's sentiments.
Dear Joe,
Pastor Spencer here.
First, it is by agreement among the five men listed at the top of the blog that Pastor Rydecki is carrying much of this discussion. He has a very fine way with words, knows well of what he speaks, and frankly has the patience to deal with this day after day. We have most certainly NOT left him to "twist in the wind."
Second, I too have my opinion on this subject and it is simply this:
Jesus paid the penalty for all sins of every human who has ever lived, is living, and will ever live. But not all people go to heaven. That takes faith; belief in the facts stated above. Faith is purely a gift of God’s grace. People receive faith only by contact with the Gospel in Word and Sacraments. No, it’s not logical. It doesn’t make human “sense.” But that’s the way it is. End of story. And no, I don't want to argue about it, nor debate it, nor discuss it at length. It is what it is - a beautiful, wonderful, comforting fact of salvation and eternal life. Period.
Now, if you feel I left a word or a thought out somewhere in that short explanation, or that it means something it doesn't, or that it sounds like this or that false teaching, or that it could have been said better and more accurately, etc., etc., etc. - tough rocket ships! Yes, I know that's not acceptable theological-speak. But you wanted someone else to speak up or "get off the pot," and that comment isn't real deep theology either.
To all - Pastor Rydecki is going a fantastic job on this, and you haven't seen or read anything yet. He has some masterful posts coming up at the beginning of next week. Watch for them. You won't be disappointed!
Father Spence
1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life. 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments. 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith. 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life. Formula of Concord, SD, XI. #15. Of God's Eternal Election. Concordia Triglotta
I believe this quotation from The Formula of Concord is the whole Gospel message. There isn't anything left out. Can we hold the church to this confession of the Gospel and how sinful mankind is Justified before God? And that without faith sinful man remains under God's wrath and condemnation? It does say that Christ's righteousness merited for us is offered and presented in the Gospel but not distributed and declared to be anyone's without or before faith. As one gentleman mentioned earlier, and it seems the Confessions teach, that no one can be said to be righteous before faith.
This is taught in the Confessions here:
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
[it's telling me I went over my character limit. I will try to post my comment again]
Frederick Schroeder
[trying this again. This is a continuation from the comment I just left]
If I may, I'd like to quote from Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. I believe consideration of his confession is germane when he teaches, "for he makes those who believe the Gospel to be under the salvation, and all the rest to be under the wrath of God:".
Sect. 136.—THIS passage of Paul, therefore, stands firmly and forcibly urging—that "Freewill," even in its most exalted state, in the most exalted men, who were endowed with the law, righteousness, wisdom, and all the virtues, was ungodly and unrighteous, and merited the wrath of God; or the argument of Paul amounts to nothing. And if for he makes those who believe the Gospel to be under the salvation, and all the rest to be under the wrath of God:it stand good, his division leaves no medium: he makes the believing to be righteous, and the unbelieving to be ungodly, unrighteous, and under wrath. For the whole that he means to say is this:—The righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel, that it might be by faith. But God would be wanting in wisdom, if He should reveal righteousness unto men, when they either knew it already or had 'some seeds' of it themselves. Since, however, He is not wanting in wisdom, and yet reveals unto men the righteousness of salvation, it is manifest, that "Free-will" even in the most exalted of men, not only has wrought, and can work no righteousness, but does not even know what is righteous before God.—Unless you mean to say, that the righteousness of God is not revealed unto these most exalted of men, but to the most vile!—But the boasting of Paul is quite the contrary—that he is a debtor, both to the Jews and to the Greeks, to the wise and to the unwise, to the Greeks and to the barbarians. Wherefore Paul, comprehending, in this passage, all men together in one mass, concludes that they are all ungodly, unrighteous, and ignorant of the righteousness of faith: so far is it from possibility, that they can will or do any thing good. And this conclusion is moreover confirmed from this:—that God reveals the righteousness of faith to them, as being ignorant and sitting in darkness: therefore, of themselves, they know it not. And if they be ignorant of the righteousness of salvation, they are certainly under wrath and damnation: nor can they extricate themselves therefrom, nor endeavour to extricate themselves: for how can you endeavour, if you know neither what you are to endeavour after, nor in what way, nor to what extent, you are to endeavour?
Page 133
http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html
Thank you,
Frederick Schroeder
Father Spence commented while I was struggling to post my rather long winded comment. It is good that those in the Catholic Church are interested in this discussion as it has always been a source of disagreement between the Catholics and Lutherans. I would, however, like to say that I disagree with his "tough rocket ships" attitude to making a confession. Even in the Catholic Church there is a need to always be willing and ready to speak about and make a clear confession of the hope that we have. I don't believe the Catholic Church has removed 1 Peter 3:15. I don't want to begin another fight between our denominations I just want to point out something that everyone should remember.
Thank you,
Frederick Schroeder
Joe,
No, Rev. Rydecki hasn't been hung out to dry by the rest of us. After I started this discussion several weeks ago -- which did catch us a little off-guard at the time, as we did not realize the range and strength of opinions on this basic and central doctrine -- he volunteered to run this series on the Marquardt essay, and most of the discussion in this series has been directed at him personally. We are most certainly supporting him behind the scenes as we privately discuss a number of the more significant questions and issues, and are posting as frequently as possible ourselves. And as he infers, above, the range of positions regarding Justification continues to show itself.
As for solving problems, our hope is, as Rev. Rydecki points out, that changes will result. Ultimately, we can only be a catalyst, however, by raising issues as we see them, by engaging in public discussion regarding public statements and public practice, and by educating folks so that they are equipped to take on these issues as they see them occurring locally. We can't do their work for them, they need to stand on the truth and work toward and maintain unity in doctrine and practice where they are, as opportunity is given them. That's everybody's job. Not just ours, not just the DPs, but every Christian's job. Our hope also is that Synod leadership will take notice, and begin to respect the fact that disunity cannot be covered up. If we do actually share unity in all matters of doctrine and practice, as we say, then confession and practice need to manifest this fact. It will certainly manifest the opposite if the opposite is true, particularly if we claim otherwise.
What will not happen? We are not going to drop a bomb and then leave the room. We absolutely are not going to spit on the ground and leave Synod, and take as many as possible with us. Some fear that this is our objective. Others can do this, if they wish. We won't. We will, out of love for God and for the Scriptures, and concern for the benefit of our fellowship, not as an attack against it, raise issues in as respectful a way as possible, in a way that both displays the urgency of the issues we raise and encourages careful and intelligent discussion, and thus in that way also forces the discussion to continue and spread. I know that this approach isn't for everyone, but it is the approach to take if doctrine and practice is to amount to more than a popularity contest. It is the approach to take with those having the disposition and temperament to do the hard work of study and composition on these topics, work that will actually lead to conclusion and agreement across our fellowship. No, it will not happen quickly -- that is because we are not a Church Growth outfit. We are not going to entertain people onto the bandwagon. We will not appeal to anger or desire or joy or any emotion as the seat of doctrinal decision or agreement, as if we determine truth by these measures. We will not cajole people with invective. We will appeal to their intellect and work to change their minds, through use of Scripture and the Confessions, and the right use of reason. Those lacking patience will be frustrated. So be it. But don't confuse this approach with being "luke warm." The process is slow because it is the most difficult, but in the end, we are convinced that it will bear the most fruit.
Continued in next post...
...Continued from previous post.
Our concern from the outset of Intrepid Lutherans is a lack of unity in practice across our Synod, which in many cases exposes a lack of unity in doctrine. Making this connection is most difficult given that popular opinion among us holds the notion that "all practice is adiaphora." Certainly, we are agreed in all matters of practice if we agree that we are free in all areas of practice. Right? How could there be disunity in practice, regardless of its range? Reconnecting practice to doctrine with such attitudes prevailing requires that a doctrinal foundation be laid from which practice proceeds and can be discussed. That is what we are doing now. It will also require reacquaintance with the principle of Confessionalism. That's on the docket, but not before we get to further issues of practice.
For a taste of practice as it relates to Justification, realize that either the Universalistic or Synergistic extreme in the Lutheran doctrine of Justification leads to unionism. The Synergistic extreme by means of the Social Gospel as a way of living out evidence of Faith (the current status of the intuitu fidei Lutherans is evidence of this), and the Universalistic extreme by stressing the sovereignty of God over His Grace and, if not in name then in practice, reducing the Means through which that Grace comes to us to the level of Ordinance, eliminating the necessity of their prominence and centrality, and forcing the church into anthropocentrism as a means of "resonating with the Elect." Division between "Denomination" or "Synod" in either case, reduces very real differences of Confession, to differences of opinion, reduces church bodies to "faith tribes" between which some sort of political outreach is necessary for the sake of common work in the the Gospel -- common work which is, on the one hand, more efficient as a means of living out evidence of faith, and on the other hand, more consistent with the ultimate truth that "We're all saved by Jesus Christ, anyway."
Joe, you're right to criticize UOJ. The universalistic "caricature" of UOJ, which no one was thought to teach or believe, is both taught and believed. There is no denying that now. How could this not be the case, given that this is precisely what the words say on their face, and how those words have been defended? "I am saved by Jesus Christ, just like you." Well, not apart from faith, you're not. This is a problem. Not only do the words communicate the wrong message, but evidence of of the wrong message is becoming clear in practice. More on that, to come.
Be Patient,
Douglas Lindee
Mr. Lindee,
Thank you for your fine post. My I suggest a small initial step? Please, let's reword the beginning of the Justification section of TWB? It's confusing at best. I believe this conversation has shown that it is wrong.
Scott E. Jungen
The universalistic "caricature" of UOJ, which no one was thought to teach or believe, is both taught and believed. There is no denying that now.
Doug,
Can you document an example of someone who uses the objective/subjective terminology in regard to justification, in the WELS, ELS, or LCMS, who does in fact teach that all people will go to heaven when they die, believers and unbelievers alike? That is the "universalistic" teaching. Does anyone in our circles who speaks carelessly or sloppily regarding "objective justification" actually teach this, or imply this, when they then go on to discuss the eternal destiny of believers and unbelievers?
Badly-worded statements regarding the objectivity and universality of Christ's reconciling and atoning work are not "universalistic," if the people who make those statements then go on explicitly to deny universalism. That has been one of the problems with much of th criticism of "objective justification" - both the carefully-stated forms of it (e.g. Marquart, Buchholz) and the poorly-stated forms of it (the "Kokomo theses"). People are actually being misled into thinking that pastors in WELS believe and teach that everyone goes to heaven when they die. But I have never seen or heard EVEN ONE EXAMPLE of this.
If the objective side of justification is being expressed poorly and misleadingly, then that should be addressed. But it is not fair to conclude from such sloppiness in this locus of theology that those who mispeak in such ways are thereby teaching a universalistic doctrine regarding salvation - especially when those same people explicitly reject universalism when they address that locus of theology.
Scott,
You're not the first person to suggest this, on this blog, or to us in private. The wording in the positive thesis regarding Justification needs to be made more clear, such that the reader's thinking is not set in the direction of universalism. In my opinion, it is not sufficient to rely only on the negative thesis to deny a universalistic conclusion, as this amounts to talking out of both sides of our mouth. The positive thesis, on its face, ought to preclude universalism as a reasonable extension or conclusion of that statement.
I, personally, would suggest that a Memorial to consider the issue be composed and offered to Synod at the next Convention -- suggesting it, of course, since I am not politically savvy enough to know or understand the process or impact of doing so... There may be other Memorials worth considering, as well. We'll see as the Winter months wear on.
Douglas Lindee
Mr. Webber, David J. Beckman wrote the essay, Universal and Objective Justification with Special Emphasis on a Recent Controversy, District Pastor-Teacher Conference of the South Atlantic District, January 27, 1983. This can be found on the Wels internet essay server here: http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckmanUniversal.PDF
Pastor Beckman states, "The position that all men’s sins have been forgiven, even the sins of those in hell, has always been held to
by orthodox Lutheran theologians." This is currently being taught in the Lutheran Synods, it is not a caricature but a literal quote.
In this essay Beckman goes on to approvingly quote John Schaller who says salvation is complete for those who will go to Hell.
He quotes John Schaller with approval here, "Salvation is just as perfect and complete for those who are finally lost. This is the only reason, but a sufficient one, why he that believeth not is damned. Unbelief is the rejection of life and salvation achieved and personally intended for every unbeliever.
Orthodox Lutherans therefore, on the basis of the scriptural doctrine of universal and objective justification, teach, believe and confess that all people who have lived, are living or will ever live on earth have been declared righteous by God and have thus been forgiven of all their sins."
Beckman states, "Whether it be a personal conversation with our landlord, neighbor or friend, or whether it be a more “professional” conversation with the unchurched parent of a pupil or with the new prospect discovered by the evangelism committee, we know for certain the message we have for them. In our minds there’s no Reformed reflection on whether or not this person really is one of God’s elect. There’s no Arminian condition attached to the forgiveness we hold out to them. The only message that will bring them to faith, strengthen them in their faith and motivate them to want to hear the Word is our simplified version of universal and objective justification.
Page 9 and into Page 10
Describing the whole world as members of God's elect is Universalism as every person elected by God will be saved, by God's grace, through the Means of Grace.
He also gives his approval to E.W.A. Koehler when he quotes him saying, "Koehler writes, “There is not a soul in all the world which God has not already absolved from all sin. This is called objective or universal justification.”"
(More on Koehler here http://afortmadeofbooks.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-lutheran-was-koehler.html)
These are clear words used by these men to teach Objective Justification. This essay is provided for the church to learn from on the Wels Internet essay file server.
Mr. Webber, it's right that you request Mr. Lindee to provide proof for his contention. But now having seen the proof will you admit that what at one time seemed a caricature is, in fact, accurate descriptions of the currently accepted teaching.
This goes back to my question to Pastor Rydecki. It seems that his version of Objective Justification is at odds with the majority of Lutheran theologians are teaching.
Thank you,
Frederick Schroeder
Rev. Webber,
My apologies if my use of words was confusing. My use of the term "universalistic" was meant to convey, not that Universalism is in fact held by those who use such words, but that the words themselves either convey that meaning, or some meaning substantially similar to it. Certainly, in the over 200 comments on this issue in the past several weeks, you cannot have missed that there are those who use these words in a way that indicates that this is the way they think! In your teaching, you explicitly qualify objective justification with the phrase, "in Christ." Others do as well, and certainly the intent is made more clear with this qualification. Others do not use this qualification. I understand what you're getting at by using it, although I personally think that it does not fully resolve the problem. That may be more of a personal problem that an actual problem, however, and so I don't think it is worth pursuing, for now. For me, the issue is an academic one. I am not under the impression that we are Universalists, or that those who use sloppy wording are necessarily Universalists. But, in all honesty, we must admit that such conclusions, or substantially similar conclusions, or that conclusions informed by an inordinate emphasis on "universalistic" perspectives, can and are being drawn. This is a problem.
As I replied to Scott, above (before I read your post) I fully admit that we reject Universalism in our negative theses. As a result, we're not confessing Universalism, but the words we use in the positive thesis lead in that direction, and set people thinking in that direction. I tried to indicate this by saying "universalistic," rather than calling it universalism, in my response to Joe. How often do we teach/preach against Universalism, though? How often do we preach against false doctrine? How often are the negative theses of our Confession taught and affirmed? We more often dwell on the positive, don't we? After all, saying that something or someone is wrong is nearly taboo in our culture. But if we are not balancing words and expressions which lead (almost immediately) to a universalistic conclusion with words and expressions which reject this conclusion, what are we in fact teaching? In the many authors and papers we can point to, in some cases (perhaps more than you are willing to admit, perhaps less than I, being overly critical, may assert), the anti-thesis is not sufficiently affirmed or the thesis is so overstated that the anti-thesis, if it is there, is vastly overshadowed. But what happens in the pulpits? Get people talking, and you'll find out. And we're finding out.
Continued in next post...
...Continued from previous post.
Personally, I have a couple of examples to share on the extremes we're dealing with. Several years ago, I was present at a lecture give by Prof. Tiefel regarding worship, attended by pastors and laymen. He asked (and I quote from memory), "What do we receive in the Sacrament?" Everybody answered appropriately something like, "Body and blood of Christ, in, with and under the bread and wine." "What for?", he asked. Everyone replied, "The remission of sins that Christ won for us on the Cross." Somehow, the question arose regarding when this forgiveness is conferred. Is forgiveness given to us, in real-time, as we receive the Sacrament, or are we merely assured in the Sacrament of the forgiveness that is our in Christ? "NO!" Tiefel emphatically responded. "We receive forgiveness, in real-time, as we receive the Sacrament!" The question on the minds of many layman, including mine at the time, and I know this from conversation with many laymen after the lecture, and from questions immediately directed to the Professor during lecture was, "What for? All of our sins were forgiven at the Cross. This makes no sense whatsoever." I know some pastors debated this as well, as heated discussion ensued after the lecture on this point.
On the other hand, I recall a mid-week Bible study at church, when Pastor asked the question (again quoting from memory), "Why do people go to Hell?" Everyone answered something like, "Because they are sinners, and are guilty before God. They deserve to go to Hell as a result." "NO!" he answered emphatically, "This is wrong! No one has any sins before God, Christ paid for them all. Unbelievers go to Hell because they haven't received this benefit through faith." No one responded, knowing that when Pastor responded that way, it was not a good time to challenge him. But their thoughts were written on their faces, "Yeah, right. Whatever... That makes no sense at all." What is the result of this? I remember a further discussion, during a mid-week Bible study on the question of Sanctification. "It doesn't matter," was the position of Pastor. We challenged him, and he took the question to Pastor's conference. The next week, he laughed, "They all said, 'Who cares? Everything we do is sinful, but all our sins are atoned for and absolved.' Do what you think is best, and don't worry about whether it is God-pleasing or not. Being in Christ, everything you do [considering your faith] is God pleasing." He didn't say it, but I add the parenthetical in brackets to indicate that this is what I understood him to mean.
The caricature is real, Rev. Webber, and is being taught on the ground. Again, get regular folks talking, get the average parish pastor talking, and you see the evidence. You also see the confusion.
Douglas Lindee
""It doesn't matter," was the position of Pastor. We challenged him, and he took the question to Pastor's conference. The next week, he laughed, "They all said, 'Who cares? Everything we do is sinful, but all our sins are atoned for and absolved.' Do what you think is best, and don't worry about whether it is God-pleasing or not. Being in Christ, everything you do [considering your faith] is God pleasing." He didn't say it, but I add the parenthetical in brackets to indicate that this is what I understood him to mean."
I apologize to those who may have taken offense to my strong language, but this is serious. I'm glad I got your attention. The above quote from Mr. Lindee is evidence of this and what I have been fearing. The attitude to me that is communicated is one of once saved always saved so go on and keep sinning.
We have gone from Justification by Faith Alone as evidenced in the Confessions to a crypto-universal confession of all sins have been absolved, acquitted, forgiven...just choose your flavor prior to faith. I ask you, what is the next step? Look at what has happened to the crypto-lutheran church bodies around us! Pretty soon those guilt free saints in hell won't be there anymore because it doesn't make sense that a soul with their sins already forgiven should be there. In the not too distant past there would have been no Office of Deaconess in the WELS. There is at my church now. What changed? The Confessions haven't. Scripture hasn't. The times they are a changin'...
Joe Krohn
Joe,
I'll just clarify this point. Having a personal relationship with my Pastor at the time, I can personally provide all assurances that he was neither a Universalist, nor an epicure or libertine in any sense these words may communicate. He was emphatically concerned with Scriptural and doctrinal precision like no other Pastor I have ever had the privilege to know. Ever. Being an eminently flawed individual (like most of us), he visibly clung to the Means of Grace as the only Means through which anyone receives the Gospel and it's promises, and was under no illusion that he deserved any personal credit for it. Believe me, all evidence would point to the contrary -- and I know for a fact that he would laugh in agreement. Thus, all of his teaching, whether starting or ending with it, revolved around the preaching of Law and Gospel, not in any indirect sense, but overtly and directly, even desperately. Ask anyone who knew him.
Yet, what do these words say, and how are we to understand them? I am criticizing the words and the ideas they convey, and that is the point. Anyone can be pardoned for parsing and communicating ideas that are not clearly and precisely articulated and taught in all (and dare I say most) instances – at least clearly taught infrequently enough that there is now question regarding them. But what is being taught, and how widely is it taught and understood (or misunderstood)? The response from the pastor’s conference is illustrative, as well.
Two suggestions I have regarding corrective measures. (1) Cull from the "seminary essay file" weak essays. Beckman’s essay, referred to above, and Becker’s Kokomo essay are two good candidates in my opinion. No one I have personally spoken with (laymen in each case) appreciates Becker’s Kokomo response. They are embarrassed by it. (2) Return to the practice of subjecting convention and conference essayists to public interrogation on the basis of doctrine (yes, this still happens), and of voting to receive their work on the basis of doctrinal veracity (no, this doesn’t happen anymore), rather than receiving their work and merely thanking them for it. Public rejection of essays and false doctrine is thus made an option.
My thoughts,
Douglas Lindee
Pastor Webber, recalling that you appropriately asked Mr. Lindee to provide evidence of his contention which you referred to as a caricature, I was reading through the Justification essays on your website, Lutheran Theology. On one hand, I found quotes from Luther which I believe are in harmony with Scripture and the Confessions. On the other hand, I found many essays on Justification that indeed teach the doctrines which you have been deriding as caricatures of Objective Justification made up by the men posting here. Specifically Pres. Robert Preus' statements indeed clarify that what many say Universal Objective Justification teaches is in fact correct.
"Therefore this inestimable gift excels all reason, that without any works God reckons and acknowledges as righteous the man who takes hold by faith of His Son, who was sent into the world, who was born, who suffered, and who was crucified for us. So far as the words are concerned, this fact is easy, namely, that righteousness is not in us in a formal sense, as Aristotle maintains, but is outside us, solely in the grace of God and in His imputation. In us there is nothing of the form or of the righteousness except that weak faith or the first fruits of faith by which we have begun to take hold of Christ. – Martin Luther (Lectures on Galatians [1535], Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, pp. 233-34)
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.justificationquotes.html
Included here were quotes from Gerhard that Pastor Rydecki used to show a consistency in the use of the word Absolve. I believe that has been shown to be incorrect and Gerhard was only using the word Absolved to describe believing Christians. Here are just a few of the quotes that are consistent with the caricatures you have taken issue with.
"But with what does the professor want to prove that this teaching of ours of God's act of forgiving sin as unconditional and independent of faith is a false and dreadful doctrine? Surely with this, that he asserts that "faith is a necessary condition on a person's part for God's forgiveness of sin," or that "faith comes into consideration here as the necessary condition on a person's part for God's loosing, sin-forgiving and absolving action toward sinners." Page 11
"But God's act of forgiving sin, which is the same thing as God proclaiming and promising a sinner's forgiveness, is different from the effects of this act and can occur without this occurring, therefore also
without faith being there. The effect of God's sin-forgiving act, which consists in this, that the sinner has the forgiveness of sins and justification as his personal possession and his heart's treasure, cannot be where there is no faith. On the other hand, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are "for the remission of sins," and God gives the forgiveness of sins through these Sacraments as well as through the Gospel and absolution even if the unbeliever despises the grace and thereby brings judgment upon himself. But when the professor says: "No absolution of God is given through the Means of Grace except through faith," then, all things considered, he also denies the divine power of the Sacraments and in a Calvinistic manner makes them empty symbols without content." Page 11
"On the other hand, this, that God forgives sin, signifies only the action of God that he proclaims to the sinner that his sin is taken away by the death of Christ and that he therefore gives him forgiveness so
that he is to believe it, but without regard to whether he has already believed it or not, so that this act of forgiving sin by God cannot only happen without faith being there but first must occur without faith being there since faith cannot be worked otherwise, or know what it is to believe." Page 12
http://www.christforus.org/Papers/Content/HermanAmbergPreusonJustificationofWorld.htm
Continued in the next posting...
Continued from the last posting...
(Pres. Robert Preus)
"The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19).
"Objective justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not identical with the atonement, it is not another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world. Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous"
"Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ. Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work "before" we come to faith in Christ."
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/jmc00225.htm
Frederick,
None of the theologians you quote go on from their justification teaching to teach that all people, both believers and unbelievers, will go to heaven when they die. That's universalism. These people, who do teach objective/subjective justification, do not teach universalism. That was my point with Douglas.
Pastor Webber, I admit that they do not declare that everyone will be saved. This is true for Pastor Rydecki's teaching of UOJ and that of the LCMS, ELS and Wels. But H.A. Preus and Robert Preus do teach that everyone has been given Christ's righteousness and thereby declared righteous by God. This declaration of being righteous in Christ before faith is also true of the official doctrinal positions of the Lutheran Synods: Wels This We Believe and the LCMS' Brief Statement of 1932 and almost all of the essays I've been reading.
This should lead us into studying what is the nature of Christ's righteousness and the significance of the distribution of Christ's righteousness to the world means. Orthodox Lutheranism confesses that Christ was the perfect and only substitute for all of mankind and able to pay for the worlds sins because of His righteousness. Holy Baptism where the Holy Spirit works contrition and faith in an individual clothes us in Christ's righteousness and saves. So when many people say that the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification teaches that the whole world has Christ's righteousness, are declared righteous by God (the only righteousness is of Christ) then they rightly accuse the doctrine of Universalism because Christ's righteousness brings with it the forgiveness of sins, justification, peace with God and eternal life instantaneously. Martin Luther spoke about the instantaneous benefits of Christ's righteousness, "Note, Paul everywhere teaches justification, not by works, but solely by faith; and not as a process, but instantaneous. The testament includes in itself everything--justification, salvation, the inheritance and great blessing." http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Galatians4_1_7.html
When UOJ teaches that the whole world is declared to have Christ's righteousness BUT are not saved eternally, it confesses that Christ's righteousness is not sufficient to provide eternal life in the one who has it. As Robert Preus pointed out, and most accepted and publicly posted UOJ essays have affirmed, Objective Justification, the declaration that the whole world has been declared righteous and guiltless by God, is not the same as the Atonement: Christ paying for the worlds sin. Robert Preus wrote, ""The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19)." So UOJ is caught in a terrible place. It either teaches that everyone is saved eternally or it teaches that Christ's righteousness is not sufficient to save - that it really doesn't remove sins from the individual as far as the East is from the West. And if it doesn't save the one who has been given it by God, what does that do to Christ's Atonement since it was His righteousness that made Him capable of paying for the worlds sins?
Continued in the next posting...
Continued from the last posting...
As I dig deeper into the available Objective Justification doctrinal statements of the Lutheran Synods I am seeing that the caricature of UOJ is really the middle ground depiction that you and Pastor Rydecki are teaching. The more extreme "caricatures" are far more accurate than you are willing to admit. I am seeing that Pastor Rydecki is still studying this doctrine and what has been taught (recently admitted that he hasn't read many of the online essays posted by the Wels). More study is needed in order to speak decisively on what the Synods teach about the doctrine of Objective Justification. In a weekend I've read through much of what's available and am more confident that this isn't the doctrine of Justification that God gave us in Scripture and graciously in the Lutheran Confessions.
Please continue this discussion as it is so vitally important to Christ's Church.
Thank you,
Frederick Schroeder
Mr. Lindee recalls: "...a lecture give by Prof. Tiefel regarding worship,..." etc.
What you describe is very similar to the discussion that took place at a lecture Prof. Tiefel gave at the first WELS National Conference on Worship, Music and the Arts, which took place at Carthage College in Kenosha, WI in 1996. Perhaps the essay presented by Prof. Forrest Bivens at that conference can give insight as to why there was "heated discussion." His essay was entitled "The Primary Doctrine in Its Primary Setting: Objective Justification and Lutheran Worship." Because there is no mention of "Subjective Justification" in his essay, he implies not only that there are two doctrines of justification, but also that the sacraments are not really all that necessary because justification has already been applied to all people, whether they believe it or not. The decision re which worship forms to use then becomes one of "what can best communicate the message of forgiveness already delivered" rather than "what best delivers the forgiveness of sins."
Read it here:
http://wlsessays.net/files/BivensPrimary.pdf
- Rev. James Schulz
Post a Comment
Comments will be accepted or rejected based on the sound Christian judgment of the moderators.
Since anonymous comments are not allowed on this blog, please sign your full name at the bottom of every comment, unless it already appears in your identity profile.