Mixed in with Marquart's reasoning will be my own humble conclusions. I'll try to make it clear when I'm referencing his points.
Marquart, Section 1 – A Digression on Terminology
Prof. Kurt Marquart (KM for the rest of the discussion) begins his presentation with the concession that the terminology “Objective/Subjective Justification” is “less than ideal.” The terms do not clearly convey what they are meant to convey (in the orthodox Lutheran sense), and they do lend themselves to convey an unorthodox (Calvinist) sense.
So KM argues that…
To avoid these problems, it would be best to retain the more traditional usage, which spoke of the “general justification” of the world in Christ and of the “personal justification” of individual sinners through faith alone. This corresponds exactly to the biblical distinction between God’s own completed reconciliation of the world to Himself in Christ (II Cor. 5:19) and our reconciliation to him by faith (v. 20).I think this is a good start. We make far too much of defending the terminology, when in reality, the terminology is not ideal. It’s OK to admit that. It’s not as if the terminology comes from Scripture or from the Confessions. We should not insist on the terms, nor should we pretend that the Biblical doctrine of Justification depends on them.
When someone says (as is often heard), “I believe in both Objective and Subjective Justification,” it immediately sounds like the person is speaking of two justifications. This is incorrect and misleading. There is not an “objective justification” over here of the world, and a “subjective justification” over there of individuals (as if the world were not made up of the same individuals!). There is one justification of sinners before God: won for all by Christ that exists only in Christ (aka, “general/objective/universal justification”), and is distributed to individuals only through the Means of Grace, apprehended only by faith (aka “personal/subjective justification”). The unbeliever possesses no righteous status before God, although Christ has surely won for him a righteous status, holds it out to him in the Gospel and wishes for him to obtain it by faith which the Gospel is all-sufficient to create.
But KM adds the following point, which I believe is also important: “If the sense is clear, one should not quarrel about words.” That orthodox Lutheran theologians have correctly understood and taught about justification using the terms “objective” and “subjective” is a point that KM will develop in the rest of the essay. Even though we may not think these the best words to use – especially given their further degradation in our time – we ought not label everyone who has used or continues to use these terms as heretical. It is mischievous and sinfully divisive to hurl accusations at people for using this terminology if they have properly explained their meaning according to the orthodox Scriptural teaching. If the sense is clear, one should not quarrel about words.
Nevertheless, one must be especially careful to explain the sense in which one uses the words “objective” and “subjective,” because the fact is, they have become increasingly unclear and they do lend themselves to confusion and misunderstanding since they have been used both improperly as well as properly. Better, I think, would be to stop using these terms entirely. (More on that later.)
98 comments:
Pastor Rydecki,
Thank you! Please get rid of the words "objective" and "subjective" to describe Christ's work. There are many better and easier ways to describe this.
Scott E. Jungen
Pr. Paul,
I do not wish to rain on KM's parade but in my early start in Lutheranism, I thought UOJ was just another way of speaking at the atonement until I found out that the UOJers do equate it with justification which is absolutely wrong.
I was a calvinists, and this is what Calvinists do -equate justification with atonement. Although they go the opposite conclusion from the UOJers. Calvinists look at atonement as justification and seing that not all are justified, concludes, not all have been atoned for. UOJers seeing all have been atoned for conclude that all have been justified, they just have not believed it yet. See my drift?
When I was looking at this, KM's work was one of the very first material I read to be enlightened about the controversy. The whole point again is Scripture and then we can not escape, Maier's exegetical work once again. Frankly. KM's exposition does not help because he could not release himself from the terminology of general justification vs personal justification.
In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe. The category of general or personal are pointless. You only need categories if there is a nuance that needs to be understood - but there is none.
LPC
LPC --
You say, "KM's exposition does not help because he could not release himself from the terminology of general justification vs personal justification. In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe."
I see from your blogger profile you have some knowledge of the languages. So please permit me the following observations:
1) In Romans 3:23, the subject of the sentence is, "all."
2) "All," in this context, clearly refers to all people, Jews and Gentiles, who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That would of course mean all people.
3) The second part of the sentence (3:24) adds the present passive participle dikaioumenoi, "All," literally, "being justified." Thus the Bible speaks clearly of "all" people of all time "being justified," in just so many words.
Dennis Rardin
Addendum
GREEK GRAMMAR ALERT ON
If you'll forgive a bit of grammar discussion, dikaioumenoi is a coordinating participle, used where in English we would use another finite verb. The ESV and NIV translations both have it correct, "and are justified." Another very familiar example of this use of the participle is Matt 28:18. Literally, Jesus says, "Going, teach all nations." But in English, "Go and teach." The present participle is best translated as coordinate with the main verb, with the same time and type of action.
GREEK GRAMMAR ALERT OFF
Kurt Marquart told me personally that he was satisfied that a fundamental agreement had been reached and/or recognized between himself and Dr. Maier, when Dr. Maier made the following statement regarding objective/subjective justification:
I regret that some publicly quoted statements of mine from a technical paper "prepared for faculty discussion purposes only" have given a wrong impression about my doctrine of justification as a whole. I, therefore, withdraw that paper from discussion. Doctrinally, I stand with our Synod's historic position. ...
When the Lord Jesus was "justified" (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29), and by the imputation of which He had been "made...to be sin for us" (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, "made a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13). In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and sacraments of Christ. Faith alone can receive this treasure offered in the Gospel, and this faith itself is entirely a gracious gift and creation of God through the means of grace. Faith adds nothing to God's forgiveness in Christ offered in the Gospel, but only receives it. Thus, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him" (John 3:30).
My reservations concerning some of the traditional terminology employed in expressing the doctrine of justification are fully covered by the following statements from the major essay delivered to the first convention of the Synodical Conference, assembled in Milwaukee July 10-16, 1872:
"When speaking with regard to the acquisition of salvation (by Christ), God has wrath for no man any longer; but when speaking with regard to the appropriation, He is wrathful with everyone who is not in Christ" (Proceedings, p. 32).
"Before faith the sinner is righteous before God only according to the acquisition and the divine intention, but he is actually (actu) righteous, righteous for his own person, righteous indeed, first when he believes" (Proceedings, p. 68).
The italicized line in Dr. Maier's text above is what Dr. Marquart specifically referred to in his conversation with me, as the key phrasing that showed that Dr. Maier actually was, or had come to be, in fundamental agreement with what the Synodical Conference had always intended to be teaching in its use of terms like "objective justification" or "general justification." In other words, this matter was then basically settled to his (Marquart's) satisfaction.
The text of the statement quoted above that Dr. Maier submitted, and that essentially settled the controversy, is from this paper written by Robert Preus.
Lito (LPC),
"In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe. The category of general or personal are pointless."
But the issue, as Marquart develops it, is that the justification of Christ as the substitute for mankind is the acquisition of justification for mankind. The distribution of this to faith, that is, the justification of any individual, is what Scripture normally refers to, and no one has a righteous status before God apart from faith. That will be further developed in the next section or two.
Dennis,
I appreciate the exposition of Romans 3, but I can't say I agree that this is the best proof passage for a "justification of all." "Being justified" ties all the way through to "through faith in Jesus Christ." I believe Luther also interpretted it that way - "All - as many as are justified - are justified freely...through faith." (I included that quote in a previous comment to Pr. Sullivan, but I don't have it handy at the moment.)
Nor does this participle act like the coordinating participle in Matthew 28. In (I believe) all those cases, the participle precedes the main verb (as it does in Matthew 28). But I'll have to check that.
More on the exegesis of some key passages will follow.
As I've stated since my first acquaintance with this complicated topic, this whole issue reeks of muddy terminology. Using the word "justification" in two senses, in my opinion, leaves room for hapless dissidence. While most confessional Lutherans are in agreement on the actual fundamentals, this terminology creates needless contention among some - to the detriment of the body. Sticking to confessional and biblical terminology should always be preferred.
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus....28for we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. --Romans 3:21-26,28 [ESV]
We know from passages like John 3:16 that Christ's death was triggered by God's love for all the world. We truly can trust that whoever believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior(might I say Rescuer) will indeed be saved. From Romans above, Paul reveals that there is a 'righteousness of God'. At this point in time, I believe the 'righteousness of God' to refer to the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood".
The Scripture in the Romans passage clearly reveals that this righteousness of God is received through faith in Jesus Christ. I believe I can ascertain that faith is indeed a tool by which we receive the righteousness of God. As our Confessions have it in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article III, verse(*I don't know how to properly reference the BoC)verse? #3: "We believe, teach, and confess that faith is the only means and instrument whereby we accept Christ and in Christ obtain the 'the righteousness which avails before God,' and that for Christ's sake such faith is reckoned for righteousness (Tappert).
To be honest I don't know for sure what "avails before God" means in this part of the Formula of Concord. My thoughts are that both the Scripture that states "the righteousness of God" and the Lutheran Confessions that state "the righteousness that avails before God" have a particular fact to convey. These two facts must mean that God is the possessor of this "righteousness" that we receive through faith. This righteousness exists before we have faith and whether or not we have faith. The redemption was to show his righteousness for the present time. God has this righteousness.
We know God has died once for all. He atoned for the sins of all people of all ages--as we would say---he died and took the place of all the world. Yet, it is His righteousness he was showing. The Scriptures do not say that this equates to all are now righteous (aka, justified?). The Scriptures clearly say God is "the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" and "one is justified by faith" in the above Romans passage. Simply, God gives us His righteousness through faith--he justifies us by faith.
(written by Levi Powers--continued)
Elsewhere in the Solid Declaration of the Formulas of Concord, Article III, line 17 (Tappert) states, "Accordingly the word 'justify' here means to declare righteous and free from sins and from the eternal punishment of these sins on account of the righteousness of Christ which God reckons to faith". Here the article references Philippians 3:9 which states "and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--" [ESV]. I believe this even further demonstrates that we are justified by faith. I do not believe it then to be Biblical or confessional to speak of people without faith as justified in the eyes of God. People are only righteous before God by faith. That is because this is the gift of God. It is true, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". The rest of the verse is also true, "and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." It seems from the other clear verses (and our confessions)that "and are justified" is achieved through that gift and tool we know as faith. Through faith we are given the righteousness of God.
I realize that I may not be coming to the same conclusions as everyone else. This is a complicated issue for sure. I just don't know that we can truly declare the sins of all forgiven and therefore all are justified. I think from Scripture we can know that all the sins of the world were atoned for. I think we should reserve the terms justification and "forgiven" to believers. Perhaps it is best to stick with the bare words of Scripture.
I hope any of this made sense. I stand by God's Word and hope that this is a correct understanding. If not, please show me my errors.
--Levi Powers
Just a word of encouragement and warning from Martin Chemnitz in "Justification: The Chief Article of Christian Doctrine as Expounded in Loci Theologici" and translated by J.A.O. Preus (pg. 15): "Nor must we judge that this is a mere childish zeal for the definition of terms. For just as the substantive matter in this locus are far above and beyond our reason, so also the Holy Spirit has certain terms in the teaching on justification that are not found in common usage. The church must be concerned about language, that is, it ought not devise new ideas or produce new dogmas, but those things which have been given us by the Holy Spirit it must learn from the correct meaning of the words that Scripture uses in teaching the heavenly doctrine...the neglect of correct language was the source and spring of all errors under this article."
--Levi Powers
Dennis,
Please see the comment of Pr. Paul. Hint, see Romans 3:25-26.
Pr. Jay,
With fondness to you, I reply... if Maier categorically renounces his paper I would believe, but all else is politicking. Is there documentation that he has retracted his paper in unequivocal terms? Can I please have this evidence?
Pr. Paul,
The start of sophistry is initiated when terms and categories are invented and then given meaning. For example in Romanism, to justify the worship of Mary they gave a spin to "worship" etc.
Jesus Atoned for our sins, the benefit of this Atonement is justification and this benefit is enjoyed only by those who believe in that Atonement. Atonement is the ground of Justification. The two are not co-equal. Read Peter Stuhlmacher, a German Lutheran NT scholar on this also.
The word general justification is no improvement for universal justification because the term "general" is subject to the same spin.
Occam's razor is still instructive even in theology.
LPC
Is there documentation that he has retracted his paper in unequivocal terms?
As far as I know Dr. Maier never did this. But he withdrew his paper from public discussion, and he also later moved beyond the things he said in his paper (as a result of dialogue with his faculty colleagues) when he affirmed as a part of his teaching the essential intended point of the "objective justification" formulation, on the basis of 1 Timothy 3:16. I think he remained unpersuaded that certain other passages which are often cited in support of "objective justification" do actually teach it, but he admitted that the 1 Timothy passage does teach it.
So, dogmatically, a fundamental unity was recognized, even though some "exegetical questions" remained. But "exegetical questions" as such are not divisive, as long as the essential dogmatic content of Scripture is mutually affirmed.
Lito,
UOJers seeing all have been atoned for conclude that all have been justified, they just have not believed it yet. See my drift?
You are not defining correctly what UOJ is meant to convey, so you are effectively demolishing your straw man, but you are not helping the understanding in doing so. You speak as if "believing" conveys nothing. This is a caricature of UOJ, not the true teaching of it.
There is, unfortunately, not a single, unified grouping of "UOJers." There is the caricature, and there is the true teaching. This is the very point we're trying to get across. There is a misleading understanding of UOJ which you rightly disagree with, but there is a correct understanding of UOJ which you have not yet come to terms with.
So to speak of "UOJers" and then define their belief according to your singular definition is in itself misleading.
To be sure, every individual who is justified before God is justified by faith alone. But what we're trying to get across is that the declaration of righteousness that is pronounced on the individual through faith is a declaration that is based on the vicarious righteousness of Christ, who has already secured (acquired, won) our righteous verdict by his resurrection from the dead.
I would encourage you to try to see beyond the caricature with which you are so familiar and really listen to the reasoning that is put forth over the next couple of weeks.
Pr Paul,
I would agree that nearly every single person here probably understands the proper distiction of justification as being discussed. I will also admit that in the past I would also bristle at the "charicature" of UOJ in the extreme of "forgiven without faith". My immediate reaction was just one of "how can you jump right to that conclusion that is just crazy talk..Lutherans don't believe justification in those terms to that extreme.."
However, I've changed my views on that a bit. Whereas that extreme argument may fall flat in this audience, we should pay attention as to how close to home this extreme view of UOJ is hitting home. We could point all day long at the ELCA so much it isn't even a challenge. There is new age-ism creeping into all kinds of Christian churches, emergent church, etc.
However when we see speakers such as Leonard Sweet speak in the synod or in December Kerwin Steffen will speak at the WELS national college rally, Then we can begin to worry that the extreme view of UOJ has indeed begun to spring up in our midst. All of the sudden the quest here for the ultimate clarification of justification terms becomes immediately essential before we too go the way of ELCA etc.
Tim Niedfeldt
Rev. Rydecki and others,
There is, apparently, an "intended meaning" of UOJ, apart from the meaning communicated by the very words chosen to convey it. That is the problem. I don't think that it is necessarily fair to call an interpretation of manifestly unclear words "a caricature." No one should be offended that unclear expressions will be misinterpreted. In 2005, I myself was forced defend UOJ when a rather upset Baptist Theologian challenged me, "But that's Universalism!" I came up short in my defense of UOJ, since the label "Universal Objective Justification" and the language used to define it ("every person is already Justified in Christ," etc.), actually say this very thing. I had to defend against the charge of Universalism through use of a negative confessional statement, that Universalism isn't true since we believe, teach and confess that Hell will be populated – but this didn't improve the demonstrated deficiencies of languge used to express UOJ.
The real tragedy is that unclear expressions, which can even convey double-meaning in some instances, are allowed to stand as sound theology, and are defended ad nauseum merely because, after some effort, "they can be understood correctly." This is the worst approach to theology on the planet. In the case of justification, it results in a muddy gospel ("I am saved by Jesus, just like you."), and is devastating to confessional Christianity which requires language of sharp clarity so that mutual confessors can confidently stand in agreement. The idea that we need to be consumed with understanding what a theologian intends to communicate, or with what confessional documents really mean, rather than with what the words actually say, must no longer be permitted. When laymen or others read Hoenecke, Schaller, Pieper, Walther, or others, we need to be able to rely strictly on the arrangement of the ink on the page, not divine from the white space what is actually meant. They may have had the right idea, and maybe something was lost in translation, but it seems that unless someone graduates from the right school (WLS, BTS, CTS, etc.), they cannot, on their face, be properly understood. As Tim indicates, this lack of clarity may very well be impacting us negatively. New language needs to be composed to express the doctrine of justification.
My Opinion,
Douglas Lindee
Doug,
There is, however, one key point that must be taken into consideration when we think about how properly to use the term "justification" in our teaching. And it is this: In 1 Timothy 3:16, the word "justified" is used in the "objective/general" sense, and not in the "subjective/personal" sense.
So, we cannot categorically say that the term "justifed" is properly used only when we are referring to an individual's reception, by faith, of God's pronouncement of righteousness for the sake of Christ. And this is because St. Paul himself uses the term differently in 1 Timothy 3:16, in reference to a pronouncement that was made to and about Christ in his resurrection, regarding his finished work of having carried the sins of the world to the cross.
1 Tim. 3:16 (KJV)
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
I hope that the future installments by IL on this subject will address the 1 Timothy 3:16 passage, as I cannot comprehend how the line "justified in the Spirit" translates to objective justification.
Mr. Baker,
Jesus Christ was a substitute for the entire world. When he suffered and died, he suffered and died for the entire world, not just for believers. When he rose from the dead, he was "justified in the Spirit". Thus, he was justified for the entire world, not just for believers.
Mr. Adam Peeler
Rev. Webber,
Thank you for replying to me on this. Just to "be clear," I would never question that our justification has both "objective" and "subjective" aspects. Here is what I think -- maybe you can correct me where I err.
Use of the term "justified" when applied to Christ in the reference you cite ("He was... justified in the Spirit..."), does not at all carry the same meaning as when it is applied to us sinners. When applied to us, it means the non-imputation of sins (the "remission of sins" or "declaration of forgiveness") and the imputation of Christ's righteousness ("a declaration of righteousness"). We are declared forgiven and righteous, and we need this declaration since we actually are sinful and unrighteous. However, when Christ took upon Himself the sins of the World (imputation of sin) and carried them to the cross, He called those sins His own ("became sin for us") and paid for them. He was not forgiven, but paid the penalty for those sins. Nor was he declared righteous -- He actually was righteous and showed Himself to be so. By accepting His payment for sin and returning life to the physical body of Jesus, God showed Him to be Just in His sight. Thus, Christ is "justified."
This use of "justification" does not, and cannot, apply to sinners, since we cannot pay for our own sins, nor can we attain to righteous standing in the eyes of God. It applies only to Christ, and to Christ alone. Moreover, at the cross, only one individual was materially involved -- again, that individual was Christ, and Christ alone. It is improper to state that the "whole world of sinners" was materially involved at that point, because they weren't and they couldn't be (they needed a Champion to do this work for them), or that Christ's righteous and sinless standing before God constitutes "justification" in any material sense for anyone but Himself.
However, when we are brought into Christ through the Means of Grace, when we are baptized into Christ, into His death and resurrection, when the life work of Christ is testamentally bequeathed to us in the Eucharist and we are therein physically and spiritually united with Him, when the Holy Spirit uses the message of the Gospel to produce faith in us, to quicken us, to regenerate and convert us, we are given His name and become participants with Him in His life and work. As new creatures in Christ, we appear before God with the same righteous and sinless status that Christ has. Since we actually are sinful and unrighteous, however, our standing before God, in Christ, constitutes a declared standing -- that is, by the righteous and sinless standing before God that is freely imputed to us, we are declared forgiven and we are declared righteous. Thus, we are justified by God forensically, by declaration, and will remain so until the Resurrection, as long as we remain "in Christ" through faith.
There is no material Justification for any sinner apart from faith in Christ. None. The promise that He holds before every sinner, is not that the sinner is justified, but that he is justified in Christ through faith. This is the promise God holds before us -- He offers justification through faith, which, by grace, has been accomplished in Christ. What has been accomplished in Christ? My justification? My righteousness? My sinlessness? No. His own justification, His own righteous and sinless standing before God, though having become sin for the world, though having carried the world's sin to the cross -- an accomplished standing of His own which becomes my standing through faith alone.
Pretty wacky, huh?
Douglas Lindee
Doug,
For what it's worth, the exegetical traditon of our church has seen a bit more in this passage, when read in the context of what other passages say regarding the death and resurrection of Christ, and what that all has to do with us and our salvation.
"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
Tim,
I agree with your concerns.
Pr. Paul,
Doug Lindee's comments are instructive here. I think he is on the right track. However, I disagree with him that new language is needed. The BoC and Scripture are sufficient.
I adopt the same attitude I have with Calvinism towards UOJ. When I critiqued Calvinism for its fatalism - guess what they told me? I should stop reading caricatures of Calvinism. When I critique Calvin for his double tongue attitude towards say the Sacraments, guess what Calvinists said - I have not fully understood Calvinism.
The same is what UOJers are now saying to me as you suggest.
This is not caricature, I have had discussions with UOJers in my blog and Pr. Jay crossed swords with me on this in several occassions.
Jesus certainly has won for us all the benefits of his Atonement, but you cannot say this is "general justification" as KM does. It is misleading for the word justification as used in Scripture is always connected with faith.
The proper procedure is first deal with justification as used by Scripture and limit yourself there, then make whatever deductions you wish to make consistent with that use. You cannot adopt the Scripture use in one way and then turn around and suggest another invented use in another.
With much tiredness, I will again repeat my classic example of the Atheist who is currently denies by his confession belief in God and its logical implications. This example has always been avoided by UOJers that I have encountered.
The question is this - has God ever declared that present Atheist righteous? Has he ever been declared righteous when Jesus died and raised from the dead?
Thanks for publishing my comments.
Pr. Jay,
I am glad you admit Maier never formally retracted anything because I have run accross some WAM communications that deny what you suggest. WAM is still alive he can be contacted.
Calov has other quotes that negate UOJ. So the best thing to do if you are going to argue by authority (and this is what I constantly see in UOJers, they always argue by authority - they use their sainted holy men like Walther, Pieper and who have you to make their point), is to quote the guy in proper context and reference, so it can be checked.
LPC
Lito,
I agree with everything Pastor Webber has posted regarding justification. I really think I answer you as well as I can in my latest post (Marquart, Section 2).
As for your question:
Has God ever declared that present Atheist righteous? Has he ever been declared righteous when Jesus died and raised from the dead?
I would answer that, no, that man to whom you refer has not been declared righteous by God.
But I would add that his God-appointed Representative has been declared righteous by God, and that, even if that man dies in his unbelief, Christ has truly acquired for that man an innocent verdict in God's courtroom, although that verdict is not the verdict currently on record.
But if that atheist to whom you refer ever hears the Gospel, believes and is baptized, then he will be able to claim along with every believer, "My innocent verdict was declared on Easter Sunday in Christ, for I, too, am baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, my Lord."
I think you need to stop trying to make sense of all this, as if it all fit nicely into a logical, reasonable formula. Perhaps old Calvinism dies hard?
Thank you, again, Rev. Webber, for supplying those quotes. I had thought to mention my thoughts along those lines, above, but wound up omitting them. It would be interesting to see those quotes in expanded context, to see how Gerhard and Calov develop and justify use of the terms "we" and "us" ("we are absolved" and "He absolved also us in Him"). "We" and "us" who?
In atoning for the world's sins, Jesus Christ also atoned for my sin -- there can be no disputing this. So it is proper to say that "my sins have been absolved in Christ" since it was my sin for which He earned His own absolution, although I think it is more precise to say, "Christ was absolved of the world's sin, which was imputed to Him," and to leave it at that. To use the former language is, first, to mix personal language where it does not belong. Personal language is appropriate only when the individual is materially involved. Second, use of such language is to enter into a "manner of speaking" which leads to difficulty in the next reasonable step of logic: since "my sins have been absolved," then "I have been absolved, in Christ" or more simply "I am absolved."
Am I? It depends on who "I" am, doesn't it? Do the unregenerate enjoy absolution in any material sense? No, they don't. On the other hand, for those who are "in Christ," there can be no denying that "I am absolved of my sins" since "being in Christ, I am absolved of my sins." The unregenerate have not participated in this absolution since they are not "in Christ." He and His work is not theirs. So it is not proper to say to such a person, "your sins are absolved in Christ" when they are not absolved, rather the admonishment "absolution is to be found in Christ alone."
Anyway, I don't mean to needlessly belabor this or be frustrating. Thanks for engaging me in this discussion.
Douglas Lindee
Doug,
I don't disagree with your most recent qualifications and contextualizations. This is how the distinction between law and Gospel properly governs our speaking in regard to individual cases.
I am glad you admit Maier never formally retracted anything because I have run accross some WAM communications that deny what you suggest.
Well, I didn't really "suggest" anything. I quoted Dr. Maier word-for-word, in his statement that he was withdrawing his paper from discussion, and in his presenting of his exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:16. Are you saying that you have run accross some WAM communications in which he now denies that he had withdrawn the paper from public discussion? Or are you saying that you have run accross some WAM communications in which he now denies the truthfulness of his exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:16, which settled the controversy back in the 1980s?
Calov has other quotes that negate UOJ.
Maybe the most reasonable way to look at this is to see that Calov does not "negate" the kind of "UOJ" that he himself teaches elsewhere, even though he would "negate" the kind of caricatures of "UOJ" that talk about justification "without faith" and justification "without the means of grace." I would certainly expect him to "negate" such teaching. But that is not the way I teach justification, or the way Kurt Marquart taught justification. So, Calov does not negate us. And he does not negate himself.
Pr. Paul,
Calvinism? I deny that justification is equivalent to the atonement, which Calvinism effectively affirms, how can I be a Calvinist? UOJ equates the two, so who is the real Calvinist?
Also, it is the nature of cultism to trive with absurdity and ambiguity which Christianity does neither.
The word general justification has a meaning that can spill off to universalism, the proper thing to do is to avoid it as a category or description as it puts more problems than solutions.
Jesus has acquired a lot of things for human beings, he even acquired Sanctification etc. Following KM, then, it can be said there is such a thing as General Sanctification.
You said ...
I would answer that, no, that man to whom you refer has not been declared righteous by God.
Then I have a further question for you..
In WELS This We Believe, "1. We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ."
If you agree with this, then you just contradicted yourself in your answer to my atheist question. Did you not?
If you do not agree, then you do not agree with UOJ and your desire to salvage the terminology stems from another motivation.
Further, and lastly...
If you do agree with that statement, when did this declaration of righteousnes for all sinners happen? In your view was it at Calvary? Or at the Resurrection of Jesus? There was a gap of 3 days from his death to his resurrection, when in your view did this happen?
LPC
Pr. Jay,
You said Maybe the most reasonable way to look at this is to see that Calov does not "negate" the kind of "UOJ" that he himself teaches elsewhere, even though he would "negate" the kind of caricatures of "UOJ" that talk about justification "without faith" and justification "without the means of grace.
My respectful reply...this is petitio principii
Are theologians allowed to be fallacious?
LPC
All,
A few thoughts in no particular order:
Pr Paul and Lito both replied to my post above. Neither of you, however, addressed my simplest of grammatical observations -- the subject of the participle is "all." If it is unscriptural to speak of a general justification (Lito), or if general justification is not in view in Rom. 3:24 (Rydecki), then how can Paul say that the "all who have sinned" be the subject of the participle dikaioumenoi?
Don't both of you, then, have to explain how "all" actually means, "not all, only some" when it comes time to decide who the subject of the participle is?
Thanks,
Dennis
Dennis,
I do intend to address the exegesis of that and other passages further, but let me quote what I commented to Pr. Sullivan a few weeks ago on those verses:
It's not quite as simple as saying πάντες = all people, always, period. The context will reveal who the "all" are.
In v.22, Paul has just described what this "righteousness" is that has been revealed, and how it comes: a "righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to πάντας those who believe." Faith is already identified as key to this justification that comes from God.
In v.23, the πάντες clearly refers to "all" those whom Paul has already proved to be under sin, i.e., "the whole world" (c.f. v.19), both Jews and Gentiles. No question there.
But in v.24, the verb is a present tense, δικαιούμενοι, "being justified." One would think that if these "all" have already been justified, Paul would have used a perfect tense here. The present seems to indicate the status change that takes place as people are brought to faith in Jesus through the gospel.
In Luther's Commentary on Romans, he adds a gloss here: "all, as many as are justified" (quotquot justificantur in Latin). As many as are justified are justified, not by works, but freely by his grace...through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus...through faith in his blood.
Paul wraps up the whole thought of the paragraph in v.26, δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ, "justifying the one who is of the faith in Jesus."
Pr Paul,
I've sent you email re: the Greek grammar here, rather than clutter the comments with a technical discussion. For now, here, I'll simply say that yes, Paul certainly does speak of justification "by faith" in the following verses. However, this does not mean the word "all" changes meaning in the middle of the sentence we're looking at. The one word "all" cannot refer to two different groups of people in the same sentence without so much as a syllable from the author that says so!
Thanks,
Dennis
Dennis,
Romans 3 should be read in the context of justification as the controlling idea, for the context bears this out. "All have fallen short by the glory of God", and I think you are suggesting here that the "ALL" here refers to everyone without qualification, and this ALL got justified by implication as found in v.24.
But look at v.22, because the word "ALL" is introduced there the first time. Note here that this "ALL" has been qualified. Hence the "ALL" in v.24 is the same.
Even if you look at it from a sensible reading, it stands to reason that the one justified was a sinner, correct? To put it another way, is there anyone in this world, either now or in the past or ever will be in the future, who got justified and yet was not a sinner? None, all who ever got justified was a former sinner and unbeliever. Thus I counter that there was no change of meaning, it was the meaning set forth in the first place.
I have something to comment on what Pr. Paul said about my atheist and on his comment on Baptism but I will wait if he has any replies.
In short, I disagree with Pr. Paul in retaining the terminology on general vs personal justification. He must be seeing some exegetical reason for retaining that term.
Pr. Paul,
I am curious as to how you might answer my questions in my last published comments. I know you might be busy but I will wait.
There must be some exegetical grounds why you want to hang on to the general and personal justification terminology. If you have time to endulge, might you be able to give me which passage from Scripture that you have which necessitates the retention of the terminology? May I have the passage so I can examine it when you answer my query ( in the past comment)?
Thanks,
LPC
Lito,
"1. We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ."
If you agree with this, then you just contradicted yourself in your answer to my atheist question. Did you not?
If you do not agree, then you do not agree with UOJ and your desire to salvage the terminology stems from another motivation.
Nothing like setting up a false dichotomy, eh Lito? Either you contradict yourself, or you contradict yourself. Nice.
Let me give you a tertium. I don't think the statement is worded correctly. One little change would make it better, in my opinion. If it said, "all have been declared righteous in Christ," it would make more sense to me. "For the sake of" gives the proper basis for justification, but fails to point directly to Christ as the Representative and Mediator of justification.
However, there you go again insisting that only your definition of UOJ is valid, while the definition that Pr. Webber and I have given is invalid. Let me continue to insist that UOJ is a doctrine that has been taught differently in Calvinism than in Lutheranism, and again differently within Lutheranism.
From your more recent comment,
There must be some exegetical grounds why you want to hang on to the general and personal justification terminology. If you have time to endulge, might you be able to give me which passage from Scripture that you have which necessitates the retention of the terminology? May I have the passage so I can examine it when you answer my query ( in the past comment)?
Lito, it's like you haven't read either of my posts. Please go back and read my conclusions on the terminology and you will see that nowhere do I suggest the necessity of retaining the terminology. Quite the contrary.
What I suggest is retaining the concept that everything that can be said of Christ the Mediator exists objectively for Mankind - not apart from Christ, but in Christ. He died for sin = Man died for sin. He was righteous = Man is righteous. He was justified = Man is justified. But all of this is only in Christ, who is God's gift to Man to be apprehended by faith. To the one who believes, everything that can be said of the Son of Man can be said of me as I am in Him (hence my statement earlier about baptism and Easter).
Rev. Rydecki,
Thanks for reiterating that there is no exegetical requirement to keep the terminology of two categories of justification. To me, extending Christ's acquittal to the world has always seemed to be a logical step, not an exegetical requirement. For the world? Sure – that is an exegetical requirement. To the world proper? No. The problem with maintaining two categories of justification is that theologians are left bickering over which one is the real justification, which one is more efficacious. I stumbled upon this whole controversy back in 2005, as I mentioned above. The Baptist professor who challenged me on Universalism was initially responding to my defense against Limited Atonement, as I was quoting Schaller, verbatim, on the subject. That professor knew what he was talking about, because the next topic he led the class into was intuitu fidei and the controversies associated with it. What our theologians did in response to that extended controversy was create two classifications or categories of justification and land on "general" justification as the "real justification." You've, know doubt, read the following quotes, but here is how Hoenecke and Schaller discuss the subject:
- Adolf >Hoenecke (WELS Theologian): Justification is an action of God that occurs in time and especially to each individual sinner [i.e., "subjective justification"]. But there is also an objective justification, which happened to all people in time, specifically in Christ's suffering and resurrection. There can be no mistake. Hoenecke speaks here of two justifications. That is what his words say. He even goes on in following paragraphs to distinguish "objective justification" from the "other justification:" (quoting Burk) The relationship of objective justification to the other so-called justification can be expressed in this way, that in the latter the appropriation of the former occurs. This is similar to the distinction that Baier, and others of his generation, make (which Hoenecke decries in previous paragraphs), requiring that the (objective) imputation of Christ's righteousness was the basis for the (subjective) non-imputation (or forgiveness) of sins. They are not separate, Hoenecke rightly insists, indeed they cannot be separate, but occur simultaneously through faith. In following paragraphs, however, he demonstrates that the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" justifications is maintained in the face of the errors of Schleirmacher, who denied subjective justification entirely: According to Schliermacher, there is only one, universal, eternal decree of justification... the decree of redemption already means that human beings are agreeable to God in his Son; an individual act of justification in time is not first needed in each individual person. It is only necessary that each individual person become aware that in God's decree of redemption in Christ he is already justified and made agreeable to God. By the same token, Hoenecke later writes: As God offers justification through Word and sacraments... so we receive justification through faith. (Hoenecke, A. (2003). Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics, Vol 3 (J. Langebartels, Trans). Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. (Original German work published 1909). pp. 330-339, 361.)
Clearly, the conflict created by two categories of justification is present in Hoenecke. So what is this "other so-called justification," which appropriates the true justification of man? And what is this "faith" that receives it? Here is where two justifications runs into the problem it was trying to avoid in the inuitu fidei dispute of the late 19th Century, which eviscerated American Lutheranism.
Continued in next post...
Continued from previous post...
For the justification which is complete in Christ -- i.e., the "real justification" -- to have any material benefit for any individual, additional criteria must be satisfied. At that point, all eyes return to man, rather than Christ, which is what the Synodical Conference was trying to avoid. In point of fact, for the individual to materially realize any justification at all, he must have "the feeling that 'the real justification' is true." Schaller explains, in detail:
- John Schaller (WELS Theologian): In section two of the first part of his work, Biblical Christology, entitled Salvation is by God Alone Schaller writes, Thus salvation is by God alone, both in its objective and subjective aspects. Distinguishing between "salvation" (as the objective aspect of salvation) and "the way of salvation" (as the subjective aspect of salvation), Schaller continues, It is proper to distinguish between 'salvation' and the 'way of salvation'. The salvation of God is a fact whether men know and believe it or not; indeed... man cannot know it except by the revelation of God. Therefore God has determined the way, or mode, in which this salvation may become the subjective possession of men: the preaching of salvation, through which the acceptance of faith is produced. In section four, entitled The Council of Universal Salvation, Schaller makes plain that through the efficacy of [the means of grace] men are to be converted unto faith in Christ and thus become participants in his salvation to the glory of God. Schaller, in his Christology does not make much use of the term justification, but often refers to it indirectly through use of the term salvation. Despite the above references, which clearly correspond to the notions of "objective" and "subjective" justifications detailed by Hoenecke, Schaller is generally very careful to avoid any sense that there is salvation apart from faith, and that Christ's completed work constitutes anything but an offer of salvation to be had in Him, through faith. Nevertheless, in later sections (part two, section 35) he makes the distinction between these justifications in a way that exalts the one and minimizes "the other": Since he, in his life, sufferings, and death, took the place of each individual human being, his resurrection, which was his own justification, was at the same time the justification of every human being, since for them he died. [Note: This extension of justification to the world is a logical step, I am aware of no exegetical requirement for it.] Sinners are not justified now if they believe, but if they have true faith they believe that they have been justified in Christ (objective justification)... Hence unbelief is the one condemning sin, because it defies and rejects this truth; hence, also we are saved by way of faith, because through faith alone can we appropriate salvation as the fact which it is. But what is faith with respect to our justification? Schaller explains in the following paragraph: Because of this Gospel truth, it is possible for sinners to have the firm assurance of faith that all sins are truly forgiven in Christ. It is the normal condition of the believer, intended by God, that he feels certain of his salvation... This state of mind is called subjective justification. This term must not be used as implying that God does not justify until the sinner believes. It is properly used, however, to express the thought that by faith the sinner becomes personally (subjectively) assured of his justification. This state of mind is often termed the first step of Christian liberty, the conscious freedom from all guilt and condemnation.
Continued in next post...
Continued from previous post...
In the appendix of Schaller's work, entitled The Nature, Origin, and Effects of Saving Faith Schaller refers to a (forthcoming) chapter of his dogmatics on justification. Had he lived, it would have been most interesting to read his elucidations: By this act of apprehending, taking, grasping of Christ, [referring to faith] the sinner immediately comes into actual possession of all the benefits achieved by Jesus Christ... Faith puts the believer in possession of the righteousness of God; of life; of justification and the peace of God; in short, of all that the Gospel promises offer. This is true because possession in this case depends, not so much upon the act of taking, but rather upon the act of the Giver. God bestows his gifts upon the sinner, and only so, as freely bestowed, the sinner can appropriate them by faith. Because God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the sinner, this righteousness becomes the conscious possession of the sinner by faith. [All of this, apparently, through a mere state of mind.] A detailed consideration of this aspect of the matter, however, may conveniently be deferred to the chapter on justification. (Schaller, J. (1981). Biblical Christology: A Study in Lutheran Dogmatics. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. (Original work published 1919). pp. 25-26, 28, 181-182, 264).
So, while there is much truth to be had in these theologians regarding justification, there are definitely statements that are hard to swallow. As you say, the correct concepts seem to be present if one takes in the whole of their works, but expressions regarding two classification of justification are most unsatisfactory. As always, the reader needs to keep his brain engaged, appreciate the good and reject the bad. Unless it is an exegetical requirement, maintaining two categories of justification, regardless of how much we we wink and nod at "the other so-called justification," will always lead to the questions "Which one is more important?", "Which one is more efficacious?", etc. Historically, the answer has been "objective" or "general" justification. That answer has led to a current emphasis on "objective" or "general" justification which eclipses "the other so-called justification," and, echoing the concerns of Tim above (as well as that Baptist Theologian who called me to the carpet several years ago), has us using words and adopting thought patterns that are leading us straight into the errors of Schliermacher.
My Thoughts,
Douglas Lindee
Doug,
We can and do speak of sanctification in a wider and a narrower sense. The wider sense includes the Spirit's work of converting me to faith, forgiving my sins, and giving me the desire and power to do good works. The narrower sense speaks specifically about the good works.
We do not, however, speak of "two sanctifications." We speak of "sanctification," but speak of it in two different ways in different contexts. Scripture does this, by the way; it's not just a way for theologians to confuse the issue.
Also with repentance -- in a narrow sense, to speak specifically of sorrow over sin, and in a wider sense, including both the sorrow and also faith in God's forgiveness of our sins. But we don't talk about "two repentances." Again, the different uses are to be found in Scripture.
It's much the same with justification. Objective and subjective justification *are the same justification.* Subjective justification is a wider way of talking, because it includes the faith by which we receive or lay hold of God's not guilty verdict. Objective justification speaks more narrowly, speaking of the not guilty verdict in and of itself. One says that I believe, the other specifically says what I believe IN. But in both cases, we're simply talking about justification.
Dennis
Dennis,
Thanks for the info on the wider and narrower senses of sanctification and repentance. I am aware of them, and their usages – Professor Lyle Lange's commentary on this subject was most helpful in this regard!
However, Scripture does not consistently speak of Justification in multiple senses. Theologians do, and they do so in the same way that they divide Scripture into "fundamental" and "non-fundamental" doctrines – when Scripture doesn't do this either. That is what makes these distinctions entirely synthetic, and not exegetically necessary.
Despite the words of Hoenecke, Schaller and others, I understand perfectly well from Scripture that there is only one Justification, but this is not what the words of these men say, as described above and as written elsewhere. Further, there is no attempt in the entirety of these works – none – to explicitly show that by using these synthetic distinctions, they are merely describing two sides of one Justification. The reader has to filter their words and divine their intent to arrive at this conclusion, because their words, on their face, say no such thing. In contrast, Professor Lange, in his commentary on Sanctification, was very careful to explicitly define the distinctions he was using, and how those distinctions clearly descended from usages in Scripture.
But understand how these synthetic distinctions have created, or threaten to create, an anthropocentric Gospel. One of the most egregious abuses of the Gospel is to make man a part of the work that saves him. This is synergism, and semi-pelagianism. In an effort to avoid the charge of synergism (the charge that man’s faith constitutes a work by which he merits justification), the distinctions of OJ/SJ were explicitly created in order to emphasize Christ’s objective work and eliminate any hint that man’s work is involved in his own justification. Christ blood and righteousness is all-sufficient, faith is created in man by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace and passively receives the gifts offered to man in the Gospel of Christ. Fine. But what have the gifts become?
By needlessly extending Christ’s acquittal/absolution/justification to the whole world, the gift is no longer “Christ’s righteousness,” but “my righteousness,” “my sinlessness,” “my justification.” Christ possesses what is already mine, and offers it to me in the Gospel. Stated another way, Christ withholds what is rightfully mine until the criterion of faith is satisfied. And so man has found his way into the Gospel, not as one performing the work, but by making himself part of the gift. This is anthropocentrism in the extreme.
This is, of course, ridiculous. It is not what the Scriptures teach, but is the consequence of words describing “Objective Justification” as “forgiveness and/or righteousness that is already ours in Christ,” “I have already been justified, and receive the benefit through faith,” or “I am saved by Jesus Christ, just like you.” As I stated above, the truth of these statements is not universal, they depend on who “I” am. – Am “I” or “you” or “us” among the regenerate, or not?
The fact is, what Christ possesses is entirely His own. What He freely offers in the Gospel is entirely His own. I appropriate this gift, and it becomes mine, through faith, and through faith alone. It is not mine prior to this, but is Christ’s alone.
Douglas Lindee
Hello Doug,
The distinction is "exegetically necessary," to use your words, if both a general sense and a personal/appropriated sense, AKA a narrower and wider sense, are in the Scriptures.
In Romans 3:24, the subject of the particple "being justified" is the "all" who sinned in verse 23. Both verbals share the same subject, and clearly the subject includes some people who may or do not have faith.
In Romans 4:25, "our sins" means, in its context, "mankind's sins." So, also, "our justification."
Romans 5:18 says, in just so many words, that Jesus' act of righteousness resulted in "justification of life upon all people" (my wooden literal translation).
I can certainly appreciate people's desire and need to restudy justification. I can certainly appreciate that some language about it may have been immoderate. But let no one be quick, as far too many have been in various corners of the internet, to set up a caricature and straw man of "UOJ" and then knock him down. The simple, grammatical fact is that the Scriptures do speak of justification in a general, universal manner, as well as in a wider, personal manner.
Dennis
By needlessly extending Christ's acquittal/absolution/justification to the whole world, the gift is no longer "Christ's righteousness," but "my righteousness," "my sinlessness," "my justification." Christ possesses what is already mine, and offers it to me in the Gospel.
I am not comfortable with the thought that "extending Christ's acquittal/absolution/justification to the whole world" is a "needless" thing. There is a very, very tight connection between the justification of Christ in his resurrection, and Christ's having carried the sins of the whole world to the cross, where he atoned for the sins of the whole world.
But I would agree that a better way to talk about the verdict of righteousness that Christ obtained for the whole world in his resurrection, would be to say that this is humanity's righteousness, and not my righteousness. When we are talking about the "objective" side of justification, that is not really the time to individualize our justification talk. "General" justification should properly be spoken of in, well, general terms.
Hi again Dennis,
I know those are the three big passages that are often cited, but honestly, none of them forces us to view justification apart from faith.
As I replied to you via e-mail with my somewhat ridiculous illustration of Romans 3:23-24 (slightly modified from what I sent you), "All my brothers foolishly went out in the pouring rain and are not welcome back in the house, being welcomed back into the house again through my mother's generosity in going out into the rain herself so that she may wrap a towel around them and dry them off." It's just that some of my brothers don't want anything to do with her and her towel, and so they are not welcomed back into the house.
I realize the analogy is silly and imperfect, but it captures, I think, the sense in which "all" have sinned, and the way in which "all" are justified - on the basis of Christ's redemption, through faith in Christ, though "all" are not finally justified. It obviously deserves a better exegesis than that.
Romans 4:25 is treated by Chemnitz in the Examination (even in the section I quoted in the second post) and he does not quote it as treating a justification of all people apart from faith. He treats it as the Father's acceptance of Jesus's work as our Substitute which extends to those who believe, so in that sense, I guess I could see it as being a vicarious justification (almost a better word, in my opinion, than "general").
And as for Romans 5:18, Luther follows Augustine in saying that this "justification of life" does not come upon all men, but that all men upon whom this justification comes receive it from Christ, the second Adam. To quote Augustine on this section, "No one is born except from Adam. No one is reborn except from Christ." All who are linked to Adam (by spiritual generation) die. All who are linked to Christ (by spiritual regeneration) receive the gift of life. That spiritual regeneration is by faith, and does not happen to all men.
I'm not trying to base our theology on what Luther or any other exegete has said over the years. We need to do our own, of course. My point for the moment is simply that other Lutheran theologians have done exegesis on those passages, and have not treated justification apart from faith.
Oops. Sorry. That bit from Augustine should have been...all who are linked to Adam (by carnal generation) die. All who are linked to Christ (by spiritual regeneration) receive the gift of life.
This from the section entitled, "Sin is from Natural Descent, as Righteousness is from Regeneration." (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V, p.22)
I can’t help thinking that much of this debate has to do with the lack of a proper assessment of unbelief. Unbelief is an ACTIVE sin, not a PASSIVE sin. Unbelief is the ACT of throwing away Christ’s already paid fine and saying NO! I will not accept your payment! I’m good enough on my own! I want to justify myself by my OWN works! How dare you pay for my sins! I refuse to even acknowledge them as sins! Take your justification and shove it!
Unbelief is just such spitting in the face of Christ. ALL mankind has the free will to reject God, refuse to believe, and spit in the face of Christ. Not only so, but all mankind by nature has the DESIRE AND WILL to reject Christ, refuse to believe, and spit in Christ’s face.
Christ’s full payment for the sins of the world, and the damnation of the majority of the world are both perfectly understandable and Scriptural, if we don’t discount the vile and powerful bound will of man. That’s what Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” is all about.
There is NOT ONE “unbeliever” who is not notoriously guilty for the active sin of—at the very least—laziness! We’re all going to die, and soon! What could possibly inspire anyone to refuse to look intently 24 hrs. a day into how to be ready to die!? Lazy, self-centered, pharisaical arrogance and stu[idity alone! ACTIVE stupidity! The sin against the Holy Spirit!
If we think of unbelief as this vile, offensive, anti-God sin that it is, we have a much easier time understanding that Christ died for the sins of the world, but most are going to hell. It’s NOT Christ’s fault, or due to a partial atonement or justification. It’s due to man’s ACTIVE sin of laziness/stupidity/unbelief/rejection.
Pr. Paul,
Nothing like setting up a false dichotomy, eh Lito? Either you contradict yourself, or you contradict yourself. Nice.
This is not anyway attributed to any genius in me, it is the result of contradicting Scripture. This is also the fate that befalls atheists, if you observe. You wind up being absurd and self contradictory.
I do not believe Christianity allows for absurdity. It has reasoning higher than our own but Christianity does not allow for down right contradiction.
When you chide me of trying to fit things into a logical formula, I was not. I was trying to fit it to Scripture.
Sure you correct me indeed about the use of the terms, but that is not really the bottom line, because though you may shy away from the use of 'general', 'objective' etc, you still believe in the things taught in it, you just do not want to label it as such.
And... this is the one I am calling you on, what exegetical grounds to you have for retaining the idea of 'general justification' etc though you do not wish to call it as such?
LPC
Doug,
You said...
has us using words and adopting thought patterns that are leading us straight into the errors of Schliermacher
I commend you for saying this... this is exactly where UOJ thinking leads.
I appreciate Rev. Rydecki retreating out of the UOJ terminology, the problem is that the thought pattern is still there and would not let go, so the Schleirmacher threat is still effective.
LPC
Pr. Buelow,
Good point. Thanks for the perspective.
Lito,
Exegetically, I'm referring to the Scriptural teaching that Christ's justification stands for all men, because he was the substitute for all men. God's acceptance of his atoning work was the acceptance of the atoning work done for Mankind. This is based on every passage that portrays Christ as the atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:2, John 1:29, Rom. 4:25, 1 Tim. 3:16, etc.).
This is also why I think we should say that the Atonement alone is not quite sufficient for describing the object of our faith. Normally, when we speak of the Atonement, we don't include the Father's resurrection verdict showing his acceptance of the atoning work of Christ on our behalf, which is why Chemnitz links the satisfaction made by Christ for us, the righteousness of Christ for us and the Father's verdict of approval of Christ for us.
To me, all of that combined constitutes the object of faith. Add the concept of Christ's justification to the concept of the atonement, and you have what I consider to be the concept behind the right teaching of "objective justification," though, as I said, I'm fine with moving away from that terminology.
Pr. Paul,
This is also why I think we should say that the Atonement alone is not quite sufficient for describing the object of our faith.
This is where we split the road. I disagree with you here. I disagree because this necessitates a different understanding of what the Law condemns us of. Also I disagree with you on exegetical grounds as found in Romans 3:25-26. In the whole paragraphs of Roman 3:21-26, links Atonement, Faith and Justification. There the object of faith is the Atonement but what the verse says is that when that object of faith is the right object, the result is Justification of the believer. The KJV shows this forth plainly in Romans 3:25, faith in his blood, atonement.
Indeed you and Pr. Jay are in the same boat because your object of faith has an extra item and negates Romans 3:25. In this position of yours, faith in Justification is to you, Justification!
Rather what Luther always contended, is against this in his Galatians Sermon, rather Luther says - Faith IS Justification, it is Justification because the object of faith is THE Righteous One who gave his life as Atonement. Through faith HIS blood, i.e., the righteousness of the one who was making Atonement, the believer gets imputed to him, this Righteousness of Christ, it IS Christ's Righteousness that gets credited to the believer.
Hence now and I close... the position you and Pr. Jay have is indeed Waltherian - all have already been absolved in Christ, what is left is for the sinner is to access this verdict which already happened in the past and access this indeed by faith.
I appreciate your struggling with this but what is happening to you (if I may respectfully say) is the same thing that is happening with Calvinist Federal Visionists. The Federal Visionaries wants to go Lutheran on the Sacraments! They come very very close to the finish line where the Lutherans are standing, but the fumble? Why? because their ankles are chained to the starting post. For your case - it would be the Waltherian post... to quote Walther but not to endorse him when he says....
"For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is--faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him."
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 J-5 p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.
Thanks for publishing my posts, I appreciate your doing that.
LPC
Lito,
I think you make sense. One thing I would like you to help me further understand is your statement: "I disagree because this necessitates a different understanding of what the Law condemns us of."
Everyone,
I think Lito is right. Faith in his atonement for our sins is what the Scriptures convey (Romans 3:25 from the KJV clearly shows that and is easier to understand than the ESV). This does not take away the fact that Jesus was "raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25, ESV) or negate John's statement, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29, ESV). Justification is not part of the object of our faith--the object of our faith is Jesus' blood. In Jesus' blood he takes away the sin of the world. We are justified solely by faith, for we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Faith in what? In His atoning work. To add justification is to go beyond what is clearly stated in Scripture.
Another thought is this: faith in the atonement of Jesus is the most comforting of all. It points us to Jesus and away from us. The atonement of our sins was made for us, the satisfaction made by Jesus was made for us, Jesus' life, death, resurrection were all for us. God's redemptive work in Jesus for us is an objective fact (even promise?). God indeed assures us that this was for all: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." --1 John 2:2 [ESV]. This is what God gives us faith in. Faith in His saving and redemptive work, NOT in our ability to produce enough faith. For we are justified by faith. By grace alone God gave me faith in His blood. Resultingly, that is how God justified me, by grace through faith. For God is, "the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" --Romans 3:26 [KJV].
Once Luther was concerned about his election. He was directed to the wounds of Christ (ultimately, Christ's atoning work) for his assurance of salvation.
In Him,
Levi Powers
Levi,
There's no reason for you to exclude Christ's resurrection from the object of our faith. You didn't really mean to do that, did you?
Christ's resurrection is just as much the object of our faith as his death. Luther was directed not only to the wounds of Christ, but also to his resurrection for comfort and assurance.
Why would you isolate out Christ's resurrection, as if his justification as our Substitute had nothing to do with our justification? There's simply no reason to do this. Our faith is not in a dead Savior, but in a Savior who both died and was raised. Again, this was Chemnitz's point in the Examination quoted in the more recent post.
Pastor Rydecki,
I did not mean to exclude Christ's resurrection. Thank you for noticing that for me.
Levi Powers
If Christ had not been raised, there would BE no justification. Paul clearly states this in the context of Romans 4:23-5:2.
So to say that the Resurrection has no place in justifying faith is, in my opinion, clearly unscriptural.
Nonetheless, in the context of this passage at least, Paul appears to be applying justification only for those to whom righteousness is credited, i.e. believers.
Levi,
I follow always this rule, to understand the Gospel, I ask what does the Law demand? The Law does not only say - you are not righteous, no it says also that since we are guilty we are under God's wrath. The Law does not only accuse us that we are sinners, no, the Law demands payment, it says you have sinned and by that you are to suffer for all eternity the wrath of God in hell.
That punishment due to be delivered to me, Jesus took on my behalf. He took God's wrath for me, i.e. hell.
Why do people go to hell? It is because they never been declared righteous by God ever, not 2000 have years ago at Calvary, neither in their space time continuum (to quote Dr. Emett Brown of Back to the Future fame). Never at anytime, that is why they are there.
This is my observation, and Pr Paul can have the last say on this, UOJ preachers preach to people that God has no more wrath for everyone without qualification. But No, he has wrath, that is why the means of grace is there so He, God, might bring people to Christ so that the sinner no longer deserves hell. The means of grace puts us into Christ, the Covering, (the Hebrew word for Atonement).
We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ.
There is no such thing as the world being declared forgiven while at the very moment, they ARE NOT in Christ as the LC-MS 1932 Brief Statement #17 says....Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25;
Nor is there such a thing as in the WELS Statement IV. 1: We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ.
In the above it it inserted the word "believing" as in "all believing sinners" it would have been correct.
In saying this, I very much at least marvel and respect the WELS for being bold in their circle to in general discuss this. I cannot say the same for LC-MS. Currently in blogdom, I have never seen this issue even remotely discussed. Shame on them(sorry to say).
Just my humble opinion.
LPC
Pastor Rydecki, please defend from Scripture that we are to have faith in our Justification.
secondly, could you tell (from Scripture) when this supposed universal Justification happened? I think if you claiming that justification is a part of the object of faith you should be able to say if it happened at "It is finished" or at the resurrection.
thirdly, though you may shy away from the terms, could you Confirm or Deny the Walther quote from Lito's post above? Also, would you confirm or deny the truth of Sig Becker's words when he wrote:
"For if the sins of all men have
been forgiven in the heart of God, then men are forgiven by God whether they believe it or not."
Also, would you Confirm or deny the truth of the first point in This We Believe, IV Justification:
"1. We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ"
I think it would helpful to the general discussion to know if the proponents of UOJ (on this website) believe what the quotes above say. The language of the quotes is quite plain. Your confirmation or denial of those statements can be plain as well. (With all due respect, I'm just looking for a simple answer.) Do you think those are true?
Thank you
Tom Wyeth
LPC,
This is my observation, and Pr Paul can have the last say on this, UOJ preachers preach to people that God has no more wrath for everyone without qualification.
Those who do not teach UOJ correctly probably preach that way.
But for the umpteenth time, that is not the correct preaching of UOJ. It's not what I teach. It's not what Pastor Webber has been saying.
The distinction between Law and Gospel is vital here, and Marquart will address that, too. Apart from Christ, God has only wrath for everyone. In Christ, God has no wrath for anyone. He has provided the Substitute and He wishes for all to be brought into Christ, and so He extends the Gospel (through his ambassadors), and the Spirit works faith, where and when he wills. Those who believe are justified, that is, they share in all the benefits of Christ and are judged by God according to Christ's merits. Those who do not believe are condemned, that is, they will answer for their own sins in God's courtroom.
Tom,
Pastor Rydecki, please defend from Scripture that we are to have faith in our Justification.
I can't defend your wording from Scripture. Did you read my latest post? I think I spell out pretty clearly there the object of our faith, that is, what we are to believe and the basis for it. We ought to focus on Christ, our Representative. Forgiveness acquired by him, forgiveness distributed in the Means of Grace. Justification acquired by him *for* mankind, justification applied to individual men through faith in the Means of Grace.
secondly, could you tell (from Scripture) when this supposed universal Justification happened? I think if you claiming that justification is a part of the object of faith you should be able to say if it happened at "It is finished" or at the resurrection
"Univeral justification," properly taught simply means that all mankind has a divinely appointed Alternate to stand before God's judgment seat. This Alternate has acquired for mankind a righteous status before God, but only those who claim Him as their Alternate are judged by that status. He is a valid Alternate for all mankind, but not the claimed (that is, believed in) Alternate for all mankind.
We don't need a point in time. We need a complete Substitute whose work can transcend time and space and be applied to sinners in every age, in every place. Christ wasn't a perfect (as in complete) Substitute until "It is finished." That's true, as a point in time. The Father didn't offer him to Mankind as a perfect Substitute until his resurrection. That's also true, as a point in time. Of course, as he comes to us in the Means of Grace, those points in time don't matter. What matters is that the basis for our faith is complete, and Christ's life, death and resurrection form the basis for God's promise that whoever believes in him takes part in Man as Righteous before God. Thus God could hold out the righteousness of this Man to Abraham 2000 years before Christ, and God can hold it out to us 2000 years after.
I'll try to respond to your other questions later, but see my response to Lito before on the TWB quote.
Tom,
Your demanding of "yes or no" answers is kind of like the lawyer who demands a yes or no answer to the question, "Do you still beat your wife?" Sorry, I'm not going to play along. But I'll answer as best as I can.
thirdly, though you may shy away from the terms, could you Confirm or Deny the Walther quote from Lito's post above?
To the best of my knowledge, I can confirm that Walther said that (or something like it in German, although I've never seen how close the English translation is to the German).
Walther was a great preacher and teacher in the church, and I don't pretend to equal his abilities. But I think that particular statement confuses objective and subjective justification (to use the terms). To say that God has already forgiven you your sins is by definition "personal justification," and that's not what happened 1800 years ago. Although I might add, as I commented earlier, that for the one who believes in Christ, it wouldn't be wrong to say that God's absolution of Christ is also my absolution. That's not how the Apostle Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, however. He didn't tell the people in Jerusalem, "Your sins were forgiven you 50 days ago today." He set forth the work of Christ - his death and resurrection - and said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the forgiveness of sins." I think that's a much better way to talk.
I don't find that quote from Becker helpful at all. I think it confuses what Luther so clearly taught about "forgiveness acquired, forgiveness distributed." Does God have a favorable view of all men in Christ? Yes. That's the truth of the gospel. Does God have a favorable view of any man apart from Christ? No. That's the truth of the law.
Finally, I think that the TWB statement lacks some qualification. "In Christ" would be better than "for the sake of Christ." Better still would be to stop saying, "all men have been declared righteous" and simply say, "God holds out righteousness to the world in Christ." Or "God is favorable to all men in Christ." Or "A righteous verdict has been declared by God for all men in Christ." And then get right to the last element of justification - faith in Christ, which the second article of TWB does.
Rev. Webber,
Thanks again for pointing out where I need to clarify or expand what I am referring to. I have no disagreement with you when you say, There is a very, very tight connection between the justification of Christ in his resurrection, and Christ's having carried the sins of the whole world to the cross, where he atoned for the sins of the whole world. I think the question boils down to what it really means that the world's sin was imputed to Christ. So, as before, I will express my thinking on the matter, and you can correct me where I may err.
We speak of "imputation" from two different perspectives. When I say from the perspective of my status as sinner that "through faith, Christ's righteousness is imputed to me," I am speaking of this righteousness as an "alien righteousness." It is not mine by nature, since my "natural man" is entirely unrighteous. However, when I say from the perspective of my status as saint -- which is the status I have, and will have, when I face the Righteous Judge -- that "I am righteous," I don't say, "This righteousness is really someone else's." On the contrary, through faith, my "new man" has appropriated this righteousness and has been made my own. It is mine. When I stand before the Righteous Judge I will confidently say "I am righteous," and I can have confidence in that now becuase, through faith, Christ's righteousness has been given to me, it is now mine, and by His resurrection His righteousness was shown to be sufficient.
Likewise, when we speak of the world's sin having been imputed to Christ, we speak of it in two different ways. When we say that on the cross "He bore the sins of the whole world," we recognize that in His nature Christ was perfect and sinless, and that the sins He carried to the cross were not sins He personally committed. They were "alien" to Him. Yet, given that no man can atone for the sins of another, we recognize that in becoming sin for us, He necessarily called the sin He carried to the cross His own. He called them His own in the same sense we call His righteousness our own. Though every sin I and everyone else has committed was included in the heap of sins He paid for, from a legal perspective, in taking responsibility for that sin, the sin He atoned for was His own. It was His own by imputation. He was absolved of this sin, acquitted and justified by virtue of His perfect holiness and righteousness, and as a consequence, the wages of sin that He received (death and separation from God) were revoked, meaning that His life was returned to Him. Thus the Resurrection.
Continued in next post...
Continued from previous post...
The fact of the Resurrection is the basis of our faith. It gives us confidence that He was and is perfectly holy and righteous, and that the payment He rendered for the sin He carried was sufficient before God. When, through the Word, I am by the Holy Spirit's working given faith, quickened, regenerated and converted, when, through Baptism, I am joined with Christ in His life, death, and resurrection, and when, in the Supper, I am physically and spiritually united with Him, I am brought "into Christ" and made a participant with Him in His perfect life, sacrifice and absolution. The absolution He received applies to me since within the mountain of sin He carried to the cross, and atoned for, was included all of the sins I have and will ever commit.
Here is why I use the word "needless," "unnecessary," or even "improper," etc., and may well be treading on thin ice. You be the judge. While it true that Christ atoned for the sins of the world, juridically speaking, it is more accurate to say "He atoned for the sins He carried with Him to the cross," sins which were His by imputation. If I may use this illustration, the "paper" Christ was issued at His absolution and consequent Resurrection didn't read "absolved of someone else's sin," it read "absolved of the sin He bore on the cross" -- again, sin which He called His own, and was made His own by imputation. The only individual involved was Christ. The only one absolved was Christ. He could only be absolved of sin He called His own. Hence, the only one justified was Christ. It is entirely improper to take the very true statement, "He atoned for the sins of the whole world," which is true itself by extension from the juridical fact that He atoned for the sin He called His own, and extend that even further to declare that "the whole world is justified," particularly given that apart from faith neither the world nor any single individual is justified in any material sense. Apart from faith, sinners are still in their sins and under God's wrath. It is only proper to say that, because all the sins of the world were included in the sins He atoned for, the justification of Christ is offered to the world, and is received by individuals only through faith.
I suppose now I'm in real trouble. Again, I'd appreciate your feedback.
Douglas Lindee
Pr. Rydecki,
If you could show me how my questions are equivocation I'll adapt my methods. They only appear to be equivocation to you because your MO is to not be nailed down. You are the one playing games. You don't find the quote from Becker helpful? what does that even mean? That Becker statement is either correct or it is incorrect. Same with the Walther quote. Same with the passage from TWB.
I understand your hesitancy though. The WELS won't let you criticize anything sanctioned by the Synod. It isn't that you are incapable of discernment, it's just that if you used the words "the WELS teaching in this regard is wrong" you'd be working at a petrol station within the year.
Sorry to get feisty, but I thought I was asking questions of an intrepid Lutheran.
Tom Wyeth
Tom,
I've answered your questions to the best of my ability. I'll let everyone judge for himself if I've avoided your questions, or if instead I have answered them adequately without letting myself be drawn into your mode of speaking.
Your questions remind me very much of the questions posed to Jesus in order to trap him in his words, like, "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" It's a simple "yes or no" question. He could have simply answered, "Yes," but they had their own agenda in getting him to answer that way, and he refused. Perhaps you think him a coward because he answered in his own way?
My answers are certainly not as wise as the Lord's answer was to them. But they are what they are. Take them or leave them.
Though every sin I and everyone else has committed was included in the heap of sins He paid for, from a legal perspective, in taking responsibility for that sin, the sin He atoned for was His own. It was His own by imputation. He was absolved of this sin, acquitted and justified by virtue of His perfect holiness and righteousness, and as a consequence, the wages of sin that He received (death and separation from God) were revoked, meaning that His life was returned to Him. Thus the Resurrection.
Doug,
I think this is where your explanation falters. In his resurrection Jesus was not "acquitted and justified by virtue of His perfect holiness and righteousness." He was, rather, acquitted and justified by virtue of the sufficiency of his atoning death for all human sin. Jesus did not cease to be the representative of all humanity in his resurrection, and become merely the representative of himself, in his own intrinsic righteousness. He did indeed die for us, and in our place, before God. But he also rose again for us, and in our place, before God. He was raise again "for our justification" or "on account of our justification," not for, or on account of, his own justification.
From this perspective, then, not only was his death for sin on the cross, before God, humanity's death for sin, but also his resurrection to life, before God, was humanity's resurrection to life. It was humanity's absolution. It was humanity's verdict of righteousness. In this way, and from this "objective" perspective, the risen Christ is "the Savior of the world" (John 4:42), and not only the Savior of those who believe (as is the case from the "subjective" perspective).
The only individual involved was Christ. The only one absolved was Christ. He could only be absolved of sin He called His own. Hence, the only one justified was Christ.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that you are rejecting the consensus position that Marquart/Preus and Maier had all finally agreed to in the 1980s, to wit:
When the Lord Jesus was "justified" (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29), and by the imputation of which He had been "made...to be sin for us" (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, "made a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13). In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore.
You seem to be saying that the "justification" of Jesus was the justification only of Jesus, and not the justification of those whose sins Jesus bore. If so, you are advocating a position that is not advocated by anyone else - not Marquart, not Preus, and not even Maier.
Thank you very much for that explanation, Rev. Webber. I'll need to think on those specific points further.
Thank you,
It is very enlightening to see that you will post opposing views, but yet continue to avoid a very simple question. Also enlightening is that you accuse me of equivocation but yet cannot back it up. You accuse me of entrapment but will not show how my questions are loaded. All I would like to know is your beliefs. But your beliefs all come with ambiguous disclaimers, and you depend on the ambiguity so that your can squeak out of something you might regret saying later. That is why you cannot answer simple questions. It's sophistry.
--Tom
Of all these comments, only one person, Levi Powers, made reference to the Gospel in a Nutshell, John 3:16. Even then, Mr. Powers did not expound on the Gospel in a Nutshell, rather he skipped over it to continue to justify his view on justification.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
This one single passage in all of God's Word explains the view of objective justification (for all), as well as subjective justification (through faith or belief).
Through Jesus innocent blood (including resurrection and ascension), every single person that has been, is, and will be, has the hope of eternal life in Christ. Jesus' blood purified us, declared us not guilty before God. All people. Through faith in Jesus, we have the hope of eternal life.
Justification is what Jesus did when he fulfilled God's promise that he would send his son to be the Atoning Sacrifice for our sins. Through Jesus' death on the cross, all people are declared innocent in God's eyes.
Belief that Jesus, the Son of God, died to save everyone from their sins, is all that matters in the end, hence the nickname "Gospel in a Nutshell." Who doesn't benefit from this gift from God? Unbelievers.
Bill Barley
Tom Wyeth - I thought Pastor Rydecki explained quite clearly and accurately the concept of OJ in the second installment in this series. Can you be specific as to what you might disagree with from their testimony there? Thanks.
Joe
Bill,
I think you were wise to quote John 3:16. In fact, I think you would have been wise to just leave it at that. To speak as the Scriptures speak keeps us on solid ground. Some of the statements you made after that are no longer reflective of John 3:16.
Hi Joe,
Pr. Rydecki, I'm glad to see, says that the terms general, objective, universal etc are not clear. I agree with him, but I think that for some people it's only an issue of clarity, while for others it takes the form of doctrinal error.
Pr. Rydecki, I'm glad to see, says no one is forgiven apart from faith. (quote: "we are not to believe that anyone has already received forgiveness of sins apart from faith in Christ") I agree. But if this is what he truly believes, then Pr. Rydecki should be willing and able to say "Becker, Walther, TWB and all others who say in plain terms that God HAS forgiven the whole world are dead wrong." (or something to that effect.)
I'm asking Pr. Rydecki for clarification about what he says he believes in the 2nd installment. If a man says something, isn't it fair to ask if he will deny the opposite? His words clearly state that people are not forgiven besides faith, yet Sig Becker writes that "The doctrine of universal justification...which teaches that a man’s sins are forgiven whether he believes it or not," I never disagreed with him. I'm just trying to ask him to confirm his position by denying the opposite.
Make no mistake, I may choose strong words but I think Pr. Rydecki and others responsible for this site are filling a void in the WELS: Good Job. But let's demand some definitive language. People aren't forgiven before they have faith? Excellent! That's what I believe too. Now let's censure all those who claim "all men were declared guilty".
What? you won't censure those who (in very plain terms) disagree with your position? What, then, do you believe?
Tom Wyeth
Pr Rydecki:
What statements are you referring in that comment that are not reflective of John 3:16? I went on to clarify in my understanding what the Gospel in a Nutshell means. Where did I go wrong exactly?
Romans 3:23-28 states "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."
Romans 4:5-8 states "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”
Matthew 12:37 states "For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
These passages are reflective of what justification means. Justification is given to us freely as a gift by God's Grace; we did nothing to earn or deserve it. Our status not our sinful nature changes in God's eyes through Jesus making us declared innocent by God himself.
Bill Barley
sorry... I wrote
People aren't forgiven before they have faith? Excellent! That's what I believe too. Now let's censure all those who claim "all men were declared guilty".
I meant "not guilty"
Tom Wyeth
Bill,
I will let Pastor Rydecki answer for himself, but as for me, your sentiments fell short when you stated:
"Through Jesus innocent blood (including resurrection and ascension), every single person that has been, is, and will be, has the hope of eternal life in Christ."
EVERY person does not have this hope. Only those in whom the Holy Spirit has created faith have this hope. How on earth can one have hope in something in which they have no faith?
Tom Wyeth:
Imagine God being a judge, the Judge over all people of all time. Imagine he knows we're sinful and we continue to commit sins on a regular basis. He also loves us (as children) and sent his Son Jesus to wipe away all our sins, to be our substitute that went to hell for us, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven. Now God the Judge declared us all not guilty of our sins, because of what Jesus did. He let us all off the hook. We're not sentenced to a lifetime in Hell (prison), rather he gave us hope for eternal life with him in Heaven. How is that possible? Through faith or belief. Through faith we have the hope of eternal life. We're not sin-free and never will be. But with Jesus' sacrifice for us on the cross, we're declared innocent in God's eyes through faith in Christ Jesus and have the hope of eternal life in Heaven. Does this mean everyone is going to Heaven and that no one is going to hell? If course not.
The passages in my most recent post are reflective of what Justification means.
Bill Barley
Bill,
I just meant that it's going beyond John 3:16 to say, "Through Jesus' death on the cross, all people are declared innocent in God's eyes." That's not what John 3:16 says. To say that "all people are declared innocent in God's eyes" apart from faith in the Mediator is simply not how the Scriptures speak. Please read my two posts and previous comments on this.
I noticed that you added the word "all" to Romans 3:24. It's not there in the Greek (or in the English or in Luther's German), but I'll concede the "all." But please see my very brief discussion of Romans 3:23-24 above. The English "all are justified" is somewhat confusing. In English, it can sound like all are already justified, as if "are" is a stative verb. That's not at all what the Greek says. Luther's translation makes it a bit easier to get the sense: "and become righteous." Indeed, all become righteous (that is, receive a righteous status before God) freely, by God's grace in Jesus Christ, without any merit of our own, through faith. (That's what John 3:16 refers to as well.)
So to say that "all are (already) declared innocent in God's eyes" - apart from faith in Christ - is simply not accurate.
The thing is, I think you probably meant it right. I think you probably meant that all of us who trust in Jesus have the status of "innocent" before God, and you're exactly right about that. But before we came to faith, or when we talk about those who still stubbornly reject Christ as their Savior, we ought not speak of them as already having an innocent status before God.
Daniel Baker:
That was a typo. What I meant to say was every person CAN have the hope of eternal life. That possibility is open to all. Of course only believers (those with faith) do have that hope.
Bill Barley
Pr Rydecki:
That's interesting, I copied and pasted from Bible Gateway, and that's how the 'all' got in in Romans 3:24. However, in just looking in my Concordia Self-Study Bible NIV, there is no 'all' in that verse. Speaking of my Concordia Self-Study Bible, I will quote word for word the explanation written for Romans 3:24.
"*Justified*. Paul uses this verb 22 times, mostly in 2:13-5:1; Galatians 2-3. It is translated 'justify' in all cases except two (2:13; 3:20, where it is translated 'declared righteous'). The term describes what happens when someone believes in Chris as his Savior: From the negative viewpoint, God declares the person to be not guilty; from the positive viewpoint, he declares him to be righteous. He cancels the guilt of the person's sin and credits righteousness to him. Paul emphasizes two points in this regard: 1. No one lives a perfectly good, holy, righteous life. On the contrary, 'there is no one righteous' (v. 10), and 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (v. 23). 'Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his [God's] sight by observing the law' (v. 20). 2. But even though all are sinners and not sons, God declares everyone who puts his trust in Jesus not guilty but righteous. This legal declaration is valid because Christ died to pay the penalty for our sin and lived a life of perfect righteousness that can in turn be imputed to us. This is the central theme of Romans and is stated in the theme verse, 1:17 ('a righteousness from God'). Christ's righteousness (his obedience to God's law and his sacrificial death) is credited to believers as their own. Paul uses the word 'credited' nine times in ch. 4 alone. *Freely by his grace.* The central thought in justification is that, although man clearly and totally deserves to be declared guilty (vv. 9-19), God declares him righteous because of the redemption through Christ. This is stated in several ways here: (1) 'freely' (as a gift, for nothing), (2) 'by his grace,' (3) 'through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus' and (4) 'through faith' (v. 25). *redemption* A word taken form the slave market--the basic idea is that of obtaining release by payment of a ransom. Paul uses this word to refer to release from guilt, with its liability for judgment, and to deliverance form slavery to sin, because Chris in his death paid the ransom for us."
Bill Barley
Bill,
Thanks for sharing that. The explanation in your study Bible is spot on.
Thank you for your comment Pr. Rydecki. To further illustrate the objective nature of Justification (a completed reality, whether anyone believes it or not), here are some passages that reflect the objective nature of Justification:
Rom 3:3 "What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?"
Romans 3:23-28 ""for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."
2 Cor 5:19-21 "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
Eph 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
Rom 4:5 "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."
Matt 9:2 "Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” '
John 19:30 "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
Hebrews 10:10-14 "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
John 1:29 "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
These passages speak to the gift from God (Grace) given to all of us, not just believers. It is something that all are declared of, not guilty through Christ's death on the cross (and resurrection and ascension). It is not something that we do nor could possibly do given our sinful nature. It is a declaration of not guilty made by God the Judge through the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus, who died for everyone.
Bill Barley
Bill Barley,
I'm glad to see that it was a typo on your part. I would agree, Christ's work makes salvation possible for all people, and all can have hope in the promises of God - if the Holy Spirit creates faith through the Means of Grace.
As of 2 days ago, Bible Gateway has the new NIV 2001 text listed as New International Version. If you want the text you are used to, you have to go down to the bottom of the English section of the list of Bibles, and choose, New International Version 1984.
For Romans 3:23-24, the KJV is the most accurate of the English versions, even though it seems so clumsy anymore. Here it is in context:
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Notice the punctuation marks. This speaks volumes. My Concordia Bible actually calls vv. 22 and 23 a paranthetical thought while verse 24 starts a new thought. Again look at the puctuation marks. If you read 22 and 23 together it gives you the right understanding. Then verse 24 picks up the earlier thought prior to verses 22 and 23.
Joe
Luther Rocks or Joe:
What you are saying essentially is that we should all be using the King James Version of the Bible for our reading and understanding. The absurdity of this intimation should be plain for all to see. What on earth did believers do before the KJV?
I think we can all agree that translations are not perfect (in part because we are not perfect), and if you want to sit and nit-pick over every single thing then you're going to find inconsistencies and something to pick on.
To condition the Justification from God through his Son Jesus made only upon faith or belief means we sinful humans have to do something to receive God's Grace. It is leading to decision theology. It is just not correct. Humans cannot decide to be justified by Christ when they become believers. They have been justified already, through the blood of Jesus sent by God the Father. How do we get to receive this most perfect gift? Through faith or belief.
Bill Barley
Bill,
There's no need to put words in Joe's mouth. You were the one who brought up Romans 3, and the fact is, the KJV is a more literal translation. I don't believe Joe said anything absurd.
Obviously the Greek text is the determining text, and it's closer to the KJV than to the NIV. That's just the way it is.
Bill, you were the one who quoted the Concordia Self-study, and that quote was very plain. It said nothing about some sort of justification apart from faith in those verses. On the contrary, faith is an essential element.
Your conclusions don't track about faith. To say that faith is essential is not to turn faith into a human work. Who on earth has said anything here about a human's capability to decide to be justified? Again, you assert "they have been justified already." But that is not from any Bible passage I'm aware of. The Scriptures clearly assign a status of "condemned" on all who don't believe, not a status of "righteous."
Adding on to what Pastor Rydecki said, Bill's assessment fails when he assumes that faith is a human work in any way. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, worked in the hearts of dead sinners through the Means of Grace - as the Scriptures and our Confessions declare.
Pr Rydecki:
I didn't intend to put words into Joe's mouth, rather I was taking his words and making meaning from them. What I understand from him, yourself, and others on this blog, is that Justification only comes through faith, that no one is justified until they have faith. Is this a correct understanding?
In the Concordia Self-Study explanation, the first part discusses Justification by faith, which is what you are saying, but the second part also discusses Justification for all prior to faith, which is what I have been saying (in addition to Justification through faith).
"The central thought in justification is that, although man clearly and totally deserves to be declared guilty (vv. 9-19), God declares him righteous because of the redemption through Christ. This is stated in several ways here: (1) 'freely' (as a gift, for nothing), (2) 'by his grace,' (3) 'through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus' and (4) 'through faith' (v. 25)."
It may be that the Greek is the clearest in piecing through the phraseology, and that the KJV translation is the closest to the Greek. However, most people do not know Greek, and more and more generations are not familiar with the KJV translation of the Bible. It seems that with different translations it is possible that meaning can be shifted somewhat or significantly. The different translations may bring about a different meaning, but the meaning is generally accepted by a group of scholars and is left for the people to decide. If someone accepts a different translation of the Bible, asking them to not accept it would have to be proven on several grounds with significant support. To my knowledge, I have not heard an urging from supporters of the KJV to turn away from other translations and to stick with the KJV.
I have stated passages that show a universal type of Justification:
2 Cor 5:19-21 "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
Romans 3:23-26 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
John 1:29 "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
There is a difference between Justification and belief. It is one thing to say that unbelievers are condemned, it is another thing to call unbelievers unrighteous. Before God, all people are declared not guilty of their sins, if you want to say righteous, then they're righteous. Are people free from the bondage of sin? Absolutely not. God knows this which is why he sent his Son to sit in judgment in our place. Through him as our substitution, God has declared us not guilty. How do people partake of this gracious gift? Through believing in the saving work of Christ.
Bill Barley
Bill,
First, Joe's comment did not suggest that everyone jump ship to the KJV. What he accurately reported was that the KJV of that section of Scripture is a more literal translation of the Greek. The NIV has many flaws. The KJV is not perfect either. No translation is. This is why our pastors still learn the original languages, so that if there is a problem with the English translation, they can help us to understand what the original said.
What I understand from him, yourself, and others on this blog, is that Justification only comes through faith, that no one is justified until they have faith. Is this a correct understanding?
I can't speak for "others on this blog," but yes, that is what I've said repeatedly. The grace of God stands for all. The merit of Christ is complete for all. The promise of the Gospel is sincere for all. But it is inaccurate to say that a person has a righteous status before God apart from faith in Christ. Scripture speaks repeatedly of the "righteous" and the "unrighteous." The "righteous" are not so by their own works, but by faith in Christ.
You quote Concordia:
"The central thought in justification is that, although man clearly and totally deserves to be declared guilty (vv. 9-19), God declares him righteous because of the redemption through Christ. This is stated in several ways here: (1) 'freely' (as a gift, for nothing), (2) 'by his grace,' (3) 'through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus' and (4) 'through faith' (v. 25)."
I think you would agree that we are not allowed to remove #1 (freely), or #2 (by his grace), or #3 (Through the redemption...) from Justification. Why would you separate #4 ("through faith")? The editors of the Concordia Self-Study include faith, plain and simple.
If you want to say that a righteous verdict exists for all (before faith), I would agree with you. But to say that someone *is* righteous, or *has been declared* righteous apart from faith is wrong.
None of the passages you quoted speaks of God giving a righteous status to any person apart from faith.
The only "universal type" of justification that exists is in Christ, the Substitute for all men. And the only way to have the benefits of Christ is through faith in Christ.
Your statement in your last paragraph,
It is one thing to say that unbelievers are condemned, it is another thing to call unbelievers unrighteous. Before God, all people are declared not guilty of their sins, if you want to say righteous, then they're righteous.
This is just plain wrong, Bill, and non-sensical. It goes against the very meaning of the word "justified" (declared not guilty). If a person is condemned, he has been declared guilty. If a person is not condemned, he has been declared righteous. The Law of God still condemns sinful man. The Gospel invites men to be judged through Christ and not through themselves. Those who claim Christ before God's judgment seat are declared righteous. Those who claim themselves are still condemned.
Thank you Pastor Rydecki. I couldn't have said anything better.
The KJV is an excellent tool in helping to understand scripture especially in these kinds of instances. Everyone should have one or at least access to one.
Joe
That actually sounded bad. The KJV is not a tool. It is the Word of God. Since it is closer to the original manuscripts than anything we have in English despite its 'clumsiness' our day in age, it should never be given a bad rap. At least to me it is still the standard for English versions.
Pr Rydecki:
Interesting that you mention that the Greek is one of the original languages, while that is true as the Bible is historically written in Hebrew and Greek, it is also true that none of the original manuscripts of the Bible exist. Aside from that, the whole purpose of Dr. Martin Luther translating the Bible from Latin into German was so the people could read for themselves the message that they are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Dr. Martin Luther was more concerned at that time that all believers understood the freedom of the Gospel and that we are saved by nothing we do but rather through what Christ has done for us.
You state that you believe in only one Justification, that of Justification through faith in Christ Jesus. We would have no Justification if there was no Christ, for it is through Christ sent by God that there is even such a thing as Justification. Jesus and his Redemption wiped clean everyone's slate and presented to us the most perfect gift to all. To say that Justification is only through faith conditions faith is the source for Justification. That means, only those who have faith receive the gift of Jesus redemptive work. That is a sad message to me. It isn't a message filled with the good news of salvation, rather it sounds like some of you are going to get this perfect gift and some aren't. It leaves no certainty of salvation, it robs sinners of the comfort of the Gospel, and leads to Pharisaism (self-righteousness and hypocrisy).
I'm not separating Grace through faith. I'm adding to it. Why can't you acknowledge anything else other than point 4? You skipped the first three and went to your main point, #4 and that's all you elaborated on.
"If you want to say that a righteous verdict exists for all (before faith), I would agree with you. But to say that someone *is* righteous, or *has been declared* righteous apart from faith is wrong."
I guess I'm baffled by this first statement. You claim in the beginning of your remark that you believe "But it is inaccurate to say that a person has a righteous status before God apart from faith in Christ." What exactly are you trying to say here? Is a status the same as a verdict? Can you explain? Are you righteous? Have you been declared righteous? Are you declared not guilty by God? Have you been declared not guilty by God?
The following passages indicate a universal Justification:
2 Cor 5:19-21 "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
Romans 3:23-26 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
John 1:29 "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
TBC--
Bill Barley
You say "If a person is condemned, he has been declared guilty." Jesus Redemption is the work that God decided was good enough to declare all people not guilty. No person is free from sin. The sin enslaves us to damnation. It is only through the redemptive work of Christ that we can even begin to have hope.
You say "If a person is not condemned, he has been declared righteous." Again, only through the redemptive work of Christ can anyone be declared not guilty. You seem to be stuck on this word 'righteousness.' Whatever you're stuck on, the important thing through all of this is the work of Christ.
You say "The Law of God still condemns sinful man." Including you, you and me, everyone.
You say "The Gospel invites men to be judged through Christ and not through themselves." The Gospel is the good news through which all people have the hope of eternal life. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
You say "Those who claim Christ before God's judgment seat are declared righteous." All have been declared righteous before faith, it happened when Jesus died on the cross for our sins. The work of Christ, his Redemption, is what has saved us from our sins. What do you mean by claim Christ? Is this what you mean by faith or belief?
You say "Those who claim themselves are still condemned." Is this what you mean by unbelief?
I don't intend to cause any feelings of frustration, I am just a little confused by this post.
Bill Barley
Bill Barley,
Answer me this: If all are justified in Christ, then why is there condemnation?
Faith is necessary unto salvation, but not faith that comes from ourselves - the faith that is a gift of God.
Daniel,
Before Bill answers, I want to address your question.
I have no problem saying "all are justified in Christ," just as I have no problem saying, "all are condemned apart from Christ." One is the gospel, the other is the law.
There will always be these two verdicts in God's courtroom: condemnation and salvation, guilty and innocent, unrighteous and righteous. Jesus' description of the Last Judgment makes that clear. And in a sense, the two verdicts on mankind in general have already been rendered. Guilty apart from Christ, righteous in Christ. Guilty if a person shows up in God's courtroom under his own name, righteous if a person shows up in God's courtroom under the name of his divinely appointed Proxy.
This is what the Apostle Paul was referring to in Philippians 3, "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith."
And God holds out the invitation to all men to be individually judged by Mankind's Proxy, to be found in Christ, that is relying on Christ as your Proxy. Those who do share in the justification of the Proxy. Those who stubbornly wish to be judged under their own name stand condemned.
Daniel, your last statement is technically true, but the emphasis is still wrong. Not "faith is necessary unto salvation," but "Christ is necessary unto salvation. Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." As for those who refuse Christ - as Paul says, "their condemnation is deserved."
Daniel Baker:
To answer you question "If all are justified in Christ, then why is there condemnation?", I think it's important to understand firstly the necessity of the Justification that came from Christ's death on the cross. No passage better declares that Jesus died for all people, and that all have the hope of eternal life in Heaven through faith/belief than John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." This passage is referred to as the Gospel in a Nutshell because it's exactly that. It's everything important and necessary wrapped up in a nice little passage that is truly a comforting message. That's what the Gospel is, the Good News sent from God through his messenger Jesus Christ.
How do we know that we are all justified through Christ? Jesus was sent to fulfill God's promise to us already back in Genesis that he would send someone to crush Satan (after sin entered the world). He had to be a perfect substitute for us to plead our case for us before God the Judge, which is what he demanded from us since creation, for us to be perfect like he is. After sin entered the world and we became sinful, God provided a way out for us, through his Son Jesus. After Jesus had fulfilled God's promise to deliver us from the grasp of the devil, he decided to acquit all people of their sins. Rather than sending us all straight to hell, he provided a way out, through his Son Jesus. John 14:6 states "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Jesus death on the cross, his salvation, is for all people (objective or universal), but ultimately is received through faith (subjective). There are two justifications here, one is for all people, and the other is for those who have faith. It is confusing at times and maybe for some all the time. That doesn't mean it's not true, however, because no one here is perfect and there's bound to be confusion and questions. This is one place without a doubt where faith steps in and says "I trust you Lord." If you still have doubts regarding these two justifications, I would think it highly appropriate to discuss this with one of your local pastors in person. It's much easier to have a conversation/discussion with someone about vital matters such as this in person.
Bill Barley
Pastor Rydecki,
Thank you for your correction - I agree with it. Perhaps Bill is overemphasizing Justification, and I am overemphasizing Faith. Both are ultimately inseparable, as you have pointed out. There seems to be a tendency to get lost and in doctrinal technicalities to the point that we lose sight of the ultimate "author and perfecter" of our faith: Christ. To Him be the glory!
As an aside, an earlier comment referenced the updated version of the NIV now available as the default bible source on BibleGateway.com.
This past Thursday, my pastor - who utilizes Bible Gateway for easy copy/paste - had the new version up for the congregation to read during the Service, while he was reading out of his old-version bible! Needless to say, he corrected the mistake for the Sunday Service, but nonetheless this "new" translation is significantly different than the one we are used to. In addition to the added word "all" in Romans 3:24 noted earlier, other additions include "and sisters" to texts that reference only "brothers," among other "modernizations."
At any rate, my point in all this stems from my wondering if Intrepid Lutherans intends to address the new NIV edition - and, for that matter, the old one - and where our Synod will stand if we decide that the new version is not for us.
I am done commenting on this blog for now. You have all succeeded in convincing me that when your minds are made up, there's no turning back. I would like to add this final thought from Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Peace in Christ,
Bill Barley
Bill,
I don't know if this will help you understand. In reference to finding comfort in the Gospel that I believe you mentioned earlier. We are saved by faith. As a result of the faith that God has given us, we are justified. Yet, we should never look to our faith to find comfort in our salvation. Rather, we should look to Christ. We should look to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ--the Son of God. For he has indeed atoned for the sins of all the world. We can trust in God's promises. Mark 16:16 expresses this same truth well, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
-Now that's a promise we can trust!
In Him,
Levi Powers
Levi Powers:
I'm sorry - I meant to be done commenting, but I don't understand this post. Can you explain?
Bill Barley
Bill,
We know from the Scriptures that we are saved by grace through faith. It is good to know that our faith is the work of God. We also know from the Scriptures that we are justified by faith. It is good to know that God is our justifier. For those who need assurance that their sins are forgiven, we point them to Christ's atonement. God promises to forgive sins by grace through faith. We should not point them to their own faith for their assurance. Rather, we should point them to the object of their faith--Christ. God promises to erase the sins of those who believe--those who have confidence/trust/faith in the blood of Jesus. When God says in Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." that is a Gospel promise of God. The Law stands in Mark 16:16 as well, "...but whoever does not believe will be condemned." The sins of those who do not believe are not erased and will never be if the person does not have faith.
We can trust what God promises. Does that help clarify?
Levi Powers
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.