Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Whose line is it anyway? (concerning Universal Justification)

I ran across this statement recently and thought it might make for a good "guess who said it" post.  So go ahead and leave a comment with (a) your best guess as to the author and (b) your classification of the doctrinal content as "orthodox" or "heterodox."  For this post, we will allow anonymous comments.  Next week we will give proper attribution to these words and proceed to discuss them, so please save your extended critique of the statement until that time.

    Those theologians charge that I have set forth a universal justification, and indeed of such a kind that makes every person righteous by the very act of salvation and by participation, and simply carries them away into heaven. To this point they have directed every weapon of accusation thus far. But I have never dreamed or written anything of this sort. This, however, I had written against the Calvinists: since justification is universal according to Paul’s teaching (Rom. 5), redemption is not able to not be universal. But I called universal justification that by which God, considering the satisfaction of Christ, became favorably disposed toward the entire human race because of that satisfaction, and thus he accepted it just as if everyone had made satisfaction for himself, with the law having been entirely fulfilled. In this respect it is sensibly called universal justification, not first by me, but by Paul. In it only that act of Christ’s merit and satisfaction is considered at the tribunal of God. However, people still do not possess justification by their own act unless they apprehend by faith that which was approved and ratified by God on behalf of all. And so that it may be evident that I am thinking nothing foreign to Scripture…I will enumerate their testimonies respectively.
    From Scripture we have Rom. 5, “And so, just as through the fault of one it resulted in condemnation for all, so also through the justification of one it resulted in justification of life for all people;” 2 Cor. 5 “When God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins toward them.” To “be reconciled” is certainly to remove the anger toward the human race. To “be reconciled with the world,” is to remove the anger toward all people, which those theologians…bitterly deny, not without blasphemy. And “not to impute sins” is to justify or to recognize as just, with the manner of speaking being taken up from the market place. Therefore, that justification comes upon all people no less than condemnation; that the world is reconciled; that by the very judgment of God, which God carried out in his own Son, sins are not imputed to us, but are imputed to Christ; and that satisfaction has been offered by him and has been accepted by the Father—that is to set forth universal justification in its own legitimate respect.


Pastor Spencer said...

OK, I'll bite - and probably show my ignorance. I'll say "Luther" (2nd choice, Chemnitz) and "Orthodox."

Brett Meyer said...

Samuel Huber. Heterodox.

Anonymous said...

Walther. Convoluted-odox.

Tim Niedfeldt said...

You know what I like? "Huber Beer" You know what I don't like? Huber heterodoxy...or is that WELS orthodoxy? Hard to tell.

Tim Niedfeldt

Daniel Baker said...

Obviously the writing of Heresiarch Huber. Unequivocally heterodox.

LPC said...

Likewise Huber, heterodox.

But I can imagine Walther saying it if Huber didn't.


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.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License