Saturday, May 08, 2010

Using Chemnitz to help doubting Christians

HT: Ichabod here.

"We must note the foundations. For we are justified by faith, not because it is so firm, robust, and perfect a virtue, but because of the object on which it lays hold, namely Christ, who is the Mediator in the promise of grace. Therefore when faith does not err in its object, but lays hold on that true object, although with a weak faith, or at least tries and wants to lay hold on Christ, then there is true faith, and it justifies. The reason for this is demonstrated in those lovely statements in Philippians 3:12: 'I apprehend, or rather I am apprehended by Christ' and Galatians 4:9: 'You have known God, or rather have been known by God.' Scripture shows a beautiful example of this in Mark 9:24: 'I believe; help my unbelief.'" Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 503. Philippians 3:12; Galatians 4:9; Mark 9:24
"Therefore God, 'who is rich in mercy' [Ephesians 2:4], has had mercy upon us and has set forth a propitiation through faith in the blood of Christ, and those who flee as suppliants to this throne of grace He absolves from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation, and by the imputation of the righteousness of His Son, which they grasp in faith, He pronounces them righteous, receives them into grace, and adjudges them to be heirs of eternal life. This is certainly the judicial meaning of the word 'justification,' in almost the same way that a guilty man who has been sentenced before the bar of justice is acquitted." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 482. Ephesians 2:4
"For we are not justified because of our faith (propter fidem), in the sense of faith being a virtue or good work on our part. Thuse we pray, as did the man in Mark 9:24: 'I believe, Lord; help my unbelief'; and with the apostles: 'Lord, increase our faith,' Luke 17:5." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 506 Mark 9:24; Luke 17:5
We need to say something.

Notice what Chemnitz is doing here. He sets forth why faith justifies. What is it about Christ that we are to trust about, that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the one who is holding on to Christ as propitiator through his death at the Cross. Notice too what Chemnitz did not do that Walther and Pieper did. Chemnitz did not say - you are saved to believe (contra Walther). Nor did he say (contra Pieper) - "I would eliminate faith as a requirement that makes justification true. That would be making faith a work of mine".

None of these.

30 comments:

Brigitte said...

Quote the author of the post:

"We need to say something.

Notice what Chemnitz is doing here. He sets forth why faith justifies. What is it about Christ that we are to trust about, that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the one who is holding on to Christ as propitiator through his death at the Cross. Notice too what Chemnitz did not do that Walther and Pieper did. Chemnitz did not say - you are saved to believe (contra Walther). Nor did he say (contra Pieper) - "I would eliminate faith as a requirement that makes justification true. That would be making faith a work of mine".

None of these."

May I say that this is not very clear or grammatically correct. We are trying to be very precise in this matter and this statement is not precise. For one thing trust is not "about".

Chemnitz on the other hand is very precise. Nice quote.

"For we are justified by faith, not because it is so firm, robust, and perfect a virtue, but because of the object on which it lays hold, namely Christ, who is the Mediator in the promise of grace."

Let's start at the VERY BEGINNING. This morning I lay in bed and red the beginning of the large catechism with its forceful exhortation especially to the pastors. So maybe let's be exhorted and start with the first commandment. "You shall have no other gods."

Human beings are so constituted that they will always have a "god" and always will have a "faith". So having "faith" is not something we work up, or even confess. We already have some kind of "faith". What matters is the OBJECT OF THE FAITH. That makes all the difference. (I direct you once more to the large catechism, to discern a variety of false gods and faiths.) We are weak human beings, we will trust in something or someone.

What we learn through God's word, extra nos, is who this God' is and what our faith is supposed to be "in". When we confess our faith, we confess what our faith is "in".

That is the correct emphasis.

Of course, on a personal level, faith, the "correct faith" in the "correct God", makes all the difference because if you do not trust the merciful God who speaks to you, you will not have a merciful God (you will have a different one.) Your faith should be in the merciful God, who has already loved you to death (or in the OT, where this was looking forward). "Lord to whom shall we go; you have the words of eternal life."

Brigitte said...

LP talks about the Roman Catholic who also believes that Christ died for the entire world, but does not have "faith" in that.

What the misguided Roman Catholic is missing is that Christ's substitutionary death is also the object of his faith, his entire faith. He should stop trusting in other things, because this nullifies Christ's work. (No other god.)

Brigitte said...

I have made a comment about this discussion on my blog and not in the entirely most favorable way. If someone wants to say something there, you can, though I should be worrying about spring cleaning and my garden beds, in between late snowfalls here. It looks nice today.

Brett Meyer said...

Brigitte states, "Human beings are so constituted that they will always have a "god" and always will have a "faith". So having "faith" is not something we work up, or even confess. We already have some kind of "faith".

You seem to be saying that the same faith that man uses to trust in Buddha or to trust in his own works for the forgiveness of sins is the same faith that he could use to trust in Christ alone.

Please correct me if I misunderstand your statements. If I'm correct, I disagree.

The faith with which a man trusts alone in Christ for the forgiveness of sins is of the Holy Spirit if it trusts alone in Christ. If it clings to Christ that faith is alien to man as it is in fact the righteousness of Christ given to men by the grace of the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament alone.

Scripture declares:
Hebrews 12:2, "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."
Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

This point is critical to understanding Justification.

Brigitte said...

Brett, read the large catechism, first commandment, and then ask me again.

Paul McCain said...

Brigitte

Please do not waste your time with these false teachers. Jackson, the ex-pastor and insurance peddler has attracted a (thankfully) small little group of fans, who have been deluded and sucked into his anti-Gospel cult.

Mark and avoid them.

Brigitte said...

Dear Rev. McCain: you must forgive me. I have a penchant for brick walls. And I like LP.

Brett Meyer said...

Paul McCain, I believe I'm correct that you were the one who claimed Roman Catholic Father Richard John Neuhaus had a common confession in Christ.

Father Neuhaus having died in the arms of the Antichrist and not rejecting the damning confession of an Roman Catholic is spending eternity apart from Christ as I type this.

Web Blog: Lutheran (LCMS) Contra-Catholic Rev. Paul T. McCain Greatly Admired the Late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (Hope for Ecumenism Springs Eternal!)

"I have renewed hope for traditional Lutheran - Catholic ecumenism, in light of this article from Pastor McCain (a figure of some importance in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod): A Grief Observed: Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009. I was delighted to learn of the open, irenic sentiments that Pastor McCain is capable of expressing, at least with some Catholics."
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/11/lutheran-lcms-contra-catholic-rev-paul.html

Also McCain, "Pastor Neuhaus, was, for me, a source of ongoing inspiration and encouragement. . . .

I fervently differed with Father Neuhaus on several core issues of the confession of the Christian Gospel, and he knew that. Over the many long years I had struck up a very informal and not-frequent-enough conversation with him, as I'm sure thousands of other people. I know he kindly entertained my letters and thoughts because of our shared Lutheranism, a Lutheranism he believed fervently was realized fully in communion with Rome, a Lutheranism I believe must remain apart from Rome as long as Rome clings to its Gospel-obscuring errors.
Having said that, I am already cringing at the possibility that there will be featured in a certain newspaper from New Haven a graceless, ham-fisted tirade against Richard John Neuhaus the Catholic convert and more's the pity. But the Roman Church has its share of graceless, ham-fisted apologists and I suppose we must have our fair share too.

I always enjoyed my back-and-forths with Father Neuhaus. . . .

s much as I disagreed with Father Neuhaus, I agreed with so much of what he wrote in First Things. Of course, he was a constant advocate for his "new" church, but he was fair and even-handed in his criticism, liberally applied, from a conservative point of view, of all trends and movements in Christendom. . . .

I will miss Father Neuhaus, and I join with many others in expressing my appreciation for his life and work, both for what he did that I fervently agreed with, which was much, and that which I had to disagree with, which was substantial. In both cases, he challenged me to think, to reflect, to grow and to strive for excellence in our common confession of Christ."


McCain, "In both cases, he challenged me to think, to reflect, to grow and to strive for excellence in our common confession of Christ."

LutherRocks said...

I have hard time believing ALL the Lutheran Church bodies have it wrong...I have an Chemnitz quote I'll get up when I can. I do have a life. So...how do you keep anti-UOJers in suspense...

TTFN...JK

L P said...

Brigitte,

I re-read my statement, I agree with you in that my expression is a bit awkward. I do not wish to take away attention from the Chemnitz quote my point is that Chemnitz did not conclude that since man may have a problem with faith, he did not dismiss it but set it forward as to what it should be.

It is my confession that no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the HS. That confession of Jesus is Lord comes from the fact that He is Saviour.

Hence, that faith that trusts in the atonement of Christ is a faith that is produced solely and exclusively by the HS through His Word (either visibly or invisibly).

Sure we may have faith in this or that thing, but the faith to believe that Christ has paid for you personally is the exclusive work of the HS. No one else can produce this and is not in the same level as when I trust my car to start and take me to where I am going.

Surely this is something we can agree.

LPC

L P said...

Rev. McCain,

I could simply just delete your comment since I own this blog. However you are most welcome to participate and disagree with me.

It is unfortunate that you decided to give your readers your fallacy of ad hominem attack.

Does that help me to move to the truth of your UOJ position?

It is the height of poor scholarship when a man has to resort to ad hominem for his arguments.

I expected you to have more respect than this.

You illustrate my point. Once a person questions UOJ, UOJers mark that person as no longer their friend.

You are a classic example of the same thing I experienced when I was a Pentecostal.

LPC

Brigitte said...

LutherRocks: had you not shaken the dust off from here? Do you have a quote, then print it. (We all have lives). An argument to majority is not convincing, either.

Brett: Have you ever come across the Luther passages, carrying on about what was all good in the Roman church? How they held crucifixes before the dying eyes, etc. All of which was better than what the Anabaptists were doing... etc., etc. Surely, you have. Of course, the other good things include the ecumenical creeds, baptism...

Et alii: perhaps people could cut out damning others to hell and being insulting, then maybe, just maybe reasonable people could discuss reasonably.

Rev. McCain: maybe you could respond to this question of Brett, (if everyone agrees to behave decently!) The question of folding to Roman Catholicism under the liturgical movement and abandoning the word "faith" in justification, does seem genuine.

All the RC's I meet, don't believe half of what their church teaches. What about someone who becomes a convert of Neuhaus' stature? Is he not abandoning justification by grace through faith (as you posted the critique to the joint declaration)? Is a common Christ with Neuhaus the same Christ? Is he Christ alone? Is he the same God who saves by his mercy alone?

Brigitte said...

LP: I don't know why you defend Jackson. He has not contributed any substance for a number of threads, mostly insults and labeling everyone "anticonfessional UOJ".

If I see "UOJ" one more time, I will flip. Nobody holds the position people here characterize. It is a caricature.

And I agree with McCain in having a somewhat cleaned up blog, especially for himself. You defended your choice of allowing all kinds of comments as academic freedom. I don't think that's what you are having here. You said you're ok with him running his blog how he wants, but it's not true, you keep bringing up the same thing over and over.

I've said my part.

Brigitte said...

One more thing to respond to LP:

"Hence, that faith that trusts in the atonement of Christ is a faith that is produced solely and exclusively by the HS through His Word (either visibly or invisibly).

Sure we may have faith in this or that thing, but the faith to believe that Christ has paid for you personally is the exclusive work of the HS. No one else can produce this and is not in the same level as when I trust my car to start and take me to where I am going."

Faith in CHRIST is the work of the Holy Spirit. Faith itself is natural to man. Faith in Christ is not. On our own we would never imaging or believe such a thing. We are back to the OBJECT of faith.
Trust is trust is trust. The object is what matters and either saves or fails us.

Brett Meyer said...

Not a caricature but reality as can be seen and read in the WELS doctrinal essay on UOJ here:

http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerJustification.PDF

Brett Meyer said...

Brigitte, I read the Large Catechism and also read the posting on your blog. I still have this question for you:

You seem to be saying that the same faith that man uses to trust in Buddha or to trust in his own works for the forgiveness of sins is the same faith that he could use to trust in Christ alone.

Is this what you are saying?

Thank you,
Brett Meyer

Brigitte said...

Brett, tell me what you got out of reading the section in the large catechism.

Is it the same Brett who could potentially have faith in Buddha, or potentially have faith in his works, or potentially have faith in Christ? Yes, one and the same Brett could go any of those ways. Are the results the same?-- No. Can each potential god save,-- No. Is it the same Brett, yes.

Brett, or Brigitte, with the same tendency to trust a false god, who can't save.

Brett Meyer said...

Brigitte, you didn't answer my question. The subject of your answer was "Brett" and not "faith" as was the subject of my question.

L P said...

Brigitte,

First on Dr. Greg:

LP: I don't know why you defend Jackson. He has not contributed any substance for a number of threads, mostly insults and labeling everyone "anticonfessional UOJ".

Not correct, I defend JBFA and in years my skepticism with UOJ and dogged fanaticism with Walther and Pieper has increased as I study that now based on the interactions I got from good men of UOJ, I now more than ever, UOJ is false description, false articulation of justification by faith.

It so happens that Pr. Greg is correct in his insistence that UOJ is wrong. But Pr Greg is not the only one who is and has said this. That UOJ was opposed before in American Lutheranism, this is on record. It so happens Pr. Greg is standing on JBFA as was taught by the BoC and old Lutheran fathers.

I do not recall quoting Dr. Greg on my arguments.

Brigitte, please give yourself time to read Jackson's Thy Strong Word . It is a presentation of evidence filled with quotes from BoC and old Lutheran theologians. The book documents that UOJ is not know to both.

You owe yourself the truth, as well all do.

LPC

L P said...

Brigitte,

Now for this You defended your choice of allowing all kinds of comments as academic freedom. I don't think that's what you are having here. You said you're ok with him running his blog how he wants, but it's not true, you keep bringing up the same thing over and over.

My posts are not an attack on McCain. If my posts were about him, then that would mean I am taking him seriously but I do not. He has proven himself not worthy of my time. Such insinuation is an insult to my intelligence. ;-)


He is free to warn people about me, call me a false teacher and what not. I have been around this bend before, my RC counter parts view me as a heretic for abandoning my Romanism. I have suffered many things when I became Lutheran, but as I said, I hold no animus (to quote Calvin but not to endorse him).

See John 12:43.

I do not only blog about UOJ. As you can see my blog posts are filled with variety. I blog about culture, my personal stuff and other opinions.

I wonder why you say there is caricaturing of UOJ?

I must ask you though if you have read the evidences presented to you from both sides. Have you?

If you have not, then I ask that you do not get irked if I critique Walther or Pieper and running to their defense.

I have examined the documents myself, for I myself earlier on adopted the language of UOJ. Even my interaction with Pr. Webber failed to convince me of the Biblical merits and warrants of UOJ terminology.

Let me give an example of what we have been saying here: I took a present reputable German Lutheran expert in NT, by the name of Stuhlmacher, he himself rejects that the Atonement is the sames as Justification. (ring the bells, UOJ equates the two to be equivalent and the same).


There are no short cuts for truth.

I can blog about many things and I expect to do that as God keeps me on this earth, however Luther said somewhere that you may get all things in the Bible correct, but if you get the Gospel wrong you are still in error.

Keeping my readers close to Scripture is a much greater service I should render to my fellow man.


LPC

LutherRocks said...

Brigitte...I have only shook the dust from my sandals toward one person here and apologize if my comment was condescending regarding my life. If everyone jumps in the lake, I have always been one to question the merits. Which brings me to Chemnitz where we have two sides saying that he said different things.

I found this website and the following quote was pasted from there. I couldn't get the html feature figured out so I separated what I wanted to emphasize...

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/chemnitz.html

(Under Justification and the Atonement from Examination of the Council of Trent)

...the Gospel reveals to us that God in His secret council and surpassing mercy has found such a way and method that both the righteousness of God revealed in the Law might be satisfied and that man might be justified to life eternal gratis by the grace of God, through faith, without the works of the Law, namely, that the Son of God should be sent into the world

and come into the flesh to deliver, justify, and save the human race. (JK - UOJ)

But how was this our Mediator made our Righteousness, our Deliverer and Savior? Was it by dissolving and destroying the sentence of the divine will revealed in the Law? The Son of God Himself certainly says that this opinion and persuasion is false, because this is impossible, according to Matt. 5:17-18; Luke 16:16-17. But He was for this reason made under the Law, not for Himself nor in His own name, but that He might redeem those who were under the Law (Gal. 4:4-5). Therefore He took on Himself in the place and in the name of us all the satisfaction for sins, the suffering of the penalties, and the fulfillment of the Law by means of the most perfect obedience. And for this reason He assumed our nature, that in that nature, which was under the Law, satisfaction and fulfillment might be made.


However, because it had to be a satisfaction and fulfillment that would be adequate and sufficient for the sins and for the righteousness of the whole world, therefore it was necessary that the person of the Mediator should be both God and man, in order that the power and efficacy of the satisfaction and fulfillment might be infinite and sufficient for the whole world. ...the Gospel reveals and declares this mystery, which was hidden for long ages, that since the human race could not make satisfaction to the Law and the Law could in no way be dissolved and destroyed, God made a transfer of the Law to another person (a matter which belongs to the article of justification) who should fulfill the Law both by satisfaction and obedience for the whole human race. (JK - UOJ)

And because that person is both God and man, therefore His satisfaction is the expiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), and hence Christ is the end of the Law for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4). And Him God sets before us through the ministry, that through His redemption, by faith in His blood, we may be justified gratis by the grace of God (Rom. 3:25). (Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, pp. 498-500)

JK

LutherRocks said...

I would also urge the anti-UOJers to read the the paper under the links toward the bottom of the page entitled "Martin Chemnitz on the Doctrine of Justification"

http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/chemnitz.html

There is no justification by faith if there is no forensic justification (declaration) by God on the whole world. The Atonement is that justification whether you acknowledge it or not.

JK

L P said...

JK,

Thank you for referring to a book I so happen to have The Examination of the Council of Trent Part I, by himself truly, Martin Chemnitz...you said

...the Gospel reveals to us that God in His secret council and surpassing mercy has found such a way and method that both the righteousness of God revealed in the Law might be satisfied and that man might be justified to life eternal gratis by the grace of God, through faith, without the works of the Law, namely, that the Son of God should be sent into the world

and come into the flesh to deliver, justify, and save the human race. (JK - UOJ)


Not an appropriate quote Joe. Notice that this quote mentions "through faith".

Also as to p.498-500, right! Yet please quote appropriately and in context (please!!!)... before that sentence beginning ..."But how was this our Mediator ", we have these words...
But here the Gospel reveals to us that God in His secret council and surpassing mercy has found such a way and method that both the righteousness of God revealed in the Law might be satisfied and that man might be justified to life eternal gratis by the grace of God, through faith without the works of the Law, namely the SoOn of God should be sent into the world and come into the flesh to deliver, justify, and save the human race.

Let us agree. As I said, both UOJers and JBFAers agree on the so called subjective side - the element of faith.

The question is this: is there an objective justification that does not require faith before hand? That is the question.

Pieper knew this issue!

To his credit he knew the rules of scholarship! This was was why as a UOJer he quoted Rom 4:25 as support for a justification without faith, prior to faith etc. I credit him for that for he knew what he should do. Good on him.

Unfortunately his quoting Rom 4:25 fails due to proper exegesis and only illustrated the peculiarity of those following his Lutheranism.

I am being gracious, Brett does not even consider that even Christian at all.

You said The Atonement is that justification whether you acknowledge it or not.

Joe, do you realize that you keep on drumming the equivalence of the Atonement with Justification without first proving they are equivalent? This is begging the question, circular reasoning.

Your WELS paper from the recent Texas conference, knew the task in their hands, that they were to prove that Atonement IS Justification! Yet though they recognized the necessity of the task, still failed to prop it up with evidence. They just kept on doing circular reasoning.

LPC

L P said...

Brigitte,

One more time...

LP: I don't know why you defend Jackson. He has not contributed any substance for a number of threads, mostly insults and labeling everyone "anticonfessional UOJ".

Notice that McCain said Please do not waste your time with these false teachers.

Meaning, I am one of them. This is guilt by association.

When I referred/ rebutted McCain's comment, he by association was insinuating that I am also a false teacher.

My response to him was not a defense of Dr. Jackson but rather was a defense of me.

Incidentally all the things Jackson has to say about this topic may be found in his books such as I alluded to you already e.g., Thy Strong Word . The scarcity of his comments in THIS blog is due to the fact that he has been presenting contrary evidences IN HIS blog and books longer than I have. He was already on this since mid 1980s! No point of course repeating himself.

One thing I dislike about UOJers is that when they ran out of arguments, they are like sissy boys who cry foul and then starts attacking personal misfortunes and circumstances, warning people about anti-UOJers, that we are a bunch of losers.

If I continue to go forth and simply defend Dr. Jackson, then I will indulge in the same red herring McCain is already in.

The truth eventually catches up with people. It just takes time for it to catch up some people.

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

LPC, in case the UOJers have decided not to respond to me anymore there's another point that comes from Joe's quotes of Chemnitz above that should to be addressed: (Joe's last paragraph) and hence Christ is the end of the Law for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4).

Christ declares in Scripture that no one can drink from the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. It also states that you cannot serve both God and mammon. There's more but you see where I'm going.

The UOJers declare that the whole world is under God's grace since He declared the whole unbelieving world to be righteous in Christ (only way for their sins to be forgiven is to have Christ's righteousness). So the whole unbelieving world are heirs of God in receipt of Christ's righteousness, forgiven of all sin and live under grace and no longer under the Law. But Christ declares, Romans 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." But the whole unbelieving world doesn't believe so they remain under the Law but in UOJ they are also under Grace. Thus David Jay Webber's contention that God sees the world of believers and unbelievers as though they were all under Grace and also as though they are all under the Law.

UOJ wars against Christ's doctrine of Law and Grace.

Romans 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (BM-UOJ says those under grace are not under the Law - thus speaks the Universalism of UOJ)

Romans 6:20, For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. (BM-UOJ declares servants of sin to be righteous)

Romans 6:23, But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. (BM-UOJ declares the whole world free from sin by God's divine verdict - per this verse UOJ must conclude that the end of those unbelievers who are free from sin is everlasting life)

And this is just from the sixth chapter of Romans. Imagine if all Scripture were applied against UOJ.

Anyway, someone may want to bring this up to the UOJers.

Thanks,
Brett Meyer

Brett Meyer said...

Correcting this statement: Romans 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (BM-UOJ says those under grace are not under the Law - thus speaks the Universalism of UOJ)

It should read:
Romans 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (BM-UOJ says those under grace are also under the Law - thus speaks the Universalism of UOJ when those under the Law are declared to be under Grace so that those who are servants of sin are not under the dominion of sin per UOJ - Thus the Circular God that Joe Krohn preaches)

L P said...

Brett,

But the whole unbelieving world doesn't believe so they remain under the Law but in UOJ they are also under Grace. Thus David Jay Webber's contention that God sees the world of believers and unbelievers as though they were all under Grace and also as though they are all under the Law.

Absolutely bro.

UOJ wars against Christ's doctrine of Law and Grace.

Yes indeed. That is why the Law in Law and Gospel is really no longer there even for the unbeliever! It has no more sentence to the unbeliever either!

So that explains it when they say - I am just as saved as you.

What is this but universalism?

Everyone now is under Grace (tell me if UOJ will deny this, I doubt it, it changes categories every where you turn).

So what is the use of the means of grace but to simply say that you are already under grace in the first place!

So the means of grace does not really deliver grace itself! it simply declares what you ALREADY have.

In the end, there is no point to the means of grace!

Now when you bring this up, they simply deny and claim it is a caricature without a counter point as to why it is such.

To put a garb of respectability they run to the label "paradox".

Now, a paradox is something legally allowed by the concepts and rules in the language. A paradox does not contradict itself. With God all things are possible - for example Jesus being both God and Man at the same time.

However a contradiction is plain absurd, and denies and affirms the same thing in the same context. In my discipline it is called falsum (false, a lie). Clearly in the above, God is shown by UOJ to be contradicting himself. Which is anti-Biblical, because God cannot lie.

I hope those reading may see the utter weakness of this position and understanding of JBFA.

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

I agree LPC. Also Scripture declares a correlation to your statements, "So what is the use of the means of grace but to simply say that you are already under grace in the first place!

So the means of grace does not really deliver grace itself! it simply declares what you ALREADY have.

In the end, there is no point to the means of grace!"


Romans 4:16, Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Christ's blessings,
Brett

Brett Meyer said...

LPC correctly states, "Everyone now is under Grace (tell me if UOJ will deny this, I doubt it, it changes categories every where you turn)."

Consider this. UOJ declares by God's divine verdict that the whole unbelieving world is righteous and justified in Christ.

UOJ states God removed the sins of the world, placed them on Christ so they are no longer on the world. UOJ says the unbelieving world is sinless and guiltless.

UOJ states that even though God has distributed Christ's righteousness for the forgiveness of sins to the entire unbelieving world and they stand righteous and justified by His declaration they are not saved unless they believe they are righteous and justified.

If a person could live their life free from sin and fulfill God's Law perfectly they would, of their own accord, be justified and righteous and deserving of eternal life. Is this not what Christ did in our place? True God and True Man perfectly fulfilling the Law in our place and thus all righteousness dwells in Him.

So to require faith of someone who God has already declared righteous and justified makes faith a form of the Law. UOJ turns the free gift of the Holy Spirit into Law.

Now full blood UOJists will say no, God declares you righteous but you're not until you believe you are. Problem with this is that they also teach that faith doesn't justify, faith doesn't bring into existance anything that wasn't already a reality and true. Thereby nullifying their contention that Christ's righteousness wasn't already theirs before faith. So then UOJ makes faith, the free gift by Grace of the Holy Spirit, a demand of the Law.

Another clear reason that UOJ is a new gospel and contrary to Christ and the Triune God.

L P said...

So to require faith of someone who God has already declared righteous and justified makes faith a form of the Law.

Exactly. The faith UOJ speaks about is not a gift of God since it changes nothing in the man. Drinking water is better since it changes you at least physically each time you do.

Also when all things that happens (or does not happen) in a person becomes irrelevant, what is that? It is universalism. That is its effect.

Everything is reduced to indifference.

This is the effect of reducing Atonement to Justification.

This is not a caricature of Walther and Pieper and the rest, for what they said is out there in the internet world for people to verify.

It is like when I criticize the teaching effect of Calvin, Calvinists are quick to defend him and say to me, no you misunderstood him. That is not what he MEANT etc.

Walter said we are saved to believe, then we are already saved, we just need to believe that we are. In saying what he said, it shows he did not understand the BoC teaching on JBFA.


LPC