Saturday, May 12, 2012

More proof that old time orthodox Lutherans rejected UOJ principles

One of the most glaring differences between JBFA people and UOJ advocates is their idea of the object of faith. In UOJ teaching, the object of faith is justification itself. On the other hand with those who confess One JBFA, the object of faith is the Atonement. In my post a couple of years ago, I had this exchange with a well-known advocate of UOJ, and you can find the comments here


Me: Atonement you said in the previous comments that it is the object of faith?

DJW: I did not say that. I have always spoken of God's forgiveness, through and on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ, as the object of faith.

In the same place DJW even said Ultimately and most personally, it is God's justification in Christ - his word of pardon and forgiveness - that is the object of faith. God's forgiveness of the sinner is his personal message to each of us, because of the atonement (not because of our faith). And forgiveness and justification are essentially the same thing.

Indeed it is agreed by all of Christendom, that Justification = Forgiveness of Sins. From the quote above we see then beyond any shadow of doubt that the object of faith amongst UOJers is Justification, an event purported to have occurred for all people when Jesus died and rose again from the dead.

Even recent prodigal son of UOJ said this about the above quote... there was a time when I had difficulty with the Webber statements you provided. What you presented here is balanced justification and I have no problem with it

Below I provide a quote from Errors of Missouri p.252 which clearly shows that the UOJ myth is nonsense and has been denied by the BoC men. Schmidt attributes the quote below from Hunnius, Leyser and Gesner, faculty members of Wittenberg at the time of Huber. Schmidt quotes them from their work entitled  Thorough Refutation of Huber. The emphases below are mine.

“Just as we are justified, not on account of faith as a work or merit, but through faith, inasmuch as we embrace the merit of Christ by faith; so too we are chosen of God unto eternal life, not on account of faith, but through faith, as St. Paul writes 2 Thess. 2:13: ‘God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and I belief of the truth”. And just as we by faith embrace not justification itself, but the merit of Christ, and become justified when we accept Christ in true faith; so also faith embraces not election itself, as Dr. Huber imagines [LPC: and he imagined that faith embraces justification as UOJers do today], but the grace of election and the Lord Christ in His merit, and they who appropriate Him in faith are the ones that are chosen in Christ, Eph 1. So then faith is included in predestination precisely as it is taken in man’s justification before God.”


Here the “merit of Christ” is clearly taught as the object of faith. Now what does this phrase mean? We do not have to look far because the BoC uses this phrase too and it has been known that Hunnius was a signer of the Formula of Concord. We can find its proper meaning by studying the context in passages where it appears. Let us allow the text to explain itself. As an example in SD III we read...

9 Concerning the righteousness of faith before God we believe, teach, and confess unanimously, in accordance with the comprehensive summary of our faith and confession presented above, that poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, absolved and declared free and exempt from all his sins, and from the sentence of well-deserved condemnation, and adopted into sonship and heirship of eternal life, without any merit or worth of our own, also without any preceding, present, or any subsequent works, out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obedience, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obedience is reckoned to us for righteousness
....
13 For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel; for this must be applied and appropriated to us by faith, if we are to be justified thereby. 14] Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid for [expiated] our sins. 15


The object of faith, the merit of Christ is the Atonement, and not Justification as UOJ myth makers presuppose, and mind you it is their presuppostion that is driving them, not Scripture nor the BoC. The merit of Christ is that perfect and righteous life of obedience to God which Christ lived and in the end gave up as payment for the sins of the world. This, team JBFA have always asserted, that the object of faith is the Atonement and what is imputed to faith when the object is held is the righteousness of Christ. This righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner when he believes.



70 comments:

Brett Meyer said...

Great post Lito. UOJ teaches that the declaration that “Your sins are forgiven and you’ve been declared righteous by God” is the gospel message that creates faith. UOJ teaches that a person must believe that they’ve already been declared forgiven by the Omnipotent God for God’s declaration that it’s true to benefit them. Even the various UOJ teachings vary in that some say your sins aren’t really forgiven until you believe they are even though God said they were. Others teach that you’re just not saved eternally until you believe that God declared you by His divine verdict to be guiltless, justified, righteous and holy – thus the (W)ELS teaching that the whole world is saved, just not heaven saved.
Joe’s new version of UOJ is one in which Christ has forgiven every sin in Himself at the atonement but at the end of a person’s life they decide whether they refuse to believe that Christ did that and the individuals take back – stiff arm Christ at the goal line – and take back their sins from Christ and therefore carry them personally.

In line with your post’s contention that faith is in Christ, I shared these verses with Joe while, speaking in defense of his newly embraced UOJ, he recently argued that the forgiveness of sins were the focus of "saving" faith:

Acts 26:18, "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

John 3:36, "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 6:40, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

1 John 5:10, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

Note that these verses, and obviously there are so many, many more, show the positive and negative which encapsulate what must be believed – believe this and if you don’t believe this. You will thoroughly enjoy your Theses Opposed to Huberiansism!

Christ’s richest blessings,
Brett

LPC said...

Hi BM,

The BoC seems clear enough to me as to what should be the proper object of faith yet, UOJers as can be seen from the quotes, just ignore the evidence.

They seem to be enslaved to the rationalistic paradigm that faith can not be created by the HS if what is to believed had not prior existence. This is humanistic reasoning and not from Scripture.

This is intuitive for them but if one has already a predisposition to this bias, no amount of proof could ever convince them to abandon what Hunnius termed as their nonsense.

It is a fight between two loyalties, either to rationalistic belief or Scriptural evidence. The first is from the flesh, the latter is from the Spirit.

Blessings,

LPC

Tom Moeller said...

Oh! My second comment!
First one today on a Dec. 2011 post... ugh.

I am taught that Justification is received by our faith. Not that Justification is the object of faith. Though I certainly have faith that I am Justified. Thanks be to God!

It is my faith in the atoning death and validating resurrection of Christ, For Me, that brings the Justification that saves me.

I am a rookie Christian. Forgive me if I am a drag to you fast movers.

I need the strokes when I get it right and gentle correctiton when getting it right may save a life.

Tom Moeller
Texas

LPC said...

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your question and for your visit.

It is my faith in the atoning death and validating resurrection of Christ, For Me, that brings the Justification that saves me.

Right. Our faith should be in the fact that Jesus paid for our sins because that is what is addressed by the Law - we are sinners and deserve punishment of eternal hell, the Gospel says, Jesus paid for those sins, so the object is in the fact that Jesus paid the debt the Law demands to be paid. That faith is justification.

As you can see UOJ teaching skips this atonement and jumps to a declaration of righteousness that already existed in the past (so they say). As you can see too, UOJ denies that the atonement should be the object of faith.

You can not go wrong if you study the Scriptures alluded to by the Apology of Augsburg and the Formula of Concord's Solid Declarations. Our faith should be in the merits of Christ which has defined in this post.

Thank God a few synodic Lutheran pastors are now questioning UOJ.

Feel free to asks more.


LPC

Tom Moeller said...

In my neck of the woods, we don't talk UOJ or what not. We go for the big whack upside the head with Jesus died for YOU. You are justified by the Grace of God on account of the work of Jesus, for YOU! (that about sums up our sermons, and of course BAPTIZED!)

Is UOJ more of an intellectual exercise in spreading the work of Christ across a greater swath of humanity than is plainly spoken in the Scriptures?

I am slowly reading the BoC (Tappert, K/W, Concordia and Triglott at the same time) Art. IV for the third time. Hope to get it soon so I can join in with an informed input some day.

Go Chiefs!
Tom

LPC said...

Tom,

You are justified by the Grace of God

careful on this one, UOJers love to stress the grace of God just like the Calvinists, but they leave off the mentioning of faith. In Eph 2:8-9, it says, for by grace are ye Saved through faith.

Notice how St. Paul did not shy away from the mentioning of faith. Universalism is just the omitting of faith in the story of how we are saved.

Walther and Co, has sola gratia, they have no sola fide.

No, UOJ is not about spreading the Gospel, it is about misunderstanding the Gospel in the first place and spreading that misstatement along the way.

Do not take my word for it, you study the issues yourself.
Also realize your pastor may not take it kindly that you are hanging around here.

This kind does not go out without prayer and fasting, hence a fight of faith. You need to follow the courage of your conviction and you might be alone in the process and you do not settle on a conviction in the twinkling of an eye. You can not adopt someone else's conviction, you must own it yourself but do so after thorough search of scripture.

Your LCMS pastor sure knows UOJ , it is implicit in the synod even if he might have not used the term.


Right now we are a minority who oppose UOJ.

Tom Moeller said...

I have only learned the Eph 2 version of God's grace. Received through faith, full stop.

Sorry for not fully using the phrase.

I didn't mean to imply UOJ was used to spread the Gospel rather it is defended because it expresses, wrongly, a larger net to capture more ears. It feels like a wasted exercise or a misapplied instruction where step 2 came before step 1.

I approach some things different from the average Joe. I look for the motivation that promotes a view and then evaluate the general robustness of that view. UOJ seems a bit cockeyed at this point. I will keep reading.

My pastor desires parishioners hungry for learning. Sadly they also had a Sunday School series on Rick Warren's PDL. I was real new when that happened and I gave them some grief over it. I want the truth for life not some fuzzy snuggles to death. Harumph.

LPC said...

It feels like a wasted exercise or a misapplied instruction where step 2 came before step 1

Yeah something like this is happening, the cart is brought in front of the horse.

LPC

LutherRocks said...

If you cut short what the atonement accomplished, namely the forgiveness of sins, your faith is in vain.

No one is denying faith...it is faith that saves. The problem with Jacksonian justification is the claim that there is no forgiveness for an individual unless they have faith when it has in reality existed in Christ from the foundation of the world for all men. You do not see the danger in preaching the former, Lito. You guys teach that God's wrath was not totally set aside by the atonement; that it is faith that apeases God's wrath when in fact it was Jesus that appeased God's wrath on the whole world regardless of faith. Realize the subtley in this error; a derivation of Lenski and synergism...Lenski denied that the atonement appeased the wrath of God toward the whole human race. The only way to appease God's wrath is to have faith according to Lenski. Now, Lenski came from the intuitu fidei/decision theology camp...and your 'Team JBFA' will deny the intuiti fidei/decision theology that Lenski preached...yet you still cling to the faith appeasing God's wrath philosophy instead of Christ appeasing (propitiation objectively for all men - OJ) God's wrath as a scriptural truth. It is a derivative of another synergism that faith completes a work that was finished long ago...even before the foundation of the world was laid.

Tom Moeller said...

Sounds like JBFA is agreed all around but what exists before faith is the issue. Close?

Is justification brought about by our faith alone or does our faith cling to the justification already created?

Tom

LPC said...

Joe

Your comment is a perfect example of absurdity believed by UOJ. An example of saying it is faith that saves and then turn around and deny it pleases God.

You make assertions and one wonders what Scripture you are holding on to say that the wrath of God no longer exists. Whereas Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, the wrath of God abides in the person who has no faith in Christ.

Your statement You guys teach that God's wrath was not totally set aside by the atonement:that it is faith that apeases God's wrath when in fact it was Jesus that appeased God's wrath on the whole world regardless of faith
is so convoluted I do not know where to begin to dissect it.

But let me repeat the Scripture to you which Brett has given to you countless times...and which Scripture assails...

John 3:36 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.

You keep on accusing Lenski but you give no quotes of him so it can be examined.
You keep of speaking of faith on its own without its object which is Chrits and so you draw lots of straw man in your accusation of us.

Why don't you re-quote our statements to show how your assertion does not misrepresent us? I challenge you to give examples.


On the other hand, I gave examples of how you are Huberian, like Webber and the rest, your faith is in Justification and not on the merits of Christ, the atonement. That position was rejected by the BoC editors and signers.

You should stop for a minute and start reading specially Errors of Missouri, you might be surprised who translated that book.

The truth is that you do not really believe in JBFA for you believe in forgiveness without faith and thus not through faith.

Why don't you be wise and give it up, the evidence from the past historically, Scripturally and Confessionally as stack just so much against you and the Huberian UOJ which you defend.

LPC

Tom Moeller said...

"The truth is that you do not really believe in JBFA for you believe in forgiveness without faith and thus not through faith."

Faith must have found a ready promise to latch on to or faith will be lost in a void.

Is there a difference in the promise of forgiveness and the forgiveness received by faith alone?

Ap IV (40)
"Because, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Law of God, and all are under sin, and subject to eternal wrath and death, on this account we cannot be freed by the Law from sin and be justified,

... but the promise of the remission of sins and of justification has been given us for Christ's sake, who was given for us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world ...

and has been appointed as the Mediator and Propitiator."

On the right track?

Tom

LPC said...

Is justification brought about by our faith alone or does our faith cling to the justification already created?

Neither, faith clings to the merit of Christ, that faith God accounts as righteousness , What is imputed to that faith is not fresh righteousness or a righteousness that already existed for you only waiting to be accepted. It is not a righteousness that has already pronounced to the world without faith or prior to faith or prior to being born. Always bearing in mind please that justification = to be declared righteous = to be forgiven.

The righteousness reckoned to the believing sinner is the righteousness of Christ.

Read my post specially how the Solid Declaration words it and I quoted. Read also the comment of Hunnius and Leyser contra the father of UOJ - Samuel Huber.

LPC.

LutherRocks said...

Lito, I'm not going to retrace these arguments with you. It is futile. But when a new Christian stumbles across a blog like this and the writings of you and others misrepresent what is being said; that you continue to refuse to look at it objectively; then something should be said and that was the reason for my comment.

Your theology is crypto-synergistic. It is Christ and His merits that appease the wrath of God toward the sinner. It is faith that grasps this objective truth. Your faith appeasing God's wrath paradigm leaves you with an empty faith.

LPC said...

Joe,


Are you going to present evidence for your accusation or are you just going to call me names and make straw man fallacies towards my position and the rest who contend with UOJ?

You wont repeat your own words because you know well your arguments are mythological and rejected by the Scripture and the Confessions.

I have stacks of labels for you Joe - here are some, crypto-calvinistic, crypto-universalistic, Huberian.

You are not here to engage and convince the new Christian about the validity of your position, you are here to simply malign.

What I publish is all over the internet, in fact I just quoted you back using your own words. The reader can dig and follow your blog and your posting, he can make up his mind to find who among us is standing on the accuracy of God's word.


It is true that Christ appeased God, but that appeasement is in Christ and not outside of him.

You make a wedge between the merits of Christ and the faith that grasps it when you deny it has any consideration at all, besides, as Lutheran I have always confessed that faith is a gift of God created by the HS through the means of Grace.

Your hesitation to quote Lenski shows you actually have not looked at all at his work. You actually have not looked at volume of 1 of his Romans commentary when he addresses the accusation of synergism. Whose conviction are you sharing Joe, is it really your own or once again borrowed from some UOJ propagandists.

In your false dichotomy in putting a wedge between faith (since you like to pooh pooh faith just like a good Waltherian you are) you blaspheme God when the Scripture says "without faith it is impossible to please God" Heb 11:6.

LPC

LPC said...

Is there a difference in the promise of forgiveness and the forgiveness received by faith alone?

The latter part alludes to UOJ that forgiveness is already there and faith should be upon it. This will be what Hunnius and Leyser rejects. The promise of forgiveness is the teaching of God through St. Paul in Romans 4:24-5:2.

I do not deny the forgiveness of sins, the issue is how that is pronounced by God.


Despite the intrusion of Joe Krohn who does not want you to be free from UOJ, let me tell you now my confession - I do not agonize about my assurance of salvation, I know Jesus died for my sins and paid the debt I owe, I rest my head at night knowing that this fact - I repeat to you my favorite verse Phil 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Sorry it is 1:30 AM I will fight for your soul in the morning.

LPC

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel said...

In the Epistle of 1 Peter 1:

We have presented to us election (verse 2).

Verses 3-4 - presents God's mercy, begetting his children to the incorruptible inheritance.

Verses 5-7 - relate being "kept by the power of God through faith," amidst the trials of faith, and temptations.

Verses 8-9 - speak of the believing Christian's confidence of glory to come, - receiving the final culmination of faith, - "even the salvation of your souls."

Verses 10-13 - presents the prophesied role of Christ's sufferings, the "preached Gospel," the Holy Spirit's role and the believer being exhorted to stay the course.

I don't see UOJ in this 1st Peter 1 epistle. What I do see, is election, the necessary focus on God's mercy, faith, and the Christian's struggle against sin and the world; and, the Holy Spirit, sent by Christ.

Sometimes I think that UOJ enthusiasts, in all their "theological" [God study / scrutinizing] quests are like those who make it their prime endeavor to analyze every Scriptural nuance.

UOJ enthusiasts, are like people who search for the fly poop in the pepper; hence, they can't recognize some straight-forward teachings of Scripture. They seem to be so concerned for their [own] eternal security that they miss the obvious, as it is exemplified (presented) in the aforementioned 1st Peter Scripture (chapter 1), brief, break-down.

In short, the very thing that UOJ enthusiasts don't care to fully recognize, is the faith "aspect" and the Holy Spirit's "connection" and role. But, then, I think the reason for this (whole) omission (and, even denial in some cases) on the UOJ enthusiasts’ part, is, that they would have to exercise some faith, to do so.

Pastor emeritus Nathan M. Bickel

www.thechristianmessage.org

www.moralmatters.org

Tom Moeller said...

"Christ is the Savior of all. This means that the whole world of sinners has been redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled to God in Him."
(Rom. 3:24-25; 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 9:28; Ap IV, 103; XXIV, 22-24; FC SD III, 57; XI, 15)

Is this the controversy?
You guys sure make it complicated with all the Huber, Hunnius and Lyser references.

Can this be presented/contested by scripture and BoC testimonies only?

Tom

Brett Meyer said...

Joe Krohn (Luther Rocks) states, "The problem with Jacksonian justification is the claim that there is no forgiveness for an individual unless they have faith when it has in reality existed in Christ from the foundation of the world for all men."

Joe’s version of UOJ teaches that God has forgiven the whole world in Christ before and without faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace. Therefore he teaches that God’s wrath has been totally appeased and no longer exists toward unbelievers since He has already declared them forgiven. He states, “You guys teach that God's wrath was not totally set aside by the atonement; that it is faith that apeases God's wrath when in fact it was Jesus that appeased God's wrath on the whole world regardless of faith. Realize the subtley in this error; a derivation of Lenski and synergism...Lenski denied that the atonement appeased the wrath of God toward the whole human race.”

Note the Huberistic claim of synergism (man’s contribution of faith to his justification) if it is solely by faith in Christ that a man is forgiven by God. So Joe and the rest of the modern Huberites teach that faith is man’s work. Yet, Scripture teaches that faith in Christ is a work of the Holy Spirit alone. Faith is the righteousness of Christ by which a man is given Godly contrition over sin and clings to Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation. Joe’s version of UOJ perverts the faith of the Triune God into a work of man.

Also note Joe’s teaching that God’s wrath does not abide (contrary to John 3:36 as LPC correctly pointed out) on unbelievers - Joe, “when in fact it was Jesus that appeased God's wrath on the whole world regardless of faith. Joe’s false teaching directly contradicts Scripture when Christ declares in Ephesians and Colossians:
Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Colossians 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

Even the Concordists reject Joe Krohn’s new gospel. Joe is unwilling to document his case openly and repeatedly because it is through these discussions that the contradictions and unchristian teaching shows itself most clearly. (W)ELS Pastor Paul Rydecki’s faithful translation of Concordist Hunnius’ These Opposed to Huberiansism states -
Thesis 1
Huber professes such a justification, for the sake of which Christ has properly, actually and practically conferred redemption on the entire human race in such a way that sins have been equally remitted to all men, including the Turks, and that all men (including unbelievers) have received remission of sins, and that the whole human race has, in actual fact, been received into the grace and bosom of God.

Thesis 3
This universal justification of the entire human race he considers (even without respect to faith in Christ) to be fully completed, sins having been remitted on account of the satisfaction made by the Son of God and swallowed up in His own blood and wounds. These things he says concerning his justification.

Thesis 4
He was pleased to correct this foul and disgusting error in the first legal proceeding before the commissaries. But what he was at that time thought to have vomited out, he swallowed up again in his later writings,...

Thesis 5
...Nevertheless, no one is justified nor does anyone obtain remission of sins from this acquired universal righteousness without the imputation of this acquired righteousness of Christ. But the imputation of righteousness does not take place except through faith.

Cont...

Brett Meyer said...

Cont...

Thesis 6
Hence Paul, when he expressly discusses justification in Romans 3 and 4, does not know of a justification apart from faith, and especially as Galatians 2 plainly says, "Man is not justified except by faith in Jesus Christ."

Thesis 7
Outside of faith in Christ and without it, man remains in condemnation, according to John 3, "Whoever does not believe has been judged already." And again, "Whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." And Mark 16, "Whoever does not believe will be condemned." If such a one has already been judged, if the wrath of God remains upon him, if he will be condemned, then in what beautiful way has he been justified? In what splendid manner have his sins been remitted unto him? Indeed, where sins have truly been remitted, there all wrath and condemnation are gone(Rom. 8). "Blessed are they whose sins have been remitted" (Psalm 32). Now then, are all men blessed? Even unbelievers? (Muslims?), Reprobate Jews?

Thesis 8
Therefore, it is certain that no one receives remission of sins for the sake of christ except the one who believes in Him (Acts 10). Nor is anyone justified from his sins except the one who believes in Christ (Acts 13).

Thesis 9
But let Huber (BM - And Joe Krohn) explain to us the mystery of this universal justification of his, and let him set forth in detail when these unbelievers, who have never believed and are not going to believe in the Son of God, ever received the remission of sins and were justified before God?

Quotes from the Christian Book of Concord which refute the false gospel of UOJ

BOC: 6] Let any one of the adversaries come forth and tell us when remission of sins takes place. O good God, what darkness there is! They doubt whether it is in attrition or in contrition that remission of sins occurs. And if it occurs on account of contrition, what need is there of absolution, what does the power of the keys effect, if sins have been already remitted?…"
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_10_repentance.php

BOC: 71] But when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it of the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of justification or preparation for justification, so that not faith itself is that through which we are accepted by God,
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, That Faith in Christ Justifies.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

Tom Moeller said...

Brett: BoC Ap 10:6 as excerpted does not address Justification. It is speaking to remission due to contrition and the relation to absolution (of the Office of the Keys)- repentance.

Your second excerpt (BoC 4:71) is not additive to the contra-UOJ documentation. This appears to be addressing the mixing of works and faith.

I still wonder about BoC 4:40...
"...but the promise of the remission of sins and of justification has been given us for Christ's sake, who was given for us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world..."

That "satisfaction for the sins of the world..." seems significant.

The similarity to BS1932 17A is notable in one glaring difference. The BS1932 inserts "In Christ."

What is being said with this?

Thanks,

Tom

Brett Meyer said...

Tom, because the forgiveness of sins is Justification the BOC AP 10:6 is critical to the discussion. For instance, in Joe's version of Universal Objective Justification, he teaches that God forgave the whole unbelieving world in Christ before they were brought to Godly contrition and faith in Christ. Yet, the Lutheran Confessions teach no such doctrine which is proven by it's teaching concerning the Keys. What sin is there to be loosed or retained if God has already forgiven the whole unbelieving world? Thus it questions UOJ by saying, "what does the power of the keys effect, if sins have been already remitted?" UOJ makes the Office of the Keys of no effect since UOJ teaches that God removed the guilt and sin of the whole unbelieving world before and without faith - remember UOJ teaches that if sins are remitted only through faith in Christ then faith becomes a synergistic work of man.

My quote of BOC 4:71 is equally appropriate to this discussion since UOJ teaches that Christ's atonement appeased God's wrath over the whole unbelieving world's sins and therefore the (W)ELS, LCMS and ELCA teach that God declared the whole world righteous, forgiven of all sin, guiltless and accepted. Yet the Christian Confessions teach that it is by the Holy Spirit's faith itself, which clings to Christ alone, that we are accepted by God. Not before and without faith as the false gospel of UOJ claims.

Satisfaction for the sins of the world is the Atonement - Christ paid for the whole worlds sins. Christ is the propitiation for the whole worlds sins - ONLY BY FAITH. Therefore only those who, by God's grace through the Means of Grace, believe in Christ alone receive Christ as Mediator and Propitiation for thier sin - are instantaneously justified (forgiven of all sin) and saved eternally.

Romans 3:25 Whom 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;

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Brett Meyer said...

Tom, clarification of the BOC 4:40 passage you posted in your last comment was clarified in :43

43] But since justification is obtained through the free promise it follows that we cannot justify ourselves. Otherwise wherefore would there be need to promise? [And why should Paul so highly extol and praise grace?] For since the promise cannot be received except by faith, the Gospel which is properly the promise of the remission of sins and of justification for Christ's sake, proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ, which the Law does not teach. Nor is this the righteousness of the Law.

Note the purpose of this Extra Nos posting is answered in this section also - the Gospel which is properly the promise of the remission of sins and of justification for Christ's sake, proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ, The Gospel message - believe on Christ alone - for the forgiveness of sins. Faith is that righteousness given graciously by God through the Means of Grace by which men are accepted by God when they obtain Christ as their Mediator and Propitiation. Without faith in Christ they do not have Him as their Mediator and therefore do not benefit from His payment for their sins and they REMAIN under God's wrath and condemnation over their sin.

Tom Moeller said...

Brett: Thanks! 4:43 really helps.

"...justification is obtained through the free promise...For since the promise cannot be received except by faith, the Gospel which is properly the promise of the remission of sins and of justification for Christ's sake, proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ, which the Law does not teach."

The promise is Justification/remission of sins, purchased for us by Christ on the Cross.

This promise is made ours through faith.

The promise was there to be delivered in our faith.

The promise preceded the faith that laid ahold of it.

It all seems two sides of the same coin and the coin only has value when redeemed in faith.

I can't seem to trim off the forgiveness of sins for the whole world, in Christ. That "in Christ" still bugs me and says forgiveness of sins is available now, for all, come to Christ and receive that forgiveness.

This seems a better track.

Tom

joel in ga said...

Amid these discussions, isn't it refreshing to know that simple faith that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead is also real, justifying faith?

LutherRocks said...

Lito...you wanted a Lenski quote.

This from his Dogmatic Notes, pg. 227:

“In considering the will in conversion we must hold fast that
up to the point of faith the will remains hostile, does not aid or help the divine power or grace, but strives
against it. This is natural resistance called natural because due to our sinful and depraved nature and thus found
in all sinners alike, with never an exception. Yet the grace of God in the Word keeps hold of the sinner’s will,
working upon it by means of the Law and the Gospel. In this work there may be great fluctuations. Now the
Word may draw man’s will forward, now that will may draw back again. But the work proceeds as long as man
does not by a special determination on his part break the contact for good. Matt. 23, 37: “How often would I
have gathered,” Gen. 6, 3: “My spirit shall not always strive with man.” John 6, 44: “No man can come to me,
except the Father which sent me, draw him.” The work ceases when man WILFULLY RESISTS [caps by
Lenski], i.e., when by a set and lasting determination he casts off the Word and its converting power. The
resistance begins with a special wicked volition, which deepens to a set determination. Matt. [2]3, 37; Felix;
Agrippa; etc. No man is able to explain how in the wills of some men such resistance arises. This mystery is the
same as that in Satan, when as a good angel he nevertheless fell from God; and in Adam, when though holy and
righteous, he yielded to temptation. But the fact of willful resistance, as something specific and rising over and
above our natural resistance, is beyond denial, and attested in all Scripture where reference is made to those
who turn permanently against God’s saving grace. Where this resistance does not arise the power of God
succeeds in changing the will, working contrition and faith, thereby converting the will.”

Lenski is differentiating two different wills in man as if one is less evil (inferring something good to be chosen) than the other and so God converts him on the account of that. Lenski is trying to explain a mystery of God and in this case presents crypto-synergism.

Brett Meyer said...

Joel, yes it is.

But note that Baptists also teach that men are justified by faith alone. Is this their whole confession and is their whole confession consistent and faithful to the doctrine of Justification as declared by Christ? No, it isn't. They also teach that men must make a decision to invite and accept Christ into their life in order to receive the forgiveness of sins through that "faith" they claim. This is decision theology and it condemns them because they know they are performing a work which is a rejection of God's grace lest any man should boast.

UOJ is the same and in most respects even worse. Contrary to UOJ's assertion that Objective and Subjective Justification are simply two sides of the same coin, as Tom made reference to, they are in fact a new and different gospel than that which Scripture declares and the Confessions faithfully explain. From the thirty thousand foot level the very fact that Subjective Justification - the faith of the individual in Christ alone - is as much Objective as the fact that God by His divine will sent His Son to live and die in our place and has paid for the whole world's sins. The OJ/SJ differentiation is a complete fraud and trojan horse used to sneak in a new false gospel.

Tom, Scripture doesn't teach that the whole world was forgiven by God. There is the promise (the word "promise" clearly denoting that it hasn't happened yet - God has not declared the whole world of unbelievers forgiven) of the forgiveness of sins through faith alone in Christ alone. But the whole unbelieving world does not have faith in Christ and as such has not obtained Him as Mediator between God's abiding wrath and condemnation over sin.

Hunnius' theses that were quoted above are a direct reflection of what the Christian Book of Concord thinks of the false doctrine of Objective Justification - it is a steaming pile of vomit which the UOJists (Huberites) of today continue to feed from and wish for others to swallow.

As Hunnius and LPC faithfully declare, neither the Scriptures nor the Confessions teach unbelievers to be forgiven or justified in any way, shape, concept or reality. God's wrath abides on everyone who does not have faith in Christ alone.

UOJ is not Lutheran - it is the chief article of the New Age Religion.

Brett Meyer said...

You're funny Joe Krohn (Luther Rocks). Scripture and the Confessions both teach that man can do nothing to come to faith in Christ. Both teach that man can reject Christ and the one true Gospel promise. Lenski was trying to explain why most reject the Gospel promise which clearly is man's responsibility all along and yet you want to claim synergism. That may have been a right claim if he was trying to explain why the few are converted - but he wasn't.

You then rationalize Lenski's motivation which has no bearing on what Lenski wrote when you state, "and so God converts him on the account of that." This is a false claim because nowhere does Lenski state or imply it regarding conversion by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace.

Tom Moeller said...

Brett says: UOJ is not Lutheran - it is the chief article of the New Age Religion.

Well, that pretty much sets my mind in one camp.

Over the last couple of days I have brought a clean slate and open mind to learning the two sides of the UOJ/JBFA debate. I now see that JBFA is the application end of Justification and OJ/SJ is the operational end.

UOJ contains JBFA but JBFA excludes UOJ.

You JBFA team boneheads are so wrapped up in your own little slice of the dogmatic pie you are not hearing that one's justification is by faith alone while that faith beholds and grasps that which is here for us not what is pending until we have faith.

When we receive faith we get the justification purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ. That justification is for all, IN CHRIST as article 17 of BS1932 says.

It is already present... in Christ.
It is for all the world... in Christ.
By Grace alone, through Faith alone, for Christ's sake (in Christ) alone.

Duh.

Thanks for the education and lesson in selfish, compartmentalized personal baggage corrupted doctrine.

Chiao folk.

Tom

Brett Meyer said...

Tom, if a person's justification is by faith alone - why does your LCMS declare the whole unbelieving world to be righteous and forgiven of all sin - even those who were condemned in Sodom and Gomorrah?

If UOJ is the big picture why do the Concordists condemn it as a teaching of Satan contrary to Scripture and Christ?

http://www.amazon.com/Theses-Opposed-Huberianism-Lutheran-Justification/dp/1475186541/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337214082&sr=8-1

LPC said...

Pr. Nathan,

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Yes, the UOJers are allergic to faith. Once you mention faith, they get offended.

The best news of all is that all are saved without reference to anything not to faith nor baptism or etc.

That is the best news but according to Scripture, that is mythical news.

LPC

Tom Moeller said...

Brett: "why does your LCMS declare the whole unbelieving world to be righteous and forgiven of all sin - even those who were condemned in Sodom and Gomorrah?"

Source and specific statement of that belief please.
========================
(If from BS 1932 art 17, wet powder.
It doesn't say exactly that... you forgot the "in Christ" clause. That is the faith alone charge that y'all keep ignoring to dismiss OJ.)

Y'all are looking for a fight and your approach just doesn't warrant breaking a sweat over your parsing and picking.

Lito: "The best news of all is that all are saved without reference to anything not to faith nor baptism or etc."

Snotty sarcasm based on a falsehood is not very effective. You are making a fool of yourself.

Didn't take long to see through you yahoos.

LPC said...

Joe,

You are still into this thinking that if you could pooh pooh Lenski, then Team JBFA's case should crumble no? Again sorry, you are under a great delusion.

You are quite wrong and it is quite a desperate attempt on your part because what will destroy our arguments is Scripture. Our critique of UOJ did not happen after Pr. Paul's translation came forth of Hunnius contra Huber. It has always been there by simply looking at what you UOJers have been teaching. It is Scripture and the Confessions that destroy your UOJ case.

To add to what Brett said about your quote of Lenski, I have his commentary and that charge of synergism he countered and addressed all along in his comment on Romans 1:16-17. However, your cohorts won't tell you this would they?

Our position is not dependent on Lenski although I for one believe his critique of UOJ is most valid and most agreeable.

Just a piece of advice borne from my experience, in order to destroy, put to waste our contention against UOJ you have to attack our best arguments against it.

You think we are like you, placing authority on what a man says.

Joe, our best argument is coming from Scripture and so to put make our arguments come to waste, your appeal to other people's views will not destroy it because our core argument is not based on a human's view.

LPC

LPC said...

Tom,

You JBFA team boneheads are so wrapped up in your own little slice of the dogmatic pie you are not hearing that one's justification is by faith alone while that faith beholds and grasps that which is here for us not what is pending until we have faith

Oh we are now boneheads?

I am glad you are showing your true colors. It is not that hard to smoke a UOJ fanatic out of the hole.

I did give you a benefit of the doubt. At least your blood is no longer on our head but on yours.

Here is an example of a statement just wants to prop up a false idea so it can be believed.

I now see that JBFA is the application end of Justification and OJ/SJ is the operational end.


This is called multiplication of categories. There is no such thing as an operational one etc.

Goodness what does that mean, operational stuff. Perhaps we have a tactical stuff and what not.

Tom, in rejecting the proper teaching of JBFA you now have succumbed to inventing categories. However we have seen this before.

Take note the father of your justification doctrine - Huber.

LPC

LPC said...

Incidentally that bit of In Christ clause...

That is the faith alone charge that y'all keep ignoring to dismiss OJ.)

UOJers are happy to drop that phrase in discussion, when we point out their universalism, the are quick to include it in.

However, they twist the In Christ phrase, to them it does not really mean exclusively located in Christ, for them it means by default by the fact that Jesus died, all have been forgiven ALREADY, In Christ.

No where is this phraseology in Article 17a supported by Scripture and their favorite support Romans 4:25 we have debunked here exegetically countless times.

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

The "boneheads" comment was unprovoked and simply proves the contention of this post:
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2012/02/too-much-to-bear-when-you-bare-too-much.html

And here too:
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2012/04/discussing-uoj-to-uojer.html

Tom Moeller wanted to appear innocent and even stated he came with an open mind and clean slate - but simply calling UOJ what I believe it to be, a new age doctrine, was enough to shatter the image he was trying to sustain - ya'll. Tom is a UOJist but has no idea what it teaches or what those in his own Synod are teaching. Evidence is not understanding how the Office of the Keys is an essential confession of the doctrine of Justification as are the doctrines which identify when a man is acceptable to God.

The error that the LCMS Brief Statement of 1932 is guilty of is placing the whole unbelieving world "in Christ".

Of Justification
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; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.
http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=415

Tom, the Brief Statement's claim that "God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ" includes those in Sodom and Gomorrah as Luther Qwest LCMS clergy confirmed here:
http://www.lutherquest.org/cgi-bin/discus40/discus.cgi

No one is in Christ except by faith so unbelievers are not in Christ and therefore God did not "already declare the whole "unbelieving" world righteous.

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

The remainder of the Brief Statement section on Justification that I quote above is correct and faithful to Scripture. The first part is a heinous error embraced by unbelieving, UOJ promoting Huberites.

LPC said...

Indeed Brett,

The depth of depravity a UOJ Antinomian can go to is quite on display here. They have no qualms in playing games, their hypocrisy is evidence of a seared conscience for after all they consider themselves already forgiven no matter what. Integrity is not valued, they can lie to you without a thought.

Incidentally,they can not really uphold the BoC which teaches that a man may lose salvation.

Hunnius has a great comment, he said if justification has happened already without regard to faith, then one can never lose it even though one has no faith. This implies that these Huberites are hypocrites in claiming they subscribe to the BoC when in fact their doctrine contradicts it.

LPC

LutherRocks said...

Peace on Earth, good will toward men.

Gentlemen, you miss the point of God's grace. God's will is for all to be saved. He would love nothing more than for all men to be His elect. Christ carried off all iniquity and died for all. God foreknew of man's fall in eternity, but He created the world anyway. Why? For the sake of Christ and to demonstrate His love for us. We know that God is a jealous God. But we also know that He is gracious God and His love trumps all things. Had He not provided a solution by promising a Savior in eternity, before the foundations of the world were laid, all would be lost since He hates sin. So in creation, God already looked at it as good and righteous on the account of His Son...no matter what man would do. He has always seen it that way because He looks at it through His Son and all His merits. 'This is my Son in whom I am well pleased'. The world was justified through Christ (in Christ) always. This wonderful reality is ours through faith in Christ.

It would be a sin for me to say why some are saved and others not, for this is determined by God's infinite wisdom in His court and solely by His grace; for He could save all or condemn all. The reason for man's salvation is solely in Christ; a gift of God received in faith which is also a gift from God. Man's condemnation is totally man's fault since his will is only evil from his youth. However, Lenski when he spoke in this context, he had the preconceived notion that God foresaw those who would have natural resistance and who would have wilful resistance to the gift of faith; as if there are two wills; as if there is something or a lack of something present in man that makes faith possible. This view makes God's election of the believer 'in view of faith'...as if he is now worthy. It flies in the face of a gracious choice by God. Lenski's view of a passive will and an active will is anti-BoC; for man has no power over his own will. Either God will ride man's will or Satan will.

It is evident that since Lenski drew this conclusion of election, that it now stood on equal ground with faith. It explains why he interpreted 'the many' as he did in Romans 5:19 as two different groups of people thereby denying the general/objective justification of the world.

LPC said...

The ministry of reconciliation which St. Paul says is still happening today. That is the peace on earth good will to man bit announced by the angel.


I suggest this is where you are purposely misunderstanding the Gospel story. You then made a blanket statement...
The world was justified through Christ (in Christ) always. This wonderful reality is ours through faith in Christ.
What Scriptural basis are you using to say this? It is improper to say this statement ala 1932 LCMS BS Article 17a because the world has not been justified through Christ without faith. It can not even be said ALREADY because that is totally not true.


Again you seem to be just intent to ignore what we are saying, that is why I posted the 3 monkeys Joe, and you simply repeat your own mantra and the Huberian error of mis-speaking about justification. You offer assertions without Scripture.

With regards to Lenski, I do not have the entire context of your quote but on its face value, you are not countering Brett's statement that in your quote Lenski describe what is happening in the resisting person he did not mention what was happening in the person who is being converted. Hence, your crtique of Lenski, is post hoc propter ergo hoc.

Justification = forgiveness of sins, all Christendom agree with this meaning. In Romans 4 -5, it is always through faith, there is no mention of a general objective justification. The Bible teaches that the atonement of Jesus is for all but it does not teach that justification has already happened for all by the mere fact of the atonement.

Like Calvinism, you can only say It is evident that since Lenski drew this conclusion of election, that it now stood on equal ground with faith. It explains why he interpreted 'the many' as he did in Romans 5:19 as two different groups of people thereby denying the general/objective justification of the world. if you are equating that since Jesus died on the cross and raised from the death, the world automatically has become justified already.


As we have pointed out to you and many others like me, Brett and Dr. Jackson, atonement is not the same nor co-equal with justification. You might be holding to some kind of Scripture which you are not mentioning in this discussion for your best UOJ arguement based on Romans 4:25 has been debunked many times and also in this blog as well. Your best bet if offer a counter argument why the comments made here in Romans 4:25 is wrong, but the onus is upon you not on us. So are you basing your assertion on Romans 4:25, if not what Scripture are you using to say that justification has happened already IN Christ?


So to come back again to my prove - can you tell in reference to that atheists like Dawkins down the street, can you answer if he has already been justified in Christ already?

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

Joe, here are the blatant rationalizations that you made in your last comment.

1. Christ carried off all iniquity

2. So in creation, God already looked at it (BM - the world?) as good and righteous on the account of His Son...no matter what man would do. He has always seen it that way because He looks at it through His Son and all His merits.

3. The world was justified through Christ (in Christ) always.

4. He (BM – Lenski) had the preconceived notion that God foresaw those who would have natural resistance and who would have wilful resistance to the gift of faith

5. This view makes God's election of the believer 'in view of faith'...as if he is now worthy.

6. It is evident that since Lenski drew this conclusion of election, that it now stood on equal ground with faith. It explains why he interpreted 'the many' as he did in Romans 5:19 as two different groups of people thereby denying the general/objective justification of the world.


My comments:
1.) “carried off” is a Huberistic term that teaches that the whole unbelieving world now stands forgiven since Christ “carried off” their sin. There is no Scriptural teaching which supports this false teaching. Even Supreme (W)ELS UOJ leader DP Buchholz in his 2005 Justification essay which defended and promoted his version of UOJ stated, “God has forgiven all sins, but the unbeliever rejects God’s forgiveness." Again, this statement is true—and Luther employed similar terminology to press the point of Christ’s completed work of salvation.16 But we must also recognize that Scripture doesn’t speak this way.” Not only do the Huberists contradict Scripture but they contradict each other as your LutherQuest brothers showed when they attacked (W)ELS Pastor David Jay Webber when he taught his version of UOJ. Your false teaching directly contradicts John 8:24, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” In response you continue to claim that Christ carried off the worlds sins but the unbelieving world strong arms Christ and takes their sins back – where is that taught in Scripture? Where does it state that unbelievers take back anything from Christ?
2.) No God doesn’t look at creation or the world as good and righteous on account of His Son. Scripture declares in John 16 that Christ will rebuke the world of it’s sin. The world is the kingdom of Satan. Christ even states that if you love the world you do not love God. How then does God look at the world as good and righteous on account of His Son. What Scripture passage(s) teach this? John 3 rejects this false teaching because it declares that those who do not have faith in Christ are condemned already. In harmony then with John 3:36, “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” there has never been a time where unbelievers were viewed through Christ to be good and righteous. By their unbelief they stand outside of Christ and remain under God’s wrath and condemnation. Again, you have no Scriptural support for this false teaching since the whole of Scripture rejects unbelievers being viewed in Christ. “this is my Son in whom I am well pleased” is God speaking of His Son and not the World as you state.

Cont...

Brett Meyer said...

Cont...

3.) John 3:36 rejects this false teaching. As does John 3:18, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
4.) Preconceived? You speak as though Ephesians 1:5 and 11 didn’t exist.
Eph. 1:5, “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”
Eph. 1:11, “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:” Those defending One Justification Solely by Faith Alone do not go beyond God’s revealed will in Scripture. Huberists like yourself go beyond and dictate what God could and couldn’t not do, what He would and would not do and what he must have done and thought which are nowhere revealed in Scripture.
5.) No, it is as Concordist Hunnius stated in opposition to your doctrinal father Samuel Huber – read page 58, Thesis 5 in the book Theses Opposed to Huberianism.
6.) You’ve got to be kidding.

Joe, you need to answer Hunnius who condemned your doctrinal father Samuel Huber who taught the same false gospel that you are rationalizing today.

Brett Meyer said...

Lito, our swords cross again.

UOJ has no answer for this declaration in the Christian Book of Concord:

BOC: 71] But when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it of the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of justification or preparation for justification, so that not faith itself is that through which we are accepted by God,
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, That Faith in Christ Justifies.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php


Riddle me this you Huberites out there - UOJ teaches God accepted the whole unbelieving world in Christ before faith - regardless if they would ever believe in Christ. Is the BOC wrong to state that man is only accepted by God through Faith in Christ?

LutherRocks said...

"Riddle me this you Huberites out there - UOJ teaches God accepted the whole unbelieving world in Christ before faith - regardless if they would ever believe in Christ. Is the BOC wrong to state that man is only accepted by God through Faith in Christ?"

Brett...The Bible does not say that "God accepted the whole unbelieving world in Christ before faith - regardless if they would ever believe in Christ..." It says 'God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their sins against them'. You are skewing the Bible and OJ correctly taught.

"Is the BOC wrong to state that man is only accepted by God through Faith in Christ?"

Wrong question. The BoC says the sinner is saved by grace for the sake of Christ through faith.

Christ and what He merits; the forgiveness of all men's sins is the lynch pin for all of mankind's salvation. No promise of forgiveness for all men makes Christ useless and faith null and void.

Brett Meyer said...

Joe states, "You are skewing the Bible and OJ correctly taught."

I assume you agree with your new Synod's confession of Justification in it's Brief Statement of 1932 and believe it correctly teaches OJ when it states, "God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ"
http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=415

To teach that God ALREADY declared whole unbelieving world to be righteous in Christ is for God to accept the whole unbelieving world. At the same time it perverts God's doctrine of Election which clearly teaches not everyone has been elected by God and certainly not everyone will believe since the gate to Hell is wide and many there be that go therein. So for Huberistic UOJists to teach that everyone was already declared forgiven of all sin and righteous in Christ is absurd because not everyone is in Christ and certainly not everyone will ever be in Christ.

Huberites would do well to read the BOC on Election and go no further in explaining those things which God has not revealed in Scripture as it is leading them into false teachings of which Universal Objective Justification is the most heinous.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#XI. Election.

Joe, I ask you, "Is the BOC wrong to state that man is only accepted by God through Faith in Christ?"

It is a good question.

Also, where do you get the idea that we do not teach in accord with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions that 1. God would have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. And 2. That Christ merited the forgiveness of the whole world's sins - that Christ paid for the iniquity of us all.?

It is UOJ that goes beyond Scripture and teaches that not only did Christ merit the forgiveness of all men's sins as God accepted Christ's payment of His body and blood, perfectly innocent and righteous life, but that God then pronounced the whole unbelieving world forgiven, justified and righteous all without and before faith. Proof of this is that you anathematize faith if it is solely by faith alone that sins are forgiven by God when a man through the gracious gift of the Holy Spirit's faith obtains Christ as Mediator and therefore Christ's merits - the forgiveness of sins, life eternal and sonship.

Hunnius dedicated one hundred and sixty five (165) theses to obliterating your doctrine of UOJ as it blasphemes Christ's doctrine of Eternal Election. Hunnius signed the Christian Book of Concord and was hired by the University of Wittenberg to refute the infiltration of reformed, Calvanistic doctrine and return the Lutheran Churches to faithful BOC doctrine. That is no light matter for Hunnius and Leyser to call Huber's UOJ a doctrine of Satan with their condemnation using Scripture.

LPC said...

Joe,

I am losing patience in your comments. My 3 monkeys picture is there because you do the following: you do not like to listen nor look at what we say instead you just want to talk over without any support from scripture. You just repeat your mantra and here Dr. Greg is right, UOJers just repreat their talking points. This is the other monkey who shuts his mouth and not answer questions when asked no speak of Scripture he is holding on. Perhaps you then have no Scripture to back you up that is the reason why you do not answer from it.

You are then speaking from your cooked up imagination and theories just like Huber, as Hunnius says nonsense.

Brett's question about the BoC is perfect and ligitimate. Either you agree with it or not and you may even say in what sense you agree or disagree etc.

But for you to dismiss the question on the basis it is not the right question to ask is one of those cop out.

So in short, Joe, your comments deserve not to be taken seriously. I have gone beyond the way your comrades have treated me and Brett. I have not banned you from commenting but I may disallow your nonsense comments to come in so please stick with the topic.

Answer Brett and my atheist example.

Lastly, I have given evidence that you believe just like Webber and just like Huber, that the object of faith is justification in this post.

I do not see how you can wiggle your way out of this evidence.
In your comments you have not offered any rebuttal and in fact your comments support Huber so I do not see how you can snug out of this knot.

LPC

LutherRocks said...

"That Christ merited the forgiveness of the whole world's sins - that Christ paid for the iniquity of us all.?

You nailed it. This is Justification from the objective view. I am glad that you are starting to see it. This is what faith clings to.

"It is UOJ that goes beyond Scripture and teaches that not only did Christ merit the forgiveness of all men's sins as God accepted Christ's payment of His body and blood, perfectly innocent and righteous life, but that God then pronounced the whole unbelieving world forgiven, justified and righteous all without and before faith."

You're getting there...in a general objective sense. Keep the focus on Christ.

"Proof of this is that you anathematize faith if it is solely by faith alone that sins are forgiven by God when a man through the gracious gift of the Holy Spirit's faith obtains Christ as Mediator and therefore Christ's merits - the forgiveness of sins, life eternal and sonship."

Bravo. Justification from the subjective view which clings to Christ and the forgiveness of sins...an objective reality.

As far as Hunnius goes...

The book is one sided. It is difficult to see his point without seeing all of Huber's writings in context. Besides he was not accusing Huber of universalism as you infer from the book, but was defending against Huber's claim of Calvinism; different context. Still, I see the correlation to re-defining of terms and its problems.

Huber from what I am understanding with what narrow view Hunnius provides, is using the word election not in the sense the Confessions do, but in the sense God's will is for all to be saved. Christ died for all. If Christ only died for believers, well that would be Calvinism.

LutherRocks said...

Lito, I have never attacked you personally. If I said anything offensive, it was aimed at something that was said, or a position. I am sorry if you took it personally. I have always valued our discussion.

I disagree when you say:
"Lastly, I have given evidence that you believe just like Webber and just like Huber, that the object of faith is justification in this post." I have always stayed with Christ and His merits...and so does Webber. I have not read Huber. Please show me where I have strayed from this position...

Dawkins has Justification (the forgiveness of sins) waiting for him through and in Christ. But, he cannot have it if he insists on living in his own self-righteousness.

Brett Meyer said...

Joe, very little of what you write makes any sense regarding the issue at hand.

The proper term for your statements is to Obfuscate.

Obfuscate: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

We are not in agreement regarding our opposing confessions of the doctrine of Justification. Yet, you pretend that I'm confessing the doctrine that you teach. You avoid simple and direct questions which would help everyone understand exactly what you believe. You avoid addressing statements that show the differences between our confessions. It is without question a fraudulent way of having a discussion.

You state that Hunnius' theses were one sided?! Of course, he has a Confessional opinion of the false teachings of Huber's UOJ. It isn't difficult to understand what Huber was teaching though by reading Hunnius' Scripture based condemnation of it. You never balked at H.A. Preus' one sided essay anathematizing August Weenass' One Justification Solely by Faith Alone doctrinal confession. And yet, by reading the heinous things H.A. Preus confessed it was clearly understood what A. Weenaas was teaching.
http://www.christforus.org/Papers/Content/HermanAmbergPreusonJustificationofWorld.htm

Clearly Hunnius saw Huber's Universalism but since Huber hadn't publicly proclaimed it Hunnius was not going to charge it.
"Thesis 12
In addition, whether all men are, in fact, saved, including those who do not believe in Christ. This, likewise, is not, at the moment, being called into question.

Thesis 13
For although that conclusion can most definitely be reached from Huber's doctrine as a consequence affirmed by the testimonies of Christ and the apostles, nevertheless, since Huber directly and intentionally does not teach in such a way, we are still willing not to charge him directly with that paradox."


It is clear that you do not understand what is written in Hunnius' Theses Opposed to Huberiansism - available for $10 USD on Amazon.com - A fair price for Confessional refutation of UOJ.

Joe states, "I disagree when you say:
"Lastly, I have given evidence that you believe just like Webber and just like Huber, that the object of faith is justification in this post." I have always stayed with Christ and His merits...and so does Webber. I have not read Huber. Please show me where I have strayed from this position..."

This is not true Joe Krohn. You made this confession publicly on Lutherquest April of 2012.

Joe Krohn stated,"Posted on Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - 8:06 am:
I am truly sorry. I have some amends to make. I believe I finally see your perspective.

Truly Justification becomes objective by a sinner's rejection of it. The believer sees his sin and is remorseful. The unbeliever does not. In reality we are all forgiven and are only capable of rejection by our evil nature and loving of the sin.

What better time than Holy Week."


cont...

Brett Meyer said...

Cont...

This was in response to a multitude of false UOJ teachings which included this statement made by LCMS Pastor Rolf Preus, which you quote and which declares not only that the forgiveness of sins is the focus of faith but that indeed the whole unbelieving world has been completely forgiven of all sin, which Pr. Preus and you finally agreed, must already be a reality before faith since faith cannot be created by anything which wasn't already true - note the "If God had not forgiven them before they believed God would have no means of bringing them to faith." and the subsequent rejection of the promise of sins forgiven through faith alone.

Joe Krohn quoting Huberite Pastor Rolf Preus Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - 8:44 pm:

"God comes to sinners who see their sins and he tells them in the gospel that they have a Savior who has taken away their sins. He forgives them their sins for Christ's sake. This gospel that says your sins are forgiven for Christ's sake is the means by which God brings you to faith and keeps you in the faith.

You cannot agree with this statement if you deny that God, for Christ’s sake, has forgiven the entire world of sinners. What have I said in this statement? I have said that God comes to sinners (who do not yet have faith) and tells them that they have a Savior who has taken away their sins. I say that God forgives these sinners (who do not yet have faith). Then I say that this gospel that tells these sinners (who do not have faith) that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake is the means by which God brings them to faith.

Can you see this? God forgives sinners for Christ’s sake. This is how God brings them to faith. If God had not forgiven them before they believed God would have no means of bringing them to faith.

You use the word promise as if it means that God will do something that he has not yet done. You turn the gospel into a deal: God will forgive you if you believe. Thus, by appealing to the concept of promise you reject the substance of the promise."


The discussion can be read here:
http://www.lutherquest.org/discus40/messages/103666/101645.html?1333494984

Joe, you still have not answered the very simple and clear questions posted above.

LutherRocks said...

I have answered your questions.

My bad. I thought maybe you were coming around.

You keep believing what you want...that only believers are forgiven.

All sin has been forgiven in the broken body of Christ and it is offered up for all men...not just believers.

Adieu.

Brett Meyer said...

Joe Krohn, "All sin has been forgiven in the broken body of Christ and it is offered up for all men...not just believers."

Proof that modern UOJists are simply Huberites professing the same false gospel as Samuel Huber which was condemned by faithful Lutheran Concordists such as A. Hunnius in his Theses Opposed to Huberiansism: (replace Huber with any one of the UOJists that you know - and you don't have to know Greek to see they teach the same false doctrine)

Thesis 1
Huber professes such a justification, for the sake of which Christ has properly, actually and practically conferred redemption on the entire human race in such a way that sins have been equally remitted to all men, including the Turks (BM-Muslims), and that all men (including unbelievers) have received remission of sins, and that the whole human race has, in actual fact, been received into the grace and bosom of God.

Thesis 3
This universal justification of the entire human race he considers (even without respect to faith in Christ) to be fully completed, sins having been remitted on account of the satisfaction made by the Son of God and swallowed up in His own blood and wounds. These things he says concerning his justification.

Thesis 4
He was pleased to correct this foul and disgusting error in the first legal proceeding before the commissaries. But what he was at that time thought to have vomited out, he swallowed up again in his later writings,...

Thesis 5
...Nevertheless, no one is justified nor does anyone obtain remission of sins from this acquired universal righteousness without the imputation of this acquired righteousness of Christ. But the imputation of righteousness does not take place except through faith.

Thesis 6
Hence Paul, when he expressly discusses justification in Romans 3 and 4, does not know of a justification apart from faith, and especially as Galations 2 plainly says, "Man is not justified except by faith in Jesus Christ."

Thesis 7
Outside of faith in Christ and without it, man remains in condemnation, according to John 3, "Whoever does not believe has been judged already." And again, "Whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." And Mark 16, "Whoever does not believe will be condemned." If such a one has already been judged, if the wrath of God remains upon him, if he will be condemned, then in what beautiful way has he been justified? In what splendid manner have his sins been remitted unto him? Indeed, where sins have truly been remitted, there all wrath and dcondemnation are gone(Rom. 8). "Blessed are they whose sins have been remitted" (Psalm 32). Now then, are all men blessed? Even unbelievers? (Muslims?), Reprobate Jews?

Thesis 8
Therefore, it is certain that no one receives remission of sins for the sake of christ except the one who believes in Him (Acts 10). Nor is anyone justified from his sins except the one who believes in Christ (Acts 13).

Thesis 9
But let Huber explain to us the mystery of this universal justification of his, and let him set forth in detail when these unbelievers, who have never believed and are not going to believe in the Son of God, ever received the remission of sins and were justified before God?

LPC said...

BM said :"That Christ merited the forgiveness of the whole world's sins - that Christ paid for the iniquity of us all.?

JK replied: You nailed it. This is Justification from the objective view. I am glad that you are starting to see it. This is what faith clings to.

Me: Joe, why can you not get that atonement is not justification? What we call atonement you miscategorize as justification, so as usual and all along we have been saying to you and your kind, you are into the fallacy of category mistake. But then you do not deal with it as if we have said nothing about it and you just keep carrying on. Is this your method of self justfiying an imaginary idea that you just want to believe?

JK said: Dawkins has Justification (the forgiveness of sins) waiting for him through and in Christ. But, he cannot have it if he insists on living in his own self-righteousness

Me: Then by this statement, you are saying that Dawkins is not yet justified. Now why do you subscribe to your new synod's BS Article 17b that says God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ? Note my emphasis, you are in contradiction with your new synods flagship doctrine. You must be with them for some other reason, and it is not because of right doctrine.

By this you are conceding that the BS statement is wrong since you do not confess what it teaches. For obviously if it were correct, you would agree with it, no one in his right mind will agree with a statement he blatantly knows is wrong.

Further, Brett is correct, you do not answer very simple questions and because of that you just parrot like talk to yourself.

You are being nonsensical and funny.

LPC said...

Joe,

To my comment --"Lastly, I have given evidence that you believe just like Webber and just like Huber, that the object of faith is justification in this post."

You stated I have always stayed with Christ and His merits...and so does Webber. I have not read Huber. Please show me where I have strayed from this position...

Gladly and with intense reminder to you.

When I asked you about Webber's assertion that the object of faith is justification in Christ (= forgiveness of sins), you said you have no problem with it.

It is documented in the post for you and all to read.

Since Huber believed that the object of faith is the justification in Christ that has already occurred and since Webber agrees with this and then you too agree with Webber, the you agree with Huber.

Since Hunnius and Leyser rejects Huber's contention as false doctrine, therefore Hunnius and Leyser is also against you.

Now sure you may not consider Hunnius and Leyser as reliable spokes people for the BoC and faithful orthodox Lutheran doctrine, you are entitled to that and I would - be my guest.

At least you know where you stand in your position, that your position was opposed by orthodox Lutherans of the past . At least by enlarge, know your position is suspect.

Now also being opposed by human beings is not grave, what is serious is if the Scripture is against you. That is serious. That is more weighty and I suggest to you and your folk, Scripture is indeed against the position you hold.

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

Remarkable. I love it when Huberites write their confession down. They are as unstable and contradictory as their chief doctrine. (W)ELS DP Jon Buchholz even calls himself a heretic in his own 2005 Convention essay - how appropriate is that!

Consider for a time the rational machinations of Huberites when they dictate, without Scriptural revelation, what God could and could not do. This quote taken from the direct quote commented above that was made by UOJist Pastor Rolf Preus and agreed to by Joe Krohn - "If God had not forgiven them before they believed God would have no means of bringing them to faith."

Wow, you can't make this stuff up! Not only is it unscriptural and false but it is such a blasphemous charge to wage against the omnipotent Triune God.

Unbelievable...

LPC said...

Indeed Joe Krohn agrees with the statement "If God had not forgiven them before they believed God would have no means of bringing them to faith."

If we are wrong, let him come for the record and deny and even reject the teaching of this statement now.

But what is this statement? One can see most clearly that it is a statement that does not have Scripture as its basis, its basis is rationalism and psychological humanism. It is a presupposition that something must have happened first before it can be believed.

It is as rationalistic in many aspects as Calvinism. It is quite intuitive - from a human point of view! But what is quite intuitive is not necessarily what Scripture says. Consequently 1 Cor 1 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.


The message of Huberites is not Christ crucified, rather its message is "you have already been forgiven now just believe it",

Notice too the phrase God would have no means of bringing them to faith. to which Joe Krohn accedes. The God of Huberites is impotent. He has no means - what in the world then happened to His Word and Sacraments? To the Huberites, these do not create something out of nothing. These then are just reminders of things that have already happened in the past. To the Huberites the Sacraments do not turn man to new creatures.

Indeed the Huberite's God can not create something (such as faith) out of nothing. For them God's Word has no mysterious nor miracular powers - Romans 1:16-17.

We have mourned that like Huber who (according to Hunnius) once vomited his teaching, Joe after rejecting UOJ came back on record and even with repentance to announce his return to UOJ , the LC-MS form of it.

On the other hand we have seen his fellow UOJers congratulate him and have taken glory in his flesh.

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

In addition to the applicable quotes posted above here are a few significant selections quoted from the book, Theses Opposed to Huberiansism
(Available from Amazon.com)

This thesis opposes UOJ's teaching that the whole world of unbelievers were declared justified and righteous in Christ.

Thesis 77
Therefore, if you remove the cardinal question driven between us and Huber and ask, "Whom did God decree to save in the purpose of His eternal election?", there Christ and Paul answer unanimously, "Those who believe in Christ", and "no one except for them", says the Epitome of the Book of Concord.

Page 52

This selection opposes UOJ's teaching that God accepts and is at peace with the whole world of unbelievers or that He looks at the unbelieving world through Christ and forgives the whole worlds sins (Hunnius quoting Scripture)

Thesis 97
Thus says the Lord there: "I have made known Your name to the men whom you gave me from the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your Word." And shortly afterwards, "I do not pray for the world, but for these whom You gave Me."


(BM - bold text is in the original)

LPC said...

BM,

Thanks for the additional quotes.

I am still waiting for my copy of the Hunnius book. However based on the theses you have published and the other Ichabodians, one has to be thick to deny that Huber and modern UOJers are really one and the same thing.

It is as if Hunnius is alive today. There is an exact match as to what Huber and what UOJers are teaching. It is not hard to find because they are all over the Web.

When Joe said...The book is one sided. It is difficult to see his point without seeing all of Huber's writings in context. Besides he was not accusing Huber of universalism as you infer from the book, but was defending against Huber's claim of Calvinism; different context. Still, I see the correlation to re-defining of terms and its problems.

Huber from what I am understanding with what narrow view Hunnius provides, is using the word election not in the sense the Confessions do, but in the sense God's will is for all to be saved. Christ died for all. If Christ only died for believers, well that would be Calvinism.


Joe was trying to exonerate Huber from the deadly claws truth that Hunnius pinned on Huber's hide. I should think that such a motivation is of interest if one knows that Huber's teaching is compatible with his.

In Errors of Missouri, IIRC, there is an accusation that Walther was a Huberite.

LPC

LPC

Brett Meyer said...

Lito, did your copy of Hunnius' theses arrive?

LPC said...

No not yet Brett. Still waiting.

I will need to chase this up with Amazon.

Gregory L. Jackson said...

The Wayne Mueller quotation supplied by Brett Meyer explains everything. It renders all historical research and the Confessions void. Mueller, who heavily promoted Church Growth as first VP of WELS, claimed that the Confessions encouraged future Lutherans to make up new concepts. That justified replacing justification by faith with UOJ as the Chief Article. We could have a painting of Luther tearing up a UOJ banner and it would not matter a bit.

Gregory L. Jackson said...

We are not restricted to those doctrines laid down in our confessions. This is the very procedure followed in the confessions themselves. The Augustana did not restrict itself to those points treated in the Apostles’ Creed. The Formula of Concord [1577], in turn, did not restrict itself to those doctrinal statements found in the Augustana [1530], the Apology [1531], or the Smalcald articles [1537]. It went beyond them, because the framers of these documents considered it wise to do so. This is especially true of its Article on God’s Eternal Foreknowledge and Election. (Harold Wicks, “What is Doctrine According to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions,’ Our Great Heritage, Vol. I,p841
Appeal to the Lutheran symbols did not resolve the moment of presence controversy.
(Cf. Arnold Koelpin, “The Sacramental Presence in the Theology of the Synodical Conference,” Our Great Heritage, Vol. III, p28ff)
Appeal to the Lutheran symbols did not resolve the church fellowship controversy.
The statement of the Overseas Committee notwithstanding, Scripture defines how much of Scripture must be held for orthodoxy.
The distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines, as judged by the confessions, have been used to argue for levels of church fellowship.
Appeal to the Lutheran symbols did not resolve the objective justification controversy.
(Note Vernon Harley’s use of the Confessions to limit exegetical conclusions in his “Exegetical Study of Scripture Passages Generally Used to Teach ‘Objective’ or ‘Universal’ Justification” 1984, p8) “This is basically why they contend so strongly for ‘objective’ justification and go a step further than our Lutheran Confessions insisting that Objective Justification is the Chief article of the Christian Faith, while our Confessions give that honor to justification by grace through faith” (Formula of Concord, S.D. III, 6, p. 540 in Tappert).

Gregory L. Jackson said...

The post above is from the Wayne Mueller essay.

LPC said...

Dr. Greg,

Thanks for these quotes. It shows that the Synods do operate like the mini Vatican magisterium. Like the RCC they believe they are at liberty to formulate doctrine from thin air without Scriptural support and confessional reliance.

Therefore, they produce heresies by mushrooms and UOJ is one of them. H O J Brown, now deceased said the Reformed produced more heresies compared to the Lutherans, but he was no aware of the propensity of the Synods to invent new doctrines. His book Heresies need to be revised.

LPC

Gregory L. Jackson said...

WELS likes to talk up their Wauwatosa heritage. They even have a set of books on the Wauwatosa Theology. I see them as bragging that they can come up with anything they want. In rejecting the Confessions they default to anything admired in the Protestant sects. I showed how their great bits of wisdom were all copied from Fuller Seminary sources. That infuriated them.

Gregory L. Jackson said...

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/05/project-gutenberg-apology-of-augsburg_7541.html

LPC said...

Thank you Dr. Greg, that is quite a great post. As I read it, I was reminded of Pierce's misuse of John 1:29 and the misquoting of Luther. Here Luther was being consistent with Jesus who said that if we do not believe in him, our sins remain.

LPC

Gregory L. Jackson said...

I made the topic of justification more convenient here -

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/07/learn-luthers-two-catechisms-and.html

LPC said...

Thank you Dr. Greg.

LPC

Jose Gonzales said...

The dirty secret of course is that Lutheran doctrine in the end amounts to nothing but "the malady is not real, so the solution is also not real." If faith alone is the solution to our sin, then our sin must not have been real. Lutherism is just atheism in religious garb.

LPC said...

The malady not real?

Sin is real requiring real payment, no less than the Son of God paying for the sin of the world.

You are as incoherent as your lack of understanding of what Lutherans are talking about.

Faith is not the solution to our sin, Christ is, and faith holds on to the solution provided by Christ, his very life and flesh for the world.

Get familiar with our Book of Concord, you seem to be shooting while you are riding a horse and you are missing the target by light years.

LPC