Rev. Rydecki writes in the preface:
Most notably, reacting to Calvinism's double predestina tion, Huber began to teach that God had elected all men in eternity to salvation ("universal election"), and that God had not only redeemed the entire human race through the substitutionary death of Christ (which the Lutheran theologians also taught), but that God, for the sake of the merits of Christ, had also justified the entire human race, apart from faith ("universal justification"). In spite of his teachings of universal election and justification, Huber appears never to have reached the conclusion of modern Universalism that the entire human race will eventually be received into eternal life. He continued to insist that faith was essential for obtaining eternal salvation and that a person who rejected the Gospel would thereby forfeit the justification already pronounced upon the human race.
When Huber's novel terminology and doctrine were re jected by the faculty at Wittenberg, Huber then began to accuse his colleagues, especially Leyser and Hunnius, of Calvinism. When no reconciliation could be achieved even after the intervention of foreign theologians, Huber was dismissed from his professorship at Wittenberg and banished from the country in 1595. Nevertheless, his polemical writings and public accusations against the fac ulty at Wittenberg continued for several years, prompting inter mittent responses by both Leyser and Hunnius
Observe the UOJer's position:
a.) They deny they are universalist, just like Huber.
b.) They affirm that the human race have been justified universally, apart from faith, just like Huber. See their synodical statements, you will find they teach in effect that God has declared the world already righteous in Christ. Just ask them if man by virtue of Romans 4:25 (their favorite mishandled verse) have been declared righteous already, apart from faith.
c.) When confronted of making faith of no consequence, they deny that too, and like Huber insist on faith, and its lack forfeit the one stated in b.)
Observe further, UOJers call pejoratively their critics as Calvinists, just like Huber! Observe too how UOJers insists on UOJ/OJ/SJ terminology! Even Robert Preus, prior to his Justification and Rome book insisted on these categories and terms too! You can read their blabbering on this terminology - just wander of at Steadfast Lutheran (Waltherian) blog.
Now ask yourself the question, if Huber (and by extension UOjers) was correct on justification, why did the signers and editors of the Book of Concord banish him from their company?
Of course, when you tell UOJers they are Huberites they find this truth hard to swallow and so they deny they are. They play blind.
Isn't there truth in the saying, if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck?
Now please do not get me started on Hunnius' Thesis #1, because the more there the UOJer will be indicted by that thesis and their denial will show they are exercising sophistry.
117 comments:
New Steadfast discussion where the UOJists refuse to answer and even refuse to show proof of their teachings - Joe Krohn and Kilcrease have a hug fest while Kilcrease renounces the doctrine of Universal Election which Joe proclaims.
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=22406&cpage=1#comments
Brett,
Yes I notice, they are having a love fest right now. They are practicing self delusion amongst themselves.
They multiply cop outs and simply ignore the points being raised against their doctrine. Something similar like this happens in the corporate world, they self justify their belief amongst themselves comforting one another by repeating their well worn mantras.
LPC
Romans 2:15, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
Here's my take on the whole Huber red herring:
http://jackkilcrease.blogspot.com/2012/09/samuel-huber-red-herring-in-objective.html
Enjoy.
I invite the usual name calling and non sequiturs. Bear in mind I won't be responding to them.
Jack,
Of course I am aware of your work and your type of arguments. I monitor Steadfast Waltherians even though they have banned me and I read your comments there.
I speak to you as a fellow scholar since you have a PhD. Below are my honest comments about your type of (IMHO, low) scholarship which your readers completely do not see since today Lutherans have done theology by proxy.
Here are your arguments...
Walther in the Baier compendium specifically rejects Huber's doctrine (in fact he has a whole section on it!).
ME: This kind of comment makes think you have not read Calvin at all, which you should because you are a systematician, it is a must reading even if you do not agree with him. Calvin used the same technique that Walther used in the Baier compendium. For example, Calvin elsewhere borrowed concepts from Lutherans without giving credit to where he got them, he made people think that he was trying to be original in some good aspects of his theology.
Here Walther did the same thing as Calvin but the reverse. Walther knew well that smart Lutherans would detect he was being a Huberite - but what he did was to attack Huber but at the same time borrowed Huber's nice idea of universal justification.
So his Huberian criticism is what we scholars (and I thought you would have known this but I was mistaken), a smoke screen.
The authors of Errors of Missouri pointed this technique out and, no offense, between you and Stellhorn and Schmidt they knew more Calvinism than you do today. That is why they gain credibility with me simply because when they spoke about their critique of Calvinism, I agree with them because I was a former Calvinist and have read Calvin's writing myself. You and McCain do not know what you are talking about when you accuse us of crypto-Calvinism.
2. Huber did talk about a universal justification, but his heresy was more about and a reaction to the doctrine of election. Advocates of OJ such as Walther always taught particular election.
ME: You make this sound as if it is of no consequence. You have not read Hunnius have you? Did you know that Hunnius wrote more than one tract to oppose Huber? Did you know that Hunnius both attacked Huber's doctrine of Election and Justification at the same time?
It is not what OJ teach about Election that is at debate at the moment, let us do first things first, and that is the central doctrine of Scripture - Justification. We shall come to the UOJ/OJ teaching on Election later. For after all as Luther said, you may get any teaching in the Bible right (even about election), but if you get justification wrong, you still are in pile of pooh.
So you are giving your fans a fasle hope making them think that the Huberian accusation of UOJ teaching is immune from faults in their justification teaching.
cont...
cont...
3. Moreover, since Huber claimed that justification was not merely pronounced to all (objective justification), but communicated to all (functional universalism), he has virtually no place for subjective justification. This would pretty much destroy the entire point of the distinction between objective and subjective justification.
ME: Firstly you appear to have not read Rydecki's translation but I will allow your point. Let us assume you are correct.
You can do your distinctions until the moon becomes cheese but it won't avail because the issue is not subjective justification, the issue is universal justification as properly taken, to wit - the declaration of righteousness (not the payment of sins but the acquittal declaration). Is there such a thing in Scripture respecting the proper use of the term - justification?
You UOJers agree with Huber on universal justification, that is the first starting point. The problem is that Huber was much more consistent than you lot. It stands to reason that if there is such a universal justification, then the so called subjective justification you propose is superfluous.
However, to put it mildly you are lying about Huber as if Huber did not believe in personal justification like you do. Huber did not deny the need for faith which in your terminology subjective justification.
Jack let me break this down to you so you can be more efficient in your propaganda in promoting UOJ and comforting UOJers.
Deal with the question of universal absolution/justification. Show from Scripture and by exegesis where this is found properly respecting the term - justification.
For we do not deny that Jesus died for all and hence, atoned for all. We do deny however that atonement and justification are the same. They are not the same. Thus and hence, we deny that though Jesus atoned for the sins of the world, it does not mean thereby that the whole world got already justified/declared righteous in Christ as your LC-MS 1932 Brief Statement Article 17b states.
I am in the negative, you are in the positive. In debate, you are expected to show positively by exegesis this universal justification or objective justification you speak about.
If you are using Romans 4:25 I have dealt with that verse in this blog countless times.
LPC
Hunnius' arguments against Samuel Huber are devastating for UOJ Enthusiasts because there is a clear foil. Article III in the Formula of Concord is equally clear and compelling, but in Huber and the current UOJ Hive we have a clear set of principles and claims.
I do not know what happened, I got notification that Jack Kilcrease commented again but blogger is not showing his message. Just letting the readers here know I did not Kilcrease Kilcrease's comments so here it is
LPC, pretty much what I expected. Perhaps if Brett came on and posted 500 quotes from the Book of Concord, and Jackson hypocritically attacked me for attending a Roman Catholic university (honestly, who is he kidding?) the job would be done.
BTW, my book on Christology is going to be coming out next year from Wipf and Stock. David Scaer is writing the preface. I have a section in the twelfth chapter (which deals with the priestly office of Christ) about objective justification. I have, I think, a fairly good argument for it in the context of the narrative ontology which I develop in earlier chapters based on my fair extensive exegesis (the first 200 pages or so is exegesis of OT and NT). So when it does come out, I would encourage you to take a look at it.
Many blessing!
My message to Jack:
Jack,
The problem with UOJers is that I can not be honest with them, and you demonstrate this.
I write an opposing and critical statement of your arguments and you insinuate I did something foul.
There is no way we can be frank with you guys, you do not tolerate it.
I am happy to read your book, in fact why don't you send me a copy.
Just a piece of advice, it would be better if someone coming from outside your camp wrote endorsement testimonies for your book.
The Scaer preface will not score you points from people like me, we will just conclude that as simply in-breeding.
I am just letting you know how non-US trained people like me think.
LPC
It should. Scaer is really cool.
The problem, Lito, is that you guys sing the praises of the Atonement and its universal application, and then turn around and emasculate it saying only believers have forgiveness in Christ while denying that in Christ the whole human race has forgiveness sans rejection of it.
I must say there was a time when I wavered on my confession, but like you, I was not drawing a clear distinction between the objective work of Christ (Justice worked for all...hence Objective Justification) and receiving Christ (worked by the HS through the MoG) and his justification, reconciliation and redemption through faith...Justification by faith...subjectively.
Jack,
You are entitled to your bad opinion ;-)
LPC
Joe,
turn around and emasculate it saying only believers have forgiveness in Christ while denying that in Christ the whole human race has forgiveness sans rejection of it.
The problem with you guys is that you all argue from reason and just like your comment you do not argue from Scripture.
Look at your statement again Joe,
you has already forgiven all people but if they reject it then God takes it back and does not forgive them. In your scheme, God is an indian giver. So in your scheme, since Jesus died and rose again, all have been forgiven already, they get unforgiven when they do not believe that they have been forgiven.
However, the Biblical scheme says that all are in the state of unforgiveness, God through the MoG delivers the atonement, the HS creating faith through the MoG and the unbeliever having faith is declared righteous because the unbeliever gets united to Christ.
There is nothing that is being undone which God has already done before.
Indeed, what is screwed up in UOJ is their bad understanding of the ministry of reconciliation. UOjers are like Calvinists they have no inkling of the preciousness of the MoG in that it is the MoG that produces faith from nothing.
UOJ is rationalistic, it thinks that before something could be believed that thing to be believed should have preexisted already. They have no idea of a promise as taught by God.
UOJ does not believe that the faith produced by the HS via MoG is a creation out of nothing.
Hence Walther can be synergistic and say And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him
You surely fing Walther to be correct in this respect right?
If you disagree with Walther please correct me now and renounce what Walther has just said.
Only two choices, agree with him or disagree.
I assume you agree.
Now let me turn this around Joe, according to Walther man must accept by faith the general absolution, otherwise you are not saved.
Have you accepted that general absolution by faith? Can you tell me what evidences you have that you have faith in that general absolution? Why would you say you have accepted that by faith?
How sure are you that you have complied with Walther's teaching? Out of interest educate me please, I like to know.
LPC
I'm entitled to my bad opinion? That's a very amusing response.
Anyways, the larger answer is that your response was utterly bizarre because it assumed that I choose Scaer because I was interested in appealing to you or anyone in your sect (Actually, I think under Troelsch's threefold distinction between cult, sect, and Church, you all would be in the cult category- Jackson can now complain about how I just made use of an idea from a Liberal theologian). That's not my intent. The book is mainly intended to appeal to people who are already on my side. Since no one but Scaer has written a confessional Lutheran systematic Christology since like the 1920s, the book fills a gap for North American confessional Lutherans. A whole lot of theologizing has happened since the 20s and so, it's important for people to have a response to it in light classical orthodox Lutheranism.
Nevertheless, I would still recommend the book. It might be good food for thought.
Lito, I have provided countless scripture and BoC references backing the correct teaching of OJ (that you continue to reject) that you continue to describe incorrectly. I am at a loss to convince you anymore.
But what you accuse me of you have done said same. You accuse me of rationalism ('if this then this') when you do it throughout your last post and then you do not provide scripture backing your claims either.
Jack,
Anyways, the larger answer is that your response was utterly bizarre because it assumed that I choose Scaer because I was interested in appealing to you or anyone in your sect
Do you think I am that naive? Of course you used Scaer to bolster the acceptability of your book to your target market. By your admission too, it is a book that preaches to your constituency.
We do have a different understanding, tradition and ethics of how a scholar and a gentleman should behave.
We are quite far.
Scholarship for us, entails following where ever the data leads you. That means, I am not to write simply for the purpose of rallying the troops but for the whole community at large.
I come from that tradition and by your comment (but not surprising to me) shows we are not in the same league.
We are accustomed to public town hall lectures where in the speaker does not speak to a crowd of scholars only, but included in that is the public. In that forum, no one, no Prime Minister, no Chancellor, no Lord or what not is sacred or held immune from being pelted by tomatoes.
Actually, I think under Troelsch's threefold distinction between cult, sect, and Church, you all would be in the cult category
Try to get the logs out of your eyes.
I have not read Troelsch but in my book UOJ is a cult doctrine founded by its cult hero by the name of C F W Walther, who was not that original though he tried to be, because his view is a resurgence of an old heresy - that of Samuel Huber's.
As you can see in my "book" (if my blog is to be considered as such), you UOJers are Huberites to me.
The saying is true, in Christianity there are no new heresies, they are simply the rehash of old ones, and yours got it from Samuel Huber via C F W Walther.
LPC
Joe,
Thank you for your response.
But one more time (if you care and with feelings)...
Have you accepted that general absolution by faith? Can you tell me what evidences you have that you have faith in that general absolution? Why would you say you have accepted that by faith?
How sure are you that you have complied with Walther's teaching? Out of interest educate me please, I like to know.
LPC
Feelings...you are so coy...LOL
You say: "Have you accepted that general absolution by faith? (JK-Only by the power of the Holy Ghost.) Can you tell me what evidences you have that you have faith in that general absolution? (JK-See below) Why would you say you have accepted that by faith? (JK-Also see below)"
"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life."
However this is based wholly on what went before previously: "...who has redeemed me (JK-reconciled with all men. 2 Cor. 5; Formula under Election), a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won [delivered] me from all sins (JK-as with all men; 2 Cor. 5.), from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, in order that I may (JK-this does not denote imputation as you hold to falsely, Lito.) be [wholly] His own, and live under Him in His kingdom (JK-The justice won for all objectively regardless of faith but rejected by men; Matt. 23:37), and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true."
You have been educated.
Joe,
You have been educated.
I would have been if you answered my questions without equivocation, but as it is the quotation of the confessions is a smoke screen to duck the point of my question.
I have more to say on the UOJ confused understanding of justification and imputation.
LPC
The UOJ doctrine - regardless of the version (Krohn, Kilcrease, Preus, McCain, Zarling, Becker, Buchholz etc etc) teaches that God views the whole believing and unbelieving world in Christ (Universal Grace) and outside of Christ (Universal wrath and condemnation). It is therefore nearly impossible for UOJists to speak with clarity because in defense of their false gospel they will speak from God's view of the world In Christ or Outside of Christ - whichever gives them the advantage at the time.
It's a neat trick but one that is absurd since God does not consider believers as being outside of Christ and under His wrath and condemnation and neither does He consider unbelievers In Christ and under His grace, mercy, forgiven or righteous. Scripture rejects their teaching of God's view of believers and unbelievers.
The god of the UOJ doctrine is one who declares one thing but it's not true unless it's believed by man. A god who is double minded and by his divine verdict declares all men forgiven and righteous in Christ while at the same moment his wrath and condemnation abide on those who reject his son. A god who paid for and forgave all sin but not the sin of unbelief. A god who teaches that even those who don't have faith in Christ are still believing Christians. A god who elected the whole world to salvation but most don't recieve it because they manhandle god and refuse to believe they are pure in his sight - looking through his jesus lens. A god who condemns works righteousness but makes the mortals decide to believe in him in order to benefit from what was already declared to be true - by a supposedly omnipotent god.
UOJ's god is the god of the almighty "IF".
You have not listened to what we have said, otherwise you would not state such slander...
"...I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:"
Oh, please.
You must be kidding Joe.
Provide the document which presents the "this we believe" and "this we reject" confession of the Lutheran Synods teaching on Universal Objective Justification and you can be as offended as you want. But you don't have it. UOJists point to Marquart, Preus, McCain, Becker, Buchholz for the definitive answers but even Buchholz rejected portions of Becker.
Here's an example.
Joe, do you believe the entire world of believers and unbelievers was in some way included in God's eternal election as taught in Scripture and explained in the BOC under Election?
Wait a second Brett, before you challenge Joe to find a specific confessions texts (which is sort of a misguided argument, since Lutheran orthodoxy has historically agreed that all doctrines are not to be found in the Symbolic writings- just disputed ones), I already provided a direct statement from Melanchthon (in the Apology) AND Luther over at Brothers of John the Steadfast, and then you never responded and fled. Both statements clearly teach Objective Justification, much like the John Commentary quotation that I've cited to you a million times and you just ignore.
In case you missed them, here they are:
“The law would seem to be harmful since it has made all men sinners, but when the Lord Jesus came he forgave all men the sin that none could escape.” (Ap. 4)
Luther writes regarding public absolution:
"Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it … He who does not accept what the keys give receives, of course, nothing. But that is not the key’s fault. Many do not believe the gospel, but this does not mean that the gospel is not true or effective. A king gives you a castle. If you do not accept it, then it is not the king’s fault, nor is he guilty of a lie. But you have deceived yourself and the fault is yours. The king certainly gave it." (LW 40, 366-7).
I might also point out that in the Hunnius book, that thesis 5 in the section on Justification also clearly teaches the distinction between OJ and SJ, though of course that terminology is not used.
Here's my prediction: Brett will ignore the quotes and possibly say something that sounds like righteous indignation (this is a tactic he frequently uses to misdirect the conversation). LPC will try to somehow disprove that the words mean what they say through a muddled argument that will not make any sense. At the end of his argument, he'll say something slanderous and/or condescending about me. Then Jackson will come on and say that I'm Catholic and so no one has to listen to me. Then brag about his doctorate from a Catholic University and say that UOJ people do nothing but engage in personal attacks.
Am I right or am I right?
Nevertheless Gentlemen, the quotes do stand.
Brett...Your question is ambiguous.
I'm certainly free to ask Joe anything and he's free to respond if he likes. And I believe he should in this case since on the recent Steadfast discussion he equated his belief that the whole world (the human race) has been reconciled with God - with the BOC doctrine of Election. And did so again above - (JK-reconciled with all men. 2 Cor. 5; Formula under Election),
Jack, you stated that no Lutheran believes in Universal Election. Joe does in his simple statement. It shows that without a BOC style confession of UOJ those who defend it can conveniently deny or state nearly anything since there are so many versions of it out there - Samuel Huber's being one.
I didn't ignore the quotes you gave before - I was just appalled that you would use them to defend your teaching.
Where did you get the first quote that you provided and attribute to the BOC Apology? A search states that it is from (Ambrose, Letter 73, to Irenaeus, a layman).
Next you quote Luther when he is speaking of the Key to Forgive sin that Christ gave to the priesthood of all believers. It’s funny UOJists use this as proof that Lutheran taught Objective Justification. Funny because the doctrine of UOJ is famous for teaching that the whole unbelieving worlds sins are forgiven whether they believe it or not. And yet, your quote of Luther states, “He who does not accept what the keys gives receives, of course, nothing.” Thereby teaching that unbelievers are not forgiven. So it’s not true whether someone believes it or not. You may want to say that it’s not true subjectively in your manipulation of God’s Word but the fact remains ya’ll use this quote to prove Objective Justification which is supposed to be true regardless of faith and in fact most definitely without faith – Dr. Kilcrease stated, “Both statements clearly teach Objective Justification…” The other error is that Luther is in fact talking about the Keys to Forgive and Retain sins. UOJ obliterates the Keys and most definitely the Key to Retain sin. What sin can be retained that Christ didn’t already forgive? The BOC states it this way:
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
This is the chicken before the egg scenario – if sins have already been remitted whether someone believes in Christ or not – what is being forgiven or retained when exercising the Keys?!? UOJ makes a mockery of the Keys.
We already corrected your error regarding the use of Hunnius theses to promote UOJ on the Steadfast discussion.
We recommend everyone reading this to spend the $10 and purchase the Hunnius Theses Opposed to Huberianism book from Amazon. Samuel Huber taught the same UOJ that the Lutheran Synods teach and Dr. Kilcrease defends (Huber's version included the Universal Election of humanity to salvation) and it was rejected thoroughly by BOC signers Hunnius and Leyser.
Joe, let's try this question: Does God look at the whole unbelieving world as though they were in Christ and declare that they are, by His divine verdict, forgiven of all sin (justified), guiltless and righteous?
No, Brett. I will not answer your last question either because it is poorly phrased. You are mixing objective and subjective aspects of Justification. If you want to speak objectively, I will be more than happy to, but please don't use Becker's MO to prove your point.
I'm actually more interested if you believe what the Concordists state in the Formula under Election when they say: "1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life."
Joe, you've got kind of a Goldilocks and the Three Bears thing going...
But, I’m always eager to answer your questions so here goes.
Yes, I believe what was written and that which you quoted. But the quote from the BOC Election in context is this:
15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life.
16] 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments.
17] 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith.
18] 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life.
[15] But the unbelieving world is not in Christ and therefore is not reconciled because man is reconciled to God through Christ and Scripture teaches that no one is in Christ except through faith. [16] The presentation or offering of reconciliation through Christ is through the Means of Grace. [18] note that men are received into grace when God graciously works repentance and faith in Christ. Not before as UOJ teaches. This is repeated again…
There is so much contained in the BOC treatment of Election that rejects UOJ it is difficult to quote them all. Suffice it to quote this Confessional statement by which UOJ falls:
83]…First, that God will receive into grace all who repent and believe in Christ.
UOJ teaches that the whole world of unbelievers have been received into God’s Grace such that He views them as being Objectively in Christ and by His divine verdict declares them justified, forgiven of all sin, guiltless and righteous – they just need to subjectively believe it to be saved eternally – note: the must believe it not to be forgiven of all sin and declared righteous. But they must believe it only to be saved. The BOC under Election teaches that no one is received into His Grace except those who by the grace of God are brought to Godly repentance over sin and faith in Christ alone.
BOC Election can be found here:
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php
UOJ teaches that the whole world of unbelievers have been received into God’s Grace such that He views them as being Objectively in Christ and by His divine verdict declares them justified, forgiven of all sin, guiltless and righteous – they just need to subjectively believe it to be saved eternally – note: the must believe it not to be forgiven of all sin and declared righteous. But they must believe it only to be saved..."
No, Brett...this is your version of UOJ. You say you agree with the Concordists, but then you make the objective redemption and reconciliation conditional when the Concordists are merely stating what is true whether one believes it or not.
Scripture teaches universal grace: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). The gospel reveals God’s love in Christ, which extends to every single human being of all time.
Page 3
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BuchholzJustification.pdf
This quote is taken from the godfather of UOJ - (W)ELS CA/AZ DP Jon Buchholz.
83]…First, that God will receive into grace all who repent and believe in Christ.
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php
And this quote is taken from the Christian Book of Concord.
Yes, Joe. Reconciliation is conditional - and God provides the condition (faith in Christ alone) through the gracious work of the Holy Ghost through the Means of Grace.
The Book of Concord:
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] For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faithwhence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life.,
Have to repeat that:
"This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life"
And here:
80] AAC That We Obtain The Remission of Sins By Faith Alone In Christ
"The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
See, no reconciliation with God without faith in Christ.
Ambrose is being quoted by Melanchthon in article 4 of the Apology. Melanchthon is still asserting what the statement says is true.
Regarding the office of the keys, you're basically missing Luther's point. The Word of the gospel spoken by the minister of the Word presupposes that God has already made a objective statement of absolution. The reality of forgiveness is already present in the Word. You indeed may not be united to that reality, and that's what the binding of sins means. It's minister saying that by your behavior you have shown that you do not have faith and are not in contact with the reality of objective forgiveness.
Nevertheless, the reality is there. I realize that you want to say that this had to do with believers alone who are forgiven, though some how they don't know it or something- if they are believers that's impossible. Moreover, the Word is addressed to all in the congregation, believers and unbelievers. The point is that God absolves objectively, whereas those who do not apprehend it by faith may later do so and be redeemed by it.
See, again, part of the problem here is how you conceive the act of faith. All of you somehow think that if you're not coaxed into having faith by certain conditions that some how you'll forget. That's really not how it works. Again, all of this assume free will, which we don't have.
Jack,
If I recall Deutschlander conceded the BOC does not speak as such in UOJ terms though he himself believed it. You are actually contradicting your fellow Deutschlander , and fair enough if you believe you are a better man than Deutschlander.
However what is disappointing ( and this is typical of UOJers) is that when they quote the BoC or the Scripture to support universal justification, they do not provide the whole context.
That quote of Ambrose is part of a bigger argument of Melanchton, and so you should provide the whole context of the passage, as quoted by Melanchton and how Melanchton is using the Ambrose quote.
AP 4 103] Here and there among the Fathers similar testimonies are extant. For Ambrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the world was subject to Him by the Law for the reason that, according to the command of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the Law, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived, but guilt is not discharged. The Law, which made all sinners, seemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of His own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us. This is what he says in Rom. 5:20: "The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Because after the whole world became subject, He took away the sin of the whole world, as he [John] testified, saying John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism] .
Notice that the forgiveness mentioned is in the past tense, but look at the term justified, it is in the past tense too. But look further, the term justified connects it with the means of grace - Baptism.
So was then Melanchton, teaching a universal justification with out faith, without the mean of grace in this verse.
You should read D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies. It is a common fallacy to think that when a word is used you think that is settled as to what it means but we all know and you know (though you do not practice), that a term gets its meaning from its context.
So your quote of the BoC to support UOJ once again does not succeed. Your quote is froth with suspicion and a thinking reader should realise immediately why you should not be believed.
Sorry about that.
LPC
Jack, I'm glad you want to deal with Realities. The problem is that you're taking realities and making maleable concepts out of them and using human reason to create your own philosophy of how God does and does not work instead of allowing plain Scripture to dictate the interpretation - 2 Peter 1:20.
God has made a statement that those who in God given repentance over sin and faith in the Messiah are forgiven all sin, are born again, die to sin, are raised to Life to live under His grace, are declared righteous, are in Christ and Christ in them and saved eternally. Abraham experienced one justification and that was solely by faith in Christ - just as we are.
Hunnius Page 57
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? Turks? Reprobate Jews?
Concordist and faithful Christian Hunnius does not know of a forgiveness without faith - there is no OJ in the BOC.
Also, you're just not good at guessing motivations. If you don't know why I believe something then just ask.
Brett, you have now flipped to the subjective side. I do not deny Justification by Faith. But you have made it quite clear that you do not want to agree with the BoC when the writers speak of an unconditional redemption and reconciliation. You say you do, but then give all rationale against it. You are speaking out of two sides of your mouth.
Incidentally Jack, my statements are only muddled to you. I do not think my statement is considered muddled up by an independent observer in this discussion.
Furthermore, UOJ and Huber both believe in the universal justification of the world as a past event. UOJers claiming that they differ against Huber in that the latter does not distinguish OJ and SJ is really a moot point and even an irrelevant point.
At the very least a critical thinking person should find it suspicious that the UOJers share a common belief with Huber, a man rejected and vanished by orthodox Lutherans.
This again makes the UOJ position at the very least problematic and thus not tenable.
LPC
"We have, however, a broader commission, a universal calling. As Christ’s witnesses we have been called to reach out to the world, not only with our wallets but also with our words. Whether it be a personal conversation with our landlord, neighbor or friend, or whether it be a more "professional" conversation with the unchurched parent of a pupil or with the new prospect discovered by the evangelism committee, we know for certain the message we have for them. In our minds there’s no Reformed reflection on whether or not this person really is one of God’s elect. There’s no Arminian condition attached to the forgiveness we hold out to them. The only message that will bring them to faith, strengthen them in their faith and motivate them to want to hear the Word is our simplified version of universal and objective justification."
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckmanUniversal.PDF
Just providing proof that other "lutherans" believe and teach the same Universal Election that Joe Krohn has been teaching by merging his religions Universal Reconciliation with the BOC's doctrine of Election.
Joe, let's try another question (as the story goes this one should be juuust right):
Is your religions teaching of Subjective Justification equally objective as your teaching of Objective Justification? Why or why not?
First, thanks for acknowledging that I was actually citing the Apology. Guess I'm not the liar and fool that you initially claimed that I was.
Actually what the total quote merely says is that the universal and objective decree of justification is channeled through the means of grace and received by faith. Hence the distinction between oj and sj. Your position only works if I didn't make the distinction between oj and sj, and only talked about oj.
BTW, I was looking at Jackson this morning and he probably should take down the post about CPH not publishing the Galatians commentary. They do. It's in the American edition 26 and 27 (both the 1519 version and the 1535 version).
Question: Do you really feel you've made a good decision about who to hitch your theological wagon to? In other words, do you feel good about following a person who claims to be a Luther expert, but then isn't even aware of what books are published in the American edition?
...as opposed to chosing the Samuel Huber wagon?
Your assessment of my position is weird. The only way I see you coming to it is some kind of warped legalism.
Again, you pose another ambiguous question. You go through such semantics to try and trip us up and then you say 'ah hah!!!'
By the way, your fearless leader is starting to crumble...here is a quote from his blog today:
"The forgiveness is already there: Christ paid for our sins. Christ redeemed the world. Not for a few little sins, but for great and terrible sins. We see that in the fallen nature of the apostles. Peter denied his own Savior, but he was restored with forgiveness to be an apostle. Paul and Barnabas argued and split. Luther wrote - one of them sinned in some way. These are examples to show us sinfulness and restoration."
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/09/broken-arrows-from-uoj-quiver.html
Read it and weep. Jackson has presented Justification from both perspectives.
Jack,
Indeed you were citing the BoC, but it is in the same way the devil cited Scripture to Jesus.
You should asked yourself the same question because your position is that of Huber via tweaking of Walther, so who of us is following man?
I arrived at my conclusion from Scripture, it is the Scripture that convinces me that UOJ is wrong and a great blunder.
Like I told you I hold no one sacred, apart from Jesus and His Apostles. I give respect to whom it is due but I do not have holy cows like you do.
Like I said, Deutschlander in my opinion ( and due to his seniority )I believe has established his credentials than you. The guy I read conceded the point of JBFA people, though he himself was convinced of UOJ. The fact that you dared to even cite the BoC thereby implying that he must be wrong strikes me as arrogance on your part.
Your scholarship in the end has no value if the only ones who accept your work is from your own camp. You might be satisfied with that, but I could not live my life that way.
We do have quite different ethics and value systems, it is quite evident.
Jer 17:5.
LPC
LPC,
I accept that you don't agree with me and that you think I'm a dullard for not agreeing with you. But why is it that you keep on saying that I'm evil? That's just weird.
I also find it really odd that you take my statement that I wrote my book mainly for English speaking North American Lutherans (who need an updated Christology book) to mean that I was somehow writing a propaganda piece and that somehow I have no arguments in it that would appeal to people outside my own camp.
BTW, if my reading Melanchthon was so bad, how is that you or Brett never really found the time to refute the distinction of OJ and SJ is being used? This is really typical of you. A lot of assertions of thing being wrong with few arguments to back them up. All you have said is: you are twisting scripture and the confessions like the Devil. Well, that settles it then, right?
And lastly, Jackson still doesn't apparently know that CPH published the Galatians commentary in the American edition. That's pretty hilarious.
Joe Krohn, "Your assessment of my position is weird. The only way I see you coming to it is some kind of warped legalism."
Please explain.
Lito said:
"If I recall Deutschlander conceded the BOC does not speak as such in UOJ terms though he himself believed it."
That is not to say that the concept is not there which is what the good professor was saying. He capitulated to the part under Election in the SD...which we have quoted ad nauseum over the last few days in which you deny the universal reconciliation of man.
Because I never said what you imply, Brett.
Joe, does God's forgiveness of sins equal eternal life for the one being forgiven?
Brett, If you and I fell away from faith tomorrow, would God unforgive us?
The question isn't whether a person who hasn't accepted the absolution by faith is saved or not. The question is whether the Gospel is true regardless of whether we accept it or not. And what is the Gospel? That in order to be saved we must add the good work of faith to Christ's death, or that Christ's death has bridged the gap on God's side?
If OJ isn't valid, shouldn't absolution be worded in such a way as to be conditional upon repentence? Doesn't faith then become belief that God will be gracious to me if I fulfil my end of the bargain by believing?
Isn't it more biblcal (I'm thinking here specifically of the text at my ordination, 2 Corinthians 5:18-21)to say that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, but that his relationship with unbelievers remains broken because they remain unreconciled to Him?
"That in order to be saved we must add the good work of faith to Christ's death" This statement teaches that faith in Christ is a work of man. This is not true although constantly implied by the UOJists who war against One Justification Solely by Faith Alone. (Not specifically directed toward you pastor Waters as I do not know your full confession yet)
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."
Joe, if a person falls away from faith in Christ alone their sins are not forgiven and remaining in unbelief they will die in their sins and under the wrath and condemnation of God.
Joe, do you believe that if a person falls away from faith in Christ that their sins are still forgiven?
"Joe, if a person falls away from faith in Christ alone their sins are not forgiven and remaining in unbelief they will die in their sins and under the wrath and condemnation of God."
Brett, you are not being consistent with your confession. One of your main beefs is that 'UOJers' have all men forgiven, but that they are unforgiven for unbelief making God a liar. Now you are telling me God forgives the believer and then unforgives him? Please help me understand! Was he forgiven in the first place?
Let's take a Lutheran Layman, let's call him Bill.
Bill was born - He does not have faith in Christ and is dead in sins, outside of Christ through unbelief and remains under God's wrath and condemnation since conception. God loves him and would have him come to repentance and faith in Christ.
Bill's parents baptize him in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Through baptism Bill the Holy Ghost has worked contrition over sin and faith in Christ alone, Christ is in him and he in Christ, he has died to the Law, been raised again to life and salvation to live under Grace, been washed of all his sins and is justified, righteous by God's divine verdict.
Bill grows up to become involved in his Lutheran church and unwittingly involves himself in the Church Growth apostasy and joins the band in order to woo more people to Christ through his music. Separating Christ from the Word he soon confesses that he no longer believes that Christ died for him and has lost his faith. His zeal for god remains but it is no longer of knowledge but the same zeal as a Roman Catholic or Mormon. No longer having faith in Christ alone he is no longer forgiven, but is now under the wrath and condemnation of God.
Bill hears that there is a teaching in the church that will assure him of being forgiven of his sins even though he knows he doesn't believe in Christ alone. UOJ comforts him because it teaches he's forgiven even if he never believes in Christ. That God is at peace with him and he, Bill, has been declared righteous. Bill is told that if he believes in this declaration then he's eternally saved. That's easy, Bill says to himself, now I no longer need to trust in Christ alone but in this declaration that I'm already forgiven - I can have faith in that! And so Bill remains under God's wrath and condemnation over his sin although Bill is comforted by believing he's saved eternally even though he doesn't believe in Christ.
Bill comes to the God given realization from studying Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions that he was lied to about the true Gospel message. He rejects OJ and clings to Christ alone through the faith of the Holy Spirit. Bill is instantaneously justfied, righteous and eternally saved through that gracious working of faith, in Christ alone, through the Means of Grace.
Cute story.
It begs the question.
It also shows your ignorance regarding the concept of an objective justification...justice served in God's court bringing justification to all men.
According to your confession, God forgives men and then he takes it back. You are as culpable as those who teach an objective justification sloppily.
Joe, why don't you explain the "concept" of Objective Justification to everyone reading this blog. Explain where I'm wrong and why. Maybe even answer some of the questions I've asked.
"Joe, why don't you explain the "concept" of Objective Justification to everyone reading this blog. Explain where I'm wrong and why. Maybe even answer some of the questions I've asked."
I have, Brett. When will you explain how God forgives and then unforgives?
In Christ by faith - Under God's grace, forgiven, justified, righteous and eternally saved.
Outside of Christ by unbelief - Under God's wrath and condemnation, not forgiven, not justified, not righteous and damned.
Joe, you should read Hunnius. He speaks to you here:
Thesis 130
Let Huber go now and presume to further emend the language of the Holy Spirit, grunting that it is foreign to the Scriptures to say that God elected believers, indeed, contending that God "only elected unbelievers, which we all are by nature"; and further, that He promiscuously elected all people to possess eternal life, wheth er they believe or not. With these four paradoxes he comes out like a mouse betraying itself, because he wickedly sequesters a regard for God's foreknowledge of faith from the act of divine election, and for this reason, he furiously opposes the special election by God of believers most solidly set forth by such a great cloud of the Holy Spirit's witnesses.
Thesis 131
Therefore, in that which follows, we expressly condemn Huber's teachings as manifestly foreign to the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures. First, that he prattles that, by the antecedent will of the Lord, all mortals were elected, ordained and predestined to possess an eternal inheritance, whether they believe in Christ the Redeemer or not.
Thesis 131
Next, that, against so many clear testimonies of the sacred writtings, he condemns the particular election of believers delimited by a consideration of faith and fixed in the consequent will of God, as Calvinian wickedness.
Thesis 133
Thirdly; that he imagines that God was, from eternity; simply an inac tive spectator both of the faith of His own and of the impenitence of the condemned, as one who did not elect believers over unbe lievers having any regard84 toward faith in Jesus Christ; nor did He determine or decree before the world's foundations were laid that unbelief, stubbornness, contempt for His Word or the impenitence of the condemned should be punished at all; just as the Epicureans imagine God as an inactive spectator of all human wickedness.
Your quotes of an argument that has no bearing or relevance here does not answer my question.
Show me from scripture where a man is forgiven, justified, righteous and eternally saved and then God undoes it...making Him a liar.
Joe, you really should study Hunnius' Theses Opposed to Huberianism.
Galations 5:4, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace."
Falling away from grace - losing faith in Christ - therefore no longer forgiven (the result of being in Christ by faith) and now not forgiven due to unbelief and Christ's righteousness no longer benefits them - "no effect unto you."
Hebrews 10:26, "For if we sin silfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."
Those who are in the faith and lose it by wilfull sinning have reject Christ and they are no longer forgiven by faith - "no more sacrifice for sins."
Joe, in your religion, does God view the unbelieving world as forgiven: justified, righteous and guiltless - and at the same time - does He view them with wrath and condemnation?
Well, Brett...for one who has repeatedly said that God does not unforgive, you have certainly provided the evidence here.
"Joe, in your religion, does God view the unbelieving world as forgiven: justified, righteous and guiltless - and at the same time - does He view them with wrath and condemnation?"
Again, you continue to pervert the correct teaching of the objective side of justification; i.e. the atonement. Those that reject the atonement are condemned already. But that does not negate the fact that there exists (until death do you part from this world) the forgiveness of sins through faith in spite of their rejection. Even Jackson capitulated this earlier on his blog this week. I'm still waiting for your reaction on that one:
"The forgiveness is already there: Christ paid for our sins. Christ redeemed the world. Not for a few little sins, but for great and terrible sins."
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/09/broken-arrows-from-uoj-quiver.html
You have openly denied the universal reconciliation (the atonement) of the world and have said that only believers are reconciled and that there is no reconciliation for unbelievers. This is limited atonement since Christ's death atones for all sins. You have further intimated on this blog that God does not call all men (a direct rejection of the parable of the King's Son's Marriage - Matt. 22) feigning Justification by Faith when it is in fact double predestination.
I leave you with this: (And Jim Pierce was kind enough to point you to Chemnitz's synonyms...)
The Hebrew word for atonement is "kaphar"...it means: purge, reconciliation, reconcile, forgive, purge away, pacify, atonement...made, merciful, cleansed, disannulled, appease, put off, pardon, pitch...note "forgive".
The Greek form of the word is "katallagē". It means reconciliation, atonement, reconciling.
Romans 5:11 in the KJV says: "And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."
By the definitions I have provided, it is scriptural to say that 'believers receive the forgiveness of sins that is already there for all men in the atonement since God so loved the world.'
Furthermore in 2 Cor. 5: "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
The Greek word for atonement, "katallagē" is used here but translated 'reconciliation'. It makes no difference. The atonement is the reconciliation of the world; the forgiveness of the worlds sins. It is what faith clings to and puts its trust in...Christ and what He has merited.
This is either rejected by man or received by the Holy Ghost.
Well, Brett...for one who has repeatedly said that God does not unforgive, you have certainly provided the evidence here.
Not sure you have the right Brett. Although I've never used the term 'unforgive', a person is either forgiven solely by faith alone in Christ or not forgiven by unbelief. Your assertion would lead one to believe I've confessed "once saved always saved" and that's not true. Men fall away from the one true faith. I can count a few...
But that does not negate the fact that there exists (until death do you part from this world) the forgiveness of sins through faith in spite of their rejection." I've never rejected this - the difference between this teaching and UOJ is that UOJ says that because Christ paid for the whole worlds sins THE WHOLE UNBELIEVING WORLD IS NOW FORGIVEN BY GOD. That's the difference and it triggers false teachings throughout the doctrine of UOJ.
Since the declaration by God that your sins are forgiven equals eternal life - the teaching of UOJ if it remains consistent with Scripture is Universalistic. That's where additional blasphemies come and UOJ teaches that the forgiveness of sins - ie: having Christ's righteousness is not salvation but man must make a decision through his work of faith.
Deny it but I can provide all the quotes from the LCMS, ELS, WELS, ELCA to prove just that. I think we even shared a few when you were a Christian.
"Although I've never used the term 'unforgive', a person is either forgiven solely by faith alone in Christ or not forgiven by unbelief. Your assertion would lead one to believe I've confessed "once saved always saved" and that's not true."
You are lying. You have inferred on many occasion that God is incapable of unforgiving someone or He would be a liar. Now you are saying He can based on your previous confession...will the real Brett Meyer please stand up.
"But that does not negate the fact that there exists (until death do you part from this world) the forgiveness of sins through faith in spite of their rejection." I've never rejected this - the difference between this teaching and UOJ is that UOJ says that because Christ paid for the whole worlds sins THE WHOLE UNBELIEVING WORLD IS NOW FORGIVEN BY GOD. That's the difference and it triggers false teachings throughout the doctrine of UOJ."
You have rejected this by saying that the reconciliation only applies to believers, Brett. You said so on BJS. You are wrong in your assessment of UOJ. The imputation of forgiveness is through faith. UOJ is justice served on Christ for the world leaving the forgiveness of sins to be received through faith.
"Since the declaration by God that your sins are forgiven equals eternal life - the teaching of UOJ if it remains consistent with Scripture is Universalistic. That's where additional blasphemies come and UOJ teaches that the forgiveness of sins - ie: having Christ's righteousness is not salvation but man must make a decision through his work of faith."
This is your logical fallacy since you continue to try and blend objective and subjective forms of justification.
"Deny it but I can provide all the quotes from the LCMS, ELS, WELS, ELCA to prove just that. I think we even shared a few when you were a Christian."
You are delusional. You have not countered with scripture as I have rebuffed you with scripture in my previous post.
Please address the Jackson quote I have provided now twice...or will you ignore me thrice?
Yes, Reconciliation only applies to believers. The Atonement doesn't equal Justification and neither does it equal Reconciliation for those who reject Christ.
The Book of Concord:
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] For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life.,
And here:
80] AAC That We Obtain The Remission of Sins By Faith Alone In Christ
"The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
You see even believers are not reconciled to God but by Faith alone. Therefore in what beautiful and cosmic way have unbelievers received reconciliation with God - especially seeing that they are outside of Christ and have not obtained Christ as Mediator.
Your religion teaches that Christ has been obtained as Mediator between God the Father and the unbelieving hoard. This is false doctrine because Christ is only obtained as Mediator solely by Faith alone.
80] AAC That We Obtain The Remission of Sins By Faith Alone In Christ
"The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
"Yes, Reconciliation only applies to believers. The Atonement doesn't equal Justification and neither does it equal Reconciliation for those who reject Christ."
And this is where you are in error. The atonement equals justification and reconciliation for all men objectively and I have shown you with scripture and the meaning of words and translation. I have no beef with your BoC quotes for I do not deny faith in what is already objectively true...the general absolution of sin in Christ's sacrifice...the atonement.
"You see even believers are not reconciled to God but by Faith alone. Therefore in what beautiful and cosmic way have unbelievers received reconciliation with God - especially seeing that they are outside of Christ and have not obtained Christ as Mediator."
As I said...you are delusional...to say a believer is not reconciled... And no where have I said unbelievers have received reconciliation.
"Your religion teaches that Christ has been obtained as Mediator between God the Father and the unbelieving hoard. This is false doctrine because Christ is only obtained as Mediator solely by Faith alone."
Brett, Christ needs to be a mediator before He can be a mediator for anybody, including believers. And He is not for just believers, but for all men. Are you limiting Jesus now too?
"The forgiveness is already there: Christ paid for our sins. Christ redeemed the world. Not for a few little sins, but for great and terrible sins. We see that in the fallen nature of the apostles. Peter denied his own Savior, but he was restored with forgiveness to be an apostle. Paul and Barnabas argued and split. Luther wrote - one of them sinned in some way. These are examples to show us sinfulness and restoration."
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/09/broken-arrows-from-uoj-quiver.html
According to Jackson, the atonement makes the forgiveness of sins a reality..."The forgiveness is already there: Christ paid for our sins."
I believe you are now in disagreement with whom you are communing with on a weekly basis.
By the way...just saw this: (here: http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-berean-explores-uoj-horror-of-faith.html)
"The root of the problem is that UOJists lack the very thing that they despise as a synergistic work and that just happens to be what the Holy Spirit uses to enlighten and reveal the Scriptures and what they truly mean."
I posted about this on Ichabod and I know Jackson will delete it...
So now you are saying that the Holy Ghost uses man's synegistic work to accomplish His will???
Unbelievable!!!
"...UOJists lack the ...thing that they despise as a synergistic work..."
The 'thing' is the Holy Spirits faith. UOJists lack it because they cling to a false gospel and without the Holy Spirit's faith they cannot understand the Scriptures and are completely the tools of the devil.
You're too eager to find error and are finding error where there is none.
UOJists believe that faith that clings to Christ and Him Crucified is attributed to man as his work and not solely the work of the Holy Ghost and Christ as the author and finisher of it. It's blasphemous to attribute faith to man as his work.
Joe, I don't have any problem with what Pastor Jackson wrote. The forgiveness of sins for the whole world is in Christ - and never apart from Him. No problem. UOJists declare the whole world forgiven, justified, guiltless, sin-free and righteous before faith - problem. Not even objectively is any unbeliever justified, forgiven, etc. etc. The Hunnis Theses clearly addresses this from a Confessional and Scriptural basis.
Pastor Jackson went on in that post to declare the following which shows he isn't teaching UOJ but Scriptural Law and Gospel.
Large Catechism, The Creed
56] But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness [sanctification]. Therefore all who seek and wish to merit holiness [sanctification], not through the Gospel and forgiveness of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves [from this Church].
Joe states, "You are lying. You have inferred on many occasion that God is incapable of unforgiving someone or He would be a liar."
I figured out what you are referring to.
I have always stated that UOJ makes God a liar in that the doctrine teaches God has declared the whole unbelieving world forgiven:justified, guiltless and righteous by his divine verdict but that they are not unless they believe they are. The various versions of UOJ will deal with this differently. I believe Joe Krohn's version will say that they were forgiven in a different reality, an objective reality as God looks at the unbelieving world through Christ (this is also Jay Webbers version of UOJ). As God looks at the unbelieving world outside of Christ they are not forgiven and therefore remaining in this state until death they are damned to Hell. Jay's version also teaches that God looks at believers as being in and also outside of Christ. Another blasphemy for another day.
Another version in the Lutheran Synods teaches that the unbelieving world actually, truly, as true as the sky is blue, has their sins totally removed, forgiven and they are justified and righteous - remaining in unbelief though they are sent to hell with all sins forgiven but the sin of unbelief which Christ didn't die for and therefore forgive at the cross - or the grave. Another teaching that makes God either a liar or inept.
Either way I've never changed my confession that a person in Christ by faith alone in Him is forgiven all sin and saved eternally instantaneously. Outside of Christ through unbelief totally sinful, not forgiven and condemned. Regardless of when or how many times it happens in their lifetime - by God's grace.
"...remaining in unbelief though they are sent to hell with all sins forgiven but the sin of unbelief which Christ didn't die for and therefore forgive at the cross - or the grave. Another teaching that makes God either a liar or inept.
Either way I've never changed my confession that a person in Christ by faith alone in Him is forgiven all sin and saved eternally instantaneously... Regardless of when or how many times it happens in their lifetime - by God's grace."
Your logic defies, well, logic.
Joe,
You are as always quite funny. you demand that someone answers you when in fact, you do not answer questions directed to yourself.
Also, what is down with with you, you do not seem to be reading the texts in blog posts well.
Here is for you and Jack to chew on and hopefully choke on-- from Hunnius
Thesis 1
Huber professes such a justification, for the sake of which Christ has properly, actually and practically conferred rede mption 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 (in cluding 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.
This speaks of your position, since you believe that man has been conferred redemption in a way that sins have been already remitted, and that the whole human race have been received into grace,
LPC
"This speaks of your position, since you believe that man has been conferred redemption in a way that sins have been already remitted, and that the whole human race have been received into grace."
This not my position. When are you going to let it sink in that I am talking apples and you bring up oranges?
"...you do not seem to be reading the texts in blog posts well."
Honestly, Lito, I have had the same reservations about you.
"This speaks of your position, since you believe that man has been conferred redemption in a way that sins have been already remitted, and that the whole human race have been received into grace."
Wow, LPC, but for like the 50th time it doesn't.
God has spoken forth his Word of justification, but has not been received by everyone. That's the difference. Hence the distinction between OJ and SJ.
OJ=God speaks forth his universal Word of grace.
SJ=Humans receive it by God's election through the means of grace and faith.
Real, real simple stuff. But I know you still don't get it. For some reason.
The Formula of Concord, III, Epitome is so clear that no one can refute it. Therefore, the tricksters and philosophers make up terms and dance around those for a time. Everyone has to accept that those terms are normative when they are not. The classic example is objective and subjective justification, either invented or borrowed by Calvinist Woods in explaining the Pietist Knapp. Bu to come to grips with Luther's Galatians commentary? - that is too difficult for word-benders.
Dr. Jackson, Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. I could personally care less who came up with the terminology of SJ and OJ. The question is whether the concept present in the LC and in Luther, and it clearly is.
Luther uses the distinction constantly in the Galatians commentary in that he states that Christ is the "person of every person" and the "sin of every sinner." Moreover, he states "there is not sin in the whole world, except in this man"- therefore "he is the only sin and only righteousness." Hence, the full reality of justification (later appropriated by faith) is already present in Christ. Faith is still necessary, but the gospel is objectively true as a promise whether or not anyone believes in it.
BTW, again, CPH does publish the Galatians commentary- contrary to what you and Nathan Bickel seem to think. Both 1519 and 1535- AE 26-27. I'm frankly shocked that you're unaware of what books are published in the American edition of Luther's works.
Joe,
Well done, this is now your chance to say how your position is different from Thesis 1.
Please elaborate on each of the items listed there, for example do you disagree that justification and redemption has been conferred to man? Do you disagree that sins have been remitted to all men.
It is not that I am not unfamiliar with your position but I do not want to misrepresent you to myself so here is your chance now to put me straight.
Further, do you agree with 1932 LC-MS Article 17b? 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
Which of these verses do you believe is the strongest evidence for this assertion?
LPC
Jack,
You do not seem to get it but Huber did and Hunnius saw it in him.
Let me spell it out if I may. If there is universal objective justification which you believe and so did Huber, there is no need for subjective justification. The distinction is irrelevant.
Let me reduce my question to simple terms - do you assert that man has been justified already (irrespective of faith) by virtue of Jesus dying for them?
Lastly guilt by association is a fallacy if it is used to as a claim against another without evidence.
It is not association we are talking about here, we are talking about a shared belief and when it comes to Huber's universal justification, you do share it with him.
You can quarrel about the minute distinction but that is a latter issue, first to be established is this- do you agree that there is a universal justification as Huber did, let us not discuss first if you are slightly different from him.
My answer to that question is No, but is not your answer to my question Yes?
So we are arguing our differences also.
LPC
Jack, you are consistently clueless, while lecturing everyone. I have been quoting the American Edition, but I am using Kregel because it is inexpensive and easily available.
CPH is suspect for all publishing because one of the executives is an unrepentant plagiarist and slanderer. His boss and the SP are his enablers.
CPH is my last choice for that reason.
Jackson, you had a post entitled "Why doesn't CPH publish the Galatians commentary?" It's like the ministry of truth with you. I've noticed people catch you saying things that are falsehoods or lies or just mistakes on your part- and then you go back and you change the post to make it look like you never made the mistake and the person was just being foolish.
Also, your claim that McCain is a plagiarist is absurd. My favorite is when you concluded he was a plagiarist because the link to the source he was citing at the bottom of the page was relatively small. Pure silliness.
As expected after sometime, there is no positive declaration of points where they differ from Huber.
I asked which points in Thesis 1 they disagreed with Huber, but no reply just a denial, i.e., no positive assertion where they disagree with Huber.
An interesting follow up question is this - where do they agree with Huber? Do they agree at all with Huber?
LPC
Lito...Tell me how the 2011 Australian Rules Football champion is better than last year's American World Series winner and I will be forced to answer...
Joe,
You are so predictable. I knew you would not answer my question because if you truly did, you would have exposed yourself to be a true Huberite, you got nothing to differentiate your belief from Huber's.
I have no quarrel with you as a person, my quarrel is with your nonsense belief about justification. Those are Hunnius' words - nonsense. That was Hunnius' language to describe Huber's universal justification theory.
LPC
Lito...I have never had a problem with you personally. But your words melding Huberism with OJ is nonsensical. You are trying to fit a hexagon into a square whole...it doesn't quite fit...the premise of Huber is different, therefore the argument is different.
The forgiveness is already there: Christ paid for our sins. Christ redeemed the world.
Joe,
You said You are trying to fit a hexagon into a square whole...it doesn't quite fit...the premise of Huber is different, therefore the argument is different.
Do you comprehend my question Joe? I am not asking you what you want to believe. I asking you factually where you differ. Saying you differ without nominating where is a useless reply.
But let me tell you the facts. The facts as per your confession is that UOJers like you and Huber do believe in universal justification.
That is to say, both you guys and Huber believe that there is a justification(forgiveness) that has happened already upon all men without regard to their faith, a justification wherein faith had nothing to do with it.
Both you and Huber use the same terminology too, universal justification.
So here is what I see you doing, you comment here and just do a lot of talking to yourself. You are trying to make yourself believe that you are not a Huberite, the truth is just too much to bear.
Joe, listen to what Jesus said - the truth sets a person free.
LPC
In short Joe, the premise is the same, the shoe fits and so the critic is valid.
LPC
"That is to say, both you guys and Huber believe that there is a justification(forgiveness) that has happened already upon all men without regard to their faith, a justification wherein faith had nothing to do with it."
No, Lito...this is where you are at a disconnect. You are in the same boat as those who teach OJ sloppily since you assume what has happened objectively therefore has happened subjectively. OJ rightly taught or represented (as you, Jackson, Meyer and Bickel do not) does not do this. There is a forgiveness of sins that has happened FOR all men in the reconciliation and redemption of the human race. It is UPON all who believe. It is for the rest who MIGHT believe. Many are called (all men) but few are chosen (believers).
Joe, your confession continues to change over time.
April 4, 2012
Joe - "God is guilty of forgiving the sins of the world. That is a negative way of saying something positive. He intended with such malice that he was going to save every man by sending His Son to die in their place. To have such intense intent, He could have only carried it out because he had forgiven the world already in His heart. We know this because His word says that His will is for all men to be saved."
"In the world are two groups; the quick and the dead. There is no need to talk of the quick, for they already are justified by faith. But what of the others? If God has this blanket of forgiveness already in His heart for the world; that He had since before the foundations of the world were laid; the dead are included in the world…at least while they are living…they aren’t really dead yet. (Monty Python comes to mind here, LOL). The problem is that the free will that God created us with is now depraved, by our own doing. It is a curse. The dead reject God. That does not change the fact that God still loves them; sends His Holy Spirit to them to bring them back to the forgiveness they have in Christ. So the problem is not if they are forgiven or not. The problem is them and their rejection of Him. He is a jealous God in the perfect sense and demands perfection. So when the dead are really dead, they stand condemned because they have forfeited what was theirs. Yes they were forgiven…it is the only way God could create the world, for the sake of His Son since He had promised Him in eternity. But the dead lie in Hell with out the forgiveness that was truly theirs."
By these statements of yours unbelievers truly have the forgiveness of sins. By your current confession above they are forgiven in Christ but it's not truly theirs until they believe they are forgiven in Christ.
You cannot reconcile your current confession with Scripture which teaches that those outside of faith - all unbelievers - are condemned already since they do not believe in Christ. You teach a double minded god who has forgiven the whole world in Christ and also condemns them for not believing in Christ. That is if you are not outright rejecting John 3:18. You teach a god who holds unbelievers simultaneously in his wrath and forgiveness. You teach a false gospel.
Brett...are you serious??? How is your accusation of me any different than what you say here:
"Either way I've never changed my confession that a person in Christ by faith alone in Him is forgiven all sin and saved eternally instantaneously. Outside of Christ through unbelief totally sinful, not forgiven and condemned. Regardless of when or how many times it happens in their lifetime - by God's grace.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:06:00 PM GMT+10:00"
You really are a piece of work...and it shows your argument is a semantic gymnastic...don't hurt yourself...
"By these statements of yours unbelievers truly have the forgiveness of sins. By your current confession above they are forgiven in Christ but it's not truly theirs until they believe they are forgiven in Christ."
Brett... believe it or not this is Justification by Faith Alone...
All men have forgiveness in Jesus Christ's sacrifice for them...but this forgiveness does not become theirs except through faith...worked by the Holy Trinity...
Joe,
You are amazing. It is you who is doing the tumbling and cartwheeling.
You obviously have not read Hunnius or you would have answered my assertion with a rebuttal but your answer shows you are playing loosely with the concept of what is objective and what is subjective.
Here is what you said...There is a forgiveness of sins that has happened FOR all men in the reconciliation and redemption of the human race. It is UPON all who believe. It is for the rest who MIGHT believe. Many are called (all men) but few are chosen (believers).
If it has happened FOR all men, then it has been done there is no sense needed that it has to be UPON all men. Your comments is so mush and it is sophistry at its best.
I have pointed this out that your and Jack's distinction is artificial. In fact my point to you is the same point that Hunnius made against Huber. If people are already justified without reference to faith, then there is no need for faith at all because they can not lose something nor gain anything where faith is not involved.
You still are trying to believe that Huber did not believe like you do, but Huber also did the same thing he did require faith on the other side.
That is why Hunnius calls Huber's theory as nonsense, because it stems from the universal justification idea.
A person does not have to be smart to see that if Huber believed in universal justification was rejected by the orthodox Lutherans and the UOJ believe also in universal justification, then the idea and position is straight away --- suspect!
JBFA people never believed that there is a universal justification, there us unlimited atonement but there is no universal justification. There is only one kind of Justification and that is through faith. Since there is only one kind of Justification there is no other classification that must be introduced.
Let me spell this out to you. Christians believe in only one God. If there is only one God there is no other type of God necessary in conversation. It is misguided and absurd as well as obnoxious to introduce new categories.
Let me further give you a clue since your position is as much rationalistic and Calvinistic- if you are going to be philosophical in your method ---see Ocham's Razor.
You further said Brett... believe it or not this is Justification by Faith Alone...
Only in your imagination and in your dreams Joe.
Also How is your accusation of me any different than what you say here:
"Either way I've never changed my confession that a person in Christ by faith alone in Him is forgiven all sin and saved eternally instantaneously. Outside of Christ through unbelief totally sinful, not forgiven and condemned. Regardless of when or how many times it happens in their lifetime - by God's grace.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:06:00 PM GMT+10:00"
Joe it is different because Brett and I do not believe in the starting point that there is justification that has happened FOR all men without faith or without regard to faith. That is difference. The difference is that we do not posit or assert a universal justification.
LPC
Joe states, "All men have forgiveness in Jesus Christ's sacrifice for them...but this forgiveness does not become theirs except through faith...worked by the Holy Trinity..."
Joe, the changes in your confession seem to indicate that you are working through the contradictions caused by various teachings of UOJ - making adjustments to your confession in order to resolve them. Obviously I don't know - it is just one possibility to explain the changes. Where you are still teaching contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions (and depart from One Justification Solely by Faith Alone is that you still confess that God the Father has objectively forgiven all men in Christ. The issue here is that the Atonement does not equal Objective Justification. Primarily because unbelievers are not in Christ and therefore God the Father does not in any way consider them in Christ and therefore does not consider them forgiven, guiltless and righteous. In fact Scripture clearly teaches that God says that unbelievers remain (continue) to be under God's wrath and condemnation. Hunnius correctly rebukes Samuel Huber in this regard when he says, in what beautiful way have unbelievers ever been (objectively) justified since they have always been under God's wrath and condemnation over their sin.
Scripture teaches Christ is only apprehended as Mediator between God the Father and man through faith alone. Therefore UOJ is wrong to teach Christ as Mediator (God the Father seeing the whole unbelieving world in Christ and therefore forgiven all sin) for the unbelieving world.
"Joe it is different because Brett and I do not believe in the starting point that there is justification that has happened FOR all men without faith or without regard to faith. That is difference. The difference is that we do not posit or assert a universal justification."
You are speaking against Romans 4:25.
"Scripture teaches Christ is only apprehended as Mediator between God the Father and man through faith alone. Therefore UOJ is wrong to teach Christ as Mediator (God the Father seeing the whole unbelieving world in Christ and therefore forgiven all sin) for the unbelieving world."
You are speaking against 2 Cor. 5:19...by limiting the reconciliation of the world's sins, you are limiting the atonement.
Romans 4:22-25, "And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."
Joe, you teach the New Age Religions concept of multiple realities when you confess that God has forgiven and justified all men in Christ without regard to the Holy Spirit working faith through the Means of Grace. That God has declared something to be true (the whole unbelieving world is forgiven in Christ) but it isn't true unless the unbelieving world believes they were already forgiven in Christ.
Another beam in the eye of UOJ is it's perversion of the Office of the Keys to retain sin.
Scripture teaches that Christians retain unbelievers sins when they reject faith in Christ and they do so in Christ's stead. How do you reconcile Christ retaining an unbelievers sins when in Christ his sins are already forgiven and the unbeliever has been declared justified by God the Father?
2 Cor. 5:19, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
So by your interpretation Joe God the Father does not impute the unbelieving world's sins against them. Then John 8:24 gets stuck sideways in your throat for it teaches, "I said therfore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins." Also read John 3:18.
So much for God not imputing the unbelieving worlds sins against them. Your interpretation of these verses is a private interpretation and disregards the rest of Scripture.
You also completely disregard verse 20, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
Clearly the unbelieving world is not reconciled before and without faith. Yes, the PROMISE, is that very reconciliation, forgiveness of sins and salvation but it isn't anyones and God does not consider anyone to have it objectively without faith in Christ. Through Christ's atonement the whole worlds sins were paid for. If the whole world were to graciously come to faith in Christ then everything that is His includeing Sonship would be theirs. But most do not and therefore they remain under God's wrath and condemnation over sins that although paid for by Christ are still upon them.
Also, since UOJ's version of Subjective Justification is every bit as Objective as Christ's atonement it makes the whole OJ and SJ game a transparent tool by which people are decieved into confessing a false gospel.
Joe, is SJ every bit as objective as OJ? And if not - why?
Accusations without support seem to be a staple of the UOJ Community. They seem to come by divine revelation: they are a mystery understood only by the elite, by the true believers in unbelief.
Actually, I think the issue here is that you who deny objective justification don't understand the concept, not that the position of those of us who accept it is changing. No believer in objective justification claims those who remain unreconciled to God benefit from God's reconciliation to them in Christ. Every relationship has two sides.
Those who believe in unbelief-justification are Enthusiasts. St. Paul the Apostle denies your little dogma, Robert. The entire canon is based upon justification by faith in Christ. Ditto the patristic fathers, the Protestant Reformation, etc. Pietism is different - that is where your precious concept comes from.
Granted there has been much confusion created by sloppy presentation of the doctrine of OJ...but the fact remains, Jackson along with Meyer, Cruz, Bickel and his little cult of Ichabodians (of which I was rescued from by the grace of God) preach a forgiveness of sins that does not exist objectively for any man prior to faith...in other words...Jesus Christ only forgives you if you have faith. Well, I ask you...the apostles did not even have the faith of a mustard seed! OJ is for the comfort of those who grieve over their terrible sins; who long to know the assurance of their forgiveness. The reprobate could care less about his 'transgressions' and 'forgiveness'; he relishes in them like swine in mud...but these guys (Ichabodians) preach that there is some kind of unfinished business concerning one's forgiveness. They are at best Calvinists (there must be something good in me; 'faith to be saved'; Lenski their pseudo Lutheran hero teaches this). Or worse...Romanists who teach an objective forgiveness (the atonement) for original sin...but one still needs faith; a work or virtue...
Mr. Water states,"No believer in objective justification claims those who remain unreconciled to God."
Mr. Krohn teaches that the whole unbelieving world has been reconciled to God through Christ's work. Mr. Water you teach just another version of UOJ just as Mr. Krohn does.
Classic.
Mr. Krohn states, "Meyer (&Co.) preach...Jesus Christ only forgives you if you have faith."
Yes, exactly. Thank you for clearly stating a startling difference between our religions even though you fail miserably at articulating the rest of what we preach. Your statement clearly defines what you preach - that all unbelievers have been forgiven even though they reject Christ, are slaves to Satan, are dead in Sins and under the Law.
Doubly classic.
Joe,
You have a weird sense of humour, you are trying to be funny no?
Looks like we are managing to smoke you out of your hole, that invocation of Romans 4:25 as support for UOJ has been dealt with in this blog countless times. In fact that is where your synodical cult is much peculiar from the rest of the Protestant and Lutheran world. You exhibit countless times the propensity of a UOJ and a Huberite to extract Scripture away from its context.
You hope that Romans 4:25 means what you like it to mean but it does not, http://extranos.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/romans-425-uoj-fallacies.html
in other words...Jesus Christ only forgives you if you have faith
Is it not true that in your teaching you are not REALLY forgiven unless you believe that you have been already forgiven? Is it not true in your teaching that one must believe the absolution that has already happened to you 2000 years ago?
In this conversation I gave you a chance to distinguish yourself from Huber but all the comments you make here shows you have nothing different from him, he and the rest of the UOJ cult believe that there was already a universal justification ( universal declaration of righteousness) that has happened already 2000 years ago.
It is you who believe that faith is a good work of man, when you say They are at best Calvinists (there must be something good in me; 'faith to be saved'; Lenski their pseudo Lutheran hero teaches this). Or worse...Romanists who teach an objective forgiveness (the atonement) for original sin...but one still needs faith; a work or virtue...
When you say preach a forgiveness of sins that does not exist objectively for any man prior to faith...in other words...Jesus Christ only forgives you if you have faith
You reveal yourself not to be a Christian because you rail against Christ who said "Those who believe and is baptized shall be saved, those who do not will be condemned" - Mk 16:16.
In fact you do not only rail against Christ, you also rail against St. Paul.
LPC
The Lutheran Confessions clearly teach contrary to UOJ, the doctrine of "forgiven unbelievers" which Joe continues to promote without a shred of Scriptural or Confessional support. From the Christian Book of Concord:
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. 10] These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
Also, 71] "but we maintain this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being accounted righteous. Accordingly we wish first to show this, that faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission of sins". http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
Anything not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23
"15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php
All men have been reconciled...the debt forgiven...it is those that reject the reconciliation of their sins that die with them. The forgiveness is objective received in faith. Ichabodians deny the redemption of the human race therefore denying Scripture nad the Confessions.
"All men have been reconciled...the debt forgiven."
This is wrong.
Look at the BOC text which you use to support this false teaching.
"15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ Note that the redemption and reconciliation is through Christ. Christ as Mediator. Joe Krohn and UOJists take all proof texts out of context in order to prove the tenents of their new religion. UOJ teaches that Christ mediates for the whole unbelieving world so that God the Father forgives them all their sins, declares them righteous and guiltless - all without faith. Yet, the BOC rejects this false gospel when confirming 1 Tim. 2:5 the BOC states,
80] AAC That We Obtain The Remission of Sins By Faith Alone In Christ
"The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake." http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
Note also here that the BOC clearly states that the the Father MAY become reconciled to us
No room for the false gospel of UOJ and the rationalizing Huberites who condemn Christ's Church.
Joe's Election quote goes on to state, "...who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life."
Note here that Joe and the UOJ doctrine uses this quote to declare the whole unbelieving world reconciled and forgiven and yet the quote teaches that eternal life (SALVATION) is tied to reconciliation, redemption, righteousness which Christ has merited. Again if UOJ is to be consistent within the proof texts that they use they clearly teach Universalism - that the whole unbelieving world is saved eternally even though they reject Christ unto death.
Joe, you're running a scam and it's blatantly apparent to anyone willing to compare your teaching to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
"... the Father MAY become reconciled to us..."
It is you who takes out of context. This infers that there is a change in the heart of God. This is a Calvinist teaching promulgated by Lenski in 'Lutheran' circles and believed by you and others. God so loved all men...not just believers.
"The forgiveness is objective received in faith."
You never address this, Brett. How do I become a universalist by that statement???
You continue to be funny Joe. Your Huberism has indeed blinded you. You do not even read well because you are governed by what you wish to believe.
Brett quoted the BOC to you, do you want to know where he picked up for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us.? He took it from the Apology of Augsburg, Article IV (II): Of Justification., Paragraph 80.
"The forgiveness is objective received in faith."
You never address this, Brett. How do I become a universalist by that statement??
I will gladly answer you Joe, by that statement you are a sophist first off. Here is where you universalism comes in when you railed against faith and say Jesus Christ only forgives you if you have faith
What is universalism, universalism requires nothing for salvation. That is what universalism is.
Also I will answer you through the argument of Hunnius against Huber.
Since you tuck on later faith and yet assert that man is justified without faith by that general justification universally done, then faith has nothing to do with a person being justified or not.
Thesis 18
Again, since at one time the Gentiles, and today the Turks and reprobate Jews were never not unbelievers, certainly if that general justification is said to be erased for them through unbelief, then it must have always been erased for them, because they have al ways been unbelievers. And consequently, they were never justified, not even with a universal justification, if indeed this cannot coexist with unbelief, but is erased through the same. If this Hu berian justification cannot splendidly coexist with unbelief in its very beginning, then neither can it coexist with it going forward
Corollary I argue with Hunnius and show your UOJ absurdity ---that if one is objectively justified without faith (as you claim)by the death of Christ and resurrection then man does not lose his justification even if does not have faith. Since man got justified without faith he also does not lose even if does not have faith. This is the absurdity that UOJ like Huber slumps into.
Joe, rightfully Brett is indeed correct, you are running a scam and the rest of your UOJ buddies are running the same. UOJ is a scamming operation.
LPC
What have I been thinking???
You guys deny the universal reconciliation and redemption of the human race as the confessions lay out...you mis-quote the confessions for your cause and claim God changes His mind on account of something in man...this is absolutely incredulous!!!
The Doctrine of OJ was composed to defend against this kind of heresy. It is clear that I am long overdue of marking and avoiding. May God have mercy...
For those following this discussion of UOJ we highly recommend obtaining and reading Aegidius Hunnius' Theses Opposed To Huberianism. Hunnius was a theologian hired by the University of Wittenberg to refute the Calvanist teachings infiltrating the Lutheran churches and re-establish them in the Lutheran Confession based on the Book of Concord which he signed in agreement to. He, as well as other theologians at that time, was supremely qualified to speak to the false teaching of UOJ which Samuel Huber was confessing. It is the same UOJ which the Lutheran Synods teach as a replacement to one Justification solely by Faith Alone and which Joe Krohn currently promotes, teaches and defends.
This book is available from Amazon.com for $10
http://www.amazon.com/Theses-Opposed-Huberianism-Lutheran-Justification/dp/1475186541/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349408445&sr=8-1&keywords=hunnius
It is a miniscule price to pay for solid and thorough refutation of the false gospel of Universal Objective Justification which opposes Christ and His Church.
Joe, let me know if you would like me to send you one of my copies.
Joe, you have yet to show the Confessions teaching the Universal Justification and reconciliation of unbelievers. In fact, we've shown the opposite.
Hunnius rejects your new religion and declares from the past to you:
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 2
Hence he says that all those to whom the Gospel is proclaimed are to be called "elect, justified by God, sanctified, redeemed ,"and some of these are said to be "believing and converted."
Thesis 3
This universal justification of the entire human race he considers (even without respect to faith in Christ) to be fully completed 102, 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, which his own reply to the Heidelberg Articles as well as a response to the censure of the Tiibingen theologians shows in the page markings in the upper margin.
Thesis 5
This notwithstanding, we most willingly grant that there is a righteousness that avails before God for the entire human race, a righ¬teousness that has been gained and acquired through Christ, so that if the whole world were to believe in Christ, then the whole world would be justified. With respect to this, Paul writes in Romans
5 that "through one man's justification (&Ka[w a), the gift has spread toward all men for justification (OLKa[wcnc;) of life." Nev¬ertheless, no one is justified nor does anyone obtain remission of sins from this acquired universal righteousness without the impu¬tation of this acquired righteousness of Christ But the imputa¬tion 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 es¬pecially 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 condem¬nation, 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 remit ted 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? Turks? 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?
Page 59
Theses Opposed To Huberianism
Samuel Huber taught your same doctrine of UOJ and it was thoroughly and without reservation condemned to hell as the work of Satan.
I bought a copy early on, Brett.
The book as well as your argument is a straw man...no one who teaches OJ faithfully in accord with scriptures and the confessions disregards faith (in Christ and His merits) freely given by the Holy Ghost as what saves a man. You need to jettison yourself from the heresy of Lenski as espoused by Jackson...
"Joe, you have yet to show the Confessions teaching the Universal Justification and reconciliation of unbelievers."
Liar.
"15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php
All men have been reconciled...the debt forgiven..."
May God have mercy...
Joe, again, by using this quote out of the context of the Book of Concord you teach Universalism. Proof: If they human race is redeemed and reconciled with God the Father without faith in Christ by applying this one sentence to them then the whole sentence applies to them - to the whole unbelieving world.
"... who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life."
If you take this quote out of context as you have you must apply the whole sentence to the subject without faith. And the whole sentence includes eternal life SALVATION. It's one sentence Joe. It's not two thoughts: one applying and the other not.
Look at the rest of the BOC to confirm that I am correct when I teach that unbelievers are not reconciled to Christ because they don't have faith in Him.
"...and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins"
This quote is found here:
The Christian Book of Concord
10] These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. 11] This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him, that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the father, and are eternally saved. 12] Therefore it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says that we are justified by faith, Rom. 3, 28, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4, 5, and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5, 19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith came to all men, Rom. 5, 18. 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] For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned.
Cont...
Cont...
For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life. 17] Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ's righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith, Phil. 3, 9. For this use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Prov. 17, 15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Is. 5, 23: Woe unto them which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Rom. 8, 33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, that is, absolves from sins and acquits. http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
Only believers have reconciliation with God as they have obtained Christ as their Mediator and have been adopted as sons and received the inheritance earned for them by Christ - the forgiveness of sins, righteousness and eternal salvation. UOJ on the other hand makes all unbelievers inheritors of Christ's merits without faith while being condemned by God and under his wrath.
Martin Luther also spits on UOJ's grave and rejects the false teaching that the whole unbelieving world has been reconciled (forgiven and declared righteous) and redeemed by Christ without faith in Him.
74. But what is the process whereby Christ gives us such a spirit and redeems us from under the Law? The work is effected solely by faith. He who believes that Christ came to redeem us, and that he has accomplished it, is really redeemed. As he believes, so is it with him. Faith carries with it the child-making spirit. The apostle here explains by saying that Christ has redeemed us from under the Law that we might receive the adoption of sons. As before stated, all must be effected through faith. Now we have discussed the five points of the verse.
http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Galatians4_1_7.html
The BOC continues to condemn the false UOJ teaching that the whole unbelieving world has been reconciled to God without faith in Christ.
69] Now we will show that faith [and nothing else] justifies. Here, in the first place, readers must be admonished of this, that just as it is necessary to maintain this sentence: Christ is Mediator, so is it necessary to defend that faith justifies, [without works]. For how will Christ be Mediator if in justification we do not use Him as Mediator; if we do not hold that for His sake we are accounted righteous? But to believe is to trust in the merits of Christ, that for His sake God certainly WISHES to be reconciled with us.
The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone we obtain remission of sins, when we comfort our hearts with confidence in the mercy promised for 81] Christ's sake. Likewise Paul, Rom. 5:2, says: By whom also we have access, and adds, by faith. Thus, therefore, we are reconciled to the Father, and receive remission of sins when we are comforted with confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake. The adversaries regard Christ as Mediator and Propitiator for this reason, namely, that He has merited the habit of love; they do not urge us to use Him now as Mediator, but, as though Christ were altogether buried, they imagine that we have access through our own works, and, through these, merit this habit, and afterwards, by this love, come to God. Is not this to bury Christ altogether, and to take away the entire doctrine of faith? Paul on the contrary, teaches that we have access, i.e., reconciliation, through Christ. And to show how this occurs, he adds that we have access by faith. By faith, therefore, for Christ's sake, we receive remission of sins. We cannot set our own love and our own works over against God's wrath.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
Eternal shame on UOJ and those who teach and defend it for perverting the Gospel promises of Christ: leading men, women and children away from faith alone in Him.
The BOC again dashes your false teaching against the rocks:
86] But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
And again,
113] But faith, properly so called, is that which assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost in the heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain]. Of 114] this faith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the remission of sins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham] accounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the works of the Law, although love necessarily follows. 115]Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. 116]
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php
Condemned is your false teaching Joe Krohn (defender of the false gospel of UOJ).
Joe was rescued from the Means of Grace by the grace of God. That puts it all into perspective.
So he got delivered from the Lutheran bondage to the means of grace? I can see that.
It is typical of UOJ pastors (I have met some) to assert like Calvinists that God is Sovereign and God is not bound. I asked one once, can God save anyone without the means of grace? He said yes.
I turned red.
If there is anything different between Calvinism and Lutheranism is that in the latter it is taught that God is the one limiting himself to the means of grace.
The false dichotomy of Joe, Jack, Jim and others is that when a person rejects UOJ they immediately brand that the person must believe in Limited Atonement.
No, we do not believe in Limited Atonement, We believe in a God who limited himself to his chosen means. I believe in a God who sends his Son to take on humanity to himself, the incarnation is a proof that God is a God who limits himself.
There is a reason why Joe could not follow our arguments. He needs a course in critical thinking and logical fallacies before he can understand us. That is my opinion.
I do not know, I am not sure if I mention to him - non sequitur that he will catch what I mean by that.
LPC
I certainly hope that you would not believe that God limits those who will be saved and those who will be condemned, Lito.
As to Dr. Jackson's comment...now that is a logical fallacy; a non sequitur.
The Biblical/BoC follows that we are saved by grace for the sake of Christ through faith. Even the Augsburg Confession is ordered in such a paradigm: i.e. Grace, Redemption, Faith.
However, I would counter that this is not your paradigm since your emphasis on faith betrays your ramblings claiming to be an orthodox Lutheran. No, rather you follow the paradigm of Lenski whereas: we are saved by faith for the sake of Christ through grace; that man's salvation first begins in man; that grace is particular instead of universal; i.e.: for all men.
Joe,
As a typical UOJer you fall under the fallacy of Walther regarding faith.
I have read Lenski and you have no idea what you are talking about. In this debate you need to be the one doing the studying and not rely on someone else's propaganda.
All of the anti-UOJers I know, Brett, Pr. Bickel, Pr. Rydecki arrive at their anti-UOJer position through their own examination of the texts.
I am not the one who emphasises faith. It is the Jesus you claim to know. Jesus is the author, the initiator and the perfecter, the completer of a Christian's faith. You think that when a Christian mentions faith then that must be a sign that he puts faith in his faith. This is your fallacy.
When Jesus says, "all things are possible to them that believe" (Mk 9:23) and saying "your faith has saved you" (Lk 7:15), then you must consider that Jesus was teaching that people should have faith in their faith if you were to be consistent.
You contradict Jesus, that is why I speak against UOJ and UOJers like you. Your Waltherian and Huberian belief makes you at odds with Christ Jesus.
You have a different Jesus.
LPC
Oh I forgot to mention...
As to Dr. Jackson's comment...now that is a logical fallacy; a non sequitur.
Dr. Jackson was giving a joke. Though spoken in amusement, he has a point.
UOJ effectively teaches that there was a time when man has been justified without the Word, before they were born and before they ever existed. Since the Word is a Means of Grace then therefore by that teaching, God justifies people without it.
A teaching that says man has been saved/justified without the means of grace is Calvinism.
LPC
Post a Comment