http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/11/johann-gerhard-on-1-timothy-316.html#comment-form
Great post. I've always been baffled when universal justification advocates use 1 Timothy 3:16 as a proof passage. This passage has never been interpreted by the universal Church as the Christ being justified in the same way as we sinners need to be, yet this passage is essential to the philosophy that the world was justified "in Christ." Novel indeed.
I think Chemnitz sums up the catholic meaning well when he says:
"This is the forensic or legal meaning of this word. But just as is the case in all languages, words are transferred from the specific to the general. Thus 'justify' is sometimes used to approve, testify to, recognize, acknowledge, confess, and celebrate the fact that someone is righteous—granting, conferring, and attributing praise to his righteousness. Luke 7:29: 'The people and the publicans justified God, but the Pharisees spurned the counsel of God.' Luke 16:15: 'You justify yourselves before men.' Luke 10:29: 'The scribe, wanting to justify himself …' Jer. 3:11 and Ezek. 16:51: 'You have justified your sisters.' 1 Tim. 3:16: 'He was manifested in the flesh and justified in the Spirit,' that is, the humility of His flesh offended many, and He was crucified as a misleader and a seditious man; but because of His divine works and the sending of the Spirit, He was declared and approved as the Son of God and the Messiah." (Loci Theologici [CPH], p.478)
I guess Chemnitz forgot the true meaning of the passage, namely, that Christ was absolved of all our sins and so the world stands righteous and sinless before God's eyes now. Chemnitz would never be able to serve on the faculty of WLS or the Concordias.
How about John Cassian (c.360 – 435)? Could he serve on the faculties of those seminaries?
"And so as for your assertions that He was justified by the Spirit...and that He was taken up by the Spirit into heaven, they are all blasphemous and wild: not because we are to believe that in all these things which He Himself did, the unity and cooperation of the Spirit was wanting— since the Godhead is never wanting to Itself, and the power of the Trinity was ever present in the Saviour's works— but because you will have it that the Holy Ghost gave assistance to the Lord Jesus Christ as if He had been feeble and powerless; and that He granted those things to Him, which He was unable to procure for Himself. ...For to begin with this assertion of yours that the Spirit filled with righteousness (justitia) what was created, and your attempts to prove this by the evidence of the Apostle, where he says that He appeared in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, you make each statement in an unsound sense and wild spirit. For you make this assertion; viz., that you will have it that He was filled with righteousness by the Spirit, in order to show how He was void of righteousness, as you assert that the being filled with it was given to Him." (On the Incarnation, Book VII, Ch. XVIII)
John Cassian was right, what need does the Christ have to be absolved in any way like us? He was and is sinless. To say He needed to be justified in the same way we are justified is to assert that He was lacking righteousness. It's essentially a Trinitarian heresy -- that not all three persons were equally righteous.
The passage means as it has always meant, that Jesus was proven to be the Christ as opposed to just being a man. Bishop Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 - 368) explains:
"For the Apostle leaves no doubt that all must confess that the hidden secret of our salvation...[is]...the mystery of great godliness, and a mystery no longer kept from our eyes, but manifested in the flesh; no longer weak through the nature of flesh, but justified in the Spirit. And so by the justification of the Spirit is removed from our faith the idea of fleshly weakness;..." (On the Trinity, Book XI)
I think Chemnitz sums up the catholic meaning well when he says:
"This is the forensic or legal meaning of this word. But just as is the case in all languages, words are transferred from the specific to the general. Thus 'justify' is sometimes used to approve, testify to, recognize, acknowledge, confess, and celebrate the fact that someone is righteous—granting, conferring, and attributing praise to his righteousness. Luke 7:29: 'The people and the publicans justified God, but the Pharisees spurned the counsel of God.' Luke 16:15: 'You justify yourselves before men.' Luke 10:29: 'The scribe, wanting to justify himself …' Jer. 3:11 and Ezek. 16:51: 'You have justified your sisters.' 1 Tim. 3:16: 'He was manifested in the flesh and justified in the Spirit,' that is, the humility of His flesh offended many, and He was crucified as a misleader and a seditious man; but because of His divine works and the sending of the Spirit, He was declared and approved as the Son of God and the Messiah." (Loci Theologici [CPH], p.478)
I guess Chemnitz forgot the true meaning of the passage, namely, that Christ was absolved of all our sins and so the world stands righteous and sinless before God's eyes now. Chemnitz would never be able to serve on the faculty of WLS or the Concordias.
How about John Cassian (c.360 – 435)? Could he serve on the faculties of those seminaries?
"And so as for your assertions that He was justified by the Spirit...and that He was taken up by the Spirit into heaven, they are all blasphemous and wild: not because we are to believe that in all these things which He Himself did, the unity and cooperation of the Spirit was wanting— since the Godhead is never wanting to Itself, and the power of the Trinity was ever present in the Saviour's works— but because you will have it that the Holy Ghost gave assistance to the Lord Jesus Christ as if He had been feeble and powerless; and that He granted those things to Him, which He was unable to procure for Himself. ...For to begin with this assertion of yours that the Spirit filled with righteousness (justitia) what was created, and your attempts to prove this by the evidence of the Apostle, where he says that He appeared in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, you make each statement in an unsound sense and wild spirit. For you make this assertion; viz., that you will have it that He was filled with righteousness by the Spirit, in order to show how He was void of righteousness, as you assert that the being filled with it was given to Him." (On the Incarnation, Book VII, Ch. XVIII)
John Cassian was right, what need does the Christ have to be absolved in any way like us? He was and is sinless. To say He needed to be justified in the same way we are justified is to assert that He was lacking righteousness. It's essentially a Trinitarian heresy -- that not all three persons were equally righteous.
The passage means as it has always meant, that Jesus was proven to be the Christ as opposed to just being a man. Bishop Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 - 368) explains:
"For the Apostle leaves no doubt that all must confess that the hidden secret of our salvation...[is]...the mystery of great godliness, and a mystery no longer kept from our eyes, but manifested in the flesh; no longer weak through the nature of flesh, but justified in the Spirit. And so by the justification of the Spirit is removed from our faith the idea of fleshly weakness;..." (On the Trinity, Book XI)
You are just plain wrong. When Satan is poking me in the chest so hard when I am weakest and my faith fails me, I find comfort in this verse. Rather I turn to these statements regarding Justification and find comfort. Your Gospel is of no comfort.
http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00225.htm:
"In his statement to the Board of Control Dr. Maier further stated: "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29(, and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made….to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, ‘made a curse for us’" (Galatians 3:13).
"In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and sacraments of Christ."
"Faith alone can receive this treasure offered in the Gospel, and this faith itself is entirely a gracious gift and creation of God through the means of grace. Faith adds nothing to God’s forgiveness in Christ offered in the Gospel, but only receives it. Thus, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him’" (John 3:30).
"My reservation concerning some of the traditional terminology employed in expressing the doctrine of justification are fully covered by the following statements from the major essay delivered to the first convention of the Synodical Conference, assembled in Milwaukee July 10-16, 1872:
"When speaking with regard to the acquisition of salvation (by Christ), God has wrath for no man any longer; but when speaking with regard to the appropriation, He is wrathful with everyone who is no in Christ ("Proceedings," p. 32). Before faith the sinner is righteous before God only according to the acquisition and the divine intention, but he is actually ("actu") righteous, righteous for his own person, righteous indeed, first when he believes ("Proceedings," p. 68.""
http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/jmc00225.htm:
"In his statement to the Board of Control Dr. Maier further stated: "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29(, and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made….to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, ‘made a curse for us’" (Galatians 3:13).
"In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and sacraments of Christ."
"Faith alone can receive this treasure offered in the Gospel, and this faith itself is entirely a gracious gift and creation of God through the means of grace. Faith adds nothing to God’s forgiveness in Christ offered in the Gospel, but only receives it. Thus, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him’" (John 3:30).
"My reservation concerning some of the traditional terminology employed in expressing the doctrine of justification are fully covered by the following statements from the major essay delivered to the first convention of the Synodical Conference, assembled in Milwaukee July 10-16, 1872:
"When speaking with regard to the acquisition of salvation (by Christ), God has wrath for no man any longer; but when speaking with regard to the appropriation, He is wrathful with everyone who is no in Christ ("Proceedings," p. 32). Before faith the sinner is righteous before God only according to the acquisition and the divine intention, but he is actually ("actu") righteous, righteous for his own person, righteous indeed, first when he believes ("Proceedings," p. 68.""
Joe, are you saying I'm just plain wrong with my translation of Gerhard on 1 Tim. 3:16? If so, please point out where I mistranslated.
What are you trying to demonstrate with this series of quotations? That the Synodical Conference always had this strange "God has wrath for no man / God has wrath for unbelievers" teaching floating around, contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran doctrine?
What are you trying to demonstrate with this series of quotations? That the Synodical Conference always had this strange "God has wrath for no man / God has wrath for unbelievers" teaching floating around, contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran doctrine?
The irony is palpable when all Joe has left to defend his innovative doctrine is the fleeting citations he pulls out of Synodical Conference theologians, which stand in stark opposition to the slew of quotes from Orthodox Lutheran and Early Church Fathers in the comment and article that precede his.
Where Scripture refers to Christ as the Righteous One, UOJ refers to Him as the greatest sinner.
Joe, "my faith fails me" Joe are you saying the Holy Spirit's faith fails you? Or, are you saying your faith fails you?
The doctrine of UOJ teaches people not to look to their faith in Christ, worked graciously by the Holy Spirit, for assurance when doubts arise but in the supposed declaration of forgiveness declared before they believed,
before they were born. Scripture directs Christians to the Holy Spirit's faith: 2 Cor. 3:15, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith, prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates."
Joe, "my faith fails me" Joe are you saying the Holy Spirit's faith fails you? Or, are you saying your faith fails you?
The doctrine of UOJ teaches people not to look to their faith in Christ, worked graciously by the Holy Spirit, for assurance when doubts arise but in the supposed declaration of forgiveness declared before they believed,
before they were born. Scripture directs Christians to the Holy Spirit's faith: 2 Cor. 3:15, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith, prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates."
Brett, your comment brings to mind more fully the way that UOJ distorts the work of all Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. First, it distorts the work of the Father, making Him an impotent Judge Whose declarations have no effect until believed by Man. Then, it distorts the work of the Son, making His righteousness insufficient to swallow up the sins of the world, instead needing absolution from the Holy Spirit (which, obviously, is in turn a distortion of what the H.S. does). And then the work the Holy Spirit actually does, creating and sustaining faith in Christ through Holy Baptism, is relegated to a category of "uncertain," being an "insufficient Gospel." Indeed, the forgiveness He gives there is rejected by UOJ fanatics, who point us instead back to the impotent declaration of forgiveness they imagine comes from the Father on account of the righteousness-lacking work of the Son. A sorry sight all around, if you ask me.
 |
| UOJ, Halle Pietism, Knapp, Stephan, Walther, and WELS leaders agree about this - against the Bible, Luther, Chemnitz, and the Concordists. |
 |
| UOJ assassins have awakened the Gospel in the Synodical Conference. |
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/fraternal-dialogue-on-topic-of.html
I had one more comment that I thought of last evening when I was skimming over this post; it is directed at Pr. Webber and those who seem to find this OJ lying next to SJ all the time in scripture and the BoC. I see the problem as a failure to look at Justification in context. UOJ works when you zoom in too far to certain passages; just like other heterodox religions do to make their doctrine work. Ironically, when I read the study notes from the Concordia NIV to a WELS heavyweight re: Romans 3:22-24, he thought it sounded like limited atonement...of course it was taken verbatim from the Zondervan NIV Study Bible. The irony is that Calvinists fall short with the 'all' and UOJers overshoot the 'all'.
Mr. Lindee made a great stride by putting the Ambrose quote in context from the letter. I would only add that where this quote appears in the Apology follows under these headings: Of Justification 1-47; What is Justifying Faith? 48-60; That Faith in Christ Justifies 61-74; That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ 75-121.
So you see it is always in the context of faith; justified by faith in the Propitiator, namely, Jesus Christ.
Mr. Lindee made a great stride by putting the Ambrose quote in context from the letter. I would only add that where this quote appears in the Apology follows under these headings: Of Justification 1-47; What is Justifying Faith? 48-60; That Faith in Christ Justifies 61-74; That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ 75-121.
So you see it is always in the context of faith; justified by faith in the Propitiator, namely, Jesus Christ.
---
...Continued from previous comment.
You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification -- certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating (subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching on the matter of Justification.
You know, we at IL have been very careful, for the sake of fraternity, to avoid mention of his name or reference to his research on this subject. But the prominent use of a Halle Pietist, who produced his work at the pinnacle of the period of radical German Pietism, to discredit an orthodox theologian like Chemnitz and instead supporting the teaching of Universal Objective Justification, only proves Dr. Jackson's thesis: UOJ did emerge from Halle Pietism. I myself, up to this point, have been skeptical of this thesis, as my own extended and personal contact with confessing Pietists has had me convinced that they are not guilty of distinguishing Objective from Subjective aspects of Justification -- certainly not to the elevation of the Objective! -- as everything for them is Subjective. But rather, I had thought, they are guilty of separating (subjective) Justification from Conversion. You yourself have read Iver Olson's Baptism and Spiritual Life, and know precisely what I am referring to. To me, if there was anything to Dr. Jackson's connection of Halle to UOJ, it was in later Halle Rationalism. But now there can be no doubt. Rambach, a bona fide Halle Pietist, supplied the foundation necessary to topple formerly orthodox teaching on the matter of Justification.
I knew that Rambach was a pietist. I was not using his observations on this verse to discredit Chemnitz, but to supplement Chemnitz. His exegesis and reflections stand on their own, and should be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of what he might have said on other topics on other occasions. And it is also clear that on this topic in particular, he was not inventing a new pietist notion, but was recapitulating the orthodox teaching of the orthodox theologian Quistorp. Theologians with pietist leanings were not wrong in everything they said, especially when they were repeating the sound teaching of orthodox theologians of earlier times.