- February 25th, 2014 at 08:52 | #24Dave Schumacher :@Pr. Jim Schulz #18 You have illustrated my point.I did not say that the atonement is the same thing as justification. The result of the atonement IS forgiveness. Forgiveness IS justification.And since Scripture and the Christian Book of Concord confirm:That Christ is our Mediator and Propitiation only through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…That God’s wrath and condemnation over sin is only mediated by Christ through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…That God’s grace upon, and acceptance of, an individual is only through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…That reconciliation with God through Christ occurs only through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…That men are justified solely by the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone…Men are not considered by God to be forgiven, justified, except through the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone.
- February 25th, 2014 at 09:06 | #25Dave Schumacher, my mistake. I’m glad you are saying that the atonement is not the same thing as justification. However, the Confessions don’t allow for an understanding of justification where because both the atonement and justification include forgiveness that therefore an “individual is justified – whether they believe it or not.” Justification must always include faith (cf. Solid Declaration III:25). Or, to use the OJ/SJ terminology: SJ must be taught with OJ. The two go together, they must not be separated.
- February 25th, 2014 at 09:24 | #26“No one actually has forgiveness unless and until he receives it by faith.”So, “takes place” means “receives”? Or, “takes place” means “actually has”?
By this does Prof Marquart mean that forgiveness does not exist until someone receives it by faith, until someone has it?This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc. - February 25th, 2014 at 09:33 | #27In Col 2:15, are the disarming, triumph, and spectacle contingent upon someone having faith? Were the principalities and powers able to say, while being dragged along behind Christ’s chariot in his victory parade, “Not so fast Jesus, not until someone believes?”What is the connection between verse 15 and the one before it, verse 14, “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross?” Was the Judge able to say concerning the wiping out of the verdict, “Not so fast, Advocate, not until someone believes?”What connection did Luther make between them?This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
- February 25th, 2014 at 09:37 | #28Brett Meyer :
When a verbatim quote is regarded as slander – I would spend more time considering what you are writing.
Truth is that when clergy, professors and laity defend the doctrine of Universal Objective Justification there is no possible way to avoid inconsistencies and contradictions. It is the nature of the doctrine.More nonsense and rubbish. The verbatim quote means nothing, because the post you are alluding to says quite the opposite from what you are dreaming. By quoting out of context you twist my words to the exact opposite. Everyone but you can see that. But I know, you cannot or will not understand it.The post #14 on page 2 speaks of the worth of faith, wherein this worth lies, by whom faith gets its worth, and so on. It says the same as the Formula of Concord:“10 These treasures are brought to us by the Holy Spirit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. Faith alone is the only means through which we lay hold on, accept, apply, and take them for ourselves. 11 This faith is God’s gift [Ephesians 2:8–9], by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel and trust in Him. We trust 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 (a) we are “justified by faith” (Romans 3:28) or (b) “faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:5) and when he says (c) “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) or (d) “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Romans 5:18).
13 Faith justifies not because it is such a good work or because it is so beautiful a virtue. It justifies because it lays hold of and accepts Christ’s merit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. For this merit must be applied and become ours through faith, if we are to be justified by it. 14 Therefore, the righteousness that is credited to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is Christ’s obedience, suffering, and resurrection, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law and paid for ‹expiated› our sins. ”McCain, P. T. (Ed.). (2005). Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (pp. 537–538). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. SD III, 10Luther in his great commentary on Galatians fights against those deny that we are justified by faith alone, because in their view faith is without worth if it is not perfected by love (fides caritate formata). This is just another form of self-righteousness. In contrast to the papists Luther points out that faith in Christ is enough for our justification, our works cannot do or complete anything in this regard.Your slanderous post above is fallacy by equivocation. Using the same words Luther and I are talking about different things.You are slandering me! (And others, too.) You are a lier and deceiver. Repent and learn to read so that you may understand what people are talking of. - February 25th, 2014 at 09:43 | #29T.R. Halvorson, since Marquart is no longer around to explain whether or not he means forgiveness does not exist until someone receives it by faith, I will take his “has” to mean “has.”has [haz; unstressed huhz, uhz] verb
a 3rd person singular present indicative of have.have [hav; unstressed huhv, uhv; for 26 usually haf]
verb (used with object), present singular 1st person have, 2nd have or ( Archaic ) hast, 3rd has or ( Archaic ) hath, present plural have; past singular 1st person had, 2nd had or (Archaic ) hadst or had·dest, 3rd had, past plural had; past participle had; present participle hav·ing.1. to possess; own; hold for use; contain: He has property. The work has an index.
2. to hold, possess, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position: He wanted to marry her, but she wouldn’t have him.
3. to get, receive, or take: to have a part in a play; to have news.
4. to experience, undergo, or endure, as joy or pain: Have a good time. He had a heart attack last year.
5. to hold in mind, sight, etc.: to have doubts. - February 25th, 2014 at 09:55 | #30You used “has” to define “takes place.” Then you offer a dictionary definition of “has” that does not relate it to “takes place,” and thereby have not accepted the invitation to illuminate what “has” means in relation to “takes place.”This is the point where engagement ceases and circling begins. Do you wish to circle, or engage? Otherwise, you and I are only pouring ourselves down the sinkhole of avoidance.This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
- February 25th, 2014 at 10:11 | #31Please frame your comments around 2 Peter 2:1 and show how they support the passage.“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
- February 25th, 2014 at 10:41 | #33Gentlemen,I quoted Dr. Marquart in an earlier comment above ours which deals directly with what he may have meant with “has.”“If all sins of all men have been truly and successfully expiated by Christ, then forgiveness is more than a possibility. The world’s sin has been decisively dealt with, and in that sense forgiveness is an accomplished fact. Luther therefore can have no hesitation in translating the participles in 2 Corinthians 5:19 as if they were finite verbs: “For God was in Christ, and reconciled the world with Himself, and did not impute to them their sins ….” For Luther as for the New Testament (note the equation of “redemption” and “forgiveness” in Colossians 1:14 and the aorists and perfect inColossians 2:13-15) forgiveness, that is, cancellation of sin, or the change from divine wrath to divine grace, “has happened” in a way in which it has not happened either for Roman Catholicism or for Calvinism. ”Notice that Marquart states “The world’s sin has been decisively dealt with, and in that sense forgiveness is an accomplished fact.” Marquart also writes,“It is very clear here that forgiveness, in the form of the absolution, exists before and independently of faith, and creates or gives birth to it. Forgiveness or absolution (that is, the Gospel itself) creates faith; faith merely receives or accepts forgiveness. Absolution can exist without faith (although its benefits of course go to waste unless faith receives them), but faith cannot exist without absolution.”
http://ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/MarquartReformationRootsofObjectiveJustification.pdfI find what Dr. Marquart writes compelling, showing that the world has been forgiven of all its sins and that forgiveness “exists before and independently of faith, and creates or gives birth to it.” This idea that Dr. Marquart did not teach a general justification (objective justification) is nonsense. - February 25th, 2014 at 13:21 | #35No, here:Brett Meyer :@T. R. Halvorson #38
I confess that in regards to God’s Word and the unified doctrine revealed in Holy Scripture there is no such thing as a theory.
Definition of theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
UOJ is promoted and defended via contradictory teachings while excusing the contradictions by calling all doctrine concepts with words that flex in meaning depending on the interpretation of the individual but inconsistent with God’s singular Word.
T.R., is there some part of the atonement revealed in Scripture that you find to be inconclusive and a mere idea or theory?In regards to Marquart and his confession of UOJ – no surpise that I disagree with him based on the Scriptural and Confessional quotes provided in this discussion – but I did find interesting his favorable quote of a liberal Roman Catholic in his defense of faithless forgiveness.3. The Biblical Basis of “Objective/Subjective Justification”
Rather than rehash “in-house” exegesis, let us look at the relevant biblical material as
displayed by Hans Kueng, a world-class, liberal Roman Catholic New Testament scholar,
who stands entirely outside any and all Lutheran debates. Page 4
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.marquartjustification.html - February 25th, 2014 at 15:22 | #37That is not an answer saying how Luther dealt with penal substitution and Christus Victor. That’s just a quibble with my use of the word “theory” and hence a disengagement from the discussion, retreating into circling and avoiding.Maybe I should have used the word Aulen uses, “idea,” or yet some third, fourth, or fifth word, such as understanding, explanation, or teaching. There is a right word, even if I don’t know what it is, and my selection of the wrong word did not consign to nonbeing Luther’s dealing with the two things.Do you contend that, since I applied the word “theories” to penal substitution and Christus Victor, and since there are no theories, therefore Luther did not deal with these two things?How did he deal with them? How do you trace from what he said about that to justification? This is the third time I’ve asked.This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
- February 25th, 2014 at 15:32 | #38Thank you for your patience, and for that answer. It does tie up the loose ends in my understanding of what you are saying.You and I have been careful enough and thorough enough in our communication for me now to draw some conclusions about whether to be persuaded of your position. I can’t be.In your position, there is nothing to believe, nothing for the Sacraments to deliver, nothing to be received by faith, nothing to be proclaimed. The terminology of truth is used, but with different meanings.This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
- February 25th, 2014 at 16:10 | #40Thanks to you as well, and for your prayers.This comment Copyright © 2014 Synoptic Text Information Services, Inc.
- February 25th, 2014 at 17:43 | #41In case some reading the comments here do not know the LCMS position on objective justification, please read the PDF titled “Theses on Justification” which can be found on the page linked here. I quote the relevant section below.VI THE UNIVERSAL AND FINISHED RESULTS OF CHRIST’S WORK OF OBEDIENCE19. Christ is the Savior of all. This means that the whole world of sinners has been redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled to God in Him. (Rom. 3:24-25; 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 9:28; Ap IV, 103; XXIV, 22-24; FC SD III, 57; XI, 15)It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:That it is improper to speak of God being reconciled to man;That we can only speak of man being reconciled to God by man’s repentance or change of heart;That God has redeemed but not reconciled the world.20. God has accepted the vicarious offering and sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, in
whom therefore God is propitiated and reconciled with all sinners, so that for Christ’s
sake God’s wrath against all sinners has been and remains stilled, and Satan, sin,
death, and hell have been and are conquered. (Rom. 5:18; Col. 2:14-15;1 Thess. 1:10;
Heb. 7:27, 10:12; 1 John 2:2; AC III, 3; Ap XXIV, 22-24; FC SD XI, 28)It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:That God’s acceptance of His Son’s perfect sacrifice does not have as its
necessary concomitant the propitiation of His wrath against all sinners.21. Complete and perfect righteousness and forgiveness have been acquired for all
sinners. (Ps. 130:4; Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 1:30; Heb. 10:12, 18; Ap IV, 103; LC II, 38; FC
Ep III, 3; V, 5; FC SD III, 30, 57)22. God, by raising His Son from the dead, has justified Him, declared Him to be the
Righteous One, and in Him (i e , for the sake of His finished work of obedience and
satisfaction) has declared (as proclaimed in the Gospel), or reckoned, the whole world
to be righteous. (Rom. 3:24; 4:25; 5:18-19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3)
It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:That forgiveness of sins and justification for all have not been declared by God
when He raised His Son from the dead, but have merely been acquired or made
a possibility through Christ’s atonement.23. By “objective” or “universal” justification one means that God has declared the
whole world to be righteous for Christ’s sake and that righteousness has thus been
procured for all people. It is objective because this was God’s unilateral act prior to and
in no way dependent upon man’s response to it, and universal because all human
beings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all
people by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of
forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:24; 4:25;5:19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:That God’s acquisition and establishment of forgiveness in objective justification is a conditional verdict, depending on faith or any other human response or activity;That it is not Biblical to speak of “objective justification.”Note: * Definitions in part II are preliminary to the material in the remainder of the document
and should be cross-referenced with more detailed statements in the later theses. For
example, theses 5 and 6 are elaborated in theses 19-22. - February 25th, 2014 at 20:44 | #42Jim Pierce :In case some reading the comments here do not know the LCMS position on objective justification, please read the PDF titled “Theses on Justification” which can be found on the page linked here. I quote the relevant section below.
VI THE UNIVERSAL AND FINISHED RESULTS OF CHRIST’S WORK OF OBEDIENCE
19. Christ is the Savior of all. This means that the whole world of sinners has been redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled to God in Him. (Rom. 3:24-25; 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Tim. 4:10; Heb. 9:28; Ap IV, 103; XXIV, 22-24; FC SD III, 57; XI, 15)
It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
That it is improper to speak of God being reconciled to man;BOC: ”there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled to God and first obtain the remission of sin.”
BOC: ”58] … because for Christ’s sake we have a sure and firm reconciliation, if you believe, even though sin inhere in your flesh.”
BOC: ”61]… because by faith alone we receive remission of sins and reconciliation”
http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.phpJim Pierce :
It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
That we can only speak of man being reconciled to God by man’s repentance or change of heart;
That God has redeemed but not reconciled the world.BOC: 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
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.phpJim Pierce :
20. God has accepted the vicarious offering and sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, inwhom therefore God is propitiated and reconciled with all sinners, so that for Christ’ssake God’s wrath against all sinners has been and remains stilled, and Satan, sin,death, and hell have been and are conquered. (Rom. 5:18;Col. 2:14-15; 1 Thess. 1:10;Heb. 7:27, 10:12; 1 John 2:2; AC III, 3; Ap XXIV, 22-24; FC SD XI, 28)Romans 3:23-26, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousess for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
BOC: “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.
BOC: “But Christ is not apprehended as a Mediator except by faith.”
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.phpJim Pierce :
It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
That God’s acceptance of His Son’s perfect sacrifice does not have as itsnecessary concomitant the propitiation of His wrath against all sinners.Refer to Romans 3:23-26 above showing Christ is only apprehended as propitiation against God’s wrath over sin through faith alone.
BOC: 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.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.phpJim Pierce :
It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
22. God, by raising His Son from the dead, has justified Him, declared Him to be theRighteous One, and in Him (i e , for the sake of His finished work of obedience andsatisfaction) has declared (as proclaimed in the Gospel), or reckoned, the whole worldto be righteous. (Rom. 3:24; 4:25; 5:18-19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3)Scripture: Romans 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
BOC: 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,
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.phpJim Pierce :
It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
That forgiveness of sins and justification for all have not been declared by Godwhen He raised His Son from the dead, but have merely been acquired or madea possibility through Christ’s atonement.
23. By “objective” or “universal” justification one means that God has declared thewhole world to be righteous for Christ’s sake and that righteousness has thus beenprocured for all people. It is objective because this was God’s unilateral act prior to andin no way dependent upon man’s response to it, and universal because all humanbeings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for allpeople by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven. The acquiring offorgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:24;4:25; 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)BOC: “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.”
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php
BOC: 6] Let any one of the adversaries come forth and tell us when remission of sins takes place. O good God, what darkness there is! They doubt whether it is in attrition or in contrition that remission of sins occurs. And if it occurs on account of contrition, what need is there of absolution, what does the power of the keys effect, if sins have been already remitted?…”
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_10_repentance.php
BOC: “there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled to God and first obtain the remission of sin.”
http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.phpScripture: Romans 10:3-4, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” - February 25th, 2014 at 21:55 | #43Pr. Jim Schulz :
Dave Schumacher, my mistake. I’m glad you are saying that the atonement is not the same thing as justification. However, the Confessions don’t allow for an understanding of justification where because both the atonement and justification include forgiveness that therefore an “individual is justified – whether they believe it or not.” Justification must always include faith (cf. Solid Declaration III:25). Or, to use the OJ/SJ terminology: SJ must be taught with OJ. The two go together, they must not be separated.A forgiveness that is not also justification is no forgiveness at all.
You muddle with terms trying to harmonize what is true with what is not true.
The scriptural doctrine of the LCMS does not agree with your false dichotomy of forgiveness vs. justification. - February 25th, 2014 at 22:14 | #44@Brett Meyer #42
You still have not responded to 2 Peter 2:1, Brett that says all men are redeemed; plain as the nose on your face. - February 25th, 2014 at 22:46 | #45Joe Krohn :@Brett Meyer #42 You still have not responded to 2 Peter 2:1, Brett that says all men are redeemed; plain as the nose on your face.Redeemed does not mean the same thing as Justified. Redeemed means to purchase, buy back. Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. Therefore in Christ is all righteousness for the forgiveness of sins (justification), regeneration, the adoption of sons and salvation.The BOC confirms this:
4] In opposition to both these parties it has been unanimously taught by the other teachers of the Augsburg Confession that Christ is our righteousness not according to His divine nature alone, nor according to His human nature alone, but according to both natures; for He has redeemed, justified, and saved us from our sins as God and man, through His complete obedience; that therefore the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God’s children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness.
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.phpNote the bolded section which per your false UOJ confession would read, “for He has justified, justified, and saved us from our sins…”Also note, that the righteousness of faith is the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God which through faith alone is imputed for righteousness to all true believers. A complete and full rejection of the false gospel of UOJ.That BOC quote is worth repeating and rereading – UOJ is anti-confessional.In Christ,
Brett Meyer
