 |
| The Universalist crowd has never comprehended the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace, a foundational Biblical truth. Until then, they will continue to sound like geese startled by cheap firecrackers. |
Some Clarifications in Articulating Objective Justification
March 11th, 2014
[GJ - This is a fine tautology, proving that A is A because a Preus says so. But Grampa said otherwise. You should all get together and read it some day.]
 |
| Cited by Dr. Robert Preus, Justification and Rome - not Just a Vacation in Rome, as the Preus kids read it. |
- March 11th, 2014 at 17:01 | #1The problem arises when individuals state that the first half of the equation (“God justifies the sinner”) can be stated as a completed event to all those who do not meet the requirements of the second half of the equation (“through faith”). More specifically, those of us who object to the terminology take issue with the notion that God has declared all people righteous whether they believe it or not. The issue is *not* whether God has acquired the three components you call “objective justification” for all people, to wit, the grace of God, the merits of Christ, and the Promise of the Gospel. These most certainly have been acquired for all people whether they believe it or not. The question is whether or not these three components result in forgiveness and a declaration of “not guilty” before the Throne of God whether one receives them through faith or not. That is the issue.
- March 11th, 2014 at 17:53 | #2Daniel,Do you believe it is Scriptural to talk about the sins of the whole world being punished in Christ? If so, can you explain what that means? If not, would you explain why? Thanks.
- March 11th, 2014 at 18:16 | #3When discussing Objective Justification I find it helpful to talk about the sins of the whole world being atoned for by Christ’s shed blood. Subjective Justification would be God the Holy Spirit, working through the message of atonement, so that some believe and personally realize the benefit.
- March 11th, 2014 at 18:49 | #4Meeting the requirements is not what faith does. Faith receives the fulfilled requirements given to all in the word of the gospel.If this decree is not completed in an individual, then the that is a defect on the part of the individual, not God. I’m sure we would agree on that. But that doesn’t change the fact that God, in the ordained will and redemptive work and preached gospel, is favorable toward all sinners for Christ’s sake. It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus took away the sin of the world.
- March 11th, 2014 at 18:49 | #5Jim, I have come to the conclusion that there is no way that a certain group people will ever accept this teaching, even though it is true and no matter how thoroughly you explain it and support it with Scripture. Jim, you are a much more patient man than I am. Bless you for your efforts. A certain faction’s obstinate refusal to accept the obvious just aggravates gets to me.Either Christ took all the worlds (sic) sins to the cross or he didn’t. If you say He didn’t, then you advocate a limited atonement. It’s as simple as that. Yet the deniers of O/S justification claim there’s some sort of hazy third option. What that option is, I have no idea. Anyway, thanks for your able defense of the truth. You’re a great Lutheran.
- March 11th, 2014 at 18:53 | #6I’d be curious what Daniel thinks of the Hunnius quote provided in the earlier post here on BJS. To say “…has freed each and every mortal, without any exception at any time or in any place, from sin, death and eternal damnation.” means exactly what Daniel is speaking against. Indeed for every mortal to be freed from sin means all mortals are “not guilty” prior to belief or unbelief for the sake of Christ. If this is not so, Christ’s work is incomplete.
- March 11th, 2014 at 18:55 | #7I mean, really, what is so freaking complicated about this? The refusal to accept a gift doesn’t mean the gift wasn’t offered. God wants all men to be saved. That salvation is available to all by God’s grace through faith in the Son by the power of the Spirit. Okay, so a sinner rejects this free gift. Tragic. But the gift was still offered. The gift continues to be offered until the sinner is dead.
- March 11th, 2014 at 18:57 | #8You’re too kind, Thomas. I am really not patient.I am just as puzzled as you are by those who reject OJ/SJ. I hope Daniel will entertain my question, because I don’t understand what it could mean that the sins of the whole world were put onto Christ, He who knew no sin was made to be sin, and then was punished for the sins of the whole world, God’s wrath was poured out on Christ. And, then at the same time talk about Christ rising from the grave in victory, but the sins of the whole world aren’tactually forgiven? What kind of victory is that? I hope Daniel can explain this for me. The other option is as you point out, limited atonement.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:07 | #9Yes, it is Scriptural to say that Christ was punished for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 2:2, etc.). This means that Christ bore the weight of the whole world’s sin by His Passion, swallowing it and its consequences (ultimately death) in the totality of His perfection. By virtue of the same perfection and the fullness of His Deity, He also acquired complete righteousness for all people. These truths stand whether one believes them or not.Faith is a requirement for salvation whether one wants to use the word “requirement” or not. If one does not have faith, one is not saved. I’m sure we all agree on that. Therefore, if it is necessary unto salvation, it is a requirement for salvation. Anything beyond that is equivocation.The righteousness of faith is certainly dependent on what Christ does, insofar as an individual’s faith does not create Christ and His merits. But faith is required in order for the forgiveness that is granted on account of Christ’s merits to be applied to the individual. Just as the blind man was healed when he believed on Christ (cf. St. Luke 18:42, “thy faith has saved thee”), so too we are healed/justified/forgiven when we believe on Christ – not because faith is a meritorious work on our part, but because it is the life-giving work of the Holy Spirit. When we cling to Christ by virtue of God-given faith, we are no longer judged according to our own merits before the Throne of God’s Justice, but we are judged by Christ’s merits before the Throne of Grace.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:10 | #10Thank you for your response, Daniel. But I am still puzzled by your answer. You write, “acquired complete righteousness for all people.” Can you explain what you mean by “acquired”?
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:13 | #11Well, you’re more patient than I am (though, admittedly, that’s not exactly a high bar). I guess for me, at a basic level, I just can’t understand what it is that these people are arguing against. It just doesn’t seem to make any sense. I realize that I’m not a stupid man, but I’m certainly not the smartest by a long shot. But are the deniers of OJ/SJ really claiming to have considered this issue more deeply than Pieper and found him to be in error? His Dogmatics is one of the most impressive intellectual achievements I’ve ever encountered. Granted, it doesn’t have any hacky photoshop jobs of Synodical officials, but it explains this issue in such exhaustive and meticulous detail that it astonishes me that people could really try to find fault with his analysis. I guess that is the fallacy of the appeal to authority or something, but in this case, Pieper really is an authority worth appealing to. The man was simply a master of orthodox Lutheran theology.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:16 | #12I mean that He lived a perfect life on behalf of the entire human race, and in Himself possesses complete and sufficient righteousness for all people.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:19 | #13So you’re a supporter of Objective/Subjective Justification?
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:20 | #14So, if I understand you correctly, the Father punishes the sins of the whole world in Christ, and the result is that Christ comes to possess in Himself “complete and sufficient righteousness for all people”?Is there any verdict that the Father reaches towards the world once Christ makes satisfaction for all sin?
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:27 | #15Sure, I agree. It is a requirement. But the forgiveness offered is not contingent upon it. If that is what you mean by requirement, then I disagree. But it is a requirement for the forgiveness received. If that is what you mean, then I agree.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:28 | #16You are reading me correctly.As it pertains to your second question: Not that I’m aware of, unless you are familiar with some declaration in Holy Writ that I have not heard.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:32 | #17It seems like one of the clearest Scriptural verses in this debate is the proclamation of John the Baptist. Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This is God the Holy Spirit talking. The Word of the Triune God. The sins are “taken away.” That is, gone. Not potentially gone, or maybe gone under certain conditions. But the Lamb takes away the sins of the whole world. The sinner gains access to the salvation and forgiveness that has been earned for the whole whole by God’s grace through faith in the Son without the works of the Law. A sinner many reject that free gift, but the gift is still offered. Where have I erred? Isn’t this correct?
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:33 | #18Perhaps our disagreement pertains to the definition of “forgiveness.” I do not believe that forgiveness is a commodity that exists to be dispensed. Forgiveness is the result of faith that receives the objective components of justification. Whereas it seems like you’re calling the objective components themselves “forgiveness.” However, just as the blind man’s sight did not have to exist prior to the God-given faith that healed him, so too our forgiveness does not have to exist in order to be forgiven/justified by the gift of God-given faith.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:35 | #19Our faith does not create God’s forgiveness. It exists beforehand. It was won by the Son on the cross for the whole world.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:37 | #20No, because Christ’s righteousness being sufficient for the entire human race does not equate to an unbiblical universal declaration of righteousness regardless of faith.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:41 | #22Forgiveness is “acquired” on account of Christ’s merit in the sense that He atoned for the sins of the entire world. However, it is *applied* to individuals on the basis of faith, whereby sinners are actually declared righteous and forgiven on account of faith that believes the promises of Gospel backed by the merits of Christ and the grace of God.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:42 | #23The Son of God earned salvation and forgiveness for the whole world on the cross. That salvation and forgiveness is applied individually by God’s grace through faith in the Son. It doesn’t get anymore Biblical than that.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:44 | #24Please provide the chapter and verse where God says “I declare the entire world not guilty and righteous in My sight whether it believes it or not.” I will recant right here and now after you provide such a verse.To the contrary, we know from Scripture that the wrath of God has never ceased toward the unbelieving world, vis a vis St. John 3:36.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:46 | #25I can agree with that statement, insofar as we are talking about the Atonement, so long as we agree that no one is actually declared righteous, forgiven, or justified (much less saved!) outside of faith.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:53 | #26This is exactly were this debate always breaks apart. No one is advocating universalism. What’s being said is that the sins of all the world have been taken upon Christ and His resurrection is proof that God has accepted His death as payment for this sins. Of course, if the sinner chooses to reject that earned forgiveness, he is lost. By the way, 2 Corinthians 5:19. Romans 3:22-24. 1 John 2:2.
- March 11th, 2014 at 19:56 | #27I never accused you of advocating universalism. But what’s being said is not simply that Christ bore the sins of the world and that God accepted this sacrifice as sufficient. We all agree with that. The issue, as I stated in the initial comment on this thread, is whether or not God declared the entire unbelieving world righteous in His sight regardless of faith. That is the crux of the matter, and something I consider an unbiblical tenet (provided you don’t provide me that chapter and verse, of course).
- March 11th, 2014 at 20:03 | #28Daniel Baker :
@Jim Pierce #14
You are reading me correctly.
As it pertains to your second question: Not that I’m aware of, unless you are familiar with some declaration in Holy Writ that I have not heard.Sure there are two Scriptures in particular that show God reaches a verdict in response to His Son’s sacrifice… Romans 5:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:19.The Son’s atoning sacrifice is a work that makes satisfaction for the guilt and punishment of the sins for the whole world. The result of His sacrifice is that God is reconciled to the world, those sins being forgiven in Christ (John 1:29). - March 11th, 2014 at 20:06 | #29@Daniel Baker #18
Yes, our forgiveness does need to exist before faith. By forgiveness, I mean the favorable disposition of God toward us. It exists in Christ. Yet, when we talk about the role of faith, I also agree that it is not proper to talk about being forgiven prior to faith. Also, we don’t talk about forgiveness on account of faith or after faith. You seem to be saying that we are forgiven after faith. We are not forgiven after faith. Rather, we are forgiven through faith.So in a sense, we can understand forgiveness as something that exists before faith. It exists in the merits of Christ. The Dogmaticians speak of acquired righteousness. It is helpful to an extent to speak abstractly in this way. But forgiveness is one action of God. It happens through faith. It is based on the atoning death of Christ and declared in the risen body of Christ and the Gospel.What I mean by it being declared in the risen body of Christ is that his resurrection is an absolution from sin. Calov writes:
“Christ’s resurrection took place as an actual absolution from sin. As God punished our sins in Christ, upon so He also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him, ans so He absolved also us in Him.” (Biblia Illustrata ad Rom 4:25; quoted in Pieper II:321).So faith is required, but that doesn’t change the fact that the absolution existed before faith in the resurrection of Christ. Nevertheless, I am personally absolved through faith, not before faith nor after nor on account of faith. - March 11th, 2014 at 20:16 | #30I certainly agree that forgiveness happens through faith. But the ministry of reconciliation is an ongoing process. The Means of Grace literally offer absolution, not just an assurance of an absolution that already existed, or an absolution that was declared previously and merely needed to be “realized” or “received.” When God says “I forgive you” in the Word and Sacraments, He is actually forgiving us in real-time on account of the extra-time events of Calvary, etc.This is why I disagree with the Pieper citation of Calov you quoted. First of all, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Christ did not need to be absolved of the world’s sin, since He paid the penalty for them and ultimately swallowed them by virtue of His own righteousness and resurrection. This was not an absolution from sin, but a satisfaction and defeating of sin. And then, of course, I disagree with the notion that we were absolved on Calvary, since I believe absolution occurs in real-time in the Means of Grace.
- March 11th, 2014 at 20:20 | #31Those verses do not contain a universal declaration of righteousness regardless of faith.Also, please explain how God’s wrath abides on forgiven sins (forgiven sin seems to imply the satiation of wrath). Thanks.
- March 11th, 2014 at 20:24 | #32Daniel Baker :
To the contrary, we know from Scripture that the wrath of God has never ceased toward the unbelieving world, vis a vis St. John 3:36.The Scripture you cite is most certainly true, but it doesn’t demonstrate that God is not reconciled to the world. Rather, it shows that there will be those in the world who will not reconcile with God and as a result of their unbelief they will suffer God’s wrath. - March 11th, 2014 at 20:26 | #33Daniel Baker :
@Jim Pierce #28
Those verses do not contain a universal declaration of righteousness regardless of faith.
Also, please explain how God’s wrath abides on forgiven sins (forgiven sin seems to imply the satiation of wrath). Thanks.Looks like I answered your later question in my last comment above.Regarding the Scriptures I provided, you are right, there is no explicit statement such as “I the Father now absolve ye the world!” However, those Scriptures plainly tell us that God is reconciled to the world because of what Christ has done. Don’t they? - March 11th, 2014 at 20:33 | #34You didn’t really answer my question. The verse doesn’t say “God’s wrath will return to the unbelieving.” It says His wrath abides. That means it never left. It wasn’t removed. If it wasn’t removed, how could their sins have been forgiven?Regarding the reconciliation of the world, the verses tell us that God was *reconciling* the world, an ongoing process that continues with the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, whereby individual sinners are reconciled to the Father by virtue of the Means of Grace. This does not, however, mean that the entire unbelieving world is reconciled to God. This is why the Solid Declaration can tell us that “the unbelieving and unconverted [. . .] person is not reconciled with God” (VI:8).
- March 11th, 2014 at 20:45 | #35Daniel Baker :
@Jim Pierce #32
@Jim Pierce #33
You didn’t really answer my question. The verse doesn’t say “God’s wrath will return to the unbelieving.” It says His wrath abides. That means it never left. It wasn’t removed. If it wasn’t removed, how could their sins have been forgiven?
Regarding the reconciliation of the world, the verses tell us that God was *reconciling* the world, an ongoing process that continues with the Ministry of Word and Sacrament, whereby individual sinners are reconciled to the Father by virtue of the Means of Grace. This does not, however, mean that the entire unbelieving world is reconciled to God. This is why the Solid Declaration can tell us that “the unbelieving and unconverted [. . .] person is not reconciled with God” (VI:8).I believe I did answer your question, but perhaps my answer wasn’t clear enough. You are right, God’s wrath continues to abide upon unbelievers. Yet, the Scripture is quite clear “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” (Romans 5:10)Indeed, the quote from the SD makes the point that there is a relationship being expressed that I am pointing out. Christ’s vicarious satisfaction results in a complete satisfaction for the sins of all humanity. God is reconciled to the world as a result of that satisfaction. However, that doesn’t in no way shape or form mean that every individual is reconciled to God. Hence, your quote from the SD. We explain this under Law and Gospel.I think it important to clarify the point you seem to be making, though. Are you really saying that God is NOT reconciled to the whole world? That is, He is only reconciled to those who believe in Him? - March 11th, 2014 at 20:59 | #36The context of your Romans 5:10 reference clearly demonstrates that the “we” St. Paul is talking about is believers. We certainly were God’s enemies when He called us by the Gospel and enlightened us with His gifts.As for your other questions, I do not draw an abstract distinction between “the world” and the individuals of which “the world” is comprised. If each and every individual that constitutes “the world” is not reconciled to God, then in no meaningful sense is “the *WHOLE* world” reconciled to God. When Saint Paul tells us that God was in Christ *reconciling* the world to Himself, he means exactly what I wrote above: Christ’s work of Atonement earned/acquired all things necessary for the reconciliation of the human race; He now, in turn, commits this Ministry to us, which is applied to individuals by virtue of the Blessed Means of Grace. It is an ongoing process, not a once-for-all completed fact (as demonstrated by the reality that not all people are once-for-all reconciled).When we are judged on the Last Day, all who stand at the Throne of God’s Justice will be judged and condemned according to their works. They will be condemned for their own sins. All who stand in Christ will escape this judgment entirely, since they will be tried by the Throne of Grace. Their names are in the Book of Life, and their merits are Christ’s. They are righteous because Christ is righteous. The same does not go (and never has gone) for those who are not in Christ.
- March 11th, 2014 at 20:59 | #37Messrs. Baker, Pierce, and Preus are having a polite, beneficial, discussion which I hope continues. I’m apprehensive to jump into this, lest I be misunderstood or accused of being a “jerk” by Thomas or a “Jacksonite” by Mr. Pierce. But, here I go. (For the record, I don’t know Greg Jackson, don’t follow him, and don’t read his blog. Also, this is the only subject I have found where I disagree with Mr. Pierce, and much enjoy his writings on this site.)Mr. (Rev?) Preus,I appreciate your use of the word “articulating” in your title, and the clarity with which you have stated your position. There’s entirely too much talking past each other due to the articulation of synonymous and non-synonymous terms. For certain, Justification is one act, the declaration of righteousness which is the forgiveness of sin, from God’s grace, due to the merits of Christ alone, and received through Faith in the promise of the Gospel. As your quote from the BOC indicates, there are actually four, not two, components of the one act (grace, merit, faith, and promise). Justification is always objective IN THAT the entirety of righteousness is not dependent on the work and merits of man, but Christ alone.I do disagree with the terminology used in describing Justification. It seems historically in part as a response to the Limited Atonement of Calvinism, the teaching of the doctrine of Justification was split into two categories. Atonement, Reconciliation, Propitiation, and Redemption were categorized as Objective Justification and “Universal” which correctly refers to these, was applied to Justification. The reception of Christ’s merits through Faith was then categorized as Subjective Justification. I think these distinctions unnecessarily muddle the one act of the declaration of righteousness. In fact, just last week in Bible Class on the Second Article my pastor mentioned Atonement, Propitiation, and Reconciliation, and said next week we’ll talk about Justification, I’m assuming in the Third Article concerning faith. They should simply not be understood or taught as synonymous.I think UOJ/SJ are, at best, incorrect methods of attempting to teach correct doctrine. At worst, they are used as weapons. If these semantic distinctions are removed, Scripture and the Confessions are clear that all are redeemed, all sins atoned for, and God wants all to be saved, AND only believers are justified, by faith, and that justification is due to Christ’s work on the cross. This splitting of Justification into Objective and Subjective has since led to the miscommunication, confusion, strawmen arguments, fallacies, accusations, condemnations, excommunication, and general malady. My skeptical-Spidey-sense tingles when a person (or Synod) teaches Justification based on these terms.Anyway, God bless, keep up the good discussion.
- March 11th, 2014 at 21:19 | #38Well said, Mr. Dusek. I heartily concur with your sentiments!
- March 11th, 2014 at 21:19 | #39So, if I understand you correctly, the death and resurrection of Jesus secures the proper conditions for the forgiveness of the sins of those who ultimately have faith. Please correct me if I have restated your position incorrectly.I wholeheartedly disagree with you and I am sorry to read your rejection of the Scriptural teaching that God is reconciled to the world through Christ. Christ is the world’s mercy seat and that is why He can be my mercy seat. Christ is the mediator and atoning sacrifice for the entire world against God’s anger. The Gospel teaches that through faith in Christ the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation Christ has won for the world is received. What you have unwittingly done is gutted out the gospel, leaving an empty gift box being offered to individuals and if faith is added to the gift box, then forgiveness and reconciliation is really there for the individual. Indeed, what does it even mean for Christ to be our mediator, if He is only the mediator for some? How do we have access to the Father if He is still angry? What did Christ’s death and resurrection accomplish? You say, He won the conditions making it possible to be forgiven.Yours is the last word. Thank you for the dialogue.
- March 11th, 2014 at 21:22 | #40@Daniel Baker #24
I’ll be glad to produce it when you show me the one that refers to God as the Holy Trinity… - March 11th, 2014 at 21:33 | #41You do not understand me correctly. Christ’s work, the grace of God, and the promises of the Gospel exist objectively for all people, not just for “those who ultimately have faith.” However, these objective aspects of justification are not justification proper without the God-given subjective aspect. Unless received by faith, they are not justification or forgiveness. Forgiveness is certainly only applied and given to believers, but the components by which forgiveness was earned, i.e. the objective aspects of justification, were earned for all.With regard to your other statement: “I wholeheartedly disagree with you and I am sorry to read your rejection of the Scriptural teaching that God is reconciled to the world through Christ.”Please cite the passage which states that the ministry of reconciliation is a past-tense completed event. Thanks“Christ is the world’s mercy seat and that is what makes it possible for Him to be my mercy seat.”This is true, I’ve never denied it. Christ exists as the Throne of Grace for all. But only those who cling to the Mercy Seat through faith receive the benefits thereof, namely, justification.“Christ is the mediator and atoning sacrifice against God’s anger. The Gospel teaches that through faith in Christ the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation Christ has won for the world is received.”These are facts.“What you have unwittingly done is gutted out the gospel, leaving an empty gift box being offered to individuals and if faith is added to the gift box, then forgiveness and reconciliation is really there for the individual.”Hardly. The gift box offers the promise of the Gospel (backed by the grace of God and the merits of Christ), just as surely as Christ promised the blind man faith. But without faith, he would not have had his sight. So too the promises of the Gospel offer forgiveness, but no forgiveness is actually given outside of faith. Faith saves; Jesus said it, not me.“Indeed, what does it even mean for Christ to be our mediator? How do we have access to the Father if He is still angry?”Christ’s anger is satiated toward those who believe, because when He sees us, He sees His Son. When He sees the world, He sees its sin, which is why His wrath abides upon it.“What did Christ’s death and resurrection accomplish? You say, He won the conditions making it possible to be forgiven.”Christ’s death and resurrection accomplished everything I’ve said throughout this thread, namely, the bearing of the sins of the entire world and the acquisition of complete righteousness sufficient for the entire world.
- March 11th, 2014 at 21:35 | #42Sure thing. St. Matthew 28:19.There’s a difference between me asking to see the term “UOJ” in Scripture and me asking to see the doctrine behind it in Scripture. Quite the false analogy there, Joe.
- March 11th, 2014 at 22:47 | #43@Daniel Baker #42
No Daniel, there isn’t. You’re asking for ‘UOJ’ and I’m asking for’Trinity’. They are specific ‘terms’ that can be extrapolated from scripture. We have shown you and you deny it. Do you agree with the Hunnius quote in the other post; that all men are free from sin? - March 11th, 2014 at 23:01 | #44“Holy Trinity” is the traditional term for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” I demonstrated the latter from Sacred Scripture. UOJ is the term for God’s universal declaration of righteousness regardless of faith. You have failed to demonstrate anywhere in Sacred Scripture that God declares anyone righteous outside of faith. Sorry, but that is not comparable by any stretch of the imagination.Regarding the Hunnius quote posted earlier, I agree with it whole-heartedly. But I do not think it means what you think it means, since Hunnius adamantly, repeatedly, and forcefully condemns the Huberian error that all men are justified without respect to faith.
- March 11th, 2014 at 23:49 | #45@Daniel Baker #44
On the contrary, I do not think you understand the ramifications of redemption and the freedom from sin that it declares as Hunnius, the BoC and Scripture bear testimony to.
