but at least they are airing their errors
about justification,
and letting justification by faith come through.
- Pastor Rydecki, Thank you! Please get rid of the words "objective" and "subjective" to describe Christ's work. There are many better and easier ways to describe this. Scott E. Jungen
- November 3, 2010 5:29 PM
- LPC said...
- Pr. Paul, I do not wish to rain on KM's parade but in my early start in Lutheranism, I thought UOJ was just another way of speaking at the atonement until I found out that the UOJers do equate it with justification which is absolutely wrong. I was a Calvinist, and this is what Calvinists do -equate justification with atonement. Although they go the opposite conclusion from the UOJers. Calvinists look at atonement as justification and seeing that not all are justified, concludes, not all have been atoned for. UOJers seeing all have been atoned for conclude that all have been justified, they just have not believed it yet. See my drift? When I was looking at this, KM's work was one of the very first material I read to be enlightened about the controversy. The whole point again is Scripture and then we can not escape, Maier's exegetical work once again. Frankly. KM's exposition does not help because he could not release himself from the terminology of general justification vs personal justification. In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe. The category of general or personal are pointless. You only need categories if there is a nuance that needs to be understood - but there is none. LPC
- November 3, 2010 8:03 PM
- Anonymous said...
- LPC -- You say, "KM's exposition does not help because he could not release himself from the terminology of general justification vs personal justification. In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe." I see from your blogger profile you have some knowledge of the languages. So please permit me the following observations: 1) In Romans 3:23, the subject of the sentence is, "all." 2) "All," in this context, clearly refers to all people, Jews and Gentiles, who have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That would of course mean all people. 3) The second part of the sentence (3:24) adds the present passive participle dikaioumenoi, "All," literally, "being justified." Thus the Bible speaks clearly of "all" people of all time "being justified," in just so many words. Dennis Rardin Addendum GREEK GRAMMAR ALERT ON If you'll forgive a bit of grammar discussion, dikaioumenoi is a coordinating participle, used where in English we would use another finite verb. The ESV and NIV translations both have it correct, "and are justified." Another very familiar example of this use of the participle is Matt 28:18. Literally, Jesus says, "Going, teach all nations." But in English, "Go and teach." The present participle is best translated as coordinate with the main verb, with the same time and type of action. GREEK GRAMMAR ALERT OFF
- November 3, 2010 9:03 PM
- David Jay Webber said...
- Kurt Marquart told me personally that he was satisfied that a fundamental agreement had been reached and/or recognized between himself and Dr. Maier, when Dr. Maier made the following statement regarding objective/subjective justification: I regret that some publicly quoted statements of mine from a technical paper "prepared for faculty discussion purposes only" have given a wrong impression about my doctrine of justification as a whole. I, therefore, withdraw that paper from discussion. Doctrinally, I stand with our Synod's historic position. ... 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 reservations 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 not 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). The italicized line in Dr. Maier's text above is what Dr. Marquart specifically referred to in his conversation with me, as the key phrasing that showed that Dr. Maier actually was, or had come to be, in fundamental agreement with what the Synodical Conference had always intended to be teaching in its use of terms like "objective justification" or "general justification." In other words, this matter was then basically settled to his (Marquart's) satisfaction. The text of the statement quoted above that Dr. Maier submitted, and that essentially settled the controversy, is from this paper written by Robert Preus.
- November 3, 2010 9:17 PM
- Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
- Lito (LPC), "In Scripture there is no such thing, there is only the justification of those who believe. The category of general or personal are pointless." But the issue, as Marquart develops it, is that the justification of Christ as the substitute for mankind is the acquisition of justification for mankind. The distribution of this to faith, that is, the justification of any individual, is what Scripture normally refers to, and no one has a righteous status before God apart from faith. That will be further developed in the next section or two. Dennis, I appreciate the exposition of Romans 3, but I can't say I agree that this is the best proof passage for a "justification of all." "Being justified" ties all the way through to "through faith in Jesus Christ." I believe Luther also interpretted it that way - "All - as many as are justified - are justified freely...through faith." (I included that quote in a previous comment to Pr. Sullivan, but I don't have it handy at the moment.) Nor does this participle act like the coordinating participle in Matthew 28. In (I believe) all those cases, the participle precedes the main verb (as it does in Matthew 28). But I'll have to check that. More on the exegesis of some key passages will follow.
- November 3, 2010 9:35 PM
- Daniel Baker said...
- As I've stated since my first acquaintance with this complicated topic, this whole issue reeks of muddy terminology. Using the word "justification" in two senses, in my opinion, leaves room for hapless dissidence. While most confessional Lutherans are in agreement on the actual fundamentals, this terminology creates needless contention among some - to the detriment of the body. Sticking to confessional and biblical terminology should always be preferred.
- November 3, 2010 10:48 PM
- Anonymous said...
- 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus....28for we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. --Romans 3:21-26,28 [ESV] We know from passages like John 3:16 that Christ's death was triggered by God's love for all the world. We truly can trust that whoever believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior(might I say Rescuer) will indeed be saved. From Romans above, Paul reveals that there is a 'righteousness of God'. At this point in time, I believe the 'righteousness of God' to refer to the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood". The Scripture in the Romans passage clearly reveals that this righteousness of God is received through faith in Jesus Christ. I believe I can ascertain that faith is indeed a tool by which we receive the righteousness of God. As our Confessions have it in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article III, verse(*I don't know how to properly reference the BoC)verse? #3: "We believe, teach, and confess that faith is the only means and instrument whereby we accept Christ and in Christ obtain the 'the righteousness which avails before God,' and that for Christ's sake such faith is reckoned for righteousness (Tappert). To be honest I don't know for sure what "avails before God" means in this part of the Formula of Concord. My thoughts are that both the Scripture that states "the righteousness of God" and the Lutheran Confessions that state "the righteousness that avails before God" have a particular fact to convey. These two facts must mean that God is the possessor of this "righteousness" that we receive through faith. This righteousness exists before we have faith and whether or not we have faith. The redemption was to show his righteousness for the present time. God has this righteousness. We know God has died once for all. He atoned for the sins of all people of all ages--as we would say---he died and took the place of all the world. Yet, it is His righteousness he was showing. The Scriptures do not say that this equates to all are now righteous (aka, justified?). The Scriptures clearly say God is "the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" and "one is justified by faith" in the above Romans passage. Simply, God gives us His righteousness through faith--he justifies us by faith. (written by Levi Powers--continued)
- November 3, 2010 11:24 PM
- Anonymous said...
- Elsewhere in the Solid Declaration of the Formulas of Concord, Article III, line 17 (Tappert) states, "Accordingly the word 'justify' here means to declare righteous and free from sins and from the eternal punishment of these sins on account of the righteousness of Christ which God reckons to faith". Here the article references Philippians 3:9 which states "and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--" [ESV]. I believe this even further demonstrates that we are justified by faith. I do not believe it then to be Biblical or confessional to speak of people without faith as justified in the eyes of God. People are only righteous before God by faith. That is because this is the gift of God. It is true, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". The rest of the verse is also true, "and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." It seems from the other clear verses (and our confessions)that "and are justified" is achieved through that gift and tool we know as faith. Through faith we are given the righteousness of God. I realize that I may not be coming to the same conclusions as everyone else. This is a complicated issue for sure. I just don't know that we can truly declare the sins of all forgiven and therefore all are justified. I think from Scripture we can know that all the sins of the world were atoned for. I think we should reserve the terms justification and "forgiven" to believers. Perhaps it is best to stick with the bare words of Scripture. I hope any of this made sense. I stand by God's Word and hope that this is a correct understanding. If not, please show me my errors. --Levi Powers
- November 3, 2010 11:24 PM
- Anonymous said...
- Just a word of encouragement and warning from Martin Chemnitz in "Justification: The Chief Article of Christian Doctrine as Expounded in Loci Theologici" and translated by J.A.O. Preus (pg. 15): "Nor must we judge that this is a mere childish zeal for the definition of terms. For just as the substantive matter in this locus are far above and beyond our reason, so also the Holy Spirit has certain terms in the teaching on justification that are not found in common usage. The church must be concerned about language, that is, it ought not devise new ideas or produce new dogmas, but those things which have been given us by the Holy Spirit it must learn from the correct meaning of the words that Scripture uses in teaching the heavenly doctrine...the neglect of correct language was the source and spring of all errors under this article." --Levi Powers
- November 3, 2010 11:34 PM
- LPC said...
- Dennis, Please see the comment of Pr. Paul. Hint, see Romans 3:25-26. Pr. Jay, With fondness to you, I reply... if Maier categorically renounces his paper I would believe, but all else is politicking. Is there documentation that he has retracted his paper in unequivocal terms? Can I please have this evidence? Pr. Paul, The start of sophistry is initiated when terms and categories are invented and then given meaning. For example in Romanism, to justify the worship of Mary they gave a spin to "worship" etc. Jesus Atoned for our sins, the benefit of this Atonement is justification and this benefit is enjoyed only by those who believe in that Atonement. Atonement is the ground of Justification. The two are not co-equal. Read Peter Stuhlmacher, a German Lutheran NT scholar on this also. The word general justification is no improvement for universal justification because the term "general" is subject to the same spin. Occam's razor is still instructive even in theology. LPC
- November 4, 2010 5:20 AM
- David Jay Webber said...
- Is there documentation that he has retracted his paper in unequivocal terms? As far as I know Dr. Maier never did this. But he withdrew his paper from public discussion, and he also later moved beyond the things he said in his paper (as a result of dialogue with his faculty colleagues) when he affirmed as a part of his teaching the essential intended point of the "objective justification" formulation, on the basis of 1 Timothy 3:16. I think he remained unpersuaded that certain other passages which are often cited in support of "objective justification" do actually teach it, but he admitted that the 1 Timothy passage does teach it. So, dogmatically, a fundamental unity was recognized, even though some "exegetical questions" remained. But "exegetical questions" as such are not divisive, as long as the essential dogmatic content of Scripture is mutually affirmed.
- November 4, 2010 7:19 AM
- Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
- Lito, UOJers seeing all have been atoned for conclude that all have been justified, they just have not believed it yet. See my drift? You are not defining correctly what UOJ is meant to convey, so you are effectively demolishing your straw man, but you are not helping the understanding in doing so. You speak as if "believing" conveys nothing. This is a caricature of UOJ, not the true teaching of it. There is, unfortunately, not a single, unified grouping of "UOJers." There is the caricature, and there is the true teaching. This is the very point we're trying to get across. There is a misleading understanding of UOJ which you rightly disagree with, but there is a correct understanding of UOJ which you have not yet come to terms with. So to speak of "UOJers" and then define their belief according to your singular definition is in itself misleading. To be sure, every individual who is justified before God is justified by faith alone. But what we're trying to get across is that the declaration of righteousness that is pronounced on the individual through faith is a declaration that is based on the vicarious righteousness of Christ, who has already secured (acquired, won) our righteous verdict by his resurrection from the dead. I would encourage you to try to see beyond the caricature with which you are so familiar and really listen to the reasoning that is put forth over the next couple of weeks.
- November 4, 2010 8:28 AM
- Tim Niedfeldt said...
- Pr Paul, I would agree that nearly every single person here probably understands the proper distiction of justification as being discussed. I will also admit that in the past I would also bristle at the "charicature" of UOJ in the extreme of "forgiven without faith". My immediate reaction was just one of "how can you jump right to that conclusion that is just crazy talk..Lutherans don't believe justification in those terms to that extreme.." However, I've changed my views on that a bit. Whereas that extreme argument may fall flat in this audience, we should pay attention as to how close to home this extreme view of UOJ is hitting home. We could point all day long at the ELCA so much it isn't even a challenge. There is new age-ism creeping into all kinds of Christian churches, emergent church, etc. However when we see speakers such as Leonard Sweet speak in the synod or in December Kerwin Steffen will speak at the WELS national college rally, Then we can begin to worry that the extreme view of UOJ has indeed begun to spring up in our midst. All of the sudden the quest here for the ultimate clarification of justification terms becomes immediately essential before we too go the way of ELCA etc. Tim Niedfeldt
