Last
week, Jordan Cooper linked to an old post of mine:
Referring
to this:
This, in
turn, prompted some of his loyal readers to try leaving comments on my old
thread.
Cooper’s
title (“Why Interacting with Reformed Christians Can Sometimes be Frustrating”)
is ironic considering the fact that he himself never interacts with the
argument.
J. Dean said...Hmm.. I pointed out that he put together a caricature of Lutheranism, and my post didn't stand...
That’s
because, on current settings, if you try to comment on a post that’s been up
for more than five days, your comment is automatically redirected to the
moderation box. It’s a way for us to track new comments on old posts. Posts
that have disappeared into the archive.
Jordan Cooper said...Well, that's not surprising. Someone who talks like this doesn't want serious, thoughtful interaction.No the confessional Calvinists I know are for the most part much more respectful and thoughtful than this Steve fellow. But unfortunately, it is the people like this that are apt to contact you when you critique Calvinism.
Let’s
see how “serious, thoughtful, and respectful” Cooper’s Lutheran buddies are:
Daniel Casey said...now my brain hurts
Is that
what Cooper meant by serious, thoughtful, and respectful?
Anonymous said...Yeah, that was pretty bad. He sadly mischaracterizes the Lutheran (and classical Anglican) view of the sacraments and thus ignores their place within the life of faith.Doubting Thomas
Is that
what Cooper meant by serious, thoughtful, and respectful?
Lutheran said...Wow. You can't argue with that level of ignorance.
Is that
what Cooper meant by serious, thoughtful, and respectful?
J. Dean said...I have to confess that that was a pretty sad and pathetic straw man argument.
Is that
what Cooper meant by serious, thoughtful, and respectful?
mattlush said...Absolute ignorance.
Is that
what Cooper meant by serious, thoughtful, and respectful?
Let’s
turn to the comments that some of them tried to leave on my old post:
Daniel Baker:"For folks like you, bread and wine become a substitute Jesus." No substitute; we believe It is Jesus.
But, of
course, if the bread and wine are not Jesus, then the communion elements become
a substitute Jesus in Lutheran piety.
Martin Jack:"It's a spiritual delusion to ground salvation or the assurance of salvation in diligent attention to externals." Umm, Jesus dying on a cross is an "external", unless Jesus died for your sins in your heart.
Is Jesus
doing something on our behalf and in our place equivalent to us doing
something? Is Jesus dying for us equivalent to us performing rituals? Why is
Jack oblivious to that rudimentary distinction?
Cole Johnson:Then what exactly must a person _DO_ for salvation? This argument sounds a little like the pot calling a kettle Pharisaical.
What a
sad question for a Christian to ask. What must a person do for salvation? What
about repenting of your sins and trusting in the person and work of Christ?
J. Dean:Funny... I've heard ritualism ascribed to Calvinism as well... By the way, what's wrong with ritual? I'm a little lost as to why it's such a bad thing to have a set repetition of events. And I have news for you: EVERY church (yes, even CoWo churches) have ritual, whether or not they realize it.
Why
can’t Dean tell the difference between rituals and ritualism? Trusting in
rituals for your salvation is hardly equivalent to having rituals.
As for universal objective justification, I profess not to be an expert on the topic, but what you're describing is universalism, and I have yet to hear any confessional Lutheran I know of subscribe to universalism. The two are not one and the same.
Here’s
what I originally said:
If that wasn’t bad enough, “universal objective justification” has become mainstream dogma in contemporary Lutheranism. Instead of justification by faith alone as the doctrine on which the church stands for falls, we now have justification minus faith. Believers and unbelievers alike are justified. Muslims are justified. Atheists are justified. The damned are justified.
Did I
describe universalism? No.
Rather,
I pointed out that if, according universal objective justification, both
believers and unbelievers are justified, then Lutherans have repudiated
justification by faith alone. If even unbelievers are justified, then faith
can’t even be a necessary, much less sufficient, condition of justification.
It’s not
a complicated argument. Why does Dean find that so hard to grasp?
Justification
by faith makes justification contingent on faith. Indeed, faith alone. Well, if
everyone is justified, including unbelievers, then sola fide goes right out the
window.
Perhaps you should actually engage in discussion with real and vibrant Lutherans rather than just construct a straw man to blow over with superficial counters.
Well,
I’ve engaged in discussion with Paul McCain, Edward Reiss, and Josh
Strodtbeck–among others. I doubt they’d appreciate Dean’s demotion. Are they
dead, unreal Lutherans?
Dirk Jensen:What about John 20:23 "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” So what is your proof text for that being Pharisaical?
How did
Jensen leap from a promise made to the Apostles to a Lutheran pastor? Where’s
the connecting argument? Does Jensen think that everything Jesus said to the
disciples applies to Lutheran pastors?
What
about this statement:
Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters (Lk 22:10).
How
often do Lutheran pastors do that?
What
about this statement:
Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at once (Mt 21:2-3).
How
often to Lutheran pastors do that?
Jesus said it, just as He also said "This IS my body...This IS my blood." Well I guess from your post further down that you don't like proof text. What then are you saying, you don't believe God's Word?
Jesus
also said “I am the vine.” Is Jesus a grapevine?
You attack beliefs that you obviously do not clearly understand, then you call it Pharisaical?
Ah, yes, because the Lutherans at Cooper’s blog are such
theological sophisticates.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteYou are using objective justification and subjective justification to mean the same thing. They are of course related in Lutheran teaching and there is a connection, but you cannot take our definitions and then use them the same way you would. We believe in justification by faith alone period.
But hey we believe in Christ alone too. Don't these "alones" then cancel each other out? No.
So, our Lutheran nuance would perhaps be described in this way: Faith alone is our subjective justification - which is not to say faith in the abstract justifies in itself, but it justifies in so far as we receive our objective justification (Christ alone). It keeps us from saying faith is the cause of our justification when in reality Christ, the God-man, Crucified is. But we only can receive Christ in faith. Therefore, when we have faith we have the peace that comes from God (outside of us) within us and are regenerated.
Keep faith alone and Christ alone together in this way and you have Lutheranism. Why anyone would fail to see this beats me? It keeps us from turning faith into a meritorious work. It's also this balance that keeps Lutherans from being Calvinists, Arminians or Universalists.
By the way to the original post about the Sacraments, this is what Lutherans officially teach:
"The Sacraments are signs of God's will toward us and not merely signs of people among one another. Those who define Sacraments in the New Testament as signs of grace are correct. There are two things in a Sacrament: a sign and the Word. In the New Testament, the Word is the promise of grace added. The promise of the New Testament is the promise of the forgiveness of sins, 'This is My body, which is given for you. This [cup] is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.' [See Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:24-25.] So the Word offers the forgiveness of sins. A ceremony is a sort of picture, or seal, as Paul (Romans 4:11) calls it, the Word making known the promise. Therefore, just as the promise is useless unless it is received through faith, so a ceremony is useless unless faith, which is truly confident that the forgiveness of sins is here offered, is added. This faith encourages penitent minds. Just as the Word has been given to excite this faith, so the Sacrament has been set up so that what meets the eyes might move the heart to believe. The Holy Spirit works through these: Word and Sacrament." Apology of the Augsburg Confession XXIV (XII) 69-70.
Eric H.
Your gloss fails to explain the "universal" part of "universal objective justification." You concentrate on the "objective" part. But how is "justification by faith alone period" consistent with *universal* justification?
DeleteOkay,
DeleteAs John the Baptist says, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the World!" Through the solitary death of God's own Son His disposition towards humanity is now one of grace for all. And by this proclamation of the Gospel God calls all men to himself. He doesn't count their sins against them and urges them to turn and believe it. And through such preaching the Spirit regenerates them to turn and believe it. If God's grace toward humanity wasn't universal in the Gospel we would always be in doubt whether God intends to save anyone (including ourselves) and we'd still be locked in our sins trying to convince ourselves otherwise. But in the flesh of all humanity the Son of God as the new head wins the forgiveness that is offered to all. It must be believed. Faith alone.
(I do not wish to be evasive. I hope that helps.)
I'm not discussing the general question of universal grace, or God offering forgiveness to all, but the specific question of universal justification. That isn't just a question of provision. If God in fact justifies believers and unbelievers alike, then you don't have justification by faith alone. You don't even have justification by faith, be it alone or not alone.
DeleteFor Lutherans universal grace is God offering forgiveness to all because he forgives them all in Christ. He offers them what He has already won for them - this is not a question of provision - it is finished. This sacrifice turns God to man because it is a sacrifice that accomplishes forgiveness/justification for all universally. God has their justification taken care of - to be forgiven is to be justified (We don't really draw a sharp line between two). He has their justification in the blood of Christ. This is objective universal justification. The difference then between believers and unbelievers isn't that God hasn't objectively justified them in Christ, but that one hasn't received this subjectively in faith and the other has not. The subjective side is provisional - it requires faith.
DeleteWhen you say "If God in fact justifies believers and unbelievers alike, then you don't have justification by faith alone", again, I'd like to remind you to keep our terms straight. You're mixing both objective and subjective terms interchangeably (regardless of my attempts to define them) in order to deconstruct the universality of objective justification. But I think when you do that then the object of faith tends toward self instead of the Crucified.
I'm not sure if you've ran into a Lutheran pastor who was a total jerk about doctrine, but please don't judge us all on a poor caricature because someone was mean. If you don't understand the terms or the concepts please be patient with us as we try to explain the Bible the best way that we know. And whatever you hear us try to say, hear that Christ has forgiven us and that we receive this by grace alone through faith alone for the sake of Christ alone.
*one hasn't received this subjectively in faith and the other has* is what i meant to type in one spot.
DeleteAre you claiming that unbelievers are *actually* justified? If so, then their actual justification isn't contingent on faith.
DeleteNo, I wouldn't claim that unbelievers are *actually* justified in the same sense that you mean it, because you mean *actually* as *subjectively*;
DeleteHowever, I wouldn't have any issue with saying that an unbeliever is *actually* *really, really, really* *objectively* forgiven/justified because Christ has won their forgiveness and legitimately offers the sinner His forgiveness and justification.
I used an analogy and a definition of justification on Andrews post below which might help understand why I would put it this way.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteFor an example of respectful and thoughtful (I try at least) dialogue, I would direct you to my many posts and Podcasts on various reformed topics. I have had many great conversations with Reformed people through the work I have done; many of them actually take the time to learn what we believe and don't just throw out blanket statements. I have read and listened to what they have to say, and they have done the same for me.
You clearly haven't done that. Just the fact that you point out the "I am the vine" saying regarding communion shows that you haven't done your research. That argument has been answered countless times for the past 500 years, and the best of the Reformed realize that the argument doesn't hold any water.
Jordan Cooper,
Delete“For an example of respectful and thoughtful (I try at least) dialogue, I would direct you to my many posts and Podcasts on various reformed topics.”
And I could redirect you to my archives.
“…many of them actually take the time to learn what we believe and don't just throw out blanket statements.”
You mean the way Lutheran commenters threw out blanket statements in response to my post?
“You clearly haven't done that. Just the fact that you point out the ‘I am the vine’ saying regarding communion shows that you haven't done your research. That argument has been answered countless times for the past 500 years, and the best of the Reformed realize that the argument doesn't hold any water.”
I guess I have to explain the obvious to you. I wasn’t responding to you, I was responding to Dirk Jensen. My counterargument was pitched at the level of his argument. He acts as if the mere use of the copula (“is”) selects for a literal interpretation. My counterexample is sufficient to rebut his simplistic appeal.
On objective/subjective justification there seems to be equivocation in the use of 'justification'.
ReplyDeleteSteve's use of 'I am the vine' seems to address the rather gratuitous emphasis on 'IS' in the comment he's addressing. Why not pick up on that?
Andrew, are we justified by faith (Romans 5:1) or are we justified by Christ's blood (Romans 5:9)? Is Paul equivocating? What about when Paul says in the same chapter, "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"?
DeleteYou might not be familiar with the way we talk, it might sound like another language. But this is what we are trying to get at with the language of scripture; that we are justified by his blood first (objectively) and also justified by faith (subjectively) by way of receiving this as gift from the cross. If you have a better explanation I'd love to hear it. But this is what Lutherans mean when we talk about these facets of justification. Really, I don't see what there is to condemn about it and/or how it is antithetical to faith alone - the way we see it, it's the only foundation for faith alone.
Well, the context of this discussion is 'universal objective justification'. Here there seems to be equivocation in the meaning of justification in its objective and then its subjective sense. Perhaps you could explain what 'justification' means?
Delete"Justification is that forensic act of God, by which He, on the basis of the perfect vicarious atonement wrought by Christ, declared the whole world to be justified in His sight, and transmits and imputes the effect of this declaration to all whom He brings to faith by the work of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace." Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine.
DeleteSo for example, if I have a sack of coins and offer it to you, objectively it is yours. "Here, it's yours." I say. And I put it into your hand. Well there you go, you benefit from my generosity, your debts have been paid. However, if you were to reject what I offered you, and I still held it out for you (I'm not spending it on myself, and neither in my mind do I plan to take back the gift any time soon), your attitude against it doesn't change that in my mind it is still objectively yours, and I still hold it out for you even though you haven't benefited from it.
Was this gift "yours" when I went out and got it for you, or when you received it? It's a both/and situation.
In the same way, there is no one in Hell who benefits from the justification offered to them because, well, they rejected it. But it doesn't mean that it wasn't offered to them objectively.
EDH: He, on the basis of the perfect vicarious atonement wrought by Christ, declared the whole world to be justified in His sight, and transmits and imputes the effect of this declaration to all whom He brings to faith by the work of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace."
DeleteAs James Swan mentions below, it would be good to see if this is something that Luther actually taught. I don't know that that's the case.
Further to this, there is a debate between five-point Calvinists and 4.5-point Calvinists, who make a biblical argument for the case that Christ's death was "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect". The notion that God "declared the whole world to be justified in his sight" seems to throw in an added component that is not warranted by Scripture.
Dirk Jensen
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that Christ is speaking literally in all three?
Looks like a comment thread was inadvertently deleted. That’s the danger of threaded comments.
DeleteJust to recap: Dirk compared Jn 15 to Jn 14:6. I asked if that meant he thought Jesus has leaves. He said “no.”
I also pointed out that Jn 14:6 uses abstract nouns in contrast to picturesque metaphors.
Dirk then asked (as I recall) if “This is my body” should be taken the same way as Jn 15. Yes, I construe both figuratively.
Keep in mind that the copulative has more than one function. It can denote identity, existence, or predication.
In addition, what distinguishes a metaphor from a simile is the fact that a metaphor uses the copulative (“x *is* y”) rather than making the analogical relation explicit (“x is *like* y”).
While this isn't nearly as important as discussing the biblical (or un-biblical) basis of UOJ, I certainly would be interested in any studies demonstrating Luther held to UOJ.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to see some studies on Luther and "the gift of faith"
Let's take a moment and dissect what's given here:
ReplyDelete"That’s because, on current settings, if you try to comment on a post that’s been up for more than five days, your comment is automatically redirected to the moderation box. It’s a way for us to track new comments on old posts. Posts that have disappeared into the archive."
Fair enough. Point withdrawn.
"Why can’t Dean tell the difference between rituals and ritualism? Trusting in rituals for your salvation is hardly equivalent to having rituals."
No sir, you were describing ritualism. And I repeat: I have yet to meet a confessional Lutheran who trusts in his rituals and not in Christ's atoning work on the cross for salvation. On the contrary, Lutherans again and again point to assurance in ONLY the finished work of Christ on the cross, and do so consistently (I will confess that some in the Reformed camp like Tullian Tchvidijan are this Christ-centered as well, but too many of them still rely on works too often, which leads to an eventual trust in one's one works if this is not checked).
"Did I describe universalism? No. Rather, I pointed out that if, according universal objective justification, both believers and unbelievers are justified, then Lutherans have repudiated justification by faith alone. If even unbelievers are justified, then faith can’t even be a necessary, much less sufficient, condition of justification."
Let me restate this: You said you did not describe universalism, then JUST SAID a phrase later that (your words) "according (to) universal objective justification, both believers and unbelievers are justified" and then said "If even unbelievers are justified, then faith can't even be a necessary, much less sufficient, condition of justification."
Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I look at what you're saying, and I see an accusation of universalism. You are (whether you realize it or not) stating that, in your opinion, universal objective justification justifies unbelievers apart from faith, and then you stated that faith cannot be a necessary condition of justification.
Forgive me if I'm misreading you, brother, but that's universalism.
"Well, I’ve engaged in discussion with Paul McCain, Edward Reiss, and Josh Strodtbeck–among others. I doubt they’d appreciate Dean’s demotion. Are they dead, unreal Lutherans?"
And tell us: what did those discussions entail? See, as somebody growing up in the evangelical camp, I've found it very interesting that (with extremely rare exception) EVERY evangelical has a high regard for Martin Luther and his work in the Reformation. Likewise, there is often high regard (except in some extremist fundamentalist circles) for the early church fathers. Yet, whenever the sacraments are brought up, and especially the fact that the Lutheran understanding of them is seen quite frequently in the early church, there's a silence in the evangelical camp, or there's a "Well, that's not what they really mean," argument used (or, in the case of one person I read, "How could the early church-" and he meant within a generation of the apostles "-stray so quickly from the faith?").
Looking forward to your response!
J. Dean
Delete“No sir, you were describing ritualism. And I repeat: I have yet to meet a confessional Lutheran who trusts in his rituals and not in Christ's atoning work on the cross for salvation.”
No, you’ve transferred your trust from Christ to baptismal water, a consecrated wafer, and the pastor’s absolution. At best, it’s a divided faith.
“Forgive me if I'm misreading you, brother, but that's universalism.”
No, it would mean hell contains justified sinners. Even the damned are justified.
Yet, whenever the sacraments are brought up, and especially the fact that the Lutheran understanding of them is seen quite frequently in the early church, there's a silence in the evangelical camp, or there's a ‘Well, that's not what they really mean,’ argument used (or, in the case of one person I read, ‘How could the early church-‘ and he meant within a generation of the apostles ‘-stray so quickly from the faith?’).”
To my knowledge, the church fathers don’t have a uniform position on the nature of the sacraments.
J. Dean said:
Delete"EVERY evangelical has a high regard for Martin Luther and his work in the Reformation. Likewise, there is often high regard (except in some extremist fundamentalist circles) for the early church fathers."
At best, Luther and the early church fathers were pious men who followed the Bible to the best of their knowledge and ability.
But they're obviously not the standard of truth. Their theology is only as good as what the Bible teaches. (In fact, it's not as if they were perfect even judging them by the standards of their time.)
And it's quite arguable today we have a far better understanding of what the Bible teaches (exegetically) than Luther and the early church fathers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames Swan, Your comment inspired me to google your question finding three resources right away:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.confessionalsbytes.com/2011/06/luther-and-objective-justification.html
http://agapeenthroned.livejournal.com/2260.html
http://www.dawningrealm.org/papers/reconciled.pdf
hope this helps.
Kyle,
DeleteThanks for your links. I wasn't necessarily looking for proof-texts from Luther, but actually a study on Luther's view. I do have a brief question though on something in the first link you posted. The blogger states,
In the following citation Luther pointedly tells us that it is the "deed" of Christ "taking upon Himself the sins of all men" that "purged and expiated" the whole world "from all sins." Christ took upon Himself the sins of the entire world, all sins, and because of His deed "we are absolved from all sins." It is that objective gift of forgiveness Christ earned on our behalf that is freely extended to us by God and which can only be received through the faith He creates in our hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit in His Holy Word. Misunderstand why the gift of Christ is free and how it is received and one misses the good news of the Gospel.
Notice the sentence I placed in bold. If possible, could you, or some other Lutheran expound on what Luther means? Does Christ create faith in all hearts, or only certain hearts?
Thanks,
JS
And by the way, for my Lutheran friends note these words from Luther's Galatians Commentary (LW 26:64)
Delete"So far as we are concerned, therefore, this is a very elusive matter, because we are so unstable. In addition, we are opposed by half of our very selves, namely, by reason and all its powers. Moreover, because the flesh cannot believe for sure that the promises of God are true, it resists the spirit. Therefore it contends against the spirit and, as Paul says, holds the spirit captive (Rom. 7:23), to keep it from believing as firmly as it wants to (Gal. 5:17). This is why we continually teach that the knowledge of Christ and of faith is not a human work but utterly a divine gift; as God creates faith, so He preserves us in it. And just as He initially gives us faith through the Word, so later on He exercises, increases, strengthens, and perfects it in us by that Word."
Question for my Lutheran friends, does Luther teach that all men have been given the "divine" gift of faith? If yes, where? If no, how do you square that with UOJ?
In the same commentary Luther states,
"Christ is the subject of the Gospel. What the Gospel teaches and shows me is a divine work given to me by sheer grace; neither human reason nor wisdom nor even the Law of God teaches this. And I accept this gift by faith alone." (LW 26:72-73)
From a Reformed perspective, the word "faith" has deep and nuanced meanings throughout the New Testament. In regard to soteriology, I'm fond of Ephesians 2. There Paul describes the universal plight of humanity by singling out the testimony of the Ephesians. Formerly, like all of humanity, they were dead in their transgressions and sins. But by grace they were saved through faith, and that not of themselves- it is the gift of God. That's the paradigm I find expressed in the Scriptures. The entire spectrum of salvation, which includes "faith" is a gift from God.
The question then, if all are justified "objectively" in Lutheranism, are all given some sort of "objective faith" as well?
Curious.
JS
James,
ReplyDeleteAll are not given some sort of objective faith as well. What we know is that God is reconciled to all men, but not all men are reconciled to God. That said, being reconciled to God first and foremost has nothing to do with anything that we do either - but rather with what we passively receive. It has to do with being "willing" to be nothing but given to.... (and yes, this faith, though first and foremost a passive thing that God works in us, does not mean that it is God, and not the believer, who believes).
So did Luther teach UOJ? I would hope so, because as already stated above, I Cor. 5 tells us that God is already reconciled to us - this means that justification starts "outside of us".
In a comment found on the LOGIA blog, Blogia, Dr. Jack Kilcrease responding to to a different question (but ironically, to Jordan Cooper) presented the following facts.
“Luther speaks of justification as an already accomplished in Christ prior to the faith of the believer. For this reason, even though Luther binds union mystica and faith very closely together, there is no union prior to justification in that justification already exists extra nos, that is, outside of the believer and creates faith. In the Galatians commentary of 1531, he speaking of Christ as “the only sin and the only righteousness.” In the commentaries on John’s Gospel, he states that in Christ all sin has already been forgiven, the only sin left is not trusting the gospel. In the Large Catechism, Luther states that we are already forgiven prior to our reception of it in faith.”
I hope this helps somewhat.
+Nathan
"Does Christ create faith in all hearts, or only certain hearts?"
ReplyDeleteChrist creates faith when and where He pleases through His word. Can we do anything? Not really. We can be willing to listen to the Word - even if it is just out of curiosity or we are trying to gather ammo to fight it. In our sin, no unconverted person seeks words from the true and living God. At best,they seek words from the god of their own vain imaginations.
+Nathan
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI’m not convinced the description of justification having an objective and subjective sense is what Luther had in mind. I think the one of the things that would clarify this issue for me in regard to Luther's position would be the following sort of study:
What is Luther’s position on:
The extent of the atonement
The bondage of the will
The gift of faith
Justification by faith alone
What is the standard conservative Lutheran position on:
The extent of the atonement
The bondage of the will
The gift of faith
Justification by faith alone
Now, for the later, I think I could certainly find a systematic understanding which coincides with UOJ. For instances, such statements like, “being reconciled to God first and foremost has nothing to do with anything that we do either - but rather with what we passively receive. It has to do with being ‘willing’ to be nothing but given to.... “.
On the other hand, I’ve yet to see a study that takes the issues raised above in Luther’s writings and demonstrate Luther believed justification had an objective and subjective sense.
I must say, I’m very sympathetic to the Intrepid Lutheran folks as those who are presenting Luther's view, particularly this paragraph from Paul A. Rydecki:
“If we want to be Dresden Lutherans, then we will teach justification by faith alone as the chief article of the Christian faith. The justification of the poor sinner before God is presented explicitly and quite exhaustively in the Lutheran Confessions (and by other 16th Century Lutheran theologians) as including four key components, without any of which the poor sinner is not, in any effective sense, justified before God: 1) the grace of God, 2) the merit of Christ, 3) the means of grace, and 4) faith in Christ. The Confessions do not speak of an effective sense in which all sinners have already been justified before God whether they believe in Christ or not, nor do I believe the Scriptures to teach such a thing, yet such is commonly heralded among Lutherans today as the “central teaching of the Bible.” I contend that our Dresden forefathers did not miss anything or take anything for granted in this chief article of the Christian faith. They correctly taught the universal atonement or satisfaction made by Christ for the sins of the whole world, whether a person ever comes to believe it or not. Thus, forgiveness of sins, life and salvation were, indeed, won for all people by Christ on the cross, through His merit alone. But no one is forgiven, justified, made alive or saved apart from the means of grace and apart from faith in Christ, which is graciously worked by the Holy Spirit. Dresden Lutherans would never think of qualifying Luther’s battle cry, “Faith alone justifies!”, with “Yes, but, only in a subjective sense, since we know that all people are already justified without faith!”
This paragraph sounds a lot like Luther to me. I've yet to be convinced otherwise, but I'm certainly open to hearing what anyone has to say.
JS
James,
ReplyDeleteHere is something another smart Lutheran has written on this recently:
http://jackkilcrease.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-importance-of-knowing-theological.html
I don't have time to dig to deep here, but I'd say that the concept of UOJ - whatever we call it - seems to coincide with what I know about Luther.
+Nathan
I don't have time to dig to deep here, but I'd say that the concept of UOJ - whatever we call it - seems to coincide with what I know about Luther.
ReplyDeleteJust goes to show how different people read things. I really didn't sense Luther at all in the link, particularly because the blogger explained the term "justification" using a paradigm borrowed from Aristotle's metaphysics. I would be curious to see any pages from Luther in which he does the same sort of thing. Now, I don't claim to have read the entirety of Luther's written corpus, so my request isn't meant to barb Lutherans back. It's actually a real request. If someone has put forth a study on Luther in which Luther, in 16th Century terms, gives a nuts-and-bolts sort of description of the distinction modern Lutherans refer to as justification having an universal objective and subjective sense, and does so with a paradigm borrowed from Aristotle's metaphysics, now that I would like to see.
By the way, here's the sort of thing I've gotten into with Lutherans on UOJ:
ReplyDeletehttp://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutherans-gift-of-faith-acts-1731-etc.html
A Lutheran argued that the Scriptures teach all men have been given faith, based on Acts 17:31, particularly based on the Greek word "pistis". This word most English translations render assurance or proof in Acts 17:31, but the word most often elsewhere is rendered "faith" throughout the New Testament. Here's how he argued:
"So Scripture says GOD has given faith unto all men that He will judge them through Christ through His resurrection. "Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance [pistis, faith] unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts 17:31
Now there were other Lutherans in this discussion who agreed that faith has been given to all men. This is the sort of thing that concerns me about UOJ, that Biblical texts have to be forced to say things they were not intended to.
JS
James,
ReplyDeleteThat is interesting. I just noticed that that word was "pistis" to a few weeks ago. It certainly makes one think! That said, I think those guys who argued with you are going a bit far.
That said, one interesting thing here is that in Walther's L&G he talks about how becoming a Christian is one of the easiest things. Staying a Christian is the challenge...
Actually, I did a post on this that may help make this more explainable: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/thats-how-easy-it-is-to-receive-salvation/
... but that is different than saying what those guys you mention said about John 17:31, I think... But then again, how different is it? We must admit that there is a mystery here. I know many like C.S. Lewis and Marvin Olasky talk not about how they made a decision to believe, but rather found themselves believing... (I will actually be doing a big series on free will sometime in the near future).
In any case, I wonder if those guys would claim to be concerned about a living faith in each person claiming the name of Christ. I am guessing they would.
What about some of the stuff from the earlier quote I shared though?:
-"In the commentaries on John’s Gospel, he states that in Christ all sin has already been forgiven, the only sin left is not trusting the gospel."
-"In the Large Catechism, Luther states that we are already forgiven prior to our reception of it in faith."
These statements are accurate, to my knowledge. If they are indeed true, would you simply want to call them something else besides UOJ?
+Nathan
"those guys" - them men who argued with you about Luke 17:31
ReplyDelete+Nahtan
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI haven't gone through all the links you provided earlier, I'm sort of multi-tasking at the moment. However: all the comments by Luther on the extent of the atonement seem (to me) more to support the position outlined by Paul A. Rydecki in regards to Luther's view. At least that's how I see it. The question then becomes if indeed modern Lutheranism is at odds on this issue with earlier generations of Lutherans, or at least Luther. I admit to not having done a lot of work in the history of Lutheranism. There could very well be a harmonious "development of doctrine" that explains the whole thing.
Luther never used the phrase "objective justification" or "universal justification." Those phrases emerged later, when Lutheran theologians, in dialogue and controversy with the Reformed, sought to emphasize the objective truth and universal scope of the gospel that is offered to all through the means of grace. Another catalyst for the precisioning of the objective/subjective terminology was the controversy between "pietist" Lutherans and "orthodox" Lutherans in 19th-century America, on the question of whether absolution is a divine wish for forgiveness, or a divine imparting of forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteWhat Lutherans mean by "objective justification" is already implicit in the phrase "justification by faith." Faith is the means by which justifcation is received. If there were no objective aspect to justification, the most we could say is that we are justified in faith - that God creates a new and personalized justification for each person who believes, in the moment of his belief. But that's not the Biblical teaching. Justification is not created in faith. Rather, justification is received by faith. Conceptually, something needs to exist before it can be received.
Objective justification is something that basically happens within God, or among and between the Persons of the Godhead. Christ the Son of God - in his assumed humanity, and in the stead of all humanity - is condemned in his death, and is justified in his resurrection. In the death of Christ - the representative of humanity - all humanity is vicariously condemned. In the resurrection of Christ - the representative of all humanity - all humanity is vicariously justified. These things are true in Christ.
Jesus is the only individual, as an individual, who is "justified" in the objective sense. But he was justified on behalf of all those whose sins he had carried to the cross, and therefore all humanity was justified in him, and in his justification. This objective justification is precisely what is conveyed to individuals now in the means of grace. The Gospel in Word and Sacrament conveys and delivers a justification and a forgiveness that already exist in Christ. What is thereby conveyed and delivered is to be received by faith alone. Hence an individual who does not received his justification by faith is not - as an individual - justified.
As I said, Luther does not use the exact terminology of "objective justification" or "universal justification." But he does teach the theological point that these later terms are intended to represent and summarize. A collection of pertinent exceprts from his writings, and from the writings of other authoritative early Lutheran theologians, can be fouhd here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/OJQuotations.pdf
Additional helpful essays and writings on this topic are here:
http://luk.se/Justification-Easter.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.marquartjustification.html
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/MarquartReformationRootsofObjectiveJustification.pdf
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/JustificationEssay1872.pdf
Pastor Webber,
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff. Glad you took the time to comment here.
James,
"all the comments by Luther on the extent of the atonement seem (to me) more to support the position outlined by Paul A. Rydecki in regards to Luther's view"
Do you happen to have a couple of those statements handy?
+Nathan
Nathan, the comment I referred to by Rydecki was posted for you yesterday. Simply... scroll up...
ReplyDeletePastor Webber has graciously linked over to my blog on his "Lutheran Theology Web site" for a number of years. I appreciate the links that Pastor Webber left for me. Of course, going through such links will require some time, so if anything pertinent jumps out at me, I'll probably post it on my blog. As I've stated now a few times, I'm interested in a study on Luther in regard to UOJ. I can certainly understand that Luther didn't use such terminology, but this doesn't necessarily mean it's not a logical extension of his theology. I've come across the same sort of thing with Calvin, Beza, and later reformed theologians. There's always some joker trying to say "the later Reformed theologians contradict Calvin!" Well, some may, or some may simply be an acceptable development of Calvin.
That being said, one of the things I appreciate about Pastor Webber's comments is that they demonstrate that the Lutheran, like the Reformed, have a systematic theological approach to understanding the scriptures. I can't tell you how many times I've been in discussions with Lutherans accusing me, as a Reformed person, of using "human reasoning" to understand the Bible, rather than just.. reading the Bible. That's usually when I check out. it's the sort of head-in-the-sand approach to epistemology that makes me realize my time is being wasted.No, the Lutherans have a complete systematic theology as well.
James,
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear you plan on slowly looking through Webber's stuff. I can vouch for the value of the stuff he has posted. That's the best stuff out there I think.
Rydecki:
"But no one is forgiven, justified, made alive or saved apart from the means of grace and apart from faith in Christ, which is graciously worked by the Holy Spirit"
I agree regarding made alive and saved. That said, I think he is clearly wrong that Lutherans following Luther did not believe persons were forgiven apart from faith (there will be many forgiven sinners in hell). Maybe those are good questions to clear up first.
I will admit I don't recall hearing persons like Rydecki explaining I Cor. 5. Would like to know what they have to say about that. Reconciliation seems even stronger than forgiveness to me...
+Nathan
That being said, one of the things I appreciate about Pastor Webber's comments is that they demonstrate that the Lutheran, like the Reformed, have a systematic theological approach to understanding the scriptures.
ReplyDeleteYes and no. Lutheranism in its classic 16th-century manifestations follows what would be called a Loci or "dogmatic" method of theology, rather than a strictly systematic method. Each locus of theology is developed and explained thoroughly - "systematically" if you please. But there is a hesitancy to try to find an overarching theological system by which all the various theological loci or dogmatic topics can be smoothly linked together in a rationally-harmonious body of comprehensive theology. So, for example, the dogma of God's universal grace is developed systematically in classic Lutheran theology, and the dogma of the mystery of eternal election in Christ is developed systematically in classic Lutheran theology, but there is no attempt to link those two dogmas together, and smooth them out, under the overarching framework of a larger system that would fully harmonize these two dogmas.
Pastor Webber,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation. I'm familiar with what you've stated, and I appreciate the clarity of your explanation. I would assume many reading it had no idea Lutherans held what you posted. I'm familiar as well with Luther on this (his rejection of "ergo" in favor of "nevertheless").
This is off-topic, but I've always wanted to ask a Lutheran this sort of question: You state,
"But there is a hesitancy to try to find an overarching theological system by which all the various theological loci or dogmatic topics can be smoothly linked together in a rationally-harmonious body of comprehensive theology."
And then:
"the dogma of God's universal grace is developed systematically in classic Lutheran theology, and the dogma of the mystery of eternal election in Christ is developed systematically in classic Lutheran theology, but there is no attempt to link those two dogmas together"
Could it possibly be said that this is your "system", not to attempt to link dogmas together? I ask this sort of question because I don't think it's possible to escape a systematic theology, even if that system has as one of its characteristics not linking dogmas together.
Perhaps such a question pushes the meaning of 'systematic theology' too far, but this is more of a basic presuppositional question.
I suppose one could say that the most authentic Lutheran way of doing theology is according to the "system" of the dogmatic locus method, rather than according to the "system" of the systematic method. I don't think there is much value in exaggerating the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism. The real differences give us enough to talk about.
ReplyDeleteLutherans are not adverse to confessing as Biblical doctrine, that which is implicit in the statements of Scripture, or that which is necessarily inferred from the statements of Scripture. But what I see in Calvinism is more than this. I see the development of theology based on the logical trajectory of a certain Biblical teaching, beyond what the Scriptures actually go on to say either explicitly or implciitly. Lutherans are, rather, still governed by Luther's distinction between Deus absconditus and Deus revelatus - God hidden and God revealed - as articulated in his treatise On the Bondage of the Will and elsewhere. Trajectories of thought that go beyond the limits of what the Bible says take us into the realm of God hidden. But the content of what we are actually to believe is limited to God revealed.