J Edwards, in the thread "Christian Soldier", has labeled certain articles in the LCMS Brief Statement heresy. Although the Brief Statement is poorly written and inadequately supported, I must defend it against charges of deliberate false doctrine.
1. Universalism
Quote
Since God has reconciled the whole world unto Himself
J Edwards omits the remainder of the passage which makes it clear that personal reconciliation is obtained only through faith in Christ.
Quote
Since God has reconciled the whole world unto Himself through the vicarious life and death of His Son and has commanded that the reconciliation effected by Christ be proclaimed to men in the Gospel, to the end that they may believe it, 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Rom 1:5, therefore faith in Christ is the only way for men to obtain Personal reconciliation with God, that is, forgiveness of sins, as both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures testify, Acts 10: 43; John 3:16-18,36. By this faith in Christ, through which men obtain the forgiveness of sins, is not meant any human effort to fulfill the Law of God after the example of Christ, but faith in the Gospel, that is, in the forgiveness of sins, or justification, which was fully earned for us by Christ and is offered in the Gospel. This faith justifies, not inasmuch as it is a work of man, but inasmuch as it lays hold of the grace offered, the forgiveness of sins, Rom. 4:16.
The Brief Statement distinguishes between the reconciliation of the whole world wrought by Jesus Christ by His perfect obedience to the Father (atonement) and the reconciliation wrought by God by which men obtain the forgiveness of sins (justification by faith alone). Thus, universalism is specifically denied.
Quote
As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it.
Universalism is denied although the passage is poorly worded. Salvic grace is not universal as the first part of the sentence clearly states. The offer of grace is universal. John 3:16.
2. Salvation
Quote
we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.
The passage, while not false, is rather misleading. Man lacks free will to either cooperate with or to resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost works faith when and where it pleases God in them that hear the word.
3. Justification/Righteousness
Quote
Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.
I have struggled with the statement, "God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ". There is no reference to the Book of Concord and the passage itself provides little support to defend its premise that justification occurs apart from faith while, at the same time, stating that justification is by faith alone. While I am not prepared to label the passage heresy, I am not prepared to call it sound doctrine either. The authors should be given an opportunity to explain their meaning.
It's all well that you seem to explain away the various statements to us here, but shouldn't we take "their words" and be able to surmise their meaning without someone to interpret them for us? You can defend and explain all you want but the average reader is going to read what is there and take it to mean just what it says! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />
Distinguishing between the "reconciliation brought about by the atonement," supposedly universal, and the "reconciliation brought about by justification," which is supposedly not univeral, is heresy. If you think I'm wrong in this charge, can you prove this bifucating doctrine from Scripture?
I would say that unless you, speratus, are willing to provide <font size="4">EXEGESIS</font> that this thread will be the same. I am going to ask some specific questions.......
1) was the death of Christ a vicarious sacrifice that actually secured the forgiveness of sins, or a mere possible salvation for all humankind?
2) if the death of Christ actually saved none, how is man saved?
3) how many different meanings, due to context, are there for KOSMOS within the Gospel of John alone? All of the NT?
4) why must your meaning be pressed upon John 3:16? (this will require some exegesis)
For those interested in this particular topic, there are a few threads over at the Reformed reader http://p207.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm2 that I particularly think are very helpful. One is called 'John 3:16 - An Exposition by James White' and the other is called 'Luther and universal grace'. Pay particular close attention to what DarkKnyt has to say. DarkKnyt is a Calvinist apologist on the ministry team of James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries) and I am quickly becoming a big fan of his. In the thread a few knowledgeable Lutherans are involved but it is obvious that they are no match for DarkKnyt.
It's all well that you seem to explain away the various statements to us here, but shouldn't we take "their words" and be able to surmise their meaning without someone to interpret them for us? You can defend and explain all you want but the average reader is going to read what is there and take it to mean just what it says! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />
In His Hands,
Ruth
You are absolutely correct which is why I undertook defense of the Brief Statement with great relunctance. Having read and studied the Book of Concord from cover to cover, let me tell you that it is a book that requires no interpretation. Whether one agrees with the doctrine presented or not, it speaks with great clarity unlike the Brief Statement.
The talent for theological exposition seems to have been lost in the modern era. I have noticed the same phenomenon at Reform websites. Modern Reform doctrinal statements, like their Lutheran counterparts, obscure rather than clarify.
Should we immediately label all these modern doctrinal statements as heresy? That would be contrary to the "bear false witness" commandment which tells us to put the best construction on the words of others.
I have attempted to put the best construction on the Brief Statement. The authors are pledged to scripture as the sole authority and to the Book of Concord as a sure confession of the doctrine of scripture. They would not knowingly say anything contrary to those books.
So, where the text of the Brief Statement is obscure because of poor wording, I have attempted to clarify it in accordance with the sound doctrine contained in the Book of Concord. Where I find statements that I can not understand, I do not label them as heresy but entreat the author to provide more information so that a definitive judgment can be made.
Distinguishing between the "reconciliation brought about by the atonement," supposedly universal, and the "reconciliation brought about by justification," which is supposedly not univeral, is heresy. If you think I'm wrong in this charge, can you prove this bifucating doctrine from Scripture?
Henry
Actually, I distinguished between "the reconciliation of the whole world wrought by Jesus Christ by His perfect obedience to the Father (atonement) and the reconciliation wrought by God by which men obtain the forgiveness of sins (justification by faith alone)." Are you saying that a man is personally reconciled to God by the atonement before he comes to faith?
Note to you, speratus; answer the questions and drop the attitude. yes, they have all been discussed elsewhere. However, you have yet to offer any exegesis, anywhere, period. Until you do, I consider you in error. In fact, I am starting to see you as a semi-pelagian heretic.
Although the Brief Statement is poorly written and inadequately supported, I must defend it against charges of deliberate false doctrine.
I agree it is poorly written and poorly supported, but all heresy is.
Quote
1. Universalism Since God has reconciled the whole world unto Himself … J Edwards omits the remainder of the passage which makes it clear that personal reconciliation is obtained only through faith in Christ.
So lets look at your “Doctrinal Statement “ of your beliefs:
Quote
Since God has reconciled the whole world unto Himself through the vicarious life and death of His Son and has commanded that the reconciliation effected by Christ be proclaimed to men in the Gospel, to the end that they may believe it, 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Rom 1:5, therefore faith in Christ is the only way for men to obtain Personal reconciliation with God, that is, forgiveness of sins, as both the Old and the New Testament Scriptures testify, Acts 10: 43; John 3:16-18,36. By this faith in Christ, through which men obtain the forgiveness of sins, is not meant any human effort to fulfill the Law of God after the example of Christ, but faith in the Gospel, that is, in the forgiveness of sins, or justification, which was fully earned for us by Christ and is offered in the Gospel. This faith justifies, not inasmuch as it is a work of man, but inasmuch as it lays hold of the grace offered, the forgiveness of sins, Rom. 4:16.
First, you say the whole world is reconciled to God without any biblical support? Second, if the world is reconciled to God (which are the first words of your LCMS Brief Statement, “of Faith in Christ”) then what need is there of personal reconciliation, so yes it is poorly written? Third, If the world is reconciled to God then this is universalism by definition, so yes it is heretical! We could go through other problems with it such as the definition of reconciliation being much different then mere “forgiveness of sins,” however there is not enough time….
Quote
2. Salvation
we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.
I believe this statement speaks for itself.
Quote
3. Justification/Righteousness Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.
I have struggled with the statement, "God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ". There is no reference to the Book of Concord and the passage itself provides little support to defend its premise that justification occurs apart from faith while, at the same time, stating that justification is by faith alone. While I am not prepared to label the passage heresy, I am not prepared to call it sound doctrine either. The authors should be given an opportunity to explain their meaning.
Please by all means get some clarification, but mixed with the other “errors” already pointed out it is clear at least to me, as it is labeled “Of Justification.” While you are getting clarification on that one also get some clarification on statement 16, “on Conversion” as well,
Quote
Calvinists solve this mystery, which God has not revealed in His Word, by denying the universality of grace; synergists, by denying that salvation is by grace alone. Both solutions are utterly vicious, since they contradict Scripture and since every poor sinner stands in need of, and must cling to, both the unrestricted universal grace and the unrestricted "by grace alone," lest he despair and perish.
Although the Brief Statement is poorly written and inadequately supported, I must defend it against charges of deliberate false doctrine.
I agree it is poorly written and poorly supported, but all heresy is.
Like the poorly written and poorly supported WCF? I thought "enabled to answer this call" meant semi-Pelagianism and that grace "offered, but really exhibited, and conferred" was baptismal regeneration. But I went to "The Highway" discussion group and had the WCF explained to me.
Quote
So lets look at your “Doctrinal Statement “ of your beliefs:
It isn't my "Doctrinal Statement". I'm not even a member of the LCMS since I am not a minister. If the leadership of the LCMS wants people to think the "Brief Statement" is something more than a set of poorly worded and poorly supported theses which even the Brief Statement says has no binding authority on anyone, there is not much I can do about it.
What I have done is urge all Lutherans to return to the Book of Concord. If additional expositions of scripture are needed, propose theses like Luther did. And don't mislead people by calling your theses a "doctrinal position."
Quote
First, you say the whole world is reconciled to God without any biblical support?
"reconciling the world unto himself"II Cor. 5:19
Quote
Second, if the world is reconciled to God (which are the first words of your LCMS Brief Statement, “of Faith in Christ”) then what need is there of personal reconciliation, so yes it is poorly written?
"hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation" II Cor. 5:19
Quote
Third, If the world is reconciled to God then this is universalism by definition, so yes it is heretical!
No, it is not universalism or heresy. However, rejecting the need for personal reconciliation by faith alone in Christ alone is heresy. Are the elect reconciled, justified, and their sins forgiven before they ever come to faith?
JE said, First, you say the whole world is reconciled to God without any biblical support?
Speratus answers, "reconciling the world unto himself"II Cor. 5:19 Quote: ________________________________________
JE said, Second, if the world is reconciled to God (which are the first words of your LCMS Brief Statement, “of Faith in Christ”) then what need is there of personal reconciliation, so yes it is poorly written?
Speratus answers, "hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation" II Cor. 5:19
As common with your quotes you take them out of their proper context and offer no biblical understanding of them. Lets look at this one briefly “in context:”
Quote
2 Corinthians 5:16-21 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man [any man where?] be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Now, if you will look at this “in context” you will see that first of all Paul was speaking of Christians being reconciled and then reconciling others to Christ by the word of reconciliation, though the ministry and the reconciliation originate with God (as seen in the Greek construction of the verse). Of course, if the world was “already” reconciled (as in the doctrinal statement you are supporting) then there would be no further reconciling efforts needed, now would there? If the whole world was reconciled then even the Devil, the prince of this world, and all his would be reconciled as well….. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> Thus, the context of the 2 Cor 5:19 does not allow anyone to understand the meaning of the term, world to be synonymous with "all mankind without exception," etc. If Christ reconciled ALL, then all men of necessity must be saved. Thus, you must answer the question of who the world is from Scripture.
Since the object of God’s reconciliation is not limited to us or we (Paul and his company, etc.) but others that are or will be saved Paul uses the term the world and their in a limited way. The Pauline use of the term world is even supported by John saying; “with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev 5:9),” or “from every nation, tribe, people and language (Rev 7:9), or “from every people, tribe, language and nation” (Rev 11:9), or “tribe, people, language and nation” (Rev 13:7), “he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth–to every nation, tribe, language and people” (Rev 14:6), etc.
You have really butchered a simple text! When Paul says "the world", he means "the world". The text speaks of reconciliation of all men and the ministry of reconciliation, the means by which believers obtain the reconciliation.
Quote
Popular Commentary, by Paul E. Kretzmann, But the final source of the blessings is the Lord Himself: But all things from God, who has reconciled us to Himself, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation. God is the Creator of all the wonderful things which are given to man in his conversion. By a twofold act he brings about the spiritual creation in the heart of man. In the first place, He reconciled all mankind to Himself through Christ. It was God Himself that planned the salvation, the atonement of mankind through the sacrifice of Christ. All men were, by their own fault, His enemies and wanted nothing of Him. But since His righteousness and holiness would therefore have been obliged to condemn them to everlasting punishment, He found this way by which the enmity might be removed and the friendly relations intended by Him in the beginning be established. This reconciliation was brought about by Christ for all men, by His vicarious work; it is a historical fact. And now the second act of God’s mercy comes into consideration, namely, that he has given to the apostle and his fellow-workers, to the ministers of the Gospel at all times, the ministry of the reconciliation, He has entrusted to them the office of proclaiming the fact of the reconciliation of all men, the fact that God is actually reconciled to all men through Christ.
Speratus, you didn't even deal with the passage. Your inability, or at least your refusal to offer meaningful exegesis is beginning to become annoying. All you offer is regurgitated quotes from folks who agree with you. Your attacks on Calvinism and the WCF have gained my attention. I'm hoping to see some change from you.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.the-highway.com/forumuserpics/kami_sig1.gif)
