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.
I haven't participated in any of these conversations, although I have read them. But I just have to jump in here. It seems to me that while you desperately try to take a step away from universalism, what you posted above can only be understood as universalism.
For example:
Quote
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.
If a fact is still a fact, if reconciliation still means reconciliation, and actually still means actually, then how else must we read this statement? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
speratus said: 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.
Against my better judgment to continue in this series of posts, the absence of the article before world in 2 Cor 5:19 leaves us to contemplate the abstract significance of this word (read pp 206-290 in the chapters entitled The Article in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace for more information). It was “a world,” not “the world,” that God was reconciling to Himself. Thus, when Paul says "a world," he means "a world" (note the a world being reconciled was in the world). Hodge states concerning the phrase the world,
Quote
… This is an indefinite statement, merely indicating the sort of beings toward whom God was revealing himself as propitious. In the same sense our Lord is called the Saviour of the world or the Saviour of mankind. (Hodge, Charles. 2 Corinthians. Crossway classic commentaries, 2 Co 5:19. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1995).
Reconciling in 2 Cor 5:19 is a present tense participle revealing God continues to reconcile people to himself. Thus, reconciling the world takes place in and through Christ as a continuing activity. “Not reckoning unto them their trespasses,” is also a present tense of the participle, which indicates that God continues to release believers from their guilt. Clearly the Popular Commentary is a poor comment on the truth of Scripture. Your defense of the heretical doctrine of universalism is refuted! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />
Free Greek (and Hebrew) fonts for reading the attachment are here.
Last edited by J_Edwards; Mon Feb 14, 200510:57 AM.
gotribe said: If a fact is still a fact, if reconciliation still means reconciliation, and actually still means actually, then how else must we read this statement?
Yes, the reconciliation is an accomplished fact for all men; however, the finished work of reconciliation does no one any good unless it is apprehended through the ministry of reconciliation (i.e., the means of grace). God has caused the word to go forth in preaching and in the sacraments that the Holy Spirit may work faith when and where it pleases God.
Against my better judgment to continue in this series of posts, the absence of the article before world in 2 Cor 5:19 leaves us to contemplate the abstract significance of this word (read pp 206-290 in the chapters entitled The Article in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace for more information). It was “a world,” not “the world,” that God was reconciling to Himself. Thus, when Paul says "a world," he means "a world" (note the a world being reconciled was in the world).
A world that includes every person who ever lived or will live:
Quote
Objective Justification in Our Mission Outreach: An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 by David P. Kushe ko/smon. With this word Paul clearly teaches that God's act of reconciliation covers the whole world. It applies to the whole world, to every person, whether he lived before Christ, or at the time of Christ, or any time since Christ, or in any of the time still remaining before Christ comes again. Thus everyone is included in this word regardless of whether he ever comes to faith or not. This same truth is taught in the similar context of Colossians 1. There in verses 16 and 20 we read: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible … and through him (God was pleased) to reconcile to himself all things (ta_ pa/nta), whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." In this context it is also most important to note that ko/smon in verse 19 is parallel to h9ma=j in verse 18. Remember that verse 19 is an expansion or explanation of verse 18 (cf. w(j o3ti) and then it becomes apparent that Paul is indicating that our reconciliation as believers is assured by the fact that the world was reconciled.
e9autw~|. As in verse 18 this pronoun is added to stress that God did not reconcile the people of the world to one another, but rather reconciled the whole world as a group to himself.
mh\ logizo/menoj. This participle is in apposition to h]n katalla/sswn and thus explains God's Christ-worked-world-reconciliation as merely a matter of accounting. Every individual in the world sinned and thereby incurred an unpayable amount on his account before God. Here Paul refers to the truth that while Christ was on earth he lived a perfect life which God put on the account of all men and he died as the substitute for all which God also credited to the account of all (cf. v 14b). Since by this perfect life and death Christ "blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us" (Col 2:14), God no longer imputed anyone's sins to him; they were imputed to Christ. In verse 21 this truth is described in this way that "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." It is important to note that this appositional mh\ logizo/menoj makes God's act of reconciliation basically one of negative accounting (i.e., not imputing, or not charging) rather than some kind of inner change in God or in man. God never changed in either his love or his justice; he loved man e0n xristw|~, and e0n xristw~| the justice which God's holiness required as the punishment for sin was satisfied completely. The spiritual change in man is worked, as Paul said in verse 17, only after he is "in Christ" and thus becomes a totally "new creation" who despises sin and loves God's good and gracious will. The only change which took place as a result of God's Christ-worked-world-reconciliation was in every sinner's account before God.
Quote
Reconciling in 2 Cor 5:19 is a present tense participle revealing God continues to reconcile people to himself. Thus, reconciling the world takes place in and through Christ as a continuing activity. “Not reckoning unto them their trespasses,” is also a present tense of the participle, which indicates that God continues to release believers from their guilt.
Your interpretation of the text is untenable:
Quote
A Note on Qe/menov in 2 Corinthians 5:19 by Dr. Siegbert W. Becker If we interpret qe/menov as a circumstantial participle, as opponents of universal justification do, then whatever temporal significance this past participle has must be determined by the tense of the principal verb. It would then refer to an action which precedes the time indicated by h]n. It would in that case have to mean that after God had committed to Paul and the other apostles the word of reconciliation, he was, or existed, in Christ. In other words, Paul would be saying that the commissioning of the apostles antedates the incarnarion. But biblical history clearly demonstrates that the great commission was given after the resurrection and is in reality based on it (Lk 24:46f). It is sometimes argued that since katalla&sswn is a present participle and qe/menov is an aorist, the commissioning of Paul must precede the reconciling, and for that reason the reconciliation spoken of here is one that takes place when the word of reconciliation is preached and men come to faith. This is absolutely untenable, since the temporal significance of a participle is determined first of all by the tense of the main verb and not by the tense of the other participles in the sentence. We are therefore forced to interpret h]n…qe/menov as periphrastic. Paul used an aorist rather than a present participle because a present participle with h]n yields an imperfect tense. Such an imperfect tense (as in h]n…katalla&sswn) correctly portrays God's work of reconciling, since that was an ongoing work which began with the incarnation and ended with the resurrection. An imperfect tense, however, could hardly be used to describe the commissioning of Paul, which took place at a very definite and limited time when Paul was called to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Therefore only an aorist construction serves to express what actually happened.
Yes, the reconciliation is an accomplished fact for all men; however, the finished work of reconciliation does no one any good unless it is apprehended through the ministry of reconciliation (i.e., the means of grace).
Either it is accomplished, or it a only a possibility. Which is it?
A Note on Que/Menlo in 2 Corinthians 5:19 by Dr. Egbert W. Becker If we interpret Que/Menlo as a circumstantial participle, as opponents of universal justification do, then whatever temporal significance this past participle has must be determined by the tense of the principal verb. . . . We are therefore forced to interpret h]n…Que/Menlo as periphrastic. Paul used an airiest rather than a present participle because a present participle with h]n yields an imperfect tense. Such an imperfect tense (as in h]n…Natala&sswn) correctly portrays God's work of reconciling, since that was an ongoing work which began with the incarnation and ended with the resurrection. An imperfect tense, however, could hardly be used to describe the commissioning of Paul, which took place at a very definite and limited time when Paul was called to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Therefore only an airiest construction serves to express what actually happened.
If you believe that Becker's exegesis of this text is correct, then you must now cease from denying that you believe in "universal salvation", for the author clearly states that his view is against those who oppose "universal justification"; i.e., he embraces universal justification. Unless you are going to insist that "universal" doesn't mean "all-encompassing" (every man, woman and child that has existed, does currently exist and will exist", and that "justification" doesn't mean "declared righteous" as did Luther, Chemnitz, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Owen, et AL, then the conclusion that you embrace "universal salvation" is inescapable and incontrovertible.
sprats said: Yes, the reconciliation is an accomplished fact for all men; however, the finished work of reconciliation does no one any good unless it is apprehended through the ministry of reconciliation (i.e., the means of grace). God has caused the word to go forth in preaching and in the sacraments that the Holy Spirit may work faith when and where it pleases God.
Pray tell, how is your "universal reconciliation" different from that of the Arminians who believe exactly what you are proposing. It is this very same heresy which was proposed by the Remonstrance in 1617 by the followers of Jacobus Arminius which was rejected by unanimous vote in 1619 by representatives of the Protestant churches.
How is even conceivable that one for whom Christ died secured reconciliation with God will spend eternity in everlasting punishment?
I am dumb founded at how Lutherans can accuse us of being "synergists" after reading what Speratus has to say in this thread. If I correctly understand what he is saying, Lutherans are the synergists, not us.
Speratus, you truly need to be more careful in whose commentaries you read and cite. Both of these are horrible in both their Greek and theology. We will look at only a few of Kushe’s errors since Pilgrim has already destroyed your point in Becker. However, I do hope you will take the time and reply to Pilgrim’s post.
Quote
With this word Paul clearly teaches that God's act of reconciliation covers the whole world. It applies to the whole world, to every person, whether he lived before Christ, or at the time of Christ, or any time since Christ, or in any of the time still remaining before Christ comes again. Thus everyone is included in this word regardless of whether he ever comes to faith or not.
Speratus, if the “whole world” is reconciled NOW then there is no need for the word of reconciliation. However, you have ALL unbelievers, without exception, reconciled and thus none can ever be lost--which is universalism!
In addition, you fail to realize the truth of the “now, but not yet” theology of the Kingdom of God and the similarities/differences in the inauguration, continuation, and consummation of the KOG. The KOG is here and yet not in its fulness. However, this is covenant theology which I am sure you have not had time to study and digest.
Quote
This same truth is taught in the similar context of Colossians 1. There in verses 16 and 20 we read: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible … and through him (God was pleased) to reconcile to himself all things (ta_ pa/nta), whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."
So now you have the Devil and his whole demonic host reconciled to God and yet we still have temptation, sin, and problems on the earth. Do you see just a small problem here? The devils believe and tremble.
Quote
Since by this perfect life and death Christ "blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us" (Col 2:14), God no longer imputed anyone's sins to him; they were imputed to Christ.
If God no longer holds anyone’s sins against them then ALL, without exception, are saved. If ALL are reconciled and are at peace with God, then even the sin of unbelief would be covered and thus none could disbelieve—not even Satan himself could be lost, since according to you he is now reconciled. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
If you believe that Becker's exegesis of this text is correct, then you must now cease from denying that you believe in "universal salvation", for the author clearly states that his view is against those who oppose "universal justification"; i.e., he embraces universal justification. Unless you are going to insist that "universal" doesn't mean "all-encompassing" (every man, woman and child that has existed, does currently exist and will exist", and that "justification" doesn't mean "declared righteous" as did Luther, Chemnitz, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Owen, et AL, then the conclusion that you embrace "universal salvation" is inescapable and incontrovertible.
You are quite right that the early Reformers (Lutheran anyway), while affirming Universal Atonement, spoke only of justication by faith alone not Universal Justification. Those in LCMS who uphold the Brief Statement say Luther, Chemnitz, Speratus, etc. taught the concept of Universal Justification (I will spare you from their numerous citations). They say there was no need of a Universal Justification formulation until Arminians began teaching that men are justified in view of foreseen faith.
On this point, I disagree with them because the Book of Concord clearly teaches against "foreseen faith." I don't see any new heresy that would require a new formulation. With respect to their thesis of two justifications: Objective (Universal)/Subjective (Justification by Faith Alone), I have requested more scriptural support from them. In any event, it will remain a thesis until it receives unanimous approval by the Lutheran Church.
Scripture teaches Christ has atoned for the sins of all men. On the basis of that atonement, can we say that God has objectively declared all men righteous apart from faith? Or, would that go beyond scripture?
To frame the question in a form that the Reform can relate to, are the elect declared righteous before Regeneration? What say you?
Yes, the reconciliation is an accomplished fact for all men; however, the finished work of reconciliation does no one any good unless it is apprehended through the ministry of reconciliation (i.e., the means of grace).
Either it is accomplished, or it a only a possibility. Which is it?
Is it an accomplished fact for the elect who are not regenerate? Or only a possibility?
Are the elect reconciled to God before faith? If so, what need is there for justification by faith? If not, is not the atonement alone sufficient to reconcile the elect?
speratus said: Scripture teaches Christ has atoned for the sins of all men. On the basis of that atonement, can we say that God has objectively declared all men righteous apart from faith? Or, would that go beyond scripture?
You are beginning with an erroneous assumption and one that has never been able to be defended from Scripture. We have gone over this countless times here and you simply have ignored the biblical doctrine of a "Definite Atonement" or to use another term "Particular Redemption" and rested upon "Formula of Concorde" rather than "Sola Scriptura", which you being a Lutheran surprises me.
The FACT is that Scripture teaches that Christ atoned for all the sins of all the elect; those whom the Father gave Him, those who were predestined in love from eternity, etc. (Ph 1:4-13 and countless other passages). His atonement was vicarious and SUBSTITUTIONARY. In case you haven't grasped the significance of what it means that the Lord Christ died a SUBSTITUTIONARY death, i.e., (Grok: hyper) "in the place of", "in behalf of", etc. In His death God was satisfied, i.e, ALL that was required for salvation was met and the means by which those for whom He died was secured "for them", e.g., regeneration, calling, faith, repentance and perseverance. (Rom 8:29, 30) Thus, again, the atonement of Christ 1) satisfied ALL of the judicial requirements and the penalty due those for whom He died. The atonement thus accomplished EVERYTHING necessary for the redemption of those whom God predestinated to eternal life. 2) secured ALL that was necessary for the elect to receive the benefits of that atonement which Christ merited "for them". The means by which the elect apprehend those benefits are applied to them in time through the work of the Holy Spirit, Who regenerates them, creates faith and repentance in them, calls them to faith in conjunction with the Word, clothes them with the righteousness of Christ, dwells within them and forever guides and upholds them until they are called home to be glorified before the throne of God.
It is utterly illogical, inconceivable and impossible that any for whom Christ substituted Himself and accomplished a full atonement of ALL that God required and that which was necessary for: propitiation, redemption, sacrificial satisfaction and reconciliation should then be brought before the judgment seat of Christ and be found guilty for that which He Himself had already atoned and then cast them into eternal hell to suffer the penalty which Christ Himself previously suffered "in their place/behalf". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />
Quote
Then speratus asks: To frame the question in a form that the Reform can relate to, are the elect declared righteous before Regeneration? What say you?
I say absolutely not. The application of that which was objectively secured by Christ's atonement is done in time; the exact moment as foreordained by God in eternity through the means which He also foreordained. One is ONLY justified when their is personal union with Christ. And that union is only actualized by faith; a faith which is wrought by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Though their (elects) justification was eternally ordained and infallible secured by Christ in his atonement the application of it occurs in time.
You are beginning with an erroneous assumption and one that has never been able to be defended from Scripture. We have gone over this countless times here and you simply have ignored the biblical doctrine of a "Definite Atonement" or to use another term "Particular Redemption" and rested upon "Formula of Concorde" rather than "Sola Scriptura", which you being a Lutheran surprises me.
This doesn't surprise me at all, because he is consistant with other Lutherans that I have been in contact with. Mainly at the Reformed Reader open forum.
Tom said: This doesn't surprise me at all, because he is consistant with other Lutherans that I have been in contact with. Mainly at the Reformed Reader open forum.
Tom,
It is surprising to me because they claim to be devote followers of Martin Luther; so much so that they even took his name for their denomination: "Lutherans". And Martin Luther, for the most part, stood firm against Rome upon the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" and not some "Formula of Concorde" or any other document written by man. His new found faith came from the written Word of God, and it was upon IT that he said, "Here I stand . . ."
The formulas of men, whether they be the "Forumula of Concorde", the "Westminster Confession of Faith", the "Belgic Confession", etc., are ALL subject to biblical scrutiny. And where they err, they should not be followed. But it isn't just the Lutherans who are "denominational Borgs", such individuals are to be found in EVERY denomination and non-denominational group. These individuals will attempt to defend their group against anything and everyone, even if it is shown that something which that group holds to be true is clearly contrary to Scripture. Their allegiance is ill-placed; upon a man, denomination, movement, ideal, etc., instead of the inerrant, infallible written Word of God alone..... SOLA SCRIPTURA. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Pilgrim said: I say absolutely not. The application of that which was objectively secured by Christ's atonement is done in time; the exact moment as foreordained by God in eternity through the means which He also foreordained. One is ONLY justified when their is personal union with Christ. And that union is only actualized by faith; a faith which is wrought by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Though their (elects) justification was eternally ordained and infallible secured by Christ in his atonement the application of it occurs in time.
But aren't you saying something similar to that of the Brief Statement Lutherans? There are objective and subjective components of justification? And, by saying there is no justification without faith, aren't you saying that something must be added to the atonement to make it efficacious, a tenet of Arminianism?
speratus said: But aren't you saying something similar to that of the Brief Statement Lutherans? There are objective and subjective components of justification? And, by saying there is no justification without faith, aren't you saying that something must be added to the atonement to make it efficacious, a tenet of Arminianism?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> What I believe and what the Reformed Faith teaches and most importantly, what the Bible teaches is that Christ Jesus actually and infallibly secured the salvation for ALL whom He died. Is this such a difficult concept and truth to comprehend? You may not agree because it isn't found in the "Formula of Concorde", but can't you at least grasp the significance of it and how it differs drastically from what the Lutherans and Arminians believe? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
I hold that:
The Father elected a certain number of sinners to be saved.
The Son secured all that was necessary for the elect's salvation through His vicarious and substitutionary atonement.
The Holy Spirit regenerates the elect whom the Father predestined to salvation; those for whom Christ died, and brings them infallibly to faith in Christ at their appointed time, whereby they are declared righteous on the basis of Christ's substitutionary atonement, and then dwells within them working sanctification and finally effecting their glorification.
The atonement which Christ underwent consists of that which He really accomplished and then that which was accomplished, applied. The Lord Christ infallible secured EVERYTHING necessary to bring those for whom He died to salvation . . . TOTAL salvation, from beginning to end. Since the Lord Christ's death was to accomplish "penal satisfaction", all that was an offense to God was effectively resolved. Justice was executed and therefore God was satisfied. No one for whom Christ died can or will ever be brought to the court of heaven to stand trial, be found guilty and sentenced to eternal damnation. Why? because Christ's death was a substitutionary atonement for sin. He suffered "in the place of" those who the Father gave Him. And ALL the benefits which Christ merited in that atonement are then applied to His sheep temporally, according to God's eternal council.
If Christ died for all and thus ALL are reconciled to God and ALL are justified in His death, then of necessity ALL will be infallibly saved. The heavenly court was brought to order, Christ Jesus was charged with sinning against God. He was tried and found guilty and sentenced to eternal hell. Thus in freely offering Himself as a SUBSTITUTE for the elect and suffered "in their place", those for whom He died CANNOT be found guilty of ANY sin, whether by commission or omission. For they ALL are eventually and infallible clothed with HIS perfect righteousness and declared righteous when the benefits of His substitutionary death are applied.
Okay, I've explained this several different ways. Hopefully now you will comprehend not only what it is Calvinists believe, but the grandeur of Trinitarian salvation whereby the 3 Persons of the Trinity, being of one accord, infallibly save sinners by grace, aka: "Sola Gratia". No one for whom Christ died will be lost. (Matt 1:21)
Pilgrim's excellent post brought to mind a book that you might want to read (if you sincerely want to understand the reformed/biblical view of the atonement.) It is Redemption: Accomplished and Applied by John Murray. I probably recommend that book more than any other, for this concept is absolutely foundational.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
![[Linked Image]](https://www.the-highway.com/forumuserpics/kami_sig1.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/Ask.gif)