A Teaching on Justification by the ELDoNA

[Shane R]

With some criticism of the teaching within LCMS and WELS.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

This is interesting. I didn't know that universal justification wasn't orthodox. I have a few questions.

1) What is the difference between universal justification and redemption?
2) Why is infused graced unto imputation erroneous, when faith is required for imputation (faith being a product of inward grace)?
3) Isn't Christ's entire life our justification and not just his death and resurrection?
4) Does Justification include more than God's 'courtroom' pardon?

Thanks.

With some criticism of the teaching within LCMS and WELS.

 

[Shane R]

A second installment came out today:

Some of your questions are further discussed. I'm not going to comment since I am not a confessing Lutheran.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I haven't watched the videos, sorry, and while I don't have time right now to go into great detail, what I can say is that I am somewhat familiar with ELDoNA's views on Objective Justification, and what I'd like to suggest is that the Objective / Subjective Justification distinction is orthodox, but not strongly stressed. We can usually find it confessed by our dogmaticians in passing. Gerhard, for example, who is certainly orthodox taught this distinction.

Essentially, Scriptures talk about Justification in a broad and a narrow sense. However, overwhelmingly in a narrow sense! Objective Justification is the broader understanding that all are justified regardless of their faith. Meaning, Christ did not die for and justify believers only, but the whole world; all people everywhere in every age. Christ died for all. Not only the elect. Not believers only. So it's in this sense Paul writes the following: Romans 4:25, Romans 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:19.

Subjective Justification, however, is Justification in its narrow and common sense. In addition to God’s grace, and the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ, Subjective Justification also includes faith, which apprehends God’s promise in the Gospel.

So, on one hand, it would be incorrect to suggest that the Objective / Subjective distinction is not found in the Bible, or is unorthodox, or is un-Lutheran, for we find this language in the Bible, and held among orthodox Lutherans. On the other hand, when the Bible and Lutherans typically talk about Justification, it's mostly in relation to repentance, faith, and Sanctification. So almost every time we say "Justification", we mean "Subjective Justification." This, to my knowledge, is held by most Orthodox Lutheran bodies, including our own, except for the ELDoNA, so in terms of numbers, they are the odd ones out on this one.

My personal attitude on this is pretty simple: We acknowledge and confess Romans 4:25, Romans 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and there is a right context for this understanding, but normally, we are to use Justification in its narrow sense.

 

[Shane R]

And a concluding segment:

This one examines several Scripture passages including those mentioned by Daniel9v9.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I have always been confused about subjective vs objective justification. Why isn't subjective justification, which the Confessions identity with regeneration, included in the category of sanctification (Christ in us)?

I haven't watched the videos, sorry, and while I don't have time right now to go into great detail, what I can say is that I am somewhat familiar with ELDoNA's views on Objective Justification, and what I'd like to suggest is that the Objective / Subjective Justification distinction is orthodox, but not strongly stressed. We can usually find it confessed by our dogmaticians in passing. Gerhard, for example, who is certainly orthodox taught this distinction.

Essentially, Scriptures talk about Justification in a broad and a narrow sense. However, overwhelmingly in a narrow sense! Objective Justification is the broader understanding that all are justified regardless of their faith. Meaning, Christ did not die for and justify believers only, but the whole world; all people everywhere in every age. Christ died for all. Not only the elect. Not believers only. So it's in this sense Paul writes the following: Romans 4:25, Romans 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:19.

Subjective Justification, however, is Justification in its narrow and common sense. In addition to God’s grace, and the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ, Subjective Justification also includes faith, which apprehends God’s promise in the Gospel.

So, on one hand, it would be incorrect to suggest that the Objective / Subjective distinction is not found in the Bible, or is unorthodox, or is un-Lutheran, for we find this language in the Bible, and held among orthodox Lutherans. On the other hand, when the Bible and Lutherans typically talk about Justification, it's mostly in relation to repentance, faith, and Sanctification. So almost every time we say "Justification", we mean "Subjective Justification." This, to my knowledge, is held by most Orthodox Lutheran bodies, including our own, except for the ELDoNA, so in terms of numbers, they are the odd ones out on this one.

My personal attitude on this is pretty simple: We acknowledge and confess Romans 4:25, Romans 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and there is a right context for this understanding, but normally, we are to use Justification in its narrow sense.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I have always been confused about subjective vs objective justification. Why isn't subjective justification, which the Confessions identity with regeneration, included in the category of sanctification (Christ in us)?

Well, Sanctification has two meanings:

(1) It can mean to be made holy in the sense of being set apart by God and saved by Christ. In this sense, it's really the same as (Personal) Justification. The Bible uses different language speaking of our salvation and Sanctification is one of the expressions. In this sense, Sanctification is binary. That is, we are either declared holy or not. We are not more or less Justified. We are either justified or not; saved or not.

(2) And Sanctification can mean being moulded into the image of Christ — it's the work of the Holy Spirit in us, creating good fruits such as love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. In this sense, which is the most common sense, we recognise that Sanctification is gradual and that it never reaches its completion in this life, but that we will be made perfect in the resurrection.

Typically, when we talk about Justification and Sanctification, the relationship is this: We are justified (declared righteous), as we repent, believe, and are baptised into Christ. And He gives us the free gift of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies us, so that we start to love God and our neighbour, love the Law, live holy lives, and do the good that God has prepared for us to do. But our Sanctification has no bearing on our Justification. Sanctification does not complete or sustain Justification, but it follows Justification. The best summary verse in the Bible with respect to Justification/Sanctification, or faith and good works, is Ephesians 2:8-10:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

Here we get a great and really clear overview: We are saved. How? By God — By grace, not by works. By what means? Through faith, which is a gift of God, not something we ask, seek, or work for. We are God's workmanship — created in Christ! We don't seek to be created, we don't create ourselves, and we are not incomplete or gradually created, but God created us in Christ out of His own good will and love. Why? That we may serve Him and our neighbour in love. God has even prepared the good works for us, that we should walk in them, by the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now, we also recognise our union with Christ, which our Eastern Orthodox friends call Theosis, and we call Mystical Union, and that's another layer or facet of God's Word. It has a connection to both Justification and Sanctification. Essentially, it's the truth that God dwells within us, and so we are united with Him. But an important thing to appreciate is that we are not saved because God is in us, but we are saved by the person and works of Christ, who won for us forgiveness of sins, adoption, and has united us with the Father.

 

[Shane R]

I misspoke a few posts ago. They've released 2 further supplemental installments in the series. It's become quite the mass of content.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have to confess, I don’t fully understand what they are trying to convey, perhaps because I have not been trained in the subtleties of Lutheran theology. Could you fellows break it down for me?

 

[Shane R]

What I have gathered from the videos and talking to several of these pastors in person is that they think the confessional American synods have moved their teaching into the realm of inconsistency. If the atonement resulted in universal objective justification, then all are saved. If all are not saved but the atonement resulted in objective justification then it must be limited to the elect.

Furthermore, this view of justification makes the sacraments of little to no importance. I have encountered a growing number of Lutheran pastors who teach a rather more Reformed view of baptism than anything Melancthon ever taught. (This same criticism is applicable to much of Evangelical Anglicanism in the present day.)

I tend to agree that these debates become too technical. Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz followed in the path of the scholastic theologians much more than they ever would admit. These discussions get to a point where everything has to be defined because no one is using words in exactly the same manner.