The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America 2013 Synod and Colloquium, Part 1

Early Monday morning, fellow Ecclesia Augustana contributor Christian Schulz and I began a 14-hour trek to the great state of Texas with the intention of attending the Colloquium portion of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA)‘s 2013 Colloquium and Synod.  Those of us in the Lutheran world are familiar with such acronyms as LCMS, WELS, ELS, ELCA, and even some smaller groups like CLC.   Some of these groups claim to be "Confessional Lutheran" and theologically orthodox institutions, but many of us are all too familiar with the horror stories stemming from each. Playing on this theme, the ELDoNA writes on their website:

In the Lutheran Church, one encounters a great deal of talk about ‘confessional Lutheran’ doctrine and practice; sadly, the substance has been something quite different. The various ‘synods’ often appear more interested in a ‘theology of glory’ (focusing on worldly prestige, money, and ‘numbers’) than a ‘theology of the cross’ which recognizes that the Church is despised by the world, because she is the Bride of Christ. 

The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America is committed to the restoration and advancement of consistently Evangelical Lutheran doctrine and practice in harmony with the Sacred Scriptures and the Book of Concord (1580).

It is in this context that the ELDoNA piqued our interest; after all, it is hard to deny their claims concerning the synods, my own Wisconsin Synod included.  While rush hour traffic in Fort Worth prevented us from making it to the opening Vespers and fellowship dinner last night, we got up bright and early this morning to attend Matins and the first day of Colloquium presentations.

There were a number of insightful papers presented today. The first of these was by Dr. Kent A. Heimbigner, whose topic was “Nietzsche on Christianity: A Baptismally Informed Analysis.” The paper demonstrated the impasse that exists between Nietzsche (and his ideological ilk) and those belonging to the orthodox (Lutheran) Christian confession, specifically in terms of the person of Christ Himself (Nietzsche’s Jesus verses the Biblical Christ), the use of language (Nietzche viewed language as imprecise and even dubious, whereas Christians view the language or Word of God as powerful and effective, with the ability to create and restore), and disparaging concepts of morality and humanity (Nietzsche sees man as born as “fully or ideally human,” whereas Christians see man born into death as fallen creatures in need of restoration through Holy Baptism). In short, the paper was enlightening on both philosophical and theological levels.

The next paper, entitled “Social Identity in the New Testament and Today: Does Christianity Negate All Other Identity?”, was presented by the Reverend John S. Rutowicz. He touched on a number of themes related to the Social Identity Theory developed by Henri Tajfel, which posits that there are varying levels of group membership that effect human identity to greater and lesser degrees. In particular, the paper demonstrated that the New Testament does not disparage social identities such as race and ethnicity, but rather embraces them - even in some contexts that might be viewed as “racist” by individualistic, postmodern Western society. He specifically highlighted the example of Christ Himself in St. Matthew 15, where the Lord calls a Canaanite woman a “dog” in solidarity with His own Jewish heritage, as well as the example of St. Paul in Titus 1:12-13, where the Blessed Apostle generalizes an entire people in stereotypical, negative terms ("All Cretans are liars"), while elsewhere (2 Corinthians 11:22) he lauds his social identity as a Hebrew. In short, Rev. Rutowicz contended that these examples serve to show that one can maintain social identities outside of the Christian identity. While the Christian “social identity” should be what the author calls our “terminal identity,” thus governing our other identities, it should not negate them, if we take the Lord and His Apostles as our examples.

Another presentation was Rev. Joshua W. Sullivan’s paper entitled “The Use of Genesis in the Old Testament Apocrypha.” Rev. Sullivan provided a number of examples demonstrating the fact that the O.T. Apocrypha rely heavily on the types set forth in the canonical Book of Genesis. While the Apocrypha contain some dubious material, they provide what the author called “sermon illustrations” or stories that are of immense value to laypeople and pastors alike.  One such instance was the story of Tobit, which provides in the persons of Tobit and his betrothed Sarah provide a beautiful picture of what the Christian marriage is supposed to be (in fact, the early Church adopted a citation from the book of Tobit as the Introit for its Nuptial Services!).  But more than this, the Apocryphal texts are especially fitting given the similarity between their immediate context (a time in which the Jews were faced with the immense pressure of Hellinization to forfeit their culture and beliefs) and that of our own day, in which Christian values and mores are being trivialized and ridiculed more and more.

The last paper yet to be mentioned from today's session was presented by Pr. Paul Rydecki and entitled “The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace in the Theology of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy: A Reflection on Atonement and Its Relationship to Justification.” In it, Pr. Rydecki provided citation after citation from the era of Lutheran Orthodoxy highlighting the traditional analogy of forensic justification in the Divine Tribunal of God. In so doing, he demonstrated that the Christian’s justification occurs not at the Cross or from eternity, but rather in time when the Christian - by God-given faith - clings to the “Throne of Grace,” an "alternate tribunal" from that of the Law and established by the Cross for all people. To quote pages 4-6 of the paper [the citation is long, but worth the read]:

Chemnitz offers this analogy [it is essentially an expansion of Romans 3:22-26] in its most extended form, depicting the various aspects of this courtroom setting. [...] It is presented here at length, because it expresses so clearly the Lutheran concept of justification in relation to the atonement.

‘Thus, the use of the legal term 'justification' refutes the ideas of the Epicureans. For it shows that the justification of the sinner is not some insignificant or perfunctory thing, but that the whole human being stands before the judgment of God and is examined both with respect to his nature as well as his works, and this according to the norm of divine law. But because after the entrance of sin a human being in this life does not have true and perfect conformity with the law of God, nothing is found in this examination, whether in the person's nature or in his works, that he can use to justify himself before God; rather the Law pronounces the sentence of condemnation, written by the very finger of God Himself.
Now God does not justify the ungodly by some kind of mistake, as a judge often makes a faulty decision by failure to examine the evidence sufficiently or by wrong thinking; nor through indifference, as if He did not care about the transgression of His law; nor through wickedness, as if He approved of our iniquity, connived with it, or were in collusion with the impious. A justification of this kind God Himself pronounces to be an abomination, Ex. 23:1; Is. 5:23; Prov. 17:15. God cannot retract this sentence of condemnation revealed in the Law, unless it is perfectly satisfied or fulfilled, Matt. 5:18.
Thus righteousness and satisfaction are required where God is to justify. Luther is correct when he says that God remits no sin unless the Law has been satisfied with regard to it. In the case of human judgment, to be sure, guilt is absolved either because of some preceding merit (for they are accounted worthy who deserve to be forgiven), or with respect to present righteousness and innocence either of the cause or of the person, or with respect to a satisfaction which the guilty party promises to make either to the judge or to his opponent in the case. But before God's judgment man can put up nothing in his own defense in order that he might be justified, as many very clear Scripture passages declare.

Therefore, because God does not justify out of frivolity, unconcern, error, or iniquity, nor because He finds anything in man whereby he might be justified before God; and yet the just requirement of the Law must be fulfilled in those who are to be justified, Rom. 8:4, therefore a feign righteousness must intervene-the kind of righteousness which not only with payment of penalties but also with perfect obedience to the divine law made satisfaction in such a way that it could be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

To this the terrified sinner, condemned by the voice of the Law, flees in true faith. This he desires, begs for, lays hold of; to this he submits himself; this he uses as his defense before the judgment seat of God and against the accusation of the Law. By regard for this and by its imputation he is justified, that is, he is absolved from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation and receives the promise of eternal life. This is what Paul is saying Rom. 3:31: "The doctrine of the righteousness of faith does not destroy the Law but upholds it."

Paul clearly describes the act of justification in this way in Romans 3:

1. The conscience of the sinner is through the Law placed before the judgment tribunal of God (who is a consuming fire and in whose sight not even the stars are pure), is accused, convicted, and condemned, so that it is afflicted and pressed down by a terrifying sense of the wrath of God, Rom. 3:19: "...that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God" (KJV).

2. The heart thus contrite does not entertain Epicurean thoughts but anxiously seeks whether and how it can be freed from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation. From such thoughts come such passages as Ps. 130:3: "If You should mark iniquities...."; Ps. 143:2: "Enter not into judgment..."; Rom. 7:24: "Who shall deliver me...?"...

3. Therefore God, "who is rich in mercy" [Eph. 2:4], has had mercy upon us and has set forth a propitiation through faith in the blood of Christ, and those who flee as suppliants to this throne of grace He absolves from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation, and by the imputation of the righteousness of His Son, which they grasp in faith, He pronounces them righteous, receives them into grace, and adjudges them to be heirs of eternal life.

This is certainly the judicial meaning of the word 'justification,' in almost the same way that a guilty man who has been sentenced before the bar of justice is acquitted.

It is manifest how much clarity this gives to the discussion of justification. The fathers in disputing this matter often spoke inadequately about justification. But in their devotional writings, when they were looking at the picture of the divine judgment or the divine judicial process, they handled the doctrine of this article very well.

The example of Bernard [of Clairvaux, 1091-1153] shows this clearly, because he was not involved in idle speculations but was exercising himself in the serious matter of repentance based on the doctrine and testimony of Paul. Gerson has some wonderful thoughts about the tribunal of God's justice and the throne of His grace. For if we are discussing our common position before the tribunal of God, we are all subject to the tribunal of His justice; and because before him no living person can be justified but all are condemned, therefore God has also set up another tribunal, the throne of grace. And the Son of God pleads for us the benefit of being called away from the tribunal of justice to the throne of grace. Therefore the Pharisee, because he was not willing to use the benefit of this calling, but wanted to enter into judgment before the tribunal of justice, was condemned. But the publican, who was first accused at the tribunal of justice, convicted and condemned there later by faith called out to the throne of grace and was justified [Luke 18:9-14]. (Loci Theologici, p. 481-482)

And this is the process or act of the justification of a sinner before the judgment seat of God, so that he appeals from the throne of the strict justice of God to the throne of grace in the blood of the Son of God, as Gerson describes the matter of justification by the apt simile of forensic appeal. (Enchiridion, Q. 146)

All these points so beautifully illustrating the doctrine of justification come from the correct linguistic understanding of the word "justification." (Loci Theologici, p. 482)'

Several things must be noted here. First, that, on account of the satisfaction Christ made to the divine law, there exists, objectively, a Throne of Grace to which all sinners are invited (in the Gospel) to flee, an alternate place of judgment opened up as a result of God's grace and the obedience, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is "another tribunal," apart form the Law, where God is propitious, where absolution is pronounced, justification is declared, and eternal life is bestowed for the sake of Christ. The "atonement" made by Christ has opened up this Throne of Grace, which is actually Christ Himself, the "atonement cover" or "Mercy Seat," sprinkled with His own blood, the "Atoner" or "Reconciler." 

Second, that justification occurs in the divine courtroom, not without the accused fleeing in faith to the Throne of Grace, not before the accused flees in faith to the Throne of Grace, but simultaneously with this 'fleeing' or this 'forensic appeal.' This present-tense (that is, concurrent with faith) absolution and justification is perfectly in keeping with the language of the Augsburg Confession:

Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4. (AC:IV) 

...in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake (AC:V). 

Scripture teaches that we are justified before God, through faith in Christ, when we believe that our sins are forgiven for Christ's sake (AC:XXIV:28).

Third, that, although the foreign righteousness of Christ has made satisfaction to the divine law so that it is a 'propitiation for the sins of the whole world,' only those who appeal to this Propitiator actually escape condemnation under the divine law and are justified. The act of justification is not simultaneous with the atonement made by Christ. 

Fourth, since 'the just requirement of the Law must be fulfilled in those who are to be justified,' and since the only way in which that just requirement can be fulfilled for any sinner is if the accused pleads the 'foreign righteousness' of Christ as his defense, then it would actually be contrary to God's justice for Him to absolve or acquit the guilty man who is not using the 'foreign righteousness' of Christ as his defense before the judgment seat of God. 

Fifth, Chemnitz says that his analogy presents the article of justification as clearly expressed by St. Paul in Romans 3. The burden is on those who wish to read an already-pronounced justification of all unbelievers into Romans 3:24 either to demonstrate how such an interpretation is compatible with Chemnitz' analogy, or admit that their own interpretation is at odds with Lutheran orthodoxy. 

Sixth, note that Chemnitz refers this analogy to the 'correct linguistic understanding of the word 'justification.'" He is not seeking to offer an arbitrary, partial or ad hoc definition of the word, but to faithfully convey the meaning of the word as used throughout the Holy Scripture. As he says elsewhere, 'Our question is in what sense the Holy Spirit employs the word "Justify" in those passages of the Scripture in which He treats and teaches the doctrine of justification, as we have already shown it most clearly.' 

Chemnitz' analogy illustrates that the concept of forensic justification, as described by the Lutheran Fathers, is not a piecemeal justification that already 'happened' for all sinners, and then 'happens' again through the Word and faith. Instead, it is the culmination of the four 'causes' that comprise the article of justification, each of which is a sine qua non in forensic justification. There can be no forensic justification of the sinner without God's grace, or without the merit of Christ, or without the sinner being clothed by faith in the foreign righteousness of Christ, or without the promise of the Gospel that kindles faith.

The Lutheran Fathers have much to say about the unique role that each of these four components plays in forensic justification....”

Pr. Rydecki went on to delineate the “four comonents” of justification, which I myself have elaborated on in prior posts on this blog. In short, Rydecki irrefutably demonstrated that “this common outline, this ‘justification by faith alone in Christ’ was the only concept of justification espoused by the Lutherans” - that is, “until Samuel Huber (1547-1624) arrived on the scene” (p. 17). Contrary to misguided and unscholarly notions, Rydecki showed that "Huber's problem was not that he was a Universalist. It was that he strayed from proper Biblical exegesis of certain passages, including Romans 5:12-20. It was that he strayed from the common outline of forensic justification that requires the imputation, by faith, of Christ's righteousness in order for the sinner to be justified. It was that he strayed from the Lutheran teaching that 'restricts justification to believers only, as prescribed by all prophetic and apostolic Scriptures'" (p. 19).

All of the Colloquium presentations were well received by those in attendance. Each paper sparked interesting discussion and prompted unique insights. Pr. Rydecki’s paper on “Forensic Justification” elicited what seemed like distractions to this observer (comments about “objective/subjective” terminology and Synodical Conference theologians, which were nowhere to be found in the paper itself), but the feedback seemed to be generally positive from actual members of the diocese.

All in all, I have been impressed by the ELDoNA so far. I look forward to the rest of the Colloquium tomorrow and learning about how the rest of the Synod unfolds. Stay tuned for more information in the coming days.

Musings on Contemporary Worship

Last year at school we had Koiné come and lead chapel for us. It was held in the gym partly because that's the only place where the lights and sound equipment would work and partly because lots of area grade schools came. It was... interesting. The "service" consisted of confession and absolution, Bible passages being read, and lots of singing by Koine. It was more or less consistent with the stereotypical form of "contemporary worship." To me, it felt more like a concert than a worship service. Apparently the grade school kids felt the same way since they clapped throughout the service.

Why am I bringing this up? It exemplifies one of my concerns with contemporary worship. In contemporary worship, the service revolves around us and our feelings. The grade school kids clapped because it didn't seem like a church service to them. I mean, we don't get up and clap after the organist finishes a rousing hymn in church, do we?  But if you were in a gym with a band playing? Well clapping only seems normal, because the atmosphere is not one of worship. Koiné uses hymns, which is better than praise songs for sure, but the atmosphere still resembles that of a concert.

The informal quality of contemporary service is coupled by the lack of depth often found in its music.  I recently found a video on YouTube that shows just how shallow the lyrics in praise songs are. These praise songs always seem to be centered around being "lost in the moment" or "feeling God" in some shape or form. There also seems to be something on fire in every song. These songs often have little or no theological depth. Many of them are simply designed to be catchy, making you feel good, saved, and spiritual; they are simple enough so they can be sung without thinking about what is being sung. There's not much to think about when you say "hallelujah" over and over and over again. The reason these churches use contemporary worship is so they can get the people on a rush. Why do we feel the need to do the same when the doctrine behind it is so wrong?

Another thing to consider is the fact that when we use contemporary worship, it signifies a solidarity with the practice of the Reformed and Sacramentarian sects.  Doctrine and practice are linked, so we should make sure we don't send mixes signals by lauding Lutheran doctrine and counteracting it with sectarian practice.  We aren't in fellowship with sectarian churches, so we shouldn't worship like them. Actions speak louder than words. If we look like a Baptist church, what's to stop people from thinking that we believe what Baptist churches believe?  Also, if we use these practices long enough, they are bound to infect our doctrine. Lex orandi, lex credendi, after all.  While the slippery slope analogy can be dubious, Scripture does warn us that a little yeast leavens the whole lump.  If we think it's okay to mimic false teachers in one area, we shouldn't fancy ourselves immune from mimicking them in other areas as well.

Contemporary worship is not something we can define as "doing the same thing, but in a different way."  Don't get me wrong; I like variety in worship. I'm just opposed to letting the way we worship or the things we see in worship become contrary to what God says.  So, in conclusion, I suggest that we should just stay away from contemporary worship altogether.

I Weep, or Try to Weep

When I sat down to write this post, my original intention was to weigh in on the Lutheran Facebook community’s Controversy of the Week™ concerning sanctification, which itself stems from the ever-raging struggle between the Lutheran Church and antinomianism. I intended to delve into all the theological arguments one can find in Sacred Scripture, the Confessions, and the Fathers demonstrating the fact that sanctification is something that the Christian participates in, albeit all too feebly, as a result of the newness of his re-created life. This salutary synergism requires the third use of the Law, because the Law of God is good and right and salutary, for our benefit and edification, and guides us in holiness of living.

But I decided to take this post in a slightly different direction. In fact, the title of this post is one I was toying around with even before the latest flare-up of the sanctification controversy. It comes from St. Bernard of Morlaix's famous poem De Contemptu Mundi, known to us most commonly in the form of “Jerusalem the Golden,” though it also inspired a few other hymns in The Lutheran Hymnal (cf. TLH 448, 605, and 614).  It appears that the poem inspired something like 20 verses of hymnody under various titles. The verse I'd like to consider is based on 2 Corinthians 5:19, where St. Paul relates words he received from the Lord:  "My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness."  The text of the verse is as follows:

When in His strength I struggle, for very joy I leap;
When in my sin I totter, I weep, or try to weep:
And grace, sweet grace celestial, shall all its love display,
And David's royal fountain purge every stain away. 

Growing up, I used to (and still do) struggle a lot with the concept of “feeling bad” or, in the words of the hymn, "weeping" over my sin.  For whatever reason - be it seared or defective conscience, I really don’t know - I'll often do something that, though I know it is wrong on paper, I don’t feel any remorse for.  There are times that I have persisted in a sin and have repented only because I know it is an offense against God, not because I feel some overwhelming sense of sorrow about it in my heart. This lack of an emotional response to my sin often led me to despair and feeling as if I wasn’t really a Christian. After all, real Christians feel sorrow over their sins. Real Christians strike their breast in anguish and tear their robes when they’ve done something wrong. Real Christians are shaken to their core when they compare the Law of God to the sorry state of their pathetic, sinful lives. So if I don’t start vomiting every time I’m confronted with the reality of sin in my life - if I don’t feel sorry - I must not be genuinely repentant.

This was my way of thinking for the longest time, so I naturally felt like an inferior and unfaithful Christian.  This was obviously wrong-headed.  As it so happens, a couple of weeks ago I was listening to a podcast from the Issues, Etc. series on the Historic Liturgy; in this particular segment, Frs. Weedon and Wilken were expositing the confession of sins in the preparatory service that occurs before the Divine Service proper (as an aside, I highly recommend the Historic Liturgy series to anyone who is interested in the Divine Liturgy itself and Lutheran theology in general). The segment helped me put into words what was wrong with my former way of thinking.  In short: we can never have enough remorse for our sins. We can never feel guilty enough for the sins that drive us from the presence of God. We can never cry tears of agony that will ever match the severity of our sin. To suppose that we can weep long enough and hard enough over sin in the frailty of our impoverished mortality is to diminish the gravity of sin’s seriousness. After all, these sins caused the Creator of the universe to take on human flesh - and to die. These sins caused God Himself to die. No tears we shed can even come close to demonstrating this reality.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t feel guilty. It doesn’t mean that we should throw up our hands with an indifferent sigh of “oh well” or “why bother?” It does mean, however, that we shouldn’t navel-gaze to the point of despair because of something so foolish as not having despaired enough. Rather, we should confess our sins and confess our inability to feel sorry enough for them. To be clear, God won’t be mocked; He won’t accept a duplicitous confession. But if we honestly confess our sins, God will accept our confession, even if we are only trying to weep and not actually weeping.

This is why I find such comfort in the hymn verse previously quoted. When I totter in my sin, I “weep, or try to weep.” Yes, I can’t always weep - and that’s okay. Sometimes I just have to admit that to God too. And He will be merciful. He lived the perfect life I couldn’t. He felt the full weight of the sins that I all too flippantly dismiss. He sweated blood in the Garden on their account. His flesh was torn open for their consequences. And in these blessed wounds I find peace. From these blessed wounds flow that royal fount of David, the forgiveness of sins that covered me in Baptism and fill my ears and mouth and stomach in Word and Sacrament. “And grace, sweet grace celestial, will all its love display; and David’s royal fountain purge every stain away.”

To bring the post full circle, all of this ties in rather neatly into the sanctification debate. Even after I had my “confessional awakening,” I still struggled with the antinomian idea that I didn’t have to worry about holy living because it would all come naturally - good deeds would just flow from hearing the Gospel without any effort on my part. But...that didn’t seem to be happening. I didn’t see any change in my life. Where was the new man? I felt as if something was wrong with me for not feeling my sanctification, which was just supposed to happen all on its own. Have you noticed that italicized word elsewhere in this post? Yeah, feeling. The old evil foe loves to throw in the heresy of enthusiasm wherever he can, making us feel as if the true way to God is found in what we feel. The truth is that our feelings deceive us. God is found in the Word, not in feelings. God’s Word tells us that we are weak. Sanctification may be synergistic, but we are by no means pulling our own weight. God’s strength is what keeps us going. And it causes us to rejoice. “When in Your strength I triumph, for very joy I leap.”

God is found in the Word. So it is only natural to look to the holy Law of God to help us walk the path of righteousness. Yes, we should laud the Law for its third use. And if the third use of the Law is that of a guide, let us not forget that there is no greater Guide than Christ. He kept the Law for us perfectly. And because the Son of God has given us the right of heirship, it is okay to look to Him for guidance on how exactly we are supposed to live as sons of God.

Wait, what?

Wait, what do the Confessions supposedly say word for word? I went to a presentation tonight at Bethany Lutheran College (ELS), which I thought would be innocent, on the historicity of the Papacy. No big deal, right? Before it started, however, I was paging through the pamphlet. Sure enough, I came across the above, a manipulation of what the Confessions truly say. There were a lot of laymen and their families there, for whom I'm concerned. For all they knew, the quotation marks actually meant what quotation marks are supposed to mean.  But if you do a tiny bit of research or if you've ever read the Confessions, you'll IMMEDIATELY notice, like I did, that the Confessions say no such thing. Rather, the quotations were how they wish the Confessions were written. 

Now, yes, I know, I'm "judging motives" and claiming that this pamphlet was manipulative "on purpose," but what else am I supposed to think when it provides a series of "quotations" from the Confessions -- the Small Catechism -- that just aren't in the text, whether in a paraphrase or an actual quote.  The laymen and students that were in attendance are going home thinking that the Confessions actually say that "God...has acquitted all men of the guilt and punishment of their sins, and has imputed to them the righteousness of Christ" (bold is mine) -- word for word. If only there were citations? But there aren't because the Confessions, no where, teach as such. Now it wouldn't be a big deal if they went home knowing that about themselves (hence the present tense of AC IV, "when they believe"), but it is clear that it was meant to teach that it is the same for them (believers) as it is for the entire world (unbelievers). 

This is just another case of over-compensation for the UOJ paradigm, which must be maintained at all costs. It seems impossible for UOJ advocates to say that sinners are ONLY considered righteous by faith alone. Rather, they must twist and manipulate the minds of innocent sheep by changing what the Confessions, in the Small Catechism, do, truly, teach -- that sinners are only righteous in God's eyes when faith receives Christ's righteousness through faith, the righteousness that then covers that sinner. There's no distribution, imputation, giving out, or imparting of His righteousness apart from faith and the means of grace as opposed to what these UOJ enthusiasts teach in their own plain statements ("imputed to them the righteousness of Christ [without faith or the means of grace]") -- whether by individual teachers or official church documents. And if there's been no imputation of Christ's righteousness <b>by faith</b>, which alone protects against God's wrath, then the whole world of sinners can, in no way, be considered righteous by God without faith. It's just that simple. Kyrie, eleison.

On Forensic Justification and Its Relation to Regeneration

Back in November, a Facebook friend from the Eastern Church shared an interesting article in the comments of one of his status threads and asked if I had ever read it.  The article, entitled "Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther," postulates an interpretation of Luther's writings in which justification is more akin to the Eastern conception of "theosis" than to the Protestant theology of "forensic justification."  Having never read the article before, I offered a few of my initial reactions, which I will reproduce below.  With a significant amount of time having elapsed since I wrote the review in question, there are a few things I would have worded differently.  As such, I'm curious to know any thoughts that others may have with respect to both the article itself and my reaction:

Lutheran (and Luther's) view of justification is a forensic one, but the document referenced is useful in reminding us that this is only half the picture. God's declaration of righteousness is not [only] a cosmic facade in the sense that Protestant theology often imagines. When God declares us righteous, we are made righteous by the "washing and renewal of the Holy Spirit." Unlike our first birth in the image of Old Adam, God's efficacious Word recreates us in the image of the New Adam. The blood of Christ that covers our sin does not only makes us "appear" to be like God's Son, but it makes us His son inherently by giving us a new heart and nature - the righteousness of Christ. This is all accomplished by the Holy Spirit's gracious work through faith. 

[However,] In the Lutheran view, the distinction between forensic righteousness and inherent righteousness must be maintained, because on this side of the Parousia our inherent righteousness is incomplete. If we are judged by our inherent righteousness, the Old Adam that still lingers within would condemn us. This is why forensic justification - the all-encompassing merits of Christ - is that by which we are judged. At the same time, as the article points out, the righteousness that makes us forensically and inherently righteous are one and the same. They are Christ.

So Lutheran theology does not negate the importance and necessity of good works. Indeed, "faith alone justifies, but faith is never alone," as I have heard it said. Without good works, faith is dead and not salvific. Ultimately, I think these thoughts are best summarized by the Blessed Reformer himself, as cited in the Lutheran Confessions (one of my favorite excerpts): "Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changes us and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it [confers] the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, powerful thing that we have in faith, so that it is impossible for it not to do good without ceasing. Nor does it ask whether good works are to be done; but before the question is asked, it has wrought them, and is always engaged in doing them. But he who does not do such works is void of faith, and gropes and looks about after faith and good works, and knows neither what faith nor what good works are, yet babbles and prates with many words concerning faith and good works. [Justifying] faith is a living, bold [firm] trust in God's grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it [rather than suffer this trust to be wrested from him]. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire."  [FC:SD:IV:10-12] 

A Valediction to Ecclesia Augustana

I wrote in my previous post on my "encouragement" that I am willing to be corrected or instructed. Here I hope to make good on that statement.

That post was my revealing of a weak argument against me -- one that bent around a fairly elementary logical fallacy (guilt by association), one that felt slick with legalism, and was enforced argumentum ad consequentiam (an appeal to positive or negative consequences.) I'm not ashamed of what I wrote. But contrary to certain outside opinions going wild on this incident, this was not coercion or bullying. The episode stemmed from genuine concern about my present and future ministry, and I will repeat here one more time, I am genuinely grateful for that concern. Nevertheless, I wish such an episode of guilt-heaping (i.e. guilting and not even using God's Law to do so properly) shouldn't exist in the Lutheran church.

Since then, after much prayer, I have come to believe that I ought to retract my authorship here. To my co-authors, I'd like to give my sincere praise. It shows great spiritual maturity to be so interested and public about Lutheran dogma. This is a rare gem to see in the youth, and I wouldn't want this enthusiasm quashed. But I would also exhort these acquaintances to "watch their life and doctrine closely," particularly in what they choose to opine in public, and especially when using sensationalist words. Wise Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 10: Dead flies make a perfumer’s oil ferment and stink; so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.

I am rescinding my author status and disassociating with the blog "Ecclesia Augustana".

What, now, may happen to me? If my mere association here was so grave, will my past collaboration with these Ecclesia Augustana authors unnecessarily and unrighteously haunt me into the future? I pray no. If indeed I am promised "all is forgiven," I urge: don't later revoke or make hypothetical God’s own absolution. C.F.W. Walther says about forgiveness of sins:

"If the pastor strongly doubts the repentance and sincerity of a person confessing to him, without, however, being able to convict him of it and refuse absolution, [the pastor] dare not salve his own conscience by adding all sorts of conditions, or even warnings and threats, to the absolution." (Pastorale, p. 164. Emphasis mine)

The Elephant in the Room - 2 Corinthians 5:18-21

This is the third in a series of posts that seek to present key passages pertaining to the doctrine of Justification by comparing the statements of contemporary authors with the patristic writings of the the Church Catholic. It's by no means exhaustive; if it were, there would be far too many quotations for a simple blog post. But I hope it brings to mind a number of important questions: "Why is there so much disconnect? Why do the interpretations of these passages appear to completely contradict and disagree with one another?" (The first and second posts can be found here and here, respectively)

-- Interpretations of 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 by modern sources --

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod (1932)
"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." (http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=415)


Francis Pieper
"God no longer looks upon sinful man with wrath, but 'before His divine tribunal' forgives the sins of mankind, does not impute their trespasses unto them (2 Cor. 5:19). 'By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life' (Rom. 5:18). And this reconciliation is, as has been shown, complete and perfect, extensively and intensively, for we certainly have no right to restrict the meaning of of either the terms 'world' (2 Cor. 5:19) and 'all men' (Rom. 5:18) or the terms 'not imputing their trespasses' (2 Cor. 5:19) and 'justification' (Rom. 5:18). Nor do these passages speak merely of a new relation between God and man, but they state definitely that God’s action produced the new relation, God’s action in not imputing their sins unto men, in forgiving them their sins, in justifying men in His heart, this is the meaning of objective reconciliation, as taught in 2 Cor. 5:19, Rom. 5:18; 5:10; 4:25. CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS, by Francis Pieper, Volume 2, pages 398 & 399


Edward Preuss
So, then, we are reconciled (2 Cor. 5:18); however, not only we, but also Hindus, and Hottentots and Kafirs, yes, the world (2 Cor. 5:19). “Reconciled,” says our translation; the Greek original says: “placed in the right relation to God.” Because before the Fall we, together with the whole creation, were in the right relation to God, therefore Scripture teaches that Christ, through His death, restored all things to the former right relation to God. We, then, are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of Mercy, as in the beginning; yeah, in Christ, we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19)? This is not the justification which we receive by faith, but the one which took place before all faith."
(The Justification of the Sinner Before God)

Siegbert Becker
"Paul’s actual words say that God was reconciling the world to Himself not counting their sins against them. The only possible antecedent of “their” in that sentence is “the world,” and the world certainly includes all men. What Paul actually says, therefore, is that God does not count the sins of all men against them. In his letter to the Romans the apostle indicates beyond question that not to count a man’s sin against him means to forgive his sin. Paul writes, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” We are therefore justified in saying that Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:19 teaches that in Christ God has indeed forgiven the sins of the whole world. God reconciled the world to Himself by forgiving the sins of all men." (www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckerUniversal.rtf)


J.P. Meyer

"Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner's attitude toward Christ's sacrifice, purely on the basis of God's verdict, every sinner, whether he knows about it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint. What will be his reaction when he is informed about this turn of events? Will he accept, or will he decline?"
J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963, p. 103f. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

John Moldstad Jr.

“When Paul uses the word ‘reconciling’ here, [2 Corinthians 5:19] he clearly means that forgiveness of sins is really imputed to ‘the world.’"
Lutheran Sentinel, October, 1996, p. 11

--Interpretations of 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 in the writings of the Orthodox Lutheran Fathers--

The Wittenberg Faculty Writing against Huber's "Universal Justification"

“Never does Paul teach universal justification. For as far as concerns 2 Corinthians 5, the words ‘not imputing their trespasses unto them,’ they are not to be understood universally about all men regardless of faith.”

Actorum Huberianorum pars prior. Durch die Württembergischen Theologen Pars posterior, p. 122

Martin Chemnitz

"10 Now this power of forgiving sin must not be understood to have been given to the priests in such a way that God had renounced it for Himself and had simply transferred it to the priests, with the result that in absolution it is not God Himself but the priest who remits sin. For Paul expressly distinguishes between the power and efficacy of reconciliation which belongs to God, and the ministry which was given to the apostles, so that it is God who reconciles the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19) and forgives sins (Is. 43:25), not however without means but in and through the ministry of Word and sacrament.

Ministers indeed are said to loose and remit sins on account of the keys, that is, because they have the ministry through which God reconciles the world to Himself and remits sins. Thus Paul says (2 Cor. 1:24) that although he has authority, he nevertheless does not lord it over their faith but is a servant and steward of the mysteries of Christ (1 Cor. 4:1), so that he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but He who gives the increase, namely God (1 Cor. 3:7). Nevertheless, he shows that the use of the ministry is useful and necessary, for, says he, we are co-workers, that is, assistants, whose labors God uses in the ministry, but where nevertheless all the efficacy belongs to Him. We are servants, says he, through whom you have believed. Likewise: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). Paul treats this distinction clearest of all in 2 Cor. 5:18–20. It is God who reconciles us to Himself through Christ, not counting our sins against us. To the apostles, however, He gave the ministry of reconciliation. But how so? “He entrusted to us,” says Paul, “the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

Thus this distinction honors God and gives Him the glory that properly belongs to Him; it also claims for the ministry the honor and authority it has according to the Word of God. For even as it is Christ who baptizes through the ministry and also imparts His body and blood, so also it is Christ who through the ministry absolves and remits sins.

Chemnitz, M., & Kramer, F. (1999). Vol. 2: Examination of the Council of Trent (electronic ed.) (559–560). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. (HT: http://www.faithalonejustifies.com/reconciling-the-world-but-not-without-means/)

Philip Melanchthon

"2 Corinthians 5:19

…not imputing their sins to them.

This demonstrates what the effect is of the reconciliation made by the Son. For since God the Father transferred the sins of us all from us to the Son so that He might pay for us the penalty for sins and in this way reconcile again the offended Father, the eternal Father now does not impute sins to those who believe in His Son; He regards them as righteous on account of the obedience and intercession of His Son. For the righteousness of man which God regards as righteousness is that sins are remitted, are not imputed and are covered, as Paul defines righteousness in Romans 4, citing Psalm 32. Therefore, the effect of reconciliation is that sins are not imputed; instead, the faith that embraces Christ the Reconciler is imputed for righteousness.

And He placed among us, etc.

That is, He instituted the ministry of teaching about the reconciliation made through the death of the Son. For God wants it announced to the entire human race that reconciliation has been made by the Son, so that sins are not imputed to believers; instead, righteousness is imputed to them, and thus believers are saved. For this reason, among the ruins of the empires and so many sects and heresies, God has to this day wondrously preserved this ministry, and will continue to preserve it until the end of the world and the advent of His Son, as Paul says, “You shall announce the death of the Lord until He comes.”

(http://www.faithalonejustifies.com/philip-melanchthon-on-2-corinthians-519/)

St. Augustine

He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. 2 Corinthians 5:19...But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701087.htm>.