Phil Walker has just commented on an earlier post saying that one place that he would really not want to go with Lutheranism is 'universal justification'. As someone who is quite new to Lutheranism I was pleased for someone to give me a name for something that I had already detected as lying behind much of the discussion of baptism I have been reading. Phil probably should not get too concerned just yet, but a brief bit of internet surfing has brought up this helpful definition which I post here so I can refer to it later when I have time to properly think about it.
By "objective" or "universal" justification one means that God has declared the whole world to be righteous for Christ's sake and that righteousness has thus been procured for all people. It is objective because this was God's unilateral act prior to and in no way dependent upon man's response to it, and universal because all human beings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ's sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:24; 4:25; 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)
Sounds like universal salvation, but it's not. Put that in your theological pipe and smoke it.
I suspect selfish posting like this is what means I will never get very high in Technorati rankings, so it is a good thing I reconciled myself a long time ago to using this blog as a electronic notebook which other people can read if they wish.
Could you explain what the difference is between universal salvation and universal justification or forgiveness?
ReplyDeleteIt would make sense coming from a Roman Catholic view (It's actually something quite empowering and attractive to me about catholicism), but from a lutheran?
I'm sure they sell theological pipes in oxford...
ReplyDeleteThe reason I wouldn't want to go there is because I cannot for the life of me see how that doesn't throw the responsibility for salvation completely onto a sinner's own shoulders. Lutherans say it doesn't, but I just don't see it, and the very thought that my salvation is in my own hands terrifies me.
ReplyDeleteSo they use the language of "applying justification to oneself" [e.g.], but the way I see it, it is the Holy Spirit who applies justification to us. It is improper to speak in any sense of a sinner applying justification to himself, and unhelpful to speak thus of the regenerate.
Argh... I'm getting asked questions on a post which for me was just meant to be a marker post from where I can venture out and explore the territory.
ReplyDeleteI could venture a answer to your question Chris, but I'm not certain that it would be correct. Maybe I'll get to it eventually.
I'm not sure what you mean by the RC view. I'm not too hot on RC theology. I'd be interested if you’ve got time to expand.
Phil, I definitely get your concerns. Although I find it fascinating that you choose to fight your battle on Lutheranism's home turf: assurance.
I don't like the language of "applying justification to oneself" either. But I'm not sure how representative that is of Lutheranism. Lutherans would no doubt assure you that you are right to worry if salvation is in your own hands, but that it isn't because you have already been justified and brought from death to life in Christ's death and resurrection and this was acquired for you by the 'pronouncement of forgiveness' at your baptism (and in confession and absolution which repeats that event). Have faith that this is yours, not because faith is a condition, but because it is already true.
... but you and I can probably see the problem here... you feel almost like you are being told a fairy story to help you get off to sleep (i.e. be assured of your salvation), when in fact if you haven't accepted that Jesus died for you then it is not true for you (although in some way it is).... argh... it makes no sense!!
Too often I feel that Lutheranism says wonderfully true things and with gusto, but it doesn’t like you to probe and ask questions. This has been true from Luther and Melancthon, and it is great because it keeps your focus on Jesus and refuses to let you to go wandering off. But at the same time it seems slightly intellectually dishonest… am I making sense?
Just read Dave Bish's blog. His quote from CS Lewis is a fairly good example of what is meant by universal justification:
ReplyDelete"In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: 'What are you asking God to do?' To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficult and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does." (The problem of pain, p130)
Seifrid likes to point out that the resurrection is where we are justified (Romans 4:25) but before that it is God's justification in his contention with our sinful world which crucified our maker. That same event is both our justification and condemnation... if we judge ourselves as condemned then we are justified, if we don't judge ourselves as being dead with Jesus in 30AD then we won't be... and foolishness of foolishness that is our loss.
yes you are making sense.
ReplyDeleteI'll leave the RC question while I go and think. That was an aside, really. It certainly tallies with Tom Wright's view of "end of exile" as "the-forgiveness-of-sins". And I agree it's Lewis' emphasis, for unbelievers to feel the impact of the free offer in the gospel - suddenly they're invited to imagine receiving it. It's not so far off.
but in the process of bridging the gap, perhaps he unwittingly invites the unbeliever to imagine being a believer at the cost of constructing a bridge that wasn't there? I guess that's the question.
this made me think: what's the difference? (it's probably "eschatology stupid", but WWLS?
ReplyDeleteby the way, I've always wondered, is the tower at the top of your page l'hôtel de ville
in brussels?
Really interesting. Reminds me of this famous sermon. Name the preacher:
ReplyDelete“Dear brothers and sisters, where do we stand now? One thing is certain: the bright day has dawned, the sun of God does shine into our dark lives, even though we may close our eyes to its radiance. His voice does call us from heaven, even though we may obstruct our ears. The bread of life is offered to us, even though we are inclined to clench our fists instead of opening our hands to take the bread and eat it. The door of our prison is open, even though, strangely enough, we prefer to remain within. God has put the house in order, even though we like to mess it up all over again. By grace you have been saved! – this is true, even though we may not believe it, may not accept it as valid for ourselves and unfortunately in doing so may forego its benefits.”
Chris,
ReplyDeleteThanks as ever for your thoughtful interaction. I never thought this post would get so many comments!
You are right to draw the connection with Tom Wright (as always someone has been there before us: in this case John). But I'm not sure how far it gets us.
I appreciate your thought about the bridge that wasn’t there. Although for me the biggest problem is the problem that Reformed theology has solved with the doctrine of the limited atonement. Although I am not a big fan of how the doctrine is often described it does make the bridge between us and Christ’s work a strong one-to-one relationship. We are saved eternally because we given faith by the Holy Spirit which we were given because we were justified in Christ’s death. It is neat 1-1-1, past-present-future, rock solid foundation. Until you start questioning whether you are part of the elect that is!
As for what Luther would say to John Calvin, I am nervous to say. I love the Calvin quote though. Calvin was scarily clever and shows it in the quote. So 'the condemnation of all men was manifested' and 'salvation restored to [how many?] men'. Does he mean 'all men' or 'the elect'. I don’t know. I need to read some more Calvin again. But I think you have stumbled on the long running debate of whether Calvin was a Calvinist, which has centred on the doctrine of limited atonement. I will carry on thinking.
As for the tower it is nowhere so glamorous as Brussels, and reflects my parochialness. There are a couple of churches in York with these lamps on the top of their tower. This is All Saints, Pavement (picture here where you can see how it is slightly strangely plonked on top of the church). I love it because I love York and walk past it every working day, so it has a personal connection. I also love the positive architectural representation of the church not hiding the light of the gospel under a bushel. Public truth in a dark world.
Glen,
I cheated and googled it. I wouldn't have got it otherwise. Interestingly it led me to a post on the same theme and where you commented. You seem to say in your comments what I would want to say but much better. I appreciated them.
The Gospel is awesome! I love meditating on the fact that the work has been done and we have nothing to add. But I suppose my main concern could be summarised in this: the doctrine of universal justification presents God’s work as done, and bizarrely this can be a negative thing. To avoid this doctrine resulting in universal salvation we end up emphasising our response as originating in us. We choose to respond or not. I saw this in Melanchton’s 1543 Loci that I was reading last night. The doctrine has trouble dealing with the Father calling the elect, giving us new birth and the Holy Spirit because that means God is doing something for some and not others.
yes, I feel the same tension.
ReplyDeleteI comfort myself by thinking faith does not originate in myself. Just as 'receiving' a gift does not originate in myself. Receiving a gift is no innate capacity that I exercise. Even the receiving of it is a potential that has to be brought to me in the giving of the gift.
And once it's received it's no part of my glory that I've done so!
(cf Eph 2:8-9 - where "this" refers grammatically to the whole dynamic of grace through faith.)
also, at least the Lutheran can truly blame the unbeliever for their unbelief!
ReplyDelete