Objective justification and eternal damnation

[Till]

Correct me if I am wrong but - based on my reading of Francis Pieper - my understanding of the Lutheran teaching of what the Gospel is, is:

Jesus Christ objectivily reconciled the entire World with God - Himself! The Gospel is the message of this objective justification of the whole world which happened on Calvary.

Now whoever believes the Gospel is saved and experiences subjective justification, who ever does not believe is not saved.

On what grounds would God judge non-believers as Jesus has already taken away their sin and has already reconciled them with God?

[seajoy]

On what grounds would God judge non-believers as Jesus has already taken away their sin and has already reconciled them with God?
What ever happened to "because God says that's the way it is"? That's what I learned in LCMS parochial school when I was a kid....seems to still work well. :)

[Zecryphon]

My understanding is that if we have not received the gift of faith from God, we are under the law and that is what God will use to judge those who are not saved. Also, I don't believe that Jesus saved everyone with His death on the cross. I believe He made it possible for people to be saved. Salvation is still God's work through Jesus Christ and through His giving us the gift of faith.

If Jesus saved everyone with His death on the cross, why are there verses in the Bible that tell us not everyone will be saved? Why the need to go engage in the Great Comission and Baptizing people in the faith, if everyone is already saved? Your reading of Pieper seems to come to the conclusion that he is promoting Universalism.

[LilLamb219]

What damns us is rejection. If we don't believe, then we reject.

[Till]

If Jesus saved everyone with His death on the cross, why are there verses in the Bible that tell us not everyone will be saved? Why the need to go engage in the Great Comission and Baptizing people in the faith, if everyone is already saved? Your reading of Pieper seems to come to the conclusion that he is promoting Universalism.

No that is not what I mean. Pieper makes the distinction between objective justification and subjective justification. And states that God has objectivily been reconciled with the World through JEsus Christ 1970 years ago.

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 whereas God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us.
As Pieper says it (translation mine): Thus clearly do Scriptures testify towards the objective reconciliation of all human beings with God. Through Christ one and forever."

Pieper then goes on to say that the Gosple is the message of this reconcilation which has happened in the past. A mesage that calls to faith and this faith is bringing the subjective justification.

Paul's words are also pointing to that:

2Co 5:20 Then we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as God exhorting through us, we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

See also
Dr. Robert Preus on Justification
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/jmc00225.htm


Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ. Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work "before" we come to faith in Christ.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It has always been my understanding that while Christ died for ALL mankind, this salvation is a gift freely given to us by God.

As with all gifts, we can not choose to have it given to us. That is entirely up to the giver. We can however choose not to receive (reject) it.

For example, is someone wanted to give me a book, and I said "I don't want the book."; I would not be able to read it. It's the same with God's grace.

Mark

[Till]

It has always been my understanding that while Christ died for ALL mankind, this salvation is a gift freely given to us by God.

As with all gifts, we can not choose to have it given to us. That is entirely up to the giver. We can however choose not to receive (reject) it.

For example, is someone wanted to give me a book, and I said "I don't want the book."; I would not be able to read it. It's the same with God's grace.

Mark

Yes, bu then I would not be without the book. It is different.

God says: " I have forgiven you in my heart and I myself have carried your sin and have died for you"
Humans can reject it but that could not change the fact that God has already forigven, can it? And if God punished the unbeliever how can he do this as Christ has already carried the punishment on our behalf? Does God punish twice?

Do you see my point? There is a logical inconsistency in the doctrine of universal justification which logically can only be soved by either accepting universal salvation or limited extent of the atonement.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes, bu then I would not be without the book. It is different.

God says: " I have forgiven you in my heart and I myself have carried your sin and have died for you"
Humans can reject it but that could not change the fact that God has already forigven, can it? And if God punished the unbeliever how can he do this as Christ has already carried the punishment on our behalf? Does God punish twice?

Do you see my point? There is a logical inconsistency in the doctrine of universal justification which logically can only be soved by either accepting universal salvation or limited extent of the atonement.

No one, not even God can give you something that you do not want.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Let me try it this way...

Given that God is our Father, we have no choice in the matter regarding who our father is, just as we can not choose our birth parent. We are their child.

We can rebel against our parent(s), and reject them, and become estranged from them.

Same with God.

[filosofer]

Do you see my point? There is a logical inconsistency in the doctrine of universal justification which logically can only be soved by either accepting universal salvation or limited extent of the atonement.

Actually that is not the only way to solve it, as that dichotomy reflects Calvin's theology.

It is not universal salvation, rather universal or better, objective justification, which is not identical with universal salvation. Likewise, the atonement is for the entire world, not limited (1 John 2:1-2, etc.). The effects of the atonement are only received by those who believe (Mark 16:16, etc.), and thus, are limited, not because the atonement is limited, but because the application is limited by unbelief. And everyone starts at the point of unbelief.

As for those who haven't heard the Gospel, note carefully what Paul wrote in Romans 2. Everyone has the law, whether written in the Scriptures or written in the heart. Law can point the way to heaven, but its demands are absolute: be perfect. Thus, it doesn't matter which law condemns (Scriptural or natural) both are damning for humans. Only the Gospel can save. And God's desire is to save all people (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

This means that if we take seriously these truths, we sense the urgency of mission/evangelism because that is God's desire, it reflects his heart, and drives what we are to do (Matt. 28:18-20).

Note:

Who we are: worshipers of God through/because of Jesus Christ (Word and Sacrament)

What we do: evangelize the world about God's grace in Jesus Christ (Word and Sacrament)

[Till]

Thank you filosofer and Mark,

It is of course indeed Calvinist thought world were this has coming from. I am trying to convince some people that Christ died for the whole world.


And everyone starts at the point of unbelief.



No one, not even God can give you something that you do not want.


We can rebel against our parent(s), and reject them, and become estranged from them.




Now, I understand all those. But Isaiah 53 states regarding what the atonement was:


5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.




So Jesus bore the punishment for the sin of the whole world. Those who believe it are saved. Those who do not believe are damned and punished. Punished for waht? punished for the same sin again? Then sin would get punished two times!?

[filosofer]

There is only one punishment for sin, although there may be consequences of sin prior to that. I'm not sure how you see them punished twice. Their rejection means that they did not accept the punishment that was laid on the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. Can you expand that? Thanks.

[Zecryphon]

There is only one punishment for sin, although there may be consequences of sin prior to that. I'm not sure how you see them punished twice. Their rejection means that they did not accept the punishment that was laid on the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. Can you expand that? Thanks.



What I see Till saying is that when Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world, everyone was forgiven because of that sacrifice. If people do not accept that sacrifice, they then lose the salvation that was won at Calvary and are now condemned to pay for the sin that was already forgiven, themselves. They are being punished for sins that were already forgiven because they later rejected Christ's sacrifice.

[Till]

There is only one punishment for sin, although there may be consequences of sin prior to that. I'm not sure how you see them punished twice. Their rejection means that they did not accept the punishment that was laid on the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. Can you expand that? Thanks.



Well, I regard damnation as the second punishment.

Sure, unbelievers do not accept what Christ did for them but that would just leave them separated from God. Scriptures say though that unbelievers will get judged accorindg to their deeds. So they would get judged and punished for the sins for which Jesus was already punished.

[filosofer]

That is correct, because they did not receive what Jesus already accomplished.


they then lose the salvation that was won at Calvary

Actually this goes back to my first post in this thread. They did not "lose" salvation, they never had it. The key is that they did not receive the benefits of justification, which means they continue through their unbelief in the condemned state in which they were born, and so were not and are not saved. But the justification is still accomplished. Should the Holy Spirit work faith in them, then at that point justification is applied (subjective) and they are saved.

[DaRev]

It's like this...

There's a boy who has a birthday coming up. His parents decide to buy him a bicycle for his birthday. They buy it, they pay for it, they do the work of putting it together, and on his birthday they present it to him.

Now one might ask at which point does that bicycle belong to that boy. Some may say that it belongs to him when his parents gave it to him or when he accepted it from them. The reality, though, is that the bicycle was his at the moment his parents bought and paid for it. They didn't buy it for themsleves. In fact, they may have referred to it as "Johnny's bicycle" even before they presented it to him. It was already his, he owned that bicycle. He just didn't know it until it was presented to him. He didn't have to pay for it or do anything to have it. All that was done for him, even without his knowledge.

Our faith and salvation from God is the same way. God made the decision, Christ paid for it by His work on the cross, and that salvation won at Calvary is ours. It belongs to us, to everyone.
There is a time in our lives where that gift is presented to us. We call that conversion. Some of us were raised from infancy knowing that we have that gift, that we already have possession of it. Others don't find out until some time in their lives. The gift is presented in the proclamation of the Gospel. St. Paul writes in Romans 10:17, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

Now, Johnny owns that bicycle. He owned it even before he was aware of it. He did nothing to possess it. He didn't have to "accept" it to have ownership of it.
But he does have the ability to reject it and say he doesn't want it. By doing so, he does not receive any benefit from having the bicycle. In the same way, he also got no benefit from it before his birthday and before his parents presented it to him. We can't really benefit from something we don't even know we have.

Again, our faith is the same way. There are many (sadly) who have actively rejected this gift from God, and thus reject the benefits of everlasting life. And even more sad are those who have yet to even hear that they have this gift, and thus cannot benefit from it either. (Read Romans 10:13-17)

Our salvation is a gift. It has already been given to us at the cross. We already own it. We don't need to ask for it or choose it or accept it because we already have possession of it.

[LutheranMafia]

Most of these answers sound like an analogy that is strictly limited to the tooth-decay model of sin, but I think Till is addressing something different.

It is not universal salvation, rather universal or better, objective justification, which is not identical with universal salvation. Likewise, the atonement is for the entire world, not limited (1 John 2:1-2, etc.). [B]The effects of the atonement are only received by those who believe (Mark 16:16, etc.), and thus, are limited, not because the atonement is limited, but because the application is limited by unbelief. And everyone starts at the point of unbelief.
I disagree, if Jesus had not made the sacrifice that he did what would the world be like today? While the damned are still going to die the second death eventually, their lives are better than they would have been if everything had gone to Hell 1000 or 2000 years ago.

[filosofer]

But do you have Biblical support for your disagreement?

[LutheranMafia]

Biblical support for what, the assertion that the world is a completely different place as a result of what Jesus did? This assertion is supported by the whole of the NT. Your argument here is essentially that Jesus' actions did not have a meaningful impact on somebody in this world. Even many non-Christians would raise an eyebrow at this, Biblical support is not essential in the face of common sense questions.

[Zecryphon]

Biblical support for what, the assertion that the world is a completely different place as a result of what Jesus did? This assertion is supported by the whole of the NT. Your argument here is essentially that Jesus' actions did not have a meaningful impact on somebody in this world. Even many non-Christians would raise an eyebrow at this, Biblical support is not essential in the face of common sense questions.

So where in the whole of the NT is it stated that the world is better off because of Jesus being sacrificed at Calvary? Scriptures please, not your "common sense" answers.

[LutheranMafia]

Can you claim otherwise and still call yourself a Christian?

OK, you win, the world is no better off because of Jesus. Happy now???

[seajoy]

While the damned are still going to die the second death eventually, their lives are better than they would have been if everything had gone to Hell 1000 or 2000 years ago.
In Scripture, where does it say that unbelievers are better off, since they still don't have Jesus?

[RadMan]

LM makes some kind of weird sense when you compare it to Morphopological attenuated Spectral analysis under the auspices of Chrankadologial Tratercian logic. :hypno: You are getting sleepy

[seajoy]

LM makes some kind of weird sense when you compare it to Morphopological attenuated Spectral analysis under the auspices of Chrankadologial Tratercian logic. :hypno: You are getting sleepy
I took a 2 hour nap this evening....trust me...I'm not sleepy. :) But somehow I do understand your post. ;)

[Till]

LM makes some kind of weird sense when you compare it to Morphopological attenuated Spectral analysis under the auspices of Chrankadologial Tratercian logic. :hypno: You are getting sleepy

That is exactlty what I thought as well RadMan.

But we also shouldn't forget that the Carphiogical Assemptinuation is coming in here as well and when that goes together with Hyonological Stema, God knows what could happen.

[Edial]

...

On what grounds would God judge non-believers as Jesus has already taken away their sin and has already reconciled them with God?
Interesting question and some very good explanations in this thread.

JN 16:5 "Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, `Where are you going?' 6 Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guiltin regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

(I also was looking for another clear verse where it was stating that men's sin would be that they do not believe in Christ. I could not find it).

The sin of a man is that he did not believe in Christ (v.9).

I see it this way.
When all the books will be opened (Rev.20:12) and man would be judged at the Great White Throne Judgement, the deeds would be recalled.
And based on these deeds man would be condemned.

But not all deeds of a non-believer are bad, one would object.

According to Paul below, any deed, however good is a "rubbish" when there is no Christ. And Paul listed some great deeds that he had.

PHP 3:4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
PHP 3:7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

When a man does good that is outside of God's timing, it is not good.

In my opinion, the good example of this would be Judas' complaint against Christ that the woman who poured the expensive nard to annoint Jesus should have had the nard sold and the disciples could have distributed the money to the poor.

Jesus plainly rebuked Judas that the poor will always be with us, but He will not.

Judas "proposed" a good deed, Christ said that there is time and a priority for everything. That nard was meant for Him.

There is time for everything.

ECC 3:1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
ECC 3:2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
ECC 3:3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
ECC 3:4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
ECC 3:5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
ECC 3:6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
ECC 3:7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
ECC 3:8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

There is also a priority factor.
Below, we see an example of having love or all the good deeds are worthless.

1CO 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Of course we are to help the poor, but we are to do this out of agape love, otherwise it is no longer a good work, but a "mishna", as the Judaics call the good works.

And refusal to believe IN the Source of Love, who is Christ, is sin, which taints all that we do.

That's my take on it.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Till]

Thanks Ed!

See this all makes perfect sense to me and I know exactly that the Bible testifies that

a) Christ died for all the world meaning all humans
b) Whoever believes is saved

I personally do not need to know more than that and I do not care if it does not seem logically coherent to me. My Calvinist friends do though.

When they read:

The sin of a man is that he did not believe in Christ (v.9).


They will say: Yeah, but if Christ died for all sins, that would mean he also died for the sind of unbelief. How can anyway get condemned for unbelief then.

See for them it needs to be completely logically coherent this is why they came up with things like limited atonement (Christ did only die for the elect), irrestisible grace and perseverance of the saints (the elect will definitely get saved because God will work on their heart with irresisitble grace and because it is impossible for them to turn away from God).

[Zecryphon]

Can you claim otherwise and still call yourself a Christian?

OK, you win, the world is no better off because of Jesus. Happy now???

Why do you behave like a child every time you're asked to provide scriptural support for your assertions? Are you gonna fall on the floor and kick your feet too? Can you provide scriptural support for your assertion or not? This isn't a difficult request to fulfill. If you can't, say you can't and stop with the drama.

To be called a Christian, you have to confess Christ as Savior and Lord. It has NOTHING to do with believing that "the whole of the NT testifies to the "fact" that the world is better off today as a result of Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary" which is your unfounded and as of now, still unsupported assertion.

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

Let's keep it nice in here! Please! I'm cranky today! :sorry:

MOD HAT OFF

[porterross]

It always saddens me to realize that so many people see Christ's sacrifice as some sort of magic trick.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

LM makes some kind of weird sense when you compare it to Morphopological attenuated Spectral analysis under the auspices of Chrankadologial Tratercian logic. :hypno: You are getting sleepy

Man, that's deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

[Edial]

Thanks Ed!

See this all makes perfect sense to me and I know exactly that the Bible testifies that

a) Christ died for all the world meaning all humans
b) Whoever believes is saved

I personally do not need to know more than that and I do not care if it does not seem logically coherent to me. My Calvinist friends do though.

When they read:

The sin of a man is that he did not believe in Christ (v.9).

They will say: Yeah, but if Christ died for all sins, that would mean he also died for the sind of unbelief. How can anyway get condemned for unbelief then.

See for them it needs to be completely logically coherent this is why they came up with things like limited atonement (Christ did only die for the elect), irrestisible grace and perseverance of the saints (the elect will definitely get saved because God will work on their heart with irresisitble grace and because it is impossible for them to turn away from God).
Calvinists are getting Scripturally "insane" (no insult intended.)

They perceive that their logic is omniscient, omnipotent and just.

Yet, they forget God's logic.

ISA 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
ISA 1:19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;
ISA 1:20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Where is Calvinism in Isaiah?
.....
So, they say that Christ died for the sin of "unbelief". How did they come up with this? Their "logic"?

Let them explain then that there are indeed sins that will never be forgiven, like this one ...

MT 12:31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

I usually feel bad for people who are misled.
For some odd reason I do not feel bad for the Calvinists, I feel bad for the Calvinists who are misled, but not for their teachers.
Not one bit.

Their Limited Atonement figment-of-an-imagination-of-a-doctrine, which is based on their "logic" (not ONE verse that states that Christ died ONLY for the elect vs tons of texts saying that Christ died for ALL) does much damage to the Christendom, trains echelons of bright self-flattering young mavericks who have NO IDEA of the depth of the Bible yet memorized the 5-Point-Mantra and know it better than the Lord's Prayer.

Calvinism is a shallow Christianity, which is led by some who destroy the beauty and depth of the Bible that they swallowed by their "logic".
Their followers think they KNOW the Bible because they no longer need to rely on God's grace in a context that there are things that they might not know.

To them knowledge is salvation.
I do not buy when they say that they have the doctrines of Grace.

I am angry. It will pass.

Thanks,
Ed

[LutheranMafia]

In Scripture, where does it say that unbelievers are better off, since they still don't have Jesus?Who is going to be better off in a damned world where everything is going down the tubes? I just don't even understand the concept, even the Nazi's hated the German government by the end. Everyone fairs better when sane people are in control, and when the mob rules everyone suffers by the foolish decisions.

The Bible does not pretend to hold our hands through every nuance of common sense. Do you want God or do you want a baby sitter? God is not a baby sitter. Without common sense no sense can be made of the Bible, so to demand that every aspect of common sense be delineated in the Bible is basically abdicating any attempt to really understand the Bible.

[seajoy]

Who is going to be better off in a damned world where everything is going down the tubes? I just don't even understand the concept, even the Nazi's hated the German government by the end. Everyone fairs better when sane people are in control, and when the mob rules everyone suffers by the foolish decisions.

The Bible does not pretend to hold our hands through every nuance of common sense. Do you want God or do you want a baby sitter? God is not a baby sitter. Without common sense no sense can be made of the Bible, so to demand that every aspect of common sense be delineated in the Bible is basically abdicating any attempt to really understand the Bible.
Without the Holy Spirit, no sense can be made of the Bible.

[LutheranMafia]

Without the Holy Spirit, no sense can be made of the Bible.:clap::clap::clap: This is by far the most sober comment anyone has made on this subject so far!!!

Granted, what passes for common sense among many is often a materialist sense of reasoning in many ways, as opposed to a grounded understanding of the spirit of the issue, but I am speaking in a Lutheran context where I believe that the common sense of the majority is quite often very spiritually grounded.

[Till]

I am angry. It will pass.

Thanks,
Ed

Thank you Ed!

I realize you have made similar experiences as I do. It is so frustrating. Until recently I thought Calvinism and Lutheranism are almost the same. I mean I grew up in one of those united churches which were created in different German states in the 19th century by uniting Lutheran and Reformed churches - these unions which were forced by the Monarchs were the reason for the separation of some Lutherans from the state churches and the background of the LCMS but that is another story. Anyway, I thought Reformed and Lutheran is pretty much the same till I learned more about "real" Calvinism as it is promoted by Conservative Presbyterian churches in the US. Now I think it is two different worlds.

Anyway I have found a solution to the frustration these dicussions cause. Stop them.

[LutheranMafia]

I thought Reformed and Lutheran is pretty much the same till I learned more about "real" Calvinism as it is promoted by Conservative Presbyterian churches in the US. Now I think it is two different worlds.Like night and day. My family always hated the Reformed evangelicals and charismatic non-denominational groups that hijacked the term evangelism to mean zealot fanaticism.

[RadMan]

It always saddens me to realize that so many people see Christ's sacrifice as some sort of magic trick..........or a Neuterological Messistophian manifest. et al, ibid. obsit, etc.