Kindle version: http://www.amazon.com/The-Plan-of-Salvation-ebook/dp/B004IK94V4

Ok, here are my two cents for what its worth, since I was asked. There are certain terms that are used in Scripture multiple ways. Sanctification for example can be used to refer to a past event in Christ, or an ongoing action performed by the Spirit. A failure to acknowledge this had caused this whole controversy over sanctification and good works in the first place. The word Law is used at times to refer to the Old Testament, other times it is used to refer to commands.

Justification is the same. Most of the time, the term refers to what the sinner receives through faith alone, but other times it can refer to a past event (the resurrection) or a future event (eschatological vindication). N.T. Wright has often spoken about this; justification is a past, present, and future reality. For all of my disagreements, I think he is right on this point.

Christ’s resurrection is his vindication by God. It is the vindication of who he is, of his sinless life, victory on the cross, and accomplishment of salvation. Through humanity’s solidarity with Christ, humanity itself is vindicated. I would place this in Irenaeus’ framework of the Adam/Christ parallel, wherein Christ serves not only as a representative of the new humanity, but a solitary person in which the new humanity begins and realizes itself. Thus, by participation in humanity, all in a sense participate in what Christ did to humanity through his life, death, and resurrection.

Reformed scholar Richard B. Gaffin has done some work on this, connecting Christ’s vindication in 1 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 5. Paul speaks of Christ’s resurrection as our justification (Rom 4:25). Through humanity’s solidarity with Christ, his vindication becomes the vindication of humanity, or the justification of humanity. Gaffin of course connects this only to the elect, believing in limited atonement. Since I don’t agree with that, but think his exegesis is spot on regarding this, this would mean that all of humanity has been justified through Christ’s resurrection.

I would then point to Romans 5:18, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” The most obvious way to read this text is to take the Adam/Christ parallel at face value. Adam brought sin and death to all. Christ, encompassing all of humanity in himself, brought justification (vindication) and life to all men. I take this “one act of righteousness” to be his resurrection which is identified with justification in 4:25.

I think theologians are right to recognize that Paul utilizes the term justification in at least two different senses. It can refer to what happened to all men in Christ at the resurrection (objective justification) and what happens to those who have faith (subjective justification). And as I pointed out previously, it can also refer to one’s eschatological vindication, though that isn’t part of this particular dispute.

Personally, I don’t see this as a Confessional issue. I think Lutherans can have genuine disagreement here so long as both sides agree that Christ’s death and resurrection were done on behalf of all people, and that the benefits of Christ’s work must be received by faith. I think that people are too quick to throw condemnations around in this debate, which is why I have largely avoided it. But, since I was asked, these are my thoughts.

http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/tag/objectivesubjective-justification/

From a Lutheran perspective , Is the world including you and I already forgiven and it is simply a matter of individually grasping that gift by faith ..Or is it that we are not forgiven until the moment of our conversion ..I heard a Lutheran Pastor state that both heaven and hell are populated with forgiven people the difference is that those in hell rejected the gift .Can you give me any scripture that might help me ..thanks .. A

Dear A,

You’re giving me a chance to have my very own Greek Tuesday. 🙂

The idea that you’re thinking of is called objective justification. The quick
answer is that the pastor that you mentioned is absolutely right. Hell is full
of forgiven sinners. The reason that he’s right is that the Scriptures tell us
that all sinners have been justified by Christ’s suffering and death for them on
the cross. This teaching is found in Romans 3:21-25a. In particular we see it
in verses 23 and 24:

πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, δικαιούμενοι
δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God being justified freely
by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”

As is often the case, the key to understanding the doctrine is in the grammar of
God’s Word. Saint Paul writes that all (πάντες) have sinned. “All” is the
subject of the sentence. In Greek, the form of “all” is masculine plural. If we
jump to verse 24, we find a participle (verbal adjective), “being justified”
(δικαιούμενοι), which is also masculine plural. In Greek, a masculine plural
adjective must modify a masculine plural noun. In Romans 3:23-24, there is only
one option. “Being justified” (δικαιούμενοι) must modify “all” (πάντες).

What does this mean? It means that Saint Paul is being very careful to teach us
this biblical truth: The “all” who have sinned and the “all” who are justified
are the same “all.” The teaching of objective justification comforts us by
saying that if you are a sinner, Jesus has forgiven all of your sins on the
cross. There is no wondering whether or not your sins have been answered for.
They have. You are part of the “all” who has sinned. For that reason you are
also part of the “all” that is justified. The grammar of Romans 3 leaves no
other possibility.

You also ask, “Or is it that we are not forgiven until the moment of our
conversion?” The short answer is no. You were forgiven on the cross. What
happens at the moment that God creates faith in our heart is that we receive the
benefits of the forgiveness that we already have. This is often called
subjective or individual justification.

Subjective justification is the biblical teaching that the forgiveness Christ
won for all people on the cross is received only in faith. This teaching
Scripture is also in Romans 3. Particularly, Romans 3:23-25a:

πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, δικαιούμενοι
δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
ὃν προέθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a
gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put
forward as a propitiation by His blood, through faith.”

Saint Paul writes that our justification is received “as a gift by His grace
through faith.” That phrase needs a bit of unpacking. Our justification is a
gift (δωρεὰν). That means it is not earned. This fact is emphasized by the
phrase “by His grace” (τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). Grace is undeserved favor. The
gift of justification is not given because we deserve it in any way. Finally, the
gift is receved “through faith” (διὰ τῆς πίστεως).

To say that something is received through faith is to say that our justification
(=the forgiveness of our sins) cannot be delivered unless faith is there to
receive it. You can’t get mail without a mailbox. You can’t see without an
eye. You can’t hear without an ear. You can’t withdraw cash from a bank unless
you have a withdrawal slip. Faith is that gift of God by which all other gifts
are received. It’s the “mailbox” into which all the other gifts–forgiveness of
sins, life, and salvation–are delivered. It is the eye which sees the light.
It is the ear which hears the sound. It is the deposit slip which gets what’s
in your bank account.

In objective justification you might say that God has made a deposit of a
million dollars into every sinner’s bank account. Some who are told about this
fact ignore it. They do not believe it. They lack faith. Because of that,
they will never benefit from the money that actually is in their account. Those
who do believe it will have every benefit of the million dollars that is already
theirs. Of course this metaphor can fall down, and it does whenever we think,
“Well, you have to make the withdrawal” or “You have to open your eye,” etc.
That’s not the point. The point is that you receive the benefits of what
Christ has really done for you on the cross (objective justification) in and
through faith. That is the teaching of subjective justification.

I hope this helps!

Rev. Charles R. Lehmann
Pastor, Saint John’s Lutheran Church, Accident, MD

If Jesus died for ALL the sins of ALL the people, then does not ALL the people in hell have ALL their sins atoned for?
The short answer is “Yes.” All the sins of all of the people in hell have been atoned for. That is exactly what the passages cited above say. People end up in hell, not because Christ did not pay for their sins, but because they threw that payment away. If I give you money to pay your debts, it is really yours. But if you throw the money away, you will never benefit from it. If a peace treaty is signed between warring nations, but some of the soldiers out in the field do not believe the announcement and keep on fighting, they don’t benefit from the peace.
Our teaching is not based on what is practical or comforting. It is based on what Scripture says: Christ died for everyone and God credited his death to everyone.

I see what you mean and you are right, all people in hell have been judged by their works. God looks at the heart and by that all it means is that for example some people can hide their anger (which is a violation of the commandment you shall not murder) better than others. So it’s not just outward works that the unbeliever will be judged upon but their heart (intent).

Nevertheless despite the fact that all people in hell have their sins forgiven as lutherans teach, the bottom line is they are in hell. And there are different levels of punishment in hell. Just like there are different levels of reward in heaven. Everybody in heaven is clothed with Christ but both lutheran and reformed confessions acknowledge different levels of reward in heaven. Same thing in hell there are different levels of punishment in hell.

Why is unbelief persisted unto death the only sin that hasn’t been atoned for? First off we have to realize that there is an unforgivable sin that Christ taught exists. Also Hebrews talks about those that despise the blood of the atonement, there is no further sacrifice for those people.

Actually lutheran theology has some explanations on how it is possible that all people in hell have their sins atoned for. Let me copy paste a Q&A from confessional Wisconsin lutherans. Because folks the question comes to this. Are the sins of the people in hell forgiven. Lutherans answer with a resounding yes. We teach universal objective justification which means the universal forgiveness of sins. So why are forgiven people in hell? Here’s the answer:

From a WELS (Wisconsin lutherans) Q&A:

If Jesus died for ALL the sins of ALL the people, then does not ALL the people in hell have ALL their sins atoned for?

The short answer is “Yes.” All the sins of all of the people in hell have been atoned for. That is exactly what the passages cited above say. People end up in hell, not because Christ did not pay for their sins, but because they threw that payment away. If I give you money to pay your debts, it is really yours. But if you throw the money away, you will never benefit from it. If a peace treaty is signed between warring nations, but some of the soldiers out in the field do not believe the announcement and keep on fighting, they don’t benefit from the peace.
Our teaching is not based on what is practical or comforting. It is based on what Scripture says: Christ died for everyone and God credited his death to everyone.

Remember Bill the heart shouldn’t come into play here as you have repeatedly stated that all sin has been paid for. Now it just boils down to unbelief. So when one is in hell for eternity how does that work out in terms of the state of their heart? They can’t be eternally unbelievers so what does the final state confirm them in if all their sins have been paid for and they have been declared just.

Everyone has been united in a death like his, but not everyone has been united to a resurrection like his. Or else everyone will be resurrected and saved! Thanks for all you help.

1) The objective aspects of justification precede faith (not follow faith as Murray teaches). They happened at Calvary and they are communicated to sinners in the preached word.
2) There is a subjective aspect in justification and this is faith which receives the forgiveness of sins (objective justification). Faith is an essential part of justification.

Anyhow I’m done unless somebody else chimes in.

Patrick, theology of the cross vs theology of glory are the thesis that Luther outlined on the Heidelberg disputations. Here are the full 28 Heidelberg disputations that Martin Luther wrote:

http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php

Here you can read all the thesis written by Luther. The video of Jonathan Fisk is awesome, but reading this 28 thesis is key to understand how the theology of glory (what appears good in the eyes of man) is opposite to the theology of the cross (what God values, faith alone in Christ alone)

Think about David. He killed Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband. A loyal israeli soldier that all he had was Bathsheba, who God gave him as his wife. David had all the women in the world and all the blessings from God, as Nathan told him. And yet he decided to take the life of Uriah and take Bathsheba for himself, the woman God gave Uriah. And yet David is a Saint that will be in heaven clothed with Christ’s righteousness. Here’s the thing though it’s easy for us to say that there is a nice old lady out there that never committed a crime like David, and yet God is just and knows the heart. His sin was not imputed to him. David was a man after God’s own heart as the bible teaches. God judges according to the heart, man judges according to appearance. What looks good on the eyes of man is not good in the eyes of God. The theology of the cross of Martin Luther explains this perfectly. Here’s Jonathan Fisk one of my favorite lutheran pastors explaining the theology of the cross:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIeU_it0dKo

Patrick,
Only God knows the heart. So I can’t answer your question about the old lady. Maybe she’s in heaven or maybe she will be in a deeper pit in hell than Hitler. All i know is that God will be just. There will be surprises though when we get heaven, no doubt and find out. Man judges by outward appearance but God judges the heart, that only He knows. Some pretty bad people will be in heaven, listen to Rod Rosenbladt lutheran professor and co-host of the White Horse Inn who in less than 4 minutes tells you who will be in heave and who won’t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhCfYCRnv2E

I answer, No Sir. Faith is a gift of God, has nothing to do with anything that I do. It’s not a work (obedience to a command), it’s not something I do. Faith is the knowledge of Jesus Christ written on my heart by the power of almighty God. God creates faith out of nothing through the preaching of his precious word. Just like he created the world out of nothing, he created faith. I am now a new creation, His creation in Christ Jesus. The believing I do, is the evidence that I have faith. But faith is not something I do, is not an action from man as Murray teaches.

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin

I hope my last post about John Murray is clear enough, but it’s hard to do it here in a short post. Let me say his definition of the new birth (which he calls regeneration) is awful because he omits faith the instrument God uses to produce the new birth, his definition of faith is worse because he teaches it follows the new birth and because he teaches faith is something that we do (God can not do the believing for us according to Murray). On the contrary as I explained believing is evidence we already have faith. And finally justification although it comes after faith it excludes faith (because faith is something imparted in man) so it is a legal declaration. This is an awful definition of justification which completely disconnects it to sanctification. Although justification and sanctification are different, they are not disconnected. Justification (is inclusive of faith) and produces sanctification.

Ok guys I hope I helped a bit clarifying what I consider serious errors and a departure from the Reformers in John Murray’s ordo salutis.

Regeneration: Murray teaches that in regeneration God imparts new affections in our heart, he gives us a new heart and the first evidence of this new affections is faith. We are regenerated and we respond to the gospel call, we believe and then we have faith. Regeneration happens in a mysterious way. John Murray, why did you say this? Don’t you think that you would have saved us all a lot of pain if you would have taught that in regeneration God creates faith in our hearts? God writes in our hearts the knowledge of Christ. This imparted righteousness that happens in regeneration is nothing more but nothing less than faith. This is the proper definition of the new birth, God does it by creating faith in our hearts, and we are united with Christ at this exact point. The New Birth, faith, and union with Christ can not be separated from each other.

Faith and Repentance: Murray teaches that faith is something we do. Regeneration is something God does but faith is something we do, God does not the believing for us. We believe. This is the most awful theology I’ve ever read about or heard about. First of all faith is not a work. God commands to repent and believe, however no man can repent and believe. We are dead in trespasses and sins, period. For any man to repent and believe God needs to create faith first, and every man that has faith will repent and believe. Repenting and believing are evidence that we already have faith (are born again). Faith is not something we do, but something God creates in us. Faith belongs in the new birth as I have explained when I dealt with regeneration and the new birth. But faith is not a work as Murray teaches, faith is not obeying the command of repent and believe. Faith is not something we do, but it is the knowledge of Christ imparted by God in our hearts. That we believe and confess Christ is evidence of a faith already given by God. We believe because we have faith, but faith is not something man does as Murray teaches (we do the believing solely, God doesn’t do the believing Murray teaches) otherwise faith would be a work. And no man is capable of repenting and believing, God has to create faith first in the New Birth. .

Justification: It’s something God does Muurray teaches. God declares us and constitute us as righteous. He constitutes us righteous by imputing Christ righteousness to us. Even though Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness, Murray God doesn’t justify on account of our faith because faith even if it was obtained by grace is ours. And justification is something God does and he does it solely on account of Christ. Really John? From a lutheran perspective this is the most awful definition of justification I’ve ever heard of. Lutherans teach that objective justification is something God does on account of Christ, but when it comes down to subjective justification where the christian receives God’s salvation by faith, we agree that the object of faith is Christ and in him only is the forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless the difference between objective and subjective justification in lutheranism is that subjective justification includes faith. Faith is a part of justification. This why justification produces sanctification in lutheranism, because faith is included in justification. If justification was a mere dead declaration as Murray teaches it has no power to produce sanctification. You can’t separate justification from faith like you can’t separate heat from boiling water. Lutheran theology recognizes 4 ingredients in justification as follows (this is explained on one of the three links on objective justification I provided at the beginning): 1) The grace of God, 2)The merit of Christ
3) The promise of the Gospel 4) Faith. The first 3 components are part of objective justification that happened at Calvary, the fourth component is the critical component in subjective justification which really receives by faith objective justification accomplished at Calvary.

John Murray’s ordo salutus is awful. He defines regeneration as a mysterious change in our nature or in our heart that God produces. It’s like the wind Murray says. It sure is John Murray, but the gospel of John doesn’t stop in what Christ told Nicodemus? Christ may not have told Nicodemus how the new birth happened but he did tell his disciples and he told even the pharisees, The gospel of John does not stop with what Christ told Nicodemus. Why did the apostle Paul write extensively about salvation so that we would say that it’s mystic event that happens like the wind? No, it’s not. I’m going to tell you John Murray how the new birth happens, it happens when God creates faith in man. Is it that difficult to get that? And yes the feeling is like the wind, I had that feeling too when God created faith in me, he wrote in my heart the knowledge of Christ, he created trust in Christ. I couldn’t trust Christ on my own so God did it for me, he created that trust. No John Murray you are dead wrong when you teach that faith or trust in Christ is something I do, anything I do is evidence of God’s work in me, when I trusted Christ is because God created the trust. Trust in Christ is not a work, faith is not a work, faith is not the believing I do as you teach. I believe because God gave me faith, because he made me born again. Now this is biblical teaching, not what John Murray teaches. Faith is not my response to the gospel, my response to the gospel is evidence that I already have faith. I have faith before I believe. Faith is the instrument that God uses to accompliah the new birth. And from faith all other types of righteousness are derived from . We all need to go back to Luther and read the freedom of a christian where faith is extolled, how sad it is to see Murray debase faith to something we do instead of being a gift of God imparted in our very nature by God by which he cleanses our hearts and makes us new creations. How sad it is to see John Murray debase justification to an empty declaration of righteousness that has no meaning in the christian life, when Luther taught that faith is contained within justification and is inseparable, but Murray has debased justification to the point it has no practical use in the christian life. Luther taught justification is the sole source our sanctification and of all imparted righteousness, because faith is a part of justification, included in, and it is the source of any and all other virtues in man.

Here it is the man that started it all, his letter to Pope Leo X on the Freedom of a christian. Martin Luther extolling faith and justification. This is what we need to get back to http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.marquartjustification.html Martin Luther started the Reformation, John Murray killed it by burying faith and justification in the ordo salutis defining faith as a work (something we do) and stripping faith from the article of justification.

Matthew 11
21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.[e] For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

But let’s get to John Murray’s definitions that will help everybody how radically different his teaching on faith and justification was from the Reformers.

Well, we beat this one to death. Hopefully people have learned a bit and next time will be more careful what they say about lutheranism. If you guys listen to the March 17 program of the White Horse Inn Mike Horton asked Rod Rosenbladt to explain unconditional election in lutheranism and how it differs from calvinism. But Mike Horton the first thing he told Rod is I know you guys are not synergist. And Rod thanked the hosts of the White Horse Inn and said thank you for not accusing us (lutherans) of synergism. I want to ensure that after this long series of posts that I hope Lane Tipton has read or will read lutherans never again are called synergists by a guest speaker at the Reformed Forum.

I’d have to write a book.

Aren’t you kind of already doing that?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.vii.ii.html

The will of the flesh and the will of man appear to me to mean the same thing; for I see no reason why flesh should be supposed to signify woman, as Augustine and many others explain it. On the contrary, the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of words, in order to explain it more fully, and impress it more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because God begat us willingly, (James 1:18,) that is, from undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly, that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of God.

It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed, (1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children. The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption.

Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. For since faith, as we have said, receives Christ, it puts us in possession, so to speak, of all his blessings. Thus so far as respects our sense, it is only after having believed — that we begin to be the sons of God. But if the inheritance of eternal life is the fruit of adoption, we see how the Evangelist ascribes the whole of our salvation to the grace of Christ alone; and, indeed, how closely soever men examine themselves, they will find nothing that is worthy of the children of God, except what Christ has bestowed on them.

And just to show that John Calvin put faith before regeneration let me quote directly from his commentary on John 1:13 where the great Reformer wrote:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.vii.ii.html
“It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later.”

http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html

I have provided great links so people here can understand lutheranism. And this is the best Luther ever wrote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTUUfaLtKss&list=PL3F6909AC3696412B&index=151

Patrick, sorry but for me it’s a big issue when John Murray teaches that we are born again before we have faith. And he means by regeneration the new birth that Jesus taught Nicodemus. We are united to Christ by faith, this Lane Tipton and Camden Bucey agree with Calvin. Yet we are born again before we are unisted to Christ and have faith? This is a 20th century innovation by John Murray that departs from traditional calvinism. And then Murray specifically teaches that regeneration and not faith is the main cause of sanctification. This is why we had a Norman Shepherd when your sanctification is based on imparted righteousness prior to faith human transformation and good works take priority over the work of Christ an legalism is born.

With regard to conversion both lutherans and calvinists teach that the natural man is totally incapable to believe the gospel without the work of the spirit. He is dead in trespasses and sins. However the holy spirit works very differently in lutheranism and calvinism as I explained in the previous paragraph. In lutheranism it is always in the word preached, and always tries to convert everybody, In calvinism it works only irresisitibly on the elect through the effectual call.

To show the mistake of calvinism I quoted Matthew 11:23. God did not pass by and left Capernaum in it sisn. Capernaum was condemned for resisting the holy spirit or rejecting the grace given in the gospel. Capernaum received so much saving grace that it would have sufficed to convert Sodom. So when it comes to damnation it’s not up to God, it’s up to man. Man can resist God (the holy spirit) even when God wants to save man and gives so much grace that would even convert the whole city of Sodom. Calvinist theology would argue that Capernaum was passed by, lutheranism would correctly argue that Capernaum received actual saving grace and it resisted it. And this can be proven in that the amount of grace received by Capernaum would have sufficed to convert Sodom as taught in Matthew 11:23.

Your question about objective and subjective justification and sanctification i think Karl Barth certainly taught both doctrines. Lutherans do teach objective justification. Haven’t heard of a doctrine of objective sanctification in lutheranism, mainly because if you read the two kinds of righteousness that writing from Martin Luther that I linked earlier, everything related to Christ’s work that we apprehend by faith, it relates to an alien righteousness and it’s the object of faith and the article on justification. So justification is much broader in lutheranism than it is in calvinism or Karl Barth where it’s merely a forensic declaration. Now everything that relates to imparted righteousness (sanctification) is caused by the alien righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith (justification). This is what Luther teaches in his writing on the two kinds of righteousness which I provided a linke earlier and recommend everybody read. Now I have heard lutherans talk about objective sanctification, but in a different way, such as when scripture teaches that God sets us apart, being holy means being set apart in various parts of scripture, also scripture teaches that Christ is our sanctification. So these are two examples of objective sanctification that I heard lutherans mention.

You said “That some men are not converted is entire due to their rejection of saving grace”
Is rejection and resistance the same thing? Is resistance the reason God condemns people? so the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of all men when the gospel is preached….all men have to do is not resist, not reject? Right? The Spirit does Zero work as you said. So do dead men have the power to not resist the Gospel without the help of the Holy Spirit?
Can a natural man dead in his sins, believe in the gospel without the work of the Spirit? Does the Spirit go where he pleases or is he forced to work whenever people preach?
I am thinking of how you might interact with “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

You answered yes to the idea that justification produces sanctification. So imputation causes renovation? Does Christ’s alien righteousness have renovative benefits when it is imputed? So imputation harbors renovation? So does imputation also infuses?

You said that there is subjective sanctification… does this mean that there is also objective sanctification?

I am still wondering if all men since Gen 3 have been objectively justified and thereby objectively sanctified, and thereby objectively adopted, and thereby objectively gloried… and thereby objectively risen and thereby objectively seated with Christ in the heavenly places, and thereby … are all the benefits of the gospel both objective and subjective?

Matthew 11:23
And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

If Sodom would have believed Christ preached, so can every man on earth. This has nothing to do with pelagianism or semi-pelagianism but with the power of the holy spirit working through the preached word to convert every sinner on earth. This is universal grace as taugh in lutheranism. The reason man doesn’t believe has nothing to do with the holy spirit regenerating them or withholding regeneration. Zero. The holy spirit works in every sinner the same way, when the word is preached the holy spirit always works to convert sinners. If the Sodomites can believe Christ as Matthew 11:23 teaches so can everybody else. The teaching that only a few men (the elect) are regenerated through the effectual call so that they can believe the gospel and all others are passed by is unbiblical and I have proven it from scripture. God justifies the ungodly, he does not justify regenerated men. The new birth (regeneration) follows faith, we are saved by grace through faith, we are regenerated by grace through faith, we are born again by grace through faith. Before faith we are all dead in trespasses and sins, there are no born again or regenerated men. We receive the promise through faith and our new life commences then.

From chapter on election from the Solide Declaration of the Formula of Concord http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php
4] First, the distinction between the eternal foreknowledge of God and the eternal election of His children to eternal salvation, is carefully to be observed. For praescientia vel praevisio (foreknowledge or prevision), that is, that God sees and knows everything before it happens, which is called God’s foreknowledge [prescience], extends over all creatures, good and bad; namely, that He foresees and foreknows everything that is or will be, that is occurring or will occur, whether it be good or bad, since before God all things, whether they be past or future, are manifest and present. Thus it is written, Matt. 10:29: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. And Ps. 139:16: Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them. Also Is. 37:28: I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against Me.

5] The eternal election of God, however, vel praedestinatio (or predestination), that is, God’s ordination to salvation, does not extend at once over the godly and the wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as Paul says, Eph. 1:4. 5: He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.

6] The foreknowledge of God (praescientia) foresees and foreknows also that which is evil; however, not in such a manner as though it were God’s gracious will that it should happen; but all that the perverse, wicked will of the devil and of men wills and desires to undertake and do, God sees and knows before; and His praescientia, that is, foreknowledge, observes its order also in wicked acts or works, inasmuch as a limit and measure is fixed by God to the evil which God does not will, how far it should go, and how long it should last, when and how He will hinder and punish it; for all of this God the Lord so overrules that it must redound to the glory of the divine name and to the salvation of His elect, and the godless, on that account, must be put to confusion.

Although Luther’s teaching where justification precedes sanctification is more precise than Calvin’s, still Calvin’s teaching will not lead to legalism, John Murray’s clearly does because he puts regeneration above faith as the cause of sanctification.

“Is there subjective sanctification. Also, what is it in justification that causes sanctification? Dose justification harbor a way to effect renovation.”

Yes, yes, and a resounding yes. Christ’s alien righteousness (not any renovation inside us) is the sole remedy for our sin. He is the propitiation of our sins. Hebrews is all about the forgiveness of sins and all the sacrifices of the old testament that pointed to Jesus, not a single one was for renovation. So justification is the doctrine on which the church (the gospel) stands of falls. Renovation is not part of the gospel, justification is. Renovation is the fruit of justification or justifying faith.

Now Calvin taught that both justification and renovation (sanctification or what he called repentance in his institutes) both are the benefits of faith in Christ (faith union with Christ). Though Michael Horton is correct in asserting that Calvin did give prominence to justification over sanctification, for example Calvin talked that all our works are justified (its sin pardoned). He spoke about a justification of works.

Now John Murray in Redemption Accomplished made a fatal mistake and departed from both reformed and lutheran theology. He put regeneration (the new birth) above everything else, including faith which is one of the many fruits of regeneration according to Murray. When dealing with sanctification John Murray teaches that the main driver of sanctification is the effectual call (which precedes regeneration in Murray’s book) and regeneration. This is a clear departure from John Calvin who would have put faith as the cause of sanctification. Luther would have attributed to justification, or justifying faith. Regardless by teaching that regeneration is infused righteousness before faith, we are born again before having faith, and compounding this error with teaching that sanctification flows from primarily from regeneration John Murray opened the door to legalism. Norman Shepherd is the fruit of John Murray’s doctrine, where infused righteousness (regeneraion) that happens prior to coming to faith is main cause of sanctification.

In lutheranism the christian life starts after faith and justification. God justifies the ungodly is the biblical teaching. For John Murray we are born again, he calls the new birth regeneration, before having faith. The new birth is infused or imparted righteousnes for John Murray. Our sanctification as well as our faith follows this new birth. This is clearly unbiblical. The lutheran and the biblcial teaching is that there is no infused righteousness (regeneration) that precedes faith, God creates faith in the ungodly, in sinners, God does not make a sinner righteous (infuse grace through regeneration) before he declares him righteous. Quite the contrary, God justifies sinners on the account of Christ’s righteousness, the ungodly, unregenerated man on account of Christ is declared righteous. So imputed righteousness always precedes infused righteousness. John Murray teaches the opposite. And not only that it teaches that this infused righteousness that precedes faith is the main cause of sanctification.

It is this false unbiblical teaching of John Murray that cause the controversy between Michael Horton and Lane Tippton with Michael Horton defending the classic doctrine of imputation against Lane Tippton’s doctrine of infused grace in regeneration which he borrowed from John Murray.

Jonathan, just replied. My reply is not showing as a reply to you. It’s at the end as a new post.

If we were to teach that all unbelief is not included in the atonement we run into serious problems. As I said earlier if we define unbelief as a violation of the same table of the law, nobody would be saved if this unbelief were not covered in the atonement. Think about what Paul tells the gentiles, they were all unbelievers before coming to Christ and dead in trespasses and sins. Of course the atonement covers all unbelief prior to conversion. Also what about after conversion? We still obey the first table of the law very imperfectly every day. Our faith is also very weak. We are just and sinners at the same time as Luther taught. So if Christ had not atoned for all our sins (including unbelief) prior to and after conversion we would all be damned.

Now the unforgivable sin is the only one that has not been atoned for. And Christ clearly said that it is the only sin that will not be forgiven man, all other sins Christ paid the penalty for at Calvary. I believe this sin to be willful and final rejection of Christ by man persisted until death, for this type of sin Christ never atoned for. Christ did not come into the world to atone for the unforgivable sin he spoke about.

I am going to take back what I said about calvinism in the post above. Although the reformed confessions teach that God passes by the reprobate and leaves in their sin, they do teach that there is a “common operation of the spirit”, so I will concede that calvinism acknowledges the sin of the holy spirit. My apologies to the Reformed for misrepresenting them.

Also I will go further and reaffirm the positive that unites us. I know lutherans criticize calvinists for separating an effectual call from the general call of the gospel. But I will go further and say this, I would be very comfortable worshipping in Reformed Church (and have done it in the past). I do deeply regret though their misunderstanding of lutheranism. But I also deeply regret the misunderstanding that the lutherans have of the Reformed. Because I’m now going to say something most lutherans would disagree with. I’ve said this at the beginning and it got lost. When the reformed teach the effectual call or irresistible grace, they are teaching what we lutherans teach as election. We teach exactly the same thing. And there is a misunderstanding on both sides about this, having read both confessions extensively I can say that when lutherans attack the Reformed for having an internal call (effectual call) and an outward call of the gospel, they don’t realize that the the effectual call is the same as what lutherans teach as election. Also the outward call of the gospel that the reformed teach, they do teach that the holy spirit is present in that call and grace is sincerely offered that man rejects. I know most lutherans would disagree with me on this, but I know that the differences between reformed and lutheran are way smaller than most think and there is a deep misunderstanding between the two traditions. I would happily and I mean happily worship in a Reformed Church with my christian brothers. And I say that honestly.

Even on predestination, although the Reformed attribute everything to God including the damnation of men. The Westminster confession clearly maintains that secondary causes are maintained (so God is not blamed).

Westminster Confession:
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

So let it be clear I do think lutheranism theology to better represent scripture, but in the end all theology and confessions do is an attempt to best explain what’s in the word of God. And although the lutheran exegesis I consider superior to the reformed, I do consider the reformed exegesis to be outstanding as well.

I plead guilty in that I have very little knowledge.

1 Corinthians 13 verses 8,, 9, and 10
“if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.”

Also I was taken aback with some of the comments here but later on I realized you guys were basically repeating the mistake of John Owen who wrote what most of you were repeating. As I wrote before i was caught off guard, had I been familiar with John Owen’s writing I would have reacted in a more calm manner. Here is John Owen who thought somehow that he could irrefutably prove with logic unlimited atonement. This is John Owen’s most disgraceful writing, from his book “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”. I just found this writing from Owen here http://www.blogos.org/compellingtruth/limited-atonement.html which the Reformed accept as gospel, and I have already solidly refuted the folly of Owen who failed to realized that one type of sin was never atoned for as I have expressed at length.

John Owen:
“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved . . . If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will” (page 61).”

Ok, in your previous post you spoke of “all sin being covered except the sin of unbelief – the kind of unbelief that tramples the son of God under foot.” Yet the unbelief that we are speaking of (not the blasphemous kind) is also not covered in the atonement… right? Is it all unbelief that is not covered in the atonement or is it just the “unforgivable sin?”

I just replied to you at the bottom in another post.

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

I don’t interpret John 15:22 as if those that don’t hear about Christ have no sin. Rather they have not trampled on the blood of Christ, his atoning sacrifice, but they still have other sins as Romans 1 leaves everybody without excuse through natural revelation. So even those that never hear Christ because they haven’t heard the gospel are still in Adam.

Luke 11:49 and 11:50 is also clear proof that rejecting Christ increases condemnation:
49 For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation.

This is why the reformed doctrine of irresistible grace pretty much leaves the sinner off the hook in that it doesn’t acknowledge the most grievous sin of rejecting the holy spirit. Since for calvinism the holy spirit only works in the elect, nobody recjects the holy spirit. This is contrary to Acts 7:51 that clearly teaches that God’s grace is resistible Acts 7:51 “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.”

Do Lutherans believe that people who never heard of their objective justification are saved because they never have the chance “not to believe?” or the “blasphemy of the spirit….?