Does the Church Only Rise or Fall with the Doctrine of Justification?

Beyond Grace Alone: Atonement, Creation, and the Many Chief Articles That Sustain Us

“The ministers and teachers of the church of all times have often failed to recognize for one reason or another (often venality or cowardice or greed) the issues of the day which impinge upon the church and its correct teaching of the gospel.”

– Robert Preus

Justification in Theology: What Does This Mean?

For biblical Protestants, the doctrine of justification exerts an inexorable presence in their thinking. Noting that people compete with one another “to gain a status of proper recognition before others”, the influential LCMS theologian Jack Kilcrease says that in religion, “this principle also holds true” and offers a view that is more contemporary than conservative Lutheran:

“Jesus Christ offers a[n]... unconditional promise of salvation... [His] promise of justification before the Father represent[ing] God’s answer to the supreme problem of human existence. Christians need not justify themselves through works whose ultimate goal is to fulfill certain standards of behavior before God or other humans. Instead, Jesus offers a unilateral promise of justification through the grace of his cross and empty tomb.”

Kilcrease’s formulation, upon careful examination, is somewhat curious. Indeed, Christians not only “need not justify themselves... before God”, but must not do so. Nevertheless, it is one thing to attempt to fulfill certain standards of behavior before God in order to be accepted. It is another thing to attempt to fulfill certain standards of behavior before God, not only because one is accepted but because certain standards align with what it means to love.

A more reliable representation of the traditional Lutheran view of this matter comes from the late hero of conservative LCMS Lutherans, Robert D. Preus. He does a good job of summing up the more historical view regarding the significance of the doctrine of justification when he says it:

“presents God’s revealed answer to all major problems of sinful man… ‘What is [God] like? Does He love me? What must I do to be saved? Can sinful man ever stand before a holy and righteous God?’”

And here, the following question may indeed arise: Does the church really rise or fall with the doctrine of justification, as has often been said? “Stantis et cadentis Ecclesiae”?

It does, but this statement needs to be nuanced considerably.

Consider, for example, how some professing Christians misuse theological language for political purposes. A very rightwing Christian might become frustrated when, after cultural progress against the left has been made, he is told there are “No Kings but Christ!” and he should lay off the throttle. At another time, during the COVID scare, he is told it is time to submit to lockdowns because this is a straightforward matter of Romans 13. Along a similar vein, I heard an online provocateur recently state that nowadays, when someone says to “repent and believe the gospel”, it is more often demons that are saying this than Christians!

The man certainly has a point. After all, we know that in the New Testament even the demons know and confess Jesus to be the Lord, the Son of the Most High God – even if they do not have faith in Him. Furthermore, when the Apostle Paul said “the important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached” he simply did not need to be concerned – like we do – that the language of the Christian faith might be hijacked by unbelieving enemies familiar with it who would eagerly work towards filling the biblical words with new and evil content.

In like fashion, perhaps any theologian who always says that we are declared righteous by grace alone through faith alone – justification! – should be suspect. While that might be useful shorthand on this or that occasion, it really is not a proper theological formulation, especially today!

We who are concerned about theology should always have in mind that which Martin Luther warned us about:

“[I]t does not help that one of you would say: ‘I will gladly confess Christ and His Word in every detail, except that I may keep silent about one or two things which my tyrants may not tolerate, such as the form of the Sacraments and the like.’ For whoever denies Christ in one detail or word has denied the same Christ in that one detail who was denied in all the details, since there is only one Christ in all His words, taken together or individually.”

Going along with this, Luther spoke of how “if you deny God in one article of faith, you have denied Him in all… He is everything in each article and He is one in all the articles of faith.” Doctrine, which is our faith and life, is like a mathematical point that cannot be divided. So, “[o]ne word of God is all the words of God… all the articles [of faith] belong together in a common chain.” More: “[D]octrine must be one eternal and round gold circle, in which there is no crack.” Do we really believe that we live from every word that proceeds from the mouth of God? How can we deny this? Yes, to deny any truth of scripture is to deny all its truth!

Still, in the weighty Smalcald Articles of 1537, Luther also confessed that the doctrine of justification was the “first and chief article”. Not only this, but “[o]f this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin.”

The Doctrine of Justification and Its Radical Lutheran Enemies

A variety of attacks have been leveled against the doctrine of justification today. Let us focus on just a couple of them.

Steve Paulson would seem to be an obvious heretic to target, eliminating his influence in confessional Lutheran church bodies without a shred of remorse. He not only denies the Bible’s inerrancy, but that “sin [is] anything said, done, or thought against the Law of God”. After all, God’s law has nothing to do with His character at all but is simply a nasty and disposable tool, justly accusing Christ for sin as it does! For him, the Holy Spirit is the opposite of the law, and the law is only present where Christ is absent. In addition, the law “does not give,” but actually “removes faith in God’s word.”

So Paulson claims, amazingly, that men like Preus taught that the law forces God to send His Son to die. In his own version of the atonement, Jesus simply steals the believer’s sins, even as he “commits His own personal sin” with his cry of dereliction on the cross. Somehow, all this not-so-subtle hatred of the law is supposed to make sense, be compelling, and offer real power and comfort.

No one should be gaslighted into thinking they are doing something wrong for wondering what the hell leading figures in the LCMS like Robert Kolb, John Pless, and others are doing elevating, promoting, and never challenging men like Steven Paulson. David Scaer, at least, sees clearly: “a denial of the eternal, unchanging nature of the moral law of God demands [a denial of the death of Jesus as atonement for sin].”

We thank God that He is just, that His law is indeed good and holds sway! If they remain impenitent, Paulson and his acolytes will pay, and receive the stricter judgment.

Not all men, however, are so crass; exhibit as much juvenility and hutzpah as Paulson and his allies. The doctrine of justification is also undermined in much more subtle ways by others in his circle. In his article “Justification in the Theology of Robert D. Preus”, David Scaer talks about the theology of another popular and seemingly less controversial 1517 theologian, the late James Nestingen. This gentle and mild-mannered man held that “faith completes the atonement and so becomes a determinative factor for salvation”. Nestingen writes:

“[Christ] enters the conscience through the absolution, through the proclaimed Word and administered Sacrament to effect the forgiveness of sins. This is the true substitutionary atonement, happening here and now.”

Why in the world would Nestingen locate Christ’s atonement here? Whatever the answer might be, as with Paulson, it can’t be good. Hence, Luther – though perhaps with the 13th-century theologian Abelard in mind – says that the forgiveness of sins merely by imputation without atonement is a “miserable and shocking opinion and error.”

Again, I get that Dr. Nestigen was – just like fellow Radical Lutheran enabler Robert Kolb is – a very pleasant man, but honestly, what madness is this? No wonder that the 1517ers, the Fordians and Paulsonites, lapse so quickly into parroting the words of the sophisticated existentialist heathen saying, for example, that the subjective-objective distinction should be abolished and even that “Love is God”.

No, theological formulations like Paulson’s and Nestingen’s own insidious creations must be countered and destroyed, as God ordains for the terrified conscience to have solid and not illusory comfort. Zeroing in on Nestingen’s heresy and taking a cue from the Apostle Paul (Gal. 4:9), our saying “I have faith in God” should ultimately give way to “My faith is in God”. In like fashion, the doctrine of justification is primarily about Christ’s work – including the vicarious atonement – that takes place in real history for us yet is clearly outside of us. This is classical Lutheranism / Christianity 101.

The Chief Article in Luther’s Time

So what then is the proper formulation for the doctrine of justification? First and foremost – before the very real need to fend off challengers and challenges – it, being atonement-centric, is this:

“Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification!

For He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world!

And God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all!

All have sinned and are justified without merit by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood!”

Full stop, brothers!

For this is the very essence of Christianity and the gospel itself! As Luther would put it, this message cannot be grasped or held enough or too much! There is no other God than this man Jesus Christ! Indeed, true theology begins by taking hold of this salvation in Christ!

And at this point in the Smalcald Articles – from where the above was drawn without attribution – Luther says that this is what is to be believed. Even if when he goes on to say “this faith alone justifies us” he is referring not to the faith, but the believer’s own faith (citing Romans 3:28), he still rightly speaks of the what. And not so much in terms of “What does this mean?”, as our English catechisms say, but rather “What is this?”, as the German catechisms put it.

Again, Luther says this is the chief article that is to be believed. Note that our believing per se is really not a primary focus of this chief article. Much less does that have anything at all to do with the atonement that Christ enacts!

Justification is, to be sure, intensely personal. It goes hand in hand with baptism, and goes hand in hand with being adopted into God’s family. Behold what manner of love is this that we should be called the sons of God!? Speaking of its “existential” aspect, Pastor Eric Phillips says that of the chief doctrines, it

“is the most immediate, the most personal. It will affect the individual believer for sure, whereas errors in other crucial doctrines might never come home to roost, thanks to felicitous inconsistency. So for that reason, maybe it has a claim to be solely the Chief.”

That said, if we are talking about personal matters, what could be more personal than the Shepherd Himself whose voice the sheep hear? We also note that this Chief article as explicated in the Smalcald Articles involves Christology, is deeply involved with Christology, is Christology. As David Scaer put it years ago—not without significant controversy! – “[a]ny attempt to make christology preliminary to theology or even only its most important part, but not its only part is a denial of Luther’s doctrine and effectively destroys the gospel as a message of completed atonement.”

Perhaps then, there is not just one article by which the church stands or falls, for if Luther is correct, again, doctrine is as a golden ring!

The Chief Articles of Faith – and Every Word!

Luther’s ring illustration is certainly not fashionable and presents those of us who say we care about the unity of the church with a great challenge. So when we ask “what is this?” of the doctrine of justification, for example, we recognize that we are also dealing with many things. God. Creation. Angels. Man. Christ. Resurrection of the dead, the new heavens and earth, hell.

As Robert Preus would put it in his 1995 article written shortly before his death, “Luther: Word, Doctrine, and Confession”:

“To Luther the pure doctrine is defended and taught as much when the purpose of the law is rightly taught, or the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper or baptism or worship, as when the central article of justification is taught. For everything hangs together… [And] the solus Christus dominates every article of faith, whether it is creation, redemption, the sacrament of the altar, baptism, worship, [the third article of the creed, etc.]”

Satan has many lines of attack; also many tactics and strategies he has used during the years. For instance, before he vigorously attacked the doctrine of justification in the 16th century, he attacked – through the gnostics at war with the Old Testament – the doctrine of God, the doctrine of creation, the incarnation and the full divinity of Jesus Christ. Lies against and denials of the Son’s true nature continued with those against the Holy Spirit. Later, the power of man’s will over and against the power of sin and the intent of God’s law was at issue. Variations of these attacks recur throughout the church’s history.

A lot was and is going on. And David Scaer cuts to the heart of the matter like no other, laying bare the fact that many so-called Lutherans are playing a dangerous game:

“[L]aw and gospel are not in themselves ‘things’ but have to do with our relationship to the ‘things’ set forth in the creeds: God’s trinitarian life; Christ’s incarnation, atonement, and resurrection; the church; and eternal life. These are the things of substance that must be believed….

Law and gospel are the lenses through which the ‘things’ in the creeds are presented to man first as a sinner and then as a saint. Without the things of the creed, the gospel is an empty proclamation and promise of forgiveness, life, and salvation… Without the things, faith has nothing to rely on.”

This of course means that the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, must go hand in hand with the doctrine of justification. Even if men like Werner Elert – the especially prominent “conservative” 20th-century German theologian – may have seen this as a liability of sorts, he was misled entirely in that evaluation! Rather, this too lies at the heart of the faith. As the 17th-century Lutheran Johannas Quenstedt would even say, the doctrine of God must be an “antecedent”, that is, something that precedes any article of faith (Christology, justification, etc)!

Relatedly, it seems safe to say that even if some “conservative” Lutherans today might argue that in some sense atheism is reasonable (something the author has heard) – even while “standing firm” on justification – Martin Luther would have utterly condemned such a sentiment and corresponding approach. After all, subtle attacks on the doctrine of creation – which of course attack the Creator – are arguably even more fundamental as they seek to cut down not the stalk, but actually pull up the roots. And here the Christian cannot afford to be only concerned about the truths of scripture, but not give a foothold to any lie at all about God’s creation, all the things He has made and done.

This has particular relevance today, even when everyone claiming the name Lutheran wants to clamor on about “vocation”. Pastor Jason Braaten, in his short piece “Out of Order”, does an excellent job of revealing how even in Paul’s day even Christian men were in rebellion against God’s created order:

“The blessed apostle sends Titus to Crete to put into order what is lacking among them (Titus 1:5)... They are not only not doing what they should be doing, but they are actively doing what they shouldn’t. They are contrary to the order that God has established.”

Right teaching gives birth to right living. For doctrine is life. It is wisdom. It is godly order. The families are to be rightly ordered toward the right things and against the wrong things. The men are to take their properly and divinely ordered place, just as are the women, and the children. Each in their own place according to God’s order, directed to the ends for which God created them and put them in that particular place… We are to take our place in the order that He has established because in this order is life. Outside of this order is death. Life is our inheritance in the order of God. This is what we are to live in and pass on. Living in this life is submission and obedience.”

So what has happened with some of today’s “conservative” Lutherans? For all of their extra nos (outside of us) talk they are, first and foremost, not sufficiently focused on the truth that lies outside of them and their own precious personal experiences. It is as if they have forgotten, for example, what they must confess God’s law is: “a divine teaching in which the righteous, unchanging will of God revealed how human beings were created in their nature, thoughts, words, and deeds to be pleasing and acceptable to God” (FC SD V 17, Kolb-Wengert, italics mine).

Even as Luther was clearly the theologian of the believer’s faith, faith for him – not so with even the most “conservative” among men claiming his name – was assumed to be readily available common knowledge in addition to being assent and trust. In other words, the sort of un-Lutheran skepticism, emotivism, subjectivism and existentialism exemplified by aberrant “thing-hating” intellectuals like Elert, Forde, Nestingen, Bayer and Paulson – is, in the end, absolute poison to the Christian faith (even as, again, one hopes for “felicitous Inconsistencies” at the very least for their souls!).

No matter what happens, God promises that there will always be some who believe and confess. The church will not fall, even as the love of many will certainly grow cold. And this brings up another important issue: the whole counsel of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures can never be mitigated by an assertion like “the doctrine of justification is the article by which the church stands or falls”.

As the late Lutheran pariah Herman Otten attested, the church may indeed find itself in need of new creeds or confessions. Is not any attack on any part of Scripture an urgent matter? All the current battles in the LCMS are precisely about this. Who would dare to assert that the church will not at the very least fall down, fail, and flail due to the denial of this or that particular word from the mouth of God – the denial of any of all the words by which we live?!

No one. No one who desires life and not death, that is.

A Truly Radical Looking Forward?: Rome at its Absolutely Potential Best?

What have we learned in this article? It’s not so much that the “Chief Article” changes based on the challenges that the church faces at the moment (its polemical situation), but that there are simply multiple “Chief Articles”. The church does not only rise or fall with the doctrine of justification.

At the same time, the author would contend that it is, in fact, the subjectivity and antinomianism inherent in the Radical Lutheran version of justification that have almost certainly been responsible for opening the floodgates to a denial of God’s creation and, arguably, even more foundational truths. What amounts to a crypto-Schliermachian focus on the believer’s subjective experience is absolute poison.

A further thought – and I think a very important if not perhaps slightly controversial one. When we talk about how justification is the article by which the church stands or falls, do we think we should closely connect this with Matthew 16:18? Yes, the passage Rome points to in what it may well consider one of its “chief articles”!

If we don’t think Matthew 16:18 is particularly relevant, why not? Should we not? Is this not about the Gates of Hell not prevailing against the church – i.e., the church standing? Yes! For this is the most scriptural and hence Lutheran reason we know that the church will not fall, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

What do I mean? I think it should be fairly obvious. I am thinking about how recognizing Jesus as the Messiah first and foremost has to do with knowing and assenting to the Savior, being saved… trusting God alone for salvation.

Peter’s confession encompasses Christ’s person, His work, and the article of justification. And so as Herman Sasse pointed out, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are basically an expansion of the simple confession that “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”! These Creeds of course – as well as the Athanasian Creed – arose in order to make it clear that while false teaching kills people, Jesus Christ and His teaching – the Christian faith – is indeed our salvation. And so as that final ecumenical creed ends, “This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.”

Few would deny that Romans 10:9 is a great testimony to the doctrine of justification: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” So, how does this not all come down to Peter’s confession, or – keeping in mind that a living faith in the heart cannot but express itself! – Peter’s confessing? Perhaps Rome, in its potentially best form, could – in addition to necessarily recanting many of its errors here – say this is also about Peter per se confessing.

For the doctrine of justification is contained in said confession, in these things. This ultimately, is why Douglas Johnson could say in his 2006 CPH book The Great Jesus Debates that “Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is at the heart of all the great controversies that shook the Early church as it tried to work out its own self-understanding...”

Amen and amen and amen!

FIN

---

Theology Like a Child.