Justification in modern teaching 

I have managed to cultivate their encrypted and hidden language.

If you do not have any theological knowledge, it will be difficult for you to understand what I mean, but if you are really interested, you can probably understand something anyway. The doctrine of Lutheran Orthodoxy about justification is not even mentioned in today's proclamation within the Church of Sweden or the Mission Province. One has no clear doctrine of the Atonement and Justification. Instead, they talk about different motives and aspects that can stand side by side. Bishop Lars Artman told me that the Mission Province Board of Education has not formulated any doctrine of reconciliation. It is believed that God can not both give and receive the payment. Therefore, one learns that the payment is not given to God. Nowadays it is often preached that Jesus suffered the punishment in our place and atoned for our sins. This punishment is a payment of the debt we owe to God. But the payment is not given to God and God is then not reconciled, it is said. Then no account is needed of Jesus' righteousness or merit. God forgives guilt without imputation is their view. Would it not be more sincere not to learn anything at all about vicarious suffering? Sometimes it is said outright that the payment is given to the devil, but it is more rarely said in the church. This can be said in seminars, when talking to other theologians and priests or in a theological forum and sometimes even individually. But then you say several times that "you must not say that I said it". Why this secrecy? But most believe that the payment is given to the "penalty". The punishment is not a person we can blame. Then God's punishing righteousness has been asserted so that God can forgive, without it becoming a cheap grace, according to this view. It is then said that different doctrines of reconciliation can stand side by side and complement each other. There are no "waterproof shots" between them, it is said. Someone told me that my opinion is a battle over words, which has no meaning. So you can say if you do not think anything at all. If we have a debt to God, the payment must be given to the one we owe to. In order for us to receive this payment, a reckoning through faith is required. This imputation is the hub that everything revolves around. As simple as that. That's how Anselm learned and that's how Luther and the Book of Concord learn. A teacher at FFG in Gothenburg believes that some of the ancient church's teachers, such as Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazis, taught that payment is given to the devil and that God was then reconciled. It is agreed that the payment can not be given to God and that we then do not need to be credited with this merit. It is above all this imputation, which is mentioned in Romans 4: 6, that is the difficulty, it is said. That we are to be credited to Jesus through the faith is considered synergism or human participation by Pieper, even though faith is a work of the Spirit of God. One thus denies "faith alone" in the merits of Jesus and instead teaches faith alone in free grace. Can you perceive this difference as a battle for words? Some in the Free Churches instead believe that we should be justified by our "works of faith," which are called ingrained grace. This is what the Roman Church teaches. Some priests in the Mission Province in Stockholm have even said that the Lutheran churches and the Roman Church have agreed on the doctrine of justification. Most people think that there is no need for any calculation of Jesus' merit at all. It is believed that the payment is not given to anyone, such as Gruber in the 17th century or that the payment is given to the devil, death or to punishment. But no one openly says that the payment is given to the devil. A preacher within BV clearly stated that the payment is given for the punishment. This is probably what most theologians within MPrV think. I do not think anyone in the congregation understood what he meant. When we believe in "free grace", we are, in this view, acquitted. The only legal thing in this doctrine is then an acquittal, but no imputation of Jesus' merit. It is thought within the Mission Province that those who learn so preach constructively. It is not so easy to account for a doctrine that is so difficult to understand. It may happen that a priest in MPrV thinks that the payment is given to God and that he is reconciled, but it is not said in a clear way. The common denominator is that one does not believe that Jesus' merit needs to be imputed to us by faith. What is imputed is a free grace, which was not completely free, because Jesus must pay the debt. We do not have to put on the righteousness and merit of Jesus, which is called the wedding garment. It is enough if we receive grace and are acquitted, they say then. Then the wedding clothes become the free grace. When this reckoning is lacking, one differs from the Lutheran orthodoxy in the 17th century. This orthodoxy is completely forgotten, uton among chartauan and perhaps some Lutherans in Norway.

God can then, in their view, forgive us because His punitive righteousness has been asserted. Now God can forgive when when sin has been punished, although the payment is not given to God but to the punishment, whatever that means. There will then be no cheap grace, as Agne Nordlander emphasizes in her book "On the return of holiness". He also believes that the Lutherans and Romans agreed in the doctrine of justification. The only thing we preach then is that Jesus atoned for our sins and paid our debts, but the payment is not given to God and does not have to be imputed to us by faith. God then does not need to be reconciled because God can not be angry when the time of grace is over. He is only love. Instead, anger is merely a divorce from God. We should not go that far, says Nordlander in his book "The Mystery of the Cross". (pp. 156-157) One still says something about the foundation being Jesus' atonement, without investigating what it means if God's wrath did not have to be appeased. It has already happened before the beginning of the world. The only legal thing in this doctrine is that by faith we are imputed to an acquittal, which is considered a righteousness, but not the merit of Jesus. Why can one not assert the reaction of God's holiness or the righteousness of God, by preaching the law? The teachings of Lutheran Orthodoxy are completely silenced. If one ever compares different teachings about justification, one compares Gustaf Aulén's teachings with Anselm's teachings. But Anselm of Cantebury had a different doctrine than Martin Luther. Lutheran theologians teach that Jesus suffered as both God and man. Luther, like Lutheran Orthodoxy, teaches that Jesus' payment is an unbroken act of God. Yet it is often said that "everything is finished". But before the faith, no justification has come and forgiveness has not yet reached. Still, one can say that full forgiveness already exists, but it must be received. Notice how you use the words so that they mean something other than what you say. The sentence is encrypted, so that only the initiates understand, ie those who spoke to the priest individually. The others do not understand what the priest is saying. It is said that it is clear from Isaiah 53: 5 that Jesus suffered the punishment in our place, but this payment is not given to God and does not need to be imputed to us. Through this payment of the debt given to the punishment, God can, in their view, forgive those who want to receive the forgiveness. Most people believe that God does not need to be reconciled because he is not angry. That's what Gustaf Aulén and Anders Nygren learn. They believe that "God's wrath" is only a divorce from God. One avoids mentioning that Jesus revealed to us that God loves us, so as not to be associated with Peter Waldenström's doctrine of atonement. God has "claimed his punishing righteousness" in the Universe, one might say. Humans exist on earth, not in the universe. Then there is no cheap grace. Everything is done! It is only their acceptance of forgiveness through faith in Jesus and his atoning death, without taking into account Jesus' merit and righteousness, is their view. Do you know anyone who says this? Correct answer: Mission Province. It took me two years of conversations with many theologians to resolve the encryption or this hidden language. When you talk to priests in the Mission Province via e-mail, they say that they believe in the imputation of Jesus' merit, but they are lying. They say: "believe it if you can".

They should learn quite openly that they mean, like Aulén and Nygren, that God cannot be angry and therefore does not need to be reconciled, that the payment is then not given to God and does not need to be imputed through faith. God's righteousness is satisfied by the fact that sin is punished on Christ and the payment is then given to the punishment and not to God, in their opinion. In that case, Aulén and Nygren are mainly their teachers, although it has been added that sin needs to be punished and atoned for in Christ. That doctrine has been taken from Luther, but without attribution of merit. Aulén does not learn about any payment of debt. It goes without saying that the payment should be given to God, when it is God to whom we are indebted? After all, it is God who forgives guilt. Ringius says that "Those who seek and await salvation through their Savior can and will be saved. Savior through faith, seeking his righteousness or the righteousness that comes from God through faith. (A Christian Teaching on the Kingdom of Christ, Part 1, p. 22) Faith creates forgiveness through a reckoning of Jesus' righteousness, so that God considers man righteous. There may be one or more priests in the Mission Province who preach about a reckoning of Jesus' ministry through faith. I have not listened to everyone. But there is no debate about this in Kyrka och Folk or on FFG's website. The doctrine of justification is not discussed as a coherent doctrine. You only talk about motives and aspects. They say they are faithful to their confessions, but do not engage in discipline or even any debate. If anyone learns correctly about this imputation, he should come forward and rebuke the others who do not learn anything at all. Why stay in the Mission Province? There are other possibilities. You can form your own congregation. Within the Church Association and the Mission Province, we also accept the priests who do not say anything at all that Jesus atoned for our sins. These priests who teach like this are still considered the right teachers and are allowed to participate in the magazine Kyrka och Folk and are sometimes hired and employed within the Mission Province. This shows that they do not consider the doctrine of Jesus' vicarious fulfillment necessary for salvation. But then you can say that and refrain from pretending to be faithful and Lutheran. It is not possible to distinguish between the activities of the Church Association and the Mission Province, because it is the same people nowadays who decide in both organizations. I wonder why the Mission Province was formed. Was it just so that even those who oppose female priests could be ordained to the priesthood and be active in this new church? If the Church of Sweden were to change and allow women priests' opponents to be employed within the Church of Sweden, would they then dissolve their church and return to this folk church? One calls oneself a confessor, but one does not want any discipline when it comes to reconciliation and justification, which is the foremost article according to Luther. False teachings about the deity of Christ, the resurrection, the Lord's Supper, or the double exit are certainly not allowed. They engage in a certain discipline and exclude those who, in their view, do not follow their interpretation of Christian ethics. Then they pick out an old church order from 1570 and a church law from 1686 as support for their view. But they do not understand that we live in another society. At that time, there was a Christian government that rebuked those who were too difficult to live with. The Mission Province also wants to have a biblical ethic when it comes to homosexuality. The Church of Sweden says that Jesus fought and triumphed over the corrupting powers, sin, death and the devil, but we do not know how. This is what Gustaf Aulén learns in his book "The Christian idea of ​​reconciliation through the ages". What happens on Good Friday is a drama that you cannot preach over. Preaching is done on Easter Day when the victory is won, said a priest. You can only meditate on Good Friday, they say. Should one then try to interpret this drama yourself? Aulén says that "the situation of the world changed" after Jesus' death and resurrection, but does not say in what way. Karl Bardt's interpretation is even more incomprehensible. At first Bardt was very liberal and influenced by Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Rischl and Adolf von Harnack. He even learned that everyone will eventually be saved. Then he became a little more biblical and learned about Jesus' deity and resurrection. I do not know what he says about justification. No priest has explained this in his sermons. You do not honor and mention your teachers by name. The message that the priests preach is often incomprehensible to the church people! You leave the church as unaware of what the priest means by Jesus' atonement and justification as when you went there.

Inge Rogesund