More Questions about UOJ

Augustinian Successor has left a new comment on your post "Thy Strong Word Fan":

Dear Pastor Gregory,

Thank you for explaining the old Lutheran view on the difference between reconciliation and justification. If I understand you correctly, justification of the sinner qua SINNER comes through only by the MINISTRY of reconciliation. RECONCILIATION on the Cross provides the basis for JUSTIFICATION, but is not to be equated or conflated. In that sense, on the Cross, the wrath of God the Father was *propitiated* (God reconciled to the world as a matter of accomplished fact - IS)), but *expiation* (the world OUGHT to be reconciled to God) takes place by the action of the Holy Spirit in hypostatic conjunction with Word (Verbum dei est Gladiatus Spiritus).

Am I correct in believing that the fathers of Lutheran Orthodoxy also held to old Lutheran view?

***

GJ - Pastor Gregory reminds me of a TV show - Mr. Ed. The combination of a professional title and a first name lends itself to comedy.

I understand Old Lutherans to represent the era after the Concordists and before Walther. In the histories of American Lutherans we find distinctions between the Pietists/Revivalists and the Old Lutherans. The liberals were the Pietists who opposed the liturgy, Lutheran doctrine, wine used in Holy Communion, dancing, tobacco, and cards. The Pietists were unionists. Walther was profoundly influenced by the Pietists.

In general, the European Lutherans came over (Missouri included) with a Pietistic buzz. Many moved closer to orthodoxy when they saw how divisive and anti-Lutheran the revivalists and unionists were.

The General Council had some fine Lutheran leaders who did not embrace UOJ at all. Concerning the efficacy of the Word, the General Council was much clearer (and closer to Luther) than the Synodical Conference ever was.

WELS has never forgiven Lenski (old ALC) for stating the obvious - that justification in the New Testament is always justification by faith.

UOJ is new and came from the Pietists via Walther, so UOJ is not found in the Old Lutherans. I cannot say I have gone through all the orthodox Lutherans in Latin to prove UOJ was never stated by anyone. That would require a lifetime of reading and superior eyesight. I do know that claims about J. Gerhard supporting UOJ are utterly false. Ditto Calov (relying on Robert Preus' last book).

Without getting into all the Latinate words, I would agree with your statement as being a good summary of the Gospel. Christ died for the sins of the world. He is the propitiation. Because the Atonement or reconciliation is universal, no one needs to doubt whether it is true for him. Luther said it best when he wrote, "No sin is so evil that it can damn us. No work is so good that it can save us."

We always need to hear the Gospel to strengthen our faith. Luther emphasized about the cross - "Those are my sins. I caused His suffering. I did that to Him."

The preaching and teaching of the Gospel is the method by which God converts all people to Christ. Baptismal regeneration is an important part of this ministry. Infants hear the Word and believe. There is no purer justification by faith than that of a tiny baby. Justification by faith continues when the soul is nurtured by the Gospel. For many different reasons people fall away from the Gospel and actively reject the Gospel in time.

Sadly, the Synodical Conference represents a defection from Biblical truth and the Book of Concord. That is why no one will publish a scholarly, exegetical defense of Justification Without Faith (UOJ). Synod idolatry has kept people from dealing with doctrinal issues. The results are apparent in Missouri's Ablaze!, the faltering programs of WELS, and the defenestrations of the Little Sect on the Prairie.

Wouldn't it be strange to have people declaring that Augustine was infallible, that anyone who questioned Augustine about any doctrinal issue was a heretic and doomed? Augustine wrote that nothing he said should be accepted unless it was in complete agreement with the Word of God. Now we have synodical disciples who believe nothing in the Bible unless it is in agreement with Walther, or Pieper (F. or A. but not both), or Sig Becker, or Waldo Werning.

Walther was far too keen about declaring his theses and defending his conclusions with the right Biblical passages, whether they fit or not. In time his disciples repeated the same statements with robotic consistency but without conviction born of study. That is why they fly into a rage when challenged.