Robert Preus, Again

From Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant:

However, Preus clarified the true meaning of justification in his final book, Justification and Rome, which was published posthumously. Preus wrote this definitive comment:

But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism and the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfilled and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith.

Preus immediately followed the statement above with a quotation from Quenstedt, one of his favorite orthodox Lutheran authors:

It is not just the same thing to say, “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us” and to say “Christ is our righteousness.” For the imputation did not take place when Christ became our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is the effect of His office. The imputation is the application of the effect of His office. The one, however, does not do away with the other. Christ is our righteousness effectively when He justifies us. His righteousness is ours objectively because our faith rests in Him. His righteousness is ours formally in that His righteousness is imputed to us.

Preus also quoted Abraham Calov with approval:

Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe.

Justification by faith, in the original sense, was taught in the official catechism of the Missouri Synod, and then was gradually changed:

#305 Why do you say in this article: I believe in the Forgiveness of Sins? Because I hold with certainty that by my own powers or through my own works I cannot be justified before God, but that the forgiveness of sins is given me out of grace through faith in Jesus Christ. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also true justification. Psalm 130:3-4; Psalm 143:2; Isaiah 64:6; Job 25:4-6 (Q. 124).

***

GJ - I prefer Preus' final work to the WELS AnswerMan.

WELS UOJ - Refuted by Luther

C. Peter Wagner, Pentecostal Baptist, Fuller Seminary Professor. Once you grasp UOJ, you will be a Pete Wagner fan, too!

WELS AnswerMan

The file on the WELS website for this Q and A was titled: Forgiven Sinners in Hell!

Q. Hi, I have a question regarding a recent question and answer regarding limited atonement. WELS states that even a person that has died and in hell had his sins atoned and had his sins forgiven. Atonement, no problem, but I really disagree that a person in hell had his sins forgiven. How can a forgiven sinner possibly be in hell when there is no forgiveness without repentance? It absolutely makes no sense. Please comment, Thank you

-----------------------------------------

A: The statement you are criticizing is what the Bible says. These are not statements that WELS has come up with. In 2 Corinthians 5:19 the Bible says God has reconciled the world to himself by not counting their sins against them. Not charging sins is the same as forgiving them. The Bible says Christ is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10). It is not WELS but the Bible that says that God has declared the sins of everyone forgiven in Christ.

What you are saying in your comment is that what Scripture says makes no sense to you. However, there really is no problem here. It's just that you are not letting everything that Scripture says stand together. Scripture says that God has declared the sins of the whole world forgiven and that Christ is the Savior of everyone. It also says that that to benefit from this declaration one has to accept it in faith. We let both of these statement stand together. Luther did also. It was Luther who said

Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it ... He who does not accept what the keys give receives, of course, nothing. But that is not the key’s fault. Many do not believe the gospel, but this does not mean that the gospel is not true or effective. A king gives you a castle. If you do not accept it, then it is not the king’s fault, nor is he guilty of a lie. But you have deceived yourself and the fault is yours. The king certainly gave it. (LW 40, 366f)

WELS has simply echoed this.

***

GJ - Note this statement, which is perilously close to Baptist decision theology and certainly is not Lutheran Means of Grace theology:

It also says that that to benefit from this declaration one has to accept it in faith.

I must not have the newest feminist NIV, because my Bible does not say there are guilt-free saints in Hell. Let me Wawautosi a little and quote the Word of God rather than a random volume of Luther and dog notes from J. P. Meyer (yellowed and cracked with age).

KJV John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

KJV John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

KJV Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

KJV Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

WELS declared in an evangelism campaign: "I am saved, just like you." Enthusiasm is defined as abandoning the Means of Grace, separating the work of God the Holy Spirit from His appointed instruments, the Word and Sacraments. As Luther pointed out, foul errors will follow any form of Enthusiasm. In the Wisconsin sect, Universalism is being taught in the guise of UOJ and Luther!

Luther is just a rabbit's foot for the former members of the Synodical conference. No leader takes Luther's doctrine seriously today.

***

A reader sent me material from Luther's Works, vol. 40. The context is the Office of the Keys. Note this significant section:

Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it. St. Paul says in Rom. 3[:3]: “Their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God.” We are not talking here either about people’s belief or disbelief regarding the efficacy of the keys. We realize that few believe. We are speaking of what the keys accomplish and give. He who does not accept what the keys give receives, of course, nothing. But this is not the key’s fault. Many do not believe the gospel, but this does not mean that the gospel is not true or effective. A king gives you a castle. If you do not accept it, then it is not the king’s fault, nor is he guilty of a lie. But you have deceived yourself and the fault is yours. The king certainly gave it.

Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Was Luther a UOJ Fanatic?

Anonymous: This isn't related to the above post, but I wanted to ask you something.

Here's what Martin Luther wrote:

"Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it" (LW 40, 366f)

Was Luther a "UOJ fanatic" and heretic like the LCMS and WELS are? Or do you want to rethink your condemnation of UOJ?

***

GJ - I have answered this around 20 times already.
1. I do not have that volume, so I cannot check the context of the quotation.
2. All the efforts to find a UOJ citation in the Book of Concord have failed miserably. The Concordists, in harmony with Luther, did not teach forgiveness without faith, without the Word, apart from the Means of Grace.
3. We do not subscribe to all of Luther's works, whether the American edition or the Weimar or the Lenker sermon set. The Anonymous argument would support praying to Mary, which Luther offered in his Magnificat commentary.
4. There are several quotations of Luther where he spoke of being "already forgiven" as an expression of the universal Atonement. This is the treasure which lies in one heap until it is distributed by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace. The repeated asking of this UOJ question is a sign of Lutherans being illiterate in doctrine, especially Luther's doctrine.
5. The centerpiece for UOJ is the Brief Statement of the LCMS. People often admit that the Missouri Synod went downhill from that time on. Cause and effect? I think so. UOJ paved the way for Gospel reductionism, the Bible being a man-made book, and the various forms of Pentecostalism and Church Growthism rampant today. There are many fine pastors and congregations in the LCMS, WELS, and ELS today, but their synods are overcome by Enthusiasm and papism.

Comfort of This Victory in Christ

"We have the comfort of this victory of Christ--that He maintains His Church against the wrath and power of the devil; but in the meantime we must endure such stabs and cruel wounds from the devil as are necessarily painful to our flesh and blood. The hardest part is that we must see and suffer all these things from those who call themselves the people of God and the Christian Church. We must learn to accept these things calmly, for neither Christ nor the saints have fared better."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 263. Sunday after Ascension, Exaudi. John 15:26-16:4.

J. M. Reu Predicted the Lutheran Rot of Today

Trinity Lutheran Seminary (ELCA) was formerly known as Capital Seminary. Lenski taught there and even has a little room named after him. Lenski's daughter Lois became famous for children's stories. My wife was a Lois Lenski fan long before I was a Professor Lenski admirer. She insisted that Roald Dahl married Lois, but he married actress Patricia O'Neal. Therefore, I erred in my human nature when I delved into Lois' biography without checking. (A. Nony Mouse is overly concerned about Lois' actual marriage partner, I think. See his sourpuss comment, true to form.)

Reu's lectures were published by the old ALC in Columbus. They published the Lenski New Testament commentaries, which are still unequaled.

"We find this attitude of tolerance quite frequently among unionists. It is often used to assuage a troubled conscience, one's own as well as that of others; for the unionist declares that every one may continue to hold his own private convictions and merely needs to respect and tolerate those of another. This attitude is totally wrong, for it disregards two important factors: (a) in tolerating divergent doctrines one either denies the perspicuity and clarity of the Scriptures, or one grants to error the right to exist alongside of truth, or one evidences indifference over against Biblical truth by surrendering its absolute validity;and (b) in allowing two opposite views concerning one doctrine to exist side by side, one has entered upon an inclined plane which of necessity leads ever further into complete doctrinal indifference, as may plainly be seen from the most calamitous case on record, viz., the Prussian Union."
J. M. Reu, In the Interest of Lutheran Unity, Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1940, p. 20.

"Doctrinal indifference is at once the root of unionism and its fruit. Whoever accepts, in theory as well as in practice, the absolute authority of the Scriptures and their unambiguousness with reference to all fundamental doctrines, must be opposed to every form of unionism."
J. M. Reu, In the Interest of Lutheran Unity, Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1940, p. 20.

Here is a link about Reu.

False Teachers' Perspective

"They [the false teachers] fared like a man who looks through a colored glass. Put before such a man whatever color you please, he sees no other color than that of the glass. The fault is not that the right color is not put before him but that his glass is colored differently, as the word of Isaiah 6:9 puts it: You will see, he says, and yet you will not see it."
What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols.,
ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, II, p. 644. Isaiah 6:9.

Sommer Could Not Get a Job in the Conservative Lutheran Synods Today

Founded upon the Rock, God's Word, by Norma Boeckler

"Is it possible that one who has such models as Luther, Walther, Stoeckhardt, Lochner, Sieck, C. C. Schmidt, and Wessel, etc., etc., should leave these rich pastures to feed upon such garbage heaps as those from whom I have quoted?"
Martin S. Sommer, Concordia Pulpit for 1932, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1931, p. viii.

GJ - Chill, Martin. We are supposed to spoil the Egyptians, gathering rich treasures of wisdom from Fuller Seminary, Willow Creek, and the Rosicrucians.

"It is the purpose of this volume to aid in displacing books of Reformed preachers. We would encourage the cultivation of distinctly Lutheran preaching. Therefore, we now appeal to our brethren always to consult Luther when preparing to preach. Quo propior Luthero, eo melior theologus! [The closer to Luther, the better the theologian.] Let us who are called Lutheran preachers be sure that in every one of our sermons we preach God's Word and Luther's doctrine pure. It is that preaching which God demands of us, 1 Peter 4:11. It was that preaching which conquered the Roman Goliath, Revelation 12:11. By that preaching we shall truly build the walls of Zion, not with hay, straw, and stubble, but with such stones as all the powers of hell shall never overthrow, Luke 21:15."
Martin S. Sommer, Concordia Pulpit for 1932, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1931, p. ix.

GJ - No, the closer to Pasadena, the more prosperous the career. Ask Kelm, Valleskey, Hunter, Werning, Olson, Huebner, Luecke, and Bivens.

***

"Dr. Luther, who understood the true intention of the Augsburg Confession better than any one else, remained by it steadfastly and defended it constantly until he died. Shortly before his death, in his last confession, he repeated his faith in this article with great fervor and wrote as follows: 'I reckon them all as belonging together (that is, as Sacramentarians and enthusiasts), for that is what they are who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is his true, natural body, which the godless or Judas receive orally as well as St Peter and all the saints. Whoever, I say, will not believe this, will please let me alone and expect no fellowship from me. This is final." [WA 54:155, 156]
Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article VII, Lord's Supper, 33, The Book of Concord, ed. Theodore G. Tappert, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959, p. 575.

GJ - Luther could have been very influential in the WELS, LCMS, and ELS today if he had been more flexible about doctrine. They ignore him today because of his unbending attitude.