Thursday, November 15, 2007

Slice of Laodicea



Pastor Rick Warren, Saddleback Church.
Like Lawrence Otto Olson, he has earned a D.Min. from Fuller Seminary.


There are many interesting apostasy posts on Slice of Laodicea.

The newest post concerns Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Saddleback Church. Purpose-Driven was the rage until Church Growth started Becoming Missional. Hillary will appear at Saddleback to discuss AIDS and the church. I would go except that is laundry day for me.

UOJ Short Circuits



Johnny5, Star of the movie Short Circuit:
"More input."


Universal Objective Justification

UOJ is this opinion, expressed in the 1932 LCMS Brief Statement:

Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, accounts as righteous, all those who that is, believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.

Why the strange words in bold? Walther's Easter absolution sermon became an article of faith, reprinted to support this false doctrine. According to Walther's Easter sermon, God absolved the whole world of sin when Jesus rose from the dead. The ELS loves this sermon and teaches this strange opinion. The ELS is just as fanatical as the Wisconsin sect in promoting UOJ. Missouri has done the same, but tries to hide the UOJ behind justification by faith. The 1987 Theses of Abomination are an example of this verbal trickery.

If the Brief Statement had said, "Christ has already died for the sins of the world," the sentence would have been Biblical and orthodox. Atonement is not justification by faith. Redemption is not justification by faith. Reconciliation is not justification by faith.

The Moravian Pietists began with the Gospel and then addressed the Law. UOJ came from Pietism via Walther and is very similar in expression to Moravian Pietism. Earlier statements reminded me of this. For instance, one pastor said he told people who came to confess their sins, "You were already forgiven, before you came here." Gospel first, Law second = Moravian Pietism. All American Lutherans have been profoundly influenced by Pietism. Notice how this Pietism is conducive to works-righteousness on one hand (orthodoxy proven by synod membership and DNA) and riotous hedonism on the other hand (Don't worry, my beautiful music director, we were already forgiven before we stopped at the Off-Ramp Inn.)

Short circuit 1: What does UOJ do for confession and absolution when everyone is already absolved?

Short circuit 2: If everyone is already forgiven, why would anyone be in Hell? This was Neuhaus' contention - that Hell is empty. Christian News often reprinted the Neuhaus statement, which makes sense given the assertions of UOJ, taught at the seminary they attended at the same time (Concordia, St. Louis). The recent WELS AnswerMan file is labeled: "Forgiven sinners in Hell."

Short cicuit 3: If WELS, Missouri, and the ELS are so far from ELCA, why are they teaching the same thing about salvation? Granted there are variations in how the clergy express themselves, from the Pentecostal to the crypto-Unitarian. Nevertheless, how is it different to have ELCA say everyone is forgiven and to have WELS/LCMS/ELS say God has declared the world righteous?

Chemnitz was wise in saying that we need to set aside all confessions and return to the Scriptures. Of course, Chemnitz was quoting others who recognized the problem of comparing confessions and avoiding the sources. People say, "Return to the sources," but they often mean a pathetic essay printed or posted on the synodical website.

The sources can only be the Scriptures. They are the revelation of God's will. If someone cannot deal with the unified message of God's Word, then all the conference and faculty papers mean nothing. Ultimately, everyone must face these issues and not ask for some authority figure to substitute for the thinking process.

Short circuit 4: If everyone is absolved, believers and unbelievers alike, then why does God's wrath abide on unbelievers?

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.

If UOJ advocates cannot deal with this one verse of Scripture, their entire scheme falls apart. They cannot, so they avoid John 3:36. They cannot explain forgiven sinners roasting merrily in Hell. They cannot describe how someone is justified twice, first objectively, then subjectively.

Lutherans have engaged in idolatry for over 100 years, and that has not helped matters. Once a revered figure has stated a thesis, that proposition is defended as if it is the very Word of God. Could Walther, Pieper, J. P. Meyer, Sig Becker, Valleskey and Kelm all be correct in all their statements? Why does death confer infallibility? The Scriptures are bent and twisted by synod idolators to make certain verses fit synodical theses.

Short circuit 5: Why all the deception? I have found the UOJ Storm Troopers eager to deceive and play tricks to maintain their imagined orthodoxy. They have lied about UOJ being in the Scriptures, the Book of Concord, J. Gerhard, and Calov. I have yet to find a Gerhard citation supporting UOJ. Robert Preus quoted Quensted and Calov to exclude anything other than justification by faith.

Short circuit 6: Look at the bitter fruits of UOJ! The Lutheran Church has declined precipitously since 1932. There are no signs of health at all. Doctrinal indifference and unionism prevail; apostates are rewarded without shame or reluctance. The cited heroes of conservative Lutherans, the very people quoted today with approval, if not awe, are: Waldo Werning, C. Peter Wagner, Donald McGavran, Kent Hunter, Leonard Sweet, and Reggie McNeal.

Questions for the UOJ Fanatics


Not everyone who uses the term UOJ is a UOJ fanatic. The vast majority who use the term are clergy who were trained in this nonsense in seminary. The synods realize that their UOJ system does not bear scrutiny, so they avoid real discussion about this new doctrine. This leaves many clergy suspended in mid-air, somewhere between the teaching of the Bible/Book of Concord and the real UOJ agenda.

For example, I used OJ and SJ in the first edition of Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant. My understanding then was close to Joe Abrahamson's, expressed in the previous post. I learned the OJ/SJ distinction from Pieper, but I associated the terms with the Atonement of Christ (OJ) and justification by faith (SJ). Extensive conversations with Lutheran laity moved me to study the entire UOJ issue and to deal with it in Thy Strong Word.

UOJ is another example of Lutherans abandoning their trust in the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace.

Here are my questions for the UOJ fanatics:



  1. Why do you have God declaring the entire world righteous, without faith?
  2. Why bother with evangelism and worship if "everyone is already saved", as WELS proclaimed in its failed evangelism campaign.
  3. If forgiveness equals salvation, why are there "forgiven sinners in Hell" in the Wisconsin sect? FIC AnswerMan.
  4. If Baptist decision theology is wrong, why does the Wisconsin sect insist that people must "accept OJ" to be forgiven?
  5. If Lutherans always taught UOJ, then why is the terminology so new?
  6. If Lutherans always taught UOJ, why is it missing from the Book of Concord?
  7. If Lutherans always taught UOJ, why are Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, J. Gerhard, and others silent on this blessed insight?
  8. If Missouri always taught UOJ, why did they fail to teach it until the Brief Statement of 1932?
  9. If Lutherans call separating the Holy Spirit from the Word of God Enthusiasm, why do UOJ fanatics embrace Enthusiasm with their strange opinions?
  10. Why are Church Growth gurus like Bivens and Valleskey so keen on UOJ?
  11. Why do the UOJ Stormtroopers deceive people about the novelty, confusion, and Enthusiasm of their position?

Robert Preus, Again - Extensive Comment



Word and Sacrament, by Norma Boeckler

Joe Abrahamson has left a new comment on your post "Robert Preus, Again":

[GJ - I will answer each question separately, within brackets.]

Dear Pr. Jackson,

I'm trying to understand your own understanding of UOJ. Do you make a distinction between the sinners whose debt Christ paid, on the one hand, and the sinners that are forgiven through faith, on the other hand?

[GJ - We are all sinners. Justification by faith means that those who believe in Christ are declared righteous. There is no statement of "God declaring the world righteous" in the Scriptures, the Book of Concord, or the major Lutheran theologians.]

My own understanding is that UOJ is the debt Christ paid and Subjective Justification is a term used to distinguish those who benefit only through faith in Christ's vicarious atonement through the Means of Grace alone.

[GJ - UOJ is so fatuous that people are allowed to believe it is a synonym for the Atonement. Your sentence immediately above does that. I thought so too when I first read Pieper. A system of dual justification, UOJ and SJ, did not exist until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.]

Is it true that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. (II Cor. 5:19) My understanding of "world" is everyone. that is, Christ paid the debt of every sinner.

[GJ - One should not confuse reconciliation with justification. Justification by faith is the only justification in the Word of God. The UOJ system means that everyone is forgiven twice.]

Is it true that "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) My understanding of "world" is the same as just stated.

[GJ - John 3:16 says that God loved the world, not that He declared the world righteous. This is another clear passage about justification by faith being founded upon the universal Atonement of Christ. The Promises of God create faith in the listener. The believer receives and enjoys what the Gospel offers. Thus the invisible Word and the visible Word are called the Means of Grace. Grace without means = Enthusiasm.]

Is it true that "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." (Galatians 4:4-5) My understanding of "those who were under the law" is all of sinful mankind, just as Paul writes "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Romans 3:19) By this I understand in context that the whole world is guilty under the Law, because even if they didn't have the written Law of God they still had their imperfect conscience, which bears witness against them. Therefore all are under the Law of God, and because in Galatians he states "those who were under the law" therefore all are paid for, "redeemed." That is not to say that all benefit. It is just to say that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for every sinner who has lived or ever would live. The benefit is only through faith, which has been historically described under the locus of Subjective Justification or Personal Justification.

[GJ - Redemption is not justification. Redemption is one English word for two Greek verbs. One Greek verb means release. The other means paying the price. In both cases redemption is a synonym for Atonement.]

Is what Luther wrote on the 5th petition in his Larger Catechism true? "88] Therefore there is here again great need to call upon God and to pray: Dear Father, forgive us our trespasses. Not as though He did not forgive sin without and even before our prayer (for He has given us the Gospel, in which is pure forgiveness before we prayed or ever thought about it). But this is to the intent that we may recognize and accept such forgiveness." My understanding of this is that "without and before our prayer" means that the price of forgiveness has been paid whether or not a person benefits from it (my understanding of Objective Justification), and that praying the Lord's prayer is a confession of faith in that forgiveness (Subjective Justification). Though the Lord's Prayer may be uttered by a hypocrite, it does not invalidate neither the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice nor the promise of forgiveness available to the unrepentant.

[GJ - The above example is typical in confusing Atonement with justification by faith. It is important to emphasize the efficacy of the Atonement apart from works or merit, which is what Luther taught in the example above. Even the most ardent UOJ advocates have to admit that there is no UOJ in the Book of Concord. Yes, this passage is used from time to time, but the attempt to retrofit UOJ into the Book of Concord fails.]

Christ gives an example of Himself when he says "But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful." (Luke 6:32-36) Christ's explicit implication is that he paid for all, even those who would not believe and rejected him. Salvation is not "in view of faith." Because faith does not originate with sinful mankind. But the clear implication of Christ's words is that He did pay for every sinner, even if they would not benefit through faith.

[GJ - Once again Atonement is confused with justification by faith. Christ paid for the sins of the world when He died on the cross. The Gospel justifies those who believe and moves people to glorify God through good works. The statement about "in view of faith" does not make sense to me. I know UOJ advocates have used that episode and Limited Atonement from Calvinism to support their arguments, but the effort is futile. Faith comes from the preached Word, which is effective both in converting and damning. Those who reject the Gospel harden their hearts against the Word of God.]

Furthermore, Paul writes "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." (Romans 5:6-10) Is it true, then, as Paul writes, that our sins were paid for before we were brought to faith through the word and sacrament? Paul distinguishes between the payment for all sin (termed UOJ by some theologians) and what is called Subjective Justification in the same Lutheran theologians, that is, salvation through faith alone.

[GJ - Romans 5 is central to the issue of justification. The entire passage should be quoted, starting with "Therefore, since we are justified by faith..." I do not find Paul stating anywhere, "Therefore, since we are justified without faith, without the Word, without the Means of grace..." The section of Romans 5 selected above is a clear statement of the universal Atonement. What better way to create faith than to remove any notion of merit?]

I know that Luther was a sinful human capable of error, but in trying to clearly understand what you are teaching regarding UOJ what do you think of the following quote from Luther: "Christ did indeed suffer for the whole world; but how may are there who believe and cherish this fact? Therefore, although the work of redemption itself has been accomplished, it still cannot help and benefit a man unless he believes it and experiences its saving power in his heart (Plass #2203)

What I understand as UOJ is what Luther describes as "Christ did indeed suffer for the whole world." What I understand as Subjective Justification is, in Luther's words "it still cannot help and benefit a man unless he believes it and experiences its saving power in his heart."

[GJ - Lutherans would be better off if they dropped the SJ/UOJ business. The two paragraphs above are consistent with the Book of Concord and the Scriptures, except there is no declaration of the world being righteous (Brief Statement). Therefore, UOJ is a fantasy from the Pietism of Walther.]

I believe that you are rightly reacting to an abuse of the doctrine of UOJ. And that abuse of this doctrine can mislead people into carnal security. But so far, what I have seen of your writings does not object to the Bible's teaching that Christ has paid for all sin and every sin.

[GJ - My objections are to the false doctrine of UOJ. The effects of UOJ are obvious in the ELS, WELS, LCMS, and ELCA.]

I sincerely want to understand you correctly and to avoid logomachy.

And I want you to know that you and your family are continually in my prayers. Thank you for your work.

[GJ - Thank you. All the materials are posted or linked on this blog. The biggest concentration is in the justification chapter of Thy Strong Word.]

Sincerely,

Joe Abrahamson (Marty's classmate)

[GJ - I remember. God's blessings to you as you continue to study the Word and the Confessions.]