Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WELS Repeats Two Justifications":
I also believe in UOJ. I believe and teach it the same way you do about the atonement or reconciliation. We're talking about the same exact thing, but using different terms.
***
GJ - Anonymous is a popular name for those who comment.
Sorry - no one can use the favorite labels of false doctrine and say, "I agree with you." Besides, the statement above is too brief to know exactly what the author means.
Some think OJ is another term for the Atonement. I thought that and used the term OJ in Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant (first printing). I corrected that in the second printing.
The assumption of UOJ = Atonement led some to conclude falsely that denying UOJ was denying the universal nature of the Atonement.
UOJ is peculiar to the Walther circle and (as far as I can tell) the Norwegian Lutherans. That is perhaps why Robert Preus stuck with UOJ for a long period of time.
UOJ would make a good dissertation for someone with access to the German Pietistic works.
The essence of UOJ error is this:
- That God declared the world free of sin the moment Christ died on the cross or alternately the moment Christ rose from the dead.
- That everyone is already forgiven of all sin.
- That everyone is already saved.
- That people believe once they hear they are already forgiven and saved.
- That they are not really, truly forgiven and saved unless they accept that they are.
The Christian Church has always used technical terms as short-hand for conclusions to lengthy conflicts. The term Trinity is non-Biblical but useful. (Many abuse the term nevertheless.) We should avoid terms without a foundation in the Scriptures and Confessions.
