LutherQuest (sic) is enjoying a dust-up over the implications of Universal Objective Justification--forgiveness without faith, without the Word, without the Means of Grace.
Jack Cascione, who calls himself Cardinal, is fighting the denizens of his own creation. I cannot be sure what the key issues are, because the participant are all fairly confused.
The basic UOJ claim is:
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, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.
This declaration of righeousness without the Means of Grace is, by definition in the Book of Concord, Enthusiasm and false doctrine. The error is derived from Walther, F. Pieper, and Pietism. Both men came from Pietism and never recovered fully from it.
In the 19th century, supposedly conservative Lutherans quoted Pietists all the time. Walther never criticized Spener by name, either because he honored Spener or because Spener's name was above reproach at that time.
UOJ became more ridiculous over time, but its origins go back to 1850 or so, no earlier. Luther and his followers did not teach UOJ. UOJ is not in the Bible, Luther, the Book of Concord, Chemnitz, Gerhard, or Calov.
The old Synodical Conference (LCMS, WELS, ELS) was weak on the efficacy of the Word, so that one doctrinal error influenced many other areas, such as their strange teaching of Receptionism.
The old Synodical Conference was also comfortable with Reformed theologians known to be conservative. The reason may be their origin in Europe when the Union Church was taking over completely. Yes, I realize the Missourians and Buffalosians were escaping the Union Church, but they took a lot of it with them. Otten and his friend Bischoff are examples of men who quote the Reformed without blushing.
LutherQuest (sic)
Erich Heidenreich, a dentist, made his debut on LQ questioning UOJ. He had many thoughtful posts. He then disappeared and came back retracting everything. He became a UOJ Enthusiast.
Rolf Preus took both sides of the issue, agreeing with justification by faith at one point. He also repented.
Jay Webber has appeared during the discussion to quote Pieper. That is like quoting Al Gore as an authority on man-made global warning.
Luther is never quoted on LutherQuest (sic). That is why I use (sic) after its name each time.
Cascione seems to be bending toward justification by faith, because the others are insisting that everyone in the world enjoys objective imputed righteousness.
UOJ is the doctrinal position of Church and Change. A cursory reading of Valleskey and Bivens will reveal that both Fuller students are ardent UOJ advocates and Church Shrinkers.
