Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Another Hoo-Hah from UOJ":
Justification is not difficult.
"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [all] are justified freely by the redemption that came through Christ Jesus."
All sinned... all justified.
The passage cannot mean: "All have sinned.... and some with faith are justified." Or "when they have faith they are justified." Such renderings just plain change the clear Word.
Part of the problem with this whole discussion is that there is a confusion of dogmatic loci (spheres). UOJ belongs in the locus on "Basis of Salvation" and JBF belongs in the locus on "Order of Salvation."
It is the Pietists who would love the emphasis on faith. Historically, that's all they wanted to talk about. Pietists find their comfort and security in their faith. Read Timothy Verinus Vol. 1 Ch. 5 (and note that the "double justification" mentioned there is NOT a reference to UOJ.)
Also, the Greek word for preach is "khrusso" - "to proclaim." Preaching is a proclamation, an announcement of what God has done. In order for a proclamation to be made, there must be an objective truth to proclaim. The Gospel is an announcement of what God has done for the world in Christ. What has he done? Forgiven all their sins. That is why the risen Lord Jesus said (Luke 24) that "repentance for the forgiveness of sins" be proclaimed in his name.
Both sides here are talking past each other. True, UOJ could be wrongly used to support some idea of universalism, but JBF could also wrongly be used to promote the idea that some condition must be met in man before God forgives him. (Then we're back to the intuitu fidei controversy...)
Just because some people (apparently) misuse the phrase doesn't mean that the phrase is inherently wrong. UOJ is properly taught to emphasize the truth that our salvation is entirely God's own work -- "extra hominum", as our Lutheran forefathers put it -- and is emphasized to guard against man taking any tiny bit of credit for his salvation. (read Koberle, Ch. 3, on this)
***
GJ - I am glad our Zinzendorf posted this, so people could see how the UOJ Pietists operate. The posturing reminds me of several people, but I will not venture to guess which one it is. Zinzendorf came to America, using a false name. All...all the Shrinkers and Pietists use the same name - Anonymous.
He wants to build his castle on all, without citing the actual passage. Let me quote one of their favorite UOJ passages:
KJV Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
This means that judgment came to all men, through Adam, so also the free gift of salvation comes to all men for justification. Of course, the Gospel of salvation comes to all men, because the Atonement is universal. However, the UOJ magic is lost in the next verse - "shall many be made righteous." No one can turn many into all. Our Zinzendorf is a false teacher, an Enthusiast, a liar who uses the Word of God to overturn the Scriptures - maladroitly, of course.
Zinzie has to reword verse 19 to refute it - a lame Straw Man fallacy. The plain meaning of the passage trumps the faux-intellectual version of Z.
"It is the Pietists who would love the emphasis on faith. Historically, that's all they wanted to talk about."
Guilt by association! Faith talk - why that be Pietistic. "Historically..." - more unwarranted assumptions from a gasbag. The Pietists were obsessed with visible results - Shrinkers of their day, just as divisive and destructive as the Shrinkers of our day.
"What has he done? Forgiven all their sins."
Begging the question! The Scriptures clearly say - He has paid for their sins, quite different from pronouncing absolution on Hottentots and Hindoos (I like the old spellings, like Eskimaux.)
"Both sides here are talking past each other."
Reu correctly identified the marks of a unionist as including the desire to erase doctrinal differences. La-dee-dah. There are no real differences here, not in substance. A few more Latin references, from me, and vague citations of deep books read, by me, and a blueprint of Toad Hall, by me, and all questions will be resolved.
Lenski wrote in his Romans commentary:
If a world justification were intended, the word employed would have to be dikaioma. Paul even adds zoe, for this justifying action admits "to life" everlasting, which only those receive who "receive the gift of the righteousness" by faith although Christ won it for all men. Romans, 5:18, p. 379.
---
L P has left a new comment on your post "Our Zinzendorf":
Why is it that UOJers love to chop off Scripture?
Here is the actual quote in context:
Romans 3:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
The often leave out verse 25.
LPC
***
GJ - The UOJ Stormtroopers do not comprehend the Means of Grace, so they cannot harmonize their Enthusiasm with hundreds of Scriptural passages. Why do they chop verses? They are Antinomians who imagine the Law is obsolete, so whatever they do to advance their cause is meet, right, and salutary, at all times and places.
