Les Baker has left a new comment on your post "Knapp's Portrait Contributed by...Someone":
Just a question:
When the terms SJ and OJ are used they seem to me to be the same as imputing of faith and atonement. (OJ and atonement being equal terms.) That is how I learned it from my pastor and how I continued to learn as I studied on my own.
"Words of Dr. E. W. A. Koehler (A Summary of Christian Doctrine, Second Edition, p. 149): “Justification is that forensic” (judicial) “act of God, by which He, on the basis of the perfect vicarious atonement wrought by Christ, declared the whole world to be justified in His sight (objective justification), and transmits and imputes the effect of this declaration to all whom He brings to faith by the work of the Holy Ghost through the means of grace (subjective justification).”
Can you explain to me how this is incorrect? My son led me to your blog 2 days ago and we have been discussing this issue. He seems to agree with your view, but while talking about it it sounds the same as what I have listed above.
Thanks for your answer.
Les Baker
***
GJ - The key phrase is "declared the whole world to be justified in His sight," which is a bit milder than many formulations.
The essence of UOJ or OJ is the entire world being absolved of sin. Do you believe that Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Judas Iscariot have the status of guilt-free saints?
One problem is "already forgiven," as the Brief Confession of Missouri says. When you were born, were you already forgiven? If so, why were you baptized?
If the entire world is already forgiven, how is that different from Universalism? In fact, ELCA teaches the exact same concept of the Gospel.
The Atonement means that Christ has paid for the sins of the world. Atonement is not justification, just as baptism is not communion, even though both are sacrament.
The Atonement is the Gospel message, the treasure. As Luther and the Book of Concord say, the treasure lies in one heap until distributed by the Holy Spirit in the Means of Grace.
There is no justification without faith. Unbelievers remain under the wrath of God. In faith they receive the Gospel promises and are declared forgiven.
If you thought OJ was synonymous with the Atonement, you were like me and many others. I know Syn Conference pastors who thought that is what OJ was - the Atonement.
Here the Gospel in a few simple steps.
Robert Preus once taught UOJ, but he repudiated it in his last book, Justification and Rome.
God's forgiveness is grace, and that grace only comes to us through the Means of Grace. To claim grace without the Means of Grace is Enthusiasm, which is roundly condemned in the Book of Concord.
---
Scott E. Jungen has left a new comment on your post "What Is Wrong with Objective Justification and Sub...":
Thank you, thank you! Now I understand what UOJ is all about. Thank you for spelling it out so simply. Remember, I'm WELS trained so it took me a little longer to get it!
***
GJ - Support of UOJ is crumbling, Scott. One reason is that WELS stepped into it during the Kokomo Statements crisis, then refused to deal with their error, for fear of exposing the non-infallibility of the sect. Those who advocate UOJ do so from bluster, not from doctrinal arguments or exegesis.
Walther was right about this - error has to be exposed first. Hiding it away is not the same as making it go away.
