Kovo still works for Floyd, apparently.
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Brett Meyer - A Reason To Weigh In about Justifica...":
Dear Friends,
I am enjoying the recent exchange at the Intrepid web site. I need some amusement from time to time. So I get out of the world of formulas etc and into the real world.
One of the first papers I studied when I started looking more about UOJ (as alerted by Dr. Ichabod) was the paper written by Dr. Marquart. Frankly, I do not think Dr. Marquart untangled the mess of UOJ by that paper. It failed to convince me at least. If he did, I won't be one of those weighing negatively towards UOJ today.
Looking at history, there was no confusion on the side of the Lutherans since BoC, about faith or the view that it can be synergistic at all.
According to Pr. Jay Webber, the OJ/SJ terminology was designed to counter the synergism of Scandinavian Lutherans.
This is an interesting comment, because I would have thought that if a Lutheran is confused, he needs to be encouraged towards the BoC formulation in a positive way, rather than invent new categories and such and tilt the person over a quasi-univeralistic view of justification.
Here is the Webber quote:
If righteousness has been proclaimed upon humanity's substitute, then righteousness has in fact been proclaimed upon humanity. In the resurrection of Christ, as he stood in the place of all humanity, he was justified. That is, he was declared to be righteous and was vindicated as the representative of all humanity. This means that in him, and in his resurrection, all humanity was thereby justified. In him all humanity was declared to be righteous and was vindicated.
Romans 4:25 is surely in view behind this remark, which Pieper and Company, got the exegesis wrong.
LPC
GJ - That Webber quotation reminds me of Luther's description of Erasmus' logic - a pile of manure delivered on a silver platter.
Double-justification comes from the Woods translation of Knapp. It is still in print today and was available in both languages before the predestinating ship delivered the Kidnapper and his adulterous bishop to New Orleans. Since Knapp taught at Halle University, the center of Pietism, one can hardly call double-justification an answer to Pietism.
I would be interested in an actual citation that proves double-justification was designed to counter Scandinavian Pietism. Bishop Stephan's congregation was quite deliberately Pietistic, with a direct connection to Zinzendorf and an open promotion of cell groups. Stephan thrived in his cell group work, where he also cultivated his female cell groupies. He had a number of mistresses, according to court testimony, and abandoned his wife to travel to America with his main mistress.
Walther was also a Pietist, who merely changed his cell groups, not his theology, in moving into the Stephan circle and over the ocean. Walther owed Stephan his life, for saving him from starving himself to death. Webber should do some research about these topics.
The grand statement about Christ's resurrection justifying and absolving mankind contradicts what Robert Preus stated in his final book. The UOJ Stormtroopers should stop embarrassing themselves in their refusal to deal with these clear statements. Clearly the Preus' citations of three orthodox theologians are meant to answer the dubious claim promoted once again by Webber, who (like McCain) graduated during the Preus years.
I have reproduced the quotations below. I may explicate them with more detail later, but I fear it is a hopeless task to deal with the UOJ-brain-washed.
I agree completely with all three quotations in the graphics above. Does Jay Webber, MDiv? His statements contradict what Robert Preus published.
