Here is the classic, Knapp-Walther UOJ position:
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 2:45 PM D. Jerome Klotz said... Pastor Rydecki,
I am not sure I am understanding you, and I do not want to misrepresent your position. Are you asserting that the forgiveness is NOT to be pronounced upon the world? Has this world of sinners not truly been reconciled to the Father by the blood and cross of His Son (I Cor. 5:19)? >[GJ - Merging of Atonement and Justification, so the entire world is absolved of sin without the work of the Holy Spirit in the Means of Grace: Enthusiasm.]
To proclaim such forgiveness is not to confuse objective with subjective justification/reconciliation. To proclaim such forgiveness is to deliver the very message of the Gospel, namely, that Christ has died FOR YOU, has risen FOR YOU, and has reconciled YOU to the Father. Repent, be baptized, and believe: YOU ARE FORGIVEN! [GJ - He should say with Walther and Knapp "Be assured you were already forgiven."]
If we, as I understand you to be arguing, are to water down this objective reality of universal objective justification, then what is it that the sinner grasps hold of and clings to in faith? Does the sinner not receive the forgiveness that has already been won for him in Christ? To speak of justification in any other way implies that our faith is in some way contributive to our forgiveness, i.e., either that our sins were not truly paid for until we believed, or that we could not possibly have known that ours sins were forgiven until we believed. The fact is, however, that we can know that our sins are objectively forgiven prior to our subjective act of faith--which is an act worked in us passive sinners by the working of the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament. [GJ - Justification by faith waters down the precious "doctrine" of UOJ.]
In sum, without the objective actuality of forgiveness existing apart from faith, we are left with a faith that exists apart from objective forgiveness, i.e., a faith that clings to itself, or imagines that faith somehow actualizes the potential of forgiveness. [GJ - That is the "your faith is in faith" argument of Rolf Preus and other crypto-Universalists.]
Such preaching robs the sinner of assurance and the radical nature of the grace of the Gospel, being freely (perhaps too freely we think) pronounced upon a world of sinners. [GJ - Justification by faith, according to Paul and Luther, robs the sinner? UOJ accuses believers of heresy - very Waltherian.]
Yet, this forgiveness won in Christ is not beneficial to me the sinner until I have received it, through the Word preached, and through the Sacraments administered. Apart from faith in the actual forgiveness won for me in the crucified and risen Christ, I am cut off from Christ and His saving benefits and am condemned to eternal hell and judgment. [GJ - The second justification makes the first one effective. Everyone is absolved, but not really. Roman Catholics teach that everyone is forgiven, but the sins are never paid for. Same kind of double-talk in double-justification.]
I agree with you that we need to safeguard the doctrine of objective justification from abuse (e.g., to equate it with subjective justification). But to turn objective justification into something potential rather than actual--which is what I am understanding you to be saying--is to destroy the Gospel altogether. [GJ - It is and it is not. Do not think about it too long.]
Please correct me if I have misunderstood you, Pastor.
In Christ, Jerome
***
GJ - Pastor Rydecki has been irritating the UOJ Stormtroopers with his analysis. Lindee now seems to agree with the Book of Concord, too.
Lindee and Webber both imagine that UOJ came up to "combat synergism" in the 19th century.
David Jay Webber said, rather rudely: "Mr. Lindee is mistaken in about two-thirds of his historical analysis. He is correct that the terminology of objective justification was developed in opposition to synergism in the 19th century, but the context was not the election controversy, and it didn't happen first in the Missouri Synod."
I have shown and proven from the actual text that double-justification came from the Halle Pietist Georg Christian Knapp. The two volumes came from years of lectures at Halle, the German translated into English and published in America in 1831, years before the Kidnapper stepped onto the dock of New Orleans.
"His son, Leonard Woods (1807-1878), was born in West Newbury, Mass., on the 24th of November 1807, and graduated at Union College in 1827 and at Andover Theological Seminary in 1830. His translation of Georg Christian Knapp's Christian Theology (1831-1833) was long used as a text-book in American theological seminaries." SourceBishop Stephan, a cell-group Pietist, led Walther, a cell-group Pietist, to America in 1839, so the double-justification scheme preceded them at Halle, where Stephan studied, and in America.
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "...":
Kudos to Klotz and Webber for correctly warning that Justification by Faith Alone is incompatible with Universal Objective Justification and those who reject the false gospel of UOJ have rejected the gospel of the (W)ELS completely.
---
AC V has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "...":
SimpleMan,
In Curia's paper there is not one reference to the Book of Concord. Perhaps that's the reason why Schaller and Hoenecke could not come to consensus on what 2 Corinthians 5:19's "reconciling" means. I.e. does it refer to "Atonement" per Schaller/F. Pieper (the "traditional view) or to "Justification" per Hoenecke/Meyer/Kuske?
Curia's quote from W.H.T. Dau comes close to what the BoC says:
…the entire doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together; …namely, that God in His purpose and counsel ordained [decreed]: 15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life. 16] 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments. 17] 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith. 18] 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life. Etc. 5-8. 27] …. Now, God does not call without means, but through the Word, as He has commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached in His name, Luke 24:47. St. Paul also testifies to like effect when he writes: We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:20. - Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration; Article XI “Election”
Did you catch his concluding remarks:
And so I, for one, choose to stand with Hoenecke and those who view the reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:19 and elsewhere as change of “status” before God, a part of the doctrine of justification and not of the atonement, as such. Is Hoenecke’s view the “official interpretation” of the WELS? That all depends on your definition as to what makes an interpretation “official”. If by “official,” one means the interpretation taught as most correct at our Seminary, then I would have to say, “Yes,” on the basis of my instruction there. If by “official,” one means that it is the interpretation found most often in our Synod’s publications, then I would also have to answer, “Yes.” If by “official,” one means that it is the only interpretation allowed by our Synod, then, of course, I would have to answer, “No,” for we have just recently republished Schaller’s Biblical Christology, unedited and without comment when he expounds his views quoted earlier in this paper. Likewise, an article of his espousing the traditional view, also quoted earlier in this paper, appeared unedited and without comment. translated from German Into English, in our own Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly in 1975—translated by no one less than a grandson of Adolf Hoenecke!"
---
Sherlock Holmes 2929 has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "...":
I believe that's part of the problem, Simpleman. What is the official doctrinal statement of the WELS? Is there one? If so, where? This We Believe? The WELS Seminary essay file?
---
LutherRocks has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "...":
We know there were no righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah when God judged, condemned and destroyed them. But the UOJ gang says they are justified=forgiven.
---
SimpleMan has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "...":
I'm not sure when objective justification became an official teaching of the WELS. There's even an essay in the WELS seminary files which says that while it is taught, yet it is not an official teaching of the WELS.
http://www.wlsessays.net/files/CuriaCorinthians.rtf
---
AC V has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "...":
If these men were to debate the issue, whom would you back?
Becker (20th century WELS theologian:
"If justification is universal, it must of necessity be objective. For if the sins of all men have been forgiven in the heart of God, then men are forgiven by God whether they believe it or not."
Abraham Calovius (17th century orthodox Lutheran theologian):
"Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God’s children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe."
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "...":
Dr. Klotz states, "To argue otherwise is as arrogant as the petulant child who refuses to believe his father's promise, "Dinner is ready!" and foolishly imagines instead that his dinner did not exist prior to entering his mouth!"
Pastor Rydecki responds, "This is just getting foolish. I don't know who's saying what you say here. I've said all along that forgiveness has been acquired by Christ for all. Faith does not "create" forgiveness."
October 11, 2011 8:20PM
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/fraternal-dialogue-on-topic-of.html?showComment=1318394449665#comment-c8420523970004157927
To answer Pastor Rydecki - Your (W)ELS District President, Pastor Jon Buchholz teaches in his 2005 Convention keynote essay what Dr. Klotz is confessing in his defense of UOJ - which, by the way, is the official teaching of the Synod which the Intrepids are in fellowship with.
"God has declared the entire world righteous." This statement is true, as we understand it to mean that God has rendered a verdict of "not-guilty" toward the entire world. It is also true—and must be taught—that the righteousness of Christ now stands in place of the world’s sin; this is the whole point of what Jesus did for us at Calvary. However, once again we’re wresting a term out of its usual context. In Scripture the term "righteous" usually refers to believers." Page 9
http://www.wlsessays.net/node/390
It's only fair to include (W)ELS' beloved Siegbert W. Becker as one who also taught the false gospel of UOJ to it's fullest.
"If justification is universal, it must of necessity be objective. For if the sins of all men have been forgiven in the heart of God, then men are forgiven by God whether they believe it or not." Page 1
http://www.wlsessays.net/node/142
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: The Case of the Disappearing "...":
Pastor Rydecki has been, by the grace of God, faithful in the rebuke of the false gospel of Universal Objective Justification (UOJ) and teaching of Justification by Faith Alone.
It is important to note that while he is making such a good confession he is also opposing the official teachings of the (W)ELS. Dr. Jerome H. Klotz is well versed in the teaching of UOJ and is applying every nuance of its promotion that the Sausage Factory has endorsed. His statement on Oct 11, 2011 7:26PM captures the sentiment well, "Don't they teach this stuff in the seminary???"
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/fraternal-dialogue-on-topic-of.html?showComment=1318393741487#comment-c2071646607328906445
