Lito Cruz Exposes Another Attempt To Rescue UOJ from Robert Preus' Repudiation of the Dogma

This is a fairly good book about the Preus-Otten era.

Robert Preus became a seminary president through UOJ
and finished his life by repudiating the false doctrine in the clearest possible way.

Over at Steadfast Waltherians, Mr. Steven Goodrich took a quote from R. Preus' book and I quote Steven here...

I decided to blog about some searches I did on Preus's <i>Justification and Rome<i>.Here is the blog url http://stevengoodrich.blogspot.com/ 

Goodrich:
Since this post is getting rather long, I am only going to give the two quotes that I think disproves Jackson theory that Robert Preus did not UOJ in Justification and Rome 

From footnote 74: In their [the Catholic] view Christ merited forgiveness of sin, peace with God, and righteousness, but He did not acquire forgiveness and righteousness asobjective realities which are offered in the Gospel. Righteousness and forgiveness are possibilities which become realities only when the process of justification and sanctification has begun. Robert D. Preus (1997-06-01). Justification and Rome (Kindle Locations 2005-2007). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition. From footnote 75: Luther and the earlier post-Reformation theologians do not present quite such a neat and tidy paradigm, but would probably agree with Quenstedt that Christ procured righteousness on the cross and that the same righteousness is apprehended through faith. All the Lutherans were in agreement that through faith the sinner acquires arighteousness which already exists objectively. Robert D. Preus (1997-06-01). Justification and Rome (Kindle Locations 2008-2011). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

Now Steven asked me about this quote at Extra Nos. I presume Steven gave this to Steadfast Waltherians as a way of countering Dr. Jackson's suggestion that Preus did not teach Objective Justification in Justification and Rome. I could be mistaken and Steven can correct me, regarding his motives for posting this in his blog or at Steadfast Waltherians.

First observe that Preus quote is found in P. 72-73 of the book (which in mine contained my own annotations). Note Preus did not use the word Objective Justification. Now we all know he knew what this phrase meant for he was a UOJer and if that was what he wanted to convey he could have used the term and could have said -- the sinner acquires a justification which already exists objectively.

However, this was not was not what Preus said.

The righteousness that exists objectively is not the same as the declaration of your righteousness that-- according to UOJers--exists objectively before you were born. Because righteousness and being declared righteous are NOT THE SAME thing. What then did Preus mean by  a righteousness which already exists objectively?

He meant the righteousness of Christ! This righteousness of Christ exists objectively. Of course it does, for Jesus was already righteous before he came to earth and his sacrifice would have availed nothing to God if he were not righteous in the first place. Preus did not mean the righteousness declared to you when Jesus was raised from the dead as taught by UOJ! What Preus meant here was the righteousness of Christ! That is the one that exists objectively.

Precisely that is what Preus meant because if one follows where that footnote was mentioned, over to p. 72, Preus quotes Quenstedt!!! And what did Quenstedt say? He said..

It is not just the same thing to say, "Christ' righteousness is imputed to us" and to say "Christ is our righteousness"...

Justification is the act of God in declaring us righteous upon faith in Christ, justification is not the same as righteousness as a category. For in the former, we are really guilty but we are being counted as righteous for the sake of  Christ the righteous One.

You can read the rest of that quote in the book.

***

GJ - How much do they hate justification by faith? Let me count the ways.

1. Seminarian Andrew Preus has posted two times (out of two) on UOJ.
2. LaughQuest raves against justification by faith at every opportunity. Like a flock of turkeys, they stick their heads into the air and start making awful noises, without any prompting or reason.
3. Steve Goodrich posts on Steadfast Enthusiasts and his own blog to prop up UOJ.
4. Jack Kilcrease posts on his blog, on SE, and everywhere he can, based on his position as a part-time teacher at a papist college, his education as a Jesuit, and his WELS-ELCA training. 
5. Pope Paul the Unlearned posts everywhere he can, never about the topic, but always in an ad hominem attempt to keep anyone from paying attention to Luther's doctrine.
6. Tim Glende posts anonymously from his fake blog in support of his Craig Groeschel reprint business, his UOJ promotion hobby.

I must be missing a few more. In fact, I skipped over another prime example - just because.

The UOJ Hive may buzz loudly and sting ever so slightly, but they constantly reveal their inability to comprehend Biblical doctrine, Luther's teaching, and the Book of Concord. Anyone can see from their writing that they have no grasp of the Means of Grace.

I do not want people to agree with me, but with the Scriptures and Lutheran Orthodoxy, based on their own studies. I do not spend my time trying to get my friends to shun, expel, and silence Cascione, McCain, Kilcrease, and the worker bees. Instead, I quote the drones at every opportunity, especially when they sink to their usual level of argumentation.

The UOJ Hive is drawing attention to an important book, Justification and Rome. I hope people read that on their own, without the help of those Talmudic scholars.

The Hive needs to explain some important lapses in the history of Holy Mommy Synod:

• Why did Walther base his UOJ on his rationalistic training at Leipzig and his cell group revelations with Stephan? Hardt wrote that Walther never changed his justification dogma.
• How did the LCMS quickly move from Walther-Pieperism to mainline unionism and Pentecostalism, right after making one particular Statement (1932) canon law?
• Why did the the president of the Olde Synodical Conference, Gausewitz, write a popular and extensively used catechism without ever mentioning UOJ?
• Why is the Olde Synodical Conference silent about the efficacy of the Word (foundational in Luther and the Bible) and the Means of Grace (Ludwig Fuerbring's fave). 
• If UOJ is pure and wholesome in WELS, as Rolf Preus boasts, then why did UOJ Enthusiast Richard Jungkuntz chair the first gay Lutheran seminary?
• Where does Robert Preus mention UOJ as a term and teach it as a concept in Justification and Rome? Page and verbatim quotation are needed.
• Who in ELCA disagrees with the notion that the entire world has been declared innocent, forgiven, saved, period, end of story, amen, alleluia? 

I agree.
Do you?