Lito Cruz on the UOJ Magisterium

John,

You asked…Would it, in your view, LPC, be orthodox if it was explained that OJ meant objectively the forgiveness of sins has been won?

It would be orthodox if they drop the category and terminology of OJ. They admit it is a 19th century innovation.

The immaculate conception of Mary by the Romanists is also an 18th century innovation!!
So here, the UOJers and their Synodical Magisterium and Roman Catholics are quite similar!!

The former says, hey it is taught by Scripture, Confessions. The UOJers believe that their Synod Fathers can simply introduce innovative ways of speaking etc etc. So they are acting like the Magisterium.
Do you remember R. Neuhaus? He was LC-MS and he became Roman!!!

Father Neuhaus supported Seminex, the first gay Lutheran seminary,
chaired by UOJ champion (from WELS) Richard Jungkuntz.

Why? Because Neuhas said well my Synodical Magisterium can behave like Romans, I might as well be Roman since the latter has a better historical pedigree. Read his testimony, please.
Here is what I say…

Eduard Preuss defended UOJ in print,
then joined the Church of Rome and defended Marian doctrines.

At the cross, Jesus has won for us the forgiveness of sins, he possesses it. In fact the BoC authors in and BoC editors spoke if winning in that respect. The problem is the rubber band use of the term Justfication. They call the winning of forgiveness as the justification of the world, see again the famous loved verse Romans 4:25.

They should not use that word to describe that event, the winning of forgiveness as the justification of the world, properly speaking, because in fact Jesus calls his sacrifice a ransom! He did not I believe teach that by his death everyone is already justified without faith and prior to faith. For Justfication when used is connected always to faith and so personal and subjectively applied.

But in Article 17b, 1932 Brief Statement runs contrary to the ransom language of Jesus, it says Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25

The other bits of that article is correct but this bit is wrong.

Now, why the huh-hah of so called heretics like me? It is because that small statement is not benign. First it is not Biblical and that is the source of confusion.

You can read about people confused about this in the comments around here. See how people in their churches says, this and that is just a remembrance etc etc.

They are confused! In fact that is the judgement of Andrew, read his post, he says they should be re-indoctrinated, sent back to the camp and re-programmed etc., so to speak.

If so, then the problem lies with that OJ teaches that it’s not that it has been won but, rather, UOJ goes further by saying it has been distributed objectively?

Yes, because justification is alway distribution and when you connect and call the winning as justification then you are saying, it has been distributed already too.

You are right that is why you note Pr. Webber, jumped in here. He claims no one claims this. Is this true?
He may deny it but that is the fruit of UOJ, is to confuse. In my opinion, the UOJers are sophists whether they realize it or not or at least unknowingly being sophists. This the BoC condemned. Read about how the BoC writers often speak about the sophistry of Papist.

Like I said, the extra Confessional and Biblical statements the Synodical Authorities there have made is similar to the way the Roman Magisterium operate.

In order to justify new and innovative ideas of thinking about salvation, they had to innovate concepts and terminologies.

Like I said John, in all of anti-UOJers debate, the best passage UOJers have in claiming that the world has been declared righteous, justified already is Romans 4:25.

This is why in all of the Protestant world, the LC-MS/WELS/ELS is peculiar. Ask any independent exegete of honest repute and sincere repute if by reading Romans 4:25, he can affirm that the world has been justified already. Which independent exegetes affirm this? None, they all comre from their own seminaries
The only one who tried to stir them in the correct direction was Walter A. Maier but some negotiation happened which I won’t get into.

When you challenge them, they simply say – all are wrong and heretics we hold the true Lutheran and true Church teaching.

That behaviour is Roman, I know too because I was a Roman Catholic kid.

John, I am sorry that I am tired, I am almost done, you know where to find me if I could be of help to your studies.

LPC.