 |
| Woods was a super-star young Calvinist when he translated Knapp from German, and Knapp was already a long-established professor at Halle University. However, we are expected to believe that double-justification is both Lutheran and orthodox! Biblical and Corcord-ish! |
Reply to Steven Goodrich, from Lito Cruz, PhD:
Steven,
My points...
A.)
You said Therefore, Lito is incorrect when he construes Preus's phrase "a righteousness which already exists objectively" as "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 makes use of terminologies like Jesus' essential righteousness and the like. I did not use those terms. When I said the statement above, I was alluding to the concept taught in the Bible that Jesus was the second Adam.
Adam was born innocent, he lost it at the fall when he disobeyed the command of God regarding eating of the tree. Adam then lost his innocence and became guilty.
Likewise so teaches Scripture, that when Jesus came, he was also the Second Adam, innocent. But unlike the First Adam, Jesus retained his righteousness for though being tempted by the devil to violate the will of God, he did not fail, unlike the First Adam. He retained his righteousness.
This retention of his righteousness present in his life, in the end, he offered to God as payment for the sins of the whole world.
You may correct me in my language above and I appreciate that,but the correction is moot to my point.
The point is that in Footnote #75, Preus at the very minimum, did not mean, a righteousness that has already been declared to the sinner before he believed, ala LC-MS Brief Statement (of Faith) Article 17a. In fact it contradicts or cannot lend support for it.
That is my point. Correct me as you will, the correction is besides the point, Preus did not mean a declaration of righteousness the sinner has, before he was born or before he has faith.In fact you agreed with me when you said Preus is talking about Christ's righteousness. Therefore Preus is not talking about the LC-MS UOJ doctrine in Footnote #75.
B.)
Then you said this Declaring is not the same as imputing righteousness; it is the acquisition of righteousness. In Theses on Justification, clarifying document put out by the CTCR of LCMS, we read,"God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ's sake has been forgiven".
Steven, please note we are not being nasty when we are charging UOJers of sophistry. Here you succumb to that. Note that here you have produced two contradictory statements and are modifying the usual meaning of Justification in the Biblical context. In the Epistle to the Romans, Justification is the declaration of righteousness and happens only upon faith in person and work of Christ at the Cross Romans 3:21-25.
For God to declare the sins of anyone forgiven is for God to justify the person, declared righteous. That is the same in the Confessions.
If God declared the sinner righteous already, then what God declares is true. If God declared the whole world righteous already according to LC-MS before they could believe, then what is the need of any righteousness to be imputed, since the declaration has been made already? None, it is superfluous.
You have detached the Biblical understanding of Justification from the imputation of Christ's righteousness to faith.
The reason why God declares a believer righteous is because the believer is hanging on to the righteousness of Christ - Phil 2:9.
The criticism leveled against you by anti-UOJers who have come before me are correct-- UOJers indeed believe in 2 justifications, one at the cross or at the resurrection of Jesus depending on who you are talking to, and the other when the sinner believes the first justification.
I will quote Walter Maier II, your LC-MS exegete...
Yet Scripture teaches only one justification; namely, the one by faith in Christ, Romans 3:28. (Walter A. Maier II, A Summary Exposition of The Doctrine of Justification By Grace
Through Faith)
C.)
The Papists believe that the Justification Lutherans believed in is "legal fiction", i.e. not real. Preus' book was an argument against that. I suggest he also wrote the book to give the Lutherans a positive understanding of Justification. This is the reason why he took pains in showing the objectivity of the Lutheran belief of Justification. He wanted to counter the criticism of "legal fiction". That book, if he wanted to set forth UOJ was the perfect vehicle, yet he did not do that. In fact he did not even use the term Objective Justification.
According to Jack Cascione, Preus said this Nor is objective justification "merely" a "Lutheran term" to denote that justification is available to all as a recent "Lutheran Witness" article puts it – although it is certainly true that forgiveness is available to all. Nor is objective justification a Missouri Synod construct, a "theologoumenon" (a theological peculiarity), devised cleverly to ward off synergism (that man cooperates in his conversion) and Calvinistic double predestination, as Dr. Robert Schultz puts it in "Missouri in Perspective" (February 23, 1981, p. 5) – although the doctrine does indeed serve to stave off these two aberrations. No, objective justification is a clear teaching of Scripture, it is an article of faith which no Lutheran has any right to deny or pervert any more than the article of the Trinity or of the vicarious atonement.
Preus at the very least, then contradicted himself in JaR book, I will go for that assertion at a minimum.
For if he truly believed that OJ is not just a term but the very teaching of Scripture, an article of faith as he said, he should have done it in JaR and used it to prevent Lutherans from sliding to Romanism. He did not do it.
For the Papists are not only synergists of all sorts, they are Pelagians too. JaR is the most appropriate tool for laying out the sedes doctrinae. If he wanted to teach me, a would be reader, about UOJ he did not do it or at the very least managed to confuse me about it based on what I know now about UOJ.
D.) Lastly, UOJ is not established by anything any person says or is shot down by anything any person says, it can only be proven in Scripture first and foremost and then by the Confession (at least this is what I know about Team JBFA). For me, the Preus argument is only a side argument, it is not the strongest argument to Team JBFA's contention that UOJ is an un-biblical concept. Team JBFA's criticism stems from Scripture witness first and foremost seconded by the Confessions.
I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, you are LC-MS after all, so good luck to your efforts,
LPC
 |
| Two of Walther's chosen seminary professors joined the Church of Rome. Edward (aka Eduard) Preus wrote the Stormtroopers' favorite UOJ book. |
