|Does UOJ absolve someone, in advance, from|
reporting the rape of a child?
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Sig Becker's UOJ. Does It Harmonize with Hunnius, ...":
Siegbert W. Becker's essay can be found here:
The fourth Kokomo statement taught by UOJ is: 4) At the time of the resurrection of Christ God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all sin and gave unto them the status of saints.
LutherQuest denizens recently confirmed this doctrinal teaching of UOJ when they declared that all those who died in Sodom and Gomorrah were declared righteous by God and forgiven of all sin.
(W)ELS tends to back away from affirming this teaching but it is an unavoidable consequence to the blatant false gospel teachings of Objective Justification.
Becker confirms it this way (all quotes are from his essay), "One really becomes a guilt-free saint only through faith, if we limit ourselves to the biblical usage of the word. However, since our holiness, as Augustine says, consists in sin’s remission rather than in life’s perfection, we could say that when God forgave the sins of the whole world he regarded all sinners as guilt-free, but if they are guilt-free we might also say that they are considered sinless in the sight of God. But a sinless person is a holy person, a saint. The fact that unbelievers do not consider themselves to be forgiven does not change the truth of God’s Word that tells us that God does not impute the sins of all men to them, or that through one man justification has come upon all men." Page 14
"Every one of the statements can be understood correctly, even though one must swallow a little hard to accede to the fourth."
"Even the fourth statement can be defended even though it leaves much to be desired. As we have said, the statement is not drawn from a WELS source. If it is true that God has forgiven the sins of the world then it is also true that he forgave the sin of Judas. When Jesus called Judas “friend” in the garden, he was in effect treating him as a forgiven sinner. If Jesus took away the sins of the world he also took away the sins of the people who died in the flood. It is surely no more difficult to believe that God forgave sins that were already being punished than to believe that at the time of the resurrection he forgave sins that had not yet been committed. How that is possible I do not know. It very likely finds its explanation in the divine attribute of eternity. But while the statement can be defended as expressing a biblical reality, yet it would be best not to speak in such terms."
"I do not consider any of the four statements to be false doctrine,..."
And setting the style for (W)ELS Confessional statements Becker goes on to retract what he just declared to be true - "Anyone who reads the statements carefully will recognize that they do not say that there are saints in hell. The charge that our Synod teaches such foolishness is a base canard that has been widely circulated on the basis of the four statements."
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Sig Becker's UOJ. Does It Harmonize with Hunnius, ...":
Am I reading it right that Scaer says if one does not believe in OJ one believes that man is responsible for his sins?
Why who else could be responsible for my sins, the devil, God but not me?
GJ - Don't think about it too much, Dr. Cruz. Scaer's dogma is a ferago of self-contradictions.