Dear Dr. Jackson: Can you point me to where in your blog there has been a discussion of Objective Justification? I was at CTSFW when Jack Preus accused Prof. WAM Maier Jr. of false teaching, when Maier was being "run" as the "conservative" replacement to Preus as LCMS president in 1981.
Also, where is there a discussion of Church & Ministry? I would like to know your teaching on these subjects.
I can understand the point that OJ can be used to minimize the necessity for saving faith, but is there a danger that faith can become a "good work" if OJ is denied, by stressing something "in the believer" rather than divine monergism? Does OJ take on the appearance of the Reformed "Preservation of the Saints" and "one saved, always saved" as the basis for the believer's assurance of salvation by stressing something "outside of the believer"?
For that matter, what is the PRACTICAL difference between OJ and speaking of Christ having "atoned for the sins of the world" or "reconciled the world to God"?
Thank you! --
Warren
***
GJ - I have trouble untwisting Robert Preus' history on this. His UOJ essay, which Cascione loves, is just the opposite of his Justification and Rome, not to mention another essay, published many years before the Rome book. That other essay contained many quotations obliterating the claims of UOJ, the same ones he made in that 1987 essay.
Robert and Jack Preus kept WAM Jr from becoming Concordia Seminary's president (Ft. Wayne). It was an organized sand-bag job - in honor of CFW Walther, no doubt.
UOJ is not the same at the atonement. UOJ is universal forgiveness of every single person since Adam, without faith, without the Word, without the Means of Grace.
More in the morning.
There is no excuse for UOJ. The claims in favor of UOJ are all bogus. They have turned into papal-style dogma, the repetition of false assertions serving as a guarantee of its truth. Warren mentioned the warning about faith "becoming a good work" and so forth.
The warnings are what Calvinists argued against Arminians (decision theolgy).
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "More Questions from Warren Malach - About UOJ and...":
Ichabod -
Warren says:
>>>>>>>> I can understand the point that OJ can be used to minimize the necessity for saving faith, but is there a danger that faith can become a "good work" if OJ is denied, by stressing something "in the believer" rather than divine monergism? <<<<<<<
I believe that one of the motivating (negative) factors which drive universal objective justification enthusiasts is what Warren mentions: a fear or paranoia that - ".........a danger that faith can become a "good work" if OJ is denied, by stressing something "in the believer" rather than divine monergism?"
That, question is somewhat bent. And, I say, "bent" because those who give the Holy Spirit His proper due in the conversion process (which is, beginning to end), don't have problems, fear or paranoia with faith being or becoming a "good work," thereby erring toward synergism.
The UOJ enthusiasts as you essentially say, make everything of the Atonement. When they do this, they automatically [then] slice off the Holy Spirit's work [John 3:8] This is why, when the UOJ'S preach, they often ignore and disregard the Holy Spirit; and, consequently abhor talking about personal belief and faith. They are unwilling to leave their reasoning at Scripture's doorstep and [in faith] accept the paradoxical mystery of personal faith in the believer apart from the Atonement. In short, they are "conversion process" challenged.
I know what I intend to say; but I'm not sure that I am expressing myself that clearly. I'll try again:
As one who does not believe that the Atonement is the believer's personal justification before God, - I believe that there is no problem with personal belief [faith] being regarded as a "good work." Why? Because, the Scripture says that faith in the believer is God's work, entirely. I don't understand all this. And, I don't need to. But, I sure will not (then) attempt to make the Atonement that which it isn't.
Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org
***
GJ - I suggest reading the Formula of Concord on the Righteousness of Faith. That article covers the issues quite well, which is why it is never quoted by the quia subscription confessional conservative (sic, sic, sic) Lutherans.
---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "More Questions from Warren Malach - About UOJ and...":
I agree with Rev. Bickel. A hallmark of a person who rejects the faith of the Holy Spirit worked graciously through Word and Sacrament is the charge that a rejection of UOJ is a rejection of the gospel and one that makes faith a requirement to be forgiven. BJS follower and One Justification Solely by Faith Alone anathamatizer Jim Pierce is famous for clearly establishing this teaching. But he was not alone and neither was he the first. Buchholz, the Preus clan, Zarling, Becker etc all made the same erroneous charge.
They utterly fail when identifying unbelief as the unforgiveable sin which was their only speedbump separating them from full blown Universalism. The forgivness of sins is life and salvation. The Lutheran Synods declare the whole unbelieving world forgiven and therefore teach universal salvation, decision theology and all manner of pietistic perversions. All caused by rejecting Christ's Gospel and establishing their own way to righteousness.
The errors of the (W)ELS and ELS on the central article also impact their doctrines covering the Public Ministry - chief of which is their claim to be able to establish, by human right, divine offices different from the Office of Public Ministry that Christ instituted and yet still divine.
(W)ELS has become their own god's since they've rejected Christ, the Holy Spirit and thereby God the Father. They've fulfilled the prophesy of the last days - they've established themselves as god's, sitting in the temple of God.
