http://cyberbrethren.com/2012/08/26/the-beauty-comfort-and-power-of-the-doctrine-of-objective-justification/
Pope Paul the Plagiarist wrote:
It has come to my attention that there are some laypeople who read my blog, and follow my Facebook page, who have had the unfortunate experience of stumbling across very negative and harmful discussions on the Internet of what is called the doctrine of “objective justification.” There is a former Lutheran pastor who has made it his life’s mission to attack this comforting doctrine. I urge and warn all those who read this blog and my Facebook page to avoid any such discussions and to flee from any false teachers who would rob you of the comfort of the Gospel. They like to insert themselves everywhere they can on various forums where justification is discussed. Pray for their repentance and restoration to a true and living faith. They are the very kind of persons whom the Apostle warns us about when he urges us to make sure we are “keeping Faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith” (1 Timothy 1:19). Mark and avoid anyone who casts doubt on the doctrine of objective justification, and particularly mark and avoid any pastor who does so Do not be deceived. Cling to the truth.
Rejoice in this beautiful explanation of the doctrine of objective justification written by the Rev. Dr. Robert Preus, in 1981.
***
GJ - The UOJ Hive always wants to silence the message of justification by faith alone. They like their little dogma, which is a perfect fit for little, unbelieving minds. For those who are not studious and make a career out of copying the work of others, UOJ is perfect. Everyone is forgiven and saved, so it does not matter if Groeschel or the pope is plagiarized. Making money from the work of others, without giving due credit - that is plagiarism.
The quoted portion from the Robert Preus essay is from a little booklet by Eduard Preuss, an apostate still regarded as a great champion of UOJ, quoted lovingly but dishonestly. No one ever says, "This Concordia Seminary professor became a Roman Catholic professor and published in favor of Roman Catholic dogma for the rest of his life." I consider that a significant detail. Too bad I have owned and read Fuerbring's books (twice), where conversion is described vividly.
Read this as if it appeared the first time in print:
“All this is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church, “We are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?’’ This is not the justification which we receive by faith…That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead.” (Edward Preuss, “The Justification of a Sinner Before God,” pp. 14-15)
We are declared forgiven (justified without faith) before we are born? So why are we baptizing babies...or anyone? Original sin has been removed by UOJ, just as it is by the Universalists.
If Lutherans teach infant faith, isn't that bad - because UOJ Enthusiasts always denigrate faith. That is why the SynConference no longer teaches the efficacy of the Word, the Means of Grace, or justification by faith. Their charade is not justification by faith but a cover, a dodge, a camouflage for their one and only dogma.
Read this so-called Scriptural support, endorsed by McCain:
“According to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind. Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ’’ sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished atonement. But Christ said, “It is finished.” And God raised Him from the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (I Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (Romans 4:25).
That paragraph contains five examples of if clauses - but are they faithful to the Word of God? Many years later, Robert Preus responded in his book, repudiating the rationalistic and Pietistic drivel of this alleged Scriptural support. In the paragraph just cited, Preus simply engaged in begging the question, a logical fallacy. There is not a fragment of Scriptural exegesis in his supposed support.
Some of the Preus statements in McCain's post are theological face-palms:
So McCain believes (by side-stepping the Justification and Rome book) that every single unbeliever is justified without faith before they come to faith?
UOJ and Reformation?
And very definitely the doctrine of objective, or general, justification does not threaten the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. Rather it is the very basis of that Reformation doctrine, a part of it. For it is the very pardon which God has declared over the whole world of sinners that the individual sinner embraces in faith and thus is justified personally.
There is no scholarly support for this assertion. Luther would certain be shocked to learn this. I have been working on 40 graphics (so far) from the Kregel edition of Luther's Galatians Commentary, one of his finest works, a mature effort produced long after the 95 Theses. I will post a few graphics that show the theme of Galatians and the Reformation.
