Jay Webber Praises His Catechumen Jon Buchholz for Repeating the Webber Talking Points

Jay Webber, ELS Bored of Doctrine,
hates and persecutes justification by faith.

William, I don't think I agree that on the side of objective justification "is the lurking error of universalism." That mght have been true years ago, when the so-called "Kokomo Theses" were put forth by some in the WELS as a correct summary of objective justification. Those theses and their phrasing were deeply flawed.

But now, at least in WELS, the point-man for how objective justification is properly to be explained is Jon Buchholz, who has rejected the Kokomo Theses, who has approvingly cited Kurt Marquart's way of explaining objective justification, and who in general has put forth a very balanced and evangelical understanding. Buchholz focuses objective justification on Christ and on his death and resurrection in the stead of humanity. He emphasizes the indispensable necessity of the means of grace.

He recognizes that there have been some different ways of explaining these things over the centuries, and therefore does not engage in a battle over words as long as the essence of the thing is maintained. So, when people reject even Buchholz's form of teaching, that shows me that it is not just a misunderstanding that can be clarified through a more careful dialogue and a more balanced form of presentation.

That careful dialogue and study have taken place. Buchholz's recent essay is the carefully-stated and balanced articulation of this doctrine that we have needed. All Confessional Lutherans should be able to accept what he says and be at peace with it. He addresses the legitimate concerns and carefully lays them to rest, as he also corrects the imprecise and misleading expressions that have been used in the past to teach objective justification.