David Jay Webber, MDiv, Misleading the LaughQuest Audience about Double Justification

David Jay Webber, LQ:

The teaching of "objective justification" in Synodical Conference circles was clarified earlier than the election controversy, in the context of a dispute over absolution that involved the old Norwegian Synod and other Scandinavian Lutheran groups. The question was: Is absolution a wish that sins be forgiven, or is it a powerful impartation of forgiveness, to be received in faith? The Norwegian Synod and other orthodox synods said it was the latter.

Absolution was confessed as conveying to penitents a justification and a forgiveness that was already an objective reality for them - not just a potentiality - by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ. This was not a new doctrine, but it was an accentuation and re-emphasis of the old Lutheran doctrine of the keys and of the means of grace, as necessitated by new pietistic and synergistic departures.

Marquart is correct when he says that the terminology that was devised at this time "grew out of" the disputes with Rome and Calvinism in the Reformation era, even though the terminology itself - in so many words - did not come from the Reformation era.

Gausewitz Catechism? Nope.
LCMS German Catechism. Nope.
LCMS KJV Catechism - still being sold. Nope.

***

GJ - The term "general justification" was used by the Pietist Burk and cited by Hoenecke.

The OJ/SJ terminology appeared in the English version of Knapp (Halle University, where Bishop Martin Stephan studied). Woods, the translator, was a celebrity Calvinist, a super-star in America.

The Scandinavians were all Pietists, and the Missouri Synod was (and is) Pietistic.

Webber's sloppy claims are offered without a shred of evidence. The bizarre OJ/SJ terms are peculiar to the Synodical Conference (tm) because Walther took over the Stephan cult and imposed the Stephan scheme on everyone. The OJ dogma came from Halle, but that did not keep Missouri from making it worse and more extreme in each generation.

Anyone who does not report the sexual abuse of minors is guilty,
according to the law in most states.

Dogmatic Illiteracy Dominates the UOJ Host

Dr. Lito Cruz pointed out, in the post below, the utter lack of discernment among the UOJ fanatics.

Their basic problems include a obstinate refusal to acknowledge the efficacy of the Word and the definition of Enthusiasts. Neither do they understand the Means of Grace or Universalism.

Their mishandling of Scripture reveals their lupine nature.

For them, the atonement of Christ means every single person in the world is forgiven - even before birth. That applies to everyone born in the past, everyone who will be born in the future. They associate their strange dogma with all the synonyms for the atonement, such as expiation and redemption. Rolf Preus and the rest of the Stormtroopers continue to assert this.

The UOJ Enthusiasts cannot grasp that justification is NOT a synonym for the atoning death of Christ. Their stupidity shows when they constantly repeat that justification by faith is Calvinist and assumes a limited atonement.

The difference is that justification by faith is God's declaration of innocence, the result of the Gospel in Word and Sacrament. The Gospel is the proclamation of the atonement, reconciliation, or expiation. Merging the two terms reveals complete ignorance of the Means of Grace.

Terms are bandied about without any consciousness of their meaning in different confessions. Roman Catholics speak about the Means of Grace, but that grace is quite diluted if believers must spend thousands of years tortured in Purgatory because that grace was not sufficient for complete forgiveness. (They say "sins forgiven but not paid for.")

Likewise, the generic Protestant churches have baptism and the Lord's Supper. They seldom say "Holy Communion" because that suggests the Real Presence. Lutherans still use their NIV with "communion" removed from the crucial passages and 1 Peter 3:21 butchered. The LCMS and WELS gave up the Means of Grace when they promoted the NIV, so ignorance  has grown over time. Or is it apathy?

The generic Protestants have a version of the sacraments, but they deny the efficacy of the sacraments. When they say those "ordinances" - as they call them - are witnesses to one's faith, are they not in harmony with the UOJ fanatics who say the Means of Grace tell people they are already forgiven?

How can the Word and Sacraments be Instruments of Grace when the entire universe already has the benefit of grace - forgiveness and salvation?

Needless to say, the most ignorant of the Church and Changers are the loudest about UOJ. Tim Glende started his blog of bad spelling, worse grammar, and odious dogma by defending the Appleton craving for Church and Change.

Also superfluous - the Appleton area is the prime example of WELS plagiarism, whether at St. Peter Freedom, St. Mark Depere, or Bethany Appleton.

The prosecution rests, but not for long.

Try Not To Laugh When Reading This Doctrinal Comparison. LaughQuest Earning Its Nickname

False teachers are sharing this advice.

Question: A Lutheran friend is considering joining an Orthodox congregation. What are the most significant differences between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy?

Pastor Rolf David Preus: 
The Eastern Orthodox deny justification by faith alone. There are other differences, but this is the most signifant one.

***

GJ - Ba-da-bing.

Extra Nos: Col 2:13-14 a UOJ Text? Tertium non datur once again.

Extra Nos: Col 2:13-14 a UOJ Text? Tertium non datur once again.:


Col 2:13-14 a UOJ Text? Tertium non datur once again.
Over at so called Luther Quest, Mr. Joe Krohn (LutherRocks), a JBFAer and Mr. Jim Pierce of Confessional Bytes, a UOJer, had an interchange.

In that interchange, Jim Pierce employed Colossians 2:13-15, to prove that this passage teaches the forgiveness of the whole world, without faith, prior to faith before we were born. I quote Mr. Pierce in one comment said...

If you deny that the sins of the whole world have been forgiven on account of the blood sacrifice of Christ, then you have likely fallen into error regarding the atonement. That is, you must reject that Christ has made full satisfaction for the debt of sins for the whole world. Here the debt of sin is defined for us by Paul in the epistle to the Colossians:

"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him" (Colossians 2:13-15 ESV).
----
After Joe replied saying the context of that passage refers to believers, Jim replied with

I understand that the greater context of the Colossians quotation is directed at believers. However, the text I cite to you deals with the sins of the world. If that is not true, as you assert, then you are left defending a version of limited atonement, which I know you do not want to do, but it is inescapable. Deny that the cancellation of the record of debt, by nailing it to the cross, is universal and you are left with the cancellation of debt only being for some and namely only the elect.

In my study, I find this doctrine of universal objective justification, truly a peculiar doctrine found amongst synodic Lutherans in USA. This doctrine teaches that the whole human race has been declared righteous (effectively forgiven) already even before any of them (humans) ever believed in Christ or not. Faith has nothing to do with this declaration, so they say. In fact if I recall in that interchange, one UOJer opposing Joe Krohn even confessed that Sodom and Gomorrah were forgiven (hence, declared righteous) too. I grin since I recall that God told Abraham if He found 10 righteous people there he would not destroy the twin cities.

Thankfully there are some pastors and theologians who oppose this UOJ teaching on Justification.



Jim homed in on the phrase " having forgiven us all our trespasses" (v.13-14). His contention is the "us" there refers to all human beings and he asserts that if you do not believe like he does, you are guilty of being a Calvinist, believing in Limited Atonement. Is this true?

More at this link.


'via Blog this'