Pope Paul the Plagiarist broken-heartedly confessed he did not want justification by faith discussed on Steadfast Lutherans.
McCain's remedy was to post a thirty year-old essay from Robert Preus. No surprise - the key quote comes from a Concordia Seminary St. Louis professor who turned Roman Catholic: Eduard Preuss. This quote states we are forgiven even before we are born. That is an important dogma to consider, because it has become a slogan in WELS. "I was saved 2,000 years ago."
I copied some of my graphics for the Apology of the Ausburg Confession. These brilliant, clear statements about justification by faith came from open debate. The Imperial Diet was called in 1530 to settle differences between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics. When the Lutherans presented the Augsburg Confession, largely the work of Melanchthon, the Romanists responded with their Confutation.
The Lutherans immediately responded with their Apology or Defense of the Augsburg Confession. The Apology expanded upon justification by faith. Significantly, the editors of the Book of Concord quoted Luther as saying he was a "theologian of the Augsburg Confession." They wrote this in agreement with Luther.
The UOJ Stormtroopers are terrified of discussion because their minions are asking pointed questions about the anti-Christian, unBiblical nature of their dogma. Knapp's double-justification became Tholuck's single justification. Both taught at Halle University, where Pietism morphed into rationalism. The single justification of Tholuch and Schleiermacher is Universalism. Everyone is forgiven.
The spirit of Fuller Church Growthism and mainline unionism is the same - Universalism. The good news, the message of grace is simple - God is so kind that He does not care whether anyone believes His Word or not, whether they repent or not, whether they trust in Christ as their Savior...or not. God's grace is manifested in His forgiveness of the entire world, without that nasty contingency of faith. The more people examine the rot of Universal Objective Justification, the worse it looks.
I am pleased that UOJ Stormtroopers must come out of the closet and defend their dogma in public. Their rage is being expressed all over Lutherdom. Most Lutherans do not realize that there is an organized concerted effort to pound any outlet or anyone suspected of allowing
justification by faith to be expressed.
Trinity Lutheran Church, LCMS, Bridgeton, Missouri (St. Louis) told
Christian News that no money would be given to Herman Otten if he published anything by me. Otten told me that himself. I consider that to be an honor. Otten buckled and refused to publish anything positive about
Thy Strong Word. The one person who did review it, negatively, is now one of those papal LCMS pastors.
Steadfast Lutherans is UOJ, with some of the dumbest statements ever to see the light of day, but it is also allowing
justification by faith comments. UOJ people want to have the Means of Grace writers banished and silenced forever. The value of the debate is that it brings out the shallow and nasty side of UOJ, which they would rather suppress.
Pastor Steve Spencer, WELS, told me that his sect ripped him for several days when the Intrepid Lutherans posted a slightly critical post. WELS (doubtless SP Schroeder) told them to remove an offensive essay, which mentioned
justification by faith. Imagine Intrepid Lutherans being so far off base that they offered any support to the
Chief Article of the Christian Faith! The board voted to keep the essay posted.
The UOJ Enthusiasts will lose by winning. The more they try to replace the Chief Article,
justification by faith, with their dogma,
justification without faith, the more people will study the Word and the Confessions.
WELS Sausage Factory CEO Paul Wendland, salesman for the NNIV, will present a streaming video Bible study on...
justification by faith. That is the topic, just to remind people that they will stoop to any deception to present
justification without faith.
Anyone who objects to Wendland's propaganda will be met with this barrage:
- Are you calling the president of our seminary a false teacher?
- Do you realize the Doctrinal Pussycats have endorsed this?
- Do you read Ichabod? We pushed him out for objecting to clergy adultery and Church Growth!
- Do you want all your friends and relatives to shun you for life?
Disagreeing with Wendland will mean automatic excommunication, unless the individual repents and begs forgiveness (an irony, to be sure). They do not mind anyone objecting, as long as they can crush that person and have him come back as a UOJ zombie.
For those who recognize the efficacy of the Word, the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit through the Word, reviewing the Confessions is exciting, fulfilling, and comforting.
Anything I can do to take away carnal security is part of my job as a pastor.
On the one hand, you have the thoroughgoing Calvinist particularism, which says that there is no conflict between atonement and election because both are coincident divine acts over which we have no influence, and they happen to be limited in scope. And on the other, you have an insistence on universalism of atonement, but an ongoing belief in damnation that mandates some level of particularism. And in a perverse solafidianism, the Arminians choose to keep double-predestination and make election conditional on not screwing up the reception of faith.
And what you describe here suggests that Huber goes for a universalism predicated on not failing—which means that like the Arminians, he asserts the real possibility of a fall from grace by human will and action.
It seems to me that if you're going to go universalist, you cannot stop midway, or you wind up with some positive or negative version of synergism. (Antergism?) The Calvinist position chooses, in double-predestinarian fashion, to go whole-hog particularist to fix this problem, and assign everything to the divine will and nothing to Man (besides Adam and Christ).
Objective and subjective justification walk a fine line in not falling into the same trap. And perhaps it's odd that I should find Barth a better exemplar of this position than many of us! In saying that faith matters, we do say something like what the Arminian position of 1610 attempts to—that it is faith that saves, and that faith is a God-given grace, and not our doing. But instead of speaking about faith, we speak about Christ as the objective reality of God's act, and the Spirit as the subjective reality of God's act. And we refuse, by and large, to talk about damnation as though it had a reality, because human failure is not in any way determinant of human destiny.
Jack, even if Huber did it wrong, what keeps us from functional universalism, and how do we walk that line without believing in damnation and attributing it to the divine will?