More on UOJ as a Liberal Philosophy - Plus Pietism

Spener led to Halle University, the fetid womb of UOJ.

Daryl Meyer has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Is a Liberal Philosophy - Not Biblical Doctrin...":

Perhaps one of the best quotes in Koehler's synod history is Hoenecke's remark about Walther: "He knew his Kant."

Halle would have done Seminex proud. Besides the customary Pietism and rationalism, it was also a dung heap for what we today know as 'intelligent design', espoused especially by one of Hoenecke's mentors, Julius Mueller. From Mueller's gem, The Christian Doctrine of Sin (1885): "Upon the principles of theistic metaphysics indeed, it is usually assumed that the production of new species does not take place in the progressive development of finite existence, but only at the beginning. But even supposing this opinion to be correct, the relation in which the various species stand to each other, very much favors the extension of this beginning itself in a series of successive moments, just as we find it represented in the Mosaic account of creation...whether the intervals between the successive moments be days only or thousands of years."

Given this sort of culture, it's no wonder the SynCon has long since distanced itself from schools like Halle, Basel, and Barmen in general and Pietism in particular, even as it clings fast to its precious vestige of Pietism, UOJ. The irony of ironies comes from the good old WLS essay files, Fredrich's Lutheran Pietism Comes to America (http://www.wlsessays.net/files/FredrichAmerica.pdf):

"If there is one characteristic Wisconsin Synod pastors have in common, it is a profound and congenital distaste for Pietism. The easiest way to win a debate on our conference floors is to charge the opponent with being a Pietist. On the enemies' list of most of us Pietism stands high in third place, just behind Satan and Antichrist. Such an attitude is understandable. A church body heartily committed to the truth of objective justification cannot help being turned off by the worst vagaries of Pietism." 

I can't make this stuff up.

False Dilemma's Are the Fuel of Foolish Arguments

A. Berean has left a new comment on your post "Another Jack - Not Kilcrease - Suffers from Delusi...":

"Does God give people faith through His word before He forgives them, or does God forgive the world before He gives people faith through His word?"

This is a false dilemma. Trying to set forgiveness before faith or faith before forgiveness is not what Scripture does or the Confessions. Remember what the Formula of Concord says in Article III:

"the righteousness of faith IS the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and our adoption as God's children only on account of the obedience of Christ, which through faith alone, out of pure grace, is imputed for righteousness to all true believers, and on account of it they are absolved from all their unrighteousness."

These two things (Faith and Forgiveness) do not exist without each other. The atonement stands independent of faith (faith does not effect the atonement). But faith and forgiveness are intimately connected.

Rydecki Did Not Write This Article. I Did Not Write It. A Missouri Synod Pastor Did. Otten Refused To Publish It

HOW CAN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD SOLVE THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS FACED IN THE DOGMATICS, “BRIEF STATEMENT” AND A CTCR REPORT RELATED TO OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND SUBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION?

      The greatest God-given treasure of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is pure doctrine.   This treatise is a serious call for awareness and understanding of theological issues and contradictions created in our Dogmatics, Brief Statement and a CTCR Report with realistic questions about the biblical and Lutheran accuracy of “Objective Justification” (OJ) and “Subjective Justification.”  This writer understands OJ as Jesus’ death and resurrection as giving full payment for all the sins of all people in the world, and “Subjective Justification” meaning that only those who by the Holy Spirit and God’s grace have faith and believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  If you at this time disagree with these descriptions, please list the scriptural passages that are violated. 

      This treatise will provide documentation that shows historical and present LCMS writings that tell that “Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ,” while at the same time contradicting such statements with the truth that only believers are saved eternally for Christ’s sake and are justified and counted as righteous and their sins are forgiven.

      God in His wisdom communicates primarily through words.  His first reported use of words brought this world into existence. Almighty God kept reinforcing His words with other evidence which He had planted into creation (Ps.19: Matt.6:26; Rom.1.18-20).  In the written and spoken Word, He shares His very self and certain attributes like power, permanence and His Holy Name (John 17:6-20) and gives everyone direct access to Him. 

DR. FRANZ PIEPER’S “OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION”

      1.  “Objective Justification” (OJ) was proclaimed by our founder, Dr. C.F.W. Walther in an Easter sermon in 1846.  He continued sharing his particular insight for the rest of his life.  He, our outstanding teacher, was elected to by Synod’s first president in 1847.  Dr. Franz Pieper, one of Walther’s most devoted and gifted pupils carried on his mentor’s mission.  This was easy for him because he became not only Missouri’s dominant professor, but also a Synod president.  His most lasting legacy is Christian Dogmatics, an awesome tome, more than a thousand pages, bristling with more than eight thousand Bible verses.  There can be no doubt that both fathers were totally committed to Sola Scriptura, but unfortunately sometimes we can force Scripture to bend to our own notions.  Christian Dogmatics contains one of these personal views, OJ, which conditioned the LCMS to adopt certain convictions without recognizing them to contradict other truths we hold dearly.  The undersigned will review about 100 pages in Volume II of Christian Dogmatics to portray clearly that unbelievers are not declared righteous, are not saints, and are desperately in need of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to give them saving faith.

      2.  Luther taught that every believer is both a saint and a sinner, but this does not mean that unbelievers are both justified and condemned (Rom. 8:1).  To introduce the contradiction and conflict introduced into the Missouri Synod in 1992 when the LCMS formally adopted Pieper’s Brief Statement, that document contains mutually exclusive teachings.  A statement which will be reviewed later, offers the following quotation, “Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation in the Article of Justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ. (Rom. 5-19;2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom.4:25,) that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the law, by grace for Christ’s sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all who believe in Christ, that is, believe, accept and rely on, the fact that for Christ’s sake their sins are forgiven.”

 

This paragraph has a serious contradiction:  “1. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ.”  2. God justifies, that it accounts as righteous, all who believe in Christ.  This statement “Wrought by Christ and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation in the article of justification.”  This treatise is a request of the LCMS to decide which statement is true doctrine in the LCMS – 1 or 2?  None of the three Scriptures cited support the statement underlined above that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous.  Christ paid for all their sins in His death and resurrection, but our Christian Dogmatics is correct only when it states that they become righteous with their sins forgiven by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

      The biblical doctrine of Justification is changed by inventing the concept “Objective Justification,” which is not in the Bible and therefore was not referred to during the Reformation or in the Book of Concord.  Since this is not in the Book of Concord, this enabled the LCMS to adopt OJ without openly violating its subscription to the Confessions.  OJ

      3.  Starting now with Volume II, page 321, we find perfectly valid statements and at the same time a contradictory statement, “… by this glorious resurrection act declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for (note: true), and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal” (note: untrue). This phrase makes a statement that declares sinners righteous without faith in Jesus Christ.  The latter “declaration” is not God’s Word, but “Haeck dixit Pieper.”  There is no scripture to support that last phrase.  The truth is that the sins of the whole world have been paid for by our Lord’s active and passive obedience which truth is known in Rom.5:6.  Salvation for all (Ez.18:23) is the purpose of His self-sacrifice and is achieved only in those who believe (Rom.4:25; Is.53:11).  The payment of an expiation or atonement is not effective in achieving its purpose until the sinner’s faith is generated by the Holy Spirit to accept the transaction that God made on his behalf (John 1:10-12).  Only upon conversion does God issue the proclamation that a given person is justified before the Divine Tribunal.  Then the celebration can begin (Luke 15:7).  Justification without faith is an alien theology to Scripture and to Lutheranism.  The Confessions summarize that truth by repeating “By faith alone we are justified.”  (Ap. IV, p.143, par. 74-89) 

      4.  We continue with page 321.  We asserted that Dr. Pieper offered no Scriptural support for the statement that “all mankind is now regarded as righteous,” but his quoting of Rom. 4:25 in his next sentence doesn’t support such universalism.  He writes, “This  gracious reconciliation and justification is clearly taught in Rom.4:25: ‘Who was delivered from our offenses and was raised again for our justification.”’ This Scripture in Romans reveals the necessity of faith does not prove that God declared the whole world righteous, but it is adopted as one of the three proofs of OJ in the Brief Statement.  Romans 3 begins with the fact that all men are deservedly under condemnation so their only hope lies in a sinners reliance on faith.  St. Paul used that word or its synonyms trust, or believing, no less that twenty four times leading right up to Verse 25, which therefore naturally applies to those who have faith.  Verse 24 emphasized that fact by describing their Christian character, ‘for us , to whom the Lord will credit righteousness – for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead…(25)…for our sins…for our justification…” 

      5.  The text on page 321 continues, “The term dikaiosis here means the act of divine justification executed through God’s act of raising Christ from the dead and it is for this reason called the objective justification of all mankind.  This truth Dr. Walther stressed anew in America.  He taught that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners.”  Romans 4 says nothing about unbelievers being justified by faith, but only believers.  If unbelievers are absolved from their sins, where in the Scriptures do we see that they are righteous and not absolved from their sins. This is not a rhetorical question.  The concept of an objective “absolution pronounced upon all sinners” is not in Scripture, for Romans simply contradicts it completely.  And when they say that justification was “executed through God’s act of raising Christ” for if “executed” were a valid verb here, the text would say that justification is “executed through faith.”  The alleged pronouncement of absolution at the Resurrection is an unbiblical statement or metaphor unsuited to establishing a doctrine.  The reference to Dr. Walther instead of to the Scriptures as authoritative makes no sense when both completely rule out the essential rule of faith by justification.  Romans not only contradicts but causes us to reject the claim that in Christ’s sacrifice all people in the world are declared righteous and absolved from their sin in Romans Ch. 6-10.  Chapter 10, which reveals that Israel rejected salvation through faith because they “did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”(Verse 3)  Referring to Christ’s resurrection, Romans 10:8-10 then reports, “But what does it say? “The Word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming.  That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.”  Romans here destroys any opening door for any church body, including the LCMS, to teach that God has declared all people in the world righteous because of Christ’s sacrifice without believing or having faith. Romans 10:11-13 adds an emphasis on blessing those who trust and call on the Lord being saved or righteous, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  OJ tells that that all people are righteous, but do not have to call on the Lord to be saved. 

      6.  At the bottom of page 347 Christian Dogmatics claims “Nineteen hundred years ago Christ effected the reconciliation of all men with God.”  This language is disconnected from divine revelation.  If those who crucified him had thereby been reconciled with God, why did their hostility continue after Easter Sunday?  Reconciled sinners would not keep fighting against everything God stands for by trying to exterminate His disciples!  Even true believers are desperately wicked (Jer. 17, 9;Rom.7,19) although their reconciliation began immediately when they are converted.  When it is written, “We are reconciled to God by the death of His son,” this truth applies to all who believe, not the rest of the world.  This contradicts one of the most precious doctrines in the Word (Eph.2:8-9). 

      7.  Page 351 illustrates that the text finds things in Scripture that are not there.  It asserts, “Doctrine loses its Christian character and becomes pagan work righteousness as soon as the full reconciliation of all men by Christ’s vicarious satisfaction is given up.”  The only connection between reconciliation and Christ’s vicarious satisfaction is justifying faith. Romans 9:30-32 contradicts OJ theology when it insists that faith is for righteousness and salvation, “What then shall we say?  That the gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.  Why not?  Because they pursued it not by faith …”  Here we learn that the gentiles did not gain righteousness, “Because they pursued it not by faith…” This is scripture that all men are declared righteous because of Christ’s sacrifice.

      8.  Pages 404 to 418 are absolutely glorious, as if written for an entirely different book.  They leave no room for OJ without faith, which have  been quoted earlier here.  However, page 419 contrasts and rejects that orthodoxy by asserting: “The Formula of Concord and the Lutheran theologians begin with the doctrine of objective reconciliation.”  Where is this found in the Formula of Concord?  The problem is, as we have seen, that we read consistently that objective justification is defined as God’s verdict of justification on the entire world of sinners, including those without faith. 

“THESES ON JUSTIFICATION,” a Report of the Commission of Theology and Church Relations – The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, May, 1983

      The CTCR Report, “THESES ON JUSTIFICATION,” is available from Concordia Publishing House.  Providing an analysis of this document, this writer learned that “Objective Justification” that was introduced into the LCMS by Dr. Walther and Dr. Pieper is reported in this book commits the LCMS completely to the unscriptural aspects of Objective Justification. The Introduction of the “Theses” does not mention that OJ is the big issue, but that quickly becomes very clear.  Significantly, little or no evidence is presented that the OJ affirmations in this report are quoted directly from Dr. Pieper’s Dogmatics. 

      It is said in this report that “The Theses are not intended to go beyond the pattern of thought and terminology of Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the presentations of our respected Lutheran theologians of the past.”  Recognize that objective justification is not found in the Lutheran Confessions, nor any statement that God has declared all men justified because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The teachings of Dr. Pieper on OJ are not referenced in the Lutheran Confessions.  Significantly, “Our respected Lutheran theologians of the past” are not named from the Reformation era.  Only the theology of Dr. Peiper and his methodology and OJ theory is the CTCR’s real model.

      The 1981 convention of the LCMS adopted a resolution (3-12) asking the CTCR, the joint faculties of the Seminary, and the Council of Presidents to make a study of the Doctrine of Justification within one year, which gives proper expression to “all the aspects of what the Scriptures teach on this matter.”  It is very important to notice that the request was not about what the Lutheran Confessions or what our LCMS theologians said and wrote about Objective Justification, but what the Scriptures say about justification.  The Introduction also states, “In keeping with the Synod’s recognition that “the need has been expressed to study anew what the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions say on this doctrine,” these theses have been formulated for the purpose of presenting the biblical doctrine of justification…” The CTCR Introduction continues, “The theses are not intended to go beyond the pattern of thought and terminology of Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the presentation of our respected Lutheran theologians of the past.” (Italics added)  There is no hint that OJ of Dr. Pieper’s Dogmatics would be included into the LCMS in 1981 or in 1983 with this report, which make declaration of OJ that is outside of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and Martin Luther and the Reformers.

      Thesis 3 emphasizes, “When used to refer to the sinner’s relationship to God, the term ‘justify’ is used throughout the Scriptures to denote a verdict, i.e., a forensic act whereby a person is counted righteous, declared righteous, reckoned to be righteous, absolved, or forgiven…” 

      Thesis 4 brings OJ out into the open by asserting that “Because it is Biblically and Confessionally correct to refer to the great sin-cancelling atoning work of the Redeemer as the “objective” or “universal” justification of the whole sinful human race.”  This is a total contradiction of subjective justification in the scriptures and the Confessions, all of which informs that only those who believe or have faith are justified and absolved of all their sins. The Scriptures and the Confessions never modify justification as “objective,” but the LCMS does this in its dogmatics that contradicts God’s Word.  Neither God’s Word or the Confessions labeled justification as “objective” and “subjective.” The LCMS dogmatics of “Objective Justification” is contradicted in John 3:16 where we learn that Jesus died and rose again “that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have ever-lasting life.”  John 3:18 teaches us, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” Scripture says that those who do not believe in the name of God’s Son are condemned already, not declared righteous.  The Scriptures listed here all reveal that only believers are saved and absolved, not non-believers, and that nonbelievers are not declared righteous – which the CTCR document on OJ contradicts. It should be noted that the disconnect between God’s inspired Word and Missouri’s theologians’ doctrine regarding “Objective Justification” is exemplified in Thesis 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54 and 55.  We must continually ask how anyone can be declared justified and absolved when they have no faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord. 

      Thesis 5 is a typical example of what strains credulity, stating that forgiveness “both as has been acquired for the entire human race by Christ’s work of obedience and in its stead declared by His resurrection…”  How can an unbeliever be justified without faith?  The LCMS makes its statement that non-believers are declared righteous without any biblical text declaring that!

      Thesis 19 records, “Christ is the Savior of all.  This means that the whole world of sinners has been redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled in Him.”  How can we accept this on the false premise that somewhere God has pronounced the whole world to be righteous, when the Scriptures reveal only that Jesus’ death and resurrection paid for the sins of all people. Romans 3:22 tells that “righteousness from God comes through faith, “and Verse 24-25 says that “redemption comes…through faith in His blood.”  These two Bible verses prove that righteousness comes from God through faith, even while the thesis after thesis keeps on repeating the false OJ statement which has Bible text that disprove it, and there are none that support OJ.  Romans 5:10 says nothing about the whole world of sinners being saved.

      When Thesis 20 states that “God’s wrath against all sinners has been and remains still, and Satan, death and hell have been and are conquered,” does this mean that unbelievers without faith will not be condemned to hell but will be in heaven as they the judgment throne on Judgment Day?  Repeatedly we read in this report theses which have no explanation related to declarations regarding theological declarations and contradictory statements of Scriptures against dogmatic theories without any defense.

      Thesis 21, “Complete and perfect righteousness and forgiveness have been acquired for all sinners,” which is a proper explanation of “Objective Justification,” which they only receive “perfect righteousness and forgiveness” and absolution of their sins by grace through faith, which is subjective justification.  Logic does not allow taking this thesis and turning it into a declaration that God through Jesus has declared the whole world to be righteous and forgiven. 

      Thesis 22 with its “has declared (as proclaimed in the Gospel), or reckoned, the whole world to be righteous” is the same OJ repeated over and over and over again in these thesis that is not “in the Gospel” as they claim, and certainly not in those Bible verses.  This would be righteousness and absolution without faith, or “faithless justification.”  Where does the Gospel declare the whole world to be righteous, beginning with John 3:16-18? This is LCMS dogmatics and interpretation of the Scriptures which absently contradicts and rejects every absolute statement in the Gospel that tells, like John 3:18 that tells that anyone who does not believe is damned and condemned! 

      Theses 23 once again keeps repeating the same statement about OJ’s declaration of forgiveness and absolution for all people in the world, but why say it again?  Does the LCMS believe that we will mindlessly accept their OJ false statement by repeating it over and over? How can the LCMS indicate that salvation is “procured” for all people and “in no way is dependent upon man’s response.”  But this is not only clouded but appears to be contradicted by the last two sentences, “God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven,” and the last sentence, “The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness.”  Repetitions and repetitions is very poor teaching. If anyone can find a Scripture that proves that, then we have a big problem that God contradicts Himself when Jesus states what He states in John 3:18. 

      Theses 24 – 36 has some excellent expressions of Scriptural and Gospel truth, although a few are not totally unalloyed. 

      Thesis  34 provides a good statement, but creates a basic contradiction when it states that “It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: That God’s verdict of justification of forgiveness is a conditional verdict which specifies that justification occurs only when a person believes.”  On what biblical basis can the LCMS provide scriptures that show that this is true doctrine?  What Scripture, verse or verses allows this statement to be confessed in orthodox Lutheran Church?  Assuming the Scriptural understanding of repentance and forgiveness through faith, how can this statement be made without telling that faith must be added.  This statement is made without any Scriptural reference about what a person must do besides “believe.”  The same is true of the second last “contrary” statement, “That the redemptive work of Christ only makes it possible to God to pronounce His declaration of forgiveness” – for how can a theological report by the LCMS state that salvation is dependent upon something else or more than “received by Faith”?   What’s the answer?

      Thesis 35, “Anyone who does not believe, teach, and confess that the sinner is justified alone through faith in Christ does dishonor to Christ and obscures the Gospel.”  This statement fully contradicts the teaching of OJ and declaration of righteousness in this document.  Can we agree that this pure Gospel statement totally contradicts the dogmatician’s various statements on OJ that God has declared all people justified and absolved while saying nothing about being saved through faith?

      Chapter VIII, The statement “Impenitent sinners are not justified or forgiven but condemned” is obviously true, but how can the “declaration of the entire world as justified” be made when many of are “impenitent sinners” who are “not justified and forgiven, but condemned,” which contradicts the OJ statement!  Very noteworthy is the “contrary statement” that it is not right to teach: “That it is proper to speak of saints in hell or to use similar expressions in describing justification.”  The CTCR must unravel this one!

      Thesis 38  But who can really understand what appears to be “word games” and “theological talk” when it is stated that “although faith does not cause justification,” but if that is true, then how can it be said that “the lack of faith does not cause damnation”?  Do our theological statements really need to be confusing or at least require serious explanations or questioning? 

      Thesis 39 simply is another way to say the same thing that is repeated over and over, that is, that “the justification of the world is Christ’s work accomplished once and for all to…Christ.”  Repeating this a thousand times does not make it true when it contradicts the saving Gospel.  The first sentence must be questioned, and the second sentence is true.   

      A number of the following THESES are pure Gospel and classic LCMS theology.  Significant is the “contrary statement” in THESIS 13, that “it is contrary…to teach: That anyone receives for himself the forgiveness granted in absolution without faith.”  Yet, the OJ dogmatic says that the whole world is forgiven and absolved, and says nothing about faith.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

      Consider the often repeated statement in these theses that God has declared all people in the world righteous and absolved from their sins, OJ theology, what interpretation are we to make of Roman 6, “If we have been united with Him like this and His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection.  For we know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be done away with…now if we died with Christ, we believe that we all also live with Him.  …in the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Verses 5-6, 8, 11).  The unbeliever is only the old man without baptism has no new man or is a new creature.  This document continues a confounding of biblical theology that not only offers nothing positive, but appears very offensive.  This CTCR report does not discuss the possibility of a universalism that all people in the world are saved because of Christ’s sacrifice, but they don’t know it.  Some Christian “universalists” in the past declared that only if when they have heard the Gospel that they are condemned, then it would appear proper to have anti-missionary societies to stop all who want to bring the Gospel to the unbelievers because if they hear the Gospel and reject Christ, they will be damned.  Can the LCMS and the CTCR unravel this?  Since these Romans 6 Scriptures apply only to believers, then OJ has a problem because unbelievers among all people are not united with Christ and are not alive in Him.

      Another problem is created with the Gospel statements in Romans 8 and the problem with OJ, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…in order that the righteous requirements of the Law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.” (8:1,4)   How can unbelievers which OJ claims are righteous and absolved from their sin meet the righteous requirements when they are condemned and guilty because they have not faith.  Or what about Verse 6, “The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace (Verses 6-7); the sinful mind is hostile to God”?  If “Objective Justification” is an official doctrine of the LCMS as indicated in the CTCR report, then why are there not Bible studies proclaiming it, and why do not CPH publications and LCMS materials promote it instead of it appearing in an isolated document by the CTCR in May, 1983?  When will we start the talking?  

      An easy solution can change this issue into a very positive action by affirming the following: Objective Justification is the full payment and forgiveness of all the sins of all people in the world, which is available to them only when they receive faith by the Holy Spirit.  Subjective Justification is the receiving of the forgiveness of sins and absolution by all people who by God’s grace and the Holy Spirit’s power believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

     

 ***

GJ - My only thought is - A Missouri Synod pastor feels it necessary to publish secretly. The author has applied the term OJ to redemption or atonement. The UOJ Stormtroopers insist on merging the two and absolving the entire world without faith, without the Word, without the Means of Grace. Changing the meaning of the terms will not bring oil and water together, even if the mixture is shaken vigorously.

     

      

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.

Another Jack - Not Kilcrease - Suffers from Delusions, Not To Mention the Same Spelling and Grammar Flubs.Was Cascione's Ghost-Written? Definitely Not Holy Ghost Written

GJ - I checked out Jack Cascione's false accusations and delusions. A Missouri Synod pastor wrote the un-signed article against UOJ. Cascione's UOJ pal, Herman Otten, refused to post the article, but emailed it to Cascione and Bartling to rail against.

Cascione's unhinged rant is posted below.

The fact remains, a large number of LCMS pastors have joined Dr. Robert Preus in rejecting UOJ and in teaching justification by faith.

***


 <http://www.Lutherquest.org> www.Lutherquest.org

November 13, 2012

Will Suspended WELS Pastor Answer:

"Which is First, Faith or Forgiveness?"

Pastor Paul Rydecki has replied to Pastor Suspended for False Doctrine by
WELS but Honored in LCMS, an article by Jack Cascione published in Christian
News.  Rydecki was suspended from the WELS clergy roster when he refused to
give clear answers to questions about his position on the Doctrine of
Objective Justification

Rydecki informed CN editor Herman Otten that he was misrepresented and
slandered in articles by Rev. Mark Bartling and Cascione. 

Rather than respond directly, Rydecki sent an unsigned article to Otten that
was forwarded to Bartling and Cascione.  The fact that the article is
unsigned means the writer, whoever he is, doesn't want to be exposed as the
author.  Perhaps Rydecki wrote it.  However, it appears to have the style of
Dr. Greg Jackson and was probably sent to Otten by Rydecki as his own reply. 
[GJ - Hoho. I write my own articles in my own name. As I noted above, a 
Missouri Synod pastor wrote it.]
In any case, it is not clear who wrote it.  We assume this article is
Rydecki's defense of his position.  If the article has a problem, Rydecki
has deniability.

[GJ - Cascione never bothers with the facts. He can construct his own truth 
from his delusions.]

Instead of all the cloak and dagger mystic typical of those who criticize
the Doctrine of Objective Justification, why doesn't Rydecki answer this
simple question? "According to the Gospel, which is first, faith or
forgiveness?  In other words, what is the manner in which God saves sinners?
Does He forgive the world and then give people faith through His word, or
does He give people faith through His word and then forgive them?

Every church body must deal with its own challenges.  However, the Wisconsin
Synod is also plagued with Missouri issues that constantly spill over into
its congregations.  In his effort to resist the LCMS Church Growth Movement,
that has strongly influenced the WELS, Rydecki picked up a few LCMS bugs,
namely Sacerdotalism, the Sacrament of Ordination, and problems with the
Doctrine of Objective Justification. [GJ - Pop quiz for Jack. Is ordination a
sacrament anywhere in the Book of Concord?]

No peeking!

Rydecki is intelligent, highly educated, and brighter than most of his
critics, as his skills in translating, publishing, and marketing 16th
century theological books from the original Latin testify.  He is not your
average WELS pastor.  However, if the paper he sent to Otten does indeed
represent Rydecki's position, he is as confused and unfit for the pastoral
office as he is brilliant.  In other words, he is a few doctrines short of
the whole catechism.  After reading his paper, the question is, "Why did
WELS wait so long to suspend him from their clergy roster?"

Rather than present clarity, Rydecki uses his intellect to obfuscate what he
really believes about the Doctrine of Justification.  Why doesn't he simply
tell us what he believes?  Does God give people faith through His word
before He forgives them, or does God forgive the world before He gives
people faith through His word?

Rydecki Defines the Issues

Rather than give our own definition of Objective and Subjective
justification, the following is Rydecki's definition, which in our opinion
is fairly accurate. "This writer understands Objective Justification as
Jesus' death and resurrection as giving full payment for all the sins of all
people in the world [who are therefore declared righteous in Christ], and
"Subjective Justification" meaning that only those who by the Holy Spirit
and God's grace [through the word of God] have faith and believe in Jesus as
Savior and Lord receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life."  (We
added the words in brackets.)

There is no question that the Bible teaches Objective Justification.  Yes,
it is human terminology not found in the Bible.  We also do not find terms
such as real presence, catechetics, Trinity, creationism, and baptismal
regeneration, etc. but the Bible still teaches them.

Examples of Objective Justification (God declaring people righteous before
they repent or ask for forgiveness) include Adam and Eve, Christmas, the
paralytic, Christ's absolution from the cross "Father forgive them," Christ
dying for His enemies in Romans 5:10, and more.  These are just a few
statements about God forgiving people before they have faith.  Any laymen
sitting in church has heard these read from the lectern.  If we apply
Rydecki's view to Christmas, the only people who were forgiven at Jesus'
birth were Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds.

The LCMS Led WELS to False Doctrine of Objective Justification

More than 20 times in his unsigned paper Rydecki says the Doctrine of
Objective Justification contradicts the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions.
His paper is directed at what he calls the LCMS problem with Objective
Justification.  He blames the WELS problem with Objective Justification on
C. F. W. Walther, Franz Pieper, and the Brief Statement.  Rydecki
understands that the WELS and the LCMS are tied at the hip on the Doctrine
of Objective Justification.  He cleverly attacks the LCMS documents on
Justification, such as the May 1983 LCMS CTCR Report, and thus to avoid
being accused of false doctrine in the WELS.  The LCMS is in no position to
address matters of false doctrine.  At their recent convocation of Lutheran
theologians in Peach Tree, Georgia, (paid by Thrivent) the keynote speaker
was Anglican evolutionist, Alister McGraf.  More than 120 Lutheran
theologians and leaders attended.  Rydecki also understands that the more
WELS involves itself with contemporary worship the less likely WELS lay
people will be interested in defending correct doctrine.

Doctrinal Errors in Rydecki's Reply

Once a theologian rejects Objective Justification he inevitably aligns
himself with an array of Reformed doctrinal errors which is also evident in
the paper Rydecki sent to Herman Otten.  The following are quotations from
Rydecki's unsigned paper in bold italic:

The biblical doctrine of Justification is changed by inventing the concept
"Objective Justification," which is not in the Bible and therefore was not
referred to during the Reformation or in the Book of Concord.

The payment of an expiation or atonement is not effective in achieving its
purpose until the sinner's faith is generated by the Holy Spirit to accept
the transaction that God made on his behalf (John 1:10-12). Only upon
conversion does God issue the proclamation that a given person is justified
before the Divine Tribunal.  Notice Rydecki's appeal to Reformed decision
theology "to accept the transaction."  How does an unbeliever accept what he
doesn't believe?  Rydecki credits this acceptance before conversion to the
Holy Ghost.  This is blatant Catholic doctrine revived after Luther's death
by Osiander and condemned in Article III of the Formula of Concord.  The
point is that no one receives the Holy Ghost to accept anything before
faith.  The Holy Ghost only calls people by the Gospel, as we confess in
Luther's explanation to the Third Article of the Apostles' Creed in the
Small Catechism.

This Scripture in Romans [4:25] reveals the necessity of faith [and] does
not prove that God declared the whole world righteous, but it is adopted as
one of the three proofs of Objective Justification in the Brief Statement.
In order to deny Objective Justification Rydecki states Romans 4:25 teaches
that Christ was raised from the dead for believers and not unbelievers.  In
other words "God so loved the world" but not as much as He loved the
believers.  The problem is that all Christians were born enemies of God.
How did we become believers if Christ didn't rise from the dead for us when
we were unbelievers?

If those who crucified him had thereby been reconciled with God, why did
their hostility continue after Easter Sunday?  However, the Bible says, To
wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of
reconciliation 2Co 5:19.  If Rydecki is correct, Christ did not reconcile
His enemies, which must include the whole world.  Therefore, according to
Rydecki, the world's continued hatred of Christ means that either Christ
failed to reconcile the world to Himself, or we are only reconciled after we
become believers.  This is the Reformed view of a limited atonement, which
teaches that Christ died only for the believers or those that God knew would
eventually come to faith.

Even true believers are desperately wicked (Jer. 17, 9; Rom.7,19) although
their reconciliation began immediately when they are converted.  This
statement reaffirms that Rydecki has adopted the Reformed view of a limited
atonement.

Thesis 34 [from the LCMS CTCR 1983] provides a good statement, but creates a
basic contradiction when it states that "It is contrary to Scripture and the
pure Gospel to teach: That God's verdict of justification of forgiveness is
a conditional verdict which specifies that justification occurs only when a
person believes." On what biblical basis can the LCMS provide scriptures
that show that this is true doctrine?  Instead of saying the WELS has no
Biblical basis for Objective Justification; Rydecki says the LCMS has no
Biblical basis for Objective Justification.  Actually, Rydecki denies every
verse that teaches Objective Justification and then says the LCMS does not
have any verses.  What about Christ's words from the cross, "Father forgive
them, for they know not what they do"?  Or David's statement that people
should fear God because He forgives.  If God didn't forgive, there wouldn't
be any reason to fear God.  "But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou
mayest be feared" Psa. 130:4.  Of course, Rydecki rejects all of this.

Thesis 38 [from the LCMS CTCR 1983] But who can really understand what
appears to be "word games" and "theological talk" when it is stated that
"although faith does not cause justification," but if that is true, then how
can it be said that "the lack of faith does not cause damnation"? Do our
theological statements really need to be confusing or at least require
serious explanations or questioning?  In our previous article we predicted
that Rydecki would have to make faith a cause of salvation instead of God's
grace by divine election, and here he does it.  This is like the snake
eating its tail.  If faith is the cause of salvation, then how does anyone
get faith?  Rydecki has the believer generating his own faith, who becomes a
participant in his own salvation.  Thus all the Baptists say they brought
Jesus into their hearts and Rydecki says Amen!

If "Objective Justification" is an official doctrine of the LCMS as
indicated in the CTCR report, then why are there not Bible studies
proclaiming it, and why do not CPH publications and LCMS materials promote
it instead of it appearing in an isolated document by the CTCR in May, 1983?
This is a good question.  Most of Rydecki's congregation has left the WELS
and now believes (sic) in Rydeckism, an odd mix of Sacerdotalism and
limited-atonement Reformed theology.  The LCMS will simply ignore all of
this, even though Rydecki's main support group is in the LCMS.  However, the
WELS is too small to ignore it.  How will they explain why they suspended
Rydecki without bracing up their membership with some solid Bible study
material on this issue?

Rydecki No Theologian [Me Jack big theologian.]

The entire paper Rydecki sent to Otten is convoluted and confused.  I once
asked Dr. Robert Preus, "Is theology art or science?"  To keep his answer
brief, he said it was both. 

Rydecki is void of the theologian's art.  The Bible uses many of the same
terms in different contexts.  If you can't tell the difference in context
you can never be a theologian.  For example, the Bible uses the words such
as law, gospel, reconcile, repent, and more in the broad or the narrow
sense.  The Bible also uses the same words in different contexts with
different meanings such as sanctify, sanctification, heaven, spirit,
covenant, and more.  If a theologian can't follow the change in context he
will inevitably confuse Law and Gospel, as Rydecki does.  The conclusion is
that Rydecki is a very bright guy, but he is not a theologian.  I've met
great grandmothers who think more clearly than he does.
[GJ - Tempted, temped. I will say nothing.]

What is the Layman to Do?

I think of the laypeople who will read this.  Some will say "What difference
does it make?"  Others will says, "Who can understand it?"  Others will say,
"Why should I take the time to figure it out?"  Others will say, "If this is
what my church really teaches, I will go somewhere else."  Of course they
would never take this hypocritical attitude with a prescription from their
doctor; prescriptions they can neither pronounce, nor understand, nor know
how they are made, nor know how they work.  They just accept it because the
doctor says so.  So mister "who cares," "can't understand," "no time," "I'm
out of here," layman, my advice is repent and do not endanger your soul. 

God has given you His precious gift of the Gospel.  Paul says the Berians (sic)
were "more noble."  They checked the Scriptures to see if these things were
so.  The saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is worthy of our study.  From my view
lay people in the WELS should ask why it took so long for the WELS to
suspend Rydecki.  Too many laypeople were misled by Rydecki's false
doctrine.  On the other hand, WELS is one of the few Lutheran church bodies
in the world who would stand up for the Doctrine of Objective Justification
as they are doing.  False teachers have always plagued the church.  Paul
says, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are
approved may be made manifest among you 1Co 11:19.  Lay people in the WELS
should be encouraged that their church body bares the cross of teaching
correct doctrine.  If WELS had not taken a stand, then who would?
Therefore, we should all repent.  There but by the grace of God are any of
us saved.[GJ - Could someone parse that absurd sentence?]

"For all the saints from Sodom now in Hell,
We think our UOJ is just plain swell..."

Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to
continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into
the kingdom of God. Act 14:22

Length of Time Taught = Truth!

solafide (http://solafide.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Is a Liberal Philosophy - Not Biblical Doctrin...":

GJ: "Luther argued from the Word of God, not on the basis of 'our beloved synod.'"

SF: Exactly right. I loved the part of DP Buchholz's letter where he says that UOJ has been a teaching of the WELS for X years. Well, transubstantiation has been a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for longer than that.

Does that make it right? According to DP Buchholz, it does.

UOJ Is a Liberal Philosophy - Not Biblical Doctrine. UOJ Reminds Me of Modern Theology's Basic Errors

Frederic Church - Twilight in the Wilderness, 1860

When I read liberal theology - Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, and the rest - the style and errors of Universal Objective Justification come to mind.

The style begins with an assumption that the terms used are also the enclosure of the system. For example, Bultmann begins with myth in the Bible, so the Bible must be mythical. When pressed on this point, Bultmann said in a published book, "No schoolboy believes that a dead body resuscitated itself and rose from the dead." That is why so many mainline ministers graduate saying, "I really had to rethink my Christology."

No kidding. If Jesus died for nothing and remained dead, that dries up the source of all Christian preaching. That is why mainline seminary students are taught to speak one language, a misleading one, so the congregation is moved gradually into an intellectual high-church Unitarianism. When I first heard, "I had to rethink mah Christology," I knew the young Southern minister of a huge congregation became a Unitarian in seminary, and he signaled that to his colleagues. Ah. Nods of approval. So did I, they signaled back.

The SynCon Lutheran seminary students are no different. They must make a decision for universal absolution without faith, but they know it is not wise to bear down on the issue of guilt-free saints from Sodom in hell. It is not very poetic to say that and makes no sense, and has never inspired a hymn. "For all the saints, from Sodom now in hell..."

Once OJ or UOJ is introduced, like myth, the issue becomes one's rebellion against "our beloved synod" and "our common confession of UOJ." The issue has been decided simply by using those UOJ and OJ words. Now the conceptual building blocks must be arranged to make sense of it all. The more one can obfuscate the basics, the more he will earn the praise of fellow apostates.

Thus their claims and some obvious objections -

There are not two justifications, simply two sides of the same coin. Why not three or four? Or just one?

The Kokomo Statements were invented by two families as a parody of WELS dogma. (A parody of Biblical justification - yes - copied from J. P. Meyer's Ministers of Christ, just reprinted by WELS.)

Justification by faith is Calvinism. (Adding a chuckle is considered good form.)

Faith must be in something already accomplished. (Hebrews 11:1. Buehler? Buehler? Anyone?)

UOJ is not Universalism (even though it teaches the same universal absolution).

UOJ is orthodox Lutheran doctrine (even though it does not appear until much later in Pietism - and earlier in the excommunicated Samuel Huber.)

The New NIV is a perfect translation because Romans 3:24 contains the all we knew had to be there to prove us right. (But isn't the NNIV a decidedly mainline, feminist, ecumenical paraphrase?)

If someone retains faith while in the midst of modern theologians, the enormous gap between him and the rest becomes obvious. The "Easter faith of the apostles" means - they believed in the actual, physical resurrection of Christ, but we do not. We just believe that they believed in a myth.

The Virgin Birth of Christ means - that was their primitive, child-like way of expressing their faith in their teacher, who was completely inoffensive and died for no obvious reason.

Until the 18th century, all the church theologians were believers who worked from the foundation of the Bible as the revealed Word of God, inerrant and infallible, authoritative, normative.

The Age of Rationalism, which blended into Pietism - notably at Halle University,  began casting doubt on the miracles of Christ.

Rationalistic doubts spread so that Knapp at Halle taught the early church was wrong about the Trinity being Biblical and Tholuck advocated Universalism. FYI for Mequon graduates - Knapp and Woods coined the normative language for double-justification and Tholuck mentored Adolph Hoenecke. You remember Hoenecke from my previous posts, don't you?

Modern theology students are expected to know the philosophy of the 19th century (Kant - a real bore) and the assumptions of the historical-critical method, which was adapted from classical studies. Robert Preus had a great summary of what happened - the classical scholars exhausted themselves on all the famous Greek and Latin authors, so they turned to the Scriptures and began wondering who wrote Romans, John, etc.

The system of modern theology is completely enclosed, a reservation where the guardians keep the obedient inside. One example, fairly recent, revealed how a famous scholar was literally expelled for taking a traditional, Biblical approach to Jesus on the Son of Man issue. She blasphemed modern theology and its authorities, so she was extended the Left Foot of Scholarship, removed from her position. Academic freedom is for conformists.

The UOJ reservation is exactly the same and works from the same rejection of Biblical principles. Every Biblical text is simply a jumping off point for the UOJ dogma. Many of their old talking points have been exposed, so the UOJ Enthuiasts move to new points of departure. But that does not matter. A few candid remarks can expose someone as a UOJ denier, which will earn a barrage of attacks.

Luther argued from the Word of God, not on the basis of "our beloved synod."