Trying To Understand the UOJ Errors

"From Luther's Small Catechism" is a lie.
This is really from the bottom of the UOJ sermon barrel,
the very bottom.

I had a friendly exchange with a WELS pastor, leading me to go over the reasons why people fall into the error of Universal Objective Justification. The following may be a product of my imagination alone, because no one has explained it, beyond saying, "I drank the Kool-Aid."

The constant drumbeat against faith is one reason that UOJ is tolerated among the SynCon pastors. The fanatical leaders, who are either illiterate or apostate, define faith as a work or the merit of man, yet end up treating faith as a decision - a decision to accept universal salvation (JP Meyer). 

But faith is trust in God's Promises in Christ, excluding all three definitions above. Lack of faith is the foundational sin, as Jesus Himself taught in John 16:8f.

Therefore, a misunderstanding of faith contributes mightily to the UOJ mindset.

A second cause is misunderstanding the Roman Catholic context of Luther's words. The products of today's SynCon seminaries do not understand Roman, Calvinist, or Lutheran doctrine. The reason? - the faculty members are in-bred political hacks, ticket-punchers who know their cush jobs could end in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

So let's review the context. Luther wrote largely for an audience saturated in Medieval Catholicism. Even today, Catholics teach that Jesus died to atone for the sins of the world. But one must parse their doctrinal texts. These sins are forgiven but not paid for. Aha. Repentance consists of acts of contrition and reparation.
Reparation is one of those long Latinate words for repayment. Catholics always add works to faith to earn forgiveness and rejoice in this remission of sins being held back until all accounts are settled in Purgatory, a mini-Hell for the semi-saved.

Luther's words - "Jesus is all forgiveness" - are not an endorsement of UOJ, but an antidote to that papal trick of faith plus works (fides formata). Luther always wrote that there is no forgiveness apart from faith. Either he contradicted himself a few times or the UOJ Storm-Brownies are liars.

Again - "Your sins are already forgiven." Lord's Prayer. Small Catechism - This classic is a textbook for Christian believers of all ages, not an evangelism tract for unbelievers. This phrasing is also appropriate for an age where Protestantism tells us to make a decision for Christ or to complete the transaction (do you part) since God has already done his part. Those who trust in Christ alone for salvation are forgiven all their sins, both great and small, the conquered sins and the persistent sins.

Luther is one of the few who does not imply that there is some requirement apart from faith in Christ. The SynCons include loyalty to Holy Mother Sect, payment of dues, and a quia subscription to the WELS Essay Files, aka, the Holy of Holies. Hyperbole? No. They excommunicate those who teach justification by faith (Kokomo, Rydecki, et al) and promote those who teach Groeschel, Sweet, and Driscoll (Jeske, Glende, Kelm, Valleskey, Werning, Hunter). Missouri and the Little Sect on the Prairie are just as bad.

The Protestant questions:

1. Am I sorry enough?
2. Have I asked Jesus into my heart?
3. Have I surrendered all to Him?
4. Have I suffered enough?
5. Have I paid back my victims?
6. Have I done enough?
7. Have I joined a cell group?
8. Have I spoken in tongues, danced in the Spirit, or fallen off a chair laughing?

are obliterated by Luther's language. He was a great student of the meaning of words, so he paraphrased what the Bible clearly taught, such as using alone with justified by faith alone apart from works.

The reason for alternative wording is the effort by false teachers to insert a wedge into the Biblical text - to make it say something else, something clearly done with the WELS NNIV, where suddenly "all" are justified in Romans 3. Does anyone notice this NNIV is the beloved paraphrase of the Protestant Left?

One example of the wedge is the issue of works. Luther taught consistently that good works follow faith. George Major turned that into good works are a requirement of salvation. Countering that maladroitly, his opponent Amsdorf said good works were injurious to salvation. The Formula of Concord had to repair the damage of two errors.

Paul answered potential errors by raising them in his letters. Should we sin more than grace may abound? Heaven forbid!

But, just as people pixelate the Biblical text, using one phrase--out of context--to prove a point, so false teachers pixelate the Book of Concord. They carefully avoid the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, because both are eloquent expressions of justification by faith alone.

And they land on Luther's estate analogy, which is not in the Book of Concord. How convenient, to avoid the message of Luther, the Book of Concord, and the post-Concord age of orthodoxy to focus on an allegory. Forgiveness of sin is like a man inheriting an estate and not knowing about it. But their favorite analogy is not strong enough bear up under the stress of UOJ deadweight.

Before you say, "Oh! Oh! Oh! I found UOJ in Luther!" ask yourself if the estate has been left to every single person on earth. That is what UOJ teaches. DP Buchholz assured the WELS convention that everyone is already forgiven, saved, period, end of story. He pretends to reject the Babtists, but he sits with the Rick Warren clone at every conference now, Jeff Gunn.

All the WELS/LCMS/ELS favorites are either stealth Babtists (Warren, Stanley, Stetzer) or far out Leftists (Sweet, Jeske).

Cannot Deal with the Efficacy of the Word, the Means of Grace, the Spirit/Word Bond

One test will earn a giant FAIL for all UOJ Enthusiasts.

Can they incorporate the Biblical concepts of the efficacy of the Word, the Means of Grace, and the Spirit/Word bond in their meandering tirades against the Gospel?

This analogy is also in the Book of Concord.