| Paul L. Holmer, Professor of Philosophical Theology |
at Yale University,
posed with Little Ichabod on one trip to the campus.
Holmer used the expression - "Theology is the grammar of faith."
UOJ terms - Objective Justification, Subjective Justification, General Justification - are the same as bad grammar and poor word usage in writing. The reason is - precise language conveys the correct concepts, or at the very least - the intended thoughts to be communicated.
Long ago, many of us assumed that Objective Justification was another word for the Atonement - Christ died for the sins of the world. In fact, before donning the bishop's mitre, Jim Heiser thought the same thing. Heiser was appalled by the actual use of Objective Justification, as quoted extensively and fairly in Thy Strong Word. Nevertheless, Heiser affiliated with the Rolf Synod, which escaped the Little Sect on the Prairie, but have returned to the ELS/LCMS, wagging their little tails behind them. They were and are gung-ho for UOJ.
Likewise, the Easter absolution of the world language, from Walther via Bishop Stephan and Halle University, is a dangerous flirtation with Universalism, whose teaching is almost the same. No better are the ridiculous Objective Justification and Subjective Justification terms, because OJ means "the entire world has been declared by God to be forgiven and saved - without faith." See the LCMS 1932 Brief Statement on justification.
Likewise, Subjective Justification means agreeing that the absolution of the world - without faith - is Biblical. Subjective Justification does NOT mean Justification by Faith. So we have two sets of terms that are completely alien to:
- The Scriptures
- The Lutheran Reformation
- The Book of Concord
- The Post-Concord theologians - Gerhard, Leyser, Hunnius, Calov.
- Modern examples in the LCMS and WELS.
How did the Reformation happen without those odious UOJ terms? and why must we constantly default to OJ and SJ?
The liberal mainline theologians simply dropped their SJ, just as Schleiermacher and Barth did - the entire world is forgiven and saved period. Requiring faith repudiates grace - yes, they really mean that and constantly warn against faith. The reason - they lack faith completely, so that is their subtle evasion, using the words of faith while repudiating faith in the Word of God. As my friend at Notre Dame said, "Faith without belief. They have a sentimental attachment to the Bible." (The sainted Charles Caldwell, Episcopalian conservative)
I used to grieve that I wasted so many hours studying modern theology and Roman Catholic theology at Notre Dame, but that is how I came to recognize UOJ as another form of apostate teaching.
Like the creatures of decay in the garden, the UOJ teachers hide under the rocks and logs whenever discovered. But they go back to their work.
Bivens and Valleskey taught UOJ an d Church Growth at Mordor Seminary in Mequon (WELS). Their deception or self-deception is so complete that Bivens called UOJ "the Chief Article of the Christian Faith."
GJ - As one person said, if Lutheran doctrine can be explained without OJ/SJ - why use the terms?
If OJ/SJ must be used, why did Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz and the Reformers fail to use those terms?
I would add the new extra calvinisticusm - If the terms came from the Calvinist translator of a Pietist theologian, how can they be used in the Lutheran Church without shame and remorse?
|WELS-ELS-LCMS-CLC (sic) today.|
| My professor at WLS, Otto Heick, a favorite of WELS pastors,|
wrote that Spener was the first union theologian,
merging Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrine.
Those that use Pietistic methods also employ Pietistic doctrine.