One long-time family (and FB) friend thought this graphic was misleading. His fellow pastors are always asking him (but not me) what I am trying to say when I write about Universal Objective Justification, which is the Helen of Troy for the WELS-ELS-LCMS and ELCA leaders. I am emphasizing leaders because the historical documents show just the opposite, even in those synods.
We should have some kind of award for 100% of the Lutheran leaders endorsing the opposite of what Luther taught, just in time for the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.
Following is the issue with the graphic above - The words are not Knapp's but the translator's, explaining what Knapp was trying to say. I have probably explained that a few dozen times. I have posted about UOJ over a thousand times.
Actually, the critic makes my point for me, because the translator (clearly identified as Protestant rock star Leonard Woods Junior was a Calvinist. Thus we have the hybrid formula embraced by the ELS-WELS-LCMS, from a Calvinist translating a Halle Pietist:
- God has forgiven the entire world its sins - Objective Justification.
- Man must agree with this state of affairs - Subjective Justification.
|The anti-UOJ quotations in Justification and Rome |
make me think these theologians were arguing against
the UOJ rationalism of Halle University.
44. From this we learn to be assured that we may comfort ourselves and cheerfully bear up when many people stumble at our Word and speak against our faith, especially the great, the learned, and the priests. This is a sign that our message and faith is right, for it receives the treatment foretold by Simeon and all the prophets. They must take offense at it, stumble over it, rise by it, and speak against it; it cannot be otherwise. He who would have it otherwise must look for another Christ. Christ is set for the falling and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which is spoken against; consequently his members, or every Christian, must be like him on account of his faith and his message. He is called “antilegumenous,” he who is spoken against.
His doctrine must be rejected, condemned and execrated as the worst heresy, error and foolishness. It is treated rightly when this is done; but when this does not take place, then we have neither Christ, nor his mother, nor Simeon, nor the prophets, nor faith, nor the Gospel nor any Christians. For what does speaking against mean but to deny, blaspheme, curse, condemn, reject, prohibit and persecute with all disgrace and ignominy as the worst heresy?