Monday, August 27, 2012

The 1982 Justification Essay by Dr. Robert Preus

Dr. Robert Preus always taught UOJ?
In 1982 he offered the best quotations against it,
the same ones used in Justification and Rome.


Dr. Robert Preus' 1982 essay about justification is linked here.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5009355/Robert%20Preus%20-%20Justification_essay.pdf


If someone would like to reproduce this in Word format, I can post it so the entire essay is easier to read and share.

Let me know if you have the time and inclination - gregjackson1948@qwest.net

---

Medium Rare wrote this:


Okay, just thought maybe I should read through the Preus paper:
When I hit this line I stopped; 

His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous.

I have to say "How in the world could a theologian come up with that?"
What part of the Bible does that line up with?  As I said earlier.
John 6: 32-71  paints an entirely different picture.


As we both know , it was just one giant step for pietists, called "Lutheran", toward going completely for Universalism.   

I can't figure out what is farther off. Calvinist that deny the real presence etc. or Pietist (called Lutheran) that teach that all were declared righteous 2000+ years ago.    Oh my!  

Well "you woke me up"! :-)

***

GJ - My response is that the essay is a mixture of UOJ and JBFA. The interesting part is his early use of quotations that obliterate UOJ. I will post those below. They appeared in Justification and Rome, many years later. However, the book contains no UOJ.

Quoted in the 1982 essay, page 7,
and in Justification and Rome.
Furtive UOJ can be found asserted on page 9 of the essay.


This is a paragraph on page 12 of the essay.


From Virtue Online - Getting Rid of Incompetent Leaders

Bishop Bennison witnessed his own brother abusing a young girl and  did nothing.
The LCMS has a similar case, involving a pastor witnessing his relative abusing a boy.

New GC2012 Resolution could force PA Bishop Charles Bennison out of office

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
August 27, 2012

The 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church passed an historic resolution in Indianapolis recognizing that when the relationship between bishops and dioceses is severely strained, sometimes to the breaking point, there is a way out that includes getting rid of the diocesan bishop. The canonical process of Resolution B021 prescribes methods for ending an episcopal relationship.

This now allows the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, if it so chooses, to finally get rid of Bishop Charles E. Bennison without using any of the Title IV disciplinary canons.

Resolution B021 was the result of a call (via Resolution B014) from the 2009 meeting of General Convention on how to help dioceses and bishops resolve their differences.

The failure of dioceses stuck with bad or deficient bishops (and there are a slew of them) has been a sticking point for years as there has been virtually no way of getting rid of a bishop except for public adultery which is still deemed scandalous. (What you can do is divorce your wife, take her to the altar and ecclesiastically unmarry her, then run out and find a man to marry if you are of the same sex.) But good old fashioned adultery is still a no-no in The Episcopal Church even though the late Bishop of New York, Paul Moore, engaged in an extensive homosexual affair while married with nine children. It was known by many that Moore committed adultery, but he was never exposed. He was inhibited by his successor, Bishop Richard Grein, though the charges against Moore were never made public. Grein was caught in an adulterous relationship, divorced his wife, and married another woman. 

As well as pansexuality, gross incompetency has been the hallmark of many a bishop. The good folk of Western Michigan are just waiting for Bishop Robert Gepert to go having left in his wake busted churches and a financial deficit.

The passage of Resolution B021 Convention offers a way to help bishops and dioceses reconcile or dissolve an episcopal relationship.

Resolution B014 (from 2009) noted in its explanation, The toll of that lack is "enormous," and comes in the form of "bishops and their families leaving stigmatized and without the gratitude and caring of the dioceses they have served, members of Standing Committees exhausted and ill-used, dioceses being left demoralized and split by factions, and the name of the church often compromised for lack of a more humane process." A better description of the situation in The Diocese of Pennsylvania could not be found.

If a diocese and bishop do decide to invoke the canon, such a decision allows any party to ask the presiding bishop to intervene and assist in resolving the disagreement or dissension. The presiding bishop then begins a process - including the possible use of a consultant or licensed mediator - meant to lead to reconciliation. If the parties agree to reconcile, they must define the "responsibility and accountability for the bishop and the diocese," according to the new Section 9.

In addition, the bishop, or two-thirds of the Standing Committee or a two-thirds majority vote of the Diocesan Convention can begin a process to dissolve the episcopal relationship. The reasons for the dissolution must be given in writing to the presiding bishop, along with a report of any mediator or consultant who might have been engaged. That notice sets in motion a series of steps that would last a matter of months. The presiding bishop may require further attempts at mediation and reconciliation. If there is still no resolution, a committee of one bishop (appointed by the presiding bishop) and one priest and one lay person (appointed by the president of the House of Deputies) from outside the diocese is to be convened to recommend a resolution of the matter. The committee could recommend that the episcopal relationship continue or that it should be dissolved.

The recommendation would have to be approved by two-thirds of the members of the House of Bishops present and eligible to vote at the house's next regularly scheduled or special meeting. If that majority does not agree, the committee would have to recommend another resolution to the same meeting, which would then be voted on at that meeting.

"In terms of church time, this thing moves at lightning speed," the Rev. Ledlie I. Laughlin, a Pennsylvania deputy and chair of the diocese's Standing Committee, told the Episcopal News Service.

Laughlin, the rector of St. Peter's Church in Philadelphia, said he followed the formulation of the eventually approved process "and was invited to participate in some of the conversations as edits were being made along the way.

"My guess is that the exercise of this canon will be rare, but in cases where it might be necessary, it could help spare undue damage to a diocese and the episcopal relationship," Diocese of Ohio Bishop Mark Hollingsworth, who proposed B021, told ENS. "Most likely, having the canon will incent a speedier resolution before having to invoke it."

The Pennsylvania Standing Committee has been at odds with Bishop Charles Bennison since the mid-2000s over concerns about how he has managed the diocese's assets and other issues.

More than once the Standing Committee has called for Bennison's resignation, including the day he returned to work in August 2010 after the church's Court of Review for the Trial of a Bishop overturned a lower church court's finding that he ought to be removed from ordained ministry because he had engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. The review court agreed with one of the lower court's two findings of misconduct, but said that Bennison could not be deposed because the charge was barred by the church's statute of limitations.

In September 2010, the Standing Committee asked the House of Bishops for its "support and assistance" in securing Bennison's retirement or resignation. The bishops later that month called for Bennison's "immediate and unconditional resignation." The next day, Bennison refused. He remains the diocesan bishop.

Bennison has no guilt or shame. As a sociopath, he feels no compunction to resign despite his appalling behavior concerning his brother's sexual abuse of a minor and the way he has treated Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals in the diocese. He rides rough shod over the Standing Committee, his behavior ameliorated only marginally by bishops Rodney Michel and Alan Turner.

The process agreed to by this meeting of convention in B021 is akin to the mechanism for a parish that finds itself in serious conflict with its rector (Title III.9.12-13). It will be added to the "Of the Life and Work of a Bishop" canon of Title III, the church's policies regarding ordained ministry. The addition becomes effective Sept. 1.

---

bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "From Virtue Online - Getting Rid of Incompetent Le...":

Another way to get rid of incompetent leaders:

http://www.zootpatrol.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/pope-mugshot-53753.jpg

A. Berean and the Difference



A. Berean has left a new comment on your post "Formula of Concord. III. Righteousness of Faith. S...":

I'm tired of this back-and-forth among these Lutheran dogmaticians between whether it's the merit of Christ that is offered by the Means of Grace and received by faith, or is it the verdict of justification (Walther) which is offered and received. Hasn't anyone ever noticed that difference??


***

GJ - Mr. Berean, you are making the Walther formula too much like Knapp's.

A. Berean : verdict of justification (Walther) which is offered and received.

Walther and his circle emphasized complete world absolution while Knapp's formula (as interpreted by Woods) sounded more like redemption/atonement being the Gospel message offered. The best way to see what people mean is to look at their explanations. Those additional claims are everything. The UOJ fanatics strive to out-absolve the rest, making Hitler and Judas guilt-free saints in Hell.

Some use the term OJ when they really mean redemption/atonement/propitiation. They give that interpretation away when they respond this way, "You reject OJ? Then what about expiation, propitiation, atonement?"

That is the problem with Objective Justification, General Justification, and Universal Objective Justification.
The correct, plain Biblical phrase of justification by faith has been turned into a philosophical construct that must be "carefully presented," as Jay Webber claims.

Most will still hear sound doctrine when a felony-stupid dogma is taught, because the Word teaches us to trust in God, not in man. Closeted, ordained unbelievers like this ambiguity, so they continue to spin the language and go back to justification by faith when it suits them and keeps them employed. The same principle is known in ELCA, where most of the congregation continues to believe in the articles of faith even though the pastors teach Tillich, Barth, and tree-worship.

Now that I mention it, the same is true of WELS and Missouri. The pastors teach UOJ while the congregation hears forgiveness through faith in the crucified Savior.

One way to undermine the congregation's trust in the Means of Grace is to promote Church Growth, appealing to the Old Adam, success, and money. Once material success becomes the goal, despising the Means of Grace is easy.

"Everyone else is doing so well. We are held back by the liturgy. We need a rock band, no organ, no liturgy, and a practical, fix-it message."

Gradualism has worked well in the Synodical Conference. Objections to Church Growth have been few, scattered, and easily ignored. Now it is so entrenched that no one dare confront the obvious problems, especially since Thrivent and Holy Mother Synod fund the worst examples.


---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "A. Berean and the Difference":

"The UOJ fanatics strive to out-absolve the rest, making Hitler and Judas guilt-free saints in Hell."

True - but you forgot to include the AntiChrist. Per the false gospel of Universal Objective Justification - the Antichrist has been absolved of all sin ~forgiven! declared guiltless and righteous in Christ. He is no longer under the wrath of God but in God's Grace as His dear child. Oh...if he would just believe it!

My bad - please include the end times False Prophet, Helena Blavatsky, Alistor Crowley, JZ Knight...

Missouri and WELS answer, "Yes, of course we will permit it!"

UOJ Contradicts the Formula of Concord:
Case Closed


Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Serious Laughter from Paul McCain. Plagiarist Ratt...":


Brett Meyer: 
McCain has shown himself to be an enemy of Christ through his perversion of the Gospel, and enemy of the Holy Spirit through his degradation of the Holy Spirit’s faith and a Universalist by his confession, promotion an defense of Universal Objective Justification (General Justification as (W)ELS DP Jon Buchholz likes to call it). Salvation is directly tied to the forgiveness of sins, being regarded as just and righteous by God. Also reconcillation with God comes through faith alone. The whole unbelieving world was not reconciled with God through the perfect substitutionary atonement of Christ.


The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

III. The Righteousness of Faith



Christian Book of Concord:

“16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life.”



In context:

8] Therefore, in order to explain this controversy in a Christian way by means of God's Word, and, by His grace, to settle it, our doctrine, faith, and confession are as follows:

9] Concerning the righteousness of faith before God we believe, teach, and confess unanimously, in accordance with the comprehensive summary of our faith and confession presented above, that poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, absolved and declared free and exempt from all his sins, and from the sentence of well-deserved condemnation, and adopted into sonship and heirship of eternal life, without any merit or worth of our own, also without any preceding, present, or any subsequent works, out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obedience, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obedience is reckoned to us for righteousness. [BM – note that this absolution of sins is tied to the righteousness of faith]

10] These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves.

11] This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him, that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the father, and are eternally saved. [BM – UOJists teach God declaring the unbelieving world forgiven and righteous by the atonement of Christ but not saved. BOC and Scripture tie the forgiveness of sins and the declaration of being righteous (having Christ’s righteousness) with eternal salvation. It is Universalism to teach that the whole world has been, by God’s divine and perfect verdict, to be forgiven of all sin and righteous because to be declared forgiven and righteous by God is eternal life.]

12] Therefore it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says that we are justified by faith, Rom. 3, 28, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4, 5, and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5, 19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith came to all men, Rom. 5, 18. [BM – here is where the BOC condemns the deception of UOJ when it falsely twists Romans 5:18 into a justification of the unbelieving world. The BOC here teaches that Romans 5:18 is the same as declaring Justification by Faith and that faith is counted to the believer as righteousness. Nowhere does Scripture declare the unbeliever justified or righteous but rather the unbeliever is declared to be under the Law, alive to sin and dead in sins and also abiding under the wrath and condemnation of God.]

13] For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel; for this must be applied and appropriated to us by faith, if we are to be justified thereby. [BM – condemned is the UOJ teaching that if man is justified solely by faith then faith is a synergistic work of man.]

14] Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid for [expiated] our sins. [BM – condemned is UOJ’s teaching that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the unbelieving world out of pure grace in the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ.]

15] For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. [BM – again the forgiveness of sins and being regarded as Godly and righteous is eternal salvation. Condemned is UOJ’s teaching that unbelievers can be forgiven all sin, regarded as righteous by God but not saved but bound for Hell if they don’t believe it’s already true.]



16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life. [BM – therefore unbelievers do not have reconciliation with God applied or appropriated without faith]

17] Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ's righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith, Phil. 3, 9. For this use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Prov. 17, 15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Is. 5, 23: Woe unto them which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Rom. 8, 33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, that is, absolves from sins and acquits. [BM – these condemnatory remarks are made directly to the UOJists because they stand guilty of perverting the Gospel of Christ]
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php 


Anti-gay marriage advocate arraigned, accused of child molestation | Breaking News | Wisconsin Gazette - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) News

Anti-gay marriage advocate arraigned, accused of child molestation | Breaking News | Wisconsin Gazette - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) News:


caleb_hesse
Caleb Hesse
A donor to the anti-gay Proposition 8 campaign and youth leader in his evangelical church has been arraigned on charges that he molested boys over many years.
Caleb Douglas Hesse, 52, of Yucca Valley, Calif., was arraigned earlier this month on four felony counts of lewd acts upon a child. Additional charges were to come, according to a release from the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office.
Hesse, if convicted, faces a maximum sentence of 45 years to life in prison.
He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
A news release from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department said Hesse was a first-grade teacher at the Friendly Hills Elementary School in the Morongo Unified School District from 1987 until recently.
He also is a youth volunteer with the Evangelical Free Church in Yucca Valley, according to the sheriff. Through his work at the church, Hesse allegedly was involved in “countless overnight outings that took place throughout California.”
Hesse’s alleged victims were on those outings, according to investigators.
“The crimes are believed to have occurred between the early 1980s and as recently as one week ago,” the sheriff’s news release dated Aug. 18 said. “Some of the victims may now be 30 (to) 40 years old.”
A database of donors to Proposition 8, the 2010 ballot campaign to amend California’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage, shows Hesse as a contributor.
Authorities were asking people with information, including other possible victims, to contact the sheriff’s department at 909-387-3615.


'via Blog this'

False Teachers Find Comfort in False Doctrine,
Instead of Teaching the Means of Grace



Instead of posting this graphic, which anyone can borrow, Paul McCain finds comfort in the offscouring of Pietism - Universal Objective Justification. Quoting the gunslinger hisself:

I urge and warn all those who read this blog and my Facebook page to avoid any such discussions and to flee from any false teachers who would rob you of the comfort of the Gospel.

and more -

Rejoice in this beautiful explanation of the doctrine of objective justification written by the Rev. Dr. Robert Preus, in 1981.

But McCain does not rely on Luther, the Book of Concord, or his hero Andreae. Instead, he cites the early Robert Preus and not the later Preus, where UOJ is repudiated with quotations from the orthodox Lutheran fathers (post-Concord, not post-Perryville).

The Biblical Means of Grace are comforting - the Word and Sacraments. UOJ fanatics are allergic to faith, the Means of Grace, and the efficacy of the Word. In other words, they have an immediate reaction to Biblical, Lutheran doctrine. Rash statements follow.

Comforting.

Disturbing.

Comforting.

Bizarre.

Comforting.

Universalistic and Babtist,
contradictory and confusing.

Comforting.

McCain's mentor - scary.

Comforting.

Enthusiastic!


---

There is a new comment on the post "I Did Not Know That".
http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/24/i-did-not-know-that/

Author: Paul T. McCain
Comment:
I learned a year or so ago that Highway Exit numbers were also mile numbers on the highway. So, if you know you have to get off at Exit 29 and you are at exit 19, you have ten miles to go.

Summary of Universal Objective Justification





Found in the Bible and the Book of Concord - justification by faith.

Not found in the Bible and the Book of Concord - Objective Justification, General Justification, Universal Objective Justification.


Found in the Concordist and post-Concordist writings - justification by faith.

Not found in the Concordist and post-Concordist writings - Objective Justification, General Justification, Universal Objective Justification.


Not found in the LCMS KJV catechism, Gausewitz original catechism, Dietrich and Dresden catechisms, and the old NIV - Objective Justification, General Justification, Universal Objective Justification, Universal Absolution.

Found in the writings of Samuel Huber, Pietists, rationalists, Adventists, Universalists, Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, the NNIV, and mainline theologians - Objective Justification, General Justification, Universal Objective Justification, Universal Absolution.

If We Are Going To Talk About Beautiful Expressions of the Gospel -
Why Not Try Luther Just Once?





Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Serious Laughter from Paul McCain. Plagiarist Ratt...":

Can't count the number of times the UOJists claim that only Objective Justification can provide comfort that their sins are forgiven.

Exactly where is the comfort in this teaching?

Per UOJ, God the Father forgave the whole unbelieving world their sins and declared them righteous in Christ when He paid for them on the cross. YET, in an attempt to avoid Universalism, some people still go to Hell for eternity. Why do they go to Hell if Christ forgave them all of their sins so completely that God the Father declared them righteous even while they reject Christ, living under the Law and alive to sin in their old flesh. What sin did Christ not die for? Better question - who isn't guilty of every sin? James 2:10 "for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Unbelief isn't the sin which Christ didn't pay for (and which according to UOJ God didn't forgive at the Atonement) per Romans 11:23 "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."

So which sin did Christ not pay for and therefore did God not forgive?

And how did Christ declare the world - per UOJ - guiltless, justified: forgiven of all sin, and righteous when there is still a sin He didn't die for and the Father didn't forgive?

Hunnius made this same point in his excellent thesis against the Lutheran Synod's chief doctrine of UOJ - How does someone find comfort in the work of Christ when they have the exact same standing in God's eyes while they stood condemned and Hell bound as they do Heaven bound - having accepted that they were already forgiven, justified and righteous?

And what gives with that righteousness of Christ that God's perfectly divine verdict pronounced on them in their unbelief when they are still bound for eternity in Hell because they don't believe it. Some righteousness if those given it still go to Hell.

That's a perverse comfort that the faithless UOJ Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists and New Age Religion have.

The true Gospel is that Christ died and paid for the sins of the whole world. All righteousness resides in Him and, contrary to the recent Steadfast tirade against the Holy Spirit's faith, is never apart from Him. Therefore by faith in Christ, worked graciously by the Holy Spirit solely through the Means Of Grace: Word and Sacrament, a man receives Christ, His righteousness, the forgiveness of all sins (even the sin of unbelief which he was born with) which Christ paid for, is Justified and saved - instantaneously.

Where's the comfort - in the fact that through faith (trust) in Christ all my sins are forgiven and I am saved. How do I know that my sins are forgiven - the Holy Spirit's faith, Christ's righteousness assures me that I believe in Christ and I trust God's Living Word that I am forgiven and saved. 2 Cor. 13:5 - only the reprobates ask themselves if they have faith in Christ and cannot answer by the Holy Spirit's faith in the affirmative. That's why the Steadfast apostates must by their new gospel make the declaration of righteousness outside of and without the Holy Spirit's faith.

There's no comfort in UOJ. The only comfort is in Christ's Gospel of One Justification solely by Faith in Christ Alone.