 |
| Webber became Jon Buchholz' point-man in the WELS California-Arizona District, so he must approve of Jeff Gunn, just as Buchholz does. |
Steadfast post in favor of UOJ.
Author: Joel A. Dusek:
Rev. Webber,
As you say, "the current controversy over objective justification is a battle over words, freighted with much misunderstanding and confusion". "Atonement", "redemption", "universal" "objective", "subjective", "justification", "universalism", "limited", "Huber" "Hunnius", and various parts of the Confessions and Scripture all get thrown into the mix and it has been difficult to discern what each writer means at a particular time. My poor layman's mind can do no justice to the studied theology presented on both sides, but I agree that much of the controversy arises from misunderstanding and talking past each other. The details of the controversy over justification are well-presented in the Lutheran blogosphere, at sites such as Intrepid Lutherans, ELDoNA, and others. And, at the opposite side of the worst - in the case of some proponents of universal justification - it also represents a denial of the Means of Grace and the necessity of the gift of faith.
As a layman, I simply hold to the idea that Christ died to redeem and atone for the sins of the entire world for all time, and that Christ's righteousness, that is the forgiveness of sins, that is justification, is only received through faith. There is one justification, achieved by Christ alone and applied by faith alone. All are redeemed but not all are justified; there is no justification apart from faith which is itself a gift of God. The objectivity of justification means that man can contribute in no way to his righteousness, and without faith created and sustained through the Means of Grace there is no justification.
One caveat, let the reader be aware: Buchholz's essay presents WELS's sectarian teaching, specifically on a dual justification (objective and subjective), and a universal justification of all mankind for all time apart from faith. It is worthwhile to read, but must be examined with diligent comparison to the Scriptures and the Book of Concord. His essay is rebutted on other Lutheran websites, and the reader would be well-advised to examine these rebuttals, as well as the background of the controversy within the WELS AZ-CA District.
Joel Dusek
---
ELS Pastor Joseph Abrahamson:
Mr. Dusek, could you please give examples of papers or websites that can show what you mean when you wrote:
”And, also at the worst though from the opposite side – in the case of some proponents of universal justification – it also represents a denial of the Means of Grace and the necessity of the gift of faith.”
Thanks
---
Brett Meyer comments, erased by Jay Webber:
This morning
I responded to a recent post on Steadfast Lutheran's website that was written by
ELS Pastor David Jay Webber. His post was on the topic of UOJ and as can be
seen it is an innacurate description of the controversy between UOJ and
Scriptural Justification by faith in Christ alone. I published three posts
politely correcting his statements - the third did not get published as they
Kilcreased all of my comments. Classic UOJ tactic as they are unable to address
the eye popping contradictions in their defense and promotion of the false
gospel of Universal Objective Justification.
My first
comment is presented here:
#1 - The
doctrine of UOJ teaches that the whole unbelieving world has been divinely
declared forgiven all sin (justified), righteous, guiltless and in God's grace
when Christ died to pay for the sins of the world. UOJ teaches that the gospel
message is this declaration so that if a person believes that they have already
been justified by God they will then benefit from the declaration that was
pronounced at the cross and be saved eternally. UOJ teaches the unbelieving
world was justified by Grace alone and that they are saved eternally by faith in
that justification alone. These accurately stated tenets of UOJ are found in
the official statements and papers of the ELS, WELS and LCMS.
I believe
Pastor Webber's statements above are grossly inaccurate. I recommend reading
the handfull of UOJ discussions on this website in order to see the differences
between Universal Objective Justification and Justification solely by faith in
Christ alone.
Brett
Meyer
My second
comment is presented here:
#2 - Rev.
Webber, your claim that UOJ doesn't teach Universalism can only be true if the
forgiveness of sins no longer results in salvation. Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions faithfully teach that the forgiveness of sins is life and
salvation. The basic tenets of UOJ confess that the whole unbelieving world’s
sins were not only paid for by Christ’s atonement but also forgiven so that they
stand justified before God the Father. But UOJ teaches that the unbeliever who
stands justified before God is not saved eternally. UOJ’s faith simply believes
that it’s true so that the benefit – salvation – is then enjoyed by the
individual.
But in this particular discussion no one has brought up the charge of Universalism.
You point to
WELS DP Pastor Jon Buchholz as the clarifying source for what UOJ teaches but he
has admitted that he does not remain with the clear Words of Scripture when
teaching UOJ. These quotes come from his 2005 WELS Convention keynote
essay:
"God has forgiven the whole world. God has forgiven everyone his sins." This statement is absolutely true! This is the heart of the gospel, and it must be preached and taught as the foundation of our faith. But here’s where the caveat comes in: In Scripture, the word "forgive" is used almost exclusively in a personal, not a universal sense. The Bible doesn’t make the statement, "God has forgiven the world.
"God has
forgiven all sins, but the unbeliever rejects God’s forgiveness." Again, this
statement is true—and Luther employed similar terminology to press the point of
Christ’s completed work of salvation.16 But we must also recognize that
Scripture doesn’t speak this way."
"God has
declared the entire world righteous." This statement is true, as we understand
it to mean that God has rendered a verdict of "not-guilty" toward the entire
world. It is also true—and must be taught—that the righteousness of Christ now
stands in place of the world’s sin; this is the whole point of what Jesus did
for us at Calvary. However, once again we’re wresting a term out of its usual
context. In Scripture the term "righteous" usually refers to believers. "
http://www.wlsessays.net/node/390
http://www.wlsessays.net/node/390
I maintain
that it is impossible to teach and defend UOJ using Scripture alone but one must
rationalize to teach UOJ’s tenets as Jon Buchholz clearly shows
above.
My third
comment was in response to Rev. Likeness expressing that I believed his
summation of Robert Preus' confession was faithful to Scripture and that it
brings up the fact that since the entire act of justifying an individual from
Christ's payment for sins to the gracious gift of faith in Christ alone is 100%
Objective there has never been a need to declare any part of it as Subjective.
That the only reason to do so is to address UOJ's contention that faith is an
attributable work of man - contrary to Scripture's teaching that it is the
gracious gift of the Holy Spirit with Christ as it's Author and Finisher.
ELS Pastor
David Jay Webber will hide behind the delete button on Steadfast just as he hid
behind the doorway at the Emmaus conference. It's time for people to wake up
about the war the UOJists in the Lutheran Synods are waging against Christ and
His Church.
In
Christ,
Brett
Meyer
---
