Simply Look at the Facts about UOJ and Justification by Faith. One Rejects the Other - No Harmony Exists

 WAM II taught Justification by Faith, so the Otten-Preus Syndicate defamed him as a false teacher. WAM II was demoted as a professor. Robert Preus was promoted as equal to Walther in his doctrinal acumen, an oddly fitting honor. However, Robert repented of OJ before he died.

I have pointed out in various circumstances that using "'my dogmatics textbook" versus "your dogmatic textbook" is not persuasive or effective. That is what the Calvinists in all denominations (Lutherans included) want. Their weak point is a unified Scripture knowledge. Their strongpoint is dogmatics. They have book chapter and verse for all their falsehoods, as CLC Pastor Mayhew displayed so convincingly in his YouTube.

Setting aside the actual arguments for a moment...Let's look at the state of the issue. There are two sides - clearly - because the UOJ Stormtroopers never stop attacking Justification by Faith. I simply want to emphasize honesty, which is entirely lacking.

 The original...

 Otten's copycat cover. He even copies and pastes book design, when it earns money for feigning sincerity in doctrine.

Political Front
First of all, the Preus Family and Otten, Inc attacked Dr. Walter A. Maier II in a vicious, dishonest, and cowardly fashion - at a national level. They held up their precious UOJ and used the strange tactic of feigning horror  that WAM II denied UOJ.

Robert's little essay (portrayed as canonical by Cascione and Paul McCain) is laughably bad, so alienated from the Scriptures that it does not hold up under the first reading.

 The poorly educated political parson and plagiarist, Paul McCain, has so little reading comprehension that he should be banned from editing more difficult than Dick, Jane, and Sally Go to VBS.

And yet, despite this national and ongoing beating, Otten and the Preus Family pretend they are huge fans of Dr. Walter A. Maier. Huge!

I have a signed copy of Otten's book on Dr. Maier I, the back cover containing the quote in the graphic. I scanned it lest someone say I was lying. Justification by Faith and Biblical inerrancy are the capstone and cornerstone of the Christian Faith.

 This edition from Herman Otten, signed by Otten hisself,
boasts this quotation, scanned from the back cover.
The World Still Listens - but Otten is deaf to the Gospel.

Chameleons can turn every color - but white.
The Rolf Synod ran back to the Little Sect and the LCMS.

Missouri made millions of dollars from Dr. Maier's ministry, even while publicly gutting his son. Marvin Schwan, the patron saint of adulterous millionaires, gave $20 million just for the Lutheran Hour building and grounds.

Doctrinal Front
Justification by Faith and Justification without Faith cannot be the same doctrine or harmonious doctrines.

However, the UOJ Hive continues to promote their sad, sick dogmas while the Biblical version has a chance to shine, here and there.

1. The LCMS finally published the Apology of the Book of Concord, by Martin Chemnitz - Justification by Faith. 
2. They also published the bloated, neo-Barthian Confessing Christ dogmatics book, which features UOJ (ditto the new, Titanic-sized Small Catechism).

Is anything more despicable than using Luther's name and publications to promote an anti-Biblical agenda?

WELS professors like Bivens (copying Zarling) pretend that their UOJ is the same as the Book of Concord's Chief Article.

If fact, readers will find that the false teachers alive and well today are adept at introducing Justification as the theme of the Reformation and using that word to mean UOJ,

1. which erupted first in the Calvinist Huber, 
2. then at Halle University, and 
3. found its OJ and SJ in the Calvinist explanation of a Halle theologian's dogmatics book. See Knapp and Woods below.

 Do the OJists admit that their terms come from a Calvinist translator? This was and is a major book for Pietists. WELS admits the terms were adopted in Germany and Walther adopted them. Besides that, various cults use the term Objective Justification too.

Do Otten's Baptist buddies notice that the editor is on the wrong side of the issue? Probably not, because the traditional Baptists are being taken over and replaced by Calvinist Baptists. The Calvinists were given a "seat at the table" long ago and now they want the entire table, food and dessert and wine and cigars for themselves.

Biblical Theology versus Dogmatics

From WM:

Brethren: Please note: The "discovery" mentioned below is not meant to ignore the fact that at least some of the rest of you were already aware of this information before me:

I was just checking Article IV of the Augsburg Confession-- which of course does NOT teach UOJ as part of the Scriptural and Lutheran doctrine of Justification--and suddenly realized that its explicit citation of Romans Chapters 3 & 4 to support the teaching of JBFA as the Scriptural and Lutheran doctrine of Justification thereby automatically REJECTS the use of those Chapters to teach UOJ--which (to repeat) is NOT taught by the Article concerning the doctrine of Justification in the Augsburg Confession, Article IV. 

So, if someone claims to be a "confessional Lutheran" and tries to teach UOJ from Romans 3 & 4, they are automatically REJECTING how the Augsburg Confession uses those Chapters to teach the Scriptural doctrine of Justification, JBFA.

And please notice that the explicit citation of Rom. 3 & 4 at the end of AC IV should cover the WHOLE CHAPTERS, and should NOT exclude any verse or verses to teach ANY other "form" of Justification in addition to the Scriptural doctrine of JBFA which is clearly taught in AC IV.

If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me.  --WM

***

GJ -

You are correct. That is why the real Biblical theologians combine true Scriptural exegesis with their doctrinal summaries. I was thinking about that all day today. What is great about Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz? They wrote this same way. It is not so much true with the Gerhard I have read. 

I use the term dogmatics in a derogatory way (as many do) because the dogmatic style is to state theses and simply list Biblical citations, many of which contradict the thesis. As Wilson said at Yale about JEDP, "If the facts do not fit the theory, then what do you do with the theory?"

One person said weakly, "Get rid of it?" That was 1972 at Yale. I doubt whether anyone takes JEDP (the Documentary Hypothesis) seriously in academic circles.

Theory and thesis are closely related. Theory is the way one looks at a topic. A thesis is a statement about it. Note the addiction of CFW Walther to theses - such as in his Law and Gospel lectures.

Walther is deductive. He states his "truth," then adds his warrants for declaring those truths. The Book of Concord is inductive, using the mysteries (revelations) of Scripture to build its witness to the Truth. 

 Norma A. Boeckler

The Brief Statement of 1932 is similar on Justification. 

"Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25..."

The three Biblical passages do not fit the thesis at all, and Romans 4:24 guts the essence of UOJ - Justification without Faith. What follows in the B.S. then contradicts what was just stated. The 1987 Theses of the LCMS are similar.

I believe Robert Preus first  charged into OJ, loyal to that faction in the Norwegians and ossified in the ELS. However, he had vast reading knowledge of the "orthodox" theologians, who became increasingly Pietistic. The statements he gathered in Justification and Rome struck me as his favorite authors contradicting the OJ of Pietism.

Where did the dogmatic approach begin? I respect Gerhard, because Chemnitz worked with him. However, Johann Gerhard (not the hymn writer, Paul Gerhardt) adopted a more dogmatic and verbose method which began the downhill slide among Lutherans, prompted no doubt by the polemical and insulting Calvinist academics.

 Norma A. Boeckler

Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz

The pillars of the Reformation were three genius Biblical scholars - Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz. They dominate the Book of Concord, which should be read as a one-volume Biblical commentary (and obviously is not).

These three men explained Christian teaching through their Biblical studies. They were experts in the Biblical languages (unlike Walther) and not dogmaticians. True, Melanchthon started a bit along that way with his Loci (topics), but the era of giant textbooks came later.

The Augsburg Confession and the exquisite Apology section on Justification are perfect examples of Melanchthon's Biblical style. Dost thou wonder why he is completely ignored today? second only to Luther and just a little ahead of Chemnitz in being read.

The Synodical Conference hates the faith, content, and method of the three giants of the Reformation. If anyone doubts this, simply look at the sick, bedraggled, coach-clowns of Lutheran Church Growth. They will coax you out of your personal troubles, your cash, your estate, and perhaps your clothes, too. 

Long ago I told WELS DP Robert Mueller: "My members came back from Florida. They said the only way they could tell a congregation was WELS was from the sign outside." That made him angry...at me. Now the WELS church sign is more likely to say Illuminati or HappyPoint Gathering.

 Thy Strong Word

TSW - Eyes Wide Open

I followed the advice of Egbert Schaller, the forgotten Schaller, and decided to make my final book one where all the points were derived directly from Scripture. That came out in 2000, so I did not have enough character to stop writing.

I had about 3,000 verbatim quotations to use from sources, good and evil, but I could not rely on them as the framework. If I wanted to deal with the efficacy of the Word, I had to show from the Scriptures that efficacy is always taught in the Word of God. I found out that:

1. The New Testament word group is almost universally ignored.
2. The modern Lutherans are either silent or ignorant about efficacy.
3. UOJ, the enemy of efficacy, is straight out of Pietism.

Since then I have not seen any official effort to teach Biblically, but a lot of effort to work with ELCA and do some chest pounding about how terrible ELCA is...compared to them. The hypocrisy is even more strident than the sanctimony.

Now read Romans 4.
When was Abraham counted forgiven, righteous?

Do Not Use the Feeble Weapons of the Apostates

The only way to unseat the evil promulgation of false doctrine - little more than a "conservative" spin on ELCA Universalism - is to avoid my dogma versus your dogma.

The best and most convincing teacher is the Spirit in the Word. Quoting Luther against Walther will not matter because the audience does not know the Scriptures. Once they are led through Romans 4, they can no longer claim any verses in Romans 4 for UOJ. And there goes Paul as their foundational OJ expert.

Jay Webber used Luther as his foil because he knew the LCMS-ELS-WELS audience was even more ignorant of Luther than he was - and is. Knowledge of Biblical languages? - zero.

Jay's pal, DP Jon-Boy Buchholz - his great sect essay on UOJ was a big pile of theses. Only a nobody from an unknown and unknowing sect be so proud of his dogma.

Each person who witnesses to Justification by Faith must rest that upon the Word of God, which is challenging and fulfilling. I give Brett Meyer a lot of credit for finding the best JBFA material and the worst UOJ statements to force me into thinking through the entire issue - all the arguments, citations, experts, and lies.

For example - where do we start? It has to be Genesis 15:6 and its relationship to Romans 4 and the references to Abraham in the New Testament. Study those passages along and UOJ melts down faster than a Dairy Queen cone in August.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

Pastor James Shrader - On the Errors of Universal Objective Justification and the Writings of Martin Chemnitz

Chemnitz was the senior editor of the Book of Concord, a genius who began his academic work by casting horoscopes. That put him in an excellent private library, which allowed him to become an expert in the early Church Fathers. He abandoned horoscopes completely. He studied under Luther and Melanchthon and worked diligently to unite the Lutheran witness to truth. He is ignored entirely by the LCMS-ELCA-WELS-ELS today.

Pastor James Shrader
October 31 at 10:28 PM · 

Nearly everyone either knows or has heard of Martin Luther. But few really know who was the second 'Martin' of the Reformation. His name was Martin Chemnitz. Both men taught and lived by faith alone. And they made it so simple to understand that man is justified by faith alone. And yet clever theologians came along and screwed with the common Christian's mind teaching that "ALL people, whether they believe it or not, are justified before God and have all their sins forgiven...and whether they know it or not, ALL people have had their sins absolved (forgiven) by God Himself." This is commonly known as Universal Objective Justification. Then these clever theologians try to explain why all people are saved and some people are saved at the same time, which is impossible to do unless God changes His mind.

Therefore, let the second Martin help you. Chemnitz had written his own handbook on the Ministry, Word, and Sacraments called "An Enchiridion" in which he poses certain questions and gives his answers that are found in the Bible. Such as: #148 But, what, then, is the righteousness that faith brings to the judgment seat of God, that God might justify the miserable sinner because of it?" Answer "...For before anyone might render that righteousness of new obedience, it is necessary that the person be reconciled to God, that he be justified by God. 1 John 2:29....And since this righteousness of Christ, rendered for us, is perfect, sufficient and abundant and can stand before the judgment seat of God, therefore God has promised that He would impute it to believers just as if they had rendered it themselves. Romans 3:22; 4:23-25; 5:18."

Now Chemnitz asks in #149: "Are all men justified and saved because of this righteousness of the Son of God?" Answer: "The way is broad that leads to damnation, and there are many that walk in it." Matthew 7:13.

So think about what is taught in this clever Universal Objective Justification doctrine and try with all your might to say that it is God's Word that says that all people are saved and justified before faith, whether they know it or not. And then come to the understanding that the simple answer is no, indeed. The answer will always turn up in the Bible that man is justified by faith alone! And then come to the understanding that Jesus taught Nicodemus in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever BELIEVES in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Chemnitz quoted this Origen statement.

Reformation Rebuttal of Rolf Preus' Here I Misunderstand Lectures in North Dakota

 ELDONA Bishop James Heiser said, "None of the Preus children are known for their theological acumen."

From WM:

Brethren: These Scriptural passages are presented by Pastor Rolf Preus in the first part of his conference essay [Here I Misunderstand, North Dakota Lectures] on Universal Objective Justification which he linked to a recent post in the LutherQuest forum.

Pastor Jackson has already commented on a few of these passages in Ichabod with specific reference to the Preus essay, but of course Pastor Jackson has already dealt with these passages many times before.

I wanted to try to respond to the use of these passages to teach UOJ, and I humbly request your feedback to determine if I am correctly understanding them.  This is no "exegetical study," just my personal response to how these passages are used to teach UOJ.

1. John 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world."

My response: There is no reference to OJ here, rather, a clear reference to the Universal Atonement of Christ.

2. Matt. 26:28: "For this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for remission of sins."

My response: Once again, there is no reference to OJ here, rather, a clear reference to the Universal Atonement of Christ.

3. Rom. 4:5: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

My response: There is nothing but the teaching of Justification by Faith here.Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the Means of Grace bring us to personal FAITH  in Christ, Who has provided justification for those who personally receive that justification by FAITH through the Gospel.

4. Rom. 4:24-25: "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our LORD from the dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification."

My response: Again, I see nothing but the teaching of Justification by Faith here.  "IF WE BELIEVE..." settles that!

"Delivered for our sins" and "raised again for our justification" speak of the Universal Atonement and Justification by Faith, whether "for" is translated as "for" or as "because of."  Notice here, please, that the imputation of justification is LINKED TO FAITH IN CHRIST.  We shall meet with that word "impute" again in another passage.

5. Rom. 5:8-10: "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  Much more then, being now justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

My response: Although the chapters and verses in Scripture were not in the original text, context remains an important tool in the correct understanding of Scripture, which can be abused by "proof-text" passages "untimely ripped" (to quote MACBETH, Act V, Scene 8) from both their immediate/specific as well as their general context.  Therefore, anything in this passage MUST be considered within both the immediate/specific as well as the general context of Rom. 5:1: "Therefore, being JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, we have peace with God through our LORD Jesus Christ," because 5:1 clearly begins this new section of Paul's Epistle in which 5:8-10 is located by God the Holy Spirit, through the Scripture's property of plenary verbal inspiration and inerrancy.

Therefore this passage MUST be understood in the LIGHT ("Thy WORD is a lamp unto my feet, and a LIGHT unto my path," Ps. 119:105) of the clear teaching of Justification by Faith.

"But God commendeth His LOVE toward us"--cf. John 3:16--Justification by Faith.

"In that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"--the Universal Atonement.

"Much more then, being now justified by His Blood"--Context requires the understanding "Much more then, being now justified by [faith in Jesus Christ, who in His atoning death upon the Cross shed for all mankind] His Blood."

"We shall be saved from wrath through Him."--Through Justification by Faith the holy God's wrath against our sins is appeased, because the benefits of Christ's Universal Atonement are individually applied to us in the Gospel we have received by faith alone, and we become precious in the sight of God.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son"--Context requires the understanding "For if, when were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" [the benefits of whose atoning sacrifice for all mankind we have individually received by faith in His Son.]


"Much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."--The context requires the understanding "Much more, being reconciled [to God by faith in His Son Jesus Christ,] we shall be saved by His life" [being RECONCILED to God by faith in His Son, we are also SAVED by faith in God's Son, whose perfect LIFE of Active and Passive Righteousness for us preceded His atoning DEATH, as well as, after His RESURRECTION, His eternal Intercession for us before the throne of His Father in heaven.] (cf. Rom. 8:34: "Who is he that condemeth?  It is Christ that DIED, yea rather, that is RISEN AGAIN, Who is even at the right hand of God, Who also MAKETH INTERCESSION for us.")

Cited and quoted in  Justification and Rome, by Robert Preus, a book curiously omitted by his son in his Here I Misunderstand lectures.

6. Rom. 5:18-19: "Therefore as by the offense of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous."

My response: First of all, we must check the contents to see if we have left the section which began with Rom. 5:1, which included the previous passage, vss. 8-10.

I would assert that we are still in the same section of the Epistle which began with 5:1 and the clear statement of Justification by Faith, and that the next section of the Epistle begins with 6:1, moving from a primarily doctrinal section to a section about the application of doctrine in the Christian life: Rom. 6:1: "What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"

Therefore I believe that the correct understanding of the current passage is determined by the context of the doctrinal statement at the beginning of this section of the Epistle, Rom. 5:1: "Therefore, being JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, we have peace with God through our LORD Jesus Christ," the clear teaching of Justification by Faith.

"Therefore as by the offense of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation"--Adam's (Original) sin brought condemnation upon the whole human race.

"Even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."--The context requires the understanding "Even so by the righteousness of One the free gift [of God's forgiveness of sins received by faith was made available by the Gospel so that it] came upon all men [through the Gospel which creates saving faith] unto justification of life [our life in Christ."] (cf. Col. 3:3-4: "For ye are dead, [to this world of sin and death] and YOUR LIFE IS HID WITH CHRIST IN GOD.  When Christ, WHO IS OUR LIFE, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.")  And don't forget: to be possessed and used, A "GIFT" MUST BE PERSONALLY RECEIVED!

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"--Once again, Adam's (Original) sin brought condemnation upon the whole human race.

"So by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous."--The context requires the understanding "So by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous" [justified by faith in the obedient One, the Lord Jesus Christ.]

7. 2 Cor. 5:18-19: "And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

My response: This passage, of course, is the "sedes proof-text" for Objective Justification.  I'm not exactly sure why, as it doesn't mention "Justification" at all, but rather how the "Word of Reconciliation" (the Gospel) saves the lost and how those who have been reconciled to God are mandates to share that same "Word of Reconciliation" with others so that they also may be reconciled to God.

"And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;"--Again, let's check the context. Look at the previous verse, vs. 17: "Therefore IF ANY MAN BE IN CHRIST, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." --With the "therefore" a new section begins which is clearly talking about God's relationship with those who are "in Christ," those who, by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace, have been brought to faith in Jesus Christ by the Gospel.  Those who are "in Christ" have been reconciled by God by Christ through the Gospel, the "Word of reconciliation," and in turn they are given the mandate to share the same Gospel of reconciliation with the unsaved by which they themselves were reconciled to God through Christ, so that the unsaved can themselves be reconciled to God and be saved.

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the Word of reconciliation."--

God "in Christ" has by Christ's Universal Atonement provided the basis for the world's ongoing, continuous reconciliation to Him through the "Word of reconciliation," the  Gospel of Christ by which we are brought to faith in Christ and therefore reconciled to God, and in turn we who have been brought to faith in Christ by the Gospel, and therefore reconciled to God, are in turn commissioned by God to use the same "Word of reconciliation," the same Gospel of Christ, to lead others to also be reconciled to God by faith in Christ through the Gospel.  Thereby we who are "in Christ"--who have been brought to personal faith in Christ by the Gospel and "reconciled" to God--carry the "Word of reconciliation" to others so that they also are able to be "in Christ," because the ONLY way to be "in Christ" is through the work of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel--the "Word of reconciliation"--to bring us to faith in Christ.

Remember how in Rom. 4:24-25 it was demonstrated that God's imputation of righteousness is LINKED TO FAITH IN CHRIST?  So here again, in 2 Cor. 5:19, when we read of God "not imputing their trespasses unto them," God's non-imputation of trespasses to sinners is LINKED to their being "in Christ" (vs. 17)--"IF any man be IN CHRIST"-- to their being brought to faith in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Means of Grace in the Gospel of Christ. --Warren

Faithless Jay Webber Does Not Grasp the Meaning of Plain English - And Certainly Knows Little Greek and Less Latin

David Jay Webber And while you're at it you can also read mine. wink emoticonMy essay on this subject focuses quite extensively on Luther's teaching, and dispels the myth that Luther did not teach objective justification.

Ron Pederson I have read it, some time ago though. Jay, how could anyone say that God has forgiven the sins of the world which includes all people and then say that that does not include every individual? Isn’t that the real comfort of the Gospel. If God has forgiven the world, all people, then that includes my sin too? Forgive me, but it just seems absurd to me to say that God has forgiven the sins of the world, all people, but not me as an individual.

Like · April 27 at 9:28pm · Edited

David Jay Webber It's a matter of the most helpful way to explain it, in keeping with the pattern of sound words. And do you offer comfort to people based on their inclusion in objective justification, apart from an emphasis on the here-and-now forgiveness that God is offering and bestowing in the means of grace? Isn't that the best way to make forgiveness personal and individual - to say, "Your sins are forgiven"? The truth of objective justification gives you the basis and the confidence to announce this forgiveness to every penitent individual, in a very personal way. But that's subjective justification - as built on the foundation of objective justification. That's not making objective justification as such an individual thing.

Like · 1 · April 27 at 9:35pm

Ron Pederson I agree that in Pastoral teaching/preaching we most certainly need to include both objective and subjective justification. But if it is the basis of subjective justification, objective justification, that we are addressing, especially in doctrinal sta...See More

Like · April 27 at 10:06pm · Edited

David Jay Webber Where does the Bible say this? I can show you where it says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, but not that he takes away the sin of each individual. I can show you where it says that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but not that that he is the propitiation for the sins of each individual. I can show you where it says that in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, but not that in Christ God was reconciling each individual to himself. On the basis of logic and syllogistic deductions, you are imposing individual terms onto Biblical descriptions of a universal event which employ universal terms. Why do this? Just teach general or universal justification in general and universal terms, and teach personal or individual justification in personal and individual terms.

Like · 4 · April 27 at 10:17pm · Edited

Once again, Jay Webber proves his lack of English reading comprehension. His Greek ignorance is a given, but one does not have to know the Biblical languages to understand a good, precise translation in the KJV tradition.

But the discussion above is especially fun because Ron Pederson is an ELS pastor who often jumps in to defend Objective Justification. But he is not extreme enough for Jar Jar Webber, who must have the last word on everything, even if it means repeating himself endlessly without providing any evidence for his opinions.

Whether it is called Objective Justification, General Justification, or Universal Objective Justification, the dogma comes from Halle Pietism, long after the Lutheran Reformation, and is completely alien to Biblical justification.

The core dogma of UOJ is - God has declared the entire world forgiven of sin. That is embedded in the Brief Statement of 1932 from the LCMS, which marked the beginning of the end for Missouri.

To this day, as one LCMS District President admitted, Objective Justification is not taught in any Missouri catechism, but only in the hideous Kuske WELS catechism. How did they all agree to get together on the basis of UOJ?

The hymn for the Emmaus Conference was - I'd Rather Have Rambach -

to this tune -

 

1. I’d rather have Rambach with silver and gold;
   I’d rather be Pietist with riches untold;
   I’d rather have Rambach with houses and lands;
   I’d rather be led by the Halle U. band.
   • Refrain:
     And to be the king of a vast domain
     And be held in sin’s dread sway;
     I’d rather have Rambach than anything
     The Gospel affords today.
2. I’d rather have Spener with men’s applause;
   I’d rather be faithful to UOJ's cause;
   I’d rather have Rambach and worldwide fame;
   I’d rather be true to Halle U's name.
3. They're fairer than roses or sauerkraut;
   They're sweeter than Thrivent grants without doubt;
   They're all that my Old Adam needs;
   I’d rather have Rambach and let him lead.
4. 
   

 Valleskey is a good example of promoting UOJ
and Church Growth in the same book,
which Webber considers "weird."
The Synodical Conference does this inconsistently
but persistently.

UOJ Source Material - Reading a UOJist about UOJ Is Very Important. A Festschrift Article Is Often the Best Work of a Writer.Huber, Walther, Stephan, Preus

Readers - do you find justification by faith
or UOJ in these quotations?

Justification and Easter
A Study in Subjective and Objective
Justification in Lutheran Theology

by Tom G. A. Hardt.

(This study was first published in “A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus” Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana 1985. Published here by Lutherska Konkordiekyrkan in Sweden with due permission.)

http://luk.se/Justification-Easter.htm

⁷⁵ J. G. Baier: Compendium ... , p. 286. The question concerning Walther’s relation to Huber has been treated by R. Söderlund in his article “Läran om den universella rättfärdiggörelsen i teologihistorisk belysning” (“The doctrine of universal justification in the light of the history of theology”) in Svensk Teologisk Kvartalstidskrift, 1979, pp. 114-129. Söderlund differentiates between universal justification which leaves room for an individual justification as a real act of God and which is legitimate within orthodox Lutheran theology, and another type of universal justification which permits no such act and is accordingly illegitimate. According to Söderlund the latter type is found with Huber, Zinzendorff, the Swedish Moravian 18th century theologian Rutström and also in Missourian theology. Missourian theology has, according to Söderlund, succumbed to Herrnhutism on this point through two channels: one through Stephan, the other through Swedish neoevangelicalism, which is thought to have influenced Missourian theology, a statement based on Realencyclopädie für protestantische Theologie and Kirche, 3.Aufl., Leipzig 1896-1913, 3:328, entry ”Bornholmer, die.“ The former, acceptable type of universal justification is, according to Söderlund, found with the Swedish Pietistic 18th century court preacher A. Norborg, who taught that Christ is justified as the representative head of mankind and that insofar the world was justified in Him. Yet Norborg regards individual justification as a real act of God; Söderlund, op. cit., p. 126. The material presented in our article, however, has given full proof for stating that Walther rather sides with Norborg and that his theology cannot be regarded as the offspring of Moravianism. It should be pointed out that Norborg was not unknown to the Missourian tradition. As early as 1872, during the lifetime of Walther, the Synodical Conference, the joint representation of the synods of Missouri, Wisconsin, the Norwegians, Illinois, Minnesota and Ohio, in its dealings about universal justification approvingly referred to Norborg (mistakenly called “Rohrberg”), quoting exactly the same passages as Söderlund, where Christ is regarded as the representative of mankind in His resurrection, and where “the right middleway” is proclaimed, leaving room for an individual justification as a real act of God; cfr.

Wikipedia article

Tom Gunnar Arvid Hardt, born 19 July 1934 in Oskar Parish, Stockholm, died 28 June 1998 in Öddö in Tjärnö parish, Stromstad (registered in the Kungsholmenparish, Stockholm) ^[1], was a Swedish theologian.

Hardt matriculated at the East area in Stockholm in 1953, became the Masters of Arts in Stockholm in 1956 and Theology. Laws in Uppsala. In 1971 he became a doctor of theology with a thesis on Luther's theology of communion, Venerable et adorabilis Eucharistia. It was highly acclaimed and translated into German. A popular summary was published in the book If the sacrament of the altar (1973, 2nd edition 2009). It was translated quickly to the German and Finnish. He won international recognition as a prominent connoisseur of Luther, theology and had a wide scientific network. In 1961 he resigned from the Swedish church and formed together with some like-minded standalone community Evangelical Lutheran Church in Sweden, in which he also was ordained. He was then, and until his death vicar of St Martin's church in Stockholm. He came early in contact with the famous German theologian Hermann Sasse and stood like this stranger for all allmänprotestantism and saw in the Sacrament Lutheran doctrine with its realism, a truth that he found negotiable. For the wider public, he became famous when his ward won a case before the European Court against the Swedish government concerning parental rights and denominational religious education for the parish children. The case, he has described in the book of St. Martin and the dragon. He translated a lot of Swedish literature from other languages, and some of his own production has been translated into other languages. His bibliography includes about 400 numbers.