Younger Generation Bearing Down on the UOJ Faith-Haters

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

The favourite UOJ Gambit - Faith In Faith

Universal Objective Justification (UOJers) teacher say that if you do not believe in their doctrine, then there is no other way but for you to believe in your faith - or, you must have faith in your faith.

This argument is directed to people who believe in One Justification Through Faith Alone, i.e. the JBFA people. This ploy is also commonly levied to people who are shaky in their confidence with UOJ and to keep these people in a coral, they throw a guilt trip saying to them - if they abandon UOJ then you must believe in your own faith.


This is also called the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e., because of this, then this follows, and so on. People not accustomed to spotting fallacies are prone to slip and go along this UOJ fallacy.

Let us examine this conclusion a bit - it says if you do not believe in UOJ then you must believe in faith in your faith, or you will then have faith in your faith.

Now no where in the Bible does it teach that there is a thing called faith in your faith. Jesus often tells people who believed in him that their faith has saved them. For example  Lk 7:50. Yet it is Jesus who says this about these people's faith. No where do we see anyone who believes in Jesus commend himself/herself's faith. The very nature of the faith taught in the Bible is that it's object is not directed to itself but away from it, to Christ's person as Lord and his work of atonement. By the Bible's definition, saving faith has Christ's person and work as its object.

Consider now the published teachings of UOJ teachers we have encountered in this blog. We have clear evidence (if you search here) that for the UOJer, the object of faith is directed at that so called "justification" that has happened on all people 2000 years ago when either Jesus breathed his last or when he was resurrected from the dead (which one event specifically caused our "justification", no one knows).

Consider further what UOJers teach about people who do not believe this general or objective justification. They teach that if you reject this general objective justification you are not subjectively justified and hence, one can say you are "unjustified". It is somewhat laughable and hypocritical that they throw the "faith in your faith" on to JBFAers when in fact the same is true for them. For is it not reasonable to say the same thing applies to UOJ teaching? For if you want to be justified, you must believe that you already have been and if you don't then you are not. This too results in faith in faith and in fact far more so and worst because the object is not Christ and his work. Let us not go very far, let us simply quote their famous saint C. F. W. Walther

"For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is—faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him."
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection—The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978, p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.

The emphasis there is mine. Yet note what Walther said - one thing remains ON YOUR PART... and EVERY MAN WHO WANTS TO BE SAVED MUST ACCEPT. It is indeed amazingly weird to think that the UOJer's faith can not result in faith in that faith, as if it could never happen to a UOJer.

There is one thing I want to ask a UOJer - are you sure that you believe in that general absolution pronounced 2000 years ago? For if you are not, as per Walther's teaching you are not saved.

On the other hand, the faith spoken of by JBFA teaching is a faith that can not boast and can not look at no other object except Christ's work and person. It locks the believer into the proper place to rest one's faith and hence, its very nature can not look at itself nor somewhere else.

2 Timothy 1:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

UOJ Claims Exploded by Dr. Lito Cruz

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Worldview Everlasting - Universal Objective Justif...":

Further, we have tackled this passage before. Typical of UOJ to isolate a verse without respect to the context where the passage is found.

First off Rev. Lorfeld, skips v.22 and drops down quickly to v.23. What this verse 22 says is that there is no DISTINCTION on those who BELIEVE in Christ.

The "are justified" harkens back to the people in v.22. The "all" in that verse is not a generic "all" but have been qualified - it says unto all and upon all them that believe for there is no difference

We also notice that Rev. Lorfeld left out v.25-26, a very crucial point. As Brett said the Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ and Him crucified. This truth is taught by Romans 3:25-26.

Romans 3:25-26 states that Christ has been set forth by God as the propitiation for the sins of the world through faith in His blood. "Blood" here refers to His death which is payment for our sins. This is the object of faith. God justifies those who believe in Christ's death in this way.

LPC

---

KJV Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every
way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not
believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but
every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome
when thou art judged.

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man ) 6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

***

GJ - I tried out the UOJ claims, using the New NIV reading, asking a class of non-Lutherans about justification without faith, UOJ. They said, "No, justification by faith is clearly stated anyway."

Here is the NNIV rendition, which Mequon wants so passionately -

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. [NNIV, copyright, Rupert Murdoch, aka Lizard Hands]

As I wrote several times before, the way to test the meaning is to ask what the opposite statement might be. The original wording has one all, but the stoners, Universalists, and UOJists want the second phrase to say all people in the world are justified, contrary to what was clearly taught earlier in the same chapter. Look at all the references to faith and believing in Romans 3.

The contrary question asks - is anyone justified apart from Christ? The answer throughout Romans is - NO!

Everyone has sinned, so all have sinned.

Everyone who is justified is justified in Christ alone.

The only justification is by faith.

The following fact should make the WELSians very frightened - the UOJ rendition so loved by the Sausage Factory and all UOJists is the dogma of the Leftist mainline denominations:

• ELCA
• Presbyterian
• Methodist
• Liberal Baptist
• Episcopalian
• Liberal Roman Catholic
• Disciples of Christ.

UOJ is the great unifier, the backbone of ecumemism, because the double-justification of Halle University degraded into universal salvation (all are justified). And where did this universal salvation come from? Halle University - Schleiermacher, later his heir Karl Barth, the official theologian of Fuller Seminary. And Fuller is THE seminary for all denominations in American, including the Roman Catholics.

Dr. Lito Cruz Points Out a Problem

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Dr. Lito Cruz on Pastor Rydecki's Essay":

But according to C. F. Dubya Walther, Rydecki is mistaken in taking seriously the teachings of the Lutheran Fathers.

The principal means by which our opponents endeavor to support their doctrine, consists in continually quoting passages from the private writings of the fathers of our Church, published subsequent to the _Formula of Concord_. But whenever a controversy arises concerning the question, whether a doctrine is Lutheran, we must not ask: "What does this or that 'father' of the Lutheran Church teach in his private writings?" for he also may have fallen into error;

Did Walther know how to exegete the Greek NT?

I doubt that.

LPC

His first kidnapping caper began in Europe
when he and his brother grabbed their niece and nephew
for a one-way trip to America, where both died rather young.

***

GJ - Dr. Cruz, you brought up an important insight about Walther the theological pope.

First, I will list the false assumptions about Walther and corrections in blue:

He was an orthodox Lutheran. He never was. He was trained in rationalism and sought refuge in Pietism, following one domineering guru and then Martin Stephan when the first guru moved away and died. His Easter absolution UOJ came directly from the Pietist Stephan, and the same bilge was taught at Halle, where Stephan studied.

He was a skilled theologian - he studied Luther! Long ago, everyone studied Luther. Walther only had a four-year degree from a rationalistic school when he became a pastor. He was never an exegete. Instead he stated propositions and simply quoted or listed Biblical passages as proof that he was correct. He also quoted himself to prove his assertions.

He got rid of that adulterous false teacher Stephan! Walther was the bishop's pimp and enforcer until the cult experienced, in America, a break-out of syphilis among the groupies around the bishop. Walther took the opportunity to rob the bishop of a fortune in gold, books, and land - forcing Stephan at gunpoint to Illinois. Before that time, the founding clergy looked the other way while Stephan lived with his main girlfriend, dallied with others, and abandoned his wife and children in Europe.

An obscure Lutheran pointed out in a booklet that Walther was never a Biblical theologian. Readers will notice that the Walther template continued with his hand-picked disciple F. Pieper. The Brief Confession of 1932 has absurd thetical statements followed by a list of proofs. The proofs contradict the claims, but no one in LCMS in 1932 noticed? Later, the UOJ crowd turned that debacle into the Ruling Norm - over and above all sources, including the Scriptures.

1932 Brief Confession, 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; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, accounts as righteous, all those who that is, believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven.

Someone can read this over quickly and miss the UOJ, but the main assertion is Universalism - backed by this? Let's read the entire sentence carefully, not just a phrase used as a motto and assassin's creed.

KJV Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus 
our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

And yet, the flat-lining UOJ advocates still insist that the entire world has been declared forgiven because He. Was. Raised. For. Our. Justification! Thus the Synodical Conference was taught to reject the Scriptures, Luther, and the entire period of Lutheran Orthodoxy to parrot the ravings of Halle Pietism (while denouncing Pietism and calling themselves orthodox). No wonder the Syncons are obsessive liars - it begins with justification.

The more I studied this with others, the more we came to realize that the Walther-Stephan error was only one opinion, and not the dominant opinion in the Synodical Conference. The universal experience of Pietism tended to unite the UOJ Hive, but the influence of the Means of Grace was not absent. UOJ did not start to win until 1932, and Lutherdom quickly fell apart after that.

Rambach was not just a Halle Pietist -
he was a leader at Halle University.

Extra Nos: Walther: The closer to Luther the better the theologian...unless

Extra Nos: Walther: The closer to Luther the better the theologian...unless:

Walther: The closer to Luther the better the theologian...unless

I have been looking over the Net on some striking Walther quotes.

How many times have I heard the famous C. F. W. Walther quote - the closer to Luther, the better the theologian?

Walther is held up as a guru by Synodical Lutherans; this pastor even said that the closer one is to Walther, the better is the theologian.

There is one example of fanatic if you ever want to find one.


During Walther's controversy on the doctrine of election, learned men frequently quoted to Walther the fathers of the Lutheran church.  Here is what Walther said, you can find the full quote in here.

The principal means by which our opponents endeavor to support their doctrine, consists in continually quoting passages from the private writings of the fathers of our Church, published subsequent to the _Formula of Concord_. But whenever a controversy arises concerning the question, whether a doctrine is Lutheran, we must not ask: "What does this or that 'father' of the Lutheran Church teach in his private writings?" for he also may have fallen into error;


Those words of Walther are an epitome of the quip - take my advice, I am not using it.

In reality, what Walther really meant in practice was - the closer to Luther, the better the theologian, unless, the theologian teaches against me (because the said theologian must be in error).

The words in red are my interpretation of his behaviour on how he handled criticism. In fact his UOJ followers have the same attitude towards their critics... they must be wrong.

When a person falls for a fallacy, one does not stop at swallowing just one fallacious argument. The person invariably swallows the next one and the one after that and so on and on.

Here is another Walther quote from this site and IMHO, shows that Walther and Huber were cut from the same cloth.

We are not reconciled to God when we believe, but we are already redeemed, are already reconciled to God, so that we believe.  This is also true regarding justification.  The whole world is already justified in Christ.  Faith is not the condition under which we are justified but the way and means by which we become partakers of the justification which God has long ago given us

There is the fallacy of misreading Romans 4:25.

A fish is caught through its mouth.

'via Blog this'

***

GJ - The little Walther book on Election is illuminating, because Walther teaches election without faith in his invented catechism and proves he is right by referring the reader to the same catechism.

Even worse, Walther quotes Luther constantly with the implication that Luther was talking about someone just like CFW.

Luther taught the Word, but Walther taught Walther.

Dr. Lito Cruz Opens Up a Can of Vegemite on the Anonymous UOJ Advocate "Tarheel Paul"

LPCMarch 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Tarheel Paul,

LPC calls it a fence and that may be so but it is exactly the practice of the Church Catholic and what Christ commands us to do with those who would bring a different message, put up a fence of seperation

I think you are confusing the practice of the cults versus the practice of educating ministers. I do not even think you are aware of the Apostles knew what the false teachers of their day were teaching. St. Paul was aware of the false teaching of Judaizers, St John was aware of the Gnostics, St Jude contended with Nicolaitans etc. How can you fight something you do not know?

I am telling Rusch how to be a thorough scholar and the more educated he is, the more he is of service to his Lord and the people entrusted to him. I am telling him how to be useful in the Lutheran Church but also to the greater body of Christ. Rusch is studying to be a minister, that is serious work and yet you are telling Rusch to stay dumb.

The whole purpose of seminary education among other things is to spot heresy, not simply on others, but to spot heresy in himself!

1 Tim 4:16.

You seem to label yourself as among the Catholic Church (your capitalization). In a way you are indeed a functioning Romanist, except your Magisterium does not sit in the Vatican, they sit somewhere in Wisconsin.

I can only deduce that your throwing that label (Catholic Church) around must be a way comforting yourself in thinking you are orthodox. Yet by your comments I suspect you are not even aware that after awhile Augustine (himself considered a teacher of the the Church) wrote his Recantations.

Your questions to Rydecki are exactly applicable to Luther, but your biased critcism of Rydecki fail to go the whole way of comparison. For example Luther attempted to Reform his church without violating his Scriptural conviction, why can you not see the same possibility of that in Rydecki over the WELS?

Again, yes he did but Luther did not sit in a classroom for eight years and hear about both sanative and forensic justification, profess to believe sanative justification, only to change his mind at a later date and profess forensic justification. Also, Luther only had the Catholic Church. There were plenty of church bodies you could have joined that agreed with you about the chief doctrine of the church.

This is garbage. This is like telling St. Paul, he was not allowed to convert since he knew all things he needed to know about Judaism, since he was teacher of the Law, he knew what he was getting himself into. As usual fallacy of special pleading typical of UOJers.


Rev. Rydecki conformed to 1 Tim 4:16 when he abandoned UOJ. He stopped letting his Synod rule over his faith. He was not afraid to follow wherever the Scripture leads him. So should all of us.

LPC

1. 
   

   http://ecclesiaaugustana.blogspot.com/2013/03/rusch-encouraged-to-take-your-name-down.html
2. LPCMarch 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM

   Tarheel Paul,
   
   LPC calls it a fence and that may be so but it is exactly the practice of the Church Catholic and what Christ commands us to do with those who would bring a different message, put up a fence of seperation
   
   I think you are confusing the practice of the cults versus the practice of educating ministers. I do not even think you are aware of the Apostles knew what the false teachers of their day were teaching. St. Paul was aware of the false teaching of Judaizers, St John was aware of the Gnostics, St Jude contended with Nicolaitans etc. How can you fight something you do not know?
   
   I am telling Rusch how to be a thorough scholar and the more educated he is, the more he is of service to his Lord and the people entrusted to him. I am telling him how to be useful in the Lutheran Church but also to the greater body of Christ. Rusch is studying to be a minister, that is serious work and yet you are telling Rusch to stay dumb.
   
   The whole purpose of seminary education among other things is to spot heresy, not simply on others, but to spot heresy in himself!
   
   1 Tim 4:16.
   
   You seem to label yourself as among the Catholic Church (your capitalization). In a way you are indeed a functioning Romanist, except your Magisterium does not sit in the Vatican, they sit somewhere in Wisconsin.
   
   I can only deduce that your throwing that label (Catholic Church) around must be a way comforting yourself in thinking you are orthodox. Yet by your comments I suspect you are not even aware that after awhile Augustine (himself considered a teacher of the the Church) wrote his Recantations.
   
   Your questions to Rydecki are exactly applicable to Luther, but your biased critcism of Rydecki fail to go the whole way of comparison. For example Luther attempted to Reform his church without violating his Scriptural conviction, why can you not see the same possibility of that in Rydecki over the WELS?
   
   Again, yes he did but Luther did not sit in a classroom for eight years and hear about both sanative and forensic justification, profess to believe sanative justification, only to change his mind at a later date and profess forensic justification. Also, Luther only had the Catholic Church. There were plenty of church bodies you could have joined that agreed with you about the chief doctrine of the church.
   
   This is garbage. This is like telling St. Paul, he was not allowed to convert since he knew all things he needed to know about Judaism, since he was teacher of the Law, he knew what he was getting himself into. As usual fallacy of special pleading typical of UOJers.
   
   
   Rev. Rydecki conformed to 1 Tim 4:16 when he abandoned UOJ. He stopped letting his Synod rule over his faith. He was not afraid to follow wherever the Scripture leads him. So should all of us.
   
   LPC

   Reply
3. 
   Tarheel PaulMarch 25, 2013 at 10:02 AM

   LPC
   I don't care to debate you on education. You think a theological education from liberal protestants is good. I do not. I do not care to debate you on your characterizations of the WELS. You believe that we in the WELS have some how taken the worst of calvinism, Rome, and cult practice and made it our own. I do not believe that. I do not care to debate you concerning justification. You do not believe God forgave the sins of the world. (which, for clarity, I don't believe is the same as Rydecki's teaching) I do believe God forgave the sins of the world. No amount of debating will get us any closer in any of these areas.
   I will debate you in this one area and point to Scriptural truth since you brought up the example. After Paul's conversion he did not immediately get into the pulpit. Years went by where he studied and did not teach. If he had immediately gone to preach something just a year earlier he was condemning it would have probably caused quite a few problems. But as it was, Paul did not publicly preach in the first years after his conversion.
   I never told anyone not to follow what their conscience tells them in regard to the Scriptures. My contention with Rydecki is that he either lied about his confession to get a pulplit or he "converted" or "changed" or "evolved" his confession. In which case he should follow the example of St. Paul and step out of the pulpit for a little while.

   Reply
4. 
   LPCMarch 26, 2013 at 3:12 AM

   Tarheel Paul,
   
   St. Paul prior to his conversion did preach the Law. Rydecki prior to his conversion did preach precious UOJ.
   
   Yet Luther out of force for fear for his life hid, but he did preach justification by faith alone if we go along and see that he wrote his disputations etc., and the things he published against the Pope.
   
   You keep on moving the goal post of your debate.
   
   First your contention was that no one should be allowed to convert. When I brought out St. Paul to you, now you say that Rydecki should be like St. Paul who did not preach after his conversion.
   
   Now I am pointing to you that Luther did preach after his conversion, he published his 95 Theses and wrote tracts against the Papal Church. In fact how else could he be excommunicated if he were silent?
   
   By your analogy, are we to say that Luther lied about his priestly confession to get a Roman pulpit?
   
   Perhaps you should take up the argument levied by Romanists against Luther, he should have quietly disappeared and left the Roman Church. This argument, just like yours have been taken up by Roman Apologists before and frankly, if I were you, I would be bothered by the reasoning similarity with Romanists.
   
   However, precious UOJers have been known to be fallacious in their reasoning abilities as for instance, the comment above is another example of special pleading. The more bothersome should be Romanized Lutheranism you have in your reasoning. Your argument is functionally Roman yet you claim to be Lutheran.
   
   I am just wondering why is that?
   
   You see Tarheel Paul, your argument against Rydecki is no longer about doctrine; your criticism is the style he went about in carrying out the effect of his conversion. Yet I tell you the effect would have been the same even if I bring again St. Paul in this discussion. However, style has no bearing on the argument, it just becomes a manner of discomfort or not etc. It has nothing to do whether or not Rydecki's JBFA is wrong or not, in which case you should really debate this area.
   
   Anyhow,the final effect or outcome would have been the same, St. Paul still would have preached against Judaism whether he stayed silent for 3 years or not.
   
   His epistles show that he knocked and attacked Judaism wherever he found it even claiming that Christ fulfilled the Law.
   
   Criticism of one's style really does not make one's doctrine false or true. To think that way is to be dismally like the Romanist Apologists attacking Luther. It is to fall once more to more fallacies and this time, ad hominem.
   
   If you or the WELS wish to make a dent against Rydecki, you should rebut the doctrine he now finds himself in, JFBA.
   
   
   LPC

---

Some Australians like this as a spread.

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Dr. Lito Cruz Opens Up a Can of Vegemite on the An...":

Dr. Greg,

Vegemite is so appropriate, cause you and I know it stinks.

My kids loved them though.

LPC

Dr. Cruz Eviscerates UOJ

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Extra Nos: The fallacy of C F W Walther and his di...":

Really UOJ is sola gratia but it is not sola fide.

UOJ is justification by grace, period. It is not justification by grace THROUGH FAITH. It simply Justification by Grace, period.

UOJ really is not JBFA, so I do not know why they quibble about it - what they should do is to simply admit that, yes, they believe in Sola Gratia but they do not believe in Sola Fide.

In UOJ there is no function for THROUGH FAITH. Hence, they are not in line with the doctrine of the Reformers.

LPC 

***

GJ -

Dr. Lito Cruz is a math professor. I understand some math dissertations are only a few dozen words long.

The post above reminds me of Luther's comment that the Enthusiasts talk about Jesus but tear down the bridge to Him.

UOJ is supposedly all grace, but the Stormtroopers do not teach the Means of Grace.

This universal grace - where is it announced and how did it reach every single pagan, atheist, and polytheist - even before birth.

And yet, these lying UOJ artists want us to believe they still teach justification by faith.

And where is the Holy Spirit in this UOJ muddle? God works only through the Holy Spirit in the Word. And yet these UOJ Enthusiasts have God at work without the Word, without the Spirit.

They belittle faith but claim they teach justification by faith after they are finished railing against faith.

http://www.normaboecklerart.com

Dr. Lito Cruz - Comment on CFW Walther and the Book of Concord

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/luthers-translation-of-2-corinthians-519.html#comment-form

LPC said...

If I may, I wish to add what I view as the arrogance of C F W Walther when it came to the doctrine of election. Apparently his opponents kept on quoting to him the writings of the BoC writers. Here is what he had to say...

The principal means by which our opponents endeavor to support their doctrine, consists in continually quoting passages from the private writings of the fathers of our Church, published subsequent to the _Formula of Concord_. But whenever a controversy arises concerning the question, whether a doctrine is Lutheran, we must not ask: "What does this or that 'father' of the Lutheran Church teach in his private writings?" for he also may have fallen into error; 

Is it likely the BoC writers erred on the topic of election as Walther supposed? Is that the only possibility?

Granted the BoC fathers were not fallible and they could have been inconsistent with themselves, but is that likely they deviated from what they wrote?


What about the possibility that it was Walther himself who misunderstood the teaching of the BoC when it came to election?

Which possibility do you test first, I say test first Walther before you test the BoC Fathers.


This is like saying the framers of the US Constitution should not be consulted when you want to understand what they meant as they might have been confused in their writings.

Is the BoC an art work that you can extrude it from those who framed it?

That is the height of folly.

LPC

***

After worshiping at the shrine of Walther,
many LCMS pastors now worship at Marian shrines.
They wait, like Paul McCain, for their miraculous lactation experience.

GJ - Dr. Cruz has a perfect example of SynCon thinking today - 

"Start with our guys and make that the gold standard of orthodoxy, no matter how much it deviates from the Confessions and the Scriptures. Ignore the Book of Concord and its authors, then wait for our new porno-paraphrase of the Bible to be ratified by a supine synod membership."

Pope Walther upgraded that by saying, "Start with me and judge all others by what I just wrote." His fake modesty is a fitting reflection of his fake congregationalism.

Dr. Lito Cruz Sent This Note about Samuel Huber

Too bad, I am too preoccupied with teaching workload.

There is a guy there that quoted Tom Hardt on the Wittenberg vs Huber issue, as if Tom Hardt was an objective observer of the debate.

We are aware of what Tom Hardt wrote, that is even in Ichabod. Nathan should ask Diers to give an actual quote from the Wittenberg theologians. Diers is relying on secondary source, it is not from the horse's mouth.

Here is what Diers said 

Huber denied any distinction between “Universal Justification” and “Subjective Justification.

Be that as it may, the distinction can not be supported by Scripture. All we need to do is ask Diers, where in Scripture there is a thing that teaches Universal Justification, the universal declaration of righteousness of all, for justification is what that is - it means - to be declared righteous.

We can back track from Huber a bit but call Diers to the floor to show which Scripture teaches Universal Justification, and there we will see that the Scriptures cited will speak against them.

The UOJers claim they are not Huberites because they have this two justification scheme which Huber does not have. Huber was ultra rational, it can be argued that if Universal Justification is true, Subjective Justification is superfluous. That was Huber then and if the premise is correct, Huber's conclusion is correct and so their conclusion be.

The UOJers are Huberites but they want of course to deny that they are because the evidence is just too stark in your face.

LPC

***

GJ - Tom Hardt is the cat's meow for a segment of the ELS, including Jay Webber. Hardt's essay was good for getting a bunch of us aware of Huber. However, Hardt was head-over-heels for UOJ in that essay, so he contradicted his own research.

Walther's Easter absolution is clearly borrowed from Halle Pietism, where his mentor, Bishop Stephan, STD, studied. Jay Webber quoted the Halle Pietist Rambach to support the Easter absolution dogma.

The UOJ Stormtroopers do not deal with P. Leyser obliterating Huber, or Leyser's unique credentials as an expert in justification by faith. Leyser was the biographer of Chemnitz, one of the editors of the Book of Concord, and an early expert chosen to represent Lutheran orthodoxy on the topic of justification.

Dr. Lito Cruz Reads Ichabod Too, Noticing How the Opponents Cannot Stop

UOJ fanatics are so-o-o manly.

LPC has left a new comment on your post "Probably from Paul McCain, MDiv, Anonymously on t...":

Dr. Greg,

Fake Ichabod could simply not stop reading this blog. They keep telling people to ignore you yet, they come over and read you and then react.

As I said, each time we turn, we see the inconsistency of UOJers because UOJ is also filled with inconsistencies in the first place.

Fake Ichabod even argued that Lutherans got the liturgy from Rome.

Yet I read somewhere that Luther also reformed the Roman liturgy, hence, it is not entirely Roman replication.

Fake Ichabod is typical of UOJers, he always misses the point of your arguments.

If I may venture I hear your argument as saying that the new 3 year cycle is actually Vatican II inspired, and so Rome is breaking away with old church tradition and establishing its own justifications for its innovation. Thus Lutherans are being naive and mindless in following Rome in that direction.

Fake Ichabod thinks that because this is adiaphora, Lutherans should follow Rome in it. This is actually I think a real misunderstanding of adiaphora.

Precisely because it is adiaphora, the Lutherans need not follow it, I thought that was the point in you post about Lutherans being naive.

LPC

***

GJ - The Church of Rome initiated the three-year lectionary cycle. ELCA followed, then LCMS and WELS.  The pope also began the new liturgical colors - and the Lutherans followed. The Roman Catholics dropped the gesima Sundays, moving Transfiguration to Quinquagesima, and the Lutherans followed. Doubtless other mainline groups did, too.

If Rome is the gold standard in worship, the Lutherans should expect their ministers to become Roman Catholics.

The Sausage Factory (WELS) teaches their students to ignore the Book of Concord, because it is "boring and irrelevant." But they cite the adiaphora article as an excuse to do whatever they want. It is an odd combination of fealty to Rome and Fuller Seminary, with no discernment whatsoever.

---

Narrow-minded Lutheran has left a new comment on your post "Dr. Lito Cruz Reads Ichabod Too, Noticing How the ...":

TLH 292:

"Lord Jesus Christ, With Us Abide"
by Nikolaus Selnecker, 1532-1592

6. The haughty spirits, Lord, restrain
Who o'er Thy Church with might would reign
And always set forth something new,
Devised to change Thy doctrine true.

---

churchmousec (http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Dr. Lito Cruz Reads Ichabod Too, Noticing How the ...":

Thank you, Dr Jackson, for pointing out that this is a Vatican II innovation -- many churchgoers are probably unaware of that fact.

Churchmouse

***

GJ - You are right, ChurchMouse. Many are ignorant of the facts, because their leaders deceive them.

For example, WELS pretended they HAD to adopt the feminist language of the unionistic-feminist creeds they published their Christian Worship. But obviously they adopted what they favored and supported. They even had their heresiarch Teddy Hartwig arguing for "fully human" in two publications. Who held the gun to their heads? No one.

They do not tell their members that they are obeying orders from the Vatican and running off the cliff with their mainline liberal partners. The apostates are united in a common unbelief.

UOJ Is Not Consistent or Biblical

Woods was a super-star young Calvinist when he translated Knapp from German,
and Knapp was already a long-established professor at Halle University.
However, we are expected to believe that double-justification is
both Lutheran and orthodox!
Biblical and Corcord-ish!

Reply to Steven Goodrich, from Lito Cruz, PhD:


Steven,

My points...

A.)
You said Therefore, Lito is incorrect when he construes Preus's phrase "a righteousness which already exists objectively" as "Jesus was already righteous before he came to earth and his sacrifice would have availed nothing to God if he were not righteous in the first place

Preus makes use of terminologies like Jesus' essential righteousness and the like. I did not use those terms. When I said the statement above, I was alluding to the concept taught in the Bible that Jesus was the second Adam.

Adam was born innocent, he lost it at the fall when he disobeyed the command of God regarding eating of the tree. Adam then lost his innocence and became guilty.

Likewise so teaches Scripture, that when Jesus came, he was also the Second Adam, innocent. But unlike the First Adam, Jesus retained his righteousness for though being tempted by the devil to violate the will of God, he did not fail, unlike the First Adam. He retained his righteousness.

This retention of his righteousness present in his life, in the end, he offered to God as payment for the sins of the whole world.

You may correct me in my language above and I appreciate that,but the correction is moot to my point.

The point is that in Footnote #75, Preus at the very minimum, did not mean, a righteousness that has already been declared to the sinner before he believed, ala LC-MS Brief Statement (of Faith) Article 17a. In fact it contradicts or cannot lend support for it.

That is my point. Correct me as you will, the correction is besides the point, Preus did not mean a declaration of righteousness the sinner has, before he was born or before he has faith.In fact you agreed with me when you said Preus is talking about Christ's righteousness. Therefore Preus is not talking about the LC-MS UOJ doctrine in Footnote #75.

B.)
Then you said this Declaring is not the same as imputing righteousness; it is the acquisition of righteousness. In Theses on Justification, clarifying document put out by the CTCR of LCMS, we read,"God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ's sake has been forgiven".

Steven, please note we are not being nasty when we are charging UOJers of sophistry. Here you succumb to that. Note that here you have produced two contradictory statements and are modifying the usual meaning of Justification in the Biblical context. In the Epistle to the Romans, Justification is the declaration of righteousness and happens only upon faith in person and work of Christ at the Cross Romans 3:21-25.

For God to declare the sins of anyone forgiven is for God to justify the person, declared righteous. That is the same in the Confessions.

If God declared the sinner righteous already, then what God declares is true. If God declared the whole world righteous already according to LC-MS before they could believe, then what is the need of any righteousness to be imputed, since the declaration has been made already? None, it is superfluous.

You have detached the Biblical understanding of Justification from the imputation of Christ's righteousness to faith.

The reason why God declares a believer righteous is because the believer is hanging on to the righteousness of Christ - Phil 2:9.

The criticism leveled against you by anti-UOJers who have come before me are correct-- UOJers indeed believe in 2 justifications, one at the cross or at the resurrection of Jesus depending on who you are talking to, and the other when the sinner believes the first justification.

I will quote Walter Maier II, your LC-MS exegete...
Yet Scripture teaches only one justification; namely, the one by faith in Christ, Romans 3:28. (Walter A. Maier II, A Summary Exposition of The Doctrine of Justification By Grace
Through Faith)


C.)
The Papists believe that the Justification Lutherans believed in is "legal fiction", i.e. not real. Preus' book was an argument against that. I suggest he also wrote the book to give the Lutherans a positive understanding of Justification. This is the reason why he took pains in showing the objectivity of the Lutheran belief of Justification. He wanted to counter the criticism of "legal fiction". That book, if he wanted to set forth UOJ was the perfect vehicle, yet he did not do that. In fact he did not even use the term Objective Justification.

According to Jack Cascione, Preus said this Nor is objective justification "merely" a "Lutheran term" to denote that justification is available to all as a recent "Lutheran Witness" article puts it – although it is certainly true that forgiveness is available to all. Nor is objective justification a Missouri Synod construct, a "theologoumenon" (a theological peculiarity), devised cleverly to ward off synergism (that man cooperates in his conversion) and Calvinistic double predestination, as Dr. Robert Schultz puts it in "Missouri in Perspective" (February 23, 1981, p. 5) – although the doctrine does indeed serve to stave off these two aberrations. No, objective justification is a clear teaching of Scripture, it is an article of faith which no Lutheran has any right to deny or pervert any more than the article of the Trinity or of the vicarious atonement.

Preus at the very least, then contradicted himself in JaR book, I will go for that assertion at a minimum.

For if he truly believed that OJ is not just a term but the very teaching of Scripture, an article of faith as he said, he should have done it in JaR and used it to prevent Lutherans from sliding to Romanism. He did not do it.

For the Papists are not only synergists of all sorts, they are Pelagians too. JaR is the most appropriate tool for laying out the sedes doctrinae. If he wanted to teach me, a would be reader, about UOJ he did not do it or at the very least managed to confuse me about it based on what I know now about UOJ.

D.) Lastly, UOJ is not established by anything any person says or is shot down by anything any person says, it can only be proven in Scripture first and foremost and then by the Confession (at least this is what I know about Team JBFA). For me, the Preus argument is only a side argument, it is not the strongest argument to Team JBFA's contention that UOJ is an un-biblical concept. Team JBFA's criticism stems from Scripture witness first and foremost seconded by the Confessions.

I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, you are LC-MS after all, so good luck to your efforts,

LPC

Two of Walther's chosen seminary professors joined the Church of Rome.
Edward (aka Eduard) Preus wrote the Stormtroopers' favorite UOJ book.

Lito Cruz Exposes Another Attempt To Rescue UOJ from Robert Preus' Repudiation of the Dogma

This is a fairly good book about the Preus-Otten era.

Robert Preus became a seminary president through UOJ
and finished his life by repudiating the false doctrine in the clearest possible way.

Over at Steadfast Waltherians, Mr. Steven Goodrich took a quote from R. Preus' book and I quote Steven here...

I decided to blog about some searches I did on Preus's <i>Justification and Rome<i>.Here is the blog url http://stevengoodrich.blogspot.com/ 

Goodrich:
Since this post is getting rather long, I am only going to give the two quotes that I think disproves Jackson theory that Robert Preus did not UOJ in Justification and Rome 

From footnote 74: In their [the Catholic] view Christ merited forgiveness of sin, peace with God, and righteousness, but He did not acquire forgiveness and righteousness asobjective realities which are offered in the Gospel. Righteousness and forgiveness are possibilities which become realities only when the process of justification and sanctification has begun. Robert D. Preus (1997-06-01). Justification and Rome (Kindle Locations 2005-2007). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition. From footnote 75: Luther and the earlier post-Reformation theologians do not present quite such a neat and tidy paradigm, but would probably agree with Quenstedt that Christ procured righteousness on the cross and that the same righteousness is apprehended through faith. All the Lutherans were in agreement that through faith the sinner acquires arighteousness which already exists objectively. Robert D. Preus (1997-06-01). Justification and Rome (Kindle Locations 2008-2011). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

Now Steven asked me about this quote at Extra Nos. I presume Steven gave this to Steadfast Waltherians as a way of countering Dr. Jackson's suggestion that Preus did not teach Objective Justification in Justification and Rome. I could be mistaken and Steven can correct me, regarding his motives for posting this in his blog or at Steadfast Waltherians.

First observe that Preus quote is found in P. 72-73 of the book (which in mine contained my own annotations). Note Preus did not use the word Objective Justification. Now we all know he knew what this phrase meant for he was a UOJer and if that was what he wanted to convey he could have used the term and could have said -- the sinner acquires a justification which already exists objectively.

However, this was not was not what Preus said.

The righteousness that exists objectively is not the same as the declaration of your righteousness that-- according to UOJers--exists objectively before you were born. Because righteousness and being declared righteous are NOT THE SAME thing. What then did Preus mean by  a righteousness which already exists objectively?

He meant the righteousness of Christ! This righteousness of Christ exists objectively. Of course it does, for Jesus was already righteous before he came to earth and his sacrifice would have availed nothing to God if he were not righteous in the first place. Preus did not mean the righteousness declared to you when Jesus was raised from the dead as taught by UOJ! What Preus meant here was the righteousness of Christ! That is the one that exists objectively.

Precisely that is what Preus meant because if one follows where that footnote was mentioned, over to p. 72, Preus quotes Quenstedt!!! And what did Quenstedt say? He said..

It is not just the same thing to say, "Christ' righteousness is imputed to us" and to say "Christ is our righteousness"...

Justification is the act of God in declaring us righteous upon faith in Christ, justification is not the same as righteousness as a category. For in the former, we are really guilty but we are being counted as righteous for the sake of  Christ the righteous One.

You can read the rest of that quote in the book.

***

GJ - How much do they hate justification by faith? Let me count the ways.

1. Seminarian Andrew Preus has posted two times (out of two) on UOJ.
2. LaughQuest raves against justification by faith at every opportunity. Like a flock of turkeys, they stick their heads into the air and start making awful noises, without any prompting or reason.
3. Steve Goodrich posts on Steadfast Enthusiasts and his own blog to prop up UOJ.
4. Jack Kilcrease posts on his blog, on SE, and everywhere he can, based on his position as a part-time teacher at a papist college, his education as a Jesuit, and his WELS-ELCA training. 
5. Pope Paul the Unlearned posts everywhere he can, never about the topic, but always in an ad hominem attempt to keep anyone from paying attention to Luther's doctrine.
6. Tim Glende posts anonymously from his fake blog in support of his Craig Groeschel reprint business, his UOJ promotion hobby.

I must be missing a few more. In fact, I skipped over another prime example - just because.

The UOJ Hive may buzz loudly and sting ever so slightly, but they constantly reveal their inability to comprehend Biblical doctrine, Luther's teaching, and the Book of Concord. Anyone can see from their writing that they have no grasp of the Means of Grace.

I do not want people to agree with me, but with the Scriptures and Lutheran Orthodoxy, based on their own studies. I do not spend my time trying to get my friends to shun, expel, and silence Cascione, McCain, Kilcrease, and the worker bees. Instead, I quote the drones at every opportunity, especially when they sink to their usual level of argumentation.

The UOJ Hive is drawing attention to an important book, Justification and Rome. I hope people read that on their own, without the help of those Talmudic scholars.

The Hive needs to explain some important lapses in the history of Holy Mommy Synod:

• Why did Walther base his UOJ on his rationalistic training at Leipzig and his cell group revelations with Stephan? Hardt wrote that Walther never changed his justification dogma.
• How did the LCMS quickly move from Walther-Pieperism to mainline unionism and Pentecostalism, right after making one particular Statement (1932) canon law?
• Why did the the president of the Olde Synodical Conference, Gausewitz, write a popular and extensively used catechism without ever mentioning UOJ?
• Why is the Olde Synodical Conference silent about the efficacy of the Word (foundational in Luther and the Bible) and the Means of Grace (Ludwig Fuerbring's fave). 
• If UOJ is pure and wholesome in WELS, as Rolf Preus boasts, then why did UOJ Enthusiast Richard Jungkuntz chair the first gay Lutheran seminary?
• Where does Robert Preus mention UOJ as a term and teach it as a concept in Justification and Rome? Page and verbatim quotation are needed.
• Who in ELCA disagrees with the notion that the entire world has been declared innocent, forgiven, saved, period, end of story, amen, alleluia? 

I agree.
Do you?