Conversation with Lawrence Otto Olson, D.Min., Fuller Seminary

"We cannot add anything to the Word, but we may be able to remove the human barriers which might be in the way of the Word." Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "See How It Grows: Perspectives on Growth and the Church,"
EVANGELISM, February, 1991, p. 3.

GJ – Larry, I am confused about your statement. You just said we can make the Word of God more effective by what we do. By the way, isn’t Evangelism a Church Growth publication?

"Make no mistake; I am under no illusions here. I fully expect to be publicly pilloried in print again. You will no doubt do so with some wit, with a good selection of quotations instantly imported into your world processor from your ready-to-go database, and with my own words twisted and used against me. So be it; I can live with that."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "A Response to Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.," Christian News, 3-28-94, p. 23.

GJ – Larry, all I have to do is quote you verbatim, in context.

"While I would not encourage it, it would not surprise me to see my name in some future writing of yours. If it does appear there, please use my given [underlined] name, Lawrence."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "A Response to Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.," Christian News, 3-28-94, p. 23.

GJ – Lawrence, I’m sorry. I forgot how touchy you were about your name. I decided to include your middle name, too. I think it adds a touch of class. You can call me Gregg. Or Dr. Jackson. Or Your Excellency.

"Please stop exaggerating the amount of study that I have done at Fuller. After four years of study at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, which involved sixty-two different courses and a year of vicarage, I graduated in 1983. From 1987 to 1989 I took four courses where I was in a classroom with a Fuller instructor. That is the extent of my Fuller coursework...In addition, I have taken two courses at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and one at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. Because of Fuller's liberal (would you expect anything else?) policy on transfer of credit, and because of two independent studies I undertook, I could complete the degree by simply writing a dissertation."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "A Response to Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.," Christian News, 3-28-94, p. 23.

GJ – Lawrence, I think you forgot something. Your paper was also part of your study at Fuller. I read it at the Martin Luther College Library in New Ulm. That was a requirement for a coveted D.Min. degree at Fuller. Calling it a dissertation is a bit much. The point is, you wanted a degree from Fuller Seminary. You wrote fawningly about meeting Don McGavran, a minister in the ultra-Left Disciples of Christ denomination. You and your friends in WELS have turned “mark and avoid” into “register and attend.”

"Contemporary social and behavioral sciences are a working out of the reason which God has given to humanity. Granted, the assumptions of some sociologists or anthropologists may be inconsistent with the Christian faith. That calls for discernment, but it does not invalidate the proper use of the social sciences by the church; it is, however, essential that they be used in a 'ministerial' manner."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "See How It Grows: Perspectives on Growth and the Church," EVANGELISM, February, 1991, p. 3.

GJ – Lawrence, the Scriptures judge all books. This comment from you seems to imply God needs man’s help to get the message across.

"While only the Word is efficacious, the methods we use to minister to people with that Word may vary in their effectiveness."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "See How It Grows: Perspectives on Growth and the Church," EVANGELISM, February, 1991, p. 2.

GJ – Lawrence, this is another contradiction. You have spent way too much time with Paul Kelm. He always starts out in one direction and then does a U-turn. Let me guess how effective your methods have been. WELS is flat broke, even with all the Schwan money. The seminary is shrunken down. The synod's membership has been going down ever since the leadership fell into the scrofulous embrace of Fuller Seminary.

"Donald C. McGavran died at home in Altadena, California, on July 10, 1990. He was 92 years old. Dr. McGavran is widely recognized as the founder of the church growth movement, a movement which has sought to put the social sciences at the service of theology in order to foster the growth of the church. In August of 1989 I borrowed a bicycle and pedaled several miles uphill up from Pasadena to Altadena. I found Dr. McGavran in his front yard with a hose in hand, watering flowers."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "See How It Grows: Perspectives on Growth and the Church," EVANGELISM, February, 1991, p. 1.

GJ – I can only imagine the thrill, Lawrence. Now that you have given up Lutheran doctrine for the Church Growth Movement, how much has it helped any denomination, especially the Lutherans?

"McGavran leaned toward me and said, 'The fields are white unto harvest. But you can't harvest a field of what with a penknife--you need a sickle, you need a scythe. Harvest intelligently."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "See How It Grows: Perspectives on Growth and the Church," EVANGELISM, February, 1991, p. 2.

GJ – That must have been a thrill, Lawrence. The late Donald McGavran spoke to you. I have one little question. If the fields are white unto harvest, why broadcast weed seeds everywhere?

"The church growth movement has made inroads into nearly every denomination in America. Once considered only the turf of conservative evangelicals, you will now find church growth practitioners in the United Methodist Church, in the Presbyterian Church in the USA, and among the Episcopalians. The LCMS has more pastors enrolled in the Doctor of Ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary, the seedbed of the movement, than are enrolled in the graduate programs at their Fort Wayne and St. Louis seminaries combined, and most of them include church growth as part of their studies."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "See How It Grows: Perspectives on Growth and the Church," EVANGELISM, February, 1991, p. 1.

GJ – Lawrence, this sounds like gloating to me. I am glad you admitted that Fuller was the seedbed of the movement. You bought a lot of seed there, doubtless with the help of synod mission offerings. I know they really got behind training at Fuller Seminary for future professors, for world missionary types, and for the American missions people. Today they are bringing home the world missionaries, closing missions, and not starting American missions.

"When Frederick Horn faced that situation, the Holy Spirit moved him to accept the call, and for the last few years he has served as the [lay] Minister of Discipleship for Grace Lutheran in downtown Milwaukee." (Pastor James Huebner, Fuller alumnus)
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary,, "Another Kind of Minister, There's a lot to do in a church, and a staff minister can do a lot of it," The Northwestern Lutheran, March, 1994, p. 9.

GJ – Lawrence, one thing I have noticed from the Fuller crowd. As soon as they appear, there are ways to get around having an ordained pastor.

"To believe, teach, and confess that truth is not inconsistent with being able to recognize that one approach to ministry may be more effective than another. It is more effective to hold worship services at 10:30 am on Sunday than at midnight on Tuesday; this is true, even though it is the same Gospel that is preached at either time." [another example, preaching in German to an American audience]
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "A Response to Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.," Christian News, 3-28-94, p. 23.

GJ – I am sure this sounded good in the locker room at Fuller Seminary. The problem is, you have replaced the efficacious Word of God with foolish, man-centered methods.

"Faithfulness is the standard by which God judges those he calls into the public ministry. That faithfulness may or may not be 'effective' in terms of visible results; results are up to God, not us. But part of faithfulness ought to include striving to be as 'effective' as we can be in the methods that we use to take the Means of Grace to people."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "A Response to Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.," Christian News, 3-28-94, p. 23.

GJ – There you go again, Lawrence. This is another Paul Kelm U-turn. Man must work to be effective to rev up the Word. That is terribly Reformed and rationalistic. You must know that from your study at Trinity, Fuller Seminary, and wherever else you have collected weed seeds.

"To the best of my knowledge, only three WELS pastors have ever taken classes at Fuller Seminary: Reuel Schulz in the 1970s, and Robert Koester and I in the 1980s."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "A Response to Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.," Christian News, 3-28-94, p. 23.

GJ – Lawrence, that is very coy. You bragged in Evangelism about all the recruits Fuller has. Your favorite seminary even sent out a letter boasting about all the WELS pastors they trained. It was a boatload. Frosty Bivens, David Valleskey, and many others studied there. Norm Berg wrote to me that he studied at Fuller Seminary. So did a former professor at your seminary (Joel Gerlach). You are in denial, Lawrence. I collected 500 WELS Church Growth quotations from WELS-produced material. That did not happen by accident.

"You may reply that by 'Fuller-trained' you mean anyone who has attended a workshop presented by the Charles E. Fuller Institute of Evangelism and Church Growth, an agency which is independent of the Seminary. If that is the case, your attribution of 'Fuller-trained' is still simply not true. It would surprise me if even half of the two dozen people on your 'WELS/ELS Who's Who' list have attended a Fuller workshop; I personally know of only five who have."
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, "A Response to Gregory L. Jackson, Ph.D.," Christian News, 3-28-94, p. 23.

GJ – I see, Lawrence. Three turned into five once you thought about it. The ELS pastor who raved about Fuller was on their colloquy committee. Can you imagine anything more hysterically funny than a Reformed/Pentecostal trained pastor examining someone to see if he is fit to join the prestigious Evangelical Lutheran Synod? Wait, you can imagine something funnier: a Fuller trained WELS Lutheran, both denying and bragging about his D.Min. degree, teaching Reformed evangelism to Lutherans.

"But when our Lord told us what our mission should be, he was quite clear: 'Make disciples.'"
Lawrence Otto Olson, D. Min., Fuller Seminary, The Evangelism Life Line (WELS), Summer, 1988, p. 3. Matthew 28:19.

GJ – Lawrence, you and Valleskey and Gerlach love to manufacture disciples. The Reformed think they need to “make disciples.” The verse clearly means “to disciple all nations.” The object of the verb is “all nations.” The verb does not even imply “making something.” The verb means to teach, to bring someone into a learning relationship.

Jumping on the Antichrist's Bandwagon - Poping and Semi-Poping

The bandwagon comes from American political campaigns, where people showed their support of a candidate by climbing aboard an elaborately decorated wagon carrying a costumed band. P. T. Barnum invented the bandwagon and politicians imitated it to attract attention to themselves. Lutheran pastors are either joining the Church of Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, both options unthinkable a few decades ago. Here are some names. Joining Rome is called poping, so joining Eastern Orthodoxy would be semi-poping, all the benefits without the baggage, they probably argue.

Richard John Neuhaus
I heard his father preach an Easter sermon in Simcoe, Ontario. Neuhaus' father was a conservative LCMS pastor. Richard went to Concordia, St. Louis. Together with Robert Wilken (below), he pushed Herman Otten and Kurt Marquart out of editing the student paper. Neuhaus was a liberal leader of the Seminex movement. He was a parish pastor when his congregation in New York joined the AELC, the group leaving Missouri. Neuhaus wrote the Lutheran Forum Newsletter (see editor Klein below), which was widely read on the liberal side of Lutheranism (ALC, LCA, liberal Missouri). Neuhaus began to sound conservative and I started to write to him. He often quoted me in his newsletter, so often that I asked for my name to be omitted. I was already in the Wisconsin Synod when I met him personally at the Ad Fontes conference in Pennsylvania. He joked about whether I would take communion with the ELCA pastors. I said, "No. You are Ad Fontes. We are Fontes." (You are going to the sources. We are the sources. Ad Fontes was a Reformation slogan.) Neuhaus had an earnest conversation with the LCA Bishop, James Crumley. Not long afterwards, Neuhaus joined the Church of Rome and became a priest. He is occasionally seen on TV as a priest. Neuhaus bragged about having lunch with Pope John Paul II and expressed astonishment that I wrote about the pope as the Antichrist. He was similarly enchanted that the Archbishop of New York visited him in the hospital when he was deathly ill.

Robert Wilken
I got to know Robert Wilken at Notre Dame, where he was head of the graduate program in theology. I did not have him as a professor. As I wrote above, he was friends with Neuhaus in seminary. Wilken left Notre Dame when the department began getting rid of non-Catholics. Nevertheless, Wilken became a Catholic later. Another person I knew at Notre Dame was the grandson of LCMS President Pfotenhauer. Fritz Pfotenhauer was a liberal who took his congregation out of the LCMS and joined the LCA. He had Wilken serve as an assistant pastor.

Leonard Klein
I met Klein and his intellectual wife at the Ad Fontes conference. I was fairly active in publishing when I left the LCA, so we had something to talk about. The Ad Fontes conference was interesting for being a conservative response to the trends in the LCA. However, many of the couples were both pastors, husband and wife. One pastor got up to defend the Church Growth Movement when Neuhaus gave a paper against the cancer. The group was mostly high church, I imagine. Bishop Crumley celebrated communion, puzzled and alarmed that a woman pastor took on this weird pose of adoration of the elements. She froze in a half-bow with her hands folded, never moving. Crumley looked at her a dozen times, probably wondering about her sanity. All the LCA communion services were high church, so he was not a rube from the back woods. Klein was interesting for several reasons. He became an editor of the Lutheran Forum Letter, and like Neuhaus, became a Roman Catholic priest. He was pastor of one of the famous, huge LCA congregations, where Franklin D. Fry was a pastor (F. D. was son of Franklin Clark Fry, the ULCA, LCA president, Mr. Protestant). Yes, married men can become priests. If their wives precede them in death, they cannot get married again.

Jaroslav Pelikan
I met his father (dying of cancer) and his brother in Cleveland, when I was serving my first parish. Later, at Yale, Pelikan was at Bethesda Lutheran Church (LCA) every Sunday, with his family. Pelikan was still officially LCMS, but he attended Bethesda anyway. He was famous from the beginning of his academic career in the LCMS, earning a Ph.D. and an M.Div. at the same time, commuting between St. Louis and Chicago, a feat I cannot imagine. He was held in high esteem at Yale. I imagined him having a shot at being Yale president. Pelikan joined the Orthodox Church in America before he died. He gave his $500,000 theology prize to an orthodox seminary.

Jay Rochelle
I did not know him, but Carl Braaten listed him in his letter to ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson. Rochelle had been LCMS, lost his faith, then became ELCA. I included him because he was so well known as a proud apostate, rejecting all the articles of faith.

Others Who Have Poped
Braaten listed Bruce Marshall (St. Olaf), David Fagerberg (Concordia College, now at Notre Dame), Reinhard Huetter (LSTC), and Mickey Mattox.

Braaten wrote to Bishop Hanson:
What is happening is nothing less than a tragedy. The ELCA is driving out the best and the brightest theologians of our day, not because it is too Lutheran, but because it has become putatively just another liberal protestant denomination. I would think that this is a situation that ought to concern you immensely as well as all the leadership cadres of the ELCA. But might it also be the case that the very persons who ought to be troubled by this phenomenon will say to themselves (perhaps not out loud), “good riddance, we won’t be bothered by those dissenting voices anymore? We wish more of their ilk would leave.”

The letter is reprinted gloatfully by a Catholic site here:
Pietist

Orthodox Lutheran Bait and Switch
Here's a shocker at an "Orthodox Lutheran Blog." The author, unknown to me, has joined the Church of Rome, leaving his blog up to snare more Lutherans, I suspect. Here it is:
Orthodox Lutheran (sic)

I prefer something a little more honest - The Friends of the Poor Souls of Purgatory - the Church of Rome, as it really is:

Friends of the Poor Souls of Purgatory

Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne
Some people are chortling over this letter, having a liberal in ELCA hand it to his bishop in ELCA. "Lookee here, Martha, all them guys were liberal LCMS at one time." Wait, there's more. Concordia, Ft. Wayne often produces a graduate per year who immediately joins the Eastern Orthodox. One man, as I recall, earned some kind of doctorate at Ft. Wayne, then announced his intentions to semi-pope upon graudating. The reason is that faculty members at Ft. Wayne are propagandizing for Eastern Orthodoxy. I would not be surprised to find that several pastors I know heading East in the future.

Why Oh Why?
The Lutheran Church in the United States has lost its nerve. The Lutheran leaders were cleverly persuaded to study at Fuller Seminary (ELCA, WELS, LCMS, ELS, and probably a few from the crazy sects). They were executives who then recruited their underlings. Ambitious men realized that aping Fuller was good for a career. They joined their brothers in chopping down anyone who questioned the Fuller mantra. Not everyone knew who the Fuller Mafia members were, but they sure knew who their critics were.

The Catholic website above brags about 2,000 Lutheran and Evangelical leaders who have poped in the last few years. I know of prominent Evangelicals who joined Rome as well. The numbers may be exaggerated, but the trend is obvious.

The Fuller Mafia set about destroying Lutheran worship and any notion of the efficacy of the Word. One pastor was kicked out of WELS for insisting on the efficacy of the Word alone. He was told to agree with a letter from an administrator - or else. He is not allowed communion in WELS or the ELS.

There is hardly any difference between ELCA, Missouri, WELS, and the ELS now. One can name differences of degree, but not true differences. ELCA ordains women, but WELS sets up women in authority over men and has women teaching men as often as possible. ELCA advocates open communion. WELS, the ELS, and Missouri practice open communion while saying they practice closed or close communion. ELCA pays for abortion through its health insurance program, but WELS has no problem with a man aborting his own bastard child and serving as a pseudo-pastor. ELCA is in bed with the pope, but WELS and the ELS both invite Roman Catholics to give religious talks at their institutions of higher learning. ELCA supports pan-religious services, the more religions the better. The LCMS officer, Wallace Schulz, who opposed this at Yankee Stadium was fired from his Lutheran Hour position and voted out of office. However, Mr. Ecumenical, the LCMS District President Al Benke, was voted back into office.

Meanwhile, the Church of Rome is quite confident of itself, recruiting heavily, and bragging about its converts on a zillion websites and blogs. Who made the Lutheran Church roadkill on the highway to Hell? Here is the honor roll:

LCA/ALC/ELCA presidents: Fry, Marshall, David Preus, Crumley, Chilstrom, Hanson
LCMS presidents: Behnken, Harms, Preus, Bohlmann, Barry, Kieschnick
WELS presidents: Naumann (started CGM), Mischke, Gurgel
ELS presidents: Orvick, Pope John the Malefactor

The Lutheran seminaries are not guardians of pure doctrine but Distribution Centers (the Wal-Mart model) of false doctrine. Both Concordia seminaries set up D.Min. programs in Church Growth. WELS made their chief Church Growth proponent, David Valleskey, the president of their seminary. The ELS supported Church Growth with seminars from Robert Hartman (an early TELL editor, TELL founded to promote the CGM). If a man makes it through Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary without being brain-washed in Church Growth, an unlikely event, he will be forced to return in a year for a special propanganda session from the the Church Growth troika of Lawrence Otto Olson (D.Min., Fuller Seminary), James Huebner, and Paul Kelm.

Quotations on Contrition

Luther Joins Robert Preus in Repudiating UOJ
"The apostle says 'our,' 'our sins;' not his own sin, not the sins of unbelievers. Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe. Nor did Christ effect the cleansing by our free-will, our reason or power, our works, our contrition or repentance, these all being worthless in the sight of God; he effects it by himself. And how? By taking our sins upon himself on the holy cross, as Isaiah 53:6 tells us."
Sermons of Martin Luther, ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VI, p. 180. Hebrews 1:1-12; Hebrews 1:3;

The Book of Concord - Seldom Read, Never Quoted Today
"They [The Church of Rome] teach that by contrition we merit grace. In reference to which, if any one should ask why Saul and Judas and similar persons, who were dreadfully contrite, did not obtain grace, the answer was to be taken from faith and according to the Gospel, that Judas did not believe, that he did not support himself by the Gospel and promise of Christ. For faith shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and of Peter. But the adversaries take their answer from the Law, that Judas did not love God, but feared the punishments."
Apology Augsburg Confession, XII. #8. Penitence. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 255. Tappert, p. 183.

"But as the Confutation condemns us for having assigned these two parts to repentance, we must show that [not we, but] Scripture expresses these as the chief parts in repentance and conversion. For Christ says, Matthew 11:28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Here there are two members. The labor and the burden signify the contrition, anxiety, and terrors of sin and of death. To come to Christ is to believe that sins are remitted for Christ's sake; when we believe, our hearts are quickened by the Holy Ghost through the Word of Christ. Here, therefore, there are these two chief parts, contrition and faith."
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XII (V), #44, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 263. Tappert, p. 187. Matthew 11:28.

"Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted; and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that, for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance."
Augsburg Confession, Article XII. Repentance. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 49. Tappert, p. 34f.

"The effect of a message is determined by the content of the message. Not every teaching of the Word of God will produce the same effect. Because of its peculiar content, the Law produces knowledge of sin and contrition of heart (Romans 3:20); the Gospel, being the glad tidings of the grace of God, produces faith and hope (Romans 10:17). Thus the Scriptures are really able to make men wise unto salvation through faith in Christ (2 Timothy 3:15)."
Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article II, 5, Concordia Triglotta, p. 787:

"Moreover, neither contrition nor love or any other virtue, but faith alone is the sole means and instrument by which and through which we can receive and accept the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins, which are offered us in the promise of the Gospel."
Formula of Concord, SD, III 31, Righteous of Faith before God, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 925. Tappert, p. 544.

Koehler
"With this Word of God the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16:14, are attentive to it and are thus converted."
Edward W. A. Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1952, p. 12. Acts 16:14; Romans 3:20; 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:15.

UOJ Advocates are Antinomian
"In the Lutheran Church antinomianism appeared in a double form: one chiefly before, the other after the death of Luther. The first of these conflicts was originated by Agricola, who spoke most contemptuously and disparagingly of the Law of God, teaching, in particular, that true knowledge of sin and genuine contrition is produced, not by the Law, but by the Gospel only, and that hence there is in the Church no use whatever for the Law of God. After Luther's death similar antinomistic errors were entertained and defended by the Philippists in Wittenberg, who maintained that the sin of unbelief is rebuked not by the Law, but by the Gospel." F. Bente, Concordia Triglotta, Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 162.

Pietism
"In so far as Pietism did not point poor sinners directly to the means of grace, but led them to reflect on their own inward state to determine whether their contrition was profound enough and their faith of the right caliber, it actually denied the complete reconciliation by Christ (the satisfactio vicaria), robbed justifying faith of its true object, and thus injured personal Christianity in its foundation and Christian piety in its very essence."
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., trans., Walter W. F. Albrecht, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953, III, p. 175.

Church Growth Leaders Would Never Say This
"It is God the Holy Ghost who must work this change in the soul. This He does through His own life-giving Word. It is the office of that Word, as the organ of the Holy Spirit, to bring about a knowledge of sin, to awaken sorrow and contrition, and to make the sinner hate and turn from his sin. That same Word then directs the sinner to Him who came to save him from sin. It takes him to the cross, it enables him to believe that his sins were all atoned for there, and that, therefore, he is not condemned. In other words, the Word of God awakens and constantly deepens true penitence. It also begets and constantly increases true faith. Or, in one word, it converts the sinner."
G. H. Gerberding, The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church, Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1887, p. 145f.

Chemnitz Addresses the UOJ Leaders of Today
"Contrition is altogether necessary in those who truly and earnestly repent. For there can be no true repentance in those who, persuaded of their own holiness, dream that they are without sin, or who disregard, minimize, excuse, cloak, and defend their sins, despise or ridicule the divine threats, do not care about the wrath of God, are not moved by His judgment and displeasure, and therefore persevere and continue in sins against their conscience, delight in sins, and seek and seize occasions for sinning and for whatever they intentionally heap up without the fear of God--in them, I say, there can be no true repentance...."
Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, trans., Fred Kramer, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986, II, p. 581.

Repaying God - Reparation - Church of Rome
"Reparation is one of the four kinds of prayer. Reparation is making satisfaction or atonement to God for sins committed against God by ourselves and others. Every sin is an offense against God and justice demands that we make satisfaction to God. Reparation is repairing the damage done to God...Each time we say an Act of Contrition we are making reparation to God."
Father Robert J. Fox, The Marian Catechism, Washington, New Jersey: AMI Press, 1983, p. 105f.

Vianney - An Idol of Rome
[suicide's widow came to the Cure d'Ars, who said the man was saved] "I tell you he is saved;that he is in Purgatory and that you must pray for him. Between the parapet of the bridge and the water, he had time to make an act of Contrition. He owes the grace to the Blessed Virgin Mary. You remember how your irreligious husband allowed you to keep the month of May in your room...how he sometimes joined with you in the prayers.. That has merited for him the supreme pardon."
(F. Trochu, L'admirable Vie du Cure d'Ars, Lyon, 1932) Martin Jugie, Purgatory and the Means to Avoid It, New York: Spiritual Book Associates, 1950, p. 26. 381 Fourth Ave, NY 16, NY


In Christ,

Gregory L. Jackson,

Bad Theology Comes from No Education

People often ask how the Lutheran Church in the United States could be so lacking in doctrinal leadership, so intent on following the Church of Rome or the seminary in Pasadena. Oddly enough, this Rome/Reformed toxic combination is found in ELCA, Missouri, WELS, the ELS, and even the Church of the Lutheran Confession (sic).

The denominational seminaries are completely inbred. The more one can brag about degrees from that seminary, the more likely he is to teach there. This multiplies the Uncle Fritz problem. No one can disagree with any opinion from Uncle Fritz because everyone is related to Uncle Fritz. The whole extended family will be upset, so doctrinal infallibility is passed from Rome to Luther-land. WELS has published something like six volumes of its drivel (Our Great Heritage, etc.) from the recent past while slowing down the Hoenecke set to the point where the last volume may be the Seventh Seal of the Book of Revelation.

Note the following examples:
ELCA has sent its mission leadership to Fuller Seminary and tried all those goofy marketing schemes, such as their mega-church flop in Yorba Linda, California. ELCA has also crawled into the lap of the Antichrist, hoping to be acknowledged as a cuddly Shetland Sheepdog rather than a vigilant German Shepherd.

WELS has set a record in promoting Church Growth doctrines, in sending pastors to Fuller Seminary and Willow Creek Community Church for training. WELS also invited Roman Catholic Archbishop Weakland to be a featured speaker at Wisconsin Lutheran College. No one seemed to mind much, not even the ELS. The Church of Rome got so tired of Weakland's romantic problems that they fired him.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod may have spent more synodical money at Fuller than WELS, and Missouri even had a pastor as a faculty member at Fuller, no small achievement. Better yet, Missouri had five people on the list of Who's Who in Church Growth, (Church Growth: The State of the Art). Dual memberships (Lutheran and Reformed) are supposed to be the mark of liberal ELCA, but Missouri has many congregations that are also members of the Willow Creek Association. Wallace Schulz admitted in a recent essay that he promoted Church Growth in his early years. Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne, started a D.Min. program in Church Growth under the leadership of Robert Preus.

The ELS has protected the Church Growth Movement from criticism in its "confessional" group. They endorsed Valleskey's Spoiling the Egyptians motto, borrowed from Larry Crab. Isn't it a marvel that WELS/ELS will xerox Reformed doctrine and then xerox a defense for Reformed doctrine from a man famous for his association with Fuller? No creativity there at all.

The Church of the Lutheran Confession (sic) produced a moronic newsletter called While It Is Day. This newsletter was published under the noses of the distingushed faculty of Immanuel Lutheran College and passed out to unwary students who imagined they were Lutheran. In that newsletter their leading theologians of Church Growth, David Koenig and Paul Tiefel Junior, supported Church Growth doctrine and Romanism. Koenig is famous for devoting an entire hour of his worship service to a rant on how the Roman Catholics did mission work but the Lutherans did not. The CLC (sic) sent him out again as a world missionary to spread the Good News.

Someone said that an ecumenist is a person who loves every denomination except his own.

The lack of a thorough doctrinal education is lacking in the Lutheran church bodies today. The professorships are political appointments designed to appease the apostate wing of each group. ELCA is simply zanier because the group is a few years ahead of Missouri, WELS, and the the three-letter synods (ELS, CLCs, LCR).

The people who want to fix things are another band of rogues. They are politicians first, willing to bend and twist their own flexible opinions so they can replace the current leadership. If we go back a few years, the synodical leaders were published authors for the most part. Hoenecke influenced the Wisconsin Synod because they respected his doctrinal leadership. Lenski was a district president as well as being a parish pastor, but he is primarily known as the author of his New Testament commentaries. Walther, Pieper, and their acolytes published grave errors in doctrine, but at least they made their positions public and open to debate.

The people now longing to be district or synod president have no formal education in theology. A seminary education is only a beginning. The Reformation was led by theologians, not by men who stopped learning when ordained. A formal program leading to a Ph.D. may provide an excellent education. Others can do it, with guidance, through years of independent study. Chemnitz and Loy are two giants of self-study whose work continues to astound people today. A doctoral program may turn someone into an atheist, but a first parish can do the same thing.

The most troubling thing about today's leadership is the constant waffling about every issue. They are for and against everything. They turn to their seminary notes and rest on that education as the last word on any issue. That is why so many discussions revolve around "What did Walther mean by church?" and "What is the history of Church and Ministry in WELS?" People who have time for such synodical navel-gazing have no energy for the Book of Concord.

Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Dan and Rolf Preus

Dan and Rolf Preus are sons of the late Robert Preus.

Rolf heads the UOJ Inquisition Unit at LutherQuest(sic). At one point Rolf read a provisional chapter of Thy Strong Word, the one on justification, which he requested. He emailed me that he agreed with the chapter. Later, before Thy Strong Word was available to anyone, he claimed he had read the book - impossible - and disagreed with it. When I pointed out on LQ (sic) that he did not own the book, he asked to swap his tiny booklet on justification for my 650 page opus on the efficacy of the Word. So, if he owned the book, read it, and rejected it, why did he want a free copy? My lawyer at Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe advised me that the swap was a clear evasion of the IRS code, so I demurred.

Rolf also expressed agreement once on LQ(sic) with what I was saying about justification by faith. That was quickly buried by posts from the UOJ team. Rolf returned to his role as the Torquemada of the Internet. Rolf agrees with the ELS sect about UOJ but he was kicked out of his parish anyway by Pope John the Malefactor, another exponent of UOJ.

Dan Preus was the silent First Vice President of the LCMS. For several years he said nothing and did nothing, awaiting his chance to be another Al Barry, saying nothing and doing nothing as Synodical President. Alas, Dan was voted out of office and is now on the conservative list to be VP again.

Dan has given a paper repeating the magical formulas of UOJ. Doubtless this will be added to the canonical literature on forgiveness without faith, grace without the Means of Grace, documents stretching all the way to the 1930's. Roman Catholics are not the only ones to claim their new opinions are the ancient doctrines of the Church.

Dan and Rolf are listed as editors of Justification and Rome. Their reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking if they read the book, made corrections where necessary, and still missed their father's clear repudiation of UOJ. Maybe they thought the book was Just a Vacation in Rome.

Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Cascione

Jack Cascione is not officially a professor anywhere. We can be thankful for that. The tiny Evangelical Lutheran Synod would not accept him as a pastor when he wanted to leave the Missouri Synod. For years the congregation want to leave, but he would not let them. (The Voters Assembly is supreme everywhere except Cascione Cathedral.)
Cascione has declared fellowship with the Wisconsin Synod sect, so his UOJ opinion will remain unchallenged.

Jack makes other UOJ advocates seem rather calm and normal in comparison. The others do not phone me at night and rant at me for telling the truth.

Below is an except from Cascione's review of the misbegotten God's Word Bible. I thought Cascione withdrew his description of Preus: "He looked at the passages in "God's Word" that mistranslated justification "by" and "through" faith and burst into uncontrolled weeping." But this review is still posted on the Defaming Walther website. (That's the Missouri nickname for Jack's domain. His nicknames are Greasy Jack and Mad Jack. Not many pastors earn two nicknames!)

********************************************************************************
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/jmc00150.htm

A Review of the Revised "God's Word" Bible
By Rev. Jack Cascione



The following article is a review of the most recent edition of "God's Word" translation of the Bible. This article will give the reader some insight into the struggles of producing a translation of the Bible that correctly presents the saving faith of Jesus Christ. Just a simple change from being "justified by faith" instead of being "justified because of faith" is the difference between heaven and hell. It was Doctor Robert Preus who put on enough pressure to make the changes in the most recent edition.

You may want to keep this for your records. We also recommend that you share it with your pastor." Christians News (573-237-3110) is publishing the other documents mentioned in this review. The review was written at the request of Rev. Herman Often. You are welcome to respond to and discuss this review by looking for the subject title "God's Word" Translation on Jusification on the Luther Quest [sic] Discussion Group.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"God's Word" Bible Revised on Justification By Faith

After nearly 13 years, beginning when it was first called "God's Word to the Nations" and then called "The New Evangelical Translation" and then called "God's Word" a full revised translation is now in print.

Having worked closely with the translation process from 1985-90, I was shocked to see how the 1995 edition of "God's Word" had distorted the passages dealing with justification by faith.

I visited Dr. Robert Preus at his home in Minnesota and showed him the problem when we were alone in his study.

Doctor Preus was never given to emotion; at least not in the years I had worked for him and known him. He looked at the passages in "God's Word" that mistranslated justification "by" and "through" faith and burst into uncontrolled weeping.

After he composed himself, he promised he would write a letter and correct all of this. A copy of that letter written to Dr. Harold Buls, Dr. Wilhelm Peterson, and Rev. Lawrence Burgdorf on May 9, 1995 is in my files. There is a second letter written to Rev. Hackbardt, the Executive Director of "God 's Word to the Nations Bible Society."

I'm delighted to report that many of the passages that Preus complained about were corrected in the latest printing of "God's Word" which will now be described as "God's Word Revised" edition.

Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne

"This is not a handbook on how to do certain things, not offering us gimmicks, procedures, models, and the like, although there is much of practical material to be found throughout. It is rather a theology of church growth and missions." [foreword by Robert Preus]
Waldo J. Werning, LCMS, The Radical Nature of Christianity, Church Growth Eyes Look at the Supernatural Mission of the Christian and the Church, South Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1975, p. 9.

"In an initial burst of enthusiasm reflecting Preus' concern for missions, the Fort Wayne faculty had petitioned the 1977 convention of the Missouri Synod to have each of its subdivisions or districts “make a thorough study of the Church Growth materials.” What is more, the districts were to be urged to “organize, equip, and place into action all of the Church Growth principles as needed in the evangelization of our nation and the world under the norms of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.” By the time of the 1986 synodical convention, however, the same faculty, while appreciating the ‘valuable lessons of common sense’ to be learned from Church Growth, asked that “the Synod warn against the Arminian and charismatic nature of the church-growth movement.’’Kurt E. Marquart, "Robert D. Preus," Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed., Walter A. Elwell, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995, pp. 353-65. Reprinted in Christian News, 6-26-95, p. 21.

During this period Robert Preus advocated UOJ. I have copied his newsletter article via Jack Cascione's weird website, below:

"Dr. Robert Preus on Justification
By Rev. Jack Cascione



Dr. Greg Jackson has repeatedly stated on Luther Quest that Dr. Robert Preus was not in agreement with Objective Justification. I served as the PR Director for Fort Wayne from 1978-1981. “Missouri In Perspective” the ELIM paper, criticized the LC-MS position on Objective Justification. As editor for the Concordia Theological Seminary - Fort Wayne “News Letters” I asked Dr. Preus to respond in the Spring 1981 Issue. The following is his reply, plus other relative excerpts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

NEWSLETTER – Spring 1981
6600 North Clinton
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825

THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE – "OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION"

The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19).

Objective justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not identical with the atonement, it is not another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world. Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous.

THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT

According to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind. Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ'’ sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished atonement. But Christ said, "It is finished." And God raised Him from the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (I Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (Romans 4:25).

All this is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church, "We are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?'’ This is not the justification which we receive by faith...That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead." (Edward Preuss, "The Justification of a Sinner Before God," pp. 14-15)

OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

The doctrine of objective justification does not imply that there is no hell, that God’s threats throughout Scripture to punish sins are empty, or that all unbelievers will not be condemned to eternal death on the day of Christ’s second coming. And very definitely the doctrine of objective, or general, justification does not threaten the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. Rather it is the very basis of that Reformation doctrine, a part of it. For it is the very pardon which God has declared over the whole world of sinners that the individual sinner embraces in faith and thus is justified personally. Christ’s atonement, His propitiation of God and God’s forgiveness are the true and only object of faith. Here is what George Stoekhardt, perhaps the greatest of all Lutheran biblical expositors in our country, says, "Genuine Lutheran theology counts the doctrine of general (objective) justification among the statements and treasures of its faith. Lutherans teach and confess that through Christ’s death the entire world of sinners was justified and that through Christ’s resurrection the justification of the sinful world was festively proclaimed. This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God."

THE REALITY OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION

Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ. Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work "before" we come to faith in Christ. 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.

THE CENTRAILITY AND COMFORT OF THE DOCTRINE

Objective justification is not a peripheral article of faith which one may choose to ignore because of more important things. It is the very central article of the Gospel which we preach. Listen to Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first president and great leader of our synod, speak about this glorious doctrine in one of his magnificent Easter sermons: "When Christ suffered and died, He was judged by God, and He was condemned to death in our place. But when God in the resurrection awakened Him again, who was it then that was acquitted by God in Christ’s person? Christ did no need acquittal for Himself, for no one can accuse Him of single sin. Who therefore was it that was justified in Him? Who was declared pure and innocent in Him? We were, we humans. It was the whole world. When God spoke to Christ, ‘You shall live,’ that applied to us. His life is our life. His acquittal, our acquittal, His justification, our justification….Who can ever fully express the great comfort which lies in Christ’s resurrection? It is God’s own absolution spoken to all men, to all sinners, in a word, to all the world, and sealed in the most glorious way. There the eternal love of God is revealed in all its riches, in its overflowing fullness and in its highest brilliance. For there we hear that it was not enough for God simply to send His own Son into the world and let Him become a man for us, not enough even for Him to give and offer His only Son unto death for us. No, when His Son had accomplished all that He had to do and suffer in order to earn and acquire grace and life and blessedness for us, then God, in His burning love to speak to us sinners, could not wait until we would come to Him and request His grace in Christ, but no sooner had His Son fulfilled everything than He immediately hastened to confer to men the grace which had been acquired through the resurrection of His Son, to declare openly, really and solemnly to all men that they were acquitted of all their sins, and to declare before heaven and earth that they are redeemed, reconciled, pure, innocent and righteous in Christ."

THE ISSUE AT OUR SEMINARY

Many of our readers know that our seminary, and one professor in particular, has been recently criticized for undermining this comforting and clear teaching of objective justification. The criticism and garbled accounts of the situation have become so widespread lately that I must now comment on the matter in this issue of the "Newsletter.

For over 15 years now Professor Walter A. Maier, Jr., has been teaching a course in the book of Romans, and, although he states he has always presented the doctrine of objective justification as taught in our synod (e.g. in the "Brief Statement"), he has taught in class that some of the key passages used in our church to support the doctrine actually do not speak to the subject at all. As a result some within the seminary community and some outside concluded that Dr. Maier did not in fact believe, teach, and confess the article of objective justification. A few – very few – complaints were brought against Dr. Maier and against the seminary for letting this go on.

The president of our synod, who has the responsibility for supervising doctrine in the synod, contacted me and asked me to try to settle the issue and to persuade Dr. Maier to teach an interpretation of the pertinent passages (Romans 4:25; Romans 5:16-19; II Corinthians 5:19) compatible with that which the great teachers of our church in the past (C. F. W. Walther, Francis Pieper, Theodore Engelder, George Stoeckhardt, Martin Franzmann, William Beck and others) publicly taught. Meetings and discussions immediately took place between Dr. Maier and myself. Later on the matter was considered in faculty meetings, in department meetings, and in special committees appointed to discuss and hopefully to settle the issue. During these meetings, which were always most cordial, Dr. Maier has remained unpersuaded that his interpretation of the pertinent passages is faulty. At the same time he has consistently assured all that he has always taught the doctrine of objective justification as understood in the Missouri Synod. He has, however, referred to other biblical evidence for the doctrine.

In the meantime the president of the synod, growing anxious for a clear solution to the problem wrote to the entire church body a letter cautioning congregations not to nominate Dr. Maier for president of the synod until the issue was cleared up to his satisfaction.

Now the issue became political, and protests and criticisms against the president of the synod for his action and also against Dr. Maier'’ teaching began to multiply all over the synod. People naturally began to take sides, not always so much on the doctrinal issue which was not always understood and is still being discussed at our seminary, but for ecclesiastical and personal reasons. We now know that the warning of our synodical president against Dr. Maier not only failed to dissuade congregations from nominating Dr. Maier for the presidency of our synod (as Fourth Vice-President Dr. Robert Sauer had forewarned when attempting to persuade the synodical president not to send his letter), but possibly gained more nominations for Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier is now one of the five men nominated for the presidency of our synod.

On January 30, 1981, the Board of Control met with Dr. Maier and three representatives of the synodical praesidium (which had severely criticized Dr. Maier’s doctrinal stance). We heard from two members of the praesidium and then from Dr. Maier and two faculty members who he had requested to accompany him. The results of this meeting, many of us believed, represented a real breakthrough in understanding, and the Board exonerated Dr. Maier of any false doctrine. It was my belief that the representatives of the praesidium present were also satisfied and happy with the report. In the discussions of this meeting Dr. Maier expressed many genuine concerns related to the doctrine of objective justification, e.g., that no one is saved eternally who is not justified by faith, that God is even now angry with those who reject Christ and do not repent, and that objective justification ought to be preached and taught in such a way that the biblical doctrine of justification by faith is always prominent. The report, in the form of a news release, is found on page 4 of the "Newsletter", and I urge the reader to read it because "The Reporter," "The Lutheran Witness," and most of the newspapers over the country which reported on the matter did not reproduce the report in its entirety. At the same meeting the Board of Control strongly expressed its disapproval of some of the actions of our synodical president in the matter.

Meanwhile the administration of the seminary, with the concurrence of the Board of Control, determined that it would be best for the seminary and for Dr. Maier if he not teach the course in Romans during the next academic year. At first I tried to keep this matter private, but later I decided to make a public report of the fact. My reason for this was threefold. First, Dr. Maier was reported in the news media all over the country as stating that he had not changed his position on the doctrine of objective justification, suggesting o many that three years of discussions with him had been quite fruitless and that he still did not wholeheartedly believe in objective justification. Second, several people sympathetic to Dr. Maier had threatened to withhold funds from the seminary and had even reported our action to the accrediting association of our seminary, "The Association of Theological Schools;" it was obvious to me that they would make the matter of Dr. Maier’s courses public whenever it served their purposes. Third, the president of the synod was preparing a release revealing the fact that Dr. Maier would not be teaching Romans during the next academic year. I thought it would be preferable that the president of the seminary make this fact known rather than those who have no business making such and announcement and who might make the announcement in a way detrimental either Dr. Maier or the seminary.

This is where the matter now stands. The Board of Control has stated its confidence in the doctrine of Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier is presently teaching Romans, will teach the course this summer, but is slated to teach courses other than Romans next year. The faculty will continue to discuss and try to achieve total agreement in the interpretation of those passages of Scripture which teach objective justification.

A PLEA FOR CONCERN AND UNDERSTANDING

Through this entire and uncomfortable time the Board of Control and the administration of the seminary have found themselves in an understandably awkward position. We are pledged to remain faithful to the doctrinal position of our church, a position which we believe with all our hearts, and we will not deviate from this obligation one iota. We are at the same time pledged to defend a professor and colleague if he fails under unjust attack or abuse. I think we were able to maintain this delicate balance while the present issue was pending, until the political issue was injected. Now we find ourselves uncomfortably between two rather large conflicting elements in our synod, both friends of our seminary; those who believe that the president of the synod, whether they agree with his actions or not, had legitimate concerns about the doctrinal position of Dr. Maier, and those who believe that Dr. Maier had been wronged by the president of the synod and that the seminary could have done more to defend and protect him. How can we respond to this divisive situation in the middle of which we find ourselves? We can only say that we regret deeply the anxiety and consternation which good friends of our seminary have experienced because of the episodes I have recounted. May I ask these friends to bear with us and put the best construction on how we have acted in these circumstances. If you question Dr. Maier’s teaching on justification, please read and believe the report on page and trust the honesty and sincerity of those, including Dr. Maier, who had a part in releasing it. If you believe that Dr. Maier has been wronged by various parties during the last three year which have been trying to him, please believe that our Board of Control and all here at Concordia agree with you; but God, who saved this lost world and forgave the sins of mankind before anyone ever asked Him, commands us also to forgive those who wrong us. And please do not try to defend Dr. Maier by denying the public teaching of the Lutheran Church. God’s forgiveness shines bright and clear above all the pettiness and weakness and wrongs and controversy that have transpired in connection with our dear colleague Dr. Maier, and it WILL cover the sins of us all. Lent teach us this, and Easter confirms it.

ROBERT PREUS, President

For those who wish to read more on Objective Justification the following articles can be secured from our bookstore for a nominal charge:

H. J. Bouman _Conference Paper on Romans 4:5" "Concordia Theological Monthly" (CTM), Vol. 18, 1947, pp. 338-347.

Theodore Engelder, "Objective Justification," CTM, Vol. 4, 1933, pp. 507-516, 564-577, 664, 675.

Theodore Engelder, "Walther, a Christian Theologian," CTM, Vol. 7, 1936, pp. 801-815.

Martin H. Franzmann, "Reconciliation and Justification," CTM, Vol. 21, 1950, pp. 81-93.

E. W. A. Koehler, "Objective Justification, CTM, Vol. 16, 1945, pp. 217-235.

Miscellanea, "God Purposes to Justify Those That Have Come to Faith," CTM, Vol. 14, 1943, pp. 787-791.

George Stoeckhardt, "General Justification," "Concordia Theological Quarterly," April, 1978, pp. 139 – 144.

STATEMENT ADDED TO PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

While the president’s message "Objective Justification" was being typeset, an "Official Notice" from the president of Synod was issued which bears on the Walter A. Maier matter. In the notice the president of Synod expressed his disagreement with our Board action which announced a "basic understanding" with Dr. Maier on objective justification. I felt compelled to respond on behalf of our Board of Control with an Official Notice from the Seminary. This Official Notice which seeks to clarify the Board’s action and position vis-à-vis Dr. Maier’s doctrinal stand has been submitted to "The Reporter." It is herewith appended to the present article for our readers’ information. – Robert Preus

BOARD OF CONTROL MEETS WITH SEMINARY PROFESSOR

The Board of Control of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, has announced that a basic understanding resulted from a lengthy and thorough discussion on January 30th, between the Board, Dr. Walter A. Maier, Jr., of the seminary faculty, three representatives for the president and vice-presidents (praesidium) of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and two additional faculty members. In a January 5-6 meeting the Praesidium stated that, in its opinion, "Doctor Walter A. Maier, Jr., holds a position different from that of the official doctrinal position of the Synod."

At the January 30 meeting, however, Dr. Maier emphatically affirmed his belief that on the basis of Christ’s vicarious atonement God has put His wrath away against the world and has declared the whole world to be righteous; that the benefits of this objective forgiveness are appropriated only by faith; the even though the entire human race has been redeeme3d, the Law in all its severity, including the wrath of God against sinners as well as the Gospel of forgiveness must be preached to all, including Christians. According to the Gospel, God is indeed reconciled; according to the Law, the wrath of God abides on all who reject Christ and His work of reconciliation, refuse to repent, and live in their sins.

Dr. Robert Sauer, Dr. George Wollenburg, and former synodical vice-president Dr. Theodore Nickel represented the praesidium at the January 30 meeting. Professors Kurt Marquart and Howard Tepker of the seminary faculty were also present.

The frank five-hour exchange focused on several theological issues which were isolated for clarification. The discussion showed that there have been misunderstandings, unclear thinking, and poor communication because of overstatements, lifting of phrases and snippets of doctrinal expression out of context, and sometimes even pressing of casual expressions to ultimate conclusions not intended by the speakers.

More than semantic differences surfaced early in the January 30th meeting. At the close, however, basic agreement emerged on such topics as the wrath of God, Law and Gospel, and "objective justification" – a term used in the Lutheran Church to summarize a concept in the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions that forgiveness and justification because of the death of Christ are objectively available for all mankind through the ages, whether or not individuals appropriate it through faith.

Difference in the interpretation of several critical passages remain. The Seminary board, as well as Dr. Maier, is concerned that variant interpretations can lead to a misinterpretation of doctrine. Therefore, the Seminary board reported, discussions will continue by the faculty.

Dr. Maier stated: "I regret that some publicly quoted statements of mine from a technical paper ‘prepared for faculty discussion purposes only’ have given a wrong impression about my doctrine of justification as a whole. I, therefore, withdraw that paper from discussion. Doctrinally, I stand with our Synod’s historic position."

In his statement to the Board of Control Dr. Maier further stated: "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29(, and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made….to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, ‘made a curse for us’" (Galatians 3:13).

"In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and sacraments of Christ."

"Faith alone can receive this treasure offered in the Gospel, and this faith itself is entirely a gracious gift and creation of God through the means of grace. Faith adds nothing to God’s forgiveness in Christ offered in the Gospel, but only receives it. Thus, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on Him’" (John 3:30).

"My reservation concerning some of the traditional terminology employed in expressing the doctrine of justification are fully covered by the following statements from the major essay delivered to the first convention of the Synodical Conference, assembled in Milwaukee July 10-16, 1872:

"When speaking with regard to the acquisition of salvation (by Christ), God has wrath for no man any longer; but when speaking with regard to the appropriation, He is wrathful with everyone who is no in Christ ("Proceedings," p. 32). Before faith the sinner is righteous before God only according to the acquisition and the divine intention, but he is actually ("actu") righteous, righteous for his own person, righteous indeed, first when he believes ("Proceedings," p. 68."

Following the meeting Board Chairman Raymond N. Joeckel commented, "We only wish that we could have reached this stage of the discussions and that we could have had this kind of interchange before unfortunate statements appeared in the public press. The church can learn from this that the Lord blesses sincere efforts to discuss and clarify the meaning and message of the Holy Scriptures."

COMMENT ON AN OFFICIAL NOTICE

The Official Notice of our synodical president regarding Dr. Walter A. Maier and the doctrine of objective justification in the March 30 issue of "The Lutheran Witness Reporter" requires an answer by me as president and executive officer of the Board of Control of Concordia Theological Seminary where Dr. Maier teaches.

Once again we wish to express our deep appreciation to the president for his recognition of the central importance of the doctrine of objective justification and his concern that this comforting teaching be taught clearly at our school. We agree wholeheartedly with his citation from Dr. Francis Pieper, ""he doctrine of objective justification is of vital important to the entire Christian doctrine. Only by keeping this doctrine intact will the Christian doctrine remain intact. It will be irretrievably lost if this doctrine is abandoned."

However, there are some serious inaccuracies and mistaken judgments in the Official Notice which call for correction and comment.

First, the president of the Synod points to an apparent conflict between my summary of the issues on the subject of justification sent to the Board of Control December 23, 1980, and some later statements made by me and the Board of Control concerning Dr. Maier’s position. In the December statement I described Dr. Maier’s position as he expressed it to the Board at its November, 1980 meeting (with the president of Synod in attendance). There I state that Dr. Maier can find no explicit Biblical evidence for the doctrine of objective justification and no explicit Biblical evidence for the doctrine that God was reconciled (put His anger aside) on account of the ransom paid by Christ. Two months later I stated that Dr. Maier "has always believed" – it would have been better to have said "has consistently affirmed to the Board and to me his belief" – in objective justification; and the Board in its release said that Dr. Maier emphatically affirmed his believe that on the basis of Christs’s vicarious atonement God put His wrath away against the world and has declared the whole world to be righteous." The explanation for this apparent discrepancy lies in the simple fact that in the January meeting of the Board of Control (which the president of Synod did not attend) Dr. Maier clearly affirmed that Scripture does in fact teach the doctrine of objective justification and that on the basis of Christ’s atonement God put away His wrath, whereas in the November meeting, as reported, he did not do so. An so "all" the statements cited are true and factual

Our synodical president says "I must report that the vice-presidents are of the opinion that there is no evidence from the Board of Control meeting which would change their judgment that Dr. Maier is at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod." This must be a mistake. Former Vice-President Theodore Nickel and Vice-President George Wollenburg, together with Vice-president Robert Sauer, represented the Praesidium at the January Board meeting. Dr. Nickel and Dr. Wollenburg criticized Dr. Maier’s position at the meeting. But when Dr. Maier affirmed his belief that objective justification was taught in Scripture (I Timothy 3:16) and that God’s wrath has been appeased through the death of His Son, the Board gained the distinct impression that both Dr. Nickel and Dr. Wollenburg were sufficiently satisfied that Dr. Maier was not at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod. At least, these two men never expressed themselves to the contrary to the Board or to Dr. Maier. The Board report of the January 30 meeting with Dr. Maier and representatives of the Praesidium has been out since February 2, and so Dr. Wollenburg and Dr. Nickel have had plenty of time to dissociate themselves from it, if they wanted to do so. It does seem strange to us that the president of the Synod did not announce his misgivings soon after the Board meeting and news release, but rather waited until after Dr. Maier has been clearly nominated for the presidency of the Missouri Synod.

Furthermore, Vice-President Sauer is a member of the Board of Control and had a hand in writing and issuing the Board release of February 2. According to the February 14 St. Louis Globe Democrat Dr. Sauer said, "’After a recent discussion lasting several hours,’ Dr. Maier ‘appears to be in a position of changing with regard to the vital doctrinal matter.’" So the president of our Synod apparently is not including Dr. Sauer when he said, "I must report that the vice-presidents are of the opinion that there is no evidence from the Board of Control meeting which would change the judgment that Dr. Maier is at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod." Perhaps there are other vice-presidents he is not including.

The suggestion of our synodical president that the Board of Control is engaging in a
cover up in regard to Dr. Maier is unkind and false. The Board has acted with utmost integrity. While the president may differ with the Board’s conclusion and decision in the Maier matter, it is not right of him publicly to question the ethics and posture of the Board in the entire matter.

The president’s only evidence for a cover up is the fact that the Board did not publicly announce that Dr. Maier would not be teaching a course in the Book of Romans beginning with the next academic year. This was not considered significant for the news release. At the same meeting the Board also objected "strenuously" to "certain things" done by the president of the Synod "which are high-handed, inexcusable, and harmful to Dr. Maier or our school." The Board did not think of including such items in its release either, and that out of love and concern for the reputation of our synodical president. The omission of pertinent or irrelevant facts in a release does not necessarily constitute a "cover up." If it did, the president of the Synod would be guilty of a serious "cover up." In his Official Notice he omitted any mention of a verbatim quotation from Dr. Maier in the Board release, affirming that Scripture does indeed teach objective justification. Dr. Maier’s statement goes as follows, "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29), and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made…..to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed ‘made a curse for us’ (Galations 3:13). In this sense the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and Sacraments of Christ." It was on the basis of this statement and other assurances given by Dr. Maier that the Board announced in its February 2 release that a "basic understand resulted from a lengthy and thorough discussion on January 30 between the Board, Dr. Walter A. Maier, Jr. of the seminary faculty, three representatives for the president and vice-presidents (Praesidium) of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and two additional faculty members."

We share our synodical president’s "frustration and amazement" at the confusion which shrouds both the issue itself and the way it has been handled. I know I speak for Dr. Maier and the Board of Control when I say that we all are sorry for anything we have said or done which adds to this confusion. I am sure that the president of the Synod too is sorry for what he has contributed to the confusion and misunderstanding which surrounds the matter. It is my hope that this response to his Official Notice will serve to clarify the matter."

Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Valleskey, Bivens, Kelm

David Valleskey, Frosty Bivens, and Paul Kelm have all studied at Fuller Seminary or its clones. Some like to deny Fuller Seminary since there is also a Fuller Evangelism School, as if that distinction makes a difference.

All three have been exalted to the highest rank by WELS. They are the Doctors of the Church in the Wisconsin sect.

All three teach UOJ and Church Growth.

Those Nutty UOJ Professors - Preuss

When Lutherans get worked up in promoting Universal Objective Justification, they usually mention Eduard Preuss with the kind of grin one reseves for porterhouse steak and Boston cream pie.

This Preuss was no relation to Robert and Jack Preuss.

Fuerbringer wrote about E. Preuss in his Eighty Eventful Years book about the LCMS. Preuss was one their 19th century orthodox professors, to use the term broadly and with great flexibility. One day he prayed that God would show him a sign about which church was true. He saw a brilliant red sunset and decided that meant he should be a Roman Catholic. He then published (anonymously) a book defending Roman Catholic doctrine. One person said, "First you defended Lutheran doctrine. Now you attack it. How can that be?" Preuss said, "Give me the documents and I can prove anything."

Obviously Preuss was an Enthusiast. He let his feelings of the moment sweep him into the embrace of Rome. An Enthusiast obtains salvation from outside the Word. Luther - all Lutherans - condemn Enthusiasm. This condemnation is found in the Book of Concord, the Smalcald Articles. God does not speak to us through sunsets and rainbows. The Holy Spirit does not say, "John, I know you want to stay in Ukraine, but I need you in Asia."

No one wrote more clearly about UOJ than Preuss. He is still mentioned today.

Justification WITHOUT Faith - The UOJ Blasphemy

Introduction
Someone asked about Objective Justification, which hides under various names: General, Universal, etc. Church Growth Enthusiast David Valleskey (WELS) gave the official definition:

"In Christ, God has effected a universal justification, a universal reconciliation, a universal ransom, a universal atonement. Different terms, but all communicating the same message: God in Christ has declared the whole world to be not guilty."
David J. Valleskey, We Believe--Therefore We Speak, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1995, p. 71. (Valleskey is the Dean of Church Growth in WELS, a former student of Fuller Seminary. Valleskey denied to the author, face to face, that he went to Fuller. Valleskey admitted to CLC Pastor David Koenig that he went to Fuller. Valleskey's congregation, Apostles, remembers when he bragged in the church bulletin about going to Fuller. Frosty Bivens, his friend and co-conspirator, bragged to the Midland Circuit pastors about going to Fuller Seminary, then denied going to Fuller Seminary. Bivens, needless to say, is a big fan of OJ.)

OJ or UOJ means that God has declared everyone free from sin, innocent, without the Word, without the Means of Grace, without faith. The Kokomo Statements were used to get rid of two families in WELS. The statements came from the synod, not from the two families. WELS lied about the origin of the statements (calling them a parody of justification), pretending the families wrote them. No, the families objected to the false doctrine, which Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary defended and Sig Becker supported in a published paper. Three of the Kokomo Statements came almost verbatim from Mequon professor J. P. Meyer’s NPH book, Ministers of Christ. The fourth came from WELS Pastor Papenfuss.

"The two terms are relatively modern. They are not used in the Lutheran Confessions. They are also not really synonymous. 'Universal justification' is a term denoting the doctrine that God has forgiven the sins of all men. Strictly speaking, the term 'objective justification' expresses the thought that the sins of a man are forgiven by God whether he believes it or not. Objective justification is not necessarily universal, but if justification is universal it must of necessity be objective."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, p. 1. (Please explain this sentence to Suzy sitting in the font row of the Sunday School class, her mouth wide open in astonishment.)

"It must be admitted that when our Lutheran Confessions speak of justification they speak almost exclusively of that facet of justification we usually call 'subjective' justification, which has also been called 'special' or 'personal' justification. But the Confessions also show us that the basis for this justification is the justification that precedes faith."
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 13. WELS Pastor Curia became the scribe of OJ. There is no justification preceding faith, no matter what Curia or anyone else claims.

Kokomo OJ
"Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner's attitude toward Christ's sacrifice, purely on the basis of God's verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of saint." (J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 103)
WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.

"After Christ's intervention and through Christ's intervention God regards all sinners as guilt-free saints." (J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 107)
WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.

"When God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, He individually pronounced forgiveness to each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not." (J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 109)
WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.

"At the time of the resurrection of Christ, God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all sin and gave unto them the status of saints." (Pastor Charles Papenfuss)
WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.

"Here the panel feels itself compelled to distinguish between form and content. While the form of the Four Statements is inadequate, the doctrine of objective justification it grapples with is Scriptural. The Four Statements have served to show that there is a doctrinal difference between Faith Congregation and the appellants." Report of the WELS Review Committee, Hartman, Pohlman Appeal, June 30, 1980.
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 133.

LCMS – More Confusing in Expression – Same OJ
"It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: That forgiveness and justification before God do not involve each other, or that justification and reconciliation are entirely different from each other, as though a person can be reconciled without being justified or justified without being reconciled."
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #3.

"In normal Biblical and ecclesiastical usage the terms 'justify' and 'justification' refer to the ('subjective') justification of the individual sinner through faith (Romans 4:5, 5:1, etc.; AC IV, 3; FC SD III 25). But because theologically justification is the same thing as the forgiveness of sins (Romans 4:1-8; Ap IV, 76; FC Ep III, 7), it is Biblically and confessionally correct to refer to the great sin-cancelling, atoning work of the Redeemer as the 'objective' or 'universal' justification of the whole sinful human race. (John 1:29; Romans 5:6-18; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 2:14-15; 1 Timothy 3:16; Ap IV, 103-105; LC V, 31, 32, 36, 37; FC SD III, 57)
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #4.

"Thus objective justification or reconciliation is the forgiveness of sins both as it has been acquired for the entire human race by Christ's work of obedience in its stead and declared by His resurrection, and as it is seriously and efficaciously offered to all in the means of grace." Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #5. "Subjective justification or reconciliation is this same forgiveness as it is received, appropriated by, and applied to the individual sinner through God-given faith alone (sola fide)."
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #6.

"This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God. [George Stoeckhardt, Concordia Theological Quarterly, April, 1978, p. 138.]
Pastor Vernon Harley "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1. (Can anyone imagine a nuttier and more anti-Lutheran statement than this? An bizarre opinion will protect the Gospel? No wonder the Synodical Conference surrendered the efficacy of the Word.)

Baptist-like Formulation of OJ

J. P. Meyer, adored by WELS, presented the ridiculous concept of OJ and then added another absurdity – Make a decision about this!

"Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner's attitude toward Christ's sacrifice, purely on the basis of God's verdict, every sinner, whether he knows about it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint. What will be his reaction when he is informed about this turn of events? Will he accept, or will he decline?"
J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963, p. 103f. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

Walther, Pieper, and Eduard Preuss (who converted to Catholicism)
"Christ's Glorious Resurrection from the Dead the Actual Absolution of the Entire Sinful World Here I would point out two things: 1. That This Is Certain And True, and 2. That Therefore Every Man Who Wants To Be Saved Must By Faith Accept This General Absolution As Applying Also 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. 230. Brosamen, p. 138. Mark 16:1-8. (Put your hands on the radio and make a Decision for Christ.)

"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. Brosamen, p. 138. Mark 16:1-8. (The Means of Grace are superfluous under this arrangement.)

"So, then, we are reconciled; however, not only we, but also Hindus, and Hottentots and Kafirs, yes, the world. 'Reconciled', says our translation; the Greek original says: 'placed in the right relation to God'. Because before the Fall we, together with the whole creation, were in the right relation to God, therefore Scripture teaches that Christ, through His death, restored all things to the former right relation to God." F. R. Eduard Preuss, 1834-1904, Die Rechtfertigung der Suender vor Gott.
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 24.

"The resurrection is God's public absolution of the entire world: 'Your sins are forgiven, all sins of all human beings; and there is no exception.' This is the meaning of the technical term 'objective justification.' The objective justification is central to the doctrine of salvation and derives logically from the facts that God's reconciliation, forgiveness, and declaration of 'not guilty' in no wise depend on the attitude or behaviour of human beings. If objective justification is denied, then it must follow that those who are declared righteous in some way have contributed to God's change of heart; justification is then no longer solely the result of God's grace." [Theodore Mueller, Concordia Theological Quarterly, January, 1982, p. 29.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 3.

"Now, then, if the Father raised Christ from the dead, He, by this glorious resurrection act, declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for, and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal. This gracious reconciliation and justification is clearly taught in Romans 4:25: 'Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification.' The term dikaiosis here means the act of divine justification executed through God's act of raising Christ from the dead, and it is for this reason called the objective justification of all mankind. This truth Dr. Walther stressed anew in America. He taught that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners. (Evangelienpostille, p. 160ff.)" part one
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 321. Romans 4:25

"Scripture teaches the objective reconciliation (o.r. in italics). Nineteen hundred years ago Christ effected the reconciliation of all men with God. God does not wait for men to reconcile Him with themselves by means of any efforts of their own. He is already reconciled. The reconciliation is an accomplished fact, just like the creation of the world. Romans 5:10: 'We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.' When Christ died, God became reconciled." pt. 1 of paragraph
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 347f. Romans 5:10

"The resurrection of Christ is, as Holy Writ teaches, the actual absolution of the whole world of sinners. Romans 4:25: 'Who was raised again for our justification.' At that time we were objectively declared free from sin."
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 348 Romans 4:25

"It's just easier for many people to work backwards from the subjective to the objective in their thinking. In fact, upside-down evangelism may start with gospel and work back to law, stating the solution as a prelude to the problem and clarifying both at the cross." [This is Moravian Pietism, as shown by Walther's Law and Gospel.] Paul Kelm The Evangelism Life Line (WELS), Fall, 1985 p. 5. (Paul Kelm is another WELS Church Growth guru, another Fuller Seminary student.)

"As to the doctrine in general, he [Lenski] repudiates and ridicules the teaching that on Easter morning God forgave, really forgave, all the world all its sins, really and truly justified the world. He protests against making objective reconciliation, general justification, mean that God on Easter morning did actually pronounce the world, all individuals making up the world, really innocent of all sin and guilt."
Theodore Engelder, Objective Justification, Concordia Theological Monthly, 1933, Ft. Wayne: Concordia Seminary Press, n.d. p. 508. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. (Lenski spent his entire career carefully studying the New Testament and all the doctrinal issues involved in those 27 books. That does not make Lenski right about everything, but why should Lutherans start with theses and then find Biblical verses to support them? That is Roman Catholic exegesis.)

"Does Missouri teach 'that this, an actus simplex, is the only justification there is'? Yes and no. We do not teach that the objective justification of Easter morning is the only justification there is...But most readers of the Pastor's Monthly know that Missouri teaches that there is a) an objective justification and b) a subjective justification."
Theodore Engelder, Objective Justification, Concordia Theological Monthly, 1933, Ft. Wayne: Concordia Seminary Press, n.d. p. 514. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. (Two justifications must be better than one. No wonder Missouri lost its way.)

"The teaching of the Wisconsin Synod [of the Norwegian Synod] is this, that in and with the universal reconciliation, which has occurred in Christ for the whole world--even Judas; the world--even Judas--has been justified and has received the forgiveness of sin. Therefore, according to Luther's clear words ("for where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation"), (even Judas) has become a child of God and an heir of heaven." Quotation from Gottfried Fritschel, "Zur Lehre von der Rechtfertigung," Theologische Monatshefte, vol 4, 1871, (1-24), p. 7.
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 2. Wisconsin Synod of the old Norwegian Synod - Charge made by Hasselquist, Augustana Synod. (I believe this is where Robert Preus started, with the old Norwegian Pietistic opinion about OJ.)

"The chief differences between the contestants [Norwegians and Augustana] seem to have been in the essence rather than in the effect of Absolution. Both agreed that the Gospel offered the forgiveness of sins, but the one side held that it was given only to those who in faith received it, while the other side said that it was given also to unbelievers, though they did not accept it. Both agreed that unbelievers received no benefit from such an absolution." J. Magnus Rohne, Norwegian Lutheranism up to 1872, New York, Macmillan, p. 231.
Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 20.

"The entire Pauline doctrine of justification stands and falls with the special article of general justification. This establishes it beyond peradventure that justification is entirely independent of the conduct of man. And only in this way the individual can have the assurance of his justification. For it is the incontrovertible conclusion: Since God has already justified all men in Christ and forgiven them their sins, I, too, have a gracious God in Christ and forgiveness of all my sins." [Quoted with approval by Theodore Engelder, from George Stoeckhardt, Commentary on Romans, p. 264.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 2.

"The chief purpose, however, is to keep this article (general justification) before the people for its own sake. It cannot be presented and studied too often. Its vital relation to the subjective, personal justification by faith, cannot be stressed too strongly. It forms the basis of the justification by faith and keeps this article free from the leaven of Pelagianism. Unless the sinner knows that his justification is already an accomplished fact in the forum of God, he will imagine that it is his faith, his good conduct, which moves God to forgive him his sins. And unless he knows that God had him personally in mind in issuing the general pardon on Easter morning, he will have no assurance of his justification." [Theodore Engelder, Concordia Theological Monthly, July/August/September, 1933. Reissued by the seminary printshop, Ft. Wayne, 1981.]
Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1f.

Sig Becker, WELS OJ Guru
"The doctrine of universal justification is often ridiculed with the argument that if God really forgives sins prior to faith then the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith becomes meaningless. Such conclusions demonstrate a rationalistic spirit that consciously or unconsciously refuses to be guided by Scriptures alone."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated

"The forgiveness comes first. Faith is merely the response to the message."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated (This is Decision Theology, associated with Billy Graham. Not without reason did Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary president, Panning, hang up a poster for the Billy Graham School of Evangelism. The note said - "See Paul Kelm for more information.")

"The first three statements are taken verbatim from WELS sources."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated (Emphasis added.)

"Every one of the statements can be understood correctly, even though one must swallow a little hard to accede to the fourth [Kokomo Statement]."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated (Emphasis added - That is one fine standard of doctrinal excellence - swallowing hard.)

"Three of the four [Kokomo] statements, because of their lack of clarity, tend to confuse the issue. But since the disciplined laymen used them to advance their false doctrine, it was understandable that the congregation should also use them in its rejection of the falsehood being advocated. I do not consider any of the four statements to be false doctrine, but I would rather not use the language used in the first, second, and fourth." [conclusion of paper]
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated

"But if forgiveness comes first, if it is always there, if it is true whether I believe it or not, I do not need to know whether I have faith or not before I can cling to God's promise. I know that my sins are forgiven whether I feel forgiven or unforgiven. I know that my iniquity is pardoned whether I believe it or not. And when I know that, then I know also that I am a believer."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated (Confidential to Aunt Matilda: Yes, he taught at a Lutheran seminary. This is the hopeless bundle of contradictions one must juggle when starting with UOJ theses.)

Conclusion
The Synodical Conference perpetrated a fraud by teaching Justification Without Faith in the name of Universal Objective Justification or Objective Justification. Thanks to this fraudulent promotion, the Biblical doctrine of the Means of Grace has been abandoned in favor of Fuller Seminary marketing methods or Baptist Decision Theology.
UOJ seems to have built up momentum during the 1930's. The LCMS Brief Statement canonized UOJ. Pieper's Church Dogmatics carved the opinion in granite. The patethic Kokomo Statements were used by WELS to expel two families from a congregation. The LCMS 1987 Theses on Justification mixed UOJ with the Biblical doctrine, creating a hybrid.

Church Growth doctrinal apostasy has grown apace with UOJ. They are perfect matches, evenly yoked together, drawing Lutherans into the abyss. One cannot fight Church Growth while supporting UOJ.

Robert Preus Repudiated Faith-less Justification (UOJ)

Many Lutherans think of objective justification as another way of speaking about the atoning death of Christ. However, this term has been used with some variation (general, objective, universal, and even universal objective justification) to express a concept alien to the Scriptures, the Book of Concord, and the Christian faith – that God declared the entire world free of sin, without guilt, the moment Christ died on the cross, or alternately, the moment He rose from the dead, absent any Scriptural text, Church father citation, or Book of Concord passage to support this concept of universal absolution, grace without the Means of Grace, forgiveness without faith. The sainted Robert Preus once taught this opinion, during the heyday of Church Growth at Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne. Three influences may have impacted the 1981 essay:
1. Walther’s promotion of the Easter absolution,
2. Missouri’s debt to Pietism, and
3. The Norwegian Lutherans’ historic fondness for this opinion.
However, Preus clarified the true meaning of justification in his final book, Justification and Rome, which was published posthumously. Preus wrote this definitive comment:

"But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism and the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfilled and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith." (Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 72.)

Preus immediately followed the statement above with a quotation from Quenstedt, one of his favorite orthodox Lutheran authors:

"It is not just the same thing to say, “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us” and to say “Christ is our righteousness.” For the imputation did not take place when Christ became our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is the effect of His office. The imputation is the application of the effect of His office. The one, however, does not do away with the other. Christ is our righteousness effectively when He justifies us. His righteousness is ours objectively because our faith rests in Him. His righteousness is our formally in that His righteousness is imputed to us." (Ibid., p. 73. The citation reads “Systema, Par. III, Cap. 8. S. 2, q. 5. Observatio 19 (II, 787)".

Preus also quoted Abraham Calov with approval:

"Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe." ([Apodixis Articulorum Fide, Lueneburg, 1684] Robert D. Preus Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n. The Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod chose to follow Walther’s notion of an Easter absolution for the entire world, a declaration that everyone forgiven. "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. Brosamen, p. 138. Mark 16:1-8.)