Jay Webber and Rolf Preus Reveal Their Massive Ignorance, But Little Else.

 A lay reader has asked me to keep him up-to-date about
the way Universal Forgiveness and Salvation (UOJ) is defended.

David Charles posted:

Is universal objective justification an official doctrine of Lutheranism?

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

77

Comments

Guillaume Williams While there are Lutheran denominations which deny it, it is a biblical teaching.

5

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 4d

Hide 49 Replies

David Charles Do you know of any Lutheran authorities who explain and expound this?

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 4d

Guillaume Williams I think you could go to Pieper where it is laid out.

2

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 4d

Austin Becker Which denominations do you assert deny a biblical teaching on justification?

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Guillaume Williams ELDoNA for one.

2

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker They reject the term OUJ, and have some very valid complaints with this relatively new term, they do not reject the universal nature of the atonement.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Guillaume Williams We're not talking about atonement. We're talking about justification. 

Well in 2000 years it's a relative new term. I do believe it's been around for at least the last 100 years. So most of our lifetimes.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker If by UOJ you mean that Christ died for all and won forgiveness for all, then yes, you are talking about the atonement. If by UOJ you mean something else... I am genuinely concerned.

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker And yes, 100 years is VERY new, and should immediately raise red flags.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Guillaume Williams What synod do you belong to?

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Guillaume Williams It's fairly well accepted in the LCMS, WELS and ELS.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker What is fairly well accepted in LCMS, WELS, and ELS? The universal atonement? I agree, and confess that wholeheartedly. But if you're telling me that LCMS, WELS, and ELS confess that there are forgiven people in hell, I'm gonna have to ask you to cite your source.

What we're dealing with here is the difference between forgiveness WON and forgiveness RECEIVED. ELDoNA confesses with the rest of us that Christ won forgiveness for all. They also confess with the rest of us that forgiveness is received through faith. What they reject, and what all Lutheran bodies should reject, is the misuse of the term "justification" when applied to forgiveness WON, when it belongs to forgiveness RECEIVED.

So, that which you think UOJ means, I agree with. We confess the same thing: Christ won forgiveness for all on the cross. That to which ELDoNA objects as a body, and which many of us Lutherans in other synods reject as well, is the use of this new and foreign phrase "Universal Objective Justification." When you stop distinguishing between "Atonement" and "Justification" and decide to call both "Justification" thereby creating the necessity for the terms "Objective Justification" and "Subjective Justification" you create confusion.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker Again, if you assert that UOJ means something other than "Christ won forgiveness for all on cross" then I am indeed concerned, but would like to hear your definition before passing judgment.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Guillaume Williams Well, yes, that which is accepted in those bodies as objective justification which is detailed, I believe, in Pieper's dogmatics and published in most of their official publications. Btw, did you ever say to which synod to which you belonged. 

Eldona is in error concerning objective justification and the synod (whose name I don't recall at the moment) they used to be in fellowship or were they just talking did a fair job of answering of replying to Eldona's theses on justification.

I mean every objective proclamation of the Gospel through which the Holy Spirit creates and gives faith.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker Yes, I've read both ends of the debate between WELS and ELDoNA, I have friends and connections in both synods. I am well aware of how both sides are effectively saying the exact same thing, and getting angry over semantics. ELDoNA is not in error concerning Objective Justification, they just reject using such an obfuscating term, especially when this term, if taken to its ultimate extreme, either demands that ALL will be in heaven, or that forgiven people will be in hell. Since both of those conclusions contradict Scripture, it's best if we stick to terminology that is proven to work, and does not lead to this confusion.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker Again, what you mean by "UOJ" and what the words "UOJ" actually mean are two entirely different concepts. I don't disagree with you on the universality of the atonement, which is indeed what it appears you mean by UOJ. What I and many others have disagreed with is the improper use of the term UOJ to refer to the universal atonement, since the words "Universal Objective Justification" if understood simply, mean "All are right with God regardless of faith" and that is simply untrue.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Guillaume Williams There are those who teach erroneously UOJ in a manner which is in error.

But the Synods' (sic) listed above official publications and teachings concerning it are not. I suggest you go read those because you seem to only focused on those individuals who teach an extreme form of it.

Can you say with Paul, "God was in Christ Jesus reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them."?

or "God justifies the ungodly" or Rom 3:23-24 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) and [all] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,?

Now it is true, these things must be believed in order to benefit from them and without faith one remains under God's wrath.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Rolf Preus ELDoNA is in error. They also speak falsely about the teaching of others. Here are some things I encourage you to read. http://christforus.org/.../HermanAmbergPreusonJustificati...Manage

Herman Amberg Preus on Justification of World

CHRISTFORUS.ORG

1

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Rolf Preushttp://christforus.org/.../Justification%20and%20the...

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Rolf Preus http://christforus.org/objectivejustification.htmManage

objective justification

CHRISTFORUS.ORG

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker I'm focusing on the extreme error because the extreme error is the honest practice of UOJ. Those who hold to what you understand as UOJ are not holding to UOJ, but to the universal atonement.

Imagine there's a group of people who say "The sky is green...See More

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Rolf Preus In the second article linked above, "Justificaton and the Sacrament," check out footnote #25 on page 8 for documentation that ELDoNA distorts the teaching of my father, falsely claiming that he changed his teaching on the topic near the end of his life.

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker Pr. Preus, I never said ELDoNA spoke perfectly. I accuse both sides of misunderstanding the other. That's been the entire point I've been trying to make this whole time. Because of the obfuscating terminology of "Objective Justification" I have seen men who ought to be brothers, because in doctrine they confess the same thing, rip each other apart and say horrible things about each other (I hold WELS, ELS, and ELDoNA all equally accountable for nasty language on this, I am not playing favourites) all because of wording that leads to misunderstandings.

Now, please answer my question. Do you confess that there are forgiven people in hell?

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

David Charles Austin Becker as you wait for the answer for your question, let me as you one: are there people in hell whose sins were propitiated in Christ on the cross?

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker David Charles, I confess with every Lutheran of sound doctrine in the last 500 years, and every Christian of sound doctrine in the last 2,000 years, that Christ's death on the cross was for every human who ever lived, and that Christ WON forgiveness for all. There is not one soul for whom Christ did not die.

2

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

David Charles Austin Becker thank you for the clear answer. one more question: if the Lord Jesus suffered and paid the price of Judas betrayal as well as Peter's, if all the sins of all the people have been atoned for; that full satisfaction has been made to God's holy justice, then why do those in hell remain in hell?

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Rolf Preus The issue is really very simple. It is obfuscated by those who deny objective justification. John the Baptist said "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Did he? That's the issue.

6

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

David Charles Rolf Preus yes. but, there are something like a dozen ways the term "world" is used in Scripture. At any rate, thank you for the clear and thoughtful answers!

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

David Jay Webber This paper documents the fact that the actual doctrine of objective justification, correctly conceived, has always been a Lutheran doctrine, even if the terminology is relatively recent: http://redeemerscottsdale.angelfire.com/.../WebberEmmausC...

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

David Jay Webber Last year CPH published an English translation of the transcript of the debate between Jacob Andreae and Theodore Beza at the Colloquy of Montbeliard in 1586, under the title LUTHERANISM VS. CALVINISM. At this colloquy Andreae and Reformed theologian Theodore Beza debated the doctrines of the Lord’s Supper, the Person of Christ, Church Usages, Baptism, and Predestination. I am impressed by the way in which Andreae drew out from Beza various admissions that on their face are patently unbiblical, such as Beza’s belief that God does not love all people, only the elect. Here is an excerpt from Andreae’s comments on this point (which also, incidentally, can be seen to pertain to the subject of objective justification), on pp. 618-19:

<<...John 3[:16]: God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone who believes in him may not perish but rather have eternal life. ... In these words of Christ, what is undoubtedly and certainly understood by the term “THE WORLD,” in the judgment and unanimous consensus of all writers and interpreters of the holy Scripture, the old ones and the new ones, is the universal human race. But Christ himself is the best interpreter of his own words, and he confirms this in the same passage in very plain words when he says, This is the judgment: that light has come into the world, and the world loved darkness more than the light (John 3[:19]). Here the term THE WORLD cannot be interpreted about the elect only, but rather it is especially about those who are rejected and damned. For they love the darkness more than the light. And they are damned who, even though God so loved them that he gave his Son for them, nevertheless themselves despise and scorn this gift and are judged and damned on this account. John the Baptist confirms the same thing, who when he pointed out Christ, said, Behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1[:29]). OF THE WORLD, he says, not of the elect. Thus it is written in Romans 5[:10]: For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more will we, having been reconciled, be saved in his life. And 2 Corinthians 5: God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not counting their transgressions against them. And he placed in us the word of reconciliation. We function therefore as embassy for Christ, as God exhorting through us. We beg on Christ’s behalf: be reconciled to God.>>

2

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

John C. Drosendahl Austin Becker ELDoNA's argument seems to be with St. Paul in Romans who clearly applies the term "justification" to all.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 3d

Austin Becker I am attempting to interpret both sides of this debate charitably, and to assume nothing nefarious from either LCMS/WELS/ELS or ELDoNA. I am well aware of what both sides have to say about each other. What I am asking for is a simple answer to a simple question. Because I believe we all answer that question the same way, which is what convinces me this is a matter of terminology, not of actual doctrine.

Are there forgiven people in hell?

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d · Edited

Guillaume Williams define forgiven people.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Austin Becker Are there people in hell who have received the forgiveness of sins and so been declared "not guilty" before God?

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Guillaume Williams There is no one in hell who has faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins and who have received or retained the forgiveness of sins at the point of death.

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Austin Becker Good, then indeed we all agree. No one who has received and retained the forgiveness of sins is in hell. Then I maintain my affirmation that this argument comes down 100% to terminology and its implications, not to actual doctrinal differences.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

John C. Drosendahl Austin Becker, the problem you seem to be having is that you wish to equate terms which are not the same. "atoned for", "justified", "forgiven", and "saved" are all unique terms which have their own nuances and denotations. They are not synonyms.

2

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Guillaume Williams It has to do with what saving message can I proclaim to sinners to bring them to faith without falling into the Arminian trap of freewill and/or turning faith into work that saves us.

2

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

John C. Drosendahl Indeed, Guillaume. I don't know how ELDoNA folks can preach Paul's inspired words in Romans without robbing them of their God-given denotations.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Rolf Preus The critical question is whether Jesus took away the sin of the world. Did God forgive this entire world of sinners for the sake of Christ's vicarious suffering and death? The various soteriological terms entail each other. If the world is redeemed, the world is forgiven, and God is propitiated. To assert a univeral redemption while denying a universal justification is to change the meaning of redeem.

4

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Guillaume Williams Rolf Preus flesh that out a bit Rolf.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

David Jay Webber The Atonement does not simply make God to be neutral toward humanity rather than wrathful, until such time as individual humans repent and believe. It makes him to be forgiving toward humanity, in Christ.

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

David Jay Webber But of course, outside of Christ, God's wrath against human sin remains.

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d · Edited

Austin Becker Pr. Drosendahl, I do agree that these words are not synonyms. On that point, indeed on every point made by you, by Pr. Webber, and by everyone else in this discussion, you and I are in full agreement.

I think at this juncture, I am going to bow out of...See More

3

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Rolf Preus To redeem is to set free by the payment of the ransom price. Folks who claim to teach a universal redemption while denying universal justification will define redeem in such a way that it has Jesus making the payment but without effecting that for whi...See More

2

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

John C. Drosendahl It's both an expiation and a propitiation, is it not?

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Rolf Preus Yes. The one entails the other. Deniers of objective justification, however, are forced by that denial to redefine the various soteriological terms so as to avoid contradicting themselves.

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

David Jay Webber I used to think that this was also a mere battle over words, and a big misunderstanding. But, the men of ELDoNA have rejected clear, balanced, and Christ-centered presentations of objective justification, and not just the clumsy and poorly-worded versions. So, while I, too, have friends among ELDoNA pastors - including a particularly close friend - I also need to admit, sadly, that we have a doctrinal difference.

3

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d · Edited

Dave Schumacher "Are there forgiven people in Hell?"
There are only forgiven people in Hell. Christ took away the sins of the world.
Those in Hell did not believe.

3

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 2d

Dave Schumacher Austin Becker, you and I do not agree on what "Jesus won forgiveness for all" means.

Rolf Preus - did you read this book?

 Jay, have you studied the Book of Concord?
Please show some evidence of that, instead of quoting some obscure conference, Rev. Superficial.

 Boys, boys, the Formula of Concord commends this work
for those who want to study the topic of Justification more thoroughly. Has anyone on the forum read it carefully? 

 The Right Reverend Bishop James Heiser, STM, worked with the Rolf Synod, which zealously advocated UOJ. I challenged Heiser about Rolf's position, but he was indifferent. He said, "They will get rid of Rolf." And they did.

Here is another ELDONA-Rolf Synod joint meeting,
published by Heiser, who told me that he recognized the error of UOJ after he read Thy Strong Word in 2000.

 Here is a primer for those who want to know basic Lutheran, Biblical doctrine.

 This is a good movie about the actual (still lost) Lost Dutchman's Goldmine, which too many Lutherans pursue via Thrivent and various foundations.  They lay up for themselves treasures on earth, as St. Marvin Schwan did.