Monday, April 16, 2012

Discussing UOJ to a UOJer

Discussing UOJ to a UOJer quickly leads to disgusting turn of events. Invariably, I and others in Team JBFA eventually get told off that we are being insulting. Eventually they are offended at our words.

What a neat trick.

Instead of dealing with the substance of the arguments, the table is turned. The problem is suddenly shifted no more to the contradictory ideas found in UOJ, rather the issue is on those who are arguing against it. Obviously there is no point continuing to talk if all it becomes is an exercise in trading insults. I too would see no value in that. In fact, lately, I shutdown the comments in one of the threads as it was soon becoming that way, boring.

However, when the discussion is focused on the contradictory phenomenon produced by UOJ, such as its portrayal of God in absurd terms, personal accusations of lying soon surfaces. Are we being insulting or perhaps that is the nature of UOJ itself, to produce absurdities?

Another is the accusation that Team JBFA misunderstands the proper teaching of UOJ. If that is the case, perhaps they should speak in such a way that they are clearly understood. Perhaps they should take on responsibility that may be their manner of speaking is purposely contrary to the language of Scripture that is causing people to be confused. We certainly know from where confusion comes from, and it is not from God, so says St. Paul.

Frankly, I do not believe Team JBFA misunderstood them. In actuality they have been understood properly and their dodging leads them to tiredness and in exasperation. I do not blame them, I would be exasperated too if all I did was to patch a hole into every absurdity in my position my critics show me.

Additionally, I could not care less on the use of objective/subjective categories which they promote. I have no need of such paradigm. I came to the realisation that Jesus died for my sins without such categories. I certainly have no use of such paradigms.

Both camps agree that UOJ is not evident in the Book of Concord. It is amazing that the most crucial document of the Reformation where in the issue at that time was how a person was made right with God, no such categories were employed by the Reformers. Their rallying cry was justification by faith alone (JBFA), it would have been fitting to have clarified UOJ then, not in terminology of course, but also in concept. Yet both camps - UOJers and anti-UOJers agree that the BoC is silent on this matter. That should ring bells and should be suspect but no, such information does not avail. Facts do not really change people's opinion when a conviction has already gripped them.


joel in ga said...

Christians of all people should be able to discuss a topic with equanimity. Do you suppose it is the 'offended brother' factor that makes these exchanges so prickly?

LPC said...


It is the emotional commitment to a teaching that gets in the way of sound and proper discussion of topic.

What happens is that the conviction comes in first because to the person, the teaching makes rational sense.

I think the best procedure is to hold a teaching at bay until you have thoroughly researched the issue from Scripture and then from the Confession. Hence, all bets are off. In this stage in my life, I hold no one precious except Jesus and the Apostles. I now have no interest in defending any holy men, even from Lutheranism.


Brett Meyer said...

There are exceptions to this rule but I believe it stands on it's own. That is, those with true Faith in Christ, worked graciously by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace (Word and Sacrament) have the Holy Spirit, Christ in them and there is a level of calm assurance given them when they are faithfully defending and teaching God's Word purely. Scripture teaches that it is the Holy Spirit who works in true Christians to do of His good will. Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. After all, it is God's Word which they are faithfully defending - it is Christ that the opposing view is contending against, waring against - and therefore there's no need to become personally offended during the most heated discussions.

For those who are defending and promoting the doctrines created by man's rational mind - Universal Objective Justification (UOJ) being chief among them - they war against Christ, they do not have the calm assurance of the Holy Spirit in them and therefore the disagreement and discussion quickly disintegrate into what they perceive as personal attacks - which is only natural since their doctrine's source and confirmation is in their personal, rational mind.

In Christ,

LPC said...

In our discussion where we have both participated, I could detect a sense of insecurity on some that faith might not be there. So in order for it not to be the problem, the best solution which is often chosen is to eliminate it as a condition for justification.

How many times we have heard the shock of those who could not accept that the Scripture teaches that those who believe are the only ones saved.

Walther promoted an agnostic epistemology amongst Lutherans, that is he encouraged the view that we can not know if we have faith, if we are doing works inspired by the spirit. Yet this is what the Scripture is teaching us not to do, John 20:31.

We should follow wherever the Scripture might lead us, even it that means abandoning sacred held beliefs of former days. This becomes a clash of loyalties.


Gregory L. Jackson said...

The Book of Concord repudiates UOJ in every possible way. There is not a single favorite passage or claim in UOJ that was not destroyed in advance by Luther and the Concordists.

Every so often a UOJ fanatic will say, "Oh! Oh! I found UOJ in the Book of Concord." And it is not UOJ but an Atonement passage. Usually the Atonement is followed by a clear statement of justification by faith and the condemnation of justification without faith.

Moreover, the immediate post-Concord era was plague by the claims of Huber, whose UOJ was soundly thwacked. P. Leyser did a good job on Huber, and Leyser was an editor of the Book of Concord, the biographer of Chemnitz.

Too bad the UOJ Hive attended such weak schools that they did not know this.

LPC said...

Tantrums, that what we get and foaming in the mouth hurling dire warnings that we should repent.

You tell them about fallacies and they are just like water off a duck's back, they have no clue what a fallacy is.

Walther's rationalism has got them in his grip, the swallowed Walther's idea of faith, that something has to exist first before it can be believed.


Gregory L. Jackson said...

Walther was first involved in a truly abusive Pietistic cell. He was close to dying from the legalistic demands of his dungeon-master. When that man moved and died, Walther and his group lined up with Bishop Stephan, who demanded absolute obedience to him forced all dissenters to submit to his authority (long before the famous bishop's election). Walther simply took over the model he had followed in his adult spiritual life, which was exclusively Pietistic. How did this make Walther the ultimate expert on Lutheran doctrine? His closest allies on justification are Knapp (the Pietist from Halle University) and Huber (the Calvinist turned semi-Luther).

LutherRocks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gregory L. Jackson said...

UOJ disciples are fond of "kilcreasing," removing their posted comments.

LPC said...

...and Kilcrease would be one of the people I won't like to be associated with. LOL.


Gregory L. Jackson said...

To kilcrease is one of those rare verbs which can be used both ways, because entire blogs have been kilcreased only to re-appear and kicreased again. Future grammarians will determine that kilcreasing is a dynamic process of erasing, reposting and erasing again. Tim Glende has broken new ground in kilcreasing, with others following.

Brett Meyer said...

In the space of 21 comments Joe Krohn in the defense of his confession of UOJ on his blog has - started the discussion, stopped commenting, restarted commenting and has now shut down all comments.

Very similar to what this post is asserting. UOJ is the antithesis of security and comfort because it rejects Scripture, elevates man's reason above God's Word and Christ in all of it's teachings.

LPC said...

Afraid of the Scriptural truth, UOJers have no recourse but to cut and run, and bad mouth you in the meantime as they leave.

When confronted about universalistic statements, they claim you are twisting their words when in fact, they are being dishonest by the way they use theirs.

Leaves me no choice but to blog about this.


Gregory L. Jackson said...

The latest "study" at The CORE (where UOJ is championed) is from Craig Groeschel, as far as I can tell. That is, the Methodist has a book with the same title and a description that matches the series at The CORE.

And the fake blog from Glende raves about UOJ being Lutheran orthodoxy.

Now they can read 8 volumes of Luther for free, day or night. People can judge whether Glende and Ski are closer to Luther or Groeschel!

I have two books on modern justification, from Braaten and Mattes. I will see if I can find some parallels to UOJ, if I can stand to read their turgid prose. There is nothing worse than a tenured academic theologian.

Gregory L. Jackson said...

Follow up -

WELS church lady said...

Glende and Ski need serious help! These brothers have been exploited by the Powers That Be! There are some dangerous people out there!

In Christ,

LPC said...

Hi Rebecca,

They are absolutely dangerous indeed. We have already seen how nasty they can get. At the Fake Ichabod, they even impersonated BM to make it appear that he was the one commenting.

Let us face it, people love UOJ because it makes sin of no account, one can live an antinomian life and still have no qualms about it.


Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel said...


You stated as part of your response to the first comment, - the following:

"..........In this stage in my life, I hold no one precious except Jesus and the Apostles. I now have no interest in defending any holy men, even from Lutheranism."

Nice! Spot on! Well spoken! You have your head screwed on tightly!

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel

LPC said...

Hi Pr. Nathan,

The holding no one sacred except for Jesus and his apostles came to me through lots of sad experiences.


Gregory L. Jackson said...

LPC, as Luther said, it is good to be disappointed in man, because our loyalty should be first and foremost to the Word of God. So many start with family, friends, professors, and Holy Mama Church. Very little is left for the Word. Luther's comment on glosses is great, because he states that every great passage in the Bible has glosses attached by the great and wise professors.

LPC said...

Pr. Greg,

Jer 17:5-8 is one of the verses that speaks to me often.

UOJers deep down know faith is an issue, so to not be confronted by it, they have defined it out of the salvation equation.

We call this, elimination by definition.

So it is much easier to put our trust in men, so you find them defending their favorite UOJ teachers and hating the people their teachers hate - like R. H. Lenski.


LutherRocks said...

As Dr. Jackson has stated regarding theologians...he values them on the account of 'the deader the better'. In such regard, Lenski should be disregarded...since he is not the deader as some other theologians are. There is a reason why Lenski has been disregarded by most...his take on Romans 5 and 8 in the least regards him as a synergist and an Arminian.

LPC said...

A wiseman said that you will know the character of the man not by the friends he keeps but by the enemies who hate him.

If we notice, it is only the Huberites who love to malign the scholarship of Lenski. If one goes to study a sem course on Romans, no matter what seminary it might be, Lenski's commentary will be a standard reference. Evangelicals and Calvinists respect his work and regards his work as a fair and formidable commentary. They all recognize this so much so that reformed baptist apologist James White had to write something on Romans 9 to counter the strength of Lenski's exegesis.

But who hates Lenski? Jesus said a prophet is not recognized by his own country, so who hates him? Not the evangelicals and Calvinists, but UOJ Huberites who call themselves Lutherans.

Most of these haters have second hand knowledge, they do not even dare quote him to show his oversight, because they have never really read him. That is why we just have accusations here and there, no quotes of Lenski's mis speaking , just bogus claims.

LutherRocks said...

Of course Evangelicals and Calvinists love I said, he was an Arminian and a synergist.

LPC said...

Have we noticed the commenter does not quote Lenski himself? Why? Because as typical of Huberite has not read Lenski himself! They are afraid to read him because Lenski rejects UOJ and they are afraid they might do that too.

They can not handle the truth.

As typical of Huberites they just accuse and what is more they use the words of their favorite teachers.

Studying a critic of Lenski is not the same as studying Lenski yourself. As the saying goes, the Huberites judge a man before they could even hear him,

As typical, they carry the arguments of their teachers so therefore, their faith is in man and not on what the Scripture says.

If you are going to demolish Lenski, it won't give you credibility by picking up the arguments of his critics who have personal motivation for discrediting him, the authors you present are Huberites themselves. Of course they have a personal axe to see Lenski demolished because Lenski's exegesis decimates the Huberite UOJ myth.

Huberites know full well that their position is that of Samuel Huber a misguided theologian rejected by BoC signers and editors, so all they can do is kick Lenski, making him as their wiping boy.

They are hoping against hope that if they discredit Lenski, they thereby establish the validity of the teaching of their master - Samuel Huber the originator of UOJ.


LutherRocks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LutherRocks said...

From the Formula under "Election":

"15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life. (LR-This is the general, universal, objective justification of the human race i. e. the world...justification from the objective perspective. The Concordists by your definition then were Huberites Mr. 'It's Outside of Us' blog host?)

16] 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments.

17] 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith.

18] 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life. (LR-Justification by Faith Alone OR justification from the subjective perspective...subjective justification.)

It is finished...the banquet(gift-the forgiveness of all men's sins to be received in faith) is prepared and awaits on God's table...

From Matt. 22 "And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants1 to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.” ’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, wtreated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and bgathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests."

Many are called...few are chosen. God would not call all men if He did not have provenance for them.

LPC said...

You made several mad assertions of this is that hermeneutics here... you said

(LR-This is the general, universal, objective justification of the human race i. e. the world...justification from the objective perspective. The Concordists by your definition then were Huberites Mr. 'It's Outside of Us' blog host?)


(LR-Justification by Faith Alone OR justification from the subjective perspective...subjective justification.)

Me: Don't be so ridiculous. You are exhibiting the same absurdity of Huber in the use of your terminology. What is outside of us is the Righteousness of Christ, being declared righteous is Justification, which is different from the Righteousness of Christ. Justification is what God does to those who believe in Jesus' merit of atoning for the sins of the world. Whereas OJ as defined by your new Synod which claims and you believe that Scripture teaches that God has ALREADY declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ,, just like Huber.

In fact in your testimony in your own blog, you agree that the object of faith is that justification that already has happened to individuals before they could believe, as taught by Jay Webber. You are on record on this.

So, I know you are trying to be funny, and it is working.

Give us more laughs, we need it in times like this.

LutherRocks said...

Scripture and the Confessions say that God reconciled the whole human race to Himself in Christ. That means that the issue (debt of sin) has been settled and resolved. God either saves a man on account of this or a man rejects it.

You are denying Scripture and the Confessions.

Laugh it up, fuzzball.

LPC said...

Me a fuzz ball?

Thank you for coming to this thread. You illustrate well the topic of this post.

The issue between UOJ/Huberism and JBFA people is not about Jesus death as payment for sins, the issue is if at his death or resurrection, God declared the whole world ALREADY righteous in Christ also. The issue is upon the Huberites where from Scripture this is found. Also with maximum offense to you, and I hope you are dearly offended, better known UOJ teachers than you concede that UOJ is not found in the BoC.

Yes, I am LOLing, if only you could hear it.


LutherRocks said...

"Also with maximum offense to you, and I hope you are dearly offended, better known UOJ teachers than you concede that UOJ is not found in the BoC."

I know this is a tired comparison...but it still your logic then we should throw out the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Athanasian Creed. Many teachers greater than both of us have conceded that scripture does not speak that way.

LPC said...

I know this is a tired comparison...but it still works...

It sure is tired, worn out and it does not work.
Many teachers greater than both of us have conceded that scripture does not speak that way

I wonder who these teachers are. UOJ is not found in Scripture as a term and neither is it found there as an idea. It is a poor attempt to give it a status equal to the Trinity.

Dogs may bark, but the trains keeps moving.
-Paul Keating.

You have won the prestige and honor of not being taken seriously.

Dogs may bark, but the train keeps moving.
-Paul Keating.

Keep on barking,