Those who have faith in Christ are the ones reconciled to God

I have been reading through Colossians lately as part of my daily devotions, often called "quiet time".
This passage spoke anew to me - Colossians 1

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

When we see the connection of v.20, 21 w v.23  it is plain that those who are in faith and continues in the faith (the assumption here is faith in the atonement, v.22 of Christ) are the ones that enjoy the present reality of being reconciled to God. This faith is the one produced by the hearing of the Gospel, the good news that Christ has died to pay for sins. It is beautiful to see here that the Gospel, faith and reconciliation neatly tied together in one paragraph.

Hitler Loses The Univeral Objective Justification (UOJ) War

HT: Dr. Gregory Jackson of Ichabod The Glory Has Departed.

I almost died laughing.

The favourite UOJ Gambit - Faith In Faith

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Timothy 1:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

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

Corollary Proof from St. Mark - Faith in Christ Is Forgiveness of Sins

It is understood in Christendom that 'justification' is tantamount to the forgiveness of sins. All major Christian streams, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants agree essentially that when one is  justified, one is forgiven. Where they differ is how that justification occurs. Except for Reformation based Protestants, the others teach a mixing of faith + works to be justified.

In the Lutheran confessions we have these words...

"86] But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26. We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30."
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

Further...

71] But when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it of the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of justification or preparation for justification, so that not faith itself is that through which we are accepted by God, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, That Faith in Christ Justifies.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php

I offer further proof that the Lord Jesus Himself taught that faith in him is justification and so is also forgiveness of sins when we look at how the BoC view repentance.

In the Apology, Article XII (V) on Repentance, the Apology broke repentance into two parts - contrition for sin and faith in Christ.

In Mark 4, Jesus spoke the parable of the sower and the seeds. His disciples asked what this parable meant and why he spoke to the people in parables. He replied...

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

The word used for converted is EPISTREPHO, meaning to turn around and so to repent.  A few more points...

1. Repentance results in the forgiveness of sins. So says Jesus and repentance is contrition of sins and faith in Christ, so says the BoC.
2. Repentance occurs through the Word. Note that repentance is linked to understanding the mystery of the Word, i.e. in this case the parable. Jesus said that to the disciples it is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God, to understand his Word.
3. Clearly then, repentance comes from the Word. Since this comes no other way except through the Word of Christ, repentance is never the work of Man and is completely in a different category from works.
4. If we observe faith, it is really an amazing thing. It is really of a divine origin to see when someone believes or trusts in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. There is indeed a mysterious aspect of faith in Christ. See John 20:29, how blessed are people who have not seen yet believe in Christ. It is not a trivial matter no matter how many times we see it often in Christians.

This passage dispels many UOJ gambits. It dispels the UOJ contention that if you do not believe in UOJ, then you must believe that faith is a work of Man. It dispels the idea that man can repent before the Word is proclaimed, i.e., before the Means of Grace is applied. It also dispels the UOJ error that everyone is forgiven before repentance, before they could believe, before they were born.

Quoting the BoC Fathers?...That's a no no!

HT:Ichabod.

A few weeks ago, Rev. Paul Rydecki wrote a fine essay entitled  The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace in the Theology of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy: A Reflection on Atonement and Its Relationship to Justification

In this well written paper, Rydecki quoted Scripture and from the Concordian Fathers that Atonement and Justification are not one and the same thing. It should be admitted that they are related but that does not mean the two are one identical. Rydecki's paper is filled with the statements of the orthodox Lutheran fathers that showed that from their perspective, atonement and justification are not equivalent concepts where one can be used as a substitute for the other. The action of God in the Atonement is not a simultaneous action that God has Justified the whole world ALREADY right there and then.

Now we have been pointing this difference of concept to universal objective justification (UOJ) adherents for many years. Such a category mistake results in confusion, and lots of it. Let me name one right off the hat...

It makes the Means of Grace, that is right, Baptism, The Word, and the Sacrament (Lord's Supper) merely symbolic and thus Zwinglian. It other words, the Means of Grace does not confer justification when it is used and applied. They thus do not confer the present grace of Justification.

Take the case of Baptism. Here, it becomes a reminder of a Justification that has already occurred before the individual is baptised. It becomes a memorial. The same is true for the Lord's Supper, it becomes a memorial of a Justification that has already occurred. Likewise the Word does not convert but tells you to believe the Justification that has already occurred before you were born, before you could hear. These are all contrary to Scripture, for example, Romans 6:1-4, Psalm 19:7, etc.

What would the famous UOJ promoter, the late C. F. W. Walther might say about the wisdom of quoting the BoC fathers, if he were alive today?

Normal people might consider what Rydecki did a reasonable procedure but Walther would have considered Rydecki a very naughty boy.

Here is what he said when he was being challenged in his doctrine of Election...

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

In a typical cultic fashion Walther dismissed the words of the BoC fathers assuming that they were wrong, ... because they disagreed with his innovative view.

In cult like fashion, ala Samuel Huber, Walther did not bother to argue what might the said father meant but rather he dismissed their words as something that should not be taken seriously, a none event. That shows you the attitude of Walther towards his critics. Huber did the same, he purported to know more than the Wittenberg Reformers even charging them of Calvinism, the ideology he claimed he eschewed.

When it comes to UOJ, even UOJ famous proponents admit that it could not be found in the BoC. All of the said portions where UOJ is said to appear in the BoC is what might be called pareidolia (Google it).  It is just like finding a rat amongst the rocks in mars or like seeing the Virgin Mary in a tortilla corn chip.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

There is the fallacy of misreading Romans 4:25.

A fish is caught through its mouth.

UOJ - the source of antinomianism

UPDATED:
I have Evangelical friends in USA. I felt their shock when I told them I have become Lutheran.
What I know horrified them was the thought I have become antinomian. These friends of mine seeing Lutherans in their midst and how they behave, believe that Lutherans are antinomians.

To them, they are "anything goes" Christians. Well of course, anything will go. For if you have been taught that God has ALREADY forgiven you before you were born, before you even believe and before even the Sacraments got applied to you, why won't anything go? Why won't anything go if you are forgiven even before you could repent and even believe? What sin is there that would make you uneasy when that sin has already been forgiven even before you commit it? Nothing.

UOJ does not produce trust, or Biblical faith. Rather it produces assent similar to what the Devil has, an agreement. Notice how UOJers malign faith. Sometimes, I sense their real hatred for the concept.

Since UOJ does not produce faith and since it is to them believing already what is there, it does not bring a change in the one who has "faith". So by Biblical teaching, the faith they speak of does not justify and since there is no justification and there is no consequent sanctification. Hence antinomianism.

If there are American Lutherans who are bothered by the antinomianism in their camp, they should look at the tree,  and examine its fruit.

UPDATE:
Let me categorically say that lest you think antinomianism is my MAJOR objection to UOJ, then you are absolutely wrong about me. My MAJOR objection to UOJ is simple - it is CONTRARY to the Scripture and the Confessions. Antinomianism is just one of the fruits of a MAJOR error. For as can be expected false doctrine leads to false behavior.

Faith alone justifies

I am very much impressed with the scholarship shown by Rev. Paul Rydecki.

In case you have not realised yet, Pr. Rydecki started a blog of his own and he entitled his blog
Faith Alone Justifies. Click on the link to be directed there.

I have read some of Pr. Paul's expositions and how he handles the Biblical text. He is brutally honest and that what makes an exegete competent in his work. A quick survey of what Lutheran pastors and theologians are doing in the Anglo world will reveal that majority of them are into Historic Theology followed by few who are into Systematic Theology. You can count with your fingers the Lutheran scholars and pastors that are into Exegetical Theology and that is a shame.

These disciplines have their place but a church body that have no focus in Exegetical Theology becomes weak and will not be able to jump in to resolving controversies.

This is the reason why UOJ gained further ground in the Western Lutheran churches; the Lutherans there have thought that all exegetical issues are now moot and void, since C. F. W. Walther has spoken. So what is happening today? Well we have what might be called theology by proxy. What I mean is that they do not do the hard work of going deeper in interpreting the Biblical text, what they do is just find out what so called authority said on a topic and by default they adopt the pontifications of that so called "accepted authority". It is a type of Romanism in a small scale. So the Lutherans pick their own little pope like Walther and find out what he said and then settle the question based on that.

This is so far from what Luther did. Indeed scholars I read say that one of the many contributions of Luther was the use of the grammatico-historical method of finding out what the text of Scriptures say. In other words, putting the text into its context and drawing out the meaning of the text based on that.

This is one of the reasons that the Synodic Lutheran is thrown to and fro by any wind of doctrine that comes along, Eph 4:14. They have done their theology by proxy rather than doing it on their own. You do not need to be a Greek expert to handle the Scripture, you just need a faithful translation.

Going back to Pr. Rydecki's work, I find it a joy to read his expositions and translations. This is my opinion: between the work of Dr. Jack Kilcrease (who admits that UOJ practices equivocation) and Rev. Paul Rydecki, the latter exhibits sound and trustworthy scholarship in my book. So I would go to Rev. Rydecki's insights all the time and pray God keeps him trustworthy.

Will the real oddball please stand up?

I, along with Dr. Jackson, the Ichabod, have been called an oddball by a Lutheran Internet blogger. The actual quote by Martin Yee can be found here, at Beggars All Reformation run by a good Internet acquaintance, James Swan.

No one calls you an oddball unless the person is opposed to what you stand for and since I am known as an anti-UOJ, I can only assume that the gentleman who called me by that label must be pro-UOJ. I am not deluded in thinking I am well liked by people, I am not. Now,  I have been to his blog and I could not detect if he has his own articulation of UOJ since most of his posts are bits and pieces of items normally from various authors, i.e., theologians or scholars, and since he recommended to James Swan to read Marquart on UOJ, I can safely assume Yee accepts the authority of the UOJ masters.

So let me consider some of the creative ways UOJers are using Scripture to promote the idea that all have already been justified, declared righteous and hence, forgiven automatically at the Cross.

The first attempt was in Romans 4:25. In this post I have outline why their favorite verse does not teach their theory but rather that if an individual swallows such interpretation, he/she must swallow other inconsistencies against Scripture. Indeed, this is where the Synodic Lutherans of USA are quite peculiar to the rest of the Lutheran world. In fact, they are peculiar also to the rest of the Protestant world.  Only the subscribers to UOJ take Romans 4:25 to mean that by that verse the whole world even those yet to be born are already justified.

The second one is Colossians 2:14 found in this blog post by a member of Steadfast Lutherans [sic] (so they call themselves) found here.  Let me repeat what was said and let me put my emphasis on a bad interpretation of Col 2:14

This is to say, there would be nothing real for faith to receive and cling to. When we talk about the objective nature of justification, the terms used relate to Christ’s work as it satisfies the legal requirements of the Law with the whole of mankind in view. That is, the record of debt against the world, with all its legal demands, has been blotted out (Col 2:14), the sins of the world absolved, and this pardon is now freely offered to all in the Word and Sacraments. Some will receive through God given faith this gift to their joy, while others will sadly continue to reject this gift to their own damnation (Mark 16:16)

I have reacted to this interpretation and you will find my counter discussion of this found in my posts, here and here. I have continued to reflect on this passage over the past months and in this occasion I shall add more argument why Col 2:14 is being misused in that quote.

According to Pierce, by virtue of Col 2:14, all legal demands against the world are gone; the Law has no more teeth to bite anyone. Something fishy is going on in here because the word “world” is being used without qualification.  Is this true, that the world has already been absolved of the Law’s demands? If so, why do we baptize anyone? Scripture says that sin is transgression against the Law. If the Law has no more claims on anyone, even perhaps a Christian, why do we confess our sins and why do we have the promise that if we confess them God, cleanses and forgives (1 John 1:9)?

If we read the whole context of Col 2:14, i.e, verses 8-14 inclusive we see that St. Paul was referring to the Christian, it is only to the Christian where the demands of the Law have been thwarted because as v.12 says he/she has been baptized, meaning the sinner has been incorporated into Christ by that Means of Grace. St. Paul was addressing the Christian living in Colossia. The thwarting of the Law’s demands happens only to the believer and not to the whole world without qualification.

This is sometimes where I find how UOJers are like Calvinists in the reverse order. When the Bible uses pronouns, like “us”, we” and they are a referent to the Christian, the UOJer interprets it to mean the whole human race. On the other hand when the pronouns “us”, “we” as a generic referent to the human race, the Calvinists confine it to believers.   It is only through the JBFA Lutheran that I find there is consistency and respect for the language of Scripture.

Scripture interprets Scripture, in fact according to St. Paul which I have stated in the said posts, it is the Christian who is not under the Law, because he is now under grace -  Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Who is now under grace? It is the believer, the sinner who trusts in Christ. It is the one united with Christ who is freed from the claims of the Law because he/she has died with Christ in baptism. The Law has no more claim on dead people yet only those in whom the Means of Grace have been applied are the ones declared dead by St. Paul in Romans 6.

So here once again, we see a peculiar way of taking Scripture found in Col 2:14.

Please do not get me started on Ephesians 2:15.  Luckily no one has yet attempted to say the same thing in the Ephesian passages.

So I say, who is the real oddball here? The UOJ Lutheran or the JBFA Lutheran?

UOJers are Huberites, their denials are futile

In the book Theses Opposed to Huberism, by Dr. Aegidus Hunnius, translated by Rev. Paul A. Rydecki from the Latin, here is what the translator says about Dr. Samuel Huber, the Reformed/Calvinist turned Lutheran who ended up being dismissed by well known orthodox Lutherans of his day,...

Rev. Rydecki writes in the preface:

Most  notably,  reacting to  Calvinism's  double predestina tion, Huber began to teach that God had elected all men in eternity to salvation  ("universal  election"), and  that  God had  not only redeemed the entire human race through the substitutionary death of Christ  (which  the  Lutheran theologians also  taught), but  that God, for the sake  of the merits of Christ,  had also  justified  the entire  human race,  apart from  faith  ("universal  justification").   In spite  of his teachings of universal election and  justification,  Huber appears never to have reached the conclusion of modern  Universalism  that the entire  human  race will eventually be received into eternal  life.  He continued  to insist  that  faith was essential for obtaining eternal salvation and that a person who rejected the Gospel would thereby forfeit the justification already pronounced upon the human race.

When  Huber's  novel terminology  and  doctrine  were  re jected by the faculty at Wittenberg,  Huber then  began to accuse his colleagues, especially Leyser and Hunnius, of Calvinism. When no reconciliation  could be achieved even after the intervention of foreign theologians,  Huber was dismissed  from his professorship at Wittenberg and banished  from the country in 1595.   Nevertheless, his polemical writings and public accusations against the fac­ ulty at Wittenberg continued  for several  years, prompting  inter­ mittent  responses by both Leyser and Hunnius 

Observe the UOJer's position:

a.) They deny they are universalist, just like Huber.

b.) They affirm that the human race have been justified universally, apart from faith, just like Huber. See their synodical statements, you will find they teach in effect that God has declared the world already righteous in Christ. Just ask them if man by virtue of Romans 4:25 (their favorite mishandled verse) have been declared righteous already, apart from faith.

c.) When confronted of making faith of no consequence, they deny that too, and like Huber insist on faith, and its lack forfeit the one stated in b.)

Observe further, UOJers call pejoratively their critics as Calvinists, just like Huber!  Observe too how UOJers insists on UOJ/OJ/SJ terminology! Even Robert Preus, prior to his Justification and Rome book insisted on these categories and terms too! You can read their blabbering on this terminology - just wander of at Steadfast Lutheran (Waltherian) blog.

Now ask yourself the question, if Huber (and  by extension UOjers)  was correct on justification, why did the signers and editors of the Book of Concord banish him from their company?

Of course, when you tell UOJers they are Huberites they find this truth hard to swallow and so they deny they are. They play blind. 

Isn't there truth in the saying, if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck?

Now please do not get me started on Hunnius' Thesis #1, because the more there the UOJer will be indicted by that thesis and their denial will show they are exercising sophistry.

UOJers deny they are Huberites at Steadfast Waltherians

I read with amusement the discussion happening at this plog post here.
[Update: Forget it, they closed down the comments, the moderator spat the dummy. I suppose they were forced to bite the dust.]
You might recall that the moderator of Steadfast Waltherians has got me banned from commenting in that website.

So I read that these UOJers are claiming they are different from Huber because they have this so called dual distinction of Universal Justification and Subjective Justification. Huber according to one Rev. Martin Diers said did not have that distinction.

The first point is - show us from Scripture where this Universal Justification being taught,  respecting the meaning of the term Justification as understood from Scripture and by the BoC signers. Justification, please recall means - to be declared righteous. This is tantamount to being declared forgiven.

Please note that the Atonement is not the same as Justification. I have written about this countless times in this blog. Atonement is not the same as Justification unless you are a UOJer and by default you want it to be.

Accordingly then if I may surmise in the comments, UOJers are not Huberites because Huber only had one scheme but they have two.

I think Huber was being more consistent with his assumption of having a Universal Justification rather than the Waltherians. Indeed, if Huber was right that there is a Universal Justification, then of course by necessity of reason and common sense logic - Subjective Justification is superfluous.

Please note, that in here right in this blog we have on record comments from UOJ pastors claiming that that for the UOJ the object of faith is NOT the ATONEMENT. The object of faith is that declaration that has happened 2000 years ago for you (so they tell me) before you were born at either (depending on who you speak to ) at Jesus' death at the Cross or at His resurrection from the tomb.

They have the license to go -- beyond Scripture and the Confessions

HT: Ichabod

Here is proof that the Huberite (UOJ) fanatics believe, in their typical antinomian fashion, they have the right to go beyond what Scripture teaches and beyond what the Lutheran Confessions teach...

This the typical double talk one finds in the UOJ Huberite world. First it says "We are not restricted to those doctrines laid down in our confessions". Then it proceeds to explain that the 1577 framers went beyond the Agustana and the Apology. In sophistry, that first sentence is what is called the set-up. It set things up for you to swallow the forthcoming fallacious argument. Meaning if the framers can do it, then you and they can do it too. Thus if they (the Synodics and UOJ teachers) are found doing so, they have the same equal right to do what the framers did. What is not being said is that the framers never went beyond Scripture but in fact, the framers articulated Scripture.

How does this quote relate to the freedom of Huberites (UOJers) to stitch doctrine as they go along. Listen to Daniel Deutschlander's statement from his essay found at Ichabod here

Our Lutheran Confessions have no separate article on Objective Justification; the closest we can come to a paragraph of formulation for this doctrine is in Article IX of the Formula of Concord, under the doctrine of election. But even that is not really sufficient or suitable for stating the orthodox position in a clear and unequivocal manner. For our Fathers it was not difficult at all to consider objective and subjective justification under the same heading, and they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them. But such was and remained the case only so long as the orthodox had a clear understanding of the nature of faith; once that understanding was gone, it became necessary (at the end of the last century) to begin making such as distinction. (A possible reason for the loss of such an understanding we shall consider below in Part III.) But having said all that, we shall not go wrong in assuming that, had we asked then for it, they would have had little difficulty in making the distinction; indeed, given their clear and concise formulations on faith and its relation to justification, one can only conclude that they considered the distinction all but self-evident. We take note of this silence in the Confessions at this point and on this matter, lest someone charge us with indifference to the problem, or ignorance of its existence, or failure to take it into account

In short, we have a couple of admissions from well respected speakers on behalf of Modern Huberites (UOJ teachers and adherents). We have clear evidence here of a.) mis-representation of what the framers of the BoC did, and b.) a direct admission that they are arguing from silence.


Now, I would like to put out a challenge to the Modern Huberite (UOJer) readers of this blog, I wonder who would be the first of their kind to denounce their fellow UOJer's blatant admissions - the admissions of Rev. Wayne Mueller or Prof. Daniel Deutschlander?