Hunnius proves Steadfast Waltherians are Huberites

UOJers, all of them, teach that there is a justification that has occurred 2000 years ago to the whole human race. Since this occurred before you were born, then this occurred outside of faith. They call this objective justification.

What is the favorite Scripture they use to promote this?

 It is Romans 4:25. They believe right here in this verse, St. Paul is teaching a justification that occurred without any reference to faith

 Here is an example.

 1.) From again Steadfast Waltherian group found here, Jim Pierce writing:

In wrapping up my answer, we can talk about the entire human race, or the world, being justified—just as the Scriptures do (Ro 4:25)—as the action God took in response to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead where the Law is concerned

2.) From my interaction with one adherent of UOJ:

ME: "Joe it is different because Brett and I do not believe in the starting point that there is justification that has happened FOR all men without faith or without regard to faith. That is difference. The difference is that we do not posit or assert a universal justification." 
Joe: You are speaking against Romans 4:25.

3.) Again from a post just recently by a Steadfast Waltherian blogger found here. To prove the existence of an objective justification that occurred outside of faith, the blogging pastor says this (apparently taken from Francis Pieper):

Romans 4:25: He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. “To refer to the words: Who was raised again for our justification,” to the so-called subjective justification, which takes place by faith, not only weakens the force of the words, but also violates the context.”3

It is evident just from the sampling on how Romans 4:25 is being used that without a doubt, UOJers in general and the Steadfast Waltherians in particular believe in a justification that occurred without reference to faith.

What does Aegidius Hunnius say?


Hunnius : 
Thesis 6
Hence Paul, when he expressly discusses justification in Romans 3 and 4, does not know of a justification apart from faith, and especially as Galatians 2 plainly says, "Man is not justified except by faith in Jesus Christ."


Did you read that? According to Hunnius, in Romans 3 and 4, St. Paul DOES NOT KNOW OF A JUSTIFICATION APART FROM FAITH.

Since UOJers are quoting Romans 4:25 to prove this, and obviously verse 25 is part of Romans 4,  these people I quoted above KNOW of a justification without faith.  Here Hunnius, a well known old orthodox Lutheran assails them or they boldly contradict him.

This is where American Synodic Lutherans are peculiar to the rest of the Protestant world.  It is only they who take Romans 4:25 that way. They are also peculiar amongst the rest of the Lutheran world! According to Bruce Church if we count the Lutherans who believe this stuff, there are only 2.5 Million of them who teach this stuff, out of some 45 Million (or so) Lutherans in the world.

The Hunnius quote I provided proves that the Steadfast Waltherians are Huberites or at least shares the conviction of Huber on this point...and that is not a good thing. If I were you I won't get involve with that. False teaching is a dangerous thing and we ought to be fearful of it. I know I am.

Steadfast Huberites and their upside down Justification

This post is dedicated in honor of those Lutheran ministers who are today suffering for opposing the Huberian false doctrine of Universal Objective Justification.

Many visitors of this blog are now sick of me posting against the Huberism of UOJers but I speak for one reason – UOJ is not Biblical and it is an improper way of speaking about the central doctrine of the Christian Church. The BoC speaks a lot about speaking. In the BoC one will encounter the phrase “properly speaking” many times. As for me, I speak against UOJ because it is an old heresy from Samuel Huber. It is a false way of speaking about what God does and has done in relation to how a sinner is made right with God. I got no other agenda and I hold no animus to those I disagree with. 

A few months ago, the Steadfast Waltherians ran a post by Jim Pierce on their Doctrine of Justification. I say “their doctrine” because I do not believe it is the Biblical doctrine of justification that they hold. The article in question is found here.

I won’t go into the fine details but the reader should notice therein how Biblical concepts have been taken in isolation taking their cues from a denominational work called the LCMS Christian Cyclopaedia.  I liken this behavior to the Jehovah’s Witnesses expositing Biblical teachings using their New World Translation Bible.

I will cut to the chase and go down to the bottom summary of the post, where we read:

In wrapping up my answer, we can talk about the entire human race, or the world, being justified—just as the Scriptures do (Ro 4:25)—as the action God took in response to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead where the Law is concerned, as the following explains. The Law condemns the whole world (saint and sinner alike) and, because of Christ and what He did, the Law now has no hold on the whole world, since God receives the sacrifice of His Son which atones for each and every sin and thereby the requirements of the Law are fully satisfied by Christ. When we talk about the sins of the world being absolved, or forgiven, we are talking about a reality that holds for the world in Christ. That reality is excellent news for everyone, since it means we are not justified by our own works of the Law, but by God’s grace alone, through faith alone in Christ Jesus. Indeed, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us and received by faith alone; thereby we are justified by what we Lutherans like to describe as the “alien righteousness of Christ” which is outside us, or not our own.

I got so many things to say but I will home in on the statements I have highlighted above. These statements are contrary to the Holy Scripture.

Firstly when Mr. Pierce said, “the Law now has no hold on the whole world”, what are we to make of this antinomian thesis? It is a perversion of the Law and bulldozers no less than two Biblical texts that come to mind…

a.)   Romans 6:14 says ¹⁴ For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Who are those not under the Law? It is not the whole world. The “you” in the verse does not refer to generic human beings; rather it refers to “you, the (Roman) Christians who believe in Christ”. They are the ones who are not under the Law since they have become believers in Christ so they are now under God’s grace.

b.)    The other passage is Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

What the post suggests is that since Jesus Christ died for the whole world, that means the world is no longer under the Law and thus not under condemnation. This is not true, why would God send people to perdition? This idea runs contrary to John 3: ³⁶ 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.

Let me resurrect A. Hunnius against Pierce …

Thesis 7
Outside of faith in Christ and without it, man remains in condemnation, according to John 3, "Whoever does not believe has been judged already." And again, "Whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." And Mark 16, "Whoever does not believe will be condemned." If such a one has already been judged, if the wrath of God remains upon him, if he will be condemned, then in what beautiful way has he been justified? In what splendid manner have his sins been remitted unto him? Indeed, where sins have truly been remitted, there all wrath and condemnation are gone(Rom. 8). "Blessed are they whose sins have been remitted" (Psalm 32). Now then, are all men blessed? Even unbelievers? (Muslims?), Reprobate Jews?

So now we come to the second part, Pierce continued saying… Indeed, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us and received by faith alone.

Note now the intent of this statement, this implies the imputation of Christ’s righteousness has already happened to all and this is now a matter of believing to receive. Note further that another concept tied up to justification is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Pierce and Co are indeed putting confusion to where there should be none, for what is the point of receiving already what has already been imparted – righteousness of Christ? To Pierce and his cohorts, this precedes faith and when believed nothing fresh happens to you, you are simply believing what has always been there, no new creation is being created.  This is a perversion of the Scriptural teaching on imputation of righteousness i.e. Justification. For in toto, these people believe that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or Justification, happened already first apart from faith when Christ died and was raised.

Let us see what the Scripture says here, recall Romans 4: ²¹ And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. ²² And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. ²³ Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; ²⁴ But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; ²⁵ Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification

 Thinking and Bible literate Christians will not deny that the imputation of righteousness on Abraham happened not before he believed but at the point of his believing. In fact even old orthodox Lutherans would oppose Pierce’s understanding. An example of this is Quenstedt (credits:Ichabod)

Let me again resurrect A. Hunnius against these Waltherian-Huberites for indeed these UOJ defenders believe in a Justification that already occurred apart from faith and before faith came to be… What does Hunnius say regarding this matter?

 Thesis 5
...Nevertheless, no one is justified nor does anyone obtain remission of sins from this acquired universal righteousness without the imputation of this acquired righteousness of Christ. But the imputation of righteousness does not take place except through faith.

Thesis 6
Hence Paul, when he expressly discusses justification in Romans 3 and 4, does not know of a justification apart from faith, and especially as Galatians 2 plainly says, "Man is not justified except by faith in Jesus Christ."

Incidentally since UOJers love Romans 4:25 as their champion verse proving a justification that occurred to all mankind, we can now quote Hunnius who says that Romans 4 included, knows of no justification that has occurred before people were born or before they believe. By this quote we can once again dismiss that UOJ is a Huberite revivalism since for them Romans 4 knows of a justification apart from faith.

LPC

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.

Just for laughs - Marriage vs The Ph.D.

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?  

Teacher

 Teaching both local and international students allows me to learn a lot about culture. Unlike my Aussie students who simply call me by my first name, my Asian students never do that. They also do not address me Doctor so and so, neither do they call me Mister. Rather, they prefer to call me  "Teacher". I am somewhat struck by this.

Several places in the New Testament, I read the disciples called Jesus by the same title - "Teacher". Reading the way Jesus was addressed made me reflect on the way I am addressed by my Asian students. They seem to really give more weight to this title. The title to them has a relational aspect and with it carries an implied responsibility. They are the student, I am their teacher and as such I am expected to behave and care for them in a certain way. In that relationship, there is an aspect of their lives that they are putting in my hands.

This is very humbling. You would think that when my Aussie students, in their egalitarian spirit, call me by my first name, that strips me down and humbles me but it does not. Rather I am deeply humbled whenever my Asian students call me  - "Teacher". I am humbled because they call me to a higher ideal and it does put pressure on me (in a good way) to live up to the meaning they attach to that name.

Pr. Nathan says it well about UOJ

HT: @Ichabod here.(Updated)

UOJ enthusiasts err when they confuse Christ's all encompassing sacrifice for sin with blanket absolution which they (then) capriciously translate into universal forgiveness and justification for all, thus eliminating the Holy Spirit’s work and activity of creating individual personal faith in the individual (soul) which then justifies.


-- Nathan M. Bickel - emeritus pastor
www.thechristianmessage.org

www.moralmatters.org


Pr. Nathan says it well and gets UOJ right in a nutshell.

The insight of Bruce

The Antinomians are really the only ones who really "get" the doctrine UOJ since the law has no power to make them feel guilty--ever. 


-- Bruce Church


Source: Ichabod, click here.

More proof that old time orthodox Lutherans rejected UOJ principles

One of the most glaring differences between JBFA people and UOJ advocates is their idea of the object of faith. In UOJ teaching, the object of faith is justification itself. On the other hand with those who confess One JBFA, the object of faith is the Atonement. In my post a couple of years ago, I had this exchange with a well-known advocate of UOJ, and you can find the comments here…


Me: Atonement you said in the previous comments that it is the object of faith?

DJW: I did not say that. I have always spoken of God's forgiveness, through and on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ, as the object of faith.

In the same place DJW even said Ultimately and most personally, it is God's justification in Christ - his word of pardon and forgiveness - that is the object of faith. God's forgiveness of the sinner is his personal message to each of us, because of the atonement (not because of our faith). And forgiveness and justification are essentially the same thing.

Indeed it is agreed by all of Christendom, that Justification = Forgiveness of Sins. From the quote above we see then beyond any shadow of doubt that the object of faith amongst UOJers is Justification, an event purported to have occurred for all people when Jesus died and rose again from the dead.

Even recent prodigal son of UOJ said this about the above quote... there was a time when I had difficulty with the Webber statements you provided. What you presented here is balanced justification and I have no problem with it

Below I provide a quote from Errors of Missouri p.252 which clearly shows that the UOJ myth is nonsense and has been denied by the BoC men. Schmidt attributes the quote below from Hunnius, Leyser and Gesner, faculty members of Wittenberg at the time of Huber. Schmidt quotes them from their work entitled  Thorough Refutation of Huber. The emphases below are mine.

“Just as we are justified, not on account of faith as a work or merit, but through faith, inasmuch as we embrace the merit of Christ by faith; so too we are chosen of God unto eternal life, not on account of faith, but through faith, as St. Paul writes 2 Thess. 2:13: ‘God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and I belief of the truth”. And just as we by faith embrace not justification itself, but the merit of Christ, and become justified when we accept Christ in true faith; so also faith embraces not election itself, as Dr. Huber imagines [LPC: and he imagined that faith embraces justification as UOJers do today], but the grace of election and the Lord Christ in His merit, and they who appropriate Him in faith are the ones that are chosen in Christ, Eph 1. So then faith is included in predestination precisely as it is taken in man’s justification before God.”

Here the “merit of Christ” is clearly taught as the object of faith. Now what does this phrase mean? We do not have to look far because the BoC uses this phrase too and it has been known that Hunnius was a signer of the Formula of Concord. We can find its proper meaning by studying the context in passages where it appears. Let us allow the text to explain itself. As an example in SD III we read...

9 Concerning the righteousness of faith before God we believe, teach, and confess unanimously, in accordance with the comprehensive summary of our faith and confession presented above, that poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, absolved and declared free and exempt from all his sins, and from the sentence of well-deserved condemnation, and adopted into sonship and heirship of eternal life, without any merit or worth of our own, also without any preceding, present, or any subsequent works, out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obedience, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obedience is reckoned to us for righteousness
....
13 For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel; for this must be applied and appropriated to us by faith, if we are to be justified thereby. 14] Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid for [expiated] our sins. 15

The object of faith, the merit of Christ is the Atonement, and not Justification as UOJ myth makers presuppose, and mind you it is their presuppostion that is driving them, not Scripture nor the BoC. The merit of Christ is that perfect and righteous life of obedience to God which Christ lived and in the end gave up as payment for the sins of the world. This, team JBFA have always asserted, that the object of faith is the Atonement and what is imputed to faith when the object is held is the righteousness of Christ. This righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner when he believes.

BM's comments on Hunnius' book contra Huber

Brett Meyer has a good comment on the book, Theses Opposed to Huberianism: A Defense of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification by Aegidius Hunnius,  translated by Paul A. Rydecki. It is found at Ichabod and can be read here.

Samuel Huber ( c. 1547-1624) was a former Reformed pastor/teacher who converted to Lutheranism. While teaching at Wittenberg, he espoused UOJ from which the present Waltherian UOJers have taken their present theory. Huber was rejected by the BoC writers. To say that he was treated as a heretic will be too mild.

Of course the UOJ myth makers will say, following Tom Hardt that - Huber's version of UOJ is bad, but the right version of UOJ is that of Walther's version. This again is a myth. To test this hypothesis, one just has to look at Hunnius' book then to see if Hunnius espouses Walther's version of UOJ. Now that will be an interesting scholarly exercise if ever they can show this. Then they have extended themselves. I doubt it.

Do you know also what is interesting during this controversy? Huber charged the BoC authors who espoused JBFA of Calvinism! Now does that not ring a peculiar bell?

Is it not interesting that the present UOJ defenders are doing the same in charging JBFA people of the same?

Like father, like son, so the saying goes. Present UOJ defenders are just like their father Huber. The fruit does not fall too far from the tree. This saying is solemnly true.

UOJ and their mantra

This is a post on the run. I apologise for being brief, I am in between editing my conference papers and marking of student work.

What I notice with UOJers is that they love to repeat their well worn out mantras. However the issue is that they offer no Scriptural proof for their repeating of parroted slogans. A mantra mostly works not for the one who is hearing it but in actuality it works for the one pronouncing it, it is a type of psycho cybernetic self talk to make one's self believe in what the mantra says. Here are a few mantras I have heard them self talk:

1. If you do not believe in objective justification then you must be a Limited Atonement believer.

Me: I grin. I was a Calvinist, and these Lutherans claiming JBFA people believe in LA do not know what they are talking about. In order to be an LA believer, two things must happen. First, one must equate the atonement with justification. That is to say, when Jesus died on the cross or resurrected, people have been already forgiven automatically too. Who is doing this equating? Not JBFAers, it is the UOJ.  Second, to be an LA believer, must deny the mention of the word "world" in 1 John 2:1-2 to mean the whole world without exception, rather it is asserted to be the world of Gentile believers. This is done to similar passages. JBFAers do not do such thing.

2. In order to believe in something, that something must already exists.

Me: Test this for a moment. This is clearly false and we can even give evidence of this from Scripture. It is Romans 4³For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. We could even follow this with Romans 4: 9b or we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. Their mantra is fallacious in many counts but do not talk to them about fallacy, they have no clue as to what such a thing is. For example, Abraham believed that the Messiah was to come and would die for his sins. From Abraham's perspective, it has not happened yet. From Abraham's time frame, the event was still in the future. This is the reason why faith is miraculous though miraculously created by God through His chosen means - Word and Sacraments. This is the reason why faith is precious to God and in fact, Jesus is the author of it.    Even in human terms, this idea is not even true. We believe in people's promises all the time. I render work for a company on the promise that after the job is done, I would get paid. I meet people for an appointment on the promise they will be at a set time and place. These are all future promises.


There is one vital aspect in this debate that must be brought to light. The two camps, JBFAer and UOJers differ in the object of faith. Consistent UOJers are unanimous in this, that for them the object of faith is not the Atonement that happened in the past as payment for sins, for them the object of faith is the Justification that has already, so they say, occurred 2000 years ago. In this regard the commentator R. C. H. Lenski is correct in his criticism of them. In his commentary on Romans 1:17, Lenski was well correct that in the UOJ scheme of things, there really is no declaration of righteousness that happens when a person believes because the declaration already happened in the past. Whereas in JBFA, the object of faith is the Atonement in accordance to Romans 3:21-26, specially, v.25. UOJers are quick to claim that we are twisting their words, but deny as much as they want, the effect of their teaching is that it simply makes justification a mythical. Lenski rebuts well the idea that if you believe in such a way, you are being synergistic. So to keep the laymen from the truth, Walther and Co. and the rest of UOJers ran a propaganda of bad mouthing Lenski. Yet, even non-Lutherans held Lenski in high esteem as a NT scholar even today.