[2] Osiander thought the prevailing current in his area gave an overemphasis on forensic justification--he saw Christ as a physician who heals instead of as a judge who declares one righteous.
[3] Osiandrianism was opposed by Nicolaus von Amsdorf, Martin Chemnitz, Matthias Flacius, Philip Melanchthon, and Joachim Mörlin.
[3] They criticized Osiander for breaking the "close connection between alien and proper righteousness and the idea that both were rooted in the cross of Christ"[4] Eventually the strictly anti-Osiandrian view prevailed.
[4] Part three of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord rejected Osiandiranism by stating that "Christ is our Righteousness neither according to the divine nature alone nor according to the human nature alone, but that it is the entire Christ according to both natures, in His obedience alone, which as God and man He rendered to the Father even unto death, and thereby merited for us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, as it is written: As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous," (Romans 5:19)[5] This doctrine was opposed principally by Francesco Stancaro, who ran to the opposite extreme of excluding entirely Christ's divine nature from all concern in the redemption procured for sinners.
[6] Johannes Brenz was also outspoken on the controversy and urged Osiander to "avoid causing division among the Evangelicals at this dangerous time".