Makes righteous? or declares? 2 LCMS theologians (Robert Kolb vs. Steven P. Mueller)

      Two recent readings from LC-MS theologians have exposed both a confusion of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification and… a surprisingly good book.  Before I say more, let me show the exact comparison of statements in the following table:

Martin Luther, Confessor of the Faith (Oxford University Press, ©2009)	Called to Believe, Teach & Confess:  An Introduction to Doctrinal Theology (Wipf & Stock, 2005)
Dr. Robert Kolb Prof. (emeritus), Concordia Seminary	Dr. Steven P. Mueller (CV) Dean of Christ College Concordia University-Irvine
page 124: Martin Luther’s “beginning ‘to understand God's righteousness as that through which, as through God’s gift, the righteous person lives, namely on the basis of faith, and that it means the passive [righteousness] through which the merciful God makes us righteous ("iustificat") through faith’ (Hab. 2:4).”	page 237: “Infused righteousness is another way of saying that God makes us actually righteous … In contrast, imputed righteousness gives comfort and assurance. God has not changed our nature… We are declared righteous and just because of Christ.”

Which is it: "makes us righteous" or "declared us righteous"? Does God "make us righteous", which allows the thought that we are then able to be a party in the process of conversion? Or has God objectively, because of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, pardoned the sin of (or declared righteous) the whole world of sinners in His heart?
      In the first column Dr. Kolb interpreted Luther's Latin words (WA 54:186.5-8, LW 34:337; StL14:447) as "God makes us righteous" but he translated the same Latin word "iustificat" as "justifies" or "justify", not "makes righteous", in his Book of Concord (2000), p. 89:48, 125:31, 127:45, 130:62, etc. (see here for iustificat in BoC).  It is puzzling as to why Kolb would write the phrase "makes us righteous" in 2009 while he earlier in 2000 translated the same word as "justifies" or "justify". — The confusion of Dr. Kolb on "Justification" was not surprising to me given his uninterrupted actions of unionism.  I am also not surprised that most LCMS theologians are also confused on the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.
      But I was surprised to discover the other book, one that has much to recommend it from a Lutheran standpoint, even with some notable caveats.  Dr. Mueller directly refutes the translation of Dr. Kolb, and from a thoroughly Lutheran standpoint. (Mueller also teaches Universal, Objective Justification – UOJ).
      So why make such a fuss over this seemingly minor, insignificant change of wording by Dr. Robert Kolb?  It is because it is a matter of spiritual life and death. It touches the "Foundation of the Christian Faith", a subject for which Dr. Franz Pieper is the best teacher since C.F.W. Walther.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      As much as I would like to praise Steven Mueller's book more, yet I would have to ask him some pointed questions. In particular: why does another teacher at his Concordia University-Irvine under his leadership, Associate Professor of History and Theology Clinton J. Armstrong, call the Lutheran reformer Jakob Andreae guilty of "backstabbing", having "plenty of baggage", "vitriolic and histrionic", etc. in his book Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbéliard 1586 (p. xii)?