Universal Objective Justification is losing some of its momentum, due to serious study of the issue.
Bruce Church informed me that an LCMS leader recently said, on Issues, etc "God forgave the whole world."
These are typical expressions of Universalism or UOJ, which are the same thing:
1. God forgave the whole world. (Issues, Etc.)
2. God declared the whole world free of sin. (LCMS Brief Statement)
3. Whether they believe or not, everyone in the world is forgiven. (J. P. Meyer)
4. "I am saved, just like you." WELS evangelism motto (another flop).
5. Everyone is forgiven. ELCA
6. Everyone will go to heaven. Universalists.
Where does UOJ come from? The best answer is not historical in nature but doctrinal. History does not provide precise enough explanations, since the past is far messier and confused than digested historical accounts suggest.
UOJ flourished in the Old Synodical Conference, which had Pietistic origins, but did not flourish in the Muhlenberg tradition (General Synod, General Council, both leading to the ULCA, LCA, and--gasp--ELCA). But the Muhlenberg tradition was Pietistic from the beginning, since the pioneer himself came straight from Halle University. The later Midwestern synods were Pietistic, too. Norwegians were hot for UOJ, which may be why Robert Preus got it all wrong at first, but repented in his last book. The Swedes were against UOJ, but they were just as influenced by Pietism as the Norwegians. The favorite Swedish journal for the Augustana Synod was The Pietist, which I once helped archive at the Augustana College Library. So historical lessons do not provide a solution.
The doctrinal answer is much clearer. The question is not whether Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world, and "acquired forgiveness," as Pennsylvania recently mentioned. (All the nicnames I use for sources are counter-intuitive, so don't try to figure who he is. The answer is no, no, and NO!) UOJ fans try to use the Straw Man of Limited Atonement. They say, "You favor Limited Atonement!" That means Christ died only for the elect - Calvin's doctrine.
The doctrinal answer is the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace. Or, we should teach what the Scriptures reveal about the work of the Holy Spirit. The non-Lutheran Protestants--and Catholics--always divorce the work of the Holy Spirit from the Word. The Scriptures teach clearly and consistently that the Holy Spirit and the Word always work together, never apart from each other.
Therefore, the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith includes the objective truth of the Atonement as the propitiation for the sins of the world, with this forgiveness already earned by Christ being distributed by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace.
As Luther often stated, the treasure of the Atonement does no one any good if it is not distributed through the Word. The treasure lies in one heap until that happens. But God has designed, created, and supported the pastoral ministry for this distribution.
So it stands to reason that the Enthusiasts, who divorce the Holy Spirit's work from the Word, are opposed to the Means of Grace and enemies of the Bible's foundational doctrine.
The story of Christianity is one of grace. How does one know about forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life? When the doctrine is contrary to the Word of God, all the proposed solutions are wrong.
For various reasons, unknown to me, the Muhlenberg tradition was quite strong on the efficacy of the Word. I recall one liberal bishop saying, in an offhand way, "Everything happens through the Word."
The issue is whether we can find harmonious teaching in the Scriptures, the early Church Fathers, Luther, and the Concordists.
As Pennsylvania said, we can find orthodoxy in the Scriptures alone, as long as we set aside that huge book of unwritten rules.
