Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Objective Justification Question":
Are you saying, in reference to the interchangeability of the the word Atonement and Justified etc., which has caused confusion, that you had never heard pastors, professors, theologians actually say "the whole world is forgiven of all their sins, even those who don't believe are foprgiven," like was said at the WELS convention on Tuesday by the seminary professor, prior to 1991 when writing your book Liberalism?
[GJ - I went to summer school at The Surrendered Fort in the late 1980s and decided to join WELS after the LCMS convention in Indianapolis. I never heard the two justification scheme in theological studies or in reading Luther. When I first read Pieper at that time, I thought he was using objective justification as a synonym for the Atonement. Since then I have talked to or written to a number of laity and pastors who thought the same thing. In fact, Bishop Jim Heiser thought that way too, and he publishes all the post-Luther books at Repristination Press. Chapter Five of Thy Strong Word opened a lot of eyes and also made some people very angry with me.
After Kokomo, WELS and Missouri avoided the subject.]
I admit that I had first heard the phrase specifically in about 1992 or 93. Before that I can't say I ever heard anything other than, "Christ died for the sins of the whole world."
I would think it odd that a pastor would not have run into that speak earlier and thus using the term Objective Justification should have already been known to not mean the same as Atonement.
[GJ - The ALC/LCA side of the Lutheran Church did not use the term Objective Justification. But their Gospel reductionism offered the same message - everyone is forgiven. Lenski, who is read on both sides of the Lutheran divide, never accepted OJ for good reason - it is absent in the Scriptures. My favorite theologians of General Council never delved into the Walther/Pieper scheme.
The Synodical Conference was unduly influenced by the propositional thinking of Walther and Pieper, but the LCMS did not regurgitate double-justification from the beginning, as people would like to promote. The 1905 LCMS catechism never mentioned the scenario.]
I need to clarify this in my mind. I do not intend to sound antagonistic.
[GJ - The antagonistic ones sound very different from you - believe me.]