DRB has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Stormtroopers Illustrating How They Get Their ...":
Since the well has been adequately poisoned, there should be no harm in my encouraging anyone confused about this topic to spend time carefully reading the source documents themselves. Here are a few passages from the Scriptures and Lutheran confessions that have been cited in support of the position that God in Christ reconciled (past tense) the world (not just part of the world) to himself, exhorting sinners to be reconciled to him (no Universalism here) -- 2 Cor. 5:19-20. I already pointed out Luther's agreement in a comment on a post from a few days ago.
These LCMS Theses on Justification succinctly distinguish objective justification from subjective justification and give the sedes doctrinae for the good news that God absolved the world by the work of his Son:
'In normal Biblical and ecclesiastical usage the terms "justify" and "justification" refer to the ("subjective") justification of the individual sinner through faith (Rom. 4:5, 5:1, etc.; AC IV, 3; FC SD III, 25). But because theologically justification is the same thing as the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 4:1-8; Ap IV, 76; FC Ep III, 7), it is Biblically and confessionally correct to refer to the great sin-cancelling, atoning work of the Redeemer as the "objective" or "universal" justification of the whole sinful human race. (John 1:29; Rom. 5:6-18; 2 Cor. 5:19; Col 2:14-15; 1 Tim. 3:16; Ap IV, 103-105; LC V, 31, 32, 36, 37; FC SD III, 57)'
That is the position of the Lutheran confessions (e.g., Ap IV, 103-105; FC SD III, 57), not a later development. More important, it is the position of the apostle, as can be seen from 2 Cor. 5:19-20, unless one either follows the Calvinists in changing the meaning of the word "world" or follows the synergists in changing the meaning of the word "reconciled."
***
GJ - In a rare departure, the author of this comment has left his name - David R. Bickel. He is apparently this scientist, since the bio links to his religious website.
I am not impressed with the LCMS Theses. I addressed them at length in Thy Strong Word. Someone claimed that Robert Preus was involved in writing them or wrote them. If so, that was at the zenith (or nadir) of Church Growth at his seminary. The two go together. His Justification and Rome teaches the opposite of the comment posted above.
The comment struck me as typical Missouri. As Egbert Schaller wrote, Walther was not a Biblical theologian. He gave Missouri a heritage of propositional theology - offering theses and citing Biblical or Book of Concord sources for them. There is no better way to engage in circular reasoning. Valleskey did the same thing in his odious CG essay in the Wisconsin Schwaermerschrift.
I am glad a scientist is studying theology. I only hope that his investigates more thoroughly. The double-justification scheme is from Knapp, not the Book of Concord.
No one is obliged to believe in the publication of a Midwestern Lutheran sect. As Mudslide wrote in a brilliant essay, Lutherans seem to celebrate Reformation anniversaries with a new travesty. The LCMS justification theses were that.
I prefer the Book of Concord:
"These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him, that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the Father, and are eternally saved." Formula of Concord, Thorough Declaration, III. #10. Of the Righteousness of Faith before God. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 919. Tappert, p. 541. Heiser, p. 250.
