Finkelsteinery Sumary of the WELS Convention

Here is the link.

Below is my copy of his post:

Friday, July 31, 2009

Thoughts and Highlights from the 2009

WELS Convention

The 60th Biennial Convention of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), convened Monday, July 27, adjourned today, Friday, July 31. It was held at Michigan Lutheran Seminary (MLS) in Saginaw, MI. I figured that I would offer some thoughts regarding what I think are highlights of the week:

* Full Funding of Ministerial Education and Missions
It was reported on Wednesday that the Floor Committee on Finance had developed a Budget Option C, retaining full funding of both Missions and all four Ministerial Schools, and would be presenting that to the Convention, Thursday. I quote from an observer:

I am more than happy that the floor committee on finance kept the full funding of the four ministerial education schools and the full funding of world and home missions, both with some minor exceptions in both. The delegate of the finance committee with whom I was in contact agreed well in advance of the convention that the complete ministerial education and mission budget had to be retained to the exclusion of all else. Now I just hope it passes on Thursday.

Indeed, on Thursday morning, after hours of debate, the resolution to accept Option C, which sought, instead of Options A and B, to target cuts in administration, travel, and in areas that could be most easily replaced once funding became available, passed. One commenter in the budget debate stated it well (and I paraphrase): "If we lose MLS, have no illusions, we will never get it back again. The cost is too great." A prep-school is not easily replaced. The message sent by the Convention was clear: Let's have no more talk of closing schools.

* Synod-wide Theological Study
Given evidence of declining theological acumen among the laity, and an apparent growth in disunity in doctrine and practice as a result, the Ad Hoc Commission recommended a Synod-wide study of Theology, to address both Doctrine and Practice. The Ad Hoc floor committee presented a resolution to accept this recommendation, and it was passed by the Convention. This study will come directly from the Seminary to the congregations. Suggested studies over the next four years includes:

1. Efficacy of the Means of Grace (not methods)
2. Vocation, Church, and Ministry (i.e., everyone is not a minister in the context of the congregation, but are ministers in the context of Vocation)
3. Care of Souls (Church Discipline, dealing with error in the congregation)
4. The Sacramental Life (not just the Gospel in the Word, but the Gospel in the Sacraments)

As background, this resolution seems to follow from the January meeting of the CoP, to charge the Ad Hoc commission to study these issues, as follows:

5.D.03 Establishment of "non-traditional" ("new style") congregations. We feel that the underpinnings of this "non-traditional" type of worship cannot be ignored. We also feel that the issue is extremely complex and will take great care to be careful to walk the "narrow Lutheran road" between legalism and ignoring and failing to admonish where practices are contrary to or a danger to the principles of gospel proclamation and the efficacy of the means of grace. We move that an ad hoc committee be convened that can study and address this issue and produce a study document that can be shared with circuits and also congregations for study and careful evaluation of practices in worship, sacraments, outreach, organization, music selection, etc. Motion carried.

* Board for Parish Services "restructuring"
Also on Thursday, the Board for Parish Services was reduced from Board status to Council status, now reporting to the Council of Presidents (CoP). It is no longer an official area of ministry in WELS.

This is a good thing. The BPS had been a real and growing concern among Confessionals in WELS, as it had been staffed over the years principally by known Church Growth advocates, had designated itself as the Board having "primary responsibility for carrying out the goals of the Synod's Mission-Objectives-Vision Statement" (according to Manthey's Fifteen Years under the MOV), and in the execution of this responsibility, had, since the early 1990's, been associated with the dissemination of CGM materials directly to WELS congregations and had directly advised WELS congregations according to CGM principles. In addition, there is currently a strong connection between the former BPS Administrators and the controversial group "Church & Change".

Constitutionally and organizationally speaking, this resolution brought the functions of the former BPS under the jurisdiction of the District Presidents, who are responsible for Doctrine and Practice in their own districts, making the new Council of Parish Services accountable to the District Presidents for the materials and advice they disseminate to the congregations. In addition (as I understand it), this resolution strips authority from the CPS to issue Divine Calls to Administrators (consultants) who serve it, placing that responsibility where it belongs, with the CoP.

As one elated commenter on Ichabod put it:

Perish Services has been totally decimated. Rather than a Board with an Administrator and a Chairman and decision making power, with many sub-boards and sub-administrators, Perish Services now consists of only 3 sub-administrators who report to the Conference of Presidents and are called by the CoP.

President Schroeder slapped them down for trying to go around his authority and destroyed them and their support of the CG movement. Now there's not much left of Perish Services, and what is left can't do a thing without the CoP knowing about it.

Indeed, the BPS advocates complained bitterly during deliberation, especially regarding the loss of power they would suffer by being made a Council, and changes were made to accommodate their reasonable and pragmatic appeals. But in the end, the intent of the Ad Hoc committee, which recommended elimination of BPS, was honored by the Convention.

* President Schroeder Wallops the Church Growth Movement
On Monday morning, setting the tone of the Convention, Synod President Mark Schroeder issued his report. The first 42 minutes, or so, were directed specifically at the Church Growth Movement (CGM) in our midst, along with Contemporary Worship (without naming these things or naming individuals), emphasizing Scripture and the Confessions, and of maintaining a unified Lutheran Identity under them. He delivers a blister-boiling spanking to advocates of CGM. IMHO, his report (at least the first 42 minutes) is well worth a congregational study. Rick, another WELS layman who maintains a blog called Light from Light, offers an excellent summary of SP Schroeder's address. So rather than duplicate his work, I'll send you to his blog (above), while providing the embedded video, below:

The text of President Schroeder's report can be downloaded, here.


* Professor Brenner Continues the Walloping...
If you enjoyed SP Schroeder's Report on Monday, you'll certainly enjoy Professor Brenner's Convention Essay, Christ's Love: The efficacy and power of the Means of Grace, that was given Tuesday morning (click this link to view his presentation). It was the first of two Convention Essays covering the Synod theme, Christ's Love, Our Calling. The undercurrent of this entire Convention, from the standpoint of its execution, very strongly seems to address the errors of CGM, which have been creeping in over the past three decades. Following Schroeder's rather direct walloping of CGM positions on Monday, Brenner continues this walloping in his Essay. Here are some brief summary notes:

The text of Professor Brenner's essay can be downloaded, here.

o The Holy Spirit does not work immediately, but mediately, that is, through Means.
o No one will be saved apart from the use of the external Word -- the Word spoken or read.
o The preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments are the only Means through which one can come to faith and remain in faith.
o The Means are always and exclusively efficacious, even though the Holy Spirit may be resisted, whether we see evidence of their working or not. This is how God works, mediately. When God works immediately (i.e., Creation of the World), He cannot be resisted.
o Sometimes the proclamation of God's Word leads to visible decline in numbers. Examples: Elijah's flight (he thought he was the only one left) and Jesus' abandonment by all but the Twelve as a result of his hard teaching. Sometimes the proclamation of the Word brings about dramatic increase. Example: Pentecost, and the Baptism of 3000 in one day. Faithfulness to the Word of God, and maintaining the centrality of the Means of Grace, not an increase in number, is the measure of success for Lutherans.

This gets us about halfway through the Essay. Thesis 8 of Brenner's Essay begins at about 44 min:

o The Means of Grace cannot be made to be more effective by anything that we do (including outreach programs, contemporary worship, blah blah, etc.)
o In a culture of American pragmatism, where Advertising, Marketing, and Business Models are seen to be the means to success, Christians are tempted to think that the Gospel is a product to sell, rather than a powerful message to be proclaimed. Sectarians confuse these methods with means.
o "Does it work?" is not the question a Lutheran asks regarding methods.
o The Means of Grace work supernaturally, but not magically. The Word must be correctly handled, the Sacraments rightly administered. This requires training.

Finally, after the Essay, from the Q&A section, at about 88min, listen particularly to the final two questions:

o What do you say about selling a specific culture of the congregation in order get visitors, in order that they may hear the Word and benefit from the Means of Grace? Answer: Advertising to inform the community where you're located is one thing, other than that, we are not selling anything!
o Likewise, the last question/statement by Rev. John Bucholz: When faithful Word and Sacrament congregations struggle to grow in the face of sectarian neighbors whose numbers seem to skyrocket, we are tempted to ask, "What are they doing?" Don't. The Means, and only the Means, are central.



* Rev. Jonathan Schroeder raises even more Blisters...
Finally, on Wednesday morning, Rev. Jonathan Schroeder, a known and vocal advocate of Confessional Worship in the WELS, presented his Essay: Our Calling: Christian Vocation and the Ministry of the Gospel. This was a fabulous essay, and I supply my copius notes, from the video presentation, below:

The text of Rev. Jonathan Schroeder's essay can be downloaded, here (for part one) and here (for part two).


Our Calling before God (to be His Child):
o Calling is not about what we do, but about what God gives us.
o Our Calling comes through Means
o Lutherans rely on the Means of Grace in our Outreach and "Inreach" because the Word and Sacraments are the only tools that the Holy Spirit has given His Church to open the heart of man.
o No program or method or personality can work faith in sinful man's heart. Only the Holy Spirit through the Gospel can do this.
o The Call is Universal and Efficacious
o Only the Call, which is issued only through His Means, induces a response [not methods].

Our Calling before the World (to be His Mask) -- the "Doctrine of Vocation":
(Summary)
The false teaching of works-righteousness in the Roman Church taught that those who devote their lives to Good Works in the name of the Church are by definition closer to God. And those who do Good Works beyond those expected of every Christian must be even better. Sacred life was better life, in God's eyes, that Secular life. At the time of the Reformation, only Monks, Nuns, and Priests had "Vocation" or "Calling." The Roman Church taught falsely that their lives were more Godly and therefore more valuable.

[Note: We see this teaching at work today in the false ideas used to coerce "programs," or to compare individuals and congregations by "Outreach" or relative involvement: i.e., certainly, folks who give themselves to such service are more Godly...]

But this is not Lutheran. In returning the biblical Doctrine of Justification to the Church, the question of how man becomes righteous before God also changed the meaning of Vocation. Only the righteousness of Christ makes us righteous before God. Thus, being saved by Grace Alone, man's Vocation is a Calling to a life of Sanctification within his Divinely assigned sphere of life. There is no need to be dedicated to a life of Sacred Service before God in the Church (i.e., in modern Evangelical terms, no need to quit your job and start a Ministry in order to serve God better). As St. Paul says, "stay in the Calling in which you were called." All Vocations are equal in God's eyes. All are Priests. All have a Calling. All have been Called. All are Called to Good Works before the World in the context of Vocation, not to get to heaven, but because that is where they are going.

o Questions regarding purpose and dignity (i.e., referring to "Purpose Driven" drivel) exist because of a lack of Calling (i.e., Vocation is not being taught, so the false teachings of "purpose-driven-ism" take its place). Life without God has no purpose (meaning that the man without God must go find purpose, and that those who are compelled to go find it, are not fully resting in His objective promises...). But with God, all of Life has purpose -- the same purpose.

Our Calling for the World (to be His Church):
o The Church is a Chosen People, a body of Priests and Kings. The calling or purpose of the Church is to declare the praises of Him Who called them out of darkness into His wonderful light; that is, to Herald or to "publish abroad" the excellence of His achievements. God's intent is that through the Church His manifold wisdom should be made known unto the world.
o The Church is the mouth of God (in distinction to individual Christians, who are the mask of God in their Vocation).
o Through the Church and the Office of the Holy Ministry, God deigned to let humanity participate in His plan of Salvation.
o Our Calling (or "purpose") as a Synod is no different than that of the Church:
To Keep the Word (pure) for the World
To Share the Word with the World-or-
to extend and conserve the True doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
o We cannot do one at the expense of the other; we cannot do one and leave the other undone. We keep the Word that we might share it, we share the Word that others may join us in preserving it. They feed each other.

This gets us to about minute 56, where direct application to WELS really begins with the Muelhauser story:

o Muelhauser had serious outreach credibility, having preached his way across Europe, suffered persecution, was imprisoned, and yet continued preaching, and was eventually sent to the New World in the name of the Gospel.
o Such is, indeed, our heritage and part of our culture in WELS.
o But this is not our priority: a motto of Outreach over everything misses the dual directives in the Church's Calling.
o While Muelhauser certainly thought of himself as a Lutheran, he did not think of his Confession as binding on him or his Church (Lutheran CGM advocates seem to think the same thing). His fault is not that he prioritized that sharing of the Word, but that he did so at the expense of Doctrine. [Muelhauser was a Pietist, and a willing Unionist, who "saw the Confessions as nothing but paper fences"]. Bading and Hoenecke corrected this, subsequently leading the WELS into Confessionalism.
o Early on, because of Muelhauser's unionism and heterodoxy, Bading approached the Missouri Synod regarding membership with them instead, but was encourage by them to stay in the WELS, to raise the standard of Doctrine and Practice in our Synod. This is exactly what happened, as our dedication to Confessionalism, under the eventual leadership of Bading and Hoenecke, rose to that of Missions. Under Bading, Koehler, and Rheim, the Northwestern Conference of our Synod was responsible for the establishment and growth of Confessionalism in our Synod [hence, the names "Northwestern College" and "Northwestern Lutheran." How interesting it is that these names were abandoned under the recent leadership of CGM advocates, in favor of names reflecting a "Muelhauserian Outreachiness"...].
o Most significantly, this turn to Confessional Lutheranism meant that the Synod would cease unionistic practrices with the Reformed [while "Muelhauserian Outreachiness" would have us worship with Andy Stanley and join groups like the Willow Creek Association (Search page for Lutheran) or the PurposeDrivenChurch (choose WELS as Denomination)].
o The reason we are a Confessional Lutheran Church Body is because our Calling as the Church of God is "to go and make disciples of all nations, by baptizing and teaching them to obey everything he has commanded us." Mission zeal for going does not give license to fail to teach.
o The early Synod sought to establish Schools because they realized that as Confessional Lutherans they needed more than just workers for the harvest field, they needed Confessional Lutheran workers. A new commitment to being a Confessional Lutheran church led them to eventually abandon the German Mission Societies that provided workers, Gratis, for a system that would cost the Synod a great deal of money, but would provide the right kind for workers for the mission field.
o The outside attacks calling attention to the motley character of the Synod's clergy in their practice gave emphasis to the project of establishing a ministerial education program. The Synod's growing commitment to the Confessions engendered a commitment to Ministerial Education. Confessional commitment means commitment to training Confessional Lutheran workers because our calling to both share the Word and keep the Word. They needed to be approved to rightly handle the Word of Truth.
o The experience of "Going and Growing" (a recent CGM slogan in the WELS) taught our fathers the importance of a Ministerial Education system, that it was the best way to train those workers to fulfill both directives of the Church's Calling.
o The Church that goes to the entire World but does not teach everything God has commanded us, fails Jesus' litmus test for discipleship, "If you hold to my teachings you are really my disciples." Mission zeal without sound doctrine is mission work that is slowly loosing hold of the one tool that opens hearts. No methods, no programs, no people skills can convert sinful man, only the Word of God. Mission zeal without doctrine is destined to falter.

Listen to comments from Rev. John Bucholz from Tempe, Arizona @~80:30: "I really appreciated your thought ...how does God deal with us by His Holy Spirit through the Gospel? He slays us ...One way or the other He's either going to kill me eternally in Hell, or He is going to kill me in Baptism and raise me a new creature... [addressing a misunderstanding or misapplication of Vocation, Bucholz continues] When I say to somebody in my congregation, 'I'd like you to serve the Lord by serving on Church Council,' or 'I would like you to serve the Lord by mowing the lawn at Church,' or 'getting involved in the ministry of setting up chairs,' what I have really expressed is a flawed understanding of Christian Vocation. And I think that we need to be very careful that we don't fall into the trap of thinking that doing something 'churchy' or doing something at the congregation is serving the Lord, or that doing evangelism is serving the Lord, when in fact the mother changing a child's diaper or putting food on the table, or a man who goes to work, and works nine-to-five [Ja! If only!] to bring home the bacon for his family -- all of those things are an expression of the Vocation that we have been given. I think that we need to strengthen and reinforce that."

Blended Worship Goes with Bended Doctrine

Here is a websty from WELS people to promote blended worship.

"If you have favorite or best CCM songs for a WELS Blended Worship service, please email me the song title, author/artist, and lyrics so that I might add it to the songlist. Or you can add your Best CCM songs as a comment to this post."

Missouri "discovered" this years ago. The ELS apes it too - thus the monkey.

Yes, I played around with the word bended. I needed a sight rhyme.

Bishop Katie Returns from Echo #9

Leavin Dallas headed home. #echo09 has been great. Thanks to all who made it happen!about 15 hours ago from Tweetie

Great few days at #echo09 looking forward to taking it home & processing. Cant wait 4 next year.

Echo Conference.

Keynote speakers

Breakout speakers include Carlos Whittaker from Andy Stanley's Babtist Church - Northpoint.

[ GJ - My favorite apostate:]


Dave Harris
How to Build an Effective Brand

Most churches these days have adopted the “series” method of teaching which is a great way to communicate God’s word, however, it can be tough to essentially create a new brand every 4-6 weeks. We are going to discuss how to brand your church, teaching series, and events, or anything else that needs a brand in order to consistently communicate to your church and community. We will go through developing a teaching series from start to finish and also how to get your non visual pastor on board as well. Branding is a huge part of how we communicate as a church, so let’s learn from each other how to take on the responsibility of communicating God’s message to our communities.
About Dave Harris

Dave is the Creative Media Director of Student Ministries at Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, KY. He is also the founder and creator of Stuff I Can Use and co creator of Church Tech Talk. In addition to his day job, he has produced media for Igniter Media and Simply Youth Ministry. Dave has been married for 11 years to his beautiful wife Synthia and has a little girl, Madison.

Robert Barnes, English Martyr, Luther's Student

Robert Barnes studied under Luther, greatly influenced English theology, and died a martyr.

From Norman Teigen's Blog:

Robert Barnes was executed in 1540 in London during the rule of King Henry VIII. Poor Barnes, he didn't have a chance. Today's Treasury of Daily Prayer contains appropriate information and prayer for the occasion.

There is an abundance of good reading on the subject of Henry VIII and the Reformation in England. Henry is a giant of history.

I thought that readers of Norman's Demesne might be interested in reading about one of the statutes enacted by Henry, this one from 1539 and titled 'Statute of the Six Articles.' This was "an act abolishing diversity in opinions." The goal of the statute was for "the conservation of the Church in a true, sincere, and uniform doctrine of Christ's religion."

1. "that in the most blessed sacrament of the altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ's mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, a present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man."

2. "Secondly, that communion in both kinds is not necessary ad salutem by the law of God to all persons. and that it is to be believed and not doubted of but that in the flesh under form of bread is the very blood, and with the blood under form of wine is the very flesh, as well as paart as though they were both together."

3. "Thirdly, that priests, after the order of priesthood received as afore, may not marry by the law of God."

4. "Fourthly, that vows of chastity or widowhood by man or woman made to God advisedly ought to be observed by the law of God, and that it exempteth them from other liberties of Christian people which without that they might enjoy."

5. Fifthly, that it is meet and necessary that private masses be continued and admitted in this the king's English Church and Congregation, as whereby good Christian people ordering themselves accordingly do receive both good and goodly consolations and benefits, and it is agreeable also to God's law."

6. "Sixthly, that auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used, and frequented in the Church of God."

And what were the consequences for anyone who couldn't go along with this stuff?

"And be it further enacted . . . that if any person or persons . . . contemn or contemptuously refuse, deny, or abstain to be confessed at the time commonly accustomed within this realm and Church of England, or contemn or contemptuously refuse, deny, or abstain to receive the holy and blessed sacrament abovesaid at the time commonly used and accustomed for the same, that then every such offender . . . shall suffer such imprisonment and make such fine and ransom to the king our sovereign lord and his heirs as by his highness or by his or their council shall be ordered and adjudged in that behalf; and if any such offender . . . do eftsoons [i.e. again] . . . refyse . . . to be confessed or to be communicate . . . that then every such offence shall be deemed and adjudged felony, and the offender . . . shall suffer pains of death, and lose and forfeit all his . . . goods,lands, and tenements, as in cases of felony . . . ."

(source: 31 Henry VIII, c, 14; in Stephenson and Marcham, Sources of English Constitutional History, A Selection of Documents From A.D. 600 To the Present, Harpers, New York and London, 1937, p. 320)

WELS Convention Wrap

Office and Travel Expenses - Reduced

From WELS -

Some of the decisions made included:

1. passing a balanced budget for 2009-11;
   
2. changing the first vice president position to part-time;
   
3. electing Rev. James Huebner as first vice president, Rev. Joel Voss as second vice president, and Rev. Robert Pasbrig as secretary;
   
4. restructuring the Board for Parish Services and placing it under the Conference of Presidents; and encouraging continuing education for WELS called workers.
   
   
5. Delegates passed the $30 million budget—a budget cut from $38 million or 20 percent—after more than two hours of debate. The budget approved by the convention differs from two budget options brought to the convention by the Synodical Council (SC). The SC's options—and the convention-approved budget—all reflected $8 million in needed cuts across all areas of ministry. The SC was giving the convention the option of deciding whether $1 million of the cuts should come from missions or ministerial education. In the proposal approved by the convention, that $1 million comes from technology, financial services, communications, Parish Services, mission counselors, and travel.
   
   
6. Schroeder finds blessings even though cuts needed to be made. "We have confidence that God is going to get us through this," he says. "Whatever he has in store he is going to use it to bless his church."
   
   
7. This was Schroeder's first convention as WELS president. "The synod convention doesn't sound very exciting. It sounds just like a lot of reports and votes and motions and paper shuffling, but I would really wish that everyone in the synod could have been a part of this convention," he says. "It refocused our attention on both the reason for our joy and on the mission that we are privileged to carry out."

***

GJ - Let us not forget that Church and Chicanery will have two rallies in the next couple of months:

1. WELS Prayer Pietism Institute, August, at the seminary, with Bruce Becker leading the recovery effort.
2. Church and Change convention in November, with Bruce Becker (ex-head, Perish Services) leading the recovery effort. No, I am not repeating myself. The Chicaneries are repeating themselves. His topic in November is "Regaining Momentum." Stroh, from Perish Services, is speaking on the same topic.

I don't want you to get the idea from the speakers that Perish Services is run by Church and Change - or that Church and Change is run by Perish Services. That is simply a coincidence. Ha ha.

The Chicaneries have been dealt a body blow, but they will fight on. As I predicted, they closed ranks to get one of their own (Huebner) elected as First Veep, replacing Wayne Mueller, who quit in a huff. Mueller got into doctrinal trouble at Mequon, so his buddies invented a full-time job as the Administrator of Perish Services. Afterwards, Mueller was promoted to First Veep, but he considered himself SP until Mark Schroeder was elected. Thanks to the insights of Church Growth, which Mueller promoted covertly, WELS lost members faster than it lost money - while enjoying a deluge of loot from Thrivent and St. Marvin of Schwan.

SP Schroeder has proven himself a doctrinal leader in the midst of chaos. Fortunately, the second Great Depression is making it necessary to cut the fat from synodical overhead. Since that fat consisted of CG efforts like Airport (!), the surgery is welcome. As one member noted, his congregation puts out all communications by PDF, with only a few copies printed and distributed at church. Everyone's great-granny has email now, so why spend lavishly on printing?

Palpable disgust for Church Growth is another blessing in disguise for SP Schroeder. The sour looks about Church Growth--which VP Huebner noted with dismay so many years ago--are based upon the crafts and assaults of the movement. When I raised the issue with my first article about in in Christian News, around 1988, I was bombarded with letters from WELS pastors and laity thanking me.

Some of the more obvious reasons for Lutherans turning against Church Growthism:

1. Constant deceit. The Shrinkers never tell the truth, about themselves or anyone else. They pretend to have the purest motives while feathering their nests with synodical subsidies, Thrivent grants, and foundation loot.
   
2. Blended doctrine. The Shrinkers are Reformed, but they use their Yes, But rhetoric to start with Lutheran principles so they can insert Reformed conclusions into everything. Some examples are: VP Huebner, Waldo Werning Professor of Church Growth Larry Olson, Paul Calvin Kelm, Bruce Becker, Valleskey, Bivens, and Al Sorum.
   
3. Blended worship. The Shrinkers promote non-liturgical worship wherever possible, substituting blended worship as a half-way step toward Babtist-Pentecostal Sneaker Services.
   
4. Women's ordination. After assaulting clear Biblical principles about women teaching men and women usurping authority, the Shrinkers have moved on to promote women's ordination in various insidious ways. Note how many Shrinker experiments feature full-time women staff members.
   
5. Disappearing money. They are poor stewards of the big things (doctrine) and even worse stewards of the little things (money). The CORE leased a movie theater in the midst of WELS congregations, to promote Groeschel sermons and make $250,000 disappear in a few months. Rock N Roll asked the Antioch Foundation for $200,000 for a worship leader when they had two full-time staffers and attendance of 30. Parlow and Jeske never stop scrounging for grants while talking about how successful they are. Gunn began job-hunting as soon as outside money dried up.
   
6. Ashamed of the word Lutheran. Shrinkers eliminate the word Lutheran from everything they do, but they want Lutherans to support them unhesitatingly.

UOJ Church Growth Can Be Hard To Swallow

Spoiled Egyptians Hard To Digest

Free Advice Needed for WELS

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Luther, Lord's Prayer, and OJ":

Dear Pr. Jackson,

Please offer to help WELS leaders sort out their theological mess. Start with a letter/email to the Prez.

***

GJ - I appreciate the suggestion. I imagine it will be read by some and discussed by many.

Otten made a serious mistake in brokering the news for various synods. He helped manage the campaigns for Jack Preus, Ralph Bohlmann, and Al Barry. A typical day, based on my visits there, had him on the phone frequently with various synodical power brokers. That made him an unacknowledged leader of various synods, because he was almost as involved in WELS/ELS as Missouri, and dabbled in the misbegotten CLC too.

The UOJ Stormtroopers did not want me discussing their precious heresy in public, so I was banned in CN. The tabloid is so last-century now, weeks later than most people get their news from the Net.

My approach will continue to be - publish whatever is rotten in the state of Denmark and discuss Lutheran doctrine. The Word is effective, as shown by the latest efforts to silence me by attacking my sainted daughters. Once exposed by their own Dreck, they called their opponents "nasty," refused to publish their comments, and stopped. They reminded me of Gibbon's description of one army - "They fought without discipline and ran without shame."

UOJ is the ugly head of Enthusiasm, while Romanism is the alluring answer to Enthusiasm...from Enthusiasm. Both must be addressed and defeated by Lutherans.

By naming the key doctrines of the Book of Concord--God's own methods--WELS has stepped into a new discussion that divide the sheep from the goats, or more optimistically, the sheep from the wolves.

Many Lutherans are new-born babes in discussing the Means of Grace and the efficacy of the Word. They have been fed religious Pop-tarts, candy corn, and soda crackers. The new diet will be challenging but exciting. They will meet opposition everywhere. Chytraeus wrote that one of the surest signs of orthodox is that opposition.

Reading Pilgrim's Progress again, I ran into a funny but accurate description of how things go. Apollyon (Satan's servant) assailed Christian to come back to the City of Destruction and abandon his trip to the Celestial City. "Your master stays where He is and never helps His servants when they are in trouble. But my master enters the world and helps his servants, by deceit and fraud." Of course, that is Satanic temptation, to imagine the first part true when it is not. But the second part is definitely true in every single denomination.

Luther, Lord's Prayer, and OJ

Little Rockers listen to new hit parody -
"Perish is the word I use to describe..."

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "First Known Statement of Two Justifications - From...":

Dr. Jackson,

I agree with you on UOJ. I was wondering if you could briefly comment on Luther's explanation of the 5th Petition in the Large Catechism, which might be used as a defense for UOJ.

***

GJ - Here is the statement in question:

88] Therefore there is here again great need to call upon God and to pray: Dear Father, forgive us our trespasses. Not as though He did not forgive sin without and even before our prayer (for He has given us the Gospel, in which is pure forgiveness before we prayed or ever thought about it). But this is to the intent that we may recognize and accept such forgiveness. 89] For since the flesh in which we daily live is of such a nature that it neither trusts nor believes God, and is ever active in evil lusts and devices, so that we sin daily in word and deed, by commission and omission, by which the conscience is thrown into unrest, so that it is afraid of the wrath and displeasure of God, and thus loses the comfort and confidence derived from the Gospel; therefore it is ceaselessly necessary that we run hither and obtain consolation to comfort the conscience again.

This is a beautiful statement about the Atonement, which is pure forgiveness. One example from the New Testament is Paul's discussion on Reconciliation, a synonym for the Atonement.

KJV 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Another is the three-fold example of Christ's sacrificial death:

KJV Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

KJV Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

KJV Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

These examples show that the Atonement is the Gospel, an objective fact which does not depend upon man's faith or virtue. Luther often wrote things like this, which I am paraphrasing - "Christ died for the sins of the world" - that is a meaningless statement unless you say "He died for me." Here the explanatory phrase is ignored by the Stormtroopers: "(for He has given us the Gospel, in which is pure forgiveness before we prayed or ever thought about it)."

The preaching of this Gospel produces faith, the Holy Spirit working effectively through the Word. The best comparison is the Atonement being the great treasure (a term used more than once in the Book of Concord). The treasure lies in one pile until it is distributed by the Holy Spirit in the Word and Sacraments.

So the Atonement is already true, without us and apart from us. But the declaration of our forgiveness is separate from the Atonement. Justification in the Bible always means justification by faith. The UOJ Stormtroopers confuse "if" and "when." They erect their Straw Man fallacy and say, "You are not forgiven because of your faith!" Faith means trust in the Gospel Promises, so we are forgiven when we believe in the forgiveness proclaimed in the cross of Christ. The Word of God daily proclaims this to us. The Gospel of John was written to produce faith, so faith must be good in the eyes of God. John 3:16 commends faith and John 3:36 condemns unbelief. " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Either we believe or we do not believe. There is no middle ground.

The tragedy of our time comes from Lutherans who have separated grace from the Means of Grace. Not trusting in the effectiveness of the Word, they turn to secular methods and become hardened unbelievers who will do or say anything to maintain their chintzy little kingdoms.

I know intelligent Lutherans who embrace UOJ and supposedly reject the Church Growth Movement. UOJ is the foundation of CGM, as Valleskey revealed in his odious book and the fake Ichabods disclosed on their defeated blog.

I highly recommend reading Luther's Commentary on Galatians in its entirety. I read it aloud to Mrs. Ichabod. The commentary was Bunyan's favorite, apart from the Bible. Luther said he would keep two of his books - Galatians and his Small Catechism. It is so strange that seminary professors suggest drivel like Your Church Can Grow instead of Luther.

Perish Services Perishing

Their pop hit needed just a little tweaking.

Perish is the word I use to describe
All the feeling that I have hiding here for you inside. (Yech, yech)
You don't know how many times I've wished that I could scold you,
You don't know how many times I've wished that I had sold you,
You don't know how many times I've wished that I could have
Rolled you into something who could
Perish yourself as much as you perished me.


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WELS Convention Thread for Thursday":

I think even bigger news than the budget is the resolution that Schottey brought up. Perish Services has been totally decimated. Rather than a Board with an Administrator and a Chairman and decision making power, with many sub-boards and sub-administrators, Perish Services now consists of only 3 sub-administrators who report to the Conference of Presidents and are called by the COP.

President Schroeder slapped them down for trying to go around his authority and destroyed them and their support of the CG movement. Now there's not much left of Perish Services, and what is left can't do a thing without the COP knowing about it.

This is great news.

First Known Statement of Two Justifications - From Halle University Pietist

Look at who donated the Knapp book scanned by Google.

George Christian Knapp (1753-1825) was a Pietist but very rationalistic. He taught two justifications, objective and subjective, in his Lectures on Theology, published in German in 1789. The Lectures were translated into English in 1831 by Leonard Wood, who was very influential at the time, published and used in many editions in America. The Lectures were still being used at Andover at the end of the 19th century, mirroring the enormous span of years Knapp spent teaching.

Knapp taught Objective and Subjective Justification, in form familiar to Missouri, WELS, and the Little Sect on the Prairie:

Here are some statements from the English edition, 8th, 1859, p. 397ff:

The Scripture doctrine of pardon or justification through Christ, as an universal and unmerited favour of God.

1. The Universality of this Benefit

It is universal as the atonement itself...If the atonement extends to the whole human race, justification must also be universal--i.e., all must be able to obtain the actual forgiveness of their sins and blessedness on account of the atonement of Christ. But in order to obviate mistakes, some points may require explanation.

*[Translator note - This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he profers pardon to all through Christ; subjective is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the gospel. The former is universal, the latter not.]

(GJ note - This is the same formula, in the translator's note, taught by J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, late professor at Mequon, originator of the first three Kokomo Statements. This formula morphs easily into Babtist decision theology, hiring Ed Stetzer, and learning from Andy Stanley. I understand the "dog notes" at Mequon are from Meyer himself.)

The Register, quoted below:

"Dr. Knapp, late Professor at the University of Halle, was born at Glancha,in Halle, on the 17th of September, 1753, and received his early education in the Royal Paedagogium, one of the institutions of the pious Francke. At the age of 17, he entered the university at Halle, and attended the lectures of Semler, Noesselt and Gruner, with more than common success. The Bible was his great object of study, while the Latin and Greek classics still received a degree of attention which enabled him ever afterwards to adorn, enrich and illustrate from classical literature whatever he said or wrote in the department of Theological science. In 1774 he completed his course of study, and in 1775, after a short absence, he began to lecture, at Halle, with much success upon Cicero, the New Testament, and the more difficult portions of the Old Testament. He was appointed Prof. Extraordinary in 1777, and Prof. Ordinary in 1782. He then lectured in Exegesis, Church History, and in Jewish and Christian Antiquities.

On the death of Freylinghausen (1785), he and Niemeyer were appointed Directors of Francke's Institutes; and continued jointly to superintend these establishments for more than 40 years. In the division of duties, the Bible and Missionary establishment fell to Dr. Knapp, which brought him into near connection with the Moravians. The lectures, of which this volume forms a part, he commenced during the summer of the same year."

WELS Convention Thread for Thursday

Michael Schottey has left a new comment on your post "Walther, Valleskey, Brenner, and Propositional The...":

The WELS passed a four part resolution this morning

1) Acceptance of "Option C"--cuts will be made in administration, travel and in para-ministries that can be easily replaced at a later time.

2) Encouragement of synodical entities to use the WELS VEBA Holiday refund by remitting it back to synod in the newly established ministry support fund

3) Mandate to the Synodical Council that if, in the second year of the biennium, cuts need to be made, Salary Furloughs are utilized first rather than cuts.

4) We as a synod place emphasis and understand that it is God who blesses us and thank him for these gifts.

---

From WELS:

Delegates have adopted a resolution of the Finance and Budget Floor Committee for the 2009-11 biennium, which provides enough funding for Ministerial Education to retain WELS' present three-tier, four-school system as contained in the Synodical Council's proposed budget Option A.

The resolution also keeps funding for the Boards for Home and World Missions at the same level as the proposed budget Option B so that no further missionary cuts are needed.

Instead, the budgets of Communications, Financial Services, Technology, the Congregational Resource Team within Parish Services, Mission Counselors, and corporate travel expenses will be cut by a total of $1 million.

Look for more details to follow.

---

An observer wrote:

"An interesting conclusion might be drawn from the vote (paper ballots) on the first budget resolution that kept Missions and Education at the higher levels and moved the cuts elsewhere. The vote was, as I recall, 261 to 65, give or take a few, the ayes being 80%. That seems to say those favoring the schools were 80%, while those against them were 20%, of those present. That might be an indication of the ratio against the C&C gang. Maybe that is not a sound conclusion, but I thought the ratio looked good."

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WELS Convention Thread for Thursday":

Why couldn't the SC come up with this as well? They could not come up with something like this "Option C"?

261 to 65? Convincing vote.


***

GJ - I think SP Schroeder showed wisdom in allowing the convention to decide on options rather than forcing one solution through. Inventing a crisis and forcing the purchase of a failed Roman Catholic school led WELS into Prairie due Chien, which is now a prison, and losing a prep in New Ulm, where WELS members are especially dense. The density of WELS members in that area moved them to spend oodles on their own Area Lutheran High School, removing a large number of potential students from Prairie.

Someone wrote earlier about $22 million in debt. Institutions and individuals always have debt. The report showed the debt being reducing by about 1/3 while the economy was in meltdown. That is impressive.

Schroeder has led the synod well, with The Love Shack throwing in more obstacles than one finds in The Pilgrim's Progress. Now it is up to members and pastors to consistently follow through, first by studying the Confessions, second by applying them in all situations.

Walther, Valleskey, Brenner, and Propositional Theology

Growth in WELS

Pastor Wehrwein reprinted an essay by Egbert Schaller about the basic weaknesses of the Missouri Synod.

Schaller made some excellent points about Walther not being a Biblical theologian. Walther stated propositions and followed them up with "proof" from various citations, often just a list of Biblical passages. Walther and Pieper's dogmatics classes were often "repeat after me" exercises, too, something Mequon reproduced with predictable results. The ELS lets seminarians think a little bit, but smacks around those who express their confessional conclusions. Pope John the Malefactor keeps the Left Foot of Fellowship ready - his knee-jerk reaction to dissent from his infallible doctrine.

Most of the errors weighing down Lutherans today are from propositions offered up and given no Biblical support. The propositions are endlessly repeated and people soon learn not to question the theses. Therefore, Biblical passages opposed to the falsehood or not supporting the error are attached to citations, like lint to Velcro. Just try to pull them apart.

When did God "declare the entire world forgiven of its sin"? Walther declared it in his Easter absolution sermon, and the Brief Statement entered the notion into canonical law.

Valleskey promoted Fuller doctrine the same way - with propositions in his odious WLQ essay. Those who even questioned him were pushed out of the WELS ministry. Brenner was already at Mequon when the seminary published the essay as Gospel truth. When I spoke to Brenner about the seminary's published errors, since they endorsed Church Growth with the publication, he had two answers for me:

1. The editor Gawrisch was sick, so that was why nothing was done. I asked if the whole faculty was also sick, since they did nothing.
   
2. "Write a letter."
   

So when Brenner began chanting the slogans of Kokomo Justification, I knew Enthusiasm would not depart from Mt. Zion in the near future. Forgot the politics of how the faculty and board have been stacked with members of the Patterson-Jeske-Parlow network. There are no doctrinal standards to evict professors like Al Sorum until the Book of Concord is studied, known, and discussed.

I think there is a good start already. Politics will not win the day. The Word of God will accomplish His purpose.

Confidential to all those who kept silent and let me answer Valleskey by myself - Has WELS grown larger and stronger since 1991?

Spoiling the Egyptians

More on Universal Objective Justification

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Objective Justification Question":

Pastor Jackson,

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.]

Thank you.

More On UOJ

Beware of feral rabbits who double as UOJ agents.
Night of the Lepus is more than a movie.
Caution - if you click on the link for Lepus -
the screen will fill with plump, slo-mo attack rabbits. Shudder.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Ojective Justification Question":

UOJ begs the question: Did the believers in the promise who died before Christ died for their sins go to heaven with their righteousness counted to them by grace through faith, or did they remain in some sort of way-station until they were forgiven with the whole world?

Seems to me that if forgiveness comes to us apart from the means of grace, all of the folks who died had to wait outside the gates of heaven until Christ died.

***

GJ - UOJ offers a host of Biblical contradictions, all ignored by its advocates.

You brought up a good question. Abraham is rightly called the father of faith, because he believed in the promised Savior, and it was reckoned as righteousness (justification by faith). God's Promises made Abraham a believer, but in trusting God's Word the patriarch received the blessing of forgiveness.

KJV Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

KJV Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

UOJ claims everyone was declared forgiven the moment Christ died (one version) or the moment He rose from the dead (another version). They cannot agree on the timing of their idiosyncratic heresy. So - how was Abraham objectively or universally justified? Or when?

Instead of allowing the Atonement to be a mystery revealed in God's Word, the advocates try to improve on it with wild, distorting, and absurd claims. "All the people in Hell are guilt-free saints." They must wonder why they are suffering, since they are guilt-free saints. Although the word-group faith is the most frequent by far in the New Testament, the Stormtroopers delight in attacking faith.

Brenner explained, "Faith is not a virtue..." So who said it was?

One extremist signed his Internet post, "An unbeliever."

Sig Becker seemed eager to outdo the Kokomo Statements, even though he had trouble with them.

If UOJ is such a glorious comfort, why does it cause such discomfort? Why does WELS lie about Kokomo?

The true Gospel is a source of comfort, unless someone has mangled it.

---

Anonymous wrote earlier on this post -

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2009/07/not-every-wels-member-agrees-with-ski.html

The issue of objective or universal justification has been bothering me for some time. I've always been taught and used the term objective (not universal) justification. I've seen the term condemned here, but it seemed that what I believed about justification, faith, and the means of grace also agreed with what I've seen here.

I've just read the Justification chapter of "Thy Strong Word," (as suggested by another poster here), and doing so really did help me understand the issue. I think the following passage describes my use of the term, which I will avoid in the future:

"However, in this muddle caused by false teachers, we must allow for those who use the term Objective Justification as a synonym for the atoning sacrifice of Christ. That is how I used the term in Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant. Those who use Objective Justification innocently have responded to early drafts of this chapter. These men do not believe that God grants forgiveness without the Means of Grace and without faith. They want to emphasize the universal and non-conditional nature of the atonement of Christ, that is, to emphasize that Jesus died for all sins and remains the source of comfort for all contrite sinners. The atonement remains true whether anyone believes in the cross or not. Nevertheless, God bestows His forgiveness only through the Word and Sacraments and never apart from the Means of Grace."

I learned the term, basically as another word for atonement from WELS pastors, and I've encountered it in C.F.W. Koehler's "Summary of Christian Doctrine" and a number of other books. I never understood objective justification as anything other than the atonement as you describe it above, but I see now where the terms can lead and why they should be avoided. I have not, thankfully, ever been in a classroom or church where anything resembling the Kokomo version was taught.

July 20, 2009 7:55 PM

Objective Justification Question

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Brenner Essay: "Christ's Love and the Efficacy of ...":

Pastor Jackson,

I was wondering about your use of the term Objective Justification that you used on page 144 of your rather good book: Liberalism, its Cause and its Cure pubished (sic) by NPH and how that differs in what you speak of reguarding (sic) UOJ above?

I could not seem to gleen (sic, probably means glean, because gleen means to glisten) your use of the term from the context of the paragraph.

Thank you.

***

GJ - I thought, as do many today, that Objective Justification meant the Atonement. But John Brenner and the UOJ Stormtroopers preserve the original intent of the Pietistic opinion of Knapp:
A. Everyone has already been forgiven, whether they believe or not. Objective Justification.
B. Everyone needs to make a decision about this eternal (19th century) truth. J. P. Meyer.

The new version mixes the Means of Grace with this formula, but oil and water do not combine readily. Falsehood and truth combined do not improve the falsehood but make it more dangerous by cloaking the Enthusiasm in some pretty words that are obviously not believed.

Recently one reader commented that he once had the same false view of OJ, thinking it was a harmless synonym for the Atonement. However, Brenner made it clear from the start that he was promoting and defending the double-justification error of Knapp. Brenner has published a paper on Pietism, so perhaps he will study it some more.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Ojective Justification Question":

Pastor Jackson,

Please indulge me with a few more questions.

My pastor told our class when doing a class about CGM that justification, atonement, redemption, all meant the same thing. He had notes from the seminary where he showed us that the professor taught that the Greek said that they all mean the same thing.

So you are saying this isn't so?

I still have not met anyone, Pastor or layman, who says "you are saved without believing" or "you will go to heaven even if you don't believe." But warn of the risk that we have to do something.

Doesn't your position risk putting people into the place of making a decision, if Christ didn't die for the sins of all? Making a formula to make sure you believe, thus playing into "making a decision" the next a logical step.

What did Christ do on the cross if he didn't die for all the sins of the world past, present and future?

Respectfully yours.

***

GJ - Seminary notes are not to be confused with the Book of Concord! You did touch on an important fact - combining all the terms. The Atonement is Christ paying for the sins of the world. That is not disputed. Justification by faith, sometimes called forensic justification, is God's declaration of forgiveness received in faith. The UOJ Stormtroopers have made their OJ into a special category, separate from the Atonement.

I suggest that you read the material on Knapp, posted under the Brenner essay.

A WELS DP said that he never heard someone claim that everyone was saved. I said, "WELS had an evangelism compaign, where the banners said to everyone - I am saved, just like you." Of course, he ignored what I said, which is a matter of record.

Why criticize Church and Change while defending their doctrinal foundation?

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Ojective Justification Question":

I may be the reader Dr. Jackson mentioned who used to think Objective Justification was a harmless term for the atonement. I asked a lot of the same questions that this reader did, because I too had learned learned the term from WELS pastors, teachers, and authors. I found answers by reading carefully in Paul's Epistles, the Formula of Concord (justification and election) and Luther's Large Catechism (article III of the Creed). I was led to review those sources by Dr. Jackson's book, "Thy Strong Word." When in doubt, always return to Scripture and the Confessions (the norming norm and the normed norm respectively).

I still think many do simply use OJ as another term for atonement, but I do not think it is a harmless term. Words mean things, often precise things. There is simply no need to use the term OJ and add to and confuse what the Scripture and the Book of Concord say about justification, which is the central article of Christian doctrine.

***

GJ - Thanks. Can you remember which post you responded to? Comments did not work well (using email) and I lost track of where it landed. Thanks.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Ojective Justification Question":

I have been a member of an ELS congregation for a little over a year. I grew up in the LCMS and was always taught that Christ paid for (atoned for) the sins of the whole world - His righteousness. His righteousness is our righteousness through the free gift of faith alone through the Word alone (means of grace).

After reading Rev. Jackson's postings on UOJ, I looked at the ELS teaching on its website and learned that the posted teaching is as Rev. Jackson states, that the whole world is forgiven.

Isn't such a teaching close to Rome's teaching of infused grace?

At any rate, I don't know if I can stay in a denomination that teaches that we receive forgiveness apart from the means of grace.

Thank you, Rev. Jackson for your continuing discussion on this very important topic.

***

GJ - Infused grace is similar - here is one Roman Catholic defense of it.

But Universal Objective Justification is worse than Romanism, if possible.

WELS or ELS or LCMS Pastor: "Someday, my princess, you will grow up to be a UOJ Stormtrooper, just like me. Together we will rule the universe, unless you turn to the Dark Side -
the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace."

I. Luther, The Book of Concord, Lutheran Orthodoxy

"The second argument is that 'God desires all men to be saved' (1 Timothy 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc. These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10 'everything for the sake of the elect.' For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says: 'This is My blood which is poured out for you' and 'for many'--He does not say: for all--'for the forgiveness of sins.'
Luther's Works, 25 p. 375. 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:4; Mark 14:24; Matthew 26:28.

"The apostle says 'our,' 'our sins;' not his own sin, not the sins of unbelievers. Purification is not for, and cannot profit, him who does not believe. Nor did Christ effect the cleansing by our free-will, our reason or power, our works, our contrition or repentance, these all being worthless in the sight of God; he effects it by himself. And how? By taking our sins upon himself on the holy cross, as Isaiah 53:6 tells us."
Sermons of Martin Luther, ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VI, p. 180. Hebrews 1:1-12; Hebrews 1:3;

"Christ did indeed suffer for the whole world; but how many are there who believe and cherish this fact? Therefore, although the work of redemption itself has been accomplished, it still cannot help and benefit a man unless he believes it and experiences its saving power in his heart."
What Luther Says, An Anthology, 3 vols., ed., Ewald Plass, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959, II, p. 705f. Smalcald, 1537.

"For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc. But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us. Therefore sanctifying is nothing else than bringing us to Christ to receive this good, to which we could not attain ourselves.
"The Large Catechism, The Creed, Article III, #38, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 689. Tappert, p. 415. Heiser, p. 194.

"But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness [sanctification]. Therefore all who seek and wish to merit holiness [sanctification], not through the Gospel and forgiveness of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves [from this Church]."
The Large Catechism, The Creed, Article III, #56, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 693. Tappert, p. 418. Heiser, p. 195.

Formula 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.

"Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ's righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith, Philippians 3:9. For this use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Proverbs 17:15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Isaiah 5:23: Woe unto them which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Romans 8:33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, that is, absolves from sins and acquits."
Formula of Concord, SD III. #17. Righteousness of Faith. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 921 Tappert, p. 541f. Heiser, p. 251. Philippians 3:9; Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:23; Romans 8:33.

Gerhard
"The entire Scripture testifies that the merits of Christ are received in no other way than through faith, not to mention that it is impossible to please God without faith, Hebrews 11:6, let alone to be received into eternal life. In general, St. Paul concludes concerning this [matter] in Romans 3:28: Thus we hold then that a man becomes righteous without the works of the Law--only through faith."
Johann Gerhard, A Comprehensive Explanation of Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper, 1610, ed. D. Berger, J. Heiser, Malone, Texas: Repristination Press, 2000, p. 165. Hebrews 11:6; Romans 3:28.

The sainted Jack Preus (l.) translated Chemnitz and presided over the LCMS after leaving the Little Sect on the Prairie. David Preus (r.) was cousin to Jack and Robert; he led The ALC into altar fellowship with the Reformed. Robert Marshall, next to David Preus, led the LCA into women's ordination. Robert Preus (no photo available) was a UOJ warrior in the springtime of his Norwegian Pietism, but reformed late in life. No one told his sons Rolf and Dan. Well, I did, but they did not listen. I was acquainted with three of these men above, Robert Preus, Ralph Bohlmann, and a few others.

Robert Preus
"But the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner takes place when the Holy Spirit brings him to faith through Baptism and the Word of the Gospel. Our sins were imputed to Christ at His suffering and death, imputed objectively after He, by His active and passive obedience, fulfilled and procured all righteousness for us. But the imputation of His righteousness to us takes place when we are brought to faith." [procured in italics in text]
Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 72.

Abraham Calov: "Although Christ has acquired for us the remission of sins, justification, and sonship, God just the same does not justify us prior to our faith. Nor do we become God's children in Christ in such a way that justification in the mind of God takes place before we believe." [Apodixis Articulorum Fide, Lueneburg, 1684]
Robert D. Preus, Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n.

Lenski
"The danger is that by use of the term 'subjective justification' we may lose the objective divine act of God by which He declares the individual sinner righteous ex pistews pistin in the instant faith (embracing Christ) is wrought in him, leaving only the one divine declaration regarding the whole world of sinners, calling this an actus simplex, the only forensic act of God, and expanding this to mean that God declared every sinner free from guilt when Christ was raised from the dead, so many millions even before they were born, irrespective of faith, apart from and without faith. This surely wipes out 'justification by faith alone.' Only his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness."
R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of Romans, Augsburg Publishing House: Minneapolis, 1963 p. 85. Romans 1:17. [GJ - WELS does not like Lenski on this point because Lenski is correct - and a real scholar of the Bible and Lutheran orthodoxy.]

"Nowhere in the bible is any man constituted or declared righteous without faith, before faith; all asservations and argumentations to the contrary notwithstanding."

Lenski, Romans, p. 382? Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 86.

"As to the doctrine in general, he [Lenski] repudiates and ridicules the teaching that on Easter morning God forgave, really forgave, all the world all its sins, really and truly justified the world. He protests against making objective reconciliation, general justification, mean that God on Easter morning did actually pronounce the world, all individuals making up the world, really innocent of all sin and guilt."
Theodore Engelder, Objective Justification, Concordia Theological Monthly, 1933, Ft. Wayne: Concordia Seminary Press, n.d. p. 508. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. [GJ - The LCMS UOJ Stormtrooper do not like Lenski on this point either.]

II. Halle Established Pietism and the Cancer Spread

Johann Albrecht Bengel, 1687-1752, second only to Spener in Pietism's influence, laid the groundwork for Semler's rejection of God's Word.

Anyone interested in Universal Objective Justification (God declaring, in His grace, without the Means of Grace, that the entire world is forgiven but not really forgiven) needs to know about J. A. Bengel, the radical Pietist.

Bengel's daughter married Philip David Burk, who worked closely with his father-in-law on the Gnomon. Burk also published extensively, his works in German still available in various libraries. As far as I can tell, Burk is the first theologian to support justification without faith (UOJ).

Hoenecke:
And Ph. D. Burk (Rechtfertigung und Versicherung, p. 41) rightly said:

"The difference between general justification and the more common usage of the term justification can be expressed as follows. The latter takes place precisely upon the appropriation of the former." Adolph Hoenecke, Dogmatik, III, p. 354-5


Burk, Philip David, a Protestant theologian of Germany, was born July 26, 1714, at Neu Ren. He studied at Tubingen, was in 1742 pastor nt Bolheitn, and in 1750 at Hcdelfingen, near Stuttgard. In 1758 he was appointed superintendent at Markt-Groningen, and in 1766 he was called for the same position to Kirchheim, where he died, March 22, 1770. He is the author of fïnowmn in Dundecini Prophetus Minores (Heilbronn, 1753), with a Preface by his father-in-law, the famous J. A. Dengcl: — Gnomon Psalinorum (Stuttgard, 1760): — Knuigelischer Fingerzeig auf den wahren Verstand und heilsamen Gebrauch der geirohnlichen Sonn-Fest-itml Feiertäglichen Kvangflien, etc. (Leipsic and Tübingen, 1760-67, 7 vols.) -.—Die Lehre rnn der Reehljerttyiiiig und decen GeiciJtshfit im Jlerzen und Geirissen des Sünden, etc. (Stuttgard, 1763-65, 7 pts.). Sec Winer, Handbuch der then!. Lit. i, 99; During, Die gelehrten Theologen Deutschlands, i, 208 sq. (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature by John McClintock)

Otto Heick has an interesting paragraph in his History of Christian Thought, volume II. (Heick was my Christology professor at Waterloo Seminary. He often took Mrs. Ichabod and me to supper.)

"Johann Albrecht Bengel spent much time and effort to unlock the mystery of the Book of Revelation. He toyed with the idea of a 'restoration of all.' He also developed in detail a doctrine of the blood of Christ. The body of Christ, he taught, was totally drained of blood on the cross. In the resurrection it was not reunited with the body , but is retained in heaven as the precious ransom of man's sin. In the act of justification the believer is sprinkled in a mysterious manner with the blood of Christ and thus cleansed from his sin. This emphasis on the blood of the Savior played a very important part in the theology of Zinzendorf." (Heick, II, p. 25)

Bengel is pivotal because his creative approach to theology opened the doors to inventing additional theories of justification and a rationalistic approach to the Scriptures. (Read more about Semler below.)

I am only speculating at the moment, but I can see a direct connection between Bengel's blood theory, which is pure Enthusiasm, and his son-in-law's quoted statement in Hoenecke, which is also Enthusiasm. Bengel's version seems to be an allegory of OJ (blood in heaven) and SJ (given to believers). I can only find advocates for UOJ among the Pietists, Universalists, and Methodists (English Pietists).

Here is a description of Bengel from a doctoral student at Trinity Divinity School in Deerfield. The student's words carry great weight because WELS is in fellowship with Trinity, as the Trinity printed materials reveal.

To have Bengel on your side as a critic of inerrancy is to have a "heavy hitter" in the history of the Christian church. Although he is now largely confined to a passing comment in discussions of the history of textual criticism, Bengel has been described as a leading figure in the history of Lutheran theology-comparable to Martin Luther, J. C. K. von Hofmann, and Adolf Schlatter.7 he has been described as "the exegete of pietism"8 and even "the most important exegete since Calvin."9 In fact, although he is readily recognized as the father of modern textual criticism,10 Helmbold claims that he is also the father of modern scientific exegesis, modern eschatological study, and even the father of those seeking unity among Evangelicals.11

Whether or not one agrees with these estimations (Helmbold's claims, in particular, seem rather generous), Bengel can hardly be dismissed as an "uncritical" pietist with a simplistic faith and little intellectual ability. In addition to a master's degree in philosophy and an honorary doctorate from the University of Tubingen, he published work on the accents of the Hebrew Bible, Spinoza, new editions of classical and patristic texts, the history and methods of textual criticism, a harmony of the Gospels, a history of interpretation and commentary on the book of Revelation, and a study of biblical chronology and salvation history (Ordo Temporum). Bengel also spent twenty-eight years in leadership of the preparatory school at Denkendorf preparing students for the University of Tübingen and ordination for the Lutheran ministry.12

In a history book by the great Henry Eyster Jacobs:
But as historical truth demands it, we let the story be told by a later Halle professor, the eminent Professor Tholuck, whom no one can charge with prejudice against the school of Spener and Francke. "Pietism in Halle," says Professor Tholuck, " reached the summit of its power under Frederick William I. [1 713-40], the soldier king with the Christian soldier's heart, the particular patron of the Halle theological faculty. Under him was issued in 1729 the edict which was promulgated anew in 1736, according to which no Lutheran theologian should hold a position in the Prussian state who had not studied at least two years in Halle, and received a testimonial from the Halle faculty of being in a state of grace.

Gradually the nursery of piety was transformed into a nursery of rationalism. ' God's gifts descend not by inheritance;' this is proved also in the history of the Halle institutions. Every director had the right to chose his own successor; and yet with Ludwig Schultze and Niemeyer the direction passed gradually into the hands of rationalism. Under Baumgarten the interests of piety yielded to those of learning ; and through Semler, Gruner, Nosselt, and Niemeyer, rationalism became the prevalent theology. Only in George Christian Knapp a branch of the old Halle school remained, but reserved and timid, and without any extensive influence. At my [Tholuck's] entrance in Halle in 1826 I found still two citizens who traced their faith to this one deceased advocate of the old school among the clergy." This deterioration, however, was gradual.

Tholuck was Hoenecke's most important professor at Halle University, and Tholuck was probably the most conservative among the Halle rationalists.

Tholuck's Universalism, from The Modern History of Universalism:
Professor Sears, of the Baptist Church in New England, speaks very decisively, on the point that Tholuck was understood to believe in the restitution of all things. "Though as a theologian, Dr. Tholuck is on the side of Orthodoxy, it must be remembered that it is the Orthodoxy of Germany. I feel the more called on to state frankly what I know to be the truth, from the fact that the works of several German critics, of whom he is the safest, have now become so popular in England and America as to demand a translation. This distinguished and excellent man, in common with the great majority of the evangelical divines in Germany, though he professes to have serious doubts, and is cautious in avowing the sentiment, believes that all men and fallen spirits will finally be saved. The current hypothesis (meaning in Germany) is that in the middle state, intervening between death and the resurrection, the righteous will gradually attain to perfection ; and that to all the wicked, whether men or angels, the gospel will be preached, and that they will ultimately accept it and be restored.1"
Professor Sears afterwards gave the subject of a conversation which he had with Tholuck as follows : "One evening, at his house, there was a debate between us on the subject, in the presence of two American gentlemen, now in this country. It made such a painful impression on the mind of the writer, that he can remember not only the ideas, but many of the identical words and phrases employed at that time. The following is the substance of that conversation, which was held in English : —
Tholuck: I suppose that my American brethren would consider me orthodox in general, except in my Universalism. — Sears : They would, most certainly. But with them that one point would be a 1 This announcement was made by Professor Sears, A. 1). 1834. We refer those who wish to look more fully into this subject, to an article entitled, " Professor Tholuck and Universalism," from the pen of Rev. T. J- Sawyer, in the Expositor and Universalist Review, vol. iii. New series, edited by Rev. Hosea Balkm 2d., Boston. Published by Q. W. Bazin & A. Tompkius, 1839.

But with them that one point would be a serious matter. With this sentiment you could not hold a standing in our Orthodox churches. Now, where did you find this doctrine, — in the Bible, or in your philosophy ? — Tholuck: In both. — Sears : What are the passages of Scripture on which you principally rely ? — ' Tholuck: My main passage is 1 Cor. xv. 28. Christ shall overcome all, and hring them in complete subjection to God, who to all men will be their all, their everything. Such language cannot well be applied to those who shall still remain his enemies. Also Rom, xi. 36. For out of him, and through him, and into him, are all things ; i. e. all things proceed out of him as their source of being; by him they are conducted to their proper destination ; and into him they all return, as their eternal resting place. It follows, of course, that they will all be happy ; for happiness consists in being in God. Another passage is, ' Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess,' &c. (Philip, ii. 9-11.) — Sears: Do you find no passages of Scripture which positively declare the everlasting punishment of the •wicked ? Tholuck : Yes. Matt. xxv. 46, and others like it.— Sears : Can those passages, which you think favor Universalism, be understood in any other sense without violating the fundamental laws of interpretation ? — Tholuck: Yes, they can, but the construction would not be so easy and natural. — Sears : Can the other passages, which speak of endless punishment, possibly bear any other construction ? Tholuck : I do not see how they can. — Sears : Well, what are you going to do with them ? — Tholuck: This is my onlv difficulty. These two classes of texts seem to me contradictory ; I cannot reconcile them. But when I reflect upon the character of God, as a Being of love, I lose all my doubts.


III. The Synodical Conference Drew Its UOJ from the latter, rationalistic stage of Halle Pietism

Walther moved in Pietistic circles in his early life and came to America with the Pietistic Bishop-for-Life Stephan.

Walther
"For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is--faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him."
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 p. 233. Brosamen, p. 138. Mark 16:1-8

"Christ's Glorious Resurrection from the Dead the Actual Absolution of the Entire Sinful World Here I would point out two things: 1. That This Is Certain And True, and 2. That Therefore Every Man Who Wants To Be Saved Must By Faith Accept This General Absolution As Applying Also To Him,"
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 p. 230. Brosamen, p. 138. Mark 16:1-8.

"The fact of the redemption and reconciliation of the entire human race through Christ, and with it the forgiveness of all sins for all men on God's part--which, indeed, is precisely what the Gospel proclaims, presents and gives--can by no means become a lie through the unbelief of men...even when the unbelievers don't receive it, but reject it for themselves and for this reason--indeed, for this reason alone--are lost."
Walther's colleague, Theodore Brohm, 1808-1881 Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 16.

See Valleskey Below for the Same Confusion
"It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: That forgiveness and justification before God do not involve each other, or that justification and reconciliation are entirely different from each other, as though a person can be reconciled without being justified or justified without being reconciled." Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, #3.

Valleskey – OJ and CG
"In Christ, God has effected a universal justification, a universal reconciliation, a universal ransom, a universal atonement. Different terms, but all communicating the same message: God in Christ has declared the whole world to be not guilty."
David J. Valleskey, We Believe--Therefore We Speak, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1995, p. 71.

Francis Pieper, raised in the Pietistic Wisconsin Synod, was selected by Walther to pass along the false doctrine of UOJ. Pieper established UOJ in the Brief Statement and had his own disciples expand on the Enthusiastic fantasy of the world's absolution on Easter.

Pieper
"The starting point in presenting the doctrine of the means of grace must be the universal objective reconciliation or justification. This is the procedure of Scripture."
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., trans., Walter W. F. Albrecht, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953, III, p. 105.

"Now, then, if the Father raised Christ from the dead, He, by this glorious resurrection act, declared that the sins of the whole world are fully expiated, or atoned for, and that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal. This gracious reconciliation and justification is clearly taught in Romans 4:25: 'Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification.' The term dikaiosis here means the act of divine justification executed through God's act of raising Christ from the dead, and it is for this reason called the objective justification of all mankind. This truth Dr. Walther stressed anew in America. He taught that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners. (Evangelienpostille, p. 160ff.)" part one
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 321. Romans 4:25

"The resurrection of Christ is, as Holy Writ teaches, the actual absolution of the whole world of sinners. Romans 4:25: 'Who was raised again for our justification.' At that time we were objectively declared free from sin."
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 348 Romans 4:25

"Scripture teaches the objective reconciliation (o.r. in italics). Nineteen hundred years ago Christ effected the reconciliation of all men with God. God does not wait for men to reconcile Him with themselves by means of any efforts of their own. He is already reconciled. The reconciliation is an accomplished fact, just like the creation of the world. Romans 5:10: 'We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son.' When Christ died, God became reconciled." pt. 1 of paragraph
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 347f. Romans 5:10

J. P. Meyer, WELS
"Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner's attitude toward Christ's sacrifice, purely on the basis of God's verdict, every sinner, whether he knows about it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint. What will be his reaction when he is informed about this turn of events? Will he accept, or will he decline?"
J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963, p. 103f. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

"This applies to the whole world, to every individual sinner, whether he was living in the days of Christ, or had died centuries before His coming, or had not yet been born, perhaps has not been born to this day. It applies to the world as such, regardless of whether a particular sinner ever comes to faith or not."
J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963, p. 109. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

"Before Christ's intervention took place God regarded him as a guilt-laden, condemned culprit. After Christ's intervention and through Christ's intervention He regards him as a guilt-free saint."
J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963, p. 107. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

"The administration of the katallage is carried out by means of the Word. The Word is made the vehicle for conveying and applying the katallage to the world. There is no other way of administering it...It is the Word which God established through which the katallage is brought to us and through which we bring it to the world."
J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963, p. 110f. 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

Stoeckhardt
"This doctrine of general justification is the guarantee and warranty that the central article of justification by faith is being kept pure. Whoever holds firmly that God was reconciled to the world in Christ, and that to sinners in general their sin was forgiven, to him the justification which comes from faith remains a pure act of the grace of God. Whoever denies general justification is justly under suspicion that he is mixing his own work and merit into the grace of God.
[George Stoeckhardt, Concordia Theological Quarterly, April, 1978, p. 138.] Pastor Vernon Harley "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1.

"The entire Pauline doctrine of justification stands and falls with the special article of general justification. This establishes it beyond peradventure that justification is entirely independent of the conduct of man. And only in this way the individual can have the assurance of his justification. For it is the incontrovertible conclusion: Since God has already justified all men in Christ and forgiven them their sins, I, too, have a gracious God in Christ and forgiveness of all my sins."
[Quoted with approval by Theodore Engelder, from George Stoeckhardt, Commentary on Romans, p. 264.] Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 2.

Theodore Mueller
"The resurrection is God's public absolution of the entire world: 'Your sins are forgiven, all sins of all human beings; and there is no exception.' This is the meaning of the technical term 'objective justification.' The objective justification is central to the doctrine of salvation and derives logically from the facts that God's reconciliation, forgiveness, and declaration of 'not guilty' in no wise depend on the attitude or behaviour of human beings. If objective justification is denied, then it must follow that those who are declared righteous in some way have contributed to God's change of heart; justification is then no longer solely the result of God's grace."
[Theodore Mueller, Concordia Theological Quarterly, January, 1982, p. 29.] Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 3.

"The doctrine of the means of grace is understood properly only when it is considered in the light of Christ's redemptive work (satisfactio vicaria) and the objective justification, or reconciliation, 2 Corinthians 5:19-20, which He secured by His substitutionary obedience (satisfactio vicaria). If these two doctrines are corrupted (Calvinism: denial of the gratia universalis; synergism: denial of sola gratia), then also the Scripture doctrine of the means of grace will become perverted."
John Theodore Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1934, p. 442. 2 Corinthians 5:19-20.

Engelder
"The chief purpose, however, is to keep this article (general justification) before the people for its own sake. It cannot be presented and studied too often. Its vital relation to the subjective, personal justification by faith, cannot be stressed too strongly. It forms the basis of the justification by faith and keeps this article free from the leaven of Pelagianism. Unless the sinner knows that his justification is already an accomplished fact in the forum of God, he will imagine that it is his faith, his good conduct, which moves God to forgive him his sins. And unless he knows that God had him personally in mind in issuing the general pardon on Easter morning, he will have no assurance of his justification."
[Theodore Engelder, Concordia Theological Monthly, July/August/September, 1933. Reissued by the seminary printshop, Ft. Wayne, 1981.] Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism--Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1f.

"Does Missouri teach 'that this, an actus simplex, is the only justification there is'? Yes and no. We do not teach that the objective justification of Easter morning is the only justification there is...But most readers of the Pastor's Monthly know that Missouri teaches that there is a) an objective justification and b) a subjective justification."
Theodore Engelder, Objective Justification, Concordia Theological Monthly, 1933, Ft. Wayne: Concordia Seminary Press, n.d. p. 514. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20.

Paul Kelm has been hired by The Love Shakc to promote Church Growth Enthusiasm. He advocates upside-down theology. Indeed.
Kelm
"It's just easier for many people to work backwards from the subjective to the objective in their thinking. In fact, upside-down evangelism may start with gospel and work back to law, stating the solution as a prelude to the problem and clarifying both at the cross."
[This is Moravian Pietism, as shown by Walther's Law and Gospel.] Paul Kelm The Evangelism Life Line (WELS), Fall, 1985 p. 5.

WELS Kokomo
"At the time of the resurrection of Christ, God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all sin and gave unto them the status of saints." (Pastor Charles Papenfuss) WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979. "When God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, He individually pronounced forgiveness to each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not."
(J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 109) WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.

"After Christ's intervention and through Christ's intervention God regards all sinners as guilt-free saints."
(J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 107) WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.

"Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner's attitude toward Christ's sacrifice, purely on the basis of God's verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of saint."
(J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 103) WELS, Kokomo Four Statements, 1979.

"Here the panel feels itself compelled to distinguish between form and content. While the form of the Four Statements is inadequate, the doctrine of objective justification it grapples with is Scriptural. The Four Statements have served to show that there is a doctrinal difference between Faith Congregation and the appellants."
Report of the WELS Review Committee, Hartman, Pohlman Appeal, June 30, 1980. Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 133.

E. Preuss, LCMS then Roman Catholic
"So, then, we are reconciled; however, not only we, but also Hindus, and Hottentots and Kafirs, yes, the world. 'Reconciled', says our translation; the Greek original says: 'placed in the right relation to God'. Because before the Fall we, together with the whole creation, were in the right relation to God, therefore Scripture teaches that Christ, through His death, restored all things to the former right relation to God."
F. R. Eduard Preuss, 1834-1904, Die Rechtfertigung der Suender vor Gott. Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 24.

Norwegians
"The chief differences between the contestants [Norwegians and Swedish Augustana] seems to have been in the essence rather than in the effect of Absolution. Both agreed that the Gospel offered the forgiveness of sins, but the one side held that it was given only to those who in faith received it, while the other side said that it was given also to unbelievers, though they did not accept it. Both agreed that unbelievers received no benefit from such an absolution."
J. Magnus Rohne, Norwegian Lutheranism up to 1872, New York, Macmillan, p. 231. Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 20.

"The teaching of the [Norwegian] Wisconsin Synod is this, that in and with the universal reconciliation, which has occurred in Christ for the whole world--even Judas; the world--even Judas--has been justified and has received the forgiveness of sin. Therefore, according to Luther's clear words ("for where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation"), (even Judas) has become a child of God and an heir of heaven."
Quotation from Gottfried Fritschel, "Zur Lehre von der Rechtfertigung," Theologische Monatshefte, vol 4, 1871, (1-24), p. 7. Rick Nicholas Curia, The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective or Universal Justification, Alpine, California: California Pastoral Conference, WELS. January 24-25, 1983. p. 2. Wisconsin Synod of the old Norwegian Synod - Charge made by Hasselquist.

Sig Becker
"But if forgiveness comes first, if it is always there, if it is true whether I believe it or not, I do not need to know whether I have faith or not before I can cling to God's promise. I know that my sins are forgiven whether I feel forgiven or unforgiven. I know that my iniquity is pardoned whether I believe it or not. And when I know that, then I know also that I am a believer."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated

"Three of the four [Kokomo] statements, because of their lack of clarity, tend to confuse the issue. But since the disciplined laymen used them to advance their false doctrine, it was understandable that the congregation should also use them in its rejection of the falsehood being advocated. I do not consider any of the four statements to be false doctrine, but I would rather not use the language used in the first, second, and fourth." [conclusion of paper] Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated.

"Every one of the statements can be understood correctly, even though one must swallow a little hard to accede to the fourth [Kokomo Statement]." Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated "The first three statements are taken verbatim from WELS sources."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated.

"The forgiveness comes first. Faith is merely the response to the message."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated.

"The doctrine of universal justification is often ridiculed with the argument that if God really forgives sins prior to faith then the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith becomes meaningless. Such conclusions demonstrate a rationalistic spirit that consciously or unconsciously refuses to be guided by Scriptures alone."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, Unpaginated .

"The two terms are relatively modern. They are not used in the Lutheran Confessions. They are also not really synonymous. 'Universal justification' is a term denoting the doctrine that God has forgiven the sins of all men. Strictly speaking, the term 'objective justification' expresses the thought that the sins of a man are forgiven by God whether he believes it or not. Objective justification is not necessarily universal, but if justification is universal it must of necessity be objective."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois, November 9, 1982, p. 1.

---

L P has left a new comment on your post "Ojective Justification Question":

Pr. GJ.

I have a question on the first Luther quote.


"The second argument is that 'God desires all men to be saved' (1 Timothy 2:4), and He gave His Son for us men and created man for eternal life. Likewise: All things exist for man, and he himself exists for God that he may enjoy Him, etc. These points and others like them can be refuted as easily as the first one. For these verses must always be understood as pertaining to the elect only, as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10 'everything for the sake of the elect.' For in an absolute sense Christ did not die for all, because He says: 'This is My blood which is poured out for you' and 'for many'--He does not say: for all--'for the forgiveness of sins.'
Luther's Works, 25 p. 375. 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:4; Mark 14:24; Matthew 26:28.

I can understand the last sentence. I highlighted the portion in which Luther seems to believe in Limited Atonement.

Can you explain? Are the following Luther quotes after that meant to clarify this?

LPC

***

GJ - Luther wrote 100 volumes, each one equal to an encyclopedia. There are also issues about transcriptions were faithful, such as with the Table Talks, with various editors. Besides, that one, statement can appear UOJish while this particular one sound like Limited Atonement to you.

The Parable of the Sower can viewed the same way, with three examples out of four showing a lack of yield. Does that make Jesus a teacher of Limited Atonement? Luther was fond of saying "The Gospel is thinly sown." He was not a triumphalist, so he would have ridiculed a program like the LCMS Ablaze.

I think we have to start with the foundation - how a theologian treats the Word. Calvin was rationalistic, impossible to miss in his writings, but also an Enthusiast who separated the Holy Spirit from the Word. Calvin was a propositional theologian, and many have followed in his wake, including some Lutherans. Limited Atonement has to be seen in the context of rationalism, double predestination, the extra Calvinisticum, and other aberrations.

In contrast, Luther did not try to solve the issue of why some are saved and others not. His statement about Holy Communion is clear to me, but capable of misunderstanding. The clear part is this - Holy Communion is only for believers. If the Words of Institution included "poured out for all," Universalism would be even more widespread than it already is.

This reminds me of the paradox about faith and works. Some parables (Final Judgment) seem to speak only of works while others speak only about faith. The audience and intent have a lot to do with the content.

Finally, the Book of Concord has given us a selection of Luther as a correct exposition of Scripture, and yet Lutherans hardly know those parts (Small and Large Catechism, Smalcald Articles). Not that Luther is wrong in the statement above, but the Book of Concord selection is Luther at his best and most precise.