UOJ came from Halle's Knapp, not from Genesis, Luther, or Chemnitz.The Central South District of WELS, known for its Church Growth and Emerging Church programs, sponsored a meeting where Universal Objective Justification was promoted once again, dishonestly.
The Nate Bourman paper can be found here. The WELS tradition of giving papers could be a good idea, but they endlessly recycle their dog notes (dogma class) and file the essays away as the ruling norm for doctrine and practice. An ardent atheistic, kicked out of the ministry for reasons other than unfaith, has four essays treasured in the Sausage Factory essay file.
This one deserves to be cherished too, for it is a steaming pile of manure, served on a silver plate, to quote Martin Luther.
I have converted it, without MS Word, into a document, so anyone who wants it can email me.
The title is misleading:
The Doctrine of Justification since the ReformationThe use and emergence of the terms “objective” and “subjective” in relation to justification.The opening is equally misleading (note the versification of this sacred text - in the original):
"2 The doctrine of justification has filled our hearts and minds throughout this conference. Indeed, it always 3 consumes our hearts and minds whenever we gather, for it is upon this solid rock that our faith is built. It is this 4 solid rock that fills our preaching. It is, as has been said before, the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls."
The doctrine of justification by faith is the article on which the church stands or falls. The omission of two words is a good indication of where the duplicitous author is heading.
Walter is quoted next, and the citation is vague in meaning:
5 That this is true can be found in numerous quotations from the forefathers of our faith. C.F.W. Walther for 6 instance warns: “Woe to him who injects poison into the doctrine of justification! He poisons the well which God 7 has dug for man’s salvation. Whoever takes this doctrine away from man robs him of everything; for he takes the 8 very heart out of Christianity, which ceases to pulsate after this attack.”1
Next is Chemnitz, who never taught UOJ:
9 Likewise, Chemnitz is right to remind us that we have this treasure only because of the grace of God and 10 consequently urges us to hold it dearly and defend it tenaciously: “We must devote far more effort to retaining the 11 genuine meaning and apostolic purity of the doctrine of justification, to handing it on to our posterity, and to 12 preventing its being torn away from us or being adulterated by sophistic trickery or fraud. With the aid of God we 13 can prevail more easily because we “have inherited the labors of others,” John 4:38.”2
Nate is deeply involved in sophistic trickery and fraud - already! Chemnitz, trained by Luther and Melanchthon, always taught justification by faith. UOJ did not emerge until the era of Pietism, so the declared purpose of the paper has already been abandoned. This is a magic act, misdirection of the eyes, by a maladroit artist so clumsy he seems to be wearing welder's gloves for his acts of prestidigitation.
"24 So, in order to approach this in an orderly way and on the basis of their own words this essayist will show the 25 following: Objective and subjective justification has always been purely taught, whether they used the terms 26 or not, by those who clearly and carefully distinguish Law and Gospel, as well as those who give God all the 27 credit in our salvation by maintaining justification by grace alone (objective justification), justification by 28 faith alone (subjective justification), and justification through Scripture alone (the Means of Grace).6"
Nate has found UOJ in Genesis. He taps his tophat with his magic wand, and there it is, declared as true and yet never explained:
"29 Objective justification is a forensic declaration of God by grace alone. 30 Since the beginning of time the justification of poor sinners before the most righteous and holy God through faith 31 alone has been a matter that has been hotly contested and persecuted. It led to the murder of Abel. It led to the 32 persecution of the prophets. It led to the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus, this for our salvation. 33 In fact, it was for the sake of our sins he was delivered over to death and for the sake of our justification that he was 34 raised to life.7 It shouldn’t be surprising then that it is a matter that has been hotly contested since the time of the 35 Reformation."
UOJ is the concept that God declared the entire world free of sins, without the Word, without the Means of Grace, without faith. In the past, UOJ Stormtroopers have fixed the Moment of Absolution as taking place at the death of Christ or at His resurrection. They are not sure when it happened, but they are certain of this unrecorded declaration. Now Nate has found UOJ in Genesis, a few years before it was previously discovered. And everyone hated UOJ, right from the beginning. Why? The world before the Flood would have loved it, evil in all its ways and yet given the status of guilt-free saints.
Nate, in presenting his muddled Calvinist essay, is worried about Calvinism. Unfortunately, most graduates of the seminaries of the Midwest know nothing about Calvinism. They have never studied Calvin's life or doctrine. They only know "Limited Atonement" and use that against justification by faith. The key to Calvin is his separation of the Holy Spirit from the Word. As I have shown many times before, Calvin thought the Word and Sacraments effective only when the Holy Spirit decided to drop by. That is precisely why a Calvinist calls God "Sovereign" and invokes the "Sovereign God" in his prayers. Faithfulness to the Scriptures is not adequate - the Holy Spirit wanders away from the invisible and visible Word all the time.
Thus Calvinism starts with salvation. "You have been predestined. Believe you are already saved." Calvinism is UOJ, with the Atonement limited to the elect. That is why the UOJ Shrinkers at Mequon love the Arminians so much - not the ethnic group (Armenians) but the Remonstrants who rejected the Limited Atonement. Pure Calvinism is just about dead, but from it came Decision Theology.
Christ did this for you, now you need to make a decision for Christ to complete the transaction. Repeat the Sinner's Prayer and invite Jesus into your heart.Why did Missouri, WELS, and the mini-sects go ga-ga over Babtist and Pentecostal authors? - Because the Enthusiasts repeated the Reformed doctrine of Enthusiasm beloved in the Syn Conference. Investigate for yourselves all the Church Growth advocates like Valleskey, Kelm, Olson, Bivens, and you will find them in awe of non-Lutheran authors. The saliva drips from their fangs as they speak about their favorite theologians - McGavran, Werning, Wagner, and others far worse.
Nate, a self-loathing Arminian, has this to say:
"58 And let us not forget the predecessors of those who surround us and our people on a daily basis, the Arminians. 59 Like the papists the Arminians wanted to assign to us some of the work in our salvation. Both unabashedly declare 60 (and thus creating great confusion), “Christ has done it all!” but, then quickly say, “Now, this much is up to you.” 61 The Arminian error in this doctrine is to make conversion our work, and thus make faith a CAUSE of salvation. 62 Against these our fathers emphatically declared: By grace alone without the works of the law, TOTALLY APART 63 FROM YOU!"
Confidential to Nate - the Arminians do not surround you. The South Central District has surrounded ITSELF with Arminians. Your VP Patterson gathered a bunch of WELS workers to attend the anti-Lutheran Exponential Conference, where his Church and Change group contracted with Babtist Stetzer to speak to WELS. Your district is famous for copying verbatim the sermons of various Enthusiasts, with the blessing of VP Patterson and DP Glaeske. Doebler copies the sermons and graphics of various false teachers, just like your heroes in Fox Valley - Ski and Glende.
Thus far, poor Nate has taught nothing about the origin of the terms OJ and SJ. Let us proceed with caution through this mire of confusion and delusion.
"71
Lehre von der Rechtfertigung13 made a
false distinction between reconciliation and justification. He wrote that the 72 whole world, with the exception of no one, has been reconciled with God in Christ. Forgiveness of sins is bought for 73 all men. However, only when the sinner has experienced the wrath of God and in faith takes hold of Christ, only 74 then does God look on him in Christ. In regard to justification he uses phrases like “now and not before” in regard 75 to the act of justification.14"
The tripwire is found in the
Gospel according to Nate 1:71. According to Nate and all UOJ salesmen, the Atonement of Christ is exactly the same as justification. Naturally, I am a little mixed up about how the Old Testament figures were justified, especially since Genesis and Paul both reveal Abraham was justified by faith.
Schmid is a bad guy for Nate. Note -
"76 Likewise, Heinrich Schmid in
The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church makes justification 'the 77 effect of faith.'"
Schmid is used for Straw Man arguments by the UOJ Enthusiasts. At this point in the essay I am completely bewildered. Nothing has been said about the origin of those exotic terms "Objective Justification" and "Subjective Justification."
Sadly for Nate, the origin of these terms has already been revealed in this blog - and hinted at in
Thy Strong Word. The double-justification scheme by Halle's Knapp was discovered by another person, whose research is ongoing. The Hoenecke citation about General Justification is also from Pietism and noted in
TSW.
Another lapse in Nate's scholarship, honed in Sausage Factory, should be noted. He cited Robert Preus' older work, but neglected to cite the theologians final work, where UOJ is repudiated. Robert Preus, who earlier embraced and taught UOJ, clearly distinguished between the Atonement and justification, citing authors like Calov.
To confuse us further, Nate has cited perfectly good quotations from Schmid as if that writer was the font of all evil. It is rather difficult to get around the meaning of forensic justification, when the term was always used to describe justification by faith. The subtle UOJ fans have turned forensic justification (by faith) into universal absolution without faith.
"81 The other error, already introduce (
sic) above, was a false distinction between the terms justification and reconciliation. 82 Fritschel argues that these two doctrines are separate.16" [GJ - The subsequent verses are garbled, so I have not quoted them, to spare my
sic macro.]
Nate cites the
Fathers, but the
Fathers are Walther and his diciples (to use the Stetzer spelling).
"At all 92 times the truths of the Scriptures have been expressed by the fathers. They have clearly and without ambiguity 93 declared that justification is universal and it is objective. Walther proclaims: “God does nothing by halves. In 94 Christ he loves all sinners without exception. The sins of every sinner are canceled. Every debt has been liquidated."
The Fathers are the Patristic Fathers, not your uncle Fritz, may his name be blessed.
Has anyone noticed another lapse? There is no treatment of the history of doctrine, in spite of the claims in the title. Luther is absent. The Concordists are absent, except for a deceptive use of Chemnitz. Pietism never happened. Who would guess that Missouri, WELS, and the Little Sect were born in the era of Pietism?
I cannot make out the footnotes in the original essay, as currently posted. Perhaps some major stuff was done to it after delivering this mass of confusion. The footnotes do not follow in any particular order in the PDF. Check it out for yourselves.
There is a long Luther quote - finally. These poor fellows cannot grasp justification by faith because they have no concept of the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace, the work of the Holy Spirit in the Word. So they jump on every Atonement quotation by Luther and make it UOJ. See verse 116:
"116 Numerous other quotations might be added. But let these suffice to show that our fathers taught and held to 117 universal, objective justification."
Verses 132ff - There is a Chemnitz citation, where Nate claims to merge justification and the Atonement. However, there is no reference list and I do not have vol. II of the
Loci, which is apparently where he got it. Most people cite the volume number and list references, but most people do not consider the WELS essay file the Holy of Holies.
Is Nate claiming the Book of Concord and the Formula of Concord merge justification and the Atonement? No one subscribes to everything every Lutheran author has written.
Since UOJ, OJ, and SJ are as old as Genesis, I would like to see:
1. The declaration of universal absolution, without faith, somewhere in the Bible.
2. The Book of Concord's anachronistic endorsement of this Pietistic concept.
Verses 162ff - Parallel to Chemnitz is Deutschlander! I like Deutschlander's Theology of the Cross, but this is a rather hasty jump. It seems that he was also encouraged to defend UOJ after Kokomo detonated, just as Sig Becker was.
177 As we begin to approach subjective justification it necessary for us never to leave behind objective justification. 178 These two belong together. It is only when these are taught side by side that we have the true doctrine of 179 justification. Deutschlander reminds us that the fathers had no trouble considering these two topics side by side 180 nor distinguishing between them. And indeed, there was no reason to make the distinction until the understanding 181 of the nature of faith was confounded.36
182 If we are to understand why, since Christ died for the sins of the whole world, all are not saved, then we must 183 understand how his work is applied to those who are.37 It is necessary to understand how the universal, objective 184 justification of God becomes my own and what is this faith that receives it. “Ph. D. Burk [GJ - Pietist, cited by Hoenecke, a Halle graduate] correctly says: ‘The 185 relationship of objective justification to the other so‐called justification can be expressed
in this way, that in the 186 latter the appropriation of the former occurs.’”38
The Pietists, who invented double-justification, are finally mentioned in Verses 226ff:
226 It is the bane of Pietism that it centers its attention so much on the feelings and the spiritual 227 condition of man’s heart that it forgets or pays but slight attention to the great objective facts of 228 God’s love for men and the all‐sufficient atonement of the Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. It 229 bids men look within for assurance that they have truly repented and believed instead of telling 230 them to fix their eyes on Christ and His word and to rest in His promises, regardless of the sins and 231 little faith that they too often find in their own hearts. This deep‐rooted difference between 232 orthodoxy and pietism explains why a controversy arose regarding such fundamental questions as 233 that of Absolution and the related doctrines of the Gospel and Justification, and that, almost from 234 the beginning of Norwegian Lutheran history in America.44
Yes, the Pietists were slackers about the Means of Grace. They were also unionists. The WELS of today is the re-birth of Pietism. UOJ came from Pietism and paved the way for the rebirth via Fuller, Willow Creek, and other hellholes of doctrinal error.
The past president of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Valleskey, and his buddy, Bivens, both studied at Fuller Seminary as a prelude to promoting the Church Growth Movement--and UOJ!--for their entire careers. And yet WELS members are supposed to sleep at night without heavy medication, knowing such people are guarding the Gospel?
Look at this howler from DP Buchholz, whose name Nate cannot spell correctly in the footnotes. Maybe ex-SP Gurgle helped him proof the final copy.
256 The terms objective justification and subjective justification came out of this [Election] controversy, 257 as the theologians of the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods grappled with how best to express the 258 justification won at the cross as a completed reality, while maintaining the necessity of faith as the 259 receiving organ that grasps the imputed righteousness of Christ offered in the gospel.46
I have already shown, repeatedly, that the terms came from 1833, before there was a Missouri Synod or an Election controversy.
I realize that Buchholz did not have this piece of evidence when he wrote his confused paper, but Nate did. After all, Nate refers to "our opponents" and universalism. He is not going to admit that he has ever read this blog, but he still has an obligation to tell the truth. The documentary evidence, available to anyone with Google, is there today. How long will you continue to try our patience, O Nate?
Buchholz did have
Thy Strong Word, the book version given by Brett Meyer, and 24/7 access to the entire work on the Net, long before he gave his paper. Ditto John Brenner, who recently chanted the same old slogans.
Back to Nate, Verse 291. Sausage Factory grads are supposed to know the Scriptures. Nate does not:
"291 Faith, then, is not an emotion or feeling.50 It is not a choice. It is not an opinion. Faith is based in sure and certain 292 facts. Faith is all about its object."If faith were based upon facts, then everyone would be a believer in Creation, because the data surrounds us.
Faith is best described as trust. The Holy Spirit creates and sustains this trust through the Means of Grace.
The mysteries of the faith are revealed by the Holy Spirit. These mysteries are not facts but mysteries. Gold has a certain atomic weight. That is a fact. Christ is present in both natures in Holy Communion, the elements consecrated by the efficacious Word. That is a mystery.
Nate's unfortunate essay continues along the same zig-zaggy lines. Most alarming is the suspicion that he had help, that earlier versions were far worse and even less compelling.
He did not:
1. Deal with the history of doctrine.
2. Address any contrary evidence.
3. Grasp the Scriptural message.
4. Touch upon the efficacy of the Word.
5. Acknowledge the double-justification formula of Halle's Knapp, 1833.
6. Admit the Pietism of Burk.
---
Chemnitz on Justification - Loci Communes
"But when we are speaking of the subject itself, it is certain that the doctrine of gracious reconciliation, of the remission of sins, of righteousness, salvation, and eternal life through faith for the sake of the Mediator is one and the same in the Old and in the New Testament. This is a useful rule which we must retain at all costs: The doctrine, wherever we read it, in either the Old or New Testament, which deals with the gracious reconciliation and the remission of sins through faith for the sake of God's mercy in Christ, is the Gospel." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 459.
"Therefore God, 'who is rich in mercy' [Ephesians 2:4], has had mercy upon us and has set forth a propitiation through faith in the blood of Christ, and those who flee as suppliants to this throne of grace He absolves from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation, and by the imputation of the righteousness of His Son, which they grasp in faith, He pronounces them righteous, receives them into grace, and adjudges them to be heirs of eternal life. This is certainly the judicial meaning of the word 'justification,' in almost the same way that a guilty man who has been sentenced before the bar of justice is acquitted." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 482. Ephesians 2:4
"Yet these exercises of faith always presuppose, as their foundation, that God is reconciled by faith, and to this they are always led back, so that faith may be certain and the promise sure in regard to these other objects. This explanation is confirmed by the brilliant statement of Paul in 2 Corinthians 1:20: 'All the promises of God in Christ are yea and amen, to the glory of God through us,' that is, the promises concerning other objects of faith have only then been ratified for us when by faith in Christ we are reconciled with God. The promises have been made valid on the condition that they must give glory to God through us." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 495. 2 Corinthians 1:20
"Therefore this apprehension or acceptance or application of the promise of grace is the formal cause or principle of justifying faith, according to the language of Scripture." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 502.
"We must note the foundations. For we are justified by faith, not because it is so firm, robust, and perfect a virtue, but because of the object on which it lays hold, namely Christ, who is the Mediator in the promise of grace. Therefore when faith does not err in its object, but lays hold on that true object, although with a weak faith, or at least tries and wants to lay hold on Christ, then there is true faith, and it justifies. The reason for this is demonstrated in those lovely statements in Philippians 3:12: 'I apprehend, or rather I am apprehended by Christ' and Galatians 4:9: 'You have known God, or rather have been known by God.' Scripture shows a beautiful example of this in Mark 9:24: 'I believe; help my unbelief.'" Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 503. Philippians 3:12; Galatians 4:9; Mark 9:24.
"For we are not justified because of our faith (propter fidem), in the sense of faith being a virtue or good work on our part. Thuse we pray, as did the man in Mark 9:24: 'I believe, Lord; help my unbelief'; and with the apostles: 'Lord, increase our faith,' Luke 17:5." Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 506 Mark 9:24; Luke 17:5.
"But because not doubt but faith justifies, and not he who doubts but he who believes has eternal life, therefore faith teaches the free promise, which relies on the mercy of God for the sake of the sacrifice of the Son, the Mediator, and not on our works, as Paul says in Romans 4:16: 'Therefore it is of faith, that the promise might be sure according to grace.'" Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. 507. Romans 4:16
"Thus when we say that we are justified by faith, we are saying nothing else than that for the sake of the Son of God we receive remission of sins and are accounted as righteous. And because it is necessary that this benefit be taken hold of, this is said to be done 'by faith,' that is, by trust in the mercy promised us for the sake of Christ. Thus we must also understand the correlative expression, 'We are righteous by faith,' that is, through the mercy of God for the sake of His Son we are righteous or accepted." Melanchthon, Loci Communes, “The Word Faith.” Cited in Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici, 2 vols., trans. J. A. O. Preus, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989, II, p. p. 489.
