From Knapp’s Lectures on Christian Theology, translated by Leonard Woods, Jr., New York, 1833. The LCMS was organized in 1847, the Stephan ships landing in 1839.
§ 113. UNIVERSALITY OF JUSTIFICATION. 817
It is universal as the atonement itself; vid. § 111, II. 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. Justification, then, is universal,
(1) In respect to the persons to be pardoned.
All men, according to the Bible, may partake of this benefit. It was designed for all; vid. especially Rom. 3: 23. 5: 15 (§ 111),
318 ART. X. § 113. UNIVERSALITY OP JUSTIFICATION
in opposition to Jewish exclusiveness. It is bestowed however conditionally ; certain conditions are prescribed which are indispensable. Those who do not comply with these conditions, are excluded from the enjoyment of the benefit. Justification and forgiveness are not, therefore, universal in effect (actu); and this solely through the fault of men.*
Another conclusion from the universality of justification is, that every one may be sure of his forgiveness. This certainty, however, must not be founded upon inward feelings, which are frequently deceptive ; but upon an actual compliance with the conditions on which God will forgive sins. If any one finds in himself the signs of true faith, of sincere love to God and Christ, of a renewed heart, and of a virtuous Christian disposition, he is justified. Rom. 8: 16, " The holy, Christian temper wrought in us by God, gives us the clearest and surest proof, that we are the children of God." 1 John 3: 7. 2 Pet. 1: 9, 10. This certainty is in the highest degree necessary to our tranquility and happiness. 1 Tim. 1: 16. ICor. 6: 11. 1 John 5: 18—20.
(2) In respect to sins and the punishment of sin.
(a) As to sins; the position that all sins, without exception, are forgiven for Christ's sake, is proved partly from the power and efficacy of the atonement of Christ, which is extended to all sins (vid. § 111, and the texts there cited) ; and partly from the texts which promise forgiveness of all sins, even the greatest and blackest, to those who comply with the prescribed conditions of pardon. Ezek. 18: 21, 22. Ps. 103: 3. 1 Cor. 6: 11. Ephes. 2: 5. 1 Tim. I: 15. The sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be regarded as an exception ; vid. § 84.
(6) As to the punishment of sin ; the answer to the question whether the pardoned are exempt from all the punishments of sin, whether therefore justification is plena et perfecta, may be learned from § 111, II. The natural and physical evils which result from past sins, indeed, remain ; but they are mitigated and rendered more tolerable, and are divested of the terror of punishment….
* [Translator - This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he proffers 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.]
End of Knapp quotation
Jackson – This may be the first instance where the Atonement and justification were confused and intermingled. New terms often introduce concepts alien to the Word, such as creating a separate Holy Spirit baptism distinct from water baptism, elevating one while demeaning the other. Knapp’s book remains in print today, so the translator’s introduction of two justifications is significant for understanding the origin of this error. This particular selection, like so many discussions of two justifications, is lacking any emphasis upon the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace. To discuss forgiveness without the efficacy of the Word is a grave error that cannot be fixed with the elegant use of Latin terminology.
"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."
- R. Eduard Preuss, 1834-1904, Die Rechtfertigung der Suender vor Gott. Cited in 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.
Jackson – Luther and the Concordists always kept the Gospel message in harmony with the Scriptures, emphasizing both the universal Atonement of Christ and the necessity of faith in receiving God’s declaration of forgiveness. Preuss has been quoted many times to support the forgiveness of the world, without the Word, which is the fundamental error of the Brief Statement, 1932.
“Not guilty—period. God’s court doesn’t work that way either. God, our judge, has pronounced his verdict over us: Not guilty—period. We’ve been declared innocent of the crime of sin, free from the penalty of eternal death, all because Jesus took our place under God’s justice and paid every penalty we ever owed. And to demonstrate his verdict just as dramatically and convincingly as possible, God raised Jesus from the dead. “He was raised to life for our justification,” (Romans 4:25). That means Jesus rose to prove we are justified. Acquitted. Not guilty.”
Pastor Ken Cherney (WELS), “The Surprising Verdict,” Northwestern Lutheran, August, 1998.
Jackson – Exegesis this poor should get someone removed from the ministry, but that is not true when UOJ is being defended. This claim is exactly the same as Universalism – everyone in the entire world is forgiven. Romans 4 teaches faith and Abraham as the father of faith. This article teaches forgiveness without faith.
"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, unpaginated.
Jackson – The terms are definitely modern, the first instance in English is dated in the 1830s (Woods translation of Knapp), where objective was contrasted with subjective justification. Universal seems to be even more recent, used in the last few decades and added to objective.
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.’ (Cited in Hoenecke)
"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. Mark 16:1-8.
"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 dikai,wsij (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.)…Calov, following Gerhard, rightly points out the relation of Christ's resurrection to our justification as follows: 'Christ's resurrection took place as an actual absolution from sin (respectu actualis a peccato absolutionis). As God punished our sins in Christ, upon whom He laid them and to whom He imputed them, as our Bondsman, so He also, by the very act of raising Him from the dead, absolved Him from our sins imputed to Him, and so He absolved also us in Him.'" [Bibl. Illust., ad Rom. 4:25]
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols., St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951, II, p. 321. Romans 4:25.
"Scripture teaches the objective reconciliation. 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. As Christ's death lies in the past, so also our reconciliation is an accomplished fact. 2 Corinthians 5:19: 'God was in Christ, reconciling' (namely, when Christ lived and died on earth) 'the world unto Himself.' The katalla,ssein (katallassein) of Romans 5:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:19 does not refer—let this fact be noted—to any change that occurs in men, but describes an occurrence in the heart of God. It was God who laid His anger by on account of the ransom brought by Christ. It was God who at that time already had in His heart forgiven the sins of the whole world, for the statement: 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself' means—and that is not our, but the Apostle's own interpretation—that God did 'not impute their trespasses unto them.' And 'not imputing trespasses' is, according to Scripture (Romans 4:6-8), synonymous with 'forgiving sins,' 'justifying' the sinner. "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. p 348. Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19.
"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. Cited by Pastor Vernon Harley "Synergism—Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1.
"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 print-shop, Ft. Wayne, 1981. Cited by Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism—Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 1f.
"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. Cited by Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism—Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 2.
"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. Cited by Pastor Vernon Harley, "Synergism—Its Logical Association with General Justification," 511 Tilden, Fairmont, Minnesota 56031, August, 1984, p. 3.
"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. Cited in 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.
"The teaching of the Wisconsin Synod [of the old Norwegian Synod] is this, that in and with the universal reconciliation, which has occurred in Christ for the whole world—even Judas; the whole 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"), the whole world (i.e. every person who is a part of the world—even Judas) has become a child of God and an heir of heaven."
Gottfried Fritschel, "Zur Lehre von der Rechtfertigung," Theologische Monatshefte, volume 4, 1871, (1-24), p. 7. Cited in 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.
“Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Romans 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; Romans 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ’s sake, he justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe in Christ, that is, believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ’s sake their sins are forgiven.”
Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, 1932, “Of Justification.”
“About 300 years earlier Johann Gerhard expressed the same truth in these words: ‘By raising Christ from the dead God absolved Him from our sins, which had been imputed to Him, and accordingly He absolved us also in Him.’ Gerhard was professor of theology in Jena. He did not write a Brief Statement, but he did write a book on Lutheran dogmatics consisting of 20 volumes. He died in 1637.”
J. P. Meyer, “The Holy Spirit Creator,” The Northwestern Lutheran, September 24, 1950, p. 310.
Jackson – When this was published, people did not have access to Gerhard in English. This statement is a serious distortion of Gerhard, who agreed with the Concordists and published with Chemnitz.
I. "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.
Jackson – This is utter rubbish. In the New Testament, only believers are forgiven and given the status of saints.
II. "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.
Jackson – This is Enthusiasm, because the distribution through the Holy Spirit in the Means of Grace is omitted. Teaching this laid the groundwork for Fuller Enthusiasm and worse.
III. "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.
Jackson – Meyer ignored Abraham, the father of faith, who believed “and it was reckoned as righteousness.”
"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.
Jackson – The fatal attraction of WELS to various liberal Baptists is explained by this endorsement of Decision Theology.
“The Judge in heaven examines this evidence. He declares His verdict. It is one of acquittal. Man’s debt of sin is no longer charged against him. Sinful man is free!”
WELS Conference of Presidents, “Every Sinner Declared Righteous,” 1954 tract.
Jackson – This is another example of the Atonement confused with justification by faith, showing what happens when the Means of Grace are ignored and the efficacious Word is not trusted.
“Faith Lutheran Church
3215 West Judson Road
Kokomo, Indiana 46901
August 30, 1979
Mr. and Mrs. David Hartman
R. R. #1, Box 90
Kokomo, Indiana 46901
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hartman,
In response to your letter of August 18, 1979, it is our understanding that your ‘no’ vote on June 20th against supporting the biblical doctrine of the WELS was based at least in part, on your failure to accept the following statement – included in your letter – all of which are in agreement with the teachings of the WELS, namely that:
- ‘Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinners’ [sic] attitude toward Christs’ [sic] sacrafice [sic], 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 a saint.’
- ‘After Christs’ [sic] intervention and through Christs’ [sic] intervention, God regards all sinners as guilt-free saints.’
- ‘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.’
- ‘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.’
I trust this is the information you desire.
Jackson – WELS describes the Kokomo Statements as a caricature of justification written by the families involved. The first three were taken from J. P. Meyer’s Ministers of Christ. The fourth was from an earlier debate in Lutheranism. They did write them down, because their pastor was teaching that “caricature of justification.” Therefore, they were kicked out by WELS for disagreeing with these statements and blamed by WELS for writing down what WELS still teaches.
"Thus objective justification or reconciliation is the forgiveness of sins both as it has been acquired for the entire human race by Christ's work of obedience in its stead and declared by His resurrection, and as it is seriously and efficaciously offered to all in the means of grace."
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, II. #5.
Jackson – Why did only a few LCMS pastors object to this nincompoopery? Like Kokomo, this is another step beyond the initial error of UOJ because it explicitly claims that forgiveness is acquired and declared for the human race – but on what grounds? A large number of people enjoy the Means of Grace, but not everyone does. This sentence is Universalism hidden under the guise of the Means of Grace.
"Subjective justification or reconciliation is this same forgiveness as it is received, appropriated by, and applied to the individual sinner through God-given faith alone (sola fide)."
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, II. #6.
Jackson – This is a second forgiveness, since the first forgiveness is universal, according to #5.
Jackson - The CTCR devoted section III to “The Nature of Justification (What Happens When the Sinner is Justified).” Theses 7 and 8 both speak of justification without mentioning faith. This error is compounded by another grand statement:
“It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach: That, although Christ by His work has earned forgiveness for all, there are still certain conditions which God demands of people before He will pronounce them righteous.”
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, III. #8.
Confessional statements should be precise and clear, but this formula introduces the Monster of Uncertainty. Is faith now a demand? What an odd term for faith. Or do they mean something else? Any Lutheran graduate of Theology 101 knows that the efficacious Gospel produces faith, that faith receives the Gospel promise of forgiveness.
Section III announces that forgiveness has been earned for all, that all sins are forgiven. This is followed by Section IV, “Man’s Need for Justification,” a Law section. Why would this noteworthy commission declare the Gospel first and then the Law? The method is common to Moravian Pietism and denounced by Luther. However, since justification itself has been confused already, the meaning of the Law section is especially troubling. Section IV by itself is adequately written. The runt of the litter seems pretty healthy when the rest are still-born.
Section V, “The Basis of Justification,” is another misbegotten effort. One can hardly imagine that Lutheran theologians with access to the Book of Concord, Luther, and Chemnitz, could write so poorly about justification. Once again, “It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel…” Why is that peculiar formulation used? Is the pure Gospel something other than what God reveals to us in the Scripture? I suspect that the men involved followed Karl Barth’s distinction between the Scriptures and the Word.
The lupine teeth and claws come out from under the fleece in Section VI. “The Universal and Finished Results of Christ’s Work of Obedience.” Note well:
- “Christ is the Savior of all. This means that the whole world of sinners has been redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled to God in Him.”
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, VI. #19.
Jackson – This is Universalism.
- “God, by raising His Son from the dead, has justified Him, declared Him to be the Righteous One, and in Him (i.e., for the sake of His finished work of obedience and satisfaction) has declared (as proclaimed in the Gospel), or reckoned, the whole world to be righteous.”
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, VI. #22.
Jackson – This is perverted Universalism, because the language of justification by faith (reckoned or counted righteous) is employed to make justification by faith meaningless.
- “God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness.”
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, VI. #23.
After establishing a vague Universalism, the CTCR devotes the next section to “Justification by Faith,” although the main heading is “The Appropriation of Christ’s Righteousness.” The rest of the document does not merit additional comment, because the entire structure is wrong from the beginning, even if isolated statements are correct by themselves. The “Theses on Justification” are a leaning tower of logs, like the one that collapsed at Texas A and M University, built badly on a soft foundation. One statement alone condemns the entire work, which contains many other errors, confusions, and fraudulent statements:
“It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:…That it is not Biblical to speak of ‘objective justification.’
Commission on Theology and Church Relations "Theses on Justification" St. Louis: May, 1983, VI. #23.
Jackson – This is pure popery, denouncing anyone who adheres to the Book of Concord and Luther as being “contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel.”
