Michael has left a new comment on your post "How UOJ Was Lenski?":
Dear Brett,
We may have been writing at the same time when I referred to my "unpublished" post, which since has been published and you addressed.
In his Eisenach Gospel, which I, unfortunately, read after I posted my questions instead of before, Lenski explains himself much better.
You are right on target with my questions in your last paragraph, when you wrote: "what is a Scriptural and Confessional definition of Objective Justification". I agree with your definition of objective justification. I also agree when you wrote: "those God has called are brought to faith in Christ, through the Means of Grace, by the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, it is also completely and fully Objective - solely the work of God."
So if I agree with you on those points, does this make me opposed to objective justification? I guess I am really confused now as to why people are against the term objective justification?
***
GJ - The UOJ essays prove that the variations on justification by faith are false, misleading, and confused.
First of all, we should stick with established terms in theology, since they have a history. As Paul Holmer, my sainted professor from Yale, wrote: "Theology is the grammar of faith." Bad grammar means that the content of The Faith is communicated poorly.
Objective justification, general justification, and UOJ are all bad because they are new terms (as WELS has admitted) and confusing terms. They are essentially the same.
Theological terms not found in the Bible are always short-hand for something long argued and clearly defined. The Holy Trinity is not found in the Bible - gasp! - but the concept is taught from Genesis 1 to the closing of the canon. The whole Christian Church confesses the Holy Trinity. Likewise, the term Means of Grace has a history in the Lutheran Confessional writings, which we are obligated to know and teach, if we dare to use the term Confessional Lutheran.
Roman Catholics use the term Means of Grace, so it is good to know what they mean by it. They do not find much grace in the Means of Grace, because no one is ever forgiven. They play with the meaning of words and the history of doctrine, one of the attributes of all false teachers.
I thought, like many people, that Objective Justification was a synonym for the Atonement. Dr. Robert Preus, in his earlier essay, made it clear that OJ was not the Atonement. OJ is the declaration that everyone is justified without the Means of Grace, without the Word, without faith.
Therefore, OJ should be repudiated as a term and buried forever, except in a class that Mequon will never offer - "Errors Taught by WELS, 101."
The New Testament gives us many synonyms for the Atonement. Why not use redemption, propitiating, expiation, ransom, and reconciliation?
