Robert Preus - Justification and Rome - On Justification by Faith

Dr. Robert Preus taught justification by faith before he died.

From my Luther versus the UOJ Pietists: Justification by Faith

Robert Preus, Justification and Rome

Dr. Robert Preus is known for advocating UOJ in the 1980s, when Concordia Seminary in Ft. Wayne was also deep into Church Growth Enthusiasm.[1] In his last book, edited after his death by his sons Daniel and Rolf, his clear stance against UOJ is obvious.

When does the imputation of Christ’s righteousness take place? It did not take place when Christ, by doing and suffering, finished the work of atonement and reconciled the world to God. Then and there, when the sins of the world were imputed to Him and He took them, Christ became our righteousness and procured for us remission of sin, justification, and eternal life. “By thus making satisfaction He procured and merited (acquisivit et promeruit) for each and every man remission of all sins, exemption from all punishments of sin, grace and peace with God, eternal righteousness and salvation.”[2]

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.[3] 

Quenstedt says, It is not the same thing to say, “Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us” and to say “Christ is our righteousness.” For the imputation did not take place when Christ became our righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is the effect of His office. The imputation is the application of the effect of His office. The one, however, does not do away with the other.  Christ is our righteousness effectively when He justifies us. His righteousness is ours objectively because our faith rests in Him. His righteousness is ours formally in that His righteousness is imputed to us.[4]

Preus quoted this statement from Calov with approval, which is worth repeating -

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.[5]

I understand these two passages to be a repudiation of UOJ and an apology for all the harm done in the name of that fad.

---

[1] "In an initial burst of enthusiasm reflecting Preus's concern for missions, the Fort Wayne faculty had petitioned the 1977 convention of the Missouri Synod to have each of its subdivisions or districts ‘make a thorough study of the Church Growth materials.’ What is more, the districts were to be urged to ‘organize, equip, and place into action all of the Church Growth principles as needed in the evangelization of our nation and the world under the norms of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.’ By the time of the 1986 synodical convention, however, the same faculty, while appreciating the ‘valuable lessons of common sense’ to be learned from Church Growth, asked that ‘the Synod warn against the Arminian and charismatic nature of the church-growth movement.’ Kurt E. Marquart, "Robert D. Preus," Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, ed., Walter A. Elwell, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995, pp. 353-65. Reprinted in Christian News, 6-26-95, p. 21.                                               

[2] R. Preus footnote: Systema, Par. II, Cap.3, Memb. 2 S. 1, Th. 44 (II, 363). Cf. Abraham Calov, Apodixis Articulorum Fridei (Lueneburg, 1684), 249: “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.” Justification and Rome, footnote 74, p. 131.

[3] Robert D. Preus Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 72.

[4] Systema, Par. III, Cap. 8, S. 2, q. 5, Observatio 19 (II, 787). R. Preus footnote #76, Justification and Rome, p. 132.

[5] Apodixis Articulorum Fide, Lueneburg, 1684. Cited in Robert D. Preus Justification and Rome, St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press 1997, p. 131n.                                                                                                               

---

WELS Reim - History of the Non-Biblical, Non-Book of Concord UOJ Terms

A History of the Term “Objective Justification”

[An essay prepared for the Milwaukee City Conference, Wisconsin Synod; Printed in Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 52 no 2, April 1955]

By Edward Reim

You have asked me to present a paper on the history of the term “objective justification,” The reason for such a request is quite clear. Ever since the publication of the Declaration of the American Lutheran Church in 1938, and particularly since the appearance of its successor, the Common Confession, there has not only been much discussion about the general content of these documents, but particularly also concerning their presentation of the doctrine of justification. The real point of the discussion was, of course, the doctrine itself, particularly the thought that in Jesus Christ God has already declared the entire world righteous, entirely apart from the faith of man. But gradually the terminology of an “objective” justification became more and more of an issue, so that finally—in spite of a misleading antecedent which speaks of the redemptive work of Christ rather than of a judicial verdict of God—the mere parenthetical inclusion of the term in Art. VI of the Common Confession (“This is sometimes spoken of as objective justification”) was presented by its defenders as a victory for Synodical Conference theology. While we could not share this elation because of the serious defects of the definition, others began to criticize the term “objective justification” itself. It was claimed that this expression is more or less of an innovation, a mere local use, and without standing in good theological literature. The implication was that differences on such a point of terminology should not be permitted to become a major issue. All this certainly calls for an inquiry into the history and use of the term, both within the Synodical Conference and without. For the sake of completeness this study must include also its synonyms which speak of “general” or “universal” justification, as well as its substance as stated above.

I

In tracing the use of the term “objective justification” in Synodical Conference literature one finds that, apart from the frequency with which it occurs in recent years, it was generally used rather sparingly, and usually in close connection with equivalent expressions (“general” or “universal” justification) which seem to be added by way of explanation.

The most emphatic use of our term is undoubtedly that of Dr. Franz Pieper, particularly in his Christliche Dogmatik of 1917. One passage from the recent English translation1 will illustrate the point; “An essential prerequisite of justification by faith, or of subjective justification, is the objective justification (the reconciliation) of all mankind.” (Vol. II, p. 508.) His thought is that without this basic judicial act of God there would be no Gospel for faith to believe, no gracious forgiveness for it to receive and appropriate as its own. And yet the Brief Statement, in the drafting of which Franz Pieper had so large a part, does not use the term. We do find a powerful equivalent, however, namely that “God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ.” (Art. 17.) Hoenecke uses both terms, speaking first (Dogmatik, III, 354) of a universal justification which took place in time, namely in the death and resurrection of Christ, and which came upon all men, Romans 5:18; and then (page 405) of the manner in which Scripture establishes the connection between the objective act of justification and the subjective possession and enjoyment thereof in blessed peace.

The files of our Theological Quarterly yield some other examples, such as an article in which John Schaller discusses “the doctrine of the universal, socalled objective justification.” Vol. VII, p. 81. Or Vol. III, p, 107, where Prof. Aug. Pieper refers to such as deny the actuality of objective justification. At approximately the same time August Graebner’s Doctrinal Theology was published, which follows the same method of using the double terminology, “general or objective justification” (page 189). And Stoeckhardt is particularly reserved in the use of our term. In his Commentary on Romans he manages to summarize the first five chapters of this epistle in his well-known Excursus on the Pauline Doctrine of Justification without once using the word “objective.” And yet, it was not that he was not familiar with the term, nor does he seem to have opposed its use, for on page

262 we find him calling the passage in chapter 5:18-19 “the locus classicus for the doctrine of the universal or so-called objective justification.”

As we examine the literature of the closing decades of the 19th Century we find even less evidence of the use of this somewhat philosophical or psychological expression. It is almost as though the men of these days were not familiar with the term. And yet there is a rather striking instance which proves the contrary. The occasion was the General Pastoral Conference of 1880, held in Chicago for the purpose of discussing differences that had arisen within the Missouri Synod concerning the doctrine of Election. Walther’s doctrine was being attacked, and Prof. F. W. Stellhorn, subsequently to become one of the leaders of the Ohio Synod, was one of the chief spokesmen against him. In an effort to prove the particular election of individuals to be but a judicial application of the terms of God’s universal will of grace, Stellhorn spoke as follows: “I remind you of an analogy, the doctrine of a twofold justification. There, in opposition to modern theologians, all of us teach that there is an objective justification, which came to pass through the resurrection of Christ. By this resurrection all mankind has been justified objectively. There God has declared: Now all men are justified, freed from their sins. And he who accepts this objective justification in faith is also justified subjectively (der wird auch subjektiv gerechtfertigt). (Verhandlungen der Allgem. Pastoralkonferenz, p. 32.2) In his reply Dr. Walther called this the language of scholars (“wie die Gelehrten reden”), but entered on the use of these same terms, differing with Stellhorn only because of the latter’s way of implying that justification involved two judicial acts of God. Obviously both men were operating with familiar and accepted terms. The fact that they were but little used in the writings of those days seems to have been simply a matter of preference. It was not that the terms were not known and accepted.

II

This is as far back as I have been able to trace the use of our term in Synodical Conference literature. The marks of the trail have been few and far between. This does not mean, however, that there was little interest in the subject. We have already seen how frequently the writers chose to use a less abstract and philosophical terminology, and simply spoke of a general or universal justification; or made the statement complete, namely that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ. This thought is the subject of many an article and essay, both in their theological publications and in periodicals intended for lay readers. Thus Stoeckhardt wrote an extensive series of articles on the topic of justification by faith, running through seven issues of the Lutheraner of 1888. It is in these articles that he assembles an impressive list of quotations from the confessions, testimonies in which justification or forgiveness are spoken of as the substance of the Gospel and the object of faith.

But the man who from the beginning had not only insisted on the centrality of the doctrine of justification, but also on the basic importance of a true appreciation of its “objective” quality was, of course, Walther himself. On the occasion of the first convention of the Synodical Conference, 1872, he was the author of the doctrinal essay and his subject was the doctrine of justification. It was no mere academic interest that led to this particular choice. One of the charter members, the Norwegian Synod, was under severe criticism at the hands of other Norwegian bodies and particularly also the Iowa Synod. The reason was its assertion that Absolution was not a mere empty announcement of, or wish for, the forgiveness of sins, but a powerful impartation of it. Having been charged by the Iowa Synod with teaching a universal justification, the Norwegian Synod was now asking the sister synods for a statement on the issue. Walther’s essay was the answer, particularly in Thesis V, VI, and VII. The last of these may serve as an example:

The Gospel is not a mere historical account of the completed work of redemption, but much more

a powerful declaration of peace and promise of grace by God to the world redeemed by Christ.

Thus it is always a powerful means of grace, in which God on His part brings, offers, distributes,

gives and presents the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness earned by Christ, although not all

to whom God lets His earnest call of grace go out accept this invitation of the reconciled God and

thus do not either become partakers of the benefits following it. (Quoted from Grace for Grace,

1943. S.C.Ylvisaker, Chief Editor.)

In his elaboration of Thesis V Walther shows how the resurrection of Christ is the basis and cornerstone of justification. And in reply to the inquiry of the Norwegians concerning universal justification he says: “This doctrine is stated in Romans 5:18, and it is therefore not merely a biblical teaching, but also a biblical expression that justification of life has come upon all men.” (Proceedings of the First Convention, 1872, p. 43.) Then follows an impressive list of quotations from earlier orthodox Lutheran theologians (pages 44-45), also the Latin text of Art. VI of the Augsburg Confession (that “remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith”) and similar testimonies.

Another indication of the consuming interest which this topic held for the founding fathers of the Synodical Conference is the classic monograph, The Justification of the Sinner Before God by Dr. Ed. Preuss, at that time professor in St. Louis. Again one paragraph will suffice to show how the author felt about universal justification.

We, then, are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of Mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them’? This is not the (that?) justification which we receive by faith, but the one which took place before all faith. —And Romans 5:18: ‘As by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto the justification of life.’ That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ . . . (Quoted from the Friedrich translation of Preuss.)

Although the term “objective justification” is not in evidence in this discussion that is contemporary with the founding of the Synodical Conference, a previously cited book, Grace for Grace, furnishes what may be a clue to the gradual adoption of the terminology of an “objective” justification as a synonym for general or universal justification. Through the work of a certain Eielsen, a follower of the pietistic Hauge, and because of the position of the Augustana Synod, the Lutheran Norwegians had been compelled to face the issue of Pietism more directly than the German founders of the Synodical Conference. In Grace for Grace we read, on page 156:

It is the bane of Pietism that it centers its attention so much on the feelings and the spiritual condition of man’s heart that it forgets or pays but slight attention to the great objective facts of God’s love for men and the all-sufficient atonement of the Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ. It bids men look within for assurance that they have truly repented and believed instead of telling them to fix their eyes on Christ and His word and to rest in His promises, regardless of the sins and little faith that they too often find in their own hearts. This deep-rooted difference between orthodoxy and pietism explains why a controversy arose regarding such fundamental questions as that of Absolution and the related doctrines of the Gospel and Justification, and that, almost from the beginning of Norwegian Lutheran history in America.

Does this not explain the gradual transition that takes place, the coming into favor of a term with which, as Stellhorn reveals, the founding fathers were perfectly familiar and which, as we shall presently see, had good standing in Europe? They obviously preferred the simpler forms that describe the justification of man as general or universal. But here was another term that emphasized the historical reality or “objectiveness” of this judicial act of God, entirely apart from what man happens to think, or how he may feel about it.3 It was the specific antidote for the subjectivism of Pietism, and for a theology that had, perhaps unconsciously, been influenced by it. It was a way of getting back to the sober factualness of the Gospel as history in the highest sense of the word. And so they found good use for the term, which soon became a part of their working vocabulary.

III

The question still remains whether this was an innovation as far as the doctrine itself is concerned, one that constitutes a break with the continuity of orthodox Lutheranism since the days of the Reformation; also whether the terminology was of such limited acceptance, that its use in Synodical Conference theology may be considered a mere local idiom.

As far as the first point is concerned, namely whether our fathers operated with the thought of a justification which is an accomplished fact, a recent essay by Prof. Meyer, published in the October 1954 issue of the Quartalschrift lists a number of pertinent quotations (pp. 256-258). Many more are found in Walther’s edition of Baler, (Vol. III, pp. 134ff and 271ff), Stoeckhardt’s listing in the Lutheraner has already been referred to. This includes passages which state that justification by faith consists solely of receiving and accepting a treasure, the presence of which is already an accomplished fact. So Luther (St. L. XI, 1104:28) who speaks of a faith that has nothing to do but to receive. “Denn es ist nicht unsers Tuns und kann nicht durch unser Werk verdient werden, es ist schon da geschenkt und dargegeben.” Or “Willst du nun solcher grossen Gueter brauchen: Wohlan, er hat sie dir schon geschenkt; tue du ihm nur so viel Ehre, und nimm es mit Dank an.” (St.

L. XII, 156:13.) Or the f ollowing: “An dem einen, selig werden, hat es freilich keinen Mangel noch Fehl; denn das ist gar dargegeben und geschenkt im Wort oder Evangelio.” (St. L. XI, 968:24.) The Quartalschrift quotation relates this specifically to the article of justification: “Siehe, da hast du alles, so zu diesem Artikel gehoert, von der christlichen Gerechtigkeit, die da steht in der Vergebung der Suenden, durch Christum uns geschenkt, und mit dern Glauben durch und in dem Wort empfangen.” (Page 257.) On the same page we have a quotation from the Formula of Concord which is likewise to the point. And Walther quotes Calov who says that our redemption, reconciliation, and the expiation of our sins are not subject to conditional factors, but that faith, which is necessary, has no other function than that of appropriating these gifts (quoted Baier-Walther, III, 135).

The same thought of a Gospel that proclaims forgiveness of sins as an accomplished fact stands out very clearly in another statement by Luther, although in a somewhat different context. In his explanation of the Fifth Petition (Cat. Maj., Trig., 723:88) we find him saying: “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).”

Another point is added by the Formula of Concord which speaks of our righteousness that is revealed in the Gospel as being universal, “a complete satisfaction and expiation for the human race.” (Trig., 935:57). In the same vein Walther quotes Gerhard, who on the basis of Romans 5:19 equates the many that through the disobedience of Adam were made sinners with the many that were made righteous through the obedience of Christ, and then concludes: “Therefore the boon of righteousness (beneficium justitiae) has through Christ been prepared for all.” (III:271.) On the basis of the same passage Chemnitz speaks of the entire multitude of mankind (totam hominum multitudinem) as those for whom this salvation was acquired by the merit of Christ. (Quoted Baier-Walther III, 272.) Rambach: “Da nun aber der Buerge gerechtfertigt worden, so sind in ihm auch alle Schuldner mit gerechtfertigt worden.” (Ibid. III, 272.) An interesting contribution comes from an otherwise little known theologian, Ph. D. Burk. Though both he and his illustrious father-in-law, Joh. Albrecht Bengel, were Pietists, yet they were keenly aware that the individual believer’s assurance of salvation was seriously endangered by the subjectivism of Pietism, and that faith needed a secure, objective basis on which to rest. Burk’s Die Rechtfertigung was the result of their concern, and of their desire to lead the movement out of the quicksands of doubt into which it had gotten itself. In his book (still considered a noteworthy work) Burk points out that there are passages in which the Scriptures speak of justification as a universal gift for all men, and calls this universal justification an indispensable basis for the faith of the believer. (Quoted in Baier-Walther, Ill, 273.4)

Do we find passages, in which the other thought is expressed, namely that God’s act of justification is the expression of a judicial verdict? Prof. Meyer’s final quotation from Luther (QS., Oct., 54, p. 258) is very much in place. For if the cogitatio divina considers the sinner to be just, and his sins forgiven, then this cogitatio is certainly not to be pressed to the exclusion of any public declaration to that effect, but is known to man because God has declared these truths in the Gospel. In his remarks on Gal 3:13 (St. L. IX, 373:336ff) we find Luther saying: “Thus, if Christ Himself was found guilty (schuldig geworden ist) of all sins which all of us (wir alle) have done, then we are acquitted of all sins ... etc.” Some of the quotations which Walther brings in this connection are highly interesting. A certain Wandallnus calls the purpose of the resurrection of Christ to be “ut ... nostram justificationem declararet.” (Op. cit. 111, 272.) Rieger: “Wie wir in Adam alle sind des ewigen Todes

schuldig und verdammt worden, also sind wir alle in Christo gerechtfertigt und vorn Urteil des ewigen Todes losgesprochen worden . . . wir sind alle mit dern gerechtfertigten Christo gerechtfertigt worden.” (Ibid.) The two quotations in the QS article (Oct. ‘54, p. 256f) support each other ( each: etiam nos in ipso absolvit) and complete this line of testimony, convincing us that the substance of the doctrine of objective justification was certainly present in a time when the term had not yet been coined.

IV

The final question is whether we have built up a local, Synodical Conference terminology, whether we are needlessly isolating ourselves from the body of Lutheranism by insisting on an expression that has no standing elsewhere. Here my investigation is far from complete, and it will be seen that the idea of a judicial verdict that is an accomplished fact and universal in its scope is by no means always present in the thinking of theologians of our day. Yet the term, or better, the terms (objective—subjective) are there, and are being used, with varying degrees of appropriateness, while the doctrine itself is debated by men of many different kinds of theological convictions.

There is, for instance, a passage in the Dogmengeschichte of Loofs (p. 769) in which he speaks of a subjective and an objective side of justification, defining justification in another passage as “eine ‘objektive’ Lehre von dem gottlichen Akt der justificatio.” Ihmels probably has something else in mind when (in Schaff-Herzog, Rel. Enc., VI, p. 280) he says that when man believes, “justification and communion with God is subjectively and objectively realized.” But he also says (p, 278) “Some theologians resolve the objective process of justification into subjective consciousness, others emphasize the ethical aspect.” The corresponding article in HerzogPlitt (1883) refers to objective reconciliation, and in a way that suggests another reason for the increased use of our term in the middle of the last century, namely the subjectivism of Schleiermacher (for whom religion and its several doctrines were so largely a matter of feeling), whose influence had made itself so strongly felt just a few decades before. Now a reaction set in among various more or less positive theologians, who saw the need for an objective basis for a sinner’s assurance of pardon. The article quotes one of them as follows: “Dorner glaubte die Objektivitaet in, Begruendung der Rechtfertigung nur festhalten zu. koennen durch die Annahme, dass der Glaube ledighch als organon le\

ptikon fuer die a parte Dei schon vollzogene Rechtfertigung zu betrachten sei.” (Vol. XII, 577.) Harnack is less sympathetic when in a sharply critical passage (concerning “the confusion inherent in the heritage of Luther”) he says: “Man zerspaltete die Rechtfertigung und die Wiedergeburt, jene als das ‘Objective’ (der abstracte göttliche Act der Rechtfertigung, der forensische Rechtfertigungsspruch. der den impius fuer gerecht erklaert), diese als das Subjective.” (Dogmengeschichte III, 882f.) But he states the facts very well. Of quite a different temper, but also proving the usage of our term, is a word of Luthardt from a longer passage on Romans 5:12-19: “Hier ist Gehorsam, Gerechtigkeit Christi mit ihrem Resultat im Rechtfertigungsurteil Gottes, und damit die Macht und das Reich des Lebens objektive vorhanden; der einzelne tritt nur hinein in die Gemeinschaft dieses fertigen Heils, wozu er nichis selbst beitraegt, sondern bei dem es sich nur um Teilnahme und Aneignung handelt.” (Quoted in Stoeckhardt, Roemerbrief, p. 268.)

In closing I cannot refrain from mentioning two very modern works. The first is the excellent article on dikaiosyne\ by Dr. Schrenk in Kittel’s Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, translated by J. R. Coates (Bible Key Words—Harper). In discussing what he calls “the relation of the importance of the personal experience of justification, (Das Verhaeltnis der subjektiven Stellungnahme zur objektiven Heilstat), he states that “over against all exaggeration of the importance of the personal experience of justification, it is essential to insist that what is said in this connection is all orientated to the completely objective fact of what God has done” (objektivster Gottestat). Or that “the demand for faith always accompanies the most objective utterances concerning the righteousness of God.” (Kittel, sub verbo, pages 209f.)

The other example consists of the last two paragraphs in the chapter on Justification in Paul Althaus’ Die Christliche Wahrheit.5

The act by which God justifies takes place in Jesus Christ, Thereby the question is already

answered; When is man justified? The answer must read: In the cross and the resurrection of

Jesus. But God’s action in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of the past, but becomes a present thing for us at every stage of history (an jedem Ort des Geschichtsraumes) by the way in which God deals with us in the Gospel, in its preachment, absolution, Sacrament. As something inseparable from Christ, the one action of God becomes contemporary for me—thus overcoming the barrier between past and present-by means of the awarding and appropriating function of the Gospel as it is proclaimed and administered. Thus the question concerning the time may be answered: I am justified in my baptism; but also: now, in my hearing the Word that is meant for me; today, in my receiving the Sacrament. Not as though this implied constantly recurring new acts of God, nor a repetition of the first act. Rather, it is always the one and the same historic act of God which confronts me wherever I may be—never to be localized exclusively in one specific moment, not even in Baptism. Its locale is in Christ; it occurs wherever Christ is present; it consists in this that Christ is present for us. Here one should not forget that Christ and faith belong together. Only in faith is God’s verdict real for us. In this respect God’s act of justification is at once “objective” and “subjective.” God sends Christ and the Gospel, God grants faith that lays hold on Christ in the Gospel and thereby has this justification. This results in the following answer to the question concerning the time: I have this justification (I am justified) when God works faith in me through the Gospel. This “subjective” version of the answer does not imply a conflict with the previously stated “objective” form, but the two belong together. Their unity consists in this that the “objective” answer can be perceived by faith alone, but this faith does not look to its own resources, but only to what it is given, to the “objective” fact. We are justified at the cross; we are justified by faith—these twain belong inseparably together. (Vol. II, p. 413f—my translation.)

Summary

What are our findings? We have seen that the terminology of an objective and a subjective justification is common property within our Synodical Conference. There is no reason why we should not use it in our discussions with each other. Nevertheless we still have a preference for the simpler terminology of a general or universal, and of a personal justification, To use these simpler terms will show that we are concerned about the substance of the doctrine rather than one single mode of expressing it. That was the method followed by our Standing Committee in Matters of Church Union in its 1951 Review of the Common Confession.

But no apologies need be offered for the use that has been made of the term. It is certainly not a local idiom, indicating a self-willed, separatistic trend. It is a term that serves well for the uncovering and rejection of the trends of subjectivism, against which our age is by no means immune. Therefore neither the term nor the fact of an objective justification of all mankind should be permitted to fall into oblivion. ENDNOTES: 1) The German original reads: “Es wurde schon bei der Lehre von dem Versoehnungswerk Christi ausfuehrlicher dargelegt, dass die Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben oder die subjektive Rechtfertigung die sogennannte objektive Rechtfertigung oder Versoehnung der ganzen Menschenwelt zur Voraussetzung hat.” — The emphasis is by Dr. Pieper. 2) Unless otherwise indicated, the translations are my own. E. R. 3) Objective: Having independent existence or authority, apart from our experience or thought…as…the moral law has objective authority.—Standard Dictionary. 4) We should also quote what Preuss has to say about this same man and his book on Justification and Assurance. Speaking of “the vexations which the Wurttemberg superintendent Burk experienced,” he goes on to say, “It seemed to him like a faulty circle: ‘I am to believe and thereby become righteous. But what am I to believe? This, that I am righteous. However, I cannot believe this before it is so. And yet it is not so, for I am first to become righteous.’ God be praised, the case is different. This we must believe, that Christ has redeemed us. And as God said to His covenant people through Isaiah: ‘I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine,’ even so does He tell us through His apostle: ‘The handwriting that was against us is

blotted out’; ‘He purged our sins’; ‘We are reconciled’; ‘Eternal peace reigns; all strife is ended.’ That saving faith apprehends this and nothing else St. Paul teaches in those texts in which he expressly and officially treats of justification.” Preuss, Die Rechtfertigung des Suenders vor Gott, p. 27f. Friedrich translation.) 5) For a discussion of another book by Dr. Althaus (Grundriss der Ethik) and a rather startling statement on justification, see the Book Review by Prof. Meyer on page 152 of this issue.  --- Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "WELS Reim - History of the Non-Biblical, Non-Book ...": I agree with Joe. Edward Reim's essay takes God's Word out of context throughout. (W)ELS David Beckman's UOJ essay was just as bad. But note that Beckman is at least accurate in saying that the Lutheran Confessions deal solely with what UOJists describe as Subjective Justification. The realization that the Lutheran Confessions deal solely with Justification by Faith Alone should have stopped the progression of UOJ in the Lutheran Synods, exposing it as an unLutheran and anti-Christian doctrine. The Confessions explain all of the chief articles of Christian faith and some other's too. The absence of a universal declaration of forgiveness without and before faith in the central doctrine is itself a condemnation of the false gospel of Universal Objective Justification. "The same could be said of the Lutheran Confessions. The Confessions do not even treat universal justification itself as a separate topic, but deal exclusively with “justification by faith,” or “subjective justification.” However, the objective fact, of God making a universal pronouncement of forgiveness is brought out clearly in the Confessions. Consider just three examples. For the Gospel convicts all men that they are under sin, that they all are subject to eternal wrath and death, and offers, for Christ’s sake, remission of sin and justification. (Apology, IV, 62) All have sinned and are justified without merit. (Smalcald Articles, 11, 3) Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that our righteousness before God is that God forgives us our sins out of pure grace, without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or following, that He presents and imputes to us the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, on account of which righteousness we are received into grace by God, and regarded as righteous (FC). 4 All are offered remission and justification. All are justified without merit. Righteousness before God is out of pure grace without merit. That’s universal and objective justification, taught clearly by the Confessions without using the terms." Page 3 http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BeckmanUniversal.PDF Since when did "offer" mean distributed and imputed? And note how Beckman confirms with other UOJists that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the unbelieving world, a fact that some (W)ELSians want to reject when promoting this false doctrine.

LCMS - Robert Preus - UOJ - 1981

Guilty! at that time, of teaching forgiveness without the Word.


CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
NEWSLETTER – Spring 1981
6600 North Clinton
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825

THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE – "OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION"
The doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19).

Objective justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not identical with the atonement, it is not another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world. Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the world, and therefore He has declared the entire world in Christ to be righteous.

THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT
According to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind. Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ'’ sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished atonement. But Christ said, "It is finished." And God raised Him from the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (I Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (Romans 4:25).
All this is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church, "We are redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?'’ This is not the justification which we receive by faith...That is the great absolution which took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead." (Edward Preuss, "The Justification of a Sinner Before God," pp. 14-15)

OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
The doctrine of objective justification does not imply that there is no hell, that God’s threats throughout Scripture to punish sins are empty, or that all unbelievers will not be condemned to eternal death on the day of Christ’s second coming. And very definitely the doctrine of objective, or general, justification does not threaten the doctrine of justification through faith in Christ. Rather it is the very basis of that Reformation doctrine, a part of it. For it is the very pardon which God has declared over the whole world of sinners that the individual sinner embraces in faith and thus is justified personally. Christ’s atonement, His propitiation of God and God’s forgiveness are the true and only object of faith. Here is what George Stoekhardt, perhaps the greatest of all Lutheran biblical expositors in our country, says, "Genuine Lutheran theology counts the doctrine of general (objective) justification among the statements and treasures of its faith. Lutherans teach and confess that through Christ’s death the entire world of sinners was justified and that through Christ’s resurrection the justification of the sinful world was festively proclaimed. 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."

THE REALITY OF OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION
Objective justification is not a mere metaphor, a figurative way of expressing the fact that Christ died for all and paid for the sins of all. Objective justification has happened, it is the actual acquittal of the entire world of sinners for Christ’s sake. Neither does the doctrine of objective justification refer to the mere possibility of the individual’s justification through faith, to a mere potentiality which faith completes when one believes in Christ. Justification is no more a mere potentiality or possibility than Christ’s atonement. The doctrine of objective justification points to the real justification of all sinners for the sake of Christ’s atoning work "before" we come to faith in Christ. Nor is objective justification "merely" a "Lutheran term" to denote that justification is available to all as a recent "Lutheran Witness" article puts it – although it is certainly true that forgiveness is available to all. Nor is objective justification a Missouri Synod construct, a "theologoumenon" (a theological peculiarity), devised cleverly to ward off synergism (that man cooperates in his conversion) and Calvinistic double predestination, as Dr. Robert Schultz puts it in "Missouri in Perspective" (February 23, 1981, p. 5) – although the doctrine does indeed serve to stave off these two aberrations. No, objective justification is a clear teaching of Scripture, it is an article of faith which no Lutheran has any right to deny or pervert any more than the article of the Trinity or of the vicarious atonement.

THE CENTRAILITY AND COMFORT OF THE DOCTRINE
Objective justification is not a peripheral article of faith which one may choose to ignore because of more important things. It is the very central article of the Gospel which we preach. Listen to Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first president and great leader of our synod, speak about this glorious doctrine in one of his magnificent Easter sermons: "When Christ suffered and died, He was judged by God, and He was condemned to death in our place. But when God in the resurrection awakened Him again, who was it then that was acquitted by God in Christ’s person? Christ did no need acquittal for Himself, for no one can accuse Him of single sin. Who therefore was it that was justified in Him? Who was declared pure and innocent in Him? We were, we humans. It was the whole world. When God spoke to Christ, ‘You shall live,’ that applied to us. His life is our life. His acquittal, our acquittal, His justification, our justification….Who can ever fully express the great comfort which lies in Christ’s resurrection? It is God’s own absolution spoken to all men, to all sinners, in a word, to all the world, and sealed in the most glorious way. There the eternal love of God is revealed in all its riches, in its overflowing fullness and in its highest brilliance. For there we hear that it was not enough for God simply to send His own Son into the world and let Him become a man for us, not enough even for Him to give and offer His only Son unto death for us. No, when His Son had accomplished all that He had to do and suffer in order to earn and acquire grace and life and blessedness for us, then God, in His burning love to speak to us sinners, could not wait until we would come to Him and request His grace in Christ, but no sooner had His Son fulfilled everything than He immediately hastened to confer to men the grace which had been acquired through the resurrection of His Son, to declare openly, really and solemnly to all men that they were acquitted of all their sins, and to declare before heaven and earth that they are redeemed, reconciled, pure, innocent and righteous in Christ."

THE ISSUE AT OUR SEMINARY
Many of our readers know that our seminary, and one professor in particular, has been recently criticized for undermining this comforting and clear teaching of objective justification. The criticism and garbled accounts of the situation have become so widespread lately that I must now comment on the matter in this issue of the "Newsletter.

For over 15 years now Professor Walter A. Maier, Jr., has been teaching a course in the book of Romans, and, although he states he has always presented the doctrine of objective justification as taught in our synod (e.g. in the "Brief Statement"), he has taught in class that some of the key passages used in our church to support the doctrine actually do not speak to the subject at all. As a result some within the seminary community and some outside concluded that Dr. Maier did not in fact believe, teach, and confess the article of objective justification. A few – very few – complaints were brought against Dr. Maier and against the seminary for letting this go on.

The president of our synod, who has the responsibility for supervising doctrine in the synod, contacted me and asked me to try to settle the issue and to persuade Dr. Maier to teach an interpretation of the pertinent passages (Romans 4:25; Romans 5:16-19; II Corinthians 5:19) compatible with that which the great teachers of our church in the past (C. F. W. Walther, Francis Pieper, Theodore Engelder, George Stoeckhardt, Martin Franzmann, William Beck and others) publicly taught. Meetings and discussions immediately took place between Dr. Maier and myself. Later on the matter was considered in faculty meetings, in department meetings, and in special committees appointed to discuss and hopefully to settle the issue. During these meetings, which were always most cordial, Dr. Maier has remained unpersuaded that his interpretation of the pertinent passages is faulty. At the same time he has consistently assured all that he has always taught the doctrine of objective justification as understood in the Missouri Synod. He has, however, referred to other biblical evidence for the doctrine.

In the meantime the president of the synod, growing anxious for a clear solution to the problem wrote to the entire church body a letter cautioning congregations not to nominate Dr. Maier for president of the synod until the issue was cleared up to his satisfaction.

Now the issue became political, and protests and criticisms against the president of the synod for his action and also against Dr. Maier'’ teaching began to multiply all over the synod. People naturally began to take sides, not always so much on the doctrinal issue which was not always understood and is still being discussed at our seminary, but for ecclesiastical and personal reasons. We now know that the warning of our synodical president against Dr. Maier not only failed to dissuade congregations from nominating Dr. Maier for the presidency of our synod (as Fourth Vice-President Dr. Robert Sauer had forewarned when attempting to persuade the synodical president not to send his letter), but possibly gained more nominations for Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier is now one of the five men nominated for the presidency of our synod.

On January 30, 1981, the Board of Control met with Dr. Maier and three representatives of the synodical praesidium (which had severely criticized Dr. Maier’s doctrinal stance). We heard from two members of the praesidium and then from Dr. Maier and two faculty members who he had requested to accompany him. The results of this meeting, many of us believed, represented a real breakthrough in understanding, and the Board exonerated Dr. Maier of any false doctrine. It was my belief that the representatives of the praesidium present were also satisfied and happy with the report. In the discussions of this meeting Dr. Maier expressed many genuine concerns related to the doctrine of objective justification, e.g., that no one is saved eternally who is not justified by faith, that God is even now angry with those who reject Christ and do not repent, and that objective justification ought to be preached and taught in such a way that the biblical doctrine of justification by faith is always prominent. The report, in the form of a news release, is found on page 4 of the "Newsletter", and I urge the reader to read it because "The Reporter," "The Lutheran Witness," and most of the newspapers over the country which reported on the matter did not reproduce the report in its entirety. At the same meeting the Board of Control strongly expressed its disapproval of some of the actions of our synodical president in the matter.

Meanwhile the administration of the seminary, with the concurrence of the Board of Control, determined that it would be best for the seminary and for Dr. Maier if he not teach the course in Romans during the next academic year. At first I tried to keep this matter private, but later I decided to make a public report of the fact. My reason for this was threefold. First, Dr. Maier was reported in the news media all over the country as stating that he had not changed his position on the doctrine of objective justification, suggesting o many that three years of discussions with him had been quite fruitless and that he still did not wholeheartedly believe in objective justification. Second, several people sympathetic to Dr. Maier had threatened to withhold funds from the seminary and had even reported our action to the accrediting association of our seminary, "The Association of Theological Schools;" it was obvious to me that they would make the matter of Dr. Maier’s courses public whenever it served their purposes. Third, the president of the synod was preparing a release revealing the fact that Dr. Maier would not be teaching Romans during the next academic year. I thought it would be preferable that the president of the seminary make this fact known rather than those who have no business making such and announcement and who might make the announcement in a way detrimental either Dr. Maier or the seminary.
This is where the matter now stands. The Board of Control has stated its confidence in the doctrine of Dr. Maier. Dr. Maier is presently teaching Romans, will teach the course this summer, but is slated to teach courses other than Romans next year. The faculty will continue to discuss and try to achieve total agreement in the interpretation of those passages of Scripture which teach objective justification.

A PLEA FOR CONCERN AND UNDERSTANDING
Through this entire and uncomfortable time the Board of Control and the administration of the seminary have found themselves in an understandably awkward position. We are pledged to remain faithful to the doctrinal position of our church, a position which we believe with all our hearts, and we will not deviate from this obligation one iota. We are at the same time pledged to defend a professor and colleague if he fails under unjust attack or abuse. I think we were able to maintain this delicate balance while the present issue was pending, until the political issue was injected. Now we find ourselves uncomfortably between two rather large conflicting elements in our synod, both friends of our seminary; those who believe that the president of the synod, whether they agree with his actions or not, had legitimate concerns about the doctrinal position of Dr. Maier, and those who believe that Dr. Maier had been wronged by the president of the synod and that the seminary could have done more to defend and protect him. How can we respond to this divisive situation in the middle of which we find ourselves? We can only say that we regret deeply the anxiety and consternation which good friends of our seminary have experienced because of the episodes I have recounted. May I ask these friends to bear with us and put the best construction on how we have acted in these circumstances. If you question Dr. Maier’s teaching on justification, please read and believe the report on page and trust the honesty and sincerity of those, including Dr. Maier, who had a part in releasing it. If you believe that Dr. Maier has been wronged by various parties during the last three year which have been trying to him, please believe that our Board of Control and all here at Concordia agree with you; but God, who saved this lost world and forgave the sins of mankind before anyone ever asked Him, commands us also to forgive those who wrong us. And please do not try to defend Dr. Maier by denying the public teaching of the Lutheran Church. God’s forgiveness shines bright and clear above all the pettiness and weakness and wrongs and controversy that have transpired in connection with our dear colleague Dr. Maier, and it WILL cover the sins of us all. Lent teach us this, and Easter confirms it.

ROBERT PREUS, President

For those who wish to read more on Objective Justification the following articles can be secured from our bookstore for a nominal charge:
H. J. Bouman _Conference Paper on Romans 4:5" "Concordia Theological Monthly" (CTM), Vol. 18, 1947, pp. 338-347.
Theodore Engelder, "Objective Justification," CTM, Vol. 4, 1933, pp. 507-516, 564-577, 664, 675.
Theodore Engelder, "Walther, a Christian Theologian," CTM, Vol. 7, 1936, pp. 801-815.
Martin H. Franzmann, "Reconciliation and Justification," CTM, Vol. 21, 1950, pp. 81-93.
E. W. A. Koehler, "Objective Justification, CTM, Vol. 16, 1945, pp. 217-235.
Miscellanea, "God Purposes to Justify Those That Have Come to Faith," CTM, Vol. 14, 1943, pp. 787-791.
George Stoeckhardt, "General Justification," "Concordia Theological Quarterly," April, 1978, pp. 139 – 144.

STATEMENT ADDED TO PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
While the president’s message "Objective Justification" was being typeset, an "Official Notice" from the president of Synod was issued which bears on the Walter A. Maier matter. In the notice the president of Synod expressed his disagreement with our Board action which announced a "basic understanding" with Dr. Maier on objective justification. I felt compelled to respond on behalf of our Board of Control with an Official Notice from the Seminary. This Official Notice which seeks to clarify the Board’s action and position vis-à-vis Dr. Maier’s doctrinal stand has been submitted to "The Reporter." It is herewith appended to the present article for our readers’ information. – Robert Preus

BOARD OF CONTROL MEETS WITH SEMINARY PROFESSOR
The Board of Control of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, has announced that a basic understanding resulted from a lengthy and thorough discussion on January 30^th, between the Board, Dr. Walter A. Maier, Jr., of the seminary faculty, three representatives for the president and vice-presidents (praesidium) of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and two additional faculty members. In a January 5-6 meeting the Praesidium stated that, in its opinion, "Doctor Walter A. Maier, Jr., holds a position different from that of the official doctrinal position of the Synod."
At the January 30 meeting, however, Dr. Maier emphatically affirmed his belief that on the basis of Christ’s vicarious atonement God has put His wrath away against the world and has declared the whole world to be righteous; that the benefits of this objective forgiveness are appropriated only by faith; the even though the entire human race has been redeeme3d, the Law in all its severity, including the wrath of God against sinners as well as the Gospel of forgiveness must be preached to all, including Christians. According to the Gospel, God is indeed reconciled; according to the Law, the wrath of God abides on all who reject Christ and His work of reconciliation, refuse to repent, and live in their sins.

Dr. Robert Sauer, Dr. George Wollenburg, and former synodical vice-president Dr. Theodore Nickel represented the praesidium at the January 30 meeting. Professors Kurt Marquart and Howard Tepker of the seminary faculty were also present.

The frank five-hour exchange focused on several theological issues which were isolated for clarification. The discussion showed that there have been misunderstandings, unclear thinking, and poor communication because of overstatements, lifting of phrases and snippets of doctrinal expression out of context, and sometimes even pressing of casual expressions to ultimate conclusions not intended by the speakers.

More than semantic differences surfaced early in the January 30^th meeting. At the close, however, basic agreement emerged on such topics as the wrath of God, Law and Gospel, and "objective justification" – a term used in the Lutheran Church to summarize a concept in the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions that forgiveness and justification because of the death of Christ are objectively available for all mankind through the ages, whether or not individuals appropriate it through faith.
Difference in the interpretation of several critical passages remain. The Seminary board, as well as Dr. Maier, is concerned that variant interpretations can lead to a misinterpretation of doctrine. Therefore, the Seminary board reported, discussions will continue by the faculty.

Dr. Maier stated: "I regret that some publicly quoted statements of mine from a technical paper ‘prepared for faculty discussion purposes only’ have given a wrong impression about my doctrine of justification as a whole. I, therefore, withdraw that paper from discussion. Doctrinally, I stand with our Synod’s historic position."

In his statement to the Board of Control Dr. Maier further stated: "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29(, and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made….to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed, ‘made a curse for us’" (Galatians 3:13).

"In this sense, the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and sacraments of Christ."

"Faith alone can receive this treasure offered in the Gospel, and this faith itself is entirely a gracious gift and creation of God through the means of grace. Faith adds nothing to God’s forgiveness in Christ offered in the Gospel, but only receives it. Thus, ‘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’" (John 3:30).

"My reservation concerning some of the traditional terminology employed in expressing the doctrine of justification are fully covered by the following statements from the major essay delivered to the first convention of the Synodical Conference, assembled in Milwaukee July 10-16, 1872:

"When speaking with regard to the acquisition of salvation (by Christ), God has wrath for no man any longer; but when speaking with regard to the appropriation, He is wrathful with everyone who is no (sic) in Christ ("Proceedings," p. 32). Before faith the sinner is righteous before God only according to the acquisition and the divine intention, but he is actually ("actu") righteous, righteous for his own person, righteous indeed, first when he believes ("Proceedings," p. 68."

Following the meeting Board Chairman Raymond N. Joeckel commented, "We only wish that we could have reached this stage of the discussions and that we could have had this kind of interchange before unfortunate statements appeared in the public press. The church can learn from this that the Lord blesses sincere efforts to discuss and clarify the meaning and message of the Holy Scriptures."

COMMENT ON AN OFFICIAL NOTICE
The Official Notice of our synodical president regarding Dr. Walter A. Maier and the doctrine of objective justification in the March 30 issue of "The Lutheran Witness Reporter" requires an answer by me as president and executive officer of the Board of Control of Concordia Theological Seminary where Dr. Maier teaches.

Once again we wish to express our deep appreciation to the president for his recognition of the central importance of the doctrine of objective justification and his concern that this comforting teaching be taught clearly at our school. We agree wholeheartedly with his citation from Dr. Francis Pieper, ""he (sic) doctrine of objective justification is of vital important to the entire Christian doctrine. Only by keeping this doctrine intact will the Christian doctrine remain intact. It will be irretrievably lost if this doctrine is abandoned."

However, there are some serious inaccuracies and mistaken judgments in the Official Notice which call for correction and comment.

First, the president of the Synod points to an apparent conflict between my summary of the issues on the subject of justification sent to the Board of Control December 23, 1980, and some later statements made by me and the Board of Control concerning Dr. Maier’s position. In the December statement I described Dr. Maier’s position as he expressed it to the Board at its November, 1980 meeting (with the president of Synod in attendance). There I state that Dr. Maier can find no explicit Biblical evidence for the doctrine of objective justification and no explicit Biblical evidence for the doctrine that God was reconciled (put His anger aside) on account of the ransom paid by Christ. Two months later I stated that Dr. Maier "has always believed" – it would have been better to have said "has consistently affirmed to the Board and to me his belief" – in objective justification; and the Board in its release said that Dr. Maier emphatically affirmed his believe that on the basis of Christs’s vicarious atonement God put His wrath away against the world and has declared the whole world to be righteous." The explanation for this apparent discrepancy lies in the simple fact that in the January meeting of the Board of Control (which the president of Synod did not attend) Dr. Maier clearly affirmed that Scripture does in fact teach the doctrine of objective justification and that on the basis of Christ’s atonement God put away His wrath, whereas in the November meeting, as reported, he did not do so. An so "all" the statements cited are true and factual
Our synodical president says "I must report that the vice-presidents are of the opinion that there is no evidence from the Board of Control meeting which would change their judgment that Dr. Maier is at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod." This must be a mistake. Former Vice-President Theodore Nickel and Vice-President George Wollenburg, together with Vice-president Robert Sauer, represented the Praesidium at the January Board meeting. Dr. Nickel and Dr. Wollenburg criticized Dr. Maier’s position at the meeting. But when Dr. Maier affirmed his belief that objective justification was taught in Scripture (I Timothy 3:16) and that God’s wrath has been appeased through the death of His Son, the Board gained the distinct impression that both Dr. Nickel and Dr. Wollenburg were sufficiently satisfied that Dr. Maier was not at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod. At least, these two men never expressed themselves to the contrary to the Board or to Dr. Maier. The Board report of the January 30 meeting with Dr. Maier and representatives of the Praesidium has been out since February 2, and so Dr. Wollenburg and Dr. Nickel have had plenty of time to dissociate themselves from it, if they wanted to do so. It does seem strange to us that the president of the Synod did not announce his misgivings soon after the Board meeting and news release, but rather waited until after Dr. Maier has been clearly nominated for the presidency of the Missouri Synod.

 Furthermore, Vice-President Sauer is a member of the Board of Control and had a hand in         writing and issuing the Board release of February 2. According to the February 14 St. Louis Globe Democrat Dr. Sauer said, "’After a recent discussion lasting several hours,’ Dr. Maier ‘appears to be in a position of changing with regard to the vital doctrinal matter.’" So the president of our Synod apparently is not including Dr. Sauer when he said, "I must report that the vice-presidents are of the opinion that there is no evidence from the Board of Control meeting which would change the judgment that Dr. Maier is at variance with the doctrinal position of the Synod." Perhaps there are other vice-presidents he is not including.

The suggestion of our synodical president that the Board of Control is engaging in a
cover up in regard to Dr. Maier is unkind and false. The Board has acted with utmost integrity. While the president may differ with the Board’s conclusion and decision in the Maier matter, it is not right of him publicly to question the ethics and posture of the Board in the entire matter.

The president’s only evidence for a cover up is the fact that the Board did not publicly announce that Dr. Maier would not be teaching a course in the Book of Romans beginning with the next academic year. This was not considered significant for the news release. At the same meeting the Board also objected "strenuously" to "certain things" done by the president of the Synod "which are high-handed, inexcusable, and harmful to Dr. Maier or our school." The Board did not think of including such items in its release either, and that out of love and concern for the reputation of our synodical president. The omission of pertinent or irrelevant facts in a release does not necessarily constitute a "cover up." If it did, the president of the Synod would be guilty of a serious "cover up." In his Official Notice he omitted any mention of a verbatim quotation from Dr. Maier in the Board release, affirming that Scripture does indeed teach objective justification. Dr. Maier’s statement goes as follows, "When the Lord Jesus was ‘justified’ (I Timothy 3:16) in His resurrection and exaltation, God acquitted Him not of sins of His own, but of all the sins of mankind, which as the Lamb of God He had been bearing (John 1:29), and by the imputation of which He had been ‘made…..to be sin for us’ (II Corinthians 5:21), indeed ‘made a curse for us’ (Galations 3:13). In this sense the justification of Jesus was the justification of those whose sins He bore. The treasure of justification or forgiveness gained by Christ for all mankind is truly offered, given, and distributed in and through the Gospel and Sacraments of Christ." It was on the basis of this statement and other assurances given by Dr. Maier that the Board announced in its February 2 release that a "basic understand resulted from a lengthy and thorough discussion on January 30 between the Board, Dr. Walter A. Maier, Jr. of the seminary faculty, three representatives for the president and vice-presidents (Praesidium) of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and two additional faculty members."

We share our synodical president’s "frustration and amazement" at the confusion which shrouds both the issue itself and the way it has been handled. I know I speak for Dr. Maier and the Board of Control when I say that we all are sorry for anything we have said or done which adds to this confusion. I am sure that the president of the Synod too is sorry for what he has contributed to the confusion and misunderstanding which surrounds the matter. It is my hope that this response to his Official Notice will serve to clarify the matter.

WELS - Bourman - UOJ

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation

The use and emergence of the terms “objective” and “subjective” in relation to justification.

Presented to the South Central Pastor’s Conference – April 19‐20, 2010 Pastor Nate Bourman

1 Introduction:

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.

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

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

14 Numerous other quotations could be found to convince us from countless witnesses that it is so.3 But, who among   15 us needs to be convinced? Surely it is God’s grace and God’s grace alone that has also brought us to the blessed   16 conviction that this is indeed a precious doctrine that needs repeated study, constant meditation, and vigilant   17 defense. It is for this reason that a conference slate of papers entirely devoted to the doctrine of justification has to   18 this point consumed our attention and will yet into the afternoon.

19 The essay committee has assigned an historical look at this doctrine, to see what the fathers of our faith have said   20 about justification, specifically in regard to the terms “objective” and “subjective.”4 This is, without a doubt, a broad   21 topic since it covers approximately 400 years of history. It is a topic about which there is much controversy, even   22 among Lutherans. It is also a difficult topic to approach, particularly because in regard to the terms themselves not  23 all authors are in agreement regarding the origination of these terms.5

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

1 Walther 40. (C.F.W. Walther. The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel.© 1986 Concordia Publishing House. Trans. by

W.H.T. Dau.)2 Chemnitz 443. (Martin Chemnitz. Loci Theologici vol. II. ©1989 Concordia Publishing House. Translated by J.A.O. Preus.) 3 Luther is also among those who reminds us of the great blessing that this article of justification is: “What are all creatures in comparison with the doctrine of justification? If we understand this article correctly and purely we have the right heavenly sun, but if we lose the correct understanding of it we have nothing but the darkness of hell. One can never praise it highly enough and defend it sufficiently….Where this article remains pure Christendom will remain pure, in beautiful harmony, and without schisms. But where it does not remain pure it is impossible to repel any error to heretical spirit. And St. Paul says specifically of this doctrine that a little leaven ferments the whole lump [1 Cor. 5:6]” (Tappert 164‐165). (Lutheran Confessional Theology in America: 1840‐1880. Edited by Theodore Tappert.© 1872 Oxford University Press, Inc.) 4 That this is a worthy exercise is evident from the Scriptures as well especially since the writer urges us: Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7). Where they have erred, we will not go. But where they have taught the Word of God in its truth and purity it is good and right for us to follow and imitate their faith. 5 Almost all agree that these terms enter common usage in the churches of the Synodical Conference around 1872 and then even more during the Election Controversy of the 1880’s. However, one historian in our own Synod remarked that he has not been able to trace them further than that, although, they surely were in usage prior to this time.

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation 2

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

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.

36 The papists hated the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. They adamantly and firmly   37 condemned the Lutheran teaching that works are entirely excluded from the matter and that faith itself was not a   38 work which justified because of what it did. The Council of Trent clearly leveled their anathema against the   39 Lutherans. Our fathers, in response to the papist anathema, responded clearly to the attacks. In fact, it was   40 necessary to fight against this works righteousness of the papists at many times and in various ways. Against the   41 papists the Lutherans demanded: Grace alone apart from works, APART FROM THE WORKS OF THE LAW!8

42 Yet, that was far from the only fight which our fathers fought. There were the Calvinists who limited the atoning   43 work of Christ and made election a double decree of God. Thus the Calvinists taught a monergism, namely that God   44 is the determining factor in the election to salvation AND in the election to damnation.9 On account of this   45 damnable doctrine they limited the work of Christ ONLY to those who were the elect. Again, the Lutherans were   46 forced to respond. And so, against the Calvinists the Lutherans demanded: Grace alone apart from works FOR ALL   47 MANKIND. As Chemnitz clearly declared:

48 “We must retain this universal promise against dangers we might imagine regarding   49 predestination, so that we do not argue that this promise pertains only to certain few others, but   50 not to ourselves. There is no doubt that this thought troubles the minds of all people. From this   51 have arisen many useless controversies by writers on the subject of predestination. But we must   52 make up our minds that the promise of the Gospel is universal. For just as the preaching of   53 repentance is universal, so also is the preaching of the remission of sins universal… That not all   54 obtain the Gospel promise comes from the fact that they do not all believe. For the Gospel, even   55 though it promises freely, yet requires faith; it is necessary that the promises be received by faith.

6 This is not a unique approach to the locus of justification. Chemnitz suggests the following: “Chemnitz believes that a definite Pauline order should be maintained; the theologian should consider (1) what the Gospel is in contrast to the Law; (2) the meaning of the words justify, righteousness, and righteous as they are used in the Gospel, (3) the meaning of such words as grace and freely, (4) what justifying faith is and what it clings to, and (5) the place of good works, since these are expressly removed from the article of justification” (Preus 95). (Robert D. Preus. The Theology of Post‐Reformation Lutheranisn vol 1. © 1970 Concordia Publishing House.) Likewise, in a paper presented to the first convention of the Synodical Conference in 1872, the following thesis was presented: “Thesis 3: In the pure doctrine of justification, as our Lutheran church has presented it again from God’s Word and placed it on the lamp‐stand, it is above all a matter of three points: 1) Of the doctrine of the universal, perfect redemption (Erloesung) of the world through Christ; 2) Of the doctrine of the power and efficacy of the means of grace; and 3) Of the doctrine of faith” (Schmidt 1). (F.A. Scmidt. Justification, objective and subjective: a translation of the doctrinal essay read at the first convention of the Synodical Conference in 1872. © 1982. Concordia Theological Seminary Press. Trans. Kurt Marquart.)7 Cf. Romans 4:25 8 In his Loci Theologici Martin Chemnitz continues to wage war when he quotes Melanchthon: “This is the promise of the remission of sins, or reconciliation or justification, concerning which the Gospel primarily speaks, so that these benefits are sure and do not depend upon the condition of fulfilling the Law” (445).9 It is important to note here that on the basis of Scripture it is taught among us that God, purely out of his grace and mercy has elected some to salvation. However, it is also clearly declared that he has not elected the others to damnation. No, rather he desires the salvation of all as countless passages of Scripture make plain.

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation 3

56 The term “freely” does not exclude faith, but it does exclude our worthiness as a condition…and it   57 demands that we accept the promise, and this cannot take place except through faith.”10

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! They wanted to cry out (and did): “But Scripture teaches that Christ has done all, and has already   64 acquired for us reconciliation with God, righteousness, entitlement to be children of God, that it lies there in   65 readiness and is distributed in the holy Christian church through the Gospel. Now no one needs to do anything   66 more than to accept salvation.”11

67 If only the attacks upon the doctrine of justification had come from the outside of the Lutheran church, then,   68 perhaps, some of the time, they might be readily identified and fought. But, sadly, Satan worked and continues to   69 work within the Lutheran ranks. Some wanted12 to make justification an act of God “at the moment of faith” and so   70 they denied and even rejected universal, objective justification. For instance, Gottfried Fritschel in his article Zur

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

76 Likewise, Heinrich Schmid in The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church makes justification “the   77 effect of faith.” He notes that “this act occurs in the instant in which the merit of Christ is appropriated by faith.”   78 And again he uses phrases in regard to justification like “from the moment when faith is exercised.”15 Thus, in a very

10 Chemnitz, 455. 11 Schmidt 12‐13 12 See below for the timing of these particular departures from the doctrine of justification. 13 Translated by Tappert and included in Lutheran Confessional Theology in America. 14 See these phrases in their context: “In the suffering and death of Christ a sufficient and perfectly valid sacrifice was offered for the sins of the whole world. Christ is the lamb of God that bore the sins of the world. Thus the whole world, with the exception of no individual at all, has been reconciled with God in Christ. The treasure of the forgiveness of sins has been bought for all men, unbelievers as well as believers, damned as well as saved. And yet, although the whole world is reconciled with God in the death of Jesus Christ, all men are not on this account justified. Justification is something different from reconciliation, and dare not be confused with or exchanged for it. Reconciliation applies to all men, but justification is attained only by those who appropriate to themselves the merit of Jesus Christ through faith. In the atonement wrought by Christ’s death it was made objectively possible that the sins of an individual could be forgiven, which occurs in faith, in the justification of the sinner before God. When the sinner has stood penitently before the judgment of God, has experienced the wrath of God and the terrors of his conscience, and in faith has taken hold of Christ and his holy merit, only then does God look upon him in Christ and for Christ’s sake declare him free and liberated from all his sins… now and not before… and this is not a subjective transaction in man but is an objective deed of God… Consequently, while forgiveness of sins and justification are offered to all men in the gospel, only those who are justified who have faith in Jesus” (BOLD emphasis mine) (Tappert 147‐148). 15 See these phrases of Schmid in their context: “The effect of faith is justification; [1] by which is to be understand the

act of God by which he removes the sentence of condemnation, to which man is exposed in consequence of his sins, releases him from his guilt, and ascribes to him the merit of Christ. Br. (574): “Justification denotes the act by which the sinner, who is responsible for guilt and liable to punishment, but who believes in Christ, is pronounced just by God the judge.” [2] This act occurs in the instant in which the merit of Christ is appropriated by faith, [3] and can properly be designated a forensic or judicial act, since God in it, as if in a civil court, pronounces a judgment upon man…” (BOLD emphasis mine) (Schmid 424). “For God, from the moment in which faith is exercised, regards all that Christ has accomplished, as if it had been done by man, and attributes the merit of Christ to him, as if it were his own”15 (BOLD

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation 4

79 subtle way (though they would argue otherwise) faith became a cause of salvation; faith became a cause of   80 justification.

81 The other error, already introduce above, was a false distinction between the terms justification and reconciliation.   82 Fritschel argues that these two doctrines are separate.16 “Where in the Lutheran Church was reconciliation ever   83 conceived us of justification,”17 he asks. Reconciliation, he argues, is universal. Justification is not.18 This difference   84 between reconciliation and justification is the basis for the “then/now” distinction between them.19

85 Here on the basis of an unfortunate translation of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics confusion entered our own circles.   86 This is the statement:

87 When the sinner comes to faith in Christ or in the Gospel, he is at once justified before God by his   88 faith. Since the Gospel offers him the forgiveness of sins gained by Christ for the whole world   89 (objective justification), the acceptance of this offer by faith, is all that is needed to accomplish his 90 subjective justification.20

emphasis mine) (Schmid 425). (Heinrich Schmid. The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. © 1961. Augsburg Publishing House. Trans. Charles A Hay and Henry Jacobs.) 16 Fritschel states: “Everywhere it has been the belief of the Lutheran Church that reconciliation and justification are

distinguished from each other, that on the basis of the reconciliation accomplished for the whole world in Christ’s death and resurrection God declares righteous or justifies the individual man who appropriates this general reconciliation to himself in faith, and therefore while the reconciliation happened then, when Christ performed his hold work of redemption, justification occurs now, when the individual takes hold of Christ’s merit in faith, whereupon, in that very moment, God declares him just” (Tappert 150).17 Tappert 150. 18 Regarding the difference and distinction between reconciliation and justification, none of us will debate the fact that these have

different shades of meaning, as a diamond has different sides and faces to it. Yet, according to their universal character there is no difference. Prof. Meyer is right to question Lenski who says: “Reconciliation…signifies that through Christ’s death God changed our status. By our enmity, our sin, our ungodliness (all synonymous) we had gotten ourselves into the desperate status that deserved nothing from God but wrath, penalty, damnation; and unless God did something to change this status, it would compel him to treat us thus. By means of Christ’s death (dia) God changed this into an utterly different status, one that despite our enmity, etc., enabled him to go on commending to us his love, this very love that changed our status, this love that impelled Christ to die for us hostile enemies of God….A change had to take place in our case, and we could not make it ourselves, God had to make it. It took the sacrificial death of his Son to do it….Being enemies we were reconciled to God. This is the objective act. It wrought a change with or upon these enemies, not within them. It as yet did not turn their enmity into friendship, did not make the world the kingdom. It changed the unredeemed into the redeemed world. The instant Christ died the whole world of sinners was completely changed. It was now a world for whose sin atonement has been made, no longer a world with sins unatoned” Meyer asks: “How anyone with this grasp of the objective nature of καταλλαγή can still refuse to accept the objective nature of the justification of which Paul is here speaking is difficult to understand” (Meyer 114‐115). (J.P. Meyer. Ministers of Christ: A Commentary on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. © 1963. Northwestern Publishing House.) Likewise Stoeckhardt, commenting on Romans 5:8ff declares: “Reconciliation and justification here mean one and the same thing to Paul” (142). (George Stoeckhardt. General Justification. Trans. Otto F. Stahlke. Concordia Theological Quarterly, vol 42 #2.) 19 Stoeckhardt tries to explain the opponents rationale: “When they treat of justification they lay down approximately the

following sequence of thought: God through Christ has reconciled the sinful world with himself through the sacrificial death of Christ. That salvation and reconciliation which is effected through Christ Jesus, Christ’s obedience, suffering and death, must be definitely distinguished from the actual forgiving of sins. Through this reconciliation God has only made it possible for Himself to impart to sinful man further demonstrations of His grace. He has so far suppressed His wrath that He further concerns Himself with the sinners of the world. Reconciliation has opened the way for the possibility of the forgiveness of sins, of justification…” (Stoeckhardt 139). Note, into this way of thinking he ties in Thomasius, Kahnis, Martensen, Luthard, Frank, Philippi.20 Prof. Meyer offers the German and the corrected translation: “At the same moment that a man comes to faith in Christ or in

the Gospel, that is, in the forgiveness of sins won by Christ and offered in the Gospel, he is justified before God through his faith. This is the so‐called Subjective Justification in distinction from the so‐called Objective Justification, which is present before faith” (Meyer 100).

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation

91 What can we say? What Lutherans have always said and declared: GRACE ALONE FOR ALL MANKIND!21 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.   95 There is no longer anything that a poor sinner has to fear when he approaches his heavenly Father, with whom he   96 has been reconciled by Christ.”22 And again: “By the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead God has absolved the   97 entire world of sinners from their sins.”23 Luther points us to the Fifth Petition for comfort telling us to pray for   98 forgiveness and adds, “Not that he does not forgive our sins without our prayer or before we ask. In fact, before we   99 prayed for it or ever thought about it, he gave us the Gospel in which there is nothing but forgiveness.”24 The   100 Formula of Concord speaks of our righteousness which is revealed in the Gospel as being universal, “a complete   101 satisfaction and expiation for the human race”.25 Luther in his remarks on Galatians 3:13 says: “Thus, if Christ   102 himself was found guilty (schuldig geworden ist) of all sins which all of us (wir alle) have done, then we are acquitted   103 of all sins…etc.”26

104 Luther likewise points us to the universal, objective nature of justification:

105 “Here I find this One among the sinners, yes, Him Who has taken all men’s sins upon Himself and   106 carries them, and besides this I see no sin in the whole world, anymore, except on Him alone;   107 therefore He shall yield Himself and die the death of the Cross. Thus the Law with its accusation   108 and terror presses upon Him with full force and slays Him. Through this innocent death of Christ   109 the whole world is purified and released from sin and thereby redeemed from death and from all    110 evil...For of these two things one must certainly and indisputably be true: Namely, if all the world’s   111 sins lie on the single man Jesus Christ, as the Holy Spirit testifies through Isaiah 53:6, then of course   112 they do not lie on the world; but if they do not lie on Him, then, without fail, they must certainly lie   113 on the world. Again, if Christ Himself has become guilty of all our sins, which we have ever   114 committed, then we are indeed absolved, free, and acquitted of all sins; but this has not happened   115 through ourselves, our works or merit, but through him.27

116 Numerous other quotations might be added. But let these suffice to show that our fathers taught and held to   117 universal, objective justification.

118 They also clearly made it known that this universal, objective justification was forensic in nature. This means   119 nothing other than that which happens in a courtroom ‐a verdict is reached. The one verdict stands as   120 condemnation, the other as justification. The one verdict stands as guilty, the other as not guilty. This even the   121 opponents of universal, objective justification recognize. Chemnitz summarizes the forensic thrust of the word   122 “justification:”28

21 “If the Gospel now is not valid except that man first believe it, what then is he to believe? In this way one is led to a monkey’s tail, as Luther says. That means leading people who stand in fear and have doubt about their salvation, into a torture‐mill” (Schmidt 33). 22 Walther 136. 23 Law and Gospel, 375. 24 Large Catechism, 92‐93. For the sake of openness it should be noted that directly after this encouragement Luther exhorts the reader to faith. Yet, it cannot be denied that Luther here teaches a universal, objective justification that takes place outside of us, yes, even before faith, but never to be received apart from faith.25 Quoted by Reim page 5. WA History of the Term “Objective Justification:” An Essay Prepared for the Milwaukee City, Wisconsin Synod. E. Reim. 26 Quoted by Reim page 5. 27 Quoted by Schmidt 11‐12 28 He’s not the only one. Hoenecke among others also writes: “Thesis 1: Justification is a judicial act of God, since out of grace he declares sinful human beings, who have fallen into eternal punishment on account of sin, to be righteous for Christ’s sake without any merit on their part” (318). Quoting Gerhard he writes: “Gerhard writes: Because equivalent terms are likewise judicial. For to

123 ’Justification’ means the remission of sins, reconciliation, or the acceptance of a person unto eternal   124 life. To the Hebrews ‘to justify’ is a forensic term, as if I were to say to the Roman people ‘justified’   125 Scipio when he was accused by the tribunes, that is, they absolved him or pronounced him to be a   126 righteous man. Therefore Paul took the term “justify” from the usage of the Hebrew word to   127 indicate remission of sins, reconciliation, or acceptance. All educated people understand that this   128 is the thrust of the Hebrew expression, and examples are encountered frequently.29

129 But the opponents will continue to make the argument that reconciliation differs from justification. They may even   130 argue that the forgiveness of sins is not the same as justification. Yet, we do not stand alone in declaring that it just   131 isn’t so. We stand in good company declaring that these are all synonyms of justification, as Chemnitz points out:

132 Augustine himself in treating Romans 5, where “to be justified” is explained in the text as meaning

133 “to be reconciled”… Again he [Paul] explains justification on the basis of Ps. 32:1‐2 as “covering   134 iniquity” or as “not imputing sins,” cf. Rom. 4:7‐8; 2 Cor. 5:19. In Rom. 5:10 the word “to be

135 reconciled” is clearly a synonym for “to be justified.” Titus 3:5‐7 joins these three expressions: to   136 justify, to save, and to become heirs of eternal life, as being synonymous, each of which explains the

137 other. Gal. 3:9‐10 and Acts 3:25 explain justification in terms of the blessing in opposition to God’s   138 curse… John, therefore, often speaks like this, John 3:16‐18: “He who does not believe is condemned   139 already….He who believes shall not be judged….He does not coming judgment [John 5:24]….He sent   140 his Son not to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him…that whoever

141 believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” It is clear that these expressions are   142 paraphrases of the word “justification” and have the same meaning we have been speaking about.”30

143 These objections might also be added to those noted above: (1) The accusation of universalism, namely that since   144 the world was justified when Christ rose from the dead.31 (2) Related to the charge of universalism is the concern   145 that universal, objective justification may soften the law and even lead to a carnal security. In other words, the   146 Gospel message of justification becomes a pillow to sleep on while the Law thunders on. (3) It can lead to a   147 lawlessness and antinomianism. While this is a moment for us to pause and consider how we have preached law   148 and gospel to our people, especially in this regard, Chemnitz responds to these charges appropriately:

149 Augustine states in regard to Psalm 101 that the pagans condemned the teaching of the church by   150 saying, “You have destroyed discipline and perverted the morals of the human race by giving to

151 men an opportunity for repentance and by promising immunity for all sins; and thus men do evil,   152 secure in the fact that all things will be forgiven them when they have been converted.” Such

153 objections some people tried to refute by changing the doctrine so that they restricted grace and in   154 hyperbolic language extolled other teachings to the skies. But Augustine, after he learned his   155 lesson from the Pelagian controversy, came to realize that the church was not being helped by this   156 kind of thinking and that the truth was only being perverted and ultimately lost. For just as they

be justified is not to be called into judgment (Ps 143:2), not to be condemned (Jn 3:18), not to come into judgment (Jn 5:24), not to be judged (Jn 3:18)” (318). And again: “Justification is an action of God that occurs in time and especially to each individual sinner. But there is also an objective justification, which happened to all people in time, specifically in Christ’s suffering and resurrection (Ro 5:18; 2 Cor 5:19; Ro 4:25). Our dogmaticians do not treat objective justification especially but only incidentally” (337‐338).” (Adolf Hoenecke. Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics, vol III. © 2003. Northwestern Publishing House. Tran. James Langebartels)29 Quoting Melanchton in his Loci Theologici 461. 30 Chemnitz 482‐483. 31 These charges may arise because of careless preaching of or thoughtless listening to phrases like: “Even your sins, O unrepentant man, have been forgiven” (Tappert 156).

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation

157 should not do evil that good may come of it, so they should not teach falsely in order that the truth   158 might be defended and retained.32

159 We can be sure on the basis of Scripture33 and on the testimony of those who have gone before us justification is   160 universal (It is for all.), and it is objective (It happens outside of man.). Prof. Deutschlander summarizes well what   161 we mean when we confess universal, objective justification:

162 By objective (or universal) justification we mean simply this: God, on account of His own free and   163 unmerited grace, has forgiven the sins of the whole world; this “not guilty” verdict God has declared   164 over the whole world without injury to His divine justice; for the sacrifice of His Son in the place of   165 all mankind serves as the all‐sufficient satisfaction for the offence done to God by the individual   166 and collective sin of our fallen race, and that sacrifice provides each and every sinner with the only   167 possible, perfect, and complete covering for his guilt.34

168 Subjective justification is a forensic declaration of God received by faith alone.   169 Here Chemnitz drives us straight to the point:

170 The point at issue is this: When the mind is terrified by the recognition of sin and a sense of the   171 wrath of God, (1) What is that entity on account of which the sinner, condemned before God’s   172 judgment to eternal punishment, obtains remission of sins, is absolved from the sentence of   173 condemnation, and is received into eternal life? (2) What is the instrument or means by which the   174 promise of the Gospel, that is, the promise of grace, mercy, reconciliation, salvation, and eternal   175 life, is received, laid hold upon, and applied? For these two things are sought in the article of   176 justification: the merit or satisfaction and the application of it to oneself.35

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 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

32 Chemnitz 473. 33 Though the Scripture passages are not supplied here I am confident that our other essayists at this conference have and will flesh out these passages for us.34 Deutschlander Distinction 2. (On the Distinction between Objective and Subjective Justification. Essay presented to the Chicago Pastoral Conference on November 8, 1977. Daniel Deutschlander.) 35 Chemnitz 474. 36 Deutschlander Distinction 5. 37 Chemnitz begins to explain: “Because Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and yet not all are saved through Christ, therefore it is necessary that there be an application of those things which Christ by his obedience has merited and acquired an application to each individual who has been ordained to eternal life. It is certain that this takes place by faith” (494). 38 Hoenecke 338. He also notes there: “Emphasizing objective justification is necessary in order to preserve the real content of the gospel” (338).

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation 8

187 Paul Althaus phrases these same questions in terms of when man is justified. E. Reim translates the following 188 section from Die Christliche Wahrheit:39

189 The act by which God justifies takes place in Jesus Christ. Thereby the question is already   190 answered: When is man justified? The answer must read: In the cross and the resurrection of Jesus.   191 But God’s action in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of the past, but becomes a   192 present thing for us at every stage of history (an jedem Ort des Geschichtsraumes) by the way in   193 which God deals with us in the Gospel, in its preachment, absolution, Sacrament. As something   194 inseparable from Christ, the one action of God becomes contemporary for me—thus overcoming   195 the barrier between past and present—by means of the awarding and appropriating function of the   196 Gospel as it is proclaimed and administered. Thus the question concerning the time may be   197 answered: I am justified in my baptism; but also: now, in my hearing the Word that is meant for   198 me; today, in my receiving the Sacrament. Not as though this implied constantly recurring new acts   199 of God, nor a repetition of the first act. Rather, it is always the one and the same historic act of God   200 which confronts me wherever I may be—never to be localized exclusively in one specific moment,   201 not even in Baptism. Its locale is in Christ; it occurs wherever Christ is present; it consists in this   202 that Christ is present for us.

203 Here one should not forget that Christ and faith belong together. Only in faith is God’s verdict real   204 for us. In this respect God’s act of justification is at once “objective” and “subjective.” God sends   205 Christ and the Gospel, God grants faith that lays hold on Christ in the Gospel and thereby has this   206 justification. This results in the following answer to the question concerning the time: I have this   207 justification (I am justified) when God works faith in me through the Gospel. This “subjective”   208 version of the answer does not imply a conflict with the previously stated “objective” form, but the   209 two belong together. Their unity consists in this that the “objective” answer can be perceived by   210 faith alone, but this faith does not look to its own resources, but only to what it is given, to the   211 “objective” fact. We are justified at the cross; we are justified by faith—these twain belong   212 inseparably together.40

213 There is a struggle here, one that we are keenly aware of in America. We cling to sola gratia with fierce tenacity,   214 and rightly so. In the same way, the Scriptures also drive us to cling to sola fidei with the same tenacity. Yet, with a   215 history of subjectivism in our rearview mirror and with a world all around with an overly subjective view of things   216 we struggle to clearly teach and preach these truths. Tappert, quoting Forde, describes the struggle like this:   217 “traditional piety was torn between the poles of orthodoxist “objectivism” and pietistic “subjectivism.”41

218 So, the question you’ve been waiting for, the reason this paper was assigned to me: What is the genesis of the terms   219 “objective” and “subjective” in relation to justification? The genesis of the terms is hard to trace, but they appear to   220 enter common usage among us in the latter half of the 19th Century.42 One might surmise that since this is a core   221 doctrine to our faith the Rationalists might have begun to develop terms like objective and subjective in relation to   222 justification in order to reconcile the doctrine of the law with the doctrine of the gospel. While it is true that “the   223 desire to reconcile the doctrine of the Law and of the philosophy of the Gospel is the source and origin of all   224 corruptions,”43 this alone does not help us trace the development and use of these terms.

225 Some, and perhaps rightly so, direct us to Pietism as the instigator:

39 Notice how Althaus seamlessly weaves together objective and subjective justification while the entire time directing us to the cross. 40 Reim 7. 41 Tappert 141. 42 Schmidt states that old dogmaticians didn’t often speak of universal, objective justification because of Huber who taught “that God had not only justified all men already, but had also elected them to eternal life” (21). Tappert notes this about Huber: “Samuel Huber (1547‐1624) attacked Reformed teaching when he was in Switzerland and Lutheran teaching when he was in Germany. He criticized the Reformed doctrine of predestination and annoyed Lutherans by contending that universal salvation was established through the sacrificial death of Christ” (161).43 Chemnitz quoted by Preus 98.

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

235 This, too, is difficult to trace even though we can here again see the correlation. What we can trace is there   236 development and usage among us and others within and without the Synodical Conference. There are several dates   237 and controversies that we might keep in mind. (1) 1872 was the first meeting of Synodical Conference. A paper was   238 presented titled Justification – objective and subjective. In this paper the doctrine of objective justification, in   239 particular, was clearly expounded. This is, perhaps, the first clear usage of the term in our circles. (2) In 1880 a   240 controversy arose at the General Pastoral Conference of 1880. Reim writes in this regard:

241 Walther’s doctrine was being attacked, and Prof. F. W. Stellhorn, subsequently to become one of   242 the leaders of the Ohio Synod, was one of the chief spokesmen against him. In an effort to prove   243 the particular election of individuals to be but a judicial application of the terms of God’s universal   244 will of grace, Stellhorn spoke as follows: “I remind you of an analogy, the doctrine of a twofold   245 justification. There, in opposition to modern theologians, all of us teach that there is an objective   246 justification, which came to pass through the resurrection of Christ. By this resurrection all   247 mankind has been justified objectively. There God has declared: Now all men are justified, freed   248 from their sins. And he who accepts this objective justification in faith is also justified subjectively   249 (der wird auch subjektiv gerechtfertigt). (Verhandlungen der Allgem. Pastoralkonferenz, p. 32. In his   250 reply Dr. Walther called this the language of scholars (“wie die Gelehrten reden”), but entered on the   251 use of these same terms, differing with Stellhorn only because of the latter’s way of implying that   252 justification involved two judicial acts of God. Obviously both men were operating with familiar   253 and accepted terms. The fact that they were but little used in the writings of those days seems to   254 have been simply a matter of preference. It was not that the terms were not known and accepted.45

255 Likewise, Buchholz in his paper to the 2005 WELS Synod Convention wrote:

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

260 Understanding the history of these terms helps us to understand the charges that Fritschel raises when he seems to 261 label and understand subjective justification as “a consciousness on man’s part of something God did long ago.”47 262 He also labels subjective justification our work and not God’s.48

263

44 Reim 4. 45 Reim 2. 46 Buccholz 1. (Justification in Mission and Ministry. Essay presented to the 58th Biennial Convention of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod assembled at Martin Luther College, New Ulm, Minnesota, July 27, 2005. Jon Buccholz.)47 Tappert 152. 48 He further states: “In subjective justification therefore it is not God who does something – that is to say, he does not there declare a man just, and it is not a forensic act, because this happened long ago in Christ’s death and resurrection – but it is an act of man, namely, an acceptance on his part – although to be sure, through the faith that God produces in him.” Footnote: “in the personal justification of the individual God does nothing, but only man acts insofar as he believes” (Tappert 154).

264 Thus, it becomes necessary to understand the true nature of faith as the Scriptures use it. Here Deutschlander does   265 us a great service in Ein Kleines Theologisches Wörterbuch:

266 The words Glaube and glauben have a much more precise meaning in German than do the English   267 equivalents. In common English usage the words “to believe,” and “faith” are used as synonym for   268 “to feel,” “to have an opinion,” “to hope,” all of these with or without any reason or basis in fact.   269 Thus, for example, the mother of the confessed ax murderer is heard to say outside of the   270 courtroom: “But I still believe that he is innocent and a good boy;” or the soap opera heroine says to   271 the victim of some unimaginable disaster: “You’ve just got to have faith!” In both examples, faith/to   272 believe are used with total indifference to facts, evidence, any reason or basis, to the point that faith   273 and facts, faith and history virtually become opposites. Orthodox German Lutheran writers never   274 use Glaube/glauben that way. In orthodox German Lutheran usage these words are rooted in facts,   275 in history, in knowledge. In English someone may ask the question: Why do you believe that? and   276 get the answer: That’s just the way I feel about it. In German glauben would not be used that way. If   277 we accept St. Augustine’s definition of faith as “scientia, assentia, fiducia,” the German emphasizes   278 scientia and the English fiducia. almost to the exclusion of scientia. For the Lutheran pastor the   279 point is an extremely important one: if in his speaking and preaching and writing he uses the words   280 “faith” and “believe” in a German (as well as Latin and Greek) sense, but his hearers understand   281 him in an English sense, he may unintentionally mislead his audience. What does the speaker mean 282 and what does the hearer understand by the sentence: “All you’ve got to do is believe and have   283 faith.” If the speaker is a good Lutheran (though a sloppy speaker), he means: “Jesus really did come   284 and die for the sins of the world, and therefore for your sins; his payment is an accomplished fact,   285 and your forgiveness was won by Him alone; through this message God bids you trust in this   286 accomplished fact as it applies to you.” If the speaker is careless and does not explain himself, the   287 hearer may understand something quite different: “I’m supposed to decide that everything is OK–if   288 I decide that, it’s true; if I decide the opposite, then that’s true, and if someone else decides a third   289 thing, then that’s true for him; thus Christianity is a feeling that everything will work out right as   290 long as I believe it, and I can believe what I want, as long as I believe something.49

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. Faith is focused on something outside of me. This makes faith, like justification   293 itself, completely objective in nature for it places its confidence in sure and certain things. It is confidence and trust   294 focused completely on Christ its Source, Christ its Content, and Christ its Goal.51

49 Deutschlander Wordbook 4. (Ein Kleines Theologisches Wörterbuch. Prof. Daniel M. Deutschlander [Rev. 1994].) 50 “The notion that faith is mere feeling and apart from a specific promise of God is often rejected. Condemned as well is the very English and existential notion that nothing is true until and unless I believe it. "Faith" does not establish truth; rather the truth of God’s promises creates, establishes and is the heart and core of faith. Thus for example in the Formula of Concord, Article II, par. 56 (Tappert, p. 532): We should not and cannot pass judgment on the Holy Spirit's presence, operations, and gifts merely on the basis of our feeling, how and when we perceive it in our hearts. On the contrary, because the Holy Spirit's activity often is hidden, and happens under cover of great weakness, we should be certain, because of and on the basis of his promise, that the Word which is heard and preached is an office and work of the Holy Spirit, whereby he assuredly is potent and active in our hearts (II Cor. 2:14ff.)” (Deutschlander Faith Saves 4). (WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY: "FAITH SAVES"? Prof. D. Deutschlander.) 51 The dangers of subjectivism are clearly warned about: “Confidence and trust all too easily shifts from Christ its Source, Christ its Content and Christ its Goal, to the decision and confidence itself; the synergist gets up in the morning and asks not after Christ, but after his own feelings, which he mistakenly equates with faith (of which more below); does he “feel right with God;” does he feel at peace and forgiven? Then he is and need concern himself with the matter no longer. How easily that slips into a carnal security, with the self at the center, rather than Christ; how lightly one can dismiss Word and Sacraments, the objective means of grace that way; how imperceptible but deadly may become the slide into the posture of the self righteous Pharisee,

295 Here the testimonies of the fathers are in place. Walther notes:

296 Luther occasionally uses the expression that, objectively, every person is already righteous in the sight of   297 God because of the living and dying of Christ in his stead. When God justifies an individual by offering him   298 the Gospel and the individual refuses to accept, he is, indeed, not justified, but is and remains a condemned   299 sinner. To such a person the chief torment of hell will be the fact that he knows: “I was redeemed; I was   300 reconciled to God; I was righteous; but because I would not believe it, I am now in this place of

301 torment….Of what use would it be if someone were to offer you millions, holding them out to you, and you   302 would not deem it worth while to extend your hand and take them? You would remain beggars until your   303 dying day….A person must believe that what the Gospel says concerns him”52

304 And Chemnitz adds:

305 Besides this, when “faith” is concerned with external objects, it obviously signifies “desire,” “trust,”   306 “expectation,” and “petition” for a mitigation or for aid or deliverance. The same will be the nature   307 and meaning of “faith” when it has to do with justification as its object. From this the correct   308 meaning is confirmed that even when faith is concerned with external objects, yet in order that the   309 promise may be sure and the confidence of our hope firm, that faith which relies on the promise of   310 mercy for the sake of Christ must always shine forth. For unless faith first establishes that God is   311 favorable toward us and has been reconciled, no peace of conscience can be sought or aid be 312 expected.53

313 For we are justified by faith, not because it is so firm, robust, and perfect a virtue, but because of the object

314 on which it lays hold, namely Christ, who is the Mediator in the promise of grace…We must not determine

315 the status of our faith on the basis of our feeling of comfort or spiritual joy…But when the true object is

316 firmly centered in the Word and when the predicted emotions follow, or at least the attempts and the

317 desire, then there is true faith.54

318 And Luther in the Large Catechism agrees:

319 Now these people are so foolish as to separate faith from the object to which faith is attached and 320 bound on the ground that the object is something external. Yes, it must be external so that it can

321 be perceived and grasped by the senses and thus brought into the heart, just as the entire Gospel is

322 an external, oral proclamation. In short, whatever God effects in us he does through such external

323 ordinances.55

324 Thus, as we can see that subjective justification also focuses our hearts and minds on the objective justification won 325 on the cross, as Deutschlander emphasizes:

“who stood and prayed thus with himself:” I thank Thee Lord, that I am not as other men are, who have not yet decided or refuse to decide; I thank Thee Lord, that I at least made the right choice. The equal and opposite disaster and soul destroying tragedy of synergism is despair. What if the sinner feels he “almost believes;” what if he is‐not aware emotionally of the peace and joy which should be his if he “really believes?” What if he begins to search within and asks the perfectly logical question: “How do I know that I believe enough?” For all such there can but be the opposite of faith, the soul‐wrenching agony of doubt; and from doubt despair easily grows. “I do not feel it; I am not aware of it; I doubt; I do not think I have placed my whole trust in Christ; therefore my faith cannot be saving faith or real or enough—I am damned and lost forever!” (Deutschlander Distinction 11‐12). 52 Walther 291. 53 Chemnitz 495. 54 Chemnitz 503. 55 Quoted by Schmidt 34.

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation

326 By subjective justification we mean that act whereby the objective justification, or the “not guilty”   327 verdict, or the forgiveness (all of which, as we have already seen, mean the same thing essentially)   328 earned for all, merited for all, and completed for all is offered, given and sealed to the individual by   329 the proclamation and declaration of God in the Gospel, which Gospel as the effective means of   330 grace creates faith, i.e., appropriating trust and confidence, in the already and fully accomplished   331 fact of forgiveness. To put it more simply and to demonstrate the difference: in objective   332 justification God declares the whole world “not guilty” and forgiven; in subjective justification God   333 declares me “not guilty” and forgiven, and by that declaration in the Gospel He creates “saving   334 faith” by the Gospel.56

335 Through God‐given faith the objective truth of the Gospel is appropriated and applied to the individual. What God   336 did for the world, he did for me. I am not saved because I believe in Jesus. I am saved because Jesus died for me.   337 And so there is the ultimate comfort for you and for me because of this objective truth which God has applied to me   338 by giving me faith. Deutschlander points us to the comfort that is ours:

339 Faced with the strength of the temptations and the wretchedness of our still sinful nature – indeed,   340 its love of weakness and temptation – we have ample reason to go back again and again to the   341 ultimate reality of our faith and the cornerstone truth of the Scriptures. And that is the doctrine of   342 justification. It is this, that God has declared the whole world not guilty! because of the work of   343 Christ, who bore the sins of the whole world on his cross (Jn 1:29; 3:16; 2 Cor 5:14‐21). While we   344 stumble along in our weakness and in the perversity of our still remaining fallen nature, this rock­  345 solid truth sustains us at the foot of his cross and under our own: Since the sin of the world has   346 been paid for, so too has my sin been paid for; it is true because God says so; I believe it because the   347 gospel means of grace has moved me to believe. Were it otherwise, we would be back with Homer   348 and the Iliad or with Sartre and Nausea for a bible. We would be left with nothing but confusion,   349 then despair, then death, then hell.57

350 This justification which saves by grace alone and faith alone is declared, given,   351 and sealed through Scripture alone.   352 Here we can begin to see how when the doctrine of justification begins to crumble and is placed on slippery ground,   353 that all other doctrines of Scripture are affected. Yes, the denial and rejection of universal, objective justification   354 even poisoned the well of the Means of Grace.

355 This is how the controversy began. In 1861 the Norwegian Synod and Missouri Synod declared that absolution   356 imparts forgiveness. It was stated: “Absolution is given whether you believe it or not.”58 Some objected and it led to   357 the discussion and study of justification.

358 The Norwegian Synod maintained that the only basis for the forgiveness of sins is the atonement   359 made by Christ. Man’s faith could not be a basis, they argued, since this would mean that man   360 contributes to his own salvation. Accordingly the whole world (unbelievers as well as believers) has   361 been justified by Christ’s suffering and death. This emphasis on an objective justification was   362 opposed by other Norwegians and by the Swedes, who held that no man is justified until through   363 faith he subjectively accepts the gift of the atonement.59

56 Deutschlander Distinction 6. 57 Deutschlander Cross 61. (Daniel Deutschlander. The Theology of the Cross: Reflections on His Cross and Ours.© 2008. Northwestern Publishing House.)58 Tappert 141‐142. 59 Tappert 142.

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation 13

364 In this essayist’s opinion the issue in this study of justification also revolved around this, namely whether the Means   365 of Grace contain or give the forgiveness of sins. On the one side the Augustana Synod and some Norwegians with   366 them stated: “The gospel proclaims and contains, offers and tenders the forgiveness of sins to all who hear it, but   367 this forgiveness is given, conveyed, and imparted only to those who accept it in faith.”60

368 And, on the other side the Norwegian Synod, along with the Missouri Synod, confessed: “The preaching of the   369 gospel gives, conveys, and imparts forgiveness of sins to all to whom it is proclaimed, whether they believe it or   370 not.”61 And again: “The Word of God under all circumstances comprehends the forgiveness of sins and offers it to   371 man…whether it is proclaimed to Peter or Judas, to Paul or Simon Magus.”62 Later similar statements were made   372 between essentially the same parties in the Brief Statement and the Common Confession.63

373 Yet, our fathers faithfully remind us that the promise of the Gospel, the content of the Gospel isn’t dependent on   374 faith. No, the work of God is not dependent upon us even in the slightest matter. God ensures this by working out   375 our salvation through his Son on the cross and by raising him from the dead AND by giving us this salvation   376 completely and wholly in the Gospel message, that is, in the Means of Grace. This is true regarding Baptism. The   377 faith of the baptized does not make or break baptism and God’s promise attached to it.64 This is true regarding the   378 Supper. The faith of the recipient doesn’t make Jesus body and blood a reality in the Sacrament. Nor does the faith   379 of the recipient make it a beneficial and forgiving meal.65 And so it is true with the Absolution, or the proclamation   380 of the Gospel in the Word. Walther notes:

381 We cannot look into people’s hearts; but that is not necessary at all; we are to look only in the   382 Word of our heavenly Father, which informs us that God has absolved the entire world. That   383 assures us that all sins have been forgiven to all men… Another query: Is it right to absolve a   384 scoundrel of this kind [i.e. impenitent]? Answer: If he is known to you as a scoundrel, it is wrong   385 because you know that he will not accept forgiveness. Knowing this, you would commit a great and 386 grievous sin by performing the sacred act of absolution for him and thus cast pearls before swine.66

60 Tappert 144. 61 Tappert 144. 62 Tappert 144. 63 Prof. Meyer here points us to the Brief Statement and its opposing document, the Common Confession. From the Brief Statement: “Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ; 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” (98‐99). “Here we have three clear definitions, first, one concerning a declaratory act of God in respect to the whole world, performed on God Friday and Easter; secondly, one concerning a daily declaratory act pertaining to individual believers; and thirdly, one concerning the relation of the latter act to the former, being its personal application in specific cases” (99). From the Common Confession (emphasis Meyer): “By his redemptive work Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world; hence forgiveness of sin has been secured and provided for all men. (This is often spoken of as objective justification.)…God offers this propitiation and reconciliation freely to all men through His means of grace….God justifies the sinner solely on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, which He imputes to the sinner through the Gospel and which the sinner accepts by faith” (Meyer 99). 64 Luther writes in his Large Catechism regarding Infant Baptism: “Furthermore, our prime concern here is not whether or not the baptized person believes; for if he does not believe, his Baptism itself does not on that account become invalid. Everything depends instead on God’s Word and promise…then the Baptism is valid even if faith is lacking in the person being baptized. For my faith does not make Baptism what it is; rather, faith accepts what Baptism is” (105). (Luther’s Large Catechism. Trans. Samuel Janzow. © 1978. Concordia Publishing House.)65 Again, Luther reminds us in the Large Catechism: “For even though this very day a Jew were to come with deceitfulness and evil intent and we in good faith baptized him, we would nevertheless have to affirm that the Baptism was valid. For the water would be there together with the Word, even though the man did not receive it as he should have done. Here the situation is the same as for those who partake unworthily of the Lord’s Supper: they receive the true sacrament even though they do not believe” (Luther 105). 66 Walther 191.

387 Likewise Schmidt writes:

388 Thesis 7: The Gospel therefore is not a mere historical narrative of the accomplished work of the   389 redemption, but much rather a powerful declaration of the peace and a promise of grace on the   390 part of God towards the world redeemed by Christ, and thus at all times a powerful means of grace,   391 in which God for his part brings, proffers, distributes, gives and presents the forgiveness of sins and   392 the righteousness acquired by Christ, even though not all to whom God issues his serious call of   393 grace accept this invitation of the reconciled God, and thus also do not become partakers of the   394 accompanying benefits.67

395 Thus, the third thesis of Hoenecke in regard to justification is right on the mark. “Justification is offered by God   396 through Word and sacraments, and it is received by the sinner through faith.”68

397 The Means of Grace are the God‐appointed tools whereby the Holy Spirit creates the faith and trust in what Christ   398 has accomplished by his life, death and resurrection. The Means of Grace, that is the Gospel in Word and   399 Sacrament, truly contain and give what the Word says that they contain and give. What they promise is to be   400 received and appropriated by faith. What they promise is given whether man rejects this message or not. Man’s   401 rejection does not impact or affect the power and gift of God in the Means of Grace.69

402 Law and Gospel must be clearly and carefully distinguished.   403 It strikes this essayist that the biblical doctrine of justification, objective and subjective, simply comes to the proper   404 distinction between Law and Gospel. In fact, it seems possible that Walther may have given his evening lectures to   405 those seminary students because these controversies had arisen as a results of the confounding of law and gospel so   406 that even the heart of the Christianity had been struck.

407 Many instances from the history of the Church of days gone by might be adduced to show that the   408 pure teaching of the article of justification is not preserved, and absolutely cannot be preserved, if   409 the distinction of these two doctrines is neglected.70

410 The law is one teaching of God whereby every man is condemned alike. The law, therefore, must be preached as if   411 there was no gospel; it must be preached in all its severity and damning seriousness. The gospel is the other   412 teaching of God, whereby every man is forgiven in Christ. Consequently the gospel must be preached in all its   413 sweetness and comforting seriousness. And so, justification is preached – objectively because it takes place outside   414 of us and subjectively because it is appropriated to us by faith so that each among us gladly says: “What God   415 declared of the world, he also declared of me.”

416 Here we stand in the company of men like Chemnitz who declares: “The Law shows sin, accuses, imputes guilt, and   417 condemns sin; but the Gospel remits, covers, and does not impute sin, because it points to “the Lamb of God, who   418 takes away the sin of the world’ [John 1:29].”71 Therefore, in order to keep this distinction clear we understand that   419 “the Gospel…speaks to the contrite, the broken, the captives, and keeps the new man in a state of grace.”72 The   420 Gospel is not to be preached to the impenitent.

67 Schmid 30. 68 Hoenecke 359. 69 Some may object on the basis that some will misuse these words “contain” and “give” to that even the unrepentant are given the forgiveness of sins. Luther’s response is clear: “How could we dare to suppose that the Word and ordinance of God would become wrong and invalid because of our wrong use of it?” (Luther 106). 70 Walther 40. 71 Chemnitz 449. 72 Chemnitz 450.

421 This makes the Christian religion the most inclusive religion ever, while also the most exclusive. For “in one place 422 the Bible offers forgiveness to all sinners; in another place forgiveness is withheld from all sinners.”73 Here, the   423 Scriptures present us with a mystery: “God loves the world and hates the unbelievers.”74

424 Our God presents us with the awesome task of correctly handling Word of Truth75, of watching our life and doctrine   425 closely.76 Here stands the warning, aptly stated by Walther:

426 …it devolves upon the preacher to offer the entire comfort of the Gospel in all its sweetness,   427 however, in such a manner that secure sinners realize that the comfort is not intended for them.   428 The whole manner of the preacher’s presentation must make them realize that fact.77

429 So, be careful with your words: “When using terms that do not correctly express a certain thought, we are not   430 heretics, but careless speakers.”78

431 Yet, let us not be so careful so that we are holding the Gospel back with strings. “We must not starve the children   432 from fear that the dogs would get something of the children’s food, but we are cheerfully to proclaim the universal   433 grace of God freely and leave to God whether people will believe it or misapply it.”79 Yes, above all, let us fearlessly   434 and unashamedly preach the Gospel. It is the message which saved us. It is the message that will save our people.   435 It is God’s power for the salvation of everyone who believes.80

436 God grant it for his dear Son’s sake. To him be the glory.

73 Law and Gospel 6. 74 Schmid 11. 75 2 Timothy 2:16. 76 1 Timothy 4:16 77 Walther 113‐114 78 Walther 280. 79 Walther 377. 80 Romans 1:16

The Doctrine of Justification since the Reformation 16  --- WELS church lady has left a new comment on your post "WELS - Bourman - UOJ": Look, Pastor Nate Bourman is among the younger pastors in the South Central District. The essay went through some "editting" before it was posted on the website.(it was posted some days after the other conference papers) This essay is not a proper exegesis. Pastor Bourman only shows where other pastors of the WELS and the Synodical Conference used the terminology in previous works. Take Pastor Vernon Harley as an example. Harley lays out the KJV and explains the Greek terminology. Yes, Pastor Harley quotes Meyer, Pieper, and some others. He used great care when comparing the language of these synodical fathers with the Greek and KJV. I wonder who originally proposed the UOJ topic for the mentioned conference? Bourman was given the assignment. His sermons are on pdf. The sermons reflect much better law and gospel than the conference paper. Karl Gurgel was also an essay presenter at the conference. I have a friend and fellow confessional blogger who is a member of Gurgel's congregation. My friend stated that Pastor Gurgel preached a solid Justification sermon(no UOJ) during the Reformation Service. So the message is this: "Let's teach bad doctrine at our conferences, but by all means, be sure and keep that stuff away from the weekly sermons and/or Bible Class." In Christ, from WELS church lady