Rev. James Schulz responded to an ambiguous Andrew Preus UOJ post:
If we are going to call ourselves Confessional Lutherans, then it seems to me we ought to speak as the Confessions do about Justification. The Confessions do not use the terms “Objective” or “Subjective” when talking about Justification. Even Walther called the terms “the language of philosophers.” The terms confuse the doctrine of the atonement with the doctrine of justification.
When read in context, the Confessions – and the Scriptures! – always link the concept of “by faith” to the doctrine of justification. The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord speaks clearly as to what is necessary for a correct definition of Justification: “…justification, in and to which belong and are necessary only the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and faith, which receives this in the promise of the Gospel, whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, whence we receive and have forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, sonship, and heirship of eternal life” (“The Righteousness of Faith” III:25).
***
GJ -
Andrew, a member of the Lutheran Duggar family, responded by citing "Kittle." He must have meant Kittel, a giant collection of prolix opinions about individual words in the Bible. Why cite a little Kittle, when a little Norwegian would do as well. I suggest that Andrew Preus read his grandfather's book, Justfication and Rome, where UOJ is sent into the dustbin of Pietism. The Preus clan does not like to acknowledge the clear quotations of Robert Preus against Huberism, which emerged later as UOJ.
My current read on the 19th century European situation is that Protestantism was divided between the rationalists (who dominated the state churches) and the unionistic Pietists, who merged the atonement and justification. An "Old Lutheran" in that context was someone who believed in the articles of faith, as viewed by Pietism, especially Halle University's Georg Christian Knapp. I have read many examples of 19th century writers who assumed that the atonement equaled world absolution.
---
James Aall wrote to Schulz:
With all do respect, I disagree. I do not believe the two terms pit justification against itself or justification against atonement. I believe that it explains that justification is for all. One must never doubt that Christ loves him. One must also understand that justification is received by faith and by faith alone. I do believe that Christ justified the entire world on the cross. If, however, one does not want to use the terms “objective” and “subjective” and instead atonement and justification by grace, I don’t think that is a problem. I’m not sure that there is actually a disagreement though. Do you believe that a confessional Lutheran pastor in good standing in the LCMS can teach the distinction between objective and subjective justification?
***
GJ -
Aall allowed for atonement and justification by grace. Isn't that interesting? Justification by faith is now a toxic phrase among UOJ Stormtroopers, just as Merry Christmas is among the modernists. In effect, Aall is saying that the entire world is forgiven (Brief Statement, 1932; Knapp, 1831), but to avoid justification by faith, uses justification by grace to repeat the universal absolution assumption. That is how justification by faith drops out of the thinking of these Stormtroopers, obliterating the Gospel in the name of the Gospel.
---
Schulz wrote:
Re: “… Christ justified the entire world on the cross.”
Could you back that statement up with a quote from Scripture or the Confessions in context? In my reading of Scripture and the Confessions, I find that “by faith” is not very far away when the doctrine of justification is being discussed.
Whenever “objective justification” is qualified by “subjective justification” it by definition becomes “Justification by faith” effectively canceling out “objective justification.” The terms are just so foreign to the way the Scriptures, the Confessions, Luther, and Chemnitz speak. Why not just stick with the term: “Justification by faith alone?”
---
Aal, shocked:
Wait! You are actually denying that Christ justified the entire world on the cross?! I didn’t know you were actually denying objective justification! “that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” 2 Cor. 5:19. Christ first justified the entire world and we preach that justification so that it is received by faith (Rom 10:17). “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL men.” Rom 5:18. So to answer your previous question, if you can be a confessional Lutheran pastor in good standing in this synod and deny objective justification, the answer is no.
---
Schulz:
I think you are saying I deny the Atonement, which is not the same thing as Justification, and which I do not deny.
Reconciliation is not the exact thing as Justification. Luther hints at this when translating 2 Corinthians 5;19, he inserts an “and,” which Paul did not have. “And did not impute their trespasses unto them.” So Luther understands a consequence of reconciliation is to be expressed.
Now we’re getting to the crux of the issue. We condemn someone who believes the Atonement, but not the term “Objective Justification.” Could that be because the terms cause the confusion?
***
GJ - The UOJ strikeforce will continue to pounce on the Lutherans, but readers can see that their broken weapons are being handed back to them.
