Thesis 23
Concerning the above, those trying to assert “Objective Justification” are often inconsistent, speaking of the acquisition of a pronouncement of righteousness at times and apparently not realizing that it is not the same as such a pronouncement itself.31 Yet, this is the beauty of the thing and a further demonstration that the acquisition of God’s declaration is not only the correct position, but that it provides that for which it is often asserted that “Objective Justification” is necessary.32
Thesis 24
We ought not think that Walther33 (and Schaller34 and Hoenecke35), Pieper, et alii, who formulated the
current expressions of “Objective Justification” were unfamiliar with either Huber36 or Aegidius
Hunnius.37, 38 The question is how dependent upon Huber they were, since they specifically distanced
themselves from him. That is, did they see themselves as accidentally using the same terminology or did
they intentionally adopt it while seeking to remove the parts of his teaching that they knew were offensive
and keep the rest?39 That such terminology would be adopted with a specific rejection of what were
seen as Huber’s excesses, instead of simply rejecting the terminology merits further investigation. In any
case, while they seek to distance themselves from Huber’s error, their insistence on a dogmatic assertion
that is so foreign to those who came before as to necessitate such distancing is evidence of its novelty.
Thesis 25
Defenses of “Objective Justification”40 quite often contain a statement of how unfortunate it is that this
term has come into use—which one would not expect with a truly useful and unencumbered term. Both
because of the earlier use by Huber and because of the number of true and false definitions with which
the term has been associated, it ought to be discarded, as its use brings no clarity.41
Thesis 26
Moreover, as we are admonished in the first Article of the Formula of Concord, “As regards terms and
expressions, it is best and safest to use and retain the form of sound words employed concerning this [or
any] article in the Holy Scriptures and the above-mentioned books,” (Thorough Declaration I:50) we
ought not invent new terminology or restate any article of doctrine without specific need or in any way
that contradicts that “form of sound words,” much less do so in a way that eisegetically deals with older
writings to force them to ‘support’ the new formulation, or that requires regurgitation of a formula that is
not proven to be in accord with what the Confessions were understood to teach by the theologians of Lutheran orthodoxy.
Nonetheless, the discussion is not about the term, but about the teaching—but the term is to be discarded
as (at best) a parochial neologism of the (long-defunct) Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of
North America, claimed as much by those in the bodies that made up said conference who do not really
teach “Objective Justification” as by those who do.
31 “Pronouncement of righteousness” = “justification.” “Objective Justification” does not say that such a pronouncement has ‘merely’ been acquired, but that it has already been levied.
32 Note that “the acquisition of a pronouncement of righteousness” without the assertion that such a declaration has already been made does not reduce said acquisition to that of a “potential pronouncement” in any way other than one might say that the prophecies that a Serpent-crushing Seed of the Woman or One Born of a Virgin spoke (merely) to a ‘potential fulfillment’. The prophecies and promises of God are just as certain when they are made as when they are fulfilled. Rather, the acquisition itself gives the ‘substance’ that is given through the Means of Grace, creating faith so that justification is truly received.
33 Cf. the first footnote of Thesis 2, above.
34 “The doctrine of universal, so called objective justification sets forth that the Lord God by grace because of Christ’s redemption actually forgave sins to all men.” Cf., “Salvation is just as perfect and complete for those who are finally lost. This is the only reason, but a sufficient one, why he that believeth not is damned. Unbelief is the rejection of life and salvation achieved and personally intended for every unbeliever.” (Schaller, John. Biblical Christology. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1982. Cited by Beckman, who begins the paragraph in which the first quote occurs, with the comment, “The term ‘objective justification’ is little more than 100 years old in our Lutheran circles.” “Universal and Objective Justification with Special Emphasis on a Recent Controversy,” David J. Beckman, delivered at the District Pastor-Teacher Conference of the South Atlantic District (WELS), January 27, 1983, p. 3. “Socalled”—rather than “so-called”—is from Beckman’s text.)
35 “The objective act of justification and the subjective possession and enjoyment thereof in blessed peace.” (Dogmatik, Cited by Beckman, ibid.)
36 See the footnote to Thesis 3.
37 Aegidius Hunnius (1550–1603) was brought to Wittenberg as a professor in 1592. He was also superintendent and oversaw the visitation of the churches of Saxony, coauthoring the Saxon Visitation Articles.
38 In fact, Pieper quotes Hunnius seven times in volume two of Christian Dogmatics—always positively—but never cites him concerning this topic, and brushes him aside in volume three with regard to the Lutheran understanding of election.
39 Compare this with what modern ‘Lutherans’ do with the hymns of false teachers, church growth methodology, and the like. One might ask a similar question with regard to Walther’s aberrations regarding the Office of the Ministry and church polity, namely whether, e.g., Walther was simply overreacting against Stephan and, later, Grabau, or was trying to purify Vehse so that he would not have to live with practices that were openly confessing a false understanding of the Church and the Office. In any case, Walther’s understanding of Church and Ministry contained error and that error grew in the century that followed him precisely because his work was the foundation and touchstone for those promoting subsequent error. In a similar fashion, the overstatement that is (Waltherian) “Objective Justification” leads to errors that Walther himself would have in no way endorsed, but that should have been expected.
40 At least by Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod writers; Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod writers do not seem to have any qualms about the terminology.
41 Thus: Kurt Marquart in his paper concerning Larry Darby, p. 1 (available through various web sites, including http://angelfire.com/ny4/lutherantheology.marquartjustification.html), where he quotes Henry Hamaan’s similar sentiment in Justification by Faith in Modern Theology, Graduate Study 2 (St. Louis: School for Graduate Studies, Concordia Seminary, 1957), p. 60; John Buchholz in his essay at the 2005 WELS synodical convention, p. 3, fn. 4; the LCMS’s response to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in Confessional Lutheran Perspective, p. 24–25, similarly; all of these speak of a preference for other terms to be used, and there are others that could be cited.
Thus far the Theses.
***
GJ - Thesis 23 - Read, mark, and delete. The two sentences are poorly written. I would like to be charitable, one of the chief attributes of this blog, but - my oh my.
Concerning the above, those trying to assert “Objective Justification” are often inconsistent, speaking of the acquisition of a pronouncement of righteousness at times and apparently not realizing that it is not the same as such a pronouncement itself.
The first three words are not needed. Next - often inconsistent? Adverbs are ideal for precision. Objective Justification is always a contradiction because the Enthusiasts claim the entire world is declared innocent, guilt-free, absolved, and saved. But the same Enthusiasts insist that faith in this magical formula is also necessary. QED- OJ is always inconsistent. Word-count = four.
Apparently not realizing? If the Hive asserts an absurdity, they definitely do not realize their contradictory position.
A confession of faith is bold rather than tentative. This thesis suffers from academic language, where the speaker or writer darts around a topic, fearful of saying too much and offending the hyper-sensitive tenured professor. I recall an art student asking a long-winded question that wound itself around the entire field of painting, ending with, "Perhaps you can tease a question out of all the words I used." He was too timid to ask a real question, although he wanted to show off, so he expected the professor to do the work for him...perhaps.
The second second in the thesis has a compound subject lacking a parallel structure. The opening should be:
"The beauty of the thing and the danger of the gambit..." However, the rest of the sentence needs euthanasia.
Footnote 31 should be in the main text. Did some people fall asleep in the class on academic writing? Some of the best confessional material in this study document is put in the footnotes.
Footnote 32 is atrocious. One way to improve this document, which demands a final edit - read it aloud to laity. Have someone take notes on questions and observations of the laity. This kind of work is laborious and painful for the ego, but necessary for avoid academic-seminary-speak.
--
Thesis 24 - The double negative (litotes) does not contribute to clarity in this sentence "We ought not to think...they were unaware..." An indirect statement "think that" makes the claim more obscure. The writers intended to say
"Walther, Schaller, Hoenecke, and Pieper were aware of Huber and distanced themselves from his error, but..."
My old journalism teacher said, "Give yourself a nickel for every word you take out of a story." The same formula is valid for all writing.
That such terminology would be adopted with a specific rejection of what were seen as Huber’s excesses, instead of simply rejecting the terminology merits further investigation.
My biggest fear - this sentence was worse before editing it. Where is the main verb? Merits? This is a wind-up for a pitch that never reaches home plate. Why not say "perhaps merits" to make it even more feeble?
--
Thesis 25 needs a little help, but the statement itself is good. I have turned the second sentence around to put the emphasis where it should be. Clarity and emphasis are always utmost in confessional writing.
Defenses of “Objective Justification”
--
Thesis 26 is excellent, climaxing with this masterpiece -
Nonetheless, the discussion is not about the term, but about the teaching—but the term is to be discarded as (at best) a parochial neologism of the (long-defunct) Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, claimed as much by those in the bodies that made up said conference who do not really teach “Objective Justification” as by those who do.
Starting at claimed, it could be a little more concise and clear, but I am judging the amount of study condensed into a short passage. This section goes well with the superb paragraph before it.
Thesis 26 pounds a wooden stake into quivering heart of UOJ - the term is wrong because the doctrine is evil.
A good doctrinal statement anticipates the objections to be made by the opposition, as this one does.
 |
| The pellucid statements of the Augsburg Confession are a challenge to all of us - to be concise, clear, and Scriptural in our expressions of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Savior. |
