 |
| The Calvinist Woods gave America the wording of Objective Justification and Subjective Justification; F. Pieper used those terms in his Christian Dogmatics because Walther approved of them. |
If all that were meant by “Objective Justification” were the acquisition of righteousness for all mankind
so that there is a basis for God to declare an individual righteous through the God-given gift of faith receiving
God’s pledge to consider him entirely righteous and forgiven purely for the sake of Christ, we would merely caution against the term.44 Since, however, it is more than that—the declaration that all mankind is sinless before God before and apart from faith in Christ—this teaching is not only dangerous in its grossest abuse (crass universalism), but is in itself contrary to God’s Word and the exhibition of the same by the Symbols of Christ’s Church.
That the foregoing theses correctly reflect the doctrine of the symbolical books is demonstrated by the
writings of the earliest generations of orthodox teachers of the faith confessed in the Book of Concord.
Thus, the doctrine of “Objective Justification” (both the teaching and its terminology) is hereby rejected.
These theses, like those which our diocese has previously written and agreed to, are not seen by us as
additions to our vows to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, which vows are unconditional.
These theses may change as the issues are further clarified. However, we do see them as defining the
limits of our fellowship with regard to these issues until such time as we are convinced otherwise from
the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions, or until further clarification is needed. We are keenly aware of
the fluid nature of such statements. We are also keenly aware of the clear lines of distinction they draw
among those who call themselves Lutherans, and we intend to draw such lines.
These theses are not a declaration of fellowship. Those inside our fellowship voluntarily agree with
these theses and support them, but we also wish to have these theses function as a marker of agreement
between Christians who are not yet necessarily in fellowship. Therefore, we invite all who agree with
these theses to express their agreement without necessarily committing themselves to fellowship.
44 “Objective Justification” is, at best, an ambiguous term by virtue of the various ways it is represented by those claiming to adhere to it; thus, it is terminology that has no place in the Church. As with the Sacraments, in which we maintain the words and elements given us by Christ so that no element of doubt is introduced, language cannot be ambiguous lest the Church is given place to fall into “false belief, despair, and other great shame and vice.” Both such ambiguity in the use of the term “Objective Justification” and the false teaching advanced in the historical usage of this term (whether that of Huber or that of the theologians of the former Synodical Conference), has led even those among us who formerly made use of it to abandon the continued use of this term in the Church in connection with our desire to reject the false teaching associated with it.
We hope and pray that these theses will be yet another building block in establishing a more healthy and
orthodox Lutheran Church in our time, and in this country. With this hope, we, with joy and profound
thanks to our triune God, accept and confess these theses.
Version 3.2 — Text as Unanimously Approved by the Diocese
The Beheading of John the Baptist, 29 August 2013
***
GJ - ELDONA took quite a few words to get to this conclusion, but they had to untangle dozens of bad essays and books devoted to the rationalistic Pietism of Halle University.
 |
| Jungkuntz represents the worst of WELS, LCMS, and ELCA - and he taught in the synodical schools of all three sects. He chaired the first Lutheran seminary for homosexuals - Seminex. |
Links to the individual ELDONA Justification by Faith Posts.
