 |
| The Calvinist superstar Leonard Woods gave America the Objective Justification/ Subjective Justification language in English, when he translated Knapp's Halle lectures. |
 |
| Without dispute, Knapp's Halle lectures were dominant in German and English, before the LCMS was established. They were almost canonical in 19th century American Protestantism, which was taking a turn toward evolution and Biblical errancy. |
Thesis 16
Again, the language of “Objective Justification”—not just the term itself, now, but the statement of the
formula in its various aspects, is troubling in several ways, as shall be discussed in the next several theses,
along with the terminology. The language with which we present an article of doctrine must accurately
and carefully exhibit what is in God’s Word; the language must not (inasmuch as it lies within us
in our speaking) mislead the hearer into thinking that he will find a direct statement in Scripture when
one does not exist or that he will find an expression there that it does not, in fact, contain.
Thesis 17
As much as possible, Biblical terms should be used only to express what they mean in the Bible (cf. the
term ‘elder’). Further, we should use Biblical terms and illustrations to express and proclaim scriptural
truth. (While “of one substance with the Father” was, finally, necessary and has been our common terminology for over 1,500 years, the reticence initially to use a non-biblical term was good and right. God
gave His Word to tell us about Himself; as much as possible, we should use what He has given us there.)
Even if a Biblical term has a long history of being misused (e.g., ‘deacon’), that misuse must not be allowed
to continue in our own teaching, as so doing perpetuates the associated errors.
Thesis 18
Thus, asserting the existence of a forensic declaration by God that is not stated in Scripture is to say
what God does not say and to attribute it to Him; if there is no direct statement,22 it is an attempt to delve
into God’s secret counsel (Deus absconditus). To proclaim an action as a forensic declaration, there must
be actual evidence of such a declaration—preferably a direct quote—and not simply a matter of conjecture,
no matter how well-founded we believe that conjecture to be. Especially is this so when such a
concept is first put forth by those who live nearly two millennia after the event and when those who are
ostensibly their fathers in the faith have never made such a declaration concerning the whole world of
sinners. (Cf. the second footnote to Thesis 21.)
Thesis 19
So, also, language such as “there took place a change in the heart of God,” which, unlike language asserting
a new ‘place’ of judgment,23 is an anthropomorphism that denies God’s immutability and/or the
full participation of all the Persons of the Blessed and Holy Trinity in the willing and working of salvation
(opera ad extra trinitatis indivisa sunt). If it was foreordained in the counsel of the Holy Trinity that
God the Son should be sent forth to do the work that He did, there is no ‘change in God’s heart,’ but a
change of the ‘place’ of judgment that is a fulfillment of what He has willed from before the foundation
of the world,24 an avenue through which a righteousness apart from the Law now avails,25 by means of
which God sees the sinner and the sinner sees God differently from the view that comes through Mt. Sinai.
22 The fathers we have cited and will cite were wise enough to see this and to pull back from overreaching, as we see with Luther’s correction on p, 286 of his 1535 lectures on Galatians (AE, vol. 26) to what he said on p. 280 that is wrongly used by some to accuse him of teaching what he did not teach regarding Justification. As St. Paul warns, “learn in us not to think beyond what is written.” (1 Corinthians 4:6, NKJV)
23 The Throne of Grace, which is nothing other than Christ and His merit, which is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Mercy Seat, by which name Christ is both called and referred to in the New Testament. (Cf. Exodus 25:22; Hebrews 9:5 and Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2, etc.)
24 Cf. Revelation 13:8, which makes it clear that our salvation was already “in God’s heart” before He created the world.
25 Romans 3:21,22; note that v. 22 defines the term from v. 21 and may not be artificially separated from it.
Thus far the theses.
***
GJ - Objective Justification is not only wrong as an invented word but repugnant as an obnoxious dogma from the rationalistic Pietists.
OJ is not simply found in the Pietistic era, among Lutherans, but used in many other contexts as well. Among the Seventh Day Adventists, objective justification is universal.
Schleiermacher, the pivotal Pietistic theologian, followed by Karl Barth, simply made justification universal. Tillich, as adulterous as Barth and Martin Stephan, sounds very much like Schleiermacher in making justification a feeling of absolute dependence.
Adolph Hoenecke's mentor at Halle, Tholuck, was a loud and proud Universalist.
Halle University, established to promote Pietism, became increasingly rationalistic. Knapp was one of the old-timers, and he denied the Biblical foundation of the Trinity. Schleiermacher and Tholuck came later, and the school was soon thoroughly rationalistic. Halle merged with Wittenberg, so Wittenberg University no longer exists - ironic history for Lutherans and prophetic for America. American Lutherans have been merged into Halle rationalistic Pietism, but they consider themselves the real deal.
I could explore this for many pages, but instead I will offer the benefit of graduate study at Notre Dame. For three years I had the obligation to read as many modern theology books as possible:
- Schleiermacher
- Karl Barth
- Paul Tillich
- Rahner (Roman Catholic version of Tillich)
I listened to lectures and papers on these men. My favorite part came when a public lecture by famous theologian was interrupted by a blind man saying to me, "What is he saying? I don't understand a word." Like Bartimaeus, he saw what the ND crowd did not. The theologian was talking about God without faith to people without faith. They loved it. We were on the stage, so the theologian heard the angry whispers being voiced. He turned back, troubled at what he heard. It illustrated my time at Notre Dame, because almost all of modern theology is for unbelievers. The only famous exception I can name is Herman Sasse, the Lutheran shunned by Lutherans.
Believe me, all ye who cheer against Notre Dame - the liberals know their theologians and what they teach. They become quite hostile when the fatuous content of Barth or Tillich is challenged. Thus, they are no different from the UOJ Hive, buzzing and stinging anyone who threatens their store of honey.
Therefore, listen up maggots - as I used to say to the Marines studying in Yuma. UOJ is modern theology for unbelievers. UOJ Enthusiasts claim they are not Universalists, but once they have said everyone is forgiven without faith, even before being born, their denials mean nothing. They hang onto the shreds of Biblical language by saying, "You have to believe in this universal pre-birth absolution."
ELDONA is correct in saying that new terms should be avoided - especially when alien words convey new, unbiblical dogma and contribute nothing to the discussion.
False teachers love ambiguities, so the term Objective Justification means the atonement to some, but universal absolution to others. The UOJ artists want people to assume the atonement so they do not have to execute their pas de valse in explaining themselves.
Of course, the intended meaning of OJ has always been universal absolution without faith, so it is dangerous and foolish to make people think one thing when intending the original meaning. In fact, the UOJ Stormtroopers have gone far beyond the language of Knapp to stake their claims on being messengers of pure grace. But grace without the Means of Grace is Enthusiasm.
 |
 |
 |
