LCMS Pastor Vernon Harley - Reconciliation - 2 Cor 5:19ff

By Norma Boeckler

EXEGESIS ON II CORINTHIANS 5 : 19

This is another text used as basis for the so-called objective or universal

justification. It is considered one of the major sedes doctrinae     . We therefore

need to consider it carefully.

However, first there are a number of observations that need to be made.

1) Invariably this verse is quoted and interpreted apart from its context, as

though it were an independent sentence disconnected from v. 18. In effect it

is only part of the complete sentence which begins with V. 18. Grammatically

the two clauses are tied together. 2) Usually those who teach this universal

justification interpret this verse to mean “God was reconciled” instead of “God

was reconciling the world.” The following is a classic example found in F.

Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics II, P. 348:

When Christ died, God became reconciled. As Christ’s death lies in the pst, so also our

reconciliation is an accomplished fact, 2 Cor. 5: 19: “God was in Christ, reconciling” (namely,

when Christ lived and died on earth) “the world unto himself.” The katallassein of Rom. 5:10

and 2 Cor. 5: 19 does not refer - let this fact be noted - to any change that occurs in men, but

describes an occurrence in the heart of God. It was God who laid His anger by on account of the

ransom brought by Christ. It was God who at that time already had in His heart forgiven the

sins of the Whole world, for the statement: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto

Himself” meant - and that is not our, but eh Apostle’s own interpretation - that God did “not

impute their trespasses unto them”. And “not imputing trespasses” is, according to Scripture

(Rom. 4: 6-8), synonymous with “forgiving sins,” “justifying” the sinner. The resurrection of

Christ, is as Holy Writ teaches, the actual absolution of the whole world of sinners. Rom. 4: 25:

“Who was raised for our justification.” At that time we were objectively declared free from sin.”

3) Notice that in the above quotation the time of the justifying action is placed

at the time of Christ’s life an death on earth, also that justification of the whole

world took place then. At the time of Christ’s resurrection all mankind was

objectively declared free from sin, i.e., justified, forgiven. In effect, II Cor. 5: 19

is made to read:

At the time of Christ’s life, death and resurrection God was in Christ

reconciling himself to the world, not imputing their sins unto them.

That appears from the very beginning to reverse the meaning of the text.

Let us now look both at the context and the text itself to see if the

1

above meaning can or should be read into the text: Questions that need

consideration are: 1) When was or is reconciliation accomplished? 2) Who is

the object of reconciliation? 3) Does this text teach universal justification?

II Cor. 5:19

THE CONTEXT

Going back to V. 12, we notice that St. Paul is speaking of the ministry

which God had committed to him and his coworkers. It is a glorious ministry,

and he wants the Corinthians to be able to “glory on our behalf” so they will not

be deceived by false ministers who “glory in appearance and not in heart.” That

seemingly left him and his coworkers open to the charge that they were “beside

themselves” because they were so zealous in proclaiming Christ and sticking to

that message regardless of the ridicule or persecution they might have to

endure (V. 13). It was for the sake of their hearers (the Corinthians) that they

were willing to suffer. Even more, it was because “because the love of Christ

constrains us.” Paul now expresses a judgment of his and his coworkers which

was behind their motivation. Actually, while it is a rational deduction, it is made

on the basis of Christ’s own teaching, that “One died for all,” that One being

Christ. What motivated Christ to do that? Paul’s answer is: “...then were all

dead.” He had compassion on all and died for all because all were dead through

sin. But there’s more, “He died for all, that they which live should not

henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose

again.”

Some already see universal justification in Vv 14 & 15 where it is twice

stated, “He died for all.” But that says nothing yet about justification. It

simply states for whom He died, namely, for those who were dead in sin. It

indeed teaches universal redemption       , or the universal vicarious death of Christ.

But if Paul were writing here about universal reconciliation, then one would

expect him to reason, “If One die for all, and all died (in God’s heart), He rose

for all so that all might live (in God’s heart). But he doesn’t. Instead, he

repeats “He died for all” and then brings in the further reason for Christ’s

redemptive work, namely, that “those who live should no longer live for

themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.” Those who “live”

are God’s believers who, having been brought to faith through the death and

resurrection of Christ, are now to live for and unto Christ.

Now in V. 16 Paul proceeds to show that the Christian faith is not based

on knowledge according to the flesh. Speaking again of himself and his

2

coworkers, Paul explains that their relationship to Christ was not one of physical

sight or contact, but of faith. Through such faith, he explains, we are “in

Christ.”

“Therefore,” Paul continues, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation,

old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new.” Clearly this

is not a statement about a change “in the heart of God,” but of the results of

Christ’s death and resurrection for and upon men, their coming to faith, their

becoming new creatures in Christ.

We now proceed to V. 18: “Now all things are of God, who has reconciled

us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of

reconciliation.” Here Paul clearly sets the time of the reconciliation he has in

mind. it is when he and his coworkers were converted and received the ministry

of reconciliation. In all of this, God is the Subject, the acting One; Paul, his

coworkers and those both who have this ministry and are being ministered to by

them are the objects. The Greek text literally would be translated: “All things

are of God, the One having reconciled us to Himself through Christ and having

given us the ministry of reconciliation...” Both “having reconciled”

(katalaxantos) and “having given” (dontos) are aorist participles (describing

action completed in the past). The first has “us” in the Greek accusative form

(hemas), the second in the dative form (hemin), in other words, direct and

indirect objects of the action. But God is the Reconciler and the Giver. It’s all

“of God.” There is absolutely no indication of any kind that God is the object of

either verb. He’s the acting subject of each clause. And the time of reference

is when Paul and his coworkers became new creatures in Christ through

conversion and when they received their ministry.

That establishes the context up to and including V. 18. Verse 19 is the

rest of the sentence begun in V. 18, in fact a further elaboration of V. 18. This

is clearly shown by conjunction “to wit” or “that is”, (Greek: hos hoti). Paul is

about to explain further what was taking place in all this when he and others

were being reconciled and given the ministry, “namely, God was in Christ,

reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has

committed to us the ministry of reconciliation.” Clearly, this verse explains

God’s outreach to the world through the ministry as sinners are converted and

they themselves are given this ministry. God is at work “in Christ,” where this

ministry takes place, reaching out to all the world bringing sinners to faith and

not imputing sins to them.

3

In this part of the sentence (V. 19) we have “was” (en) followed by three

participles, two in the present tense, one past or aorist. All three describe

what was taking place at the time of Paul, the giving of the ministry, and

continues to go on through this ministry or reconciliation. They are not

specifically referring to the death and resurrection of Christ, although certainly

that is the effective cause of the subsequent reconciliation and the ongoing

ministry. Precisely for this reason Paul calls his ministry one of reconciliation

(diakonian tes katallages). It is through such ministry that God through Christ

reaches out to the world, pleading with men and using those with this ministry

as “ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us. “...be

reconciled to God” (V. 20).

In our circles we have become so accustomed to hearing V. 19 quoted

out of its context with the implication that this verse is referring to the time

when Christ died and rose again that it , reconciliation, is identified with

redemption and even with justification. The term “...was reconciling...not

imputing” used in this verse is considered a past and completed one-time act by

which He allegedly justified the whole world. Such interpretation ignores the

fact that even grammatically it can not have this meaning, namely the past and

completed meaning. Dr. R. C. H. Lenski rightly states that we ought then to

have three identical verb forms, saying: “God did reconcile, God did not

impute, God did deposit the ministry.” But that’s not how it is. The first two

verb forms are on-going past forms “was reconciling” and “was not imputing,”

while the third (an aorist participle) places the given of the ministry to Paul and

his coworkers after their conversion but prior to their on-going work of the on-

going ministry. If V. 19 set the death and resurrection of Christ as its time

reference, the giving of this ministry to Paul and his coworkers and ministry

itself would have been prior to the redemption worked by Christ. Neither the

context nor the grammatical structure allows for the teaching of a universal

reconciliation or justification.

To help us understand the structure of verses 18 & 19, a modern

situation put in a similar grammatical structure may serve. A few years ago the

President of the U. S. had a conflict with congress. Both houses were opposing

the President’s tax program, almost angry with him. So the President took the

initiative, working primarily through his Secretary of Treasury. Imagine several

congressmen saying:

It was all the President’s doing. He reconciled some of us through his Secretary

to himself and gave us the job of reconciling others, namely, that the President was through his

4

Secretary reconciling congress to himself, not holding their former behavior against them, and

having placed the work of reconciliation on us. Now then, we are ambassadors of the Secretary,

as though the President did beseech you by us.... Be reconciled to the President.

Would anyone, reading the above statement, think it was the president

who had undergone a change of heart or mind, or that he was the object of the

reconciling activity? Could the time described be other than that during which

the President through his secretary and those already reconciled were working

to bring congress around to his way of thinking? Or could anyone imagine from

the above statement that the PResident, while trying to convert congress, had

in effect undergone a change of heart and was declaring already reconciled and

acceptable in his sight even while they were opposing his intent? Had that been

the case, there would have been no need for the Secretary of the Treasury or

others to take up the task of reconciling enough of congress to pass his budget.

In like manner, if the whole world had been reconciled to God at the time

of the resurrection, if all wrath had been removed at that time from the heart of

God toward mankind, if all men had already been declared righteous and

acceptable to God, what need would there have been for a gospel ministry, for

repentance on the part of sinners, or for offering men the remission of sins

through the gospel since all sins had already been remitted? In this writer’s

opinion, a person simply cannot keep the gospel message in tact, nor even

one’s own purpose as a minister of Christ, if one consistently believes and

teaches a universal justification “prior to and apart from faith.” Such teaching

certainly is not found in Scripture.

OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE RECONCILIATION

Relating to the above, it seems only proper to point out that there is

nothing wrong with the terms “objective” and “subjective” reconciliation, i.e., if

these terms are properly understood. Objectively, reconciliation is entirely the

work of God. It is brought about by God’s initiative, motivated by His grace,

merited by Christ’s redemptive work, effected by the Holy Spirit through the

means of grace. God is the Agent, the acting subject of the verb reconcile     .

Man is the object. But man must be reconciled to God. He must be made

“thoroughly other”. That is the basic meaning of katallassein       , the Greek word

for reconcile     . That’s what happens when through the gospel a sinner is brought

to faith. He is clothed in Christ’s righteousness and made acceptable in God’s

sight. That aspect of reconciliation is practically identical with justification.

That’s being made and declared righteous in God’s sight  .

5

Subjective reconciliation is a changing of the heart and mind of man. This

too is worked by God through the Gospel. It causes man to take a different

attitude toward God. He begins to love and trust God instead of hating and

fearing Him. But that aspect of reconciliation - the change of heart and mind of

man toward God - is sanctification in the narrower sense and is never complete

in this life. Unlike our justification or acceptance by God which either is or is

not, our attitude toward God, our acceptance of Him, and our love toward God

are continually in need of improvement. That’s why the exhortation needs to be

directed continually even to the rest of Christians, “You, be reconciled to God.”

“GOD RECONCILED”

IN THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS

It should be recognized that our Lutheran Confessions do speak of God

being reconciled, almost as though the change had taken place in the heart of

God. At times they also use the term “reconciliation” as synonymous with

redemption. In the latter case, it is quite obvious that they do so in a

metonymical sense since redemption is the meritorious cause of reconciliation.

An example of this is found in the Formula of Concord, S.D., Art. XI, where the

order of salvation is spelled out in eight steps. The first of these reads:

God has ordained the following: 1. That through Christ the human race

has been redeemed and reconciled with God and that by his innocent obedience,

suffering and death, Christ has earned for us “the righteousness which avails

before God’ and eternal life. - Tappert, p. 619.

There it is plain that “reconcile” like “redeem” is used for the meriting and

earning by Christ of righteousness for all of mankind. It is not used as

synonymous with justification, which is the 4th step mentioned in the order.

It reads:

4. That he would justify and graciously accept into adoption of children

and into the inheritance of eternal life all who in sincere repentance and true

faith accept Christ.

Here justification is clearly connected with the gracious acceptance by God of

those who are brought to faith.

Again in the Apology (ARt. IV, 158, Tappert, P. 129 we read:

Justification is reconciliation for Christ’s sake. Therefore it is clear that

6

we are justified by faith  , for it is sure that we receive the forgiveness of sins by

faith alone.

Here “reconciliation is used in its more specific sense as the acceptance

of the sinner who believes in Jesus, namely, for justification instead of for

redemption. The context usually makes it clear in the Lutheran Confessions in

what sense a particular term is used.

Another example is found in Apology IV, 50, Tappert 127: “Therefore it

must be faith that reconciles and justifies.” See also Apology IV, 158:

“Justification is reconciliation for Christ’s sake. Therefore it is clear that we are

justified by faith, for it is sure that we receive forgiveness of sins by faith

alone.”

-P. 129.

“We are therefore obliged to disagree with our opponents on justification. The

Gospel shows another way. It teaches that through him we have access to ‘God

through faith (Rom. 5: 2), and that we should set him, the Mediator and

Propitiator, against the wrath of God. It teaches that by faith in Christ we

receive the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, and victory over the terrors of sin

and death.” Tappert P. 152.

Notice from the above that justification is not considered a once-for-all

occurrence, but that if we are to be justified, we “must make use of Christ”, and

that “through faith” we have access to God, also that God is not considered as

having no more wrath. Rather, if the sinner is to escape the existing wrath of

God, he must by faith “set Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against the

wrath of God.’ Reconciliation ad justification before God are considered on-

going, continuous. They are matters about which the believer must continually

be concerned, and Christ’s mediatorial work is not considered to have ended on

Calvary. As we learn from 1 John 1: 9 - 2: 2, this is part of his on-going high

priestly office.

I John 2 : 2

The passage just referred to is another used in support of universal

justification. The passage reads: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and

not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (KJV).

7

Again, those who try to see universal justification here almost never

consider the passage in its context. The context takes us at least back to verse

9 of the previous chapter, which does speak of justification, the forgiveness of

sins. But that verse shows that God forgives sins when we confess our sins to

Him. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to

cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It in no way says, “God already once and

for all forgave your sins, so you are forgiven forever whether you confess or

not.” Indeed, here redemption is referred to. Because Jesus shed His blood and

paid for all sins, now when we come to God trusting in Jesus and confessing our

sins, God who is faithful and just cannot and will not hold our sins against us.

We can count on that because He recognized and accepts His Son’s death as

sufficient payment for all. We continue to be justified. But if we think we do

not need Christ, that we have no sin, the result is that we remain in our sins, we

are not forgiven and Christ’s blood, though shed for all mankind, does not

cleanse us from sin. Then it is not God who is unfaithful or unjust when His

wrath is upon us, but we are the liars who try to make God appear as a liar (v.

10). It is then as Jesus said: “He who believes in the son has everlasting life;

and he who does not believe the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God

abides on him” (John 3: 36).

Now, proceeding to chapter 2: 1, the line of thought continues in which

St. John tells his readers not to sin, but “if anyone sins, we have an Advocate

with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He Himself is the propitiation

for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”

Here John directs his readers to the risen and ascended Christ who as our

Mediator and High Priest, our parakleton with the Father represents us even now

and pleads our cause on the basis of the propitiation (hilasmos) which He

provided by shedding his own blood for all mankind. “Hilasmos” is the Greek

term used for the blood sprinkled by the High Priest on the “hilasterion,” the lid

on the Ark of Covenant which covered the accusing law in the Holy of Holies in

the O. T. temple. In V. 2 therefore Christ is called the propitiation because He

as fulfillment of that foreshadowed IS the COVERING that covers our sins, or

blots them out with His blood. This verse thus clearly teaches universal

redemption       . Although His blood was shed for all, if sinners are to be covered by

it, hidden and shielded from the wrath of God, they must make use of Him as

their Mediator and Propitiator, as stated above int he Apology to the Augsburg

Confession. It is when His shed blood is applied to us and we come to the

Father through faith in Jesus to be purged of sin that we have forgiveness of

sins and are accepted as saints in the sight of God.

8

We must also note the fact that the verb in V. 2 “is,” (estin) is in the

present tense. While the shedding of Christ’s blood was an act accomplished in

the past, its effective cleansing power in on-going and continuing. It frees men

from the wrath of God and from all condemnation as by its power sinners are

brought to repentance and faith and covered by His blood they approach God.

This is the thought conveyed also in Revelation 7: 4 where those saints who no

inhabit heaven are described as “arrayed in white robes” and who “have washed

their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” But nowhere in

Scripture are we told that the whole world had been declared righteous or

forgiven, or that all people have been given the status of saints. To preach that

would make confession of sins, repentance and faith unnecessary, hence also

our preaching itself.

JOHN 1 : 29

“Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

This passage, too, is appealed to by some to teach universal justification.

The reasoning is: John the Baptist pointed to and identified Jesus as the Lamb

who took away the sins of the world. Therefore when Jesus was crucified and

died His work was completed. All sins therefore were taken away. If there is

now no longer any sin standing between men and God, all men must be and are

forgiven.

It should be noted however, that while many translations have “takes

away” in this passage, the basic meaning of the Greek verb airo is to lift up, to

take up, to carry. Luther properly translated it as “carry” or “bear”. “Siehe, das

ist Gottes Lamm, welches der Welt Sunde trägt”. English: “...Who bears the

sins of the world.” The passage simply teaches the same truth found in Isaiah

53:4, “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” And , “The Lord

has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (V. 6). Clearly, Jesus bore the sins of all

mankind and fully paid for them with His blood. But bearing and atoning for sin

is not yet justification or removal of sin form the world. Men still have sin, live

in sin, and most of them still die in their sins . As Jesus said, “If you do not

believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.” John 8: 24.

We must therefore be very careful how we present the justification of

9

sinners. This writer therefore simply cannot agree with statements like the

following from the Theses on Justification produced by our Synod’s Commission

on Theology and Church Relations:

Thus the Gospel is the message that God has saved the world through the work

of Christ, that He is reconciled and at peace with the sinful world because of the atonement of

His Son and has by the raising of His Son from the dead declared the whole world to be

righteous (objective justification). P. 18, Par. 41.

This is but one of many confusing and misleading statements in the CTCR

document. If taken by face value, this document can only make our ministry

difficult, even unnecessary, and jeopardize the eternal salvation of those who

actually believe that God considers them righteous and therefore saints at

peace with Him even while they live an die in their sins. May God have mercy on

us if that’s what we tell sinners! May our message ever be one of “repentance

and remissions of sins” by grace for Christ’s sake through faith!

Vernon H. Harley

511 Tilden

Fairmont, MN 56031

January 31, 1986

10

LCMS 1901 Catechism - Justification by Faith

By Norma Boeckler

JUSTIFICATION --

AS TAUGHT IN LUTHER’S SMALL CATECHISM

(KLEINER KATECHISMUS)

Concordia Publishing House, 1901 Edition

Translation from German by V. H. Harley

P. 164 ff. II. Of The Forgiveness of Sins or Justification.

305. Why do you say in this article: I believe in the Forgiveness of Sins?

Because I hold with certainty that by my own powers or through my

own works I cannot be justified before God, but that the forgiveness of sins is

given me out of grace through faith in Jesus Christ. For where there is

forgiveness of sins, there is also true justification.

Ps. 130, 3.4; Ps. 143, 2; Is. 64, 6; Job 25, 4-6 (Q.124).

306. What is Justification?

Justification is that activity (Handlung) of God by which He out of

pure grace and mercy for the sake of Christ’s merits forgives the sins of a poor

sinner who truly believes in Jesus Christ and receives him to everlasting life.

307. How then do you become righteous before God and receive

everlasting salvation?

Not out of any merit or works or through an indwelling and infused

righteousness, but alone out of God’s grace and mercy through and on account

of the sole merit of Christ which I with true confidence of the heart have taken

hold of and appropriated to myself.

Or:

Through the most holy obedience, as also through the suffering and

death of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not through any other works. This I

hold on to with unwavering faith (ungezweifeltem Glauben), and upon this I

place the full confidence of my heart.

308. With which testimonies of the Scripture do you prove this?

Rom. 3:23-25; Rom. 3:28 (Q.147); Eph. 2:8 (Q.147); 2 Tim. 1:9;

(Q. 288); Rom. 4:5 (Q. 140); Rom. 10:4 (Q.125); Ps. 32:1.2 (Cp. Rom. 4:6-8),

Gen. 15:6 (Cp. Rom. 4:3); Is. 53:11; Rom. 11:6.

309. But how can one say that we are justified alone out of grace, alone

for the sake of Christ’s merits, and alone through faith, and yet also through the

Word and Sacraments?

We become justified:

1) Out of God’s grace and mercy as the activating cause

(bewirkedende Ursache).

2) For the sake of Christ’s merit as the sole meritorius cause

(alleinigen verdienstlichen Ursache).

3) Alone through faith, as the sole instrumental cause (die einige

Mittelursache) or hand which takes hold of salvation.

4) Finally through the Word and Sacraments, as through the Means of

Grace, which partly offer and partly seal the salvation

(Gnadenmittel, die die seligkeit theils darbieten, theils

versiegeln).

310. Can and should believers be certain of their faith and of their

justification and salvation?

Yes, most certainly; because: Since the evangelical promises of the

forgiveness of sins, of perseverance in faith, and of obtaining eternal life are

1) entirely firm and certain (1 Cor. 1:20),

2) affirmed by a divine oath (Ezek. 33:11 -Q.180, Cp. Heb.

6:17.18),

3) sealed by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the pious (2 cor.

1:21.22),

4) and affirmed through the holy Sacraments as seal

(Rom.4:11, Q.453),

therefore they can and should be certain that neither death, nor life may

separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:

38.39, 2 Tim. 1:12, Q. 139).

+++++++

NOTE: The above was translated from the edition done by Dr. Johann Conrad

Dietrich, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Mo.. This was the official

Catechism of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Missouri, Ohio and other States at the beginning of this century.

More UOJ Work To Do. How To Use Social Networking

Check out Ski's latest excellent adventure:  http://www.wlchapel.org/downloads/pdf/wintergetaway2011.pdf

I will be fixing up the format of the various UOJ essays I have posted. If you want your comments to be on the sticky posts, use that menu on the left. Many have requested them and the Harley files, which I am posting next.

I have tried to enhance social networking on the posts. Look at the icons below each post. You can email the post, Tweet the post, or link it on Facebook.

I Tweet almost all posts because there is a growing list of followers. Twitter sends out a URL (link) to the people on the list. Tweeting also enhances the post for Google searches.

Speaking of Tweets, many people enjoy the birding posts as much I enjoy writing them.

LCMS Professor David Scaer - UOJ Romanist

David P. Scaer, Th.D.

Holder of the David P. Scaer Chair of Systematic and Biblical Theology

Chairman of Systematic Theology

CTQ Editor

david.scaer@ctsfw.edu

---
Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Sig Becker Essay Used To Teach Justification at M...":

An essay by David Scaer linked below is another example of the horrible effects UOJ has on the ability for a man to remain faithful to Christ's Word.

You'll see how foundational the UOJ teaching is that if you deny Universal Justification you've destroyed the gospel. Again, proof that UOJ is another and different gospel than the Gospel of Christ, Justification by Faith Alone.

Essay by Prof. David P. Scaer, The Third Use of the Law, Resolving the Tension. There is much that could be contended with in this essay. The scythe of UOJ cuts a wide swath through the Word of God. I've provided quotes from the last few pages of the essay as they bring out some of the more heinous errors. All quotations are found on Page 20-22,
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaerthirduseresolvetension.pdf

VI. Gospel Over Law: A Resolution in Pieper If there ever was a theologian of the gospel, it was Francis Pieper, who never tired of saying that the gospel is a word of God superior to the law.d9 This forced him to wrestle with how contradictory words could both claim to be God's word. The dilemma was a crux theologorurn, a question which theologians are incapable of answering.50
BM - UOJ's contradictions with the rest of Scripture have now been embraced as dilemma's incapable of being answered.

52 ...God is doing what he really wants to do in the gospel, while in the law he is doing only what he has to do. An answer is already present in the definition of law as opus alienurn, God's foreign or strange work? Condemnation and threat no longer belong to his essence."

BM - Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." How can Condemnation no longer belong to God's essence? He is perfectly just and unchangeable. God said, "The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23)." John 3:36, "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." UOJ believes in a different god and not the eternal God of the Bible which hasn't changed. Because UOJ has rejected the Holy Spirit's faith as the God ordained means to reconcile us to Christ, and through which He washes us in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, they go about to establish their own way to righteousness, Romans 10:3, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

(52) ...Claiming that God still counts sin against the world denies both the atonement and justification. By Christ's atonement all mankind appears to God as righteous...but subjective justification has no life of its own; it makes objective justification personal, which is only a facet of the universal atonement.

BM - 1 Cor. 6:9a, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" Note how UOJ condemns Justification by faith alone saying that it is dead and lifeless only obtaining it's purpose from UOJ's declaration that Christ's righteousness, innocence and blessedness was comingled with the carnal, unbelieving world who are under the Law before faith, before the Holy Spirit works through the Means of Grace.

Cont...

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Sig Becker Essay Used To Teach Justification at M...":

Cont...

55 Whoever denies objective justification reduces justification to the act of believing and does not believe in it at all. Logically, he denies the atonement and preaches that man is responsible for his sins.
BM - John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

58 This view is not without difficulty because it makes the law the last or eschatological word of God in the judgment. This means that for unbelievers God reinstates the law. This would nullify the atonement and deny objective justification; however, these are fixed realities with God. If they were not, Christ would lose his place of prominence as the all-in-all. The answer to this dilemma lies in seeing unbelief as not one sin among others, but the final sin (and in a sense the only sin) by which the unbeliever cuts himself off from salvation.
BM - Galatians 3:24, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." You see how UOJ has perverted the Word of God. Since UOJ has the whole unbelieving world justified without faith then the Law has become obsolete - useless to the point where UOJ removes the Law from unbelievers and then says God "reinstates the law". But Scripture says that only after faith are we no longer under the Law. Galatians 3:25-27, "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." UOJ screams "NO!" because Justification by Faith Alone rejects Objective Justification. I say, "Amen." The elimination of the Law creates a contradiction for UOJ since how does God execute righteous judgment upon unbelievers if He's already declared them sinless. UOJ then states that unbelievers are then only guilty of unbelief which is the unforgivable sin for which the sinless are condemned to Hell. But every person was guilty of the sin of unbelief when they were conceived. Scripture even states that unbelievers will be forgiven if they do not continue in unbelief. Romans 11:23, "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again."

UOJ is a false gospel and stands condemned by God. 2nd Cor. 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

***

GJ - Scaer promotes his own personality cult at The Surrendered Fort. But, I have never heard of someone serving a named (endowed) chair named after himself. Usually the chair honors a dead person.

In America, the endowed theology professorships always go to heretics and apostates, so Scaer's position is doubly earned.

Robert Preus wrote his last book, Justification and Rome, to fight against the growing papalism at Concordia Seminary, Ft. Wayne. Scaer is one of those professors sinuflecting to Rome, doubtless grinning as his graduates join Rome or Constantinople soon after graduation. Some only wait a few hours.

I took a class from Scaer. When Klemet Preus asked for examples of logical fallacies recently heard, for Klemet's homework, I quoted examples from Scaer. Klemet grinned and said, "No fair. That was too easy using Scaer."

Scaer's class was a class in Scaer, not in theology. Several of us have noticed that Missouri moved from disgust over the Enthusiasm of Church Growth to their infatuation with every form of Roman Enthusiasm. Rather than reclaim Luther and the Book of Concord, they want to throw themselves on the neck of the pope, weeping, hoping the terms of reconciliation are mild.

Enthusiasm does not breed anti-Enthusiasm but more palatable forms of Enthusiasm.

Notice that Scaer is an expert on Pieper, who never got justification right. The UOJ Enthusiasm of Walther and Pieper paved the way for the Fuller Enthusiasm of Church Growth, which was dominated (among Lutherans) by the LCMS.

No coincidence!

Missouri set aside the efficacy of the Word and the Means of Grace for Walther's propositions, but they did not catch hold right away. Pieper's Brief Statement of 1932 was the turning point, establishing an anti-Gospel as the Gospel, and his Dogmatics reinforced that new teaching.

Receptionism came from the same errors. The Syn Conference figured out that the hand was efficacious in Holy Communion. The moment the elements touched the hand of the communicant (even females!) they were the Body and Blood of Christ.

Why did no one do a face-palm and ask, "Why are we teaching such nonsense?!" Because the nonsense all made sense, given the foundation of Enthusiasm, divorcing the Holy Spirit from the Word.

UOJ is the thread uniting the Syn Conference and ELCA today, and Enthusiasm is the theological reason for the abandonment of the Gospel in the name of universal absolution.

Sig Becker Essay Used To Teach Justification at Mary Lou College (WELS)

"Book of Concord? We don't need no steenkin' Book of Concord."


Cone has left a new comment on your post "Precious Falsehoods of the Syn Conference":

What do they use to teach Justification at MLC? Luther? No. The Confessions? No. Holy Scripture in context? No. A Becker essay? Yes.

And that, my friends, is the truth.

Precious Falsehoods of the Syn Conference

Who is your Daddy? Not Martin Luther, but Georg Christian Knapp, Halle University, a Pietist in print with double-justification before Walther reached the Big Easy.


I keep reading about the "precious doctrine of UOJ" in WELS essays, which must be preserved or the Gospel will fail.

We should all be thankful WELS is available to keep God's Word taught in its truth and purity. UOJ keeps falling apart.

WELS has been flogging this issue for 60 years, constantly switching their quotations around, as if Luther risked his life to teach that everyone was already forgiven, saved, given the status of a saint.

WELS Beckman UOJ

Universal and Objective Justification with Special Emphasis on a Recent Controversy   

By David J. Beckman   [Delivered at the District Pastor-Teacher Conference of the South Atlantic District, January 27, 1983]  

Background  

I was sitting at my desk one day last February with the secure feeling that all was well in the world of  WELS. Doctrinal unity. A determination to proclaim an unconditional Gospel. What blessings God has given our  church body! Those blessings must have crossed my mind in my reflections on that February day. Those blessings  surely rank high on our prayer priority list for the church at large.  

A real bombshell shattered my reflections as I walked back from the mailbox. Here was a letter from  Kokomo, Indiana. “Who do I know from Kokomo?” I thought.   The letter was from some WELS members, and it revealed that a full-blown doctrinal controversy had  been raging in one of our congregations.

And what a serious charge it was:  

On June 20, 1979 a special voters’ meeting of Faith Lutheran Church, WELS, Kokomo, Indiana   was called to determine if all of its members supported the doctrine of justification as practiced by   the WELS…We could not with a clear conscience support those statements since they teach   universalism and are contrary to the clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran   Confessions.1  

Every congregation in our synod received that same letter, and to make matters worse, Christian News  decided to add coals to the fire by publishing letters regarding that controversy. All was not well in the world of  WELS.  

That controversy prompted a considerable response on the part of our church body. The Southeastern  Wisconsin District President appointed a special committee to investigate the matter, meet with the congregation  and the people involved and report on their findings. A copy of that committee’s report is available from Prof.  Armin Panning, a member of the committee. Unfortunately the response of Faith Congregation had to be to  suspend from fellowship those who leveled the charges.  

A more important response in regard to ourselves is perhaps a renewed awareness that we cannot take  for granted any doctrine of Scripture, even one so basic to our biblical faith and Lutheran heritage as justification.  The importance of thoroughly teaching and proclaiming justification cannot be overemphasized. And with that  opinion we’re in good company. Luther said, “The most necessary and important thing is that we teach and  repeat this doctrine daily…For it cannot be grasped or held enough or too much.”2  

Therefore in the spirit of the great reformer, President Wiechmann strongly urged the agenda committees  of our district to consider treatment of justification at future conferences. Hence this paper. Pastor Kobleske of  the agenda committee suggested to me that special emphasis be given to the status of those in hell in regard to  justification, since that was a major issue in the Kokomo controversy. Because so many other things must be  established to adequately discuss the status of those in hell, that issue itself has become a subpoint in this paper.  Against the background of’ this recent controversy we take up the topic Universal And Objective Justification.  

Terminology   

Since this paper deals with two particular terms, we best begin with a few words about these terms and  about a few related terms which will come up in the discussion.  

Regarding tile term “justification,” an exact definition of “justify” will be dealt with later when examining the Hebrew and Greek words which the Bible uses for the term. In a general way, justification has to do with the  forgiveness of man’s sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. This is what we have learned  in the past and continue to teach in the treatment of the phrase “I believe in…the forgiveness of sins” in the Third  Article of the Apostles’ Creed.  

The German theologian Heinrich Schmid beautifully describes this end result of justification when he  writes,  

By justification we are, therefore, by no means to understand a moral condition existing in man, or  a moral change which he has experienced, but only a judgment pronounced upon man, by which  his relation to God is reversed, and indeed in such a manner, that man can now consider himself  one whose sins are blotted out, who is no longer responsible for them before God, who, on the  other hand, appears before God as accepted and righteous, in whom God finds nothing more to  punish, with whom He has no longer any occasion to be displeased.3 

 Putting it more succinctly and clarifying the basis for justification, Koehler’s Summary of Christian  Doctrine quotes E. H. Little who writes, “Justification properly consists in the non-imputation of sins, or their  forgiveness, to the sinner, which is the negative side; and the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness…which  is the positive side.”4  

Justification then is the reason we can be sure we are acceptable to God. Throughout the history of the  church the questions that have naturally arisen are “Who is justified?” and “Why are they justified?” Theologians  have offered various phrases which emphasize the particular aspects of justification that answer these questions.  

“Universal justification” emphasizes the fact that God has justified all people.  

“Objective justification,” often used synonymously with “universal justification,” emphasizes that God’s  justifying act took place completely on His own and apart from man.  

“General justification” is an older term which has been used in the same way as “universal justification.”  

“Cosmic reconciliation” is certainly not Lutheran in its origin, but we mention it to show what a  contemporary theologian offers in an attempt to get close to the Greek of II Corinthians 5. (More will be said  later about the relationship between justification and reconciliation.) To me “cosmic reconciliation” sounds a  little too much like the final outcome of “Star Wars.”  

Another word that is used in conjunction with universal and objective justification is “forensic.”  “Forensic” has to do with legality and judgment. It emphasizes the declaratory nature of justification in a legal  setting. God’s justifying act takes place in His courtroom, and the verdict depends not on man’s condition but on  God’s declaration.  

Universal and objective justification are, of course, the terms with which we are most familiar. I have to  admit that until I wrote this paper, I had just assumed that these terms had always been in the Lutheran glossary.  An investigation into their history will show that these terms are relatively new.  

History  

The term “objective justification” is little more than 100 years old in our Lutheran circles. It’s a term used  frequently by Dr. Francis Pieper and other Lutheran theologians of the early 20th century. Pieper writes in his  Christian Dogmatics, “The Gospel offers him the foregiveness of sins gained by Christ. for the whole world  (objective justification).”5 Hoenecke is more at home with the term “universal justification,” but he also mentions  in his Dogmatik a distinction between “the objective act of justification and the subjective possession and    enjoyment thereof in blessed peace.”6 “Objective justification” is also used by John Schaller, August Pieper,  August Graebner and George Stoeckhardt, almost exclusively as a synonym for “universal justification.”  

A quotation from Schaller shows us that the term “objective justification” was commonly used in his day.  “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.”7 But does the fact that he refers to it as “so-called objective  justification” indicate that the term had originated in recent years? It seems so.  

In studying the history of the term Prof. Reim contended that the use of “objective justification” was rare  in the days of the Synodical Conference’s founding (1872), although it was mentioned occasionally by Walther.  In trying to determine the exact origin of the term, Reim leans heavily in the direction of the orthodox Norwegian  Lutherans in the U.S. in the mid-19th century. Reim refers to a book called Grace for Grace, in which the  Norwegians reflect on their battles against the subjectivism of the pietists in their midst. The book states,  

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 (emphasis mine) for men and the all-sufficient atonement of the Savior and Redeemer.  Jesus Christ.8  

Although the above reference does not specifically use the term “objective justification,” Reim feels there  is sufficient evidence for crediting the Norwegians for coining the phrase.  

Previous to this development in the mid-19th century, Lutherans used the terms “universal justification” or  “general justification.’ Even Stoeckhardt, a contemporary of Schaller and Francis Pieper, is more comfortable  with the older term, “general justification.” In an article entitled “General Justification,” he states,  

The article of justification remains pure, firm and unshaken if we keep in mind the statement of  doctrine and faith concerning general justification, if we hold firmly that the entire world of  sinners has already been justified through Christ, through that which Christ did and suffered.9  

But this is not to say that orthodox Lutherans began teaching something new in the mid-19th century.  Prof. J. P. Meyer, in his commentary on II Corinthians, Ministers of Christ, points out that classical Lutheran  theologians clearly taught “objective justification” without actually using the term. He quotes Gerhard (1607 1676),  “In Christ’s resurrection we were absolved from our sins, so that they can no longer condemn us before  the judgment seat of God.”10 Such a clear statement shows that orthodox Lutherans have always believed that  our absolution before God depends only on the objective facts of Christ’s atonement, and not on any condition of  faith in the heart of man.  

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).   

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.  

The same could be said of Luther. In the Third Article in the Large Catechism he says,

“The work of’  salvation is done and accomplished; for Christ, has acquired and won the treasure for us by His suffering, death  and resurrection.” In a sermon on Matthew 9:1-8 Luther said,  

The sum and substance of this Gospel is the great, sublime article of faith which bears the name:  Forgiveness of Sins…1. Our righteousness before God. Now this consists in what we call God’s  grace, or forgiveness of sins. 2. It came about in this way that Jesus Christ, God’s Son, came  down from heaven and became man, (and) suffered and died for our sins. 3….You see that here  you have everything that comprises this article of Christian righteousness: it consists in the  forgiveness of sins; it is given through Christ; it is received by faith through and in the Word.11  

In a lecture on Genesis 15:6 Luther said, “By faith…I lay hold of the divine judgment.”12  

According to Luther salvation is accomplished, forgiveness and righteousness is by God’s grace, divine  judgment has been rendered even before my faith. Luther also clearly teaches universal and objective justification  without using the terms.  

Theological terminology then has developed as the church militant has seen the need to clarify its  expressions of faith in the saving grace of God. No matter what the history of the terms, and no matter which  prominent theologians have made use of them, unless they agree with clear statements of God’s inspired Word,  theological terms are of little use to us. An examination of the biblical words for “justify” and a discussion of  important biblical doctrines related to justification prove that universal and objective justification are clearly  taught in the Word of God.  

Scriptural Basis  

It is basic to man’s sinful nature to want to take credit for his salvation. This sinful tendency has always  cropped up in the discussion of justification. In both the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible, the word “justify” is the  verb related to an adjective meaning “righteous.” [Hebrew: adjective – qyd@ica verb – qd@'ca; Greek: adjective –   di/kaiov verb – dikaio/w] The age-old question that has arisen is, Does justify mean ‘make righteous’ or  ‘pronounce righteous’?” This debate has not been confined to the Roman Catholic - Lutheran battleground. Even  the late Dr. Beck seemed to be confused on the issue, for, in his American Translation of the Scriptures he often  rendered dikaio/w as “make righteous.” If this understanding of the word justify is an attempt to give man some  of’ the credit for his right standing with God because of a righteousness in him, then we’ve got problems. It is the  sinful nature wanting to take credit for his salvation.  

An examination of how both the Hebrew and Greek words for justify are used in Scripture reveal that  there is a forensic and declaratory nature to both qd@'ca and dikaio/w. They deal with a legal pronouncement not  at all dependent on the moral condition of the person “on trial.” Some key passages of Scripture bring out very  clearly that the biblical word for justify is to be understood as “declare righteous” or “pronounce righteous.”  

Old Testament  

In the following passages the italicized word or words are the NIV’s translation of qd@'ca “justify.”   Exodus 23:7—I will not acquit the guilty.   

Deuteronomy 25:1—take it to court…acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.  Proverbs 17:15—Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them  both. 

Isaiah 43:9—Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right. (KJV:…that they may be  justified.)   

The above passages deal with a legal pronouncement in a civil court. “Justify” in these verses only makes  sense when understood as “declare righteous” or “declare innocent.” 

Psalm 51:4—so that you are…justified when you judge. 

Isaiah 50:8—He who vindicates me is near.   

In the first passage God is “justified” by man, and in the second the suffering Savior is “justified” by the  Father. Since our Father and Savior are inherently righteous and cannot be made more righteous, these passages obviously deal with a declaration; a pronouncement of their righteousness.  

II Chronicles 6:23—Declare the innocent not guilty and so establish his innocence. (part of  Solomon’s prayer of dedication) 

Isaiah 53:11—By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their  iniquities.   

These two passages clearly show God’s pronouncement of righteousness on man. In the first the innocent  is not benefitting from his guiltlessness until it is declared. In the second the Savior can make a pronouncement of  righteousness over the unrighteous because he took their sins upon himself.  

Thus the claim that justify means “make righteous” makes no sense in view of the above Old Testament  passages. In his Hebrew lexicon Gesenius offers as meanings for qd@'ca (piel of qd@acf) “render just,” “declare  righteous,” “absolve,” “acquit.” It is a declaratory and objective pronouncement not dependent on man’s  subjective condition. We find the same in the New Testament.  

New Testament  

A few important New Testament references show that the very same declaratory nature also belongs to  dikaio/w, the Greek word for justify. Again the translation of dikaio/w is indicated by italicizing.  

Luke 7:29—All the people,…when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was  right. (KJV: justified God) 

I Timothy 3:16—He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit. 

Luke 10:29—(an expert in the law) wanted to justify himself.   

In the first two passages God is again justified by man, and in the third passage the expert in the law was  attempting to pronounce himself innocent, by asking Jesus to define who his neighbor was. The most important  passages which reveal the forensic and declaratory nature of dikaiovw are found in Romans, which deals with  God’s pronouncement of righteousness on the sinner.  

Romans 3:20—No one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.  Romans 3:23-26—all have sinned…and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption  that came by Christ Jesus…he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just  and the one who justifies.    

Romans 4:5—God…justifies the wicked.

 Romans 5:18—Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result  of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.   

The theme of Romans 3-5 is that God justifies the sinner because of the grace He showed the world in  offering up His Son as the “sacrifice of atonement” (Romans 3:25) which removed the burden of guilt from  humanity. God even justifies “the wicked,” for His justification is set up in contrast to the condemnation lie  pronounced on fallen mankind. Justification has nothing to do with man’s own righteousness. It has everything to  do with God’s forensic, objective declaration of the sinner’s innocence made on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice and  resurrection.  

Lexicographers and New Testament Greek scholars agree with this forensic and objective understanding  of dikaio/w. The Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon defines dikaio/w as “justify,” “vindicate,” “acquit,” “pronounce  as righteous.”

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament traces this forensic aspect of dikaio/w back to classical Greek. It states that it is used as a legal term in classical Greek meaning “to regard as fair or right; to  pronounce sentence.”13 It goes on and says the following of Paul’s use of the word.  

In Paul the legal usage is plain and indisputable…For Paul the word dikaiou=n does not suggest  the infusion of moral qualities…It implies justification of the ungodly…an act of grace rather than  of retribution according to works…forensic because in the i9lasth/rion [propitiation appeasement  of God’s wrath through Christ’s blood sacrifice] judgment is executed on all sin in  the Substitute.14  

It becomes apparent from the above scriptural references and from the observation of linguistic scholars  that justification in the biblical sense is not only objective in nature, but it is also universal. It is a legal  pronouncement made on all mankind.  

Romans 5:18 stated clearly that justification is “for all men.” Earlier in this same chapter Paul intimately links justification with Jesus’ vicarious atonement. “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood…” (Romans 5:8b,9a) Romans 4:25 says that Christ “was delivered over, to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” Paul could hardly mean that God’s pronouncement of  innocence is limited to just the believers. If that were true, then Christ’s atonement would have to be limited to just believers. The above Romans passages and a host of other biblical references shoot down the limited justification/atonement theory.  

Some of the more well known references to a universal atonement, by no means an exhaustive list, are as follows:  

Genesis 3:15—(a promise to all humanity to follow) 

Genesis 12:3—all peoples on earth will be blessed 

Isaiah 53:6—has laid on him the iniquity of us all 

Mark 10:45—give his life as a ransom for many 

John 1:29—takes away the sin of the world 

II Corinthians 5:14—one died for all 

I Timothy 2:6—gave himself as a ransom for all men 

I Peter 3:18—Christ died for sins once for all

 II Peter 2:1—denying the sovereign Lord who bought them   

All of these passages show that Christ purchased forgiveness of sins for all people. The last passage even shows  that Christ redeemed those who rejected Him. 

But some want to maintain a distinction between Christ purchasing forgiveness and God actually  forgiving. This distinction was one of the chief points in the Kokomo controversy. A passage which erases any  such distinction is 11 Corinthians 5:19, which states, “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not  counting men’s sins against them.” In Christ’s death God pronounced all men innocent since He no longer  counted their sins against them. This orthodox Lutheran understanding of the passage has always linked  reconciliation of II Corinthians 5 and justification of Romans 3 - 5 as meaning one and the same thing.  

Prof. Meyer develops this point very thoroughly in commenting on II Corinthians 5 in Ministers of  Christ. Other prominent Lutheran theologians have made the same observation. Stoeckhardt cites the parallel  phrases “justified by his blood” and “reconciled…through the death” of Romans 5:9,10 and says, “St. Paul the  Apostle uses the concepts ‘reconciliation’ and ‘justification’ interchangeably…[They] mean one and the same  thing to Paul.”15 Schaller draws the same conclusion when comparing the concepts of Psalm 32, Romans 4 and II  Corinthians 5. He states,  

This profusion of expressions obviously is to serve the purpose of describing the justifying act of  God from various points of view: when God justifies, He is forgiving iniquity, He is covering sin,  He is not imputing sin. These three expressions fuse for Paul into one concept, justification, so  that he can in a given instance describe the entire act of justification by means of any one of these  expressions. In each of these expressions the others are implied; one can substitute one for the  other without altering the intended meaning.16  

Dr. Ed. Preuss draws a similar conclusion in commenting on II Corinthians 5:19. “This is not the  justification which we receive by faith, but the one which took place before all faith. In Christ we were justified  before we were even born.”17  

Thus it is clear that though the terms “universal justification” and “objective justification” are found  neither in the Scriptures nor in the Lutheran Confessions, the terms have been used by orthodox theologians to  describe for us the central doctrine of God’s Word—justification. It is a justification that is universal, for God  has pronounced His forgiveness over all mankind. It is a justification that is objective, for the legal  pronouncement was issued by God’s grace for Jesus’ sake without being prompted in the least by anything in  man.  

Lutheran Misunderstanding  

One would think that heresy which removes the universality and the objectivity of justification would be  limited to those who espouse a limited atonement and a conditional Gospel—the Reformed, the Baptists. But  oddly enough to our way of thinking, that’s simply not the case. There have also been “Lutherans” who have  ripped the heart out of the Gospel and have taught that God has not actually forgiven all the sins of all mankind.  

In Ministers of Christ, Prof. Meyer quotes a statement which came out of the old Ohio Synod, now part  of the ALC.  

We believe and confess: Through the reconciliation effected by Christ the holy and gracious God  made an approach to us, so that now He can forgive us our sin and justify us; justification itself,  however, does not take place until the spark of faith is kindled by God ‘ s grace in the heart of the  poor sinner; then God forgives the sinner his sins.18 (emphasis Meyer’s)  

This “Lutheran” statement makes God’s forgiveness dependent on man’s faith.   Even Lenski, whose “big green line” adorns most WELS pastors’ bookshelves, is guilty of the same error. In commenting on II Corinthians 5:18,19 he says, “We do not (emphasis mine) find the idea that Paul here says that when Christ died, when in and by his death God reconciled the world objectively, he then and there  forgave all sins to the whole world.”19 If Lenski meant that God did reconcile the world “objectively,” he  certainly did not understand objective justification as we do, for he denies that on the basis of Christ’s death and  resurrection God once and for all forgave all the sins of all mankind.  

The misunderstanding which prompted the writing of this paper was unfortunately closer to home. The  pastor of Faith Congregation in Kokomo discovered that one of the members of the congregation did not believe  that God has forgiven all the sins of all mankind. The people who disagreed with Faith’s position drew up the now famous Four Statements, to which they pressed Faith Congregation to subscribe. The Four Statements are  as follows:  

1. Objectively speaking, without any reference to an individual sinner’s attitude toward  Christ’s sacrifice, purely on the basis of God’s verdict, every sinner, whether he knows it  or not, whether he believes it or not, has received the status of a saint. 
2. After Christ’s intervention and through Christ’s intervention, God regards all sinners as  guilt-free saints.
3. When God reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, He individually pronounced  forgiveness to each individual sinner whether that sinner ever comes to faith or not. 
4. At the time of the resurrection of Christ, God looked down in hell and declared Judas, the  people destroyed in the flood, and all the ungodly, innocent, not guilty, and forgiven of all  sin and gave unto them the status of saints. 

The first three statements were adapted from Ministers of Christ by a member of Faith Congregation, and  the fourth is “from materials used for study purposes in a Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod worker training  school.”20 The panel which dealt with the Kokomo controversy “feels that these Four Statements without  explanation or context are an inadequate presentation of the doctrine of objective justification.”21  

The confusion appears to have arisen particularly over the use of the phrase “status of a saint.” “Status of a saint” is employed by Meyer in his comments on II Corinthians 5:18-21. He uses the phrase to explain all that was involved in God reconciling the world to himself, not charging men with their sins, but imputing to them the  righteousness of Christ, who became sin for us. The word “status” is particularly important because it reflects  Meyer’s attempt at getting behind the original meaning of the Greek word for reconcile, katalla&ssw, which  has to do with change. It’s not a change in man, but it’s a change in God’s attitude toward man; a change in  man’s standing with God because of what Christ did. The recipients of this change in status are indeed the entire  world.  

The Bible therefore does teach that all the sins of all mankind are completely forgiven. That means also  the sins of Judas, the sins of the people destroyed in the flood, the sins of all the ungodly, and the sins of all  people who will from now to the end of time die apart from Christ and end up in hell. All people have a changed  status. But that is not to say that all people are saints.  

And that is where the problem lies. When we hear the phrase “status of a saint” we dwell more on the  world “saint” than on the word “status,” because of how we have heard “saint” used. “Saint” is always used in  Scripture to describe the child of God. So without a thorough study of Meyer, it’s easy to jump to the false  conclusion that Meyer says all are saints; that all people are going to heaven; that WELS has endorsed  universalism. But that’s certainly not what Meyer or the WELS teaches, as we will hear in our subsequent paper  on subjective justification. To say that all are justified and all are forgiven is not the same as saying all are going  to heaven.  

The position that all men’s sins have been forgiven, even the sins of those in hell, has always been held to  by orthodox Lutheran theologians. Koehler writes, “There is not a soul in all the world which God has not  already absolved from all sin. This is called objective or universal justification.”22 Schaller says,   

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.23  

Orthodox Lutherans therefore, on the basis of the scriptural doctrine of universal and objective  justification, teach, believe and confess that all people who have lived, are living or will ever live on earth have  been declared righteous by God and have thus been forgiven of all their sins.  

APPLICATION 

 

It is quite obvious why Luther said in regard to justification, “The most necessary and important thing is  that we teach and repeat this doctrine daily.”24 I don’t really expect that, following Luther’s advice, you all will  place this paper next to your Bible and reread it daily along with the Scriptures. Nor do I expect that all of us are  going to make a conscious effort to study this particular doctrine in a special way on a daily or even a weekly  basis. But it is most important that each of us remember the important truths of universal and objective  justification continually, because each day we are faced with situations in which the precious gem of the Gospel  needs to be held out or shown forth.  

Consider first of all our homes. I once heard a frazzled pastor’s wife say to her little dickens, “Jesus  doesn’t love you when you do things like that!” No objective justification in that reprimand! The poor little guy  was suddenly pulled from the universality of God’s justifying love in Christ. Could he earn it back by good  behavior? Isn’t the most important aspect of our Christian discipline the objective reality of God’s love and  forgiveness’? We dare not replace the clear water of life with the gooey protestant sludge of “Jesus loves me  when I’m good.”  

And don’t forget there are some other sinners in the home too-you and your spouse. How can spouses  learn to accept each other’s faults, which drive one another crazy, unless they believe that God in Christ has  already forgiven all their shortcomings? Question God’s loving forgiveness in regard to your own faults and it  could lead to the tranquilizer bottle. Question God’s loving forgiveness in regard to your spouse’s faults, and the  precious one to whom you are pledged will get uglier and less lovable every day.  

Then of course there is our life’s calling as proclaimers of God’s own message. How can the lonely, the  depressed, the grieving, the suffering and the insecure be pulled from the pits of their bad feelings unless they  hear the objective reality of God’s love apart from their feelings; unless they hear no condition attached to the  universal salvation Christ procured for them as individuals?  

The same precious truth is most important in the care and instruction of our little ones. What does  frightened little Suzy need to hear when she comes to you and says, “Teacher, my Baptist friend told me I’m  going to burn in hell if I don’t hurry up and ask Jesus into my heart”? What a time to apply the objective reality  of Jesus’ love for Suzy! What a time to apply Christ’s universal salvation to this trembling little lamb!  

Then there’s the opposite extreme for the Christian teacher—not the trembling lambs, but the haughty  heifers and the brazen bullocks. “These brats are driving me crazy!” But remember, those brats are baptized  brats, objects of Christ’s salvation. The only way they are going to mature in their Christian faith is by the  objective reality of the Gospel which you have been called to teach them.  

Thus the loved ones under the roofs of our homes, churches and schools grow and are strengthened  through our application of universal and objective justification.  

We have, however, a broader commission, a universal calling. As Christ’s witnesses we have been called  to reach out to the world, not only with our wallets but also with our words. Whether it be a personal  conversation with our landlord, neighbor or friend, or whether it be a more “professional” conversation with the  unchurched parent of a pupil or with the new prospect discovered by the evangelism committee, we know for  certain the message we have for them. In our minds there’s no Reformed reflection on whether or not this person  really is one of God’s elect. There’s no Arminian condition attached to the forgiveness we hold out to them. The  only message that will bring them to faith, strengthen them in their faith and motivate them to want to hear the  Word is our simplified version o f universal and objective justification.  

The importance of keeping this doctrine straight in the WELS can never be stressed enough. Luther said  justification is “the article on which the church stands or falls.” If it is lost the reformer added, “all Christian  doctrine is lost at the same time.”25  

Nor can the importance of keeping this doctrine straight in our own hearts ever be stressed enough.  There will come a time when God’s angels will be ready to carry our souls to Abraham’s side. Then we will need  to be assured that the universal and objective justification which we proclaimed and taught to so many is also a  reality to us. As Stoeckhardt so aptly put it,  

When the last encounter comes, in that critical moment, when the soul hovers between death and  life, between heaven and hell, when we feel the complete wretchedness of lost, condemned  mankind, then we take comfort in the justification of all men, of all sinners, and draw the  conclusion that what was done for all men, must certainly be valid also for us and is intended for  me personally. Thus we still our heart before God.26  

God preserve among us the scriptural truth of universal and objective justification.  

Endnotes  

1 Mr. and Mrs. David Hartman and Mr. and Mrs. Joe Pohlman, “An Open Letter to the Church,” Feb. 12, 1982. 

2 Robin A. Leaver, Luther on Justification (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1975), p. 71. 

3 Wilhelm Dantine, Justification of the Ungodly (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968), p. 26. 

4 E.W.A. Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957), p. 146. 

5 Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Volume II (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), p. 503. 

6 E. Reim, “A History of the Term ‘Objective Justification,’” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 52 (April, 1955), p. 83. 

7 John Schaller, “Redemption and Universal Justification According to 11 Corinthians 5:18-21,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 72  (Oct., 1975), p. 309. 

8 Reim, op. cit., p. 87. 

9 George Stoeckhardt, “General Justification,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 42 (April, 1978), p. 140. 

10 J. P. Meyer, Ministers of Christ (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963), p. 101. 

11 Ibid., p. 102. 

12 Ibid., p. 103. 

13 Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume II (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,  1964), p. 212. 

14 Ibid., p. 215. 

15 Stoeckhardt, op. cit., p. 142. 

16 Schaller, op. cit., p. 317. 

17 Ed. Preuss, The Justification of the Sinner Before God (Chicago: F. Allermann, 1934), p. 14. 

18 Meyer, op. cit., p. 100. 

19 R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing  House, 1963), p. 1048. 

20 Wayne D. Mueller, et al., “Southeastern Wisconsin District Panel of Review of the Appeal of the Action Taken by Faith Lutheran  Church, Kokomo, Indiana,” June 30, 1980, p. 2. 

21 Ibid., pp. 2, 3. 

22 Koehler, op. cit., p. 147. 

23 John Schaller, Biblical Christology (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1982).  24 Leaver, op. cit., p. 71.  25 Ewald M. Plass, ed., What Luther Says—An Anthology (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 703.  26 Stoeckhardt, op. cit., p. 144.   
 Bibliography   Books   Arndt, Wm. F. and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian  Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.   Dantine, Wilhelm. Justification of the Ungodly. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.   Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament - Volume 11. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.   Koehler, E.W.A. A Summary of Christian Doctrine. St.. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957.   Leaver, Robin A. Luther on Justification. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1975.   Lenski,R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. Minneapolis:  Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.   Meyer, J. P. Ministers of Christ. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1963.   Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics, Volume 11. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951.   Plass, Ewald M., ed. What Luther Says—An Anthology. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.   Preuss, Ed. The Justification of the Sinner Before God. Chicago: F. Allermann, 1934.   Schaller, John. Biblical Christology. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1982.   Tregelles, Samuel. P., trans. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Grand  Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949.   Periodicals   Reim, E. “A History of the Term ‘Objective Justification,’” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, LII (April, 1955),  81ff.   Schaller, John. “Redemption and Universal Justification According to II Corinthians 5:18-21,11 Wisconsin  Lutheran Quarterly, LXXII (October, 1975).   Stoeckhardt, George. “General Justification,” Concordia Theological Monthly, XLII (April, 1978), 139ff.   Letters and Reports   Hartman, Mr. and Mrs. David and Mr. and Mrs. Joe Pohlman. “An Open Letter to the Church,” February 12,  1982.   Mueller, Wayne D., et al. “Southeastern Wisconsin District Panel of Review of the Appeal of the Action Taken  by Faith Lutheran Church, Kokomo, Indiana,” June 30, 1980.