CFW Walther and F. Pieper borrowed the two justification concept from a Halle Pietist, Knapp, who published his strange opinions in German and English before the Missouri Synod began.
Someone asked about the difference between the Atonement and Universal Objective Justification.
The Scriptures teach without contradiction that Christ died for the sins of the world and rose from the dead. The Book of Concord, Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, and the orthodox Lutheran theologians taught the same.
For many, Universal Objective Justification sounds like the Atonement, and many have assumed that UOJ was a synonym for an event which has several names - reconciliation, redemption (two different Greek verbs, one for purchase, one for releasing), etc.
However, UOJ is not the same. When Robert Preus still advocated UOJ, he made that point.
UOJ has confused justification by faith with the Atonement by creating two justifications. I will quote Walther on this:
"Christ's Glorious Resurrection from the Dead the Actual Absolution of the Entire Sinful World Here I would point out two things: 1. That This Is Certain And True, and 2. That Therefore Every Man Who Wants To Be Saved Must By Faith Accept This General Absolution As Applying Also To Him," C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 J-5 p. 230. Mark 16:1-8.
"For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is--faith. And this brings me to the second part of today's Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him." C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, "Christ's Resurrection--The World's Absolution" Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978 J-5 p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.
What does Romans say, in context?
KJV Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
The UOJ Stormtroopers like Romans 4:25, but they never mention that Romans 4 teaches Abraham as the Father of Faith, that Romans 4 reaches its climax with:
KJV Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Ichabod:
From the English translation of Knapp's Christian Theology, which was widely read in German and English, in America and Europe, before the Missouri Synod began and throughout the 19th century -
§ 113. UNIVERSALITY OP JUSTIFICATION. 817
It is universal as the atonement itself; vid. § 111, II. If the atonement extends to the whole human race, justification must also be universal; i. e. all must be able to obtain the actual forgiveness of their sins and blessedness, on account of the atonement of Christ. But in order to obviate mistakes, some points may require explanation. Justification, then, is universal,
(1) In respect to the persons to be pardoned.
All men, according to the Bible, may partake of this benefit. It was designed for all; vid. especially Rom. 3: 23. 5: 15 (§ 111),
318 ART. X. § 113. UNIVERSALITY OP JUSTIFICATION
in opposition to Jewish exclusiveness. It is bestowed however conditionally ; certain conditions are prescribed which are indispensable. Those who do not comply with these conditions, are excluded from the enjoyment of the benefit. Justification and forgiveness are not, therefore, universal in effect (actu); and this solely through the fault of men.*
Another conclusion from the universality of justification is, that every one may be sure of his forgiveness. This certainty, however, must not be founded upon inward/ee/ing-s, which are frequently deceptive ; but upon an actual compliance with the conditions on which God will forgive sins. If any one finds in himself the signs of true faith, of sincere love to God and Christ, of a renewed heart, and of a virtuous Christian disposition, he is justified. Rom. 8: 16, " The holy, Christian temper wrought in us by God, gives us the clearest and surest proof, that we are the children of God." 1 John 3: 7. 2 Pet. 1: 9, 10. This certainty is in the highest degree necessary to our tranquility and happiness. 1 Tim. 1: 16. ICor. 6: 11. 1 John 5: 18—20.
(2) In respect to sins and the punishment of sin.
(a) As to sins; the position that all sins, without exception, are forgiven for Christ's sake, is proved partly from the power and efficacy of the atonement of Christ, which is extended to all sins (vid. § 111, and the texts there cited) ; and partly from the texts which promise forgiveness of all sins, even the greatest and blackest, to those who comply with the prescribed conditions of pardon. Ezek. 18: 21, 22. Ps. 103: 3. 1 Cor. 6: 11. Ephes. 2: 5. 1 Tim. I: 15. The sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be regarded as an exception ; vid. § 84.
(6) As to the punishment of sin ; the answer to the question whether the pardoned are exempt from all the punishments of sin, whether therefore justification is plena et perfecta, may be learned from § 111, II. The natural and physical evils which result from past sins, indeed, remain ; but they are mitigated and rendered more tolerable, and are divested of the terror of punishment, by the ces-
* [Translator - This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he proffers pardon to all through Christ; subjective, is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the Gospel. The former is universal, the latter not.]
---
In brief, the Book of Concord agrees with the Scriptures in asserting the Atonement as the great treasure of the Gospel. The Atonement is objectively true because the truth of Christ's sacrifice does not depend upon man's belief.
Justification by faith is different from the Atonement because the message of the Atonement, through Word and Sacrament, creates and sustains faith. Through this faith, individuals receive the grace promised in the Gospel: justification by faith.
Justification is God's declaration of forgiveness, because of the grace earned by His Son. To say the entire world is absolved or justified--an act of grace--without the Word, without the Means of Grace, is a travesty of Enthusiasm. When the Holy Spirit is separated from the Word, foul errors rush in, as Luther taught.
Knapp and Tholuck were considered the last believing theologians to teach at Halle University. However, neither one was an orthodox Christian, as contemporaries know. Knapp did not think the confession of the Trinity was in harmony with early Christian teaching. Tholuck was a Universalist. Do Lutherans today want to identify with Knapp and Tholuck? They do when they teach UOJ.
No one can claim that the Christian Church always taught two justifications. Nor can anyone claim that Lutherans have always taught OJ and SJ. Sig Becker had to admit they were new terms.
My tentative conclusion is that Walther took over Knapp's ideas from the German edition, because Walther came from Pietistic circles and never really gave up Pietism entirely. The two justification formula arose in Pieper's Dogmatics, perhaps for the first time among Lutherans. That formulation could be explained by his or his translator's use of Knapp in English. To sort all that out, someone would have to explore all the German-American publications and make comparisons.
General or Universal Justification appears in Hoenecke, who was taught by Tholuck. Hoenecke's citation for General Justification is David Burke, the son-in-law and publishing partner with the Pietist Bengel. So far I have only found those two Pietistic sources for UOJ and the two justifications.
UOJ is inconsistent with everything else in Christian theology. What is the use of the Law when everyone is declared forgiven, absolved. Why baptize? Why repent?
The UOJ Stormtroopers have not been able to put up an argument, except for attacking anyone who remains faithful to the Book of Concord.
