We heard the throbbing and pulsing of a powerful motorcycle engine yesterday morning. A couple drove up on their bike. Were they angry that I made fun of the WELS sermon -
I Am So Glad Jesus Rode a Hog? After all, we were in the midst of a giant motorcycle rally that brings thousands of easy riders to town.
No, they wanted to talk about justification by faith. I promised them this chapter.
Historical
Introduction to
The
Faith of Jesus:
Against
the Faithless Lutherans
Second Draft – Corrections are welcome. Send to
bethanylutheranworship@gmail.com
The
Faith of Jesus is being written to encourage study of
justification by faith and its opposing doctrine, called by various names –
General Justification, Objective Justification, and the favorite WELS/ELS
redundancy Universal Objective Justification – UOJ – a dogma with two anchors.
One is the misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 3:16. The second is its origin in
Calvinism and Pietism, both anti-efficacy and anti-Means of Grace.
Neglect
of Biblical fundamentals have made this possible.
If the inerrancy of Scripture were enough for unity, then
all denominations calling themselves conservative would be united in one common
confession. But these well known, historic principles have been neglected in
the last century.
1. The efficacy of the Word – God’s
will and Word are the same, which also means that the power of the Word comes
from the Holy Spirit working exclusively through the Word and never apart from
the Word. Separating the two is the very definition of Enthusiasm or false
doctrine, as confessed in the seldom-mentioned Smalcald Articles – by Luther – in the Book of
Concord.
2. Scripture interprets Scripture – The
Bible is the Book of the Holy Spirit, a unified truth, so the clearest and
simplest passages explain the more difficult ones. Those who want to make a
dogma out of one phrase are hoodwinking their disciples.
3. The Means of Grace – The
Word and Sacraments are the Means, or Instruments, of God’s grace, the
invisible Word of teaching and preaching, the visible Word of Holy Baptism,
Holy Communion, Ordination, and Absolution. God uses the power of the Gospel Word in the
sacraments to give us comfort and certainty.
Second,
the Roman Catholic approach is entirely wrong and predestined to create evil
results.
When pastors, officials, or professors claim to have a
special knowledge or position that allows them to refute any question by
calling on their unique positions, they are relying on Roman Catholic
argumentation. They are repudiating these historic principles:
1. The clarity or perspicuity of Scripture – God’s
revelation is so plain and clear that anyone can learn the essentials of the
Christian Faith through the Word of God alone.
2. The Bible judges all books, all the works
of man – No human writing has any authority over the Scriptures,
so a massive collection of essays in favor of justification without faith is only
impressive in the extent of the deception perpetrated.
Lutherans do not have a hierarchy where the Synod President
and professors are infallible, as if the Holy Spirit would not allow them to
make a mistake. By assuming this divine role the UOJ fanatics have made
themselves mini-Antichrists, saying such things as,
· “You
cannot argue with me. I studied Greek!”
· “The
Circuit Pastor was appointed by the Holy Spirit. To argue with him is the same
as arguing with God. I cannot do that.”
· “The
Synod voted…”
I studied doctrine at the only Vatican-owned seminary in
America. They had hundreds of books supporting Purgatory and the Immaculate
Conception of Mary in their library. No book, not even a library of books, can
supplant the Scriptures.
The
Biblical Error That Distorts All Justification Passages
This 1 Timothy verse is not cited as often as Romans 4:25
(raised for our justification) and John 1:29 (Who takes away the sins of the
world) and Romans 5:6 (died for the ungodly). However, as anyone can see, every
UOJ proponent acepts the Pietistic meaning of the verse.
1 Timothy 3:16 And
without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
1. God was
manifest in the flesh,
2. justified
in the Spirit,
3. seen of
angels,
4. preached
unto the Gentiles,
5. believed
on in the world,
6. received
up into glory.
This is clearly a confession of faith, used in the early
Church, and perhaps a hymn. “Without controversy” is easily paraphrased as “In
our confession.” The confession consists of six verb forms, clear and
compelling in their brief phrases.
The issue is “justified in the Spirit.” As everyone knows
from the unified truth of the Scriptures, Jesus was and is without sin.
Therefore, He had no need for being justified, declared forgiven as a sinner – as
we do. However, His resurrection from the dead was God’s declaration to us that
His Son did not see corruption because He did not sin. Therefore, justified in
the Spirit means Jesus was shown to the world as without sin, revealed as
innocent by virtue of the empty tomb. Sinners die, but the Sinless One rose
from the dead.
Although this seems clear and plain, the Pietists saw Jesus
as justifying the entire world by rising from the dead. Their logic is – If He
became sin for us, then everyone in the world became righteous through Him.
Pietism
Jay Webber gave this away when he countered Martin Chemnitz
on 1 Timothy 3:16 with the Pietist Rambach – with other support from the
Pietist Quistorp:
I can understand why Chemnitz would read 1 Timothy 3:16 in this way. But his reading does not rule out what I would
consider to be a necessary corrolary (sic)
to such a "personal" justification of Jesus. The 18th-century
Lutheran theologian Johann Jacob Rambach makes the following observation in his Ausfuehrliche Erklaerung der
Epistel an die Roemer (p.
322), regarding the Lord's payment and satisfaction of sinful humanity's
"debt" to God:
"Christ was in his resurrection first of
all justified for his own person, Is. 50:5, 1 Tim. 3:16, since the righteousness of God declared that it had been
paid and satisfied in full by this our Substitute, and issued him as it were a
receipt thereof; and that happened in his resurrection, when he was released
from his debtor's prison and set free. But since the Substitute was now
justified, then in him also
all debtors were co-justified."
(http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/09/fraternal-dialogue-on-topic-of.html?showComment=1318465094266#c1455795606018035846)
Webber made a staggering and unbelievable claim when he
described his propaganda essay as a work of historical theology. The boggy,
verbose, and undisciplined effort avoided key points of history and revealed a
lack of knowledge – or candor – about most of it.
The
Dogma Is Older Than the Terms
First we have to distinguish between the term concept of
universal forgiveness and their term Objective Justification. The concept
arrived among Lutherans long before the term was used. Since Walther is the
gold standard of doctrine for Webber and other synodical drones, it should be
added that OJ is a term later adopted by Walther, blessed, by Walther, and used
by his minions. In a roundabout way, the double justification terminology came
from the Calvinist translation of a doctrinal textbook from Halle University,
authored by Christian George Knapp.
Hoenecke, who graduated from Halle University, used General
Justification, which may sound neutral, but the German word really means
:”every single one” so the German term has the same force as universal. To make
this redundantly clear, WELS has generally used Universal Objective Justification
lately, because the sect has made a fetish of their favorite dogma. Using
Universal and Objective together is repetitive in meaning, similar to saying “a
very unique” destination when unique literally means one of a kind.
But WELS has not been blessed with literate writers for a
long time, so they have their UOJ and others their OJ. Sig Becker, a Missouri
convert to WELS, tried to make distinctions about some of these terms, but his
explanations were distinctions without a difference.
Huber
the First Professor of OJ in Lutheranism
Some think Objective Justification is very much like
Calvinism. Our researcher is working on a separate essay about this. Dr. Lito
Cruz believes this to be true, and I would add that Calvin’s scheme is
harmonious with OJ.
Calvin separated the Holy Spirit’s work from the Word and
Sacraments, using the term sovereign. Because the Spirit is sovereign, He may
make a sermon effective or he may not even appear for the service. Calvin did
not write this once but many times, as described by a Harvard doctoral
researcher and published in his excellent book on this topic. This separation
of Word and Spirit is called Enthusiasm by Luther and the Book of Concord in
the Smalcald Articles, where Enthusiasm is condemned.
Notice how Calvinism is remarkably close to Walther’s
“election without faith.” For Calvin, God has predestined a small percentage of
all church members to eternal salvation and the rest of the world to eternal
damnation. That is Calvin’s double predestination. The tiny yield is because of
God’s grace, and truly shows God’s grace, they claim. Mark Twain observed that
a Calvinistic sermon reduced the number of saved to such a small number that it
was not really worth the trouble. The Waltherians like to emphasize Grace! - disparaging the Means of Grace
by thought, word, and deed. So their grace is a faux-grace, since they tear
down or ignore the Instruments of Grace, the Word and Sacraments. Thus Missouri
and its siblings passed easily into Pentecostalism and Church Growthism.
Worship has been left behind in favor of entertainment.
The rationalism of Calvin certainly infected his followers,
who often live up to the slogan “Young Calvinist, Old Unitarian.” This slogan
fits entire countries, as evidenced in the Calvinistic history of New England,
and other parts of America. The greater the Calvinistic influence, the more
quickly rationalism takes over.
Missouri has often been infatuated with old time
Calvinists, because many Calvinists were early to use English in America (unlike
Missouri) and the traditional Calvinists seemed to be allies against Modernism.
WELS, Missouri, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Church
of the Lutheran Confession (sic) have cast longing eyes over the fence at other
Protestant groups, the loopier the group, the better. Fuller is their Mecca,
and Willow Creek is their local haven. The first one to open the gate to UOJ
was Samuel Huber, and they have yet to admit this fact, quoting their Pietist
leader Walther to confirm the truth of their denial.
Samuel
Huber, Wittenberg OJ Errorist Defeated by Concordists
Huber was a Calvinist who became a Lutheran, long enough to
be on the Wittenberg faculty. He began attacking justification by faith from
within, like his descendants in the Synodical Conference. The Objective
Justification salesmen of today would like to disassociate themselves from
Huber, but they teach essentially the same dogma. Walther also could not accept
this, because all the arguments against Huber also address Walther’s errors.
The answer, say the OJ Fan Club, is to agree with Walther that Huber was not
truly in the OJ camp, just a demi-semi-OJist.
Even so, the Wuerttemberg
theologians, as you say, did not like Huber’s terminology, while the Wittenberg
theologians unequivocally rejected his terminology. Why, then, did Walther and
H.A. Preus go on to adopt that very terminology? And why does it bother the
supporters of universal justification so much to be linked to Huber, if,
according to Walther, his doctrine was substantively orthodox and nothing for
orthodox Lutherans to get bent out of shape about? If Walther’s followers think
that Huber was basically orthodox with regard to justification and that the
Wittenberg theologians taught justification wrongly (since they rejected
Huber’s teaching of it), then it would seem to be the honest thing to just come
out and say so.
Hunnius takes apart Huber’s
(and the official WELS) doctrine piece by piece, concluding with this
observation about Huber’s supposed “confessional subscription” to the Lutheran
Book of Concord:
And what will Dr. Huber reply to the Book of Concord, which, in
citing these very words from Romans, explicitly confirms that those things mean
nothing other than that we are justified by faith? This is what the Book of
Concord says in the Latin edition, page 666: “Therefore, these statements are
equivalent and clearly mean the same thing, when Paul says that we are
justified by faith; or that faith is imputed to us for righteousness; and when
he teaches that we are justified by the obedience of one Mediator, who is
Christ; or that through the righteousness of one man, justification of life
comes upon all men. For faith does not justify on account of this, that it is
such a good work, or that it is such a splendid virtue, but because it
apprehends and embraces the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel.” Thus
far the Book of Concord. If the Pauline phrase (that “through the
righteousness of one Man, justification of life comes upon all men”) clearly
means the same thing as that other statement, “We are justified by faith” (as
the Book of Concord clearly and emphatically asserts), then the interpretation
is rejected by the sentence of the Book of Concord that imagines from these
words of Paul a justification apart from faith—one that extends also to those
who have never had faith and never will. Dr. Luther says it even better in [his
lectures on] the second chapter to the Galatians: “Where Christ and faith are
not present, there is no remission of sins, no refuge, nothing but pure
imputation of sins and condemnation.”
Rydecki
continued –
According to Hunnius, one cannot honestly claim to be a
“confessional” Lutheran while at the same time teaching a justification apart
from faith based on Romans 5:18. His
quotation from Luther is also highly relevant. How long will the WELS
continue to claim to be a “confessional Lutheran” church body? How long will
the truly confessional Lutheran pastors in the WELS remain in voluntary
fellowship with the synod that officially condemns the Gospel of justification
by faith alone in Christ as heresy?
A unionist tries to pooh-pooh
similarities. In the end, false teachers demand and appreciate a translation of
the Bible that repeats their error and appears to canonize it – the New NIV.
However, the core of Objective Justification, however it
might be explained, is declaring the entire world forgiven of its sin. That is
where Huber started, and that is what Polycarp Leyser and Hunnius opposed.
Leyser was respected enough to be one of the editors of the
Book of Concord and an expert in discussions about justification.
Pietism
Pietism really has two major eras in Europe, starting with
Spener and his immediate followers, peaking with the establishment of Halle
University with the mission of promoting Pietism. Soon after, Halle became the
center of rationalism in Europe, and F. Schleiermacher, an alumnus and teacher,
earned his place as the pivotal modern theologian – advocating faith without
belief.
The second era of Pietism was a reaction to the rationalism
that took over clergy training and the institutional church in Europe. Those
who dissented were called mystics and Pietists, and many found it difficult to
find acceptance or positions in the establishment.
This
is very important – all the American Lutheran groups were
established with this background of Pietism. The Americanan Luther leaders were
either trained at Halle (Hoenecke), trained by Halle students (Walther by
Stephan), or associated themselves closely with Halle, - Muhlenberg taught
there.
All the American Lutherans groups were greatly influenced
by the spirit of union with Calvinism, hiding doctrinal differences among
Protestants, and looking for gimmicks like the revival. This rationalistic
Pietism was keen on denominational cooperation and allergic to any high church
tendencies (as they imagined them) – the liturgy, frequent Holy Communion, and
the Book of Concord.
Thus the ingredients of the Wisconsin Synod, the Missouri
Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod were Pietistic. So were the founders
of The American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America.
Hoenecke
and Halle University
The passage in Hoenecke’s Dogmatics dealing with General Justification offers no refuge for
UOJ, but the author does quote the son-in-law of Johann Bengal (1687-1752), who
worked closely with and edited his father-in-law’s work. Bengal was a
Wuerttemberg Pietist. Hoenecke studied the Confessions on his own after
graduating from Halle University. One of the last of the Pietists, Tholuck was
his mentor. Tholuck was a Universalist and admitted it gladly. Hoenecke was not
a Universalist.
Rambach
and Halle University
Rambach is especially important because:
· Webber
quoted him favorably on Objective Justification.
· The
first baptism hymn in The Lutheran Hymnal
is Rambach’s.
· Rambach
was a loyal Halle Pietist.
· Rambach
gives us a definite data-point on UOJ being taught at the central school for
all Lutherans in North America.
Rambach taught – “In His Person all mankind was justified
and absolved from sin and curse.”
Rambach advocated teaching 1 Timothy 3:16 as if all mankind
became justified when Christ rose from the dead. Although Bishop Martin Stephan
did not graduate from Halle University, we know that Stephan’s distorted
version of justification was life-changing, even life-saving for CFW Walther.
We also know that Walther taught the same form of justification all his career.
Therefore, the Easter absolution of the entire world, without the Word and
without faith, is definitely an effect of Halle’s lasting influence.
Knapp and
Woods, Objective Justification, and Subjective Justification
Knapp was considered the last of the Pietists at Halle
University, a school started to teach Biblical Pietism. But this university,
which later absorbed Wittenberg University, became rationalistic rapidly and
then became famous for attacking the truth of the Bible. Knapp is an example of
both trends. He was still a Pietist, so his lectures in English were a standard
work in America in the 19th century and are still print today. But
as a rationalist, Knapp did not believe the traditional teaching of the Trinity
was based on the Scriptures.
Knapp’s Halle University Lectures on Theology were published in German in 1789. He had
already been giving them for decades, so their influence was widely felt. Leonard
Wood, a famous Calvinist, translated the lectures into English in 1831, with
this notable explanation of a passage from Knapp –
Knapp – “It
is universal as the atonement itself...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.”
Woods - *[Translator note -
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.]
Readers, whether innocent or malicious, could make the
wording of Knapp or Woods consistent with Biblical doctrine – except for the
key Knapp phrase – “justification must also be universal.”
The textbook shows us that universal justification was
taught at Halle University when Bishop Stephan studied there, that Woods used
the terms Objective Justification and Subjective Justification in America in his
1831 translation, seven years before the Saxons landed in New Orleans.
Synodical Conference leaders try to explain that the terms
Objective Justification and Subjective Justification were invented to guard
against teaching Calvinism, but the terms came from a Calvinist, the concept
from a famous Pietist - Knapp. The Woods textbook quickly became a standard in
America because the translator was influential in academics. He was a
Wunderkind in publishing this lengthy and tedious Knapp textbook – the foremost
man of his period and the president of Bowdoin College.
The double-justification terminology became famous,
traveling from America to Germany, where these terms were noticed and approved
by Walther in their German form. Therefore, the supposed Lutheran creation of
these terms – “to guard against Calvinism” - is entirely false and easily
refuted.
Kuehn
and Stephan, Pietistic Leaders of the Walther Circle
CFW Walther, the son of a pastor, lived in the world of
Pietism. The state church was entirely rationalistic, so anyone differing from
the purely secular interpretation of the Bible was considered a mystic or a
Pietist and usually denied a church position. Therefore students who wanted
support in their faith associated in Pietistic circles, having Bible study cell
groups and following someone associated with Pietism.
The candidates had a
Pietistic Bible study group and some support from professors of the same
mindset. The Bible study groups were considered a way around the rules against
conventicles.
The first leader of the Walther circle of clergy candidates
was H. Johann Gottlieb Kuehn, without a
call, a severe Pietistic leader who emphasized mortification of the flesh to
combat temptation. His call to a parish led to a crisis, since the circle of
future pastors relied on Kuehn’s leadership.
The group soon connected
with Martin Stephan a Bohemian Pietist, pastor of St. John in Dresden. Stephan
became their new leader. Stephan was called to that congregation in… even
though he did not have the qualifications to be a pastor. He had not finished
his university education and had not passed the state approval process. This
parish was unusual, ethnic in serving Bohemians, and Pietistic since its
founding, the land supposedly donated by Count Zinzendorf, one of the key
founders of Pietism. Therefore the congregation was allowed to call one of
their own Bohemians with the same sympathies – Pietism. They were allowed to
have conventicles on the church property but nowhere else.
Stephan taught Walther the
Easter absolution of the entire world, universal justification, and Walther
embraced it his entire life.
Walther had severe physical
and emotional problems, so he thought Stephan’s approach was perfect. However,
the candidates paid a price to follow Stephan – they had to agree with Stephan
about everything, suffer discipline and shunning if they did not, and apologize
to Stephan if they offended him in any way. CFW was happy to be part of handing
out discipline to his fellow candidates.
Moving from one severe
leader, Kuehn, to another one even more demanding, Stephan, united the future
pastors more than ever before. Like all cults, this behavior ossified until the
abnormal was accepted as normal. This Pietism was the answer to their
rationalistic university education, not unlike today’s, where students and
faculty mocked the Bible and bragged about their unbelief.
The Walther circle included
CFW’s older brother Otto, Johann.F. Buenger, Otto Fuerbringer (father of Ludwig
Fuerbringer) Theodore J. Brohm, Ernst Keyl, Ernst Buerger, and Gotthold
Loeber.
Stephan accepted the call to
Dresden in 1810 and was considered successful and influential in his first
decade there. He became the leader of the Walther circle in the 1830s, when
complaints began to arise about his unethical pastoral behavior, his
association with young women, and his financial irregularities. The parish that
called Stephan became his base for extending influence to a much larger group,
leading to complaints that he neglected his congregation for larger group,
where the Walther circle collected donations for him.
The trial of Stephan in
Dresden, the culmination of many investigations and complaints about his
adultery, led to his house arrest. Stephan was finished as a pastor in Dresden,
so he announced that his group must leave for America. The Walther circle
organized the mass migration, the first allowed in Europe, a media sensation at
the time. The Walther brothers kidnapped their niece and nephew for the trip –
not the only minors to travel illegally to America. Stephan’s primary mistress
had the cabin next door to Stephan on the trip over. Stephan’s healthy son came
along, but his sick wife and children were left behind in Dresden to die of
syphilis, which Martin gave to her and therefore transmitted to his children,
whose tragic fate testified to his evil and callousness. But the Walther circle
still pledged their lifelong allegiance to Stephan as bishop when they landed
in New Orleans in 1838. The lawyers who defended Stephan in court, Marbach and
Vehse, joined the migration to America. Cults see no wrong in their dictatorial
leaders.
Francis
Pieper
Walther violated the Missouri Synod’s procedures when he
made sure Francis Pieper would be elected as the dogmatics professor. This led
to Pieper following Walther both as synod and seminary president, teaching the
same scheme of double-justification.
The 1932 LCMS Brief Statement regurgitates the main points
of UOJ, so adherents of this dogma have sought to make this position the
standard view of justification, as if a political product, voted upon by a
convention, trumps the Bible and the Book of Concord.
The Missouri Synod never quite canonized UOJ, but the
fanatics tried very hard. Justification by faith is still taught in the
Concordia Publishing House KJV Catechism. For years the Missouri Synod used the
Gausewitz (WELS) catechism, edited by the president of the still intact
Synodical Conference. The original Gausewitz teaches justification by faith,
not UOJ, but it went out of print when WELS introduced its UOJ Kuske catechism.
As LCMS Pastor Vernon Harley noted in his essays,
justification by faith – not UOJ – was taught in Missouri’s German catechism in
1905. In Missouri, justification has been taught by many pastors, but the UOJ
fanaticism of Jack Cascione and Paul McCain is dominant at this time.
UOJ
Trained Leaders at the WELS Wauwatosa Seminary
The WELS professors at their Wauwatosa Seminary were mostly
trained by Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, so they accepted UOJ and made a point
of starting anew with theology, divorced from the Lutheran Confessions and
inexplicably proud of their meager accomplishments.
The
Kokomo Statements and the Expulsion of Two Families for Rejecting UOJ, 1979
Pastor Papenfuss introduced the UOJ of WELS Professor JP
Meyer’s Ministers of Christ, now in
print again. Two families copied three statement from the book and added
another from an earlier UOJ conflict. Pastor Papenfuss agreed with the four
statements and excommunicated the two families. WELS upheld the expulsion, in a
review headed by the seminary president Panning.
I spoke with both families in Kokomo, and they gave me the
letters expelling them for those statements, which were quoted verbatim in the
letter.
The
Kokomo Statements, Upheld by WELS at the National Level
I. "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 saint."
II. "After Christ's intervention and through Christ's
intervention God regards all sinners as guilt-free saints."
III. "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."
IV. "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."
WELS UOJ Deception
The deception perpetrated by WELS about this conflict is
revealed by comparing the two statements below –
J-583
“The three statements unfortunately and inaccurately attributed
to Prof. Meyer's Ministers
of Christ are
in reality inaccurate paraphrases. They were written by a lay member of the
Kokomo congregation, who was questioning the WELS doctrine of objective
justification as it was presented by the local pastor. The fourth statement was
also a paraphrase not from any WELS source. The statements were called "a
caricature of objective justification" by WELS president Carl H. Mischke.”
John Lau, “An Apology and Correction, CLC Journal of Theology,
December, 1997.
J-584
"The first three statements are taken verbatim from WELS
sources."
Siegbert Becker, "Objective
Justification," Chicago Pastoral Conference, WELS, Elgin, Illinois,
November 9, 1982, Unpaginated.
Robert
Preus I, 1981
Robert Preus posted a short essay in 1981 which proved his
devotion to UOJ at the time. He quoted Walther’s favorite St. Louis Seminary
professor, Edward Preuss, who later turned Roman Catholic and became a powerful
influence in American Roman Catholicism, as editor of America.
---
CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY
NEWSLETTER
– Spring 1981
6600
North Clinton
Fort
Wayne, Indiana 46825
THE
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE – "OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION"
The
doctrine of objective justification is a lovely teaching drawn from Scripture
which tells us that God who has loved us so much that He gave His only to be
our Savior has for the sake of Christ’s substitutionary atonement declared the
entire world of sinners for whom Christ died to be righteous (Romans 5:17-19).
Objective
justification which is God’s verdict of acquittal over the whole world is not
identical with the atonement, it is not
another way of expressing the fact that Christ has redeemed the world.
Rather it is based upon the substitutionary work of Christ, or better, it is a
part of the atonement itself. It is God’s response to all that Christ died to
save us, God’s verdict that Christ’s work is finished, that He has been indeed
reconciled, propitiated; His anger has been stilled and He is at peace with the
world, and therefore He has declared the
entire world in Christ to be righteous.
THE
SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT
According
to all of Scripture Christ made a full atonement for the sins of all mankind.
Atonement (at-one-ment) means reconciliation. If God was not reconciled by the
saving work of Christ, if His wrath against sin was not appeased by Christ'’
sacrifice, if God did not respond to the perfect obedience and suffering and
death of His Son for the sins of the world by forgiveness, by declaring the
sinful world to be righteous in Christ -–if all this were not so, if something
remains to be done by us or through us or in us, then there is no finished
atonement. But Christ said, "It is finished." And God raised Him from
the dead and justified Him, pronounced Him, the sin bearer, righteous (I
Timothy 3:16) and thus in Him pronounced the entire world of sinners righteous (Romans
4:25).
All this
is put beautifully by an old Lutheran theologian of our church, "We are
redeemed from the guilt of sin; the wrath of God is appeased; all creation is
again under the bright rays of mercy, as in the beginning; yea, in Christ we were justified before we were
even born. For do not the Scriptures say: ‘God was in Christ reconciling
the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them?'’ This is not
the justification which we receive by faith...That is the great absolution which
took place in the resurrection of Christ. It was the Father, for our sake, who
condemned His dear Son as the greatest of all sinners causing Him to suffer the
greatest punishment of the transgressors, even so did He publicly absolve Him
from the sins of the world when He raised Him up from the dead." (Edward
Preuss, "The Justification of a Sinner Before God," pp. 14-15)
GJ - Bold print added. “Old
Lutheran theologian” is misleading, since Preuss left the Lutheran Church for
Rome.
People give Robert Preus credit for writing the 1983 LCMS
Theses on Justification, which are an odd combination of justification by faith
and UOJ.
---
Preus
II, Rome and Justification, 1997
Reading various publications by Preus show that he first
100% on the side of UOJ. In one essay he combined clear UOJ quotations with
equally clear repudiations of UOJ. As an expert in Lutheran orthodoxy after the
Book of Concord, he could not help but notice that the truly great ones, like
Gerhard, Calov, and Quenstedt (his personal favorite) were aware of UOJ and
rejected it in the clearest possible terms. Preus does the same in his own
words.
Preus, in writing this book, published posthumously and
edited by his sons Rolf and Daniel Preus, clearly repudiated UOJ in the
clearest possible terms, a fact his UOJ fans cannot accept. Rolf, Daniel, and
the late Klemet Preus have continued in the fanatical strain earlier expressed
by their father in 1981.
Emmaus
Conference, 2015
The annual Emmaus Conferences have been arranged to draw
the ELS, LCMS, and WELS closer together, just as one holding company took over
Kmart and Sears at the same time, retaining the labels but unifying the bad
management.
The 2015 conference features three speakers with no
advanced study in Lutheran doctrine and no bibliography. What better way to
deceive people into thinking UOJ is true to the Scriptures, Luther, the
Confessions, and the American Way.
The errors of the Jay Webber essay are detailed in the
final essay in this book. Webber seems to favor Objective Justification over
Universal Objective Justification. The terms make WELS District President Jon
Buchholz and LCMS District President as giddy as schoolgirls. But they teach
the same thing and agree with ELCA – everyone in the world has already been
forgiven and saved. The Gospel is telling them they are already forgiven and
saved. Faith means making a decision for this universal absolution and
salvation – without faith, without the Word, without the Spirit – Grace without
the Means of Grace.
