Some Clarity about Objective Justification versus the Chief Article

The heart of Objective Justification is the same in all its flavors and its names - God has already declared all men absolved (justified, free of sin, as a judge would) when He raised Jesus from the dead.

This general absolution is not the Atonement, which is sidelined and almost ignored. For Walther the German speaker, general means "every single one."

Note that in America, "general knowledge" does not mean that most people know a fact, only that many do. But in German, the word is algemeine or - universal.

Pulling phrases from the Bible is contrary to teaching the Word. Shouting thesis statement is also inadequate.

Walther's language clearly comes from Halle Pietism, through Bishop Stephan, seducer of  young girls, via Halle University, the center of rationalistic Pietism.

This odious sermon borrows deceitfully from Romans 4:25 and 1 Timothy 3:16.

Romans 4:25 KJV

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV  justified in the Spirit,

First impression of Romans 4:25 - That is an incomplete sentence, but also lacking a world absolution based upon the Resurrection.

What about 1 Timothy 3:16? I chose only the phrase being used, but there is also no world absolution in that creed or hymn, which is exclusively about Jesus. Six aorist verbs are about Him, not about you being born forgiven.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Hint to all the hip modernists and Evangelicals - you are just repeating the vapid subjectivism of the Halle rationalists. They - like Schleiermacher - lacked faith in Jesus so they made it all about themselves, just as Karl Barth and his delightful slave mistress assistant, Charlotte Kirschbaum did.

What better shopworn creed with which to launch a thousand clergy adulteries? - than Barth's at Fuller Seminary and Willow Creek! But I digress - a serious weakness when the topic of UOJ comes up. But it is a short mental trip from the felt needs of Karl and Charlotte to the felt needs approach of Fuller, WELS, and Paul Calvin Kelm.

Objective Justification blends the Atonement and Justification by Faith together, rendering their new language contradictory and ridiculous.

Synonyms:
The Atonement is the Gospel, the datum that the Son of God died for the sins of the world. This is also called the Reconciliation, the Redemption, the Expiation, and the Propitiation. Some call it preaching the cross.

Preaching the cross - or those synonyms above - does not absolve the unbelieving world of its sin. The Holy Spirit carries  this Gospel message to individuals and plants faith in their hearts. See the Parable of the Sower for how that can turn out. Or the True Vine in John 15 about those who no longer remain with the Means of Grace.

UOJists love terms that convey God's universalism, which is utterly contrary to the Scriptures:

1. The Justification of the World - John Sparky Brenner
2. Universal Objective Justification - David Valleskey
3. General Justification - Germans in general
4. Objective Justification - O. J. Webber
5. Justification - Liars when they want to conceal their dogma
6. The Chief Article - Zarling, Bivens the Plagiarist, and S. Valleskey (WELS graphic below). They open with "Justification," apply the Chief Article attributes to it, then slither into UOJ - as if Absolution without Faith is the historic, Biblical Justification by Faith.

 The Three Chief Article-ists of WELS,
posing formally and informally.