 |
| Rachut Review is linked here on Amazon |
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States on November 25, 2020
My first reaction, upon hearing of Objective Justification (or Universal Objective Justification, UOJ) was that it was unscriptural; a Lutheran pastor and true believer in it, however, advised me to read this book. Sadly, I had neglected that admonition - the duty of every scholar is to read both sides.
The great majority of Lutherans, including, I am confident, those in the church bodies which espouse UOJ - these being members of the old Synodical Conference and its derivatives (Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, etc) - would draw a blank if asked their opinion on this. Two graduates of the Missouri Synod seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, have told me that students there are informed that UOJ is simply the Atonement and not to make anything of it. (As this book points out, UOJ, if taken seriously, is indeed far more than the Atonement). I also have the suspicion that the Missouri Synod, at least, understands that a frank airing of the topic might result in a walk-out of significant numbers of their faithful.
A short synopsis: after Luther's death in 1546, several contentious questions faced Lutheran theologians. These were ironed out in a collection of writings termed the Book of Concord (1580); both the simplest topics and the most complex were addressed, the former in Luther's catechisms and in the key definition of Lutheranism, the Augsburg Confession. However, in 1592 a Swiss German, Samuel Huber, was appointed to the faculty of the University of Wittenberg, the center of academic Lutheranism at the time; he was originally Calvinist, but had rebelled against the Reformed doctrine of double predestination (some persons are predestined by God to be damned, some to be saved) - or against Calvin's Limited Atonement, as this books states, or both. His rebellion led him to become Lutheran, but still with a rationalistic mindset; he went beyond the Scriptural doctrine that Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection paid the penalty of man's sin (the Atonement) and made the unscriptural claim that God the Father now rules all men, everywhere, innocent of ever having been guilty of sin in the first place (UOJ). Men are then saved if they as individuals have faith (subjective justification - what we non-UOJ'ers simply term Justification). This new doctrine led to Huber's expulsion from the faculty (1594) and then his banishment (1595). Aegidus Hunnius, acknowledged by all as an orthodox Lutheran father, wrote against Huber's ideas (Theses Against Huberianism - in print, although not listed in the book now reviewed). That should have been the end of it, but Huber's way of thinking rumbled along in Saxony, particularly among pietists (those more interested in holy living than doctrine) and re-emerged in the mid-1800's in the writings of CFW Walther, a man revered as the founder of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and later in the four-volume Christian Dogmatics, by Franz Pieper of the same body. Lutheran theologians in predecessor bodies of today's Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) - at a time when that strand of American Lutheranism really was orthodox - vigorously contested Huberianism. But this rather odd item of theology has persisted as fundamental in the Missouri and Wisconsin synods and their smaller offshoots. It crops up periodically in other faiths - but only periodically.
I would urge readers interested in the topic to investigate BOTH sides - this book, touted as the best pro-UOJ, and, for the opposition, the Youtube expositions from the little church body, ELDoNA (either a short four part series by Rev Joshua Sullivan in "Ask the Pastor" or the nine-part in-depth presentation from several ELDoNA pastors), and the online and print writings of Rev Gregory L Jackson (PhD, Notre Dame). Hunnius's Theses Against Huberianism are available from Amazon - see if this short orthodox tome does not attack the UOJ this modern book promotes. In regard to Aspects of Forgiveness, it should be pointed out: the subtitle (The Basis for Justification and its Modern Denial) is incorrect - the opponents deny not justification, but Universal Objective Justification; persons in both camps are addressing the issue with the best intentions - not "hand[ling] the Word of God deceitfully" (the statement of an endorsing clergyman on the back cover) and UOJ's opponents are not "satanic, " "foolish," or "irrational," terms this book uses. At the risk of committing the fallacy of poisoning the well myself, let me say that this rather repetitious work repeatedly uses Non Sequiturs, False Analogies, False Dichotomies and arguments ad hominem. UOJ is read into biblical and confessional writings where no disinterested reader could see it. The multitude of bible references which do not dovetail with UOT are ignored; the five or six which could be of use - especially if you do not know the original Greek - are emphasized. (This is the first time I have seen, in a scholarly work, the recommendation [p 8] to disregard the context of a bible verse - Romans 4:25 - possibly because the preceding verse states that Rom 4:25 pertains to the justification of believers and not universally. Read the whole passage, Rom 4: 16-25). The writer acknowledges that UOJ is not a topic in the Book of Concord, but believes that this is either because 1) it was so basic that everyone just knew it (Luther's Small Catechism is in the Book of Concord and deals with just those basics - no UOJ) or 2). the confessional writings DID deal with it, but you have to be able to read the subtleties here and there. Overall the methodology here is similar to the way Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Eisenhower era, decided cases: he made up his mind according to Masonic principles beforehand and then sent out his law clerics in search of precedent.
So read both sides and make up your own mind. This is within the grasp of the laity - if you can tolerate "tangled mess[es]" (phrase in the book). Be aware the author is no doubt correct in his claim (p 44) that "those who are unscriptural on justification have lost any right to bear the name 'Lutheran'." However, this description may actually best fit the by my estimate 5% of Lutherans in the world who are UOJ'ers.
The great majority of Lutherans, including, I am confident, those in the church bodies which espouse UOJ - these being members of the old Synodical Conference and its derivatives (Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, etc) - would draw a blank if asked their opinion on this. Two graduates of the Missouri Synod seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, have told me that students there are informed that UOJ is simply the Atonement and not to make anything of it. (As this book points out, UOJ, if taken seriously, is indeed far more than the Atonement). I also have the suspicion that the Missouri Synod, at least, understands that a frank airing of the topic might result in a walk-out of significant numbers of their faithful.
A short synopsis: after Luther's death in 1546, several contentious questions faced Lutheran theologians. These were ironed out in a collection of writings termed the Book of Concord (1580); both the simplest topics and the most complex were addressed, the former in Luther's catechisms and in the key definition of Lutheranism, the Augsburg Confession. However, in 1592 a Swiss German, Samuel Huber, was appointed to the faculty of the University of Wittenberg, the center of academic Lutheranism at the time; he was originally Calvinist, but had rebelled against the Reformed doctrine of double predestination (some persons are predestined by God to be damned, some to be saved) - or against Calvin's Limited Atonement, as this books states, or both. His rebellion led him to become Lutheran, but still with a rationalistic mindset; he went beyond the Scriptural doctrine that Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection paid the penalty of man's sin (the Atonement) and made the unscriptural claim that God the Father now rules all men, everywhere, innocent of ever having been guilty of sin in the first place (UOJ). Men are then saved if they as individuals have faith (subjective justification - what we non-UOJ'ers simply term Justification). This new doctrine led to Huber's expulsion from the faculty (1594) and then his banishment (1595). Aegidus Hunnius, acknowledged by all as an orthodox Lutheran father, wrote against Huber's ideas (Theses Against Huberianism - in print, although not listed in the book now reviewed). That should have been the end of it, but Huber's way of thinking rumbled along in Saxony, particularly among pietists (those more interested in holy living than doctrine) and re-emerged in the mid-1800's in the writings of CFW Walther, a man revered as the founder of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and later in the four-volume Christian Dogmatics, by Franz Pieper of the same body. Lutheran theologians in predecessor bodies of today's Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) - at a time when that strand of American Lutheranism really was orthodox - vigorously contested Huberianism. But this rather odd item of theology has persisted as fundamental in the Missouri and Wisconsin synods and their smaller offshoots. It crops up periodically in other faiths - but only periodically.
I would urge readers interested in the topic to investigate BOTH sides - this book, touted as the best pro-UOJ, and, for the opposition, the Youtube expositions from the little church body, ELDoNA (either a short four part series by Rev Joshua Sullivan in "Ask the Pastor" or the nine-part in-depth presentation from several ELDoNA pastors), and the online and print writings of Rev Gregory L Jackson (PhD, Notre Dame). Hunnius's Theses Against Huberianism are available from Amazon - see if this short orthodox tome does not attack the UOJ this modern book promotes. In regard to Aspects of Forgiveness, it should be pointed out: the subtitle (The Basis for Justification and its Modern Denial) is incorrect - the opponents deny not justification, but Universal Objective Justification; persons in both camps are addressing the issue with the best intentions - not "hand[ling] the Word of God deceitfully" (the statement of an endorsing clergyman on the back cover) and UOJ's opponents are not "satanic, " "foolish," or "irrational," terms this book uses. At the risk of committing the fallacy of poisoning the well myself, let me say that this rather repetitious work repeatedly uses Non Sequiturs, False Analogies, False Dichotomies and arguments ad hominem. UOJ is read into biblical and confessional writings where no disinterested reader could see it. The multitude of bible references which do not dovetail with UOT are ignored; the five or six which could be of use - especially if you do not know the original Greek - are emphasized. (This is the first time I have seen, in a scholarly work, the recommendation [p 8] to disregard the context of a bible verse - Romans 4:25 - possibly because the preceding verse states that Rom 4:25 pertains to the justification of believers and not universally. Read the whole passage, Rom 4: 16-25). The writer acknowledges that UOJ is not a topic in the Book of Concord, but believes that this is either because 1) it was so basic that everyone just knew it (Luther's Small Catechism is in the Book of Concord and deals with just those basics - no UOJ) or 2). the confessional writings DID deal with it, but you have to be able to read the subtleties here and there. Overall the methodology here is similar to the way Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Eisenhower era, decided cases: he made up his mind according to Masonic principles beforehand and then sent out his law clerics in search of precedent.
So read both sides and make up your own mind. This is within the grasp of the laity - if you can tolerate "tangled mess[es]" (phrase in the book). Be aware the author is no doubt correct in his claim (p 44) that "those who are unscriptural on justification have lost any right to bear the name 'Lutheran'." However, this description may actually best fit the by my estimate 5% of Lutherans in the world who are UOJ'ers.
