The Waltherians Are Clueless, Which Is Why They Love ELCA
“DEFINITION OF JUSTIFICATION.
“As soon as a contrite sinner believes the divine promises of grace which for Christ's sake is offered to him in the Gospel, or as soon as he puts his trust in the vicarious satisfaction which Christ has made for the sins of the world by His perfect obedience, he is justified, or declared righteous before God, Rom. 3: 23-24. This is the so-called subjective justification, Rom. 4: 6, or the personal application, through faith, of the merits which Christ has secured for the whole world by His substitutionary atonement (objective justification), 2 Cor. 5: 19 ff…
“Subjective justification may therefore be defined as the act of God by which He removes from the believer the sentence of condemnation to which he is subject because of his sin, releases him from his guilt, and ascribes to him the merit of Christ.
“When defining justification by faith, we must bear in mind that justification by faith without works is based upon the justification of the whole world, secured by Christ's vicarious satisfaction and offered to all men in the Gospel, Acts 10: 43. Because of the objective justification (reconciliation) subjective justification takes place “freely," Rom. 3: 24, no work on the sinner's part being necessary to complete the justification of Christ. If the vicarious satisfaction of Christ is denied, no room is left for justification by faith. On the other hand, the perfect redemption effected by Christ leaves no room for the papistic justification by works. The Gospel contains full pardon for every sinner, and as soon as he accepts the pardon by faith, he is justified subjectively.”
(Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 367-8)
One of the challenges of Lutheran theology is to be able to explain clearly, biblically, and without resorting to unfamiliar categorizations the doctrine of Justification. It seems as though oftentimes even Lutherans have trouble distinguishing between what is called objective and subjective justification. Indeed, most Lutherans outside the old Synodical Conference do not have a tradition of using these terms, and even LCMS Lutherans may wonder what exactly they mean, or if they are simply an archaic legacy of Walther and Pieper. Some may even go so far as to say that the terms are helpful, but not absolutely necessary when explaining the doctrine of Justification.
Part of the issue is that Melanchthon’s magisterial Apology IV is not a thetic, systemic presentation of Justification. Gerhard attempted to fill the gap with his Justification through Faith, but his also admirable work is hampered by relying upon scholastic categories to define the doctrine via causes. Neither Melanchthon, Gerhard, nor the later orthodox dogmaticians use the terms objective or subjective justification.
The reason that these terms came to exist in the Missouri Synod was due to a close understanding of the Book of Concord, particularly Luther’s Smalcald Articles. Here, Luther defines the chief article in as succinct, biblical, thetic fashion as he ever would. Romans 4:25 is significantly the first point, followed by John 1:29, Isaiah 53:6, Romans 3:23-4, and finally Romans 3:28 and 26. The first four passages define what the LCMS would term objective justification, while the last two verses define what is called subjective justification. Luther himself does not use these terms.
