Articles on Objective Justification
I. On the Meaning of Justification in General
Justification means to declare one righteous by virtue of Christ and His merits, in particular His atonement for sin. Justification by its very nature is forensic, in that it is divine act and judgment of God concerning man, and therefore it is not an action done in man, but declared by God concerning man. A man is justified by faith when he believes that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. By this faith, he is counted as righteous. Thus it is by faith alone that a man is justified.
Justification is not limited to a forensic declaration of righteousness, but includes the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins, the taking away of sin, reconciliation with God, the expiation of the guilt of sin, redemption, and the satisfaction of the wrath of God, and all this in and through Christ.
When we say that justification is “purely forensic,” we do not mean that justification is only forensic. Rather this is said to deny that justification is an infusion of essential righteousness into man, and to exclude any work of man in justification.
II. On the Meaning of Objective Justification
Objective Justification is the doctrine that the suffering, the shedding of His blood, the death, and the resurrection of Christ was accepted by the Father as the full and complete atonement for the sins of all men. By virtue of this the Father declares that in Christ He is reconciled to the world and has forgiven the sins of the world. He makes this declaration in the Gospel, and wants it to be preached to all men. Objective justification is thus also forensic.
III. On the use of the term “Objective Justification”
The use of the term “Justification” in this objective sense is not found in Scripture, nor in the Confessions or in the Lutheran Fathers. “Objective Justification” is thus a theological term used to describe a specific aspect in the locus of the doctrine of Justification, and essential to it, but which was not specifically in controversy in generations prior to the 19th century. Some object to the use of this term and would prefer that “Justification” only be used to refer to the justification of the individual by faith. We do not object to this opinion, provided that the doctrine itself is still confessed.
IV. Objective Justification in the Confessions
The chief point of controversy regarding Objective Justification is whether faith apprehends the promise declared to all men that God has forgiven this sins of the world through the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, or rather whether it apprehends the promise to forgive the sins of the individual who believes, consequent to such faith. We confess that faith apprehends both the promise of the forgiveness of sins which are already declared by virtue of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ, and also the promise that God personally forgives the sins of those who believe in Christ the Mediator, regenerates them, and receives them into grace.
When the Confessions state “A man is justified by faith when he believes that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake,” they are not referring to a future or consequent forgiveness, but one which has already taken place for Christ’s sake, and is declared as such in the Gospel.
This we can demonstrate from the Apology’s citation of Ambrose:
“When the Lord Jesus came he forgave all men the sin that none could escape and by shedding his blood canceled the bond that stood against us.
…
“For after the whole world was subjected, he took away the sin of the whole world.”
(AP, IV, par. 103.)
Thus the many places where the Confessions speak of faith apprehending the forgiveness of sins are also statements of Objective Justification, for they refer to a forgiveness that was already accomplished through the suffering and death of the Lamb of God.
Nor is this some novel interpretation first invented in the 19th century by C. F. W. Walther. As the Formula of Concord calls Luther the “chief intepreter of the Augsburg Confession,” we can further demonstrate this understanding in Luther’s commentary on Galatians 3:15:
“And this is our highest comfort, to clothe and wrap Christ this way in my sins, your sins, and the sins of the entire world, and in this way to behold Him bearing our sins.
…
“This is the most joyous of all doctrines and the one that contains the most comfort. It teaches that we have the undescribable and inestimable mercy and love of God. When the merciful Father saw that we were being oppressed through the Law, that we were being held under a curse, and that we could not be liberated from it by anything, He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men on Him, and said … ‘Be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that you pay and make satisfaction for them.’
…
“By this deed the whole world is purged and expiated from all sins, and thus it is set free from death and from every evil. But when sin and death have been abolished by this one man, God does not want to see anything else in the whole world, especially if it were to believe, except sheer cleansing and righteousness. And if any remnants of sin were to remain, still for the sake of Christ, the shining Sun, God would not notice them.
…
“Therefore the argument Paul presents here is the most powerful and the highest of all against the righteousness of the flesh; for it contains this invicible and irrefutable antithesis: If the sins of the entire world are on that one man, Jesus Christ, then they are not on the world. But if they are not on Him, then they are still on the world. Again, if Christ Himself is made guilty of all the sins that we have committed, then we are absolved form all sins, not through ourselves or through our own works or merits but through Him. But if He is innocent and does not carry our sins, then, we carry them and shall die and be damned in them. ‘But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!’”
(Luther, Commentary on Galatians, 2:15, LW vol. 26, pp. 279–280.)
Therefore he who denies that the sins of the world are already forgiven in Christ disagrees with both the Confessions’ own intepretation of themselves, and also Luther’s understanding of the same.
V. Objective Justification is Not Contrary to Justification by Faith
The claim is made that Objective Justification eliminates faith, on the grounds that if the world is already justified in Christ, then every individual is already saved without faith.
We answer: This assumes first that these two uses of the word “justify” are equivalent. They are not. That is why the qualifier “objective” is added, lest anyone think that we are denying that justification which takes place by faith alone in which a man is received into grace, regenerated, and granted eternal life.
Further, this argument assumes that Divine jurisprudence is univocally equivalent to human justice. Indeed, it is not and cannot be, for no words used to describe God and His works may be taken in the same sense as when they are used to describe man.
VI. Divine Forensic Justice is Not Equivalent to Human Justice
The justice of God as it relates to the salvation of men differs from human justice in numerous ways. Among them that in human justice:
Sin and righteousness cannot be imputed to another.
The wrath of the state against one man cannot justly be borne by another.
Once the penalty for a crime has been paid by one man, it can not later be demanded of another man.
A judicial pardon, or forgiveness, does not need to be believed for the man to benefit from it. He is released from prison, has fines cancelled, or no longer faces corporal punishment, whether he has faith in the judge’s decree or not.
Once a man is pardoned, he cannot later become guilty if he ceases to believe in the pardon, or becomes impenitent for his crime. Thus what Jesus describes in the parable of the unmerciful servant is contrary to human justice, but not the justice of God.
VII. The World is Not Elected to Eternal Life
The elect are they alone who are justified by faith and persevere in this faith until their deaths.
God did not foreknow the world, nor did He predestine the world unto eternal life.
VIII. The Judgment of Unbelievers
The forgiveness of the world’s sin cannot be apprehended except by faith.
Therefore all those who do not believe in Christ remain under the wrath of God and in the guilt of their sins, both original and actual, and because they did not believe and take comfort in the forgiveness of sins in and through Christ, will be judged for those sins and suffer in hell eternally.
While in a causal sense one can make the statement, “The only sin is unbelief,” in a formal sense one cannot. For as the Gospel does not contradict or nullify the validity, effect, and power of the Law, neither can the forgiveness of sins which are declared to the world abrogate the judgment of the Law against sin.
Therefore, though it is indeed unbelief that stands between salvation and the wrath of God, it is not true that because of the forgiveness of the world in Christ, the only sin for which God holds man guilty and sentences him to eternal death is the sin of unbelief.
This understanding of the validity of the Law must be maintained, for if one adopts the view that the Law has been eliminated by the Atonement of Christ, then all preaching of the Law is in vain and a lie. Furthermore, Christ is made a liar when He reaffirms the Law, and explains it more fully. If the Law no longer condemns men for their sins, then it ceases to be a mirror which reveals our sins and work repentance prior to faith.
Thus in no way can we admit to statements such as “all men in hell are saints,” for the saints are they alone who are justified by faith in Christ the mediator, regenerated, received into grace, and granted eternal life. Further the damned in hell are suffering the punishment not only for the sin of unbelief, but for every transgression of the Law.
IX. Objective Justification and the Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel
The apparent contradiction between, on the one hand God’s wrath against the children of disobedience, and on the other His forgiving the sins of the world by virtue of Christ, is itself the same apparent contradiction between the Law and the Gospel.
Denying Objective Justification does not resolve this apparent contradiction, for even if one denies a universal declaration of pardon or a reconciliation of the world by virtue of Christ, one must still contend with the universal mercy and love which God has toward the world, which is also by virtue of Christ. If one were to contend that this universal mercy is apart from Christ and His merits, then the announcement of the same is neither the Law nor the Gospel, but some other “good news” that is apart from Christ.
Thus if one would call Objective Justification a contradiction to God’s wrath against the reprobate, one must likewise call His universal mercy a contradiction. But if God’s universal mercy is not a contradiction to His divine wrath, then neither is Objective Justification.
X. The Implications of the Universal Atonement in Justification
It is important to note that in Objective Justification the terms justification, reconciliation, absolution, pardon, the forgiveness of sins, and a non-imputation of sin are all essentially equivalent. Though each term has a nuance of meaning, each also implies the others.
Thus we can reduce the controverted issue to the question: Does the Universal Atonement which is accepted by the Father and declared by the Spirit in the Gospel necessarily imply a universal forgiveness of the sins of the world? Put another way: What is the effect of the Universal Atonement as to the world?
When we speak of the atonement we also must speak of the great exchange. The sins of the world are imputed to Christ, along with the guilt of sin. Of necessity when sin is imputed to Christ, it is no longer imputed to the world. The imputation of sin to the Son of God does not take place individually by faith when a person believes that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. The imputation takes place prior to the Atonement, and is a necessary part of the Atonement itself. Christ, the Lamb of God, bears and takes away the sin of the world. All the guilt of sin is expiated at the Cross where all of God’s wrath against sin is poured out upon Christ.
If one objects to the forgiveness of the world’s sins on the grounds that an unbeliever is being punished for sins that have already been forgiven, this has solved nothing, for the same problem remains for those who deny Objective Justification. Namely: If all the sins of the world were atoned for by the vicarious suffering and death of Christ, why then is the wrath of God still poured out upon the damned in hell? Why does God still find fault in man for his wickedness? If the punishment for their sins was already poured out on Christ, why does God’s wrath remain to be poured out upon them for all eternity? Thus even if one eliminates Objective Justification, the same conflict remains, which conflict can only be resolved by the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Therefore, if indeed Christ has, at the Cross, fully paid for the sins of the world, fully reconciled and redeemed all mankind, fully canceled the bond that was against us, nailing it to the Cross, and all this prior to faith, what possible conclusion can one make but that the sins of the world are forgiven? For when Christ declares from the Cross, “It is finished,” and when the Father raises Christ up from the dead, free of the world’s sin, free of its guilt, He likewise declares that the curse is ended, all debts are paid, all wrath against sin finished, and that nothing now stands between God and Man. In Christ the world is reconciled. In Christ the world is absolved. In Christ the world is forgiven.
Thus to deny Objective Justication is to deny the effect of the Atonement. For if the sins of the world are imputed to Christ, atoned for by Christ, and taken away by Christ, and yet those same sins are not forgiven in Christ, then the Atonement failed to have any real effect, and sin remains.
That all this can be received by faith alone does not make this prevenient forgiveness of sins any less valid, but on the contrary, increases the guilt of all who will not believe it.
XI. Subjective Justification and the Means of Grace
When we confess that a man is justified by faith, this justification is not hidden from that man at the throne of God in heaven where he cannot hear it, but is declared to that man in the Gospel. That declaration in the Gospel is itself God’s declaration of righteousness. Thus, when in the means of grace the forgiveness of sins is declared to a person, whether in preaching, absolution, baptism, or the Lord’s Supper, this is God forensically declaring that man righteous, that is, justifying him. This declaration is not made only in heaven such that a man can only hear of it and must simply believe that it has happened, but this declaration is made in his presence, right here on earth, in the Gospel, where he personally receives, from the mouth of God, the glorious promise that His sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake.
Far from justification being a singular point-in-time event, God is always justifying a man by faith in and through the means of grace. Such a justification is by no means progressive, but is always both continual and complete. The Gospel is justification, and whenever a man hears and believes this, whether at the beginning, middle, or end of his life, God is counting that man’s faith as righteousness, that is, justifying him.
That justification is a continual action of God operating in the means of grace, even for the individual, is not some novel concept. Chemnitz writes:
“The manner of justification is one and the same in the beginning, middle, and end, namely that we are justified by faith alone, by the pure grace of God, solely for the sake of Christ. For Paul, Rom. 4, citing a universal example of justification, does not cite Abraham when he was first converted, Gen. 12, but Gen. 15, when he had already rendered to God obedience in faith in various exercises for a number of years after his first call, Heb. 11:8 ff.”
(Chemnitz, Enchiridion, No. 168)
One should note well that the Gospel which declares the forgiveness of sins in Christ to the world, is at the same time God’s declaration of righteousness to the individual, who receives it by faith and is thus justified, reconciled, and regenerated. Thus justification, whether objective or subjective, is the same declaration, for it is made in the same Gospel, and declared by the same Lord, whether to the world in general, or to the individual.
Nor should a man imagine that because the Gospel announces a universal pardon, that the Gospel is not God speaking directly to him, but on the contrary, whenever God operates in the means of grace, He is acting, so to speak, man-to-man, communicating an actual absolution to that individual, at that place and time. Thus the individual should take comfort in this, that what the Gospel declares in the means of grace is nothing less than God’s personal pardon, given to him as a gift, asking nothing but that it be believed.