Articles on Objective Justification
I. On the Meaning of Justification in General
Justification, in the proper sense, means to declare a man righteous by virtue of Christ and His merits. The merits of Christ are both His active obedience in keeping and fulfilling the Law and his passive obedience in atoning for sin through His suffering and death.
Justification by its very nature is forensic, for it is a divine act and judgment of God concerning man. It is not an action done in man, but declared by God concerning man.
This forensic act takes place when a man believes that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. God counts this faith as righteousness, for such faith apprehends the merits of Christ. Thus when we say that a man is justified by faith alone, we necessarily mean that a man is justified by the merits of Christ alone.
Justification is not limited in scope to this forensic declaration, 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 or contribution of man in justification.
II. On the Meaning of Objective Justification
Objective Justification is the doctrine that the perfect obedience of Christ, His suffering, the shedding of His blood, and His death was accepted by the Father as the full and complete atonement for the sins of all men. In view of this the Father raised Christ from the dead and declares that 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.
The proof of this doctrine may be found in all Scriptures which speak of the work of Christ on behalf of the world. John the Baptist declares at the beginning of the beginning of the ministry of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Paul speaks of our forgiveness as God’s “cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross.” In 2 Cor. 5:19: “In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” Christ “was put to death for our offenses, and raised again for our justification” (Rom 4:25). “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him (Rom. 5:8–9). Likewise all passages which speak of God’s universal mercy in Christ such as John 3:16, Rom. 11:32, and Rom. 5:8 are statements of objective justification.
III. On the use of the term “Objective Justification”
The term “justification” is used in various senses in Scripture, not all of which are in the locus of soteriology. However, when Scriptures uses this term concerning the justification of sinners, it is almost always in reference to those who believe. Thus the term “objective justification” itself is not found in Scripture or in the Confessions. However, the doctrine itself is directly taught in both.
The term “justification” with the modifier “objective” was chosen because justification means to declare righteous, because it is a forensic term which speaks of the judgement of God concerning men, and because it is directly and intrinsically connected to justification by faith. This if we are to speak of the promise that God has forgiven the sins of the world by virtue of Christ’s suffering and death, “objective justification” is the most natural term one might employ. Thus “Objective Justification” is a theological term used to describe a specific and essential aspect of justification which was not in controversy prior to the 19th century.
When controversies arise in the Church it is necessary to choose terms to describe and categorize what Scripture teaches. Such is the case with nearly all of systematic and confessional theology. The term “atonement” was modified with the qualifier “universal” to respond to confess against Calivinism that Christ paid for the sins of all men, and not only for the elect. Likewise the term “objective” (allgemeine) was used to modify “justification” to respond to certain factions in American Lutheranism who denied the validity of the general absolution pronounced by the pastor in the Divine Service, and to confess that the sins of the world are forgiven in Christ, as the Gospel itself declares. In this and countless other cases, these new terms do not create new theology but put a systematic name to specific aspects of the doctrine of Scripture.
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 in the means of grace, that God has forgiven this sins of the world through the vicarious satisfaction of Christ; or rather whether faith apprehends a 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, counts their faith as righteousness, regenerates them, and receives them into grace. Faith must grasp both of these things, the objective reality that the sins of the world were imputed to Christ, that Christ has taken away the sins of the world, that God, in Christ has redeemed all mankind, canceled the bond that was against them, having nailed it to His cross, and reconciled the world to Himself; and also believe that God has counted this faith as righteousness according to His promise.
When the Confessions state “a man is justified by faith when he believes that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake,” (Ap. XX, par. 9, among many others) they are not referring only to a future or consequent forgiveness that takes place only after it is believed, but a forgiveness which has already taken place for Christ’s sake, and is declared as such in the Gospel. The grammar itself makes this plain, for if the Confessions intended to speak only of a forgiveness consequent to faith, they would have to describe this forgiveness in the future tense, not as a present reality. They would have to state that “a man is justified by faith when he believes that his sins will be forgiven for Christ sake after he believes.”
Further, if one denies that the sins of the world are forgiven, and it is this forgiveness which faith believes, it twists the grammar of clear statements in the confessions into knots, and violates their plain meaning. For example: “Therefore, when a man believes that his sins are forgiven because of Christ and that God is reconciled and favorably disposed to him because of Christ, this personal faith obtains the forgiveness of sins and justifies us.” (Ap. IV, par. 45.) Here the statement “his sins are forgiven because of Christ” and “God is reconciled and favorably disposed to him because of Christ” clearly and unambiguously precede faith as that which faith grasps, which then results in the justification of the individual.
That the Apology, which contains may statements similar to the formulation above, does not speak of a forgiveness that is only consequent to faith, but that is already true prior to faith, we can further demonstrate from the Apology’s citation of St. 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.)
Here the confessors clearly equate the statements: “Christ has taken away the sin of the world” and “The Lord Jesus forgave the sins of all men.”
The statement of St. Ambrose references Colossians 2. Consider in this context verses 13-15: “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” The work of Christ here described is one complete work. The “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” is not here described as cancelled when a man believes, but at the Cross itself: “nailing it to the cross.” This singular work of Christ simultaneously disarmed the rulers and authorities, triumphing over the. Now is it is clear that Christ is not crucified afresh every time a sinner is converted, nor is sin freshly imputed to Christ at every conversion, nor is the record of debt newly nailed to the Cross. Rather Christ was crucified once, for all. This is the sense in which Ambrose understands the passage, and the sense in which the Apology uses it.
Thus the many places where the Confessions speak of faith apprehending the forgiveness of sins, or believing the forgiveness of sins, or trusting in the merits of Christ, 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.)
Without question, Luther considered John the Baptists’ declaration “behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” to be equivalent to the statement: the sins of the world are forgiven. This is the promise that faith must grasp and believe. This is precisely the doctrine of Objective Justification.
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 but Essential to It.
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 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.
Indeed if one were to eliminate the objective promise that the sins of the world are forgiven by virtue of the merits and atonement of Christ, then the promise which faith grasps is not longer the finished work of Christ itself, but the promise of what God will do if one believes. In this way faith becomes self-reflexive. For if faith does not grasp the promise of what God has already done in Christ, but only of what God will do for the individual if the individual believes, faith is turned back upon itself. Nowhere does the Gospel declare: “Believe that God will forgive your sins by virtue of Christ, and God will forgive your sins by virtue of Christ.” Rather the Gospel is: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”
Further, this argument which insists that objective justification contradicts justification by faith alone 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.
And yet the nature of justification demands that sin is imputed to Christ and not to the world (2 Cor. 5:18), and without this imputation, the righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to man.
The wrath of the state against one man cannot justly be borne by another.
Just as there is no imputed sin from one man to another in the civil estate, so also there is no transfer of punishment from one man to another. Indeed, in human justice, if one man is punished for a crime he did not commit, and this is proven, the crime is yet unpunished, and when the real perpetrator is discovered, he must still bear the punishment of his crime, even though another man has already been punished. Yet in God’s justice, Christ bears the punishment for the sins of the world, and in doing so, satisfies divine justice.
Once the penalty for a crime has been paid by one man, it can not later be demanded of another man.
It is clear that Christ has atoned for the sins of the world by enduring the wrath of God against the sins of all men. Likewise, it is clear that the Father has accepted this sacrifice by raising Christ from the dead. And yet, all who do not believe this remain not only under the curse of sin, but subject to the wrath of God. If we were to judge by human jurisprudence, this would be a doubling of the penalty, for the penalty has already been paid by Christ, and yet is still demanded of others.
Judicial pardons require no faith.
A judicial pardon, or forgiveness, does not need to be believed for the pardoned man to benefit from it. He is released from prison, has his fines cancelled, or no longer faces corporal punishment, whether he has faith in the judge’s decree or not. Yet God declares in the Gospel that the sins of the world are forgiven in Christ, and this forgiveness is received by faith alone.
There is no double jeopardy.
Once a man is pardoned, he cannot later become guilty if he ceases to believe in the pardon, or becomes impenitent for his crime. Yet as Jesus teaches in the parable of the unmerciful servant, we have this exact case. First the servant is forgiven a great debt. The debt is cancelled. A pardon has been declared. Yet, when he later refuses to forgive his fellow servant, the debt returns in full force, as if the pardon never happened. Such a treatment of the unmerciful servant is contrary to human justice, but not the justice of God. (Matt. 18:32–34).
Therefore if one would attempt to object to objective justification by appealing to standards of human jurisprudence, he errs in that he is attempting to conform God’s justice with man’s justice. The scriptures alone reveal the justice and righteousness of God. Indeed if God would have to conform himself to human standards of justice, the Gospel itself would be overturned.
VII. The World is Not Elected to Eternal Life
Objective Justification is not a form of contingent universalism. Therefore just as this doctrine does not contradict the wrath of God against the sins of unbelievers, so also it does not teach a universal election of all men.
God did not foreknow the world, nor did He predestine the world unto eternal life. Therefore the elect are they alone who are justified by faith and persevere in this faith until their deaths.
VIII. The Judgment of Unbelievers
The forgiveness of sins 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. Because they do not believe and take comfort in the forgiveness of sins in and through Christ, the guilt of their sins remains, and they will be judged for those sins and suffer in hell eternally.
Sometimes the statement is made: “Because Christ has taken away the sin of the world, the only sin that remains is unbelief.” Indeed, Luther Himself sometimes speaks in this way. Such statements can be understood rightly in a causal sense, namely that were it not for that sin of unbelief, no sin could damn and all the sins of the sinner would be forgiven.
Nevertheless, one cannot make this statement in the formal sense, and deny that the guilt of all actual sin remains on unbelievers. As the Gospel does not contradict or nullify the validity, effect, and power of the Law, neither does the forgiveness of sins which are declared to the world abrogate the judgment of the Law against sin.
Indeed, if one were to insist upon this formulation in the formal sense, that the only the sin of unbelief remains, this would deny that Christ died for all sins. It would be to claim that Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, and therefore there would be no hope of forgiveness for any who does not already believe.
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. Scripture remains clear: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. 1:18). And again, “But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things” (Rom. 2:2).
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 works repentance prior to faith. The mirror of the Law then becomes a false mirror, the curb a false curb. All repentance is then in vain, for by the Law is the knowledge of sin.
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 without the Holy Spirit, and are suffering the punishment not only for the sin of unbelief, but for their every transgression of the Law.
IX. Objective Justification and the Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel
The apparent contradiction between God’s wrath against the children of disobedience on the one hand, and His forgiving the sins of the world by virtue of Christ on the other, is the same apparent contradiction that exists between the Law and the Gospel.
If one were to deny Objective Justification in an attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction, the attempt fails before it begins, 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. For if the mercy of God in Christ extends to the entire world such that God has sent His Son to atone for all sin, expiate all guilt, and redeem the world from sin and death, why then does the Law still condemn men? If one were to contend that this universal mercy is some general mercy of God apart from Christ and His merits, then the announcement of the this mercy is neither the Law nor the Gospel, but some other “good news” that is apart from Christ. Further we would have the arbitrary mercy of the Jews which entirely apart from Christ and forgives sins without any real atonement for sin.
Thus if one would object to Objective Justification on the grounds that it contradicts God’s wrath against the reprobate, one must likewise call His universal mercy in Christ the same contradiction. But if God’s universal mercy is not a contradiction to His divine wrath, then neither is Objective Justification.
As the source of this apparent contradiction is the same, it’s resolution is also the same, namely, that by faith alone a man is justified, regenerated, received into grace, and granted eternal life.
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. (2 Cor. 5:19). 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 of sin to Christ 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.
It is simply not possible to separate the imputation of the world’s sin to Christ and the atonement of the world’s sin by Christ from the forgiveness of the world’s sin in and through Christ. This forgiveness is itself Objective Justification.
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 on the children of disobedience? 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 Justification 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 the problem of sin remains unresolved.
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. Unbelief is indeed a sin, a sin which does not abrogate all other sins, but increases the guilt of all sin.
XI. Subjective Justification and the Means of Grace
When we confess that a man is justified by faith, we are confessing that God has declared a man righteous by virtue of this faith. This declaration is a forensic declaration, as we have aforesaid.
However, this declaration of righteousness is not hidden in the mind of God, or made only at the throne of God in heaven where a man cannot hear it. Nor is the Gospel merely a promise that this declaration will be made from God’s throne where likewise a man cannot hear it. Rather this declaration of righteousness is made in the Gospel itself. The Gospel is, in its very essence, God’s declaration of righteousness to the sinner.
Thus a man is justified by faith in and through the Means of Grace.
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 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.
While one can certainly speak of “initial justification” in which a man who previously did not belief is converted and by faith apprehends the merit of Christ, it does not follow that justification only occurs at a single point in time.
God is always justifying a man by faith in and through the means of grace. Justification is by no means progressive, but is always both continual and complete. The Gospel is always justification, and is always justifying, for whenever a man hears and believes this, whether at the beginning, middle, or end of his life in Christ, God is counting that man’s faith as righteousness, that is, justifying him. Thus a man does not look to that moment when he first believes as the proof that he is justified, but at God’s promise in the Gospel which continually justifies 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)
This necessarily means 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 declaration of God, for it is made in the same Gospel, and declared by the same Lord, whether to the world in general, or to the individual.
The Christian should never treat the Gospel as mere information of what God has done in the past, nor should he imagine that because the Gospel announces a universal pardon, that the Gospel is not God speaking directly to him. 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.