UOJ & the Witness?; the Gospel, not universalism; Part 2 of 2

      This concludes from Part 1, a "repristination" of an 1890 Lutheran Witness article defending Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ).  The author "G. A. M.", with his article, played a part in my return to Christianity (#5), to Lutheranism.

CONCLUSION
      With all the attention that this blog has given this doctrine, it is still largely ignored in the LC-MS.  We even see that prominent theologians such as Dr. Robert Kolb, Dr. Detlev Shulz, and Pastor Martin Noland are quite confused on it, even expressly opposed to it.

Samuel Nafzger's textbook Confessing the Gospel, would seem to do a credible job of covering this doctrine in the "Work of Christ" section, p. 475-477, sub-section "Objective Reconciliation". But it also, in the same section, brings up the much misused warning against "universalism" and unfortunately leaves the impression, once again, that faith is a condition for Justification. But one could forgive this.  One might want to grant Nafzger (and Henry A. Hamann) some credit for this, but on page 1165 ("Last Things"), the textbook states:

“Some have proposed that salvation is universally available. [But it is “universally available”!] For example, the Second Vatican Council held… Many who have held this position have argued that non-Christian religious communities are means by which God extends his grace.” 

The author(s) wants to lump "universally available" (cp. John 3:16) with so-called "universalism" ostensibly to protect the doctrine of "faith". This is exactly the charge of Papists against Luther's preaching of the pure Gospel since the beginning of the Reformation – that the pure Gospel is "a license to sin". It was the charge of the Iowa Synod and other opponents against the old Missouri Synod.  If a preacher does not preach the Gospel "as if there were no Law", he does not yet know the pure Gospel, does not yet know "The Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel". —

UNIVERSALISM?… OR THE GOSPEL?
      An antidote to Nafzger's confusing textbook is the exegesis of Prof. George Stoeckhardt (see this blog, emphasis mine):

“The passage treated above, vv. 18-19 [Romans 5:18-19], is the locus classicus for the doctrine of the general or, so-called, objective justification. Here the Apostle teaches and testifies expressis verbis, that the righteousness of life has been made available for all mankind and that the many have been placed before God as righteous, as already stated in v.16: that from the offenses of many there has come "righteousness: δικαιώμα", and that all men have been justified and absolved of all their transgressions. Most modern expositors, and some ancient ones, refer these apostolic words to the believers; that is, to all those who through faith belong to Christ. They make the comment that such a restriction is self-understood. But that is pure arbitrariness. When one permits himself to apply such glosses to the text, all trustworthiness of exegesis disappears. In these three sentences, faith is not mentioned with a single syllable.” — George Stoeckhardt, Romans, p. 239-240.

Compare Stoeckhardt's last sentence above to Nafzger's textbook, p. 476 (emphasis mine):

“According to both Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, objective and subjective justification must always be presented in the same context. One is justified by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith (AC IV). These three phrases properly form one unit. If faith is omitted, there is the danger of universalism.”

Nafzger's seminary textbook is essentially charging Prof. Stoeckhardt (and Walther) with "universalism", just as "enthusiasts" of all stripes charge against true Lutheranism. Nafzger's textbook is pressing the Confessional phrase "through faith" as if it were a condition for Justification because it raises the warning of universalism. AC IV does not warn against "universalism" at this point, it is warning against our "own strength, merits, or works".
      Nafzger's textbook makes no mention of the open and subtle opposition to this doctrine by the opponents of the Missouri Synod. (see here) It makes no mention of the confusion and compromises by the erring LC-MS after Pieper's death, e.g. by Prof. Wm. Arndt. It makes no mention of the warnings by the Synodical Conference brethren against the erring LC-MS on this doctrine (see here). The Brief Statement of 1932 (and Pieper) clearly defended against them.  Some may argue that Nafzger's textbook is not about polemics, but that would not be true because he openly defends against the "fundamentalist-evangelical" understanding of Scripture in his section on "Holy Scripture" (p. 738 f.). The useless opposition, debate, and demotion of Universal, Objective Justification in the LC-MS continues "here and now". —
      This Witness article is quite notable because there was so little pure teaching on this doctrine in the English language, except for Prof. Rudolf Lange, and by Prof. Friedrich Bente.  The American Lutheran Publicity Bureau and the Witness became major instruments for the syncretism and unionist efforts within the changing Missouri Synod and the later LC-MS.  Indeed, in the Lutheran Witness article of Part 1 we have a surprise – a clear presentation of the pure doctrine and a wonderful specific defense against "Ohio's great error" in English.  And the author "G. A. M." names the theologian that Pieper did not, Prof. Matthias Loy, and sarcastically calls him "Prof. Toy".  This isn't just history, it is "here and now".  — Again, the above article required no translation on my part and can be read directly in Google Books.  But I am publishing it "here and now" so that it may be given the prominence it deserves.  While in later years the Witness would not be so clear in its defense against the Ohio and Iowa Synods (today's ELCA), this article is surprising in its forthright warning.  Its beauty is in its presentation of the clear testimony, in the Ohio Synod's own words, in "black and white", that it had changed its position from 1872 to 1890.  And in the process, they had fallen on the foundation of the Christian faith. —  I searched long and hard to find other writings by the dear author "G. A. M." but found none in the Witness, Lehre und Wehre, or Der Lutheraner… too bad.
      This blog post (soon) leads into publishing an English translation of one of Franz Pieper's series of "Luther-Hour Lectures" that clearly taught his seminary students to preach… UOJ.  If your pastor is not preaching UOJ, then he is not preaching the Gospel and is closing the door to The Open Heaven.