05-4 Theology of the..

64 LOGIA
states that the right of distributing the word and sacraments is a
community right (AE 40: 34), whose exercise is not given to each
individual but only to the one chosen for that purpose. Walther’s
argument suffers from a definitional ignorance of the term “public,”
illustrated by the absurdity of villagers carving up their public
park into private plots.
Third, Walther argues that a case of necessity proves the
essence of a thing; therefore every layman has the essential right
to distribute the word and sacraments (Walther, 272–273; Ministry,
VII, 2). Luther, on the other hand, states that a case of
necessity does not alter the rule, because “Necessity breaks all
laws and has none” (AE 39: 310). Luther teaches that laymen
must baptize and teach the Word to their families in cases of
necessity, but the Eucharist should not be celebrated in such
cases, because it is not necessary like baptism and the Word
(AE 40: 9). So who has the last word, Walther or Luther As I
said, an unhappy choice.
Martin R. Noland
Oak Park, Illino
OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION—AGAIN
I received an unsolicited newsletter in the mail last week titled
The Lukewarm Lutheran Report. It purports to clarify the doctrine
of “objective justification,” but actually muddies the waters
even more. Apparently officials in both the Wisconsin Synod and
Missouri Synod have dealt with cases in which “objective justification”
was the object of contention. In my opinion, the problem
is not heresy or even minor doctrinal error, but a logical and
semantic whirlpool that sucks into its maw the theologically
unsophisticated. Theology is not a parlor game, but analogous to
rock-climbing—certain cliffs and routes are too difficult for the
inexperienced, whose ill-advised traverse often leads to tragedy.
The logical problem associated with “objective justification” is
easier to resolve than the semantic one. “Objective justification”
refers to those Scripture passages in which God is described as
“acquitting all men” (Rom 5:18) and “reconciling the world”
(2 Cor 5:19); also to the Confessional passages that state that the
“human race is truly redeemed and reconciled” (FC SD, XI,
15–18). The logical problem here comes from confusing the parts
with the whole, that is, in thinking that what applies to the whole
class also applies to each individual. It does not follow that
because the human race is reconciled to God that each and every
individual is reconciled.
The semantic problem requires an extensive study of how
Scripture and Confessions use the terms “justify,” “justification,”
“reckon or account as righteous,” “reconcile,” “forgiveness,”
“acquittal,” “redemption,” and so on. The most competent study
to date remains that of Martin Chemnitz, who demonstrates that
these all express the same fundamental idea of standing before
the judgment throne of God and being declared innocent (Martin
Chemnitz, Loci Theologici [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1989], 2: 475, 483–485; Locus 13, D, 3. Cf. Martin Chem-
nitz, Justification [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985],
61, 72–73). The usage of such terms in the Confessions reflects the
reformers’ lexical flexibility on this point.
There is one other problem that defies resolution, at least under
“realistic” modes of thought. The problem is that God’s justification
of the sinner is a “legal fiction.” It doesn’t “really” happen, at
least not in the sense that the believer “really” becomes a saint on
earth. An analogy can be found in the gardener who believes that
an alignment “really” belongs to him because of where the fence
is located. If he is not convinced by the plat map, then the neighbor
will have to take him to court. There the judge will prove that
the “legal fiction” is more real than the fence, and the gardener
will be forced to concede.
Treating a group of individuals as a class, which is the “objective”
part of justification, is also a “legal fiction.” But if objective
justification is rejected because it is a “legal fiction,” then forensic
justification in general must also be rejected. That is why there
continues to be concern about this issue among orthodox
Lutheran clergy and theologians.
Another analogy summarizes the issue: a surgeon in the emergency
room can boast that he saved the crash victim, even
though many individual parts of the victim’s body were amputated.
Even so, the human race has been saved from condemnation
in God's court, not just certain “elected” individuals; though
many individuals will regrettably be “amputated” on the Day of
Judgment. The “justification of the world” is the language of military
victory, which weighs the attainment of critical objectives
and the adversary’s casualty list against one’s own casualty list.
“Objective justification” proclaims that Christ has redeemed the
essential and most important parts. Denial of the same reflects
the sectarian mindset that the whole world is going to hell in a
handbasket. Faith accepts what God has declared about the
world, not what the eyes see !
Martin R. Noland
Oak Park, Illinois
PRAESIDIUM STATEMENT ON
CLOSED COMMUNION
The Praesidium of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod adopted
this statement on August 21, 1996.
We, the members of the Praesidium of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod, wish to express our joy in the fellowship the
members of the Synod enjoy with one another in the true faith.
We thank God for this blessing. We treasure the wonderful
opportunities God gives our Synod to reach out to the world
with the Gospel, bearing witness to the truths of God’s Word,
in a bold confession of our Lutheran faith. We recognize as part
of this opportunity the responsibility to administer the Sacrament
of the Altar in a faithful manner, being mindful of the
need for careful instruction to those who desire to commune
at the Lord’s table. In accord with the Scriptures’ and the Confessions’
teaching about the Lord’s Supper, and the nature and