 |
| Andreae is the man who initiated the Book of Concord, so his statement might be worth considering over that of Richard Jungkuntz, the WELS founder of the first Lutheran seminary for homosexual clergy - Seminex. |
Thesis 9
It must always be remembered that something may be acceptable as a homiletical/rhetorical device that
is inappropriate if passed off as exegesis—and completely improper if asserted as doctrine. As we are
warned not to push a parable beyond its point/ground of comparison, even more we must remember that
every illustration or analogy developed by Man will fall short and, while it may be helpful pedagogically,
such language must not be made into a necessary part of our confession.
Thesis 10
In a similar fashion, we must make a distinction between an exegetical conclusion (no matter how
sound) and a direct statement by the Lord in His Word. This need for a distinction is not to lessen the
authority of an article that is arrived at by reasoning from the Scriptures (e.g., the article of the Holy and
Blessed God as Triune), but to keep from misstating how the article is taught in God’s Word and, possibly,
becoming guilty of putting words into the Lord’s mouth that He has not Himself given us and coming
under His proper condemnation for so doing (“I am against the prophets,” says the Lord, “who use
their own tongues but say, ‘He says,’” Jeremiah 23:31).15
15 “Scripture teaches” has a different impact, breeds a different expectation, and requires a different method of establishment from “God says.” Scripture teaches that God is Triune, but it never says that He is.
***
GJ - These two statements parallel what I have written about pixelation - when someone takes part of a verse and expands a few words to make them the filter by which all Scripture is interpreted. Good examples are the Synodical Conference shibboleths -
- "Romans 4:25!" and "Raised for our justification!" and "John 1:29!" and
- "Who takes away the sins of the world,"
which are seldom heard lately.
Romans 4:25 utterly fails to support UOJ because Romans 4:24 is so clearly a justification by faith verse.
KJV Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus
our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Moreover, the context of Romans 4 alone (not to mention Romans 3 and 5) shows that Abraham is the primary example of justification by faith apart from the works of the Law - or any works. That was central to Paul's argument that Gospel preaching does not require the prerequisite of kosher traditions. That point was earlier made in Galatians.
The John 1:29 citation is ridiculous to use for Unversalism, because the verse is another teaching of the atonement, Christ dying for the sins of the whole world. The UOJ philosophers want to make this rationalistic excursion: "If Christ died for the sins of the world, then the entire world has been pronounced righteous, free of sin, and saved." The same style of rationalism has solemnly declared, abusing the Word, "If Christ has two natures, He must be two people. Therefore, He must either be fully human or fully divine."
 |
| And what is the name of this article - The Righteousness of Unfaith? The Righteousness of Subjective Justification? No - the title is too plain, too simple to repeat such UOJ absurdities, so the UOJ Hive ignores it entirely. |
A correction to the John 1:29 aberration has been available since the Reformation, since Luther's Galatians Commentary deals with this verses in one of the Reformer's most eloquent essays. Nota bene, readers - the Book of Concord commends that commentary for additional study of justification by faith.
To say a church body is "confessional Lutheran" and "orthodox Lutheran" while abusing John 1:29 is the nadir of false doctrine, a sniveling crawling away from the Gospel in the name of the Gospel.
Those who want to discuss justification without reading the Galatians Commentary, underlining and studying those clear expositions of the Gospel, should be baited with dogs, driven out of town, and pelted with manure, as we confess in the Book of Concord. But no - they are the SynCon seminary professors, the DPs and SPs, the synod minders in each parish, hyper-aware of anyone departing from the settled doctrine of Enthusiasm. "I am surprised that you have departed from the clear teaching of our Holy Mother Synod." That alone should send someone into exile - because anything said after that warning is clearly an appeal to the infallibility of a man-made organization.
The Synodical Conference is not crumbling. It has already crumbled. The foundation was undermined by the triumph of the Brief Statement of 1932, constantly elevated by the apostates since that time. No one dares question a syllable of that political document.
 |
| "Every sinner righteous" is UOJ code for justification without faith, absolution of the world, but Jungkuntz, a Seminex leader, was careful to make this clear to to everyone. |
Remedy 1 - Luther's Sermons and Books
The greatest Biblical expositor is Martin Luther. By studying Luther's sermons and books, we learn to see the entire Bible as one, united truth, the Book of the Holy Spirit.
Remedy 2 - The Augsburg Confession and Apology
So you guys want to cited "forensic justification" and Robert Preus. I heard Preus say, answering my question, that Melanchthon was indeed the pioneer of forensic justification. Moreover, Luther considered himself a "theologian of the Augsburg Confession," and the Concord editors joined him in that self-identification.
If you guys insist must call upon forensic justification (to hide your actual dogma) and use the Confessions to dazzle the illiterate, then start with Articles IV and V of the Augsburg Confession and a careful study of Melanchthon's elegant essay on justification by faith in the Apology.
The audience - or rather, victims - of these jackasses will have to hold up their insights from Luther and the Book of Concord as a way to discern any truth in the braying of these beasts.
As Luther said - no one's faith will save you - not even the faith of Jesus. Holy Mother Synod has no faith - it has buildings, rubles, and dark secrets, but no faith. This faith in the Gospel of Christ must be our own, and it can only be sustained and strengthened by the Means of Grace and the cross.
Forensic Justification
This term is properly used for the language of the courtroom, that man is a sinner but because of faith in Christ, God declares him righteous.
The UOJ buffoons turn this around and claim that God has declared the entire world forgiven, righteous, and saved - without faith. Their language comes from Samuel Huber, who was driven from the Wittenberg faculty, post-Concord, for his false doctrine. As I recall, he accused his justification-by-faith opponents of being Calvinists. Sound like the Wilken-McCain faction?
Links to the individual ELDONA Justification by Faith Posts.
