 |
| The UOJ sophists do the same thing, arguing, "If Jesus died for the sins of the world, then the entire world is righteous." One could just as easily argue, against Scripture, "If God is merciful and loving, then the entire world is forgiven and saved." "My thoughts are not your thoughts..." |
Thesis 5
At the same time, our avoidance of such anachronism (sic) must not render what has been said in previous
controversies inapplicable: that which has been resoundingly condemned or refuted in one controversy
is no less condemned and refuted when a new controversy comes upon us. While new controversies continue to arise (i.e., Satan continues to refine his troubling of the Church), we must refine and extend
what has been confirmed in the past, not contradict and destroy it.
As we read in the first Article of the Formula of Concord, “As regards terms and expressions, it is best
and safest to use and retain the form of sound words employed concerning this [or any] article in the
Holy Scriptures and the above-mentioned books,” (i.e., the other accepted confessional documents;
Thorough Declaration I:50) we must not ‘refine’ any article of doctrine in any way that contradicts that
“form of sound words.” One cannot correct a supposed insufficiency by contradiction; to do so, it must
be admitted, is to set aside and reject the previous teaching.
Thesis 6
It is to be remembered, too, that the private writings of the fathers do not establish an article of doctrine
or have the authority to define things contrary to Scripture and the Confessions. Citing a father—or the
greatest number of fathers—does not automatically win the argument on that basis. Nonetheless, when
we hear the testimony of those of the era immediately following the Reformation, we rightly assume that
they are more certain of what those writing, compiling, and teaching the Lutheran Symbols were asserting
than those of later ages would be; that is, the presumption of accuracy is with those closest to the era
or controversy unless and until proven otherwise.
To the possible contention that those who come later may see things in a clearer light by means of those
who came before, we respond that we are not discussing whether we might find a better way to present
an article of doctrine than our fathers did, but simply ascertaining what they actually taught. We may
certainly find things to say, e.g., about the Baptism of infants that are not said in the Large Catechism,
but the Catechism tells us what Luther did say. So, also, the writings of the fathers of the Golden Age of
Lutheran Orthodoxy show us what was actually passed down to the generations immediately following
the Reformation; if we would correct or elaborate upon them, it must not be by setting aside what they
clearly teach and what was received by those generations as orthodox.
In the matter at hand, there is a substantive—and, indeed, substantial—difference between the understanding
of Justification between the earlier Lutheran theologians and some later theologians of the Synodical
Conference.
***
GJ - These two theses are really footnotes, because they do not confess any truths but remain in the "about mode," as described by Yale theologian Paul L. Holmer. I often see that in graduate schools essays in the introductions - "I am going to write about this, and then about this, and then about this." Thus they write introductions that have no thesis statement at all - tedious.
Why not just say the following? -
"Various authors introduced new terms and concepts to the topic of justification. An Easter absolution is not found in the Scriptures, Book of Concord, or the immediate post-Concord era. Nor can we find a two justification scheme (OJ and SJ) until the latter days of Pietism at Halle University. In addition, we cannot determine if these advocates think the unbelieving world was absolved on Good Friday, Easter, or both. Therefore, these new terms do not add clarity to teaching this topic but obscure and undermine it."
"One cannot call justification the Chief Article of the Christian Faith, the master and prince, the article on which the Church stands or falls, and then change the subject to UOJ. Luther and the Concordists always meant justification by faith, following the plain, clear words of the Apostle Paul."
"A vast gulf exists between justification by faith and UOJ. No one can declare UOJ to be the true Gospel, opposing the truth in the clearest possible way, and then lay claim to the topic thoroughly destroyed with rationalism, philosophy, and Enthusiasm."
 |
| Obviously, the chief article is NOT UOJ. |
Links to the individual ELDONA Justification by Faith Posts.
