Let us go back in English history a bit - quite a few centuries. A law enforcement officer could grab someone, arrest him, judge him guilty, and punish him.
From that tyranny came - in baby steps - a system of justice we enjoy today. One important concept is the warrant. American probably had more to do with the warrant, which is embedded in the Fourth Amendment. The police cannot search and seize evidence without a warrant, which is a reason for that action. In the abstract, it is a reason for the conclusion. "We observed people enter the house empty-handed and leave with packages. They are criminals known to our officers." That would be the reason for a search, which the warrant represents.
When people state an opinion, they are arguing a position, be it ever so trivial. "We need a washing machine." Why? "Because the one we have does not work and repairs would cost almost as much as a replacement." The reason is the warrant. Maybe the warrant is faulty. But simply declaring the need is not sufficient.
This lack of a warrant is the problem with so many clergy today, who lack training in classical rhetoric or do not understand the basics of jurisprudence.
 |
| Synodical honors personified. Yes, I know it is a Photoshop. Mine are better. |
Walther versus Biblical Teaching
I am indebted to John Sparky Brenner for providing details about the failings of Walther in this regard. Walther's style was to state a series of theses and prove them after the fact, often by simply listing Biblical passages that no relationship to the argument. Walther simply bypassed the need for a warrant and wrote as if he were the Oracle of St. Louis. This is clearly seen in his Law and Gospel lectures.
By now people should have moved beyond simply declaring their opinions and pretending to prove them with irrelevant citations. We have to thank them, however, when their own citations prove them lazy, foolish, or confused. Read the Brief Statement of 1932 on Justification. It cites Romans 4:25 to prove "God has declared the entire world righteous."
"Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18‐21; Rom. 4:25...." BS 1932.
Those passages are definitely not warrants for that claim, nor is there any effort to provide reasons to cite those passages. Romans 4:25 is the worst of the bad citations because a verse is cut in half to hide the evidence against this bogus claim for an Easter absolution. (In the Synodical Conference, there are two world absolutions - the cross and the empty grave. Wait, no, the angelic announcement of Peace on Earth is another.)
 |
| "If we believe..." |
In Conversations
When people are trying to make a case for their opinion, whether good or bad, it is simple and easy to ask, "Why do you say that?"
How quickly they reveal their shaky foundations. They went to seminary! They studied Greek!
"Justification by Faith is Calvinism."
Oh? Why do you say that?
"So you are KJV-only!"
Why do you say that?
"I was taught that the whole world was forgiven when Christ arose."
Where is that written? (If they cite 1 Timothy 3:16, Jesus is justified in the Spirit, but the world is not declared righteous. That is a false assumption with no warrants, from such people as Rolf the Rationalist.)
 |
| Cheap will always be popular. UOJ has no depth but a lot of bitter aftertaste. |
In Dah Footnotes and References
Show me a paper written by anyone and I will quickly find out what he was reading - more importantly - what he considered significant and authoritative.
The footnotes and lists of sources tell the story. Walther cited Walther for one of his UOJ extravaganzas - not the Formula of Concord or Luther or the Bible. That told me that Walther considered himself the last word on theological matters or simply knew how weak his position was.
Rolf the Rationalist constantly links to his own examples of circular reasoning.
Some people give things away politically. Those theologians who loved Rauschenbusch were rationalists who believed the government would fix everything, so the purpose of the Church was to promote legal activism and their true love - socialism. As i recall, Reu inclined that way a bit and then repented. He was hated ever since by the liberal writers. He was also a liberal on inerrancy at first, then published on Luther and the Scriptures.
So the Rauschenbusch circle will mention the Kingdom of God and off they go on their tangents. For them, the Kingdom of God is not comprised of sincere believers in Christ, but the result of political activism.
The Church Growth drones buzz about McGavran, Wagner, and their current heart-throbs, unless the celebrity growther (groper) has been arrested.
The UOJ Stormtroopers are hilariously obvious.
- Too bad we don't have an English Stoeckhardt. Oh, he was so good.
- Pretty soon the Twelve Apostates are named. F. Pieper and his brother August. Oh! Oh! And have you read...? They all say the same thing.
- UOJ is a "precious doctrine," a claim declared with a self-congratulatory smile.
- UOJ "protects the Gospel." Too bad Hoenecke wrote that - or else his sons did. When did a small sect ever "protect God's Word" with their dogma? Is God's Word so weak and ineffective that the Creator Himself needs the help of a tiny sect in the upper Midwest?
 |
| WELS is researching why their Friendship Sundays are not gaining them members. |
