Biblical Theology versus Dogmatics

From WM:

Brethren: Please note: The "discovery" mentioned below is not meant to ignore the fact that at least some of the rest of you were already aware of this information before me:

I was just checking Article IV of the Augsburg Confession-- which of course does NOT teach UOJ as part of the Scriptural and Lutheran doctrine of Justification--and suddenly realized that its explicit citation of Romans Chapters 3 & 4 to support the teaching of JBFA as the Scriptural and Lutheran doctrine of Justification thereby automatically REJECTS the use of those Chapters to teach UOJ--which (to repeat) is NOT taught by the Article concerning the doctrine of Justification in the Augsburg Confession, Article IV. 

So, if someone claims to be a "confessional Lutheran" and tries to teach UOJ from Romans 3 & 4, they are automatically REJECTING how the Augsburg Confession uses those Chapters to teach the Scriptural doctrine of Justification, JBFA.

And please notice that the explicit citation of Rom. 3 & 4 at the end of AC IV should cover the WHOLE CHAPTERS, and should NOT exclude any verse or verses to teach ANY other "form" of Justification in addition to the Scriptural doctrine of JBFA which is clearly taught in AC IV.

If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me.  --WM

***

GJ -

You are correct. That is why the real Biblical theologians combine true Scriptural exegesis with their doctrinal summaries. I was thinking about that all day today. What is great about Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz? They wrote this same way. It is not so much true with the Gerhard I have read. 

I use the term dogmatics in a derogatory way (as many do) because the dogmatic style is to state theses and simply list Biblical citations, many of which contradict the thesis. As Wilson said at Yale about JEDP, "If the facts do not fit the theory, then what do you do with the theory?"

One person said weakly, "Get rid of it?" That was 1972 at Yale. I doubt whether anyone takes JEDP (the Documentary Hypothesis) seriously in academic circles.

Theory and thesis are closely related. Theory is the way one looks at a topic. A thesis is a statement about it. Note the addiction of CFW Walther to theses - such as in his Law and Gospel lectures.

Walther is deductive. He states his "truth," then adds his warrants for declaring those truths. The Book of Concord is inductive, using the mysteries (revelations) of Scripture to build its witness to the Truth. 

 Norma A. Boeckler

The Brief Statement of 1932 is similar on Justification. 

"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..."

The three Biblical passages do not fit the thesis at all, and Romans 4:24 guts the essence of UOJ - Justification without Faith. What follows in the B.S. then contradicts what was just stated. The 1987 Theses of the LCMS are similar.

I believe Robert Preus first  charged into OJ, loyal to that faction in the Norwegians and ossified in the ELS. However, he had vast reading knowledge of the "orthodox" theologians, who became increasingly Pietistic. The statements he gathered in Justification and Rome struck me as his favorite authors contradicting the OJ of Pietism.

Where did the dogmatic approach begin? I respect Gerhard, because Chemnitz worked with him. However, Johann Gerhard (not the hymn writer, Paul Gerhardt) adopted a more dogmatic and verbose method which began the downhill slide among Lutherans, prompted no doubt by the polemical and insulting Calvinist academics.

 Norma A. Boeckler

Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz

The pillars of the Reformation were three genius Biblical scholars - Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz. They dominate the Book of Concord, which should be read as a one-volume Biblical commentary (and obviously is not).

These three men explained Christian teaching through their Biblical studies. They were experts in the Biblical languages (unlike Walther) and not dogmaticians. True, Melanchthon started a bit along that way with his Loci (topics), but the era of giant textbooks came later.

The Augsburg Confession and the exquisite Apology section on Justification are perfect examples of Melanchthon's Biblical style. Dost thou wonder why he is completely ignored today? second only to Luther and just a little ahead of Chemnitz in being read.

The Synodical Conference hates the faith, content, and method of the three giants of the Reformation. If anyone doubts this, simply look at the sick, bedraggled, coach-clowns of Lutheran Church Growth. They will coax you out of your personal troubles, your cash, your estate, and perhaps your clothes, too. 

Long ago I told WELS DP Robert Mueller: "My members came back from Florida. They said the only way they could tell a congregation was WELS was from the sign outside." That made him angry...at me. Now the WELS church sign is more likely to say Illuminati or HappyPoint Gathering.

 Thy Strong Word

TSW - Eyes Wide Open

I followed the advice of Egbert Schaller, the forgotten Schaller, and decided to make my final book one where all the points were derived directly from Scripture. That came out in 2000, so I did not have enough character to stop writing.

I had about 3,000 verbatim quotations to use from sources, good and evil, but I could not rely on them as the framework. If I wanted to deal with the efficacy of the Word, I had to show from the Scriptures that efficacy is always taught in the Word of God. I found out that:

1. The New Testament word group is almost universally ignored.
2. The modern Lutherans are either silent or ignorant about efficacy.
3. UOJ, the enemy of efficacy, is straight out of Pietism.

Since then I have not seen any official effort to teach Biblically, but a lot of effort to work with ELCA and do some chest pounding about how terrible ELCA is...compared to them. The hypocrisy is even more strident than the sanctimony.

Now read Romans 4.
When was Abraham counted forgiven, righteous?

Do Not Use the Feeble Weapons of the Apostates

The only way to unseat the evil promulgation of false doctrine - little more than a "conservative" spin on ELCA Universalism - is to avoid my dogma versus your dogma.

The best and most convincing teacher is the Spirit in the Word. Quoting Luther against Walther will not matter because the audience does not know the Scriptures. Once they are led through Romans 4, they can no longer claim any verses in Romans 4 for UOJ. And there goes Paul as their foundational OJ expert.

Jay Webber used Luther as his foil because he knew the LCMS-ELS-WELS audience was even more ignorant of Luther than he was - and is. Knowledge of Biblical languages? - zero.

Jay's pal, DP Jon-Boy Buchholz - his great sect essay on UOJ was a big pile of theses. Only a nobody from an unknown and unknowing sect be so proud of his dogma.

Each person who witnesses to Justification by Faith must rest that upon the Word of God, which is challenging and fulfilling. I give Brett Meyer a lot of credit for finding the best JBFA material and the worst UOJ statements to force me into thinking through the entire issue - all the arguments, citations, experts, and lies.

For example - where do we start? It has to be Genesis 15:6 and its relationship to Romans 4 and the references to Abraham in the New Testament. Study those passages along and UOJ melts down faster than a Dairy Queen cone in August.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.