 |
| Say the wrong word, the trapdoor opens. Dr. Cruz made an important point - no one can prove or disprove Gard's claim. |
Extra Nos: Falsifiability, is that important to you?:
Over at Steadfast Lutherans (Waltherians IMHO) yours truly got banned from commenting further. The discussion revolved around the question whether or not Robert Preus rejected Universal Objective Justification(UOJ) in his later days. The question also involved Robert Preus' book Justification and Rome, his last work. You should get a copy of this book, it is a great book on Justification By Faith Alone (JBFA). I read about it at Ichabod's. My copy is in my library and is dirtied with notes and annotations. I do not keep my book clean, my loved books are dirtied (FYI).
Some people and the descendants of Robert Preus themselves claim that Preus never departed from UOJ.
Now to recap, UOJ teaches that your object of faith is should not be in the Atonement, but the forgiveness/justification (declaration of righteousness) that has already happened to ALL people and in the past when Jesus died on the Cross/Rose Again. Key passage here, so they say is Romans 4:25.
If Preus wanted to teach the most important concept that distinguishes Lutheranism from Romanism which is UOJ then in that book, Preus did a botched job in telling that. If we are to believe that he wanted people to learn UOJ from that book, he did a lousy job of doing that. If he wanted to be clear on UOJ he failed miserably in conveying that. If that is a book that will sell UOJ, you won't buy it based on that book. Instead, I walked away thoroughly enjoying JBFA, not UOJ.
At the Steadfast Waltherian blog I referred to earlier, Dr. Dan Gard, a professor at an LC-MS seminary made this claim: To state it once again: Dr. Robert Preus never changed his doctrinal position on Objective Justification.
Critical thinking suggests that when a claim is made, we must have some reasonable method of testing or verifying a claim. Falsifiabilty asks the question, do I have a method of obtaining evidence that proves this claim is false. I wrote about this topic in the area of testing the claims of evolution. This is where falsifiability comes in. Falsifiability is required if we are to accept a claim as valid and admit the claim as fact. To illustrate, I can claim that Jesus speaks to me each night and one night Jesus told me that UOJ is false. Now, how do you falsify that?
You can't. For in order to prove what I am saying is false, Jesus should come to you and deny my claim. Another, you have to be with me each night and observe if Jesus does show up but what if I meant he speaks to me in my mind, how do you verify that? You can't.
In that blog at Steadfast (so called), I asked a question to Prof. Gard, how does one go about proving his claim, apart from simply taking his word for it and basing it on his truthful character?
Apparently I was out of line in my questioning and so got banned by the moderator. The moderator stepped in and it was implied I was being sophomoric and out of line.
Do you think my question was out of line? Was I being sophomoric?
I thought my question was fair.
Over here we are constantly informed of university public lecturers. It is a great occasion whenever it happens. By public it means anyone can come and can asks questions after the lecture and yes usually well researched and titled people are the ones that give the lecture. However, in here no one is held sacred, not even if you are an old professor. That last 15 minutes for Q & A is what people wait for. In other words, the lecturer does not take your questions personally. It is a matter of facts, not a matter of persons. The reason is that by lecturing, the lecturer is asking the people to believe something and it stands to reason that if you are asking such a tall order, you can not run away from questions. For if you do, the public will simply think you are not a person that should be taken seriously, and that is the end of your future public lectures.
'via Blog this'
---
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Extra Nos: Falsifiability, is that important to yo...":
This is what one respondent told me...
Mild Colonial Boy, Esq. said...
Mr Cruz, I don't think that your arguments were out of line, they were well within usual "robust" academic standards. It is simply that the LCMS don't like to have pointed out they and the rest of North American Lutheranism has made a sectarian deviation from orthodox Lutheranism. Why not stick to separate concepts of Atonement and Justification by Faith without the Jesuitry of Objective and Subjective Justification?
***
GJ - The more hysterical the attack, Lito, the more they reveal their fear.
---
From Joe Krohn, Steadfast post:
I am not confusing, Jack. Only warning. Your comparison to the Trinity is an old argument, a red herring and irrelevant. No, there is not a widespread belief of universalism in the synods you name. And yes, at present , many rail against ELCA in this regard. But there was a time when the denominations that now make up ELCA did not buy into this universalism either. Of course ELCA no longer speaks in terms of OJ/SJ…duh…they are universalists. If you think that the synods who do not have a widespread belief in universalism right now are not susceptible to it, you are kidding yourself. Pride goeth before the fall. It was foretold in Revelation long ago. Full blown universalism is coming to WELS, LCMS and the ELS whether you like it or not. And it will come through this doctrine of OJ. It is already happening in WELS by what my former WELS pastor preaches…that I was forgiven subjectively before being offered the Means of Grace. And there are those in LCMS that say that there is no difference between WELS and LCMS regarding justification. So you tell me…I will go with Isaiah 21:6.
