 |
| This photo is much better than the pixelated monstrosity posted in Steadfast Enthusiasts. |
Young Andrew Preus is still in seminary, at St. Catharines, eh?
But he wants to rescue Robert Preus from the accusation that his grandfather taught justification by faith in his final book, repudiating the UOJ that animates the Olde Synodical Conference, as it did Halle University and Stephan Huber.
Not so! - young Andrew insists. Perhaps he will write his MDiv thesis on The Errors of Ichabod.
But Andrew wants to argue from the lecture notes of the 1980s, which only proves my point. I would love to have the actual lecture notes, plus the original draft of Justification and Rome. Nevertheless, the book is a repudiation of UOJ, even after being mauled and abused by Dan and Rolf. I can only deal with the actual data--the published book--not the smokescreen interpretation of the perfervid clan. The 1980s notes do not prove the book argues UOJ.
The sad fact remains - the clan cannot see the plain meaning of the book, just as they cannot comprehend the clear words of the Scripture - not even in the Romans 4:24-25 transition to Romans 5:1-2.
What makes their claims valid? They say, "We are related, so we know. We have the Deposit of Faith." My grandfather was an inventor, but that does not make me one. He was a mechanical genius, but I break things while repairing them. The DNA argument only works among the Synodical Conference types, who regard in-breeding as a plus.
I will get into the recent history of this conflict. Jack and Robert Preus used a vicious attack against Walter Maier Junior to displace him as the next president of the seminary (Springfield moving to Ft. Wayne). The excuse was that Maier taught justification by faith instead of UOJ.
Jack launched a national campaign, and it worked. Maier was sprayed with skunk aroma, and that stuck. In fact, I have been accused of being a "Maier disciple," although I never appeal to his work. That made any Ft. Wayne backing away from UOJ awkward, because it would have meant that the Preus-Scaer-Marquart team was wrong.
They could argue from Walther-Pieper-Stoeckhardt, but they could not base their opinions on the Book of Concord, Luther, or the Scriptures. I have studied plenty of UOJ literature. They admit in their own publications, as the amusing Jack Kilcrease has, that UOJ or OJ or General Justification are new terms never found in the Confessions or Holy Writ. They have even conceded that the Biblical word justification always means justification by faith. Always!
Now there is a replay of the same conflict. Ft. Wayne's David Scaer is still an ardent UOJ advocate, but Ft. Wayne's Pless clearly teaches otherwise.
 |
| The pixelated photo of Robert Preus is like the picture of justification offered by Andrew: distorted. |
Synods Do Not Establish Doctrine
---
Rev. James Schulz:
I don’t think that Robert Preus denied Objective Justification as much as he didn’t see the need to use the term in “Justification and Rome.” If the Objective/Subjective Justification categorization is so obvious, so convincing, such pure, unadulterated gospel, such a crystal clear explanation of how a person is saved, then why didn’t Robert Preus present it that way in “Justification and Rome”? Why didn’t the Concordists present it that way? Why is it always assumed, but never categorized in such manner as it has since the 1980s:
The Doctrine of Justification
1. Objective Justification
2. Subjective Justification
I remain unconvinced that we need to emphasize the terms “Objective” and “Subjective” Justification because they effectively fight off the false doctrine of synergism. I remain unconvinced that the authors and editors of the Book of Concord were fighting Justification by works and so emphasized “Subjective Justification” instead of “Objective Justification.”
So, convince me.
---
bruce-church (https://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Preus Clan Still Tries to Rescue Universal Absolut...":
Andrew Preus continues the same tactic as prior UOJers. Whenever confronted with the facts, they downplay UOJ to make it sound as Lutheran as possible, and not a product of Reformed Decretal theology. UOJers ought to be made to defend, not the aspects of UOJ that might sound most Lutheran, but the aspect of UOJ that sounds most Reformed, i.e., that the Father DECREED that the entire world was justified on the day of resurrection.
Sebastian Schmidt, by the way, studied in Geneva for his doctorate, and Strasburg U. where he taught was getting into Reformed territory, if it wasn't in Reformed territory.
---
LPC has left a new comment on your post "Preus Clan Still Tries to Rescue Universal Absolut...":
I see that an LC-MS prof chimed in saying he was in constant conversation w Robert Preus till his death and Preus never backed away from UOJ. He expects us to take his word for it right?
At any rate Preus stands or fall in the relation to the Word and what he wrote in Justification and Rome. He did a lousy job teaching UOJ there.
LPC
***
GJ - I do not accept testimonials from seances when we have the book available. I have bought three and given two away. Someone on Steadfast pointed out that Message A does not always come through to students, who heard Message B, if they are listening at all. Chemnitz said he wished he would have listened more to Luther when he had the chance.
