Sunday, July 01, 2012

They have the license to go -- beyond Scripture and the Confessions

HT: Ichabod

Here is proof that the Huberite (UOJ) fanatics believe, in their typical antinomian fashion, they have the right to go beyond what Scripture teaches and beyond what the Lutheran Confessions teach...

This the typical double talk one finds in the UOJ Huberite world. First it says "We are not restricted to those doctrines laid down in our confessions". Then it proceeds to explain that the 1577 framers went beyond the Agustana and the Apology. In sophistry, that first sentence is what is called the set-up. It set things up for you to swallow the forthcoming fallacious argument. Meaning if the framers can do it, then you and they can do it too. Thus if they (the Synodics and UOJ teachers) are found doing so, they have the same equal right to do what the framers did. What is not being said is that the framers never went beyond Scripture but in fact, the framers articulated Scripture.

How does this quote relate to the freedom of Huberites (UOJers) to stitch doctrine as they go along. Listen to Daniel Deutschlander's statement from his essay found at Ichabod here
Our Lutheran Confessions have no separate article on Objective Justification; the closest we can come to a paragraph of formulation for this doctrine is in Article IX of the Formula of Concord, under the doctrine of election. But even that is not really sufficient or suitable for stating the orthodox position in a clear and unequivocal manner. For our Fathers it was not difficult at all to consider objective and subjective justification under the same heading, and they were apparently unaware of any need to separate them or distinguish between them. But such was and remained the case only so long as the orthodox had a clear understanding of the nature of faith; once that understanding was gone, it became necessary (at the end of the last century) to begin making such as distinction. (A possible reason for the loss of such an understanding we shall consider below in Part III.) But having said all that, we shall not go wrong in assuming that, had we asked then for it, they would have had little difficulty in making the distinction; indeed, given their clear and concise formulations on faith and its relation to justification, one can only conclude that they considered the distinction all but self-evident. We take note of this silence in the Confessions at this point and on this matter, lest someone charge us with indifference to the problem, or ignorance of its existence, or failure to take it into account

In short, we have a couple of admissions from well respected speakers on behalf of Modern Huberites (UOJ teachers and adherents). We have clear evidence here of a.) mis-representation of what the framers of the BoC did, and b.) a direct admission that they are arguing from silence.

Now, I would like to put out a challenge to the Modern Huberite (UOJer) readers of this blog, I wonder who would be the first of their kind to denounce their fellow UOJer's blatant admissions - the admissions of Rev. Wayne Mueller or Prof. Daniel Deutschlander?