Part Ten: Picking Cherries Is a Fine Pursuit, but Not Very Useful for Theology Concerning Thesis 8, the ACLC says, “This particular thesis again fails to identify a difference in teaching. In fact, it appears to assert that there is no substantive difference: ‘has the same effect…’” At this point one…
Part Nine: What’s the Point of Stating Things with Which Everyone Agrees? Regarding Thesis 7, the ACLC asks, “What is the point of this thesis?” One of the failures of the ACLC throughout this process has been their thought that each thesis must point directly to a concrete exemplar and then…
Appeal to an Expert or Evidence from Original Sources? The ACLC response to Thesis 6 demonstrates that its pastors neither understand the purpose of these theses nor the commonly held terminology of Lutheran theology. The reasons that the theses do not approach the topic by simply going passage by passage exegetically should be…
Part Seven: Theses Two through Five Regarding our second thesis, the ACLC bases their response on their false accusation of equivocation in the first thesis. But, they are not done making false accusations. They write: In the theses that follow, we find that the ELDoNA views those who hold to the…
Part Six: Our First Thesis Elicits Bad Behavior (and Even Worse Argumentation) With regard to our first thesis, the ACLC horribly miscasts an illustration used by Pr. Rydecki on a blog in an attempt to portray him—and thereby the whole diocese—as having redefined “paid” and misunderstanding faith as something other than…
Part Five: Treating Calov with respect by following his argument and paying attention to his words, Part 2 (Excursus on Calov in context continued from the previous post) Therefore, it does not at all mean that Christ was raised on account of our justification in the same way as He was…
Part Four: Treating Calov with respect by following his argument and paying attention to his words, Part 1 While the ACLC cites the Lutheran Fathers like Gerhard and Calov in search of proof passages for “Objective Justification,” we are interested in reading their writings in context and following their argumentation. This is…
Part Three: Questions of Methodology: Thoroughgoing Theology vs. ‘Slam Dunks’ The ACLC accuses us of an unbiblical method—of mere Vater Theologie, which they condemn as fallaciously appealing to authority—because we fulfill the purpose of our “Theses” by presenting what the first generations of “Lutherans” taught regarding Justification and, especially, with regard to specific…
Part Two: A Matter of Definition The ACLC’s critique concerning “First, a Matter of Definition” continues by introducing another red herring: there is no point in bringing up one’s supposed confusion over something said in a previous (unpublished) draft of a document, other than to paint the authors in a bad light. Thus,…
Part One: Their Preamble and Our Preface The ACLC’s critique of our “Theses on the Article of Justification” (herein, “Theses”) demonstrates a mixture of faulty logic, inapplicable quotation, and construal of words and events in the worst possible way. Considering the enmity and inaccurate account presented in the ACLC’s critique, we find it…
