It's all well that you seem to explain away the various statements to us here, but shouldn't we take "their words" and be able to surmise their meaning without someone to interpret them for us? You can defend and explain all you want but the average reader is going to read what is there and take it to mean just what it says! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />
In His Hands,
Ruth
You are absolutely correct which is why I undertook defense of the Brief Statement with great relunctance. Having read and studied the Book of Concord from cover to cover, let me tell you that it is a book that requires no interpretation. Whether one agrees with the doctrine presented or not, it speaks with great clarity unlike the Brief Statement.
The talent for theological exposition seems to have been lost in the modern era. I have noticed the same phenomenon at Reform websites. Modern Reform doctrinal statements, like their Lutheran counterparts, obscure rather than clarify.
Should we immediately label all these modern doctrinal statements as heresy? That would be contrary to the "bear false witness" commandment which tells us to put the best construction on the words of others.
I have attempted to put the best construction on the Brief Statement. The authors are pledged to scripture as the sole authority and to the Book of Concord as a sure confession of the doctrine of scripture. They would not knowingly say anything contrary to those books.
So, where the text of the Brief Statement is obscure because of poor wording, I have attempted to clarify it in accordance with the sound doctrine contained in the Book of Concord. Where I find statements that I can not understand, I do not label them as heresy but entreat the author to provide more information so that a definitive judgment can be made.
