In an article about sociologist Bradley Wright’s book Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites…and Other Lies You’ve Been Told: A Sociologist Shatters Myths From the Secular and Christian Media journalist Adelle M. Banks discusses his findings that Christians who go to church regularly have lower divorce rates, contrary to the assertion of other researchers that Christians have the same divorce rate as everybody else.
We’ve talked about that topic, but what I’d like us to consider is another issue raised in the story:
Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, agrees there’s been some confusion.
“You do hear, both in Christian and non-Christian circles, that Christians are no different from anyone else when it comes to divorce and that is not true if you are focusing on Christians who are regular church attendees,” he said.
Wilcox’s analysis of the National Survey of Families and Households has found that Americans who attend religious services several times a month were about 35 percent less likely to divorce than those with no religious affiliation.
Less active conservative Protestants, on the other hand, were 20 percent more likely to divorce than the religiously unaffiliated.
“There’s something about being a ‘nominal Christian’ that is linked to a lot of negative outcomes when it comes to family life,” Wilcox said.
via Christians question conventional wisdom on divorce – KansasCity.com.
“Nominal Christians.” We often say that churches are full of nominal Christians. But it is probably more to the point that nominal Christians–including many who would classify themselves as “born again” and “conservative”–do not generally go to church. They are Christians in name only, as opposed to Christians, whatever their faults, who attend worship services where, to whatever measure, they seek God and receive His Word. That’s not being “nominal.”
There is no longer any cultural pressure to attend church, as there once was, and indeed the cultural pressure is in the other direction. So those who are in church, I would argue, on some level, really mean it.
I wish I knew more about what Wilcox says about “a lot of negative outcomes when it comes to family life” that are associated with “nominal Christians.” I suppose someone who is Christian in name only may well consider himself or herself married in name only, carrying over the tendency for superficial commitment in all relationships, with spouse as well as with God.
Can anyone fill in what Wilcox says?
{ 781 comments… read them below or add one }
The answer to Veith’s question is probably in Wilcox’s book Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands. Has anyone here read it?
There is a U. Virginia , article stating that Wilcox’s findings include:
Evangelical Protestant family men who frequently attend church have the highest rates of involvement in one-on-one activities and youth activities of any major religious group in the United States;
Churchgoing Evangelical Protestant family men are more likely than any other major religious or secular group to know where their children are at all times;
Evangelical Protestant wives whose husbands attend church regularly report the highest levels of happiness with their husbands’ love and affection of any major religious or secular group in the study;
Evangelical Protestant wives whose husbands attend church regularly reported the lowest levels of domestic violence of any major religious or secular group studied;
Mainline Protestant family men who attend church regularly are also more involved and affectionate with their children than religiously.
My sense is that the ferocity of secular culture is such that nominal Christians lack the steadfast principles to overcome the looseness involved with “mom and dad” as opposed to “father and mother” types of marriage.
I go to church twice a week . Me and others like me would need to be fully included in the population of this survey.
When we go to church, we need to really, REALLY mean it for in most cases we are not really welcomed. Probably the percentage gays in churches who attend faithfully is higher than in the general population. Why? We are more desparate to hear the Holy Gospel than most are.
So what to make of statistics….
I don’t like this term nominal Christian. I suppose I have used it before. And it seems to me a recent bee buzzing my bonnet, but I don’t like the term.
I guess because it marginalizes baptism. It makes being a Christian dependent on what he/she is doing. It is judgmental, and a bit unbecoming.
What makes us Christian is our baptism, and nothing short of full scale rejection of your baptism changes that. If a baptized soul tells me he is not christian than so be it, he is not Christian.
But one missing church, or going to church rather sporadically indicates to me a suffering sheep that doesn’t need to be further condemned and marginalized by the supposedly “dedicated” Christians, or what ever adjective they use in opposition to nominal.
I suspect many will now pile on Bror the way they piled on me at the other thread on this same topic for making some kind of theological conclusion that this sociologist never intended.
Stephen, I can take it
I think “nominal Christian” is more of a physical description terminology thing than a deeper statement about the state of their souls.
They need to have some sort of handy term to differentiate the group of Christians who are actively involved in their local church through regular attendance at services, from the group of Christians who attend services less than a handful of times throughout the year, primarily around Christmas and Easter time.
Sporadic Involvement Christians? Too big of a mouthful, and the acronym may not be appreciated. “… the SIC group…”
Nominal attendees? Too generic. Could apply to concert-goers.
Low-involvement Christians? Maybe, but still a bit vague, since it would possibly describe Christians who attend regularly but don’t involve themselves in any other way.
Suggestions for such terms would be welcome. Otherwise don’t complain about the terms.
There’s my pile-on!
As for pastoral care of the nominal Christian, I’m surprised Bror doesn’t quote Bo Giertz. The Hammer of God is the manual.
I’m with Bror on this 100%.
Webmonk, churchless Christians? Nah, every Christian is part of the capital “C” Church. Congregationless Christians? Nah, every Christian identifies with some local/regional body of believers, if only at arm’s length. Maybe just … Christians. Yeah, that’s it.
Why this need to denote second-class status based on attendance and involvement? Who does that serve?
Jerry,
I suppose because I have already done that once today: http://utah-lutheran.blogspot.com/2011/03/rosenius-on-receiving-spirit.html
Have to economize that a bit you know? I mean he comes up a lot in conversation with me for some reason. But you are right it is the manual.
You should see the work I’m translating now, if you want to see a real manual on pastoral care! That man knew what he was doing.
Large Catechism: Sacrament of the Altar
42] Now, it is true, as we have said, that no one should by any means be coerced or compelled, lest we institute a new murdering of souls. Nevertheless, it must be known that such people as deprive themselves of, and withdraw from, the Sacrament so long a time are not to be considered Christians. For Christ has not instituted it to be treated as a show, but has commanded His Christians to eat and drink it, and thereby remember Him.
43] And, indeed, those who are true Christians and esteem the Sacrament precious and holy will urge and impel themselves unto it. Yet that the simple-minded and the weak who also would like to be Christians be the more incited to consider the cause and need which ought to impel them, we will treat somewhat of this point. 44] For as in other matters pertaining to faith, love, and patience, it is not enough to teach and instruct only, but there is need also of daily exhortation, so here also there is need of continuing to preach that men may not become weary and disgusted, since we know and feel how the devil always opposes this and every Christian exercise, and drives and deters therefrom as much as he can.
45] And we have, in the first place, the clear text in the very words of Christ: Do this in remembrance of Me. These are bidding and commanding words by which all who would be Christians are enjoined to partake of this Sacrament. Therefore, whoever would be a disciple of Christ, with whom He here speaks, must also consider and observe this, not from compulsion, as being forced by men, but in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to please Him. 46] However, if you say: But the words are added, As oft as ye do it; there He compels no one, but leaves it to our free choice, answer: 47] That is true, yet it is not written that we should never do so. Yea, just because He speaks the words, As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one’s opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; 48] although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.
49] Thus, you perceive, it is not left free in the sense that we may despise it. For that I call despising it if one allow so long a time to elapse and with nothing to hinder him yet never feels a desire for it. if you wish such liberty, you may just as well have the liberty to be no Christian, and neither have to believe nor pray; for the one is just as much the command of Christ as the other. But if you wish to be a Christian, you must from time to time render satisfaction and obedience to this commandment. 50] For this commandment ought ever to move you to examine yourself and to think: See, what sort of a Christian I am! If I were one, I would certainly have some little longing for that which my Lord has commanded [me] to do.
51] And, indeed, since we act such strangers to it, it is easily seen what sort of Christians we were under the Papacy, namely, that we went from mere compulsion and fear of human commandments, without inclination and love, and never regarded the commandment of Christ. 52] But we neither force nor compel any one; nor need any one do it to serve or please us. But this should induce and constrain you by itself, that He desires it and that it is pleasing to Him. You must not suffer men to coerce you unto faith or any good work. We are doing no more than to say and exhort you as to what you ought to do, not for our sake, but for your own sake. He invites and allures you; if you despise it, you must answer for it yourself.
Question, would Luther use the term nominal, for those who do not attend the Divine Service? No, he just didn’t consider them christians!
Tom, who does it serve? How about the researchers studying what sort of effect regular church attendance has on people’s behavior?
If you want to study the behavior of blonds compared to that of browns, you have to have some sort of term to refer to one group and not another (aka “blond” and “brown”) – it gets really confusing if you just call them all “people”.
So, if you want to look at the behavior of people who are actively involved in their local church through regular attendance at services and other gatherings, compared to the group of Christians who attend services less than a handful of times throughout the year, primarily around Christmas and Easter time, you need to have different terms to reference the two groups.
It gets really confusing if the researchers just call them the exact same thing. So, they make different terms.
If you don’t like the term they use, what term(s) would you suggest the researches use to refer to one grouping and not the other?
Not so much complaining about the terms as I am the whole futile effort that needs to cause divisions within the body of Christ to proceed!
Ahh, I see now Bror. Instead of the terms, you just think that no one should ever study Christians in any detail. Got it.
(at least that’s what your @12 sounds like it’s saying)
I’m with Webmonk on this one. We are talking about fruit of the Spirit, not the state of souls. These particular studies are typically used by secularists to undermine religious faith, by falsely concluding that practicing Christians are just as scornful of the institution of marriage as non-Christians. There is value in pointing out that those who are not disobeying God, by forsaking the assembling of believers together, do value their marriage vows at substantially higher rates. It’s not an issue of division. It’s an issue of clarification and information.
Yep, pegged it Webmonk.
As usual, read more into it than is there, or otherwise fail to comprehend.
Michael,
exactly, those are your two options.
By the way our confessions would also say that DonS and Webmonk never go to the sacrament of the altar, given the nature of what there church confesses concerning that sacrament. And therefore these men are not Christians according to what you have posted.
If “nominal” was used exclusively by researchers, I’d have no problem with the term. But that’s far from the case. Plus, researchers seem to have lifted the term – and its meaning – from church culture.
In other words, “nominal” is not an objective, social science term. It’s packed with non-scientific meaning.
Taking for granted that the conclusions drawn about “nominal Christians” is true, perhaps its like a man who ate only one meal every several days. He would stumble around in weakness, confusion, and agitation most of the day. Ethics and moral judgment would take a back seat to basic survival instincts. Perhaps it is as James says: “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.“
Michael Mapus @ 10, Luther is saying that those who never feel a desire for the Sacrament are not Christians. And he’s right. I’ve never met a Christian who didn’t feel at least a tiny little desire for it.
Forgive the grammar in the above.
Bror,
Exactly where does our Confessions state that those you don’t have the true Sacrament, are not Christians? They only state they don’t have the true Sacrament. Luther is addressing those who “dispise” the Sacrament, as along with this thread, those who “dispise” attending worship. Our Confessions would question one’s christianity only if they turned the Sacrament into a metorius work or sacrifice, as does the RC church. Or as Luther does, those who know the truth about the Sacrament, but still dispise it. Also in the same breath, our Confessions would state that there Christians in the RC church and are part of the invisible church by faith. I believe according to the Scriptures and our Confessions, DonS and Webmonk, do not have the true Sacrament, but according to the same sign, they are brothers in Christ. Please don’t waste my time with strawmen.
I knew you could take it Bror. I see the shotgun
Carry on brother.
Tom, then what term would you suggest they use? You don’t like the word “nominal” Fine. What’s a better term?
Something that is a generally accurate description of the broad makeup as observable through questionnaires/phone surveys, something that is short (one or two words at most), and communicates the broad concept to the general public (Christian and non-Christian).
Tom,
Luther also states that those who deprive and withdrawl. Read the first paragraph.
Michael,
“Luther is addressing those who “dispise” the Sacrament, as along with this thread, those who “dispise” attending worship.”
Listen if the church isn’t giving them what they are supposed to be getting, then neither are they dispising the sacrament or worship by not attending. Get it yet?
And I do believe that should be despise, but then I’m one notorious for typos.
Michael @ 22
You are looking in the wrong place if you want to know how the Lutheran Confessions tell you how you can identify who is or is not in the Holy Christian Church as the Communion of Saints, and who is or is not a Christian.
The Lutheran Confessions will not tell you how you can do either of those things.
Now as to who is under that earthly visible government God has instituted called the Christian Church, the passport holders are those who have been baptized. And christians recognize others who have been baptized as christians and address them as such until they renounce their baptism. We do this out of love and not out of faith.
Ah, “nominal” Christians! Those same people who screwed up the statistics for the rest of us serious Christians! Why, if it weren’t for them, we’d look better!
It would seem that “nominal” Christians are to be our scapegoat in modern culture. Because it just seems wrong that Christians wouldn’t be measurably better than the culture at large. That can’t be!
This seems to be the impetus for the book — and I’ve now read decent chunks of several chapters, as much as Amazon will allow. But what’s behind this reaction? Why must it be true that Christians must act better than the rest of society? And if you believe it must, what does that say about your view of what Christianity is?
Is the church for sinners or for people who do good? Do we want sinners to come to church? We may think that we make ourselves look better (and, goes one apparent argument in the book, we therefore look more attractive to the world — “Come join us! Be less bad!”), but if there are fewer people who’ve divorced in our church than there are among non-believers, doesn’t that also mean that divorced people apparently don’t feel as welcome in our churches as they do staying at home? If Christianity is about forgiveness, wouldn’t we want vastly disproportionate number of divorced people filling our pews?
But no, the message is clear. Christianity is about what we do — if not from the book itself, then certainly from those wielding it as their latest weapon in the Culture War. Which is why we can write off infrequent attenders as not really being Christians. And also why nobody seems to think twice about the claim that people who attend church frequently are Christians. As if there were no hypocrites and pharisees in our pews. Just good folk. Who don’t have any shady pasts. The way Jesus wants it.
I do have to laugh though, at that phrase: nominal Christians. Christians in name only.
Indeed, what makes us Christian? Is it what we do? Is it how we act? Does going to church — frequently enough, of course — make me a Christian?
When I hear about Christians in name only, I can’t help but think of this verse:
Salvation. In name only. Not in deed. Not in attendance. But only in faith in Jesus.
Webmonk @ 24, infrequent churchgoer. It simply says what is occurring, without suggesting reasons why it is occurring – the way the packed term “nominal Christian” does, i.e., not on fire, lacking the Spirit, etc., etc., etc.
Webmonk @ 11
Does research that serves researchers really serve any purpose? I don’t get that, but that seems to be your answer to Tom. I mean, some interesting data perhaps, but what else does it reveal other than that?
DonS
And then given my question to Webmonk, how can anyone tell whether what someone does is actually fruit of the Spirit, obedience to law or some ruse to make business contacts or meet hot chicks that go to church? I mean really. I knew guys in college that went to church for just that reason – good looking women.
My point from the other thread was “what does any of it have to do with Christ?” Nothing. It puts the focus on human behavior where it shouldn’t be, because humans are sinful even when it looks like all is well. Our morality is not our witness, neither is the successful path of our lives. all of that is temporal and fading. our witness is what has been done for us in Christ.
If behavior is what makes us Christian, then let’ s use an adjective like “horrible” or “lousy” or “broken” or “crappy” because we are supposed to be perfect, whole, complete in every way – holy. The thing is, we are, but not because of what we do, but because of what God has done for us and which we have received in baptism.
If anyone is in Christ they ARE a new creation. Nothing nominal about it, nothing to measure at all.
ALL Christians, by definition , are nominal. nominal=by name only.
We are Christian only by the Name of the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity being applied to us with water, and so binding us to that Name that is above all other Names.
Ooo Todd – Excellent posts! I am Christian in name only! Perfect! I love it!!! You do not know how much I love that.
Frank!!!! Awesome! And it is posts #30 and 33. Spooky!
Yet another thought. Maybe this survey doesn’t tell us as much about what true Christians are like, but rather what the pharisees are like.
After all, I’d think that pharisees would be fairly attracted to churches. All the more so if we go around “correcting” the notion that sinners are to be found there disproportionately, spreading the “good news” that there are fewer divorcees in the pews, so, you know, it’s safe.
And clearly, pharisees would be frequent attenders. Oh, they’d be the best!
And if we know one thing about pharisees, we know that they really like to get the external adherence to the law right — their faith depends on it! So of course, they would never, ever divorce. And the more pharisees we get to come to church, the lower the divorce rate will drop among attendees. Which can only attract the even more zealous pharisees who didn’t think it was low enough yet! And this is how you get your numbers to go up!
Ha ha, I kid. That would never happen.
Stephen @ 32: Not to belabor the point, but the purpose of statistical surveys is to *gasp* “focus on human behavior”. If you want to measure whether the practice of a particular faith changes human behavior in a measurable way, the best way to do that is to sort out folks who practice that faith. Since the assembling of ourselves together is a basic tenet of Christianity, failing to attend church regularly is an indicator regarding faith practice, for statistical purposes.
For spiritual purposes, we’ll leave the sorting to God.
Todd’s point is extremely relevant. Maybe this study is actually very damning. That law, it’s always accusing . . .
I know from working with youth in the church that children of divorce in youth groups is extremely rare if non-existent and yet from working in schools and elsewhere they are everywhere. What is up with that? Clearly the church is AVOIDING divorced people and not welcoming them or making the church a place for them (“pro me”). They leave in shame, never come back and neither do their kids. No Jesus for you, you sinner. Yeah, what would Jesus want with sinners?
But hey, we want better statistics so we look good.
Gee, suppose a news media person came to a church and asked “Why are there so many divorced people in your churches?” and we could say to them that we welcome them here. What message would that send?
Careful, boys: dont make baptism a work that functions ex opus operate. Faith is necessary. Scripture and the confessions make that more than plain. It is both/and, not either/or.
Otherwise, you have antinomianism (a la Agricola, “God does it all, it doesn’t matter what I do”) which the Confessions roundly reject or semi-Pelagianism (“I can bring myself to salvation”), which the Confessions roundly reject. In rejecting one trap don’t fall into the other.
Fortunately, it is not up to us to decide whether another soul is “a nominal Christian” or not, no matter how we view the term. That would only come into play as a pastor serves communion to a congregant. And then all the mitigating nuances will be known and prayed over.
DonS
Spare me the gasps. You brought up fruits of the Spirit and said that this is what it was about, so I asked. Looks like you are doing some sorting of fruit, so it seems you can detect such things? Now you want to lecture me about surveys. Whatever.
Fair enough, Stephen. No gasps. But I wasn’t “lecturing” you. I was trying to restore some sense of perspective to the conversation, which is about human surveys concerning external behavior, not whether someone is genuinely a Christian. All I am saying is that it is reasonable for a statistician, in determining whether Christians behave differently than non-Christians, to rely on a basic external indicator of Christianity, i.e. whether one regularly attends church, as evidence that they are actually practicing Christians.
We won’t pile on Bror. Why? Because we won’t be able to agree on whether to do a West Coast dogpile, or an East Coast pigpile.
What was measured seems to be the number of frequent churchgoers who’ve divorced versus the number of infrequent churchgoers who’ve divorced. With the conclusion that frequent churchgoers stay married in higher numbers. Which might not have anything to do with Christianity, but rather just peer/group/social influences. How do we know? Do other religions, in which divorce is discouraged, reveal similar numbers? I’ll bet they would if they were researched the same way.
Tom, “churchgoer” doesn’t really apply either – other religions. Mormons and JWs also go to church, but aren’t Christians. The term “churchgoer” would include them, but most studies of this type exclude them, so “churchgoer” isn’t an accurate descriptor.
I’m not picking on your term because it’s horrible, but rather to demonstrate that EVERY term you want to use has some sort of flaw in it. “Nominal Christian” may bother you, but it’s about as good and accurate as almost every other term.
Stephen 32
Are you joking? Anyone who is curious about the behavior of groups of people are those who are served by the research. Obviously lots of people are interested in finding this stuff out, as evidenced by plenty of books being sold and plenty of money flowing to the researchers. That’s one of the purposes – to answer curiosity, and there is plenty of curiosity about this subject, so there is plenty of research being done on it.
Now, maybe you want to say that this sort of research is useless and ought not be done. People shouldn’t do detailed research on Christians? Shouldn’t group Christians according to characteristics and look at the differences?
What are we going to do with Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me
G (@46), so if I were to judge you by that standard, would I conclude that you love God?
fws @ 28
“42] Now, it is true, as we have said, that no one should by any means be coerced or compelled, lest we institute a new murdering of souls. Nevertheless, it must be known that such people as deprive themselves of, and withdraw from, the Sacrament so long a time are not to be considered Christians. For Christ has not instituted it to be treated as a show, but has commanded His Christians to eat and drink it, and thereby remember Him. ”
These people who Luther addresses, have they rejected their baptism? Remember, these are instructions for pastors.
WebMonk – 45
“Are you joking? Anyone who is curious about the behavior of groups of people are those who are served by the research. “
This might interest you:
Webmonk @ 44, my argument isn’t so much that other terms would be less flawed or more accurate, but that “nominal” is an exceptionally bad choice of terms, because it comes packed with so many negative meanings.
It’s very troubling when anyone makes a statement such as the one above. First of all it isn’t true,…… as Jesus stated “you must be born again” …. those words resonate among the churched community, with anxiety at their own independence from our LORD’s own mouth, making excuses as to their contempt for His Words.
DonS
Peace is restored.
What others are saying is that this is a false indicator of what it means to be Christian, for one thing.
Stephen @ 52: Cool
Webmonk -
Point taken. I have no problem with curiosity. I read the interview with this author and it would seem he has at least some interest in bolstering the self-image of evangelicals. But beyond that, I think it is misguided to assume that the indicators he is using actually reveal what he thinks they do – that is, church going means real “authentic” faithfulness expressed by doing the right thing. All he has is an appearance, an external marker of something, but there is no necessary link between this marker and the thing he wants to link it to. That simply cannot be proven, nor is it descriptive on any essential level of what it means to be Christian.
Grace@51 I don’t think you know how many Lutherans read the sentence quoted about “many who classify themselves as ‘born again’ and ‘conservative.’”
What we have here is not a rejection of the Biblical idea that people must be born again. (Though the text also allows itself to be read as ‘born from above’, which many Lutherans prefer.) What we have is the fact that in American Christianity, this term has taken on a lot of experiential baggage that it never would have had before the Great Awakening when pastors first preached a born again experience. Before that time, it was more common for pastors to preach on passages and let faith grow or not without talking so much about faith. Talking about faith doesn’t create faith. Talking about Jesus creates faith. Talking about a born again experience doesn’t make people be born. And it may, in fact, just get people to copy each other’s experiences. Jonathan Edwards noted this fact. When some people in church would offer testimonies about their experience, others would tend to borrow their language. (They may or may not have come to faith themselves. But even those who genuinely did would shade their testimonies so they matched what they had heard before.) And in the centuries since the Great Awakening, this has been whittled down to saying a Sinner’s Prayer to be saved. Many who have merely said a Sinner’s Prayer at some point classify themselves as Born Again.
Also, there is precedent in the New Testament for noting how even certain Biblical terminology can be used in a bad way. When St. Paul chides the Corinthians for being factious, he says that some are saying “I am of Christ.” Now they said this as opposed to being of Paul or Apollos. Wasn’t it the right answer to give? No. But isn’t being “of Christ” Biblical? Wouldn’t it be wicked to suggest people stop classifying themselves so when surveys are passed around? No. Why? Because it had become a partisan label. And this within a congregation. So if “of Christ” can be avoided as a partisan label, then I don’t see why “Born Again” is different.
I recently taught a class on American Christianity at Colorado Christian University. When I asked how many students, out of 37, were evangelical, only three raised their hands. I was shocked. Wasn’t I at an evangelical college? It came out in discussion that the students identified with the definition often given to evangelical, but they didn’t want people to think they agreed with Pat Robertson. How people identify themselves can be complicated.
Yes Rich, but I only ever copy the first half of the testimony…. seems to be more fun.
Rick Ritchie – 55
“Talking about faith doesn’t create faith. Talking about Jesus creates faith. Talking about a born again experience doesn’t make people be born. And it may, in fact, just get people to copy each other’s experiences.
Your remark – “Talking about faith doesn’t create faith” is elementary, unless you believe I need to be educated as to what “faith” means –
I am very aware of the term “born again” it has been the subject within my family since my earliest memory (my father was a pastor) I don’t know anyone who copies those two words like a robot, in fact its insulting when someone such as yourself, believe you need to enlighten me. I can assure you that those who claim being “born again” are well aware of its meaning – of course there is always the exception, as there is in any aspect of Christian Churches, and what they teach.
“Jonathan Edwards noted this fact. When some people in church would offer testimonies about their experience, others would tend to borrow their language. (They may or may not have come to faith themselves. But even those who genuinely did would shade their testimonies so they matched what they had heard before.) And in the centuries since the Great Awakening, this has been whittled down to saying a Sinner’s Prayer to be saved. Many who have merely said a Sinner’s Prayer at some point classify themselves as Born Again.”
I have read Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) I fail to see how he has anything to do with those of us who state we are Born Again. His observations don’t necessarily match those of the past 35 plus years. People who claim to be “born again” for the most part, are very serious about their Salvation. I notice all too often the snide remark of those who claim “Many who have merely said a Sinner’s Prayer at some point classify themselves as Born Again.” – It’s unfortunate that anyone, including yourself, would choose to decide what is in the heart of the repentant individual, who prays and asks the LORD Jesus to forgive them of their sins, believing solely that He and He alone can forgive sins to Salvation. To make a shallow comment as you have, doesn’t speak to your understanding of what you glibly call the “Sinner’s Prayer” – Without repentance, there is no Salvation, without believing there is no Salvation.
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10
It’s important to note Rick, … most people I’ve observed are very serious about their repentance, they are truly sorry for their sins. I remember when I was only seven years of age, knowing exactly what I was doing. Repentance is a serious matter – it’s a joy to Believe in my Savior. There are too many so called, ‘well meaning people’ trying to dislodge and question the heartfelt beliefs of others, playing the part of judge, thinking they can root out what they believe to be the wrong prayer, wrong approach, … when in essence, believing in the LORD Jesus Christ is very simple, especially when you look at the examples in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Jesus didn’t make it difficult, He made Salvation with ‘plain speech’ it’s man who is the culprit, he wants to expand on what Jesus taught.
Grace, this began with the discussion of surveys. We’re discussing the kinds of people who identify as born again on a survey. And if other surveys are any indicator, you’re just plain wrong. Here are results of a Barna survey (found here: http://tinyurl.com/ckqa68):
[start quote]
* One-third of all adults (34%) believe that moral truth is absolute and unaffected by the circumstances. Slightly less than half of the born again adults (46%) believe in absolute moral truth.
* Half of all adults firmly believe that the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches. That proportion includes the four-fifths of born again adults (79%) who concur.
* Just one-quarter of adults (27%) are convinced that Satan is a real force. Even a minority of born again adults (40%) adopt that perspective.
* Similarly, only one-quarter of adults (28%) believe that it is impossible for someone to earn their way into Heaven through good behavior. Not quite half of all born again Christians (47%) strongly reject the notion of earning salvation through their deeds.
* A minority of American adults (40%) are persuaded that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life while He was on earth. Slightly less than two-thirds of the born again segment (62%) strongly believes that He was sinless.
* Seven out of ten adults (70%) say that God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe who still rules it today. That includes the 93% of born again adults who hold that conviction.
[end quote]
Now, I think it’s fair to use a survey to decide what the makeup of survey respondents is likely to entail. And this one suggests that it is not accurate to say that most people who identify themselves like this in a survey are serious Christians. I’m not deciding what’s in the heart of any one repentant individual. I am asserting what people who identify themselves as born again in surveys state about themselves.
Rick Ritchie – 56
“Also, there is precedent in the New Testament for noting how even certain Biblical terminology can be used in a bad way. When St. Paul chides the Corinthians for being factious, he says that some are saying “I am of Christ.” Now they said this as opposed to being of Paul or Apollos. Wasn’t it the right answer to give? No. But isn’t being “of Christ” Biblical? Wouldn’t it be wicked to suggest people stop classifying themselves so when surveys are passed around? No. Why? Because it had become a partisan label. And this within a congregation. So if “of Christ” can be avoided as a partisan label, then I don’t see why “Born Again” is different.”
The difference Rick – “born again” was used by Christ Himself, He made the label, HE is the label there is no one else, who deserves the HOLY place upon which Christ stands.
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 1 Corinthians 1
“When I asked how many students, out of 37, were evangelical, only three raised their hands. I was shocked. Wasn’t I at an evangelical college? It came out in discussion that the students identified with the definition often given to evangelical, but they didn’t want people to think they agreed with Pat Robertson. How people identify themselves can be complicated.”
That’s an unlearned response. If young people are connecting “born again” with only Robertson, they haven’t understood what John 3 actually says, when Jesus stated those words. Many denominations and Evangelical Bible Churches use that phrase all the time, OR they state they are Christian Believers.
Sorry for all the Bold at the end….
The difference Rick – “born again” was used by Christ Himself, He made the label, HE is the label there is no one else, who deserves the HOLY place upon which Christ stands.
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 1 Corinthians 1
“When I asked how many students, out of 37, were evangelical, only three raised their hands. I was shocked. Wasn’t I at an evangelical college? It came out in discussion that the students identified with the definition often given to evangelical, but they didn’t want people to think they agreed with Pat Robertson. How people identify themselves can be complicated.”
That’s an unlearned response. If young people are connecting “born again” with only Robertson, they haven’t understood what John 3 actually says, when Jesus stated those words. Many denominations and Evangelical Bible Churches use that phrase all the time, OR they state they are Christian Believers
Grace (@58) said:
Do take a minute to think about whether that applies to your approach to commenting on this blog, will you?
Rick
I have read and spent hours on Barna’s research – I have no confidence in it whatsoever.
tODD,
If you’re talking about labels of ‘men’ who have left a trail of antisemtism miles long, and others who had men burned at the stake for not agreeing with them …….. then you’re right.
Grace (@65), thanks for giving it your thoughtful consideration.
It’s a very different story, when the proof is in the Church history books, letters and papers, documented with the author’s signature.
tODD,
I’m happy to oblige.
Grace
On many occasions I have had people ask me “but are you born again?” after I have told them that I am an LCMS baptized Christian. Some of them after we have gotten to know each other and I have served on various boards with them, will introduce me to others and say- she goes to a Lutheran Church, but “she’s born again”. I have learned to just let it go, and move on. It’s almost like we speak a different language some times.
Mary 69
“Some of them after we have gotten to know each other and I have served on various boards with them, will introduce me to others and say- she goes to a Lutheran Church, but “she’s born again”. I have learned to just let it go, and move on. It’s almost like we speak a different language some times.”
Most likely you do.
Grace #58
“There are too many so called, ‘well meaning people’ trying to dislodge and question the heartfelt beliefs of others, playing the part of judge, thinking they can root out what they believe to be the wrong prayer, wrong approach, … ”
My point exactly! They question my salvation because I don’t have a “born again experience”
Mary –
#69 – Mary – “Some of them after we have gotten to know each other and I have served on various boards with them, will introduce me to others and say- she goes to a Lutheran Church, but “she’s born again”. I have learned to just let it go, and move on. It’s almost like we speak a different language some times.”
#70 – Grace – “Most likely you do.”
#71 – Mary – picking up on my post #58
#58 – Grace – “There are too many so called, ‘well meaning people’ trying to dislodge and question the heartfelt beliefs of others, playing the part of judge, thinking they can root out what they believe to be the wrong prayer, wrong approach, … ”
#71 Mary’s response “My point exactly! They question my salvation because I don’t have a “born again experience””
Mary, they didn’t question your Salvation. – - If it was offensive to you to say you were “born again” why didn’t you correct them? – - – - You just stated in post #69, that these women stated: “I have served on various boards with them, will introduce me to others and say- she goes to a Lutheran Church, but “she’s born again”. I have learned to just let it go, and move on. It’s almost like we speak a different language some times.”
Grace:
In the interest of understanding your use of the language, what exactly do you believe is the biblical meaning of “born again”, and how does one become “born again”?
I think it is possible that some people don’t use the term very often is that they think it means something different than it actually does. Or maybe they really do just disagree with you. But I still want to know what you think about this.
I just started reading this thread. But it seems to me that the term “nominal Christians”, defined as Christians who don’t go to church very often, is very problematic.
People who for some reason identify as Christians but seem “nominal” can fall into at least 4 catagories that I can think of off hand.
1) Weak Christians. This may include all Christians at some point. Someone who becomes occupied with the cares or attractions of this world and doesn’t focus on Christ. If it goes on for a long time to a great degree, they might be called “nominal”.
2) Prodigals. People who have wandered from their faith but haven’t totally rejected it, and may still come back.
3) Apostates. People who actually have totally rejected a faith they once had, and
4) Hypocrites. People who never had faith but who perceived some advantage to appearing to be Christian, and so pretended to be. You don’t see this much in 21st Century America, because there are no longer that many advantages to being percieved as Christian.
These are such disparate groups, that it seems pretty hard to lump the all together in one big discussion.
Kerner – 73
I can give you an answer, but it most likely will not be tonight. Since my stating I am “Born Again” months ago. I was told by some of the posters that they “despised” the so called “moniker” – in light of that, I am going to wait until I think this over. The reason is, to be Born Again in Christ is sacred, it isn’t something I’m going to put forth and then mocked as before. The words come from Jesus Christ, not a mere man, but God the Son.
You might be very sincere in your request, but there are others who treat those wonderful words, uttered by Christ as “despised”, … in my mind, to go over this is throwing pearls to swine, since all the rest can post to whatever I write. I don’t mean you, but this is an open board, we aren’t having a conversation in my living room.
Kerner – 74
I don’t agree with any of your four choices. The reason is; there are not a lot of churches who teach/preach the Gosple, but there are a great many churches.
Those whom I know who don’t attend church very often are heartsick over the attitudes, practices, of the church – which has driven many to begin ‘house churches’ – I’m not sold on them, but I certainly don’t find fault with those who choose that way to Worship and fellowship. The Word of God is the most important aspect of teaching, nothing else takes its place. As we know, ‘house churches’ were most often the only way people attended church after Christ arose. Of course the Apostles taught out in the open to great multitudes of people as well.
kerner @ 74, off hand, I can also think of the following:
Christians hurt by a church or churches.
Christians who can’t find the Gospel preached and administered (Sacrament) in a local/regional church.
Christians who are strong introverts (and as such: healthy, normal people).
Notice there’s nothing “weak” or “inadequate” or “false” about these three types of infrequent churchgoers.
Let’s not forget Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. I think this is most of America, picking and choosing what to believe, but saying they are Christian when asked (with no irony, since they “believe” in Jesus)
I find this discussion very interesting and something I have struggled w/. Here is my first:
fws at 28 says: And christians recognize others who have been baptized as christians and address them as such until they renounce their baptism.
Me: I don’t know if my label is accurate, but I consider anyone a nominal Christian if they deny tenets of the faith…whether or not they renounce their baptism. This includes most of my family. They say things like, Jesus didn’t physically resurrect. It was a spiritual resurrection. Jesus had more of a political message than spiritual. Everyone goes to Heaven bc God is so loving. You don’t have to go to church to be a good person. The Bible is a bunch of campfire stories. The Bible contradicts itself constantly. Muslims and Buddhists call Jesus a different name, but it’s all the same God. And my favorite: I’m a Christian, but not your kind of Christian, Purple Koolaid.
What would you say to those things, FWS? They never deny their baptism, but say things that are so contradictory to orthodox Christianity that it is hard to call them Christian. Only God knows if they’re saved, but saying those things are pretty off the charts.
another questions for Todd at 29 :
Is the church for sinners or for people who do good? Do we want sinners to come to church? We may think that we make ourselves look better (and, goes one apparent argument in the book, we therefore look more attractive to the world — “Come join us! Be less bad!”), but if there are fewer people who’ve divorced in our church than there are among non-believers, doesn’t that also mean that divorced people apparently don’t feel as welcome in our churches as they do staying at home? If Christianity is about forgiveness, wouldn’t we want vastly disproportionate number of divorced people filling our pews?
Purple Koolaid: Todd, isn’t the whole idea that once you become a Christian you don’t get divorced for unbiblical reasons? I understand lots of divorced people coming to church apres divorce, but Christians should not be getting divorced once they are in the church (for unbiblical reasons). Trust me, I’ve read the bible frontwards and backwards trying to get out of my marriage, and it’s not in there.
I got saved as an adult. After salvation, someone explained biblical sexuality, I had a desire to stop fornicating and getting drunk. Isn’t that the holy spirit working in me? If I had kept fornicating, shouldn’t the church have excommunicated me?
Stephen 69
“How much scientific information was available in Jesus’ time about leprosy or in the middle ages about the Black Plague? Granted, I didn’t live in SF at the time, but I know for quite some time afterward people were abandoned in hospital rooms even when it was known that the disease could only be spread through the blood. There remains a stigma about it that the church has not gone to any great lengths to help remove but went to some lengths to help create.”
Stephen, HIV/AIDS is spread through semen and blood -
Stephen how long people lay in hospital rooms before they knew how the disease was spread, or if it was spread in other ways, took a few years.
Do you know how it’s spread? - it’s mainly spread through semen, that is how male to male sexual relations are making this disease a disaster – it’s also spread through IV drug use.
Check out this link: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmission.htm
I’m very sorry Stepehen –
Post 81 should have been posted on:
http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/22/maybe-christians-arent-so-bad-after-all/#comment-111107
Purple Koolaid –
I understand your concerns because I see this in my own family as well. I have often said I grew up in a “nominal Christian” home. We never went to Church – not Easter, not Christmas, never – and yet my parents held on to the idea they were Christians of some sort. I literally did not know what Christianity was at all until I became slowly interested in high school, and then really came to begin to understand who Jesus is and what he did while in college. My dad still expresses lots of ideas that are not orthodox, and without any kind of rebellious attitude or anything (that I can perceive). He just does not have a clue. I used to get bound up in worry about it, and try to preach to him. Now I just point him to the cross, to Jesus’ blood which covers our sin – and leave it at that. I am not preachy and don’t intrude with the gospel at inappropriate times – I don’t try to convince or convert. God brings people to faith through His Word together with the Spirit – not me. Strangely, I do believe God is bringing him to faith as he no longer objects to my pointing to Jesus, partly because he realizes I am not aiming at him any more than myself.
Thank you alll. I never thought my 4 catagories were the only possibilities.
Grace @75
Take your time. I remember that thread, and I understand how you must feel. Whatever some of us think “born again” has come to mean today, Our Lord first used the term. So, it must have a true meaning, and there is no reason why Christians should not use it today.
And I know that you are always defending your honest beliefs, so that’s why I want to know what you think.
Kerner,
Thank you for your kind and loving response. I won’t forget!
The conclusion I draw from the original post is that the kingdom of church is more important than the kingdom of God. This is an unbiblical point of view.
Is it worthwhile to distinguish between the nominal Christian and the false convert knowing that whatever measures are used to distinguish between the two are not 100% certain?
For argument’s sake, let’s say that it is. What measures would you use?
Another question, would it be a sin to lovingly approach a nominal Christian the same as you would lovingly approach a false convert?
Similarly, would it be a sin to lovingly approach a nominal Christian the same as you would lovingly approach an unbeliever?
Should Christians be fruit-inspectors of nominal Christians and false converts?
Do wolves in sheep’s clothing and wolves in shepherd’s clothing ever appear as nominal Christians or as false converts?
Inquiring minds would like to know!
purple koolaid @ 79 and moallen @ 83
Here is what it looks like when I meet people who are baptised but don´t know much about the faith they were baptized into:
If someone is unbaptized, what I share with them is a knowledge of the Law God has written in the mind or a conscience. I let that conversation be about them rather than about God , following God´s example in Genesis. I let them realize for themselves that they are naked and angry and flee God´s judgement. Only an insane person would not feel this way.
I remembert that I am not confirming in their own words anything they do not already know I am saying here. People suffer from outwardly breaking God´s Law. Pagans have the “Veil of Moses” over them. This means that for a pagan, God´s Law is about the pain that happens from what we do outwardly. They cannot understand that keeping the Law is purely a spiritual invisible thing and that what we say and do that can be observed is merely a consequence of where we put our faith in God´s Law.
And I remember that God cannot become an Object of L0ve as long as someone is afraid of Him. This is really really, really important to remember. The Law always accuses. The Law always accuses. Our task then is not to fix people with the Law. This cannot be done.
Now for the baptized I am commanded by the Law of Love and the 8th commandment to address these people as christians. This is a matter of love and not of faith. I mean by that that I cannot look into their heart and know whether or not faith in them that was most certainly placed into them by the HS in Holy Baptism is still smouldering in their heart or not. But I deal with them giving that the benefit of the doubt.
So I call them back to their baptism. This is what I would do to either of you as well! I say: “well you were baptized! That means that God placed upon you the Most Holy and Blessed Name of the Most Holy Trinity upon you. This is not a trivial thing to me. It should not be to you either. And it means that that dear Lord Jesus whom I love was placed in you. You need to trust in that when your conscience bothers you. Use your baptism when your concience troubles you. Present your Baptism to God as proof to him that you are his when your conscience troubles you. And then I merely fill in the blanks as to what that means. Baptism of course is the Promise that is in, with and under it. Which is Christ. And I am inviting Faith to cling to that Promise in order to receive the Promised Mercy that is in, with and under that Baptism. See?
So I talk to that person as one who is INside the church, and not as one of “them” or “those” outside the Church with someone who has been Baptized. They are in communion with me. They are in the same Body as me. I speak to them in that way until they completely reject that this is so. Watch. That complete rejection may never come! Give it time please.
Purple Koolaid @ 80
PURPLE “if there are fewer people who’ve divorced in our church than there are among non-believers, doesn’t that also mean that divorced people apparently don’t feel as welcome in our churches as they do staying at home? If Christianity is about forgiveness, wouldn’t we want vastly disproportionate number of divorced people filling our pews?”
FWS Bingo. This is what Todd and me and Steve are talking about. You get it!
PURPLE Todd, isn’t the whole idea that once you become a Christian you don’t get divorced for unbiblical reasons? … I’ve read the bible frontwards and backwards trying to get out of my marriage, and it’s not in there.
I got saved as an adult. After salvation, someone explained biblical sexuality, I had a desire to stop fornicating and getting drunk. Isn’t that the holy spirit working in me? If I had kept fornicating, shouldn’t the church have excommunicated me?
FWS You addressed Todd, so I hope you do not mind me answering here. Here is what Saint Paul and the Lutheran Confessions say:
The Law God has written in the minds of men (but not their hearts…) is called Reason or Conscience. This Law of God will exist and will always accuse fallen mankind. Man will try to erase those three letters “L.A.W.” with a cosmic eraser. But the Law is written in Reason by God. How can one erase that? Drugs? Alcohol? Only temporarily! It exists in, with and under poop scoop ordinances, the federal tax code, toll roads, and your wife or husband nagging you to do something you don´t want to do but are supposed to do, like provide sex, food, a clean house, money, etc. This same Law can be found in the Decalog or the 10 commandments.
Now then: Fallen Man knows this Law. It is unavoidable. It always accuses. We resent it! We wish there was no tax code or toll booth or the Law of God in the form of that nagging wife or husband or parent. And what does this Divine Law that is in, with and under other ordinary people accuse us of? That we DO stuff that is bad. This is the outward stuff that has courtroom style evidence that could lock us up. Note that this is not a Divine Law that is about faith or motive. Faith and motive are excluded from this sort of Law . It would be unjust , on earth, to factor faith and motive in in most cases, or at least problematic. This Law is about do or don´t. And it is THIS Law thay you Ms or Mr Purple are looking for in the Bible right?
But now as a baptized christian, you have faith in Jesus. This means that you should see that the Law of God is about something more than Reason can know. Saint Paul says that the Law is Spiritual. This means that it can only be kept spiritually. This means that keeping the Law is not exactly about what we do or do not do. That doing or not doing is a consequence of where we put our faith and is not exactly about our keeping or not keeping the Law. Let me explain by pointing to where we can find this Spiritual Law.
We find that Law of God that peculiarly and uniquely deals with our deepest movements of the heart where? We find it in the Decalog and the Sermon on the Mount. Before we became Christians, we could only see the Law through what Saint Paul calls the “Veil of Moses”. Here is what our Lutheran Confessions say about that Veil:
Ok. This is describing how you are looking for permission to divorce in the Decalog dear Purple. You are following the Law of God externally, but your heart is not in it. Now, baptized and in faith, you can see that this is no keeping of the Law of God at all is it? So you should feel even more condemned and even terrified in your conscience in knowing that this is the keeping of the Law, one that is from the bottom of your heart, that God demands nothing less than of you. And you do not do this do you? No one does.
So what do you do? You flee to your Baptism and your Christ. That is what you do. This looks like USING the works of Christ and not your own as what you offer up to God as your Propitiation. You use Christ´s works as your “get-0ut-of-jail-free” card and not what you outwardly do or do not do.
But this does not mean then that you will do whatever you want. God´s Law is still that external Law that is written in your Reason and mind that accuses you and accuses you correctly. But even there, faith informs you that this doing is not about the sacrifice of obedience to a set of rules whether they make you happy or not. Or whether they make others miserable or not. The point of God´s Law , even externally, is what? sacrifice or Mercy?
Jesus says that the entire point of even the outward keeping of the Law is to do love for others. It is to show mercy to others. It is to make earthly life better and happier.
So Purple. You are freed from the Law. “All things are legal and lawful now for you” (I cor 6). But… “not all things are useful.” Saint Paul adds. What does he mean? He really means that first “All” doen´t he? Tell me how he does not. But he says then that not all things are useful. This is about that new commandment Jesus gives us, to love one another even as he has loved us. This means that you are now , in faith in Jesus, free to focus on the happiness not of yourself dear Purple but on that of your spouse. And you cannot find out how to do this by looking for some list in the Bible can you? As in that romantic song: “baby, I am going to show you my love by keeping some list I found in the Bible”.
Love does not work that way does it? How can you best make your spouse happy in life? Maybe you should start acting like you are romantically in love with him and those feelings will follow, and his will too? Maybe not. Worth a try? Only you can know for sure. Divorce? maybe. Maybe not. Get counseling. This is often best to get from a pagan. This is about practical doing and not about thinking spiritual thoughts Purple. It is about serving your spouse in your words, and deeds and making him happy, and yourself happy too in that process. But as for you, maybe, maybe (I can´t know for sure) it is best to remain in that marriage, accept the suffering that probably entails, unless this is harmful to you mentally or physically. In that case you need to get out of that marriage.
That “can´t know for sure” part is about the fact that keeping the Law is a spiritual thing. It is about doing love and not, exactly, about following rules. Love cannot be done by following a recipe. But then too avoiding rules as the way to be “free” is not love either because it that is to have faith in outward things rather than that God who is “in , with and under” all the rules we see.
But the rule is that you are to love your spouse as much as you love your own self. And you will not do this will you? So then you do the best you can in prayer and hold up what Christ did before God to plead your case for Mercy from God.
God bless you dear Purple. Our prayers are all with you.
truth unites and divides @ 88
Please see my Lutheran response at 89. It may not work for you if you are not a Lutheran, but again , maybe it will raise some questions in your mind that are fruitful.
Bless you!
FWS, I appreciate your prayers but I think you’re way off. Marriage is very important in the Bible. Relationships matter in the Bible. The Bible gives explicit releases for divorce. Whether or not I’m unhappy is not one of them. You’re on a slippery slope that Jesus NEVER taught.
IS this what the LCMS teaches? If so, I’m running away. It sounds as though you are making self the highest good, which is exactly what the pagans teach. Go to a pagan for counseling?? Are you serious? So I can be told to have an extramarital affair? That could make me happy. I better consult my happy meter.
Dear Purple @ 92
I am not seeing any evidence at all that you really read or understood anything I said.
The conclusions you got from what I wrote would be absolutely and completely impossible to get if you had read it and understood it.
“Now for the baptized I am commanded by the Law of Love and the 8th commandment to address these people as christians. “
FWS, I sorta understand where you’re coming from. And I sorta don’t.
Q for you: Would you be surprised if there were baptized Lutherans in Hell?
Truth Unites and divides @ 94
Flip your thinking around.
The thing to ponder, in view of God´s passionate Goodness and Mercy shown to us by the Holy Passion and by Holy Baptism is how anyone could be lost at all…
Yet Scripture clearly says that people will chose to be in hell. Many of those will be Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists….
How this could be is a profound and sad mystery that should be personalized and not made into some abstract thing to ponder theoretically and philosophically. These things must be pondered in your own Holy Baptism and in the Love that is Christ Jesus revealed to you in the Word of God dear friend. That is the only place your Lord has given you, personally , the answer behind your question.
What is certain is that no one will get to heaven or hell by what they do or do not do, by Love, or by becoming re-conformed to God´s Holy Law. One cannot return to God´s Image or to that Adamic Original Righeousness by keeping God´s Law or by , in sanctification, becoming again conformed to it.
This is true even if that conformity is called “sanctification” and is worked by the Holy Spirit.
fws:
Yeah…it’s me again. I’m beginning to pay more attention to your analysis, as opposed to focusing on your conclusions. And I think I’m beginning to understand you better. I’m going to have to ponder for awhile before I can sort out everything I find valuable or wrong with an analysis as complex as that, but let me just point something out.
Whether you mean to say this or not, your comment @90 sounds like you are encouraging Purple to substitute Purple’s own judgment as to how to love his/her neighbor (spouse, in this case) for Jesus’ words about divorce.
When Jesus said that all the Law and the Prophets hangs on the commandments to love God and love our neighbors, I think that generally, that is a statement that we do show love to our neighbors by doing what the “rules” direct us to do. Because God knows what showing love means better than we do, in that sense the rules he gives us about our relationships with other people are a recipe for showing love. I think we can do great damage by disregarding them, even if we don’t see it immediately.
Maybe Purple didn’t completely understand you, and I don’t necessarily claim to understand you either. But I understand Purple’s reaction.
FWS,
I’m just trying to understand the coherence (or lack of it as the case may be) of your two statements:
(A) “Now for the baptized I am commanded by the Law of Love and the 8th commandment to address these people as christians. “
and
(B) “Yet Scripture clearly says that people will chose to be in hell. Many of those will be Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists…. ”
———
Given that you say that Scripture declares that Hell will have some Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists, et al, do you condemn folks who lovingly discern that someone in their sphere of relationships is actually a baptized Hell-bound Lutheran and then lovingly approaches the baptized Hell-bound Lutheran as though they were unregenerate?
Kerner @ 96
I am so glad that you are looking at what I am trying to articulate and the “arguments” rather than going straight to the end result.
So I will urge on you our confessions where this is explained better, and where you will feel the authority behind what is said. I will first suggest that you read our confessions, most notably the Apology , setting aside the categories you think you know as being “lutheran” just for a moment. Let our confessions mess with your categories ok?
So here is how I suggest you re-read art I (that is about baptism that restores the Image of God and is our basis for dialog with all other Christians) then art II and art III and then finally art IV in that order:
I admit that I am doing a poor job here. I am trying really to articulate exactly what our Apology says in art II and III.
This article says that the difference between the Image of God and Original Righeousness vs original sin is Faith vs faith.
It is not Faith vs vice. The opposite of sin is not goodness. The opposite of sin is Faith alone in Christ alone. “That which is not of faith is sin”.
That we are saved by faith and not by works is something we mouth and repeat. And we correctly say still that outward Good Works, which are defined in God´s Word, are necessary. They are not optional. The confessional explanation as to why this is so is not that clear to even Lutherans and it is most difficult to articulate.
If you read art II, note that they make a huge point of redefining that word “concupiscence ” as being ALL about misdirected faith, and not the Roman Catholic and Augustinian definition of concupiscence as being carnal lust and thoughts. Concupiscence gets redefined there as “faith-in-anything-BUT-Christ. And so concupiscence becomes faith in a righeousness of keeping the Law of God as the highest and most Mortal (ie Capital, punishable-by-death) form of concupiscence. It is really important Kerner that you get what they are doing here. They are saying that there is 1) faith in christ alone, and there is 2) faith in anything BUT Christ. There is no such thing as unbelief they are saying!
Then I want you to skip a little: First go to the first part of art IV where they say this: God wrote his Law in the mind (ie Reason) called conscience. This is the SAME law as one finds in the Decalog. But wait. There is another Law of God that is hidden in, with and under that Divine Law that Reason can know.
This Law is “in, with and under” the Decalog, and can only be known by faith alone in Christ alone. The Decalog is that Law of God that “peculiarly ” deals with what? “Movements of the Heart”!
Now go to the beginning of art III on “Love and the fulfilling of the Law” and read what it says about the “veil of Moses”.
I think if you follow what I am telling you carefully, you will understand exactly where I am trying to take sister/brother Purple.
Bless you Kerner +!
FWS –
I understand baptism as a means of Grace – and agree that it is comforting as a Christian to rejoice in my baptism into Christ. I have pointed my family to their baptism into Christ and the Cross where Jesus paid for all our sins. I place the emphasis on Jesus sacrifice for our sins – I think the connection between Jesus death on the cross and our forgiveness is where my dad begins to understand it’s not about us or about some ridiculous thing he heard one time as a child from a Jehovah’s Witness about the end of the world and how this proves all religion wrong (I kid you not – he raises this all the time).
My mother has a better understaning and did feel some tug towards Church. She once dropped me at a Church Sunday School in the 6th grade by myself and drove away (which led to a completely humiliating experience for me in which I had no clue how to look up Scriptures and was being asked to by the class teacher – for about 5 minutes I fumbled with the Bible, was pointed to the page, and still had NO CLUE where the scripture was that she was referring to – finally someone said read from here to here pointing at the Bible they had given me – I refused to get out of the car the next week when my mom attempted this stunt again and that was the end of that). Anyway, she is much more receptive to the gospel and enjoys when I encourage her by reminding her that she belongs to Christ, his death counts for her righteousness, she has been baptised into Christ.
My life growing up in a “nominal Christian” home many times was not good. Believe me – if you are not taking Christianity seriously and receiving from God, then sin will have it’s way. I have had serious forgiveness issues.
Truth U and D @ 97
TRUTHUD:
Given that you say that Scripture declares that Hell will have some Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists, et al,
FWS This is not a given. Where does scripture says this? Baptism offers a Promise that is Christ. Scripture says this: “Baptism does also now save us”. To find why some are saved and others not, one would not look to what the Scripture says about Holy Baptism, those passages are all about the Salvation, the Gospel, Christ and the Promise that Faith Clings to. You need to look somewhere other than those baptismal passages to see why some go to hell. We need to keep Law and Gospel passages separate and not combine and confuse them.
TRUTHUD: [then why] do you condemn folks who lovingly discern that someone in their sphere of relationships is actually a baptized Hell-bound Lutheran and then lovingly approaches the baptized Hell-bound Lutheran as though they were unregenerate?
FWS “lovingly discern”. Define how that works. Are we talking about separating the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats or becoming “fruit inspectors”? Did Christ say we are to do this winnowing or are we to leave that up to Him?
If we take upon ourselves a task that is forbidden by Our Lord Jesus then I am certain that that is not “love” or “loving”. It is sin.
Moallen @ 99
I was raised in a mixed family. Mom was Lutheran. Dad was whatever. He resisted my mom baptizing me and my sister.
I am also a gay man. The thing I want to know when talking to a gay man or women or transgender or other human who is or is not going to church is whether or not they were baptized.
This will totally govern the common basis for my interaction with them. Unbaptized? Ok. We both understand the Law at least in the “go through the motions and do it” sort of way.
Baptized? A happier conversation happens in that case! I urge that person to trust in their Baptism. Trust as in faith. Not trust as some “check-the-list-go-through-the-motions-DONE!” sorta thing. I think you know exactly what I am talking about.
These baptized ones are shocked to be address as sheep not goats, wheat not tares and good soil rather than that other dirt. And you can often see hope starting to spread accross their face with this sort of talk!
Me: “Given that you say that Scripture declares that Hell will have some Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists, et al,”
FWS: “This is not a given. Where does scripture says this?”
I’m just quoting you from your comment in #95 where you wrote:
“Yet Scripture clearly says that people will chose to be in hell. Many of those will be Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists….”
Don’t you remember writing that?
Kerner @ 96
“Whether you mean to say this or not, your comment @90 sounds like you are encouraging Purple to substitute Purple’s own judgment as to how to love his/her neighbor (spouse, in this case) for Jesus’ words about divorce.”
I am going to assert that the Confessions say two things that will sound absolutely contradictory until you get art II and III and IV of the Apology in the sense of being able to outline and articulate the exact underlying unified argument they present:
1) ap art IV asserts that concerning earthly morality, nothing can be demanded beyond Aristotle´s Ethics. Ponder that. No Word of God is necessary to be able to either know or do God´s Will on earth. Any pagan or wiccan fag or lesbian dyke can be righeousness and not merely “righeous” by God´s earthly standard simply by studying that other pagan named Aristotle. No faith or belief in God or a god is necessary.
2) To truly know that Law of God that “peculiarly” deals with “Movements of the Heart” one must go to the Decalog! One can only know this Law of God from the Holy Scriptures.
This is the difference between the Same Law of God being written in the mind/reason/conscience and the Law of God being written in the heart/in faith alone/in christ alone.
Same Divine Law. One covered with the Veil of Moses and seen only through intermediaries like city ordinances or a nagging wife. and the other seen nakedly only when the Image of God has been restored.
Interestingly, it is only that second Law that faith can see that has the power to terrify us! But it interestingly does not kill faith. This terror of the Law exercises our faith and drives us alone to Christ, who alone can strengthen our faith.
The Law cannot do that. The Law always accuses. The Law always accuses. It demands, and then demands some more. It gives us nothing. and finally it demands our very breath and life.
FWS in #101: “I am also a gay man.”
If you wouldn’t mind answering, are you celibate or non-celibate? If non-celibate, how long have you been non-celibate?
Correction to #104.
My last question should have been worded thusly:
If celibate, how long have you been celibate?
Sorry.
TRUTHDU @ 102
truthdu : “Given that you say that Scripture declares that Hell will have some Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists, et al,”
fws: “Yet Scripture clearly says that people will chose to be in hell. Many of those will be Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists….”
truthdu: Don’t you remember writing that?
fws: of course. I would invite you to see that those two statements are not identical. They do not say the same thing. Why not? Each is a conclusion that is made from an entirely different starting point. You start with the Law. I start with the Gospel.
The basic question that every religion addresses I suggest is this:
“What can mankind do to restore the Image of God and to return to Paradise by restoring the Original Adamic Rightousness?”
A muslim, budhist, new ager, or athiest will not put this quest in exactly those terms, but this is the eternal quest of all the religious and philosophical minds.
I am guessing, (correct me if I am wrong !), that you imagine that a return to Paradise looks like sinful, errant mankind being reconformed to the Law of God which would be a return to His Image. I also imagine that you believe that the way to achieve this is that the Holy Spirit uses the Gospel and the Bible to set you on this path.
Lutherans do not believe that this is the way to get back to Paradise.
We seem to be saying the same thing. We are not. One has to start at the beginning and work to the end conclusions. We have a different starting point as to how we think fallen , sinful, man can return to the lost Image of God and Adamic paradisical righteousness and what that Image and Righeousness consist of. Again correct me if I am wrong.
TRUTHDU @ 102
Specifically : I am asserting that the definition of a restored Image of God and Adamic Original Righeousness is what?
It is to have the Blessed and Most Holy Name of the Most Holy Trinity splashed onto sinful mankind with ordinary chlorinated , florinated tap water.
I believe this is true even if some again later fall from that Image of God. The fact that some can lose, once again, from the Image of God and Adamic Original Righeousness is not proof that the Name of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity splashed on someone does not make this happen.
God´s Word locates that Promise in Holy Baptism. Faith clings to that Promise that God Himself has located in, with and under that ordinary tap water. And so Faith receives the Promised Mercy that is Christ alone. And Faith alone receives this.
Read I Kings and the story of Naaman being told to wash in the Jordan by elisha to get this. Ask yourself these questions:
1) was it the water of the jordan that cleansed Naaman? Would water in damascus have cleansed him? why or why not?
2) was it God or sinful elisha that commanded naaman to do this act?
3) was it the act itself or faith in the Promise God located in the work that cleansed Naaman.
4) apply what you learned here to Holy Baptism.
FWS,
Because you’re off on your own agenda about Law and Gospel, we’re not communicating.
I think you’re a bit confused, and I’ll trust that eventually your confusion will cease.
Pax.
FWS: “I am also a gay man.”
If you don’t mind responding, are you celibate or non-celibate?
“The thing I want to know when talking to a gay man or women or transgender or other human who is or is not going to church is whether or not they were baptized.”
You may want to prayerfully consider whether you’re making baptism a false idol.
“I urge that person to trust in their Baptism. Trust as in faith. Not trust as some “check-the-list-go-through-the-motions-DONE!” sorta thing. I think you know exactly what I am talking about.”
Actually, it seems like you are making Baptism a false idol. Albeit perhaps unwittingly.
I wonder if you are familiar with the slide of The Episcopal Church into gross apostasy and blatant heresy? If you’re not, I should like to inform you that a significant component of their slide into soul-destroying apostasy is an unhelpful emphasis on their “baptismal covenant.”
Pax.
TRUTHDU @ 104 & 105
I do hope, for your own sake , that you do not make a habit of approaching total strangers you do not know and feel it perfectly normal to ask them about their sex life.
Much less your boss at work: “do you or do you not have sex? can we discuss your sex life please?”
Or to a judge who is about to render judgement on your speeding ticket “Hey I read in the local newspaper that you are gay. Before you render judgement on me, could you please inform me, your honor, whether or not you are having sex?”
Yet here you feel no awkwardness or risk in asking. Might I suggest that the normal constraint rules of social ettiquette do not leave you on the internet? And that there are compelling reasons to thing thussly?
So why do you want to know this about me? Why does it matter? Would it confirm the truth or falsity of what I am saying? I am just curious…
you do not need to feel obliged to answer my question.
Truth Unites… and Divides March 24, 2011 at 1:28 pm
FWS in #101: “I am also a gay man.”
If you wouldn’t mind answering, are you celibate or non-celibate? If non-celibate, how long have you been non-celibate?
.105Truth Unites… and Divides March 24, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Correction to #104.
My last question should have been worded thusly:
If celibate, how long have you been celibate?
Sorry.
truthud @ 109
“Actually, it seems like you are making Baptism a false idol. Albeit perhaps unwittingly.”
Yeah . I know you are thinking this way. It´s because you are not really bothering to read and try to comprehend what I am saying.
Here is my proof: You could not repeat my argument back to me in your own words if your very life depended on it.
By the way, my friends call me Frank. You can call me Frank. What is your name please?
FWS: “So why do you want to know this about me? Why does it matter? Would it confirm the truth or falsity of what I am saying? I am just curious…”
Because it makes a difference.
A celibate gay man professing to be a Christian appears to implicitly recognize that same-sex behavior is sin.
A non-celibate gay man professing to be a Christian would seem to be saying that his same-sex behavior is not a sin.
truthud @ 109
Yes. I am painfully aware of the slide of the Orthodox church, the roman catholic church, the Lutheran Church, the anglicans into rank apostasy and unbelief.
I am also aware of that same slide happening much more quickly in the newer sects called baptist, calvinist, methodist, and penticostal.
I am aware that this slide into the darkness of false faith is especially rapid in those groups that do not practice infant baptism and where you will probably never hear the name of the Holy Trinity invoked as such except, blessedly! when a baptism is being done.
truthud @ 112
convinced. It matters.
So then it follows that you will go and ask your lesbian boss at work and that traffic court judge you know is gay the same question? Because it is urgent that you know this about them?
But we have not finished our other conversation on Holy Baptism and how one restores the Image of God and Original Adamic Righeousness.
One topic at a time dear brother. What is your name please? My friends call me Frank. Feel free to call me that . You are telling me you want that level of intimacy with me by your asking intimate questions right?
FWS,
Do you believe that same-sex behavior is sin?
P.S. FWIW, I believe that Scripture teaches that sex outside of marriage (a marriage between one man and one woman) is sin.
fws – 113
fws – you are not only wrong, you prove how little you know of other denominations. I have been involved in many who pray using God the Father, God the Son, and God the HOLY Spirit in their prayers, I pray this often myself. The TRINITY is taught and brought out repeatedly in the messages that are given.
You fws — do not know what you’re talking about.
truthud @ 115
It feels like, from my end, that you are totally ignoring everything I have written to you . So I am done with you for today dear friend. I have other stuff to do too. If you want to continue a real and true dialog, read what I wrote to you, and my questions to you. Respond.
Don´t take the liberty of highjacking the conversation and not responding to what I wrote. That does not feel either loving or polite, Please forgive me for being blunt.
This conversation has to interest both of us and feel respectful to both. Forgive me wherever I have not shown you the utmost respect you deserve to have.
peace +
grace @ 116
I am glad to hear that about you and your church. Next time you go to Calvary Chappel I would like you to do this: Count the number of times (outside of a baptism being performed) where the pastor says this “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit”.
Please do not take this as a challenge or barbed comment I am directing at you to argue dear Grace. I really sincerely want to know. This would be truly new news to me. And I would be grateful to hear you report back “The Name was invoked 6, 7, 12 + times during our church service”.
I will in that case very very joyfully publicly exempt Calvary Chapel from what I said every single time in the future!
Thanks for the intitial correction. Can you please follow up with this additional information? Thanks!
Bless you Grace!
“Forgive me wherever I have not shown you the utmost respect you deserve to have. “
I forgive you.
@119
Thanks! What did you say your name was friend?
Grace, #116: “You fws — do not know what you’re talking about.”
A matter-of-fact true statement. It’s why I wrote #108.
fws – 118
NO fws, I will not do that, for the very reason, I Worship God, I don’t listen to the pastor, or the one praying, keeping count. I know they use God the Father, God the Son and God the HOLY SPIRIT. No one can Worship God, listen and pray, keeping count all at the same time –
You have a lot of nerve. “REPORT BACK” ? – you will just have to take my word for it.
Calvary Chapel doesn’t need your EXEMPTION. I don’t have time for your church games!
Truth Unites… and Divides – 121
“A matter-of-fact true statement. It’s why I wrote #108.”
I have been reading your exchange – I don’t know how long you have been reading this blog, or several posters…. it’s always accusations, no answers regarding sin, …… equals the DODGE!
You did a good job, TUD.
fws #101 “I am also a gay man. The thing I want to know when talking to a gay man or women or transgender or other human who is or is not going to church is whether or not they were baptized.”
“These baptized ones are shocked to be address as sheep not goats, wheat not tares and good soil rather than that other dirt. And you can often see hope starting to spread accross their face with this sort of talk!
Deliberate sin, be it homosexual sex or fornication/adultery is warned about in Scripture, but if you consider your Baptism as a means to circumvent deliberate sin, as an artful maneuver, you are wrong. You can talk about law and grace forever, however, anyone who has studied the Word of God isn’t going to listen, IF they believe what is in the New Testament.
fws #110 “Or to a judge who is about to render judgement on your speeding ticket “Hey I read in the local newspaper that you are gay. Before you render judgement on me, could you please inform me, your honor, whether or not you are having sex?”
You, and Truth Unites… and Divides, were not talking about something so silly as a “speeding ticket” – the discussion was about your stating that you are “gay” in post 101, and then dodging the question he asked, now using silly excuses.
“You did a good job, TUD.”
Thanks much, Grace!! I gotta run and see someone. I’ll be back to post a more expansive comment.
And you did a good job too, Grace!!
TUD, actually, your behaviour is quite boorish. You ask somebody about their sex life, but refuse to even admit your own name. That is bad, bad form.
Louis – 126
“TUD, actually, your behaviour is quite boorish. You ask somebody about their sex life, but refuse to even admit your own name. That is bad, bad form.”
It was fws who brought up being “gay” in post 101 – then proceeded to preach law and grace, not wanting to answer a question that would obviously come up, when preaching about the Bible. It’s not “bad form” as you call it. I wouldn’t listen to a pastor/teacher who claimed to be “gay” unless they had turned from that lifestyle, and became celibate.
Many posters on this blog use initials, etc. Why should – Truth Unites… and Divides, be any different?
There is – WebMonk – moallen – Collie – trotk, and others—– I think you get the idea.
Grace, the point was not that TTUAD uses a pseudonym – that is fine. The point was that he/she would ask such an extraordinary private question, YET refuse to divulge his/her own name.
He/she could easily have rephrased such a question in non-personal terms.
Kerner @ 96
If purple reads my post carefully, she will not find that I say she should determine her morality based on her own internal moral compass.
What she should hear are two messages that cannot possibly, ie reasonably, both be correct:
1) God demands that we keep not only the Decalog found in the Bible but also see that his Law is exactly found in city ordinances, the fed tax code and in the voice of a nagging spouse or parent. So God demands this external keeping of us. He promises to bless us if we do it, and he threatens to send plagues and pestilence to force us to do it if we do not. This is (oddly , to modern Lutheran ears shaded by Calvinism) why Luther gives this advice in the preface to the Catechism:
and again…
2) We should know that the Decalog is about “movements of the heart”. The Law informs us that a faith in this outward keeping of the Law as something that we can present to God to satisfy His demands upon us is the very worst form of concupiscence and lust and coveteousness.
1) and 2) cannot both be true according to Reason and the Law God himself has placed in our reason and mind!
Of course some on this blog do a tinyURL, that connects to their blog – those who click it, have just given their IP #, city, state and name - or those who don’t know, click their name/moniker which accomplishes the same purpose.
Grace @127
“It’s not “bad form” as you call it.”
No, actually, it is. In fact, it’s not even bad form–it’s terrible form. And I’m a little sad that you can’t even acknowledge that.
“a question that would obviously come up,”
Really? Demanding an account of Frank’s sex life is a question that would obviously come up in a debate over “law and grace”. Can I ask you any “obvious” questions about your life? I believe Kerner asked you what your definition of “born again” was a while back and you still haven’t answered that one.
Sigh.
/end rant
Sorry guys, I don’t post much as I mostly read but…uff da.
It seems to me that we ought not be surprised when folks who call themselves Christians but don’t behave like Christians wind up not behaving like Christians…
There are two explanations for this. Either they are trying to behave like Christians and are failing, or they are not trying and succeeding at failing. . Keeping a marriage together is hard. Either explanation is viable. Getting to Church once a month or more is not really that hard for most people. The later explanation is much more viable. Of the people in the later category, it is not surprising at all that they have a high divorce rate. If you are not willing to pour any effort into the little things, there is a good chance you are not going to be able to muster effort for the big things either.
Grace @131
Stop spreading a bizarre rumor that the posters here are evil malcontents looking to steal your identity. Also, unless you’re entering your name on a site there’s no way a site is tracking your “name” that’s just wrong.
Yes I don’t understand what the malfunction is here. FWS brought up that he was gay to try and illustrate a point about discussing baptism. Flip it for a moment, it would be the same as though FWS ceased all discussion until someone discussed their issues with lying or anger. The point was a discussion on the efficacy of baptism.
I’ve been to a Calvary Chapel. Never heard the Trinitarian Name invoked.
I did, however, hear the pastor pray the “Prayer of the Just” quite regularly:
“Lord, we just thank you Lord, for just Lord helping us Lord, for just being with us Lord, now we just ask…”
This thread has become a disaster. Just sayin’.
Bob, nice point about the “Prayer of the Just”
There is truth to that, in churches that do not use a liturgy.
However, let me clarify that Calvary Chapel is definitely Trinitarian. Here is a link to the doctrinal statement of the Calvary Chapel Bible College, which is similar to that which most Calvary Chapel Churches would ascribe to: http://calvarychapelbiblecollege.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=120
DonS,
Good point. Calvary Chapel is indeed Trinitarian. I just never heard the name of the Trinity used in their prayers, etc.
DonS:
It has become a dissaster, which is irritating to those of us trying to carry on a discussion about some serious questions.
What good is it to be “trinitarian” on paper if you are never teaching the Trinity? This is a real problem DonS. A real one, in that if the church is not teaching this people never come to understand it or articulate it. I have had evangelical after evangelical, calvary chapelite after calvery chapelite get upset when I tell them things like, God died on the cross, though by their iconology it seems they would not have a problem with that if I meant by it the Holy Spirit was crucified, because they can seem to nail pigeons to the cross at the rate Roman Soldiers did the bodies of humans.
“I have been reading your exchange – I don’t know how long you have been reading this blog, or several posters…. it’s always accusations, no answers regarding sin, …… equals the DODGE!”
Hi Grace,
I found this blog post via Tim Challies. He wrote: “Nominal Christians – Gene Edward Veith writes about an interesting study regarding nominal Christians.”
I didn’t know what to expect, but I thought it would be interesting to learn more and hear more about nominal Christians from Professor Veith.
I didn’t expect to engage in a thread discussion with a gay man exalting his baptism. (FWIW, I entered the thread at #88.) Since this post and thread is presumably about nominal Christians (or “Christians in Name Only”) I find it interesting that the thread has taken the turn that it has.
For example, I’m guessing that many folks think of a nominal Christian as someone who maybe goes to church twice a year (maybe Easter and Christmas) and is otherwise virtually indistinguishable from an unbeliever.
Well, in examining the varieties of nominal Christians, would it be appropriate to say that someone who is unrepentant in their sin (or even refuses to acknowledge that their sin is a sin) is a nominal Christian? And no matter how much this baptized person goes to church? For example Grace, suppose you know someone who is an unrepentant actively gay baptized Lutheran. Would it be alright to lovingly discern that this person is a nominal Christian? A Christian in name only?
And I want to be explicit and clear on this, the understanding assumption of the argument above is that same-sex behavior is sin. And that Divine Scripture is clear that same-sex behavior is sin, a sin for all people, for all places, and for all time.
And so this goes beyond the understanding that a nominal Christian is not merely a person who infrequently worships God corporately, but that a nominal Christian could be, or is, a baptized person who engages in unrepentant sin (or even denies that it’s a sin).
This consideration is a fruitful part of this thread. Thanks all.
Bror @ 139: Your statement is not accurate, but I appreciate the point you are making about catechism. We should be catechising our kids, no question about it. We do that at our church, which is one reason why I like it.
What part of my statement is not accurate?
Bob – 137
How many times have you attended a Calvary Chapel Church?
Truth Unites… and Divides – 140
You nailed it – your entire post says it all.
“You nailed it – your entire post says it all.”
Grace,
You’re very kind.
I believe I’ve made some grammatical errors in the excerpt that you quoted. I’d like to revise it so as to eliminate the obvious grammatical mistakes, and this will perhaps improve its readability as well:
“And so this goes beyond the understanding that a nominal Christian is only a person who corporately worships God on a very infrequent basis, but that a nominal Christian could be, or is, a baptized person who willfully engages in unrepentant sin (or even denies that it’s a sin).”
Hi Grace,
My family and I attended regularly for probably about a year and a half.
Truth Unites… and Divides – 145
I don’t think so –
I don’t believe “infrequently worships God corporately” or “worships God corporately” is the issue. It’s willfully sinning, that’s the KEY, whether they frequentely worship or corporately worship God Almighty every week – makes clear they willfully sin, no matter how they worship or how often. It’s the wolf in sheep’s clothing, with clever words, which appear to sound, SOUND, but in fact they are false, … often times verbalism, to the extreme. It could be identified as more is better, when in fact more verbalism serves nothing, because it’s vacant of factual truth regarding the Word of God.
TTUAD,
Fine: But so are the following things wrong:
False witness, lying, desiring that which isn’t yours, getting angry, thinking hateful thoughts, gluttony, greed of any kind, getting impatient with the kids, always seeing things in the worst possible light, not loving you neighbour as yourself, and, btw, Not Loving God with all your heart etc etc.
Most of us do some, even most of those, all the time, while going to Church, receiving the Sacraments etc etc. You assumed the worst interpration of fws’ words, and then proceeded to lay down the Law, with no grace at all. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, do you keep the Law perfectly?
Deliberate sin is; sinning on purpose. If one is defining homosexual sin, (sex between two males or females) – adultery/fornication – those sins are done intentionally. One doesn’t take their clothes off, perform the act, WITHOUT FIRST knowing what they are doing, undressing takes time – shacking up with, or seeing another person, having sex with, is a PLAN to DAMN. Who, ….. thinks sexual sin is an accident?
There is only one sin that gives a husband or wife the right to a Biblical divorce, and that is sexual sin – no gluttony, greed, lying, stealing, gossip ….. only sexual sin. Keeping this in mind, …. one must realize God must see sexual sin as one of the most repugnant.
Notice those who defend homosexuality in any way, or those who commit adultery/fornication – you will soon figure it out.
It’s willfully sinning, that’s the KEY,
I hear you Grace.
Funny how Professor Gene Veith’s post about nominal Christians has now led me to think about one of the more obvious differences between LCMS and ELCA.
I’m guessing that many of Dr. Veith’s readership is LCMS. And that they know what’s been happening in the ELCA.
For example, suppose a devout LCMS member observes an unrepentantly active gay baptized person ordained to the office of clergy in ELCA. And this ELCA ordinand preaches and teaches in both the pulpit and in behavior that same-sex behavior is not a sin.
Would it be wrong for the devout LCMS member to see or regard this unrepentantly active gay baptized ELCA ordinand as a nominal Christian, a Christian in name only?
Willful sinning?
That’s difficult to pin down too. Being both saint and sinner, having the Old Man and the New Man in me, I still have a sinful nature inside me that enjoys sinning on some level.
Grace:
I realize that this thread has taken a number of side tracks, including a direct criticism on Calvary Chapel, so I understand if you’ve been preoccupied. But I’m still interested in your answer to my question if you’re still interested in giving one.
@Truth
There are two dangers here: one is to approach our behavior/decisions as part of our salvation. That is: faith + faithful works = salvation. Make any comments that smack of that and the Lutherans on here will rightly pounce. Ephesians 2:8-9 make it clear that we are saved by grace through faith NOT works.
Grace is prone to this first trap, which robs the Gospel of its hope, because it puts my salvation right back on my own shoulders. At the very moment that I question my salvation, her theology tells me to seek assurance, not in Christ’s sacrifice, but in my obedience – never solid ground and I end up more afflicted.
There is another danger, one that has dogged Lutheranism since a student of Luther’s named Agricola: that is the idea that since we are saved by Christ’s work, our own behavior doesn’t matter at all. This is called antinomianism (anti-nomos: against Law) and is roundly condemned by both the Lutheran confessions (the writings to which all confessional Lutherans ascribe) and Luther’s own writings. Eph 2:10 makes it plain that salvation is enacted so that we can do good works which Christ has prepared for us to do.
Frank (“fws” – with whom I interacted at great length via e-mail on this topic several months ago) and Stephen to a lesser extent are prone to this second trap. Lutheranism is built on the two pillars of Law and Gospel. Minimize the Law and its accusations of sin and you minimize the Gospel which saves us from it. It is right to point to your baptism as your assurance when Satan accuses you, but wrong to use your baptism as license for whatever behavior appeals to you.
Thus, both Law and Gospel must be held before us constantly – that is why they are the two chief doctrines of all Scripture. When we become confident in our sins, the Law must remind us that sin brings death. And any sin, whether by the unregenerate or by the regenerate has caused the agony and death of Christ. We must never minimize the costs of our sin. Thus the formulation that the Law always accuses.
However, when we are convinced of and afflicted by the guilt of our sins, the Gospel must always assure us that we are saved by Christ’s work, not our own. Christ took on our sin, died in our place, and rose victorious over it. And we can look to our baptism and to receiving Christ’s very body and blood in communion as our physical reminders that this is most certainly true.
The Gospel must never be preached to those who are secure in their sin. The Law must never be preached to those who are crushed by their guilt. That is why Luther taught that the greatest art and task of a preacher is to rightly distinguish and apply the Law and the Gospel.
As to your question regarding the LCMS and ELCA pastors, unless the ELCA pastor was coming to the LCMS pastor for counsel or communion, it would not be the LCMS pastor’s role to determine the efficacy of the other’s faith (and not even really in those circumstances). Just as I cannot and would not seek to determine the efficacy of yours or Grace’s or fws’s. Don’t even try to go there. Instead, thank God that it only takes faith the size of a mustard seed and pray earnestly that God will be merciful to me, a sinner. After all, this is a trustworthy saying: Jesus Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am the worst.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your comment. It was helpful in several areas. And there are some areas where if I was in the mood and inclined to do so, I would drive the proverbial truck through the wide gaps in your comment. But that would just take this thread too far afield.
And fwiw, although this is the first time that I’ve encountered Grace (i.e., you may have more extensive experience with her) I do not think that she falls more into the first trap as you think she does.
Pax.
Rob @153:
I, on the other hand, found your comment to have very little by way of holes. Good job explaining the necessary balance..
Rob @ 153: I’m with Kerner. As a non-Lutheran, your comment makes me feel a lot better about Lutheranism. A lot of the things I have read on this blog have seemed to disregard and even reject the idea that we, as Christians, are part of the Body of Christ and as such are vessels for God’s service and have a duty of obedience to Him.
rob @ 153
Good solid Augustinian theology!
But not Lutheran. Show each of the assertions you made from the Lutheran Confessions. You will not be able to. But I can find every one of them in Calvin´s Institutes.
rob @ 153
The underlying problem is that you are not defining sin the way the Lutheran Confessions do Rob.
DonS, how is that? This site is all but dedicated to the lutheran doctrine of vocation in which we serve God in our vocations! The whole site is about how we serve God. And in serving god we do obey him. We just have huge differences with you about what all that means.
I would appreciate you answering my earlier question.
Frank, we’ve already done our ten rounds and you’ve more than had your say. I have supported each of the above points from the Confessions in previous correspondence, you just didn’t want to hear it. I have been spending some time in the Apology, as you recommended, but I still think you need to focus some time in the Large Catechism, particularly the Lord’s Prayer. However, my blessings and prayers are still with you, as I promised they would be.
If anyone else thinks I have said anything that disagrees with our Confessions, I am all ears. And Truth – I am curious: what do you think are the truck-size holes? (and to your other comment, I have interacted with Grace, and more frequently observed her interactions with others, for several months now)
Bror @ 159 — I missed your earlier question — you didn’t tag my post in it, so I didn’t note it.
Your statement was: “What good is it to be “trinitarian” on paper if you are never teaching the Trinity?”. Our church teaches the Trinity.
Rob @ 160
actually I spoke in haste and so in error. What you wrote here is really better than what I heard in our exchange. To be honest I can´t really find fault in what you wrote. A few nits maybe
Please forgive my criticism brother. I see lots of new things in what you wrote. It truly shows that you are digging into our Confessions! Their voice is starting to sound like your own eh?
Interesting you should point me to the Catechisms. I have been spending alot of time actually exactly where you are pointing me. Curious as to what in particular you would like me to take note of there in particular.
I see the Lord´s Prayer, as the Creed, and the Commandments as being about Fatherly Mercy and Goodness being done without our worthiness or merit, indeed without our prayer or asking, even for all the wicked.
Fatherly Goodness and Mercy places , “in, with and under” the Earthly Kingdom 1st article (10 commandments) : the Promise worked, delivered and given in the 2nd and 3rd article (creed) . Faith clings to that Promise (Lord´s Prayer) , and then it receives the Promised Mercy “in, with and under” the Earthly Kingdom commandments to Baptize, to receive the Holy Supper and to Absolve and be Absolved (Ap Art IV).
DonS,
If in your worship you are not invoking and or otherwise teaching the trinity, then it matters little what you are doing in sundayschool. What is taught in worship far outweighs all that.
Don S @ 161
I have only been to Calvary Chapels about 20-30 times in my life. I have never heard the Most Holy Name of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity ever once invoked except, blessedly , at a Holy Baptism that was performed.
Has this changed Don? I would really like to know to have my facts about your group straight. Can you remember last time you went to church how many times that Name was said in any context at all?
or over the last month… or months… or… I am not trying to be picky or nail you. I just want to get a flavor is all. Thanks brother!
Bror @ 163: I agree, but that is not the case in my church.
Frank @ 164: I cannot speak for every church which uses the name “Calvary Chapel”, any more than you can speak for every Lutheran church. But my “group”, as you call it, regularly invokes the name of the Trinity in worship. How many times? I’ve never counted. Were I counting, I believe that would be a distraction to worship, which I am sure you can understand.
Rob (@153), I can’t help but notice that what you appear to ascribe to Frank (“and Stephen to a lesser extent”) is a gross mischaracterization of what they’ve said. And I say this as one who does not claim to understand all that either of them has said, though I have spent not a small amount of time trying to do so.
You say that Frank is prone to believing that “our own behavior doesn’t matter at all”. Which would imply that he therefore has had nothing to say here about sin, or, conversely, loving our neighbor. If, as it seems, you’ve paid attention to his comments, you know that he, in fact, has had lots to say along those lines. So whence this idea of yours that he believes “our own behavior doesn’t matter at all”? And “matter” to whom, by the way?
In the interest of fully understanding what you mean, can you more fully explain what “appeals to you” means? I’m not trying to be sophomoric; I really can see multiple meanings for that phrase, based on which I could either agree or disagree with the statement.
Further to that end, I’m curious what you think baptism does. Satan certainly does accuse us, calling us sinners, enemies of God, worthy earners of Hell, and so on. And you are right to say we can point to our baptism in such situations. But, and here’s my point, why is that the right thing to do? And how might that affect one’s reading of your quote, above?
So … you’re saying that Frank would disagree with these statements? Because I think Frank has been pretty blunt about the fact that he’s a sinner, and that he relies solely on the grace of Christ. While I can’t know his (or anyone else’s heart), I’m pretty certain his confession has been one of repentance and trust in Christ’s all-sufficient grace.
Have you evidence to the contrary?
I agree with tODD, here. Especially about attributing the position “our own behavior doesn’t matter at all” to fws. Nothing I’ve heard fws say has hinted at anything of the sort. Think about it. His posts are wordy. If he really believed behavior didn’t matter, why would he write at such great length? Antinomianism is the wrong charge, even if fws is in error.
Yeah Rob, answer Todd. What’s up with saying Frank and I “to a lesser extent” advocate doing “whatever appeals to me?” When did I ever say anything like that? I believe I have hung my hat on my baptism – faith alone in Christ alone, Word and Sacrament. Beyond that I have talked about the whole of the law, the very same thing Jesus did – love of God and love of neighbor as yourself. How are you getting “whatever appeals to me” out of that? How exactly is this description of the whole of the law antinomian? I actually think you may be the antinomian who does not understand what the the divine law is and how it is kept. How is the law kept? Is it about the outward keeping of rules in a list? Tell me so I know.
Just a quick reply (no time for more until tonight). Re-read my post – the quote that has everyone up in arms is my sketch of Agricola’s position which was the first seed of antinomianism. I did not ascribe this to fws or to stephen, only said their positions are sometimes prone to this – a distinction Frank seems to have noticed. But I apologize for the confusion.
I will reply at greater length to Todd’s questions this evening. Stephen seems a bit hot under the collar at the moment, but I will try to respond to his demandsas best I can. Meantime, Stephen, take a deep breath and re-read what I said a second time, if you still feel I have wronged you don’t just fire back, “No, you’re the antinomian.” (an accusation that makes zero theological sense). At the very least, do what Frank did (and then graciously rescinded) and accuse me of Calvinism.
Okay, Todd, I will do my best. I know that internet comments can often convey unintended tones. Please know at the outset that I intend none, even if some may seem implied sometime (consider this a boilerplate “I’m not trying to be offensive” disclaimer). Also, I am sure you have picked up on the fact that Frank and I have interacted at length on the topic (via a whole series of e-mails in January) and my statements are not just based on comments on this thread.
Let me start out with a quote I was just re-reading from the Smalcald Articles (Section III, iii) (http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#part3.3.42) “Certain sects may arise; some may already exist. During the peasant rebellion, I encountered some who held that those who had once received the Spirit of the forgiveness of sins or had become believers – even if they later sin – would still remain in the faith. Such sin, they think, would not harm them. They say, ‘do whatever you please. If you believe, it all amounts to nothing. Faith blots out all sins,’ and such. They also say that if anyone sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith. I have seen and heard many such madmen. I fear that such a devil is still in some of them. So it is necessary to know and to teach this: when holy people – still having and feeling original sin and daily repenting and striving against it – happen to fall into manifest sins (as David did into adultery, murder, ans blasphemy), then faith and the Holy Spirit have left them. The Holy Spirit does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so it can be carried out, but represses and restrains it from doing what it wants. If sin does what it wants, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present.” (quoting from the newest edition of Concordia, but linking to the older online translation)
Okay, so what? I hold that Frank’s application of Scripture and the Confessions veers dangerously close to this. (Though to be clear, I have never seen him make any statement similar to the second half: “if anyone sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith.”) Because Stephen so often makes statements that echo Frank’s, I attributed the same tendency to him (and Stephen, if I have wrongly done so, I apologize).
And to warn you of one red herring: this is not about singling out homosexuality. I have never done so. It is a sin just as is any form of promiscuity, lust, greed, selfishness, pride, etc. It only gets singled out because Frank consistently refers to himself as a “gay man” and not as a “selfish man” or a “proud man” or a “greedy man”, etc. Thus, that particular sinful behavior becomes the crux of the conversation because he is choosing to define himself by it.
All that said, Frank makes an unabashed confession that he is saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Thus, I have given him some brotherly admonitions to beware what I see as a gap in his theology. This only after he invited me to help him to mortify the flesh in any way possible, as the New Adam and the Old are in constant warfare. We have tried to do this for one another and have parted friends.
Now, that’s a lot about the interchange between Frank and myself. It puts the focus a little too heavily on the two of us and our particular thoughts and struggles, but I think it may help you in addressing several of your questions to me. I should be on for a little while longer tonight if this hasn’t helped.
@ Rick Ritchie
Quoting just from the glossary of the newest edition of Walther’s Law and Gospel (because it was right here on the desk):
“Antinomianism. From Greek for ‘against the law.’ Adherents maintained that a Christian is free from all moral law and that the Gospel causes knowledge of sin and repentance. Some in this movement denied the third use of the Law and the role of the Law in good works .”
Frank and Stephen’s comments come nowhere near the first sentence and dangerously near the second. In my opinion anyway. Doesn’t mean you have to agree.
Allright – that’s probably enough from me (it’s not my blog, after all). My sincere apologies for any and all ways my Old Adam has evidenced itself.
Remember: Jesus Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am the worst.
Rob @ 170
Let me just throw in one teeny , weenie, tiny itsy bity corrective to what you wrote Rob:
The problem with antinomianism is that it cannot possibly exist!
People try to imagine that they can take a cosmic erasor and erase the letters L.A.W. and the law is gone.
But the Law remains because God wrote it in the mind of all men as Reason and Conscience. And so the Law just keeps on accusing.
So what then is the next step for an Antinomian after he thinks he has done away with the Law? He turns the Gospel into the Law and He turns Christ then into Example and New Testament Moses. That is what an Antinomian does.
This looks like using phrases like “Living a life of obedience to the Gospel” (ie Law), ” Gospel encouragement (ie Law), “Love” (ie Law), WWJD (ie Law). You get the picture.
The problem with this is that this ALL works without Christ as Propitiator. It buries Christ.
By saying that my theology leans towards “Antinomianism ” then, is to say that my theology turns the Gospel into another Law. And this is why others here said that that looks more like some of what you have written in the past.
It is fine to challenge my stuff Rob. I err. Frequently. But it is good to get the terminology and the context down. But you are not alone. For many “antinomian” is a synonym for “licentiousness ” Or “libertinism”. I think it is those two “L” words you are saying my theology leans towards. Saint Paul was accused of the same stuff. Ditto the Lutherans.
It could be true in my case, or maybe not. Try to be more specific and provide “for instances” of how you think my theology leans in that direction. It will be instructive for others here. Including me.
Rob @ 173
We all get to practice doing theology that is aimed at giving peace to a terrified conscience here Rob.
I appreciate that you want your theology to be pastoral and not just some abstract musing about things. We learn by experimenting and at times having to apologize maybe for being wrong, or maybe just for lacking love or maybe just because it serves others better than beating a dead horse.
You are a great addition here Rob. You can only get better now that you are sharing what you learn from the Confessions with us!
Sin boldly. Jesus has gotcha covered.
I hope that did not sound antinomian in this exact context.
Rob -
I’m not going to go back and waste my time rereading what you wrote. Why should I? You are the one who started introducing me around as the “somewhat” antinomian with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So as far as baseless accusations go, I’d say that you got the ball rolling there. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about and are just name dropping. Agricola. Yeah, whatever. Both Frank and I have gone to great effort here to explain a number of things regarding the law and the gospel from scripture and the Confessions carefully and in detail. I don’t recall you doing quite the same amount of work. So man up before you start posturing as a theologian. If I am not mistaken, your the same Rob who has run off when it gets a little heated. Don’t think you can school me here when the first thing out of your mouth is to pretend you know what everyone’s faults are.
And then I read your apology. So I feel like an ass. Ha! Well crap. I’m sorry Rob.
Here’s the thing Rob. Frank and I are in concordia very much. That is true. It’s great! I learn a ton from him and he, I think, learns a little from me. I expect he and I will stand beside each other at judgment and be covered wet with our baptisms. I’m not worried about that. Thank God for Christ Jesus!
I don’t think that quote from the Confessions applies and I don’t know how you get that from things I’ve written. Well, that is not completely true because I don’t actually believe what you state about homosexuality, that it isn’t the issue. I think it is. Where else would all of this be coming from? And as far as the third use of the law goes, what do you have to say about it? There again is something of an accusation about Frank and me without any proof and nothing of your own understanding.
So why don’t you admit you are hung up on homosexuality and that you know for sure it is a sin because you are sure it says so in the bible and that’s that. That is the law as far as you are concerned and we are slackers. It doesn’t matter if the entire law is summed up by our Lord as love for neighbor, and you can’t figure out how restricting gay people from having a fulfilling life, one where they are not alone and deprived of real companionship is actually a loving and merciful thing – doesn’t matter if those things do not match, even if Jesus’ own words say they should. Because you find what you think is homosexual behavior in a list of dos and dont’s and you say it is obviously sin and that it should be prohibited and conclude that anyone who advocates otherwise, even if what they advocate for is for the whole of the law being about love and mercy and service to others, then they are antinomians who are dangerously close to just doing whatever they want and living like nothing matters because they are baptized. They take grace for granted. And some random proof text from the Confessions makes this point when you have shown in no way how it actually connects to anything someone has written.
You are lucky Frank gives you points for reading the Confessions. Would it surprise you if I told you that that is all he actually cares about, that you read them?
Please, no false humility either. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Nobody needs Jesus any more or less than anyone else. Get over yourself. Can you tell I have some anger issues?
Stephen – As far as I can tell by the time stamps on your posts, your being sorry lasts exactly 32 minutes. Apology accepted anyway.
Shall I just concede all your other points? You are a better theologian, better student of the confessions, better student of human nature, and better interpreter of my hangups than I am.
I have no problem saying any of those things and perhaps you’ll feel better if I do. I am not trying to win some sort of medal here. Only share my reading of the confessions you love so much. Sorry that touches off your anger issues.
And I am sorry that you believe my confession of my sin is false humility and an unwillingness to get over myself.
There is honestly no sarcasm intended here.
Rob -
You’re right, it didn’t last long. Honestly, I blazed through your posts and rolled my eyes thinking “more of the same” and that is why I missed the apology. So when I went back and saw it, that is why I felt bad. But as I took in more, I felt I still wasn’t being given a fair shake so I need to respond.
You are entitled to your opinions, but what I feel you are not entitle to is characterizing me without evidence, especially to others who have not even heard from me. That is what burned me up. And Frank is right, we all get to do theology. Do more. Do a lot. Do it because you love Jesus and not because you want to show people up. I like to think I am always at the former but I admit to the latter as being one of my sins on occasion, especially when I feel misunderstood. That is when the anger flairs up. And like Jesus said, that is about the heart, something deep down where things need to be reconciled. It’s not about merely keeping and behaving a certain way, though manners are important and mine probably failed here. It is about be compelled to make amends with others so that they feel assured and comforted and well in their being.
So, this time, let me apologize as best I can. I can’t undo anything about what is done except that. I can only invite you back and ask you to see my faults as someone who has problems with his sin, wants to be merciful but is not more gracious than a pagan sometimes. Maybe we can talk about that, about what it really means to be a forgiven person whose works do not matter much at all in the grand scheme of things, or how difficult it is to forgive. You do not owe me forgiveness and I probably don’t deserve it. I can be a real ass. I can also guarantee you I can also be as loyal as a dog. Weird. Anyway, I am sorry for offending you. maybe we can’t start over, but maybe we can use this to carry on somehow.
Rob 179
ROB Stephen – As far as I can tell by the time stamps on your posts, your being sorry lasts exactly 32 minutes.
FWS Ha! He gotcha Steve! Probably me too in there somewhere!
ROB Shall I just concede all your other points?
FWS As the Holy Apostle Saint Paul says Rob: “All things are legal, but not all things are useful [to others]. ” Don´t concede. Make your points, but make them from the Lutheran Confessions if you are really intent on serving me.
I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why? Because it is in our Confessions that you will nail down all the broad issues such as what the Image of God alone consists of, and then also the definition of key words like “natural law” “ordinance of God” “concupiscence” ” mortal sin” original sin” “original righeousness” “Veil of Moses” “sanctification” “mortification” “law” “gospel” “third [lutheran!] use”, “Justification” “infused justification” “sacramental” “in, with and under” “grace” “ex opere operato” “historical faith” “movements of the heart” “the Law that peculiarly deals with ‘movements of the heart’, namely the Decalog” “love” “Good Works” “sacrifice” etc etc.
It is useless to read our Confessions until you understand all those terms. You will read the confessions and read into them what you think you already know in that case. I did that for about , hmmm, 39 years. And I was raised in the stuff as a Lutheran. For example one would read the Formula of Concord art VI on “The Lutheran Third Use of the Law” and read into it a Rome/Calvin understanding that the Image of God is found revealed in the Law of God, and so force into the article a Calvinist understanding of 3rd use. This would be wrong.
I would suggest that you also consider reading some of what I call the Parallel-Confessional documents. These are the documents that are referred to by our Confessions as being an amplification and clarification as to what they mean in the Confessions. Sound important to understanding the Confessions ? You bet they are! When you read those, continue to as yourself, while reading, what those P-C-Ds have to do with the section of the Confessions that reference them. That is critical and sensible eh? Here are just some of those Parallel-Confessional Documents:
The Wittenberg Concord
Luther Sermon on Christ´s Descent into Hell
The Galatians Commentary
The Genesis Commentary (but take care, Luther did not edit those lecture notes as he did with the Galatians Commentary notes…)
Luther´s Sermon on the Two Kingdoms and their respective Two Kinds of Righteousness from FC Art VI on the “Lutheran Third Use”.
Final Tip: Read footnoted materials in Kolb and the reader´s version of the Book of Concord very, very critically. Don´t believe them all. Like that definition you produced Rob on “antinomianism”. It is not exactly wrong, but it misdirects from how the Confessions actually unfold the arguments about this.
What I am saying , is that, idealy, a Lutheran should learn to read our Confessions in such a way that one could reproduce the chain of argumentative points they make and articulate them all together. By “articulate” I make a pun intending to say that one can demonstrate, in one´s own words, how the separate points in the Confessions are bound together or articulated by joints and sinews so that they move in unity with a common purpose.
“Prooftexting”, in contrast, is to “know ” something as a theological “fact” and then use the Confessions as a reference book full of prooftexts that prove what one already is convinced is true! A Confessional text, without an explanation as to the full argument it is a part of is the same damage people also do to Saint Paul´s writings.
I would suggest that there are key phrases that form the tendons, sinews and joints for our confessions and allow them to really come alive and move and be fully articulated. Those would be these:
“The Law ALWAYS accuses”. You will see they repeat this over and over and over and over and over and over and…..
“Faith ALONE in Christ ALONE”. You will see that they repeat this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and…..
“The distinction between Law and Gospel”
“in, with and under”. This last thing is not something you will read in this actual form, but it is the understanding that God is at work with his Goodness and Mercy always and only “in,with and under” the Earthly, perishing, “flesh/body” Romans 8 things that is all that we can see and do. This is often just a “given” as something understood by the reader of the Confessions unfortunately. So the Confessions do not explicitly weave this into their arguments.
This “in, with and under” is exactly what Dr Veith is driving at with the concept of Holy Vocation by the way here on this site. Note that this is not the idea that “faith” is “in,with and under” those flesh/body perishable things, although that is one form of Goodness and Mercy. It is they idea that 1st Article (Small catechism) Fatherly Divine Goodness and Mercy are “in, with and under” all things. This means that the Father is working this Goodness and Mercy in spite of our UNfaithFULLness. “Indeed without our prayer or asking, even for all the wicked. This Goodness and Mercy precedes and is the font of that Goodness and Mercy that we know as Christians in Christ and the Holy Spirit as well. Rome and Geneva often make this about our faith.
I hope that all helps!
Stephen – to your heartfelt apology I again offer my forgiveness. I forgive your sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – a tremendous, unspeakable gift that we can speak these words to one another as believers. Consider yourself absolved. The whole exchange highlights why I rarely comment at all on these pages (or any web pages): the medium itself is prone to hyperventilation, as we don’t really read others’ comments with a desire to understand, let alone do the 8th commandment and put the best construction on them. Both you and Frank have with humility admitted that you hadn’t really read what I said, but simply started typing. I forgive you both, just as I have so often needed forgiveness. My previous efforts to quell some of the more vitriolic debate (those to which you referred in one of your posts) have been because of this. As Proverbs makes clear: “Where words are many, sin is not absent.”
And Frank, thanks for your continued comments. This is largely ground that we have already covered with one another, but there is a certain joy in knowing that you will continue to tread it in your vocations and I will continue to do so in mine. I have faith that one day we will do so side-by-side in our Savior’s direct company. And then we can shamelessly laugh at how foolish we both were.
One rejoinder from my earthly perspective: if you are convinced that you have grasped the broader argumentation of the Confessions, then my references wouldn’t have to be dismissed as “proof-texting” but you would instead point out why I am misreading or misapplying them. You did not do that in our lengthy e-mail exchange and you have not done so here.
In the meantime, I am certain you will understand that I lend more weight to the comments and interpretations of someone who is as well-respected as Kolb. You see my position: “Well, Kolb says this and he is impeccably trained and his writings have undergone both doctrinal review through the LCMS and publishing standards of not only CPH but other publishers like Oxford University Press, but there’s this guy on the Internet who has a blog who says differently…” I love you as a brother, but you are not my pastor, my professor, or my father. I will try to give your interpretations careful and prayer-filled consideration, but I am confident you wouldn’t want me to accept them as fiat.
Until some other thread, fellas, grace and peace. Time to be with my family for the rest of the day.
Good Proverb to remember.
rob @ 183
ROB “…then my references wouldn’t have to be dismissed as “proof-texting” but you would instead point out why I am misreading or misapplying them. You did not do that in our lengthy e-mail exchange and you have not done so here.”
FWS: Suggestion. Reread this thread and tell me I am not at least trying to do that. Then go back and reread our offline exchanges. MY recollection is that I tried to draw you to that larger context. You seemed intent on urging upon me to buy into some therapeutic moralism that worked for you in another issue, to cure my homosexuality. When I wasn´t interested in making a purchase, you asked me to erase even your email address from your computer.
ROB: Kolb, and Luther(!) et all. I am urging you to study the confessions and absorb them such that you can parrot their argumentative chain with passion. I am saying to let those Confessions speak for themselves. We all, including Kolb, you, me and even Luther have biases and errors that are problematic. We subscribe to the Confessions, not the confessions as filtered and understood by someone .
Of course secondary sources are necessary , essential and valuable in attempting this task. Don´t make more of what I said than was intended please dear brother.
Rob -
I’m going to expand on some things I said because I am not sure you get the point and it is bothering me. For the record, you have not actually apologized for anything specific yourself. Saying you apologize “if” you have offended someone is not the same as admitting to what you have done when it has been explained to you in no uncertain terms. I’m willing to let that much go, but I would like you to read this and try to take it in. If you feel accused, then all I can say is there is a lot of that going around. Such is the nature of argument, and frankly, the law itself, which is everything we live in. As you know, the only remedy for whatever troubles our conscience is Christ alone.
I think you continue to miss where others point out how you misrepresent them and how they steer you in a different direction. Instead, you continue to attribute errors to other people without proof. You’ve done both these things again in your last two posts to Frank and me. We’ve both done due diligence to correct you, as has our record here, and yet you seem to persist in the characterizations, even cast as they are in a more gentle way. And the other thing is this – no one needs you to referee, and I don’t know why you think you are qualified to hover over things like that. In your own words “you are not my pastor, father, etc.” so, cut it out please. I mean “please” in the kindest sense, but with the force of being serious, because I’m insulted. You seem to think that you offer clarity that we don’t have, and it is condescending, and this imagined clarity is given even as you offer forgiveness. That really bugs me.
That is a very good proverb you quoted just the same, one to keep in mind. And I am likely to sin engaging in this dialogue. But that fact shouldn’t stop one from living or writing or even arguing for truth. “I came not to bring peace but a sword” said Jesus. What might that mean? I think that sword may have been the tongue that speaks truth, dividing truth from error. He’s talking about the word of truth. It has to do with language actually. It may sometimes mean throwing caution to the wind – sinning boldly and believing more boldly. Grace, not law. I could not function without it. I might as well roll over and fall on my own actual sword – just die because I was afraid to live by faith.
Anyway, if I haven’t totally alienated you, come down in the sandbox and play and quit worrying about being the authority over others. That is how it feels to me. Maybe you can still out wit, or earn respect, win a few arguments, change some minds, or continue to piss some off. I don’t know. But if all you do is correct people, call them names, and appeal to authorities you respect from some place where you do a kind of disengaged flyover once in a while just to check in and critique what you disapprove of, especially without making any connections or proof, then no one will respect you much, you’ll ironically incite more of the vitriol you say you want to quell, and eventually people will shut you out.
I think the Proverbs have a lot to say about speech and that there is a good time for it. That is a good proverb to remember that you cite, but if it is used to stop others from speaking truth or making the attempt to do so, then it is just being inflicted legalistically and yes, proof texting without context. It is detached from any “useful” meaning (what would it mean that the law rules in our hearts?). The meaning of this proverb must be captured in what Jesus says about the law – love your neighbor as yourself. If restricting speech because we fear we will sin also restricts love and service to the neighbor, then we have misused that scripture entirely. Say whatever needs to be said in as many volumes as it takes for the sake of love. We will always sin and fall short. Our faith rests not in what we do or do not do, but in who we are in Christ alone. That is made certain in baptism. Frank and I have been saying this all along.
Thank you for your comments, Stephen. They are well recieved. Most of the reason for my “flyovers” is that I don’t have the time to carefully consider the comments made by others, nor to carefully craft a reply. And I don’t wish to pigeonhole others or fail to really engage because of lack of time. It’s just when Christians who profess to love one another behave with such mean-ness, it seems someone ought to urge them back to their common confession. But I can see why this seems like condescending refereeing. Genuine, substantive engagement takes more time than I usually have.
I took that time one-on-one with Frank a few months ago. I read his blog. Then, every e-mail he sent me was read, then printed and re-read. I then replied using Scripture and the Confessions in an attempt (which he had invited) to try to discuss areas of perceived weakness.
As he indicated the personal interaction between the two of us did not end as nicely as I would have liked. He’s given his perceptions above. Mine were that he had developed the straw man he just conveyed above (I never once said anything even close to wanting to cure him of his homosexuality, but once he made that accusation, I couldn’t shake it from his mind – it obviously still remains) and I, with a child in the hospital, no longer had the time, energy, or vocation to engage. I asked him to please discontinue the e-mailing and he did not honor that request. My wife started to worry about cyber-stalkers so I asked him (with my apologies for how harsh it would sound) to please delete my address, This request he honored. (And Frank, I was and am sorry. It seems from your tone that this was indeed hurtful and I apologize.)
In my comment on this thread I unfairly looped you, Stephen, into a critique of his position. I say unfairly because he and I had a personal history and you and I did not. So, most specifically for that, I apologize.
A substantive thought for you to ponder: Jesus summarized the law as two things: Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength AND Love your neighbor as yourself. Why is it that you and Frank always point to the second but not the first? Even in your most recent comment you say: “The meaning of this proverb must be captured in what Jesus says about the law – love your neighbor as yourself. If restricting speech because we fear we will sin also restricts love and service to the neighbor, then we have misused that scripture entirely.” What happened to love the Lord your God? Where did it go? Why does loving neighbor trump it? If Jesus said two, don’t they both have to be held in a proper tension?
But before you click “Submit”, I really do have to go. If this seems a worthwhile thought to ponder, do so. If it seems an inappropriate thought to ponder, trash it. I just lovingly ask you – don’t carefully construct a reply and then think I’ve fled away instead of answering it because I really can’t stick around to engage with it. I didn’t even expect to have this chance to check in on the thread again (It’s too rare to have two toddlers quiet at the same time – the hike this morning must have done the trick).
Grace and peace,
Rob
Stephen, #186: “Our faith rests not in what we do or do not do, but in who we are in Christ alone. That is made certain in baptism.”
fws, #95: “Yet Scripture clearly says that people will chose to be in hell. Many of those will be Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists….”
Jesus, Matthew 7: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ ”
—–
Jesus, earlier in Matthew 7:
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. “
And what exactly is that will and what does that fruit consist of Mr. Truth. We must assume you know, but you have not said. The implication here is I haven’t got it and/or do not know correctly what these things are. So please share.
The SEEDS
4And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:
5A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
6And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
8And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
9And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
10And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
11Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
13They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
14And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
15But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. Luke 8
So given that the disciples all fell away (Matthew 26:31), where does that leave them? Should we conclude that they had no root?
Stephen: “The implication here is I haven’t got it and/or do not know correctly what these things are.”
Well, let’s see.
Stephen, do you genuinely believe that same-sex behavior is sin, thereby affirming that God’s Holy Word teaches clearly that same-sex behavior is sin, a sin for all people, for all places, and for all time?
It’s a straightforward question. And a straightforward “Yes” or “No” is all that’s needed.
Truth,
So not only do you want to make up the rules, you want to change them when they don’t suit you. Answer my question first and maybe I’ll work on yours if I think you deserve it. Will and fruit. Do some theology and not just some empty proof texting and moralizing as if you own what is true. I don’t owe you anything.
Rick Ritchie – 191
“So given that the disciples all fell away (Matthew 26:31), where does that leave them? Should we conclude that they had no root?”
That’s a foolish question Rick – the Disciples didn’t fall away, Christ made it clear that Peter would deny HIM.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
(( Verse 31 is a quotation from Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. ))
(( Verse 31 is a quotation from Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. ))
(( smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: – - Who would have thought that this would refer to the LORD Jesus Christ? We know it does because Jesus HIMSELF quotes it. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad Matthew 26:31 HE make is applicable to HIMSELF. If you doubt that God has a future propose for Israel, you need to note this carefully. He received these wounds in the house of HIS friends. These are the Jewish people. The Jewish people have been scattered abroad, however they are gathered in large number within Israel today, mainly since 1949.
8 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God. Zechariah 13
((These are the ones who will make it through the Great Tribulation. The LORD has sealed them, Revelation 7:1-8 It’s written about in Revelation 14 They will have their Father’s name written upon their foreheads. (144,00))
32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Matthew 26
(( Verse 32 makes clear they will see HIM again. Acts 1 makes clear that the risen Christ spent 40 days with HIS Apostles. ))
In the same chapter 26, Christ tells Peter that he will deny him three times, and Peter did. Verse 75: “And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.”
The difference between the eleven Apostles is this, they didn’t continue to question the LORD, they followed HIM which is obvious throughout the New Testament. Those who willfully sin, are not the same, there is no comparison.
If you were comparing same sex, homosexual willful sin, as a comparison with Matthew 26, it’s one of the worst I’ve ever read.
Stephen, you know very well what “fruit” is… It certainly isn’t willfully sleeping with the same sex, believing anyone who does is outsmarting God Almighty – OR – ignoring Romans 1 – making yet again more excuses for homosexual behavior.
You don’t answer Truth, because you don’t have an answer that lines up with the HOLY Word of God.
“You don’t answer Truth, because you don’t have an answer that lines up with the HOLY Word of God.”
Dear Grace, I think that about sums it up.
I appreciate you, sister. Take care and have a joyous weekend.
Truth,
I enjoy your posts – your ‘handle’ .. “Truth Unites… and Divides ” most certainly divides.
Have a wonderful Sunday.
Well you’ve both said what you think it isn’t. Say what it is. You brought it up.
I jhaven’t commented at any length for a couple of days now, because I have been struggling with all of the arguments posted here. One conclusion that I have come to is that it is very difficult to really deal with all these issues as a commenter on a blog. A serious researchg paper would be more appropriate.
fws:
I know you have on a different thread accused me of jumping from the general to the specific to quickly. But I think in your case you are finding too much refuge in the general. The early articles of the Augsburg confession are primarily concerned with Original Sin and Justification. Much is said in terms of the two great commandments: to Love God and to love our neighbor. All this can be discussed in the abstract, but I think the abstract is where you want to stay.
I said somewhere above that I think I’m beginning to understand your arguments, and I doubtless will over simplify somewhat, but what I am hearing comes out something like this:
!.)
Kerner – 199
“I jhaven’t commented at any length for a couple of days now, because I have been struggling with all of the arguments posted here. One conclusion that I have come to is that it is very difficult to really deal with all these issues as a commenter on a blog. A serious researchg paper would be more appropriate.”
Kerner, the Word of God is the first and last Words that are “appropriate” or the words of Saint Paul as in Romans 1 – however, too often those who are homosexual, or others, find any loophole, no matter how contrived, to change the meaning. God’s Word hasn’t changed, ….. there is no “appropriate” paper, it’s recored in HIS Word. Romans 1 STANDS!
I haven’t commented at any length for a couple of days now, because I have been struggling with all of the arguments posted here. One conclusion that I have come to is that it is very difficult to really deal with all these issues as a commenter on a blog. A serious research paper would be more appropriate.
fws:
I know you have on a different thread accused me of jumping from the general to the specific to quickly. But I think in your case you are finding too much refuge in the general. The early articles of the Augsburg confession are primarily concerned with Original Sin and Justification. Much is said in terms of the two great commandments: to Love God and to love our neighbor; and the image of God being original righteousness and the loss of that righteousness being original sin. All this can be discussed in the abstract, but I think the abstract is where you want to stay.
I said somewhere above that I think I’m beginning to understand your arguments, and I doubtless will over simplify somewhat, but what I am hearing comes out something like this:
1) After we understand all about original Sin, The image of God, Justification and love, anything we really need to know about actual good behavior and/or specific sins are the things that pagans can figure out for themselves (as Paul wrote about them), i.e. What the pagans are able to perceive as tight and wrong through their consciences.
2) The confessions teach that the greatest teacher of ethics was Aristotle, a Pagan, so if Aristotelian Ethics don’t prohibit something, it must not be a sin. Every Lutheran discussion of morality, therefore, must begin with a firm understanding of Aristotelian Ethics.
3) Aristotle’s writings about ethics do not find anything wrong with gay sex (I don’t know this for a fact, having not read Aristotle, but I am pretty sure I have heard you declare this), therefore:
Conclusion: THERE IS NOTHING IMMORAL ABOUT GAY SEX.
To maintain this position, it is necessary to avoid looking at what the Lutheran Confessions say about invdividual sins and sexual relationships, because as soon as we begin to look at those specifics, it becomes clear that none of the reformers actually believed this, nor do their writings about sexual morality, including those in the confessions themselves, support your conclusion. All the unambiguous passages of the Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, and 2000 years of moral reasoning of the Church can be blithely waived away as so much homophobic misunderstanding from behind the fluffy bulwarks of abstraction that you have constructed. And some of those abstractions don’t even mean what you say.
You have said that the Defense of the Augsburg Confession endorsed Aristotle, and the passage you refer to says:
“And although we ought to regard this as a strange teaching, and ought to ridicule it, they rather ridicule us, yea, make a jest of Paul himself.] We have heard that some after setting aside the Gospel, have, instead of a sermon, explained the ethics of Aristotle. [I myself have heard a great preacher who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, and preached the ethics of Aristotle. Is this not a childish, foolish way to preach to Christians?] Nor did such men err if those things are true which the adversaries defend [if the doctrine of the adversaries be true, the Ethics is a precious book of sermons, and a fine new Bible]. For Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so learnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. 15] We see books extant in which certain sayings of Christ are compared with the sayings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had come for the purpose of delivering certain laws through which we might merit the remission of sins, as though we did not receive this 16] gratuitously because of His merits. Therefore, if we here receive the doctrine of the adversaries, that by the works of reason we merit the remission of sins and justification, there will be no difference between philosophic, or certainly pharisaic, and Christian righteousness. ”
Dof AC Article IV(II) Justification (emphasis mine).
How can you not see that this passage is a facetious series of statements ridiculing the “adversaries” of Lutheran doctrine for relying on Aristotle and the pagan philosophers. By latching onto the one place where Melanchthon facetiously appears to praise Aristotle as the foundation of your argument, you are taking a position that is the opposite of what this passage means.
You have suggested that we who look for passages that give us specific guidance, dos and don’ts, as “proof texters”. If you can pull that single sentence out of its context and declare that any Lutheran discussion of Christian morality must be based in Aristotle, you have elevated proof texting to a truly high art.
And the danger of doing this became clear to me in your exchange with Purple Koolaid on this thread. Your advice @90 only shocked and confused Purple, including as it did advice that Purple seek the counsel of a pagan and that following “a set of rules” was not important.
I understand that pagans have consciences and are capable of reasoning out a certain level of morality. But Christians are not called to that. The New Testament is full of passages that tell us that God’s Law of Christian love for our neighbor holds us to a standard that no pagan could work out on his own. Lust is adultery, hatred is murder, legal divorce is sin, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, forgive your brother 70 x 7 times, turn the other cheek, if someone wants you to walk a mile walk two; the list is almost endless. Purple and a “pagan counsellor” would hardly be speaking the same language.
The fact is, these dos and don’ts come from God’s Word. We have to start with the proposition that He gave them to us for a reason.
I don’t know how I accidently posted my first 2 paragraphs accidentally. Sorry.
When considering a set of General principles accompanied by a set of specific rules, one way to analyse them is to start with the general principles and try to reason out how you got to the specifics. But another way is to analyse the specifics, look for consistant themes and work backwards to see how they may be rooted in the general prinsiples.
But another thing you can do is realize that the purpose of the specific rules is to give us direction as to how to carryout the general principles in specific situations.
To both of these ends, I commend to all here (perhaps especially to the non-Lutherans here) to read what the Lutheran Confessions say about specific sins. You can learn a lot from the Articles in the Large Catechism. I particularly commend you to the Articles on the Lord’s Prayer (5th, 6th and 7th petitions):
http://bookofconcord.org/lc-5-ourfather.php
and the Article on the 10 Commandments (with particular attention to the 6th commandment, which discusses sexual morality):
http://bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php
The Large Catechism is not reluctant to identify individual sins which wwe are to avoid, as can be seen by this exerpt from the Article on the Lord’s Prayer, Sixth petition (Lead us not into temptation):
“Temptation, however, or (as our Saxons in olden times used to call it) Bekoerunge, is of three kinds, namely, of the flesh, of the world, and of the devil. 102] For in the flesh we dwell and carry the old Adam about our neck, who exerts himself and incites us daily to inchastity, laziness, gluttony and drunkenness, avarice and deception, to defraud our neighbor and to overcharge him, and, in short, to all manner of evil lusts which cleave to us by nature, and to which we are incited by the society, example and what we hear and see of other people, which often wound and inflame even an innocent heart.
103] Next comes the world, which offends us in word and deed, and impels us to anger, and impatience. In short, there is nothing but hatred and envy, enmity, violence and wrong, unfaithfulness, vengeance, cursing, raillery, slander, pride and haughtiness, with superfluous finery, honor, fame, and power, where no one is willing to be the least, but every one desires to sit at the head and to be seen before all.
104] Then comes the devil, inciting and provoking in all directions, but especially agitating matters that concern the conscience and spiritual affairs, namely, to induce us to despise and disregard both the Word and works of God, to tear us away from faith, hope, and love, and bring us into misbelief, false security, and obduracy, or, on the other hand, to despair, denial of God, blasphemy, and innumerable other shocking things. These are indeed snares and nets, yea, real fiery darts which are shot most venomously into the heart, not by flesh and blood, but by the devil. ”
In the Article on the 6th Commandment, (Which I am not going to reprint because it is several paragraphs long–just read it) The Catechism declares thebiblical teaching that:
1) This commandment prohibits all unchastity, not just adultry per se,
2) That the only proper place for sex is within marriage as all other sexual activity is unchastity, and
3) Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman
The only way to get around these specific statements about sex and morality in the Lutheran Confessions is to retreat into abstractions so far that you can rationalize anything. Rationalization is not good thinking in any context, and it is definitely not good theology.
Aristotle was a pagan – he has nothing to do with HOLY Scriptures of the Bible? NOTHING!
It matters not one dot or dash, what a pagan thinks, he thinks only of his own greatness, his ability, as if his mental capability is something to be praised… who but a pagan would say the things Aristotle blithered. He admired himself – and who else would remind you of this deft and blind mind?
“A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.”
Aristotle
Aristotle and Hitchens today, would most likely be joined at the hip, trying damn hard to persuade the peoples of today to stay within the bounds of pagnism, as they believed/believe only to be swept away into the abyss that awaits all those who turn from God Almighty!
Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:
What does a Bible believing Christian garner from this information, it’s not Biblical but pagan.
Something to think about:
Man believes that he’s found something new, something to distract him…. most likely from the risen Christ – but alas, he hasn’t moved a step from the past, that from the beginning, …. Genesis the temptation of evil that leads to death.
kerner @ 201
I dont know exactly where to begin. It appears that you somehow managed to get every single thing exactly backwards from what I think.
Here is the best I can do… slow down. Note what I am focussing on. Avoid looking for a gay agenda, My agenda has me plotting to deliver everyone over to the “gay lifestyle” at 3pm today at a cocktail get meet and greet after church today. Of course we will all be immaculately groomed and listening to tasteful music. No one there will be discussing the Lutheran Confessions. I can assure you of that.
start with art I and art II.
What is article I about? (hint: think about what is said in your baptism and ALL that that does. There is a reason the confessors put that article as number 1 . What is the significance of that?
Then move through art II slowly. What do they say is the Image of God that is the Adamic Original Righeousness? How do they redefine the word “concupiscence” from the roman catholic meanng? Why was it important for them to do so? Why is it important for them to locate the Image of God 100% where they do?
Why does any of that matter dear Kerner? Breathe. Slow. Down.
I am hoping that you can focus on what the Confessions actually say, rather than look for Frank reading into them something that is not there, Like reading into them a justification for sin. You will not find that in the Confessions.
Aristotle is not where we go to tell us whether we are sinners before God not Kerner. My God. That is exactly exactly the error of Rome. And of Geneva by way of that UberAugustinian Calvin.
You are reading the confessions in order to dialog with me about homosexuality. Stop. that. Read then to learn about your Lutheran Faith. In the process, consider carefully what the opposite side of the argument is. You will need to understand how Rome weaves Aristotle into how they say we are to propitiate God.
you have everything I have said exacty backwards. I am so sorry where I have failed you in that. Maybe others, who are not gay, can help you here better in that you won’t fixate on homosexuality in your readings of the confessions.
kerner @ 201
By reading that aristotle comment the way you do, you vitiate the entire argument of art II and IV and VIII and…
The confessions say that the Law God wrote in fallen man’s mind, called his Reason and Conscience, is , in part, fully able to know and do the Law. “in part” means what? It means according to the OUTWARD acts.
This is so very true, that Reason and Aristitotle, that the confessions say Rome bases everything on with their Natural Law of St Thomas etc, will always select that outward Law in trying to propitiate God.
Now here is the rough spot that most people have: God DOES demand that we outwardly do his Law. And he WILL punish us, even the christians, if we do not do that Law and he will send plagues and pestilences to make us do that outward Law if we dont do it willingly. And further. this outward keeping of the Law is, just as St James says TRUE righeousness on earth that God demands of us. He does consider those outward acts truly and really a form of true righeousness. We MUST do those things! That is why the confessions say this: Good works are necessary! They are not optional once we are christian.
But then Lutherans say there is Law, the SAME Law of God, that deals, peculiarly, with “movements of the heart”. That Law is found in the 1st commandment of the Law. In the first table. Lutherans say that Rome ignores that part of the Law. One must first have faith to keep that part of the Law, and by keeping it that way, keep the WHOLE Law. That Law cannot be kept by outward good works,. And man is blind to that Law, even though it is right in front if his eyes. Reason is blind to part of the SAME Law of God why? Because first one must have Faith In Christ, that Original Righeousness that is the Original Image of God to see it!
Only by FIRST being made righeous can one truly DO righeousness as a “movement of the heart” that God also demands in the 1st commandment.
I am trying to unravel that knot in your Reasonable lawyerly mind Kerner. The confessions say that only God’s Word and faith will unravel it. You will have to leave your Lawyerly reason behind. Fine as it is. No sarcasm there at all. Your reason too is a gift of God.
Here is a parallel-confessional document that is by Dr Luther that will maybe help you get this very very critical point.
http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html
Bless you Kerner. I hope you manage to untangle the backwards knot you have constructed here.
Kerner
Try this:
Try to come back here, with a paraphrased summary, of the articulation you find in art I , II and III and especially and finally IV.
There are huge portions of those article answering the objections of the opponents. Skip that part for now. Try to outline and build, brick by brick, the confessional positive presentation of the Doctrine, in your own words, exactly as they present it.
Then, and only then,
it is also great to see if you can then articulate what the opposing view is that they are contesting against. That would be the marriage of Aristotle and Reason to Theology, It is making theology reason-able. It is specifically to find the Image of God revealed in the Law of God and so to also find the path back to Original Righeousneess in the Law of God. That is a big ol hint for ya Kerner.
Your Old Adam and mine is doing , constantly, what the confessions are contending against. I , as a homosexual man am trying, in my Old Adam to self justify my thoughts words and deeds by using the Law and trying to conform to it with outward sacrifices. You are doing the same identical thing Kerner.
fws, #181: “I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?”
FWS, do the confessions teach that same-sex behavior is sin, in continuance and affirmation of God’s Holy Word which clearly declares that same-sex behavior is sin, a sin for all people, for all places, and for all time?
It’s a straightforward question. And a straightforward “Yes” or “No” is all that’s needed.
TRUTHUD@211
No. Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men. The assumption in the bible is always that those men are heterosexual.
But here is a caveat… even the concept heterosexual did not exist in the bible. That term only makes sense if one has also the concept of something called homosexuality. Another example of this kind of thing and thinking is that word capitalism. Capitalism only exists in the context of Communism. it is what the Communists created and declared to be an opposite of what they believe is the good.
Consider my no here in the exact same vein as the fact that neither the Holy Scriptures nor the Confessions directly address the topic of rape anywhere at all in the way we understand the word rape today as forcing a woman to have sex against her will.
Nor is there anywhere in scriptures or the confessions the idea the the bride gets to choose her bridegroom. The bridegroom chooses the bride and the bride has no choice whatsoever in the matter.
We must be careful not to read into the Confessions and Scriptures our modern understandings.
.
TRUTHUD @ 211
So then , if what I say is true. And it is, would it follow that we should then reject our modern understanding of homosexuality as found in physicians desk references as being contrary to scripture?
We should do this only to the same extent we are willing to redefine modern marriage back to the Biblical sense that the bride has no choice as to whom she will be married off to, and to the biblical understanding that rape is defined as a property rights violation, and nothing more than that.
TRUTHUD @ 211
I would also suggest that if you want to turn Saint Paul’s prohibition against women speaking in an early church full of Jewish converts into a modern Law, then you need to forbid women from having any authority over men anywhere since Paul refers to the Order of Creation.
This would mean that sarah palin and Michelle Bachman should stay at home and be housewives, and that Grace should keep quiet here and have her husband get on here and ask her questions of the other menfolk here.
fws @212:
You said:
“Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men. The assumption in the bible is always that those men are heterosexual.
But here is a caveat… even the concept heterosexual did not exist in the bible. That term only makes sense if one has also the concept of something called homosexuality.”
If you second paragraph is true, the first one cannot be true.
I tend to agree with your second statement. The Scripture does not assume that men have different “sexual orientations” as the world assumes today. Rather Scripture assumes that all men should confine their sexual activity to female partners known as wives. The Lutheran Confessions do the same.
But if you believe that Holy Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, are Christians stuck with the conclusion that those assumptions are perfect and true?
And if you believe that the Confessions are the foundation of Lutheranism, are we not stuck with the conclusion that, to be Lutheran, we have to accept what they assume about our sexuality?
AH……. another curtain drops on who can have homosexual sex and who cannot.
I remember a few years ago this subject was FINALLY brought forth as a last ditch effort to convince Christians that only homosexuals could participate in same sex, those who were heterosexual could not……. that’s the EXCUSE when all else has dropped from lack of evidence in the Word of God.
Take a long hard look – the Scripture doesn’t give ANYONE the right to sin as women with women, men with men sexually, not even a HINT of this sin being unsinful!
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
ROMANS 1
All mens words do not trump Scripture. If one looks upon man, he will always be able to find those who seek their own pleasure, instead of God’s Will.
Kerner
I’m going to see if I can be helpful to some degree. I know my past attitude may have me shut out in your mind, but if you can forgive me for that and set aside the issue of homosexuality for a bit, perhaps I can be helpful. For background, I have a master’s degree in NT and theology and have an ongoing interest (as you may be able to tell) in these subjects, including philosophy and history. My undergraduate degree is in art, and so that includes knowledge in history of art and culture. For what any of those credentials are worth, I affirm with our Confessions that I cannot by my own reason or strength know my Lord or come to him, but I am called by his Holy Spirit. So, somewhat in that respect, I have traveled and spent time in other countries both for work in missions and for personal pleasure. I have worked in the church in various capacities as a musician and youth director. I grew up in a conservative, confessional Lutheran home as the son of a pastor. My family goes back to the Missouri Lutherans. Both my great grandfathers were missionaries among the German immigrants. I try to practice my theology and faith in my church, life and art.
Sometimes letting people know that kind of stuff and laying it out opens doors and other times it is a turn off. I’d like to offer some clarity if I can, so consider it a kind of “full disclosure.” I am also married and father. What I write will be something of a reduction, but perhaps it will give you some view of the milieu out of which our Confessions speak. If anyone else wants to add or correct what I have to say, please do.
Prior to Aquinas, Christian theology was shaped by Platonism and its successors in Stoicism (as one example). Plato, as you may know, sees a universe of ideal forms that determine the world in which we live. For every specific thing we see, there is an ideal version of it. What this essentially meant was that the NT for the first 1000 years was read through a lens which saw the physical as largely imperfect and/or bad and the spiritual as apart and good. For instance, in Byzantine culture, that which was associated with light (actual light) was good, and that which was associated or moving toward darkness was considered bad. Thus, in Byzantine art you will see mosaics with Christ in shimmering gold tiles and such. Every attempt is made to associate him visually with brightness and light.
So what you have is this tiered worldview, not quite to the extreme of Gnosticism, which denigrated the physical completely and had faded out by Aquinas’ time, but something akin to that. Aristotle’s works were known in the early middle ages, but not to the degree that Plato was. As the monastic tradition grew, Aristotle’s works became more well known, and it created a bit of a crisis for the church because Aristotle’s metaphysics really incorporates all of the known universe. Unlike Plato, he does not exclude what is known or seen as true, he integrates it into the whole. He is really the first to offer a scientific worldview of sorts. Instead of a two-tiered Platonic system he offers a closed, comprehensive metaphysical system that could be called “naturalism.”
Rather than try to suppress this, which was the instinct of the church (dramatized in Hugo’s “Hunchback of Notre Dame” as a matter of fact) Aquinas takes Aristotle page by page and writes his Summa which “catholicizes” it note for note. Reason can know what is good and return to that place that was lost with the help of grace. This is how he makes peace with Aristotle to the great relief of the church. It remains the cornerstone of Catholic theology asI am sure you know. He makes space for the works of man’s reason, fallen but not that fallen. Grace is a kind of helper, an assistant, and the end result is to discover, agree with and follow the order set down in nature’s law. Faith, by definition, is not really in sight. Faith in Christ that is. It is pretty much an afterthought. If it is employed, it is a faith that the human being, with the aid of restored reason, can apply himself properly and keep the law.
And there, right there, is the rub. No Christ is really needed at all for this kind of keeping of the law. This kind of keeping of the law is the very same that Aristotle perfected in his Nicomachean Ethics. On the surface, outwardly, one can do what the law requires without faith in Christ. It isn’t as if the world were without ethical people before there were Christians. Pure ethics are not the thing that make us right with God and bring us back into fellowship with him, the thing that restores us to fellowship, the fellowship we had in the garden. But this is the assumption when you dig down beneath all these kinds of Christian moralisms that seek to find evidence of a particular Christian righteous in outward works.
So then what does? And what do the Confessions mean when they say “nothing can be added to Aristotle?” Think about Luther sleeping in the snow to obtain this outward righteousness. As he said he “out-monked them all.” But we do not live by such works. That is, we do not find our life in them. It is found in Christ alone. Where Christ is, there is life and salvation. And where is he? In Word and Sacrament. The righteous shall live by faith, faith in what is outside of them – God. Christ is this object of love, the God of mercy that no longer threatens us, which we have through faith alone. This is signed, sealed and delivered by and for us in our baptism into Christ. There is where we can look for assurance of that original righteousness, in that new creation restored in us. Nowhere else – not in anything that is done or not done by us. Faith alone in Christ alone. Justification by grace through faith apart from works of the law. It is faith ALONE which put us back to that image of God we lost. We are washed, justified, sanctified, new.
Works, on the other hand, only lead to death, even though, and this is the distinction Frank has struggled to make clear, works are required and necessary on earth of both Christians and pagans alike. How are they accomplished? They are driven out of Old Adam relentlessly by that law which always accuses, from nagging spouses to city ordinances to the needs of the poor to all my secret slacking and wicked thoughts. They are all about getting me to love my neighbor. Aristotle perfected the kind of personal civic virtue that becomes a habit. The Confessions have no bone to pick with this. It is useful because it directs us to be virtuous, and God desires it to happen. But what it does not do, the mistake of Aquinas, scholasticism and any other theology that thinks morality will save the world, is that it does not lead us back to the garden. This is the place where we can make arguments that are reasonable and come up with solutions we can agree upon that suit mutual interests. In, with, and under that is what God is doing that we cannot see. He alone is making goodness and mercy happen, even for all the wicked, because God is love. And as for the inward troubled conscience, the one which knows it’s own secret desires and hatred and false gods, it is there that only Christ will answer and reconcile the heart, making it new, forgiving, redeeming, blessing and showing mercy when only condemnation and punishment is warranted.
It is that last thing you would think we would run to church for but which we all avoid. We seek solace in our reason, in our own rational justifications for what we do or do not do. No one wants to lay it down and be that vulnerable before the Almighty. But then who is that Almighty showing us but the one who died, the one who poured himself out for us, the one who is mercy defined? And he is given completely, not because of anything we have done, but because of the very reality of who he is – love, mercy, servant to all. This is my body. This is my blood. Here I am. Come.
Frank is not trying to beat a path to Greek culture. He is trying to separate every single thing in our earthly existence out apart from Christ alone, our heavenly assurance of salvation, the only way to peace and rest for our troubled hearts. This is the central theme of the Confessions. If we add anything to that, make anything supplemental to faith in Christ, we are requiring a sacrifice of righteousness. Any work that is clearly not beneficial to the neighbor would fall into this category because it would be directed towards a restored relationship to God the Father in heaven, something only faith in Christ alone accomplishes. You will notice in your reading of the Confessions that they have nothing whatsoever to say about the holiness codes in scripture. Why? They are merely an outward keeping of the law that is of no use to anyone. It is the Decalogue where the rubber hits the road. Again, applying some other kind of law is an attempt to do what only Christ can do for us. We do the same thing when we justify our various failings in any number of ways except to confess our sin. It occurs to me that perhaps we too should consider this kind of required “sanctity” divisive and set it aside as the early Lutherans did the feast days, making them neither here nor there and seeing them as inconsequential for faith. That is not to encourage law breaking for the sake of “doing what I want.” The neighbor’s needs determine that, though this is always the legalist’s criticism of Lutherans. Ironically, their focus is not so much on the neighbor as it is on their own law keeping and personal goodness. Instead, we love because he first loved us, and this comes from being forgiven. We are called to be faithful, and in that is to love our neighbor as ourselves.
I apologize if any of that sounds like I am telling you things you already understand. I write it all as one piece so that it makes a coherent whole and in case others are reading along. Maybe it is helpful, maybe not. Some say that Luther returned to Plato because he rejected Aquinas but that is a mistake, as if there are only two choices. There is, however, a return among many protestants to a kind of Gnostic faith, one which pushes God back up above the clouds, and with it comes a fear of the flesh (I think), something God himself took on and redeemed. Now we have all this effort to affirm the reality of faith within the human through the straining of reason to make sense of the mystery, or the emotional experience to feel that God is present, as if we must claw our way back to heaven somehow and pull Jesus back down now that he has ascended. But you will notice this fervor is only allowed within the walls of the church establishment. More I could say here, but the real distinction is that only in Lutheranism do you hear the words “This is my body and blood, given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sin” and are entreated to believe and trust it. That’s it. Heaven is here in these things – Word and Sacrament – Christ has come to be with us fully where he has promised, always. The only “effort” is to open and swallow, and listen. Faith comes by hearing. And it will come. He has already come. That is baptism. And so we are free to live our vocations. That is also love.
Kerner @215
You always seem to home in on wanting to talk about homosexuality and curve everything I write as being somehow about that, or curve the conversation towards that and seem to ignore everything else I write. why is that Kerner?
‘If you second paragraph is true, the first one cannot be true.”
Why is that? Tell me more. This is not obvious to me.
Why are you ignoring the other things I said in the same post and driving just at the part about homosexuality Kerner?
I have been reading this thread and getting a pretty strong feeling that many on this site misread the law grace distinction so as to vitiate the third use of the law as leading us to seek conformity to God’s law in grateful thanksgiving for what Christ accomplished for us. Not as a basis for our salvation, but as the grateful response of a heart being shaped by the Holy Spirit.
I am not a Lutheran and I look to Scripture for guidance first and man made commentaries second. In addition I am commanded to test everything contained in man made commentaries to see if it is so, no matter how well esteemed the author might be. If Luther said what some claim he said (which I doubt), then go back to the Scriptures because you are being seriously misled.
Thus I am unclear how FWS and others can arrive at the conclusions they do.
Paul unequivocally states in 1 Corinthians 6 that:
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” [and continuing]
The word translated “homosexuality” the footnotes make clear means “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts” This relates not to orientation but to acts.
Yes we all sin and 1 John makes clear this is the case “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.” but when doing what we do not want to do becomes a stiff-necked, unrepentant, pursuit of a sin it is evidence that we ought to examine ourselves to make sure we are what we profess to be-saved Christians.
I keep hearing the final verse of Romans 1 in my head when I read what some have posted:”32Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
And while if we are saved our sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ not by our own deeds which are all wretched, as Paul says later on in Romans, “1What shall we say then?) Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” Trying to avoid sin as our response to God’s grace is the norm for Christians, and while we often fail miserably, if the Romans 7 struggle is not going on internally, I think we need to engage in serious self-reflection.
Someone many posts ago noted that some had a tendency toward antinominaism. If the conclusion you draw is once baptized I can do what I want and engage as much sin as my little heart desires, the antinomian label fits to a t.
But for some of the posts in this string I was starting to wonder whether Lutherans were even within the broad parameters of orthodoxy. I am inclined to think some of what I read here is aberrational and not representative of all of Lutheranism.
ps. Note homosexual sin is not worse than adulterous sin or a myriad of other sexual and non-sexual sins. I am a sinner! The question is do we at least try and perhaps struggle in a losing fight to conform ourselves to God’s law or do we simply make a mockery of that law and of God. Put more succinctly, even as a saved individual I try to walk in the fear of the Lord. I know I am a sinner deserving nothing but judgment, but since the Lord has been so gracious I have much thanks to give, expressed by at least trying to live as he ordains.To do otherwise is self-deception.
I am not planning on a lot of back and forth, merely adding my two cents worth.
steve @ 217
wow. yes steve is not at all misrepresenting anything at all I am saying.
Stephen, #217: “For background, I have a master’s degree in NT and theology and have an ongoing interest (as you may be able to tell) in these subjects, including philosophy and history. … I have traveled and spent time in other countries both for work in missions and for personal pleasure. I have worked in the church in various capacities as a musician and youth director. I grew up in a conservative, confessional Lutheran home as the son of a pastor. My family goes back to the Missouri Lutherans. Both my great grandfathers were missionaries among the German immigrants.”
Stephen, do you affirm and agree with fws in #212 when he wrote:
“No [, the confessions DO NOT teach that same-sex behavior is sin] . Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men.”
Personally, I think that apart from a learned/reinforced sexual exclusivity (hetero or homo), man is – in his fallen state – a sexual omnivore. He’ll have sexual relations with anyone/anything. This is the baseline for any discussion of human sexuality since the Fall.
reg @ 219
I could respond to alot of what you wrote but I will home in on one point.
The calvinistic 3rd use of the law is this:
that there is a special use of the Law of God that is only for christians to use.
The Law is the revelation of the Image of God and Original Righeousness.
Therefore Sanctification is about a christian use of the Law to get back to Original Righeousness and restore the Image of God.
This is NOT the Lutheran Third Use of the Law.
One can try and reason with those who oppose Scripture, however, the passage below is the answer. The answer being those who turn their back on God, HIS Word as in Romans 1, have become a “reprobate mind” which has no conscience. They don’t retain God in their knowledge, they retain the sins they covet, making excuses. When God makes clear what HE will do with such a person, how can you or I change their minds, when the very words of Scripture have no meaning to such an individual?
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:28
Definition reprobate adokimos-ad-ok’-ee-mos
unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):–castaway, rejected, reprobate.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10
Putting something in boldface type, or red, or underlining, or repeating it endlessly, or otherwise shouting does not give one some kind of authority or ability to determine the truth, and neither does it urge or frighten me into wanting to listen or answer or agree. It’s juvenile. Pony up some real theology for dialogue and show some mutual respect. Otherwise you are just being shaming, rude and supercilious.
Thanks reg for offering some thoughts that are theological in nature. I have to be with family now, but perhaps I can return late tonight and address some of them. For the record, you are doing exactly what others are neglecting to do – theology.
FWS and Stephen,
How about you each start finding some Scriptures to back up your points instead of hiding behind esoteric readings of secondary materials and never once in any comment ever, ever, ever citing to Scriptures which are the primary source? Are you simply insufficiently familiar with Scriptures to feel comfortable doing so, do you view Scripture as of secondary importance and hence not relevant or is what Scripture says just too scary to actually analyze on the basis of what God said? Scripture is real theology, everything else secondary.
But given the positions being advanced here I can see where Scripture is the last ground upon which you would want to argue….
Stephen 225
“Pony up some real theology for dialogue and show some mutual respect. Otherwise you are just being shaming, rude and supercilious.”
The passages of Scripture must annoy you,….. the Word of God strikes at the heart of man – the passages might appear rude, but they are truth. Disrespect for the Word of God, making excuses for homosexuality, is “shaming” –
Stephen, .. giving your educational background in a long winded, verbalism post, has nothing to do with the subject of homosexuality, nor do I suspect it impressed to many on this blog – since almost all who post here, are highly educated – however you thought it needful to drone on in 217.
I wrote some notes on Hebrews the other day when the willful sinning concept was mentioned. Now that I know she’s working from Hebrews, I thought I would share. None of this is for Grace’s benefit, since she has already been instructed on everything. But for anyone else who might be interested, this might help in dealing with the warning passages in Hebrews. When misunderstood they have tormented many Christians, apart from any questions of right and wrong we’re discussing with fws. Handling them carelessly could easily push Christians into despair.
“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26)
This is too often interpreted in stand-alone fashion. It cannot be used as a proof-text all by itself for the idea that all willful sins are unforgivable. That would violate other passages (e.g. Matthew 12:31ff. where it is things said against the Holy Spirit only that are unforgivable). In the early Church, the canonicity of the Book of Hebrews was in question. That is, churches disagreed on whether it was Scripture. Nobody knew who the author was, and it didn’t match the doctrine of the books they knew belonged in Scripture (at least, when read out of harmony with them).
The Lutheran treatment is to allow the use of the disputed books to support doctrines taught elsewhere in Scripture, but not to argue doctrines from them which cannot be found elsewhere. They must be harmonized to match the books that were accepted in all churches. At the time of the Reformation, the Catholic church had a 72 book Bible. They had a teaching that the church had authority to set the limits of Scripture. Luther and others rejected this. They separated the apocryphal sections from the others and printed them at the back of the Old Testament. The Lutherans also printed the disputed books of the New Testament at the back of the New Testament. Other Protestants followed the Lutherans on the Old Testament, but followed the Catholics on the New Testament, not explaining how uncertain books became certain for them. The first time Bibles were printed with only 66 books was in the 19th century, as best I can tell from research.
That said, context may allow us to harmonize Hebrews with the other books nicely. The book is about how Christians must not return to Judaism when persecution arises. Some were forsaking the assembling of the brethren (Hebrews 10:25). There were people who would be kicked out of the families for becoming Christians. When they argued that they couldn’t leave because Jesus died for them and his blood covered them, their leaders and relatives said to come back to Judaism and that the temple sacrifices would cover them. The author of Hebrews argues that they can’t do this. First, there is a strong parallel passages a few verses before:
Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:18)
Here, there not being an offering is a good thing. We don’t need those temple sacrifices any more. Jesus made the last sacrifice, once for all time. No other sacrifice will do now that he has come. He has finished sacrifice once and for all. So if they go on sinning willfully, that is, return to Judaism and reject Jesus, no sacrifice for sins remains. Those temple sacrifices won’t cover them. God pays no attention to them.
The book also seems to imply that once this is done, it cannot be reversed. There are a few ways of reading this. One is to say the book does not match the doctrine of other books, so it is not canonical. (No church council can guarantee to us that it belongs in the Bible. We have to use evidence, and the early church was inconclusive on this and a few other books.) Another is to accept Hebrews and harmonize with the Unpardonable Sin passage. Perhaps the Jews forced their re-converts to speak blasphemy. (I have seen commentaries which cite things reconverts to Judaism were forced to do. It’s the same things St. Paul lists. Trampling a symbol of Christ and calling the blood of the covenant an unclean thing.) Those who had done this may have driven the Holy Spirit away never to return to them. It isn’t that they couldn’t be forgiven if they repented. It’s more that without the Spirit, they won’t wish to repent, since no one says Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. However we do this, the point is not that one willful sin will damn us. It appears from this book that aggravated apostasy would damn us. But even that must be cleared against the teaching of the undisputed books. If they suggest otherwise, then we have to go with their teaching since we can be certain of it.
Modern translations usually try to convey the verb tense to suggest continuous action. The Greek has two aspects for verbs. One is one time action. Kind of like a snapshot. The bat hits the ball. The other is continuing action. It isn’t seen as stopping. At the time of the older translations, like the KJV, they didn’t know this about the Greek, and the English translations didn’t reflect the difference. So they say “sin willfully.” Makes it sound like if you ever commit even one sin on purpose, you’re finished. But that isn’t what the Greek conveys. It speaks of going on sinning willfully. And if the people it’s speaking to are skipping church and going to the temple, this is a whole life apart from God. No more Jesus. Because Jesus himself was rejected. Explicitly. Renounced. They are sinning even though they are keeping the commandments outwardly. They may even be blameless with regard to the righteousness in the law (see Philippians 3:6). We are not invited here to take the term “sinning willfully” and apply it any way we see fit. One kind of sin is in view. Apostasy. And perhaps a very specific type.
And again, I think we are to avoid arguing that this damns because it’s a worse sin than others. The point is not now bad the sin is, but what it does by nature. If we reject the Son of God, there is no other sacrifice for sin. We have rejected the one thing that can save us.
Stephen
I prefer to use the Word of God to make my point, it is through HIS Word that we can come to truth, not through endless books, or commentaries, though they might be useful to some extent, they do not supersede the inerrant Word of God.
Rick,
There are a number of Books in the Bible which Martin Luther disliked, or found fault with. James, Jude, Revelation, Hebrews, he had no use for the book of Job “Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book.” – Luther didn’t like Esther as well –
It becomes obvious Luther didn’t like Revelation, Hebrews, James and Jude, they were a real bur in his saddle, …..
The original version: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Roams 3:28
Martin Luther’s NEW version: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith “alone” without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28
No wonder Luther hated the book of James because it clearly states:
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?James 2:20
Below – Luther’s prideful rant, changing the words and meaning out of the book of Romans:
The above speaks volumes……
So, Grace, do you accept all deuterocanonical books? On what grounds?
“The above speaks volumes……”
Only if you can’t read tone.
Grace,
How do you know that James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, should be included in the Bible? These and a few others had some criticism from the early church, and some of the early church fathers saw them as inauthentic and didn’t include them in the Bible. Lacking conclusive evidence unlike the Gospel writers, Luther and the Lutheran Reformers, therefore weren’t 100% sure they belonged and hence the sort of “yellow caution light” caveat they included with them
Checking back in . . .
reg, that’s one heck of an accusation. You have not read what I have been writing. Your characterization is incorrect. If you don’t understand something, accusing the person who wrote it of being esoteric is childish. Consider yourself on the “do not reply list” as well – rude, shaming and supercilious.
BW –
The Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran’s balk at many books within the HOLY Bible, it’s no secret – I have written on this subject in the past, I don’t have anything to prove, ……. the entire Bible is accurate.
Grace,
I see. But the RCC doesn’t balk at any books, they include more than the 66 in Protestant Bibles.
Rick — 232
“Tone” ? – LOL….. Luther blew through that passage because it didn’t line up with his beliefs, or what he wanted others to believe, “tone” ? The man was adamant, the little director without permission from God ALMIGHTY to change a text.
Stephen – 234
It seems Reg hit the nail straight on:
REG #227 “Are you simply insufficiently familiar with Scriptures to feel comfortable doing so, do you view Scripture as of secondary importance and hence not relevant or is what Scripture says just too scary to actually analyze on the basis of what God said? Scripture is real theology, everything else secondary.”
And now you’re having a hissy, writing “Consider yourself on the “do not reply list” as well – rude, shaming and supercilious.” – - poor Stephen. I don’t think anyone is going to lose sleep over you not reading their posts. LOL
BW,
Excluding books or “yellow flagging them” in your personal Bible? Next you are going to be ranking Jesus’ sayings as to whether he did, might have or didn’t say much like the Jesus seminar apostates. Its a very slippery slope and flies in the face of historical orthodoxy. Perhaps you like Marcion too?
Reg,
I said a “yellow caution light.” I’m Lutheran, not a Marcionite, I was trying to echo what Rick Ritchie said @ 229. Lutheran theologians understood that there was no consensus in the early church on some of the books and never defined a canon in their confessions.
Christ never mentioned the Apocrypha, (the Apocrypha was written approximately 400 years BC. The Jewish people never accepted the books within the Apocrypha. If the Apocrypha had been of any importance it would have been mentioned by Christ, or it would have been highly thought of by the Jews, but this wasn’t the case.
Jerome spoke against the Apocrypha – Josephus never mentioned the Apocryphal (he was a Jewish historian 1st century.
Sorry – it should read:
“400 BC and the time of Jesus Christ”
And yet Jude quotes it.
Not gonna get back into this bar fight. Just saying a fact – Jude quotes from Enoch the Apocrypha.
Off to put a five-year-old to bed.
I find it funny that people consider the Lutheran tradition concerning the canon to be the dangerous one, related to higher criticism. In reality the dangerous one is the position that says you can regard a text as canonical apart from apostolic witness. The majority of protestants fall into the same trap as roman catholics with this. Because the church that gets to “decide” what is scripture and what isn’t regardless of apostolic witness, also gets to do what they want with scripture. Rather than being ruled by scripture they in effect rule over scripture. And that is where the real danger is.
Augustine, Jerome, Eusebius, and many others recognized this in the early church, along with Luther, Cajetan, Erasmus and to a slighlty lesser extent Calvin and Zwingli of the Reformation. When the “church” decides what is scripture apart from apostolic witness, and even gospel content then it is scripture that finally loses its authority.
And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Deuteronomy 33:2 (Moses)
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, Jude 1:14
The church did not consider the book of Enoch Scripture. One verse does not mean Enoch was inspired.
So the ground of the argument has has shifted. Before it was that books weren’t inspired if they weren’t mentioned by Christ. Then we find a book was mentioned by an inspired writer, and Grace says the church didn’t consider Enoch Scripture. Well, there are two churches that consider it Scripture now, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. So which church gets to decide this, and how?
The Lutheran way of handling this is to recognize that the early church knew things that we don’t, but also that where there was doubt in the early church, no church council can settle that for all time. Most of us grew up with 66 book Bibles, assuming they had always been that way, which is false. Even most Protestant churches printed their Bibles with the Apocrypha until recently. But if everybody just accepted the Bibles they were handed by their church, we would still have 72 books like they did at the time of the Reformation. Is that what is being argued?
And I love lines like this: “the entire Bible is accurate.” When we’re discussing the extent of the canon, that is, which books belong in the Bible in the first place, just how is this an answer? My Bible publisher chose the right books by magic? Would this answer work if you were looking at a Bible from a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox publisher? How about one with the Book of Enoch included?
Go here to see what is considered part of the “entire Bible” by another church body:
http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html
Are all 81 books of the Bible accurate?
Rick,
If you don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then you can change anything you like, make it whatever suits you, there are a lot of people who would agree with you, they also don’t believe that Christ was God the Son, nor do they believe that Christ arose from the dead….. on and on!
Actually the Book of Enoch is not Apocrypha but pseudepigrapha. Just so we are clear. And just because Jude cites it does not make it Scripture any more than Paul citing to Greek playwright makes them Scripture.
Rick, The cannon of Scripture was recognized by the churches long before the Councils designated what books were canonical. And the Apocrypha was referred to as such because it was not viewed as quite being inspired, even when included in the bible. You are going down the path toward theological liberalism. Also as we go down this rabbit trail is the suggestion that either (a) the Apocrypha supports Stephen’s and FWS’ peculiar views of sin in Scripture or (b) that we can eliminate a few more books and arrive at their view of sin?
The New Testament was written in Greek – we don’t have the original documents, but we do have almost six thousand copies of the Greek manuscripts that were copied close to the originals in time. The interesting and MOST important part of these copies agree with each other and its almost one hundred percent (100%) accurate. The NT is just over being 99.5% pure textually —- taking it another step further there is about 1/2 of maybe 1% of all the manuscripts that don’t agree 100%. Most of the so called inaccuracies are nothing more than spelling errors, which in themselves are minor. It’s been pointed out many times that the errors are those which are, instead of the copy saying Jesus, instead says Jesus Christ. The documents have been proven to be accurate as that of the original manuscripts/documents – The Bible we have is the inerrant inspired Word of God.
When the Bible is translated they don’t translate from one translation to another – they translate from the original language into our language – the translation is made from the original to whichever language the Bible is being translated, in other words it’s not done from Greek to English to French, to German – each translations is from the Greek manuscripts to whichever language the Bible will be translated into. The accuracy of the translations are trustworthy.
When one realizes how miraculous the Old Testament is, and the findings of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls, one begins to understand the POWER of GOD to keep HIS Word pure. Nothing has changed, it is what HE wants it to be.
God did not send His Son to die for our sin, and then allow His Word to go adrift. Then again, look at the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ how HE proves the power of HIS Hand on the Word. Read the Old Testament and prophecy and its coming to fruition in the New Testament regarding the birth and death of the LORD Jesus Christ. It’s a fit, there isn’t a piece out of place. That’s the miracle, that’s what HE gave us so that we might know the TRUTH.
I don’t know that I really have it in me to say much on this thread any more, but even so I’ve kept reading it, and I’m really glad I did, because today I read two recent comments that really impressed me.
The first was Stephen’s (@217). I realize that he and FWS are not well received by some here (although it is not surprising that it’s the non-Lutherans who really take issue with what they’re saying), but if one would step beyond any perceived homosexuality-only agenda and read Stephen’s comment, I think there is much in it to appreciate.
I also think Rick’s explanation (@229) of Hebrews 10:26 was not only impressive, but frankly informative for me, even though I’ve had a Bible study on Hebrews not that long ago.
But more to the point, I found Rich’s explanation resonated much more with Scripture than the interpretation taken by various strains of legalism, in which any willful sin condemns one to hell. Not surprisingly, what seems to result from such a legalistic reading of Scripture is a watering down of Law (isn’t it usually that way?), because you then have people somehow convincing themselves that they don’t sin willfully. If they were ever to admit that, they’d condemn themselves! You can see how easily this leads to pharisaism: people will admit that they’re sinners, but they’re not willful sinners — like those bad people over there!
Anyhow, I didn’t really expect to read two well-written posts like that in a conversation that’s now past 250 comments. So thanks, you guys.
I’ll echo Todd’s affirmation in 251. Clear and loving statements are much appreciated and quite rare in the blogosphere.
@Stephen, so that you know, your post at 217 contains almost nothing I disagree with (and I am sorry that just after you opened up, Grace decided to take a cheap shot at your personal biography, for which you had already given a thoughtful disclaimer. That must have stung and I can tell you that from my view it was a low blow that was unloving and unnecessary). Up to the point of salvation, you and I and Frank see exactly eye to eye. That is why I have tried to lovingly caution, but never accuse or imply that either of you is (a) inferior to my understanding of our theology or (b) unregenerate. I know that desire to caution has come across as condescending and I apologize.
Where I differ with Frank (and I think perhaps with you) is on what the life of the believer looks like after salvation. If we died at the moment of faith (or baptism, for that matter) our theologies would be identical. But you and Frank unequivocally state that the life of the believer consists only in love for neighbor (or at least so centrally that all else fails to receive mention). Thus, an activity like homosexuality is of little, if any significance. However, I maintain that Scripture and the Confessions hold that the life of the believer should reflect not only God’s love, but also his holiness. Frank insists this is Calvinism because he believes the only motivation for holiness would be trying to buy salvation. I maintain that Luther and the Scriptures teach that works of both love and holiness flow freely from our joyous gift of grace through faith. Continued unrepentant sin is an indication that faith is not doing its work in our heart (thus Luther’s institution of the ban for “manifest and obstinate sinners”). In support of this, I have tried to cite the testimony of not only the Apology, but also the Smalcald Articles (see my comment about 2000 comments ago), the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord. Most of this happened in personal e-mails rather than this forum.
I would enjoy pursuing that discussion with you if you like, but I would again feel more comfortable using e-mail, where my ADD becomes less of a hindrance and errors of tone, etc, are a little easier to avoid. But whether we pursue it or not, I thought I’d try to clarify with you a bit. I don’t like being misunderstood any more than you do. That said, did you consider my question of last night – why the focus on love of neighbor and the ignoring of loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength? I did, and I think your position is strengthened by Romans 14 (Paul does say all these things are summarized as love for neighbor, but he is only quoting the second tablet of the law). But conversely, I think your position is fatally wounded by Romans 6. How would you explain Paul’s call that after salvation/baptism/regeneration, we are to understand ourselves as slaves to righteousness?
@Todd – I posted a comment in response to some of your questions (right at the beginning of when Stephen and I did our little back-and-forth), but wasn’t at all sure it sufficed in answering them and this is the first time I’ve seen you since. Did it help? Any bones to pick? Better to just let it lie at this point? Same story as with Stephen, I’d happily pursue it, but might be more inclined to do so through e-mail. I start to feel like I’m talking too much when I post as much as I have on this thread.
@Grace
Because I don’t often get the opportunity to thank you for something you’ve written, I want to be sure to say thanks for post 249. It’s accurate in its main assertions and written without a hint of judgment or ridicule.
(a few nits, as I earned a degree in this field: there are some significant and noteworthy textual variants, particularly in the NT, but you are right in saying that the vast bulk are simple scribal errors which are easily detected, while many more are obvious harmonizations in the Gospels, also easily detected; similarly, some versions have translated from translations [the KJV and its use of the Vulgate being the best known - but even then, the translation was not the primary source] but the vast bulk of these have been missionary efforts that were never intended to be final products, but an intent to get God’s word in some form into the hands of those who had no Scriptural access: I don’t know a single Bible Translation or Missions Agency that uses translations that have English as a base text except when nothing better is available, at which point they usually call for help and get cranking; but these are nits and don’t really go against your main points).
Further, it may interest you to know that I don’t know a single confessional Lutheran who would disagree with your points. Earlier it seemed you may have confused issues of canonicity (where your theological view will differ with Lutherans) with issues of inerrancy (where you would actually be quite happy with most of what the confessions say – remember that they, and not Luther’s personal writings are the foundation of Lutheran theology).
@reg
You’re wrong on several facts:
Apocrypha/Psuedipigrapha: Roman Catholics still refer to 1 Enoch as “Apocrypha” so let’s not get too anal – you can accurately use the term for just the intertestamental books that were affirmed as equal with Scripture by the Council of Trent or for those AND the Pseudipigraphal writings. At no point did I say it should be considered Scriptural.
The Canon: The canon was not established “long before” it was accepted by a Council. Where did you get that idea? The first historical record of the exact books we know as the NT is a letter written by Athanasius in 367AD. I’m not arguing against our current canon (nor has anyone here actually done so), but the canon was definitely not closed “long before” the Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397 affirmed the 27 books we now have. By my math, 367AD to 397AD is just 30 years. It may have been even less time if it was in fact approved at the Council of Rome in 382AD.
Paul and the Greek poets: I know it isn’t what you meant, but I have to say: you wrote “just because Jude cites it does not make it Scripture any more than Paul citing to Greek playwright makes them Scripture.” Actually, once Paul quoted Greek poets, those quotations did become Scripture.
Okay, I’ve written way too much. It seems you’re all lucky I don’t usually have this much free time.
Thanks, tODD.
And Grace, I do hold to Inerrancy. You are confusing the issue of canonicity with Inerrancy. Inerrancy comes from the idea that Scripture is God’s Word, and God doesn’t lie. It’s another thing to say that we know for certain in every single case whether a book is Scripture or not. When I’m reading the book of John, which is not a disputed book, I don’t go looking for errors.
The problem is, we don’t have an Inerrant Table of Contents for the Bible. (It would be nice if we did. If our Table of Contents were written by St. Paul or St. John.) There was certainly Providence in the accurate transmission of the Scriptures, but we can’t read those as a stamp of approval on a certain list of books. There was a good core that was agreed upon. Those give us a solid foundation to work with. But pretending to be certain about the others doesn’t make the building safer.
Imagine a new Christian were on a desert island and had only, say, an orthodox Bible with the 81 books in it. They can remember the names of some books of the Bible from Bible study, but not all. Would they read all the books the same way, giving them equal weight? If they came upon an unfamiliar book, how would they handle it? Would they avoid it altogether and just read maybe a dozen Bible books? Or would they likely try reading more, just being careful not to put too much emphasis on the ones they weren’t sure of? If they were joined by an orthodox Christian, that Christian might think their wariness of unfamiliar books was impious. But it isn’t. That’s where we are with the disputed books. They were listed as under dispute long before the Reformation. God did give us a certain core of books that we can be certain of. Others seem to have probably come from God, but it is not easy to be certain. Where we aren’t sure, we’re wary.
These views have been around a long time. And as far as I know, nobody uses them to promote particular views on morality. Nor am I trying to do that here. What I objected to was what I thought was a careless use of warning passages, and many of my arguments on how to read them could be made within the book itself. Though the book’s early disputed status should also push us to harmonize toward the other books, rather than harmonizing them towards Hebrews, which was what you were doing.
Rick – 254
“Because I don’t often get the opportunity to thank you for something you’ve written, I want to be sure to say thanks for post 249. It’s accurate in its main assertions and written without a hint of judgment or ridicule.”
Thank you, you’re too kind.
“(a few nits, as I earned a degree in this field:”
You might be embarressed if you knew some of the other backgrounds who post on this blog. If I might say it ever so softly, you hike yourself up on the stool far too often – “nits” aren’t the problem .
You have chosen John the Apostle and Paul. There are 10 other Apostles, and Luke (a Gentile) who were inspired of God to write some of the New Testament books. I look upon each book as being inspired and inerrant. I’m not interested in a discussion using “desert island” as some sort of way to assess what each person would or wouldn’t do.
You may have a problem with your list of “disputed books” – Luther had problems with many books of the Bible – I don’t share either Luther’s view or yours.
The most important fact – the HOLY Spirit guides us as we study. I have often prayed to understand.
Sorry Rob – some of my remarks were to Rick and not to you – especially those regarding John and Paul.
Rick – 257
“These views have been around a long time. And as far as I know, nobody uses them to promote particular views on morality. Nor am I trying to do that here. What I objected to was what I thought was a careless use of warning passages, and many of my arguments on how to read them could be made within the book itself. Though the book’s early disputed status should also push us to harmonize toward the other books, rather than harmonizing them towards Hebrews, which was what you were doing.”
My use of Hebrews was not a so called “careless use of warning passages” but a direct warning as is given in Hebrews. Those warnings, also in Ephesians and Galatians 5 are rarely heeded, but instead tossed aside, with excuses as to the ‘warning’ – in essence Hebrews is in harmony, but not to the liberal view point which is adopted by you and others.
This is the difference between what you believe as a Lutheran and what I believe to be true. The warnings of continued sin are all through the New Testament, … the LORD Jesus warned, Paul warned, and so did James and others. However there are others who cannot divide the truth…… seeing the warnngs, repenting and turning from sin.
Remember it was Jesus who said “go and sin no more” – why would HE have said that if it couldn’t be done, as in the “woman taken in adultery” John 8? This is the problem, little man believes he cannot stop sinning, be it sexual, stealing lying, etc., but the LORD Jesus made clear than it can cease, an individual CAN choose not to commit adultery or steal. If Jesus had not said it, then there would be a case, but HE did say “go and sin no more” – It’s a choice that each individual can make.
Romans 7:19
“For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.”
Purple Koolaid, #92: “FWS, I appreciate your prayers but I think you’re way off. Marriage is very important in the Bible. Relationships matter in the Bible. The Bible gives explicit releases for divorce. Whether or not I’m unhappy is not one of them. You’re on a slippery slope that Jesus NEVER taught. IS this what the LCMS teaches? If so, I’m running away.“
Reg, #227: “But for some of the posts in this string I was starting to wonder whether Lutherans were even within the broad parameters of orthodoxy.”
Reg, it’s reasonable for you to have wondered about this.
Let’s find out how about some of them.
Stephen, Rick Ritchie, BW, Rob, Bror Erickson, tODD, and any other LCMS Lutherans commenting on this thread, do you affirm and agree with fws in #212 when he wrote:
“No [, the confessions DO NOT teach that same-sex behavior is sin] . Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men.”
Or do you disagree?
It’s a straightforward question. A straightforward “Agree” or “Disagree” is all that’s needed.
Rob -
An answer to one of the questions I think you are asking is that our love for God involves keeping the whole law. It involves that first commandment, the one Luther said that if we could keep it, we would keep them all, and likewise, if we could keep it by something we do or do not do, we would not need Christ. It is kept by our becoming a new creation, which is not an activity we engage in with our will, actions or emotions. It is not something that develops over time. It is the free gift of God given in Christ in our baptism. Invisible faith in Christ alone which accomplishes what we cannot do. As it says in 1 Corinthians 6:11
“And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
The simple fact is we do not, in our Old Adam bodies of sin and death, love God much at all, not in any consistent or constant manner as the scripture requires with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. We like to kid ourselves that we are living with an “attitude of gratitude” or some such thing. That works until someone gives us a door ding or the kid at the fast food place isn’t nice enough and we righteously judge their entire life. “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” We worship what we can see. We worship our reason, or our bank account, or our health, or whatever we currently trust for our sense of well-being or personal certainty. It may even be our religious practice, our ability to willingly surrender to God’s will (or so we think) or our church attendance that makes us look good in God’s eyes. What kind of sin do you think John is discussing throughout his entire little epistle? I’ll give you a hint. Check the very last verse of 1 John. It is not about sins of volition, about doing and not doing, it is about THE sin – putting our faith in anything other than Christ.
Now, having said all that, it does not mean we blow off trying to love God or some kind of weird comeback that an evangelical might present. Because Christ commands that we “teach them to obey” in Mat 28. So we catechize and memorize the commandments and scripture, and hopefully internalize these things so that we look to God in trouble and thanksgiving, hearing the promise of the Gospel and receiving the sacrament, and learn in all things to love our neighbor as ourselves, sometimes willingly, sometimes grudgingly.
But is it necessary for us to make pretensions to doing this in any way that proves we are Christians? No. The proof we are Christians is in what God says and does – his cross and our baptisms into that reality. That is what we preach, not our works and some silly idea that we progress in sanctification by keeping the law.
I appreciate your posts and accept your apology. And as for Romans 6, there are two kinds of righteousness, earthly and heavenly. Which one do you think Paul is talking about? And how do you read 6 in light of 7? There is much more to be said. He also said he is not under the law. Read Galatians again. These things do square with each other, and they will square with our Confessions, but I agree you sound like a Lutheran tacking on a Calvinist view of sanctification which really messes things up.
Ask yourself “what is the whole of the law” again and again. Make it a mantra for a week. Then ask yourself how the things on your your sin lists square with the whole. The whole=love. How is it love, service, mercy or not to call something sin? Keep in mind that man was not made for the Sabbath. What does that mean? What use is law for human beings? Conformity to an Ideal? Sacrifices to God? Goodness? Mercy? Peace? Keep at it and dig deeper until you have some peace about it. Jesus worked on the Sabbath, breaking a holiness code. They were accusing him of sin. he ate with the unwashed. He let them touch him. All of this was very, very bad. How did the sinless one get away with that? What is the whole of the law?
As for me, I am completely resolved about what the scriptures testify to for people – faith alone in Christ alone given and strengthened in Word and Sacrament, and love for neighbor through our many vocations. Homosexuality ought to be a non-issue as far as I’m concerned. Banning it on the face of it serves no one. It is an abstraction. That seems obvious. The historical gymnastics it takes to equate same sex couples in our day with what is described anywhere in scripture is frankly ridiculous. But most do not want to listen to that and dismiss it out of hand. They demand conformity to a perceived image with absolutely no evidence that by doing so anyone is served or loved by it. Conversely, many people are suffering under this yoke imposed by the church, and as such, it is by definition requiring a sacrifice that God does not require to a false image (idol) that Christians have made. So I have found that a conversation about it is usually futile until others begin to see that.
As for my own frustrations, they are largely with the same obstinate Christians who live and support the caste system this creates, who at the same time look for and sanctify outward signs of good works as evidence of faith. Being unrepentant is one thing, but morality of itself proves absolutely nothing about one’s faith. Was Jesus just blowing smoke when he entreated us not to judge the heavenly righteousness of others? I could go on but I’m sort of worn out now. I should not be surprised by the responses I’ve gotten. It proves my point well, even in myself. We are sinners in need of a merciful savior. Something else is at work in my members. The thing I would do I do not do. Thank God for Jesus Christ.
As far as corresponding, we can do that. Post your email. But you won’t change my mind. I’m settled on this. For anyone else reading along who has come here to judge and condemn LCMS Lutherans the answer is a simple “no” that pretty much all confessional Lutherans do not agree with me on the issue of homosexuality because they simply have not thought about it this way. They have not been asked to do so. All of us are in thrall to the culture wars and fail to see others as he people we are called to love. Until we do that on this issue, the problem will persist for all the wrong reasons, reasons not intended in Holy Scripture which has given us the gospel of Jesus Christ for all people.
But I don’t expect heterodox evangelicals to understand that because they have no clear teaching on scripture. Their bible is all law all the time. They do not know how to separate law from gospel. When I write here, it is usually to confessional Lutherans. Your citing of Walther earlier and how to apply law and gospel was correct. They would not have clue what that means as evidences in most of the posts over 200.
I hope you will look again at what I have written. I put some effort into it. If that does not make sense, I’m not sure what will. These things take time, and sometimes it depends on what the personal stakes are for you. Is this just about resolving something theoretical or does it mean something for your life? If it is the latter, I’d like to help. If it is the former, then there is plenty of material out there to read and play around with. Otherwise, keep at it and keep posting, keeping reading and writing theology as much as you have time for. And ask God for truth. He has promised to lead us into all truth. I believe that this is so.
rob @252
ROB: Up to the point of salvation, you and I and Frank see exactly eye to eye.
FWS: I am not certain Rob. The Lutheran Confessions say that the Image of God was and is faith alone in Christ alone. They re-define concupiscence as being the opposite of that, which is faith-in-anything-but-Christ.
Are you in complete agreement with this, or do you think that the Law of God or Natural Law is a or the revelation of the Image of God?
This matters a great deal, because then what we would need to do to return to that lost Image of God and Adamic Original Righeousness would be different right?
And then a calvinistic third use of the Law would make sense as a part of sanctification. Calvin looks at the Law as a sort of “sanctification helper” that does not kill us but rather is the revelation of God’s Image. In contrast the “Lutheran Third Use” sees this as Mortification and as the Law-in-action.
Note it is a fruit of sanctification in that the HS is killing all Old Adams with the Law. Now the New man, because of his sanctification, which alone is faith alone in Christ alone, is also now killing the Old Adam. With what? With the Law!
So what does this have to do with what the baptismal life of a Christian looks like? Everything.
Baptism “works, delivers from , and gives” eternal salvation through the invisible Word that is in with and under the water. So Baptism is a Law Command. And in, with and under that Law Command is pure Gospel. There is a Promise there that Faith clings to and so right there, in that water, receives the Promised Mercy which is Christ. This is Sanctification. Sanctification is nothing more and nothing less properly speaking for the Lutheran.
Then Rob there is what Baptism “signifies” or I like to say “predicates”. Baptism pictures, by our being buried or immersed in the water, and then coming up out of it, death of the Old Adam. Note here that Baptism and Sanctification are not how the Old Adam dies. We bury the Old Adam by what? “By daily contrition and repentance” is how we bury or Mortify or Kill the Old Adam. The Christian Life, according to his Old Adam, which is ALL that we can see and do in our bodies, is Law, Law, Law.
So the Christian becomes outwardly better, that is the Old Adam get’s subdued how? By the Gospel? No. The Christian subdues his Old Adam in the exact same way that pagan Aristotle describes. We work at love, or virtue, until it becomes a habit. Practice makes Perfect. This, I (and the Confessions) suggest is exactly what Saint Paul is after when he talks about running races etc. This is the Mortification of the Flesh, using the Law, that is done by Christians in exactly the same way, using the same Law, to the same killing effect, as pagans do.
Here is where our confessions say that Christians are to use the same Law in the same way as pagans:
And it is necessary and demanded by God that Christians do this exercise in the Law. And why is it necessary for Christians to do this? Is it some New Testament Purity Law that sets us apart as Christians Rob? No. Here is why we need to learn to willingly and eagerly do the Law:
What Luther is saying here in his sermon from the Lutheran Confessions on the Lutheran Third Use of the Law is this: God WILL have his righeousness done on earth whether we are with His Program of doing 1st article Goodness and Mercy or not. So it is better to learn to do the Law willingly , so that God does not need to send punishments and plagues and pestilences to make us do those things. And this outward, earthly kingdom doing of the Law is, ALL, about serving others. Here is what Luther, in a sermon referenced by our Confessions, tell us is the sum total of God’s earthly intent in having us outwardly do the Law of God:
So tell me here what I am missing Rob.
ROB But you and Frank unequivocally state that the life of the believer consists only in love for neighbor (or at least so centrally that all else fails to receive mention). Thus, an activity like homosexuality is of little, if any significance.
FWS I note here an important admission on your part. It is this. It is that in your mind, mandatory celebacy for gays is not about love for neighbor. It is about faith in God . Correct me here. I do not know how else to read this phrase that you wrote.
ROB However, I maintain that Scripture and the Confessions hold that the life of the believer should reflect not only God’s love, but also his holiness.
FWS This is very very good Rob. I think you have hit on exactly where our difference is. Now all that remains is for us to show each other, in a loving and brotherly way, where our position is supported or not in the Lutheran Confessions right?
ROB Frank insists this is Calvinism because he believes the only motivation for holiness would be trying to buy salvation.
FWS This is not exactly it Rob. I am saying that the Reformed are neo Scholastics precisely because they see the Law of God as the revelation of the Image of God and Original Purity. Lutherans find all that only and alone in faith alone in Christ alone. That I am suggesting is the root of our differences. Calvin was the uberAugustinian. He is following St Augustine here. Luther , and our confessions (see Ap II on the definition of “contrition”) Broke with Augustine exactly here!
ROB I maintain that Luther and the Scriptures teach that works of both love and holiness flow freely from our joyous gift of grace through faith.
FWS The Confessions say that this is true in our Baptism. In faith alone in Christ alone. This is what baptism works. The Formula in art VI declares that in the New Man, what you describes happens like light from sun, like spontaneous combustion, it just happens and no effort or thought is even necessary. So this joyous keeping of the Law happens as a result of having the Image Restored. Reconformity to the Law is NOT the restoration of the Image of God. It is a fruit and consequence of that. See the difference here?
And then what baptism signifies is a Christian life of Law, Mortification and the Deathing of the Old Adam. And so Luther can say this: “Life is Mortification” . Luther means both the earthly visible life of christians and pagans alike here!
ROB Continued unrepentant sin is an indication that faith is not doing its work in our heart (thus Luther’s institution of the ban for “manifest and obstinate sinners”). In support of this, I have tried to cite the testimony of not only the Apology, but also the Smalcald Articles (see my comment about 2000 comments ago), the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord. Most of this happened in personal e-mails rather than this forum.
FWS Here is my response to this. You can apply this to Saint Paul’s ban as well. The church is a form of earthly government to keep Old Adams in line. The Law is to be used in this earthly church to maintain that order. The Church in the visible sense, is all earthly kingdom. So when there is someone disrupting the work and life of the church, he is to be ushered out of the church. It is that simple. That is what the Confessions are talking about . But they are talking about more!
The Confessions state that Mortal Sin cannot exist with faith. It is simply impossible for someone who clings to Christ because he is terrified of his sins to then just go on sinning. That is simply impossible. And there is more!
We should fear sin. God will punish it. So we should fear God. So now back to Ap art II: Original sin is the lack of faith in Christ. and when that faith leaves, then what enters is a faith that visciously seeks to have faith in anything BUT Christ. This last thing is this: if we insist on putting our faith, over and over again, in things that are not Christ, then God will let us have our way. And we DO do this every day dont we? That fact should terrify each of us.
ROB why the focus on love of neighbor and the ignoring of loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength? I did, and I think your position is strengthened by Romans 14 (Paul does say all these things are summarized as love for neighbor, but he is only quoting the second tablet of the law).
FWS: We have been given this faith in our Baptism Rob. You are turning faith into a work. It IS a work. But that faith, the one that is a work, IS demanded by God for us to do it, but it does not save us. Only the faith we receive in Baptism, that is nothing we can do, is saving faith.
ROB But conversely, I think your position is fatally wounded by Romans 6. How would you explain Paul’s call that after salvation/baptism/regeneration, we are to understand ourselves as slaves to righteousness?
FWS I hope you have received a good portion of that explanation now Rob from our Lutheran Confessions.
@ Truth – I disagree with Frank’s statements quoted above (and have done so personally with him) So does the LCMS (see “Beliefs & Practices” on lcms.org) Frank and Stephen believe that they are purporting an even truer form of Lutheranism. I (and many, many others) disagree. But I can do so politely.
Now a string of questioning for you (and for “don’t mention any credentials to me – others may or may not have them too” Grace) – are we saved by grace or by our proper understanding of it? Are we saved by grace or by our proper living out of it? Can a person who is wrong in their beliefs about Scripture or a particular sin still be saved if they acknowledge that they are a sinner and Christ has died for them? Because for Luther and Lutherans, “How are we saved?” is the primary point upon which all other considerations must hinge: How are we saved?
And no, a simple yes or no will not suffice.
@ Stephen -
I’ll print it out and read it. I think we’re clear on our differences and, as I said to Frank, we can laugh about them in heaven, when they won’t matter one bit.
One quick question – since you have worked in pastoral roles (as I do) have you ever had to pastorally help someone with an issue like homosexuality? Are you still involved in ministry in any way?
Bad choice of words. Better: are you still serving in a pastoral role?
rob @ 266
It would be really helpful if you could , just for a minute, separate this discussion from sexual sinning.
rob @ 266 and steve:
my prediction is that Rob is going to want to discuss and validate his therapeutic, moralistic deistic theories on how to overcome sexual addictions.
If you are not willing to focus with him in this topic, he will dust his feet off an abruptly end your conversation.
Rob,
“Yes” to the question about being in a role of providing some kind of “pastoral” role for someone who is gay, but it has been more as a friend or someone more mature. And “no” to my current vocations in any official capacity. I’m an artist. I’m not sure how any of that matters really. Neither does it matter how many people agree or disagree with a position. What matters is if it is true.
Truth A&D @262:
“Stephen, Rick Ritchie, BW, Rob, Bror Erickson, tODD, and any other LCMS Lutherans commenting on this thread, do you affirm and agree with fws in #212 when he wrote:
“No [, the confessions DO NOT teach that same-sex behavior is sin] . Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men.”
Or do you disagree?”
I disagree with fws on that point. Most LCMS laymen I know also disagree with fws. I know of no LCMS pastor, nor any any promnent LCMS theologian that agrees with fws on that point. On the other hand, I am only a layman and I have no access to the inner circles of LCMS theology other than that which is published and is easily accessed.
fws @218:
“If you second paragraph is true, the first one cannot be true.”
Why is that? Tell me more. This is not obvious to me.”
Well, your second statement is that the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality did not exist at the time the Bible was written. But if that is true, the scripture passages dealing with man-man sex cannot be directed to a group that was not known to exist.
Plus, I think it is worth considering that the underlying assumptions of those scripture passages are correct,. That our present concepts of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” (when used as nouns) are eroneous. You have a tendency to talk about physician’s reference books and peer reviewed studies when you try to support the concept of “homosexual” as the an essential part of your identity. I suggest that these things are only the wisdom of this age, and therefore should not be assumed to be reliable, any more than the wisdom of the age that considered “homosexuality” a psychopathology, or for that matter any more reliable than the wisdom of the age that considered the use of leeches to be effective treatment. In matters of whether a particular behavior constitutes a sin or not, Scripture, and secondarily the Lutheran Confessions, have to be the basis of the inquiry.
“You always seem to home in on wanting to talk about homosexuality and curve everything I write as being somehow about that, or curve the conversation towards that and seem to ignore everything else I write. why is that Kerner?”
I’m not trying to ignore what you write, but the issue I have been debating is the issue where we disagree.
I’m not saying you are intentionally being double tongued about these debates, but you do have a tendency to avoid discussing the specific questions of what behavior is or is not sin. Recently you have been more willing to discuss it, but especially when the arguments of others begin to show yours to be wrong, you retreat back into the more general realm of the Defense of the Augsburg Confession which do not specifically address the issues under discussion. I am not privy to your e-mail correspondence with Rob, but you have not responded to me at all regarding the passages in the Large Catachism (such as the articles on the Lord’s Prayer and the 6th Commandment) which do specifically address the subjects of temptation, specific sin, sexual morality, etc.
Can I just let Kerner’s answer stand? As this post has gotten way off topic and I’d like to move on to another topic, if just drip Cranach all together. I used to enjoy the somewhat heated yet civil intelligent debates on this page, where people were willing to concede a point if convinced. Now it seems half the people aren’t willing, or possibly not even capable of understanding or listening to a point.
fws, writing a tome everytime you post doesn’t help! I can’t even follow what you are writing anymore, that goes for you to Larry, distill guys, distill. I don’t have all day to try read your posts. Tell me up front what you are trying to say, defend it. If your post is more than a page, rewrite it for the sake of sanity would you?
So far the responses to the question posed in #262 are:
(1) Agree with fws who says that the Lutheran Confessions and Scripture do not teach that same-sex behavior is sin: Stephen
(2) Disagree with fws who says that the Lutheran Confessions and Scripture do not teach that same-sex behavior is sin: Rob, Kerner, Bror Erickson.
——–
Stephen: “the answer is a simple “no” that pretty much all confessional Lutherans do not agree with me on the issue of homosexuality because they simply have not thought about it this way.”
Rob: “I disagree with Frank’s statements quoted above”
Kerner: “I disagree with fws on that point.”
Kerner: “Most LCMS laymen I know also disagree with fws. I know of no LCMS pastor, nor any any promnent LCMS theologian that agrees with fws on that point.” [Thank God for that.]
Bror Erickson: “Can I just let Kerner’s answer stand?”
——
Rick Ritchie, tODD, BW, please weigh in when you have a chance.
FWIW, would anyone disagree with my guess that both Martin Luther and Dr. Gene Veith would strongly disagree with fws (and Stephen) too?
Lets leave sexual sin out of it. Let us assume a career thief became a Christian. If he continued to steal same as before and even went so far as to say there is nothing wrong with thievery, would that lead us to question the truth his profession? Now I will grant to you that if our thief were a kleptomaniac I certainly would expect that he might (perhaps frequently) stumble and steal. I would not expect him however to say there is nothing wrong with theft and not to have serious misgivings about it. I would not expect him to say that Paul in Ephesians 4:28 was not really condemning theft and stating that it does not dishonor his profession of faith to unrepentantly continue to steal. So it is not the results that are central but the way we look at the activity. Does the thief struggle to control his thievery. Does he repent and go to the Lord in prayer about it when he stumbles. is he conflicted by his choices, like Paul in Romans 7.
Now to go back to the sexual sin. When I was divorced, initially I felt the that rules about non-marital celibacy did not apply to me and I had a special dispensation from them. However as time passed (2 years) that position simply became theologically untenable and I faced a choice stop or not pretend I I honored the Lord. I stopped doing what I ought not have done, as tempted as I was on many occasions. (Now, I believe the Lord rewarded that attempt by his HS within to conform to his will by reuniting my wife and I some years later, but I do not want to focus on this since this is just a personal belief rooted in experience rather than Scripture.)
Note I emphasize that the decision to be celibate was not my own. I am certain it was the HS within me. I am convinced that neither justification, nor sanctification is our doing. Philipians 1:6, And while I stopped that particular sin I also confirm that I sin every minute of every day in what I do or say or think, Even as celibate I lusted in my heart for example.
Being comfortable while repeatedly sinning is what troubles me more than the sinning, since it suggests the Holy Spirit is not dwelling within it or doing its work. That is what troubles me in some of the posts here.
fws, #212: “No [, the confessions DO NOT teach that same-sex behavior is sin] . Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men.”
Reg, #274: “Being comfortable while repeatedly sinning is what troubles me more than the sinning, since it suggests the Holy Spirit is not dwelling within it or doing its work.”
Reg, I submit to you for your consideration that one cannot repent of “something” if he/she thinks that that “something” is not a sin.
In that case, does your suggestion “it suggests the Holy Spirit is not dwelling within it or doing its work” hold?
Stephen @217 et seq.:
I appreciate your posts and I have not been ignoring them (this goes for you too, Frank). I have been slow to respond primarily because an equally thoughtful response is beyond my ability to provide off the top of my head. As I try to do the research necessary to give such a proper response, the conversation has a tendency to have moved on.
Fortunately, I am blessed to find that Rob has said something pretty close to what I would have wanted to say:
“Where I differ with Frank (and I think perhaps with you) is on what the life of the believer looks like after salvation. If we died at the moment of faith (or baptism, for that matter) our theologies would be identical. But you and Frank unequivocally state that the life of the believer consists only in love for neighbor (or at least so centrally that all else fails to receive mention). Thus, an activity like homosexuality is of little, if any significance. However, I maintain that Scripture and the Confessions hold that the life of the believer should reflect not only God’s love, but also his holiness. Frank insists this is Calvinism because he believes the only motivation for holiness would be trying to buy salvation. I maintain that Luther and the Scriptures teach that works of both love and holiness flow freely from our joyous gift of grace through faith. Continued unrepentant sin is an indication that faith is not doing its work in our heart (thus Luther’s institution of the ban for “manifest and obstinate sinners”). In support of this, I have tried to cite the testimony of not only the Apology, but also the Smalcald Articles (see my comment about 2000 comments ago), the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord. Most of this happened in personal e-mails rather than this forum.”
(emphasis mine)
I am not entirely sure what Rob means by “holiness”, and I see from subsequent comments that this has stirred further debate, but let me explain my perspective on this.
I am not offended by your providing your background and credentials, nor do I find them patronizing. But please understand that I do not share you credentials or education. My primary vocation has never been that of a pastor or theologian. My vocation is that of “clever lawyer” as Frank calls me. And I try to be mindful of how dangerous a vocation that can be, Luke 11:45-52.
But right now, I am more concerned with my position in the Church, and that of others like me. That is, as a layman. But more on that later.
As I said, I am not entirely sure what Rob meant by “holiness”, but I maintain, as he does, that both scripture and the confessions place some value on the individual Christian’s behavior as a Christian in this world. One such scripture passage is:
“16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:16
As for support in the confessions, the article on the Lord’s Prayer (5th, 6th and 7th petitions) speak to our specific sins.
http://bookofconcord.org/lc-5-ourfather.php#para100
The subpart relating to the 6th petition (lead us not into temptation) is particularly instructive. It begins:
“100] We have now heard enough what toil and labor is required to retain all that for which we pray, and to persevere therein, which, however, is not achieved without infirmities and stumbling. Besides, although we have received forgiveness and a good conscience and are entirely acquitted, yet is our life of such a nature that one stands to-day and to-morrow falls. Therefore, even though we be godly now and stand before God with a good conscience, we must pray again that He would not suffer us to relapse and yield to trials and temptations. ”
The sub-part then goes on to describe three sources of temptation (our flesh, the world, and the devil), and goes on to name numerous specific sins to which we can be tempted (I doubt that the sins listed are intended to be ane exhaustive list), and continues:
“105] Great and grievous, indeed, are these dangers and temptations which every Christian must bear, even though each one were alone by himself, so that every hour that we are in this vile life where we are attacked on all sides, chased and hunted down, we are moved to cry out and to pray that God would not suffer us to become weary and faint and to relapse into sin, shame, and unbelief. For otherwise it is impossible to overcome even the least temptation.
106] This, then, is leading us not into temptation, to wit, when He gives us power and strength to resist, the temptation, however, not being taken away or removed. For while we live in the flesh and have the devil about us, no one can escape temptation and allurements; and it cannot be otherwise than that we must endure trials, yea, be engulfed in them; but we pray for this, that we may not fall and be drowned in them.
107] To feel temptation is therefore a far different thing from consenting or yielding to it. We must all feel it, although not all in the same manner, but some in a greater degree and more severely than others; as, the young suffer especially from the flesh, afterwards, they that attain to middle life and old age, from the world, but others who are occupied with spiritual matters, that is, strong Christians, from the devil. 108] But such feeling, as long as it is against our will and we would rather be rid of it, can harm no one. For if we did not feel it, it could not be called a temptation. But to consent thereto is when we give it the reins and do not resist or pray against it. ”
(emphasis mine)
This article describes the condition of a Christian in this world as a constant, desperate, and frequently losing, battle. While I absolutely agree that my many and eggregious losses in this lifelong battle cannot harm me, because I, like all Christians, leave them at the foot of the cross of Christ, it must be error to claim that my sins are of no significance at all on any level at all. If that were true, there would be no point in fighting the battle, or praying for God’s help in fighting it.
That our individual sins are completely washed away and left at the foot of the Cross, and still seem to have some significance on some level, may be one of those Lutheran paradoxes we often point to; something like praying for God’s will to be done, even though His will is done without our prayer. I do not claim to know in detail why God is concerned with continued temptation and specific sins, when we know that they are forgiven and washed away and that our fight against temptation does not in the least buy our salvation. But the Scripture and the Large Catechism clearly teach that He is concerned.
That being the case, returning to the specific question, my concern with Frank’s position is that he seems to be saying that he belongs to a special catagory of humanity (gay man) who need not resist the temptation to have sex with other men, nor need it be against his will, nor need he rather be rid of it. Instead, Frank seems to say that he can with a clear conscience give his desire to have sex with other men the reins and not resist and pray against it.
This is where I disagree. The fact that a “gay man” is subject to different temptations than I am does not confine us to different catagories of humanity. It merely means that we are subject to different temptations, but that we must, in common with all Christians, pray for God’s help in resisting them, whatever they may be.
Returning to the military analogy and the position of us laymen. Within that analogy, we are the enlisted men. Wew have not taken graduate level courses in strategy, and we do not always know the the intricasies of the grander, general strategies at the batallion or divisional levels, much less do we always know the minds of the very grand strategies developed in the pentagon among the Joint Chiefs, or the Commander in Chief Himself.
While our general strategy and objectives (say, as found in the Defense of the Augsburg Confession) are of great help to us and we do well to keep them in mind, we also need to know what to do in the many individual firefights we enter into every day. For that, we need orders (say, as found in the Catechism, and the dos and don’ts of the Decalog). And those orders must have a certain amount of clarity. In specific cases, we need to know what we should do. You do us no service by dissolving what clarity we have in a solution of generalities such that we can rationalize anything away as long as we think we are “showing love” when we do it.
Truth Unites… and Divides – 273
“FWIW, would anyone disagree with my guess that both Martin Luther and Dr. Gene Veith would strongly disagree with fws (and Stephen) too?”
I would certainly hope so.
TUD,
Viewing something the Scriptures hold to be sin not to be sin would raise the same questions about regeneracy as knowing it was sin, but blissfully sinning without compunctions anyway.
“Viewing something the Scriptures hold to be sin not to be sin would raise the same questions about regeneracy as knowing it was sin, but blissfully sinning without compunctions anyway.”
Hence, the appropriateness of this line of thread discussion for a post titled “Nominal Christians”, i.e., Christians in name only.
@FWS
“rob @ 266 and steve:
my prediction is that Rob is going to want to discuss and validate his therapeutic, moralistic deistic theories on how to overcome sexual addictions.
If you are not willing to focus with him in this topic, he will dust his feet off an abruptly end your conversation.
Frank, you are shooting at a straw man again. Your refusal to stop doing so (and mitigating personal circumstances) were why I “dusted off my feet before”. Don’t make my Christian duty to love you too hard, brother. And spare my printer – you have already sent me 90% of what you said in your “tome” above (to quote Bror).
@Stephen – I was only curious because you made your theological and pastoral background clear, but said nothing about your curious vocation. I wondered what the life-setting of your views on homosexuality was. That’s all. May God bless you with His Word and presence as you seek to speak both love and truth to your friend.
@kerner – Thanks for your comments. You don’t need access to some inner sanctum of theology. What is publically confessed and taught has served you nicely thus far.
@ Stephen
“Curious vocation” should have been “current vocation”. Though I am curious as to what type of art and is any of it available to view online? I loved your elucidation of how Byzantine theology was reflected in its art (I took a few classes on art history in college and loved them, so that was a blessing to me). Are you still trying to find ways to depict the distinctives of theology through artistic forums (presumably, yes) and more to the point: how?
@ Kerner -
Walther wrote of the danger of changing the confessions into a religious philosophy in “Law and Gospel” (it’s at home and I’m at the church, so I can’t quote it right now). You would find his comments comforting in light of your post above.
Continue to fight the good fight for your parish! Nothing on earth is so much a blessing to a church and its pastor than faithful and thoughtful elders and laymen. I’d take that over a budget surplus or attendance boom any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Kerner -
The implication by your concluding statement is that I am sort of being blamed here for misleading people by emphasizing love, as if this is some kind of foreign concept among Christians all the sudden. It seems like it is practically offensive. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad and frustrating the way people back away from it. I mean, I have endlessly quoted Jesus, who himself quoted Deuteronomy to clarify the meaning of the law and what it actually exists for. Yet when I bring this up, I get slammed, and furthermore, I can’t get an answer. I have tried to frame it about a dozen ways. What is the whole of the law? How does conforming to this restriction comport with that, a restriction that has as its only “benefit” misery and pain, but by lifting it can bring comfort and well-being?
And I have tried to question the underlying assumptions behind this restriction – that what the scripture describes is what we know today. It simply is not. But that seems also to be a dead end. So until that assumption can be questioned, which is the basis for every other argument being brought here and all the misunderstanding, deafness, and unwillingness to address the question of love for neighbor as far as I can tell, there is no use continuing. It continues to lead to misinterpretations and, most unfortunately, a misreading of people who love and work hard to elucidate the Confessions and their proclamation of faith alone in Christ alone (Frank).
Rob -
I haven’t got a website at the moment. I paint, make films, write, build things. I used to play music. I am painting a mural at my church. As you can imagine, there’s lots of homos in the art world, so it is personal. The gospel is for them too, isn’t it? Just as freely and certainly as anyone else. I don’t recall a “You shall not be . . .” commandment of any kind. Gay is who they are in the same way that straight is who you are. It’s not perfect. They don’t know how it turned out that way any more than you know how you turned out the way you did, but should they be punished for it? What service does that render to anyone? What love is being produced? I see a church preaching abandonment by their God who says to them “love for everyone except you” and say that can’t be right. It’s not.
Stephen, #283: “unwillingness to address the question of love for neighbor as far as I can tell”
o Is it loving for me to inform my neighbor that his/her house is on fire?
o Is it unloving for me to inform my neighbor that his/her house is on fire and that it’s because he/she lit the fire themselves?
So, the homosexual aspect of their identity doesn’t need to die and be re-born? Or, if it does, God re-creates it? Homosexuality and the New Adam are completely compatible? Or is it part of the Old Adam which must be warred against? I don’t see your (or Frank’s) position as being cohesive, even in a paradoxical way. I respect your motives of love and care. But, as you said (of the poll-taking), what matters is: is it true?
I do wish someone would take up Stephen’s charge and try to rephrase the prohibition in question in terms of love of neighbor. To cite a verse used to make his case, we have Romans 13:9:
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.
The best I’ve seen done with regard to a prohibition on homosexuality is that somehow telling others about the prohibition is loving. Which doesn’t by itself really make it able to be summed up in the command “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
To demonstrate this, let’s see how this would work if we believed that something the Bible implied, “Don’t eat cherry pudding.” If I thought that, then I might imagine I was loving my neighbor by telling him not to eat it. And I might accuse my neighbor of being unloving if he tried to incite others to eat cherry pudding. But none of that would give any insight into how the command not to eat cherry pudding could be summed up in the command to love the neighbor.
I think we have something similar going on here. Now I think that sometimes the prohibitions of the law could help us avoiding harm in ways we don’t see. I suspect as much here. But I also think that when it comes to these, we are probably not dealing with the weightier matters of the law. And we have to be careful with each other. Otherwise our own conduct in the battle can involve deeper violations of the law on our part.
The Commandments were never obliterated, Christ made that clear.
Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:17-18
The FIRST Commandment “love the Lord they God with all they heart” is often trumped by the second “love they neighbour as thyself” – that is the one those who lean towards sin rest their case, the first to love the LORD is rarely mentioned. It isn’t neighbor first, it is the LORD they God first!!!
Love God is first – is it love of God, to lust after that which is forbidden? is it love of God, to commit adultery? is it love of God to lust after the same sex, and then argue it’s validity, and disregard Romans 1, which Paul wrote. Either one believes what Paul wrote to be inspired, or …. pick and choose which passages Paul wrote, that are significant inerrant, inspired to follow. No it isn’t love of the LORD our God, it is man’s selfish desire to have his own way.
I read non stop about all the passages Paul wrote in many posts, however Romans 1 is a stumbling mountain to those who believe homosexuality isn’t sin. From their perspective it is ONLY sin, IF homosexuality is indulged, IF the individual is heterosexual, but if they are homosexual, the sin isn’t sin.
bror @ 272 and kerner @ 276
Kerner, the Decalog deals with two kinds of things.
1)It first deals with the Law that is the only Law that reason can know. This is what you deal with every day in court. It is about evidencial things that are seen and said and done. This is all and only about Love of Neighbor.
There must be empirical proof here that this Law is being done. This proof looks like no harm is being done and that lives are bettered and that we each “stay out of the personal, property business and lives of others” as our confessions say, unless God has placed us into a vocation/relationship where we are duty bound to meddle.
I am saying that this IS the SUM total of earthly righeousness according to the Confessions and Scripture. But there is another righeousness that is far more important that God demands.
What you have produced from the Confessions negate this or suggest otherwise how Kerner? I am not getting that.
2)Then there is the Law of God in the Decalog “peculiarly” or uniquely deals with ‘movements of the heart” . And what is that “movements of the heart” that the confessions speak of ? I am asserting that it is alone faith alone in Christ alone. This is the other Heavenly Righteousness that is invisible. The evidence we have for this Righteousness is hearing and not to be seen. It is found alone in word and sacrament.
What is it you produced from the Confessions that say otherwise?
in summary:
1) there is a true outward righteousness that God demands on earth that is all and only about doing love for others. Period. It is necessary for both christian and pagan to do this. That evidential, sense-ible love is being done is necessary proof. this is about doing and seeing. it requires no faith to do this. The keeping of this looks like love. Try making writing a contrast with your wife of dos and donts and see how keeping that list feels like love. We do not need a list in the bible to show us this outward form of the Law I am saying. Pagans can do this. This is what the confessions say.
2) there is an inward heart righeousness that God demands also that is alone faith alone in Christ. This is not something we can do. it is not something we can see. We cannot not do this kind of saving faith.
3) Unbelief is not the absence of faith. It is to put faith in anything but 2). The confessions say that the most virulent and mortal sin is to put faith in 1) as something that can remove God’s wrath and propitiate him. The confessions call this concupiscence, lust or coveting .
I have gone back and read the entire sections you referenced. I even took the time to outline them to make sure I did not miss anything. What I have briefly summarized above is the larger context
You are suggesting that the Law is also some sort of NT Holiness code it seems that sets christians apart from unbelievers. So you are not satisfied with my 1 2 and 3. Or what?
What is it you want me to see in what you quoted from our confessions that you are certain I am missing? Can you help me out Bror? Can you see it?
Kerner @271
KERNER “Well, your second statement is that the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality did not exist at the time the Bible was written. But if that is true, the scripture passages dealing with man-man sex cannot be directed to a group that was not known to exist.”
FWS Yes. Not only that. the passages you allude to, compare to homosexuality as male/female rape stories allude to heterosexuality. Put me in the Sodom and Gomorrah story Kerner. You are really doing that eh?
KERNER Plus, I think it is worth considering that the underlying assumptions of those scripture passages are correct,. That our present concepts of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” (when used as nouns) are eroneous.”
FWS Rape is defined as a violation of property rights . Women are always chattel in the Bible. Marriage is defined as a man acquiring property. So are our underlying assumptions there faulty as well.\
But a larger question : just for arguments sake, what if I am right Kerner. What if God really is not against homosexuals seeking to have an adult life partner to grow old with? What would be the consequences of that? I don;t see how you have proved otherwise yet Kerner. So what would be the spiritual consequences to me if I sincerely believe that the Bible and the Confessions are on my side? What would that say about me? What would be the consequences of that?
“
Kerner
you are saying that a gay or lesbian seeing to have a life partner violates what law?
Is it the Law that can alone be kept alone by a faith in Christ that we cannot do by our reason or strength and is a gift? This would be the keeping of the first commandment which can alone be kept alone by faith in Christ alone. Alone.
or… is it failure to give love to our neighbor or to do him harm?
You suggest a 3rd category of the Law besides the two tables that are maybe a fusion of these two? Are you talking about a category of second table law that is kept soley on the basis of faith? A NT Purity Code maybe that sets christian israel apart from pagans?
I am reading what you quote from the confessions Kerner. what you are not doing, is you are not then asserting, in your own words, what specific point you are making that your cite proves and how your cite proves your point. You are just quoting as though all that is obvious. Note that my posts are lengthy precisely because I try to state how my quote supports my point and why.
kerner
You suggest a 3rd category of the Law besides the two tables that are maybe a fusion of these two? Are you talking about a category of second table law that is kept soley on the basis of faith? A NT Purity Code maybe that sets christian israel apart from pagans?
I mean are you suggesting that there is a set of Divine Law that is alone, commanded by God to demostrate our obedience in faith to God, like circumcision, that has nothing to do with love for neighbor? In that case, can you give me just one other Law that is something you do that has this characteristic? Just one?
Rob @ 286
You may not realize it, but you just made your heterosexuality have eternal consequences. The only thing that has eternal consequences is faith in Christ. Am I right?
Think about this – how does Jesus answer the question about who will be married in heaven? It doesn’t matter. Marriage is not eternal. You want to make sexual orientation something of consequence for the New Adam? Really? Think about that. You are making sexual orientation an issue of first table righteousness right there. All New Adams must be heterosexuals too. By definition, the prohibition that you see against homosexuals who need to “die” and be reborn as heterosexual New Adams has to do with a sacrifice of righteousness to propitiate God’s wrath. That isn’t Lutheran my friend. It’s actually heterodox and darn near pagan. Faith alone in Christ alone is our heavenly righteousness, not Jesus plus the requirement of human heterosexuality. Do you see that? Please tell me you see that!
kerner
another thing. It was not all that long ago that divorce was not approved of except for narrow exceptions. Even then remarriage was forbidden. There was not room for debate on this. Now there is.
We have a disagreement on Scripture and the Confessions here that seems very similar to me Kerner. I would do the same on that topic as I would do here. I would call you to the broader view.
And why would this need to be about someone trying to evade the law or be licencious or antinomian or whatever? Would you take it there? What is so special about my being a fag Kerner?
Whatever you think about our conversation, you need to wonder why it is that the confessions matter so much to me? Guess. homosexuality? meh. Try again. Aim higher.
stephen @ 293
I think you miss what Rob is slotting all this into. Tell me I wrong Rob. Return to the Image of God and Original righeousness restored is exactly to be reconformed to the Law of God for Rob. That is really the hinge issue. Maybe even he has not thought this through. I dont see any evidence so far of him even wanting to touch this subject.
Natural Law says there are no fags. So that means that it would be oxymoronic to say I am gay AND a New Man in Christ since to have God’s Image restored must mean conformity to Natural Law.
Stephen – 293
“Think about this – how does Jesus answer the question about who will be married in heaven? It doesn’t matter. Marriage is not eternal. You want to make sexual orientation something of consequence for the New Adam? “
Our earthly lives are very different from what life in hell or heaven will be. Homosexuality has not one thing to do with what the saved will be like in heaven, ….. “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”
Jesus said:
“Is it unloving for me to inform my neighbor that his/her house is on fire and that it’s because he/she lit the fire themselves?”
What further complicates this scenario almost endlessly is if you have a conversation like the following:
A: “Dear neighbor, your house is on fire, and regrettably, with my neighborly love, it looks as if you started the fire yourself. If you stop (repent), you will save both yourself and your house.”
B: “Thank you for your kind concern. But my house is not on fire.”
A: “Sadly, it is.”
B: “No, it is not. You see, a long time ago I’ve had my house specially water baptized with a Holy Trinitarian formula. Therefore, it cannot be on fire.”
A: “Really? Where does this special water baptism with the Holy Trinitarian formula come from that fireproofs houses?”
B: “The Lutheran Confessions which is “the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life.”
A: “Really? This special water baptism with the Holy Trinitarian formula even works when you reject other parts of the Lutheran Confession? A willful rejection which has started the fire that I’m informing you about. ”
B: “What do you mean?! I reject no part of the Lutheran Confessions!”
A: “Well, the Lutheran Confessions teaches that this fire-consuming activity you started is a sin.”
B: “It does not.”
A. “I see that we are not getting anywhere. Neighbor B, are you a citizen/member of your local LCMS parish?”
B: “I am.”
A: “Do you submit to the authority of your local LCMS clergy leadership?”
B: “Ahhhhh, ummmmmm, ooooooh, alright, let’s say that I do.”
A: “Then suppose your local LCMS clergy informs you that your fire-consuming activity has started the fire enveloping your house and that your understanding of the Lutheran Confessions is badly mistaken in certain critical areas. Would you then submit your understanding to his authority?”
B: “I don’t think so.”
A: “Well, I really do love you and that’s why I’ve taken the time and effort to let you know that your house is on fire. I do not want it or you to burn.”
B: “I see your love and concern, neighbor A. I really appreciate it, and I really appreciate you. But my house is not on fire. Thank you very much anyways.”
A: “You’re welcome. By the way, I also love my other neighbors. As it is, the conditions are windy. While your house is burning, the flames and flammable cinders from your house are being blown over to other people’s houses. Their houses may catch fire because of what you’re doing with your house.”
B: “I told you: my house is not on fire. God bless you, A.”
I agree Frank. I think he’s kinda doing both. The way to get there is to be obedient to the heterosexual paradigm, or something like that. What was it . . . “identify” with the New Man or some other such nonsense.
Yeah, that’s how it works.
Kerner, Rob, Grace, TruthUD and the gang…
I am not wanting to open up a new discussion here, but have any of you been divorced? Did you remarry?
Why is this not a question of heaven or hell the way homosexual non celebacy seems to be so urgently in your minds. I am not seeking a discussion on the details. This is more a rhetorical question.
Please explain that to me. The parallels seem to run deep. why is no one drawing on those parallels?
specifically my question goes to… why is the shifting attitudes and doctrines on this not also being driven to being an attack on moral and scriptural verity? why is this issue not seen as urgently about heaven or hell for those who make the wrong choices there? what about those who “live in the divorced lifestyle” by virtue of being remarried?
what arent things framed in those extreme terms? Why is there room for Mercy there?
Since we’re telling stories:
One day a lifeguard was sitting atop his tower gazing out over the water when he saw a man thrashing about in the water several yards out. He ran out and dove into the waves, swimming out to save the man. When he got to him, the man resisted and seemed to fight him as he dragged him into shore. When he pulled him up on the sand the lifeguard noticed that the man had an unusual body with very muscular arms and very thin legs. The man cursed at him as he dragged himself across the sand to a wheelchair. Suddenly, the lifeguard realized his mistake and attempted to apologize.
“I’m sorry. You looked to me like you were drowning,” said the lifeguard, to which the man replied “No, that’s the way I swim.”
fws,
Biblical divorce is accepted – comparing homosexual behavior to Biblical divorce and marriage is ignorant!!
A mind without a conscience!
One day a shepherd was sitting atop his tower gazing out over the water when he saw a sheep thrashing about in the water several yards out. He ran out and dove into the waves, swimming out to save the sheep. When he got to the sheep, the sheep viciously resisted, so much so that the shepherd had to eventually let go of the sheep, and the sheep drowned.
The shepherd swam to the shore exhausted and asked the other shepherds why that sheep was determined not to be rescued.
The other shepherds said, “That’s just the way some sheep are.”
Oh, I do love plays! Let me write one! Let me!
A: Dear neighbor, your house is on fire. If you stop, you will save both yourself and your house.
B: If I stop doing what?
A: You know.
B: Afraid I don’t.
A: Don’t make me say it.
B: Sorry, still don’t know what we’re talking about here.
A: Your house. It’s pink.
B: Indeed it is. The part that’s not charred black, that is. Have you called to talk about paint colors, in addition to alerting me to the fact that my house is burning? Because the color — at least the non-black part — isn’t terribly important to me right now, as you might understand.
A: But don’t you think that’s why the house is on fire?
B: What, because it’s pink? Is pink paint flammable?
A: Well, most houses around here aren’t pink, you know. Maybe that’s why your house is in danger of burning down!
B: I highly doubt it, given that everyone else’s house in the neighborhood is also on fire. Haven’t you heard?
A: I think I’d know if my house were on fire.
B: It is on fire.
A: Look, we’re not talking about my house right now. We’re talking about yours. And yours is pink.
B: Did you call to talk about the fact that my house is on fire, or to complain about its color?
A: Ah, so you admit that your house is on fire!
B: Did I ever deny that?
A: Then you are in danger!
B: Well, yes, I would be, but you’re not exactly the first person to alert me to my house burning, so I called the fire department, and they’re here now. They’re the only ones who can put out a fire like that. God knows I can’t. Are they at your house?
A: I told them I was fine. My house isn’t pink.
B: But it is on fire.
A: I have a spritzer bottle. I’m fine. Now, about your house — when you repaint it, are you going to use pi…
B: I’ll make sure to send the fire department your way when they’re done here.
Truth Unites… and Divides – 304
They no longer see it Truth. Man’s slavery to lust is greater than his love for God.
fws:
“What is so special about my being a fag Kerner?”
Nothing, that’s my point. There is nothing about your personal set of temptations that changes a thing about the law or gives you a different set of options for marriage (“life partners”?) than any other man. But the “life partners” available to men are called “wives” and they are all female.
You wrote in a lot more depth, and you deserve a much more involved response, but it will have to wait. Later.
Todd
I think I’m having an asthma attack from laughing!
“They no longer see it Truth.”
Oh well. At least they can’t say they weren’t informed.
Casting pearls before Rhein.
Truth – 309
I’m afraid you’re right. You’ve been faithful in giving out God’s Word. Blessings, Truth
Kerner -
“But the “life partners” available to men are called “wives” and they are all female.”
You have given no evidence why this must be the case, in what way it generates love or care or service to anyone in some way that is not cruel or false or which requires gay people to give up what would otherwise supply them with the same goodness and mercy available to others who are not gay. Neither have you said why this particular prohibition is beneficial or helpful to anyone for any of the same reasons, or why it should be treated so singularly different. All you have to say is “that’s the way it is – tough” and with a wave of the hand the matter is settled. We don’t know why, but God says so (so you say).
This being the case, you (the church) have made them a special case. They are excluded from any dialogue or considerations. But God does not do that to people. He does not ask them to conform to things which have no use other than to oppress and tyrannize people with rules. Man was not made for the Sabbath. What we have here is a made-up restriction that instead of driving people to Christ it drives them away because it requires of them a sacrifice. It creates the same conflict that a heterodox message which says “Christ died for you and so you must . . .” Fill in the blank yourself. Accept him into your heart, sacrifice your homosexuality, stay married forever to your husband who beats you, make progress in your sanctification to prove you are truly a Christian.
Is marriage the problem? That will soon be solved at the civil level, which is its main purpose. It has not eternal standing. Gay people want this kind of commitment. They understand and value it well, better than a lot of heterosexuals. No. It is something else. Some as yet unnamed thing among heterosexuals, some territory being defended. What is that?
@ 309
“Casting pearls before Rhein.”
Now the real “Truth” comes out. Brilliant! Looks like we got us a Kraut-hater. Your in good company with your new pal Grace.
Stephen – 312
“Now the real “Truth” comes out. Brilliant! Looks like we got us a Kraut-hater. Your in good company with your new pal Grace.”
“Kraut-hater” ? – how do Kraut’s equate into homsexual sin? – answer: they don’t.
Stephen you choose to mix the German people as a whole with homosexuality? God doesn’t approve of sin, does that mean HE is a “Kraut-hater” – - – - – I see how you mix and match most anything… this is a shinning example!
“Is it unloving for me to inform my neighbor that his/her house is on fire and that it’s because he/she lit the fire themselves?”
What is the fire in this analogy?
“I’m afraid you’re right. You’ve been faithful in giving out God’s Word. Blessings, Truth.”
Thanks Grace! You’ve been very faithful as well. God bless you too, sister.
With regards to God’s Word and God’s Love for fws, and supposing that fws is currently a member of a LCMS parish, and further supposing that fws is an unrepentantly non-celibate gay man, the most loving thing, paradoxically perhaps, for his LCMS parish to go through the process of excommunicating fws (barring genuine repentance).
Apostle Paul’s pastoral response in 1st Corinthians 5 is in view: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.””
Suppose the local LCMS leadership that fws is a member of does not want to go through the loving and difficult process of disciplining fws? Then Jesus’ words in John 10 are in view:
“I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.”
What is interesting to me is this person who flew in here and calls himself “Truth . . .” and who has laid it on pretty thick with the judgements has said nothing about his/her own faith. As we all know, the devil can quote scripture, and he’s done nothing less than try to get people to jump off buildings that he erects for others to prove their faith to him. Interesting. I also recall in his little script that the magnanimous neighbor “A” (ostensibly a stand-in for the author himself) who would save his neighbor from his metaphorically burning house, also took a moment to blaspheme the Holy Trinity (uh oh!), which I am pretty sure breaks the 2nd commandment and means this person has willfully shown their disdain for the name of God. Even more interesting.
Oh yeah, he also doesn’t like Lutherans because a lot of them are from the Rhein.
Better watch who you are hanging out with Grace.
tODD:
I love plays too! Can I write the next act? Please?
Enter Fire Marshall (FM)
FM: Um, Mr. B, actually, it is the pink paint that is causing your house to be on fire. It is highly flamable.
B: How can that be, my house is the only pink one in this neighborhood. Some houses are blue, or green. Earth tones are very popular. Yet every house is on fire.
FM: Well, it is not the color of the paint that makes it so deadly. The paint of every house in this neighborhood is composed of extremely flamable chemicals, and they are all covered in it, inside and out. Even you yourself are covered in it. This all goes back to the original resident in this neighborhood who bought the paint from Mr. Serpent. But it is also because each of you keeps sloshing on new coats of that paint.
B: You are just picking on me because my house is pink!
FM: Did I not just say that this has to do with paint generally, not the color wheel?
B: But all my nimrod neighbors are constantly refering to the color!
FM: Actually, some of them have been telling you that your pink paint is no different than any other paint (i.e., will cause your house to burn down), but you haven’t wanted to hear that.
B: But I love pink! It is part of my very essense of being. IT’S ME, you might say.
FM: No it isn’t, it’s just paint. Some of your neighbors have pointed to the fire code, where it mentions all colors of this paint, including pink.
B: That code doesn’t talk about pink paint! It mentions rose, cerise, carnation, coral, but if you check the original Greek and Hebrew, it never actually says all shades of pink, and my shade (pale fuchsia)is different from all the pinks in the code.
FM: Look, I’m just trying to tell you that when you keep on sloshing new coats of that paint, you’re not helping your neighbors or the FIRE CHIEF.
B: Don’t you love people with pink houses?
FM: I try love everybody, and the FIRE CHIEF definitely loves everybody, even though he has to put out the fires in all their houses, He does it because He loves all of us.
B: Well, if He really loved me, he wouldn’t let my stupid neighbors complain about my pink paint. It’s so much a part of me I can’t even consider giving it up. Everybody hates me.
FM: Maybe some of them haven’t been kind to you (maybe I could have been kinder myself), but that’s because we all are covered up in our own shades of paint, and we don’t function so well like that. But your particular shade of paint is just as deadly as theirs, and eventually, the FIRE CHIEF will wash it all away.
Kerner – 317
If you are making a comparison between the LORD Jesus Christ and a ‘fire chief’ stating – - “But your particular shade of paint is just as deadly as theirs, and eventually, the FIRE CHIEF will wash it all away.” - – that isn’t correct Kerner, living in unrepentant sin, be it adultery/fornication stealing homosexuality, not leaving the pig pen isn’t a path to Eternal Life with the LORD Jesus, to even hint at such a thing is not leading someone down the narrow path.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1
This is a zoo. I’m done.
Kerner @ 317
Police chief shows up.
PC. I understand that people here have been arguing that everyones house is on fire because they all have highly flamable paint .
FM yeah that’s what I am telling everyone.
PC. So does everyone have fire insurance?
FM. Yes, so far as I can tell. But that guy with the pink house doesnt have fire insurance.
PC why not?
FM The fire marshall has determined that pink paint disqualifies the owner of the pink house from getting the same insurance for exactly the same hazard as everyone else.
PC why is that, That sounds crazy!
FM well, the owner of the Pink house loves the color pink. He says it gives him alot of joy in life. He identifies with the color too much. That is the problem.
PC well. what in the heck does that have to do with public safety or anything rational?
FM The others aso love the color of their homes, and they identify with their color too in the same way. but pink is different.
PC why?
FM because the Grand Fire Marshall has determined this to be a problem that disqualifies just pink from fire insurance. Others can enjoy all the blessings of paint. It just cant be pink. that is an unnatural color besides. It isnt something that agrees with the color scheme he mandated when he approved the building of the neighborhood.
PC. But fire marshals dont care about paint colors. They care about flamability. you know. practical stuff like that. Fire marshalls just want people to be safe and happy. The intent of their fire codes are about that. If you are telling me that the fire marshall cares about paint colors then I can be pretty certain that you are mistaken.
Kerner Bingo.
The fire marshal cares about things like flamability.
He could care less that he is loves or loving or whether or not someone overidentified with the color pink. That sounds crazy because it IS crasy for a fire marshall to care about that stuff.
The problem is flamable paint.
But here is the real problem . You are doing an analogy that does not follow reality. First it deals with things we can see and do. only. doesnt it? so where is faith?
so orignal sin is a lack of faith in Christ , it is invisible.
what fills that void is faith. faith in anything but Christ.
Both are what are lethal in the eternal sense.
Then there are things that are not about faith. they are about what we do. we are not to harm others but help and befriend them.
Old Adam puts his faith in these things.
New man puts his faith in Christ alone.
for you to pair off, have a sexual and romantic relationships is blessed, IF you persist.
for me to pair off and do the same thing in the only way I am able to is to earn hell IF I persist.
The difference? The fire marshall cares about pink, someone overly identifying with a color and there is a rule besides that has no practical purpose at all. and it is not for everyone. since when do fire marshalls care about such things?
Buh Bye Rob, Thank you for sharing.
I would caution those who are truly Believers, some of these posts are blasphemous, they are just what Satan loves. The pig pen wallowers in such trash, and loves to strut and flaunt the life in the pen – please don’t take part.
FWIW, there has been a baptized Lutheran who was excommunicated from his LCMS parish for unrepentant homosexual behavior.
The LCMS parish did this out of love for this man’s soul, out of love for the other parishioners, and out of love for God.
I hear a lot of sibilant “Did God really say” and “surely God didn’t mean” in the posts of this thread. Same lie as was from the beginning.
As 2 Peter 2 says”1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”
Or 2 Timothy “2For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”
and 1 Timothy
6Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
I give up on those who would argue as to what the word “is” means. Its all a shell game to assuage guilty consciences.
Good night.
“FWIW, there has been a baptized Lutheran who was excommunicated from his LCMS parish for unrepentant homosexual behavior.
The LCMS parish did this out of love for this man’s soul, out of love for the other parishioners, and out of love for God.”
I wonder if Dr. Gene Veith knows of such cases besides myself. Do other readers know of such excommunications in LCMS churches for unrepentant homosexual behavior?
Truth Unites… and Divides – 326
God bless you – your testimoney brings tears of joy to my eyes.
Blessings
Kerner try this. See if this breaks a mental jam:
The confessions define moral sin as being original sin.
what is original sin?
it is the total void of faith in Jesus Christ. plus…
it is the total faith in anything BUT Christ that fills that void,.
So mortal sin is about faith. It is not at all about what we do.
Heaven or Hell then, for that reason, is about faithn not works.
You know and believe that Kerner.
So what is the connection between the outward acts and faith is what we are debating I think.
here is what I hear you saying. Correct me where this is wrong.
Kerner: there is a list of do’s and donts found only in the bible that only christians and jews can know, because of the faith they have, that tells them that this is God’s List.
So the motive for keeping this list is that one really believes that this list is God’s List, and so to conform to that list pleases God.
The alternative is what pagans do. They make up their own lists that are all about moral relativity and doing what feels good. This is because they don’t believe that the Law list in the Bible is God’s List. Or because they know that it is God’s List but they would rather pursue what feels good.
So sinning is about conforming or not conforming to the Divine List. God is God. He does not give us reasons why the rules are there. But he does get to make the rules. There may be no practical reason at all for a rule. Or maybe there is and we have to accept in faith, that there is a good reason for the rule.
so it is all about faith in God by following his list and obeying him. In the process of obedience, we trust that our neighbor will be served and love. We trust this in faith even when evidence seems to point to the contrary.
errata 328
the confessions define MORTAL sin as being exactly Original Sin.
Truth Unites… and Divides
Your posts have been very important – I hope you come back and post. I pray for you.
Truth does unite and divide – the Gospel cuts to the bone, it does what nothing else can do – one cannot play both sides, … it’s either for Christ or against HIM.
fws:
I was just about to apologize for my glibness @317, but I re-read your response @320 and found that it actually focused this a little. You do deserve a more serious answer than I have given you so far. Let me work through our respective allegories and see if I narrow the issues a little.
One thing you have been saying all along, well before we lapsed into allegorical language, is that man-man sex lacks the indentifying features of other sins. Most specifically, it doesn’t harm anyone, so it is not failing to love our neighbor.
Second, and your allegory brought this out if I understand you correctly, is that for heterosexuals, traditional marriage is “fire insurance”. That is, marriage to a woman provides a God honoring outlet for a man’s sexual urges. It is all very glib of me to suggest that a gay man can marry a woman, but marrying a woman provides no outlet for the gay man’s actual sexual urges, so how does that fit with St. Paul’s advice to marry rather than burn? If you married a woman, you’d still be burning. Problem not solved.
Have I got those two points more or less right? I’m not looking for straw men.
Your other points having to do with the Defense of Augsburg Confession are attempting to distinguish between different kinds of laws and sins. I’ve kind of resisted getting into that because I worry that these distinctions may lead us into an area that I won’t be able to figure out. I say that for two reasons. First, I really don’t have the time to do a graduate level study of the Defense of the Augsburg Confession. The other reason is that Lutheran doctrine does, in fact, lead to paradoxes sometimes. And these by definition cannot be figured out completely.
I am going to go back and re-read your old posts, and I am even going to try to read and summarize Articles II-IV of the DAC. But that will probably take so much time that this thread will have petered out before I’m done. Maybe I’ll be able to address that aspect of this on this thread, but I can’t be sure.
And thanks for @328 trying to understand me. I’ll get back to that later too.
Truth U&D:
This is a very minor point, but I’m pretty sure that fws has never been affiliated with the LCMS. I believe that he was at one time in the WELS, but he some time ago moved to Brasil. I don’t know the exact affiliation of his church there, but I don’t think anyone here has direct pastoral authority over fws. So we’ll have to debate with him using Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions
“Truth Unites… and Divides
Your posts have been very important – I hope you come back and post.”
Dear Grace,
That’s very kind of you to say. I am encouraged and heartened that you regard my posts as being meaningful and helpful.
If you would, please e-mail me at truthunites@hotmail.com. I’d like to correspond with you outside of this comment thread.
“I pray for you.”
Wow. Thank you sooooo much! I really appreciate your prayers. Talk with you later sister. God bless you and your family abundantly.
“Truth U&D:
This is a very minor point, but I’m pretty sure that fws has never been affiliated with the LCMS.”
I’m not sure if that really is a “very minor point”, but that could be a small part of God’s providential sovereignty and protection for the LCMS.
“So we’ll have to debate with him using Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.”
I’m going to respectfully decline. Based on the evidence so far, if the goal is to change fws’s mind and heart about some vital misconceptions he has, then it looks to be a colossal waste of time.
Furthermore, it looks to be a colossal waste of time in dealing not only with fws’s sophistry, but with the sophistry of his enablers and defenders as well. (Funny that Dr. Veith has a recent post titled: “Undereducated and Overschooled”). It’s both tedious and counterproductive to deal with the learned nonsense that justifies and serves the moral cowardice of hirelings.
TUAD, before you start tossing “cowardice” around, you might try some bravery yourself, and associate your real name (first and last) with your comments.
I, for one, am glad TUAD has told us all that we need to stop those repetitive sins of ours we haven’t sincerely repented of. It has set things straight in my mind. I should stop lying, but every now and then, I think I’m in a bind and I just say something that isn’t right to save my own hide. I shouldn’t get the really big coffee, I only need a small coffee, if I need it at all, and I should give the money I save to God’s children that can barely afford a coffee at all, but I just get that big coffee because I like it so much. I know the Lord isn’t pleased when I do those things, but I do them anyway.
It’s like I’m a little child playing in the dirt sometimes, with my sins. I’m covered in dirt. It’s odd, I’m unable to clean myself off, I just get more dirty. If only there was someone who would grab me by the collar and douse me with water, and say, “I got this one, he’s mine, I’ll wash him off….”
Kerner and Bror. This is for you.
Executive Summary:
Lutherans get confused exactly here:
•The Old Adam of all men dies . This is done by the HS with mortification, which is the Law in action. This is the Law not the Gospel working. the fruit called brotherly love results.
•The New man is created alone by sanctification . To make this alone truly alone, lets add , this is totally apart from anything we can do. This is the gospel-in-action. This is Baptismal Regeneration. It is Justification forensically declared and instantly and completely infused (apology art IV) “sinners BECOME holy” in the New Man. This infusion is complete and punctilinear. It is not a process. It is alone in New Man. Not in Old Adam.
•As a result of this sanctification, and as a fruit of it, New Man now does mortification on his Old Adam . This is the Law not the Gospel working. the fruit called brotherly love results.
•We confuse the fruit of sanctification , which is the same as the fruit of the Law, which is to do love, as being itself Sanctification. In the broad sense it is. In the narrow it is not. We do not properly distinguish the proper vs the broad meaning of sanctification this is to say.
•So then, by confusing the broad and narrow meaning of sanctification, sanctification (which now becomes a faith we can do) becomes about an outward keeping of the Law in the form of a faith we can and are commanded to do, in a way that becomes a Purity Code and not about only about serving others. We mix faith with our works in the sense of making faith into a good work that justifies. Then we say “no, it is not to justify. it is to offer up our faith to God in the form of Obedience”. So I ask you then, what is the nature of that “faith” you are talking about? It is faith as a work isnt it? How is that not using a work as propitiation then? It is a form of faith that really does not require Christ´s work. It is an appeasing of God through faith, but not that faith in Christ that excludes doing. Is it the saving faith that is alone faith in christ apart from works? I say this is the exact crux that our confessions deal with in the Apology. Right there. And we are still internally wrestling with this in Lutheranism.
•And so what Baptism “works, delivers from and gives” is confounded with what it “signifies” or “predicates”. So what it is that makes one a Christian becomes something outward called faith. This is a faith we are commanded to do and can do. This error is masked by the fact that it is not “outward” according to the philosophical distinction of “material vs spiritual”.
•There is another faith that our confessions call “movements of the heart” or even “good emotions” (art IV where the context is Baptism). So the confessions are contrasting faith with The Faith that is alone christ alone. Note that they are not contrasting Faith with unbelief or vice or “concupiscence” in the roman sense.
•Lutherans miss that the entire Lutheran argument is about this faith (they here exactly redefine concupiscence) vs The Faith that can save that is also commanded , and that is a form of faith that we cannot do even after we are born again!
•Instead we are again contrasting the roman catholic concupiscence with the virtue of faith. And we are now talking about the Roman catholic version of what that faith is. So now again Romans 8 is about a movement from vice to virtue, lust to spirituality, the profane worldly things, to monastacism and churchly things. The culture wars. For Lutherans romans 8 is the movement from a faith we can do that is Virtue to alone invisible Faith alone in Christ alone, that is utterly and absolutely apart from anything we can do. This especially includes faith!
fws,
We’ve been friends for a long time. If you would please refrain from trying to lecture me on the confessions I’d appreciate it.
Quite frankly I have nothing against you. I like you.
But I stand here, to lay with another man as if with a woman is sin. I don’t care if it is hand jobs or blow jobs, cramming it or receiving the cram (as it is distinguished in 1 Cor. 6), it is sin. There isn’t anyway around that. I won’t go down the road that says it isn’t. I don’t care if it is in a committed relationship or not. (The best that could be said of that is that it is the lesser of two evils.)
I understand the temptation to say it isn’t sin. I do. I experience the same temptations, maybe not with the same sins, but I have my own to worry about.
I know I’m a new man in Christ, but that doesn’t give me a pass to neglect crucifying my old Adam. Or to deny my sin.
I’d rather confess it, bring it into the light and be forgiven of it. That is the Lutheran answer to sin. that is the Christian answer to Sin. It isn’t jumping around, elevating the confessions above God’s word, playing sleight of hand with definitions, and pussy footing with the topic. Sin is sin is sin.
I’d also rather not keep talking about your sin fws. If you want to hear my absolution, fine. I’ll give it to you brother. But then lets leave it with Christ to deal with as he has on the cross. Because there are more fruitful things to talk about. Like the cross, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Trinity…. But when it comes to sin, the general rule of thumb I have, is if I really have to question or do the gymnastics you do, to say it isn’t sin, then I better just confess it and move on.
kerner @ 331
KERNER “Most specifically, it doesn’t harm anyone, so it is not failing to love our neighbor.”
FWS Not quite. The small catechism always has two parts to each commandment. “1) dont hurt or harm your neighbor” + “2) help and befriend him in every bodily need” (with the critical exception of the first commandment which has no part 1)!)
Legalists think that keeping the first part, doing no harm or self restraint, self control etc is Godly righeousness. It is not. Part 1) exists only because Old Adam needs it in order for part 2) to happen. It is part 2) that God is after. That is 1st article Fatherly Goodness and Mercy.
I hope you understand the distinction I am making here. This applies to pagans and Christians alike. Reason really knows the difference between works done out of constraint and obligation and those done out of love.
So rules are necessary. This is why God “wrote his Law in the minds ” of Old Adam. No decalog is necessary for any of this Law. The Decalog is necessary because it alone “peculiarly” deals with “movements of the heart”. (Ap art IV) at the very beginning.
Note that the confessions always qualify and say that fallen reason can know and do the law “in part” or “in a sense”. What is that sense? It is this: It is that fallen reason can know and do the entire law externally. No faith or even the Bible is necessary in this. That is what there reference to Aristotle is about I assert.
So the Bible (the decalog) is necessary to know not that external Law but to know about that Law that “peculiarly ” deals not with what we can do outwardly or even inwardly in faith such as believing that the bible is true and that the Decalog IS God´s Law and that we MUST do it. Even this faith is an outward doing in Confessional speak.
It is this keeping that is the “part” that fallen reason cannot only not do. He cannot know it either. It is that Law that demands that we keep the Law from the bottom of our heart. It is not what we know in a courtroom. That is what reason thinks keeping the Law is.
What I think is confusing you is that faith is not an “outward ” thing. But then you are using reason in the categories “material vs spiritual”.
Here is what you are missing ( I suggest): The Confessions and St Paul are not contending for faith vs unbelief. that would then be faith vs vice as concupiscence, those spiritual meladies such as lust and coveting. This is not the contrast Kerner.
The contrast is between faith (which is what the confessions REdefine concupiscence to mean! in art II of the apology) vs that faith that we cannot do with our reason or strength either before OR after the new birth.
KERNER It is all very glib of me to suggest that a gay man can marry a woman, but marrying a woman provides no outlet for the gay man’s actual sexual urges, so how does that fit with St. Paul’s advice to marry rather than burn? If you married a woman, you’d still be burning. Problem not solved.
FWS: If you are saying this only for the sake of argument, I think you are getting my point. Yes.
As to your points on the Law and sin, thanks for your honesty.
Suggestions: Try to read each article in such a way that you can , in your own words articulate their argument. And note that there are two sections to II and III. Those are a positive stating of the doctrine. That is what you want to be able to articulate in your own words. In article II please note how they REdefine “concupiscence” to mean faith and not lust or coveting. This is really key. So then the Lutherans say that both concupiscence and mortal sin are all about faith and not at all about what we do. What we do are nasty side effects so to speak .
And then there is the part that is the answer to the opposition. That part is not so important right now for you. And in Ap III it will glaze your eyes over.
In art IV there is not so much a positive statement of doctrine followed by an answer to the opponents. There is instead various arguments that repeat the same idea over and over. That is this:
There is a faith we can do in various manfestations, and there is a faith that cannot be done even once we are born again. So , as with art II, they are contrasting faith with that other Faith that is invisible and cannot be a circumcision done by human hands but must be a “new heart movement ” or even a “good emotion” (art IV).
Rome contrasted concupiscence/lust as man´s Aristotelian baser instincts. These are what we would call fleshly , carnal , material things. Secularists would call this materialism. And Rome contrast ed this all with what?
With what separates us from the beasts. Mans higher powers. These are faith, love, charity, virtue, reason, etc. Secularists would call these “spiritual things”. The would call these things the Virtues. So would Rome. And so faith is something we can do. But none of these are “outward ” things are they dear Kerner? and none of these things need Christ to be done do they?
And, reason can know and do ALL of this. No Bible is even necessary. This is why the Confessions point to Aristotle. Aristotle is what rome teaches.
Now put a christian patina on the higher virtues. Call the process of acquireing those “santification”. Even say that they can´t really be done without “grace ” “faith ” and the Holy Spirit! Where is Christ in all that and HIS Works that are alone Propitiation? No where.
That is the argument of the Apology for you in a nutshell dear Kerner.
Just one more thing fws. Next time you go about derailing a discussion to talk about your sin, can we focus on your narcissism? Because that seems to be getting ignored to the expense of other sins, and it is just as dangerous.
lets see if I can fix my dangling bold command
nope. Tooooooodddddd!!!! I did a “” to close the bold. why did that not work???
i did a less than sign / b greater than to close the bold and it did not work…. heeeeeelp..
Looks like the spam filter grabbed my last comment. Perhaps it was too graphic. Maybe Dr. Veith will let it out though.
Bror @ 339
Unfortunately Narcissism , even my own of rather epic proportions, gets only a yawn. People would have to look into their own mirror rather than lovingly pointing me to my own is why I suspect this is.
You get to work out how to clearly (and briefly ) present the doctrine as a vocation. You spend alot of time at that. It is not narcissism to do so. Here is where I get to work that out.
I will work at brevity. Those who are bothered by my wordiness have moved on to other posts. Others are still at it with me aren´t they. God works even in lawless judges nagged by a conscience for whom love has died (luke 18)
kerner
not even marriage cures the sex drive curved to lust. It only can channel it even then with hard work.
so that would suggest for example that someone blest with a high sex drive would not accept a job that requires alot of overnight travel away from home. “only refrain from sex by mutual consent and then for a very short time and then only for prayer an fasting”.
I’m rather late to the game. . . but nevertheless:
It has become quite popular among contemporary Antinomians (or “Gospel reductionists” if you prefer) with their roots in the Lutheran tradition to defend their position of the basis of the Biblical statement that love is the fulfillment of the Law. That is a true Biblical statement. Love is the fulfillment of the Law. What St. Augustine said is true: Love God, and do whatever you want.
The problem, however, is that the Antinomians – and here I have in mind specifically those who would seek to uphold the goodness of homosexual desire and acts, but this point applies equally to any issue that an Antinomian might like to champion – do not know what love is. Neither do I. Neither do you. The problem is that we are sinners, weak, easily tempted, and not yet grown unto the full stature of Christ.
Baptism, as every Lutheran knows, forgives our sins and grant us new birth. But the Old Adam, as Luther’s Catechism says, must by daily repentance and contrition be drowned and die. That is, the Old Adam is still with us. Though our sins are forgiven, our sinful self, the Old Man, still clings to us. As our Confessions say, while some natural knowledge of God’s Law adheres in mankind, it is greatly darkened by our sinful condition.
Thus: neither you, nor I, nor the Antinomians know, infallibly and in every case, what love is. This is where the Law comes in and why it is needed. God’s Word of Law paints the outlines of Love for us.
Thus, I may be tempted to think that I love my secretary, that she is unhappy with her husband who does not understand nor appreciate her. I may think that it would be loving to invite her to leave this brute and run off with me to my plum orchard in Argentina where we will read poetry and drink orchata in the Equatorial sun.
But that is not love. How do I know? Because Love is the Fulfillment of the Law and the Law says: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
You don’t know what Love is until you heard the Word of Christ tell you what it is. You dare not trust your gut feelings over Christ’s Word.
Enter the Antinomian’s standard ploy here: the Gospel narratives about the disciples plucking grain, man is not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man, etc. That is weak beyond belief and can only be persuasive to the most undergraduate of undergraduates. I refer those who wish to see such things explained in a Lutheran manner to Luther’s own fine treatise How Christians Ought to Regard Moses.
God’s plan for human sexuality could not clearer: read all about it in Gen 1-2, Matthew 19, and I Cor 6. This world and each of us is broken – thus, I feel great sorrow with those who struggle with sexual temptation. But if you struggle with ungodly sexual desires (whether homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc), do not be fooled by the Antinomians. Trust Christ’s Word. Seek repentance and a faithful Christian community that will support you in that repentance.
+HRC
Tom Hering – 235
“TUAD, before you start tossing “cowardice” around, you might try some bravery yourself, and associate your real name (first and last) with your comments.”
“Real name” ? – there are a number of individuals who use initials, and a variety of ‘handles’ – ….. WebMonk – moallen – Collie – trotk – reg – and a variety of shortened first names.
Not giving ones real name has nothing to do with “bravery” – in this venue, it proves to be wise, more often than not. The fact you ask for his name makes one wonder WHY? …………
Pr. H.R. Curtis@347
In the secretary example, it is clear how we could frame the secretary situation as a violation of love of neighbor. Most of us could do that in our sleep. The commandment against coveting gives us a hint at who one of the injured parties will be: the husband.
When I suggest I would like to see if anyone will try to frame the prohibitions on sex between members of the same sex in terms of love of neighbor, I have so far heard crickets. I don’t know at this point whether this is because nobody could do it, and they feel that St. Paul was wrong when he said that every commandment could be summarized as Love your neighbor, or whether they think it is crystal clear how this hurts a neighbor.
The vehemence makes it sound like they feel personally wronged.
When the law is not framed as love of neighbor, the entire structure ends up looking loveless. If someone is asked to suffer but there is no love of neighbor expressed in the suffering, how is this good? We have to be able to argue the goodness of this. Or at least recognize the tragedy. I see more a disappointment that everyone isn’t enthusiastic for a stoning.
I also think people need to follow their suggestions through a bit further than they often do. They seem to imagine the solution is that the gay person abandons their behavior, and the only difficulty is a common difficulty of temptation. Except this doesn’t appear to be the case. If the person decides to marry, this would appear to many to be a lack of love towards the potential spouse. They are depriving the spouse of being married to someone who feels sexual attraction to them, given that sexual attraction is not subject to conscious control. People may have some ability to shut it down. People have little ability to turn it on. On the other hand, we must note that if the person remains celibate, he is in a situation that Genesis tells us is “not good.”
As to support in repentance, I think maybe we need another analogy to address how much of this discussion goes. Imagine this were a discussion of using questionable reproductive methods by an infertile couple. It is one thing to say that we need to be clear on right and wrong. It is another to allow the couple to be attacked. Imagine they are using a method that involves the destruction of embryos but they don’t see this clearly. (A very real kind of case.) If you entered a blog discussion where people started calling them reprobates and trying to figure out how to get them excommunicated while they hid behind screen names, or complained that the couple wouldn’t give up their idea of having a baby after a few minutes of discussion, wouldn’t you imagine there was something wrong with the approach? If you hoped to persuade them of your position, you would know it would likely involve calm discussion in person. No couple in such a dilemma are going to one day tell their friends, “Yes, we decided to give up the idea of the baby because some stranger called us reprobates.”
Grace, you been wondering “WHY?” Come up with anything yet?
HRC
I think your Hollywood fairytale is hardly an example of the agony most people go through in a divorce. Furthermore, people do not need to read in the bible that it is wrong to steal another man’s wife. That we do things we shouldn’t is not a matter of ignorance, it is a matter of conscience, and whether or not we do what conscience dictates has to do with sin, not ignorance. The Jews thought that following the law made them right with God, not that the law taught them a lot of things to do they didn’t already know. when you say this:
“But that is not love. How do I know? Because Love is the Fulfillment of the Law and the Law says: Thou shalt not commit adultery. ”
I’d say you have it backwards. You seem to think that the fulfillment of love is knowing and doing the law.
“Honey, now that we’re married, here’s some rules on how to love me.” Do you hear the big buzzer? Game over.
“Thus: neither you, nor I, nor the Antinomians know, infallibly and in every case, what love is. This is where the Law comes in and why it is needed. God’s Word of Law paints the outlines of Love for us. ”
I’m pretty sure 1 Corinthians 13 gives us some ideas on this one. We are not completely ignorant about what it looks like. We have quite a few clues I’d say. I’m glad this is read at weddings.
“Enter the Antinomian’s standard ploy here: the Gospel narratives about the disciples plucking grain, man is not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man, etc. That is weak beyond belief and can only be persuasive to the most undergraduate of undergraduates. I refer those who wish to see such things explained in a Lutheran manner to Luther’s own fine treatise How Christians Ought to Regard Moses. ”
Well, I’m post-graduate and this is called “poisoning the well” a form of ad hominem attack which actually signifies you haven’t got an argument at all and are retreating by pejoratively calling people names and claiming that anyone who uses this argument in any way is already wrong. You also appeal to authority here without showing any understanding or insight into what that authority has to say. Why don’t you go check in with Luther and report back what you learned.
Jesus teaching about the Sabbath is weak? Really? Is that what you want to say? Hmmm. Okay, I guess we’ll trust you on that. On second thought, what does he teach us?
He SHOWS us that the Sabbath is for nourishment, spiritual and physical, things that are not really meant to be so separate. He shows us that the law is there to do us good, it is not there for no purpose at all. It’s purpose is to serve our needs. He has come to serve. The law is a reflection of the goodness and mercy of God in our earthly life that Christ himself pours out for us on the cross for all eternity.
Tom – 350
“Grace, you been wondering “WHY?” Come up with anything yet? “
Go back and read my post #348 again.
Pr. HRC:
Thank you for bringing up the christian understanding of Love.
May I say that I welcome pastoral guidance in this recurring discussion. fws says a lot about the Defense of the Augsburg Confession (see @337 and 339 for the short versions), and he comes up with terms I don’t understand, such as “faith you can do” and concupiscence redefined as faith. I find this line of reasoning confusung, and I used to think that I am not easily confused. (not to be too critical, Frank, but it is hard to follow) I have promised fws to at least try to follow his reasoning, even though I strongly suspect it is the result of trying to split the hairs of infinite concepts. But I would like to know what our clergy, who have taken graduate level courses on the confessions think of all this. I notice Bror has weighed in.
Stephen:
I would like to expand on Pr. HRC’s point about love, because you have complained that I seem to trivialize your desire to show love to your neighbor. I also recall that both you and fws have relied on the subtleties of translation of God’s Word and fws has pointed out that concepts such as homosexuality and heterosexuality did not exist in the first century as they do now, and that even marriage and rape were differently understood back then.
I would like to point out that the definition of “love” according to the wisdom of this age, is different than what the NT writers understood. For one thing, the English word “love” is a single word, while there are at least 3 Greek words in the NT that are translated as “love”. These are phileo, agape, and charis, and they are only the ones I know about. These have distinct meanings.
Also, the English understanding of “love’ has changed dramatically over time. From courtly “love” of the middle ages, there has been movement through the Romantic period, the victorian age, and the flower power period of the 1960′s-70′s. I had the bad fortune to be a teenager from 1968 through 1975. What my contemporaries called “free love” was not love according to any Biblical understanding of the word. Shoot, it wasn’t even free.
Therefore, Pr. HRC’s about showing, or not showing, his secretary love is very instructive (except for the part about there being plum orchards near the equator
). You are not showing love to your neighbor by providing a comfortable cocoon for his sin.
kerner @ 353
It will be most interesting to see HRC come up with the confessional definition of that word “concupiscence” and also “mortal sin ” for that matter. and how he would articulate on what is “faith as a Good Work” that is that faith that is included here. “We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from works (which include faith).”
There are two kinds of faith in the world. The alternatives , according to our confessions is not faith vs unbelief.
The two choices, according to Apology art II is faith that we cannot do, vs faith that we can do with our reason and strength.
Further: Both faiths are commanded by God in his revealed Law contained in both the Decalog and the Law written by God in the minds of all Old Adams.
HRC is saying that law God has written in the minds of men (art IV) is defective precisely in that it cannot distinguish love from lust.
The Confessions disagree with him on this everywhere they discuss what the the Law is.
The confessions say that fallen reason can keep the law “in part”. That “part” is that fallen reason can FULLY know and keep the Law outwardly.
The part of the Law that reason cannot even know of , let alone keep, is that part that is the perfect keeping that is alone by faith alone in Christ that is apart from that first keeping of the Law. Works, even the Good Work of faith is here excluded.
I can see why what I am saying confuses you Kerner. Can anyone here state what I am saying from the Confessions in a way that makes sense to him?
Kerner, my suggestion is to go read art II for yourself and try to outline their argument! You are da man! You can do this Kerner. You are a fair minded guy of good faith. You will understand article II of the Apology. Give it a try! I urge you. Outline it for yourself. What? You think my suggestion to you could in any way be unwholesome or disingenuous? What are you afraid of Kerner?
I have come to love you on here Kerner. Go outline for yourself Apology art II till you are able to rehearse the argument in art II like the fine attorney you must be.
Kerner why do you think I keep begging you to do this? Is it some plot to get you to say it is ok that I am a homo?
Aim higher.
1 Corinthians 2 “14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. ”
Having read this string for 2 days I can only conclude that those who refuse to accept that what God calls sin is sin lack spiritual understanding or worse. If this is what the belief that baptism saves as opposed to being born again or regenerated by the spirit I want no part of it.
And while I judge no man’s salvation, I suggest many on this blog ought to “5Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” 2 Cor. 13
When people openly mock God and call evil good and good evil you have to question whether a true follower of Christ, indwelt by the Spirit would do this, you have to ask what’s up with that.
Too much trust in the wisdom of men and trying to refashion God into what we think he ought to be rather than what he tells us he is.
What do you think this means?1 Cor. 5. 11″But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Fws
Get over yourself.
Reg – 355
He has twisted up Scripture until he can’t understand it, and then he tries to teach others that homosexual sin isn’t sin – the idea being ….. “if you’re a homosexual, then it’s OK to have same sex, but if you’re a heterosexual and have homosexual sex then it’s sin” …..
Kerner
And as I have said and done numerous times on this thread and the last one, I have described what I am talking about as “love, mercy, service, goodness” in just this way so there is no mistake what I am talking about. You know this. Todd and I had this go around on the last thread which you were involved in, and as I said there the KJV translates “love” in 1Cor 13 as “charity.” There is no mistake as to what we are talking about here.
Is this really necessary? This seems like a smoke screen. When a Christian talks about love of neighbor, do we really have any big mystery that needs to be untangled as to what that is? Give me a break! We know what that is or we would not have numerous organizations devoted to doing just that, for one thing, and we would not teach our kids to do favors for the people next door even if it is a bit of an inconvenience.
Please take a shot at the question. Like Rick, I still hear crickets. The good pastor was no help at all as far as I could tell. If you are a lawyer, you should be able to tell from his argument that he basically didn’t have one, or that it was at least pretty thin. The reason I think this question is so valuable is because it drives right to the heart of things. I think this is why Jesus answered the question about the “whole of the law” in exactly the way he did.
First you said you were not bothered by me offering up my credentials and then you seemed to chastize me for not being a better teacher. You wanted some rules or something like that and seemed upset that I wanted to frame everything under the umbrella of “love.” And now you are all excited that someone, a pastor no less, comes along to tell you we cannot know what love really is. I say that is ridiculous. He hasn’t said anything. We know what love is. If we didn’t, how would we know that what Christ has done for us means anything at all? A pagan can respond to love and even give it. The conscience works this in all people so that life is good. This is what God wants to happen. The cross is the most terrible law that leaves the conscience stricken. Despairing Judas knows Christ is love, that is why he despairs. We have killed the One who loves us with our sin. But then we hear that this death was given “for us” it is then that the Holy Spirit works salvation in us. The fruit of repentance is borne in us, a new creation lives that loves and trusts God above all things. Love is returned in with and under our sinful Old Adam. Invisible faith in Christ.
All I want is for you to consider this question and try to answer it because I think it can unlock some things for you. Why was Socrates such a good teacher? Was it because he gave people rules to live by? No. It was because he tried to ask people good questions. I think this is a very good question because it is exactly the one Jesus framed. What is the whole of the law? Lay the answer over everything you think about what homosexuals should and should not do. What does their abiding by this decree that they be celibate have to do with love, mercy, goodness, maintaining peace in the community, doing service, creating comfort, making sure life flourishes, however you want to frame that that makes sense to you – all those things we have earthly law for, things that are completely and totally apart from our salvation which is alone through faith in Christ alone.
It will help.
Reg,
He has ‘tomes’ (not scholarly) or Biblical of this material just ready to be posted for anyone who has time to spare, or those who are not studied in the Word of God.
Pr. H.R. Curtis @ #347,
A very fine comment. However, I’m just not sure on the way forward when there’s such great disparities in the contrasting views. To wit:
Pr. Curtis: “The problem, however, is that the Antinomians – and here I have in mind specifically those who would seek to uphold the goodness of homosexual desire and acts … – do not know what love is.”
versus
fws, #174: “The problem with antinomianism is that it cannot possibly exist!”
Here’s another one:
Pr. Curtis: “But if you struggle with ungodly sexual desires (whether homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc), do not be fooled by the Antinomians.”
versus
fws, #212: “No [, the confessions DO NOT teach that same-sex behavior is sin] . Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men.”
Lastly, Pr. Curtis pastorally counsels: “Trust Christ’s Word. Seek repentance and a faithful Christian community that will support you in that repentance.”
Good counsel, yet how does it apply when a person doesn’t think they need to repent of what you say is a sin because they disagree and say it’s not a sin (using the same source material that you use)?
TruthUD @ 360
This is a great question:
“Good counsel, yet how does it apply when a person ..disagree[s] … (using the same source material that you use)?”
The correct answer would be that HRC would go back to the EXACT quotes I quoted and show how I am taking them out of context or reading into them something that is not in the text.
but HRC will probably not do this. Don´t hold your breath. There is a good reason why he will not. Guess what it is.
Kerner
If you were a prosecuting attorney, and adultery was an imprisonable offense, would you really NOT be able to blow the adulterer out of the water legally without needing to send him to Sunday School to do that? This is what the pastor is trying to tell someone with graduate level training in what? The Law! You could not prove emotional injury and contract breach ? Theft? Spousal duty. How hard would you need to dig?
C´mon! This is lame. Pagans know the difference between love and lust. You know that. Country and western music tells you this for crimenies sake! “How can something so wrong, feel so right?!”
TUD,
Maybe the problem is unbelievers posing as believers. Maybe what they need is less words and instead our prayers that they come to faith and to repentance.
What is clear is that there is no common ground or language upon which to communicate. We start with the presupposition that God means what he says and says what he means. And that God is capable of communicating his message clearly and effectively. If the other communicator starts with an Alice in Wonderland presupposition that words mean whatever he wants them to mean and that God did not really say and certainly did not mean what the words appear to state, then communication is impossible.
Rick,
I will attempt to frame the sinfulness of homosexual desire and acts in terms of love for the neighbor.
For a man to desire or engage in sexual relations with another man violates who he is as a man. This is what Paul means in Romans 1. In Genesis 1 and 2 God makes man and woman for each other; she is a “helpmeet corresponding to him.” Christ is the bridegroom and the Church the bride (Eph. 5). This mystery of male and female is at the heart of humanity and finds its expression in the marriage bed. For a man to treat another man as he would a woman (to use Moses’ phrase) is to treat him as something other than he is and is thus to treat him in contradiction to what God made him to be. Thus, homosexual acts are harmful to both parties.
You can find a fuller explanation of this in the Roman Catholic scholar of natural law, J. BUDZISZEWSKI. His book, What We Can’t Not Know is a great primer and he addresses just the question you ask here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0035.html
+HRC
Stephen,
Come on, friend. I’m a parish pastor, an American, and a kid from a broken family: I know a thing or two about divorce. The person who doesn’t these days is a rare find and a blessed soul.
I don’t have it backwards. I think you are not hearing me clearly. Love fulfills the Law. That’s Law with a capital L. Again, one needs to read Luther’s very clear insights in How Christians Ought to Regard Moses to get this straight. The Law is not just a bunch of arbitrary rules (like the ceremonial of the OT). The Law which love fulfills is the unchanging and beneficent will of God. God is Love – see? So his will (the Law) is, of course, fulfilled by love. They accord with one another. When I am confused about what Love is, I can look to God’s revealed will (the Law) to clear up my confusion.
If I am guilty of an ad hominem attack, they you are guilty of rather abruptly changing the subject. Whether or not I’m guilty of an ad hominem attack, you need to read (or reread) How Christians Ought to Regard Moses. This should show you why the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath has exactly nothing to do with God’s will for human sexuality. I did not call Jesus’
Here is something for the Antinomians to ponder. The same St. Paul who easily tosses aside the Sabbath and OT festivals in Col 2, is the same guy who’s just not got one good thing to say about homosexual desire or acts in Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6. If that seems odd to you – read the Luther piece I’ve referenced again and again.
+HRC
FWS,
Happily, concupiscence is defined for me in the footnotes of my Kolb-Wengert edition of the BoC, although I think Tappert always did a better job on these.
Mortal sin finds its expression in SA III.3.42-43, which is a delightfully clear rejection of the Antinomians by Luther.
And yes, faith has many definitions in the Confessional and dogmatic tradition: fides qua creditur, fides quae creditur, fides quae credit, organon leptikon, etc. You seem to be referring to faith in the context of AC IV where it means simply trust, fiducia. That open hand which receives the gift of Christ which “I cannot by my own reason or strength” create in myself, but which the Holy Spirit has implanting by “calling me by the Gospel and enlightening me with his gifts.”
Now, you seem to think that I misunderstand the Confessions when it comes to how well we know the natural law written on our hearts. To dissuade you I know no better thing to do than actually quoting the Confessions. They say (right along with Paul in Roman 1) that we know the Law yes, but imperfectly due to our sinful weakness.
I’ll sign off with these rather lengthy quotes demonstrating this point. I wish you the best in Christ: humility, repentance, faith, life, and salvation. I have prayed that you find them.
+HRC
FC SD I.11
That original sin (in human nature) is not only this entire absence of all good in spiritual, divine things, but that, instead of the lost image of God in man, it is at the same time also a deep, wicked, horrible, fathomless, inscrutable, and unspeakable corruption of the entire nature and all its powers, especially of the highest, principal powers of the soul in the understanding, heart, and will, so that now, since the Fall, man inherits an inborn wicked disposition and inward impurity of heart, evil lust and propensity; 12] that we all by disposition and nature inherit from Adam such a heart, feeling, and thought as are, according to their highest powers and the light of reason, naturally inclined and disposed directly contrary to God and His chief commandments, yea, that they are enmity against God, especially as regards divine and spiritual things. For in other respects, as regards natural, external things which are subject to reason, man still has to a certain degree understanding, power, and ability, although very much weakened, all of which, however, has been so infected and contaminated by original sin that before God it is of no use.
FC SD II.9
For, first, although man’s reason or natural intellect indeed has still a dim spark of the knowledge that there is a God, as also of the doctrine of the Law, Rom. 1:19ff, yet it is so ignorant, blind, and perverted that when even the most ingenious and learned men upon earth read or hear the Gospel of the Son of God and the promise of eternal salvation, they cannot from their own powers perceive, apprehend, understand, or believe and regard it as true, but the more diligence and earnestness they employ, wishing to comprehend these spiritual things with their reason, the less they understand or believe, and before they become enlightened and are taught by the Holy Ghost, they regard all this only as foolishness or fictions. 10] 1 Cor. 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him. 1 Cor. 1:21: For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Eph. 4:17f.: They (that is, those not born again of God’s Spirit) walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart. Matt. 13:11ff; Luke 8:18: Seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand; but it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Rom. 3:11. 12: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are all together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Accordingly, the Scriptures flatly call natural man in spiritual and divine things darkness, Eph. 5:8, Acts 26:18. John 1:5: The light shineth in darkness (that is, in the dark, blind world, which does not know or regard God), and the darkness comprehendeth it not. Likewise, the Scriptures teach that man in sins is not only weak and sick, but defunct and entirely dead, Eph. 2:1. 5; Col. 2:13.
Author: Pr. H. R. Curtis @ 366
Pastor Curtis says:
“Happily, concupiscence is defined for me in the footnotes of my Kolb-Wengert edition of the BoC, although I think Tappert always did a better job on these.”
FWS:says. Ok. So you have told us that:
1) footnotes by Kolb and Wengert are your doctrinal authority as a Lutheran.
2) You still have not given us a definition of “concupiscence”.
3) I was really hoping that you would give is the definition of “concupiscence ” that the Confessions themselves give us since they spend about 3 pages doing that in the Apology art II.
4) I would never call a Lutheran pastor a knuckle head, but I will say it is sort of lame to point another Lutheran to a Roman Catholic, in disagreeing with a Lutheran who is pointing to some documents (called the Lutheran Confessions) that would probably then disagree with what that Roman Catholic has to say about the Law!
5) And , again not calling you a knucklehead, what with your advanced degree in Lutheran theology and all, I am really thinking it is lame that you don´t even know how to explain , from the body of Apology art II, what the Confessions REdefine “concupiscence” as being , away from what Rome defines that word as and even away from Augustine´s definition.
FWS,
Phew! I must have passed all the other tests. Thanks for the retry on concupiscence.
Concupiscence is a positive quality, not the mere fomes peccati of the Scholastics or a mere negative lacking of original righteousness, but the positive desire (hence the Latin term) for evil. To say that man is born with concupiscence means that the corruption of our human nature is so severe that we are positively hostile to God.
And, for the record, I think that the notes on such matters in KW and Tappert are both pretty good. Though again, as I said before, I think Tappert is better.
As to pointing to a Roman Catholic theologian on a particular matter – you’re just barking up the wrong tree with that criticism. I’d just as happily refer him to a Baptist or a Presbyterian if they happened to be speaking the truth clearly. Or did I miss it when God forbade all but Lutherans from speaking the truth clearly?
But we’re pretty far off the main point, now, aren’t we? The Scriptures are clear: homosexual desire and acts are sinful.
+HRC
HRC
I agree that the law is not a bunch of arbitrary rules and holiness codes. Thank you very much. I have made this point already from our Confessions about holiness codes. As I have said over and over “what is the whole of the law?” and how did Jesus answer it? Did he recite the Decalog? Why not? Perhaps it is as you and St. Paul say – love fulfills the law. I think so. So when you tried to blow off anyone talking about Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath as “undergraduate” I was not changing the subject. I was talking about that same law, the one that is useful in the same way you say it is, the law that is fulfilled when goodness, mercy and love actually happen on earth.
So my question is and remains: How is forcing homosexuals to be celibate in any way producing this kind of love and mercy and goodness for anyone? Of what use is it? What does it have to do with this kind of love and fulfilling of the law on earth apart from faith in Christ who is our heavenly righteousness? Where is the love being done? I hear again and again about the arbitrary prohibition, but zilch about how it fulfills the law.
HRC
And I should have said that a natural law argument from a Roman Catholic doesn’t cut it. Make a Confessional argument. Tell me about the whole of the law and love fulfilling the law, stuff like that. Talk about the two kingdoms and justification by grace through faith, not all that Aristotelian ontological argument of pure being hand me down stuff that is being pulled out these days. Come on, be a Lutheran. If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. Is that for real or what?
Stephen,
Please see my reply to Rick as to how specifically homosexual acts do not show love to the neighbor.
For the distinction between keeping the Sabbath, keeping the Law, and love, please (pretty please!) read Luther’s How Christians Ought to Regard Moses. I honestly think that will clear it up for you.
+HRC
Stephen,
Run a search for “natural law” or “law of nature” in the BoC and see what you come up with. This is a Confessional concept. Also, please, please, please read the Luther piece I keep citing (How Christians Ought to Regard Moses) which has quotes like this:
” The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the commandments. We will just skip that. We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver – unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law.”
” The word, “We should love one another” [John 15:12], pertains to me, for it pertains to all who belong to the gospel. Thus we read Moses not because he applies to us, that we must obey him, but because he agrees with the natural law and is conceived better than the Gentiles would ever have been able to do. Thus the Ten Commandments are a mirror of our life, in which we can see wherein we are lacking, etc. The sectarian spirits have misunderstood also with respect to the images; for that too pertains only to the Jews. ”
Etc. etc.
+HRC
HRC
Do you mean like here?
From the Apology Art IV
7] Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the same judgment divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agrees with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they seek the remission of sins and justification.
I think this is talking about the higher powers, that Reason can know the Law and do it and thereby attain remission of sins and justification. So yeah, you’ve got something there, but it’s Roman Catholic and not Lutheran. It seems like you are looking for the image of God in natural law and not in Christ alone.
If we want to know what love really is, do we look to the law, or do we look to the cross? Is that a fair question?
HRC
I read what you wrote to Rick just so you know and checked out the link. As such things usually are, the article seems largely designed to frighten people whose minds are already made up.
Thanks, Pastor Curtis. That is at least the start of the kind of discussion that I think is needed. Some of the arguments in the linked article are not as successful as others, but had those been the kinds of arguments used, this thread would have been better. I’ll get into some specifics later. The kinds of arguments used lead to other conclusions, at least in some cases, to my mind.
Reg, #363: “TUD,
Maybe the problem is unbelievers posing as believers.”
Alas! We come full circle. I made this very same inquiry in my very first comment in #88!
“What is clear is that there is no common ground or language upon which to communicate. … communication is impossible.”
True.
(Wryly chuckling) But somehow … communicating an insult or a slight or a jab does not seem impossible in the least!
(Chuckling harder) Why is that?!
WOLVES ?
pastor Curtis @ 372
“Run a search for “natural law” or “law of nature” in the BoC and see what you come up with. This is a Confessional concept. ”
Wordsearch done. It IS a Confessional concept. It is a REdefinition away from Saint Thomas´s definition of “natural Law”.
You will find that the confessions everywhere restrict that term to narrowly mean this:
Then, for good measure, tht is to further distance themselves from the good Saint Thomas ,the Confessions set up a new category called “ordinances of God” that is an amoral category into which one would place things such as the law of physics, biology, etc and specifically, in Ap Art XXIII 21] and 22], the sex drive.
HRC
Rick is right. I should at least give you accolades for making the attempt to answer the question and take it head on. I’m sorry I didn’t express that. Thanks for taking a shot at it.
I have already heard this answer in another form so I guess I didn’t get excited about it. The “it’s not natural” therefore “it is undignified” and likewise “unloving” argument has been cast in various ways and basically rests on a natural law premise. So we can, with our reason, aided by grace (I assume), look to nature’s design to tell us what is good. Whatever “fits” is good and is not sin. Is that the equation?
Of course no one asks gay people about any of that.
And I wonder, do we really need Jesus then for anything? Seems like we could figure out pretty much anything. I mean, we’ve got nature and the divine will of God written in the law. We know exactly how to love and stuff. Oh yeah, I forgot. Sin. What about that? How does that effect the equation we are working with of getting in line with the good design? Pretty much screws it up completely for everyone.
Pastor Curtis @ 368
“Phew! I must have passed all the other tests. Thanks for the retry on concupiscence. ”
Dear brother. This is not a test or a duel of wits. I appreciate that you are injecting humor in love.
I don´t agree with those footnotes. Why? It is not what article II is doing with the word “concupiscence.” I would in all sincerity urge you to read that article and see if this is right:
Rome said that that “the material of original sin is concupiscence”. They define concupiscence exactly as being the aristotelian baser or lower instincts of man. Things like lust, “fomes” , desires, hunger, thirst. Stuff like that. THEN they said that these things were defects and not sins. Not as long as we resist them and do not give in to them and “willfully sin” that is.
This idea of concupiscence comes, in turn from the idea that the Image of God was precisely the Divine Law written in Adam. With the fall, that Law too fell. So now that Law, called the conscience looks like a broken mirror. We can see disconnected sort-of Images of God in those shards. But for all intents and purposes, the Image of God is ruined beyond any real recognition. So as you say then, man cannot tell the difference between love and lust.
So then God was therfore obliged to reissue that Law that was originally the Original Righeousness that was written in Adam´s heart now on two tablets of stone called the Decalog. Also he placed the Magisterium of the Holy Church on earth to guide us here.
And where did rome place that Image of God that is, remember horribly shattered beyond any recognition? They placed it in man´s higher powers: faith, love, reason etc. These are the things that separate man from the brutes. So that makes sense right?
That is the context for the Lutheran position which is this:
1) The Image of God that Adam had was faith alone in Christ alone.
2)The Image of God is the Original Righeousness that was lost.
3) Now it is clear exactly HOW fallen man is totally void of the Image of God and Original righeousness as you quoted from the FC earlier.
4) So Original Sin is a)the void of faith alone in Christ alone.
5) Plus b) it is that faith that fills the void.
6) concupiscence is REdefined in art II as faith-in-anything-BUT-Christ.
Rome: concupiscence/lust/carnal/desire vs faith/virtue
Lutherans: faith/outward righeousness vs invisible faith alone in christ alone.
Do you agree with all this Pastor? I do suspect that if you are deep into Roman Catholic Aquinan Natural Law, then you would have serious problems with the Lutheran definition of the Image of God.
I LOVE Saint Thomas. I study him. I recommend him to Lutherans and Baptists just as you say. But he is wrong here. And Roman Catholic Theology continues to be based on his baptism of aristotelian righteousness.
I would like to be wrong on that dear pastor.
Rick Ritchie:
Crickets, eh? Perhaps I can answer you inquiry with a different hypothetical, one with three people:
Ike is old, poor and physically unattractive, and single. He hasn’t had sex in a long time, but more important than that, he is lonely. But Ike is not sexually attracted to women his own age. he sees the magazines on the supermarket check-out stands, and yearns to be sexually and emotionally invovled with someone like them. So he calls…
Tawny, who is a call girl. Tawny is 27, very attractive and the mother of a 6 year old daughter who attentds a private school. Tawny is also taking accounting courses part time and will, in 6 or 7 years, be qualified to take the CPA exam. Most female sex workers really hate their customers, but Tawny is good enough at her job to pick and choose. She senses that Ike is lonely as well as sexually frustrated, as he actually takes her to dinner as though they were going on a real date. After a couple of “dates”, she actually begins to become a little fond of him. Of course, she still takes his money, but she puts it to good use. Ike can only afford to “date” Tawny occasionally, so he sometimes talks to his next door neighbor…
Gertrude, who is Ike’s age and equally poor and unattractive. But she has a lot in common with Ike, including being single and lonely. They sometimes have great conversations about mutual interests and Ike senses that she would like to be married. Gertrude does not consider Ike to be much to look at, but she is willing to settle for a man who would be kind of a friend to her. But Ike doesn’t actually see her all that much, because he is always working overtime to be able to afford his next date with Tawny.
Ike senses Gertrude’s interest, but he isn’t attracted to her sexually. He has enjoyed his time with Gertrude, but he knows that Gertrude would expect him to give up Tawny if he were to marry her. And Ike knows that he might not be able to do that. Even if he never “dated” Tawny again, Ike knows that he wouldn’t be able to get her out of his head. He might even think about Tawny during sex with Gertrude. In a fit of confusion, Ike asks two of his Lutheran friends for advice.
Friend A goes straight to the Bible and points out the many passages that talk about harlots and those who patronize them (always negatively). A suggests that Ike try to learn to love Gertrude and consider marrying her. There is more to a marriage than sexual ecstacy, and Ike should consider more important aspects of marriage.
Friend B says, “wait a minute, The whole 2nd table of the decalog is about showing love for our neighbor.” B asks how it would be showing love for Tawny if Ike, and all her customers, took all this harlot talk seriously. Tawny’s daughter would have to go to publioc school and the two of them would have to live on an income that an uneducated woman can earn. Plus, Tawny’s education would be set back, perhaps permanently. And how is it showing love to Ike to demand that he give up Tawny? Tawny provides Ike with sexual excitement as well as companionship. Both Ike and Tawny like their relationship enough to be content with it, B argues. So, how is it harming our neighbor to just let it continue? Besides, all those passages about harlots had meanings that have changed and were based on cultures of long ago. Frequestly, prostitutes of old were connected with the worship of pagan gods, which is no longer the case. Besides, pagan philosophers have often found nothing wrong with prostitution. Even the state Ike lives in has not declared discrete call girl operations illegal, so Ike has not even broken the civil righteousness code that Paul says is written on the hearts of the pagans. Compelling Ike to follow some “Purity code” would be tying his salvation to a code the pagans could not figure out for themselves, therefore basing Ike’s salvation on works. Even if most other prostitute-customer relationships involve a lot of non-love between neighbors, Ike and Tawny don’t hate each other, are both fond of each other, and both get a benefit from their relationship that they both want enough to stay in it. Besides, if Ike were to marry Gertrude, knowing that he was not intensely attracted to her, and knowing that he IS attracted to Tawny, then his marriage to Gertrude would be based on a lie.
==============
Like all analogies, this one is not perfect. A gay couple might very well combine mutual passion with mutual romantic love for a time, whereas the hypothetical Ike and Tawny never would. But I brought up the hypothetical to try to show that non-love for our neighbor does not necessarily have to leave our neighbor bleeding in the street to exist. The existence of and participation in certain practices can harm society, or the institution of marriage, generally. It can harm the individuals involved by depriving them of participation in an institution that is actually good for them, instead of participating in a practice that harms them in subtle ways. And I don’t think we as believers are called to over analyse every possible scenario. If the Bible takes the position that a certain behavior is wrong, we should be ready to accept the proposition that, even if we can’t see the harm to our neighbor in any obvious way, God must have seen it or He wouldn’t have prohibited it.
I am not going to, at this moment, try to catalogue all the subtle ways that prostitution, or gay sex, could possible harm those involved. I am, however going to refer to the language of the Large Catechism on the 6th Commandment:
“But because among us there is such a shameful mess and the very dregs of all vice and lewdness, this commandment is directed also against all manner of unchastity, whatever it may be called; 203] and not only is the external act forbidden, but also every kind of cause, incitement, and means, so that the heart, the lips, and the whole body may be chaste and afford no opportunity, help, or persuasion to inchastity. 204] And not only this, but that we also make resistance, afford protection and rescue wherever there is danger and need; and again, that we give help and counsel, so as to maintain our neighbor’s honor. For whenever you omit this when you could make resistance, or connive at it as if it did not concern you, you are as truly guilty as the one perpetrating the deed. 205] Thus, to state it in the briefest manner, there is required this much, that every one both live chastely himself and help his neighbor do the same, so that God by this commandment wishes to hedge round about and protect [as with a rampart] every spouse that no one trespass against them.”
(Emphasis mine)
Which indicates to me that unchastity is harmful to the people involved and to the society in which it exists, and that Christians show love for their neighbors by encouraging them to live chastely.
Pastor curtis @ 368
“But we’re pretty far off the main point, now, aren’t we? The Scriptures are clear: homosexual desire and acts are sinful. ”
This is the main point says whom? This was not the Veith´s topic at the start of the post. The post was about nominal christians.
How would we identify one? The Law? The Gospel?
Somehow this is now about fags.
Pastor Curtis,
I just checked in with my Table of Duties. It is an odd thing here on this blog to dialogue with pastors sometimes. I found your first post a little haughty and I got kind of hot. Sometimes pastors on here, to me, seem to come swooping in as if they have the final word to offer and a lot of times they don’t. Other times they are quite helpful to have around. Perhaps I should have shown your office more respect. While I don’t regret what I’ve said, perhaps the way I’ve said it could have done a better job of displaying that courtesy. I apologize.
Now teach from the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not some Roman Catholic stuff. That is all we need.
“The post was about nominal christians. How would we identify one?”
They have bangs. Bangs hide the “666″ branded on their foreheads.
Stephen @383:
I think we may have swerved into agreement. Like you, I want to encourage pastors to address Confessional arguments when they come up, and to stay engaged for at least awhile.
Wow Kerner
I gotta see you in court. I was on a jury a few weeks ago. We put a guy away for a long time. I’ve seen how defense attorneys work it. Just keep the doubt level up as high as you can where it is enough so that the jury is not convinced by the mounting evidence that may or may not go over the line of “reasonable.” Fascinating. I applaud your hard work. I pity Ike in his dilemma. I would tell him to dump the chick because she is just using him for his money. If I was really concerned about the kid I would turn her in. He can be friends with Gertrude and see what happens. Stop looking at dirty magazines too. Do something fun and productive. He sounds self-absorbed and pathetic actually. And your trivializing this. Perhaps the reason this isn’t such a complex moral dilemma is the same reason why you won’t actually answer the question. Instead, you just come back to this:
“If the Bible takes the position that a certain behavior is wrong, we should be ready to accept the proposition that, even if we can’t see the harm to our neighbor in any obvious way, God must have seen it or He wouldn’t have prohibited it.”
The appeal to mystery. We know what pain and suffering is and we know what love and mercy and service to the neighbor are. We have at least a pretty darn good idea. Stop obfuscating.
The explanation to the 6th commandment ends this way:
” . . . so that God by this commandment wishes to hedge round about and protect [as with a rampart] every spouse that no one trespass against them.”
The operative word here is spouse. This is about marriage commitments and keeping them whole, that they are not to be threatened or violated once they have been enacted. As an attorney you know why this is important. As the warden said in Cool Hand Luke “When the system breaks down, we all break down.” Say, there’s a way to answer it perhaps. How is this prohibition preventing a breakdown in the system, staving off chaos that will surely come if we allow gays to marry and have families?
chirp . . . chirp . . . chirp . . . chirp
Hey that’s cool that we swerved kerner! Now I gotta go to sleep.
Wolves chirp?
Kerner @ 381
You seem to like these kinds of posts, like the stories about the flamable paint. I think it is your training. The supremes do this: ” If you are right, then how would that play out in x scenario”
Ok. Let´s do this. I deal with prostitutes and those who use them all the time. (No not as clients or as a pimp). Lots of transgenders live in my neighborhood. Many are sex workers. I try to befriend them. I will show you what I do. You are free to throw stones at that.
KERNER/Friend A goes straight to the Bible and points out the many passages that talk about harlots and those who patronize them (always negatively). A suggests that Ike try to learn to love Gertrude and consider marrying her. There is more to a marriage than sexual ecstacy, and Ike should consider more important aspects of marriage.
FWS: “always negatively” Look of Tamar in the OT. And look up the wh0re who helped the israelites make those walls of jericho come a tumblin down. and then that one who was the ancestor of our Lord and Savior…and a prophet was commanded to marry one… And YES Kerner, I do believe that prostitution is bad. Jus sayin.
FWS/Friend C: Don´t forget the anonymous people on Veith when this man decides to be honest here and seek advice Kerner!
KERNER /Friend B says, “wait a minute, The whole 2nd table of the decalog is about showing love for our neighbor.” B asks how it would be showing love for Tawny if Ike, and all her customers, took all this harlot talk seriously. Tawny’s daughter would have to go to publioc school and the two of them would have to live on an income that an uneducated woman can earn. Plus, Tawny’s education would be set back, perhaps permanently. And how is it showing love to Ike to demand that he give up Tawny? Tawny provides Ike with sexual excitement as well as companionship. Both Ike and Tawny like their relationship enough to be content with it, B argues. So, how is it harming our neighbor to just let it continue?
FWS to Tawny. My approach would look like this: You are a beautiful woman. You are young and bright and the world is waiting for you. And you have a young daughter you love. That is all so very obvious. Yes I understand the reasons you are , temporarily , a sex worker. I am glad you try to give Ike something besides sex. You know, if I were your father, I would not condemn you at all. I would praise you for the fine things you are doing in college and with your young child. But I would want more for you. Heck, I know YOU want more for you. That is why you keep telling me that sex work is just a temporary stop gap. You deserve so much more Tawny. I was a CPA for years and so I know well what you are studying and what that job market looks like. You are paying alot for that university. It is stretching you thin. Then on top of that you are doing this other gig that is not really making you happy. Besides the money is spotty and the customers are complicated…. Maybe you should consider doing something else. You could spend less, get a grant as a single mom to go to a trade school. That would be a year. I could help arrange that actually. You would make more after that in a trade than you will as a CPA. And besides, if you wanted to, you could use the income from your trade to comfortably pay for university. Also, if I were your father, I would want so much more for you dear. I would want you to give and receive sex and much more than than with someone you love and who loves you. I know you want that too. The sex you are doing will make you grow cold. It will dull you to the joy you could have in sex when someday God actually presents that special someone. and on. I would not offer any of this unless asked by the way. It is obvious where I am trying to steer things though isnt it?
END OF COMMENT AND ON TO KERNER AS FRIEND B:
KERNER/FRIEND B:Besides, all those passages about harlots had meanings that have changed and were based on cultures of long ago. Frequestly, prostitutes of old were connected with the worship of pagan gods, which is no longer the case.
KERNER/friend B: Besides, pagan philosophers have often found nothing wrong with prostitution.
FWS to Kerner: (1) The bible talks about male temple prostitution when castrated men are treated exactly as if they were women. No Kerner, I am not aware of this practice being alive today. You are right there. But we still have female prostitution today as it was then. Both are said to be wrong by the bible. (2) I don´t think that was the point of Apology art IV mentioning aristotle as being as much as could be demanded as to civil morality.
Kerner / Friend B: Even the state Ike lives in has not declared discrete call girl operations illegal, so Ike has not even broken the civil righteousness code that Paul says is written on the hearts of the pagans.
FWS: Aside to Kerner: This is to say that legal=moral. The confessions say that God writes his Law on the minds of men. People know that stealing someone´s wife is wrong even if there is no law against it don´t they?
Kerner/friend B: Compelling Ike to follow some “Purity code” would be tying his salvation to a code the pagans could not figure out for themselves, therefore basing Ike’s salvation on works.
FWS to Kerner: Purity Code means commandments that have no reason other than to separate the behaviors of people of faith from that of the pagans around them. Things we are commanded to do like wear non-mixed textile clothes.
KERNER /friend b: Even if most other prostitute-customer relationships involve a lot of non-love between neighbors, Ike and Tawny don’t hate each other, are both fond of each other, and both get a benefit from their relationship that they both want enough to stay in it. Besides, if Ike were to marry Gertrude, knowing that he was not intensely attracted to her, and knowing that he IS attracted to Tawny, then his marriage to Gertrude would be based on a lie.
FWS to Kerner: Telling Ike to marry Gertrude is bad advice. People should learn not to meddle like that. It is like the old shotgun weddings for unwed mothers. It piles one sin on top of another. It is sacrifice and not mercy. It was usually done not for God in actuality but to avoid shame to the family and girl. Maybe he should go to some country where he can get a mailorder bride. But he is poor so that probably wouldn´t work. I am not sure what I would tell Ike. It would not be to keep in spending his few savings on whores. He is too old to be workin all that overtime.
Here is where you fall flat. Probably as an attorney. On earth the Law is mostly about damage control. It looks like the Budhist exortation to do no harm. And the greeks said this do no harm was “virtue as it´s own reward”. But to qualify as Godly righeousness that God wants on earth, there must be evidence that love is being served. No not a little dollop just to qualify. Righteousness looks like something that is ALL about serving love. It is something done from the bottom of our heart. And that we cannot do!
==============
KERNER Like all analogies, this one is not perfect.
FWS: That is ok. You are trying your best to test stuff.
KERNER: A gay couple might very well combine mutual passion with mutual romantic love for a time,
FWS: why do you need to put in that “for a time”? My experience says gay couples last about as long as hetero couples. Remember this Kerner:What is driving gays to try at monogamy? The Law! The Law always accuses. So they are trying to a) not harm others as even pagans know promiscuity does and b) they are trying to live a life that is disciplined enough to have room for love to be done among them. Love cannot happen without rules. Pagans know this. But love also cannot be done by the numbers. Try loving your wife by presenting her with a set of rules defining how to love you. My explanation, like your thing here, is not perfect .
KERNER whereas the hypothetical Ike and Tawny never would.
FWS: Maybe if Ike were Ted Turner or Onassis or Donald Trump or a Nobility or one of the Old testament Patriarchs it would! That was actually the normal pattern wasn´t it before romantic pairings started in victorian england ever so recently.
KERNER: But I brought up the hypothetical to try to show that non-love for our neighbor does not necessarily have to leave our neighbor bleeding in the street to exist.
FWS: Kerner. Here is where you really fall down and get a nosebleed from the fall: Do you think anyone was trying to say that? We are talking about the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This makes things alot clearer doesnt it? Think in those terms. That looks like this:
So we should not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body. This includes his reputation, his feelings, etc. But the more important part is this “we should help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need. Is Ike helping and befriending Tawny in what SHE needs? what she REALLY needs whether she knows it or not? THAT is love. If one posed to Ike this: If Tawney was your daugher, what would you think of what you are doing with Tawney? Are you contributing to what would make tawneys life and that of her daugher as good as possible? Including what would best satisfy her emotional needs? No. Then what you have for tawney is selfishness. It is not love. You are using her only for what she can give you. You are treating her like a thing. I could shoot that same law bullet at tawney towards Ike. See that Kerner? This is stuff that you just cant wrap rules around. Rules are about the MINIMUM that righteousness requires. and we STILL all look for loopholes! Why? We don´t really love anyone or anything. You personally observe that as an attorney. Laws do not really prevent people from doing anything. It is only faith that they will get caught if they break a law , AND be punished, that makes anything work. So even in civil law, when faith is gone, everything goes to hell. That is the problem here in Brasil. there is a loss of faith in the Law here.
KERNER The existence of and participation in certain practices
can harm society, or the institution of marriage, generally.
FWS Ok . I bite. How do the Ike and Tawny story harm society? Probably her child is not being cared for properly. I hope condoms are being used.. .. there is that too…. Ike is working overtime at an old age to support an addiction. He will probably become a ward of the state. I am not getting, not at all, how this, or letting a couple of fags get married, harms the institution of marriage. Ok . maybe you are talking about the message this would send our children if consentual sex between the unmarried were made legal? Oooops . That has happened. I don´t see this issue being a great fund raiser for the republicans. Why is that? and what about the effects of divorce on the institution of marriage. wouldnt this be way ahead of fag-marriage on the list of attacks on marriage? I guess this is why we hear so much about a constitutional amendment against divorce right Kerner? Listen to yourself.
KERNER It can harm the individuals involved by depriving them of participation in an institution that is actually good for them, instead of participating in a practice that harms them in subtle ways.
FWS: Like smoking? And drinkin? How are ike and tawny deprived of that participation? How is this the same as gays being deprived of it?
KKERNER s believers are called to over analyse every possible scenario. If the Bible takes the position that a certain behavior is wrong, we should be ready to accept the proposition that, even if we can’t see the harm to our neighbor in any obvious way, God must have seen it or He wouldn’t have prohibited it.
FWS: Or, maybe that is God telling us that he has not prohibited it. You can tell me that that fire marshall is concerned about people overly identifying with flamable pink paint, or that they are not being loved by the fire marshall. But I have it on good information that the fire marshall cares about flamability and not the color wheel, peoples obsessing about pink or whatever.
Now I could believe you , purely on faith, or I could believe God´s Word that tells me that the always-evidence that God´s Morality is being done on earth is this: does doing or not doing something sense-ibly make the lives of others as good as possible or not? And then to mind to our own business that God has put us to. Not to meddle in the live if Ike or Tawney unless God has appointed us to do so!
Stephen:
You think I’m</b? trivializing this? Do you think there are no real people in this world like Ike, Tawny and Gertrude? How dare you trivialize the pain and loneliness of people who don't fit your cookie cutter set of concerns? Are you really saying that the pain and lonliness of old, unattractive heterosexuals is less worthy of your concern, less deserving of your neighborly love, than your scintillating friends in the artiste community? You hypocrite.
Why are you picking on people like Tawny? And for what would you turn her in? She isn't breaking any state laws. Just some old purity code. And for that you'd take her daughter away? No love for the likes of her either I see.
And your solution for Ike is for him to be celibate? Why? Because he:
1) Insists on having sex only with people who he finds sexually attractive, and
2) Is willing to break some old purity code to do it.
And from this you conclude that he "sounds self absorbed and pathetic".
Better not point that gun at your gay friends Stephen, you'll shoot the only ally you have on this thread.
And while you are being so callous and unloving towards the plight of real people like the hypothetical Ike, Tawny and Gertrude, why don't you explain to me where there is lack of love for their neighbors in one single thing any of them is doing?
Sleep well Stephen.
paSTOR CURTIS @ 372
I am in Brasil and would have to find this work you are urging online. So let me comment on your excerpts!
” The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the commandments. We will just skip that. We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver – unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law.”
COMMENT “natural law ” is what? According to that word search of the B of C it is always and only where God has “written the Law in the minds of mankind.” Ap art IV The confessions do NOT use that term “natural Law ” in the sense of Saint Thomas.
” The word, “We should love one another” [John 15:12], pertains to me, for it pertains to all who belong to the gospel. Thus we read Moses not because he applies to us, that we must obey him, but because he agrees with the natural law and is conceived better than the Gentiles would ever have been able to do.
COMMENT: We are to conform Moses agree to what? 1) “A new Law I give unto you , that ye Love one another” and 2) reason (aka “lutheran natural Law”)! This isn´t sounding like what Kerner says.
“Thus the Ten Commandments are a mirror of our life, in which we can see wherein we are lacking, etc. The sectarian spirits have misunderstood also with respect to the images; for that too pertains only to the Jews. ”
COMMENT: So Luther compares the Decalog to Images. How do Lutherans use Images? The Images remind us of the pious lives and perseverance of the Saints they are images of and so encourages us to follow their example. What?! This isn´t sounding like Kerner either.
pastor curtis at 372
Are you listening Kerner. The good pastor has quoted Luther in a way that seems to support what I am saying eh?
fws – 389
Your tome, (post) was 2,336, two thousand three hundred thirty six words, long. Who knows how many feet, maybe four, or more?
You’ve chosen to wall paper most of this thread, …. narcissism reins supreme!
It would be lovely if Dr. Veith decided to make 1,000 words the limit, even that would be lengthy – - but 2,336? surely you don’t believe that a pamphlet is necessary on a blog post.
kerner
do you notice something missing in what you are writing? Hint: the person I am talking about begins with a cap C. Why does ANY of this matter Kerner?
That is a serious question.
Kerner
I am going to suggest that Jehovahs witnesses and mormons and jews have this same kind of faith in God´s Word or God´s Law. why aren´t they saved? they have faith. and it is a faith that God does demand of us isn´t it? that we have faith that is laws are about goodness and mercy even when we cant see it and faith alone can let us believe that sacrifice is not really sacrifice but it is rather goodness and mercy?
So where is your Christ in all this? Where does HIS work fit into this?
fws:
fws: “Many are sex workers. I try to befriend them. I will show you what I do. You are free to throw stones at that. ”
Kerner: Why would I throw stones, In my vocation I have represented sex workers, and I understand their pain an plight as much as you do. And I have advocated mercy for them.
fws: “[Tawny] Then on top of that you are doing this other gig that is not really making you happy.”
kerner: Who are you to tell a sex worker that? And how do you know what makes her happy? Why is it any less patronizing for you to tell her that than it would be for me to tell you that about gayness?
fws: “KERNER: A gay couple might very well combine mutual passion with mutual romantic love for a time,
FWS: why do you need to put in that “for a time”? ”
kerner: Because it’s always only for a time. Neither passion nor the high peaks of “romantic love’ last forever. They come, they fade, they return. They aren’t eternal like the love of Christ.
fws: “And YES Kerner, I do believe that prostitution is bad. Jus sayin. ”
kerner: How is it lack of love for our neighbor and not just a violation of the purity code?
fws: “Is Ike helping and befriending Tawny in what SHE needs? what she REALLY needs whether she knows it or not? THAT is love. ”
kerner: Bingo Frank. Sex with another man is not what you REALLY need, whether you know it or not. What you REALLY need is love, which you may find in Christ and the Church. Everyone on this thread has been telling you that for eons.
Kudos, Frank. At least you took a stab at this, unlike Stephen whose love for his neighbor is clearly selective.
fws, #382: “Pastor curtis @ 368
“But we’re pretty far off the main point, now, aren’t we? The Scriptures are clear: homosexual desire and acts are sinful. ”
This is the main point says whom? This was not the Veith´s topic at the start of the post. The post was about nominal christians. “
Pastor Curtis and this line of discussion is on the main point. See the following:
#145: “And so this goes beyond the understanding that a nominal Christian is only a person who corporately worships God on a very infrequent basis, but that a nominal Christian could be, or is, a baptized person who willfully engages in unrepentant sin (or even denies that it’s a sin).”
#150: “For example, suppose a devout LCMS member observes an unrepentantly active gay baptized person ordained to the office of clergy in ELCA. And this ELCA ordinand preaches and teaches in both the pulpit and in behavior that same-sex behavior is not a sin.
Would it be wrong for the devout LCMS member to see or regard this unrepentantly active gay baptized ELCA ordinand as a nominal Christian, a Christian in name only?”
Which as Reg notes in #363: “Maybe the problem is unbelievers posing as believers.”
Furthermore, Reg’s comment suggests something particularly perceptive, insightful, and helpful here. There are two types of unbelievers:
(A) Unbelievers.
(B) Unbelievers who are posing as believers.
While the common denominator is the same (both are unbelievers), there are distinct differences between the two.
The Bible does speak to this difference.
Jesus, excerpted from Matthew 7: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Apostle Paul, excerpted from 1 Corinthians 5: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”“
kerner
I’ll admit you got me with all your hypothetical setups. Good lawyering on your part. What I meant by trivializing was that you are refusing to direct all that energy to the actual question at hand. And for the record, I am not just defending elitist gay artists. I have given a story about people like my neighbor who is lesbian, middle-aged, lives alone, watches the neighborhood, walks dogs and cleans houses for a living. Nothing glamorous about her life. Oh yeah, she goes to church. And the other day she came to me with a list of sex offenders in the neighborhood she looked up for our sakes. How about that?
So you are right, I didn’t take time with all the details of your story because my eyes were glazing over. You were doing everything but addressing how this addresses gays. Is there another such mysterious law in scripture of the same type that we must obey and simply take on faith even though it causes misery and pain? If this is somehow what you are trying to create in this story I think you have failed. Love is missing even if people are getting sex. You are focusing on sex and the real issue is love and companionship. Sex is an aspect of that. And yes, attraction matters in that equation. But attraction happens on all kinds of levels.
Anyway, I’m not being callous just because I didn’t like your story. I didn’t sleep well because my allergies are a bitch right now, not because of how I feel about this issue. Ha!
Chirp. . . chirp . . .chirp. . .
Rick Ritchie:
I hope you are getting all this. The reason I posted the “Ike, Tawny and Gertrude” hypothetical was to demonstrate points that address the issues you raise.
First, there is an obvious difference between adultery per se and unchastity among single people. Adultery involves the betrayal of a spouse, while single unchastity does not.
But what are the “love thy neighbor” agruments available against single unchastity? There are only a few, and Frank used them all:
1) The unchaste are hurting themselves and their partners, they just don’t realize it. They don’t understand what would make them REALLY happy.
2) If the unchaste would think of their partners as their children or in some other non-sexual way, they would see that they are hurting their partners. Their desire to have sex with their partners is just selfishness.
3) Harms to society. Their unchastity could spread disease. And it could discourage others from living the kind of life God intended for all of us to lead. All that stubborn devotion to unchaste behavior causes children to be raised improperly (As when a married father of 2 decides he is “gay” and breaks up his family, perhaps?).
4) Both Stephen and fws cast Ike in a negative light. Stephen says that he is self absorbed and pathetic. fws calls Ike’s behavior addictive and suggests that he will end up a ward of the state. Both end up suggesting that the unchaste should be celibate rather than pursue their unchaste behavior.
5) My personal favorite, which fws offered to Tawny, but which could have just as easily be goven to Ikle) The longer the unchaste continue in this way of thinking and behaving, the harder it will be for them to give it up and live in the way God intended.
These are ALL appeals to natural law in precisely the way Pr. Curtis did @364. And the point is that fws climbed right on each and every one of those band wagons, because those are all the arguments there are against any kind of unchastity between single people. The only option is to deny the existence of unchastity among singles at all, but that would contradict everything Lutherans teach about the 6th commandment.
When I point out that #5 is exactly the plight of the “old fag”; that he has indulged himself in his way of thinking and behavior for so ling that he can no longer see what is right for him, much less do it, or when most of the commenters on this blog apply the arguments fws uses against unchastity to homosexual sex, or when anyone tries to point out that Frank’s insisting that he can only desire sex with men is really no different than hypothetical Ike’s insisting that he can only desire sex with covergirl type women, fws and Stephen respond…”Well, well, that’s Different!!!”
How is it different! “Well, it just is, that’s all! And if you can see that, you aren’t showing love.”
Kerner
What I think is wrong with your hypothetical old man Ike is that you want to make his obsession with hot young chicks fit over everything that it means to be gay. I don’t think that is accurate. It is a very narrow “sample” (if that is the way to phrase it) of something that is really quite diverse. I think you are focusing on sex and leaving out other things like companionship and the thing we have been trying to talk about on several levels – love.
So I think it is a diversion.
Oh by the way, I used to date a gal named Tawny and she was smokin’ hot but way too high maintenance.
A word about artists:
99.9% of them live hand to mouth, without health insurance, and do not live long lives if they stick with it. The fascination with celebrities makes people think artists are rich, and the expectation from every artist is that whenever they offer what they do, they open up a vein and consequently they get paid peanuts. They do it out of love, love for what they do and love for the people they give it to. And it is a gift, one they possess and one they are continually offering. You haven’t worked until you have spent 22 hours on a movie set for weeks making a film that may or may not make any money, or living on the road playing music night after night for a year, or spending your last dime to hang your pictures in gallery so people will see them and maybe, just maybe take one home, or producing a play that gets great reviews but leaves your sick and exhausted and broke. And then, if you are one note off, you have to suffer endless criticisms which include a complete rundown of your moral character. But you start over and do it again for the same less than grateful people. When is that last time you thanked your organist?
Kerner @ 399
I’m pretty sure that there has been a lot of discussion about channeling things into some kind of union/marriage, etc. that does not exist that church would recognize for gay people. Therein lies the dilemma for gays. That is what they want. What is all this stuff about “the unchaste?” And how is what Frank or I said an appeal to natural law other than you just saying that it is? Chirpity, chirp, chirp, chirp.
Correction to #397.
Furthermore, Reg’s comment suggests something particularly perceptive, insightful, and helpful here. There are three types of unbelievers:
(A) Unbelievers.
(B) Unbelievers who are posing as believers.
(C) Baptized Unbelievers who are posing as believers.
Kerner @396
FWS: why do you need to put in that “for a time”? ”
kerner: …Neither passion nor the high peaks of “romantic love’ last forever. They come, they fade, they return. They aren’t eternal like the love of Christ.
FWS: Ok. So you mean this to apply to your own marriage as well? Gays are driven by the same law God wrote in their reason as in yours. So they marry for the ALL the same reasons you did. I thought that maybe you were meaning that gays do not have a capacity to love based on what Romans 1:29-32 says.
But we can go round and round on this can’t we my dear legal-eagle Kerner? We still cannot avoid going back to the general rules before dealing with the specifics. This is what you do in law all the time isnt it? You state the general rule and then apply it to the specifics at hand. As an attorney , when would it be useful to drive from the specifics to establish what the general rule is?
Some of us are pushing the idea that a) the Golden Rule which is a part of b) aparent reason that all pagans have, override any list of rules as resulting in the intent of God with his laws rather than the letter. It does not seem we are pushing from the specifics to prove the general rule are we? And we are not saying that love can exist without rules. But we are saying that neither does love look like following a set of rules. It can be that, but it must also always be more than that.
To do this: you will need to show me how your view of the Law has anything to do with Fatherly divine Goodness and Mercy we find in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd article being done. You say we need to accept that this sacrifice of celebacy you demand of gays is that. In faith.
Your assertion is this really: That doing the Law is to do faith rather than Love.
Show me THIS idea in the bible or the confessions. That this is how we are to do and understand God´s Law. You will not find it.
You are telling us this I think:
1) that there is a list of Rules that God has listed out for us in the bible that God demands we follow.
2) You then argue that to do this is to do love, even if this looks like the opposite of love, which even pagans know is this: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “want for your neighbor, in the most recklessly generous sense, all that you have for your own self in your own life that feels like love”
3) Since God is love, “we” have to believe that to enforce his rules is to enforce love even and especially when a) our Reason and b) the Golden Rule yields a different judgement. In that case we are to go with Moses. I know this last point 3 is not exactly what you are saying. Clarify then please.
Show me that this is the way we are to understand and do the Law from the bible or the confessions Kerner.
Now we agree that , only as christians, this is true:
Doing faith signifies having faith. But doing faith is not having faith.
The doing of faith signifies the having of faith. But doing faith is not the same as having faith.
To do faith signifies to have faith. But to do faith is not to have faith.
I am , of couse, thinking of the small catechism on baptism. Baptism works faith, and it signifies faith as something we do.How?
My aphorisms above tease that out. Think on them Kerner and read the small catechism on baptism. There you will find 1) what makes one a christian: faith, and 2) what the christian life looks like: doing faith and love. Those two kinds of faith are not the same. Maybe you are mixing the two together? I agree they cannot be separated, for a christian that is. But love, if it is love, is the same whether done with or without faith.
Pastor Curtis has done us the service of showing that Luther says that moses must bow to the a) Law of Love and b) apparent reason , in his tract on the Mosaic Law. His quotes can only mean that.
Why does this matter. I would be willing to bet money that that book on RC Natural Law that pastor Curtis is pushing as a theological miracle drug can all be done without Christ. He urged to read Luther in his tract on Mosaic Law. Do read it!
There you will find that Luther says that Moses and all his Laws needs to conform to the Law of Love and our Reason (what the Lutherans ALWAYS mean when they say “natural law” and nothing else). Pastor Curtis´quotes from it say exactly that don´t they Kerner?
Pastor Curtis seems to push to that document because Luther makes a point using the term “natural law”. Luther and the confessions say that “natural law” is fallen reason. Nothing but.
Curtis is pushing us to that term “natural law” as in “hey, Lutherans use that term, RC use that same term! THEREFORE: it is ok for Lutherans to embrace what RC mean by the term “natural Law”. The problem is that the RC meaning of “natural law” means much more than what Luther and the confessions mean by that term (do that word search he recomments to see this) . It is not that the Lutherans were unaware of Saint Thomas is it? So the other larger problem is that the Apology is aimed exactly at a rejection of Saint Thomas´s teachings that baptize aristotle as to natural law. Note that Saint Thomas is THE father of scholasticism.
Kerner @ 399
Frank:
1) The unchaste are hurting themselves and their partners, they just don’t realize it. They don’t understand what would make them REALLY happy.
You are tone deaf Kerner. My argument is not that “they are hurting or harming their neighbor in his body (body meaning also emotions etc)” I am saying that are failing to “help and befriend their neighbor in EVERY bodily need”.
to avoid harm is not to love Kerner. That was my point. You have stopped trying to get my point and are so now misusing my words. You do not have permission to do that here Kerner. Please stop.
Kerner @ 399
to put it more succinctly:
I am saying that the sins are more of omission rather than commission here.
But you did not catch that.
Kerner:
is the goal here to seek to understand what the other side is trying to say or to win an argument.
One would need to get what an argument is before one could argue against it. This is not to 2) prove an argument. It is to 1) state, clearly, what one´s position is. We are skipping that step. I have tried a couple of times to summarize what I think your position is. It would be helpful if you would kindly correct what I written and restate so that we are all clear. THEN what might need to happen?
One would need to to 1) understand the argument of the opposing view. 2) then one could argue against that in favor of the one that is one´s own that has been clearly stated.
I would suggest that this argument should then happen from a) scriptures and b) the confessions. It should not be from story telling and bathos.
Kerner I am aware that one sometimes actually forms what is their opinion is in the process of argument. So our opinion can change. That is good right? So If you are not sure as to what you think about the Law in this case, stake out a clear position and we , who seem pretty certain of our position, can do a pro forma sluggout with you over that.
Kerner,
I am suggesting that an argument is attempting to be made by proving that the other argument wrong.
shouldnt we rather 1) declare our argument and then 2) attempt to prove it?
I am suggesting that is it crazy to think that you will prove an argument wrong without first understanding the argument.
when you can successfully repeat back what my argument is, then you are most welcome to try to disprove it from scritures and the confessions.
You have not demonstrated that you have a clue as to what my argument is. You have demonstrated the opposite.
Hint: my argument is not about trying to justify homosexuality or homosexual sex.
It is urged that Christians need to look at Christ to better understand Love, and to follow Him and His teaching.
Jesus, excerpted from Matthew 7: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
It is often remarked that “Jesus is Love.” So let us examine how Jesus shows love in this part of Matthew 7. Aren’t false prophets and ferocious wolves whom Jesus calls evildoers our neighbors? And how does Jesus show love to these neighbors who are false prophets and ferocious wolves?
First, He identifies them. Imagine that. The loving thing to do for your neighbor the false prophet and ferocious wolf is to (drumroll, please) is to go through the exercise of identifying them as false prophet and/or ferocious wolf.
The second step of Jesus’ neighborly love is to inform these false prophets and/or ferocious wolves on who they really are. Imagine that. The loving thing to do for your neighbor the false prophet and ferocious wolf is to (drumroll, please) is to tell them they are a false prophet and/or ferocious wolf.
“Neighbor, out of love and by your fruit, you are a false prophet.”
“Neighbor, out of love and by your fruit, you are a ferocious wolf.”
Jesus died on the cross for the sins of false prophets and ferocious wolves.
May false prophets and ferocious wolves repent of their sins and turn to Jesus while there is still time to do so.
Hence, the appropriateness and earnestness of Pastor Curtis’s prayer for fws in #366:
“I wish you the best in Christ: humility, repentance, faith, life, and salvation. I have prayed that you find them.”
Kerner -
I’m going to hit you with some stuff. I want to thank you for stimulating my thinking. It’s been really helpful.
When Jesus makes his statement about divorce, as with other things, I think he is telling us something about how God sees people. For one thing, I think it is true that this is being spoken to men. That doesn’t mean the scripture has no application for women. What it means is that if we look at it first in its historical context we get a glimpse of what is at stake and can then rightly apply it to our own.
I think what he is emphasizing is that when one goes to get a divorce, using the law to discard a wife is a misuse not just of the law, but it is a sin against the neighbor – a woman who is a person and not just property as the letter of the law seems to suggest. It does not fulfill the law to use it this way in that it is not love to do this. Remember, women were possessions, and as such, they could be traded more or less with documents and agreements such as this. As long as the men agreed, then the law was fulfilled. Jesus is saying “no, you are dealing with a person that God loves and you need to love and do mercy to them too.” Now he has that one caveat about sexual immorality, and I think this too is directed at the men, not women. If they have already taken on another woman then, yes, they need to show their wife the courtesy of divorcing her so she has the opportunity to find a more faithful husband. She is a person, not a piece of property. That is why in some translations you get that “makes of her a harlot” thing, because the sense of the text is that by dismissing a woman without cause is to treat her like property. She isn’t, and that is what Jesus is trying to get across. This is about mercy and, dare I say it, justice.
I recall on another thread about “womb estate” you defended a woman’s right to rent her womb out to harvest children for others. This, to me, ran up close to prostitution. But, so the argument seemed to go, if everyone was in agreement, there was no harm in this economic exchange. I’m not sure I am ready to argue the merits of prostitution, but we know there are biblical prohibitions against it. You have gone there with your story about Ike. What’s the harm if everyone is getting what they want and an economic benefit is being produced, which sort of seems like what you might be equating with “love” in your story. That is the trivializing aspect I was sensing, a specific example of something that in no way matches what we are talking about. We cannot use it to talk about the indignity and unmerciful character of driving gay people back into the closet because “God said so” and calling that love when it doesn’t look like it at all.
But, if you like, I guess you could make the case that this is why we marry and are given in marriage – it creates economic benefits. In other words, it is civilly sanctioned prostitution, the sale of women to men so that chaos does not break out. All the symbols of weddings, with women being given away by fathers, and going way back to the days of dowries and such, the metaphor kind of fits. I think Muslims kind of look at it this way, and in some places they burn women for showing too much flesh. Women are not embodied, spiritual beings. They are not persons but objects for use – commodities for men to barter. Do you see the difference?
Now, I can see where you might want to say this looks like some kind of natural law argument. It isn’t. I am asserting a spiritual argument rather than one from nature or “design.” It is anthropological, and I think it is also consistent with arguments that refute things like abortion or using wombs as rental space. But those are other, more philosophical arguments that are not completely unimportant, but I don’t want them to cloud what I want to say. Rather, I think it is a biblical view of the human person to keep in mind that is not based on what we see or think we see, but on what God claims about us. The truth is in his word spoken to us in law and gospel. That is what we are really after here. What is the real character of that?
And so, with this in mind, I go back to what Jesus does repeatedly with his examples, to those untouchables and the “least” which he places in the midst of everyone, caressing them, the ones which have absolutely no standing or value whatsoever in the world. He makes them have standing. In fact, he gives them the highest regard. Blessed are the poor for example. Children and infants sitting on his lap and held in his arms. An old woman who is unclean touching him. Lepers. The dead. And then there is his cross, where everything comes to bear upon this beaten and bloody dead Jew. Something new is there. What does it mean that Jesus shows us the least and the untouchable and tells us they are the same as anyone else, that they deserve mercy and love?
Marriage is not what it used to be. We are more like equals now, at least on earth, in this society, where we live more or less freely. Even St. Paul seems to teach a kind of mutuality, men who regard their wives as if they were their own body for instance. Or did that sense of equality spring from anything Jesus did or said? That’s another discussion perhaps. What does mercy, love, justice, peace, comfort, or any of those things you enjoy as a heterosexual look like for gay people, and how is this prohibition providing it? What other laws like this are there that we follow “just because” that we do not understand? Are any of them specific to heterosexuals or any other class? Why and to what purpose? If you can begin to give a reason for them, then they are disqualified. Where are the other “cherry pie” laws to use Rick’s example? The Sabbath was made for man, to nourish him and make his life good on earth – every man who thinks God only threatens him, woman who is being abused, child who is abandoned, gay teenagers considering suicide because they are outcasts, old fags told they must not love, and the child awaiting their birth like my son who is being knit together in his mother’s womb. That is the whole of the law. Mercy not sacrifice.
kerner
Here is the difference:
Some, including me, say that the sum of the entire second table Law demands sense-ible , tangible proof, by way of reasoned argument or material evidence , etc, that the Golden Rule is being done. If the there is not this evidence, we can confidently assert that then neither is the letter being kept. We assert that we can be confident in this judgement since that is how God´s Word tells us to wield the second table of the Law.
Finally: the letter of the law is about our relationship with our neighbor. It is not about working our our relationship with God. So the law is to serve our neighbor. If the divine Purpose for our neighbor is that he was created exactly to serve the letter of the law, then that is about a relation with God, not with neighbor.
Further: We say God demands that we follow this, as the spirit and Divine intent of the Law as to it´s intended end result and that this does in no way excludes the letter, but rather confirms it . We say this IS following the letter of the Law.
Your position seems to be that the sense-ible proof God demands is instead that we are following the Letter of the Law. This the certaintly of a pass/fail proposition. It is black and white. It is not relative. It is the relation between God and man via a concrete set of propositions listed in the bible that have the force of Divine Law.
Therefore, we must ignor when reason and the Golden Rule render a different judgement you are asserting that God wants us to ignore that judgement in favor of faith . But we ask then faith in what? That the Letter is God´s Law? We fuly grant that that faith is demanded of God.
So where is our difference?
Rick ritchey asks you to tease out that difference by doing what he says in the following post. But you do not agree that God demands we do that do you? We say he does demand we do that!
http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-111563
Rick Ritchie March 28, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I do wish someone would take up Stephen’s charge and try to rephrase the prohibition in question in terms of love of neighbor. To cite a verse used to make his case, we have Romans 13:9:
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.
The best I’ve seen done with regard to a prohibition on homosexuality is that somehow telling others about the prohibition is loving. Which doesn’t by itself really make it able to be summed up in the command “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
kerner,
“Adultery involves the betrayal of a spouse, while single unchastity does not.”
This is thinking of legal marriage as being marriage. So the person you are speaking of is legally single. But in Scripture’s eyes, those who become one flesh are not single, but married. There is such an entity as legal marriage in Scripture, but it does not have a one-to-one match with actual marriage. (Hence how someone who leaves his wife makes her an adultress. If legal marriage alone were in view, this would not be true. But he is sending her off while still in union with him.)
I have more to say on the topic of natural law. I’m trying to work a very long argument down into something manageable.
Stephen, #383: “It is an odd thing here on this blog to dialogue with pastors sometimes.”
Kerner, #385: “Like you, I want to encourage pastors to address Confessional arguments when they come up, and to stay engaged for at least awhile.”
Have you both had a chance to consider Bror Erickson’s comment in #338? Here it is (edited for brevity and emphasis; go back and read it in its entirety):
“fws,
We’ve been friends for a long time. If you would please refrain from trying to lecture me on the confessions I’d appreciate it.
Quite frankly I have nothing against you. I like you.
But I stand here, to lay with another man as if with a woman is sin. I don’t care if it is hand jobs or blow jobs, cramming it or receiving the cram (as it is distinguished in 1 Cor. 6), it is sin. There isn’t anyway around that. I won’t go down the road that says it isn’t. I don’t care if it is in a committed relationship or not. (The best that could be said of that is that it is the lesser of two evils.)
I’d rather confess it, bring it into the light and be forgiven of it. That is the Lutheran answer to sin. that is the Christian answer to Sin. It isn’t jumping around, elevating the confessions above God’s word, playing sleight of hand with definitions, and p—y footing with the topic. Sin is sin is sin.
But when it comes to sin, the general rule of thumb I have, is if I really have to question or do the gymnastics you do, to say it isn’t sin, then I better just confess it and move on.”
Kerner, thanks for bearing with me. You are forcing me to succinctly summarize my position. Let me try again:
The Lutheran Confessions and Scripture say that
1)fallen reason, following the Golden Rule is fully able to know and outwardly do the Second Table Law of God
2) this table is revealed by “natural law”.
3) “natural law” in the Confessions means narrowly that law which is written/revealed in mankind´s mind by God.
4) Love is the ENTIRE sum of the Law in both tables.
Therefore
1) God´s Word demands sense-ible evidence that 1st, 2nd or 3rd article Fatherly Goodness and Mercy is being done for any action to qualify as a outward Good Work that pleases God.
2) Here “outward” can also mean what heathen call “spiritual goods” such as beauty, art, love, romance, reason, virtue, good reputation , etc.
3) Fatherly Goodness and Mercy are not about doing the minimum . It is about total care. Note that Luther lists 1st article goods in groups of 7. The idea is about completeness.
4) Doing the minimum looks like letter of law.
5) Doing Goodness and Mercy looks like the Golden Rule.
And where do we find this second table law that God demands?
1) We can find it nicely summarized (note not summed!) in the Decalog.
2) Or we can find it in Aristotle´s Ethics, or
3) we can find it in Aesop´s Fables which Luther translated to teach morals to his own children.
4) or we can find it, rather than summarized, but here in annoying letter of the law detail where? Not only in the bible! We christians see that same Law of God in with and under: city ordinances, the tax code, nagging spouses, inlaws or babies crying to have their diapers changed. So the letter that IS God´s Law extends far beyond the bible according to Lutherans. In with and under.
Luther advises us in his prefact to the catechism to find many examples to impress on children on how God blesses those who keep the Law and punishes those who do not. Here is a sermon, referenced by our confessions where Luther talks about this Law dear Kerner.
http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10
Now your “position” is this. I put it in quotes, because I have a sneaking position you are arguing it as an attorney and not as your own position exactly:
“The evidence that God´s Word demands that the Good Works he wants done on earth are being done is only and alone measured by conformity to the Letter of the Law.
1) The Letter of the Law found in the Bible therefore is the SUM TOTAL of the Law of God. It is not just a summary.
2) Keeping the letter of the Law outwardly is then to also keep the spirit of the Law since this is God´s intent with the Law.
3) Keeping the Letter of the Law then is also to keep the Golden Rule, since God is love, so doing what he says must be love.
4) Even if the judgement of reason differs from the Letter, we must always go with the Letter of the Law in cases of uncertaintly.
5) Only christians can do point 4) because they have faith. Pagans cannot do this.
Frank,
That God’s law can be found also outside the Bible, does not mean that it cannot also be found in the Bible.
Furthermore, not every law you find outside the Bible is actually going to be an exposition of God’s law. It just doesn’t work that way.
and where there is contradiction man is bound by God’s law, not man’s.
Now, as a society we will necessarily permit things God’s law does not permit. This does not excuse the Christian from doing those things the law permits but scripture doesn’t. In fact it excuses no one beyond the temporal realm.
So perhaps I missed a turn or two in this long and drawn out discussion. But sin is sin brother, and lets just be frank about it.
Truth – 413
“Have you both had a chance to consider Bror Erickson’s comment in #338? Here it is (edited for brevity and emphasis; go back and read it in its entirety):”
So……….. fws, you cannot refute Bror’s statements, if you could, you would have done so before now. Instead you harp on Kerner, trying to defend your sin, using Kerner’s law degree as a means of defense, as though Kerner is too dull of hearing or understanding, to hit the hammer and shout, NOT GUILTY – You are the one who can’t understand – no conscience!
As for Rick Richies exercise, concerning love and the law.
it is indeed a good one.
I do think more Christians need to wrestle with it.
I ask myself constantly how these different things measure up to love of neighbor, a greater question is love of self. And that not in the narcissistic manner I most often suffer from.
We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this then necessitates that we actually do love ourselves too! We consider that a granted. it is not. Not in this world. I’m given to self loathing, and often it is that which I then hand off to my neighbor.
But often we don’t even know where to begin when it comes to loving ourselves. We confuse it with indulging ourselves. and if that were true than indulging our neighbor might also be considered an act of love.
Now, one way we love ourselves, even as we are loved by God, is to respect ourselves not to give into every perverse impulse we might have as if we were dogs. Giving ourselves to be abused even as we abuse. And at the heart that is what sin does, it chips away at your own self worth, and in doing so it gets you to treat others only as you yourself see yourself worth being treated.
No, for the Christian love your neighbor as yourself, necessarily becomes love your neighbor as Christ loves you, which necessitates a great deal of self denial and sacrifice in this life. It necessitates treating them with the dignity they deserve. And even if they don’t understand it or can’t articulate it, they know when their dignity has been compromised.
Last night I posted about length of posts – one on this thread being 2,336words on one single post.
The first chapter of Romans 1, has 714 words. The chapter speaks loudly from the pen of Paul to homosexual behavior, inspired by the HOLY Spirit of God, easily understood. Yet man, with his sinful self denies the power of God’s Word, thinking he can change sinful behavior to suit his own lust.
Here’s an instructive and timely post by a pastor about the power of art used for the Glory of God:
In the excerpt below, Peter Hitchens (Christopher’s brother) explains how God used an artistic interpretation of the Last Judgment to bring him to faith. It’s worth reading on a number of levels: as an example of the power of art to prod and provoke, as a sober warning to the ungodly, and as a story of converting grace.
“What I can recall, very sharply indeed, is a visit to the Hotel-Dieu in Beaune, a town my girlfriend and I had gone to mainly in search of the fine food and wines of Burgundy. But we were educated travelers and strayed, guidebook in hand, into the ancient hospital. And there, worth the journey according to the Green Michelin guide, was Rogier van der Weyden’s fifteenth-century polyptych The Last Judgment.
I scoffed. Another religious painting! Couldn’t these people think of anything else to depict? Still scoffing, I peered at the naked figures fleeing toward the pit of hell, out of my usual faintly morbid interest in the alleged terrors of damnation. But this time I gaped, my mouth actually hanging open. These people did not appear remote or from the ancient past; they were my own generation. Because they were naked, they were not imprisoned in their own age by time-bound fashions. On the contrary, their hair and, in an odd way, the set of their faces were entirely in the style of my own time. They were me and the people I knew. One of them — and I have always wondered how the painter thought of it — is actually vomiting with shock and fear at the sound of the Last Trump.
I did not have a “religious experience.” Nothing mystical or inexplicable took place — no trance, no swoon, no vision, no voices, no blaze of light. But I had a sudden, strong sense of religion being a thing of the present day, not imprisoned under thick layers of time. A large catalogue of misdeeds, ranging from the embarrassing to the appalling, replayed themselves rapidly in my head. I had absolutely no doubt that I was among the damned, if there were any damned.
And what if there were? How did I know there were not? I did not know. I could not know. Van der Weyden was still earning his fee, nearly 500 years after his death. I had simply no idea that an adult could be frightened, in broad daylight and after a good lunch, by such things. I have always enjoyed scaring myself mildly with the ghost stories of M. R. James, mainly because of the cozy, safe feeling that follows a good fictional fright. You turn the page and close the book, and the horror is safely contained. This epiphany was not like that at all.
No doubt I should be ashamed to confess that fear played a part in my return to religion. I could easily make up some other more creditable story. But I should be even more ashamed to pretend that fear did not. I have felt proper fear, not very often but enough to know that is is an important gift that helps us to think clearly at moments of danger. I have felt it in peril on the road, when it slowed down my perception of the bucking, tearing, screaming collision into which I had hurled myself, thus enabling me to retain enough presence of mind to shut down the engine of my wrecked motorcycle and turn off the fuel tap in case it caught fire, and then to stumble, badly injured, to the relative safety of the roadside. I have felt it outside a copper mine in Africa, when the car I was in was surrounded by a crowd of enraged, impoverished people who had decided, with some justification, that I was their enemy. There, fear enabled me to stay silent and still until the danger was over, when I very much wanted to cry out in panic or do something desperate (both of which, I am sure, would have led to my death). I have felt it when Soviet soldiers fired on a crowd rather near me, and so I lay flat on my back in the filthy snow, quite untroubled by my ridiculous position because I had concluded, wisely, that being wounded would be much worse than being embarrassed.
But the most important time was when I stood in front of Rogier van der Weyden’s great altarpiece and trembled for the things of which my conscience was afraid (and is afraid). Fear is good for us and helps us to escape from great dangers. Those who do not feel it are in permanent peril because they cannot see the risks that lie at their feet. (The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith, 101-104)”
Let us never forget that the one who says “fear not” to the Father’s children also instructs the ungodly to “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:31, 28). To say “fear not” when there is great reason to fear is not the triumph of love, but the silencing of it.
—–
Amen.
Truth – 419
A heart seized firmly by the Spirit of God.
It’s so simple, yet so true, when naked, there is no date, no century, we are all born into this world the same, we leave it in the same way. I wonder how many others found the painting to reach their heart?
kerner@381 and somewhat Pastor Curtis@364
At the time of the reformation, the idea that each sperm was a small human being was in vogue, and it was read into all sorts of Bible passages.
In our own time, we tend to read a seventh-grader’s understanding of science into Scripture, imagining it’s common sense. But we won’t get into the details of current knowledge, as that’s speculation.
The human being was designed so that sight would help him survive. Some are born blind. We don’t hold them to the life that was designed for sighted people because they were designed for this. We don’t say, “Well they have eyes. They must be sighted. All they lack is what goes on in the brain. That’s mental, and therefore malleable. So they should just imagine what they’re supposed to see.” We don’t send them to therapy assuming that because some who lost their eyesight after birth were able to reverse their condition that this is true of everybody. We don’t tell them to eat massive amounts of carrots and sign up for jobs as airline pilots trusting that God will make this possible. We don’t quote “If a man will not work, let him not eat,” to them. On the other hand, someone purposely making himself blind is a huge evil.
Citing research by reparative therapy groups is odd if the argument is based on Romans 1. (By Romans 1, I mean Romans 1:22-32 from here on.) If Romans 1 describes the genesis of all homosexuality, then we can tell people they got to be homosexual by being involved in idolatry. (And tell others that they got to be gossips by engaging in homosexuality. That wouldn’t go over well with the ladies [of both sexes] on the church patio, I’m sure.) And if Romans 1 describes the genesis of all homosexuality, then nobody became homosexual through an inadequate relationship with his dad. But if Romans 1 does not describe the genesis of all homosexuality, then there are all sorts of possibilities. To try to tie us to psychoanalysis, which has lost ground in a lot of cases to medicine, is to tie the church into a theory just at the point it is losing ground in the culture. We’ve done that far too often.
What we know of fetal development tells us that the body has a female template. It is a bath of male hormone that masculinizes the fetus. If this bath fails, you get a female shaped fetus, even if you have the X and Y chromosome together. There is a particular window of time when the brain must be bathed in testosterone or it will be more female in nature, whatever the later levels of testosterone in the body. Some who are so bathed fail to be masculinized through androgen insensitivity. Now if a male has a more female brain, this is not a matter merely of psychological arrest years after birth. It is biological. The seeking of a male partner will be part of the original female template of the person. The switchover to the other design for the brain was not made before birth and cannot be remedied with current medicine.
The argument from design may tell us how individual organs are to be used or not used. But we have to remember that the brain is an organ. Our thoughts may seem very changeable to us. But our brains are limited in plasticity. The brain is as biological as our genitalia. And if the body is designed such that the head is over all, how is it that we are making the genitalia completely determinative here? It’s because of their visibility. But just like we now use chromosomes, we will in the future probably use brain scans to see what we’re really dealing with. Now, I am actually inclined to accept more specific natural law arguments as to how the human body ought not to be used. Some acts are innately dangerous. But we may be faced with a dilemma here. What may accord with the design of one part of the body may harm another. What do we do when people get cancer? We feed them poison in the form of chemotherapy. How does this work with the concept of design? The digestive system was not designed to digest poison! Yet we prescribe this. We recognize dilemmas elsewhere. This one may suggest that opening a door to less dangerous activities might be a lesser of evils. (To be clear, I take comment threads as places to explore ideas. I’m not ready for this to be public teaching.) I also suspect that putting too much energy into condemning all activities of this sort is Pharisaical. Marriage has taken so many direct hits, that this indirect one, by people who are not wired for marriage, is not to be compared to the direct one by those who fail at marriage though wired for it. While Adam and Eve are prototypical for us, we must remember that we don’t come into the world as they did, where we can point to what was made and say, “This, exactly, was the design.”
I also agree with those above who see this being spoken of in too narrow a fashion. They take homosexual orientation to be all the little temptations to illicit sex acts. I think this is based on a reading of the verse about looking on a woman in lust being adultery in one’s heart. So there’s outer adultery and inner adultery. So there must also be outer sodomy and inner sodomy. So since homosexual orientation is mental, that must be inner sodomy. When I’ve done work in the Greek, the word for lust is EPITHUMIA. Desire. And it’s the same word from the commandment about coveting. Thou shalt not desire what is thy neighbor’s, to paraphrase. To desire something that belongs to the neighbor can be inner adultery, or if it was his house, inner thievery. It is a mental violation of the neighbor. As Romans 13:9 makes clear, this prohibition can be summed up as Love of neighbor. And as Luther puts it positively, help him keep what is his. Also, if my brain account is right, then it goes along with what we see when gay adults look back on childhood and describe crushes on male celebrities. It is broader than a desire for sex. There may be covetousness in it later, as there is for all of us, but it is not to be defined in this fashion. The English Bible translators did us a disservice when they used a medical term to translate the Greek words. (For that matter, in the book in which it was coined, “heterosexuality” was also coined, and it was listed as a perverse condition. A pathological LEVEL of desire for those of the opposite sex.) And when they failed to translate lust and covet concordantly so we could see the connections.
Loving our neighbor sometimes requires communicating something that he or she doesn’t want to hear. And which we also find painful to communicate as well. But despite the pain to ourselves, we must. See the following:
Pastor Torvik was leaning forward with his elbows on his knees, his hands clutched together and his eyes fixed on Schenstedt. He was still hoping and yet filled with fear that the last hold of hope would be shattered. He spoke slowly: “And now, Gunnar, if I correctly understand the way you acted at church today, you want to do what is right and honorable.”
“Sure, I will.”
Anguish was lurking behind the gleam of hope in Torvik’s eyes. “So you are going to marry her and accept the child as yours.”
Schenstedt slightly raised his eyebrows. “I never said that. I am going to do what is expected of me in every way providing for both Agnes and the child. But marriage—that’s unthinkable. You must admit that would be cruel. Agnes could never be happy in such a marriage.”
The pastor eyed him with a piercing gaze. “Did it never occur to you that it was cruel to put her in the situation where she is now?”
“But my dear friend,” Schenstedt said reproachfully, “I can assure you that neither she nor the child will lack anything.”
“Do you think all needs are met with money? Can you cure bad reputation with money? Can you with money ward off all young men who will be stretching their hands out for her, just because she once strayed? Can you with money get her a man who will sincerely love both her and your child?”
Schenstedt made an averting motion with his hand. “Dear friend, you don’t need to be so reproachful. I understand very well that you with your conception of the church must reason the way you do. But try to understand where I am coming from. To me all that Jesus taught is summed up in the commandment to love. Isolated Bible verses, disconnected commandments and laws, they are all relative and human. Only love is eternal and divine. It may very well appear in a way that seems to be absolutely contrary to the moral concepts of times gone by. And yet it is the love of Jesus that is expressed in the new ways, and if one does not want to act against the love of Jesus, the one must go the new ways. It is my firm conviction that all those old taboos that the church have fenced around marriage now are ready to be dispensed with. Just think about it: They all are based on the idea that the man owns a woman as his property. But now she had fully come of age and can no longer be treated as an investment.
She now has her freedom. And a Christian relationship is characterized by love alone. The spirit of Jesus demands that we should be good and considerate, not hurting one another but making each person as happy as we can. Applied to marriage . . .”
Torvik had pulled himself up in his chair. He took a firm grip on the rail. “Do you really think, Gunnar, that you have been as considerate toward Agnes and given her as much happiness as you can?”
“Absolutely. I can honestly assure you that she has been happy. She hasn’t done anything that she herself didn’t want to. What do you think of me, anyway? I can assure you that I always treated her with the greatest tenderness and respect. Our relationship has been on a pure and worthy level. We have talked about the highest issues . . .”
Torvik had risen. He paced with long and erratic steps to-and-fro over the floor. “If you were not my best friend, Gunnar, I would believe you to be a base liar and blasphemer. Instead I believe that you, in some way, have gotten an evil spirit into your body, distorting your views. That’s why you cannot see that what you call love is the studied selfishness, a way of swinging along in a sea of amiability while avoiding all real responsibility. All this, which you call love, will cause more suffering and misery for people around you than anything else that you have done. What do you think that you have brought upon your grandmother through all of this?”
Torvik thought he saw a notion of uncertainty in his friend’s eyes.
But his tone of voice was calm and firm when he answered: “I am not responsible for the prejudices that the church has put into people. If others would respect my conviction, as I respect theirs, than all such conflicts would be settled once and for all.”
“That is just as unrealistic as to say that you have full moral right to drive your car on the left side, because if others would respect your way of driving, there would be no collisions. But if you drive on the left side, when others keep to the right, then you realize, don’t you, that you will cause a collision—although it might well be that someone else will get the worst injuries!”
“I don’t see how that applies to my situation.”
“Don’t you see, man, that psychological laws are laws, too! If you do something that cuts a person apart inside, then you are not excused by saying that if a person would just refashion herself, she could very well be able to handle such blows. If in fact the youth in our parish are apt to be influenced by your way of treating Agnes and emulate it in courser and baser ways, then you are not excused by your never having asked them to do it. And if you behave in such a way that your old grandmother with her whole outlook at life must feel a dagger thrust in her heart, then you are not excused with your not liking her outlook on life. You still put the dagger in her heart. And calling that love and consideration is turning black into white!”
Torvik had stopped at the window. He was facing the fireplace and spoke heatedly. “Gunnar, you are the one in this world with whom I have had the deepest spiritual fellowship. I am immensely sorry for my leaving you alone so often since that Lenten service last spring. I ask you to forgive me for that. I have been thinking of it today, how much it reveals my selfishness. As soon as I no longer thought that I could use you in the parish work, then I didn’t have time for you as a friend and fellow human being. Forgive me for that!”
A light cloud of uneasiness was dimly seen on Schenstedt’s forehead, as he made an averting motion with both hands. Torvik had taken a step closer.
“There is nothing on earth, for which I have been longing more than that everything would be as before, Gunnar.”
The uneasiness in Schenstedt’s face gave way for obvious surprise.
He said, “On my side there is no hindrance.”
“Yes, man, you are not the same as before.”
Again Schenstedt looked up with amazement in his big eyes.
“I thought that it was you who had changed! Ever since you got caught up in the forms and the traditionalism and all that church stuff, we have drifted away from each other.”
Torvik closed his eyes for a moment, as if he were thinking. “Yes, Gunnar, maybe I have become different than before. But I don’t want to shorten an inch of the program for which we fought. Just as much as I did then, I still want to make the four demands on me and others—even if I now see that they are not the foundation for our salvation, but goals of our sanctification. There is nothing of the wonderful things that we had in common that I would want to abandon. But I don’t think that you today can defend your conduct neither as pure nor as loving nor as honest nor as unselfish—in the sense that we then took the words.”
Now Schenstedt, too, had risen. He shrugged lightly. “Gösta, there is no point in our discussing this. I’ll follow my free course, and you will follow your bound one. Then God may judge. I hope that you’ll respect me as I respect you.”
Torvik breathed deeply with his mouth half-open, wheezing his words. He got a pained expression in his face. “Gunnar, I just cannot do that. If I said that I respected your point of view, I would fail Christ.”
Schenstedt smiled. “I thought I noticed in church today that you dared to brand my way of following my conscience as sin. I am not angry with you for that. But I thought it was too bad that you would have such a hard time to understand a different point of view.”
“My own point of view I would leave at any time if only we could remain friends, Gunnar. But Christ’s point of view I can never leave. In the final account, this is not a matter of points of view, but it concerns our eternal salvation!”
“And so you have today bound me to eternal damnation!”
“No, Gunnar, to eternal salvation so that you might not forget that it exists. I will follow you from this day on till you cannot endure any day longer of being bound in sin, as you now have been for several months.”
Schenstedt smiled a tired smile. “Actually, I did realize that your intention was good . . .”
“Gunnar,” Torvik said with a harshness that maybe revealed his being more moved than he wanted to show, “even if you yourself totally ignore how your soul will fare, could you not consider your old friends, who would be heartbroken if you gambled away your heart to the devil?”
Schenstedt had turned away and picked at something on the mantle piece. After a while Torvik went on: “Gunnar, what you have arrived at is not a development, but a falling away. When we fought together, we wanted to obey the God of Scripture. Now you only follow your own conscience.”
Schenstedt turned. He had a deep furrow between his eyebrows. “So what? I have never claimed to represent any movement or confession or sect.”
“But you have at least belonged to a living spiritual fellowship!”
“If such a fellowship becomes a constraint for one’s conscience, then it must be broken. Nothing must violate freedom of conscience. After all, that is the very basic principle of the Gospel.”
“No, brother! The basic principle of the Gospel is to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. Belonging to him means being a member of his body, joined together with all other Christians in a holy fellowship. One cannot be a Christian for oneself. ‘You are all one in Christ Jesus.’ The eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need of you. By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. You, too, Gunnar! You may go your own way. Even so, you can never undo your baptism.
And you are baptized in the apostolic Church to the apostolic faith and the apostolic creed. You cannot prevent the Jesus who has forbidden adultery to lay claim to you.”
“Leave me alone, Gösta.” Shenstedt looked pale and pained. “I have never asked for your advice in this matter. I know your position and respect it. It is painful to me that you cannot respect my position, but that is something that I can do nothing about.”
He offered his hand.
“Gunnar,” said Torvik quietly and took his hand. “Yet you will not be able to keep kicking against the goads . . .” Then he left.
(From Bo Giertz’s The Hammer of God, pages 294-300. The context is a parishioner who has had sexual relations outside of marriage and the woman is now pregnant.)
Truth – 22
“The pastor eyed him with a piercing gaze. “Did it never occur to you that it was cruel to put her in the situation where she is now?”
“But my dear friend,” Schenstedt said reproachfully, “I can assure you that neither she nor the child will lack anything.”
“Do you think all needs are met with money? Can you cure bad reputation with money? Can you with money ward off all young men who will be stretching their hands out for her, just because she once strayed? Can you with money get her a man who will sincerely love both her and your child?”
Schenstedt made an averting motion with his hand. “Dear friend, you don’t need to be so reproachful. I understand very well that you with your conception of the church must reason the way you do. But try to understand where I am coming from. To me all that Jesus taught is summed up in the commandment to love. Isolated Bible verses, disconnected commandments and laws, they are all relative and human. Only love is eternal and divine. It may very well appear in a way that seems to be absolutely contrary to the moral concepts of times gone by. And yet it is the love of Jesus that is expressed in the new ways, and if one does not want to act against the love of Jesus, the one must go the new ways. It is my firm conviction that all those old taboos that the church have fenced around marriage now are ready to be dispensed with.
This is a moving story – it bears repeating many more times, in other venues. There is NO love, when it doesn’t honor God. Too many forget the Commandment the LORD Jesus stated, and that was to love God first. The man in the story put himself first, the woman he conceived a child with second, and the child on the bottom rung. It wasn’t about money, it was about a selfish man, who couldn’t put God first, and follow HIM.
Grace,
You can buy the novel from which that story comes here,
http://www.amazon.com/Hammer-God-Bo-Giertz/dp/080665130X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1301526629&sr=8-3
I assure you the rest of that book is just as moving. There is also a kindle version if you are so inclined.
Bror
Thanks for the tip, I most likely will buy the book – my husband would like it as well, he read part of the story Truth posted.
I think the book might be a very good gift to give others struggling in their lives.
Bror @ 415
I don´t think we disagree at all here:
1) The SAME Law of God that written in the minds of mankind (aka reason, aka natural law, aka conscience) by God is also found in the Decalog and the SOTM , etc. These are not two different Laws. However that Law that “peculiarly deals with movements of the heart” is NOT found anywhere but in the Decalog, namely the first table of the Decalog.
2) ” Furthermore, not every law you find outside the Bible is actually going to be an exposition of God’s law. It just doesn’t work that way. and where there is contradiction man is bound by God’s law, not man’s.
“As Pastor Curtis quoted from Luther in his mosaic Law tract: We would measure the Law found in city ordinances, tax codes, nagging spouses inlaws and babies with soiled diapers by a) the Golden Rule and b) Reason. Where Law is harmful to others or unjust, we must obey God. In that case we will also accept the punishment willingly that comes from breaking man´s Law. ” Paul talks about “he bears not the sword in vain” about Nero´s government I am told.
3) “Now, as a society we will necessarily permit things God’s law does not permit. ”
Response: Everyone´s conscience tells them that legal does not equal moral. We don´t need scriptures to tell us this. There is no special Law that is the provinance of Christians except one!
This is that Law that only faith can know and do that is in, with and under the 1st table of the Decalog. This law “peculiarly deals with movements of the heart.”
bror @ 338
“But I stand here, to lay with another man as if with a woman is sin. ”
Ok Bror:
If I asked say 10,o0o homosexuals if they would be attracted to having sex with another man where one of the two men was to assume the role of, and act like a female in the act, about 9,998 of those men would respond with . the exact same response I imagine you would:
“Yech!” or “I would rather die rather than that kind of sex” or “The idea of doing that turns my stomach” or such.
Just for the sake of argument Bror, let´s say I am right. This in fact is what my years of observation would support.
So what would this mean in terms of my exegesis of Lev 18? What population today would this mirror or describe?
Now my understanding, and I could very well be wrong here, is that Lev 18 and I Cor describe the practice of a castrated male in a pagan temple dressing up as a female and submitting sex AS a female.
Ok. Let´s I AM wrong about this. It doesn´t really matter. What is described in this passage is a sex act that would turn the stomachs of virtually any gay man I have ever know for exactly the same reason it would turn your stomach as a heterosexual male. So how to read the text in that case? It is about homosexual or lesbian sex? Naw. I don´t see that.
Show me what I am missing here.
It’s too bad sin doesn’t turn your stomach!
grace @ 428
Actually Grace, my sin terrifies me. Unfortunately it is always present both in what I do and in what I leave undone. It is in my thoughts, words, and deeds.
Even on those days when I do ok, when I don´t do anything apparently wrong and manage to make a good stab at loving others and being useful to others, I have to confess to God that my heart is not in it to the extent that God demands.
My proof is that I have to work at being good. If my heart were in the right place, I would not even have to give doing goodness a thought right? It would happen automatically and spontaneously.
That is how our Lord did Goodness and Mercy. I use our Lord´s works then, and I present Jesus´works to God because now they are my works.
FWS,
Of course you can’t see it. You are willfully blind or pretend to be so. Drop the pretense of being a follower of Christ, you are fooling no one. Form the religion of FWS whom you worship and you can write doctrine for the FWS church to your heart’s desire. Just please stop blaspheming God with your sophistry and disingenuous “understanding” of Scripture.
rick @ 421
“When I’ve done work in the Greek, the word for lust is EPITHUMIA. Desire. And it’s the same word from the commandment about coveting. Thou shalt not desire what is thy neighbor’s, to paraphrase. To desire something that belongs to the neighbor can be inner adultery, or if it was his house, inner thievery. It is a mental violation of the neighbor. As Romans 13:9 makes clear, this prohibition can be summed up as Love of neighbor. And as Luther puts it positively, help him keep what is his. ”
“And when [translators of English Bibles ] failed to translate lust and covet concordantly so we could see the connections.”
The Lutheran Confessions in the Apology art. II say that “concupiscence”, “lust” and “coveteousness” are all exact synonyms for the same thing. Now I know why!
Well, reg (@430), I hope you feel awful proud with yourself. We certainly can all see where your theology leads: to accusing people who confess Jesus as their savior (@429) as “pretending”. Yet, somehow, you have the gall to accuse others of not acting like Christians.
I suppose I could use your same approach and say that your completely unloving approach to FWS here — even if you believe him to be in error and in danger of heterodoxy — is evidence that you, too, are merely faking it, yet another legalistic Pharisee intent on making clear to everyone here that you’re better than those sinners and not like them, putting your trust in your own good standing and not in Christ.
I could do that, and believe me, it is tempting to this sinner to give you a taste of your own bile-as-medicine.
But I don’t know your heart, reg — just like you don’t know FWS’s. Heck, from your comments here, you don’t even know FWS’s words all that well. You can pretend to sit on judgment on FWS, whispering into God’s ear that he’s not worthy, but I’m pretty certain that’s not your job, nor is it even within your ability.
But no, you’ve decided to butt in and pronounce your judgment on FWS so you can wash your hands of him. You just want to stop having to read his comments. And you think that’s the Christian approach.
tODD, #432: “I could do that, and believe me, it is tempting to this sinner to give you a taste of your own bile-as-medicine.”
I think you succumbed to temptation in your #432.
By the way tODD, do you affirm and agree with fws in #212 when he wrote:
“No [, the confessions DO NOT teach that same-sex behavior is sin] . Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men.”
Or do you disagree?
fws:
I’m sorry I haven’t been available to respond to the many good comments that have been addressed to me. A family matter has intervened. I promise to get back to this conversation in morwe depth. But something you have been sayiong has been bothering me.
“So what would this mean in terms of my exegesis of Lev 18? What population today would this mirror or describe?
Now my understanding, and I could very well be wrong here, is that Lev 18 and I Cor describe the practice of a castrated male in a pagan temple dressing up as a female and submitting sex AS a female. ”
You have asked that question several times, but @389 you tell us that you know many such people personally:
” Lots of transgenders live in my neighborhood. Many are sex workers.”
So, if we accept your exegesis that post surgical (i.e. castrated) transgenders are condemned as an abomination in Leviticus and as sin in I Corinthians, I guess I don’t see how this fits into your analysis about the law being about the golden rule.
And maybe you should clarify if it is only the post surgical you are talking about. I mean, is surgery really the determining factor, or are the presurgical transgendered pretty much the same as the post surgical? Or are drag queens included? Exactly how much like a woman does a gay or transgendered have to be to fit into this transgression?
And what about the Lesbian equivalent? Do extra butch lesbians (who pruchase prosthetic male genitals so that lesbians can have sex with them as though they were men) commit the same sin as trandgendered men who behave like women?
And I assume that if it is a sin to have sex with a transgendered or a drag queen, that it must be a sin to have sex as a transgendered or a drag queen.
And what about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FzlFVZqyMo
I know the Bird Cage is only a movie, and a comedy at that, but when Nathan Lane describes himself as “the woman” in that gay relationship, is that really such an outlandish thing among gays that 99.98% of gays would be disgusted? Be physically sick? Would rather die?
I have read that some more circumspect gays criticize flaming gays for being too over the top, but you are the first gay man I have ever heard of that goes so far as to say that 99.98% of gays would rather die than have sex with a flaming drag queen.
But getting back to the distinctions that you believe scripture draws, how does singling out gays who have sex as though they were women as sinful and distinct from gays who have sex like men fit into your thesis that moral law is all about the golden rule?
Kerener @ 434
1)A good portion of the real manly men in hollywood were gay. Hollywood. Stereotypes. Most gay men I know are more masculine than most men I know. And they look for the same to pair off. You are contexting the accurracy of my statement and I have no proof other than my own observations.
I am saying that gays do not see themselves in the mirror in Lev 18. If “the Law is a mirror to show our sin” , then I would expect that a gay man would look into that mirror and two reactions would result a: “Dang, that´s ME depicted in Lev 18 and the sodom and gomorrah story. Describes me to a T!” followed by b) “I need to repent and amend my ways”. I have experience this very 2-step reading the scriptures. Actually, I experience it almost every time I read the scriptures. But I don´t experience it in any of the “clobber passages” that are supposed to be about homosexuality. Why is that? You and Bror say it is because DeNile is not just a river in Egypt. My explanation is at least a plausible alternative explanation isn´t it?
Maybe a transgender would identify themselves in the S&G story or Lev 18. I don´t know. You would need to ask one of them. Interesting question.
2) Transgenders. Good point! I honestly had not thought about it that way my dear Legal Eagle. About 95% of the transgender sex workers in my neighborhood ,I am told, over and over and over, are the active (and so by biblical or at least classical standards, male) partner in sex. I am also told that about 95% of their clients are heterosexual married men. I don´t really know what to do with those facts Kerner or how to plug them into anythng. It is a world I really don´t understand. It is not my world as a gay man. I hope you are clear on that. about 95+% of gay men can easily hide the fact they are gay. Transgenders do not have that luxury. And it IS a very nice luxury to have socially.
Here is a film that you could watch that would help you empathize alot with such men/women: http://www.amazon.com/Ma-Vie-Rose-Georges-Fresne/dp/B00001W9FZ/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1301568837&sr=8-3-fkmr0
This film has excellent directing and casting. The performances by the children are absolutely amazing. It is in french with subtitles.
3) I experience a certain gag reflex contemplating sex with one of those, whihc is probably what alot of heterosexual males experience contemplate. I don´t think that means anything. Contemplation of eating liver makes me feel the same way. Eating liver is not sinful for that reason.
So what do I do? I go out of my way to be respectful. I make friends with them whenever possible. I try to accept them on their own terms rather than try to squeeze them into the box of my prejudices and preconceptions. I treat them as young ladies with dignity. What does any of this have to do with the letter of the law Kerner, you lost me.
Dear Kerner, I figured this post would get a quicker response from you since it affords a) a return to reason/logic that analyzes behavior rather than a text, and b) it is focussing the argument on what people do with their genitals. Can we get back to what I posted in 414 please dear man? Did I summarize your position correctly there? Here is the link to THAT post…
http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-111845
Thanks!
kerner @ 434
“I know the Bird Cage is only a movie, and a comedy at that, but when Nathan Lane describes himself as “the woman” in that gay relationship, is that really such an outlandish thing among gays that 99.98% of gays would be disgusted? Be physically sick? Would rather die?”
Most gay men would laugh. It is just a movie. They would see their own life reflected in that movie in the same way you would see your own married life reflected, and they would see their own life also reflected in a comedy about heterosexual married life as well. We are not differently human. I don´t remember the movie really being about sex between two men by the way. The cha-cha-heels housekeeper was a hoot! Which character in that movie did you most identify with Kerner?
Todd,
The issue here is a serious one. We have someone who claims to be a disciple of Christ doing verbal gymnastics to make God’s word meaningless. That is the devil at work since that is the lie from the beginning: “did God really say” and “did God really mean.” At some point when there is such a clear lack of fear of God or of honoring his word, this leads to a simple question-is this someone pretending to be His disciple? Is this a lamb in sheep’s clothing seeking to devour, is this someone disguised as an angel of light, but really an enemy of God.
While in civil society I could care less what FWS does, whether he marries or whatever and would most likely defend him if challenged, when we cross over to the Church (the bride of Christ I note, not the same-sex partner) and Christ’s kingdom that is where I draw the line and think we are instructed to call a spade a spade. (1 Cor 5, ) We are called to make some judgment within the church to keep her pure. It is not unloving to do so.
reg @ 437
Many here, including some LCMS pastors here, believe that it is ok to divorce and remarry within certain rules.
Within our lifetimes, the LCMS used to say that a) divorce is wrong except in the cases of adultery opr malicious abandonment and b) remarriage was forbidden.
Many Christians thing that ALL divorce is forbidden.
Some here still think divorce is wrong, but do not say that couples that are remarried are living in sin and should therefore separate.
My point here is this:
1) this is about rules that are about sex that everyone said universally was , without question, sin.
2) Right or wrong, this is changing quickly.
3) You and others are not questioning the christian faith, I suspect of anyone in your church who has married and divorced maybe more than once are you? Even if you maybe, at the same time , ARE questioning the propriety of what they have done and are living in as a “lifestyle” of serial polygamy with “blended families” without intact biological mom/dad pairings.
Why the deafening silence?
And gay “marriage” gets ya going don´t it? This topic I bring up one should agree would get a big ol yawn as a conservative mass mail fundraising tool.
Why is that?
I suggest it is because it is easier to home in on someone else´s life where we are dead certain we would never do what they are doing. In cases that hit closer to home, we are more retrospect eh? Mercy is allowed some room then.
Why is that?
Frank, if same sex households are just as good in God’s eyes as the traditional model, I would expect to find examples in the bible where this is affirmed and even promoted. If it’s there, can you show me? Your line of thinking would suggest that there is no difference between a gay household and a straight household. The latter most usually results in children, which I think is the main reason we have marriage; to provide a secure social structure in which children can mature into adulthood. In short, the two becoming one results in life-in which we see the miraculous concept in a child’s face: there are shadows of both mom and dad in the one child.
It seems to me that this is one of God’s ways of creating and promoting life. Now, Adam and Even messed this up terribly and we live in a fallen world. Steve Brown of ‘Key Life’ (a radio program) used to say this all the time: it’s a fallen world. It was his pat answer to just about every problem, but it’s true.
I don’t deny that gays maybe are born ‘gay’, and that telling them it’s a sin to be ‘gay’ causes them suffering. But think about others who are forced into a life of suffering: babies with serious birth defects or genetic diseases; abused children, physically, emotionally or sexually; children or young adults who come down with cancer or other deadly disease. Could it be that God calls some to a life of suffering? Because I don’t want (or have time) to study Greek to understand my bible better; so, right now, in my various translations that I own including KJV, NIV, ESV + others, the bible says that same sex behavior is sin. But it also says that God forgives sin, by grace through faith in Christ. He says he forgives it 70 x 7. So I would expect that we fail miserably at trying to not sin, but we at least have to try.
I don’t know, Frank; I love how you hammer home the concept of love our neighbor, because we need to hear it often, but I’m not buying that same sex behavior is not sin. Sorry. Maybe this is from the ‘Life is not Fair’ department: Could it be that God calls some to a life of suffering?
fws:
Come on now Frank. I’m not the one focusing on who does what to whom. Certainly Bror doesn’t do that @338 when he said:
“But I stand here, to lay with another man as if with a woman is sin. I don’t care if it is hand jobs or blow jobs, cramming it or receiving the cram (as it is distinguished in 1 Cor. 6), it is sin.’
I am only pointing out that the two major lines of your argument are diametrically opposed to each other. When Bror, or anybody else, tries to tell you that gay sex is generally wrong, it is you who starts distinguishing yourself from others based on who does what with their genitals.
And this argument leads to some really crazy conclusions if you think about it. I mean come on Frank, are you really prepared to go the GLTB community and tell them that the Bible calls the Drag Queens, the Butch Lesbians, and the transgendered of both sexes (together with all their partners) “abominations” (Leviticus) or sinners (Romans and I Cor.), but that God considers the desires and behavior of “manly gays” like you to be OK? Because what the Bible is talking about people who behave (or people who want to have sex with someone who behaves) too much like their opposite gender?
This is not a small point Frank, because is one of your primary arguments which you have relied upon over and over again. The sexual rules in the Bible don’t apply to gays in general because they are talking about a specific type of gay (eg. the post surgical transgendered) and not about “manly gays” like Frank. You then try to prove that the people whose practices are condemned are a small group.
But this is where your argument (it’s not me, it’s somebody else) collides with your second argument, which is: “gay sex is not wrong because it doesn’t violate Frank’s understanding of the golden rule.”
You have argued repeatedly that God’s law cannot be condemning man-man sex per se, because it cannot be shown that man-man sex shows a lack of love for one’s neighbor.
If we accept that proposition for the sake of argument, what do we do with your first proposition, which is that God’s law does condemn man-man sex when one of the men is too much like a woman? For that to work, you would have to show that “man-man sex where one of the men is too much like a woman” shows a lack of neighborly love in a way that other man-man sex does not.
For the life of me, Frank, I cannot imagine how that can be done. If two men are having sex, how does one of them putting on a dress or having surgery show less love for our neighbor than if both of them wear blue jeans?
The only way to leave your understanding (not the teaching itself, but your understanding of it) intact, is to drop your first argument (the Bible is talking about someone else, not me).
But you can’t do that. Because Leviticus, Romans and I Cor. are clearly talking about somebody, and the moral implications (those somebodies shouldn’t be having sex the way they are having it) are inescapable.
So your understanding of the limits of the command to “love our neighbor” must be wrong.
(Recounting the conversation to provide evidence for Reg’s comment in #430.)
fws, #181: “I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?”
Me, #211: “FWS, do the confessions teach that same-sex behavior is sin, in continuance and affirmation of God’s Holy Word which clearly declares that same-sex behavior is sin, a sin for all people, for all places, and for all time?”
fws, #212: “No. Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men. The assumption in the bible is always that those men are heterosexual.”
FWS, you say that the Lutheran Confessions are the sole rule for your faith and life (even over Divinely Inspired Scripture), but your comment in #212 indicates that you place yourself as an authority over the Lutheran Confessions.
Hence, this lends evidence to Reg’s comments in #430:
“Form the religion of FWS whom you worship and you can write doctrine for the FWS church to your heart’s desire. Just please stop blaspheming God with your sophistry and disingenuous “understanding” of Scripture.”
kerner @ 440
“The sexual rules in the Bible don’t apply to gays in general because they are talking about a specific type of gay (eg. the post surgical transgendered) and not about “manly gays” like Frank.”
I am not making that argument Kerner. Forgive me if I was unclear. I don´t know how you and others in other situations like transgenders see themselves in the mirror in that passage. I just know that me and others in my situation dont have an “aha” moment of self recognition, in looking at any of those passages. What am I say by saying that?
A man rapes a woman in the bible. It is “heterosexual sex”. Do you feel condemned by that depiction of sex? A man has sex with a prostitute in the bible. It is heterosexual sex. Do you feel condemned by that depiction of heterosexual sex? (let´s assume here that the idea of having sex with a prostitute revolts you just for the sake of argument ok?). do you feel condemned by those passages?
Why and how do you personally apply those passages to your own person and life?
Make of that what you will. I am not arguing here for any point. To make an observation is not necessarily to be trying to prove a point is it?
Can you please address what my complete argument is in post # 414? Pretty please? can you confirm or maybe correct what I have presented as what I am reading is your postured position on the Law?
FWs,
One last attempt to get through:
1. As I said many moons ago, I am less troubled by the sin, since we all sin all the time than by (a) your refusal to call what is clearly a sin such according to the Word and (b) your apparent lack of compunctions about it. Personally, I sin constantly and if I realize I may have sinned I confess it to God and repent as best I can, and often I then re-commit the same sins. The issue I have is with the peace of mind you have about that sin and the verbal gyrations you go through and the willingness you show to twist Scripture and to deny what it clearly says. Thus if you said “I have this temptation and even though I try not to I often give in to it, but praise be to God there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus; I sin and confess it to God and he forgives me” I would have no issue with that.
Moreover, this is not homophobia. In secular society I have no issue with gay rights, non-discrimination and even find it difficult to articulate a secular basis for opposing gay marriage (outside of the Church). I have co-workers and relatives who are gay and that is fine. I like them, enjoy their company and would defend their rights if they are challenged. (believe it or not I am a political moderate, but a theological conservative.)
My problem is that within the Church we ought to at least call a sin a sin and recognize it as such even though we keep on stumbling. With prayer and repentance there is an unlimited supply of forgiveness in the blood. When Paul instructs the church ar Corinth to excommunicate the person sleeping with his step-mother, he does this because of the lack of repentance. In his next letter in light of the person’s repentance he calls for him to be lovingly restored to fellowship.
I am only led to question your faith because of you low view of Scripture such that you have no difficulty twisting it beyond recognition and because you apparently have no internal struggle about this aspect of your life. I think Romans 7 describes the Christian life-it is always a struggle. We each have our crosses to bear and we keep dropping them and falling.
Personally the thought of twisting God’s words or of perhaps misleading others to do so or of causing the name of God to be blasphemed among non-believers because of what I do or say scares the heck out of me. Judgment starts with the Church. And while there is no eternal condemnation I simply don’t want to have more baggage than I already have in that judgment. At some point also twisting and denying Scripture may pass over into the realm of blaspheming the HS and that is even more scary.
Anyway that is where I am coming from.
Reg: “Personally the thought of twisting God’s words or of perhaps misleading others to do so or of causing the name of God to be blasphemed among non-believers because of what I do or say scares the heck out of me.”
With regards to possibly misleading others, is it possible that commenters Stephen, tODD, Rick Ritchie, BW, et al may have been mislead by fws to some degree or another?
Or is it more accurate to say that they haven’t been influenced or shaped or led by fws at all?
I think what fws is trying to say, is that manly gay men do not satisfy their sexual urges for eachother in any way shape or form that is traditional for men and women. They do not give eachother hand jobs, or participate in oral sex, nor so they insert their gentalia inot othe orphices. Rather, they lick each others ears and noses, and so he is correct in his assesment, because there is no prohibition against the licking of ears or noses in the Bible.
kerner @ 442
“If we accept that proposition for the sake of argument, what do we do with your first proposition, which is that God’s law does condemn man-man sex when one of the men is too much like a woman? ”
I am not making that argument either. Sheesh. I am saying that that is what the passage depicts. And I am suggesting that the most probabable context, confirmed by how st paul seems to ref lev 18 in I cor, seems to point to temple prostitution described as I depicted. Last time I checked , temple prostitution is not something done much today in the usa. But lets say that it is NOT about temple prostitution.
So we are talking about words and their meanings and the use of them as labels for things we identify as being those labels.
I have something to say about that.
What IS it about then if that word is not about temple prostitution?
Based upon what we know of the time and the text and the practices sexually, and religiously around that time. I PERSONALLY don´t really claim to know much. I would be either googling or speculating. How much do I really need to know archaeologically to check and see if I am sinning? I just don´t know Kerner. I guess I could just trust someone like pastor Curtis. or Bror. or you. based on your qualifications… what a way to do exegesis!
What is it then?
It is something you or someone else has decided to translate deciding that the biblical word “arsenokoitia” and “malakoi” means “homosexuality”? Ok. We can just go with that and not argue over that exactly.
what does that label “homosexual” mean in that case?
Does that usage convey the original intent of the word? no.
That original meaning would be found on the pages of the APA website about sexual orientation. The “original meaning” being a usage that is about 1oo years old and is a technical/scientific/medical/diagnostic term with a very very clear lineage and history and a rather narrow technically oriented meaning.
Does that usage define “homosexuality” agree with a definition that a typical homosexual would even remotely recognize? no. Sex with a prostitute and rape would be heterosexual sex only in the sense of being an anomaly or aberation of heterosexual (defined as male/female sex. It would be silly to define it as heterosexual sex.
Ok. the first pair was adam and eve not adam and steve. There is no positive example of homosexuality , or at least none we can be certain of , in the Bible. Granted. We just can´t prove anything one way or the other with the story of David and Jonathan. I would resist an argument as being definitive there in either direction. But this fact also remains: “Is “does not automatically equate to a divine “ought”. If that were true, the disciples would have been right in asking if that man was blind on account of his own sin or that of his parents. Men are blind. Ought they not to be? Is it sinful to be in that case? Adam and Eve could see.
In turn, Sex as a prostitute or rape or wanting to be turned into a female would be an aberation of what is commonly known to be homosexuality. I can´t really speak to Transgenderism Kerner or cross dressers. Sorry. It is not something I can speak to. It is not something I understand or could even really define.
Ok. So we have a case where several groups use the SAME term and mean something substantively different as to the content of that term. Fair enough Kerner? Who´s claim to that their meaning of that term is more legitimate? On what basis? The bible? That would be a stupid response. That would be to put cart before horse. Which one represents modernistic revisionism? Manipulative use of the language? Just folk like you screaming “revisionism!” at the other side don´t make it so.
But one side, namely yours, insists that THAT these rather important and obvious facts, that I can´t see as anything less than obvious and beyond dispute, somehow do not matter.
It simply doesnt matter that what is described in the bible you chose to label with a medical term that does not fit it.
Homos can see themselves in the medical definition of the term “homosexual”. Why is that? Is it some grand plan to take a cosmic erasure and erase the word “sin” in the form of male/male sex? Is that what is going on here? Maybe try to assume that that opposing viewpoint is an honest one and not some plot to overthrow what you find to be so super obvious. Maybe it just seems to ring true to their empirical experience? COULD that be it? Maybe? Even remotely possible?
How can honest communication then happen in this mess?
It happens this way: I simply accept, solely to facilitate honest communication, that what YOU mean by “homosexual” is the content and context described in Lev 18, the S&D story especially , and Romans 1, esp vs 28-32.
I use I cor 6 to understand both Lev 18 and I cor 6 contextually. Other passages are words in a list of bad stuff. I am not sure there is any context to prove any point in those. So YOUR meaning of the word “homosexual” are what those bible passages say.
So what do I need to say to that? In that case I am not a “homosexual” in the biblical sense then. Who fits what you insist (without scholarly basis) is the “biblical” meaning of “homosexual”? Kerner, I really don´t know! That is not my battle to fight. It is yours. Transgenders? dunno. cross dressers? dunno. Male transgenders post op who then decide that they are lesbian (it happens alot…) ? dunno.
I will leave those weighty matters up to legal-ists like you. Why? It has nothing at all to do with my life, or with my Life in Christ.
I se myself as that something else that is described by the medical community that just so happens to use the same term. Is what the medical community describes as “homosexual ” or “homosexual sex” sinful? Ok. NOW we have an honest discussion! Let´s discuss THAT proposition. See the disconnect?
I do not agree that there is dishonesty on either side. I do agree that there is a fundamental failure to communicate. I can only meet you half way Kerner.
my method for arguing with someone who insists on a different definition of a word than I understand, is to simply surrender to their definition and take it from there. By your definition of the “biblical ” meaning of “homosexual”, I am not a “homosexual”. Why does that seem dishonest to you? I simply cannot place myself in that crowd in the S&D story. For example. Your position is that the “traditional”, non-revisionist understanding of the S&D story is that it is about “homosexuality”. Fine. So you are duty bound to point to that story and say it precisely means to describe how “homosexuals ” are. So then I am a “homosexual”. Do you need to place me into that text? Or… do you need to maybe think that we have different definitions. So we are really talking about two different things? Or not. Show me Kerner how you would place me into that S&D story then. That would be your duty in that case.
We can base a discussion on that then. Tell me how you would place me in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah Kerner.
I don´t need to challenge that really do I? That just and only means that your definition of “homosexuality ” then is ever so obviously not my own. Or the medical community´s, or even the popular concept of that term. But you need to insist that it is the “traditional” understanding. (which I think is not so “traditional ” as you assert”. The words “homosexual” and even “heterosexual” were coined in the same book in the last century, and both are medical terms. Both were originally thought to be pathologies. Now neither is. That is by the group that coined the term for technical purposes.
Is what YOU insist on calling “homosexual” “biblically ” sin? Interesting discussion, but one that has nothing to do with me. Knock yerself out dear Kerner.
Don´t be so surprise as to why your kindred spirits are losing the larger argument in the public forum. It is not because people at large are being permissive morally. It might be because they increasingly slot christians into the same category as the Amish. I don´t see how I can blame them.
I accept that by the medical APA definition of the word “homosexual” and “homosexual sex” I am all of that. So is THAT sinful? Ok.
NOW can we PLEASE get back to my post # 414? pretty please Kerner? Please…….
bror @ 445
Not EVEN close.
Are you being facetious or are you really trying to understand my point? I have no problem at all with your disagreeing with me.
But it does not feel like love when it feels like you don´t understand what I am saying and then twist it to make me look stupid.
bror @ 445
Let me try again:
I am saying that for most ANY man, who considers himself a man, and gay men most certainly do as a rule, the idea of having his masculinity removed, threatened, debased or violated is about the best way to make a man feel dehumanized. This is especially true for homos who have spent a lifetime internally and socially disprove the stereotype. This humilation I speak of looks like what was done at that torture place in Iraq. I forget the name of the place. I am having a senior moment.
I think I get that you lump homosexuals in with transgenders. You see it only as a matter of degree and not a difference in kind. Or maybe not. Dunno. I can´t help you with that if that is your conceptual problem.
Rather than think of gays as sissies or woman-wannabees, maybe think that the condition is a form of hyper-masculinity. An exagerated form of masculinity in most cases. Dunno why that is. That idea fits what I know empirically. I know that wars with stereotype and what we see in the media, even the gay media.
I am sure there are men who are both homosexual and heterosexual who actually seek this sort of thing out. As far as I can tell this sort of looks like sado masochism in most cases. I would disclaim understanding that or transgenderism or cross dressing or alot of stuff.
reg @ 443
“My problem is that within the Church we ought to at least call a sin a sin and recognize it as such even though we keep on stumbling. ”
I agree totally with this reg.
“I am only led to question your faith because of you low view of Scripture such that you have no difficulty twisting it beyond recognition and because you apparently have no internal struggle about this aspect of your life. ”
I won´t question your sincerity reg. Is it fair to say that you are questioning mine?
I believe that the Holy Scriptures are the sole norm and rule for faith and life. They are far, far above the Lutheran Confessions by the way. Or the historic Creeds. How is that a low view?
You assume that your position is SO very clear in the Holy Scriptures that how could anyone possibly disagree?
I think the same about the doctrines contained in the Lutheran Confessions. I do not need to question the sincerity or the faith of other baptized believers such as Calvinists or Roman Catholics when they disagree with what I think is so very obvious.
What I do instead is I listen to their arguments assuming sincerity. And I look to see that they are listening to my own arguments rather than just trying to win points. And I keep at it? I call this following the Golden Rule. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
In the past I have been so very wrong on alot of things Reg. Often it was maybe hurting or offending someone who was dear to me, and I was certain I was right. Maybe I was. Often I found I was blind to the truth. I was grateful when someone didnt just beat me up, but rather came down to where I was and led me, patiently , to see my error. That takes time doesnt it? And it takes a capacity to listen. And it takes an attitude that does not accuse the other side of bad faith unless one has clear evidence of that.
Before our baptism, we were all blind to a Christ who was there all along. On the basis of our Baptism alone reg, we can talk to one another as fellow christians. This is how I must recognize Roman Catholics and Calvinists even though at times I simply get so very frustrated because they just “refuse” to see Baptism and the LS they way the bible teaches these things. And they are important things.
Please read what I have written to you with charity Reg. Bless you.
Reg
you wanna take a stab at responding to my post # 414. It would be a kindness. Thanks
fws, #449: “I won´t question your sincerity reg. Is it fair to say that you are questioning mine?”
Sincerity is not the issue.
I may sincerely believe that the tree in my backyard is God, but I hope that no one would believe that my backyard tree is God just because I am sincere in my belief.
———
fws, #181: “I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?”
Versus
fws, #449: “I believe that the Holy Scriptures are the sole norm and rule for faith and life. They are far, far above the Lutheran Confessions by the way.”
FWS, which one is it?
I’ve wasted enough time on this. I’m all done.
Truth – 444
“With regards to possibly misleading others, is it possible that commenters Stephen, tODD, Rick Ritchie, BW, et al may have been mislead by fws to some degree or another?”
That may very well have happened!
Fws,
Listen, I thought I almost had you with your first response. Sorry to be so blunt, and perhaps a bit snarky. But I am finding that gentler ways of getting my message across to you are not working.
You always go back and try to hide behind your motive for x. or the motives of others for x. And I don’t care, neither does God’s word.
Whether or not you are trying to treat a man as a woman is really beside the point. The fact is there are two men engaged in activity that is supposed to be done only between a man and a woman. Whether one man is trying to act like a woman while giving head, or whatever is really beside the point.
Perhaps i’m not making a distinction between transgender and homosexual, and butch or lipstick lesbians. But neither am I trying to attack anyone’s sexual identity here.
I could argue with you over anecdotes of what I have seen between gay men, who don’t often seem to be that gay when I encounter them, but it is really beside the point that most often I see one or the other treating the one worse than Archy Bunker ever thought of treating Ethel, or whatever her name was. I don’t care.
What is forbidden is not being an effeminate male, or being Rock Hudson. What is forbidden is engaging in the activity that God has given to man and woman to engage in, with another male, regardless of reason or purpose for doing so.
fws, #181: “I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?”
Versus
fws, #449: “I believe that the Holy Scriptures are the sole norm and rule for faith and life. They are far, far above the Lutheran Confessions by the way.”
FWS, which one is it?
————————————
Can I take a stab at this one?
The first is an unclear sentence. TUAD may be adding words to it to make sense of it. So he reads:
I say THAT IT IS the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why
What fws meant was
I say make your points from (the Lutheran Confessions) and not (the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life) why
The words I’m adding in to make sense are from the previous sentence in his comment. The parenthesis are added based on harmonizing his first sentence you’re questioning with his second. It is possible to harmonize them by reading this way.
Me: “With regards to possibly misleading others, is it possible that commenters Stephen, tODD, Rick Ritchie, BW, et al may have been misled by fws to some degree or another?”
Grace: “That may very well have happened!”
That wouldn’t be good. Hopefully, insightful comments by Bror Erickson such as in #454 will help them not be misled by fws anymore:
“But I am finding that gentler ways of getting my message across to you are not working.
You always go back and try to hide behind your motive for x or the motives of others for x. And I don’t care, neither does God’s word.
Whether or not you are trying to treat a man as a woman is really beside the point. The fact is there are two men engaged in activity that is supposed to be done only between a man and a woman.
What is forbidden is engaging in the activity that God has given to man and woman to engage in, with another male, regardless of reason or purpose for doing so.”
TUAD and Grace,
I very much doubt that any of the above have been mislead by anyone. Or that they found any of my comments to be “insightful.”
These men are competent theologians in their own right, from whom I have benefited greatly over the years. If you have found anything I have said to be insightful, then I would ask that you pay close attention to what these men say, and hear them for what they say, do not jump to conclusions too fast in regards to what they say either. Give them the benefit of the doubt for a moment, if you think you disagree.
And it is quite tacky to be questioning whether these men are Christians or not, even if not especially in regards to fws.
I doubt you know, or could comprehend the struggles he has in his own life.
fws – 435
I have never stated my early life (late teens) Just a brief account — I was asked to participate in a haute couture fashion show when I was but 18 years old – I accepted. I lived in West L.A. and UCLA for some time, during my career (medicine) – Having lived in that area dating some of the those in the film industry – I can say with all honesty, your appraisal of “Most gay men I know are more masculine than most men I know.” couldn’t be further from the truth. When they strut down the street, flaunt their stuff, they look like, and act like wannabe women, or wannabe males – They may look at one another as being “masculine” but they have no idea how silly they look, trying to play either the female or male role as homosexuals….. all duded up. The mirror they look in doesn’t tell them the truth, they don’t see it, not in themselves or each other.
Because I have lived in those areas, and then now very near Laguna Beach, known for its homosexual population, I can speak from experience, having observed the homosexual community for a very long time…… it’s not masculine whatsoever, and it doesn’t measure up to being a woman either – it’s sinful. HIV/AIDS, STD’s, are obvious as to how depraved the lifestyle is –
Your observation of homosexuals, is not what the mass majority of the world sees. You look through clouded glasses.
Yes, we are all under the spell of the evil gay man.
“These men are competent theologians in their own right, from whom I have benefited greatly over the years.”
Given that you say these men are competent theologians, let’s query them individually. Stephen, tODD, Rick Ritchie, and BW, as competent theologians who do you agree with more, fws or Bror as presented below?
fws, #212: “No [, the confessions DO NOT teach that same-sex behavior is sin] . Neither they nor the scriptures specifically address this topic anywhere. There is the topic of heterosexual men having sex with other heterosexual men.”
Versus
Bror, #454: “You always go back and try to hide behind your motive for x or the motives of others for x. And I don’t care, neither does God’s word.
Whether or not you are trying to treat a man as a woman is really beside the point. The fact is there are two men engaged in activity that is supposed to be done only between a man and a woman.
What is forbidden is engaging in the activity that God has given to man and woman to engage in, with another male, regardless of reason or purpose for doing so.”
FWS argues that same-sex behavior is not sin versus Bror arguing that same-sex behavior is sin. Both of them appeal to Scripture, and to some degree, the Confessions.
Stephen, tODD, Rick Ritchie, and BW, since you are all regarded as competent theologians by Bror, whose argument do you agree with more? FWS’s or Bror’s?
A competent theologian will be able to answer a straightforward theological question such as this.
Truth Unites… and Divides (@460), seriously, learn to take a hint.
The statement was that folks are competent theologians. Seriously, it’s an easy question for competent theologians.
Bror
With all due respect, and I mean that – I don’t believe anyone who supports sin, be it homosexual sex, fornication, adultery to be a “theologian” nor would I listen to anything they had to say, or write. Their doctrine is skewed and flawed to the extent of leading the unsuspecting astray.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Romans 16:18
Grace,
I don’t know anyone here who is advocating willful sin. We have a man struggling, who may be trying to justify his sin, or claim it is not sin. And is perhaps blinded to his sin.
But then that is no different than every baptist I know that denies the grace of God to their children, and the children of others in baptism. And I don’t normally go around saying they aren’t Christians. But the words of Romans 16:18 apply to them just as much if not more than they apply to fws, or anyone on this thread.
TRUTHUD @ 451
fws on his post 181
FWS As the Holy Apostle Saint Paul says Rob: “All things are legal, but not all things are useful [to others]. ” Don´t concede. Make your points, but make them from the Lutheran Confessions if you are really intent on serving me.
I will add just a comma and a period to make the following clear, and apologize if this caused genuine confusion:
I say the confessions , and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life. Why? Because it is in our Confessions that you will nail down all the broad issues such as what the Image of God alone consists of, and then also the definition of key words like “natural law” “ordinance of God” “concupiscence” ” mortal sin” original sin” “original righeousness” “Veil of Moses” “sanctification” “mortification” “law” “gospel” “third [lutheran!] use”, “Justification” “infused justification” “sacramental” “in, with and under” “grace” “ex opere operato” “historical faith” “movements of the heart” “the Law that peculiarly deals with ‘movements of the heart’, namely the Decalog” “love” “Good Works” “sacrifice” etc etc.
So now TRUTHud. Look into your heart. Do you find joy there to find that I think this way? I hope so. Or did you feel something else?
Bror – 464
“But then that is no different than every baptist I know that denies the grace of God to their children, and the children of others in baptism.”
Bror, there isn’t one single verse in the Bible that tells parents to Baptize their infants – SO,…….. using Romans 16:18 in not applicable, — no matter how many renditions of the Book of Common, or any other material from Lutheran confessions, it isn’t the Bible.
Sexual sin is very prominent within the Bible, it’s little man who objects to it being there, pretending and preaching that it isn’t wrong. One need only glance about at all the liberal churches who preach ANOTHER GOSPEL leading others astray.
fws:
Goodness, you seem to be arguing with me over points where we don’t disagree. I don’t have any definition of “homosexuality”, and I have already said that I don’t think that the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” should be used as nouns. Maybe they shouldn’t even be used as adjectives, and I am beginning to think that they should not be used at all.
Take your description of the activity of the transgendered sex workers in your neighborhood.
GRAPHIC LANGUAGE ALERT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART!
You say that a common event is for a man, wearing women’s chothing and make-up, in exchange for money, to bugg@r a (heterosexual) man who is married and dresses in men’s clothing. Now I understand the acts described, but I don’t understand the use of the word “heterosexual” to describe the acts or either of the people involved. My observation has been that the terms “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, “gay”, “lesbian”, and “straight” really have no objective meaning at all. They only mean what the person using them wants them to mean.
And as you have pointed out, these terms weren’t even invented until long after the Bible was written, so the term “sin” never really addresses “being gay” or “homosexuality” as such, because these terms were unknown to Moses or St. Paul. This is why your oft stated position that St. Paul’s statements in Romans about men turning from their natural desires to unnatural desires are talking about “heterosexual” men having sex with other “heterosexual” men is meanless nonsense. St. Paul had no concept of “heterosexual” (and frankly, neither do we have a consistant one today).
So, the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” only add confusion to these discussions. This is why I have tried to stop using them. I have been usung terms like “man-man sex” simply to be clear that what I am talking about is a deed, not a person.
It seems to me that the the term “sin” is really properly used in two ways. One is the idea of Original Sin. The absence of Original Righteousness common to all mankind (unless saved). Original Sin is not an act that we do, but a condition we suffer from. I have not run a complete analysis of the Defense of the Augsburg Confession, but at least some of the general things you say about it seem to be true. Original Sin is overcome by grace through faith, and not of ourselves or our works, and we don’t really have anything to do with how this process other than God doing it to us and for us.
Individual sins, on the other hand, are acts. Things we do. And the decalog commands us not to do them, and according to the catechism anyway, commands us to do positive things instead. The second table can be summarized in the command to love our neighbors as ourselves, but even the long version of the decalog does not say all there is to be said on the matter of individual sins. If that were true, the SC would not pose, and then answer, the question “What does this mean?” And the LC would be completely superfluous.
Your own position seems to be that you “see yourself” in the scriptural and confessional passages pertaining to Original Sin, but that you do not “see yourself” in any scriptural or confessional passage pertaining to any individual sexual sin (at least not the ones under discussion). But the way you get there is to engage verbal and mental games.
You always seem to find some small difference between you (and anyone else you don’t want to criticize) and the people whose acts are declared sinful in scripture. Even if there are differences, there are usually not discinctions. God only knows how many people have lived in human history. But even though they all had points of commonality with some or all of their fellow humans, they were all in some sense unique. So there will always be some differences between whoever is being discussed in the Bible and people living today. This does not mean that we cannot understand what the Bible means when it talks about individual sins.
You were perfectly happy to agree that people described in Leviticus and I Cor. were sinning when you thouht they were nobody you knew. When I pointed out to you that the people described in those passages were in fact very similar to people that you do know, all you could do is retreat into a confusing meandering monologue about how you can’t “see yourself” in those passages.
You were perfectly comfortable making the argument that those passages don’t apply to “gay men” (another meaningless term), when you thought we were all so ignorant as to believe that 99.98% of “gay men” would rather die that have sex with a man “as a woman”, and that the revulsion of “gay men” toward that kind sex was some sort of proof that “being gay” is not wrong. When I challenged you by suggesting that a whole lot more than .02% of self identified “gay men” would probably not “rather die” than have sex with an effeminate man, all of a sudden we are talking about your distaste for eating liver instead of sexual morality.
I have to tell you that your arguments lose credibility when you yourself lose credibility.
Acts 2:38-39
And most people are citizens of the country in which they are born upon birth, so seems to apply to matt. 28:19-19 to.
One might also give thought to the second chapter of Colosssians, and wonder why in the world if baptism somehow replaces circumcision which was to be done at 8 days, parents delay 8 years or more to baptize. We could go on. But you would probably end up mangling scripture to suit your needs worse than fws.
bror @ 454
try my post @
http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-111980
You have been polite and loving Bror. I don´t mind anyone disagreeing with me, and I especially welcome that when they are trying to show me from Holy Scriptures or the Confessions. I respect you alot Bror.
You know st Pauls advice in 1 cor 6 advising celebacy, and then saying that for most of us marriage is the only option for channeling the sex drive so it it is not inflamed by coveteousness and other manifestations of false faith that is not in Christ alone.
I don´t doubt you know that a gay man marrying a female would not do alot to channel the sex drive. Ok. So then let´s assume homosexuality is some dis-ease. Maybe it is incurable. What then. I will have a hard time telling a 16 year old with raging hormones to save it for a marriage that will never ever be possible. I guess I could tell him to fake it so he can at least belong to a church somewhere. Or try harder. or….
You are telling me that the Law of God says that sex is sinful if it is between two men. I have to guess at why you say that Bror. I guess it is because Adam and Eve were male and female. So “is” =”Divinely order-ed ought” in your mind, and “Divine ordinance = Divine 2nd Table Law”? Adam and Eve could also see. So that means that blind people are also outside this Law of God?
You seem to be with Kerner of the opinion that the proof that the Goodness and Mercy that God demands to be done on earth is that we keep the Letter of the Law Bror. That we should, in faith, assume that Love, or maybe Tough Love is being done by following the letter arguing that God is Love so keeping the Letter of the Law then must be Love even if Reason ordered by the Golden Rule comes to a different judgement.
I hope you can see that I am a little lost here. You just seem to be assuming that there is something here SO obvious that the only conclusion to be drawn is that…. what… I am evading or looking for some loophole? Things do not seem so obvious to me Bror.
So either we each state our position clearly, as I have in my post 414 and then try to correct what we see is not in conformity to the Word of God as read through our Confessions , or we just go round and round. As in : “This is SO OBVIOUS! What is the MAAAATER with you?”
my post 414 is here:
http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-111845
Correct my thinking there in post 414 Bror, and you will “have me”.
What would your position on the Law of God be relative to what I wrote in that post dear brother?
kerner @ 467
1) Most men and women know they are gay or lesbian or transgender at early ages. say around 4,5 or 6 years old. So ok. Make it about sex or the sex act. See how many gays, lesbians and transgenders you are going to persuade to deny what they experienced personally for years. Kerner “what your condition is, is totally defined by sex acts.
kerner @ 467
2) labels: You live in the world. terms are used. Homosexual is defined by the medical community. Let them define it. Why not? If your bible says differently than their definition of “homosexuality” , then use a different term to translate “arsenokoitia ” and “malakoi”.
Why does there need to be a one-on-one correspondence? Say MSM. That term exists. It is Men-who-have-Sex-with-Men.
One of my many volunteer projects was a foundation to assist women and their children infected with HIV. The men , most of them in and out of prison, would not identify as gay or even bi. Sex was just to get their rocks off when no woman was available. But we needed to get them in a support group to help the women and children who were our clients. So…. MSM!
So am I a MSM? No. You would need to have sex with other men to be that. I am seeking treatment so I can do that again. Let´s see how that turns out. Maybe it won´t . I am learning to leave that to God´s Mercy and Goodness.
Am I a gay man? Yes. Do I define being gay as who I have sex with? yes and no. Do you define marriage as being essentially about sex? I hope not? But it is about sex too. Hopefully the sex is a consequence of something more important to you.
I knew I was gay at age 4. I just did not have a label for it. No I was not abused sexually or otherwise. Sex with other men was a consequence of being Gay. I tried sex with women. It was alot better than sex with men actually. I could not offer a female what she deserves however. And that is for a good man to fall in love with her.
Kerner. I think this is it: Most gay , lesbian and transgender persons knew at a very very early age what they were. They knew this even in the absence of a word or label to express what they were. But they knew it. And THEN puberty happened. That is how they see it. You can disagree. Your disagreement is based on speculation can I say? They feel their opinion is based on something more concrete.
So how do you approach someone like that reducing this all down to sex. Who are you going to convince. You too Bror. I hope you get what I am saying.
“You shall not eat cherry pie”
In ancient times in the Land of Pies, cherry pie was the food offered to idols. The pagans gorged themselves on it in unseemly feasts along with abusive and dehumanizing rituals at the temple to the false pie gods. And so those who worshipped the one, true God were forbidden to eat cherry pie lest they be seen as being in any way associated with the temple to the false pie god. It was written into the sacred texts that eating cherry pie in this manner and for this purpose was forbidden.
Time passed and cherry pie was no longer associated with idols and all the nefarious, abusive things that went on at the temple of the false pie god whilst cherry pie was being consumed. While some cherry pie eaters still did bad things, in general, those who liked cherry pie were no better or worse than anyone else. They simply liked cherry pie. No one could say why. That’s the way it was. But because the eating of cherry pie was forbidden at one time under certain circumstances and was now in the sacred text, cherry pie eaters were ostracized and seen as transgressors unless they gave up their affection for it.
Meanwhile, the pecan pie eaters ate their fill. Pecan pie was the most popular pie. It was considered the first, original pie. Even cherry pie eaters agreed that this was so. But cherry pie eaters just could not stomach it. They were told that they must either eat pecan pie or do without. That was their lot. And so they lived their lives hungry, without the delight of pie eating.
That was until they discovered that neither pecan nor cherry had anything to do with how the one true God regarded them. This, as it turned out, had nothing at all to do with pies. It had to do with God himself and his love for all pie eaters regardless of what kind of pie they like. He did not require them to eat a certain kind of pie, he desired faith in him, and so he gave them that faith in baptism. He called each by name to be his own. “Come pecan and cherry pie eaters. You are mine. You have been bought with a price. Pie for everyone!”
My thanks to Rick for the cherry pie metaphor.
Kerner @ 467
Try this to take it out of the sexual realm so you get my point:
Some christians feel that they have had an experience that they label “speaking in tongues”.
I am not sure that it is a good idea to
1) try to convince those persons that they did not have that experience.
2) try to convince them that the experience was different than they recollected it to be.
3) that they were faking it, dilusional , provide evidence that crazy people had similar experiences , etc. etc.
I COULD suggest that there is no way to tell whether or not what they experience is identical to what the Bible describes as speaking in tongues. How would we verify that one way or the other.
But I would never try to question there experience or say they are being less than forthcoming or……. What would be the point of doing that?
Comparing homosexuality to “tongues” is contemptible.
““These men are competent theologians in their own right, from whom I have benefited greatly over the years.”
Bror, maybe Stephen is a competent theologian in some areas, but his comment in #472 about cherry pie eating does not register as a competent answer to the straightforward question posed in #460.
If I had to make a guess, I’d guess that he’d rather eat fws’s pie rather than Bror’s pie.
I think God loves both groups equally, Stephen. What, I think, we’re talking about is how we approach scripture and our trust in God’s word. Do we believe it even when we don’t understand it? I would say, “yes” because of the scripture where God says, “My ways are not your ways, etc” (paraphrase). Now, you are telling me that I need to have an advanced degree in theology and also study the original bible languages to really understand my bible. And I would disagree. If I agreed with you, then I would despair, because I would wonder what other parts of scripture I have misunderstood. In that case, I would just stop reading it. I am not going to do an extensive study in Greek or Hebrew. And I’m also trusting my pastor to guide me – he has been through all this study and would warn me if he thought I needed to understand my bible any differently.
I think there will be all kinds of former sinners in heaven, including homosexuals-the kind that believed they were sinners in need of grace and believed that Christ had redeemed them.
kerner @ 467
KERNER …I don’t think that the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” should be used as nouns. Maybe they shouldn’t even be used as adjectives, and I am beginning to think that they should not be used at all.
GRAPHIC LANGUAGE ALERT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART!
KERNER …my observation as been that the terms “heterosexual”, “homosexual”, “gay”, “lesbian”, and “straight” really have no objective meaning at all. They only mean what the person using them wants them to mean.
FWS: Radical suggestion: Why not leave it to the medical profession to define the use of the word? It is a medical term after all. Why do some christians demand 1) to own definition of the term 2) insist that the medical definition is a plot to subvert morality? Some christians are the only ones who seem to share your opinion that the word has no objective meaning.
Or are you suggesting that if we simply say “be gone” to the word “homosexual” that the underlying phonomenon the medical community finds a need to have a word for will magically melt away?
KERNER these terms weren’t even invented until long after the Bible was written, so the term “sin” never really addresses “being gay” or “homosexuality” as such, because these terms were unknown to Moses or St. Paul. This is why your oft stated position that St. Paul’s statements in Romans about men turning from their natural desires to unnatural desires are talking about “heterosexual” men having sex with other “heterosexual” men is meanless nonsense. St. Paul had no concept of “heterosexual”
FWS: Permission now to add “St paul had no concept of “heterosexual” OR “homosexual”? Good. “Bisexual”? IS there even a modern label for what was described in Romans 1? These were men who had “their women”. Wives? Girlfriends? and they “turned” from being the “ladie´s man” first to what? to coveting each other: Turning each other into idols . And THEN precisely because they started practicing idolatry, they started doing something unexpected by their neighbors and family in view of their former behavior: the stopped being “ladie´s men” and startied doing what was not in their nature to do.
KERNER (and frankly, neither do we have a consistant one today).
FWS: I don´t know how to dress smartly or accessorize like the men on “gay eye for the straight guy”. You could be onto something here Kerner! Ha!
KERNER So, the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” only add confusion to these discussions. This is why I have tried to stop using them. I have been usung terms like “man-man sex” simply to be clear that what I am talking about is a deed, not a person.
FWS: Why not just accept the definition of the APA , that I understand is accepted also by the AMA and ABA and other groups and go with that? What would be the problem with doing that? Why is it do you suppose that some christians have even formed organations to fight that definition. Any ideas? One could simply accept their definition , and THEN argue that by that definition too, “homosexuality” is or is not sinful, or “homosexual sex” is or is not sinful. At least there would be a definition that even those you do not agree with would accept as the basis for discussion. This is something I have never understood Kerner. Can you shed any light here for me?
KERNER: It seems to me that the the term “sin” is really properly used in two ways. One is the idea of Original Sin. The absence of Original Righteousness common to all mankind (unless saved). Original Sin is not an act that we do, but a condition we suffer from.
FWS: Ok dear man. This last comment felt like love to me. Thanks. Original Sin Kerner is two things according to the Apology/Defense article II.
1) Original sin is the “total” “lack/absence” of the Image of God. The Image of God is Adamic Original Righeousness .
Adamic Original Righeousness was faith alone in Christ alone.
2)Original sin is also a “vicious” faith that fills that void of the Image of God and Adamic Original righeousness.
It is a faith-in-anything-BUT-Christ Kerner.
Think about that Kerner.
Sin is not the lack of faith. Sin is faith run amok. Lutherans call that kind of faith “concupiscence” or “lust” or “coveteousness”. It is faith that is perverted. It insists and persists in clinging to anything BUT Jesus to find it´s life, purpose or goodness.
Rick pointed out that the word for “lust” and “covet” are the same word in the Greek. Ponder that too and what that means to your understanding.
Note too that Rome defined “concupiscence” as “lust”. Lutherans deliberately redefine that word to mean “faith”. Ponder why they did that.
Also consider that it is not those human qualities such as reason, love, etc that set us apart from the beast that is where the Image of God is located! And so Natural Law is not a form of revelation of the Image of God is it?!
Now you can understand why Jesus said two things about the Pharisees 1) he affirmed that they were truly outwardly righeous just ,/i>as God demanded! He found no fault with them there. “Your righeousness must exceed that of the Pharisees!” This was not sarcasm on His part. He meant to set a goal too high to reach by saying this. 2) At the same time Jesus said that the Pharisees were the very worst sinners!
KERNER Original Sin is overcome by grace through faith.
FWS: Ah but how? Original Righteousness, that is the Image of God is restored in Holy Baptism Kerner.
But! Concupiscence , which is that “vicious” faith in anything BUT Christ continues on in our Old Adam after Baptism. And that is our part. We are to kill the Old Adam by the discipline of following what? The Law of God!
KERNER individual sins we do, on the other hand, are acts. Things we do.
FWS Now I hope you see that this too is original sin. The root of all these acts are Idolatry. It is that vicious “anti-faith” that fills Old Adam . Those acts are the fruit of placing our faith in anything-BUT- Christ. Our acts are merely the fruit of what is going on in our Old Adam heart. If you get this Kerner, then this short piece by Luther that is his preface to the 1545 romans translation will now make sense:
http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html
KERNER And the decalog commands us not to do them, and according to the catechism anyway, commands us to do positive things instead.
FWS: Better what Luther says : “The 10 commandments were written for the Jews, but they can be used to nicely summarize what God demands and requires of us.”
KERNER The second table can be summarized in the command to love our neighbors as ourselves, but even the long version of the decalog does not say all there is to be said on the matter of individual sins. If that were true, the SC would not pose, and then answer, the question “What does this mean?” And the LC would be completely superfluous.
FWS Right! The Decalog is a summary. It is the Letter of the Law. Would you agree as an attorney that even in civil code, that someone has really not kept the law if they have only kept the letter and not the spirit of that Law? The Law God has written in the minds of men convicts them of this truth. People try to delude themselves and avoid this truth. But for example, if you point it out to your clients, their reason must agree with it and convict them.
Note here that Lutherans say that the Law of God is not exactly the Letter. The Law of God is “in, with and under” the Decalog. That is what you will learn when you read the Apology art III “love and the fulfillment of the Law” There is not a separate Law for Christians, but. BUT, one can only see the Law completely when first one has had the Original Righeousness restored that is faith alone in Christ alone. And what is that extra “dimension ” that only faith can see? Is it that Love is the fufillment of the Law? NOOOO!
It is this:
It is to see that God does demand us to keep the letter of the Law, but he also demands that we do that letter with all our heart, and soul and mind.
He demands that we do it in such a way that it is no effort to do it. We dont have to try to do it. The closest analogy is what you do when you are in love. You do for your beloved , joyfully, even before it is asked of you. And they you look for more to do. Imaging paying your Income taxes with that attitude. You would be broke! But that is the idea!
So how is it that we know then that we have the New Man in our baptism?
We see THIS law in the Decalog now for the first time. That law that “deals with movements of the heart” .
Then what happens? We are terrified! “new movements of the heart” indeed! Before we thought “outward keeping?” “Check! ” “Done!” That is how we know we have the New Man! And so we turn to Christ. And we present his works to God and not ours.
KERNER Your own position seems to be that you “see yourself” in the scriptural and confessional passages pertaining to Original Sin, but that you do not “see yourself” in any scriptural or confessional passage pertaining to any individual sexual sin (at least not the ones under discussion). But the way you get there is to engage verbal and mental games.
FWS I can only hope that you see differently now my dear , dear Legal Eagle.
KERNER You always seem to find some small difference between you (and anyone else you don’t want to criticize) and the people whose acts are declared sinful in scripture. Even if there are differences, there are usually not discinctions. God only knows how many people have lived in human history. But even though they all had points of commonality with some or all of their fellow humans, they were all in some sense unique. So there will always be some differences between whoever is being discussed in the Bible and people living today. This does not mean that we cannot understand what the Bible means when it talks about individual sins.
FWS I don´t think I disagree with what you wrote except to say that you are ascribing to me thinking that is not mine.
KERNER You were perfectly happy to agree that people described in Leviticus and I Cor. were sinning when you thouht they were nobody you knew. When I pointed out to you that the people described in those passages were in fact very similar to people that you do know, all you could do is retreat into a confusing meandering monologue about how you can’t “see yourself” in those passages.
FWS Not quite. Be fair.
KERNER You were perfectly comfortable making the argument that those passages don’t apply to “gay men” (another meaningless term), when you thought we were all so ignorant as to believe that 99.98% of “gay men” would rather die that have sex with a man “as a woman”, and that the revulsion of “gay men” toward that kind sex was some sort of proof that “being gay” is not wrong. When I challenged you by suggesting that a whole lot more than .02% of self identified “gay men” would probably not “rather die” than have sex with an effeminate man, all of a sudden we are talking about your distaste for eating liver instead of sexual morality.
FWS: Let´s agree for now that all that stuff is speculation. It cannot be prove one way or the other from scripture. The only point I was trying to make with all that is this. To tell someone they did not experience something that they are certain they did is futile. You are doing that. Now maybe you are right. It is still a hard hard sell. “I saw the virgin mary in a taco shell.” I am pretty certain that happened every day starting at age 5. I am not delusional by any standard measure. Why waste energy trying to prove me wrong? Why not just accept my version of things? after all, that part is not about scriptural exegesis. it is experiential knowledge.
KERNER I have to tell you that your arguments lose credibility when you yourself lose credibility.
FWS Don´t ever call me as a witness in court in that case.
collie @ 476
That is not what stephen is saying. read post 414 and see if that clears things up for you.
Yes God tells us things that we can not completely understand. The Holy Trinity is something we will NEVER understand. How can the finite grasp the infinite?
Stephen is suggesting that God has told us that we can and should be certain as to whether or not are actions conform to his Will or not. He is saying that this is not something we need to guess at is is a mystery.
So how does Stephen say God Word tells us we can know for certain right from wrong? We follow our reason guided by the Golden Rule. We test to see if what we are doing is doing harm to others. If not ,we further test to see if what we are doing everything in our power, with all our might, to make the lives of others truly happier and better in our vocations/relationships.
Now we can learn this stuff in two ways: We can learn it by trial and error and get burned a few times.
Or if we are smart, we will turn to summaries of this Golden Rule that we can find in places like the writings of Moses, the SOTM, Aristotle, Aesop´s Fables, our parents, our spouses, our children, the biographies of the Saints, and the like.
Usually human nature is that we chose to learn the hard way. We don´t listen to our parents.
collie @ 476
Stephen gets alot of his ideas from this sermon by martin Luther:
http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10
this sermon is referenced by the formula of Concord art VI as a more detailed explanation of what the Confessions say on a particular point.
Enjoy!
kerner @ 467
“KERNER
Flip that thought Kerner. You are approaching the Law of God as an attorney. You need to give that up.
Let me demonstrate. Phrase it this way:
“The second table can be summarized in the command to love our neighbors as ourselves, but even the long version of the decalog cannot possibly catalog all there is to be said as to all the ways that God demands that we are to love our neighbor in thought, word and deed, both by what we should avoid doing, but much more importantly by what we should must not avoid leaving undone.”
Catch the difference?
Imagine a civil penal code that says that you will spend the rest of your life in jail unless you can prove that you have not neglected to do every possible thing ,regardless of cost or effort, to give your clients the best legal representation according to the very highest standards. You must serve each and every client the way an empassioned lover sacrificially serves his beloved.
What would the details of that code look like? Why would it be impractical?
This is what your new man looks like Kerner! This is what our actions towards each other will look like in heaven.
And God demands nothing less than this kind of keeping of the Law in the first table of the Decalog. You are not really keeping the Letter of the Law if you are not doing this is what God´s Word says.
Are things becoming clearer now?
kerner @ 467
But here on earth Kerner, God makes his goodness and mercy happen in with and under us sinful men how? He extorts Goodness and Mercy out of us by our reason nagged by the Golden Rule. This is the Law of God written in our minds. It agrees with the decalog because it is the same Law. He has written the Golden Rule into our minds.
God will have his way, that is for his Goodness and Mercy to be done on earth whether we get with the program and listen to our reason driven by the Golden Rule or not. If we dont listen to reason, then God will send punishments and plagues to make us do Goodness and Mercy anyhow.
This is illustrated in Jesus story in Luke 18 of the Lawless Judge nagged by a conscience for whom love has died.
fws, #478: “So how does Stephen say God Word tells us we can know for certain right from wrong? We follow our reason guided by the Golden Rule. We test to see if what we are doing is doing harm to others. If not ,we further test to see if what we are doing everything in our power, with all our might, to make the lives of others truly happier and better in our vocations/relationships.
Or if we are smart, we will turn to summaries of this Golden Rule that we can find in places like the writings of Moses, the SOTM, Aristotle, Aesop´s Fables, our parents, our spouses, our children, the biographies of the Saints, and the like.”
Wrong. False teaching.
Thoroughly incompetent theology.
Compare
“We follow our reason guided by the Golden Rule.”
versus
We follow Jesus guided by the Written Word.
fws, I do believe you meant 1 Cor. 7.
In anycase, not sure if it applies at all.
And you do seem to be reading an awful lot into my posts that I sure am not putting there.
For one I don’t know why you have to assume anything about why I say x. Seriously. Quit trying to second guess me, while your at it, quit trying to second guess Paul. He wrote what he wrote.
Third, you write :”You seem to be with Kerner of the opinion that the proof that the Goodness and Mercy that God demands to be done on earth is that we keep the Letter of the Law Bror. That we should, in faith, assume that Love, or maybe Tough Love is being done by following the letter arguing that God is Love so keeping the Letter of the Law then must be Love even if Reason ordered by the Golden Rule comes to a different judgement.”
Where have you come up with that from what I wrote. I’m not here talking about proof of God’s Goodness and Mercy being in us follow the law. Don’t even know where that came from.
But it sure as hell aint in ducking the law either. We are talking about the law and what it says and who it applies to. And it says no sexual acts between men and other men. If you are a man gratifying your sexual desires with a man, this means you, it applies to you.
Now I don’t know what you tell a 16 year old, Fws. I don’t even know much what to say to you. But that it is a sin, and you should probably try to avoid it. I don’t know that that should be harder for a homosexual than it was for me as a heterosexual. Perhaps it is. I don’t know, don’t pretend to know. But I’m certainly not going to recommend that activity.
What I will do is forgive it. Because that is where finally I see God’s love and mercy being displayed in our lives. in Forgiveness, first and foremost, though normally that forgiveness comes a long with this thing called love, that also has a tendency to change our behavior towards others.
Having lived and worked in the UCLA area, the population being mostly Jewish, many doctors being Jewish as well, I have never met a homosexual Jew – I know they exist, but I have never known one. Family life, wife, children and home, mean everything to a Jewish man and woman.
I have just discussed this with my husband, in all the time he has been in business, he has only known one Jewish male homosexual, ONE – my husband has done business with many corporations, many of which are Jewish.
Hello Frank: I’ll read post 414 again, plus your sermon link. And I don’t think I’m misunderstanding Stephen, but I’ll read his post again. I think each side of this debate has staked out their own terms and neither one is willing to address the other’s concerns. I’ve already said that I believe homosexuals suffer pain when told that same-gender sex is a sin; I would suggest that this does show love to my neighbor, because it is repeating God’s word. I don’t have an answer to the problem (sorry, it seems like one) of same sex attraction, and I will say I don’t understand it. But I’m not condemning anyone, here. I’m more concerned with what seems like a reinterpretation of scripture to suit a more contemporary and secular society. The sin lies in believing that God’s word doesn’t really say what it says; this is dangerous, isn’t it? I’ve always been warned that this can lead to a loss of faith.
Your side states that I’m misinterpreting scripture and further seems to equate ‘love for neighbor’ as something that the neighbor perceives as good feelings. In previous posts, you’ve done a really nice job of emphasizing what this looks like and I appreciate that. I guess I would disagree that ‘love for neighbor’ always looks like your definition. A lot of times, maybe, but not always. It seems God disciplines those He loves, and when he disciplines me, it sure doesn’t feel good. I will check out your links.
bror @ 483
“Now I don’t know what you tell a 16 year old, Fws. I don’t even know much what to say to you. But that it is a sin, and you should probably try to avoid it. I don’t know that that should be harder for a homosexual than it was for me as a heterosexual. Perhaps it is. I don’t know, don’t pretend to know. But I’m certainly not going to recommend that activity.”
What is harder? Celebacy? You are not being asked to do that. But you imagine that God is asking me to do that. You aren´t sure why. But you are sure He is asking me to do that. I can´t find that in Holy Scripture. I´m sorry Bror.
Let´s review the “biblical arguments ” one more tedious time…
1) adam and eve, not adam and steve. Check. Get that. That is to assume that a Divine “is” has the force of a Divine ought”. Show me that from scripture.
Yes. Then the same Lord that told Moses to let men cast aside their property called “wife” reveals that God´s Original Plan was for no divorce. But out of mercy for man´s weakness….
God broke his own rule. Why? Mercy rather than sacrifice as the purpose of the Law. Followin my logic here?
2) Lev 18 : man sex with man . One man is assuming the woman´s role. My point here was that I can´t place myself into that biblical scene. Why? that part that was added “as with a woman”. For you that is unimportant. I am supposed to just focus on the man/man sex part and ignore any context. And context: give me the rule that tells me THIS is moral law, and the rest of the context is not… mixed fabric clothing, etc etc. Ah yes. I cor 6. Temple Prostitution? Could that be the reason Paul chose the unique-to-Jewish-septuagint “arseno koitia” rather than any number of other far more common words for man/man sex available in the Greek? Naw. That would be an absurd interpolation. That would be revisionism!
3) Ok. The Sodom and Gomorrah story. Do you need to put me in that story? Why?
4) Romans 1. “they” in romans 1 had “their women” which they left. Odd. sex is not explicitly mentioned until vs 30 with the word “fornication” is it? So if we are talking man/man sex. It is not there. ok. lust. Mental man/man sex?
Here is what troubles me most about reading “homosexuality” into Romans Ch 1: Bror. Buddy: are you telling me that you believe that what is listed in Romans 1:29-32 diagnistically tells you what you should look for in my character?
5) I cor we dealt with when we dealt with Lev 18.
Now Bror. You disagree with me . Fine. But I don´t think that the alternative understanding of these passages are just wildly unreasonable. I am saying that I think they are plausable. They do not violate the context around the specific verse. They do not violate our doctrine. Most importantly, if I am right, it would still not deny that homosexuals sin sexually in exactly all the ways that you do Bror. You covet sexually. You do not honor and love your wife sexually as much as you should , etc etc.
You are not being asked to give up sex. You are being asked to discipline your sex and channel it towards love.
Now THAT is has hard for me as it is for you. Even within a monogamous relationship.
See now?
I see that God tells us not to covet. We covet in many ways. Sex is one of the biggest ways we do that. Money is another way.
Luther says it is easier to cover up coveting with money and even call it a virtue in one of his sermons on Corinthians. I think that is true. But anyway…
Covet. I am not to fear , love or trust in something and seek my good in it. I am to see that it is God providing Goodness and Mercy , in, with and under the things I can see. This includes sex.
So I am to use those things in a way that does not hurt or harm my neighbor , but rather I am to use those things in every possibly way that one can reasonably think to do according to the Golden Rule, to serve others and one´s own self.
“Love others as you love yourself ” implies that if we first do not know how to love ourself , then we can not love others. I am not talking about indulgence here.
I don´t eat right Bror. I need to go to the gym for many reasons. My doctors are urging it. Why don´t I? I am indulging myself. That is not love. But it does not take the Bible or Christ to know that difference now does it?
collie @ 485
Thanks for the love and care you put into your post. and especially: thanks for trying to put into your own words what you hear me saying. That helps alot!
Your side …seems to equate ‘love for neighbor’ as something that the neighbor perceives as good feelings.
C´mon Collie. You don´t need to be a christian to know the difference between love, and lust or love and indulgence. or love and sucking up to someone.
Love looks alot like what someone experiences when they are head over heels for someone. And in a way that they would truly sacrifice their own happiness for that of their beloved. Love is not “the Law Light”. From my example you should see that Love is the Law industrial strength.
Consider: The decalog is a summary of the Law. Love is the SUM of the Law. It is the “everything” of the Law this means. PLUS a Snapple. PLUS a bag of chips.
Letter of the Law looks like begrudgingly or efforting to do every jot and tittle and meticulously making sure that you measure out every drop of katchup mustard, and you count the number of french fries.
Love looks like giving away the entire store to your neighbor. “Hey here are the keys if that is what it will take to make you happy.
In our new man and in heaven Love will look like that “give away the store” kinda love.
Here on earth, because in our heart we insist on placing our faith in anything but Christ, we need rules. Here on earth, love simply cannot exist without rules. Alot of them. But the entire “sum” or purpose of having all those rules is what? To extort out of us something. What is that something God extorts out of us with those rules written/revealed in our reason in the form of that nagging “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?^
It is that the Father WILL have his Goodness and Mercy done.
See? It is not even about our doing love. Fallen Man can´t even do that! It is about God doing His Love, in the form of Goodness and Mercy, in, with and under men who don´t ask for it from God, don´t pray for it, and are wicked AND unworthy. And without merit too!
See collie? Is this what you heard me and stephen saying earlier?
In previous posts, you’ve done a really nice job of emphasizing what this looks like and I appreciate that. I guess I would disagree that ‘love for neighbor’ always looks like your definition. A lot of times, maybe, but not always. It seems God disciplines those He loves, and when he disciplines me, it sure doesn’t feel good. I will check out your links.
Collie @ 485
So that is why, if our reason, properly informed by the Golden Rule judges that following the Letter of the Law is not resulting in Love being done, then something is not passing the God´s Word Smell Test.
This was Jesus point in breaking the Sabbath Law. He did not sin in doing that did he? But he was a Jew. So how is it that He did not sin. Ponder that.
He says “The sabbath (and by extension the entire Law I say) was made for man, not man for the sabbath. ” Then , so that he is understood clearly he says this: “Go and find out what it means when God says: “I would have mercy rather than sacrifice.”
But we followed the Law to the Letter! So that MUST be Love! Bzxzzzzz. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing. Try again.
Mercy not sacrifice. Divorce not allowed. But the law is made for man. Mercy. Divorce allowed! But now with protections for the female and her children. More Mercy. See? But we don´t walk away with that lesson when Jesus criticizes the Jews for following the letter of the Law in divorce. We don´t learn that the lesson there is Mercy. We learn that there is a Letter of the Law that is from Christ Himself that is more letter of the Law than even Moses and the Pharisees!
Adam and eve, NOT adam and steve! Ok. But that doesnt work to provide “the not good to be alone” and “better marry than to burn” Mercy that the Law was designed to provide. So what do to ? Mercy! Not sacrifice. What to do? what does Love demand? Wish for others to have what you have! Wish for others to have, maybe not completely, but as much as is practically possible, all the wonderful blessings of companionship, mutual self discipline, love, mercy, forgiveness etc etc etc that a stable pairing off can provide in life.
Will it be the same as male/female marriage? No. Will it even be as good as male /female marriage. Probably not. But is it better than nothing? Of course. Is it mercy? It looks like it!
Bror, Kerner, Collie, et al
let´s clear an important point up here:
What does it mean when a child, or you or me, can´t see that something bad is good or something good is bad?
It means they lack wisdom. Wisdom is reason , aka the Law God has written in the minds of men+ experience. Or they lack judgement. That is where they flee from reason in favor of emotions, etc.
Saying that lack of judgement is to flee reason in favor of emotions is not to say that to favor emotions is to flee reason.
The Law is written , by God in our Reason.
But the “sum” or purpose of the Law is to make us do Love for others. Love is affective. Love touches our feelings and emotions. Would I be overstating to say that feelings and emotions are ALWAYS something that love produces? No.
And the words to describe that emotional response are : joy, peace, love…… these are fruits of what? the Spirit? yes.
They are ALSO fruits of the Law being done!
That is to say this:
Those emotions are the Biblically mandated evidence that the Good Works that God demands in the 10 commandments and elsewhere in his word are being done.
What say you Kerner?
Try this Bror:
I am suggesting that our problem is less an exegetical one than a doctrinal one.
Dealing with “for example” or metaphor, or cute stories can be to let reason trump doctrine. I think we all do that when the conversation veers there. Me too. The thing is, we could be right. we could be wrong. How would we know for sure?
We get off on casuistric arguments that are based on aparent reason and logic. I keep encouraging you to engage me on the level of doctrine. My post on that that I think is most succinct is 414.
I keep inviting you to go there. you don’t. Is that fair to say?
I know that in some ways it is more comfortable in what is really pure speculation compared to God´s Word, things like what a homo is or is not. etc. definitions of words. etc etc etc.
Can you please do me the Mercy of addressing directly my post 414? Pretty please? with sum suggah on it?
By the way, please accept my apology for putting words into your mouth that you did not say. thanks for being gracious about that.
Collie -
The point of my story was to hopefully present things simply. Perhaps by making it about something like cherry pie it would not feel so threatening too. It’s an allegory and not meant to patch up all the holes. It is meant to present things in a way that humanizes it and shows it in more simple terms.
That is because I feel like it is in many ways quite simple. What I feel like I have done again and again is really to restate in dozens of ways the same sorts of simple questions though. They have to do with love of neighbor, which is the whole of the law – the entire law, that is, hat the whole law is actually about and useful for. If it does not fit into that, it isn’t by definition what God means by divine law.
Earlier I stated my own educational credentials with a caveat that I did so to be fair and lay my cards on the table. I don’t want to trump what your pastor tells you. If this is all too disturbing then turn it off. I stopped watching some crime show last night because I was trying to relax and it was just troubling me. I actually want to talk about the law and what it is and why we use it one way here and what seems to me for all intents and purposes like a different way for select segment of people here.
Frank wants to talk about doctrine and the Lutheran Confessions. As far as I can tell, he brought up his own “situation” to make a doctrinal point, and not to talk about himself. But then others could not let it go. The conversation then goes on into all kinds of details. Frank tries to make it about the law and what the Scripture and Confessions actually teach us about it and he gets raked over the coals for his sin, judged by people who don’t even know him. What else is going to do but try to teach people that he and most gay people he has ever known are not like those people depicted in the bible? He’s not, they’re not, and neither are the many gay people I have known in my life.
I’m not doubting the validity of the mystery of God. But there is not one other single rule put out there that some class of people is asked to adhere to in the Christian community for which we can find no basis in the “whole of the law.” That has not been presented. What has been presented are imagined stereotypes of people in very unusual and specific circumstances that are somehow supposed to define people a general populace of gay people to make arguments about how disturbing everything associated with being gay must inevitably be. Beyond that, we have the argument that says God makes rules that have outcomes that are the opposite of what we know to be love in every other case, but we are told in this one case we must simply believe it is love and not what we actually experience it to be, which is misery and suffering.
The last argument is some kind of design argument, one you seemed to have used. In your case, you equated being gay with a disability. Well, is it a disability or is it sin? Do I have asthma because I am a sinner? Am I choosing to have it in other words? Or should I not do everything available to live my life so that I experience joy and fulfillment with this affliction. When an attack comes, am I supposed to just bear it and not seek the balm of medicine? Perhaps since humans clearly were not designed to have such a disease, if I were to rightly follow every commandment to the letter I would not have this problem. Shall I be refused communion until I repent of my asthma? Do you see the issue with this view of the law?
No one has actually answered the question of love, service, mercy. Frank also extended it further and asked why it is the case that straight people are allowed to have divorces and remarry and have what would otherwise be seen as serial polygamy situations. Why mercy there and none for gays? Why have they been singled out? Why in their case has a holiness code been given ultimate status, applied to people who do not identify with it, and made something that effects their salvation and standing with God?
The Confessions state that Christians have nothing to do with holiness codes. They are for the Jews. Ask your pastor. We deal with the Decalog and our reason. The Decalog is summed up in the words “Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.” Beyond this, our reason helps us understand what it means to do love and mercy. Is it love and mercy to take the joy of companionship, and yes, the sex that goes with it, away from gays because we need them to follow a rule for no other reason than we think this rule fits them, even if following that rule does not generate the love and mercy God has told us is the whole of the law, i.e. the entire purpose and meaning of the law? And if following that rule actually creates suffering, then what?
The question, as far as I am concerned, is still out there.
By the way Collie. . .
I appreciate your kind manner. It is refreshing. And I mean that about not wanting to usurp your pastor or your sense of the trustworthiness of scripture. What matters is faith in Jesus Christ. He is the Word writ large, the whole reason for the scriptures. I truly believe they are a seamless garment that reveal Him and His grace and mercy for all, even the least of these. Theology has been called “faith seeking understanding” and that is what I mean to do.
Grace, #463: “I don’t believe anyone who supports sin, be it homosexual sex, fornication, adultery to be a “theologian” nor would I listen to anything they had to say, or write. Their doctrine is skewed and flawed to the extent of leading the unsuspecting astray.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Romans 16:18″
Dear Grace, I commend your kind heart in how you show love to your neighbor — by simply pointing them to God and His Holy Word.
God bless you!
Truth – 493
Thank you for your kind words Truth.
We have nothing but the LORD God Almighty and His Word, all the unrepentant sin, all the false doctrine will never make sin righteous, nor will it allow those who live in its pig pen, denying their inability to escape (1 Corinthians 10:13) even though Paul wrote specifically as to God’s promise…. no one is tempted above what they are able to bear. They will reap the results of their blatant sin, as Paul writes in Romans 1, Ephesians 5, Galatians 5, and James 1.
Stephen, #491: “Is it love and mercy to take the joy of companionship, and yes, the sex that goes with it, away from gays because we need them to follow a rule for no other reason than we think this rule fits them, even if following that rule does not generate the love and mercy God has told us is the whole of the law, i.e. the entire purpose and meaning of the law? And if following that rule actually creates suffering, then what?
The question, as far as I am concerned, is still out there.”
Stephen, do you agree that Bror extends love and mercy to his neighbor fws with his comment in #483? Stephen, do you think Bror is creating suffering when he urges fws not to duck the Law and that the Law applies to fws when fws gratifies his sexual desires with another man?
Bror: “And you do seem to be reading an awful lot into my posts that I sure am not putting there.
For one I don’t know why you have to assume anything about why I say x. Seriously. Quit trying to second guess me, while your at it, quit trying to second guess Paul. He wrote what he wrote.
Third, you write :”You seem to be with Kerner of the opinion that the proof that the Goodness and Mercy that God demands to be done on earth is that we keep the Letter of the Law Bror. That we should, in faith, assume that Love, or maybe Tough Love is being done by following the letter arguing that God is Love so keeping the Letter of the Law then must be Love even if Reason ordered by the Golden Rule comes to a different judgement.”
Where have you come up with that from what I wrote. I’m not here talking about proof of God’s Goodness and Mercy being in us follow the law. Don’t even know where that came from.
But it sure as hell aint in ducking the law either.
We are talking about the law and what it says and who it applies to. And it says no sexual acts between men and other men. If you are a man gratifying your sexual desires with a man, this means you, it applies to you. ….
What I will do is forgive it. Because that is where finally I see God’s love and mercy being displayed in our lives. in Forgiveness, first and foremost, though normally that forgiveness comes along with this thing called love, that also has a tendency to change our behavior towards others.”
Stephen, re my list (mostly children) was to point out that some people suffer in this life in an extraordinary way, and maybe gays are included in this group. I guess my observation is that God obviously lets some people have more enjoyable, easy lives and others have a tough ride. Why is that? Does he call some to a life of suffering?
Wish I could continue, but I probably won’t have much time today. And yes, I will stop reading threads if they get too disturbing.
Collie
I think your question is valid, but I think the distinction would then be a suffering which is enforced by the law of God and does not allow for any kind of relief available. That is why I included my example of using medicine. It’s like telling people who are blind that they cannot use canes, or people who cannot walk that they cannot use wheelchairs because the world was not “designed” this way and you were given to “suffer.”
An example in a different vein, if a child grows up under a father who relentlessly beats them and tells them this is love, then one day they grow up and realize that, no, this was not love at all, what are they to think about the “love” that was being offered to this child by the father? It was “law” they had to live under “or else” but it was not love. This goes to the mysteriousness of a law that we say is loving even though it does not look that way. We tell others they must obey because it comes from God and they fit into it, even though what we say they fit into does not produce love.
Anyway, in your example, there is a difference between being born into a life of suffering of some kind and then being told your suffering is a also a sin and that it is furthermore under a restriction. Nothing else anyone can name goes under a similar restriction. If they could, it would be to make that affliction have some kind of eternal consequences before God. Yet we know that the only thing that does so is faith in Christ alone.
Stephen, I just can’t reconcile scripture with condoning gay relationships. Gays suffer greatly if forced by circumstances beyond their control, or from spiritual conviction, to be celibate. But, if we legitimize ‘marriage’ for gays, they will be relieved of societal discrimination and church discipline, plus they don’t have to worry about the economic and emotional cost and toil of raising children. This would then put them into a better category of ease than those who live in the traditioanal family unit.
I think the best course is to allow civil unions in the secular sphere; I’m not sure we can improve upon that.
collie @ 498
Is love about spreading around economic, emotion, and toil equally? In that case communism is the definition of love. And the SUM , that is , the purpose, of the Law is to make love happen.
Older persons marry just for companionship and will not have the burden of children either. Sterile couples also marry and we do not demand a fertility test before allowing marriage.
It is true that many gays end up without children. They often feel a real loss in that and would love to be parents. So many adopt or become foster parents. Some pair off with that exact vision in mind actually. And then there are many gays who grow old and alone. This is sounding more like “humans” than “gay” or “straight” yes?
Having a partner or adopting is a great way to excercise the self discipline required to serve others. And it is a great way to chose, in order to serve others. The Law of God, written in the minds of gays and other humans, often drives them then to adopt and to pair off precisely because their conscience is nagging them to do that.
Kerner, Bror:
Consider: We christians know exactly what is driving homosexuals to pair off and work hard at monogamy and try to be chaste. We know exactly what drives homosexuals to adopt and become foster children.
It is the very Law of God, which he has written in the minds of all men , that is driving them to do all of these things!
fws: “Consider: We christians know exactly what is driving homosexuals to pair off and work hard at monogamy and try to be chaste. … It is the very Law of God, which he has written in the minds of all men , that is driving them to do all of these things!”
Hi Grace,
Does your research validate these assertions by fws?
collie
I get that it is hard to recincile, just as I cannot reconcile a restriction that does not equate with love, mercy service to the neighbor, but does just the opposite. I’m talking about what Jesus said is the sum total, meaning, purpose and use of the entire law – every lot and titel of the law = LOVE. If it aint that, it aint the divine law of God. And this, as far as I can see, aint that.
Think about the conflict over slavery. The American abolitionists saw that baptized believers were slaves. St. Paul instructed slaves to return to their masters. Northern abolistionist Christians would then be duty bound to send those escaped slaves back the South. They didn’t. That would seem to be in clear violation of scripture, would it not? But they chose mercy rather than sacrifice (righteous propitiation to the law). They even fought and died for it. How do we reconcile that. I say we look to the cross, where the opposite of sin is not our adherance to the law, it is faith in Christ, who takes away the sin of the world and recinciles us to God.
“I say we look to the cross, where the opposite of sin is not our adherance to the law, it is faith in Christ, who takes away the sin of the world and recinciles us to God.”
Stephen, do you also say that same-sex behavior is a sin?
Is it a sin to own slaves? It would seem not to be so by scripture. Can a woman covet another woman’s husband (strict reading of the 10th commandment)? Why does that commandment not address women? And how silent should women actually be? Shouldn’t Grace stop trying to teach us here as it says in 1 Timothy 2? She seems to defying scripture by what she does. Do men own their wives? Their children? That seems to be the implication of the commandments and all the other evidence of scripture. And likewise, am I or anyone else wrong not to beat my children? And do we sin by not worshiping God on Saturday and making that a holy day (3rd commandment)? Why are we not complete pacifists like the Amish who do not kill or do violence to any other human being no matter what, thereby keeping the 5th commandment completely?
What is the whole of the law TU…aD? You want into this conversation, stop being so haughty and bossy and work on those questions a bit. Maybe I’ll pay attention to you then.
Kerner Bror
Let me try this another way.
A)There are always 2 sides to the Law here on sinful earth in our Old Adam. In our Baptismal New Man, as in Heaven, only 2) will exist. The two sides are: 1) should not harm and 2) should love. I think we are agreed that the entire sum, that is purpose of both sides is to do love.
B) Love can not be done by following a list as St Paul points out. But love, with sinful men, also will not happen withhout being “extorted” (FC Art VI) out of us by the Law. That is the only Divinely intended utility of A) 1). You two disagree exactly as to my only right here.
C) So when you read about male /female sex in the scripture and what is depicted is1) rape or 2) coveting someone elses wife, you will think , respectively : 1) “I would NEVER do that!” and 2) “I SHOULD never do that!”. 1) does not prick your conscience 2) should because you probably have done it in your heart.
D)Now C) 1) and C) 2) are both male/female sex. So why not then conclude that ALL male/female sex is therefore wrong because the letter of the Law says it is wrong?
Answer: Examples of good male/female sex ALSO exist in the bible. 1)There are also, in the Bible , positive examples of male/female sex. Adam and Eve, and what Christ says.
2)We need to leave out the OT patriarchs right? All of them practiced polygamy. So then Adam and Eve, pre-fall, and the words of Christ describing marriage, are the examples we have. Bad/imperfect examples of male/female sex far outweigh the good examples then. on a ratio of about say 100 to 1. 101 to 1 if you count adam and eve prefall and post fall. 4) Natural Law in the logical/reasonable/aristotelian/Saint Thomas sense. The Divine Ordinances of Biological Laws.
These 4 elements are what need to be worked for to justify male/female sex.
So now lets look at gay sex in the same way.
A) The same two sides of the SUM or Divinely Intended End Outcome of the Law apply. There is no separate Law here for man/man sex or man/female sex.
B) One might assert that the production of earthly Divine Goodness and Mercy that is sensi-ble evidential love/Golden Rule being done 1) is not the only utility of the Law of God. Obedience to God , or sacrifice, that is , keeping the Letter of the Law is also God Intended End Result of the Law. Or… 2) love IS the only the divinely desired outcome, but we just can´t see it in this single case of male/male sex. or… 3) some third possibility. Please make up your minds here! This matters for all , be they gay or hetero.
C) So when one reads about male / male sex in the Holy Scriptures, there we see 1) rape 2) men wanting to be treated sexually like women 3) coveting other men , ie sex as idolatry.
Your response would probably be 1) “I would NEVER do that” 2) “I would NEVER do that”, 3) “I have committed THAT form of coveting, but with a woman, or with another guy.
The point here is idolatry and coveting. It is not male/male coveting. If that were the point than Romans 2:1 would not drive a stake into our heart in the form of a guilty conscience.
In that case then, Romans Ch 1 would be about someone else´s sin and not about “God has condemned ALL , so that he would have mercy on ALL”, which is the entire context or Chief Point of the Epistle to the Romans. And in that case Romans 2:1 cannot be read as THE Point St Paul is trying to drive home in Romans 1.
So we should ALL get this message: ” a) I covet and, b) that springs from Original sin , which is the faith that is called Idolatry. ” Romans 2:1 demands that you apply Romans 1 in the sense here of C)3).
So I am saying that a man who likes sex with females, and a man who likes sex with males so far should and will read these passages in the same identical way .
D) But, you say. 1) all these passages refer , negatively so, to male/male sex. So… But then so do almost ALL the examples in the Bible of male/female sex. So what is the difference? But we could conclude from that that all male/male forms of sex are wrong. Why not just do that? Isn´t this an obvious fact that avoidance of is merely to be disingenuous?
Answer: 1) Examples of good male/female sex ALSO exist in the bible. There are also, in the Bible , at least two positive, pure, and righeous examples of male/female sex. Adam and Eve (pre-fall), and what Christ describes in metaphor. There is NO positive example in the Bible of male/male sex. That is a fact! So then, so far,gay celibacy could be determined, by deductive logic, to be required.
2) I said earlier that we need to leave out the OT patriarchs right? All of them practiced polygamy. The also practiced prostitution, and ahem, probably temple sex with a castrated male that was prohibited in Lev 18. Why would the prohibition be there, if it was something off the radar? But it was wrong for me to tell you to disregard the examples of those OT patriarchs because their examples were chock-full of sexual sinning wasn´t it. Why? God´s Word commands us to use the examples of the saints, which are almost,no, always, deeply flawed or blattantly BAD examples, including those of the Holy Apostles. And how are we to emply those examples? As lessons in faith. Faith. We are to learn that even “in,with, and under” incredible sinning, God has worked his Goodness and Mercy of the 23rd Psalm and not just the 1st article, but also the 2nd and 3rd article through the Promised Messiah, who had those nasty OT patriarchs who would not be admitted into any Christian Church I know of until they openly showed signs of repentance by doing a necessarily radical make over of their Patriarchal “lifestyles”, along with a whore prominently, and pointedly , listed as his ancestors! So then Adam and Eve, pre-fall, and the words of Christ describing marriage, are the examples we have. Bad/imperfect examples of male/female sex far outweigh the good examples then. on a ratio of about say 100 to 1. 101 to 1 if you count adam and eve prefall and post fall. So now we understand how Jesus could claim that even, everywhere, in the OT, those examples are a testimony to Him. Abraham did what he did. But if faith was not “in, with and under” what those OT Patriarchs did, then it would not be a very pretty picture now would it. Our focus in reading the OT should be the same as it is in our baptismal life: We should focus on things above and not things that will perish.
So the Patriarchs did what Old Adam men do. They treated women exactly like property. Like Chattel. Physical Might makes things Divinely Right. That is what Aquinas´Aristotelian version of Natural Law leads us to. The End justifies the Means as the followers of St Thomas, the Jesuits coined the phrase. There are no rules about female sex, or divorce in this version of natural law. Women could not divorce. It was not just forbidden, it was simply out of the equation of women-are-property. Ditto rape. Women-are-property. So rape is a property right violation. Ditto the Divine Institution of Marriage. Marriage=purchase of a female property. But none of that was God´s Original Plan was it according to the words of Christ? So what does God do? He does Mercy, shaped by reality on the ground. But pay attention too to what he does NOT do: He does not demand that Women be treated like the Bride of Christ does he? No. He sanctions (read “condones”) polygamy. He condones divorce. But he makes sure that women, for the very first recorded time in human history have property rights. Property can not own property. Women then , for the first time in recorded history are more than Property. Along with their children. More Mercy. And this has a lot to do with the Mercy that is the Promise that those OT saints clung to, and which they received, “in , with and under” their circumcisions. Even the women who (at least so far as I know) were not circumcised as they often still are today.
And so we can learn from what God did , even in the OT, to know how his Law that is in our reason driven by the Golden Rule is to be applied. It is to do Mercy and not Sacrifice, bending to the societal context as much as possible. And guess what? This is exactly what Saint Paul did in a church chock full of Jews. He made the Gentile converts bend to the social mores of the Jews until the Jews declared that to do so was to follow the Law as being about obedience and sacrifice for which following the Letter is the proof. The Saint Paul says no. He does not reject the outward keeping of the Law. But he says that the point of that outward keeping is to be “useful” to others (1 cor 6). He says that the Letter of the Law is purposed to do Love. It is not purposed to do sacrifice. He is merely showing us , in practice , what Christ our Lord says when he broke the 10 commandments according to the Letter. He said this: “The Sabbath (and by extention the entire Law) is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” And to underline his intent here he then adds: “Go find what it means when God says ‘I would have you do Mercy rather than Sacrifice”.
So now finally we come to 4. The LCMS is recently really getting into this last point 4. Why? It is the last wall of defense against what? Homosexuality. That´s What. The problem is that points 1-3 do not provide such a great defense I hope I have shown. So now what? Hmmm. We can return to the Roman Catholic Scholasticism that we previously left in the Augsburg Confessions. Yeah. That´s the ticket.
4) Natural Law in the logical/reasonable/aristotelian/Saint Thomas sense. The Divine Ordinances of Biological Laws.
But the Lutheran Confessions most pointedly separate THIS definition of “natural Law” by creating a whole new amoral category in Ap art XXIII called “Divine Ordinance.”
This is an integral part of a pointed rejection , I assert, of Thomastic placement of the Divine Image as being revealed in the Law, by our Confessions. This argument, is disallowed as an argument I am saying, for Lutherans , to demand gay celebacy in this ,/i> aristotelian form. The proper form is to narrowly define “natural law” as being Reason driven by the Golden Rule written into Reason by God. Why? That is the understanding of “natural law” that conforms to Saint Paul´s usage rather than to Aristotle´s.
Besides the fact that D) 4) is not “sola scriptura” and it is not even “solo Christo” since it is a Law severed from being completed alone by faith alone in Christ alone. This is about sacrifice.
There is no Mercy in this. And precisely for that reason, it robs Christ of his honor. We tell gays they are to seek God´s Mercy in doing the sacrifice, and we all can see it IS a sacrifice, in order to do what? To obtain the Mercy of God.
But faith in Christ tells us of that same Law of Reason now without the Veil of Moses. We keep the law outwardly in order and only to exercise faith in Him IN, with and under what? Fervent love towards our neighbor.
And so the fruit of that faith that he demands simply is impossible to do with a rendered, vassal, symbolic, ritual, outward, “do-it-by-the-numbers” obedience to a Sovreign God. It is the production of love for neighbor. It is Fatherly Goodness and Mercy that is his FULL intent, the FULL SUM of the Law. He does not need the sacrifice of our bull….which is the filthy used menstrual rags that are our very finest outward obedience and sacrifices rendered. He wants our heart poured out in love to him, and in service to our neighbor. This is not doing. This is faith. And the fruit of that faith can ONLY be Goodness and Mercy. It is the fruit of our New Man Obedience that is already complete in Christ.
Bless you all.
Bror informs me that you are a competent theologian, Stephen.
A theologian shows himself to be competent and loving by answering a neighbor’s straightforward question such as this:
“Stephen, do you also say that same-sex behavior is a sin?”
Stephen, FWS, what does love tell us about women’s ordination?
Truth – 501
TRUTH “Hi Grace, Does your research validate these assertions by fws?”
Truth, either believe that most people are ignorant of the homosexual community, all their stamping about, regarding monogamy, faux marriage – the joke is, they aren’t “monogamous” if they were, their faux spouses wouldn’t become infected with HIV/AIDS or STD’s -
My husband and I are familiar with those who are homosexual – one couple (male and female) had three children, two boys and one girl. Their father decided he was homosexual when the kids were teens, they divorced. The mother kept the daughter, and older son, the father took the other younger son. The older son became one of the most arrogant people I’ve known – the daughter then went to live with her father. To make a long story short:
The younger son left home, and began his life as a homosexual, just like his father. The daughter began to change rapidly, she now appears to be a lesbian. The father of these children had his long time ‘partner’ who died of AIDS. The younger son had a faux wedding about 18 years ago, and then they had a faux divorce – the younger son found someone else…… but alas, about 9 years ago he died of AIDS – that’s about 9 years after they had been together. MONOGAMY? – no…….! Father’s partner died, and son’s partner both died after being together for years.
Both the younger son and his sister observed this faux garbage and followed right after dad – this is just but one story – there are more.
Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children? – - NO! They bring the children up in an environment which is fraught with sin, then bringing despair and pain. Children need a stable life, what they don’t need is sexually confused dad/dad’s or mom/mom’s to raise them.
Children become all too often what they observed, as they were raised.
Grace,
Wow. That story does not reflect neighborly love nor does it reflect reason informed by the Golden Rule. It’s really a story of the consequences of what happens when folks abandon God’s Loving Commandments.
In addition, are there statistics about the purported monogamy of homosexuals that fws is touting?
Grace,
Also, I want to thank you for being a loving and kind neighbor. A loving and kind Christian informs and warns their neighbors by sharing stories like yours of what happens when folks abandon and disregard God’s Loving Commandments.
Todd @ 507
Please first read my post at 505. I think then you can answer your own question dear brother..
I think that 505 should clear up alot of the issues you were not understanding either me or steve on, so you can then decide…
whether or not what we are saying conforms to the Word of God and to the Confessions.
We will need to come to agreement and clarity on the Law of God before we can move on to specific issues . Make sense Todd? Then after we reach agreement on the Law, those specifics will look amazingly clear and simple.
fws, #505: “The LCMS is recently really getting into this last point 4. Why? It is the last wall of defense against what? Homosexuality. That´s What.”
Are you saying that the LCMS is homophobic?
“But the Lutheran Confessions most pointedly separate THIS definition of “natural Law” by creating a whole new amoral category in Ap art XXIII called “Divine Ordinance.”
Are you now saying that the Lutheran Confessions has an amoral category in it? Are you now disagreeing with parts of the Lutheran Confessions?
If you don’t think there is an AGENDA, watch the video’s – Our children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews are being INDOCTRINATED to accept sin as normal.
truthud @ 512
I hope you realize that “amoral ” is not “immoral”. An “amoral ” think would be the Law of Gravity. In itself it is not a law that is about morality. But of course you can use that law for an immoral or moral purpose.
No the LCMS is not homophobic. I am sure that some members are very misinformed about homosexuality and homosexuals, and there are many who are well informed and some who are specialists on that topic such as psychiatrists, researchers and doctors. Some think homosexuality is a sin. Some do not.
ALL should believe that Christ has paid , fully for the sins of all mankind. I am sure there are some who do not.
Let me ask you some questions. You who will not tell me your name:
What kind of response are you looking for here? and why? What is your purpose and motive?
fws @514,
I think it would be immensely beneficial for folks to acknowledge that same-sex behavior is sin. And that the Authority declaring such originates with God in His Holy Word.
Folks cannot genuinely repent of a sin until they genuinely acknowledge that it is a sin.
FWS, will you genuinely acknowledge that your same-sex behavior is a sin, genuinely confess that it’s a sin to God (and if you want to publicly confess that it’s a sin on this thread too, that would be very welcome as well), and then to genuinely repent of that sin?
This would be a wonderful beginning. Will you do this, fws?
For those interested, this is what the Ap. XXIII actual says about natural law, divine ordinance, and human sexuality.
First, Gen. 1:28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful, and that one sex in a proper way should desire the other. For we are speaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetite which was to have been in nature in its integrity [which would have existed in nature even if it had remained uncorrupted], which they call physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows. . . Secondly, And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a natural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctly that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. But since natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage must always remain. For where nature does not change, that ordinance also with which God has endowed nature does not change, and cannot be removed by human laws.
+HRC
fws – 514
“truthud @ 512 “I hope you realize that “amoral ” is not “immoral”. An “amoral ” think would be the Law of Gravity. In itself it is not a law that is about morality. But of course you can use that law for an immoral or moral purpose.”
You might try using a dictionary f.
Amoral definition:
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
FWS (@511), I haven’t asked for us to come to agreement, nor is such necessary for you to tell me what you think love tells us about women’s ordination.
Instead, you point me to a post that is, in addition to being quite lengthy and sometimes hard to understand, very much about homosexuality in its specifics. And you tell me that the answer is in there, that this will clear things up.
If the specifics are “amazingly clear and simple” to you, then tell me. You certainly have not failed to make clear your views on the specifics of male-male sex with respect to the Law. Is there a reason I’m left to guess what you therefore conclude about women’s ordination?
Pastor Curtis @ 516
I do not believe that art XXIII is intended to be read or expecially excerpted this way.
It is numbered XXIII for a reason.
It is to be read in the full context of Art I, II, III, and IV which form the heart of the Apology.
I am pretty confident that , as a Lutheran Pastor, you will have no objection to what I just said.
So what I am saying this means , is that one would need to understand what the confessions mean by that word “concupiscence”. Also, one would need to understand what the confessions mean by “natural law”. Then the readerwould need to know how “God´s Ordinance ” is different from “natural law” . Only then will then understand what is meant by “natural right”.
One would need to know especially this: The Lutheran confessions radically redefined the terms “concupiscence”, “natural law” and “divine ordinance” .
They did this deliberately to depart from the meaning of those terms as employed by Roman Catholics who base the meaning of those terms on the works of the aristotelian Saint Thomas.
I don´t want to put words into your mouth dear pastor, but your thesis seems to be this: “The Lutheran confessions use the terms “natural law ” and “natural right”. Therefore it is ok for Lutherans to use those terms as well”.
The glaring problem with your thesis is this: The Lutheran Confessors were well aware of how the Roman Catholic Thomasian Scholastics employed those terms. They redefined those terms radically away from the way rome uses those terms.
You seem to not see this.
Again, if I am putting words or thoughts into your mouth and mind, I need to apologize. And it would be good if you would then correct what I am mis-ascribing to you here in that case.
Thank you.
todd @ 519
Fair enough Todd. Let me retract that post for now to you.
It is not ready for prime time. it is needlessly wordy and I notice that it is unclear in parts.
My answer to you Todd is to take the long view. Since we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, did the North sin against the South by not sending all those slaves back and instead freeing them, clearly violating St. Paul’s instructions about slaves returning to their masters? Was MLK wrong to insist upon the full measure of freedom for blacks even in defiance of the current authorities of his day? What is the whole of the law? Use your imagination. Should Grace shut her heterodox, Luther-hating mouth as she tries to correct us all? What is the point of St. Paul’s instructions to the church in the 1st c.? What is the whole of the law? Is it about order for the sake of love or rules for the sake of fulfilling God’s law so that things are “the way it oughta be?” Is it love to ask women who have gifts not to use them? Do women have the same status today in our world as they did then? Is it disorderly to have women teach in other settings nowadays as it may have been then?
I desire mercy not sacrifice. This means that what God really and truly wants is that we show mercy to our neighbor rather than do a sacrifice of our good works to propitiate God’s wrath and thereby keep the law (only) outwardly. Why? Because it is in acts of mercy that the law is actually summed up. Our sacrifices, on the other hand, stink. You know that.
I invite you or anyone else to read the entire Apology alongside Melanchthon’s Loci on the Law and marriage ( Chemnitz’s Loci as well for good measure) and Luther’s aforementioned piece How Christians Should Regard Moses and make up their own minds about what the terms mean. I can only point you to the truth – I cannot force you to see it.
Your interpretation of the evidence is, frankly, idiosyncratic and nonsensical to my eyes. Obviously, one of us is right and the other wrong. Again, any amount of bluster on either side won’t prove the point. I am confident than any reasonable person who pursues the course of reading I just prescribed will understand that there is no trick to understanding what I quoted from the Apology: it means what it says. If you think you’ve got something to teach that other scholars of 16th c. Lutheranism have missed (For example, everyone contained in the recent book from CPH Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal) – by all means, write it up and submit it to Logia, LF, CJ, CTQ, etc.
As Melanchthon wonderfully said, God made man and woman for each other. Marriage is natural and good – part of God’s divine ordinance for man and available to men and women by natural right. Homosexual desire and acts, on the other hand, are contrary to God’s desire and plan for humanity, as any honest reading of Scripture makes clear. That is the plain truth and all I can do for you in this matter is bear witness to it and beseech you to heed it.
Satis superque,
+HRC
pastor curtis at 523
My point was about the Lutheran and confessional definition of 3 key words.
my post was not about marriage or even priestly celebacy.
Yet you dont engage me on the definition of those words do you? There is a reason for that.
“Yet you dont engage me on the definition of those words do you? There is a reason for that.”
Care to tell us what you think the reason is, fws?
Acts of Mercy Stephen in #522: “Should Grace shut her heterodox, Luther-hating mouth as she tries to correct us all?”
(1) How does this show mercy to Grace, Stephen?
(2) I do not see evidence of her hating Luther.
(3) She has not tried to correct us “all.”
(4) Why do you call her heterodox? An example of a heterodox person is someone who doesn’t believe that Scripture teaches that same-sex behavior is sin.
Oh Puleeeese Pastor Curtis. . . .
Until only recently was anything at all to do with Natural Law in Lutheran seminaries regarded as scholastic nonsense that was overturned by Luther, the Confessions, et. al. This book you cite is an new wave thing that is the latest out of the LCMS being drawn up precisely because of the fear of homosexuality. Run to Rome. You know that the Reformation was a complete and utter refutation of Aquinas, scholasticism, Aristotle’s metaphysics, Natural Law, the whole tomato, and that every competent Lutheran theologian also knows that Melanchthon tried to appease Rome with his systematic approach which later Gnesio Lutherans defied.
Once again you poison the well, labeling others pejoratively who don’t see it your way, and adding a touch of your credentialism with it. Just because someone hasn’t published in those journals doesn’t mean they don’t have something to say. That smacks of some kind of magisterium in the church. You’ve done nothing more than use the Confessions as a proof text without exposition, and offered your own opinion statements as proofs without explaining them. That really is bluster.
TUaD @ 526
1) Yes, I really struggle with Mat 5:44. You? I’ve worked on my relatioship with Grace but it hasn’t gone so well. The way you seem to read scripture though, she is in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12, or do you get around that clear scriptural mandate for all time and for all people somehow? As I pointed out to her, the text makes no mention of pulpits or churches, so don’t even go there.
2) Stick around.
3) Stick around
4) Because she does not believe God acts in baptism to save and make new creations as it clearly states in scripture. She sees baptism as dependent upon faith and a work. And to the other part of your question, I disagree that this is the case in the way we have been discussing it here.
“This book you cite is an new wave thing that is the latest out of the LCMS being drawn up precisely because of the fear of homosexuality.”
Stephen, are you a member of an LCMS church?
Stephen @528,
Do you agree with fws in #95 when he wrote:
“Yet Scripture clearly says that people will chose to be in hell. Many of those will be Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists….”
What are you, the Inquisition? Lighten up.
Truth – 510
Thank you for your kind words. It’s very difficult to observe a family disintegrate before your eyes, because they have allowed sin to rule.
“It’s very difficult to observe a family disintegrate before your eyes, because they have allowed sin to rule.”
I agree. It’s too bad. That family may have had too many neighbors like Stephen surrounding them with their defective notions of love and mercy.
How’s that again? What do you know about me and my neighbors? Did you just come here to slander people? Check # 8 since you seem all fired up about the law. I think you just broke it in black and white.
“How’s that again?”
Stephen, you have defective notions of love and mercy.
You know who I’m going to trust to teach me about love and mercy? It’s the guy who’s itching to separate the wheat from the tares in spite of what our Savior taught! The guy who’s insinuating that some people here are faking their faith (@403)! The guy who repeatedly asks everyone he doesn’t agree with to submit to a pigeonholing pop quiz/poll. The guy who’s chummy with those holding firmly to heterodoxy as long as they have the right opinion on homosexuality.
Hey TUaD, does God allow divorce or not? It’s a simple question for a theologian like you. I only need a “yes” or “no”.
tODD @ 536,
I’ll answer your question when you answer this question from #460:
“FWS argues that same-sex behavior is not sin versus Bror arguing that same-sex behavior is sin. Both of them appeal to Scripture, and to some degree, the Confessions.
Stephen, tODD, Rick Ritchie, and BW, since you are all regarded as competent theologians by Bror, whose argument do you agree with more? FWS’s or Bror’s?
A competent theologian will be able to answer a straightforward theological question such as this.”
——-
I went back to #403. Still solid.
“Furthermore, Reg’s comment suggests something particularly perceptive, insightful, and helpful here. There are three types of unbelievers:
(A) Unbelievers.
(B) Unbelievers who are posing as believers.
(C) Baptized Unbelievers who are posing as believers.”
Stephen – 522
I suggest you find a good dictionary. Your ideas of “heterodox” concerning me are false. Because I don’t agree with all of your beliefs you lash out like a spoiled child. I am a staunch believer in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, I have spoken of it often.
Disagreeing with Luther or anyone else does not equate to “hate” –
“#528 – STEPHEN You? I’ve worked on my relatioship with Grace but it hasn’t gone so well. The way you seem to read scripture though, she is in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12, or do you get around that clear scriptural mandate for all time and for all people somehow?”
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence 1 Timothy 2:12 –
Stephen, the blog isn’t a pulpit, it’s a blog – there have been many women on this blog, posting away, … you never find fault with them making clear their beliefs using the BoC or other Lutheran material, including occasionally using the Bible…… it’s just when I post about Scripture, that rings your bell, and then you announce 1 Timothy 2:12
I refer you Stephen to the Scriptures – Acts 18:24-25
It’s obvious that when they took Apollos into their home they both “expounded unto him they way of God more perfectly.”
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Acts 18:24-26
Aquila and Priscilla BOTH “expounded” unto Apollos.
“4) Because she does not believe God acts in baptism to save and make new creations as it clearly states in scripture. She sees baptism as dependent upon faith and a work. And to the other part of your question, I disagree that this is the case in the way we have been discussing it here.”
Stephen I don’t believe in infant Baptism, there is not one verse that says infants must be baptized. I most certainly believe all Believers should be Baptized, I have never stated otherwise.
Stephen – 534
“What do you know about me and my neighbors? Did you just come here to slander people?”
And what of YOU Stephen, do you slander, do you accuse as you do to Truth, myself and others. Who are you to throw a stone? – it’s the log in your eye that clouds your sight.
Grace, what you do not seem to get because you do not seem to have sense of irony, is that I agree with your sense that it is fine for women to offer their opinion. But then this just makes you a hypocrite because you are not following the letter of the scripture. You, by your own measure and in the same way you accuse others, are “twisting” the word of God to make it suit your own needs.
And as for baptism, we’ve gone round and round on this and you just do not see the truth. The Scriptures say in Acts that this baptismal promise is for you and for your children. They also say that this baptism now saves, and in many and various places that we are baptized into Christ, washed and justified.
Stephen – we have been through this all before, …. stamping your feet, will accomplish nothing.
Truth – 537
He most likely is unable to answer your question.
“He most likely is unable to answer your question.”
Why Grace? Is he an incompetent theologian?
Notice how chummy TUaD remains with his heterodox friend even after she has explicitly denied the teaching of Scripture. Is this important to him? No, because she shares his opinion on homosexuality.
Some kinds of heterodoxy are more important than others, I guess. Some holding to heterodoxy make for the chummiest of pals. Others need to be decried as fake Christians. Which kinds of heterodoxy matter? Only TUaD knows.
“Some holding to heterodoxy make for the chummiest of pals.”
Are fws and Stephen the chummiest of pals?
If you can regard as a good classification scheme one where you have separate categories, some of which include members of other categories, then I have some more classifications of unbelievers for you folks:
“(a) those that belong to the emperor; (b) embalmed ones; (c) those that are trained; (d) suckling pigs; (e) mermaids; (f) fabulous ones; (g) stray dogs; (h) those that are included in this classification; (i) those that tremble as if they were mad; (j) innumerable ones; (k) those drawn with a very fine camel’s-hair brush; (l) etcetera; (m) those that have just broken the flower vase; (n) those that at a distance resemble flies.”
From Schmid’s Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, which is a compendium of Lutheran dogmaticians from the Confessions down to Hollaz. This is from pp. 512-13.
+HRC
[6] BR. (398): “It is otherwise called the Law of Nature, because it is employed about those things which are naturally and per se either honorable or base; whether they be such as agree or disagree with rational nature. It is also called the Moral Law, in so far as it relates to morals, or to the mode of life which is becoming or unbecoming to a rational creature.”
HOLL. (997): “The Natural Law is the command of God impressed naturally on the minds of all, by which they are informed and bound to do those things which per se are right and honorable, and to avoid those things which per se are wicked and base.”
QUEN. (IV, 3): “It is the light and dictate of right reason divinely given to man, enabling him intellectually to discriminate between the common notions of what is just and unjust, honorable and base, that he may understand what is to be done and what is to be avoided.”
513
[7] The Moral Law is therefore divided into the Natural or Connate Law and the Moral Law specially so called.
QUEN. (IV, 1): “In original, uncorrupted nature the natural and moral Laws were entirely the same, but in corrupted nature a great part of the Natural Law has been obscured by sin, and only a very small part of it has remained in the mind of man; and so a new promulgation of Law was instituted upon Mount Sinai, which Sinaitic law is particularly called the Moral Law, and does not in kind differ from the Natural Law.”
HOLL. (1002): “The Moral Law, specially so called, is the command of God superadded to the Natural Law in the divinely revealed Word, which was often repeated from the beginning of the world, and at last solemnly promulgated on Mount Sinai and reduced to writing, distinctly teaching what is right and forbidding what is wrong, directing all our actions and feelings, binding all men to the most perfect obedience, or, in the deficiency of this, to the most excruciating torments.” MEL., Loc. Comm.: “The Law is doctrine divinely revealed, teaching what we ought to be, to do and to omit to do.”
tODD,
Do you agree with fws in #95 when he wrote:
“Yet Scripture clearly says that people will chose to be in hell. Many of those will be Baptized Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists….”
———
Let’s recall what pastor Curtis wrote earlier:
“The problem, however, is that the Antinomians – and here I have in mind specifically those who would seek to uphold the goodness of homosexual desire and acts, but this point applies equally to any issue that an Antinomian might like to champion – do not know what love is.”
Pastor Curtis has written a post titled Antinomianisms.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Once Saved, Always Saved Antinomianism: A Christian does not lose his faith even if he engages in open, willful, persistent sin. Luther seems to have imputed this idea to the Agricolans, but maybe that wasn’t quite fair. At any rate, he vociferously attacks this version of Antinomianism in SA III.3.42-45.”
A very perceptive observation by pastor Curtis. I’m guessing that he would argue that the following one-word variant is also a form of antinomianism:
“Once Baptized, Always Saved Antinomianism”
Pastor Curtis,
What do you think all that means?
fws and I are very good friends.
In this particular instance, tODD was right when he wrote:
“Some holding to heterodoxy make for the chummiest of pals.”
Stephen: “fws and I are very good friends.”
tODD, #544: “Some kinds of heterodoxy are more important than others, I guess.”
tODD, are you a member of an LCMS church?
Let’s see what the Homosexual Policy of the LCMS says.
Q. Is homosexuality accepted in the LCMS and can an open homosexual serve in any position in your church?
A. The position of the LCMS, repeatedly affirmed, is that homophile behavior is intrinsically sinful, expressly condemned as immoral by the Scriptures. For policy regarding homosexuality and service in public offices of the Synod, we refer you to guidelines adopted by the Council of Presidents for addressing instances of homosexuality in the lives of professional church workers, in which procedures are outlined for dealing with various cases.
pastor curtis @ 547
Pastor Curtis,
To just quote something and not tell us what YOU think that quote means or proves is pointless and is false scholarship with a patina of latinate . What point from the Lutheran Confessions is quensted making? What do you think he is asserting, from our Confessions?
I can be fairly certain that the men you quote would have NO problem with me urging you to limit and understand what they are saying by what the Lutheran Confessions say.
You are doing the reverse. You are defining what Lutherans have said about the Confessions. You are setting them and yourselves over the confessions. You need to let our Confessions fully and absolutely govern your understanding of what these men are saying.
Again:
What does the Apology in art I,II, III, and IV say about the Image of God? Where do they locate the image of God?
Is the Image of God revealed by the Law of God?
What IS the Image of God? How do we get it back? Is it by reconformity to natural law or any kind of law?^
Can YOU answer these questions?
Only when you can answer that question will you be competent, Confessionally, to speak to what the Confessions describe and designate by the term “natural law”.
It is like you have made up our mind about some notion . Then what you are doing is looking for disconnected proof texts, not even from our Confessions, or Holy Scriptures, but from secondary sources, and you are totally ignoring the grand sweep of the argument, and there is only really ONE argument there, in our Apology to the Augustana.
I have bound myself to the Confessions, not to quenstedt, not to pieper, not even to the private writting of Luther. So have you, publicly, in your ordination vows. I know I don´t need to remind you of that.
tud @ 537
define “same sex behavior” “homosexual” and “homosexuality”.
Are we talkin about the behavior we see in “queer eye for the straight guy?”
Or… are we talking about sex between two men? As in prison rape?
Or the APA definition (since homosexual is a medical term).?
Or what we read in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (group rape)?
Or what?
Define your terms.
fws @ #554: “Define your terms.”
I think Bror’s comments to you in #454 and #483 is really what you need to hear and understand when you ask for definition of terms.
454 “You always go back and try to hide behind your motive for x or the motives of others for x. And I don’t care, neither does God’s word.
Whether or not you are trying to treat a man as a woman is really beside the point. The fact is there are two men engaged in activity that is supposed to be done only between a man and a woman. What is forbidden is not being an effeminate male, or being Rock Hudson. What is forbidden is engaging in the activity that God has given to man and woman to engage in, with another male, regardless of reason or purpose for doing so.”
483: “We are talking about the law and what it says and who it applies to. And it says no sexual acts between men and other men. If you are a man gratifying your sexual desires with a man, this means you, it applies to you.”
———–
515: “fws @514,
FWS, will you genuinely acknowledge that your same-sex behavior is a sin, genuinely confess that it’s a sin to God (and if you want to publicly confess that it’s a sin on this thread too, that would be very welcome as well), and then to genuinely repent of that sin?
This would be a wonderful beginning. Will you do this, fws?”
FWS, until you genuinely answer “Yes”, your answer is genuinely “No.”
Of course Frank’s sexuality is sinful. Whose isn’t? Aren’t we all fallen, and entirely fallen? Don’t we all sin sexually – or – isn’t everyone’s sexuality something worse than what God originally intended our sexuality to be? So the only question that matters is: is Frank the Christian chaste? And if you asked me that question, I’d tell you it’s none of your damn business.
Tom Hering @#556,
Are you a member of an LCMS church?
Let’s see what the Homosexual Policy of the LCMS says.
Q. Is homosexuality accepted in the LCMS and can an open homosexual serve in any position in your church?
A. The position of the LCMS, repeatedly affirmed, is that homophile behavior is intrinsically sinful, expressly condemned as immoral by the Scriptures. For policy regarding homosexuality and service in public offices of the Synod, we refer you to guidelines adopted by the Council of Presidents for addressing instances of homosexuality in the lives of professional church workers, in which procedures are outlined for dealing with various cases.
TUAD, yes, I’m LC-MS. Now, what is your real name? A person who asks others to reveal things should at least reveal himself/herself. Or are you a coward?
Hey TUaD, are you familiar with LCMS positions on anything besides homosexuality? Like, say, on baptism? Or is homosexuality the only issue for which you’re interested in orthodoxy? Are there any fake Christians here when it comes to stances on baptism?
Also, while I do feel certain chummy feelings towards Tom, FWS, Stephen, and others, I’ve only ever had a beer with Bror.
LCMS member Tom Hering,
Do you affirm and agree with the LCMS policy on homosexuality, a policy grounded in the Scriptures?
With regards to your request, see Grace’s comment at #348.
With regards to a semblance of moral courage and being a loving LCMS neighbor, the only one on this thread is Bror Erickson. As far as I can discern, any other LCMS Lutheran who’s been commenting on this thread has shown moral cowardice in terms of affirming LCMS’s policy on homosexuality to fws, a policy which is loving to non-celibate homosexuals.
I don’t know which Lutheran Church each Lutheran here on the blog belongs to, …. if they are homsexual attending LCMS and living a homosexual lifestyle, then I would think they are hiding their lifestyle even from the congregants of their church. That would be very odd and dishonest. One foot in the church, one in the homosexual lifestyle.
“With regards to a semblance of moral courage and being a loving LCMS neighbor, the only one on this thread is Bror Erickson. As far as I can discern, any other LCMS Lutheran who’s been commenting on this thread has shown moral cowardice in terms of affirming LCMS’s policy on homosexuality to fws, a policy which is loving to non-celibate homosexuals.”
Oooops!! I totally forgot about pastor Curtis. He has not been a moral coward when it comes to upholding LCMS policy homosexuality to fws, an action which also shows that he’s been a loving neighbor to fws.
Well, TUAD, by your own standard (“until you genuinely answer ‘Yes,’ your answer is genuinely ‘No.’) your refusal to reveal yourself must be taken as an admission of cowardice. At least we can be certain of that much about you now.
Refusing to give ones name on any blog has not nothing to do with cowardice. There are at least two dozen people on this blog, if not more that use a “handle” that does not give their name.
Asking someone what denomination they are with isn’t unfair, that would identify the individual with a church. But grinding away at what their “real name is” makes one wonder, what do you intend to do with the information? – now that’s a question to ponder.
What is important is, what people believe according to the Word of God –
There are many authors who use an AKA, it’s done all the time.
As for moral courage, TUAD, how much of that is required to express your opinions anonymously? Hmm? Zip, I’d say. The only thing I find offensive in this discussion is someone new here (supported by another who’s fairly new here) acting like the Grand Bedroom Inquisitor toward someone who’s has been making positive contributions here for a long time.
First-name-only Grace, you’re anonymous yourself. Unlike Frank and me. The point I’m raising is one of courage to stand up openly for one’s public comments – something neither you nor TUAD have shown. As for what I’d do with your identities, what do you think I’d do? Your tendency toward paranoia is surfacing again.
Oh my,….. those who post here have a waiting period before they can state their beliefs or disagree with those here on the blog.
I have known people who have been stalked from their association on blogs. The internet is not a trusted friend, even in a venue which is defined as a Christian site – this is a shame, but it happens to be the truth, whether you agree or not.
Using the excuse, hoping for a rise out of someone by claiming their “tendency toward paranoia” throws out the RED FLAG – If this is the type of attention you want, then go for it, but it becomes obvious you have a reason for continuing to ask for something you don’t need to know.
“As far as I can discern, any other LCMS Lutheran who’s been commenting on this thread has shown moral cowardice in terms of affirming LCMS’s policy on homosexuality to fws, a policy which is loving to non-celibate homosexuals.”
This is false. The assumption seems to be that this thread is the entirety of someone’s interaction with fws. It is not.
In my case, I am an elder in an ELCA congregation. We recently voted to leave the ELCA, in part because of their vote to ordain practicing homosexuals. I have done a lot of work in providing information to the congregation so this would go well.
As an elder, I thought this was my duty, based on what we can be sure of at this point. The preponderance of evidence is that Scripture doesn’t make room for homosexual marriage for Christians. And it would further be scandalous to a congregation if they ended up in the position of paying for a pastor and his male spouse to live together. If we were ever to come to that point, it would require a lot more persuasion than I’ve seen. We’re not there. I don’t know whether we ever will be.
That said, figuring out what kind of evidence there is on one side or the other requires discussion. Discussion requires an open mind. Blogs are a good venue for that. When I set out to comment on a blog, I don’t hold myself to the same standards as when I write a theological article that has to stand as my opinion on a matter for perhaps decades. I argue a side. I may or may not be shot down. Live and learn. Different venues vary in whether they are appropriate places to explore a matter. I would not, for example, try to publish a book with many of the arguments I’ve used above.
Personal discussion is a third venue. I engage with fws in discussions of these matters knowing that his beliefs are a work in process. When I was in an LCMS church with him, he held, from what I can tell, much more conservative positions on these matters. While my leanings are still quite conservative, they have also changed in light of new information. I still think there are some strong passages against homosexual behavior. But the matter looks different if, say, four of seven passages condemn it, and they are not as pointed at one group over against others. Do I have a duty here? Yes. But it involves long discussion, as I know fws has reasons for changing his mind. I’d like to follow the thought process to see where it leads me. If it doesn’t take me where it took him, I’ll tell him. But I can’t prejudge that. The idea that I could just skip the process and thunder verses at him is foreign to how I do things. (It was foreign to how I did things even when I held views on the matter like the most conservative commenters.) I’ve been around Christian groups that put a high priority on “doing your Christian duty” and telling people that they are wrong and sinful. What I see come out of that are broken relationships. The people claim we should do this even though it is a somber thing. Over time I’ve seen that many actually enjoy it a bit too much. I don’t trust it. Everybody is not always in a good position to set everybody else straight.
There are too many times in the past when I’ve seen views I thought were absolutely certain from Scripture prove wrong for reasons within Scripture. And here we are dealing with a matter where the main words people are using, “homosexual,” “sex,” and even “lust” are not Bible words. They may have been used by English Bible translators. But they have no direct equivalents in Greek. This doesn’t mean the conservative position is wrong. But it is not going to be proved right by English Bible alone, any more than Mary being “full of grace” can be proved from the Latin Bible.
“… any other LCMS Lutheran who’s been commenting on this thread has shown moral cowardice in terms of affirming LCMS’s policy on homosexuality to fws …”
What’s this so-called “policy”? Who in the LC-MS formulated it? What’s the name of the document? Who in the LC-MS voted on it? Most importantly, is it binding on anyone in the LC-MS? On pastors? On laypeople?
The only thing I know of is a CTCR study whose conclusions and recommendations were affirmed in convention as the LC-MS’s official stance on homosexuality. But an official stance of the denomination isn’t something that binds the conscience of an individual member, because it’s something that can change with further study and voting. It doesn’t have the force of our Confessions, much less the force of Holy Scripture.
“Everybody is not always in a good position to set everybody else straight.” – Rick Ritchie @ 569.
No pun intended, I’m sure.
Tom Hering, #370: “But an official stance of the denomination isn’t something that binds the conscience of an individual member, because it’s something that can change with further study and voting.”
Well done, thy good and faithful servant, LCMS member Tom Hering.
TUAD, would you prefer that an official stance of the LC-MS be understood as an infallible pronouncement? Then you might want to consider switching to a denomination that actually promises its members infallibility. They even have BINGO.
I am not a member of the LC-MS nor a Lutheran, but what this exchange demonstrates to me is that the LC-MS and like-minded Lutheran synods ought to formulate confessional statements having clearly the same authority as Augustana and the other 16th-Century Lutheran Confessions explicitly condemning (and, indeed, “binding the consciences” of their clergy — and why not laity? — to such confessional formulations) SS (homosexual activity under any circumstances = “Sanctified Sodomn”) as well, of course, as WO (= Women’s Ordination). That, and that alone, will rip up these evils by their roots.
Matthew 13:24-30, Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”‘”
So I take it that Mr. Hering thinks that Arius, Nestorius, and the rest were all wrongly or mistakenly condemned?
Of course not. But how many gay heretics do you know? Who run around denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?
Rick – 569
“The idea that I could just skip the process and thunder verses at him is foreign to how I do things. (It was foreign to how I did things even when I held views on the matter like the most conservative commenters.)”
Homosexuality is an important subject, there is no other place but Scripture to prove that it is sinful in any form. What would you or anyone else use to convince a homosexual that their behavior is sin? where can it be found? the world certainly would never agree with you, they embrace most sexual behaviors the LORD states are sin. The HOLY Word of God is our source, the only one. Those who profess to believe in Christ as Savior, and then believe they can continue in sin willfully should be held accountable within the Church, if not – their open rebellion against God, reflecting a sinful life will contaminate those within the body, as we see today, not just within the Lutheran Church and Presbyterian denomination but many others. The Bible clearly states their will be a falling away before the LORD returns 2 Thessalonians 2 – some of the church leaders are looking for any loophole to negate the Word of God – it’s become lukewarm, as spoken of in Revelation.
I’ve been around Christian groups that put a high priority on “doing your Christian duty” and telling people that they are wrong and sinful. What I see come out of that are broken relationships. The people claim we should do this even though it is a somber thing. Over time I’ve seen that many actually enjoy it a bit too much. I don’t trust it. Everybody is not always in a good position to set everybody else straight.”
Rick, the Word of God clearly tells us not to company with those who are immoral. You have read all the Scripture before, perhaps dozens of times. I don’t know anyone who enjoys “broken relationships” maybe you do, but I do not. I pray for those who are in obvious sin, willfully choosing to sin, making excuses and twisting Scripture. God doesn’t give us a choice as to whether we can continue to associate with them…. many times its painful, they are people we love, but they have chosen to follow their sin, defending it to the death, rather than following the LORD Jesus Christ. We as Believers ARE in a position to make these choices within the body of Christ.
9 I wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with people who are sexually immoral.
10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, greedy, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
11 But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with someone like that.
12 After all, is it my business to judge outsiders? You are to judge those who are in the community, aren’t you?
13 God will judge outsiders “Expell that wicked man.”
1 Corinthians 5
“There are too many times in the past when I’ve seen views I thought were absolutely certain from Scripture prove wrong for reasons within Scripture. And here we are dealing with a matter where the main words people are using, “homosexual,” “sex,” and even “lust” are not Bible words. They may have been used by English Bible translators. But they have no direct equivalents in Greek.”
“Lust” is found in the Scriptures.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:27
lust Strongs Greek – orexis-or’-ex-is
excitement of the mind, i.e. longing after:–lust.
oregomai-or-eg’-om-ahee
to stretch oneself, i.e. reach out after (long for):–covet after, desire.
Who here doesn’t agree with those verses, Grace? Didn’t Rick and his congregation separate from the ELCA because they don’t want to be seen as approving sexual immorality? Do you want him to stop thinking and discussing, too?
I find myself disagreeing with all sides on this thread at this point. To Grace and TuaD I would say that just because someone is a homosexual does not mean we do not let them attend our churches. After all churches are basically the assembly of “sinners anonymous” and if we excluded sinners the pews would be empty and we would do violence to Jesus’ message that he came to call sinners to repent and be saved. So while I do not believe a non-celibate gay should hold any office in the church that does not mean they should not be welcome with open arms in the church as attendees. (Question is formal membership vs. simple attendance holding an office in a church? We will leave that one to more thought.) Within the church however what is called sin in Scripture should be called sin by the congregants and a non-celibate attendee should be gently and lovingly confronted with what Scripture says about certain activities, since that message is clear. (using the sinners anonymous metaphor is that what people do in AA-”hi my name is X and I am an alcoholic. . .”) The hope would be that the homosexual would come to faith or come to further discernment regarding his actions and eventually see that he should try to refrain from sin or at least struggle with it. (I understand full well that there may be many stumblings along this path.) This is the same approach I would take with a heterosexual couple cohabiting.
However not affirming that what Scripture clearly calls a sin is a sin is troubling and smacks of the devils’ approach to Scripture in Genesis. “Did God really say” and “Surely God didn’t mean.” As a non-Lutheran I have tried to understand how so many on this blog seem unable to do this, either because they can’t see it or to keep their tolerant/liberal bona fides (tODD??). After all Scripture does call us to “judge rightly.” Why does it seem Lutherans are so close to the mainline liberal churches in their unwillingness to accept the clear call of Scripture and to base their opinions on confessions, philosophical thinkers and human reason to overcome what the Bible says? Why such a low view of Scripture.
I think it all flows from the mistaken view that Lutheran’s (and RCs) have of baptism. Baptism does not save and other than a couple of misread “proof texts” there is no basis to take this view. Saving faith saves and that by the way is not a work, but a gift of God (See Ephesians). If we start by thinking our parents actions for us save us I think we may end up with professing believers who have not truly been born again. (this does not mean they are bad human beings, but that they may not truly be believers or at least not heart believers as opposed to head believers.) My sense if that it becomes easy to equate church attendance and taking communion with God’s imparting his HS within us. I know this will raise your hackles, but those of us who do not equate salvation with our baptism but focus on God’s calling us to faith are acutely aware of God’s work in our lives (though we remain active sinners). We remember a “before” and an “after” and focus on God loving us while we despised him and being chased by what CS Lewis called the Hound of Heaven. This results in (I think) a higher view of Scripture and desire to know God though the Scriptures. (He who is forgiven much, loves much).
At this point I am not getting into infant vs. adult baptism. I am a credo baptist, but I understand the other side too-that baptism replaced circumcision as the symbol of participation in the covenant community. But leaving aside the issue of children, that is all it is, a symbol of membership in a community. But that symbol does not save apart from a saving faith. This was true both in old testament and new testament times. Being part of the community is not the same as being saved. See eg, Achan who though circumcised lacked the fear of God.
So I guess I find both sides of the discussion troubling at this point. There are those who confuse the sin and the sinner here and there are those who cannot call a sin a sin and will undergo amazing gymnastics to avoid doing so.
Reg – 580
“I find myself disagreeing with all sides on this thread at this point. To Grace and TuaD I would say that just because someone is a homosexual does not mean we do not let them attend our churches. After all churches are basically the assembly of “sinners anonymous” and if we excluded sinners the pews would be empty and we would do violence to Jesus’ message that he came to call sinners to repent and be saved. So while I do not believe a non-celibate gay should hold any office in the church that does not mean they should not be welcome with open arms in the church as attendees. “
Reg, it appears you haven’t read much of what I have written on the subject of whether or not sinful people, no matter who they are should or shouldn’t be allowed to attend church.
Of COURSE they are welcome to attend church, (I have stated that many, many times) they are not allowed however, to be in any leadership role, or to be members. If they are unrepentant of their sin, professing Christians ,…….. I would not associate with them, – just as the Scripture says in 1 Corinthians 5 (my post 575)
Many denominations and Church leaders continue to rethink sin, its devastation, leading to eternal separation from God, as if the LORD may have changed HIS mind, or they have found a loophole in which to change the meaning of some sins.
We can discuss Scripture on the subject of sexual sin, be it homosexual, fornication/adultery until the LORD comes, but it will not change one dot or tittle, it’s sin, “the wages of sin is death.” A Believer has a new nature, if he doesn’t, then his belief hasn’t taken root, it isn’t growing, it’s been sown on rocky ground,… he believes for a short time, and then falls back into his former pig pen life.
The church can continue to re-evaluate the sins of fornication/adultery and homosexuality, to embrace those who commit such sins as members and leaders, but then the leaders will be judged for leading the flock down the very road they once believed to be sin, according to Gods Word – the flock following a leader and church away from the very Scripture they once believed to be true, APOSTASY to be sure!
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 2 Peter 2
Deceivers spread and promote error, and are set forth as empty, because there is no truth in them. As clouds hinder the light of the sun, so do these darken counsel by words wherein there is no truth. Seeing that these men increase darkness in this world, it is very just that the mist of darkness should be their portion in the next. In the midst of their talk of liberty, these men are the vilest slaves; their own lusts gain a complete victory over them, and they are actually in bondage. When men are entangled, they are easily overcome; therefore Christians should keep close to the word of God, and watch against all who seek to bewilder them. A state of apostasy is worse than a state of ignorance. To bring an evil report upon the good way of God, and a false charge against the way of truth, must expose to the heaviest condemnation. How dreadful is the state here described!
William Tighe –
I have read with interest, your posts. Do you mind my asking what denomination or church you are affiliated with.
Grace –
Ukrainian Catholic, an Eastern church in communion with Rome.
WJT
Tom Hering wrote:
“Of course not. But how many gay heretics do you know? Who run around denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh?”
I daresay that both Arius and Nestorius would both have denied indignantly, and accurately according to their own light, any imputation that they deny “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.”
We’re all sinful in our sexuality, because we’re all sinful by nature. That’s the starting point, and the Bible is clear about it. Not one of us is unbroken, sexually.
The Bible is also clear that sexual activity is to be limited to marriage (the NT never sanctions any other sexual activity) and that marriage is between a man and woman (the NT never sanctions any other kind of marriage).
What then? We welcome sinners like ourselves, who fall short of the glory of God in everything. And we help one another, with all patience and kindness, to walk uprightly. The only cause for separation (us from them, or them from us) is the flagrant teaching – by word or example – of things that are contrary to Scripture. Mere discussion and questioning, like that occurring here, doesn’t justify it.
Just thought I’d lay out my position before continuing.
William Tighe – 584
Thank you for answering.
You stated in 574: “to such confessional formulations) SS (homosexual activity under any circumstances = “Sanctified Sodomn”) as well, of course, as WO (= Women’s Ordination). That, and that alone, will rip up these evils by their roots.”
William, the evils of sin appear to be growing like weeds, the church is not rooting them out, but choosing instead to see if they might be good growth, rather than taking God’s Word for it being sin …… it is evil.
I guess by “the church” you mean everyone but your own Calvary Chapel congregation, eh? And if that’s not what you meant, then why make such overblown pronouncements?
Tom – 589
“I guess by “the church” you mean everyone but your own Calvary Chapel congregation, eh?
I have never singled out the church we are affiliated with as the “only church” – Calvary Chapel did have an individual (before our time) who was a pastor, Lonnie Frissbe, who was found to be a homosexual, living a double life. He was excused from the pulpit right away, he was not allowed to continue. He died of AIDS.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14
There is no light from those who preach a doctrine that is in opposition to that of the Bible, condoning sin.
Blatant teaching, those who come into a church, under the pretense of Biblical belief, only to be found out – teaching unsuspecting souls that homosexuality is not really sin, or that one is born to be homosexual, just like one is born to commit fornication after marriage, professing all the while they are Christians needs to be dealt with – if the individual/individuals cannot confess their sin and turn from it, they need to be taken from membership, if they are in a leadership position, that would mean instant dismissal. They however, would certainly not be excluded from attending Church, but would never be offered the LORD’S Supper, nor would I consider having fellowship with one professing Christian who is unrepentant.
Reg @580
I found your post thoughtful, respectful and loving. Thanks!
This is what Lutherans all believe about the Law of God:
The Prophets say: I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Jer. 31:33
Saint Paul says: Do we, then, make void the Law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law. Rom. 3:31
Christ says: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Matt. 9:17
Finally Christ and Saint Paul say this: If I have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 1 Cor. 13:3
These and many other passage testify that the Law ought to be begun in us, and be kept by us more and more.
We are to keep the Law after we have been justified by faith, and thus increase more and more in the Spirit.
We say that this Law of God is not kept even if one were to never break a single commandment. It cannot be kept by an outward doing. Especially not by the outward doing of Baptism or of faith.
Instead we Lutherans mean that Law which gives commandment concerning the movements of the heart, namely, the Decalog.
Because faith brings the Holy Ghost, and produces in hearts a new life, it is necessary that it should produce spiritual movements in hearts.
What these movements are, the prophet, Jer. 31:33 shows, when he says: I will put My Law into their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.
So what does this heart-keeping of the Law of God look like? We Lutherans say that it looks like this:
In Baptism we have been justified by faith and regenerated. Only then we do what? We begin to fear and love God, to pray to Him, to expect from Him aid, to give thanks and praise Him, and to obey Him in afflictions.
We begin also to love our neighbors, because our hearts have spiritual and holy movements there is now, through the Spirit of Christ a new heart, mind, and spirit within.
None of this can happen until we have been justified by faith, and, regenerated, we receive the Holy Ghost:
The Law can´t be kept without knowing Christ and without the Holy Ghost.
But the Holy Ghost is received by faith, according to the declaration of Paul, Gal. 3:14: That we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
How can the human heart love God while it knows that He is truly and terribly angry and is truly punishing us when we break his Law? This Law I just recited always accuses us, always shows that God is angry.
God therefore is not loved until we apprehend mercy by faith. Not until then does He become a Lovable Object.
Anyone, even pagans, can outwardly keep the Law of God found in the Bible and in their conscience. And they do! Pagans can do this without Christ and without the Holy Ghost from the Light of the Law God has written in their minds. The Pharisees indeed were held up as model of this kind of keeping of God´s Law by Christ himself. And Christ praised this keeping. Make no mistake about that!
But there is a Law of God that one can only find in the Decalog.
It is only this Law that talks about the affections of the heart towards God, which are commanded in the first table, and simply cannot be rendered without the Holy Ghost.
This First Table Keeping of the Law, in which is contained the highest theology, on which all depends is not mentioned here by the non Lutherans. And this keeping can only be kept in one´s heart. It cannot be seen. This is why we cannot separate sheep from Goats or wheat from weeds, or do fruit inspection to prove whether or not this faith exists. The Pharisees had this fruit in abundance without any faith in Christ that is alone the full keeping of the Law of God.
It is like it were of no matter to some here. At least it seems certain that they require only the outward observance of celebacy from gays.
They in no way consider the Law that is eternal, and placed far above the sense and intellect of all creatures which concerns the very Deity, and the honor of the eternal Majesty, Deut. 6:5: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart.
This they treat as such a paltry small matter as if it did not belong to theology. If they gave THIS Law it´s due, they would
fall in terror before God because they do not keep this Law.
But Christ was given to forgive our sins, and the Holy Ghost to show Christ in our hearts, as it is written John 16:15: He shall take of the things of Mine, and show them unto you. Likewise, He works also other gifts, love, thanksgiving, charity, patience, etc.
So the Law cannot be truly kept unless the Holy Ghost be received through faith.
That is exactly why Saint Paul says that the Law is established by faith, and not made void; because the Law can only then be thus kept when the Holy Ghost is given.
Paul teaches in 2 Cor. 3:15 that the veil that covered the face of Moses cannot be removed except by faith in Christ, by which the Holy Ghost is received.
This is how he breaks that all down: ” But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. ”
Paul understands by the veil the human opinion concerning the entire Law, the Decalog and the ceremonies, namely, that hypocrites think that it is external works that can satisfy the Law of God. So then we please God by our sacrifices and observances by doing them.
We think we can keep the Law of God in the same way we can keep govermnent laws. But in God´s Court things are different!
Sin in the Scriptures does mean the external works of the body but more than that, it means all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers.
Therefore the word “do” should refer to a person’s completely falling into sin.
No external work of sin happens, after all, unless a person commit himself to it completely, body and soul.
In particular, the Decalog, in the first commandment, sees into the heart, to the root and main source of all sin: unbelief in the depth of the heart.
Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That’s what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Genesis 3).
So then this veil of Moses is removed from us, i.e., we are freed from this error when God shows to our hearts our uncleanness and the heinousness of sin.
Then, for the first time, we see that we are far from fulfilling the Law. Then we learn to know how flesh, in security and indifference, does not fear God, and is not fully certain that we are regarded by God, but imagines that men are born and die by chance.
Then we experience that we do not believe that God forgives and hears us.
But when, on hearing the Gospel and the remission of sins, we are consoled by faith, we receive the Holy Ghost so that now we are able to think aright concerning God, and to fear and believe God, etc. From these facts it is apparent that the Law cannot be kept without Christ and the Holy Ghost.
We, therefore, profess that it is necessary that the Law be begun in us, and that it be observed continually more and more.
At the same time we comprehend both spiritual movements AND external good works. We Lutherans say that God demands the good heart within and works without.
This all fully includes sexual chastity.
Reg @ 580
You know, I was listening to you until you said this:
“I think it all flows from the mistaken view that Lutheran’s (and RCs) have of baptism. Baptism does not save and other than a couple of misread “proof texts” there is no basis to take this view.”
And then you rattled on.
Here’s a few of those proof texts for you. Remember that “sibilant” you are so fond of quoting to us from the lips of the serpent as you read them. We’ll start with Jesus’ own baptism. Pay attention to what Jesus himself says.
Matthew 3: 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me? 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
Mark !0: 35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
Romans 6: 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Ephesians 4: 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
1 Corinthians 12:12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
If you said you didn’t want to make it about baptism, then why did you bring it up and blame everything on Lutheran doctrine and our orthodox view of baptism? I’m glad you have all those “before and after” feelings. Good for you. Let’s hope they don’t fade or falter. let’s hope they persist and are in your heart and on your mind when your moment comes so that you saving faith can save you. That’s what you said, isn’t it?
“Saving faith saves and that by the way is not a work, but a gift of God (See Ephesians).”
Let’s hope you don’t have something else on you mind, like some random concern or that you don’t yell “oh crap!” when you see that semi coming the cream you. Not like you have your “saving faith” front and center at that point I’d say.
I’ve seen Ephesians and it says this:
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
The way I read that it means that Jesus saves, by grace, not by my faith in him. He provides me the faith through which I come to know that he has saved me. But Christ alone saves. And he does so first in my baptism, as the scripture says, and again in his Word given again and again in preaching and teaching, and his presence in his supper where he promises that “This is my body/This is my blood given for you for the forgiveness of sins.”
Did he not say these things?
You keep holding on to all that stuff you feel and those things you do or avoid doing if you like, if you think it proves something. Measure for measure I guess. I hope you can keep pace for your sake. When you get tired, remember that Jesus told us to go and learn what this means “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” He wants that for each of us.
“Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation”
.
Rick Ritchie @ 569:
I’ve bowed out of this conversation for awhile, partly because I wanted to look into some of the things people were claiming as support for their positions. And my research has only confirmed that, as the concept of “sexual identity” was unknown in ancient times, Moses and St. Paul were writing against acts, rather than people. That is, they were saying that for two men top have sex was bad, not because they associated it with some particualr group of people, but because they thought it was bad in itself. There are a lot of reasons for this conclusion, but the one I want to focus on here is that the church fathers in the ancient Church interpreted the Biblical passages that way. See the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality#Early_Christianity
http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/homosexuality.html
All these early church fathers spoke koine greek; for some, greek was their native language. Yet they all interpreted these Leviticus, Romans, I Corinthians as a blanket prohibition against man man and woman-woman sex.
I always find it suspect when someone, many centuries later, decides he understans a dead language better than the people who spoke it in their day. I have the same problem who decide that hey have found a better way to translate the Hebrew word for “virgin”. Never mind that everyone down through the ages, knew what the word meant. I suspect that those people just want to debunk the idea that God can work miraculously.
I also found myself reading, and reading about, Aristotle. As far as I know he never went into much depth about man-man sex. He said a lot about marriage, though. In fact, his books on ethics and politics discuss the relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, and and masters and slaves, right along the same lines as St. paul does in Ephesians 5 and 6. It seemed remarkable really, how this pagan, using his reason and conscience, came up with a template for marriage so much like that of St. Paul. Although I suppose that Paul would have read Aristotle when he was learning greek. Anyway you can read what one commentator said about Aristotle’s concept of mariage and trhe family here:
http://www.mun.ca/animus/2001vol6/provencal6.htm
and pay particular attention to this quote and commentary:
“iv) Eunoia as the substance of spousal philia.
42 Spousal philia assumes the natural difference and inequality of male and female, and by its very nature is an equalisation of that difference.
‘There is another kind of friendship, that involving the inequality of superior and inferior, such as a father has with his son, and adults with youths generally, as well as that which a husband has with his wife, and every ruler with the ruled. And these also differ from each other; for a parent does not have the same friendship with its child as a ruler has with the ruled, nor does a husband have the same friendship with his wife as a wife has with her husband. For the virtue and the function (erga) of each of these differ, as do the reasons that they love; therefore, their loves and their friendships differ as well. For the same thing does not come from one to the other, nor should they seek it…. Love must be proportional in all friendships involving inequality …for when the love exists in accordance with worthiness, then equality exists in a way, which is thought to belong to friendship.’ (7.1158b11-28)
43 Spousal philia equalises the hierarchical inequality of a superior active male virtue and an inferior passive female virtue. Each requires the other to complete itself. Their friendship arises from their difference, preserving it in the different roles men and women are to play in the household; at the same time, their friendship transcends their difference and grounds it in an unity prior to the differences themselves. Male and female virtue are complementary parts of a single whole, which is nothing other than the philia that equalises their difference and holds them together. ”
Compare that idea of marriage with this:
” 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. ” Ephesians 5:22-33
Notice how neither Aristotle, nor Paul, describe a co-equal friends with benefits sort of relationship. They both describe a union of two fundamentally different, people each with different needs and duties, working together and loving each other in different, yet complimentary, ways.
One point to be drawn from this is that, if you read what Aristotle says about Marriage, parenthood, authorities outside the family, and how these all work together to create a virtuous state, then read What St. Paul writes about god’s love and will for His people living as Husband and wife, parents and children, and the relationship these have to civil authorities under God, and then read the large and Small Catachism’s on marriage, thre parent-child relationship, and how these relationships are tied together and relate to the Christian functioning withing broader civil authority, you can see the progression.
Aristotle (Melanchthon’s favorite Pagan) works out the basic template usiong only his reason and his conscience. St. paul, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us how this is all part of God’s design and explains how Christian love fits into it. And the Catechisms, being based on God’s Word, follow Paul’s lead and expound on it a little.
A second point to be drawn is that the co-equal same-sex friends with benefits arrangement as described by fws is nowhere to be found in this concept of marriage. You may not be able to “see yourself” in the story of Sodom, Frank, but your “committed Gay relationshiop: cannot be seen in Aristotle, Ephesians, or the Catechism, either.
The post above (#594) should have read 2 Corinthians 7:10, NOT
2 Corinthians 6:10
Another thing I tried to do was look at the abstract concepts Frank wants us all to consider. I have already said something about Aristotle, and I don’t believe that Melanchthon’s mention of Aristotle was merely an invocation of the Golden rule plus reason.
I also don’t see why we have to choose between definitions of “concupisence” If it’s classical definition was man’s tendency to sin, but the Augsburg Confession defines it as faith in anything other than Christ. So what? If we have faith is something other than Christ (like our flesh, the world or the devil, etc.) will we not tend to sin? And if we tend to sin, will it not be because we have put our faith in something other than Christ? I think these are two sides of the same coin, and that we may have been overanalysing this.
Nor do I think that “the golden rule plus reason” is all there is to say about Christian morality in the New Testament. I know I seem to be always looking at specifics instead of the general principles, but I believe that, if your theory, based on an analysis of general rules, takes you in a new direction, which is incidentally the one in which you wish to go, ithat should be a red flag and you should do some testing of your theory.
What I mean by testing is try applying this theory to similar situations and see how things work out. I tried doing this with my “Ike, Tawny, and Gertrude” analogy, and the results were disappointing. See @381 and 399. You see Ike and tawny, each “doing unto the other as the other would have done”, and nobody gets hurt.
I think Rick Ritchie somewhere said that he was uncomfortable with writing off Leviticus 18 as a mere “purity code”, because of how it would apply to the other sexual activity prohibited in that chapter. So, in addition to Ike and Tawny, take the example of sex between brother and sister. Each is treating his/her sibling exactly as he/she wants to be treated. Golden rule fulfilled. Maybe this prohibition was meant to distinguish the Israelites from the Egyptians (whose Pharoahs married their sisters). And bestiality. No neighbor at all involved there, so no problem with the golden rule. I’m not trying to be flippant. I’m just trying top say that applying the “golden rule only test to morality leads us to a lot of conclusions that we could never defend. And if we try to say, well, the participants are harming each other (even if they don’t realize it), as well as their larger society, the same arguments could be made about man-man sex. So the theory, which leads to so many undefensible palaces, must be flawed.
One more thing. The argument that God’s desire for mercy, not sacrifice, means giving people what they want.
Frank said @487
“Love looks like giving away the entire store to your neighbor. “Hey here are the keys if that is what it will take to make you happy.”
And @488:
“Adam and eve, NOT adam and steve! Ok. But that doesnt work to provide “the not good to be alone” and “better marry than to burn” Mercy that the Law was designed to provide. So what do to ? Mercy! Not sacrifice. What to do? what does Love demand? Wish for others to have what you have! Wish for others to have, maybe not completely, but as much as is practically possible, all the wonderful blessings of companionship, mutual self discipline, love, mercy, forgiveness etc etc etc that a stable pairing off can provide in life.”
Will it be the same as male/female marriage? No. Will it even be as good as male /female marriage. Probably not. But is it better than nothing? Of course. Is it mercy? It looks like it!”
Well, actually, it might also look like self indulgence. And giving you the keys “if that’s what makes you happy” might look like enabling.
But this whole argument reminds me of something decidedly un-Lutheran that I have seen before. Gospel of health/prosperity theology. Once upon a time a close relative of mine converted to a church that preached the Gospel of health and prosperity, and I seriously considered whether there was truth in it, so I know what I am talking about. One such minister. Robert Tilton, has written a book entitled “How to Get Rich and Have Everything You Want”
On the Kenneth Hagin ministries website I found an article that kind of sums up the theology :
http://www.rhema.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1077:the-restoration-power-of-god&catid=136:successful-living&Itemid=304
I’ll give you a couple quotes:
“Whatever the enemy has tried to take away from you, God wants to restore it. God wants to make it better than before. That’s the kind of Father He is. Every day we have choices put before us. We can be tempted to get hurt, wounded, or depressed. We can complain and remain in the same awful condition. Or we can praise God and be raised up.
One of the first things the enemy will try to steal from us is our joy. He wants to get us sad, sorrowful, and oppressed. Remember what it was like when you first were saved? There was joy unspeakable. God doesn’t want us to lose that joy! Nehemiah 8:10 tells us, “The JOY of the Lord is your strength.” It is important for Christians to have joy in their life! If you don’t have joy, you don’t have any strength.
Don’t stay in that valley of despair and depression. Don’t allow what people say to control you. You control your own destiny. Maybe everyone isn’t going to be thrilled about you. But God is. You are who God created you to be. And God likes you just fine. He’s thrilled about you!”
“Joel 2:25 says, “I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm.” Some of you have been down with a lot of “worms” in your life. Some of you have lost years to a bad marriage. Some of you have lost years to health problems. But the Lord put something in my heart. He said, “My mercy is greater than your mistakes, and I am a Master at fixing any disaster.”
God loves us that much. Whether we’ve done things that are our own fault, or whether it is the enemy who has stolen from us, God is still the Restorer!
God wants you to have that dream fulfilled. He wants you to have joy. He wants you to have health in your body. God is a good God! And He’s got good things in store for us. Don’t let the devil steal anything from you. Declare restoration over your life! Take what belongs to you, in the Name of Jesus!”
The people who are receptive to this stuff are hurting. Many of them perceive themselves as lacking something others have. Some of them are ill or physically disabled, and they see people in comparitive good health and wonder why God has given all those other people physical health that they don’t have. Or maybe they are poor comapred to their peers and don’t understand why God has bestowed material blessings on everyone else, but not them.
It doesn’t seem fair. And it seems cruel to say they are being self indulgent for wanting to have things that are not bad in themselves and that most other people seem to have. And so these gospel of health and prosperity guys tell thm that God loves them as they are and that God doesn’t want them to be sad for the lack of whatever material thing they want (i.e. God doesn’t want them to sacrifice) and that God’s Mercy means that they can have the material things they want. These people have been frustrated, some of them their whole lives. They want to be “victorious”, and a lot of them sign right up.
What Frank and Stephen are preaching is kind of a Gospel of sexual prosperity. Sex, and even marriage, are earthly things. We will not have either of them in heaven. But the two of you are claiming that it would be a lack of “mercy” for God to expect you to “sacrifice” having them on earth.
By setting your heart on either of these things (even marriage, which you have idealized) you are “having faith in something other than Christ”. This is, as has been established, concupisence. And just because what you want is something you perceive to be a good thing (a reasonable facsimile of marriage) doesn’t make it any less wrong to set your heart on it.
Besides, all of us have to do without some earthly things. I am sure that each person here has some earthly thing, relationship or power that someone else here does not have. Why you have what you have and I have what I have are questions that a sovereign God will have to answer. But I know that we are all called to do without something. Nobody has it all.
Kerner @ 596
You are almost there dear man.
What I suggest one needs to consider when reading the Apology is what the other side is proposing. The confessions are reacting it is that the scholastics are teaching. So what is it they taught?
They taught that we are saved by a “philosophical righteousness” that is really what aristotle taught. And so they taught that we are saved by an outward doing of the Law that looks like what?
It looks like the Law that God wrote in the mind. It is fallen Reason guided by the Golden Rule. That is what outward righeousness is. Plus, it is what the Church says it is. It is decrees that demand pilgrimages, masses for the dead, and ritual celebacy.
Further, this Law written in the Mind, and what it can deduce from Natural Law is the fractured remainder of what is the Image of God.
Finally, The Image of God is in man´s aristotelian “higher powers” such as the ability to reason, and love etc. The higher powers, that separate us from the brutes, are where the Image of God is located in man. These powers are damaged and burdened by sin, but not entirely lost.
So how do the confessors respond?
1) They say this. The outward righeousness that God does demand in his Word and that truly does please him IS reason guided by the Golden Rule.
So that means that it does NOT consist of pilgrimages, penances, doing masses and baptisms as just a “go through the ritual motions” outward form, or a demand for ritual celebacy or such things. Why not? Those things are “worthless”. They do nothing to serve one´s neighbor. They are maybe about doing mortification, but they are not about doing love for others. And this true outward righeousness is a “partial ” keeping of the Law of God. He demands that we do it and threatens rewards and punishments for those who keep and break it.
2) This outward righteousnss, that is about keeping the second table Law in love towards one´s neighbor IS necessary and IS commanded by God. And so our adversaries are wrong when they accuse use of being libertines and lawless.
3) But remember they said that this outward keeping, that truly does please God and that he demands is only a “partial keeping” of the Law? That is about this, which is the most important point : There is another Law of God that us uniquely found only in the Decalog, that is only in the first table. This Law is about movements of the heart. It is not about outward things that we do. This Law of God can only be found in the first Table of the Law. It demands faith in Jesus Christ. It is the SUM of the Law that is about love to God. From the heart. It is an affective keeping of the Law of God. It is the invisible keeping of the Law that fulfills all the rest of the Law and also is what lets truly do the outward keeping of the Law in the way God demands, which is from the very bottom of our heart, rather than some begrudging thing we do for a God who is always accusing us and threatening us if we don´t do the Law.
This Law, that speaks to movements of the heart can only be known and seen once we already have been made righeousness and so fully are already keeping the Law by faith in Christ.
Only then can we have the Law written, not just in our minds to follow the Golden Rule, but now also in our hearts the Law can be written.
Now we can do that Law of God from the bottom of our hearts rather than from a mind that begrudgingly does what the heart does not want to do for a God that is always threatening us and so Whom we hate.
Only then can we see that God demands far more than a “go through the outward motions whether your heart is in it or not” sort of Law keeping that DOES satisfy earthly Law keeping. But in God´s courtroom, the keeping of the Law must be from the bottom of one´s heart.
I hope this helps Kerner. And please do not reject this just because it is someone who is gay telling you this, or because that gay man is not so articulate. This is what our Lutheran Confessions teach.
Kerner @ 597
Kerner says:
A) Well, actually, it might also look like self indulgence. And giving you the keys “if that’s what makes you happy” might look like enabling.
B) “Whatever the enemy has tried to take away from you, God wants to restore it. God wants to make it better than before. That’s the kind of Father He is. Every day we have choices put before us. We can be tempted to get hurt, wounded, or depressed. We can complain and remain in the same awful condition. Or we can praise God and be raised up. ”
Let´s compare this to what the Apology of the Lutheran Confessions say in article II:
The Opposition to the Lutherans said this about Original Sin:
“It is not our fault!”
It is like a condition that the son of a slave woman inherits. Or it is like cold that we catch by someone blowing on us. Or, it is a burden or impairment.
This last argument is the idea that the Image of God is the aristotelian higher powers of the abilities to reason, love and speak and such that separate men from beasts. These “higher powers” are “burdened ” by man´s “baser (animal) instincts”.
So the idea of the scholastics is that before the fall, the Image of God was for man to have those Higher Powers intact. Now, after the fall, it is obvious that we STILL have those powers, and so it is obvious that we still have the Image of God. But that image is like a fractured mirror. We can see bits and pieces of it in shards.
So the task is for man to use his higher powers to resist those baser instincts. And baptized men, using the power given them by the Holy Spirit, can return to that Image of God with reason and outward acts of love.
So how does the Apology of the Lutheran Confessions art II, III, & IV respond?
They say this:
1) Original Sin can only be understood from God´s Word and not from reason. Why?
2) To understand why, one must know what Original Righeousness was, and that is something only God´s Word can give us. What is that?
3) Original Righeousness, which alone is God´s Image, is Faith in Christ alone.
4) But Original Sin is our fault and not just something “blown onto us”. Why?
5) When faith in Christ alone left mankind, another kind of faith rushed in to fill that vacuum. This is a faith that we are born with, in our heart (!) that “viciously ” seeks to trust in anything BUT Christ for salvation and for it´s earthly good.
So what does this have to do with A) and B)? Everything. What do they say?
1) What is wrong is not our fault! It is the enemies fault!
2) To get back to the Image of God, to make things right again, to return to Paradise, we need to do something. Maybe a part of that is that we need to find a way to stop being Gay so as not to “block God´s blessings”!
So Kerner, We not only “maybe” look to sex and marriage and relationships and food and clothing and all the stuff God gives us with the heart of Old Adam. This is where your error in thinking is.
We must confess that we will ALWAYS do that according to our Adam.
Our Old Adam heart is full of that original sin called concupiscence. This is where the heart wants to do exactly what reason guided by the Golden Rule does not want it to do.
Further our Old Adam heart, because it hates God, thinks it needs to do outward sacrifices, or better, make others do them, things like celebacy, rather then simply rest in the works of Christ. These are the two sides of what Original in Old Adam is all about.
So what you say about gays and sex is exactly true. Gay men will always look to sex and marriage and food and clothing and …. everything! and put their faith in those things as a form of idolatry, rather than put their trust, in faith, alone in Christ. And the point is this: so will you!
kerner @ 596
“You see Ike and tawny, each “doing unto the other as the other would have done”, and nobody gets hurt.”
“Do unto others as you would have then do unto you”.
Ike used tawny just for her body. Tawny used ike just for his money. Gertrude wanted to use Ike just to not be alone.
1) So was the actions of any of them driven by a desire to better the lives of others and give themselves love as well? Was that the root motive of their actionsdoing good works for neighbor? How so Kerner? You lost me there.
2) How is this at all like your relationship with your wife? You lost me there too how this is a “similar situation” to that. Try answering this this way: How is the situation you presented different than that of you and your wife?
As to your last part:
1) I don´t think we can say, biblically, that marriage between siblings or cousins is sinful.
2)And what does beastiality have to do with the Golden Rule? We are talking about what the Second Table of the Law demands of us.
3) Finally, and most importantly Kerner:
give me the biblical rule that let´s me cleanly separate the civil, ceremonial and moral laws in Leviticus. How is it that you know that it is now NOT immoral for you to wear clothing that is cotton/poly blend when it would have been sin under the levitical law.
Luther simply said this to resolve point3), and pastor Curtis provided the quote which says basically this in an earlier post: Moses was for the jews. Therefore, Moses must conform to reason guided by the NT Law of Love or the Golden Rule (what lutherans mean in the Confessions everywhere by that term “natural law’) for us to follow him.
kerner @ 597
FWS “Will it be the same as male/female marriage? No. Will it even be as good as male /female marriage. Probably not. But is it better than nothing? Of course. Is it mercy? It looks like it!”
KERNER Well, actually, it MIGHT also look like self indulgence. And giving you the keys “if that’s what makes you happy” MIGHT look like enabling.”
1) Kerner, do we really need to debate what the difference is between love and indulgence or do you and I, and all pagans know what that difference is without needed to look up that difference in the Bible?
2) By the way, where would you go , in the Bible, to see what the difference is between love and self indulgence?
3) Try changing that MIGHT to WILL ALWAYS to agree with the opinion of both Scripture and the Confessions. Then apply this to your own sexuality and marriage and job and family and everything you have that God has given you that is truly goodness and mercy in your life. Old Adam will ALWAYS trust in the good things of the world and turn them into idols. Always. You personally have experienced that haven´t you? I know I have.
So what is the solution to this problem? Become a monk? Remove ones self from the world? It´s been tried. But the problem with that is that you bring along your Old Adam heart that turns everything into idolatry right along with you. So then your celebacy and poverty become idolatry. You cannot and will not escape the idolatry that is in your Old Adam heart until your death.
What is a Quisling?
A quisling is a traitor, more specifically a traitor who collaborates with the enemy to promote occupation and suppression of a native people. This word is of Norwegian origin, making it one of the few Norwegian terms to enter the English language, and the history of “quisling” is actually quite fascinating.
This slang term emerged during the Second World War, when a Norwegian politician by the name of Vidkun Quisling advocated for a German occupation of Norway, and actively worked to hasten a German occupation. On 1 February 1942, he took power in Norway as the Minister President, and set about encouraging Nazi values and promoting the German cause in Norway.
Collaboration can be an especially insidious form of treachery, so it is perhaps not surprising that “quisling” became a slang term, since Quisling was one of the most outspoken and notable collaborators of the Second World War.
Note: Vidkun Quisling was born on 18 July, 1887, in the small southern Norwegian town of Fyresdal. He was the son of a Lutheran Pastor in the Lutheran Church of Norway.
—————
If you’re a Lutheran, and there’s dangerous false teaching being propagated, are you going to be more like Bo Giertz or more like Vidkun Quisling?
On this thread there are Giertz’s and there are Quislings.
Kerner @ 596
“Nor do I think that “the golden rule plus reason” is all there is to say about Christian morality in the New Testament. ”
What I mean by testing is try applying this theory to similar situations and see how things work out.
I tried doing this with my “Ike, Tawny, and Gertrude” analogy, and the results were disappointing. See @381 and 399. You see Ike and tawny, each “doing unto the other as the other would have done”, and nobody gets hurt.”
So FWS is saying that earthly morality consists of reason guided by the Golden Rule. This applies equally to pagans and christians. There is no such thing as “christian ” morality. There is simply morality. And God demands that all do that morality. Or he will punish us.
Kerner responds that this is not all there is to CHRISTIAN Morality. So he presents the story of Ike, Tawny and Gertrude of being an exemplary case of following the Golden Rule.
Kerner is saying that his story is one that paints exactly what Jesus meant when he said “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” This is what following Jesus command here would look exactly like in the most noble and exemplary way!
No. Of course Kerner is not saying that. So what exactly IS he saying then?
You lost me Kerner.
Doh! Of course! Giertz and Quisling! Why didn’t anyone see that before? What a helpful distinction to make in a discussion – in what is nothing more than a discussion.
kerner @ 603
Jesus : ” Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you”
kerner´s version: “Seek out others purely to meet your own needs, as long as doing that doesn´t appear to hurt anyone. That is to do both the letter and spirit of what Jesus commands us.”
Now Kerner, I don´t think you really mean that, and further, you know, or should, that that is not what I mean by the “Golden Rule ‘ either. So what is it that is “disappointing ” you really? May I suggest that you set aside straw men? You are getting closer and closer……
Kerner, try this:
Try to isolate the difference between “christian” morality and morality that is reason guided by the Golden Rule that both christians and pagans know that they are to do.
How would I look at the actions of someone and know by their actions that they have faith and trust in the good works of Jesus for their salvation and so are christian?
“Christian” morality implies doing something outwardly that only a Christian could do. What would a list of those things consist of? or am I implying too much into what you are saying there?
Or Kerner try this:
Can we agree that God wills that non-christians and christians both follow reason guided by the Golden Rule alone in conducting their business with their neighbor, or…
do you wish to assert that there is yet a higher “christian” Law that overrides and supercedes that Law of reason guided by the Golden Rule that the Confessions say is is the same Law as the Decalog writen by God in men´s hearts?
In that case one would need to impose a sort of “christian sharia law” upon non christians wouldn´t they? That would be a Law that could not be known or discovered alone by reason guided by the Golden Rule but alone could be known by a divine revelation that ONLY Christians would be privy to. Therefore that “Christian Law” could not be something read in the bible , since Jews too know and obey that.
fws:
FWS: “Ike used tawny just for her body. Tawny used ike just for his money.”
Kerner: So what? How does that violate your superficial understranding of the golden rule? Each is treating the other as the other wants to be treated.
FWS: “So what you say about gays and sex is exactly true. Gay men will always look to sex and marriage and food and clothing…”
Kerner: And I pay the grocer and the clothier (as they want) and they give me what I want. This is how the Catechism says my daily needs, and theirs, are met. It is how God grants my prayer (and the grocer’s and the clothier’s) to give me my daily bread. I don’t hate these agents of God’s bounty and they don’t hate me. We each are happy the other is there. If we know each other, we may love each other very much. We may see each other in church.
So how is Ike and Tawny’s relationship different than that of any other merchant and customer? Why, under your superficial understanding of the golden rule, is their mutual willingness to meet each other’s needs wrong?
FRANK: “1) So was the actions of any of them driven by a desire to better the lives of others and give themselves love as well? Was that the root motive of their actionsdoing good works for neighbor? How so Kerner? You lost me there. ”
Kerner: It is not necessary for the motives of the merchant or the customer to be what you suggest. They serve God’s gracious desire to give us all our daily bread whatever their motives may be. It may be better if they care about each other and seek each other’s good, and it is not impossible for a customer to care about the good of the merchant and vice versa. This is true even in the context of prostitution. But by invoking higher motives like this, you are calling us to obey a law that the pagans cannot discern by reason and natural conscience. They could only find that in God’s Word. But in real life, even Christians don’t think to deeply about the other party’s good in every transaction. Even sanctified, we fail at that. But we don’t violate your superficial understanding of the golden rule when we do.
FRANK: “1) I don´t think we can say, biblically, that marriage between siblings or cousins is sinful.
2)And what does beastiality have to do with the Golden Rule? We are talking about what the Second Table of the Law demands of us.”
KERNER: Well, according to your superficial understanding of the golden rule, neither incest nor bestiality violate it. Nor do Ike and Tawny.
But the Bible makes it pretty clear that the only outlet for our sexuality that really shows love for our neighbor and seeks his or her good is marriage. That is marriage as described in Ephesians 5. And pagans like Aristotle were able to reason this out using only their natural reason and consciences. Paul merely explained the higher law of love.
If you read Aristotle, he speaks of a “philia” (love) between husband and wife that serves not only each other, but the whole society. Paul, however, instructs of husbands to give their wives “agapate”, selfless and (dare I say it) sacrificial love.
Aristotle was able to understand how a real marriage serves husband, wife and all the neighbors in the society using “golden rule principles. You, however only want to use the golden rule at its most superficial level. But God’s Word, takes Aristotle’s understanding of the golden rule (which is way better than yours), and shows how, in the light of His Love for us, Christians can really serve their neighbors, according to the law the pagans can (and did) figure out, as well as according to God’s great Love for us.
Deep down, Ike and Tawny, incestuous siblings, the bestial with an animal, and yes you Frank, all know what you have said @489:
FRANK: “Will it be the same as male/female marriage? No. Will it even be as good as male /female marriage. Probably not.”
KERNER: And no Frank, what all of them have, and what you propose, is not “better than nothing”. What you, and all the other examples, are doing is trying to conform God’s Word to the desires of your flesh.
In every situation that is given which is meant to be analogous with homosexuality is there any person of good conscience, let alone a good Christian, who would begrudge such people their help and balm. Would we deny them the medical care or financial resources that would make their lives better if such resources were available? Certainly not. We know what mercy looks like. See? But in the case of gays, the church tells them that their situation is different. The opposite is the case. Their misery is intended by God because of a mysterious standard that produces the opposite of mercy. Comfort is available but they may not have it. They must conform to the standard for no other reason than conformity itself. This, by definition, is to do a sacrifice of righteous works to God, offering propitiation beyond what Christ alone has done. The same would be true for anyone who thought that by their behavior they could please God when that behavior had no result in producing love for the neighbor.
When Jesus said that stuff about giving away one’s cloak AND one’s tunic as well, was he discussing fashion? I think he meant something like giving away the keys to the house. I think he meant “use your imagination.” I think he was saying that when you neighbor loses their job, you can bring them a hot dish or you can make their car payments for six months. He was saying you can either make people do sacrifice to the law or you can figure out a way to do extravagant acts of mercy for them so that their lives are better, so that they experience comfort and care, so that from you they get a measure of the incredible love that was shown to you.
And when he said that stuff about walking two miles instead of only one, I think that again, he was suggesting going much further, twice as far as you normally would to help your neighbor. He wasn’t talking about going for a jog with them. He was talking about spending your retirement using your skills to help the poor in other countries learn how to farm or get fresh water or build businesses. He was talking about stretching yourself, your boundaries, your “rules for living” so that they meet the needs of others and not your perceived ideas about the way things ought to be as in “one mile only – no further. That is what the instructions state.”
I think it is unfair to characterize what Frank has put forward as abstract. He offers things straight out of the scriptures and the Confessions. You, meanwhile, refer to your story as if it is the source and norm here. That, to me, is an abstraction.
As to the Levitical obsession with incest, I mentioned this before but I will say it again. Why do you think they spend so much energy on this, but pay no attention to sex with children outside the family? It is because of a concern not only with temple rituals, but also with maintaining the purity of the seed. Ancient people knew about genetic problems of incest even if they didn’t know about genetics. Why should we abhor such behavior? That is one good reason. There is always a relational aspect to what we do and do not do. Offspring are always a concern, and so it follows that marriage is rightly a concern among heterosexuals as is avoiding incest. And why would gays want to marry? Because they wish to have similar commitments and raise families within such commitments. They understand the purpose and value of them for themselves and for children.
Now, if you are going to equate Frank and me with some kind of prosperity Gospel, why don’t you make and argument from scripture and/or the Confessions. I think that you too are simply poisoning the well and attacking while retreating. You still have not answered the question of love and mercy and how celibacy among gays provides this very thing. You have, however, proven that we do, in fact, know exactly what mercy and love looks like and that we know and certainly would provide it if we could. So why have we singled out gays? Just because? Is that why God makes rules? What is the whole of the law?
The chirping is as loud as ever.
Post # 609 for kerner
kerner
Why must it be about gratification of the flesh ONLY when it comes to gay relationships, and not more than that as it is for heterosexuals – things like companionship and intimacy, etc.? Are you advocating for sex that is only to produce children and to no other purpose then? It would seem so. This was one early church view. I mean, just how puritanical do you wish it to go? Seriously, because that is where your are pushing it I think. Pure utility.
As for the other things you cite, there is something to be said about self-indulgence I would think, and how this robs the neighbor. We all do this – a covetousness that becomes stealing. I think the prohibitions against bestiality would fall into this category. They were likely also associated with temples and anxieties over the Jewish “seed” as well as uncleanliness in their ancient context.
But I don’t see how this fits being gay. The suggestion is that it is pure self-indulgence, that there is no mutual sharing of love and affection or care, no giving over of one to the other for the sake of love. This is simply not true at all, not in the least.
Kerner -
St. Paul seems to suggest that marriage has a greater function than purely producing children. It is for those who do not have the gift to restrain themselves. That would be most of us.
What of someone who is gay and does not possess the gift? A lifetime of pornography? hmmm. I’m not sure what the options are since we are looking for a biblical mandate for gay marriage. If the whole sum total and purpose of the law is to see that love and mercy are done, then is there any room to render some kind of loving service to gays in this situation? What might that be?
But we cannot get to that conversation unitl we agree that enforced celibacy is not mercy, that it bears no resemblance to it at all. Instead, it is a sacrifice of righteousness to God which runs counter to our confession to faith in Christ alone, our only propitiation for sin – not of works of the law, lest any should boast.
Tom Hering, #604: ‘Doh! Of course! Giertz and Quisling! Why didn’t anyone see that before? What a helpful distinction to make in a discussion – in what is nothing more than a discussion.”
Thanks for illustrating #602.
When Quisling first met with the Nazis, he might have said what you just rationalized: “Nothing more than a discussion.”
P.S. Collaboration can be an especially insidious form of treachery, so it is perhaps not surprising that “quisling” became a slang term, since Quisling was one of the most outspoken and notable collaborators of the Second World War. Over time, the term came to refer to any form of treachery, not necessary collaboration on a governmental scale.
FWS: “give me the biblical rule that let´s me cleanly separate the civil, ceremonial and moral laws in Leviticus. How is it that you know that it is now NOT immoral for you to wear clothing that is cotton/poly blend when it would have been sin under the levitical law. ”
KERNER: Well, within Leviticus itself a distinction is drawn when Moses calls the sexual sins listed “abominations” or “detestible” (depending on the translation). The dietary codes use the word unclean (as does the restriction on sex with a woman during her period). And the penalty for the “abominations” is death, not some period of purification or act of contrition. I don’t know if there even is a penalty for blending textiles as forbidden in Deuteronomy. More serious penalties is one way to distinguish one kind of law from another.
And in the New Testament, as I think Pr. Curtis pointed out, as both Christ and Paul began to do away with to do away with compliance with the formal restrictions of the mosaic law (such as dietary codes and Sabth restrictions on work) they clearly did not do away with the concept of sexual morality. When the sinful woman was about to be stoned, Christ did not do away with the morality she had violated. He merely called for mercy in stopping the crowd from exacting the law’s penalty (pointing out that they were also guilty of under the law).
So, my answer is that both the Old Testament and the New
Testament treat sexual morality differently than the cleanliness codes, so there is a difference.
FRANK: “Gertrude wanted to use Ike just to not be alone.”
You assume a lot there, Frank, but think about what you have just said. Have you not spent dozens of comments pointing out how “it is not good” to be alone as a justification for gay marriage? Why is it wrong for Gertrude to not want to be alone, but it’s ok for you?
And yet there is a difference. Although Gertrude would assuage her lonliness by marrying, she want to do so in a way that serves her neighbors, as figured out by the pagan Aristotle, and as established in God’s Word. If she’s a Christian, Gerturde is seeking to love a man as the Church loves Christ, as well as serve her her husband and her neighbors in a way the pagans could discern. What she needs, but won’t get, is someone who will love her as Christ loves the Church.
Let’s add another person: Fred. Fred has always considered himself to be different than most people. Fred has read the Physician’s desk reference books and the AMA literature, and decided that he is “homosexual” according to the way those documents define the term. Fred, like Ike, is not attracted to Gertrude, but he’s not attreacted to Tawny either. Fred is only attracted to “Rock Hudson” types. But, since Rock is unavailable, Fred lives alone.
Both Fred and Ike have the opportunity to love Gerturde “as Christ loved the Church”, but they refuse to do so. Ike won’t do so because Gertrude does not look like Tawny. Fred won’t love Gertrude because she doesn’t look like Rock Hudson. Gerturde could love either one of them, but neither of them will love her, so she has to do without love. Why? Because Ike and Fred are not listening to God’s Word. They are listening to little Ike and little Fred (i.e., their flesh).
This is concupisence, according to your oft repeated definition. Fred has put his faith in Pysicians reference books, the AMA, and his own flesh, instead of in Christ, also know as God’s Word. Fred trusts that medical texts and his own flesh tell him what is best for him, he does not trust God’s Word and spends a great deal of time trying to rationalize why God’s Word must not apply to Fred.
Now before you say it, I know that this must seem easy for me to say. After all, is not kerner sexually attracted to Mrs. K, and she to kerner? You would be correct to ask this. It has been a lot easier for me to love Mrs. K than it would be for Ike or Fred to love Gertrude. But that is because Mrs. K differs from the Church is this respect. Christ loved us while we were yet sinners, i.e. when we were ugly to him. His love for us is what makes us beautiful in His eyes.
To really love Mrs. K as Christ loved the Church, I have to love her even when she doesn’t seem attractive to me, as she has to respect me even when I don’t seem very much like Christ. And as you might expect, for that very reason the best marriage is not all peaches and gravy.
Think of it this way. Christ saw rich men giving to the temple and they were helping their neighbors when they did it. And then the widow give her two mites, and it was all she had. Christ pointed out that, eventhough the rich men objectively helped their neighbors more, the widow gave the greater gift. So maybe Ike and Fred don’t have, objectively, very much to offer Gerturde. Would it be wrong for either of them to offer it anyway?
I realize that for Ike and Fred, loving Gertrude as Christ loved the Church presents a bigger challenge than it is for me to love Mrs. K. Does that mean that neither of them should attempt it? Maybe they, in assessing their own abilities, even as sanctified Christians, shouldn’t try to love Gertrude. And Gerturde will remain alone. But if it their lack of capacity to love the Gertrudes of this world that is the problem, then Ike and Fred should remain alone as well.
Kerner @ 608
Kerner: So what? How does that violate your superficial understranding of the golden rule? Each is treating the other as the other wants to be treated.
FWS: Again, I would ask you to understand and consider what it is , exactly, that is the scholastic view of morality and faith, that the Lutheran Confessions array their arguments against. You will not understand the Lutheran position until you understand Aristotle and how the Scholastics base their thinking on that. In that case “faith” is about exercising man´s aristotelian “higher powers” of reason and love to war against and subdue mankinds “baser (animal) instincts that are the emotions, biological drives such as hunger and the sex drive and the like. The goal is to reflect the Image of God found in reason and love, rather than giving in to emotions and fleshly drives such as hunger and sex uncontrolled by reason. This is pure aristotle. This is what the Scholastics taught as the sum total of the righteousness that God demands of us. This is what the Lutherans reject asking “Where are the Works of Christ necessary in this scheme?”
Ok. I think you are catching on. The Confessions make the assertion that the Second Table Law done “superficially” or as the Confessions say “outwardly” is the only way that fallen reason, guided by the Golden Rule can understand the Law. This is exactly the basis of understanding of the Law you were taught to know in Law School. Maybe not directly, but aristotelian ethics are really the foundation of western jurisprudence. And Lutherans would have no problem with that at all, as far as earthly righeousness goes and NO further.
Let´s be clear here, that “superficially” and “outwardly” do NOT comprehend what fallen reason calls “spiritual ” things. Reason would call the ability to reason and love and make love and emotion rule over and control emotions “spiritual things”. Scripture would not agree! Scripture would call ALL that “things of the flesh” and oppose ALL of that to Romans 8 “Spirit”. It is really important that you catch this difference. It is critical. Rather the ability to reason and love, etc, would be those aristotelian “higher powers” such as the ability to reason, to love, to appreciate beauty. These are the list of things where the Scholastics identify as being the Image of God. They say that “concupiscence” then are the aristotelian baser or animal instincts that are more about emotions unchecked and ungoverned by reason. See? We christians, not just the scholastics, have adopted this way of looking at things. Doesn´t this sound familiar to you ?
The Confessions make a distinction between that “outward righeousness” that IS a true righeousness that God demands . They identify this righeousness exactly as the reason guided by the Golden Rule, which they say is the same Law as the Decalog in the Second Table. This is the Law which God has written/revealed in the minds of men. Therefore Reason can fully know and do this “part” of the Law. They present Aristotle as evidence and proof that this is so.
Then they contrast this to that “1st table righeousness ” that is alone faith in Christ alone, apart from the works of the Law. And they say that this understanding of the SAME Law is “peculiar” to the First Table of the Decalog. Lutherans say that it is THIS righeousness alone that can produce that ” invisible inner movements of the heart” love that God demands that is the “sum total” of the Law.
And they say that reason cannot know this part of the Law because it lacks the faith in Christ that alone is able to turn God into a Lovable Object and so Love him and neighbor in the way that God fully demands of all men. This is what they are talking about with that “Veil of Moses ” stuff at the first part of the Apology Art III titled “On Love and the Fullfillment of the Law”.
So how is this distinction different dear Kerner , than the distinction between outer actions and inner motives that would be made in a court of Law? Lutherans say that the distinction between outer and inner doing of the Law is not just the distinction between the “higher (read “spiritual” ) powers of man as understood by reason, vs the baser animal instincts that reason locates in the emotions and fleshly drives and calls “concupiscence”.
The distinction the Lutherans make is rather the difference between having that faith in Christ and HIS works, that “I cannot by my own reason or strength” have to believe in Christ or come to him, and what? Faith. But faith run amok. Lots and lots of faith in everything but Christ. And the most sinful example of that “faith run amok ” is what? carnality? sexual license? no. It is faith in the noble works that our aristotelian higher powers can produce, coupled with a faith in the ability to employ those higher powers of love and reason to curb the baser animalistic urges that are about our emotions and baser needs. Aristotle calls th0se “baser urges ” by the name “Fomes”. Fome is the idea of what it feels like to be starving to death for something.
You will need to understand this distinction the Lutherans make fully to understand the very heart of the Lutheran argument against the Scholastics such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and his Natural Law. they are not making the same distinction that the scholastics and lawyers and judges in a courtroom would make. That is very important to understand.
Rick Ritchie, #569: “Personal discussion is a third venue. I engage with fws in discussions of these matters knowing that his beliefs are a work in process. When I was in an LCMS church with him, he held, from what I can tell, much more conservative positions on these matters.”
Rick Ritchie, FWS, (if you don’t mind answering) why did both of you not remain with the LCMS?
kerner @ 608
“Why, under your superficial understanding of the golden rule, is their mutual willingness to meet each other’s needs wrong? ”
It is the Lutheran Confessions, I am suggesting, that say that reason guided by the Golden Rule fully satisfies God´s demands as to earthly 2nd Table righeousness.
I think you are defining that word “superficial” or “outward” differently than the confessions do. “Superficial” in Biblical and confessional terms would fully include those “spiritual” things such as correct motives. It would include doing the Law according to the “spirit of the Law” and not just according to the “letter of the Law”.
I am quite certain that these distinctions were discussed in Law School. These concepts can be understood by reason guiding by the Golden Rule. Why? The confessions say that God has written the Law of God, which is the same Law as found in the Decalog, into the minds of men.
One does not need the Holy Scriptures to distinguish between indulgence of others, self indulgence and what real love consists of. Or are you disagreeing with this? If so, show me this from scriptures or our Confessions.
The Lutheran Confessions say that all of this that I just described is about an “outward keeping” that is the keeping of the “letter of the Law”. It is a “superficial keeping” of the Law. This is most certainly true, even IF one IS actually following the spirit and not just the letter of the Law!
If reason can both know and do it, then , confessionally speaking, it is an outward keeping of the Law of the Second Table of the Decalog , or …..it is a sacrificial form of keeping of the 1st table of the Law.
Does that help. I am glad you brought up that word “superficially”. We need to nail down exactly what we mean by that idea, then we need to see what the opposite of that would be.
But the opposite of that “superficial ” keeping of the Golden Rule, the Confessions tell us is something that Reason cannot either KNOW or DO, apart from Faith in Christ alone which brings to us the Holy Spirit.
It is that thing that the Small Catechism says: “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord nor come to him.”
This alone is the Image of God. This ALONE is what we must have before we can then keep the SUM of the Law, which is Love.
Fallen Reason, the Confessions declare, can both KNOW and DO EVERYTHING else!
Kerner @ 614
FWS tell me the rules for distinguishing between civil , ceremonial and moral law in Leviticus and the OT.
Kerner:
1) we can tell by the penalties.
2) we can tell by the sin being labeled an abomination.
3) Pr. Curtis pointed out did not do away with the concept of sexual morality. …sinful woman ..about to be stoned, Christ … merely called for mercy in stopping the crowd from exacting the law’s penalty…pointing out that they were also guilty of under the law.
4) Summary: So, my answer is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament treat sexual morality differently [as to 1) penalty, 2) how the sin is labeled and 3) the fact that Christ treats sexual immorality exactly the same as the OT does]. [What the NT treats differently are the ceremonial and cleanliness codes ONLY.
FWS
1) Disbedience of parents, tresspassing on sacred ground, women having sex with animals, men having sex with other men, taking God´s name in vain, idolatry, murder (in certain instances) , adultery, among other things are all capital crimes. You can do a study on this. Rape is not on the list. Where would that line of reasoning need to take a Legal Eagle. "Punishment fits the Crime"? Should we reinstitute the death penalty for disobedient children? Why or why not. Discuss.
2) The word abomination. To understand the meaning of that word, it would be useful to see where it is used in the OT and that would also tell us how the word evolved over time as all words do, which would actually give us a great flavor of the core meaning of the word. Agreed? Please see a complete listing of the use of hebrew word for abomination after my response to your point 3)
3) Christ did not do away with the [sexual law] she had violated. He merely [said they were not qualified to inflict the penalty the Law demanded because they were not sin-less].
4) Ahem. How would this look in any court of Law Kerner? Christ did not abrogate the sexual Law, but he DID completely abolish, as in, NO PENALTY, the Divinely Mandated Penalty for it! On what basis? “Everyone is a sinner!”
How would this logic play out in any courtroom you have ever been in? Should this be the NT way to do Law? Why or Why not? Discuss.
Here now are the 77 places where that Hebrew word for abomination is used. Judge for your own self what the word means:
Of the sixty-seven times that the word “abomination” is used in the Bible (Revised Standard Version), only twice does it appear in the New Testament. Revelation 21:27 simply says that anyone who practices abomination will not enter Heaven. In Luke 16:15 Jesus defines the love of money as an abomination to God. That’s it as far as abominations in the New Testament are concerned, in spite of all the hoopla about Romans 1, which does not use the word.
Of the sixty-five occurrences of the word in the Old Testament, five refer to something as being an abomination to another people. Thirteen of the things labeled “abominations” are dietary restrictions, the observation of which would bar a person from consuming such things as clam chowder, shrimp and, one of my favorites, the non-existent four-legged insect, which certainly refers to something besides what we call “insects”. Seventeen refer to improper sacrifice, although I am hard pressed to think of a single Christian (or Jewish, for that matter) congregation that slaughters animals on their altars these days. Outright adultery and adultery cause by divorce, which is prohibited by the Bible even though it is a widespread practice today, account for three of the verses. In addition to Jesus’s comment in Luke, the love of money is decried as an abomination in two Old Testament passages. Four related verses cite dishonest trading practices as abominations. Twelve other verses list behaviors ranging from murder to women wearing “anything that pertains to a man” (for example, pants). Eight passages, including the one from Revelation, are not clear about what they mean by “abomination.” Precisely two refer to homosexual behavior, though there was no understanding in biblical times of homosexuality as we define it today.
Reading through this list, two things strike me. The first is that many of the items pertain to someone pretending to be something he or she is not. Yet that is exactly what so many literalists ask gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people to do by insisting that such folks remain in the closet. The second is that the very people who scream the loudest about two passages in Leviticus are themselves in violation of several verses that would render them “abominations”. Aside from the dietary laws and the prohibition against ignoring the laws, which we do every time we fail to offer blood sacrifices and perform other practices that are demanded by the Bible, Proverbs 6:16-19 (“There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers.”) jumped out at me. I can think of few other things that have caused more discord in our society, in our families and in our households than has the insistence on the literal reading of one passage from Leviticus (As I mentioned before, most people find it impossible to read the second passage literally.).
So where does that leave me with Mr. Literal? Probably in the same place I was when he walked away from our conversation. But at least now I have a better understanding of what an “abomination” is, in the Biblical sense. I do find myself wondering, though, if, when Mr. Literal is busy labeling a group of people who engage in certain behaviors as “abominations”, if he realizes how many times over he could rightfully be called an abomination himself.
The List of Abominations
These pasages are taken from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) simply because that is the text favored by the Presbyterian Church (USA) and by the individual who prompted me to do this textual, rather than contextual, study. See below for a concordance for other translations.
Abominations to Other Peoples
Genesis 43:32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.
Genesis 46:34 you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of cattle from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers,’ in order that you may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.”
Proverbs 13:19 A desire fulfilled is sweet to the soul; but to turn away from evil is an abomination to fools.
Proverbs 29:27 – (2) An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, but he whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked.
Dietary Abominations
Leviticus 7:18 If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten on the third day, he who offers it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to him; it shall be an abomination, and he who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.
Leviticus 11:10-19 – (6) “But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.”
“And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind, the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.”
Leviticus 11:20 “All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.”
Leviticus 11:23 “But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.”
Leviticus 11:41 “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten.”
Leviticus 11:42 “Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, all the swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat; for they are an abomination.”
Leviticus 19:7 “If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination.”
Isaiah 66:17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, says the LORD.”
Improper Worship/Sacrifice
Deuteronomy 7:25 The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, or take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it; for it is an abomination to the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 17:1 “You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever; for that is an abomination to the LORD your God.”
Deuteronomy 18:10-12 “When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you.”
Deuteronomy 27:15 “‘Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, an abomination to the LORD, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’”
1 Kings 11:5 For Solomon went after Ash’toreth the goddess of the Sido’nians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. (Foreign god who demanded human sacrifice.)
1 Kings 11:7 – (2) Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. (Foreign gods who demanded human sacrifice.)
2 Kings 23:13 – (3) And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ash’toreth the abomination of the Sido’nians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. (Foreign gods who demanded human sacrifice.)
Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.
Isaiah 1:13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies–I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
Isaiah 44:19 No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire, I also baked bread on its coals, I roasted flesh and have eaten; and shall I make the residue of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?”
Jeremiah 32:35 They built the high places of Ba’al in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Daniel 11:31 Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.
Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Divorce/Adultery
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance.”
Ezekiel 22:11 One commits abomination with his neighbor’s wife; another lewdly defiles his daughter-in-law; another in you defiles his sister, his father’s daughter.
Leviticus 7:21 And if any one touches an unclean thing, whether the uncleanness of man or an unclean beast or any unclean abomination, and then eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the LORD’s peace offerings, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Love of Money
Jeremiah 6:15 “Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time that I punish them, they shall be overthrown,” says the LORD. (Greed for unjust gain.)
Jeremiah 8:12 Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen; when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the LORD. (Greed for unjust gain.)
Luke 16:15: But he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Dishonest Trade
Deuteronomy 25:13-16 “You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and just weight you shall have, a full and just measure you shall have; that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.”
Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight.
Proverbs 20:10 Diverse weights and diverse measures are both alike an abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs 20:23 Diverse weights are an abomination to the LORD, and false scales are not good.
Other Improper Behaviors
Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”
Deuteronomy 23:18 “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.”
Judges 20:6 “And I took my concubine and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed abomination and wantonness in Israel.” (Referring to the rape and murder of the concubine of a Levite who was a guest.)
Proverbs 3:32 for the perverse man is an abomination to the LORD, but the upright are in his confidence.
Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers.
Proverbs 11:20 Men of perverse mind are an abomination to the LORD, but those of blameless ways are his delight.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.
Proverbs 16:5 Every one who is arrogant is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished.
Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs 28:9 If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.
Isaiah 41:24 Behold, you are nothing, and your work is naught; an abomination is he who chooses you. (Worshipers of people who set themselves up as gods.)
Malachi 2:11 Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.
Unspecified Wickedness
Proverbs 8:7 for my mouth will utter truth; wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
Proverbs 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but he loves him who pursues righteousness.
Proverbs 15:26 The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD, the words of the pure are pleasing to him.
Proverbs 16:12 It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.
Proverbs 24:9 The devising of folly is sin, and the scoffer is an abomination to men.
Jeremiah 2:7 And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in you defiled my land, and made my heritage an abomination.
Ezekiel 18:10-13 “If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.”
Revelation 21:27: But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Lying with a Man as with a Woman
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
Concordance
The Old Testament word that is translated as “abomination” in the RSV is Hebrew tow’ebah or to’ebah (Pronounced: to-ay-baw’; Strongs 08441). tow’ebah is defined as “a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable; in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) ; in ethical sense (of wickedness etc.) ” The vast majority of instances in the Old Testament refer to the usage related to the ritual sense; most of these prohibitions are blithely ignored by the modern literalist, with the exception of Leviticus 18:22, which does fall into the ritual sense catagory.
This concordance shows all occurrences of the Hebrew word tow’ebah and compares them to several popular translations. An “x” in a box indicates that the translation in question uses the same word (“abomination” in all translations except the NIV, which uses “detestable”) to translate tow’ebah in Leviticus 18:22 as it does in the other cited passages where tow’ebah occurs. A number in parentheses following a biblical verse indicates that the word is used more than once in that verse.
Credits: You can find this on the following web site:
http://www.dragonlordsnet.com/abomination.htm
This nice site includes a table comparing various english translations´ translation of the underlying hebrew word, and also includes an online search engine for strongs concordance so you don´t have to take her word for anything. You can do your own research!
Enjoy!
Kerner @ 608
Kerner: “It is not necessary for the motives of the merchant or the customer to be what you suggest. They serve God’s gracious desire to give us all our daily bread whatever their motives may be. This is true even in the context of prostitution.
But by invoking “higher motives” like this, you are calling us to obey a law that the pagans cannot discern by reason and natural conscience. They could only find that in God’s Word.
FWS ” The confessions say everywhere that what you call “higher motives” can be fully understood, and done, by reason alone guided by the Golden Rule God has written/revealed in the minds of all men (fc St Paul and Apology art IV in the first few paragraphs) . Their evidence for this is Aristotle´s Ethics. Read them . They will convince you that what the Confessions say here is true.
Kerner: But we don’t violate your superficial understanding of the golden rule when we do. ”
FWS : You talk about my “superficial understanding”. Hopefully my immediately previous emails will clear up what the confessions mean by an “outward” or as you say “superficial ” keeping of the Law. We need to define terms carefully don´t we. Your meaning of superficial or outward differs from that of our Confessions I am suggesting.
Jesus to the Young Attorney: “What is the sum total of the Law?”
Attorney: “Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, and soul and mind [1st Table}, and love your neighbor as you love your self."
Jesus: "DO that and you will live [ie: God will be fully satisfied!].
Attorney: But the attorney says, seeking to justify himself says “and who is my neighbor?” [ie love is not really about my neighbors good, it is about doing the Law to satisfy God´s demand for obedience to the Letter of the Law?]
Jesus: “There was a Good Samaritan….”
Question: What is it that Jesus tells us is the sum total of keeping the 2nd table of the Law as God demands in that story? Who is keeping that Law as God requires? A samaritan! May I suggest substituting for “samaritan” “wiccan lesbian couple”, “pious pagan gay man”, “pious jew”, pious buddhist”, etc etc etc. ? Why or why not? Discuss.
Question: What is the sum of the keeping of the Second Table? Obedience to the Letter of the Law? “First checking to see what the written Law in the Bible says and doing that?” Why or Why not? Discuss.
Kerner @ 608
If you read Aristotle, he speaks of a “philia” (love) between husband and wife that serves not only each other, but the whole society. Paul, however, instructs of husbands to give their wives “agapate”, selfless and (dare I say it) sacrificial love.
Aristotle was able to understand how a real marriage serves husband, wife and all the neighbors in the society using “golden rule principles.
You, however only want to use the golden rule at its most superficial level.
FWS: “you”…. “superficial level”. Avoid straw men please my dear Legal Eagle. The Judge of this case will not decide favorably to you by arguing in this way. If you disagree with me, argue against my real position. I assert that my position is that of the Lutheran Confessions. So you have a clear way to show me I am wrong and disabuse me of my error , eh?.
Kerner: But God’s Word, takes Aristotle’s understanding of the golden rule (which is way better than yours), and shows how, in the light of His Love for us, Christians can really serve their neighbors, according to the law the pagans can (and did) figure out, as well as according to God’s great Love for us.
FWS: Ok. So you agree with the Confessions and what they say about Aristotle . Progress!
Now… about that part you add…. “according to God´s great Love for us”. What is that ALL about Kerner? Is it about something Christians can do that Pagans cannot? Would you be able to prove this difference exists in a court of Law with rules of evidence?
kerner @ 608
“Deep down, Ike and Tawny, incestuous siblings, the bestial with an animal, and yes you Frank, all know what you have said @489:
FRANK: “Will it be the same as male/female marriage? No. Will it even be as good as male /female marriage. Probably not.”
FWS: Kerner, do you still want to assert that an ike, or tawny or fws or whoever, can ONLY know this stuff “deep down” by picking up a concordance and looking this stuff up in the Holy Bible? You asserted earlier that this stuff can only be known from Holy Scriptures.
Addendum to #602. “A quisling is a traitor, more specifically a traitor who collaborates with the enemy to promote occupation and suppression of a native people. This slang term emerged during the Second World War, when a Norwegian politician by the name of Vidkun Quisling advocated for a German occupation of Norway, and actively worked to hasten a German occupation. On 1 February 1942, he took power in Norway as the Minister President, and set about encouraging Nazi values and promoting the German cause in Norway.
Collaboration can be an especially insidious form of treachery, so it is perhaps not surprising that “quisling” became a slang term, since Quisling was one of the most outspoken and notable collaborators of the Second World War.
Note: Vidkun Quisling was born on 18 July, 1887, in the small southern Norwegian town of Fyresdal. He was the son of a Lutheran Pastor in the Lutheran Church of Norway.”
Addendum: Vidkun Quisling, in all likelihood, was a baptized Lutheran.
Truth Unites… and Divides – 501
fws #501 “Consider: We christians know exactly what is driving homosexuals to pair off and work hard at monogamy and try to be chaste. … It is the very Law of God, which he has written in the minds of all men , that is driving them to do all of these things!”
TRUTH - “Hi Grace, Does your research validate these assertions by fws?”
Homosexuals would like to think somehow “the Law of God” includes homosexual sex, but it doesn’t, it’s just another tool of darkness which pervades their behavior.
Kerner @ 614
FWS First , thanks for not taking offense at me driving this to the personal in your direction as others here have driven it personally to me. I am not offended at that. In fact, the Holy Scriptures and morality are worthless when made into an abstraction.
All of Holy Scripture is meant to be applied personally. And this means to apply it to me and not to someone else next to me.
KERNER To really love Mrs. K as Christ loved the Church, I have to love her even when she doesn’t seem attractive to me, as she has to respect me even when I don’t seem very much like Christ. And as you might expect, for that very reason the best marriage is not all peaches and gravy.
FWS Do you feel that in the exact aspect you say, this would be diferent for two gay men or two lesbians or even a transgender man or woman and his or her life-partner? Why or why not?
KERNER Think of it this way. Christ saw rich men giving to the temple and they were helping their neighbors when they did it. And then the widow give her two mites, and it was all she had. Christ pointed out that, eventhough the rich men objectively helped their neighbors more, the widow gave the greater gift. So maybe Ike and Fred don’t have, objectively, very much to offer Gerturde. Would it be wrong for either of them to offer it anyway?
FWS Ok. I am down with that. Two men or two women do not have , objectively (!) , what a man or women might have to offer someone of the opposite sex. Some of the stuff on this list would probably apply to any couple straight or gay:
I can think of the following list here: 1) social respectability , 2) the legal ability to socially and legal lock one´s self into that commitment, 3) the legal and stability that # 2 ) would offer for the spouse or children , 4) the ability to procreate, (but then this is no longer the basis for marriage in our society is it and it has NEVER been a requirement for straight couples, unless one was one of Henry VIII´s unfortunate wives ), 5) money 6) health 7) hospital visitation rights,
physical attractiveness , and finally… yes… satisfying or frequent sex or even any sex at all as old age advances….
Now I cannot think of ANYTHING else that a man and woman could offer one another that a same gender couple could not offer one another. Would it overthrow the argument on eather side if we could find such an item?
Truth Unites… and Divides – 622
RE: Vidkun Quisling
Very interesting………….
Truth Unites… and Divides
I wonder if the same sort of “quisling” would/could work as an operative within a church, like a “wolf” ?
Kerner
At this point I would urge you to read what Pastor Curtis is urging everyone to read here at this post of his:
http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-111749
Keep in mind that the Lutheran Confessions define ‘natural law” as being narrowly and only this:
‘Natural law” = God´s Law written/revealed by God in mankind´s mind. In his reason. This Law = in content, the Decalog. This is a deliberate narrowing and redefinition away from the Aristotelian broad meaning of Saint Thomas Aquinas. You can do a word search on the B of C to verify that this is the fully contextual truth Here:
http://bookofconcord.org/pdf/TrigBOC.pdf
PASTOR CURTIS: Also, please, please, please read the Luther piece I keep citing (How Christians Ought to Regard Moses) which has quotes like this:
MARTIN LUTHER: ” The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the commandments. We will just skip that. We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver – unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law [Reason driven by the Golden Rule].”
FWS Then Luther explains what he means by both “New Testament” and “Natural Law” here:
LUTHER ” The word, “We should love one another” [John 15:12], pertains to me,
FWS Then Luther says that THIS Law, of God, in His Word, pertains not just to Jews (read pagans), but Christians equally and as well…
LUTHER:…..for it pertains to all who belong to the gospel. Thus we read Moses not because he applies to us, that we must obey him, but because he agrees with the natural law [ ie the Law God has written in the minds of mankind which agrees with the Decalog , Ap art IV] , and is conceived better than the Gentiles would ever have been able to do.
Thus [in the way I have just described] , the Ten Commandments are a mirror of our life, in which we can see wherein we are lacking, etc.
The sectarian spirits have misunderstood also with respect to the images; for that too pertains only to the Jews. ”
FWS: Luther is making a point that the moral, civil and ceremonial laws are all to be evaluated by Christians in exactly the same way by saying this: Moses must be tested against Reason as informed by the Golden Rule as pertains to 2nd Table Law.
“Now I cannot think of ANYTHING else that a man and woman could offer one another that a same gender couple could not offer one another. Would it overthrow the argument on eather side if we could find such an item?”
The most important part, …. it would not have God’s approval.
Stephen @612
“But I don’t see how this fits being gay. The suggestion is that it is pure self-indulgence, that there is no mutual sharing of love and affection or care, no giving over of one to the other for the sake of love. This is simply not true at all, not in the least.”
Where do you get the idea that “mutual sharing of love and affection and care” and “giving over one to the other for the sake of love” is confined to sexual relationships?
Oliver North makes a habit of calling his wife “his best friend”, but this is a concept that would have considered strange as recently as 50 years ago.
The Bible cites the friendship of David and Jonathan, and says in Proverbs 18:24:
24 One who has unreliable friends soon comes to ruin,
but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
Until very recently, nobody ever expected a man’s best friend to be his wife, nor a woman’s best friend to be her husband. They were expected to have friendships with people of the same sex, and friendships could involve love as deep, or deeper, that the love they had for their spouses, because they would have more in common with a same-sex friend.
Knowing what we do about ancient Hebrew culture, you can be sure that David and Jonathan were emotionally closer to each other than they were to any of their wives. While these really close friendships don’t happen to everybody, they have happened throughout history and happen today. When they do, they are celebrated.
How many movies are there celebrating close non-sexual friendships between women? An historical movie about male friendship is “Brian’s Song” about the deep friendship between Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo (of 1960′s chicago Bears). Both had wives, and the wives briefly appear in the movie, but the movie is about the love that existed between Sayers and Piccolo, especially as Piccolo was dying. Men often don’t display their feelings as openly as women do, but there can be great depth to their non-sexual relationships just the same.
But how many people are there whose close friendships have endured much better than their marriages? A lot I’ll bet.
I don’t say this diminish marriage. I say it to prevent you from diminishing other forms of love simply because other loves need not involve sex.
Once again, I’m saying that I am not the one who is hung up on sex around here. You are the one who seems to think that there can be no intimacy, no deep caring, no “giving over one to the other for the sake of love”, without sex. That’s just silly. Do you really think that Brian Piccolo and Gale Sayers didn’t love each other merely because they were having sex with their wives and not each other? That there can be no love without sex is a myth that began in the late 20th century. And that myth is the foundation for the argument that we are somehow denying “love” to gay people if we tell them that they are not married.
Kerner @ 629
STEPHEN “But I don’t see how this fits being gay. The suggestion is that it is pure self-indulgence, that there is no mutual sharing of love and affection or care, no giving over of one to the other for the sake of love. This is simply not true at all, not in the least.”
KERNER Where do you get the idea that “mutual sharing of love and affection and care” and “giving over one to the other for the sake of love” is confined to sexual relationships?
FWS Of course Stephen is not saying that. But then you know that. He is saying that this is not confined to heterosexual sexual pairings.
He is asserting that it can be true also of gay sexual pairings.
Are you arguing that this cannot be so? If so, then on what basis do you argue that?
Kerner,
I have female friends whom I have care for, it’s very difficult to find time to spend with friends when you have a family, relatives, home and many other responsibilities.
Devoting oneself to another person, other than my husband would take away the time I need to do other things – The closest relationship I have besides my husband, whom I love dearly, is my brother, he and I have a long standing love for one anther. I have other people in my family I love and wish to spend more time with, but rarely do…. only when our family meets together as a group.
Kerner @ 629
“Knowing what we do about ancient Hebrew culture, you can be sure that David and Jonathan were emotionally closer to each other than they were to any of their wives. ”
Man is THAT an understatement. Imagine this Kerner: You have written and published a song that says this ” The love of my friend Jonathan was way better than the love of my wife!”
How would people take that? Or are you going to punt and tell me that the cultural context then was way different ? (punt in this case meaning that we really don´t know enough to assert that argument as a fact).
kerner @ 629
The actual text of the Psalm/song David published for all to see said “The love of jonathan was better than the love of any woman”.
Imagine publishing that song and then having your wife listen to it. I would be interested in the conversation you would have with her that would follow.
How can we be sure that David and Jonathan did not include sex in their relationship. We can´t right? Would it matter? I would say it would be reading into the text to insist for either proposition as in “no they certainly did not have a sexual relationship” or “yes they did”. Why would it matter? Disrespect to a Patriarch by imagining one of them of having illicit sex? Ahem.
Stephen @613:
“What of someone who is gay and does not possess the gift? A lifetime of pornography? hmmm. I’m not sure what the options are since we are looking for a biblical mandate for gay marriage. If the whole sum total and purpose of the law is to see that love and mercy are done, then is there any room to render some kind of loving service to gays in this situation? What might that be?
But we cannot get to that conversation unitl we agree that enforced celibacy is not mercy, that it bears no resemblance to it at all. Instead, it is a sacrifice of righteousness to God which runs counter to our confession to faith in Christ alone, our only propitiation for sin – not of works of the law, lest any should boast.”
Well, when we were taliking about Ike and Tawny, you DID want Ike to enter into enforced celebacy, and you wanted him to give up pornography too. How is it rendering mercy to Ike by telling him he has to give up his relationship with Tawny and enter into enforced celebacy? Remember, Ike would probably be overjoyed to marry Tawny. She is his dream girl. But he can’t have her for a wife, so he settles for what he can get.
How is it “mercy” to tell Ike that he can’t even have what little he can get? Ike has to live with nothing, according to you, even though Ike certainly has no gift of celebacy. You are asking Ike to make a “sacrafice of righteousness” to God which runs counter to our confession to faith in Christ alone, our only propitiation for sin-not the works of the law.
At least, according to your standard, that is what you are doing to Ike. I think you are asking Ike, and you should be asking Fred, to fix their minds on Christ alone, and not their genitals, or to at least learn to love someone on the basis of something other than what they look like. Maybe, if they started with trying to love as Christ loved the Church, they might learn to love someone enough to have a physical relationship even though that someone isn’t, well, their type. Or maybe not.
But you are looking at the problem backwards. You are looking at Ike’s and Fred’s frustrated desire to have sex with someone who is wrong for them, and looking for a way to ease their frustration, as though that were mercy. What you should be seeing is that the problem is Ike’s, and Fred’s, inability to love someone, who is right for them, enough to want to have sex with her, which is encouraging Ike and Fred to withhold mercy. encoiuraging Ike and Fred to be unmerciful is not mercy to Ike and Fred, and it is certinly not mercy to the women to whom Ike and Fred refuse to show mercy.
Kerner @ 634
KERNER you are looking at the problem backwards.
You are looking …for a way to ease [íke and freds] frustration, as though that were mercy.
FWS Yes that WOULD be Goodness and Mercy done Kerner. You and Stephen differ only as to what would be the right way to do that.
You say it would be to follow a one-size-fits-all rule. In faith you assert that that would be “love”. Why? Because God is love, so if we follow a rule he makes, we have to believe it is love even and especially if apparent reason judges that it looks like requiring sacrifice rather than doing Mercy or love.
Stephen says, to the contrary, that what Mercy and love would look like would depend on the various relationships. It would be situational. This is in the sense that the Small Catechism says in preparation for Private Confessions “consider your station in life (aka relationships) according to the 10 commandments”.
KERNER What you should be seeing is that the problem is Ike’s, and Fred’s, inability to love someone, who is right for them, ….
FWS Who gets to decide who is “right for them”? A well meaning Kerner? On what basis? “Well, she IS a female and she IS ‘age appropriate’ and she IS single….” Ok Kerner. I bite. Where are those specific ‘guidelines’ or ‘commandments’ in the Holy Scriptures? I say you are using reason. Now are you using reason according to the Golden Rule? or what?
KERNER …..enough to want to have sex with her, which is encouraging Ike and Fred to withhold mercy.
FWS How is that ‘withholding mercy’? Define ‘mercy’ according to God´s Word. I define Fatherly Goodness and Mercy as being all the things described in the Apostles Creed of the Small Catechism. What is your defintion Kerner? How do you relate it to what the Small Catechism a) describes as the content of Fatherly Divine Goodness and Mercy and b) how the Small Catechism says that G M are delivered to us (hint Luke 18 and the lawless judge).
KERNER … encouraging Ike and Fred to be unmerciful is not mercy to Ike and Fred, and it is certinly not mercy to the women to whom Ike and Fred refuse to show mercy.
FWS: You did not make your point that Ike and Fred are committing the sin of withholding the 1st article Goodness, Mercy and Love that God unmistakably says , in his Word, that they are to give to the women.
Kerner @ 629
“Until very recently, nobody ever expected a man’s best friend to be his wife, nor a woman’s best friend to be her husband. They were expected to have friendships with people of the same sex, and friendships could involve love as deep, or deeper, that the love they had for their spouses, because they would have more in common with a same-sex friend.”
Could this recent development be because of that fact that Gays are clamoring for governmental marriage, that it is forcing everyone to consider, much more “intentionally” so, what marriage is all about, rather than just assume that everyone just knows all that stuff?
So great. Would it be more wholesome in that case for you and mrs K to just remove sex from your marriage? After all, Saint Paul is clear that God´s unmistakable NT preference is for men and women to refrain from having sex (I cor 7).
It would still not be too late for you two do put that into practice. Why would or why would this not be a good idea for you and your wife Kerner. Would this be mercy done? After all, it would be God´s preference, even though he does allow marriage , but only if the choice is between marriage and burning with lust. Why could you and your wife not just both agree to control your lust, avoid sex and be best friends? Why don´t you do that? Discuss.
fws – 632
David wasn’t a homosexual, he would not have lusted for Bathsheba, asking his servant to fetch her, had he preferred men.
The homosexual community, wanting to grab hold of anything that might depict their sin as Biblical has used Jonathan and David for years, much to their shame.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant have you been to me: your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 2 Samuel 1:26
This passage in no way has anything to do with homosexuals.
David had not observed Bathsheba upon her roof as yet. Abigail and Ahinoam his first wives, may not have been the great loves of David’s life, however that does not mean that David lusted after Jonathan in any sexual way.
“Truth Unites… and Divides – 622
RE: Vidkun Quisling
Very interesting………….”
Yes Grace, baptized Lutheran Vidkun Quisling is a very interesting story.
You also might be interested in this lecture titled “The Cultural Crisis and Lutheran Social Ethics“ that was presented to the Association of Confessional Lutherans back in 1998. Here are some keen excerpts:
o “Herman Sasse, a faithful confessional Lutheran, who played a leading role in the German Church Struggle contends:
“No, it was not Lutheranism as such, but a sick Lutheranism that gave National Socialism an open door into the church. It was Lutheran Church which was no longer capable of standing guard over the souls of its people because it had fallen asleep itself. It had lost its power over demons because it no longer possessed the power of distinguishing between “spirits.”…We have noble families in which the grandfathers were conservative and confessional Lutherans, the fathers were German nationalists and members of the union church and the sons joined the S.S.”
o “The office of the ministry requires the courage to be the salt of the earth. Faithful pastors must be willing to stick their necks out. Controversial moral issues must be addressed without equivocation. Even the high and mighty princes and potentates of this world must at times be called to account.”
o “The courage of faithful pastors in rebuking the sinful actions of their rulers or their government may well serve as a deterrent to rebellion by diminishing the wickedness of tyrants:
‘So then, this first verse teaches that to rebuke rulers is not seditious, provided it is done in the way here described; namely, by the office to which God has committed that duty, and through God’s Word spoken publicly, boldly, and honestly. To rebuke rulers in this way is, on the contrary, a praiseworthy, noble, and rare virtue, and a particularly great service to God, as the psalm here proves. It would be far more seditious if the preacher did not rebuke the sins of the rulers; for then he makes people angry and sullen, strengthens the wickedness of the tyrants, becomes a partaker in it, and bears responsibility for it. Thus God might be angered and might allow rebellion to come as a penalty.’” (Martin Luther)
o “Father Martin [Luther] makes no attempt to conceal his contempt for pastors who fail in this responsibility:
“There are many bishops and preachers in the ministry, but they do not stand and serve God faithfully. On the contrary, they lie down, or otherwise play with their office. These are the lazy and worthless preachers who do not tell the princes and lords their sins. In some cases, they do not notice the sins. They lay down and snore in their office and do nothing that pertains to it except that like swine, they take up the room where good preachers should stand. These form the great majority. Others, however, play the hypocrite and flatter the wicked gods and strengthen them in their self-will. … Still others fear for their skins and fear that they must lose life and goods. All these do not stand and are not faithful to Christ.”
o “A chilling echo of Luther’s expression of contempt for such gutless pastors can be heard in words that Adolf Hitler’s spoke to his inner circle shortly after coming to power in Germany in 1933. Hitler boasted that the Christian church was impotent and posed no threat to National Socialism.” [Read Hitler's estimation of the church].
o “Note carefully Luther’s words: the pastor who fails to publicly, boldly, and honestly rebuke the sins of government not only strengthens the wickedness of the tyrants, but “becomes a partaker in it and bears responsibility for it.” Bishop Berggrav asserts: “To put it in a nutshell -he who keeps silent, shares in the guilt. He fails God.”
o “We have been immobilized and intimidated by a lie from the father of lies. We cannot afford the luxury of a pious retreat from the world and its problems. Such isolation may have worked in simpler times, but it will not work now. Pastors must be God’s spokesmen – we must clearly and specifically identify the false gods which call upon our people to bow down before them every day. … Nor can we allow the world to set the church’ s agenda and determine the content of the church’s message, for then we would be reduced to mouthing the trendy slogans of every new political and social movement that appeared on the scene. Too many churches have gone that way before.”
———
Declaring that same-sex behavior is not a sin is a lie from the Father of Lies.
And with this comment, this thread becomes tied for the most comments ever on Cranach.
As always, we couldn’t have done it without Grace.
kerner
Can you give me a straight answer once and stop mucking around, something that has to do with people, something from the words of Jesus perhaps that are helpful in telling me what is merciful in this case to show me how I’ve got it so wrong since you seem to think I do, and not more of this junk regarding your made up “characters”? You are taking the narrowest of views from a hypothetical story and expecting that the definitions you draw from them of these vital terms are meant to be universal. Like Frank said, you are looking for love that is a list of rules. We know what love is, or at least we have good idea, and we usually try to avoid what is not loving. We also teach our children to do so.
You want to keep shaving things back to purely sexual gratification and nothing else, that somehow this is all gay people are after. You refuse to see them as whole people, people who need the same kinds of love and care as anyone else. It is either that or you actually do see their humanity and you just won’t allow it into your language because if you did, then you would have to admit that they deserve love and mercy like everyone else. Instead, you return to these cardboard characters again and again whose issues you seem to think can speak to the entire issue of gay people who desire to be together and have families, etc. It trivializes them and it’s silly.
I said before that your characters seem pathetic to me, but that doesn’t mean that I would have no compassion for people in such situations. I can’t say what is the best course for this type of thing. It’s hypothetical. I’m really not that interested in wearing myself out on it because I think it is a distraction. But purely using one another to get what we want is not love or mercy or service. I think we can agree on that, can’t we? Is that what we teach? I don’t think this is the intention to be read into Luther’s Doctrine of Vocation or the explanations to the Commandments. I don’t know why that is what you expect or see in every possible outcome in a gay relationship.
So before you build yet another straw man, perhaps you could answer some questions, maybe just one, because I think you DO understand it. How is this mercy and not sacrifice?
Truth Unites… and Divides – 639
Very insightful! ……. thanks Truth -
“As always, we couldn’t have done it without Grace.”
Let’s break the tie. And let’s note that fws probably has the most comments on this thread, and the longest comments on this thread.
todd @ 640
And I smell some Luther hatin’ a’comin! I knew we would eventually go there!
“Very insightful! ……. thanks Truth -”
You’re welcome Grace.
I hope the last part was insightful:
“Declaring that same-sex behavior is not a sin is a lie from the Father of Lies.“
Stephen 641
“You want to keep shaving things back to purely sexual gratification and nothing else, that somehow this is all gay people are after. You refuse to see them as whole people, people who need the same kinds of love and care as anyone else. It is either that or you actually do see their humanity and you just won’t allow it into your language because if you did, then you would have to admit that they deserve love and mercy like everyone else.”
Homosexuals will not find “wholeness” within a sinful lifestyle, nor will they find “mercy” outside of repenting of their sin, turning to the LORD, and leaving the pig pen.
Many Christians give to Samaritan’s Purse which sends doctors and medical supplies to help those in Africa with HIV/AIDS – it is an endless job. Unless you have been involved with helping them, you have no idea how devastating the lifestyle has left its inheritance to their wives and children. Grandmothers taking care of many children as the father dies, and then the mother, after contracting the disease from her wayward husband.
You can tout homosexuality as being OK with the LORD, but there is no Scripture that condons such acts of sin.
Kerner on Aristotle
I don´t see your post on Cranach, but I got the email version so I will respond.
So now I hope you see that the bone that the Lutherans have to pick is not with Aristotle. There were serious in the Apology art IV when they say that, “concerning earthly morality, nothing more can be demanded then Aristotle´s Ethics.”
They really did mean that according to what you call the outward or “superficial” keeping of the 2nd Table of the Law. I hope that you are seeing that this is not so “superficial” , even when kept by pagans, after all!
So what do with that fact?
1) Note that the Lutherans embrace Aristotle according to the 2nd table Law. At the exact same time Luther called Aristotle the “devil´s whore ” when Aristotle´s ideas of Virtue get introduced into theology!
2) Note that Calvin and the Late Melancthon in Melanchthon´s “Loci ” recently published by CPH both held views on Aristotle that were the ones the Lutheran confessions specifically rejected.
3) Lutherans are reading alot of Aquinas these days to understand his aristotelian theories of ‘natural law’. Why? Might I suggest that this is about the “Homosexual Issue” ?
4) The Lutheran Confessions reject the Aquinan/aristotelian view of “natural law” intentionally in favor of that term meaning only and narrowly “The Law written by God in the mind of mankind” (Ap art IV). There is a compelling reason they did this. I have outline that reason in earlier posts several times.
5) Kerner, you can only understand our confessions by first understanding Aristotle and what the scholastics did with him by baptizing his “philosophical righeousness” into christian theology. Only then you can see what it is , exactly that the Lutheran Confessions are opposing! So I would suggest that you not embrace Aristotelian righteousness in the wrong way!
Stephen, #644: “And I smell some Luther hatin’ a’comin! I knew we would eventually go there!”
I don’t about that, but how about going here:
What do you think Martin Luther would say and do if a baptized Lutheran came into a church and said that same-sex behavior is not a sin?
As for TIES, ….. I doubt anyone writes longer tomes than the individual who believes homosexual activities are just dandy. There must be at least two loooooong books on this thread, as to how he can twist the Word of God to the opposite direction of God’s Word.
Hey Stephen, what do you think Martin Luther would say and do if a Christian said (@538, or 466), “I don’t believe in infant Baptism, there is not one verse that says infants must be baptized”?
Do you think he’d completely ignore it, like some here do? Would he overlook major doctrinal issues like that in favor of promoting his own agenda?
It’s like they say: homosexuality makes for strange bedfellows!
Kerner the Legal Eagle..
KERNER “A second point to be drawn is that the co-equal same-sex friends with benefits arrangement as described by fws is nowhere to be found in this concept of marriage.
You may not be able to “see yourself” in the story of Sodom, Frank, but your “committed Gay relationshiop: cannot be seen in Aristotle, Ephesians, or the Catechism, either.”
FWS I asked how you see me in the Sodom and Gomorrah story. But you punted didn´t you?
Your argument is an argument from silence then. Your situation is not on the list of permissible things, therefore logically it is forbidden.
1) There are negative examples like rape of male/male sex, but no positive examples.
2) the are negative examples (the vast majority) of male/female sex relations, but there is one positive example that completely fit the idea of one man and one woman in lifelong union 1) pre-fall adam and eve. 2) In addition Paul uses that prefallen marriage of Adam and Eve as a metaphor for Christ in the Church.
3) you ignore the fact that Paul says in 1 cor 7 that God´s NT preference is that men and women ALL remain celebate and virgins, and that he suffers marriage and divorce to happen on account of fallen man´s weakness. That is, to do Mercy overriding God´s clear Divine Preference in sexual matters.
Hey Grace (@649), if you want to read a long tome in which someone tries, over and over, to “twist the Word of God to the opposite direction of God’s Word”, then you should check out the second-most-commented-upon thread on this blog!
Someone on that thread kept denying the very words of Christ in John 20! Can you believe it? That’s crazy!
Why, if someone like that were to be commenting on this thread, I bet Mr. Zealous (aka TUaD, aka “Yes or No”) would surely condemn her straightaway!
fws @ 633 &634:
Oh hell, Frank, there’s no reason to hide behind ancient cultures, although David’s WAS way different. David had several wives, but he only had one friend as close as Jonathan. Given the culture and what we do know historically, if we assume that the love between David and Jonathan was like that between Brian Piccolo and Gale Sayers (i.e., no sex), David would have certainly regarded it as stronger (or better) than anything he was likely to have shared with his several wives.
You don’t see much of that poetry today between men who don’t want to have sex with each other, but the only reason I can think of to not write it is that it would, in this sex-saturated culture, almost certainly be misconstrued; sort of the way you want to push the love between David and Jonathan. People today just can’t believe that two people can love, really love, each other without wanting to sex each other up too.
But in this culture women are more free to express themselves about loving each other in a non sexual way, and there actually are songs about it.
Let’s start with a roup as shallow as the Spice Girls, who sang:
“If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends,
Make it last forever friendship never ends,”
So, if a man wants a sexual relationship with one of these women, he must first love and earn the love of her friends, and the man must love the woman in the superior way that the female friends love her? Whoa!!! what are we to think?
Or how about this song about two heterosexual women in the movie “Beaches”:
“It might have appeared to go unnoticed,
but I’ve got it all here in my heart.
I want you to know I know the truth, of course I know it.
I would be nothing without you.
Did you ever know that you’re my hero?
You’re everything I wish I could be.
I could fly higher than an eagle,
’cause you are the wind beneath my wings.”
So, um, these two “heterosexual” women (just characters in a movie, but even so) go their whole lives never having sex with each other and loving men (one of them has a daughter), and yet the greatest love of their lives is their love for each other. And without sex? Imagine that! And nobody seems to think that this is weird.
Have you ever read “Anne of Green Gables” and listened to the flowery way that the author writes about the love between Anne and her “bosom friend” Diana? Yet Anne grows right up and marries Gilbert Blythe, and she and Diana never have sex. I guess that book is about latent lesbianism according to you.
As I have been saying, I am not the one here that has sex on the brain around here. Your inuendoes give that away.
One more thing. Stop asking me for the details of the ups and downs of my own marriage. Those are very personal things. The times I have sinned against my wife, or that she may have sinned against me, are not going to be published on a blog thread. If I make a statement about all marriages, you may assume my own marriage is included in that un iverse called “all”. Otherwise, the details of my marriage is not your busuness.
kerner @ 653
Tell me how I am delving into the particulars of your personal sex life by asking you why you and your wife do not decide to conform to God´s stated preference in I cor 7 for you both to be celebate ?
I am not seeing any difference between that and your asking why gay men should have a problem with doing the same. What am I missing here Kerner?
As for the rest of your post: “Can men and women or men and men be intimate friends withhout sex. Yes they can”. Who is arguing for the contrary proposition Kerner. Straw. Man.
Here is what the point of difference is between you and Stephen that you insist on dancing around and not answering directly:
Kerner @ 629
STEPHEN “But I don’t see how this fits being gay. The suggestion is that it is pure self-indulgence, that there is no mutual sharing of love and affection or care, no giving over of one to the other for the sake of love. This is simply not true at all, not in the least.”
KERNER Where do you get the idea that “mutual sharing of love and affection and care” and “giving over one to the other for the sake of love” is confined to sexual relationships?
FWS Of course Stephen is not saying that. But then you know that. He is saying that this “mutual sharing” is not confined to heterosexual sexual pairings.
He is asserting that it can be true also of gay sexual pairings.
Are you arguing that this cannot be so? If so, then on what basis do you argue that?
Kerner @ 653
I see progress: You are not insisting that men and women can only know what love is , as opposed to indulgence and lust, from the Bible only. Aristotle has convinced you just as he did the early Lutherans.
Now connect the dots dear man.
Splendid progress I say!
Grace, #649: “I doubt anyone writes longer tomes than the individual who believes homosexual activities are just dandy. There must be at least two loooooong books on this thread, as to how he can twist the Word of God to the opposite direction of God’s Word.”
Grace, that’s pretty pathetic and pitiful.
Another thing that is pathetic and pitiful is when you have the quisling enabler-defenders of the Perverters of God’s Word trying to change the subject and redirect the Light away from themselves.
Martin Luther had some sharp words for folks like that as you can see in #639.
kerner @ 653
So what is it that the spice girls, aristotle, the writers of “beaches ” and “anne of green gables” and buddhists, muslims, atheists , and you and me, and gays and lesbians and transgenders all have in common?
We all have the Law of God, that agrees with the Decalog, written and revealed by God in our minds or Reason.
So all of us can know from reason and logic the difference between love vs lust and indulgence or self indulgence. And we can know the difference between someone being asked to give up something as some imagined sacrifice that God demands vs mercy. Pagans can know this difference.
We can also know what real love is. And so even pagans can know that when someone is making a religious demand just and only to satisfy a religious requirement that this is not love .
And finally we can know that the confessions teach that there is another part of the Law found in the Decalog that reason simply cannot know about or do. Reason can read those words in our Lutheran Confessions, but cannot understand or accept those words. Only faith can. Whaddya say about that part of the Law Kerner?
Kerner @ 653
Cole Porter was gay. Many consider his songs on human love to be the most descriptive of all.
Could you consider that gay men are seeking monogamy precisely because the Law that God wrote in their minds is relentlessly driving them to pursue it? How does this look like indulgence to you? Your marriage involves hard work and sacrifice. You think that somehow gays are subhuman in some way that does not allow them to realize this or pursue making that sacrifice?
I’d like to pose a questions to kerner:
According to Scripture, specifically 1 Corinthians 7, what should Tawney and Gertrude aspire to? Should they wish to marry or to remain single?
Now some observations:
According to Saint Paul, women who wish to marry ought to marry for the purpose of avoiding immorality (1 Cor. 7:2). Men who are not at all sexually attracted to women are likely bad candidates for marriage, as they will likely create marriages in which the wife is tempted to immorality, as the huband won’t be able to satisfy a woman. The sex won’t just be bad, it will be nonexistent. If someone tries to argue around this, they will end up coming up with a scenario that would have probably been itself considered sodomy until recent decades.
(Where this is just comparative, where the men are less attracted to women but able to feel attraction to them, I’m more inclined to think the counsel to marry might be good.)
It might be tempting to think that fidelity ought to be enough to satisfy the women in question. Yet if God doesn’t think that fidelity to undivided devotion to him is enough to prevent women from being tempted to immorality, then how would marriage to a man who doesn’t feel passion for her help? It’s like telling people to grab their own plate at a banquet so they won’t eat off each other’s plates, and then giving some of them plastic food. Better that they keep fasting than that. Or wait a little longer for real food. Arguments I’ve heard seem to be of the nature that everybody should have a plate, food or no food, which is contrary to how this is discussed by St. Paul.
Now the man has both the worldly cares (1 Corinthians 7:28) that St. Paul would have spared him, and still has the temptation that was his reason for marrying in the first place. He’s gotten trouble added, but none removed.
I think many of the assumptions brought to these discussions fall between two stools. They aren’t really the categories of the text, or the categories of the culture, either. They’re what’s left of feminism when you’ve purged it of the errors that can be recognized from a few of the key texts. But this leaves a view of marriage that doesn’t look like that of the Old Testament or the New.
Some think people should just marry and trust the Lord. But the text has other assumptions. The counsel to marry is already a piece of realistic advice given to those who have looked at themselves carefully and decided they will make a wreck of singlehood. It would hardly tell the same people that they should be looking at marriage with no eye to probable success or just to white-knuckle it. If white-knuckling it is an option, they should do so single.
None of this argues in favor of people having sexual relationships with those of their own gender. The point is, certain proposed solutions to their dilemma are not textually sound. When we don’t see the problem for what it really is, we will be suggesting lazy solutions. It’s like someone who knows no geography suggesting someone has an option of driving to Hawaii. And wondering why nobody listens.
#648: “What do you think Martin Luther would say and do if a baptized Lutheran came into a church and said that same-sex behavior is not a sin?”
Are there any folks fairly knowledgeable about Martin Luther who would be able to give their reasonably informed opinion about an answer to this question?
I’m not well-read about the life of Martin Luther, but based upon what I have read, I think he would unequivocally condemn such teaching as false teaching and as a destructive heresy.
Martin Luther would confront this heretic (and barring genuine repentance from this “Gay is Not Sin” heretic), he would lovingly excommunicate this heretic.
TUaD (@656), you’ve made it pretty clear that you don’t actually care about heterodoxy or Lutheranism, only homosexuality. Which is why you’ll gladly tolerate those who openly despise Lutheran doctrine you apparently otherwise cherish. Er, I mean, the ones that agree with you on homosexuality, that is.
But yeah, can you use the word “quisling” more? Because it gives me shivers when you say it!
What difference does Cole Porter being a homosexual have to do with the Word of God? – Cole did what he wanted to do, just like thousands of homosexuals, ….. we wouldn’t have HIV/AIDS staring us in the face, by the thousands if it weren’t for male to male sex (MSM) behavior.
You can stop beating around the bush – you depend upon Luther’s pronouncement. But IT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE!
“What do you think Martin Luther would say and do if a baptized Lutheran came into a church and said that same-sex behavior is not a sin?”
This professor at Concordia Theological Seminary writes on his own blog:
“Luther seldom mentions homosexual behavior. But when he does, his evaluation is always negative. For example, Luther identifies the sin of Sodom with homosexuality. Commenting on Genesis 19:4-5, he writes “I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy”. In the same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to “the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”
Luther’s rejection of homosexual activity is not merely a matter of aesthetic preference but rather a theological judgment rooted in the reality of the way the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness that will not acknowledge God to be the Creator and Lord that He is. For Luther, homosexuality is a form of idolatry, of false worship as we see in his lectures on Romans .”
From Professor John Pless’s post The Ordination of Women and Ecclesial Endorsement of Homosexuality: Are They Related? Lutheran Theo.
Q: What would Martin Luther say to baptized Lutheran Vidkun Quisling?
Q: What would Martin Luther say to baptized Lutherans who behave like shivering quislings when confronted with aberrant, destructive false teaching and heresy?
Hey TUaD (@663), there goes your best friend, taking her usual contextless potshots at Luther (@662) … yet again. Surely you’ll correct her, reprove her? … Ha ha, I’m just kidding. Pretty sure you won’t. Because she has the one doctrine that matters correct, doesn’t she?
Anyhow, I like how you keep quoting (@660, 663) your own question (@648), almost as if nobody else here were paying attention to you … except me now. I can’t help myself.
Of course, your question (much like your attempt at a “yes or no” poll earlier in this thread) is nothing but an appeal to authority, as if Lutherans believed everything Luther wrote. Actually, it’s funny, Grace makes that same mistake all the time, too. You guys really should meet up.
Anyhow, Pless says “Luther identifies the sin of Sodom with homosexuality” but I tend to go with the author of Ezekiel 16 on this one, regardless.
Nobody else wanted to take this number?
tODD,
You are just a perverted quisling enabler. TUaD is right, we need to get rid of shivering quislings like you. We’ll send out around questionnaires asking if you are now or ever have been a quisling. When people admit it, we’ll exile them.
Well, actually people might lie on the questionnaires, so we’ll just tie folks down to chairs, slice open their thumbs into petri dishes, and stick a heated coil of wire into the blood just like Kurt Russell did in the movie The Thing to find the extra terrestrial hidden in one of his comrades. That’s science right there, that will tell us conclusively who the quislings are.
tODD,
Are you a baptized LCMS Lutheran?
Do you agree or disagree with the LCMS Policy on Homosexuality:
“The position of the LCMS, repeatedly affirmed, is that homophile behavior is intrinsically sinful, expressly condemned as immoral by the Scriptures.”
The position of the LCMS on homosexuality:
o Repeatedly affirmed
o Intrinsically sinful
o Expressly condemned
o By the Scriptures.
TUaD (@668), man, you just don’t get it, do you?
I’m not interested in playing your little games. Almost nobody else here is either — or hadn’t you noticed that you are being roundly ignored by most of the people you’re trying to excommu… sorry, talk to.
Most people here at this point are trying to have an actual discussion. You, on the other hand, have seemed interested in little more than shutting down discussion and condemning as many people as you can. (It sounds like this: “You! Identify yourself!” And once they do, out comes the conscience binding! “You! This is what your church believes! Believe it and shut up or I shall accuse you of quislingry!”)
You don’t know what my actual thoughts on the matter are, even though I’ve written quite a lot, both on this thread and elsewhere. And nor do I feel inclined to answer your questions — again, because you show no interest in conversation. I’m happy to let you think whatever nasty thoughts you want to about me, because I don’t care about your opinion. I do, on the other hand, care about the opinions of Kerner, Bror, Rick, Tom, FWS, Stephen, and a bunch of other people who hold discussions on this blog.
But not you. “Yes or no!” “Are you now or have you ever been…?”
The only person who finds your tactics charming is the non-Lutheran (typically also a Luther-basher) that you repeatedly refuse to accuse of anything, even as you rail against the rest as being Satanic back-stabbing blah blah blah. Again, it makes all too clear what you really care about — and orthodoxy isn’t it.
So if this response means that you need to judge my faith or condemn me to Hell or whatever, then do so. Meanwhile, life will go on.
Q: What would Martin Luther say to baptized Lutheran Vidkun Quisling?
Quisling renounced his baptism. This is clear. He said “Religion is outdated.”
He put the Lutheran bishop in jail.
Time covered some of this story here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,791745-1,00.html
Our question is not what Luther would have said about him, though. The people responsible for him would have been the leaders in his church. It was up to them to say the appropriate things. Some may have. Some may not have. Given that he put his bishop under arrest, it appears the man was faithful to his calling to an unusual degree.
But this brings up a major point. These ideas of discipline are being played around with like it’s jungle ball. There are actual procedures for how these things are supposed to happen. Even if the most conservative position is taken as to sexual ethics here, not everyone is in the same position to make the case. It is generally the duty of pastors to put people under the minor ban when appropriate, and requires 2/3 of a congregation to vote to terminate someone’s membership. Generally these things are done when they are notorious through being open before the congregation. If there is no public scandal, or no member was injured, then there is no discipline.
The man from Corinth caused a public scandal. And when Jesus instructs us to “tell it to the church” it is a case where someone has been injured.
This attempt to make the whole thing automatic and disembodied sounds more like some fascist government than church government. Earlier suggestions for what we should have done with fws long ago were based on faulty assumptions as to what the situation was then, but stated in such a way as if we owed the information to someone using a screen name. Just how does that fit the idea of keeping matters more private? Those who don’t go to church with fws now have little business getting involved with his affairs, and those who went to church with him in the past may have been in very different circumstances from those imagined. Those who try to manage affairs of another congregation are like the busybodies who gad about from house to house that Timothy condemns.
The ELCA is a strong advocate for homosexuality, that is why they have chosen to follow in that path. Those who believe as they do, follow after them, no matter what church affiliation they have, or claim. One need only look at the NAY’S and YEAH’S – and then there are the FENCE SITTERS, who don’t want anyone to know…..and then division is made very clear.
tODD, #669: “I do, on the other hand, care about the opinions of Kerner, Bror, Rick, Tom, FWS, Stephen, and a bunch of other people who hold discussions on this blog.”
Do you care about the opinion of BW offered up in #667:
“tODD, You are just a perverted quisling enabler.”
So how do you decide if a denomination is a strong advocate for homosexuality? Must congregations leave a body when someone at the top declares a certain position?
One thing to know about the vote at the ELCA convention was that the congregations did not have equal representation. It was rigged to come out a certain way.
But I have some questions about Calvary Chapel, while we’re at it.
So tell me, Grace. What should the members of the Church of the Foursquare Gospel have done when it was discovered that their founder, Aimee Semple MacPherson, was an adultress and embezzler? Should they not have returned to the churches from which they came? How likely is it that she would have had the clarity to get the church set in true doctrine? How likely is it that they would have put correct disciplinary procedures in place? And isn’t the Foursquare church the roots of Calvary Chapel? Chuck Smith went to Life Bible College, which was their church college, and was ordained as a minister in the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.
Further, there are a lot of allegations of misconduct, sexual and financial, against Calvary Chapel pastors. See here for details: http://www.calvarychapelabuse.com/wordpress/
There was also a recent scandal when Chuck Smith counseled a woman over the air to have an abortion: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7064816215.html
If he made a mistake, aren’t the ramifications much worse than anything fws has done here?
How long do members have to figure this stuff out before they are participators in the sins of others? Should they believe public court records, or do they just believe their own people?
Now, I think some of this might be mitigated, and I don’t expect longtime members to quickly jump ship. But I expect the same room to maneuver. You’re jumping on me for discussing in a small forum how we should handle a moral issue, when you sit under a pastor who publicly teaches wrongly on an issue where there are clear potential victims. I don’t know how you think this makes sense.
Rick Ritchie, #673: “So how do you decide if a denomination is a strong advocate for homosexuality?”
You have some experience in answering your own question given what you wrote in #569: “In my case, I am an elder in an ELCA congregation. We recently voted to leave the ELCA, in part because of their vote to ordain practicing homosexuals.
Which is later noted by Tom Hering in #579: “Didn’t Rick and his congregation separate from the ELCA because they don’t want to be seen as approving sexual immorality?”
—–
Rick, you wrote earlier: “When I was in an LCMS church with him [fws], he held, from what I can tell, much more conservative positions on these matters.”
If you care to share, why are you no longer with LCMS?
Rick – 673
“So tell me, Grace. What should the members of the Church of the Foursquare Gospel have done when it was discovered that their founder, Aimee Semple MacPherson, was an adultress and embezzler? Should they not have returned to the churches from which they came? How likely is it that she would have had the clarity to get the church set in true doctrine? How likely is it that they would have put correct disciplinary procedures in place?”
I have no background in Aimee Macpherson or her life. That has nothing to do with Calvary Chapel Churches.
“And isn’t the Foursquare church the roots of Calvary Chapel? Chuck Smith went to Life Bible College, which was their church college, and was ordained as a minister in the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.”
Calvary Chapel is not a Foursquare Church, even though it’s founder, Pastor Chuck Smith attended a college that reflected Foursquare doctrine.
The first site and many more like it are well known. Anyone can put up a site, like that. As far as the second site you have posted, I know nothing about it.
Regarding the abortion comments, I am unable to make the site work, I usually have no problems, but this site isn’t working here. I will check it out tomorrow.
Pastor Chuck Smith had a stroke last year, he was hospitalized – - and then shortly after that, had back surgery, and then knee surgery – all within a short period of time (I believe he is now 82) We have wondered at some of the things he has said (we listen sometimes to his messages on radio) it concerns us. That could be the cause of many things he has said that are not in line with his previous messages. It’s troubling to hear about this latest comment he has made, if in fact what you have posted is true.
There will be much to be considered in the days ahead, much prayer will be needed. I feel very badly, not just for the Church but for Pastor Chuck Smith and his family.
I was able to locate YouTube – link below
I have read some of the comments below the VIDEO – My husband and I both listened to it with great sadness.
I don’t know if the “extenuating circumstances” are true or false, only the LORD knows that.
This troubles us greatly, ….. I will be consulting with my OB/GYN in the morning He is a highly respected doctor here in this area. We are good friends as well.
A very sad night for my husband and I. I’m in tears
My apologies for any confusion, my last post was a poor attempt at humor.
Let me make this clear:
I would not have an abortion because the babies I was carrying were not perfect, whether they had two heads or one. I would certainly be sad, and weeping, and praying non stop, and so would my husband and family. It’s hard to face such challenges, but as Believers in Jesus Christ, we have no other choice but to trust HIM.
The idea of “if the child will cause the mother to die in labor or pregnancy” is one that is troublsome, ………. I would never to the best of my knowledge as I sit here typing, could offer any advice to a mother in that situation, ….. I just couldn’t. My relationship with Jesus Christ, and my looking forward to Eternal Life with Christ is more important than my life here on earth, it’s just but a vapor.
My mother was a talented writer and poet, her work was lovely, so devoted to Christ. Her favorite statement, made often was “HE has taken me this far, HE will take me the rest of the way” and that HE did, as HE took her home not that long ago. Her courage, her devotion to HIM, has helped me throughout my life, she has been a blessing to me, and everyone who knew her, she was devoted to my father and my siblings.
Excuse me please, for going on and on,…. I am heartsick!
Grace,
My point here is that anything like this can come up and it does cause sadness. Triumphing over the wreckage of someone’s church body is not a good thing to do. There are a lot of good congregations in the ELCA which are not at all pleased with what has happened. As to why they didn’t leave earlier, ideally they would have. But things are often not ideal. When I see how much time and energy it took to work though the matter to bring this to a vote in our congregation, I got an idea of why this wasn’t done earlier. It takes many, many meetings, and a lot of time that could be put into other pressing matters. You can only do it at a time when a congregation is cohesive. Before our current pastor came (before my time), we did not have a pastor for seven years. They surely would not have been leaving the denomination at that point, when they were down to 20 people. Anyway, this is often imagined to be easier than it is.
I was pretty sure I knew what your own position would be on this matter. But now think of this. It is understandable if an older man says something that is not ideal on the radio. We all expect that to happen. But did he have nothing to do with setting this up so nobody would likely be able to get him to step down from this duty when it was beyond him? This is the kind of thing that people often don’t like about denominational churches. They’ve grown a bit staid and rule-bound. You can’t get something decided on an handshake from the pastor. Meetings are long, boring, and require a lot of congregation members to experience wear and tear in attending them. Megachurch members often don’t have to go through this and can just sit in the pew and enjoy. But the rule is less authoritarian. And these structures are made to stand the test of time. Long periods of time.
The movement you are in has not even seen its first generation leave. And it hasn’t been structured, really, to do so.
I also can imagine extenuating circumstances that that mother may have been going through. But my point is, public teaching must be done carefully. What may have been good counsel for that mother might have led many others in the wrong direction. A radio show reaches more people than a phone call. What he said could conceivably have been good counsel on a phone call, depending on what else he knew. But it was bad as public teaching.
Also, one of the things that people like about Chuck Smith is the non-condemning tone. A tone I’d like to see taken with fws, whatever the final counsel delivered to him. I am not myself ready to put a stamp of approval on same sex sexual behavior. I do want to be there to talk him through the passages that have led him where he is.
As to the abuse site, I have the sense that this is not just one slapped up by anyone. It’s been there for some time. I’m in other blogging circles with current and former Calvary Chapel members who interact with the guy who runs it. He’s the son of another Calvary Chapel pastor. And many documents he posts on many of these incidents are public, legal documents.
I don’t think this stuff, even if true, means people have to scamper away to avoid judgment. If they stay around, they may well be trying to conserve ties with other members built over decades, without approving of the wrong. Affiliation is often a complex matter.
Remember, Grace, that everyone and everything in this world will disappoint us – sooner or later. But the love of Jesus Christ for you and your husband is the same yesterday, today, and forever – because He never changes.
Rick – 679
With all due respect you know not of what you speak. I am a pastors daughter, I have witnessed a great many different situations in churches, both big, medium and small. I am acquainted with church doctrine, and history to know what I’m talking about, but most importantly, the Word of God.
“I was pretty sure I knew what your own position would be on this matter. But now think of this. It is understandable if an older man says something that is not ideal on the radio. We all expect that to happen. But did he have nothing to do with setting this up so nobody would likely be able to get him to step down from this duty when it was beyond him? This is the kind of thing that people often don’t like about denominational churches.”
You know next to nothing about Calvary Chapel. Many people, and heads of denominations have made snide, envious remarks concerning Calvary Chapel (YES, so called Believers can be ENVIOUS of those who start a work, brought forth by God, that is blessed and grows to fruition) The thing you are missing is; God led Chuck Smith to start this work, it’s obvious as one observes the results of lives changed, becoming new creations in Christ. Christ make rules regarding denominations, what HE did as the Apostles wrote, was what an elder/pastor should be, the kind of life he should live, the husband of one wife, etc – he sent out HIS Apostles to teach and preach, and that they did. I’m not against denominations, I do find that many of them are so tied up in the rule book, and endless meetings they have little time to attend to the flock, their churches are made into institutions rather than a church which reaches the lost for Christ.
“The movement you are in has not even seen its first generation leave. And it hasn’t been structured, really, to do so.
You know so little about Calvary Churches.
“Also, one of the things that people like about Chuck Smith is the non-condemning tone. A tone I’d like to see taken with fws, whatever the final counsel delivered to him. I am not myself ready to put a stamp of approval on same sex sexual behavior. I do want to be there to talk him through the passages that have led him where he is.
Pastor Chuck Smith is not a “non-condemning tone” kind of guy – you are either not acquainted with his messages, his stance against sin, his burden for the lost, his sense of responsibility to his flock, OR, you’re taking this opportunity to make a point you don’t have. I would say it’s both. I have never, up until tonight ever heard Pastor Church Smith say anything that would uphold abortion or homosexuality, or any other sin –
You still have a crying need to sit vicariously with your pants stuck on the post, regarding an individual who is very proud of his sin, and gives endless tomes of just how twisted he can make the Scriptures to substantiate his willful sin. And then you state: “I am not myself ready” – “READY” ? ….. well Rick, sounds like you’re on the fence. That’s good that you make yourself CLEAR, it gives those who read and listen to understand a. that you’re off Scripturally, or b. that you shake right up to what they have been wanting to hear for some time. It’s that fence thing that gives you away. That fence feels kind of uncomfortable, but there are too many who get used to the “stuck” position it offers.
We would not stay in any church or denomination that was doctrinally unsound, and that also encompasses ELCA, PCUSA, UU’s, Methodist and other who embrace homosexual lifestyles, abortion and other very important doctrinal issues.
“Christ make rules regarding denominations, what HE did as the Apostles wrote, was what an elder/pastor should be, the kind of life he should live, the husband of one wife, etc”
SHOULD READ BELOW:
“Christ make rules regarding church leadershp, as stated in the New Testament, as the Apostles wrote – an elder/pastor should be, the kind of life he should live, the husband of one wife, etc “
TUaD, I hope you’ll understand if I find yet another attempt by you to get me to care about the opinions of others (@672) has backfired on you.
BW doesn’t comment around here as much as others — and I’m not even entirely sure that BW is a he, but I’ll assume so for now — but when he does, we typically are in agreement, as on this thread, I think.
And yes, I got that he was being sarcastic. He was mocking your over-the-top word choices.
Just so we’re all on the same page, I was also being sarcastic when I urged you to “use the word ‘quisling’ more” (@661). It doesn’t actually give me shivers when you type it. Sorry.
Thank you Tom for your kind words.
tODD – 683
It appears that for you, this is but a “reality show”
I doubt at this point anything gives you”shivers” – you don’t need to be sorry, you’re the loser.
Grace @681:
“You [Rick Ritchie] still have a crying need to sit vicariously with your pants stuck on the post, regarding an individual who is very proud of his sin, and gives endless tomes of just how twisted he can make the Scriptures to substantiate his willful sin.”
Well said, Grace.
Enabling a baptized Lutheran who twists Scripture to substantiate and justify his willful sin of same-sex behavior is the mark of a quisling.
tODD 683
You completely missed BW’s remarks, OR you chose to re-inflict it once again, after BW posted.
Grace:
I understand your pain. I know what it is like to have a man of God, who has said and done so many things that I respect, let me down by sinning grievously at near the end of his ministry. The only comfort I can offer is to say that we are all still under the influence of out old Adam, and old Adam will trip up the best of us. Whatever good Pastor Smith has done in this life had been done to the glory of God. Whatever sins he has committed, including this one, are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. Pastor Smith is in the same boat with the rest of us, that’s all.
Rick Ritchie:
Well, you have shown Grace that our heroes all fall short of the glory of God.
But remember this: Chuch Smith knew that poor young woman was in real pain, and that obeying the letter of God’s Law would probably require her to bear further, more severe pain. He probably thought that he was extending “mercy” to her by telling her to ignore the letter of the law and rely on her own judgment. But the Lutheran Confessions do not teach that. For example they say:
” More than blind are those who do not perceive that wicked desires in the flesh are sins, of which Paul, Gal. 5:17, says: The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. 49] The flesh distrusts God, trusts in present things, seeks human aid in calamities, even contrary to God’s will, flees from afflictions, which it ought to bear because of God’s commands, doubts concerning God’s mercy, etc. The Holy Ghost in our hearts contends with such dispositions [with Adam's sin] in order to suppress and mortify them [this poison of the old Adam, this desperately wicked disposition],and to produce new spiritual movements”
Defense of the Augsburg Confession Art. III: Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law, 48-50 (emphasis mine)
The Confessions then, teach that we are to bear afflictions if obeying God’s commands require it rather than flee from them under the guise of “mercy”. And where do we find God’s commands? The Confessions tell us that too.
“1] Since the Law of God is useful, 1. not only to the end that external discipline and decency are maintained by it against wild, disobedient men; 2. likewise, that through it men are brought to a knowledge of their sins; 3. but also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning this third and last use of the Law. 2] For the one side taught and maintained that the regenerate do not learn the new obedience, or in what good works they ought to walk, from the Law, and that this teaching [concerning good works] is not to be urged thence [from the law], because they have been made free by the Son of God, have become the temples of His Spirit, and therefore do freely of themselves what God requires of them, by the prompting and impulse of the Holy Ghost, just as the sun of itself, without any [foreign] impulse, completes its ordinary course. 3] Over against this the other side taught:Although the truly believing are verily moved by God’s Spirit, and thus, according to the inner man, do God’s will from a free spirit, yet it is just the Holy Ghost who uses the WRITTEN LAW for instruction with them, by which the truly believing also learn to serve God, not according to their own thoughts, but according to His WRITTEN Law and Word, which is a sure rule and standard of a godly life and walk, how to order it in accordance with the eternal and immutable will of God.
4] For the explanation and final settlement of this dissent we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that although the truly believing and truly converted to God and justified Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the Law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, AS IT IS WRITTEN, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing. ”
SDBC VI: Third Use of the Law (Emphasis Mine)
When we decide that we don’t need the law as it is written and decide to follow our own ideas of what “feels like mercy”, we end up where Pr. Smith ended up. Consenting to sin out of sympathy. The Lutheran Confessions do not teach us to do that.
Truth Unites… and Divides – 686
Thank you my friend. We can pray for them, that is the most important thing we can do, and then pray for ourselves, that we honor God in word and deed.
Kerner – 688
YOU WROTE: “When we decide that we don’t need the law as it is written and decide to follow our own ideas of what “feels like mercy”, we end up where Pr. Smith ended up. Consenting to sin out of sympathy. The Lutheran Confessions do not teach us to do that.”
How right you are – “Mercy” is never consenting to sin, however tempting that might be. A very apt statement Kerner.
Have any of you ever wondered what “God’s image” is? it must be the image each and every one of us are born with, be it beautiful, handsome, comely, plain, slender, heavy muscular, short, tall, disfigured, some limbs short, some longer, all one one body, two heads, one body, the list goes on and on – YET, the Scriptures tell us:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26
We cannot as little man understand that passage, as the Scripture says:
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1 Corinthians 1
It’s all a mystery, our outward appearance is but a shell, but God uses it for HIS purposes, HIS design.
“Quislings!”
Anybody feel convicted yet? No?
“Quislings!”
Come on. You’re nothing but baptized Lutherans. Start trembling already.
“Quislings!”
Don’t think I’m not going to keep saying it.
“Quislings!”
Okay then. I’ll be back. You’ve all been warned.
“Quislings!”
kerner @ 688
Indeed Kerner! We can only know Jesus from the written and spoken Word of God. Our Confessions tell us that the Word of God is in with and under that printed Book before you and no man dare separate the Word from it not even by a hair.
You missed my favorite passage on where the Law is according to the confessions:
.
and
and finally, why IS it that our Roman Catholic brethren in the faith could not see this Law of God that peculiarly deals with “movements of the heart”? Even though it is right under their noses in the WRITTEN Law of the Decalog?!! Because natural reason is totally blind to the most important part of the Law, the “eternal ” part, until they have what? Faith in Jesus Christ which brings the Holy Spirit. Here:
This Law, which is ONLY found or “peculiarly ” found WRITTEN in the Decalog Kerner, cannot be seen by unbelievers even though they can read it! This Law is “in, with, and under” the WRITTEN Law of God Kerner. Just as the Word of God is “in, with, and under” the water in Holy Baptism. Get it? No one is denying that the Written Word of God IS the Written Word of God.
Kerner @ 688
I must confess: I get goosebumps when I see my favorite Legal Eagle quoting from the Lutheran Confessions.
Now if he will just start to read them to challenge his own thinking rather than to mine prooftexts to support what he already “knows”…..
Kerner @ 688
You are right, the confessions say that a part of having Original Righeousness and the Image of God restored is that we no longer flee God´s judgement. We confess with him that we are sinner.
We also do not flee suffering but accept it. We accept it whether it is an earthly punishment for some sin, or whether it is for the reason Our Lord suffered for us, that we have been rejected by men for speaking the Truth.
It is wrong to say that God does not send punishment and suffering when we sin. He does. The Confessions say that. For that very reason, Luther says we should study the 10 commandments and learn to follow God´s 2nd table Law willingly so that he does not have to send us suffering and punishment and make us do it. Luther says that that is our motivation for learning and doing the Law on earth. Here:
http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10
I am pretty sure that that is not something you have heard a Lutheran say previously eh? And look at who is telling you this.
kerner-
I think the distinction is that is somewhat backwards here in your reading is that you are saying the law is given “so that” we suffer. This is to sanction suffering, which is not the purpose of the law or the cross. The Scriptures and our Confessions, on the other hand, teach us that the law is given so that goodness and mercy happen. This is the entire purpose of the law and nothing else. We suffer then because we do not keep the law. So, if what we are enforcing as “keeping the law” causes suffering (man made for the Sabbath, let’s say) something is off. We actually are not keeping the law. We are demanding sacrifice and not doing mercy, which is the whole of the law, it’s purpose and sum.
I’ll be back later. Been busy.
Stephen @ 696 (kerner)
Bingo. This is exactly right.
@692: too funny! My lol for the day.
@fws: the Luther sermon on the third use of the law is a good one.
a couple of points I’m thinking of:
-Doesn’t “Love of God” (1st table) mean we respect God’s intentions with respect to what marriage should look like? You say that companionship is mandated by God (Gen 2:18), but he also commanded mankind to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). And his intention, it seems to me, is clearly one man for one woman for life. Yet, we have many examples in Genesis where man violates this model of marriage. Almost right out of the box (Gen 4:19). Yes, you have shown that mankind does not hold marriage in high esteem as God does (referencing high divorce rates), but does that invalidate his original intention for marriage? And, is it a sin to alter his intended order? Are we “[loving] the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”? (matt 22:37)
It seems that the second table of the Law could also be folded into the first.
-If husbands and wives, who usually also have children, can’t even keep their marriages afloat at a high rate in our current culture, is there any reason to think gay couples will have more success? Sinful humans that we are, my guess is not. The closest gay acquaintance I know has already suffered abandonment by his “marriage partner”, after only a few years.
My last thought is this: If we do not have the law, how can we know or desire the gospel? The law needs to be proclaimed, so that consciences can be pricked, and sinners be made aware of their sin, in hope that they will repent and receive the gospel. Didn’t the apostle Paul talk about the law being proclaimed, so that the gospel could be applied? (Romans 5:20-21)
@fws: That should have been, Luther’s sermon on “two kinds of righteousness” – yes, I did read it; had it downloaded to my desktop. Speaking of which, my laptop is taking a trip to the Geek Squad, so I will not have as much access to the internet, probably for weeks, but I’ll try to track your comments best I can.
To commemorate this thread reaching 700 comments, I’m now going to repeat the accusation of “Quislings!” 700 times. Here goes.
“Quislings!”
“Quislings!”
“Quislings!”
“Quislings!”
“Quis … Ack! … Argh!”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (head hits keyboard)
——————————————–
Help! I’m TYNUV’s wife. Anyone here know how to operate a home defibrillator? Anyone? Please!
fws:
Well, I’m glad to see you are reading the confessions too. and hopefully you will read them with an open mind instead of trying to justify an interpretation in which you have an interest.
But, I will probably take most of today off from this thread to get some work done, and to read the confessions further. While I’m gone will you and Stephen consider this question?
You said @654:
“As for the rest of your post: “Can men and women or men and men be intimate friends withhout sex. Yes they can”. Who is arguing for the contrary proposition Kerner. Straw. Man.”
Well, I don’t want to set up a straw man. But if I am doing that, my question is: Then why is it so important to you and Stephen that intimate friends have sex?
If “love” is really the important thing, and we agree that people can love deeply without sex, why do all your arguments seem to imply that a loving relationship that does not involve sex is worthless?
It may seem to you that I keep paring back everything except the sexual aspect of this, but please try to understand that, to me, it seems like you are disregarding EVERYTHING BUT sex.
Your arguments go something like: What do you mean people can love each other and even live together without sex? If they aren’t dancing the horizontal polka on a regular basis, they are mere roommates! The whole relationship would be just a lie!
That implication, that a loving relationship is a lie if there is no sex involved, is what makes me think that all your arguments are simply about sexual gratification. When I try to point out that, even if the letter of the law is correct, gays can still have EVERYTHING BUT sexual gratification, the response is always: no no no, without sex everything else, even love, is meaningless.
Maybe you don’t mean to say love is meaningless or worthless, but you do make it sound like love, without sex, is not important…an option not worth considering.
Kerner, #688: “When we decide that we don’t need the law as it is written and decide to follow our own ideas of what “feels like mercy”, we end up where Pr. Smith ended up. Consenting to sin out of sympathy. The Lutheran Confessions do not teach us to do that.”
Stephen, #696: “The Scriptures and our Confessions, on the other hand, teach us that the law is given so that goodness and mercy happen. This is the entire purpose of the law and nothing else. We suffer then because we do not keep the law. So, if what we are enforcing as “keeping the law” causes suffering (man made for the Sabbath, let’s say) something is off. We actually are not keeping the law. We are demanding sacrifice and not doing mercy, which is the whole of the law, it’s purpose and sum.”
fws: “Stephen @ 696 (kerner) Bingo. This is exactly right.”
———-
Kerner is basically saying [unless he retracts or clarifies]: “Consenting to sin out of sympathy feels like mercy or may feel like mercy, but it’s really not what the Lutheran Confessions teach.”
Versus
Stephen and fws are basically saying [unless they retract or clarify]: “If enforcing and keeping the Law causes suffering, then that’s not mercy, and that’s actually not keeping the Law which is what the Lutheran Confessions teach. [Unspoken presupposition: Stephen and fws know what suffering and mercy is and the relationship between the two.]
(Continuing) Keeping the Law that forbids same-sex behavior causes suffering which is not merciful, and mercy, as we must all remember per the Lutheran Confessions, is the purpose of the Law. Hence, same-sex behavior is actually in accordance with the Law!
Not only that, but consenting to same-sex behavior out of sympathy is merciful and this merciful consent is in accordance with the Law!”
——-
FWS’s and Stephen’s Perversion of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions is no laughing matter. Moral cowards look the other way at these perversions and their silence enables the violence being done to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.
tODD, Tom Hering, Rick Ritchie, BW, et al with their silence and lack of rebuke for perverters of Scripture and the Confessions shows that they are moral cowards. Such silence in the face of such violent perversion of Scripture is even a signal of collaboration, hence the appropriateness of being seen, known, and named as quislings.
TUaD (@702) said:
(Except TUaD sounded much, much, much more manly when he said it than when I quoted it. So imagine it with way more macho condemnation — like Charlton Heston, only more so.)
Hey, whaddya know! Those exact words apply exactly to TUaD’s moral cowardice when it comes to his quislingry as far as Grace’s comments on baptism go! He condemns himself by his own condemnation!
Hey, TUaD, maybe if you repeat the word “quisling” more, people will respect you more! I know it’s having that effect on me!
Stephen @696:
Thanks for your response. I try not to be a “legal eagle” but I know I sometimes fail. And your comment goes to the heart of one aspect of this debate.
My point is not that the law is intended to cause suffering, but sometimes, obeying the law is more painful than disregarding it. Take that mother of the conjoined twins. She was in real pain. If her twins were born, she would have been in even more, and more severe pain. If the twins survived, their emotional pain would be something most of us cannot imagine. It would be easy to conclude, as Chuck Smith did conclude, that the “merciful” thing to do would be to just abort the twins. If pain in this life is the kind of “sacrifice” that God “will not have”, then the “merciful” thing to do would be abort the child. End of pain = no more sacrifice = mercy accomplished. Pie for everybody.
I do not think that the purpose of God’s law is to cause us pain. but neither do I belive that the only purpose of the law is to make us comfortable in our flesh or in this life. I think that the passage that I quoted means that Christians are often put in a position in which the right decision is the most painful course.
Frank says @695:
“We also do not flee suffering but accept it. We accept it whether it is an earthly punishment for some sin, or whether it is for the reason Our Lord suffered for us, that we have been rejected by men for speaking the Truth. ”
But I do not believe that the suffering Christians often feel is always an earthly punishment for some sin or rejection by men for speaking the truth. It certainly can be from those sources, but certainly not always.
Sometime, the pain we have to endure as a result of doing the right thing is just there. Think again of that young mother of conjoined twins. How was her pain the punishment for some sin? How was her painful situation caused by the rejection of men? She, and her children, were in pain because her children were about to be born as conjoined twins. This sort of thing used to be called “an act of God”. But whatever we call it, God did not prevent it, although He certainly could have prevented it.
So we know that God sometimes puts us in situations (or at least allows us to be in situations) where it is more painful to do the right thing that the wrong thing. Is that calling for sacrifice instead of mercy?
What I’ve been trying to say all this time, legal-eagling aside, is that the more painful decision may very well be the morally right one. And in that case, Christians should still encourage each other to do the right thing, and, as the Confessions say, “bear the affliction”, or live with the pain.
The flaw I perceive in this part of your argument is that you seem to be saying that pain is the only factor to consider in moral questions.
1) Gay people are in pain because they can’t get married.
2) Pain is bad.
3) The right thing to do is let gay people marry each other. QED Pie for everyone.
But I do not see how it can ever be that simple. Sometimes the most painful decision is also the right decision.
So the when we see that
1) God’s moral law seems to say that man-man or woman-woman sex is wrong, and
2) this causes causes pain and frustration to gays and lesbians
the mere fact that they are in pain does not resolve the issue. I don’t think that it is even that much of an important factor, because people are put in painful situations all the time that are nobody’s fault. That doesn’t mean that I don’t care about other people’s pain. It just means that the existence of pain doesn’t tell us conclusively whether a moral choice is right or wrong.
I think the really improtant questions are:
1) What does God’s Word (and the Confessions) say about this specific issue? and
2) Are there general principles or other factors that tell us that our understanding of the specific directions we have are misguided?
But by “general primciples” I do not include the argument “painful to gays = wrong choice”. That’s a fallacy.
collie @ 698
Wow. Your thoughts are great ones and , I think, well presented with love and elegance.
1) Argument #1 God´s Original Plan vs His Plans in a Fallen World.
First we have to back up and understand what the Law is, and then what it means to keep it. Is it an outward keeping? Is it about obedience/sacrifice? Is man´s Divine Design exactly about conforming to a list of rules, like they are lines of programming code? Or is the purpose of the Law utilitarian in the sense of being purposed to serve man? One cannot answer your specific questions before stepping way back and considering these questions. Fair?
It is important to understand here that Adamic Original Righeousness and man as being made in the Image of God consisted of one thing alone: Faith or Trust in Jesus Christ. Alone. Apart from what Adam did or did not do.
Because of, and as a result of , this Image of God, man also, as a fruit of this fact, had the Law of God also written in his heart.
In a fallen world, Old Adam has this same Law of God written in his Reason. So he can both fully know and do this Law of God according to his Reason, but Reason has the Veil of Moses over it. This means that Reason can only conclude that the Law can be kept by doing the outward act. This is to say that the Law is written in his mind, but it is not written in his heart. His fallen heart has faith in anything BUT Christ, so his heart is always at war with the Law that God has written in the minds of Old Adam fallen men,
This is why the Law cannot be kept fully the way God intends, that is from the heart until a man or woman again has Original Righteousness and is again made into God´s Image. Then and only then the Law of God again is written in his heart and not just his mind.
Only then can God become an Object of Love and our neighbor too, because only then the New man knows can see a God that is not always accusing him and wishing his death. and punishing him. Mankind hates God and God´s Law and obedience can only be “extorted” (FC Art VI) out of him until he is born again.
And so the keeping of the “SUM” or “full purpose and intent” of the Law then, can happen alone in that regeneration that happens in Holy Baptism.
Now then. Is that outward keeping of the Law of God with our mind a true righeousness that God demands or is it only “righeousness” as in a hypocritical pharisaic thing as I often hear Lutherans assert? The Confessions and Scripture say that this outward righeousness is true and God pleasing righeousness. It is something God demands. He threatens to punish those who break that outward Law, and he promises earthly and even heavenly blessings to those who keep his Law (Ap art III).
So what is God´s intent with this outward keeping of the second table of the Law? You will find a description of this in all 3 articles of the Apostles Creed found in the Lutheran Small Catechism. Especially the 1st article.
So what is it God is trying to get done with the 2nd table of the Law and it´s outward keeping? Is it obedience and obeyance to him? This would be what Islam says is the point of Sharia Law. It is obedience to God and his rules.
Luther and the Lutherans suggest that this kind of keeping is exactly what Jesus calls “sacrifice”. It is the idea that Man is made for the Law. It is the idea that having the Image of God and Original Righeousness is exactly about conformity to the Law of God. Lutherans reject this idea. So does Jesus: “The Sabbath (and the entire Law) is made for Man, not man for the Sabbath” and then explains exactly what that means in practice: “God wants Mercy instead of Sacrifice”.
So now we can ask about God´s intention for marriage. That can be seen in Adam and Eve. Eve was made why? For procreation? No. Procreation serves , for man, as opposed to beast, a higher function: “It is not good that man should be alone” so “I will make a help-meet for him”. And that procreation created what is society that provides that UNalone-ness in wonderful and varied ways. Most of us have experience though, being in a room full of people and still feeling very, very alone. This must have been what father Adam felt as God (deliberately to make a point to Adam) paraded all the animals past him and there was no one for him!
So Jesus says that God´s Original Intent for marriage was for one man and one woman in lifelong union. And how did that pan out with the fall? Not well.
So God COULD have fixed that with rules when the 10 commandments were issued right? He could have said “ok. ENOUGH of polygamy, and ENOUGH of women being treated exactly like chattel bought and sold with zero sexual or marital choice. But he did not do that did he? What did he do? Jesus permitted all those things that were against his Original Plan and allowed for Divorce to boot! I suggest here that Jesus bent his original plan to fit the circumstances in order to do what? Goodness and Mercy. That is the purpose of his Law. Love. So for the first time in history, divorced women and their children could have property rights. Mercy!
Now we can roll forward to the New Testament and 1 Cor Chapter 7. There we learn, now that that God´s Divine Preference for sexuality for men and women is what?
So here we read that it is best for men and women to remain single, celebate and virginal . That is God´s Preference.
This fact, that God´s Divine Preference is for celebacy over marriage , is also declared in our Lutheran Confessions in the Apology art XXIII [bracketed comments and ALL CAPS are mine]:
But the objection is this: “clearly the ‘divine remedy’ is sex in the context of male/female. Why? This is the Divine Design, as is no divorce, and no polygamy! ” I am suggesting that the ‘divine remedy’ is about Mercy for sinners with a sex drive. The point is to channel and control the sex drive in sinful mankind. It is not with the purpose of conforming to a Divine Industrial Design Standard.
and …
And finally this, about imposing Lev 18 and outward prohibitions on gays:
Comment: !!!!!
And God´s Preference is also not to Divorce. And God´s Preference is that divorced persons should not remarry. So why is it that Saint Paul makes a “concession”? Sin. The weakness of man. Better to marry and channel sex rather than being controlled by our sex drive.
And so Saint Paul, contrary to God´s Preference allows , as a concession and not a command 1) Marriage 2) Divorce and I would suggest then that this also means that he allows, contrary to God´s Preference : remarriage for those divorced! Why? Mercy. The divorced still have a sex drive. Better to marry than to burn.
In 1 Cor 6 Saint Paul says that ALL things are legal. So then he says that the question is then this for Christians: “What is useful?” Useful in proving our obedience to God by following a set of rules? No. Useful in serving our neighbor. Channelling one´s sex drive with monogamy requires alot of self discipline and it allows for a space for sex to be employed for the increase in love.
I hope that helps Collie. Those are great questions! Bless you.
Kerner @ 704
The flaw I perceive in this part of your argument is that you seem to be saying that pain is the only factor to consider in moral questions.
1) Gay people are in pain because they can’t get married.
No Kerner. Gay people are in pain because the Law written in their minds is accusing them! That is what drives their pain Kerner. And this same Divine Law drives them to believe that if they cannot channel their sexual urges, then that will seriously mess with their ability to love themselves and others. So what is the solution? The Law drives them to monogamy. That is what their Reason tells them they must do. And so they obey that Law of God written in their Reason in the faith that it is right in accusing them and is right in the carrot of love and companionship that it offers them.
Nothing wrong at all with being a Legal Eagle. I hope I can go to Law School some day. I love the Law. That is your vocation Kerner. But when it comes to God´s Word, we must understand that there is a dimension to the Law that Reason, apart from faith , is blind to. Reason always = Law = outward doing = sacrifice = carrot/stick.
There is nothing wrong with this. Aristotle is brilliant at describing the mechanism for how this works. Men seek life and “flourishing” in this kind of true and truly God-pleasing righeousness. And God indeed promises rewards for those who live righeously.
But this is ALL Law. No Christ is needed for this. This is all about ….. death. The Law always accuses and results in our death. Luther: “Life is death.” Life IS Mortification, discipline, self sacrifice.
But that does not mean that death is life dear Kerner.
So they why can´t we offer this righeousness, that is the love that God demands up to God to appease his anger?
THAT is the question that no Legal Eagle-ing is able to answer.
A legal eagle will in fact say that this DOES propitiate God. And he can appeal to God´s Word. God´s Word does really and truly say that this IS so! (Ap art III) We can propitiate God with the human sacrifice that is called Obedience. But how?
Alone by the outward act? No. Maybe by Outward obedience done in faith? (Kerner´s proposal maybe?) Yes! That IS a possible answer according to our confessions.
Or maybe No! It truly depends……
Now go and read our Confessions , Apology III to see how it is that a Confessional Lutheran can say this about our Works.
Kerner @ 701
I don´t know how to put this into words that do not make this personal.
Kerner, God prefers in 1 cor 7, than men and women do not have sex.
You will answer your question to me by answering why you and your wife do not just decide to do away with sex in your relationship.
Can you put your questions directed most personally to me as a gay man as you would relate them to your own personal life please?
“The thing you are missing is; God led Chuck Smith to start this work, it’s obvious as one observes the results of lives changed, becoming new creations in Christ.”
So since God led Chuck Smith to start this work, we can know that every decision he made to consolidate power at the top so that he himself would have no oversight was good.
Apparently you’re no longer heartbroken over what you heard yesterday.
Your same form of reasoning is used by many to argue that Lonnie Frisbee was clearly led by God to start his work. They could, and do, argue that what he fell into was mostly preconversion with an occasional lapse. I guess this just has to do with which sins we will choose to overlook and which sins not. Whose story we believe about this and whose not.
The documentation on the authoritarian model of Calvary Chapel can be found here: http://procinwarn.com/ccclergy.htm. The booklet referred to by it is available online. This teaching matches what I used to hear back when I attended in the late 1980′s.
No amount of miracles or changed lives will prove a model of church government. For that we have some Scripture to work from, and a lot of church history experience. Calvary Chapel has chosen a very top down model, and they are now getting hit with lawsuits of the sort that regularly hit the Roman Catholic church.
To argue that the Church of the Foursquare Gospel has nothing to do with this is shortsighted. If association taints as you’ve maintained, then Chuck Smith ought to be seen as tainted by his association with that group. The connections continued, as Smith would invite Dr. Van Cleave in to preach, who had mentored him at Life Bible College. And the very areas where that church was vulnerable seem to be the places where Calvary Chapel is vulnerable. I’m sure Angelus Temple was every bit as impressive in its time as Calvary Chapel has been in its time. And I don’t just mean the building.
So my argument is, this authoritarian model where the pastor is accountable only to God, where men don’t have power to step in, is what led to that sad exchange on the radio. One of the illustrations for why Chuck Smith needed that power to make decisions was that the elders wouldn’t let him continue to arrange chairs for a Sunday night service as he wished, when it seemed to make for a better service. The oversight of elders was trivialized. So he created a model where he could fire the whole board himself. Well, we see now that there might be other things a board of elders could do that might be of greater consequence.
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — Lord Acton
Kerner @ 701
Simply put:
You seem to think Kerner, that sex for me is important in a different way and for a different reason in my life than it is in yours.
That is what I am getting from what you are writing.
What is it I am missing?
TUaD,
I take it you are not a John Carpenter fan, as it seems my The Thing reference earned me a spot on your quisling list.
tODD is right, I read more than I comment because normally someone’s expressed a view similar to mine in the comments and someone else has given a thoughtful opposing response and it gives me a lot to think about. Typically the discussion has moved on to other posts before I have a good response. Also the folks here are very knowledgeable, so it pays to think things through before you respond, or they’ll call you on sloppy comments. It’s happened to me.
This quisling stuff though, has gotten so ridiculous I wanted to give an equally ridiculous response. I mean, not only do we now have super sinners, now we’ve got collaborators?
Whew! I’m better now. Thanks, everyone, for your kind words of concern. Except you moral cowards and … Quislings! Keep your filthy paws off me, you damn dirty Quislings! (HT tODD @ 703.)
Kerner, #704: “I think the really improtant questions are:
1) What does God’s Word (and the Confessions) say about this specific issue?”
Answer: Same-sex behavior is sin.
“2) Are there general principles or other factors that tell us that our understanding of the specific directions we have are misguided?”
Answer: No. There is no misguided understanding when upholding Scripture’s clear teaching that same-sex behavior is sin.
“But by “general primciples” I do not include the argument “painful to gays = wrong choice”. That’s a fallacy.”
I’m glad you identified the fallacy.
#702: “FWS’s and Stephen’s Perversion of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions is no laughing matter. Moral cowards look the other way at these perversions and their silence enables the violence being done to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. ”
Recent example, fws in #705: “In 1 Cor 6 Saint Paul says that ALL things are legal.”
Here’s 1 Corinthians 6:
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
fws in #705: “In 1 Cor 6 Saint Paul says that ALL things are legal.”
No, it does not.
tud @ 713
What translation is that? My greek new testament is missing alot of what is in that translation.
FWS (@714), that would be an extensive quote from the TNIV.
fws,
From the NIV 2011: Here.
fws:
Before I respond to your last few posts, I want to explain that I believe that you may have completely misread I Corinthians 7, specifically, I do not think that it teaches that God prefers that men and women not have sex, nor do I think it teaches that the only reason for marriage is to provide an outlet for our sexual urges.
But if I spend the time necessary to explain why I think you are wrong, the conversation will wander far from the issues that are important to you. Since your understanding of I Cor. 7 is a big part of the foundation of your argument, I think it needs to be addressed, because if your starting point is wrong, then even if your logic is correct, your conclusion will still be wrong. But if I really address I Cor. 7 as I think it should be, we will end up talking about marriage, and what it is for, and why men and women should get and/or stay married. I won’t be talking much about sex between gays.
I bring this up before answering because I don’t want to, or be accused of trying to, avoid your questions or change the subject because I’m cornered. What do you think I should do?
Rick – 708
“Your same form of reasoning is used by many to argue that Lonnie Frisbee was clearly led by God to start his work. They could, and do, argue that what he fell into was mostly preconversion with an occasional lapse. I guess this just has to do with which sins we will choose to overlook and which sins not. Whose story we believe about this and whose not.”
Frisbee was a homosexual, no one knew that when he became involved with Calvary Chapel This man had been part of the Laguna Beach homosexual community and San Francisco for a long time, no one knew that as well, when it became known, and Frisbee admitted what he had been doing, he was removed as part of Calvary Chapel.
There are wolves in sheep’s clothing everywhere, they can be found in every denomination or evangelical church, one has only to look at Judas Iscariote, he betrayed Christ. There have been pastors, elders and lay people involved with churches since the beginning who were not sincere, who lied, stole, or FELL AWAY from the LORD Jesus Christ – God will judge them.
“The documentation on the authoritarian model of Calvary Chapel can be found here: http://procinwarn.com/ccclergy.htm. The booklet referred to by it is available online. This teaching matches what I used to hear back when I attended in the late 1980′s.
All of those sites must give you a sense of knowledge. There are many just like the one you have posted, who spend their time shredding ministries, you should know that, unless of course this is your hobby to pass time writing about what you don’t know.
Rambling on regarding Angelus Temple isn’t germane to Calvary Chapel, just because Chuck Smith went to a college that had connections to Angelus Temple, and others who serve at Calvary Chapel. College affiliation is but a small part of ones life – people change, .. often times if they had it to do over, they wouldn’t have chosen the colleges they attended.
The last paragraph of your post regarding “chair arranging” is juvenile at best – and the reason for.. etc, etc.
“All of those sites must give you a sense of knowledge. There are many just like the one you have posted, who spend their time shredding ministries …”
Ya! I especially like the ones that shred Luther and Lutheranism. Have you ever seen those, my dear friend and comrade Grace? You could copy and paste from them very easily. It would drive the Quislings and moral cowards here crazy! Ha!
kerner -
I can imagine a whole slew of holiness codes for gays so that they can live together and express love in the ways you seem to be proposing that adhere to the letter of the law, so that they otherwise remain celibate and conform to this law (you know, the one they were made for!!!):
“Ye shall live in separate bedrooms, and neither shall ye enter same.”
“Ye shall not attend romantic artistic performances of any type lest they inspire amorous feelings of the wrong sort.”
“Ye shall not look askance at one another after the sun hath set.”
No hugging, and you should probably just avoid touching too, etc.
“Avoid strong drink in the presence of one another.”
Otherwise, carry on loving one another.
Go ahead and explain marriage and why it must absolutely be between men and women. I’d like to know. I am not kidding. As yet I have not heard an argument of that type that does not rely solely on nature as its fundamental argument, some kind of design scenario. I think what Rick said much earlier about tying our arguments to nature (and hence, science in our age) is dicey. It is also not biblical or Lutheran. The quote from Luther about honoring the Creator that someone posted earlier may be instructive to some degree, but I choose to see it light of his medieval thinking to some degree. It is not confessional, for one thing, to test the truth of our convictions by how they square with nature. This is a quagmire. How “natural” are our lives for that matter? Suppose we come up with a gay gene, what then? It seems by that measure then the it would honor the Creator to likewise honor the way he has created us to be – gay and straight.
But we are instructed instead by God’s word and promise to us. This is exactly why I keep coming back to my question which you still have not taken on about the whole and sum of the law. do me a favor and stop putting mercy in quotation marks and explain to me what you think it looks like. Use some examples from scripture as I have done and show me how gay celibacy fits into that.
I all the analogies given, what is left out is that they do not apply to gays. Why? Because the suffering being inflicted is not from circumstances or even their sin, it is from the law itself, from having this restriction inflicted upon them. Your character Ike always has the option, to some degree, to marry because he is heterosexual. It’s not a perfect situation of course. Life isn’t like that as we know. I’ve never suggested it should be. But for gays, this option does not exist at all in any possible set of circumstances.
I did not read Grace’s posts very thoroughly as I usually find them to be repetitive, ranting and pointless. But as far as what the issue seems to be with the abortion, it sounds like the pastor as a pastor certainly made bad call by doing it on the radio for Pete’s sake! As for my personal beliefs about abortion, I believe a child is a child and these children ought to have the opportunity to live. But having said that, it is not my place (vocation) to make that decision. I think the civil law around this issue is difficult while the moral issues are more clear. I am a father, and yet I cannot imagine the state stepping in between me and my wife and our child and/or our doctor and pastor, etc. I do know that the courts allow for mercy (don’t they?) and perhaps there needs to be some kind of system where this could happen for this particular issue. The concern, I would imagine, is that if we open the door to this it would lead to other lax laws. However, it seems we have done this in the government’s favor with things like FISA, so why not develop a set of circumstances where certain scenarios could be allowed and perhaps reviewed for negligence or carelessness. Along with that, offer poor women more services to bring their children to term. Some ideas. I don’t think any of that will ever happen. It will always be an issue of conscience.
But if you want to get into what marriage is, please do. St. Paul and our Confessions (see post #705) do seem to at least “suggest” marriage has the kinds of purposes Frank is ascribing to it. It seems we have agreed that procreation is not purely its purpose (or have we?). So, why must it be this and not that?
Okay, so Lonnie Frisbee was a wolf in sheep’s clothing the whole way through? A Judas? Funny how Chuck Smith found Samson to be a better point of comparison. This after he knew. Somehow I don’t see this talk as fitting with your own assessment of Frisbee’s life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkTRgo0DpvA&feature=related
So if your standard is that those who are too easy on this one are themselves complicit in the sins of others, then what are we to make of this?
And my point about the chairs comes straight from Chuck Smith’s own account for why he needed a different model of leadership. If this is a terrible reason to change leadership models, then what is it doing in his book? Or did you even bother to look at the material?
So Chuck Smith wouldn’t have chosen the college he attended? You can know this because he has publicly stated this, or because if he felt this way, it would fit your picture of him better? I suppose nobody does know anything about a topic if actual documents written by the people don’t count. All that counts is what Grace imagines they’re thinking. We’re not arguing about a real Lonnie Frisbee or a real Chuck Smith or a real fws. We’re arguing about Grace’s first impressions. Well, I never claimed to be knowledgeable about that.
“There have been pastors, elders and lay people involved with churches since the beginning who were not sincere, who lied, stole, or FELL AWAY from the LORD Jesus Christ – God will judge them. ”
And Chuck Smith says that like the Apostle Paul, Lonnie finished his race and will receive a crown of righteousness (see the clip at 11:50 and following). Hmmm.
Grace, #718: “Frisbee admitted what he had been doing [on-going same-sex activity], he was removed as part of Calvary Chapel.”
1 Cor. 5: 9-13:
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
Stephen, the Christian argument that marriage is between a man and a woman appeals to Scripture and Creation, not the secular concept of “Nature.” And if we did discover a “gay gene,” why would that be evidence of God’s design, rather than evidence that everything has been corrupted by the Fall?
Rick – 721
To my knowledge, Lonnie Frisbee was repentant of his sin – there is a big difference between repentance and un-repentance of ones sins. If he repented of his homosexual lifestyle, he is with the LORD, if he didn’t he isn’t – it’s not all that difficult to understand.
Your comment in post #579:
Well, when you get “ready” to stamp your approval or disapproval of same sex marriage, be sure and let everyone know – I’m sure there are thousands waiting with baited breath to hear your grand “stamp” as you fall either one way or the other off the fence – OR – you can sit on that lukewarm fence for the rest of your life.
Kerner @ 717
My foundation for my argument is not 1 cor 7.
My argument is based on the Law as understood by the Lutheran Confessions.
My argument in 1 cor 7 is that any argument against same gender sex or for mixed gender sex based on some idea of a Divine Design as being equal to a Law of God is not Lutheran. It is Aristotelian Roman Catholicism. This is to turn a descriptive “is” into a Divine “ought”. There is no warrant in the Scriptures or Confessions to make this logical turn I am suggesting.
If you want to argue that I am wrong on this point, then you would need to do that from the Lutheran Confessions. I have tried several times to argue from the Confessions that what I am repeating here is a major thrust of our Confessions against Roman Catholicism. We can debate this if you like.
Now that you are coming up to speed on Aristotle, you should be able to see more clearly what it was that Rome was arguing for. They were arguing that a baptized version of Aristotle´s form of righeousness is christian righteousness. This was complete with aristotle´s idea of virtue/righeousness as a “habit” acquired by reason and love , the “higher powers of man” sitting in rule over the “baser instincts” (“fomes” “concupiscence”) of man such as the drives for sex and food.
You will only be able to see clearly what the Lutherans were arguing for , by seeing , very clearly, what it is they were arguing against. What the Lutherans argued against was something that was extremely reasonable , logical, and apparent common good sense to all. But the Lutherans said it was wrong.
The Roman views were condemned by our Confessions because it locates the Image of God and Original Righeousness in the process of conforming to God´s Law. So we can get re-aligned (ie justified) with God by doing something in that case. In that case it buries Christ. He is not necessary to get back to paradise. His works are only to enable our doing.
So the Law:
1) what is it? Its sum total and purpose and fulfilling is to Love.
2) where can it be found? Same Law: written in Reason by God and written uniquely in the 1st table of the Decalog as to the Law as being “movements of the heart” ie Faith alone in Christ alone. (compare the Law in Ap art IV to Regeneration in Ap art XVIII!)
3) what is it for?
I) Curb II) Mirror III) Rule that is to..
I) produce out of Old Adam Fatherly Goodness and Mercy and in the process ,
II) show us that we don´t do that and that we don´t do it from the bottom of our heart where we do, and to
III) stop us from making the keeping the Law into a religious exercise presented to God to appease him (that is the Lutheran 3rd Use, not the calvinist one…).
4) is there a DIFFERENT Law for christians than for pagans? No.
5) is there such a thing as “christian ” morality or is there just morality. Just morality.
Tom @ 723
I think Stephen´s point is that to point to scripture as saying that the “is” of the Divine Design that we see in both the Bible and in nature is not an “ought” of Divine Law.
He is suggesting that to make that logical turn is neither Biblical nor Lutheran (ie to be found in the Confessions).
Therefore if a gay gene is found , it won´t prove original sin.
And God will use it, along with everything else, to do his Fatherly Goodness and Mercy in with and under those things that all will perish with the earth. Luke 18, the lawless judge. It is not about us doing the Law or being faithful.
We do not do the Law. The Law does us. And it does us, always , to death. So that Fatherly Goodness and Mercy might be done.
The Law always accuses. The Law always accuses. It demands that we love others, and gives nothing, then it demands some more love be done. It keeps on demanding, until it takes our very life.
So the just live by faith alone. In Christ alone.
grace @ 724
“To my knowledge, lonnie was repentant of his sin”.
Ok. Show us . What does that knowledge consist of? What if he repented of his sin and trusted in Jesus, but he could not see that the Bible condemned him for homosexuality. what then?
Tom @ 723
I create a beautiful vase. It is designed to be an object of art. I am a famous artist and my works have great value.
I give you that vase and say “use it however you see fit for your enjoyment!”
The way I designed the vase , even if I should attach a written note as to the purpose of it´s design, should not limit you to enjoy the vase however best suits you.
You have a hole in your roof. You just laid in some nice wood flooring. You use my large vase to catch water in an unexpected and heavy shower. It does not damage the vase. It makes me happy that it was available for that purpose.
Let´s say that using the vase that way preserved the floor and ruined the vase. I made a quick judgement call based on relative benefit. I calculated that you are generous of spirit. Your intent is to love me and please me. So I trust you will provide me with another vase if that is what I need.
Tom -
What I want to hear is why must marriage be so. In other words, are we stuck with that model? Don’t get me wrong. I understand the Genesis and the words of Jesus in this regard to say that marriage is this and only this. The first seems to be an argument for created order while the second is Christ’s own description of what marriage looks like. I get that.
What I was expressing with the argument about the gay gene is exactly the problem you point to – it leaves out the problem of original sin. This is exactly why the Lutherans pitched the whole scholastic mess. Yet I hear a return to it again and again as a way to explain why gays ought to remain celibate – “it’s just the way it oughta be, naturally” is the basic argument. It is not unlike the created order argument I think. God made us male and female so that we should not be alone. That is the proof. And I say, no it isn’t, not completely. That too does not account for the fall into sin and all the brokenness that follows.
So what then do we do? God gives us the law so that goodness and mercy can happen between people on earth. But merely keeping it outwardly does not suffice if in doing so those things do not happen. If we make keeping the law the main thing rather than the purpose and sum of the law the reason for having it in the first place, we do the opposite of the law’s intention.
So if for some reason marriage must absolutely be male and female because by maintaining this paradigm we insure that goodness and mercy are done, then by all means. But, if allowing the sexuality component of that picture to be expanded so that goodness and mercy can happen in other ways which also fulfill the purposes of the law rather than inhibit and/or do the opposite of the law’s intention for our life together, then I want to understand why not that? What other reasons are there besides natural/created order types of arguments, ones which can show me the goodness and mercy that is produced for those upon whom this restriction is imposed who do not see themselves reflected in male/female sexuality?
As yet, I do not hear that. Beyond it being “unnatural” I have heard things like it dishonors them, but they just don’t know it. That or it is love that does not look like love. They must take it on faith that God knows what he is doing and some of us just have to suffer. This last one does not wash because there is not a single one if us that would not offer relief to another who was suffering if we could. Yet in this instance, we do not do that because we say that this behavior is wrong and harmful, yet no one can exactly say how or why. It just seems that it is. I’m sorry, but that isn’t merciful.
Every good and loving parent has reasons for what they do even if they do not bother to tell their children. But it isn’t as if those reasons are great mysteries. They are, in fact, quite reasonable. This is the kind of reasonableness that Frank refers to when he talks about the law agreeing with reason. That is why pagans can do good and we do not hang our hats on our morality. People know when they are being cheated or done wrong or abused and eventually they won’t stand for it. That is how the law works on earth, even for the unbeliever. God wants it that way so that his goodness may happen, even for the wicked. So then why is this restriction of gays so mysterious and inscrutable? Why can they not have the opportunity at least to enjoy healthy relationships like everyone else? I don’t get it.
ah. I got the “you” and “I” mixed up…. ah well…
The point is that God gives us 1st article gifts for our happiness. He does not give us those gifts to keep the plastic on them for as long as possible to keep them for special occasions.
Even virginity, as Ap art XXIII points out is not for a woman to retain that “new car smell” for as long as possible. That is idolatry. Chastity is about being useful to others. It is only as good as it is useful. A sexcrazed virgin is not chaste. A man who has sex with his wife a few times a day is chaste. If virginity is done on order to serve others in prayer and service to others, then that is great. If it drives someone to sexual distraction it is not good.
We are to honor those things by using them. and the intent is not to prove our love by honoring the design. the intent is to use those things in whatever creative combination we can to offer excellent customer service!
fws @ 717:
So your very lengthy post @707 had nothing to do with your argument, and I should disregard it? I should likewise disregard your questions about my own marriage and man-woman marriage in general and the relationship between I Cor. 7 and your comparrison of marriage to fire insurance? That was all irrelevant to your argument and I should disregard it?
Should Dr. Veith delete those comments (and 651 and any others that rely on I Cor. 7) because they don’t really have any bearing on this conversation?
Then why have you been bringing up I Cor. & so consictently? Or wanting me to tell you about my marriage in the light of I Cor. 7? I had been thinking of ways to respond, but if you’re not really interested…
Kerner @ 731
you have my permission and encouragement to ignore 707 and respond to 709
709 is really what I was struggling to ask you in 707. I signaled I was having problems articulating what I was asking at the begining of 0f 707. I fully succeeded in 709. Thanks!
If I am wrong in my impression, you can just tell me that.
We could romp off on a study of I cor 7. Steve is inviting you to do so. So maybe take that up with him. I would really rather you answer my more personal question in 709. Thanks for asking!
Kerner @ 731
My entire point of 1 cor 7 is this: In every example of marriage, both pre fall and post fall, God´s clear intent is to bend his Original Design and Plan to the purpose of doing Mercy.
This is why he allowed for Polygamy, incest, Jesus ancestors included a prostitute, and the I cor 7 as marriage is only better than men and women remaining celebate if the choice is between marriage and burning. God´s Mercy. On men in a sinful world.
God COULD have insisted in his Divine Design in Leviticus. Why didn´t he Kerner? On what basis do you say that polygamy is less violation of that Original Design and Intent and less damaging to others and to society than homosexual monogamous pairings?
So, will our legal eagle answer 709 or will he now ignore that request to attack the tasty argumentative hooks that are all over this email that feels more like a courtroom argument based on logic and reason? And so more in the comfort zone…. Tune in….
Kerner @ 731
Your thesis seems to be that the evidence that one is moral in God´s eyes is that one follows the Letter of the Law as found in the Bible.
Construct a case as to whether or not a male raping a female is morally right or wrong. The Bible seems to define rape as a property right violation.
If a single girl is raped, according the the Inspired and Divine definition of that word “rape” which Daniel Webster cannot change, the legal remedy is for the man to purchase the woman he raped as his bride. This looks like “You broke it? You bought it!”
Please do not feel free to ignore the Divine Definition for rape in the Holy Bible in your response. We cannot accept the modern revisionist version of rape.
My point , once again, is to call you to question what I might call your rather superficial doctrine of “original intent” in reading and interpreting the Law in the Holy Scriptures. For you “original intent” seems to be irrelevant yes? We obey the letter of the Law found in the bible. It is improper to attempt to interpret and apply the Law in practical situations based on the Divinely stated Intent.
Kerner. Go ahead and respond freely and expansively
but…. can you see your way to first state what you feel is the broad principle and Divine intent, and then go to the specific as proof that your understanding that the broad principle is right?
I am having problems understanding your broad position even as I am certain that you do not yet understand my own.
I want to understand where you are coming from as to your controlling principles if you will. I understand that maybe these are in the process of being tweaked here in there. That is all good.
Here is my idea: I suspect that we agree on way more than we disagree. If I understand your broad ideas that are guiding your judgement on specifics, it will afford me to focus only on those few areas where we truly disagree. That will make my side more productive and less frustrating for you my dear Legal Eagle (he calls you with great affection).
#702: “FWS’s and Stephen’s Perversion of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions is no laughing matter. Moral cowards look the other way at these perversions and their silence enables the violence being done to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.”
fws, #726: “The Law always accuses. The Law always accuses. It demands that we love others, and gives nothing, then it demands some more love be done. It keeps on demanding, until it takes our very life.”
Fws’s comments and attitude about God’s Law are just so utterly contrary to Scripture’s.
Excerpts from Psalm 119:
“I seek you with all my heart;
do not let me stray from your commands.
I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you.
I rejoice in following your statutes
as one rejoices in great riches.
My soul is consumed with longing
for your laws at all times.
Give me understanding, so that I may keep your law
and obey it with all my heart.
Never take your word of truth from my mouth,
for I have put my hope in your laws.
I will always obey your law,
for ever and ever.
for I delight in your commands
because I love them.
I reach out for your commands, which I love,
that I may meditate on your decrees.
I remember, LORD, your ancient laws,
and I find comfort in them
I will hasten and not delay
to obey your commands.
Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I obey your word.
It was good for me to be afflicted
so that I might learn your decrees.
I know, LORD, that your laws are righteous,
and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me.
Let your compassion come to me that I may live,
for your law is my delight.
Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.
I hate double-minded people,
but I love your law.
Away from me, you evildoers,
that I may keep the commands of my God!
You reject all who stray from your decrees,
for their delusions come to nothing.
Long ago I learned from your statutes
that you established them to last forever.
I hate and detest falsehood
but I love your law.”
Jesus in Matthew 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
Rick -
If you aren’t to busy with Grace, I wanted to address your post @659. I was with you until the last paragraph which kind of lost me.
“None of this argues in favor of people having sexual relationships with those of their own gender. The point is, certain proposed solutions to their dilemma are not textually sound. When we don’t see the problem for what it really is, we will be suggesting lazy solutions. It’s like someone who knows no geography suggesting someone has an option of driving to Hawaii. And wondering why nobody listens.”
I wasn’t sure how the third sentence related to the second. I guess my question would be something along the lines why it is that in this particular situation we need to have a solution spelled out so specifically? It would seem that Jesus does not teach this way. He offers parables and examples, not laundry lists. As I said in an earlier post, when he teaches about, for instance, about being asked to walk a mile, go on for two. Are we to take this at face value and think it is about walking?
Applying this kind of thinking to marriage, what then is the point? Is it the male and femaleness of it, or is it about commitments, about “leaving and cleaving” and being one flesh in the sense of honoring each others needs fully so that one is not discarding like a piece of property?
The complaint has been raised that I am somehow offering up some new fangled idea about what it means to be merciful, even when I give examples from Jesus. Meanwhile no one will offer up an explanation of how gay celibacy fulfills the whole of the law. It meets the letter, at least as far a holiness code goes if one agrees that these acts are indeed the very same thing as what it means to be gay. But no one can or is willing to say how it expresses the spirit of the law to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Unless I read you wrong, you are asking for the same kind of “letter” that would approve of any variation in the marital ideal. Does or will that always agree with the whole of the law?
I wasn’t sure about the “leftover feminism” statement either. But no matter. Your analogies are very good, but this one sort of slipped by me.
“Who was that masked man?” @ 700 and elsewhere.
My favorite superheroes are Batman, the Lone Ranger and Zorro. I wonder if there is any connection to the spirit and the letter in that. “In, with, and under.” Carry on.
Kerner:
When you read our Confessions, read them with the aim of being able to paraphrase their argumentative chain, and also the opposing argumentative chain of the “opposition”.
I hope you are seeing that I have done that. Or sincerely tried to do so…
Only then will one be able to claim “Yes , I have read the Lutheran Confessions”.
This method, I think, will save one from using the Confessions to prooftext one´s already held views. You will be challenged and sometimes more than a little shocked. ….
BEWARE of false teachers, and those who are bleating like wild goats, or those who pretend to be sheep, bleat and circle around the flock because they are wolves.
The “Confessions” – “BoC” vs. the Word of God – when did the Bible become obsolete? – when did God ALMIGHTY decree HIS inerrant word to be given over to men, five hundred plus years ago, and those of today — twisting Scripture, blithering reasons for sinful behavior, going round and round like children on a merry-go-round?
Who would even listen to this nonsense. Do we have a competition in progress ? – to see whether the Bible says it best, and most accurately, or do WE need to rely on books, written by men who were not the LORD’s Apostles to lead mankind to truth?
This has become a travesty, a complete mockery of good, – - evil has become a source of controversy among those who should know better. Evil and Satan have never changed, they however are cunning as to their ways, just as they were in the Garden of Eden. Those who are well versed in Scripture, humbling themselves before ALMIGHTY God should see the absurd questions and shoddy answers for what they are.
Troll Unites… and Divides (@736) said,
Well, I guess that settles it. TUaD is clearly not a Lutheran.
Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV, Justification:
Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article V, Of love and the fulfilling of the Law:
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord I, Original Sin:
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord V, Law and Gospel:
Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Of Repentance:
Yup. Perhaps TUaD is one of those Evangelicals who likes to masquerade as a Lutheran? Plenty of those around.
Todd @ 741
Dang Todd.
Someone here has been reading, and I mean really reading, the Lutheran Confessions. …
6 stars out of 5 possible would be my rating here.
Law and Gospel clearly stated.
Kerner: Feel free to take what Todd wrote as my own public witness. Especially as to how the Confessions relate the Written Law in Holy Scripture to the conscience/reason/Golden Rule.
Quisling tODD,
Never claimed to be a Lutheran. Thanks for the references to the phrase “the Law always accuses”. I now see why fws cites it so much.
I wonder how integral “lex semper accusat” is to Lutheran theology.
Also, thanks for pointing out the following in this Cranach post “http://www.geneveith.com/2009/08/24/elcas-principles-of-biblical-interpretation/#comment-66850″>ELCA’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation:
#90: “I think FWS has been anything but “ambiguous” as to his homosexuality. He has also been clear that he is celibate and impotent.”
#94: “FWs himself tells us that he is celibate and impotent.”
FWS, may you continue to remain obedient and chaste in your adoration for God and His Loving Law.
Quisling tODD,
Never claimed to be a Lutheran. Thanks for the references to the phrase “the Law always accuses”. I now see why fws cites it so much.
I wonder how integral “lex semper accusat” is to Lutheran theology.
Also, thanks for pointing out the following in this Cranach post ELCA’s Principles of Biblical Interpretation:
#90: “I think FWS has been anything but “ambiguous” as to his homosexuality. He has also been clear that he is celibate and impotent.”
#94: “FWs himself tells us that he is celibate and impotent.”
FWS, may you continue to remain obedient and chaste in your adoration for God and His Loving Law.
Kerner
Maybe this will help you and I focus on stuff where we actually disagree:
1) I do not find a home anywhere in Holy Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions for the idea that same genders are to marry. Period.
2) I find that marriage (which you can know from my point (1) obviously means male/female marriage) is the ONLY solution proposed by Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions for channeling, and not even really controlling, the sex drive for all fallen humans, short of a miracle.
3) I do not find a friendly home, but instead a rather hostile greeting for the idea of mandatory celebacy in the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.
4) I find the Lutheran Confessions hostile to the idea of taking a vow of chastity in order to become a Pastor. They say that this in fact is a trap for the weak, and blame what you read about the Carthusian Monks on this practice of the Church rather than on the Carthusians themselve. So I agree with the Confessions then that the practice of ordaining anyone, including gays and lesbians on condition that they take a vow of chastity would be wrong.
5) I find a rather hostile welcome to the idea that Gays and Lesbians should be less than honest and forthcoming in the Church about their life situation. I rather find that Christ urges the opposite.
6) At the same time, I find that Gays and Lesbians might be best to be honest and forthcoming only with their pastor, and that Gays and Lesbians should hold no position of Authority in the Church. This is for exactly the same reasons that Saint Paul had his followers submit to being circumcised. We live to serve others and in so doing point to Christ, and not draw attention to ourselves in the Church.
So where does that leave us in the practical application you are so fond of my dear Legal Eagle?
Where this takes me is to what our Lutheran Confessions and what the Holy Scriptures say is the “full intent and spirit” of the Law of God according to the Second Table. Mercy rather than Sacrifice.
TUD @ 743
“I wonder how integral “lex semper accusat” is to Lutheran theology.”
It is essential, of the essence, fundamental, and foundational to Lutheran Theology.
You simply cannot understand the Lutheran Confessions, which exactly and only define what the word “Lutheran ” means without always remember that “The Law ALWAYS accuses.
There is NO use of the Law this means that is a “sanctification helper” or that is merely a “helpful guide” or that does not kill us. For Lutherans, the Law-in-action is noted by the word Mortification which is latinate for “Deathing”.
This is why Luther says “Life is Mortification” . “Live is Death”. And Lutherans believe that this is true for Christians in exactly the same way it is true for Pagans.
Lutherans say that this is why Saint Paul says this “The just shall live by faith alone in Christ alone” and not by what they can do in their life. And that faith, is the kind of faith that is a gift of God, it is not a faith that we can do, lest any man should boast in his faith.
Not even by faith, that is, not even making a decision to believe is anything but a form of death, or mortification, or “deathing” of our Old Adam. The Law commands that we believe. Doing the Law is about our death. This is true even and especially when we obey the command of God to have faith that what the Bible says is inerrantly true.
The Law always accuses.
TUD @ 743
#90: “I think FWS has been anything but “ambiguous” as to his homosexuality. He has also been clear that he is celibate and impotent.”
#94: “FWs himself tells us that he is celibate and impotent.”
Let´s all pretend that I did not disclose that. It really is pretty cringingly personal after all. We will not get to the bottom of the Lutheran teachings on the Law if we don´t have a real life sacrifice to offer up.
I will volunteer for that job as a service to our conversation as to what the Law of God in the second table is all about as to it´s essence and purpose. Dear Todd and the others who know me here, let´s not throw those facts out there any more….my personal life should remain just that.
FWS (@747), while I do find it a bit embarrassing that I had offered up details about your life in a rebuttal like that — and I apologize now for that — I do note several things: (1) it was almost two years ago, (2) you had at the time said things were “all good” in response, and (3) you have, in the past few months, revealed some of these personal details about your life on this blog.
TUaD (@743), said he “never claimed to be a Lutheran.” Which explains your theology. It does not, however, explain your repeated attempts to bind consciences according to a confession you do not share. Guess that’s legalism for ya.
Go and sin no more, TUaD.
fws, #746: ” [Lex semper accusat] is essential, of the essence, fundamental, and foundational to Lutheran Theology.”
Thanks for helping me understand how doctrinally important lex semper accusat is within Lutheranism.
fws @747,
There’s no stigma attached to being chaste, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Clarification to #752.
There’s no stigma attached to being chaste, whether heterosexual or homosexual, within a community or church of Christians.
There definitely is stigma to being chaste in the secular arena and wider culture. Lots of mockery, teasing, and joking about someone being chaste. No doubt about that.
Give in to peer pressure or obey a Loving God’s Decrees? Read Psalm 119 for guidance.
tODD in #749,
The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures binds consciences.
Go and be a quisling no more, tODD.
TUaD (@753) said, “The Holy Spirit and the Scriptures binds consciences.” And yet you here have repeatedly attempted to bind the consciences of LCMS members to statements made by a church body which you don’t even think properly preaches God’s Word. You are attempting to bind people according to what you, by your own admission, believe is a heterodox body, merely because it suits your more immediate needs.
This does give me a good idea, however, of why you are incapable of decrying Grace’s heterodoxy — it is quite possible that you share in it.
“Go and be a quisling no more, tODD.” Perhaps some day you will learn that my refusing to answer your trollish questions does not mean that your assumptions about me are correct. But in order to discover that, you’d have to actually have a conversation with me, and not merely and repeatedly push your little pigeonholing purity tests into my face.
tODD, you are the quislingest quislingizer of all the quislingly Quislings here. Why don’t you “man up” and grow a pear? Wait a minute – is it grow a pear or throw a pear? Whatever! Just tell us you know what to do with fruits (tee-hee!) and condemn this whole fairy-marriage discussion. There’s no place for asking questions or exploring answers in the Church, and as anyone with half a brain (like me) knows, the Church includes blogs.
tODD @754,
Are you talking about this LCMS statement:
The Homosexual Policy of the LCMS?
Q. Is homosexuality accepted in the LCMS and can an open homosexual serve in any position in your church?
A. The position of the LCMS, repeatedly affirmed, is that homophile behavior is intrinsically sinful, expressly condemned as immoral by the Scriptures. For policy regarding homosexuality and service in public offices of the Synod, we refer you to guidelines adopted by the Council of Presidents for addressing instances of homosexuality in the lives of professional church workers, in which procedures are outlined for dealing with various cases.
The position of the LCMS on homosexuality:
o Repeatedly affirmed
o Intrinsically sinful
o Expressly condemned
o By the Scriptures.
You don’t uphold, affirm, and agree with this LCMS policy, tODD? The LCMS bases its policy upon the Scriptures.
Yeah, tODD – why wouldn’t a WELS member uphold an official stance of the LC-MS? Huh? I know I’m new here, and haven’t bothered to get to know you before condemning you, but what’s your problem? Besides being a … Quisling!
TU&D:
tODD doesn’t have to affirm LCMS policy, although it would be nice if he did. tODD is in WELS.
tODD – 754
“This does give me a good idea, however, of why you are incapable of decrying Grace’s heterodoxy — it is quite possible that you share in it.”
Because many Born Again Christians do not baptize their infants does not mean the word “heterodoxy” fits – to name but one disagreement I have with Lutheran doctrine. If Lutheran doctrine doesn’t match mine, then it could easily be stated that “heterodoxy” fits Lutheran’s. That would include the ELCA who believe homosexual behavior is not a sin, they then are defined as “heterodox” –
Lutherans have other beliefs that most certainly can be classified as “heterodox” -
Is it heterodox or homodox? I’m confused.
Grace,
tODD fails to see the irony and hypocrisy of his two statements in #754.
(1) “you are incapable of decrying Grace’s heterodoxy”
(2) “not merely and repeatedly push your little pigeonholing purity tests into my face.”
This quisling hypocrite has repeatedly pigeonholed you as heterodox with his purity test of infant baptism.
——–
Kerner, #758: “tODD doesn’t have to affirm LCMS policy, although it would be nice if he did. tODD is in WELS.”
Thanks Kerner. I didn’t know that.
Went and looked up the following site: What’s the Difference Between WELS, ELCA, and LCMS?
Excerpts:
o “The Wisconsin Synod terminated fellowship with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in 1961 because of differences in the doctrine and practice of church fellowship. Over the years the Missouri Synod had departed from the doctrine and practice of fellowship long held by the members of the Synodical Conference in which the Wisconsin Synod and the Missouri Synod shared confessional fellowship.”
o “Because Scripture assigns the headship role to men and a helping role to women, only men serve in offices and roles that involve an exercise of authority over other men. Missouri does not allow women to serve as pastors but allows women to serve in a number of areas which involve the exercise of authority over men.”
o “A continuing problem in the Missouri Synod seems to be an unwillingness or inability to exercise doctrinal discipline with those who teach and practice contrary to Scripture or the public doctrine of the Missouri Synod.”
TUaD and Grace,
Could you point me to your doctrinal statements, a summary of what each of you believes, teaches, and confesses? I am curious and would like to know.
Did you notice, Grace? I went and looked up a website about Lutherans. I knew little or nothing about them before, but now I’m competent to judge them, because I’m one of those humble and well-versed Evangelicals you speak of – with a better understanding of Scripture than anyone denominational. I mean, quislingational. Gosh, I wish I could keep my condemning labels straight. There’s so many I have to remember: enabler, hypocrite, moral coward, collaborator, and … Quisling!
BW – 762
“Could you point me to your doctrinal statements, a summary of what each of you believes, teaches, and confesses? I am curious and would like to know.”
BW, this isn’t complete, but it will give you an idea of my beliefs. Thank you for asking.
I believe in the HOLY Trinity – God the Father, God the Son and God the HOLY SPIRIT
I believe that we are all born sinful –
I believe that one must repent of their sins and believe in the LORD Jesus Christ to be saved.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 2 Corinthians 6:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:10
I do not believe in Eternal Security – Galatians 5 – Ephesians 5 and James 1
I believe there is a real Heaven and a real hell
I believe that individuals can go back into sin, not repenting, falling away, staying in their unrepentant position, and therefore not having Eternal Life with our LORD.
I believe one needs to be Baptized, I am baptized.
I do not believe in infant baptism which is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture. One cannot baptize their child into Salvation at infancy. That’s why many people,( not just Lutherans) claim they have ALWAYS BEEN SAVED – they were baptized as infants, and that’s all that matters.
I believe the Scriptures to be the inerrant Word of God. There is no book, nor anything else is inerrant, or can be compared to the Bible.
I believe the Apostles were given a very special position when the LORD Jesus chose them.
The Apostles had power that was not given to those today. Rome, and the Pope believe they have the same importance today, and so do other groups like the Lutheran Church.
The Apostles were chosen of the LORD, they are different than you and me. When they were given the task of spreading His Word, their gifts were multiplied. They were able to heal, speak in other’s tongue/languages, and many other things. They spent 40 days with Christ after His Resurrection, they had in that time, more seminary, more Biblical knowledge than you or I – they also had power that was a special gift, that we don’t have.
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. Luke 9:1
Does anyone today have that kind of power? I don’t know one person who does – it wasn’t HANDED DOWN, like the Roman Catholic Church believes.
Only God can forgive sins, man cannot forgive (absolution) sins, we only need ask God for forgivness – I know the Lutherans don’t agree.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:5
Todd,
my intent was not to burden your conscience. You are right, I was the one who chose to put that personal info out there. and once it is out there on the net….
and dang boy….
you need to come down to brasil for a beer and show me how you manage to find all that stuff on the net. amazing.
Go to QuislingWatch.com, click on “Sheep,” then “Clothing,” then “Wolves In” and scroll down to “F,” Click, and the archive on “fws” will appear near the end of the list.
I forgot to mention that Platinum subscribers to QuislingWatch.com have access to secret pictures of your nocturnal activities, fws. Where it asks you who referred you to the site, enter “toot undies” and you’ll get a 20% discount on your first year’s subscription, with half of that kicked back to me to help pay for my own nocturnal activities. Which are approved by God. Unlike yours. So there.
FWS (@765), I forgive you. And I completely understand how embarrassing it can be to put things out on the Internet for all time. Why, did you know that you can find me behaving like an ass in certain places on the Web? But only in a few places.
As for doing site-specific searches, check out what I typed into the Google search box at this link. It may help you figure things out.
Grace, by your own confession here and elsewhere, you do deny the clear truth of God’s Word. You deny the power of both baptism and absolution. This has been made clear to you repeatedly.
Yet, of course, you continue to hold to your own twisted reading of Scripture, corrupted as it is by your own sinful reason. And you are not repentant. No, you gladly trumpet your error for all to see.
So, Grace, are you saved? You revel in your unrepentant error. Sure, you say you have faith in Christ, but your actions here belie that claim, showing your trust in your own fallen reason, not trusting in God’s Word alone.
And you have enablers here who are happy to confirm you in your error, who will not condemn you.
If, as you teach, one cannot remain in willful error and be saved, then is there any salvation left for you who so brazenly ignores God’s Word? Sure, you can claim you are not in error, but God’s Word claims otherwise. God is not fooled, and nor are we.
Isn’t it funny how pretty much all of what I’m saying about you resembles what you say about FWS. Yet you — and your enablers — would try to deny him the comfort of his faith, even as you apparently remain comfortable in your faith … and your error.
I think that’s interesting.
tODD,
I find what you wrote to me to be exactly what one would expect from you. What you think of my Salvation doesn’t have a breath, to do with my Salvation – God knows me, and HIS SPIRIT indwells by soul, …. you can do nothing about it, it’s untouchable, to anyone.
You’re more transparent NOW, than you realize, you might think no one has figured it out, but I guarantee you …. you are not as clever as you thought.
Todd is right. Denying the efficacy of baptism and absolution is a more serious error than anything else that’s been said on this thread. Because it directly attacks our faith in Jesus Christ by casting doubt on the comfort of the Gospel – the forgiveness of sins given and announced to us.
Huh. I guess the one thing Grace can’t stand is a taste of her own medicine. It’s like that with most bullies.
The most serious mistake anyone can make is not believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, through believing that HE is who HE said HE was, repenting of Sin leads to Salvation.
I believe that one must repent of their sins and believe in the LORD Jesus Christ to be saved.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
2 Corinthians 6:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:10
Me: “I wonder how integral “lex semper accusat” is to Lutheran theology.”
fws, #746: “It is essential, of the essence, fundamental, and foundational to Lutheran Theology.”
If anyone wants any further interaction on this, please go to the following post: Lex Semper Accusat? Does the Law Always Accuse? and comment there.
Opening excerpt: “Some folks like to throw around the mantra “lex semper accusat” (the law always accuses). This mantra may have value, and may even serve a didactic purpose in certain contexts. It is, however, theologically inaccurate.”
(Read the rest of it.)
——
I asked the author for his thoughts about LSA …
o Regarding “lex semper accusat” (the law always accuses), it seems to be based on a fundamental lack of understanding of justification by faith.
o Yes, I’m sure they wouldn’t appreciate my comment. I feel competent to defend it, though.
Whether there’s interaction or not on the linked thread above is fine with me.
But I’m essentially done with this thread. It’s been instructive in many places.
Hey guys, I don’t know much about Lutheran theology, and most of what I know I’ve learned merely from this thread alone. So I went over to another blog and asked someone else to write a defense for me against you guys. I’ve copied and pasted a bit of it for you to read.
In that discussion on that other blog, I said the the other guy’s words “would stir such angry, indignant replies by staunch Lutherans that it would just be a loud screech-fest”. I also strongly implied that you Lutherans are morons.
But, you know, I’m done here. Just wanted to insult you one more time. So don’t bother replying. I get the last word, okay?
Meanwhile, if anyone wants to read “TurretinFan’s” explanation of why the Law does not always accuse, it’s good for a laugh. Because boy howdy, does he miss the point.
TFan’s first counterargument is that “Christ fulfilled the law. The law didn’t condemn Christ, it justified Him.” I’m going to ignore the bizarre phrasing that the Law justified Christ, which hints at all sorts of problems. But more to the point, TFan seems to completely miss who the Law is for. Is it for God? Or did God give it to us sinners? You’d think the answer would be obvious, and yet TFan feels the need to point out that Christ was not a sinner. Duh. When Lutherans say “the Law always accuses”, we are not talking to Jesus, we are talking to fellow sinners.
What’s more bizarre is that what TFan meant by “the law didn’t condemn Christ” was that, specifically, Pontius Pilate didn’t condemn Christ. He spends no small amount of time on this point. Pilate, the same man who proved himself ignorant of both Jewish law and truth in general (cf. “What is truth?”), is held up by TFan as a competent arbiter of God’s Law. You’d think that a “competent theologian” (to use one of TUaD’s favorite phrases) would have gone for the more obvious — and more convincing — assessment of Jesus by God Himself. Say, I don’t know, 2 Corinthians 5, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us”? Or how about just a simple old “with him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3, 17). But no, TFan points us to the judgment of Pilate. Um.
TFan continues: “Aside from Christ, the law condemns everyone”. Which is really sloppy of him. The Law “condemns” everyone, does it? Hey, let’s ask TFan in his next point: “But for those who are in Christ, the law has lost its condemnatory power.” Ah, so the law condemns everyone, but has lost its ability to condemn. Hmm.
I think TFan is playing loose with the word “condemn” — and, you may notice, also conflating it with “accuse”. But they are different words. Lutherans aren’t saying, as TFan does, that “the Law condemns everyone”, because that would mean we have all been found guilty. Of course, by grace through faith, we have not been found guilty, but declared righteous. We are not condemned. But the Law still accuses all of us, because all have sinned. And yet Christians are declared righteous. For Christ’s sake.
TFan then goes on to discuss “Law’s Other Uses”. He quotes Galatians 3:24 — though, bizarrely, he switches from his usual KJV-quoting to quote from the Geneva Study Bible. (Always be wary when people switch translations mid-argument without telling you why!) Anyhow, TFan notes there, “the law has an evangelical use – it brings us to Christ.” Of course, to make that claim as such, TFan has to ignore what Paul wrote all of three verses earlier: “For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.” One would also notice that in Romans 1, Paul tells us, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last” — not the Law, the Gospel!
Of course, even TFan’s point about the Law pointing us to Christ reinforces the idea that the Law always accuses — it is the accused conscience that, by faith, looks to Christ for comfort and to hear he is justified in spite of these accusations.
But Galatians 3:24 doesn’t in any way deny that the Law always accuses, anyhow. It is clear that Paul’s specific reference is to the Mosaic law given to the Jews until the Messiah came — note his reference to “430 years” after Abraham. As the ESV (the NIV is similar) puts it, “the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”
In conclusion, TFan quotes John 14:15 and 1 John 5:3. Which is funny, because any honest Christian that reads those must feel accused! “Keep my commandments”, says God. “Be perfect” as He is. Anyone who reads those verses and says, “Yup, I’ve done that; my conscience is free” is a liar. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
tODD,
Wow. It’s obvious TFan fails to grasp the idea that the Law always accuses sinners, because we can never fulfill it. I love when people quote John 14:15 (and Matthew 5:48) against the distinction between Law/Gospel, and seem to assume Christ had said, “Try really hard to keep My commandments,” or “Just look like you’re making an attempt,” or “Do what you can.” Be perfect leaves no room for error at all. This is how Christ breaks us down to nothing and stops us in our tracks, so that He can pick us up like the wayward sheep we are and carry us to the rest of the flock.
Also, thanks for doing some digging about what actually prompted that post…very interesting…
Then there’s “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” Not only does the Law accuse always, it accuses in all ways – and all at once.
Todd @ 776
Wow. That was awesome Todd. 10 stars out of 10 possible. I will plagarize huge portions of that…..
Grace,
Do you think one can believe without repenting of sin?
Or that perhaps they can repent without believing? Are these two different things to you?
I for one do not think it is possible to either repent without believing or to believe without repenting. It is impossible to do one without the other in regards to God’s Law, or the Ten Commandments. It is the First commandment, the keeping of which requires the keeping of the other 9. But then to Believe in Jesus Christ is to repent of not believing. And no one does that perfectly in this life.
But then it means those little ones who believe in Jesus Christ, are also repentant of their sin. Matthew 18:6 (ESV)
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 (ESV)
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
And as both faith and repentance are gifts from God, 2 Tim. 2:25 (ESV)
correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
You do believe Jesus right? You do believe him when he says the little ones believe in him? They are then also repentant. If you believe in Believer’s Baptism then it is incumbant that you have these little one’s baptized. Unless of course you believe that you can believe in Jesus without actually believing Jesus.
At one and a half my daughter was already praying and asking if she could pray ON HER OWN!!! and to Jesus and to the Heavenly Father. And she’s 3 now and she still does it.
But of course, good Lutheran that I am, none of that proves anything, except that she is really sensitive and listens well. The proof that she’s a Christian is completely outside of her in what God says about her – baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – you are my child forever. We teach her to trust in that name, in that God, THE God who has already claimed her and made an eternal promise to her, and not in her feelings and measure or profound experience to affirm that what God says about her is actually true. It is true because God says it is.
And yeah, Todd ROCKS!!!
{ 1 trackback }