Why don’t we protect Iraqi Christians?

World editor Mindy Belz raises a good question about U.S. policy in Iraq:

Three years ago I attended a meeting outside Washington with a NATO adviser recently returned from briefings with commanders of the war in Iraq. The question had been posed to them: If there should be a targeted massacre of Christians in Iraq (the word actually used was genocide), would the U.S. military respond? The answer from the commanders: No.

It was December 2007. Gen. David Petraeus had arrived in Baghdad 10 months earlier bearing orders to carry out his new counterinsurgency strategy with a thrust of 20,000 additional troops throughout the city. Until then, U.S. forces were bogged down in Iraq’s sectarian warfare—with civilian and military casualties sometimes topping 100 a day. That year U.S. casualties hit their all-time high, 904, but fell steadily after Petraeus’ arrival to a low of 59 (over 11 months) in 2010. Decades from now historians will study Petraeus-style warfare launched in 2007 and how it catapulted the U.S. military from its post-Vietnam malaise.

So it’s always been curious to me that the successful strategy to stamp out sectarian violence somehow did not extend to protecting Iraq’s minorities, particularly a Christian population that stretched back nearly 2 millennia and numbered up to 1.5 million under Saddam Hussein. By December 2007, church leaders estimated, that population had been halved through death and displacement to somewhere under 700,000. . . .

Leaving Christians out of the counterinsurgency equation has itself proved decisive. And the result of U.S. military and civilian leaders’ unwillingness to take a vocal and visible stand against targeted violence toward religious minorities continues to unfold—not only in Iraq but across the region.

Consider recent attacks in Iraq: the Oct. 31 assault on a church in Baghdad that killed 58; the Nov. 9 bombing of Christian homes in western Baghdad; Nov. 10 Islamic hits to more than a dozen homes with mortar fire and bombs, leaving four Christians dead and dozens wounded. Some of the homes were singled out because they belonged to mourners who attended funeral services for the Oct. 31 victims. On Nov. 15 in Mosul militants stormed two adjacent homes belonging to Christians, killing two men, then bombed others. On Nov. 16 a Christian father and his 6-year-old daughter were killed by a car bomb. As Elizabeth Kendal, writing for the Religious Liberty Prayer Bulletin, pointed out, “This terror has led to a surge in Christians fleeing Iraq. They will join the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians struggling to survive as refugees in Syria, Turkey and Jordan. They no longer see any reason to risk their lives for a state where, even if they survive, they will be condemned to live as second class citizens (dhimmis).”

via WORLD Magazine | Left out | Mindy Belz | Dec 18, 10.

So why do we risk American lives for a state like that?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    Oil?

  • Pete

    Oil?

  • collie

    President Bush was sensitive to the charge of nation-building, so he said we were “spreading democracy around the world” while letting Iraqis craft a governing system that is anything but democratic. Isn’t their constitution based on Shariah law?

    I never did understand why we accepted this, unless it’s just an extension of Bush’s claim that Islam is a religion of peace, which I guess he must really believe.

  • collie

    President Bush was sensitive to the charge of nation-building, so he said we were “spreading democracy around the world” while letting Iraqis craft a governing system that is anything but democratic. Isn’t their constitution based on Shariah law?

    I never did understand why we accepted this, unless it’s just an extension of Bush’s claim that Islam is a religion of peace, which I guess he must really believe.

  • Tom Hering

    It’s more acceptable than admitting we were wrong from the beginning?

  • Tom Hering

    It’s more acceptable than admitting we were wrong from the beginning?

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Pete, actually there have been now significant income from Iraqi oil. The big, and possibly only winner, profit wise, has been Halliburton. Or so the reports say (sorry, can’t find the link right now).

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Pete, actually there have been now significant income from Iraqi oil. The big, and possibly only winner, profit wise, has been Halliburton. Or so the reports say (sorry, can’t find the link right now).

  • http://www.christlutheran.net Jeff Samelson

    I think the simple answer is probably that first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration figured that the minute they used American forces to in any way benefit the Christian community (even if it was just to keep them from being massacred), the entire Middle East would be filled with the charge and perception that “those Americans are really just here to impose Christianity on Iraq, despite everything they say about democracy and human rights — it’s just like the mullahs were saying all along”.

  • http://www.christlutheran.net Jeff Samelson

    I think the simple answer is probably that first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration figured that the minute they used American forces to in any way benefit the Christian community (even if it was just to keep them from being massacred), the entire Middle East would be filled with the charge and perception that “those Americans are really just here to impose Christianity on Iraq, despite everything they say about democracy and human rights — it’s just like the mullahs were saying all along”.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    the truth is that christians were doing better under saddam hussein.

    Nothing good comes out of doing the wrong thing. we overthrew the government that God had placed over iraqis . Iraq had not attacked us.

    We were upset , rightfully, at the preemptive strike of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

    We did the same morally reprehensible thing to Iraq.

    Repentance is in order.

    Now we are there. We broke it , we own it. So to meddle in protecting christians there would be thinking two wrongs make a right. But we could consider an amnesty program in iraq for religious persecution. This would not have to be based on sectarian criterion. wink wink.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    the truth is that christians were doing better under saddam hussein.

    Nothing good comes out of doing the wrong thing. we overthrew the government that God had placed over iraqis . Iraq had not attacked us.

    We were upset , rightfully, at the preemptive strike of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

    We did the same morally reprehensible thing to Iraq.

    Repentance is in order.

    Now we are there. We broke it , we own it. So to meddle in protecting christians there would be thinking two wrongs make a right. But we could consider an amnesty program in iraq for religious persecution. This would not have to be based on sectarian criterion. wink wink.

  • Tom Hering

    I just heard on the radio that the sale of alcohol has been banned in Baghdad. Christians were the only ones who had been allowed to sell it legally, but they are fleeing in large numbers these days. (Will the remaining Christians be able to purchase or possess sacramental wine?) The government has also banned the teaching of music and theater in universities – for religious reasons.

    So, exactly how have we made Iraqis (especially women) freer than they were before? And which way is liberty headed in Iraq? And what – just five years from now – will we be able to say that the sacrifices of our servicemen and women accomplished?

  • Tom Hering

    I just heard on the radio that the sale of alcohol has been banned in Baghdad. Christians were the only ones who had been allowed to sell it legally, but they are fleeing in large numbers these days. (Will the remaining Christians be able to purchase or possess sacramental wine?) The government has also banned the teaching of music and theater in universities – for religious reasons.

    So, exactly how have we made Iraqis (especially women) freer than they were before? And which way is liberty headed in Iraq? And what – just five years from now – will we be able to say that the sacrifices of our servicemen and women accomplished?

  • SKPeterson

    Unintended consequences of foreign policy decisions be damned! We can console ourselves that most of the Iraqi Christians are/were of the Assyrian or Chaldean variety – Monophysite/miaphysite heretics getting their just desserts. God be praised!*

    *snark alert

  • SKPeterson

    Unintended consequences of foreign policy decisions be damned! We can console ourselves that most of the Iraqi Christians are/were of the Assyrian or Chaldean variety – Monophysite/miaphysite heretics getting their just desserts. God be praised!*

    *snark alert

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    A drop of 800,000 is huge. Where did they all go? They weren’t all killed.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    A drop of 800,000 is huge. Where did they all go? They weren’t all killed.

  • SKPeterson

    sg – most of the surviving 800K have fled to Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Europe. I don’t have good numbers on those killed, but it appears to be 1 to 2 thousand. Most of the rest have left because of threats, intimidation, and in some cases the outright seizure or arson of their homes or businesses by local Islamic thugs, either Shi’a or Sunni.

  • SKPeterson

    sg – most of the surviving 800K have fled to Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Europe. I don’t have good numbers on those killed, but it appears to be 1 to 2 thousand. Most of the rest have left because of threats, intimidation, and in some cases the outright seizure or arson of their homes or businesses by local Islamic thugs, either Shi’a or Sunni.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I find the original post to be an odd mixture of church and state.

    “Why do we risk American lives for a state like that?” Who is the “we” in that question — Americans? Christians? American Christians?

    America — in theory, at least — does what it does to protect its own interests, whether they be security, energy, or whatever. There is, of course, no small amount of disagreement among Americans as to which of those interests drove us to be in Iraq in the first place, but I think it’s pretty clear that we were never there to address a religious problem in the first place.

    America has almost never, to my knowledge, gotten into foreign entanglements merely because of the oppression of minorities, religious or otherwise, so why would we expect that to be a motivating factor now? It’s not like we did a lot in Rwanda or have done much in the Sudan. Of course, America will raise the flag of fighting oppression when it suits its PR needs, but, again, does anybody really think that’s a major factor? I mean, why is Saudi Arabia a good buddy of ours? To say nothing of some of the more tyrannical friends we made in the ‘Stans.

    Anyhow, that doesn’t mean that we as Christians can’t and shouldn’t lament what has happened to our brothers in Iraq — we should. But given that we, as Christians, maintain as one of our tenets that we should love our enemies, we shouldn’t just stop at lamenting the oppression visited upon our brothers in the faith.

    But these sorts of stories are typically highlighted, in my opinion, to have an effect on American Christians who — unfortunately, if predictably — tend to be much more motivated by injustices done to Christians than to those they are, at best, not as predisposed towards.

    When Bush was running the Iraq War, these stories were typically highlighted by those on the left (anti-war, theological liberals, whatever) in an attempt to make the average American right-wing Christian rethink his “rah rah war!” approach. But, you know, the average American yawned. As has the average commenter here, every time such a story comes up. Why let a story about a small Christian community being destroyed get in the way for your enthusiasm for a serious, excellent war against our enemies, the radical jihadis? Hey, that’s war, right?

    I can’t help but wonder if American Christians will now start to focus more on this tragedy for Christians in Iraq now that Obama is leading the war.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I find the original post to be an odd mixture of church and state.

    “Why do we risk American lives for a state like that?” Who is the “we” in that question — Americans? Christians? American Christians?

    America — in theory, at least — does what it does to protect its own interests, whether they be security, energy, or whatever. There is, of course, no small amount of disagreement among Americans as to which of those interests drove us to be in Iraq in the first place, but I think it’s pretty clear that we were never there to address a religious problem in the first place.

    America has almost never, to my knowledge, gotten into foreign entanglements merely because of the oppression of minorities, religious or otherwise, so why would we expect that to be a motivating factor now? It’s not like we did a lot in Rwanda or have done much in the Sudan. Of course, America will raise the flag of fighting oppression when it suits its PR needs, but, again, does anybody really think that’s a major factor? I mean, why is Saudi Arabia a good buddy of ours? To say nothing of some of the more tyrannical friends we made in the ‘Stans.

    Anyhow, that doesn’t mean that we as Christians can’t and shouldn’t lament what has happened to our brothers in Iraq — we should. But given that we, as Christians, maintain as one of our tenets that we should love our enemies, we shouldn’t just stop at lamenting the oppression visited upon our brothers in the faith.

    But these sorts of stories are typically highlighted, in my opinion, to have an effect on American Christians who — unfortunately, if predictably — tend to be much more motivated by injustices done to Christians than to those they are, at best, not as predisposed towards.

    When Bush was running the Iraq War, these stories were typically highlighted by those on the left (anti-war, theological liberals, whatever) in an attempt to make the average American right-wing Christian rethink his “rah rah war!” approach. But, you know, the average American yawned. As has the average commenter here, every time such a story comes up. Why let a story about a small Christian community being destroyed get in the way for your enthusiasm for a serious, excellent war against our enemies, the radical jihadis? Hey, that’s war, right?

    I can’t help but wonder if American Christians will now start to focus more on this tragedy for Christians in Iraq now that Obama is leading the war.

  • SKPeterson

    To completely derail the conversation, religious affiliation bears little meaning in the conduct of war as tODD notes. It didn’t stop us in WWI – the “Christmas Peace” got the generals so upset on both sides they threatened to start shooting their own soldiers if they didn’t get back in the trenches. It didn’t stop us in WWII — I think it was Nagasaki that had one of the largest populations of Japanese Christians. Never mind the good German Lutherans who got killed on both sides during the war in Europe. One good to come out of it: Lutheran World Relief. It began as a way to support the devastated German Lutheran churches in rebuilding and repairing their communities.

  • SKPeterson

    To completely derail the conversation, religious affiliation bears little meaning in the conduct of war as tODD notes. It didn’t stop us in WWI – the “Christmas Peace” got the generals so upset on both sides they threatened to start shooting their own soldiers if they didn’t get back in the trenches. It didn’t stop us in WWII — I think it was Nagasaki that had one of the largest populations of Japanese Christians. Never mind the good German Lutherans who got killed on both sides during the war in Europe. One good to come out of it: Lutheran World Relief. It began as a way to support the devastated German Lutheran churches in rebuilding and repairing their communities.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    SKP @ 12: Exactly. That is why I go ballistic when people confuse national interests with religious interests.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    SKP @ 12: Exactly. That is why I go ballistic when people confuse national interests with religious interests.

  • Porcell

    Jeff Samuelson gets to the heart of this. If America were to go to war solely to protect the interests of Iraqi Christians, we would be chastised throughout the Muslim world as a crusader

    We properly went to war with Iraq to stabilize the region and to prevent Saddam from acquiring nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. We bid fair over time to succeed in this. Christians, especially Orthodox ones, suffered in the Soviet Union, though this was not a major cause of our Cold War policy to take down the Soviet Communist regime.

    That the Iraqi Christians suffered from the war is a tragedy; the real cause of Iraqi and other Christian persecution all over the Middle East lies with the radical Islamic jihadis. Christians, who would allow Saddam Hussein, a rather vicious and brutal dictator, to rule over Iraq and the region, in order to protect the interests of the Iraqi Christian community, lack the, admittedly hard, perspective of real-politic.

  • Porcell

    Jeff Samuelson gets to the heart of this. If America were to go to war solely to protect the interests of Iraqi Christians, we would be chastised throughout the Muslim world as a crusader

    We properly went to war with Iraq to stabilize the region and to prevent Saddam from acquiring nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. We bid fair over time to succeed in this. Christians, especially Orthodox ones, suffered in the Soviet Union, though this was not a major cause of our Cold War policy to take down the Soviet Communist regime.

    That the Iraqi Christians suffered from the war is a tragedy; the real cause of Iraqi and other Christian persecution all over the Middle East lies with the radical Islamic jihadis. Christians, who would allow Saddam Hussein, a rather vicious and brutal dictator, to rule over Iraq and the region, in order to protect the interests of the Iraqi Christian community, lack the, admittedly hard, perspective of real-politic.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    “We properly went to war with Iraq to stabilize the region”

    Man, was THAT a failure……

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    “We properly went to war with Iraq to stabilize the region”

    Man, was THAT a failure……

  • Porcell

    Louis, the question of whether the Iraq War was a success will not be settled until well after you and I are dead, moralists like you notwithstanding. Pres. Bush in his recent biography makes exactly the point that his decision to take down the Iraqi regime will not be properly judged for many tears to come.

    Pres. Reagan in his time was judged by moralists to be a war-monger and former gradeB movie actor, though it has become increasingly clear that he, along with JohnPaul II, and Margaret Thatcher, was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union.

  • Porcell

    Louis, the question of whether the Iraq War was a success will not be settled until well after you and I are dead, moralists like you notwithstanding. Pres. Bush in his recent biography makes exactly the point that his decision to take down the Iraqi regime will not be properly judged for many tears to come.

    Pres. Reagan in his time was judged by moralists to be a war-monger and former gradeB movie actor, though it has become increasingly clear that he, along with JohnPaul II, and Margaret Thatcher, was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union.

  • Porcell

    Though “tears” might have been poetically correct, in the above I meant ‘years.”

  • Porcell

    Though “tears” might have been poetically correct, in the above I meant ‘years.”

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Porcell, I’m not sure why you think I was moralising. I was merely observing. Though I guess you are just continuing your old habit of name-calling, whenever you perceive somebody to differ from you. Fine.

    I suppose the opposite of being a moralist is being an immoralist?

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Porcell, I’m not sure why you think I was moralising. I was merely observing. Though I guess you are just continuing your old habit of name-calling, whenever you perceive somebody to differ from you. Fine.

    I suppose the opposite of being a moralist is being an immoralist?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @ 17

    It might be good for you to define what you mean by terms like “moralist” and what the contrary category would be. That would make your comments more meaningful to all of us. I am not asking for a dictionary quote. I am asking for your own personal context and meaning dear brother.

    thanks! :)

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @ 17

    It might be good for you to define what you mean by terms like “moralist” and what the contrary category would be. That would make your comments more meaningful to all of us. I am not asking for a dictionary quote. I am asking for your own personal context and meaning dear brother.

    thanks! :)

  • Porcell

    Louis, having pontificated that “that was a failure” [the Iraq War] would be a clear example of shallow moralizing and premature judgment, especially coming from an expatriate European South African living in Canada.

  • Porcell

    Louis, having pontificated that “that was a failure” [the Iraq War] would be a clear example of shallow moralizing and premature judgment, especially coming from an expatriate European South African living in Canada.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why do we risk American lives for a state like that?” Who is the “we” in that question — Americans? Christians? American Christians?”

    I took it to mean we, Americans. So, why would we, Americans, want to support a country that persecutes religious minorities?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why do we risk American lives for a state like that?” Who is the “we” in that question — Americans? Christians? American Christians?”

    I took it to mean we, Americans. So, why would we, Americans, want to support a country that persecutes religious minorities?

  • trotk

    Porcell, this has been asked before, but what does Louis family origin and immigration/emigration status have to do with his point? Is my following point more valid because I can claim William Bradford and John Adams as grandfathers? I will, now, because it is both a.) true, and b.) increasing my dignitas as a speaker:

    Frankly, it does seem that we have made the Middle East worse. That isn’t moralizing, it is just observing. It might be that our decisions cause results in 50 or 100 years that are good, but right now, the Middle East is no less violent (possibly more so, but I have not counted all the suicide bombings and murders and hostage takings over the last 60 years) than it was prior to our invasion, terrorism has not ceased or even declined, the US is probably more hated, the Christian population in Iraq is worse off, etc, etc.

    The only clue you have given us about what you mean by “moralists” is “shallow,” “premature,” and “pontificated.” Clearly these are negative, but I am curious about the alternative. It must not be immoralist (because that makes no sense), but it must be deep, mature, and whatever the opposite of pontificate happens to be. Perhaps “lay?” Or “protestant?”

  • trotk

    Porcell, this has been asked before, but what does Louis family origin and immigration/emigration status have to do with his point? Is my following point more valid because I can claim William Bradford and John Adams as grandfathers? I will, now, because it is both a.) true, and b.) increasing my dignitas as a speaker:

    Frankly, it does seem that we have made the Middle East worse. That isn’t moralizing, it is just observing. It might be that our decisions cause results in 50 or 100 years that are good, but right now, the Middle East is no less violent (possibly more so, but I have not counted all the suicide bombings and murders and hostage takings over the last 60 years) than it was prior to our invasion, terrorism has not ceased or even declined, the US is probably more hated, the Christian population in Iraq is worse off, etc, etc.

    The only clue you have given us about what you mean by “moralists” is “shallow,” “premature,” and “pontificated.” Clearly these are negative, but I am curious about the alternative. It must not be immoralist (because that makes no sense), but it must be deep, mature, and whatever the opposite of pontificate happens to be. Perhaps “lay?” Or “protestant?”

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Porcell: What in the devil has my race, ethnicity and residence got to do with it?????????

    This is the second time you attack my opinions based on those characteristics.

    I am sorry, but it is enough. Unless urged by others to stay, I will not comment here again. I’ve had enough of being discriminated against based on what I was born as. I do not need anymore of that nonsense in my life.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Porcell: What in the devil has my race, ethnicity and residence got to do with it?????????

    This is the second time you attack my opinions based on those characteristics.

    I am sorry, but it is enough. Unless urged by others to stay, I will not comment here again. I’ve had enough of being discriminated against based on what I was born as. I do not need anymore of that nonsense in my life.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@16), if it’s too early to deem our effort to “stabilize the region” a “failure”, wouldn’t it also be too early to determine if it was “proper” for us to have started that adventure?

    You’ll also notice that you didn’t actually answer (@20) people’s questions of what you meant by “moralist” (except the obvious, generally pejorative, meaning). You just repeated yourself: “a clear example of shallow moralizing”.

    “Especially coming from an expatriate European South African living in Canada.” Why does the region where an idea or opinion come from affect whether it’s true or not? Is this just more pejorative-label-slapping? If Louis said something you agreed with, you wouldn’t care where he was from.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@16), if it’s too early to deem our effort to “stabilize the region” a “failure”, wouldn’t it also be too early to determine if it was “proper” for us to have started that adventure?

    You’ll also notice that you didn’t actually answer (@20) people’s questions of what you meant by “moralist” (except the obvious, generally pejorative, meaning). You just repeated yourself: “a clear example of shallow moralizing”.

    “Especially coming from an expatriate European South African living in Canada.” Why does the region where an idea or opinion come from affect whether it’s true or not? Is this just more pejorative-label-slapping? If Louis said something you agreed with, you wouldn’t care where he was from.

  • trotk

    Louis, I have an excellent friend whose parents came to Canada from South Africa. I will judge you to be an excellent conversationalist and someone who truly loves his neighbor, as he is and does.

    Please stay. I enjoy your contributions.

  • trotk

    Louis, I have an excellent friend whose parents came to Canada from South Africa. I will judge you to be an excellent conversationalist and someone who truly loves his neighbor, as he is and does.

    Please stay. I enjoy your contributions.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@21) said, “I took it to mean we, Americans. So, why would we, Americans, want to support a country that persecutes religious minorities?”

    The answer has historically been: because it’s in our country’s best interests. I mean, that’s our excuse for having Saudi Arabia as a good buddy, isn’t it? And nobody — at least, nobody in our government for several decades now — seems to care much about the oppression of religious minorities in that country, do they?

    I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t take much research to come up with a much longer list of countries we support that nonetheless oppress minorities, religious or otherwise.

    So if it’s deplorable for us (now) to support Iraq, is the argument that we should therefore stop supporting all those other countries as well?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@21) said, “I took it to mean we, Americans. So, why would we, Americans, want to support a country that persecutes religious minorities?”

    The answer has historically been: because it’s in our country’s best interests. I mean, that’s our excuse for having Saudi Arabia as a good buddy, isn’t it? And nobody — at least, nobody in our government for several decades now — seems to care much about the oppression of religious minorities in that country, do they?

    I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t take much research to come up with a much longer list of countries we support that nonetheless oppress minorities, religious or otherwise.

    So if it’s deplorable for us (now) to support Iraq, is the argument that we should therefore stop supporting all those other countries as well?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@23), I hope you don’t mean you’re going to stop commenting on this blog entirely. I would have to urge you to stay here in the sense of continuing to be part of our discussions here and there.

    But if you just mean that you’re going to stop commenting on this particular thread, that’s understandable. I’m not sure a whole lot of good is going to come from this discussion, poisoned as it now has been by Porcell’s nationalist BS.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@23), I hope you don’t mean you’re going to stop commenting on this blog entirely. I would have to urge you to stay here in the sense of continuing to be part of our discussions here and there.

    But if you just mean that you’re going to stop commenting on this particular thread, that’s understandable. I’m not sure a whole lot of good is going to come from this discussion, poisoned as it now has been by Porcell’s nationalist BS.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Todd, Trotk – I thank you. But I have been contemplating quitting Cranach altogether, because, as stated, this is the second time I have been targeted by Porcell based on my ethnicity.

    Todd, you know why I am in North America. I do not want to re-experience painful episodes in my past. Unfortunately, Porcell seems hell bent on doing that.

    But I haven’t made up my mind yet.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Todd, Trotk – I thank you. But I have been contemplating quitting Cranach altogether, because, as stated, this is the second time I have been targeted by Porcell based on my ethnicity.

    Todd, you know why I am in North America. I do not want to re-experience painful episodes in my past. Unfortunately, Porcell seems hell bent on doing that.

    But I haven’t made up my mind yet.

  • Porcell

    Louis: Porcell: What in the devil has my race, ethnicity and residence got to do with it?????????

    Actually, a lot; one can hardly escape one’s background. You doth rather protest a bit much, having had a sensitive reality brought to your attention.

    Todd: Porcell (@16), if it’s too early to deem our effort to “stabilize the region” a “failure”, wouldn’t it also be too early to determine if it was “proper” for us to have started that adventure?

    Statesmen are called upon to make hard decisions. You might read Pres. Bush’s recent volume, Decision Points in which he explains the careful, indeed agonized, decision he made to war against Iraq. Moralists like you and Louis, inclined to easy judgment about Bush’s decision making, are a dime a dozen. As mentioned earlier, “Pres. Reagan in his time was judged by moralists to be a war-monger and former gradeB movie actor, though it has become increasingly clear that he, along with JohnPaul II, and Margaret Thatcher, was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union.”

  • Porcell

    Louis: Porcell: What in the devil has my race, ethnicity and residence got to do with it?????????

    Actually, a lot; one can hardly escape one’s background. You doth rather protest a bit much, having had a sensitive reality brought to your attention.

    Todd: Porcell (@16), if it’s too early to deem our effort to “stabilize the region” a “failure”, wouldn’t it also be too early to determine if it was “proper” for us to have started that adventure?

    Statesmen are called upon to make hard decisions. You might read Pres. Bush’s recent volume, Decision Points in which he explains the careful, indeed agonized, decision he made to war against Iraq. Moralists like you and Louis, inclined to easy judgment about Bush’s decision making, are a dime a dozen. As mentioned earlier, “Pres. Reagan in his time was judged by moralists to be a war-monger and former gradeB movie actor, though it has become increasingly clear that he, along with JohnPaul II, and Margaret Thatcher, was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union.”

  • trotk

    Peter, your condescension is showing again.

    Instead of addressing the issue (is Iraq better or worse off? should Americans/American Christians be involved in Iraq) you continue to insult.

    I wish you could read yourself from the eyes of others. All that comes out when you type is pompous condescension.

    I want to challenge you to apologize, admit that insults are not arguments (the greatest of which is judging Louis’ arguments according to his race, ethnicity, and residence), and then address the actual issues. Calling someone a moralist does not refute their claims. It just makes you sound like a pompous ass.

  • trotk

    Peter, your condescension is showing again.

    Instead of addressing the issue (is Iraq better or worse off? should Americans/American Christians be involved in Iraq) you continue to insult.

    I wish you could read yourself from the eyes of others. All that comes out when you type is pompous condescension.

    I want to challenge you to apologize, admit that insults are not arguments (the greatest of which is judging Louis’ arguments according to his race, ethnicity, and residence), and then address the actual issues. Calling someone a moralist does not refute their claims. It just makes you sound like a pompous ass.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@28), I can’t claim to know how this makes you feel, or fully understand the impact of your past. But, small potatoes though it may be, do know that I appreciate your insight, personality, and wit here.

    Obviously, not everyone appreciates the different perspective you have, but this is the Internet, and all that is required to comment here is a computer with an internet account, and not, oh, the ability to use logic and reason. Much less Christian charity.

    I mean, I can’t in good conscience encourage you to stay here just for my sake (and the sake of others capable of actually defending their ideas without resorting to facile labeling). But I would truly miss your presence here. Not that I don’t know how to find you if I need.

    But do keep in mind that, if you left, there would only be proportionally more of Peter’s nationalist, reductionist bile left to fill these discussions.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Louis (@28), I can’t claim to know how this makes you feel, or fully understand the impact of your past. But, small potatoes though it may be, do know that I appreciate your insight, personality, and wit here.

    Obviously, not everyone appreciates the different perspective you have, but this is the Internet, and all that is required to comment here is a computer with an internet account, and not, oh, the ability to use logic and reason. Much less Christian charity.

    I mean, I can’t in good conscience encourage you to stay here just for my sake (and the sake of others capable of actually defending their ideas without resorting to facile labeling). But I would truly miss your presence here. Not that I don’t know how to find you if I need.

    But do keep in mind that, if you left, there would only be proportionally more of Peter’s nationalist, reductionist bile left to fill these discussions.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter, you are truly incapable of defending your arguments intellectually, aren’t you? You’re just content to sling around epithets in lieu of actually thinking. You fling “moralist” with all the finesse (and wit) of a toddler yelling out “poopyhead”.

    “One can hardly escape one’s background.” Look, you can use that as an excuse for your own sorry condition, if you want — though it would be offensive to past generations of Leavitts who don’t deserve it — but crap like that won’t fly in the United States, no matter how often you fling it (to mix metaphors).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter, you are truly incapable of defending your arguments intellectually, aren’t you? You’re just content to sling around epithets in lieu of actually thinking. You fling “moralist” with all the finesse (and wit) of a toddler yelling out “poopyhead”.

    “One can hardly escape one’s background.” Look, you can use that as an excuse for your own sorry condition, if you want — though it would be offensive to past generations of Leavitts who don’t deserve it — but crap like that won’t fly in the United States, no matter how often you fling it (to mix metaphors).

  • Porcell

    Trotk:Instead of addressing the issue (is Iraq better or worse off? should Americans/American Christians be involved in Iraq) you continue to insult.

    You might refer back to the post at 14 in which I addressed the issue on this thread. In response to Louis’s statement that the Iraq War was a “failure”, calling attention to the reality of his background was a statement of relevant fact, however sensitive, and hardly an insult. In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.

  • Porcell

    Trotk:Instead of addressing the issue (is Iraq better or worse off? should Americans/American Christians be involved in Iraq) you continue to insult.

    You might refer back to the post at 14 in which I addressed the issue on this thread. In response to Louis’s statement that the Iraq War was a “failure”, calling attention to the reality of his background was a statement of relevant fact, however sensitive, and hardly an insult. In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I think it’s arguable whether finishing the Persian Gulf War was in America’s interests.

    I think at a minimum we could all agree that the timing of the second Persian Gulf War was inopportune for America. Whatever benefits we stood to gain from finishing up the Gulf War were squandered by spreading our force across two counter insurgencies at once.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I think it’s arguable whether finishing the Persian Gulf War was in America’s interests.

    I think at a minimum we could all agree that the timing of the second Persian Gulf War was inopportune for America. Whatever benefits we stood to gain from finishing up the Gulf War were squandered by spreading our force across two counter insurgencies at once.

  • trotk

    Peter, Louis was responding to the issue you were discussing at 14, albeit without insult. Perhaps that is what confused you. When he called it a failure, the appropriate response would have been to question his statement, not his ethnicity.

    His “slurs” about your college background are something that I have missed. If that is the root issue, take it up with him, rather than insult. Evil for evil (assuming he was in the wrong, for which I would need evidence) is not the path to walk.

    And his ethnicity has nothing to do with his argument. If you believe so, you are confused.

  • trotk

    Peter, Louis was responding to the issue you were discussing at 14, albeit without insult. Perhaps that is what confused you. When he called it a failure, the appropriate response would have been to question his statement, not his ethnicity.

    His “slurs” about your college background are something that I have missed. If that is the root issue, take it up with him, rather than insult. Evil for evil (assuming he was in the wrong, for which I would need evidence) is not the path to walk.

    And his ethnicity has nothing to do with his argument. If you believe so, you are confused.

  • Grace

    Porcell –

    Bringing up Louis being from South Africa, has not one damn thing to do with this conversation. I used to admire you, and read your posts – however attacking a man because he left South Africa is outrageous, it shows a lack of education, no matter what schools or universities one has supposedly attended. To quote you,….. it’s “BABBLE” – the worst sort.

    I don’t agree with the Canadians most of the time, especially on soci@lized health care, and a raft of other subjects. Pointing out the differences between how you or I believe, (we most likely agree, including Bush bashing) regarding the war in Iraq should not bring a barage of anger because someone was born in South Africa, it is not germane to the discussion.

    Very disappointing Porcell -

  • Grace

    Porcell –

    Bringing up Louis being from South Africa, has not one damn thing to do with this conversation. I used to admire you, and read your posts – however attacking a man because he left South Africa is outrageous, it shows a lack of education, no matter what schools or universities one has supposedly attended. To quote you,….. it’s “BABBLE” – the worst sort.

    I don’t agree with the Canadians most of the time, especially on soci@lized health care, and a raft of other subjects. Pointing out the differences between how you or I believe, (we most likely agree, including Bush bashing) regarding the war in Iraq should not bring a barage of anger because someone was born in South Africa, it is not germane to the discussion.

    Very disappointing Porcell -

  • collie

    Louis, I like your contributions to this blog. I hope you stay!

  • collie

    Louis, I like your contributions to this blog. I hope you stay!

  • trotk

    Grace, by saying “I don’t agree with Canadians most of the time,” you are slipping into the same trap as you are chastising Porcell for. Canadians are just as diverse in their ideas as Americans.

  • trotk

    Grace, by saying “I don’t agree with Canadians most of the time,” you are slipping into the same trap as you are chastising Porcell for. Canadians are just as diverse in their ideas as Americans.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@33), nobody is complaining about your “post at 14″, which, as it happens, was the last comment you were able to write on this thread without using ad hominem slurs in lieu of actual debate.

    “In response to Louis’s statement that the Iraq War was a ‘failure’, calling attention to the reality of his background was a statement of relevant fact.” How is it “relevant”? An argument is an argument, no matter who‘s making it. Trust me when I tell you, Peter, that your illustrious family history and lengthy background in Massachusetts is not helping your reasoning one whit here — you’re on your own.

    “In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.” Ah, tu quoque disguised as nobility. Great.

    “One can hardly escape one’s background.” Criminy! I expect that sort of crap in places where they cherish racism, not in the United States.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@33), nobody is complaining about your “post at 14″, which, as it happens, was the last comment you were able to write on this thread without using ad hominem slurs in lieu of actual debate.

    “In response to Louis’s statement that the Iraq War was a ‘failure’, calling attention to the reality of his background was a statement of relevant fact.” How is it “relevant”? An argument is an argument, no matter who‘s making it. Trust me when I tell you, Peter, that your illustrious family history and lengthy background in Massachusetts is not helping your reasoning one whit here — you’re on your own.

    “In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.” Ah, tu quoque disguised as nobility. Great.

    “One can hardly escape one’s background.” Criminy! I expect that sort of crap in places where they cherish racism, not in the United States.

  • Grace

    Porcell – 33

    “In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.”

    I have never read any posts that Louis has made regarding your “college background” – if I had I would would have supported you. As you might recall, I have supported you on many occasions in the past when you have been attacked. I am sorry that happened, I really am.

  • Grace

    Porcell – 33

    “In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.”

    I have never read any posts that Louis has made regarding your “college background” – if I had I would would have supported you. As you might recall, I have supported you on many occasions in the past when you have been attacked. I am sorry that happened, I really am.

  • Grace

    trokt – 38

    “Grace, by saying “I don’t agree with Canadians most of the time,” you are slipping into the same trap as you are chastising Porcell for. Canadians are just as diverse in their ideas as Americans.”

    Au contraire, …. it is not a trap, it is my opinion which is based on a larger scale doing business between Canada and the U.S. and too often their animosity towards the U.S. – that has nothing to do with their immigrating from South Africa to Canada.

  • Grace

    trokt – 38

    “Grace, by saying “I don’t agree with Canadians most of the time,” you are slipping into the same trap as you are chastising Porcell for. Canadians are just as diverse in their ideas as Americans.”

    Au contraire, …. it is not a trap, it is my opinion which is based on a larger scale doing business between Canada and the U.S. and too often their animosity towards the U.S. – that has nothing to do with their immigrating from South Africa to Canada.

  • Grace

    Porcell “In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.”

    tODD “Ah, tu quoque disguised as nobility. Great.”

    Envy is an ugly demon -

  • Grace

    Porcell “In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.”

    tODD “Ah, tu quoque disguised as nobility. Great.”

    Envy is an ugly demon -

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Grace (@42), “envy”? What? Can you explain your comment?

    Are you misconstruing what I meant by “nobility”? I was using Merriam-Webster’s first definition: “the quality or state of being noble in character, quality, or rank”.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Grace (@42), “envy”? What? Can you explain your comment?

    Are you misconstruing what I meant by “nobility”? I was using Merriam-Webster’s first definition: “the quality or state of being noble in character, quality, or rank”.

  • Grace

    tODD –

    It doesn’t require a dictionary, look within yourself for the definition.

  • Grace

    tODD –

    It doesn’t require a dictionary, look within yourself for the definition.

  • Porcell

    Todd: How is it “relevant”?

    Wake up. In the real world when an expatriate European South African from Canada makes a blithe statement about the Iraq War being a failure, then that is a perfectly relevant fact. Where I come from, that sort of fact, whether spoken or unspoken, is relevant.

  • Porcell

    Todd: How is it “relevant”?

    Wake up. In the real world when an expatriate European South African from Canada makes a blithe statement about the Iraq War being a failure, then that is a perfectly relevant fact. Where I come from, that sort of fact, whether spoken or unspoken, is relevant.

  • SKPeterson

    May I submit that we can pile on Louis under the general assumption that being from South Africa there is a high probability that he is a Reformed Dutch Calvinist? I am shocked, truly shocked, this being ostensibly a Lutheran blog. Well, Louis, what do you have to say for yourself?

  • SKPeterson

    May I submit that we can pile on Louis under the general assumption that being from South Africa there is a high probability that he is a Reformed Dutch Calvinist? I am shocked, truly shocked, this being ostensibly a Lutheran blog. Well, Louis, what do you have to say for yourself?

  • trotk

    Peter, where someone is from has nothing to do with the validity of their argument! You desperately need to study logic!

    Simply, an argument’s validity comes from two things, and two things only:
    1.) The accuracy or truthfulness of the premises.
    2.) The obedience to logical rules and order.
    The background of the speaker may have something to do with why they chose to vocalize or write a particular argument, but it has no bearing on its accuracy, validity, or truthfulness.

  • trotk

    Peter, where someone is from has nothing to do with the validity of their argument! You desperately need to study logic!

    Simply, an argument’s validity comes from two things, and two things only:
    1.) The accuracy or truthfulness of the premises.
    2.) The obedience to logical rules and order.
    The background of the speaker may have something to do with why they chose to vocalize or write a particular argument, but it has no bearing on its accuracy, validity, or truthfulness.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    SKP: I was born one. Now I am Lutheran. And thank you to those who expressed their interest in reading my comments.

    Porcell: This is very personal. I wanted to express my true feelings here, but on second thoughts, I’ll withold most of it.

    I guess I should be used to such attacks. After all, being born an Afrikaner, I should be used to being judged on my ethnicity. From the left and the right.

    If I am not mistaken, Peter, did you not once say here, on this blog, that you maintain a home in South Africa?

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    SKP: I was born one. Now I am Lutheran. And thank you to those who expressed their interest in reading my comments.

    Porcell: This is very personal. I wanted to express my true feelings here, but on second thoughts, I’ll withold most of it.

    I guess I should be used to such attacks. After all, being born an Afrikaner, I should be used to being judged on my ethnicity. From the left and the right.

    If I am not mistaken, Peter, did you not once say here, on this blog, that you maintain a home in South Africa?

  • trotk

    Grace, you can disagree with Canadians about their opinion of the US (although you are lumping them all together to hastily; I lived there seven years and your characterization of their views is a gross oversimplification), but having that transfer over to not “agreeing with [them] most of the time” is doing exactly what Peter Porcell Leavitt is doing: judging their arguments because of something you don’t like about them.

  • trotk

    Grace, you can disagree with Canadians about their opinion of the US (although you are lumping them all together to hastily; I lived there seven years and your characterization of their views is a gross oversimplification), but having that transfer over to not “agreeing with [them] most of the time” is doing exactly what Peter Porcell Leavitt is doing: judging their arguments because of something you don’t like about them.

  • trotk

    Louis, where in Canada do you now live? I have a brother, his wife, their kids, and lots of friends still in Calgary.

  • trotk

    Louis, where in Canada do you now live? I have a brother, his wife, their kids, and lots of friends still in Calgary.

  • SKPeterson

    Louis, I sympathize. My wife’s cousin married a guy from Zimbabwe. He’s a Crocodile Dundee type – runs a safari operation so he’s been left alone (so far) by Mugabe’s thugs. They live in the south (near Bulawayo) and I keep telling them to hightail it over to Botswana and set up shop there, but they have too many people depending on them he just can’t do it.

    Good luck on your sojourn to Canada. As a new Lutheran from South Africa have you listened to The God Whisperers podcast? It is two LCMS pastors from California, but they have a contact in SA named Henning that appears off and on. He’s a real treat.

  • SKPeterson

    Louis, I sympathize. My wife’s cousin married a guy from Zimbabwe. He’s a Crocodile Dundee type – runs a safari operation so he’s been left alone (so far) by Mugabe’s thugs. They live in the south (near Bulawayo) and I keep telling them to hightail it over to Botswana and set up shop there, but they have too many people depending on them he just can’t do it.

    Good luck on your sojourn to Canada. As a new Lutheran from South Africa have you listened to The God Whisperers podcast? It is two LCMS pastors from California, but they have a contact in SA named Henning that appears off and on. He’s a real treat.

  • Grace

    The article below should give a clue as to why many American’s have disagreement with Canadians – I, along with many others read and watched the news, not just from the U.S. media, but around the world.

    Clamoring over the Iraq war, bashing President Bush doesn’t set well with many of us, especially from the Canadians.

    America no more deserved to be attacked on 9-11, then when we were attacked 69 years ago by Japan, nor did the Jews deserve to be rounded up, synagogues burned to the ground, confiscation of property, and then put in the camps and gas chambers.

    Majority thinks U.S. partly to blame for Sept. 11

    By SHAWN MCCARTHY
    Ottawa Bureau Chief; Source: Ipsos-Reid
    Saturday, September 7, 2002

    “A vast majority of Canadians believes the United States bears at least some responsibility for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because of U.S. policies in the Middle East and around the globe, according to a Globe and Mail/CTV poll.”

    Another excerpt:

    “In the Ipsos-Reid survey — which polled 1,000 Canadians last week — 69 per cent of respondents said the U.S. shares some of the responsibility for the attacks, while 15 per cent said all of the responsibility sits on American shoulders. The attacks killed thousands of civilians and U.S. military personnel at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.”

    http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/mccarthy.html

    Read the rest, including the poll.

  • Grace

    The article below should give a clue as to why many American’s have disagreement with Canadians – I, along with many others read and watched the news, not just from the U.S. media, but around the world.

    Clamoring over the Iraq war, bashing President Bush doesn’t set well with many of us, especially from the Canadians.

    America no more deserved to be attacked on 9-11, then when we were attacked 69 years ago by Japan, nor did the Jews deserve to be rounded up, synagogues burned to the ground, confiscation of property, and then put in the camps and gas chambers.

    Majority thinks U.S. partly to blame for Sept. 11

    By SHAWN MCCARTHY
    Ottawa Bureau Chief; Source: Ipsos-Reid
    Saturday, September 7, 2002

    “A vast majority of Canadians believes the United States bears at least some responsibility for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because of U.S. policies in the Middle East and around the globe, according to a Globe and Mail/CTV poll.”

    Another excerpt:

    “In the Ipsos-Reid survey — which polled 1,000 Canadians last week — 69 per cent of respondents said the U.S. shares some of the responsibility for the attacks, while 15 per cent said all of the responsibility sits on American shoulders. The attacks killed thousands of civilians and U.S. military personnel at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.”

    http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/mccarthy.html

    Read the rest, including the poll.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    louis @ 48 & sk @ 51

    hey louis has a really excellent blog going on! and sk. … “the god whisperers”… those guys! one used to be my pastor, that Cwirla guy…. and the Denofrio one….he is the clever one…. it really is worth checking out. fun. light. lots of humor. and they talk about Jesus. alot. in fact that is what they do. over and over and over.

    You would think they would run outta material. Ha! They never do.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    louis @ 48 & sk @ 51

    hey louis has a really excellent blog going on! and sk. … “the god whisperers”… those guys! one used to be my pastor, that Cwirla guy…. and the Denofrio one….he is the clever one…. it really is worth checking out. fun. light. lots of humor. and they talk about Jesus. alot. in fact that is what they do. over and over and over.

    You would think they would run outta material. Ha! They never do.

  • Grace

    trokt – 49

    “judging their arguments because of something you don’t like about them.”

    Traveling to Canada on business was an eye opener – this was before 9-11. Constant snark remarks about the U.S., etc. And then there were the times when they came to the U.S. going to dinner in fine restaurants, making cracks about our military, our country, etc. One night there were about ten people dining around the table in one of the top restaurants, ….. it started, .. the waiters were shocked as they listened, trying to do their job, as our military and other areas were slapped around by the Canadians. I had enough – I finally said ” you have a lot of nerve coming to my country, making disgusting remarks about men and women who would give their lives to defend not only our country but yours. After all, you don’t have the resources to defend yourself. The table was silent. I stood up to visit the ladies room, the waiters came after me, standing there relating their stories of family members serving our country, they thanked me. This sort of thing isn’t rare, it’s common among our neighbors.

    There is no reason to be silent about my country, or what we have done to help others, or defend others.

  • Grace

    trokt – 49

    “judging their arguments because of something you don’t like about them.”

    Traveling to Canada on business was an eye opener – this was before 9-11. Constant snark remarks about the U.S., etc. And then there were the times when they came to the U.S. going to dinner in fine restaurants, making cracks about our military, our country, etc. One night there were about ten people dining around the table in one of the top restaurants, ….. it started, .. the waiters were shocked as they listened, trying to do their job, as our military and other areas were slapped around by the Canadians. I had enough – I finally said ” you have a lot of nerve coming to my country, making disgusting remarks about men and women who would give their lives to defend not only our country but yours. After all, you don’t have the resources to defend yourself. The table was silent. I stood up to visit the ladies room, the waiters came after me, standing there relating their stories of family members serving our country, they thanked me. This sort of thing isn’t rare, it’s common among our neighbors.

    There is no reason to be silent about my country, or what we have done to help others, or defend others.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    SKP – thanks, I’ll look at that link. Have been Lutheran now for 4 years, so hopefully not so new anymore :) .

    Trotk – I live just outside Saskatoon.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    SKP – thanks, I’ll look at that link. Have been Lutheran now for 4 years, so hopefully not so new anymore :) .

    Trotk – I live just outside Saskatoon.

  • trotk

    Grace, if the poll is accurate, which it might or might not be (we all were taught to look at polls skeptically, I hope), you could legitimately say, “I disagree with a majority of Canadians regarding the causes of 9/11.” But this wouldn’t prove them wrong (only the actually reasoning, regardless of the nationality of those arguing, would show this), and it wouldn’t give you grounds for saying that you don’t “agree with Canadians most of the time.”

    It seems (and please tell me if your original statement was stronger than you intended) that because your understanding of Canadians is unsympathetic to America, even to the point of blaming us for 9/11, that you are a.) targeting the whole group, regardless of whether the particular people exhibit the trait you dislike, and b.) targeting all of their opinions and ideas because of who they are, and not because of what they are actually arguing at any given moment.

    If you would like to revise your statement to, “I don’t agree with my understanding of the average Canadian’s beliefs concerning the causes of 9/11,” then I won’t argue with you (other than wondering how the heck you know the average Canadian’s view other than going there and talking to a lot of people about it.)

    I generally don’t trust polls because of people like me. When I get called, I tell them whatever will stymie their set list of questions, just to see if I can get them to hang up on me.

  • trotk

    Grace, if the poll is accurate, which it might or might not be (we all were taught to look at polls skeptically, I hope), you could legitimately say, “I disagree with a majority of Canadians regarding the causes of 9/11.” But this wouldn’t prove them wrong (only the actually reasoning, regardless of the nationality of those arguing, would show this), and it wouldn’t give you grounds for saying that you don’t “agree with Canadians most of the time.”

    It seems (and please tell me if your original statement was stronger than you intended) that because your understanding of Canadians is unsympathetic to America, even to the point of blaming us for 9/11, that you are a.) targeting the whole group, regardless of whether the particular people exhibit the trait you dislike, and b.) targeting all of their opinions and ideas because of who they are, and not because of what they are actually arguing at any given moment.

    If you would like to revise your statement to, “I don’t agree with my understanding of the average Canadian’s beliefs concerning the causes of 9/11,” then I won’t argue with you (other than wondering how the heck you know the average Canadian’s view other than going there and talking to a lot of people about it.)

    I generally don’t trust polls because of people like me. When I get called, I tell them whatever will stymie their set list of questions, just to see if I can get them to hang up on me.

  • Grace

    I don’t think you should leave Louis – I believe everyone can start over, that isn’t always easy, but it’s worth a try :)

  • Grace

    I don’t think you should leave Louis – I believe everyone can start over, that isn’t always easy, but it’s worth a try :)

  • trotk

    Louis, I have only been to Saskatoon once, but I enjoyed an incredible week camping and fishing for walleye and pike in Prince Albert National Park a number of years ago.

    I must say, though, that living in Calgary, our joke about Saskatchewan was that it was the only place on earth that you could watch your dog run away for two days. You probably have heard that one.

  • trotk

    Louis, I have only been to Saskatoon once, but I enjoyed an incredible week camping and fishing for walleye and pike in Prince Albert National Park a number of years ago.

    I must say, though, that living in Calgary, our joke about Saskatchewan was that it was the only place on earth that you could watch your dog run away for two days. You probably have heard that one.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Grace – thanks.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Grace – thanks.

  • Grace

    trokt – 56

    Don’t bother to start the 1. 2. 3. – a. b. c. plan – I wrote what I believed, based on my travels, business associations, etc. I’m not the only one who holds these beliefs.

    The polls in the article mirror what I have observed.

  • Grace

    trokt – 56

    Don’t bother to start the 1. 2. 3. – a. b. c. plan – I wrote what I believed, based on my travels, business associations, etc. I’m not the only one who holds these beliefs.

    The polls in the article mirror what I have observed.

  • Grace

    Louis –

    You’re WELCOME, I hope you and Porcell can find ground of agreement, ….. and that doesn’t mean just you, it means a few others here who have taken pot shots at Porcell on a regular basis.

    You have a lot to offer, don’t walk away. I’m sure your experiences in Africa would be educational to all of us.

  • Grace

    Louis –

    You’re WELCOME, I hope you and Porcell can find ground of agreement, ….. and that doesn’t mean just you, it means a few others here who have taken pot shots at Porcell on a regular basis.

    You have a lot to offer, don’t walk away. I’m sure your experiences in Africa would be educational to all of us.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Good grief, Grace (@44), are you going to do it again? That thing where you say things but then refuse to explain what they mean? Are you next going to act insulted when I ask you to explain your words?

    Anyhow, I “looked within myself” for what in the world you were talking about, and here’s what myself told … me:

    Dear Todd, Grace doesn’t actually know what she’s talking about. She just picked a random thing to accuse you of, perhaps because she’s annoyed by you of late — and that maybe because you disagreed with her over what the Bible says about Israel and its relationship to the Church? We can’t really know, as she won’t explain. I guess she’d rather be mad than talk about it? Again, I don’t know, she won’t talk about it. But she seems annoyed, either way. Anyhow, Todd, as you know, there are many feelings that you have right now about Porcell — some of them obviously sinful and unloving — but “envy” isn’t one of them. I mean, what are you supposed to be envious of? I don’t know, and I’m you. But Grace feels she is entitled to accuse you without actually backing it up. You’d think that a Christian accusing someone of something would have some evidence, but Grace doesn’t feel she needs any.

    Well, as it happens, I’m fine with that explanation from … within myself. How about you, Grace? If you think myself is wrong, you could always correct him, but … you hate to do that these days?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Good grief, Grace (@44), are you going to do it again? That thing where you say things but then refuse to explain what they mean? Are you next going to act insulted when I ask you to explain your words?

    Anyhow, I “looked within myself” for what in the world you were talking about, and here’s what myself told … me:

    Dear Todd, Grace doesn’t actually know what she’s talking about. She just picked a random thing to accuse you of, perhaps because she’s annoyed by you of late — and that maybe because you disagreed with her over what the Bible says about Israel and its relationship to the Church? We can’t really know, as she won’t explain. I guess she’d rather be mad than talk about it? Again, I don’t know, she won’t talk about it. But she seems annoyed, either way. Anyhow, Todd, as you know, there are many feelings that you have right now about Porcell — some of them obviously sinful and unloving — but “envy” isn’t one of them. I mean, what are you supposed to be envious of? I don’t know, and I’m you. But Grace feels she is entitled to accuse you without actually backing it up. You’d think that a Christian accusing someone of something would have some evidence, but Grace doesn’t feel she needs any.

    Well, as it happens, I’m fine with that explanation from … within myself. How about you, Grace? If you think myself is wrong, you could always correct him, but … you hate to do that these days?

  • trotk

    Grace, those experiences (@54) are frustrating, and I understand them, because I lived there. I was the American guy (from Alabama, no less) who disagreed with all the Canadians, regardless of the political issue on the table.

    But the thing that I realized after a number of years is that the average Canadian doesn’t necessarily believe those statements about the US, but may voice them because it is an acceptable cultural mantra that springs out of the fact that they think America sticks her nose in everyone’s business too quickly. The other side of this is that they pride themselves on being a type of underdog isolationist. Again, the average Canadian may or may not voice this or agree with this.

    You have to treat them as individuals, just as you do with Americans. We don’t all agree about our country, and it does no good to write off an entire group because of your understanding of something as unimportant (in the eternal sense) as political opinions.

    But your story also reveals that you do judge them because of something that you don’t like about them. And so you have illustrated what I was trying to get you to see. Their arguments or ideas have less weight in your eyes because of where they happened to have been born. This is wrong.

  • trotk

    Grace, those experiences (@54) are frustrating, and I understand them, because I lived there. I was the American guy (from Alabama, no less) who disagreed with all the Canadians, regardless of the political issue on the table.

    But the thing that I realized after a number of years is that the average Canadian doesn’t necessarily believe those statements about the US, but may voice them because it is an acceptable cultural mantra that springs out of the fact that they think America sticks her nose in everyone’s business too quickly. The other side of this is that they pride themselves on being a type of underdog isolationist. Again, the average Canadian may or may not voice this or agree with this.

    You have to treat them as individuals, just as you do with Americans. We don’t all agree about our country, and it does no good to write off an entire group because of your understanding of something as unimportant (in the eternal sense) as political opinions.

    But your story also reveals that you do judge them because of something that you don’t like about them. And so you have illustrated what I was trying to get you to see. Their arguments or ideas have less weight in your eyes because of where they happened to have been born. This is wrong.

  • trotk

    Grace (@60), I am not sure what plan you are referring to.

    “the 1. 2. 3. – a. b. c. plan”?
    Could you explain what plan you are talking about? Are you talking about the revision of your statement that I wouldn’t argue with?

    You are, though, illustrating the point well that you are judging an entire country’s citizens based on the actions or perceived actions of those that you have come into contact with.

    It does strike me as strange, that on your business trip(s), you didn’t notice the hundred of other Canadians who exhibited none of the characteristics that angered you. They can’t have all said, “America is awful!” as you passed, right?

  • trotk

    Grace (@60), I am not sure what plan you are referring to.

    “the 1. 2. 3. – a. b. c. plan”?
    Could you explain what plan you are talking about? Are you talking about the revision of your statement that I wouldn’t argue with?

    You are, though, illustrating the point well that you are judging an entire country’s citizens based on the actions or perceived actions of those that you have come into contact with.

    It does strike me as strange, that on your business trip(s), you didn’t notice the hundred of other Canadians who exhibited none of the characteristics that angered you. They can’t have all said, “America is awful!” as you passed, right?

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Trotk – that, and many others…

    Seriously though, I do appreciate the love here. Having been ostracised in one form or another your whole life is not easy -

    “You’re an Afrikaner? – You racist”
    “You go to Church with black people? – You …..”
    “You’re white? No job for you…”
    “Immigrants steal our jobs….”
    “Of course you will say that. You are an expatriate European South African living in Canada”

    Meanwhile, I’ve found friends here (this blog, and where I live). But were my parents to die tomorrow, I will not be there to bury them. My kids will most likely never see their grandparents again. I will not smell a Highveld thunderstorm again. The land my forefathers lived in for 358 years is becoming strange. Essentially, I’m being punished for the sins of the fathers.

    Not that I’m unhappy here. Not at all. Very soon I can apply for Canadian citizenship. And I’ll be happy to do that, very happy. At least my children will belong somewhere. And their children. An acquintance of mine recently got his citizenship here. After the swearing loyalty and all that, the judge looked at them and said – “Welcome Home”. That will be sweet. And bitter. After an agonising history in Africa, to find peace here.

    The Porcells of this world know nothing.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Trotk – that, and many others…

    Seriously though, I do appreciate the love here. Having been ostracised in one form or another your whole life is not easy -

    “You’re an Afrikaner? – You racist”
    “You go to Church with black people? – You …..”
    “You’re white? No job for you…”
    “Immigrants steal our jobs….”
    “Of course you will say that. You are an expatriate European South African living in Canada”

    Meanwhile, I’ve found friends here (this blog, and where I live). But were my parents to die tomorrow, I will not be there to bury them. My kids will most likely never see their grandparents again. I will not smell a Highveld thunderstorm again. The land my forefathers lived in for 358 years is becoming strange. Essentially, I’m being punished for the sins of the fathers.

    Not that I’m unhappy here. Not at all. Very soon I can apply for Canadian citizenship. And I’ll be happy to do that, very happy. At least my children will belong somewhere. And their children. An acquintance of mine recently got his citizenship here. After the swearing loyalty and all that, the judge looked at them and said – “Welcome Home”. That will be sweet. And bitter. After an agonising history in Africa, to find peace here.

    The Porcells of this world know nothing.

  • trotk

    tODD, I looked inside you and decided that you misunderstood Grace’s original statement. Let me explain:

    Porcell “In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.”

    tODD “Ah, tu quoque disguised as nobility. Great.”

    Envy is an ugly demon -

    You see, Grace is referring to a demon named envy here. This demon is crouching at the door to an Ivy League college, wishing to be let inside. But he won’t be, because he doesn’t know Latin, and thus is confounded by entrance exam. And so he hops around, cursing those who walk through the gates, and otherwise acting in an ugly manner. Your interchange with Porcell reminded Grace of this demon, and excited to share her knowledge, she spit of the phrase, “Envy is an ugly demon – “, but forgot to finish the statement, which should have read ” – he waits outside the door of Peter’s college every day, but no one will teach him Latin. Perhaps you will, tODD?”

  • trotk

    tODD, I looked inside you and decided that you misunderstood Grace’s original statement. Let me explain:

    Porcell “In the past, I have taken no umbrage to his clear slurs about my college background.”

    tODD “Ah, tu quoque disguised as nobility. Great.”

    Envy is an ugly demon -

    You see, Grace is referring to a demon named envy here. This demon is crouching at the door to an Ivy League college, wishing to be let inside. But he won’t be, because he doesn’t know Latin, and thus is confounded by entrance exam. And so he hops around, cursing those who walk through the gates, and otherwise acting in an ugly manner. Your interchange with Porcell reminded Grace of this demon, and excited to share her knowledge, she spit of the phrase, “Envy is an ugly demon – “, but forgot to finish the statement, which should have read ” – he waits outside the door of Peter’s college every day, but no one will teach him Latin. Perhaps you will, tODD?”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well, Porcell … or, should I say, Mr. Tautology?

    Let’s see, I’d asked you how a person’s background is “relevant” to the argument they offer, prompting you to completely avoid Louis’ point and instead snarkily observe that he is “an expatriate European South African living in Canada.”

    And your answer (@45)? You had none! Truly!

    All you could do was recapitulate your earlier non-argument and hope that no one noticed you couldn’t defend yourself. Here, I’ll break it down for you:

    1) “Wake up.” Translation: I disagree with you. We already knew that.

    2) “In the real world when an expatriate European South African from Canada makes a blithe statement about the Iraq War being a failure …” Ah! A word-for-word recapitulation of your initial racist/nationalist slur which was the reason I’d asked you why that was relevant in the first place. Coupled with yet more vague, unfounded accusations about how everyone who disagrees with you is “blithe” and not in the “real world”. Which, again, is an obvious, if ridiculous, restatement of your position.

    3) “…then that is a perfectly relevant fact.” Tada! A complete tautology! Why is it relevant? Because it’s “perfectly relevant”!

    4) “Where I come from, that sort of fact, whether spoken or unspoken, is relevant.” And, in case you missed it the first time, the tautology is once more reinforced.

    In short, Porcell employs no logic in his assertion here. He can’t defend himself. He doesn’t like what Louis has to say, nor will he defend his right to say it, because Louis is a stinkin’ Other from Not-God-Bless-America.

    So my question then becomes: why do you hate Massachusetts so, Peter? To employ such pathetic reasoning and to claim that it is necessarily based on your background is to insult the good people of Massachusetts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Well, Porcell … or, should I say, Mr. Tautology?

    Let’s see, I’d asked you how a person’s background is “relevant” to the argument they offer, prompting you to completely avoid Louis’ point and instead snarkily observe that he is “an expatriate European South African living in Canada.”

    And your answer (@45)? You had none! Truly!

    All you could do was recapitulate your earlier non-argument and hope that no one noticed you couldn’t defend yourself. Here, I’ll break it down for you:

    1) “Wake up.” Translation: I disagree with you. We already knew that.

    2) “In the real world when an expatriate European South African from Canada makes a blithe statement about the Iraq War being a failure …” Ah! A word-for-word recapitulation of your initial racist/nationalist slur which was the reason I’d asked you why that was relevant in the first place. Coupled with yet more vague, unfounded accusations about how everyone who disagrees with you is “blithe” and not in the “real world”. Which, again, is an obvious, if ridiculous, restatement of your position.

    3) “…then that is a perfectly relevant fact.” Tada! A complete tautology! Why is it relevant? Because it’s “perfectly relevant”!

    4) “Where I come from, that sort of fact, whether spoken or unspoken, is relevant.” And, in case you missed it the first time, the tautology is once more reinforced.

    In short, Porcell employs no logic in his assertion here. He can’t defend himself. He doesn’t like what Louis has to say, nor will he defend his right to say it, because Louis is a stinkin’ Other from Not-God-Bless-America.

    So my question then becomes: why do you hate Massachusetts so, Peter? To employ such pathetic reasoning and to claim that it is necessarily based on your background is to insult the good people of Massachusetts.

  • Grace

    tODD – 62

    “Anyhow, I “looked within myself” for what in the world you were talking about, and here’s what myself told … me:

    ~~~~~

    Dear Todd, Grace doesn’t actually know what she’s talking about. She just picked a random thing to accuse you of, perhaps because she’s annoyed by you of late — and that maybe because you disagreed with her over what the Bible says about Israel and its relationship to the Church? We can’t really know, as she won’t explain. I guess she’d rather be mad than talk about it? Again, I don’t know, she won’t talk about it. But she seems annoyed, either way. Anyhow, Todd, as you know, there are many feelings that you have right now about Porcell — some of them obviously sinful and unloving — but “envy” isn’t one of them. I mean, what are you supposed to be envious of? I don’t know, and I’m you. But Grace feels she is entitled to accuse you without actually backing it up. You’d think that a Christian accusing someone of something would have some evidence, but Grace doesn’t feel she needs any.”

    Well, as it happens, I’m fine with that explanation from … within myself. How about you, Grace? If you think myself is wrong, you could always correct him, but … you hate to do that these days?”

    I couldn’t care less what you post, moreover, your snippets of ‘post drama’ are nothing more than amateur attention seeking –

    Carry on!!!!!!!

  • Grace

    tODD – 62

    “Anyhow, I “looked within myself” for what in the world you were talking about, and here’s what myself told … me:

    ~~~~~

    Dear Todd, Grace doesn’t actually know what she’s talking about. She just picked a random thing to accuse you of, perhaps because she’s annoyed by you of late — and that maybe because you disagreed with her over what the Bible says about Israel and its relationship to the Church? We can’t really know, as she won’t explain. I guess she’d rather be mad than talk about it? Again, I don’t know, she won’t talk about it. But she seems annoyed, either way. Anyhow, Todd, as you know, there are many feelings that you have right now about Porcell — some of them obviously sinful and unloving — but “envy” isn’t one of them. I mean, what are you supposed to be envious of? I don’t know, and I’m you. But Grace feels she is entitled to accuse you without actually backing it up. You’d think that a Christian accusing someone of something would have some evidence, but Grace doesn’t feel she needs any.”

    Well, as it happens, I’m fine with that explanation from … within myself. How about you, Grace? If you think myself is wrong, you could always correct him, but … you hate to do that these days?”

    I couldn’t care less what you post, moreover, your snippets of ‘post drama’ are nothing more than amateur attention seeking –

    Carry on!!!!!!!

  • Grace

    trokt – 63

    “But your story also reveals that you do judge them because of something that you don’t like about them. And so you have illustrated what I was trying to get you to see. Their arguments or ideas have less weight in your eyes because of where they happened to have been born. This is wrong.”

    NO it isn’t WRONG! – - all too often Canadians speak against the U.S. our military, thinking we can take it on the chin, …… I did it for awhile and then spoke up. When I started standing up to them, they didn’t know what to say. They have no large strong military power to defend themselves, they depend on the Americans.

    It isn’t where they are born trokt, it is what they VERBALIZE straight to our faces, both in their country and ours – I would feel the same way if those from other countries did the same thing.

    You don’t need to excuse the behavior, I’ve witnessed it too often, my respect level is ZERO!

  • Grace

    trokt – 63

    “But your story also reveals that you do judge them because of something that you don’t like about them. And so you have illustrated what I was trying to get you to see. Their arguments or ideas have less weight in your eyes because of where they happened to have been born. This is wrong.”

    NO it isn’t WRONG! – - all too often Canadians speak against the U.S. our military, thinking we can take it on the chin, …… I did it for awhile and then spoke up. When I started standing up to them, they didn’t know what to say. They have no large strong military power to defend themselves, they depend on the Americans.

    It isn’t where they are born trokt, it is what they VERBALIZE straight to our faces, both in their country and ours – I would feel the same way if those from other countries did the same thing.

    You don’t need to excuse the behavior, I’ve witnessed it too often, my respect level is ZERO!

  • trotk

    tODD, the only problem with using tautology is the meaning it carries in formal logic. It refers to a proposition that must be true because it is divided into parts that are the only alternatives (either the sun is out or it is not).

    Thus, Mr. Tautology means Mr. Redundant (casually) or Mr. Always Correct (in logic).

  • trotk

    tODD, the only problem with using tautology is the meaning it carries in formal logic. It refers to a proposition that must be true because it is divided into parts that are the only alternatives (either the sun is out or it is not).

    Thus, Mr. Tautology means Mr. Redundant (casually) or Mr. Always Correct (in logic).

  • trotk

    Grace (@69), once again, you are showing that you judge them all because of their nationality. Now, you justify by saying that all Canadians act like this, but you response is just as bad as Peter’s, because you assume you know their thoughts.
    You have had dealings with what percentage of Canadians?

    Even if 100% of Canadians viewed America in a way that made you angry, that doesn’t have anything to do with whether they are correct or not. Only rational arguments, not anger at a whole country’s population, could settle that.

    Grace, everything you say reveals that you have judged them already.

    I would challenge you to understand that the feeling of criticism towards America exists in Canada (and it does, to a degree) because of a legitimate frustration with America’s actions.

  • trotk

    Grace (@69), once again, you are showing that you judge them all because of their nationality. Now, you justify by saying that all Canadians act like this, but you response is just as bad as Peter’s, because you assume you know their thoughts.
    You have had dealings with what percentage of Canadians?

    Even if 100% of Canadians viewed America in a way that made you angry, that doesn’t have anything to do with whether they are correct or not. Only rational arguments, not anger at a whole country’s population, could settle that.

    Grace, everything you say reveals that you have judged them already.

    I would challenge you to understand that the feeling of criticism towards America exists in Canada (and it does, to a degree) because of a legitimate frustration with America’s actions.

  • Grace

    trokt – 66

    “Your interchange with Porcell reminded Grace of this demon, and excited to share her knowledge, she spit of the phrase, “Envy is an ugly demon – “, but forgot to finish the statement, which should have read ” – he waits outside the door of Peter’s college every day, but no one will teach him Latin. Perhaps you will, tODD?”

    trokt – that is simply ignorant, …… I said what I wanted to say, WITHOUT your adding one word – my comment still stands, as I wrote it.

    ENVY is a problem for many, it sticks out like a snake without teeth!

  • Grace

    trokt – 66

    “Your interchange with Porcell reminded Grace of this demon, and excited to share her knowledge, she spit of the phrase, “Envy is an ugly demon – “, but forgot to finish the statement, which should have read ” – he waits outside the door of Peter’s college every day, but no one will teach him Latin. Perhaps you will, tODD?”

    trokt – that is simply ignorant, …… I said what I wanted to say, WITHOUT your adding one word – my comment still stands, as I wrote it.

    ENVY is a problem for many, it sticks out like a snake without teeth!

  • Grace

    trokt -

    Let’s face it, we don’t and won’t agree – Time to move on!

  • Grace

    trokt -

    Let’s face it, we don’t and won’t agree – Time to move on!

  • trotk

    True, Grace, we don’t agree. But some day I would like to persuade you to see people from other cultures as individuals. You look at Hispanic immigrants, and assume the worst, just as you look at Canadians, and assume the worst.

    Why? Why not take them individually, not assuming that they are the one responsible for whatever action or belief the culture as a whole might seem to portray that angers you?

  • trotk

    True, Grace, we don’t agree. But some day I would like to persuade you to see people from other cultures as individuals. You look at Hispanic immigrants, and assume the worst, just as you look at Canadians, and assume the worst.

    Why? Why not take them individually, not assuming that they are the one responsible for whatever action or belief the culture as a whole might seem to portray that angers you?

  • Grace

    Post – 72

    “ENVY is a problem for many, it sticks out like a snake without teeth!”

    That really isn’t the whole story. “ENVY” when in full bloom, hurts the one who suffers from the sin. It’s teeth are razor sharp, in the end, it is they who suffer the wound.

  • Grace

    Post – 72

    “ENVY is a problem for many, it sticks out like a snake without teeth!”

    That really isn’t the whole story. “ENVY” when in full bloom, hurts the one who suffers from the sin. It’s teeth are razor sharp, in the end, it is they who suffer the wound.

  • trotk

    Grace, in case you missed it, I was joking at 66, merely because your original comment didn’t make sense, and when tODD asked what you meant, you lashed out and then told him to look inside himself.

  • trotk

    Grace, in case you missed it, I was joking at 66, merely because your original comment didn’t make sense, and when tODD asked what you meant, you lashed out and then told him to look inside himself.

  • Grace

    trokt

    I don’t have respect for illegal aliens –

    Those below the southern border, who wait their turn according to the laws of the United States are a much different people –

    I have no respect for anyone who slams the U.S. especially when it involves 9-11 and the courage President Bush displayed in its aftermath.

    Those who live above our northern border, who have respect for the U.S. and are not so dimwitted to think we are to blame for 9-11 are, our friends -

  • Grace

    trokt

    I don’t have respect for illegal aliens –

    Those below the southern border, who wait their turn according to the laws of the United States are a much different people –

    I have no respect for anyone who slams the U.S. especially when it involves 9-11 and the courage President Bush displayed in its aftermath.

    Those who live above our northern border, who have respect for the U.S. and are not so dimwitted to think we are to blame for 9-11 are, our friends -

  • Grace

    trokt – 76 Your excuse stinks!

    My post made sense, you just didn’t like it — you don’t get a free pass for that faux pas -

  • Grace

    trokt – 76 Your excuse stinks!

    My post made sense, you just didn’t like it — you don’t get a free pass for that faux pas -

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Trotk (@70), as the word “tautology” has currency outside of formal logic, I don’t feel bound by its particular meaning within that system. I may have been sloppy when I used the word, but the notion of “repetitive” (or “saying the same thing”) was more or less what I was aiming for, as Peter defended his earlier claim of Louis’ ethnicity being “relevant” to the argument by concluding that it was, in fact, “perfectly relevant”. Pretty repetitive, wouldn’t you say? And completely failing to address why it was relevant.

    I suppose I would have been better off labeling it “circular reasoning”, though? I don’t know. I only play at logic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Trotk (@70), as the word “tautology” has currency outside of formal logic, I don’t feel bound by its particular meaning within that system. I may have been sloppy when I used the word, but the notion of “repetitive” (or “saying the same thing”) was more or less what I was aiming for, as Peter defended his earlier claim of Louis’ ethnicity being “relevant” to the argument by concluding that it was, in fact, “perfectly relevant”. Pretty repetitive, wouldn’t you say? And completely failing to address why it was relevant.

    I suppose I would have been better off labeling it “circular reasoning”, though? I don’t know. I only play at logic.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@68), I will let you in on a secret. When you tell me you “couldn’t care less what you post”, and yet bother to write a reply to me — quoting me extensively, no less — and then go on to make later references to our conversation when talking to someone else, well … you actually could care less. You could, for example, care so little that you don’t reply to me. You could care so little about what I think that you don’t even bother to fling accusations at me. But you do care, Grace. Because you reply. And you accuse.

    It would however, apparently be accurate for you to say that you don’t care enough to explain what you mean or back up your accusations. I don’t know why that’s true, but it’s what I have to conclude.

    I honestly — honestly — don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to “envy”. Of course, there’s a strong chance you won’t believe me, since you apparently are in the habit of telling people what they think or know (“My post made sense, you just didn’t like it” @78) — not that that’s very charitable of you.

    I’m pretty sure Trotk was being serious when he said (@76) that your “envy” comment didn’t make sense — I agree with him. I don’t know why you’d prefer to think that people are somehow out to get you rather than merely trying to understand what you’re saying. Do you think you’re incapable of writing unclear statements?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@68), I will let you in on a secret. When you tell me you “couldn’t care less what you post”, and yet bother to write a reply to me — quoting me extensively, no less — and then go on to make later references to our conversation when talking to someone else, well … you actually could care less. You could, for example, care so little that you don’t reply to me. You could care so little about what I think that you don’t even bother to fling accusations at me. But you do care, Grace. Because you reply. And you accuse.

    It would however, apparently be accurate for you to say that you don’t care enough to explain what you mean or back up your accusations. I don’t know why that’s true, but it’s what I have to conclude.

    I honestly — honestly — don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to “envy”. Of course, there’s a strong chance you won’t believe me, since you apparently are in the habit of telling people what they think or know (“My post made sense, you just didn’t like it” @78) — not that that’s very charitable of you.

    I’m pretty sure Trotk was being serious when he said (@76) that your “envy” comment didn’t make sense — I agree with him. I don’t know why you’d prefer to think that people are somehow out to get you rather than merely trying to understand what you’re saying. Do you think you’re incapable of writing unclear statements?

  • Tom Hering

    “They have no large strong military power to defend themselves, they depend on the Americans.” – @ 69.

    What enemy do we Americans defend the Canadians against? Who in the world wants to destroy them? The only attempts to conquer Canada have been … ours. From the Invasion of Canada in 1775 to the invasions of Canada in the War of 1812 – plus all the incursions in between. (An invasion of Canada was also included in American war planning from 1867 to 1939.) I imagine Canadians are more aware of this history than we Americans are.

  • Tom Hering

    “They have no large strong military power to defend themselves, they depend on the Americans.” – @ 69.

    What enemy do we Americans defend the Canadians against? Who in the world wants to destroy them? The only attempts to conquer Canada have been … ours. From the Invasion of Canada in 1775 to the invasions of Canada in the War of 1812 – plus all the incursions in between. (An invasion of Canada was also included in American war planning from 1867 to 1939.) I imagine Canadians are more aware of this history than we Americans are.

  • SKPeterson

    54-40 or Fight!

  • SKPeterson

    54-40 or Fight!

  • Porcell

    Todd:

    27: …’m not sure a whole lot of good is going to come from this discussion, poisoned as it now has been by Porcell’s nationalist BS.

    31: … But do keep in mind that, if you left, there would only be proportionally more of Peter’s nationalist, reductionist bile left to fill these discussions.

    39: …Criminy! I expect that sort of crap in places where they cherish racism, not in the United States.

    I’m glad to admit that on occasion I throw some sharp elbows in the heat of debate, though for one who claims to be interested solely in rational argument, the comments above indicate that you are prone to engage in rather nasty polemic.

    At 14 I made a careful, analytical argument regarding the topic of this thread to which you didn’t come anywhere near a rational response. In general on this blog, you have appointed yourself as the critic of conservative argument; sometimes you engage in serious analysis; often you engage with arrogant snark.

  • Porcell

    Todd:

    27: …’m not sure a whole lot of good is going to come from this discussion, poisoned as it now has been by Porcell’s nationalist BS.

    31: … But do keep in mind that, if you left, there would only be proportionally more of Peter’s nationalist, reductionist bile left to fill these discussions.

    39: …Criminy! I expect that sort of crap in places where they cherish racism, not in the United States.

    I’m glad to admit that on occasion I throw some sharp elbows in the heat of debate, though for one who claims to be interested solely in rational argument, the comments above indicate that you are prone to engage in rather nasty polemic.

    At 14 I made a careful, analytical argument regarding the topic of this thread to which you didn’t come anywhere near a rational response. In general on this blog, you have appointed yourself as the critic of conservative argument; sometimes you engage in serious analysis; often you engage with arrogant snark.

  • Tom Hering

    SK @ 82, “Just who is James K. Polk?”

  • Tom Hering

    SK @ 82, “Just who is James K. Polk?”

  • SKPeterson

    Just think – if it had worked, Louis would be living in the U.S.!

  • SKPeterson

    Just think – if it had worked, Louis would be living in the U.S.!

  • trotk

    Porcell, we know you made an argument at 14. That much has been acknowledged. What sparked the small firestorm that followed is that you responded to Louis’ denial of one of your points not with a demand for evidence or argumentation, but instead with a comment about his ethnicity. No one is denying that you made an argument at 14. No one is denying that Louis offered no evidence (although, interestingly enough, you ignored the observational evidence I offered at 22). The only point of contention since then with you has been your attack based on birthplace, ethnicity, and current residence.

    Interestingly, and this is of monumental importance to you, You attacked Louis.
    tODD, on the other hand, attacked your statements.

    There is a mammoth difference between mocking or deriding your opponent and mocking or deriding their statements. Neither are necessarily polite, but it is necessary to belittle someone’s statements at times (when they are unkind or utterly foolish and the speaker won’t acknowledge them as such). It is never necessary to belittle your opponent.

  • trotk

    Porcell, we know you made an argument at 14. That much has been acknowledged. What sparked the small firestorm that followed is that you responded to Louis’ denial of one of your points not with a demand for evidence or argumentation, but instead with a comment about his ethnicity. No one is denying that you made an argument at 14. No one is denying that Louis offered no evidence (although, interestingly enough, you ignored the observational evidence I offered at 22). The only point of contention since then with you has been your attack based on birthplace, ethnicity, and current residence.

    Interestingly, and this is of monumental importance to you, You attacked Louis.
    tODD, on the other hand, attacked your statements.

    There is a mammoth difference between mocking or deriding your opponent and mocking or deriding their statements. Neither are necessarily polite, but it is necessary to belittle someone’s statements at times (when they are unkind or utterly foolish and the speaker won’t acknowledge them as such). It is never necessary to belittle your opponent.

  • Porcell

    Trotk, the sort of nasty polemic that Todd routinely makes regarding my comments shades into personal attack. In this case at any rate yours is a distinction without a difference.

  • Porcell

    Trotk, the sort of nasty polemic that Todd routinely makes regarding my comments shades into personal attack. In this case at any rate yours is a distinction without a difference.

  • Grace

    Tom – 81

    “What enemy do we Americans defend the Canadians against? “

    None at the moment. But if the time came that Canadians needed to defend themselves, they do not have a military strong enough – they depend on the Americans – … in fact, they will admit it on occasion.

  • Grace

    Tom – 81

    “What enemy do we Americans defend the Canadians against? “

    None at the moment. But if the time came that Canadians needed to defend themselves, they do not have a military strong enough – they depend on the Americans – … in fact, they will admit it on occasion.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Good grief, you guys. You are going too far. Louis, please don’t leave. Porcell, please don’t make my readers want to leave. tODD and Grace, you were agreeing at one point, but now you are fighting with each other again.

    Just settle down. Stop calling each other names. Do you want me to stop this car? I’m coming back there! (Oh, sorry. I flashed back to road trips with my kids.)

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Good grief, you guys. You are going too far. Louis, please don’t leave. Porcell, please don’t make my readers want to leave. tODD and Grace, you were agreeing at one point, but now you are fighting with each other again.

    Just settle down. Stop calling each other names. Do you want me to stop this car? I’m coming back there! (Oh, sorry. I flashed back to road trips with my kids.)

  • Porcell

    Dr. Veith, just how is it “calling names” when one responding to Louis’s snarky and unexplained post criticizing of Bush’s “failed” war against Iraq at 15 points out the true background of the poster, namely that he is an expatriate European South African presently living in Canada. In earlier threads Louis accused me of being a racist along with being a nefarious graduate of a certain college. At that time, nothing was said of calling anyone names.

    I’m afraid that on this blog blunt speaking conservatives including Carl Vehse and me are excoriated in the name of political correctness.

  • Porcell

    Dr. Veith, just how is it “calling names” when one responding to Louis’s snarky and unexplained post criticizing of Bush’s “failed” war against Iraq at 15 points out the true background of the poster, namely that he is an expatriate European South African presently living in Canada. In earlier threads Louis accused me of being a racist along with being a nefarious graduate of a certain college. At that time, nothing was said of calling anyone names.

    I’m afraid that on this blog blunt speaking conservatives including Carl Vehse and me are excoriated in the name of political correctness.

  • Grace

    Dr. Veith,

    Adults disagree – your attempt to compare some of us to children in the back seat of a car as a joke, wasn’t respectful, whether or not you agree with any of us. I believe you can state your displeasure without the parent, child routine.

    As for tODD, and several others…..it’s enough – I tried over a week ago to smooth it over, not just with him but several other individuals. It didn’t take long for the ‘bridge’ to be shot down – - quarreling, asking the same question 15 different ways, and demanding more answers, it’s time consuming, and serves no purpose. There is no reason to continue having a conversation with anyone, when the outcome is most always the same – disagreeable –

    In Porcell’s defense, he didn’t cause anyone to leave, that is a choice anyone can make. There have often been insults (personal attacks) hurled at Porcell regarding his excellent education, many times he posts nothing in return, leaving those who harass to continue their attack, perhaps in hopes Porcell will give them the argument they yearn for. He leaves them in the dust to suffer their uncalled for behavior.

    My post #36 to Porcell still stands, however as I pointed out I have little regard for those who chastise my country based on the Iraq war, pretending they have no knowledge of what the vast amount of Canadians think of our great country. After all the comments made by those in Canada as reported IN THE NEWSPAPERS for all to see, it was disgusting – I’ve listened to their hum drum complaints both here and north of our border regarding the United States.

  • Grace

    Dr. Veith,

    Adults disagree – your attempt to compare some of us to children in the back seat of a car as a joke, wasn’t respectful, whether or not you agree with any of us. I believe you can state your displeasure without the parent, child routine.

    As for tODD, and several others…..it’s enough – I tried over a week ago to smooth it over, not just with him but several other individuals. It didn’t take long for the ‘bridge’ to be shot down – - quarreling, asking the same question 15 different ways, and demanding more answers, it’s time consuming, and serves no purpose. There is no reason to continue having a conversation with anyone, when the outcome is most always the same – disagreeable –

    In Porcell’s defense, he didn’t cause anyone to leave, that is a choice anyone can make. There have often been insults (personal attacks) hurled at Porcell regarding his excellent education, many times he posts nothing in return, leaving those who harass to continue their attack, perhaps in hopes Porcell will give them the argument they yearn for. He leaves them in the dust to suffer their uncalled for behavior.

    My post #36 to Porcell still stands, however as I pointed out I have little regard for those who chastise my country based on the Iraq war, pretending they have no knowledge of what the vast amount of Canadians think of our great country. After all the comments made by those in Canada as reported IN THE NEWSPAPERS for all to see, it was disgusting – I’ve listened to their hum drum complaints both here and north of our border regarding the United States.

  • Porcell

    Thanks, Grace; I should have added your name to that of Carl Veith. What happens on this blog is that you are often vilified, ipso facto, due to your views that clash with the establishment on this blog.

  • Porcell

    Thanks, Grace; I should have added your name to that of Carl Veith. What happens on this blog is that you are often vilified, ipso facto, due to your views that clash with the establishment on this blog.

  • Tom Hering

    Whose views don’t clash with at least one other person on this blog? So who’s this “establishment” and what’s the establishment view? Is it “political correctness” as you complained @ 90? Don’t make me laugh. The majority of Cranach commenters are conservative, and blunt. Which is exactly why a liberal like me enjoys this blog – because challenging and being challenged by opposing views is more interesting than an echo chamber. You might try this approach yourself sometime.

  • Tom Hering

    Whose views don’t clash with at least one other person on this blog? So who’s this “establishment” and what’s the establishment view? Is it “political correctness” as you complained @ 90? Don’t make me laugh. The majority of Cranach commenters are conservative, and blunt. Which is exactly why a liberal like me enjoys this blog – because challenging and being challenged by opposing views is more interesting than an echo chamber. You might try this approach yourself sometime.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    criminy.

    Love is the fulfillment of the Law. Love. It is more important to be kind than to be right is what this means. It is better to be righteous in love than to be self-righteous.

    God wants us to love each other (mercy) rather than our obedience to some metric (sacrifice). This is hard to do. I know. I cant do it. And I die trying.

    We all know what it looks like to suck up to people and brown nose and make nice when we want something from someone really badly or we know that they have some real power over us (like a boss or a judge). Do that here. That is what God wants. especially when we disagree.

    The behavior we manifest in those situations is what God demands of us here. And yes, I am a poster child at times for how NOT to do this love thing. I am more guilty of this than any of you are. So don’t ignore what I am saying just because I am the pot calling the kettle black.

    Veith wasnt trying to belittle us with his children in car analogy, he was trying to be funny and loving and kind rather than lecture as I am doing now. Isn’t his approach better than mine? Laugh for petes sake…

    No one here is reaching this standard of Love.

    Before you hit that send button. think if the other person is going to feel the love and respect they deserve just because God tells you they deserve all that because HE loves and likes them enough to die for them.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    criminy.

    Love is the fulfillment of the Law. Love. It is more important to be kind than to be right is what this means. It is better to be righteous in love than to be self-righteous.

    God wants us to love each other (mercy) rather than our obedience to some metric (sacrifice). This is hard to do. I know. I cant do it. And I die trying.

    We all know what it looks like to suck up to people and brown nose and make nice when we want something from someone really badly or we know that they have some real power over us (like a boss or a judge). Do that here. That is what God wants. especially when we disagree.

    The behavior we manifest in those situations is what God demands of us here. And yes, I am a poster child at times for how NOT to do this love thing. I am more guilty of this than any of you are. So don’t ignore what I am saying just because I am the pot calling the kettle black.

    Veith wasnt trying to belittle us with his children in car analogy, he was trying to be funny and loving and kind rather than lecture as I am doing now. Isn’t his approach better than mine? Laugh for petes sake…

    No one here is reaching this standard of Love.

    Before you hit that send button. think if the other person is going to feel the love and respect they deserve just because God tells you they deserve all that because HE loves and likes them enough to die for them.

  • Tom Hering

    Sometimes, you’ve gotta be cruel to be kind – in the right measure. ;-)

  • Tom Hering

    Sometimes, you’ve gotta be cruel to be kind – in the right measure. ;-)

  • Porcell

    Tom, I wasn’t speaking of the political side, rather of the religious side. For understandable reasons the blog is dominated by Lutherans who, when it comes to evangelical Reformed theology, have little patience for it. In Grace’s case people rarely listen closely to her views, which, though I don’t agree with all of them, I find thoughtful and interesting. I’ve learned from her.

  • Porcell

    Tom, I wasn’t speaking of the political side, rather of the religious side. For understandable reasons the blog is dominated by Lutherans who, when it comes to evangelical Reformed theology, have little patience for it. In Grace’s case people rarely listen closely to her views, which, though I don’t agree with all of them, I find thoughtful and interesting. I’ve learned from her.

  • Grace

    “Veith wasnt trying to belittle us with his children in car analogy, he was trying to be funny and loving and kind rather than lecture as I am doing now. Isn’t his approach better than mine? Laugh for petes sake…”

    You might have thought it funny, I did not – as for you, it’s not relevant to make ‘love’ lectures because you can always fall back on ‘love’ no matter what you post.

    “We all know what it looks like to suck up to people and brown nose”

    This appears all too often as a ‘reality show’ …… a group interested in competing for the top rather than contributing…. ARGUING for the sake of argument, or making remarks that might be read as love, but are goody two shoes for effect?

    “Sometimes, you’ve gotta be cruel to be kind – in the right measure.”

    Your utterance above is used all too often, and not to your advantage. Cruelty serves no purpose except to inflict pain and suffering – which, as I have observed says more about you, than the subject at hand. There is no benefit in cruel remarks.

  • Grace

    “Veith wasnt trying to belittle us with his children in car analogy, he was trying to be funny and loving and kind rather than lecture as I am doing now. Isn’t his approach better than mine? Laugh for petes sake…”

    You might have thought it funny, I did not – as for you, it’s not relevant to make ‘love’ lectures because you can always fall back on ‘love’ no matter what you post.

    “We all know what it looks like to suck up to people and brown nose”

    This appears all too often as a ‘reality show’ …… a group interested in competing for the top rather than contributing…. ARGUING for the sake of argument, or making remarks that might be read as love, but are goody two shoes for effect?

    “Sometimes, you’ve gotta be cruel to be kind – in the right measure.”

    Your utterance above is used all too often, and not to your advantage. Cruelty serves no purpose except to inflict pain and suffering – which, as I have observed says more about you, than the subject at hand. There is no benefit in cruel remarks.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @96

    both you and grace were raised to believe that righteousness is measuring up to some metric that is about obedience to God.

    You are both sweet persons full of love and sensitive and kind and engaged in a way that is masked at times by thinking that the Law of God is a reflection of his nature and thinking. I am glad you are both here. And believe it or not peter, I deeply admire you. Your life has been about service to others . both to your country and to your large family. You have made the lives of others happier with your generous service. Now THAT is righteousness! I do wish, dear brother, that you could feel that God not only passionately loves you, but he likes you, even for your flaws which you, as a sincere man, know all too well.

    The reflection of Gods nature and will is found in the Blessed Incarnation. that is where it is made fully manifest. Not in the Law. And there is where your Jesus became your sin, and your unfaithfulness and whatever you have done that comes up short. which is amazing, because I suspect that people who know Peter do not think he ever comes up short. I am sure that they, like me, feel you are a role model for virtue. But I know you trust in that Jesus dead for you Peter. I like Nietzche too. it is because he trusted in Jesus even though he had no faith. and he knew it!

    So that God that is like the stern father then that we are always trying to please and make smile upon us. This is a painful way to live. and that God needs to die exactly as nietzche says.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @96

    both you and grace were raised to believe that righteousness is measuring up to some metric that is about obedience to God.

    You are both sweet persons full of love and sensitive and kind and engaged in a way that is masked at times by thinking that the Law of God is a reflection of his nature and thinking. I am glad you are both here. And believe it or not peter, I deeply admire you. Your life has been about service to others . both to your country and to your large family. You have made the lives of others happier with your generous service. Now THAT is righteousness! I do wish, dear brother, that you could feel that God not only passionately loves you, but he likes you, even for your flaws which you, as a sincere man, know all too well.

    The reflection of Gods nature and will is found in the Blessed Incarnation. that is where it is made fully manifest. Not in the Law. And there is where your Jesus became your sin, and your unfaithfulness and whatever you have done that comes up short. which is amazing, because I suspect that people who know Peter do not think he ever comes up short. I am sure that they, like me, feel you are a role model for virtue. But I know you trust in that Jesus dead for you Peter. I like Nietzche too. it is because he trusted in Jesus even though he had no faith. and he knew it!

    So that God that is like the stern father then that we are always trying to please and make smile upon us. This is a painful way to live. and that God needs to die exactly as nietzche says.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 97

    where is that nice grace that I am getting to know. the one who prays for me and knows about food.

    go find her. I need her here.
    :) )

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 97

    where is that nice grace that I am getting to know. the one who prays for me and knows about food.

    go find her. I need her here.
    :) )

  • Grace

    fws – 98 – 99

    “both you and grace were raised to believe that righteousness is measuring up to some metric that is about obedience to God.”

    The person you know is the same individual, the problem you’re having is not understanding that you believe it your duty to give a report card, as you did to Porcell, believing you know more about how he was raised, how he believes and why, than he does.

    Yes fws, we are to be “obedient” – the Word of God tells us so:

    13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

    14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

    15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

    16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

    17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

    18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

    19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

    20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

    21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
    1 Peter 1

    Praying for you I can do – the food that will nourish the soul cannot be found on a plate, but in the Word of God – and yes we are to be obedient. God is not mocked -

  • Grace

    fws – 98 – 99

    “both you and grace were raised to believe that righteousness is measuring up to some metric that is about obedience to God.”

    The person you know is the same individual, the problem you’re having is not understanding that you believe it your duty to give a report card, as you did to Porcell, believing you know more about how he was raised, how he believes and why, than he does.

    Yes fws, we are to be “obedient” – the Word of God tells us so:

    13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

    14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

    15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

    16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

    17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:

    18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

    19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

    20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

    21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
    1 Peter 1

    Praying for you I can do – the food that will nourish the soul cannot be found on a plate, but in the Word of God – and yes we are to be obedient. God is not mocked -

  • Grace

    fws – 98

    “But I know you trust in that Jesus dead for you Peter. I like Nietzche too. it is because he trusted in Jesus even though he had no faith. and he knew it!”blockquote>

    fws – Nietzche was an atheist – he had no faith in God -

    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Ephesians 2:8

    “I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”
    Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Grace

    fws – 98

    “But I know you trust in that Jesus dead for you Peter. I like Nietzche too. it is because he trusted in Jesus even though he had no faith. and he knew it!”blockquote>

    fws – Nietzche was an atheist – he had no faith in God -

    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Ephesians 2:8

    “I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”
    Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Tom Hering

    Porcell @ 96, I think it’s that we have little agreement with Evangelical theology – not so much that we have little patience for it. After all, we do ask questions – repeatedly over the course of days – in an effort to understand (A.) why another Christian would hold such views and (B.) how they defend them. Of course, our patience doesn’t go unpunished.

    Grace @ 97, my friendly teasing of Frank @ 95 had nothing to do with you. Really.

  • Tom Hering

    Porcell @ 96, I think it’s that we have little agreement with Evangelical theology – not so much that we have little patience for it. After all, we do ask questions – repeatedly over the course of days – in an effort to understand (A.) why another Christian would hold such views and (B.) how they defend them. Of course, our patience doesn’t go unpunished.

    Grace @ 97, my friendly teasing of Frank @ 95 had nothing to do with you. Really.

  • Grace

    Tom “Grace @ 97, my friendly teasing of Frank @ 95 had nothing to do with you. Really.”

    Whether it did or not, ….. it needed to be addressed, and that is exactly what I did. You might try addressing comments to posters – it isn’t clever to write a flaming comment, and then change the game plan.

  • Grace

    Tom “Grace @ 97, my friendly teasing of Frank @ 95 had nothing to do with you. Really.”

    Whether it did or not, ….. it needed to be addressed, and that is exactly what I did. You might try addressing comments to posters – it isn’t clever to write a flaming comment, and then change the game plan.

  • Porcell

    FWS at 98:The reflection of Gods nature and will is found in the Blessed Incarnation. that is where it is made fully manifest. Not in the Law.

    Thank you very much for the kind words at 98. Though we have our differences, I am coming more and more to understand and appreciate you. I wish I could be as irenic as you, though my college football, competitive business, and Marine background militate against this.

    I fully understand the centrality of Christ’s incarnation and the Cross along with the resurrection that provides truly faithful Christians forgiveness for their manifold sins.

    However, it is through the moral Law, understood biblically and to some extent rationally, that we learn the specifics of sin. Those who diminish the Law and over-emphasize their justification run the risk of becoming antinomians. While Luther understood this to some degree, in my view Calvin understood it better. That’s why the Pilgrims and Puritans who founded this country attempted, as John Winthrop remarked, to build a city on a hill with strict laws, using Calvin’s Geneva as a model.

    As to Nietzsche, Grace has him well pegged.

  • Porcell

    FWS at 98:The reflection of Gods nature and will is found in the Blessed Incarnation. that is where it is made fully manifest. Not in the Law.

    Thank you very much for the kind words at 98. Though we have our differences, I am coming more and more to understand and appreciate you. I wish I could be as irenic as you, though my college football, competitive business, and Marine background militate against this.

    I fully understand the centrality of Christ’s incarnation and the Cross along with the resurrection that provides truly faithful Christians forgiveness for their manifold sins.

    However, it is through the moral Law, understood biblically and to some extent rationally, that we learn the specifics of sin. Those who diminish the Law and over-emphasize their justification run the risk of becoming antinomians. While Luther understood this to some degree, in my view Calvin understood it better. That’s why the Pilgrims and Puritans who founded this country attempted, as John Winthrop remarked, to build a city on a hill with strict laws, using Calvin’s Geneva as a model.

    As to Nietzsche, Grace has him well pegged.

  • SKPeterson

    Porcell @96 and Tom @102 – Lutherans have a lot in common with Reformed Calvinists, which is why I was giving a little jab at Louis. We agree on very much, only differing on double predestination and the nature of the Eucharist. Once the Reformed realize the total depravity of their way of thinking, they’ll come over to being Lutherans, excuse me, Evangelical Catholics. Hopefully we aren’t too harsh on the non-Lutherans here; I don’t believe the purpose of Cranach is to belittle those of other denominations. As to politics, we have probably 3 or 4 semi-distinct political positions on display here. As an incorrigible, inveterate non-interventionist, I occupy one side, along with maybe Cincinnatus. So, in many cases I will disagree with Porcell or with DonS and be aligned with Tom of even, dare I say it, tODD, or even worse, fws. ;) In many other cases, I will be in almost complete agreement with them agin them thar commoonists.

    Grace has obvious theological axes to grind, and I, for one, am happy to let her grind away. That is perfectly fine for a blog that does discuss theological issues and their relationship to culture.

    So, in the spirit of Advent, let’s call a truce. Porcell, Grace, tODD, Tom, Louis, fws, DonS, the Veith brothers, sg, collie, SAL, and all the rest I’m painfully leaving out, raise a toast to the Coming of the Newborn King and have a merry Christmas. My best wishes to you all.

  • SKPeterson

    Porcell @96 and Tom @102 – Lutherans have a lot in common with Reformed Calvinists, which is why I was giving a little jab at Louis. We agree on very much, only differing on double predestination and the nature of the Eucharist. Once the Reformed realize the total depravity of their way of thinking, they’ll come over to being Lutherans, excuse me, Evangelical Catholics. Hopefully we aren’t too harsh on the non-Lutherans here; I don’t believe the purpose of Cranach is to belittle those of other denominations. As to politics, we have probably 3 or 4 semi-distinct political positions on display here. As an incorrigible, inveterate non-interventionist, I occupy one side, along with maybe Cincinnatus. So, in many cases I will disagree with Porcell or with DonS and be aligned with Tom of even, dare I say it, tODD, or even worse, fws. ;) In many other cases, I will be in almost complete agreement with them agin them thar commoonists.

    Grace has obvious theological axes to grind, and I, for one, am happy to let her grind away. That is perfectly fine for a blog that does discuss theological issues and their relationship to culture.

    So, in the spirit of Advent, let’s call a truce. Porcell, Grace, tODD, Tom, Louis, fws, DonS, the Veith brothers, sg, collie, SAL, and all the rest I’m painfully leaving out, raise a toast to the Coming of the Newborn King and have a merry Christmas. My best wishes to you all.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, and say a little prayer for our Iraqi brothers and sisters in Christ who are facing trials and tribulations this Christmas.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, and say a little prayer for our Iraqi brothers and sisters in Christ who are facing trials and tribulations this Christmas.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson – 105

    “Grace has obvious theological axes to grind, and I, for one, am happy to let her grind away. That is perfectly fine for a blog that does discuss theological issues and their relationship to culture.”

    No axe to grind – only agreeing when doctrine is true, and if it’s false I speak up. That isn’t an axe to grind, what it is should be easily understood, rather than using a slang term that most certainly doesn’t define my purpose, but appears you thought it smart to throw it my way.

    SK, you may not know the meaning of the phrase “axe to grind” – the definition below might help you in the future to accurately use it next time:

    “Have a dispute to take up with someone or, to have an ulterior motive to have private ends to serve.”

    No one knows whether it was Benjamin Franklin or Charles Miner who coined the phrase, it really doesn’t matter, the definition most certainly does.

    “So, in the spirit of Advent, let’s call a truce. Porcell, Grace, tODD, Tom, Louis, fws, DonS, the Veith brothers, sg, collie, SAL, and all the rest I’m painfully leaving out, raise a toast to the Coming of the Newborn King and have a merry Christmas. My best wishes to you all.”

    I cannot think of such a time as two weeks before Christmas to lay aside what the Bible says, or doctrinal issues, we can all have a “truce” – I want as much as anyone to find agreement, but when it comes to God’s Word there will always be dissenters, for whatever reason, and those who’s doctrine is contrary to Scripture – a true Believer would never stand by and let that take a free pass.

    You see SKPeterson, your paragraph above regarding me, laid a gauntlet out on the road, but then you wanted to call a “truce” which would mean I would have no recourse but to abide by your so called “truce” – Certainly you know better!

  • Grace

    SKPeterson – 105

    “Grace has obvious theological axes to grind, and I, for one, am happy to let her grind away. That is perfectly fine for a blog that does discuss theological issues and their relationship to culture.”

    No axe to grind – only agreeing when doctrine is true, and if it’s false I speak up. That isn’t an axe to grind, what it is should be easily understood, rather than using a slang term that most certainly doesn’t define my purpose, but appears you thought it smart to throw it my way.

    SK, you may not know the meaning of the phrase “axe to grind” – the definition below might help you in the future to accurately use it next time:

    “Have a dispute to take up with someone or, to have an ulterior motive to have private ends to serve.”

    No one knows whether it was Benjamin Franklin or Charles Miner who coined the phrase, it really doesn’t matter, the definition most certainly does.

    “So, in the spirit of Advent, let’s call a truce. Porcell, Grace, tODD, Tom, Louis, fws, DonS, the Veith brothers, sg, collie, SAL, and all the rest I’m painfully leaving out, raise a toast to the Coming of the Newborn King and have a merry Christmas. My best wishes to you all.”

    I cannot think of such a time as two weeks before Christmas to lay aside what the Bible says, or doctrinal issues, we can all have a “truce” – I want as much as anyone to find agreement, but when it comes to God’s Word there will always be dissenters, for whatever reason, and those who’s doctrine is contrary to Scripture – a true Believer would never stand by and let that take a free pass.

    You see SKPeterson, your paragraph above regarding me, laid a gauntlet out on the road, but then you wanted to call a “truce” which would mean I would have no recourse but to abide by your so called “truce” – Certainly you know better!

  • Porcell

    SK, at 105, well said, though I see no problem rigorously debating our differences including throwing an occasional sharp elbow.

  • Porcell

    SK, at 105, well said, though I see no problem rigorously debating our differences including throwing an occasional sharp elbow.

  • SKPeterson

    The truce is only for any personal assaults or offense given. Sharp elbows of disagreement are always to be expected.

    Grace @107 – I used the phrase “axes to grind” in the first sense of meaning “have a dispute to take up with someone.” I read nothing negative in having a dispute – theological disputes, political disputes, or cultural disputes. I merely was calling for a truce on the personal invective. In that same spirit, I shall pick up my gauntlet and offer you my cheek for any offense given.

  • SKPeterson

    The truce is only for any personal assaults or offense given. Sharp elbows of disagreement are always to be expected.

    Grace @107 – I used the phrase “axes to grind” in the first sense of meaning “have a dispute to take up with someone.” I read nothing negative in having a dispute – theological disputes, political disputes, or cultural disputes. I merely was calling for a truce on the personal invective. In that same spirit, I shall pick up my gauntlet and offer you my cheek for any offense given.

  • Tom Hering

    “You might try addressing comments to posters – it isn’t clever to write a flaming comment, and then change the game plan.” – Grace @ 103.

    As my comment immediately followed Frank’s, it was obvious it was addressed to Frank. But if it helps you to feel less persecuted, I’ll be more careful in future.

    “… Lutherans have a lot in common with Reformed Calvinists …” – @ 105.

    SK, Evangelicals and Reformed aren’t the same thing. I was being precise in saying Lutherans have little agreement with Evangelical theology. (Should be plural: theologies.) Nonetheless, I like what you said in the rest of your comment.

  • Tom Hering

    “You might try addressing comments to posters – it isn’t clever to write a flaming comment, and then change the game plan.” – Grace @ 103.

    As my comment immediately followed Frank’s, it was obvious it was addressed to Frank. But if it helps you to feel less persecuted, I’ll be more careful in future.

    “… Lutherans have a lot in common with Reformed Calvinists …” – @ 105.

    SK, Evangelicals and Reformed aren’t the same thing. I was being precise in saying Lutherans have little agreement with Evangelical theology. (Should be plural: theologies.) Nonetheless, I like what you said in the rest of your comment.

  • Grace

    Tom – 110

    ” As my comment immediately followed Frank’s, it was obvious it was addressed to Frank. But if it helps you to feel less persecuted, I’ll be more careful in future.”

    “Obvious” ? – no it wasn’t –

    “Persecuted” isn’t in the mix! – lame excuse , predictable!

  • Grace

    Tom – 110

    ” As my comment immediately followed Frank’s, it was obvious it was addressed to Frank. But if it helps you to feel less persecuted, I’ll be more careful in future.”

    “Obvious” ? – no it wasn’t –

    “Persecuted” isn’t in the mix! – lame excuse , predictable!

  • SKPeterson

    Grace would you classify yourself as Evangelical or of the Reformed variety? Pentecostal? Please don’t say non-denom – that’s the Church of Whatever I Feel Like. But, if you must, gauntlet down.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace would you classify yourself as Evangelical or of the Reformed variety? Pentecostal? Please don’t say non-denom – that’s the Church of Whatever I Feel Like. But, if you must, gauntlet down.

  • Grace

    112 – SKPeterson

    I am Evangelical, affilated with a Calvary Chapel Church.

  • Grace

    112 – SKPeterson

    I am Evangelical, affilated with a Calvary Chapel Church.

  • Porcell

    Way to go Grace, don’t let them pin you down with academic categories. Fight for your position.

  • Porcell

    Way to go Grace, don’t let them pin you down with academic categories. Fight for your position.

  • Tom Hering

    Yes, indeed. Fight for your position, Grace. It’s beyond me, though, how you’re going to do that without answering questions about your position. In other words, if you don’t actually defend your position, you haven’t actually fought for it.

  • Tom Hering

    Yes, indeed. Fight for your position, Grace. It’s beyond me, though, how you’re going to do that without answering questions about your position. In other words, if you don’t actually defend your position, you haven’t actually fought for it.

  • Grace

    Thanks Porcell, excellent advice.

  • Grace

    Thanks Porcell, excellent advice.

  • Porcell

    SK, re. 112, Luther himself and his Reformation was an Evangelical. According to the well documented Wiki article on Lutheranism, Luther himself preferred the name Evangelical as the following states:

    The name “Lutheran” originated as a derogatory term used against Luther by Johann Eck during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519.[4] Eck and other Roman Catholics followed the traditional practice of naming a heresy after its leader, thus labeling all who identified with the theology of Martin Luther as Lutherans.[5] Martin Luther always disliked the term, preferring instead to describe the reform movement with the term “Evangelical,” which was derived from a word meaning “Gospel.”[4] Lutherans themselves began to use the term in the middle of the 16th century in order to identify themselves from other groups, such as Philippists and Calvinists. In 1597, theologians in Wittenberg used the title “Lutheran” to describe the true church based upon the true doctrine of the gospel.[5]

  • Porcell

    SK, re. 112, Luther himself and his Reformation was an Evangelical. According to the well documented Wiki article on Lutheranism, Luther himself preferred the name Evangelical as the following states:

    The name “Lutheran” originated as a derogatory term used against Luther by Johann Eck during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519.[4] Eck and other Roman Catholics followed the traditional practice of naming a heresy after its leader, thus labeling all who identified with the theology of Martin Luther as Lutherans.[5] Martin Luther always disliked the term, preferring instead to describe the reform movement with the term “Evangelical,” which was derived from a word meaning “Gospel.”[4] Lutherans themselves began to use the term in the middle of the 16th century in order to identify themselves from other groups, such as Philippists and Calvinists. In 1597, theologians in Wittenberg used the title “Lutheran” to describe the true church based upon the true doctrine of the gospel.[5]

  • SKPeterson

    Yep. The turns the word “evangelical” has taken, even “fundamentalist.” LCMS Lutherans are evangelical fundamentalists, ELCA (E for ‘evangelical’, no less) not so strong on the fundamentals, but neither body (nor the WELS or ELS) would all into what is commonly meant by the word’s use in modern America. In Germany, the Lutherans are still known as the Evangelicals, hence my earlier reference to Lutherans as Evangelical Catholics as opposed to a Roman variety. Many Lutherans, but not all, feel that “Evangelical Catholic” provides an adequate shorthand summary of who we are, theologically and historically. But, that doesn’t come across very well in a culture with preconceived notions of what ‘catholic’ or ‘evangelical’ mean.

    I ask for categorization, because it helps in making sense of the points one is trying to make, the frame of reference. Lutherans have a particular methodology and approach to doing theology. It is paralleled in many respects by Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Reformed. Also, to a lesser extent by the Orthodox, although some would take exception to my use of the term “lesser.” As one moves away from these “standard” theological methodologies, the points and areas of theological agreement begin to fall away. In some cases, quite quickly.

    Grace, thanks for sharing your membership in Calvary Chapel with me. I’m chuckling at Calvary Chapel declaring itself not to be a denomination, yet having hundreds of congregations scattered across the country supported by a fairly well-defined statement of beliefs. That’s a denomination. Yet, the use of such a term has historical baggage in the U.S. My wife grew up in the Disciples of Christ, a denomination that in the 19th Century strove to do away with the “denomination” label and just be Church. Yet, you have to be able to tell people what you believe and once you start doing that, you find that you’ve determined proper doctrine, even dogma, and created defined theological boundaries – a denomination. My beef with most “non-denominational” churches, not Calvary Chapels in this case, has to do with their avoidance of stating their beliefs. As a result, their theology is often poorly done, their biblical exegesis quickly deteriorates into eisegesis, and it becomes less about what the Bible says and more about how the pastor “feels.”

  • SKPeterson

    Yep. The turns the word “evangelical” has taken, even “fundamentalist.” LCMS Lutherans are evangelical fundamentalists, ELCA (E for ‘evangelical’, no less) not so strong on the fundamentals, but neither body (nor the WELS or ELS) would all into what is commonly meant by the word’s use in modern America. In Germany, the Lutherans are still known as the Evangelicals, hence my earlier reference to Lutherans as Evangelical Catholics as opposed to a Roman variety. Many Lutherans, but not all, feel that “Evangelical Catholic” provides an adequate shorthand summary of who we are, theologically and historically. But, that doesn’t come across very well in a culture with preconceived notions of what ‘catholic’ or ‘evangelical’ mean.

    I ask for categorization, because it helps in making sense of the points one is trying to make, the frame of reference. Lutherans have a particular methodology and approach to doing theology. It is paralleled in many respects by Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Reformed. Also, to a lesser extent by the Orthodox, although some would take exception to my use of the term “lesser.” As one moves away from these “standard” theological methodologies, the points and areas of theological agreement begin to fall away. In some cases, quite quickly.

    Grace, thanks for sharing your membership in Calvary Chapel with me. I’m chuckling at Calvary Chapel declaring itself not to be a denomination, yet having hundreds of congregations scattered across the country supported by a fairly well-defined statement of beliefs. That’s a denomination. Yet, the use of such a term has historical baggage in the U.S. My wife grew up in the Disciples of Christ, a denomination that in the 19th Century strove to do away with the “denomination” label and just be Church. Yet, you have to be able to tell people what you believe and once you start doing that, you find that you’ve determined proper doctrine, even dogma, and created defined theological boundaries – a denomination. My beef with most “non-denominational” churches, not Calvary Chapels in this case, has to do with their avoidance of stating their beliefs. As a result, their theology is often poorly done, their biblical exegesis quickly deteriorates into eisegesis, and it becomes less about what the Bible says and more about how the pastor “feels.”

  • Tom Hering

    Porcell @ 117, true enough. However, the Evangelical Movement (which began in mid-18th century England and became part of mainstream American religion in the mid-20th century) distinguishes itself from both Fundamentalism and the mainline Protestant denominations – including Lutherans.

    Most American Lutheran churches had always called themselves “Evangelical Lutheran.” (You can still see the full name carved above the entrances of older church buildings.) It was only in the mid-20th century that many of these churches dropped the “Evangelical” part, because they didn’t want others (or their own members) confusing Lutheranism with the rising Evangelical Movement. Evangelical churches held to simplistic “statements of faith” that defined Baptism as the believer’s work and the Lord’s Supper as symbolic eating and drinking. (You can see why Evangelicalism is still confused with the Reformed.)

    It’s sad that American Lutherans, who uphold the Gospel nature of Baptism and the Lord’s supper, had to surrender the name “Evangelical” to a movement that denies the Gospel nature of the Sacraments. But there wasn’t much choice, and there’s no going back. Until the Evangelical Movement is superseded by some new movement with a different name. Which is almost certain to happen, as Evangelicals tend to be trendy Christians.

    We can wait to regain what is rightfully ours. :-)

  • Tom Hering

    Porcell @ 117, true enough. However, the Evangelical Movement (which began in mid-18th century England and became part of mainstream American religion in the mid-20th century) distinguishes itself from both Fundamentalism and the mainline Protestant denominations – including Lutherans.

    Most American Lutheran churches had always called themselves “Evangelical Lutheran.” (You can still see the full name carved above the entrances of older church buildings.) It was only in the mid-20th century that many of these churches dropped the “Evangelical” part, because they didn’t want others (or their own members) confusing Lutheranism with the rising Evangelical Movement. Evangelical churches held to simplistic “statements of faith” that defined Baptism as the believer’s work and the Lord’s Supper as symbolic eating and drinking. (You can see why Evangelicalism is still confused with the Reformed.)

    It’s sad that American Lutherans, who uphold the Gospel nature of Baptism and the Lord’s supper, had to surrender the name “Evangelical” to a movement that denies the Gospel nature of the Sacraments. But there wasn’t much choice, and there’s no going back. Until the Evangelical Movement is superseded by some new movement with a different name. Which is almost certain to happen, as Evangelicals tend to be trendy Christians.

    We can wait to regain what is rightfully ours. :-)

  • Grace

    SKPeterson – 119

    “My beef with most “non-denominational” churches, not Calvary Chapels in this case, has to do with their avoidance of stating their beliefs. As a result, their theology is often poorly done, their biblical exegesis quickly deteriorates into eisegesis, and it becomes less about what the Bible says and more about how the pastor “feels.””

    As a pastors daughter I disagree with you. Non-denominational churches are most often more in line with the Bible than others. It isn’t how the “pastor feels” whatsoever, it is what the Bible states. That is why there are in depth Bible studies in these churches, not just Sunday School, and the evening service, but they are held on Wednesday nights as well. Then there is usually a home Bible study that one can go to if they choose. The beliefs of these churches is stated clearly for anyone to read. It is a misconception to think there is no stated beliefs.

    Were you brought up as a Lutheran?

  • Grace

    SKPeterson – 119

    “My beef with most “non-denominational” churches, not Calvary Chapels in this case, has to do with their avoidance of stating their beliefs. As a result, their theology is often poorly done, their biblical exegesis quickly deteriorates into eisegesis, and it becomes less about what the Bible says and more about how the pastor “feels.””

    As a pastors daughter I disagree with you. Non-denominational churches are most often more in line with the Bible than others. It isn’t how the “pastor feels” whatsoever, it is what the Bible states. That is why there are in depth Bible studies in these churches, not just Sunday School, and the evening service, but they are held on Wednesday nights as well. Then there is usually a home Bible study that one can go to if they choose. The beliefs of these churches is stated clearly for anyone to read. It is a misconception to think there is no stated beliefs.

    Were you brought up as a Lutheran?

  • Grace

    Tom Hering

    What church are you affiliated with? – Did you attend church as a child until you left home?

  • Grace

    Tom Hering

    What church are you affiliated with? – Did you attend church as a child until you left home?

  • Grace

    The first published use of the term evangelical in English was in 1531 by William Tyndale, who wrote “He exhorteth them to proceed constantly in the evangelical truth.” One year later, the earliest recorded use in reference to a theological distinction was by Sir Thomas More, who spoke of “Tyndale and his evangelical brother Barns.”

  • Grace

    The first published use of the term evangelical in English was in 1531 by William Tyndale, who wrote “He exhorteth them to proceed constantly in the evangelical truth.” One year later, the earliest recorded use in reference to a theological distinction was by Sir Thomas More, who spoke of “Tyndale and his evangelical brother Barns.”

  • Stephen

    Well, that was an exhausting read. Here’s some things that came to mind -

    “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”

    “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”

    “While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.”

    “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

    “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

    “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

    When you hold that candle in your hand on Christmas Eve, see what it does to the darkness. Make room for each other, for the light that we share as those who are called in Christ Jesus.

    And Louis, don’t leave. I love having you here. My father was a pastor. He assured me once that the church was full of sinners and hypocrites, but that they are exactly where they need to be – in church. Likewise, Jesus said that those who are not sick do not need a physician. “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.” I have a friend who is from SA who struggles with similar things I hear you talking about. He served int he military during Apartheid. He’s a great guy, lives in the US now, and does amazing things for the well-being of children around the world, but he does not have Jesus (though perhaps Jesus has him!). You do though, not because of anything you can or cannot do, but because of the promise given to you by grace alone. I don’t claim to understand everything you are struggling with, but you are welcome among other believers by virtue of that promise alone in Christ alone.

    Everyone else, make way for each other, for whoever is the “other” and the stranger. That is who Jesus is, or else he would have been born in a nice hotel room.

    Yeah that’s right. I’m telling you what to do. Get defensive if you like. Let your conscience sort it out. We are all stumbling and in need of grace. We were all strangers once.

    “9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.”

  • Stephen

    Well, that was an exhausting read. Here’s some things that came to mind -

    “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”

    “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”

    “While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.”

    “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

    “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

    “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

    When you hold that candle in your hand on Christmas Eve, see what it does to the darkness. Make room for each other, for the light that we share as those who are called in Christ Jesus.

    And Louis, don’t leave. I love having you here. My father was a pastor. He assured me once that the church was full of sinners and hypocrites, but that they are exactly where they need to be – in church. Likewise, Jesus said that those who are not sick do not need a physician. “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. But if we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness.” I have a friend who is from SA who struggles with similar things I hear you talking about. He served int he military during Apartheid. He’s a great guy, lives in the US now, and does amazing things for the well-being of children around the world, but he does not have Jesus (though perhaps Jesus has him!). You do though, not because of anything you can or cannot do, but because of the promise given to you by grace alone. I don’t claim to understand everything you are struggling with, but you are welcome among other believers by virtue of that promise alone in Christ alone.

    Everyone else, make way for each other, for whoever is the “other” and the stranger. That is who Jesus is, or else he would have been born in a nice hotel room.

    Yeah that’s right. I’m telling you what to do. Get defensive if you like. Let your conscience sort it out. We are all stumbling and in need of grace. We were all strangers once.

    “9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 11 But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.”

  • Grace

    One must have faith –

    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Ephesians 2:8

    Faith – believe – Confession – Salvation

    8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

    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.

    (“thou shalt be saved”)

    10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    Romans 10

    (“confession is made unto salvation”)

  • Grace

    One must have faith –

    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
    Ephesians 2:8

    Faith – believe – Confession – Salvation

    8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

    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.

    (“thou shalt be saved”)

    10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    Romans 10

    (“confession is made unto salvation”)

  • Tom Hering

    “What church are you affiliated with? – Did you attend church as a child until you left home?” – Grace @ 121.

    My history goes like this. Baptised as an infant, in 1954, and raised a Lutheran. An Agnostic in my teens. A Neo-Pagan in my twenties. A Roman Catholic, a Pentecostal, and an Evangelical in my thirties (in that order). Returned to the Lutheran faith in January, 1997, when I was forty-two. And that’s where I’ve remained until today.

    God is a faithful shepherd. :-)

    “The first published use of the term evangelical in English was in 1531 by William Tyndale … One year later [1532], the earliest recorded use in reference to a theological distinction was by Sir Thomas More …” – Grace @ 122.

    In English, yes. But the German Lutherans were already using the name, and Luther himself preferred the name. Don’t forget that Tyndale began his New Testament nine years earlier, in 1522, when he got hold of a copy of Luther’s German New Testament. And before Tyndale published his English NT in 1525, he frequented Wittenberg, where he consulted with Luther and Melanchthon. As for More’s use of the name theologically, Roman Catholic theologians on the continent had already been using it for a decade, derogatorily.

  • Tom Hering

    “What church are you affiliated with? – Did you attend church as a child until you left home?” – Grace @ 121.

    My history goes like this. Baptised as an infant, in 1954, and raised a Lutheran. An Agnostic in my teens. A Neo-Pagan in my twenties. A Roman Catholic, a Pentecostal, and an Evangelical in my thirties (in that order). Returned to the Lutheran faith in January, 1997, when I was forty-two. And that’s where I’ve remained until today.

    God is a faithful shepherd. :-)

    “The first published use of the term evangelical in English was in 1531 by William Tyndale … One year later [1532], the earliest recorded use in reference to a theological distinction was by Sir Thomas More …” – Grace @ 122.

    In English, yes. But the German Lutherans were already using the name, and Luther himself preferred the name. Don’t forget that Tyndale began his New Testament nine years earlier, in 1522, when he got hold of a copy of Luther’s German New Testament. And before Tyndale published his English NT in 1525, he frequented Wittenberg, where he consulted with Luther and Melanchthon. As for More’s use of the name theologically, Roman Catholic theologians on the continent had already been using it for a decade, derogatorily.

  • Grace

    Tom

    “But the German Lutherans were already using the name, and Luther himself preferred the name. Don’t forget that Tyndale began his New Testament nine years earlier, in 1522, when he got hold of a copy of Luther’s German New Testament. “

    ” hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in 1380′s AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

    John Wycliffe (1320-1384) was a theologian and early proponent of reform in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. He initiated the first translation of the Bible into the English language and is considered the main precursor of the Protestant Reformation. Wycliffe was born at Ipreswell (modern Hipswell), Yorkshire, England, between 1320 and 1330; and he died at Lutterworth (near Leicester) December 31, 1384.”

    Another excerpt:

    “These teachings Wycliffe promulgated in his great work on the truth of Scripture, and in other greater and lesser writings. For him the Bible was the fundamental source of Christianity which is binding on all men. From this one can easily see how the next step came about: the furnishing of the Bible to the people in their mother tongue. Wycliffe was called “Doctor evangelicus” by his English and Bohemian followers. Of all the reformers who preceded Martin Luther, Wycliffe put most emphasis on Scripture: “Even though there were a hundred popes and though every mendicant monk were a cardinal, they would be entitled to confidence only in so far as they accorded with the Bible.” Therefore in this early period it was Wycliffe who recognized and formulated the formal principle of the Reformation– the unique authority of the Bible for the belief and life of the Christian.”

    http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html

  • Grace

    Tom

    “But the German Lutherans were already using the name, and Luther himself preferred the name. Don’t forget that Tyndale began his New Testament nine years earlier, in 1522, when he got hold of a copy of Luther’s German New Testament. “

    ” hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in 1380′s AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

    John Wycliffe (1320-1384) was a theologian and early proponent of reform in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. He initiated the first translation of the Bible into the English language and is considered the main precursor of the Protestant Reformation. Wycliffe was born at Ipreswell (modern Hipswell), Yorkshire, England, between 1320 and 1330; and he died at Lutterworth (near Leicester) December 31, 1384.”

    Another excerpt:

    “These teachings Wycliffe promulgated in his great work on the truth of Scripture, and in other greater and lesser writings. For him the Bible was the fundamental source of Christianity which is binding on all men. From this one can easily see how the next step came about: the furnishing of the Bible to the people in their mother tongue. Wycliffe was called “Doctor evangelicus” by his English and Bohemian followers. Of all the reformers who preceded Martin Luther, Wycliffe put most emphasis on Scripture: “Even though there were a hundred popes and though every mendicant monk were a cardinal, they would be entitled to confidence only in so far as they accorded with the Bible.” Therefore in this early period it was Wycliffe who recognized and formulated the formal principle of the Reformation– the unique authority of the Bible for the belief and life of the Christian.”

    http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-wycliffe.html

  • Grace

    EVANGELIC definition
    Latin-English Dictionary
    ADJ
    evangelical; of/pertaining to the Gospel

  • Grace

    EVANGELIC definition
    Latin-English Dictionary
    ADJ
    evangelical; of/pertaining to the Gospel

  • Grace

    The word to be defined should have read:

    vangelicus rather than “Evangelic”

  • Grace

    The word to be defined should have read:

    vangelicus rather than “Evangelic”

  • Tom Hering

    “Wycliffe was called ‘Doctor evangelicus’ by his English and Bohemian followers.” – Grace @ 126.

    Yes, but were his followers called Evangelicals? No, they were called Lollards. And his Bohemian followers were called Hussites, after Jan Hus. The first use of Evangelical as the name for a movement and a church is properly attributed to the German Lutherans. You’re right about the meaning of Evangelical, though. And some of the English Reformers were known as Gospellers.

  • Tom Hering

    “Wycliffe was called ‘Doctor evangelicus’ by his English and Bohemian followers.” – Grace @ 126.

    Yes, but were his followers called Evangelicals? No, they were called Lollards. And his Bohemian followers were called Hussites, after Jan Hus. The first use of Evangelical as the name for a movement and a church is properly attributed to the German Lutherans. You’re right about the meaning of Evangelical, though. And some of the English Reformers were known as Gospellers.

  • SKPeterson

    @Grace,

    Yes, born and raised a Lutheran. No regrets.

    Your assertion is entirely contrary to my experience, albeit limited, with evangelical non-denoms. Perhaps it is the prideful lack of liturgy that is a turn off. I confess that I don’t understand the attraction of most modern “evangelical” “worship”; I hold to lex orandi lex credendi, Leitourgia Divina adiaphora non est. But, I’m a traditionalist, so you liberals are a bit of a mystery at times.

  • SKPeterson

    @Grace,

    Yes, born and raised a Lutheran. No regrets.

    Your assertion is entirely contrary to my experience, albeit limited, with evangelical non-denoms. Perhaps it is the prideful lack of liturgy that is a turn off. I confess that I don’t understand the attraction of most modern “evangelical” “worship”; I hold to lex orandi lex credendi, Leitourgia Divina adiaphora non est. But, I’m a traditionalist, so you liberals are a bit of a mystery at times.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson – 130

    “Yes, born and raised a Lutheran.

    Your assertion is entirely contrary to my experience, albeit limited, with evangelical non-denoms. Perhaps it is the prideful lack of liturgy that is a turn off. I confess that I don’t understand the attraction of most modern “evangelical” “worship”; I hold to lex orandi lex credendi, Leitourgia Divina adiaphora non est. But, I’m a traditionalist, so you liberals are a bit of a mystery at times.”

    Ah,…….. the sheep skin falls to the ground. I’m no liberal Peterson. You certainly are not so clever asking questions, and then coming up with an accusation that reeks of ______! And what sort of superiority do you weld over other Christian brothers and sisters, or others whom you find to be below you?

    As you were born into Lutheranism, you wouldn’t know much about the churches I’ve attended, or my background, but ASSume to associate me with “liberals” – You have a lot of nerve, no surprise.

    As of your post 109 “I merely was calling for a truce on the personal invective. In that same spirit, I shall pick up my gauntlet and offer you my cheek for any offense given.”

    Your GAUNTLET still on the road!

  • Grace

    SKPeterson – 130

    “Yes, born and raised a Lutheran.

    Your assertion is entirely contrary to my experience, albeit limited, with evangelical non-denoms. Perhaps it is the prideful lack of liturgy that is a turn off. I confess that I don’t understand the attraction of most modern “evangelical” “worship”; I hold to lex orandi lex credendi, Leitourgia Divina adiaphora non est. But, I’m a traditionalist, so you liberals are a bit of a mystery at times.”

    Ah,…….. the sheep skin falls to the ground. I’m no liberal Peterson. You certainly are not so clever asking questions, and then coming up with an accusation that reeks of ______! And what sort of superiority do you weld over other Christian brothers and sisters, or others whom you find to be below you?

    As you were born into Lutheranism, you wouldn’t know much about the churches I’ve attended, or my background, but ASSume to associate me with “liberals” – You have a lot of nerve, no surprise.

    As of your post 109 “I merely was calling for a truce on the personal invective. In that same spirit, I shall pick up my gauntlet and offer you my cheek for any offense given.”

    Your GAUNTLET still on the road!

  • SKPeterson

    En garde!

    The “liberal” quip was a sharp elbow to remind you of your evangelical error. ;) Yes, I could easily fill in the blank. There are many words applicable to modern Evangelicalism, like Schwärmerei, but most aren’t words one uses in polite company. We never said we’d hold off on attacks on people’s positions and yours are… interesting, as in wrong, but interesting nonetheless. I have stated that my experience is different than yours. Perhaps you are the exception to the rule in modern Evangelicalism, but if you lie down with dogs, expect to get up with fleas. So you get lumped in with the rest of them. Terrible shorthand, I know, but I have precious little to work with.

    Oh, I never had a sheepskin, nor am I wearing the wolfskin now. You think your position is strongest. It is likely the weakest presented. And quoting volumes of Scripture to proof-text your point means very little. Why? Because you never explain why the particular passages you cite are relevant to the issue or how they can be viewed. You divorce the passages from their context and expect that to be an argument. It’s not. It’s divorcing passages from their context.

    I will offer a suggestion. Try the standard Lutheran fallback, “What does this mean?” And, then exegete, exegete, exegete. Explain yourself! This may be hard in this limited blog context, but try. I’m not completely closed-minded that I’m not willing to listen, if you can make a credible argument. Also, remember, Scripture interprets Scripture and the focus should not be on applying the Bible to our selves, but applying our selves to the stories of the Bible.

    My accusation stands – defend your worship practices. I have seen precious little in “evangelical” churches that would be called worship. Praise bands are not worship. That is a liberal practice. If you don’t like the term, then provide another definition, but it sure isn’t tradition or orthodoxy that I’ve seen displayed in evangelical congregations. It often IS an untoward liberality in worship. It is NOT adiaphora.

    So, to lay it out. My argument:

    1. Modern Evangelicals are not really evangelicals. They turn Gospel into Law and cannot make a proper distinction between the two.
    2. Modern Evangelical worship practices are not truly worship. They are bastions of me-olatry, a rampant liberality and individualism in the expression of the faith that is unchecked by Scripture. The Eastern and Western rites have a particular Biblical source for their patterns of liturgical practice: Revelation.
    3. Most modern Evangelicals are not heretics, but some come very close, and some commit blasphemy regularly. Listen to Pirate Christian Radio regularly and you’ll know the context of which I speak.
    4. The term “modern Evanglical” is slippery and I am casting a wide net. I am lumping in much of the emerging/emergent crowd into modern Evangelicalism as I see little real difference. The same spirit of liberal individual
    5. We can pretend that we all get along or we can come to terms with the fact that we don’t. Then all sides can state their cases and begin to hash out the differences.
    6. This controversy over modern Evangelicalism and worship practices infects Lutheranism internally as well. Do we follow the world as Christ does the lost lamb, or as the adulterer skulking after the harlot?
    7. I claim few answers. Only, the certainty of Christ, the Son of God and Him crucified for our sins to be raised and who’s reign has come. In one baptism for the remission of sins and in the presence of the Holy Spirit in the elements and in the preached Word.

  • SKPeterson

    En garde!

    The “liberal” quip was a sharp elbow to remind you of your evangelical error. ;) Yes, I could easily fill in the blank. There are many words applicable to modern Evangelicalism, like Schwärmerei, but most aren’t words one uses in polite company. We never said we’d hold off on attacks on people’s positions and yours are… interesting, as in wrong, but interesting nonetheless. I have stated that my experience is different than yours. Perhaps you are the exception to the rule in modern Evangelicalism, but if you lie down with dogs, expect to get up with fleas. So you get lumped in with the rest of them. Terrible shorthand, I know, but I have precious little to work with.

    Oh, I never had a sheepskin, nor am I wearing the wolfskin now. You think your position is strongest. It is likely the weakest presented. And quoting volumes of Scripture to proof-text your point means very little. Why? Because you never explain why the particular passages you cite are relevant to the issue or how they can be viewed. You divorce the passages from their context and expect that to be an argument. It’s not. It’s divorcing passages from their context.

    I will offer a suggestion. Try the standard Lutheran fallback, “What does this mean?” And, then exegete, exegete, exegete. Explain yourself! This may be hard in this limited blog context, but try. I’m not completely closed-minded that I’m not willing to listen, if you can make a credible argument. Also, remember, Scripture interprets Scripture and the focus should not be on applying the Bible to our selves, but applying our selves to the stories of the Bible.

    My accusation stands – defend your worship practices. I have seen precious little in “evangelical” churches that would be called worship. Praise bands are not worship. That is a liberal practice. If you don’t like the term, then provide another definition, but it sure isn’t tradition or orthodoxy that I’ve seen displayed in evangelical congregations. It often IS an untoward liberality in worship. It is NOT adiaphora.

    So, to lay it out. My argument:

    1. Modern Evangelicals are not really evangelicals. They turn Gospel into Law and cannot make a proper distinction between the two.
    2. Modern Evangelical worship practices are not truly worship. They are bastions of me-olatry, a rampant liberality and individualism in the expression of the faith that is unchecked by Scripture. The Eastern and Western rites have a particular Biblical source for their patterns of liturgical practice: Revelation.
    3. Most modern Evangelicals are not heretics, but some come very close, and some commit blasphemy regularly. Listen to Pirate Christian Radio regularly and you’ll know the context of which I speak.
    4. The term “modern Evanglical” is slippery and I am casting a wide net. I am lumping in much of the emerging/emergent crowd into modern Evangelicalism as I see little real difference. The same spirit of liberal individual
    5. We can pretend that we all get along or we can come to terms with the fact that we don’t. Then all sides can state their cases and begin to hash out the differences.
    6. This controversy over modern Evangelicalism and worship practices infects Lutheranism internally as well. Do we follow the world as Christ does the lost lamb, or as the adulterer skulking after the harlot?
    7. I claim few answers. Only, the certainty of Christ, the Son of God and Him crucified for our sins to be raised and who’s reign has come. In one baptism for the remission of sins and in the presence of the Holy Spirit in the elements and in the preached Word.

  • Tom Hering

    “Modern Evangelicals are not really evangelicals. They turn Gospel into Law and cannot make a proper distinction between the two.” – SKPeterson @ 132.

    That nicely sums up the main argument we’ve had with Grace’s positions over the last few months. And the following sums up the main problem we’ve had with her style of argument, “… quoting volumes of Scripture to proof-text your point means very little. Why? Because you never explain why the particular passages you cite are relevant to the issue …”

    Well done, SK.

  • Tom Hering

    “Modern Evangelicals are not really evangelicals. They turn Gospel into Law and cannot make a proper distinction between the two.” – SKPeterson @ 132.

    That nicely sums up the main argument we’ve had with Grace’s positions over the last few months. And the following sums up the main problem we’ve had with her style of argument, “… quoting volumes of Scripture to proof-text your point means very little. Why? Because you never explain why the particular passages you cite are relevant to the issue …”

    Well done, SK.

  • Abby

    Porcell @104
    “However, it is through the moral Law, understood biblically and to some extent rationally, that we learn the specifics of sin. Those who diminish the Law and over-emphasize their justification run the risk of becoming antinomians. While Luther understood this to some degree, in my view Calvin understood it better.”

    Except that- – -

    “Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, “against” + νόμος, “law”), is a belief or tendency in all religions that some therein consider existing laws as no longer applicable to themselves.

    Martin Luther preached justification by faith alone, but was also an outspoken critic of antinomianism, perhaps most notably in his Against the Antinomians (1539). Few groups or sects, outside of Christian anarchism or Jewish anarchism, explicitly call themselves “antinomian”.” from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomians

    And isn’t the first thing we see upon opening “Luther’s Small Catechism” is the teaching of the Ten Commandments with meanings?

    No Christian believes it is permissable to sin willy-nilly. That is why life is so hard–the constant repentance. And even if I was in a coma–I would be sinning because it is “attached” to me! Only upon my death will this Old Adam be detached from me forever. I would love to be rid of this struggle now! Romans 5 and 6 describes it so well and gives us the assurance that we are covered by Christ’s righteousness instead of the death that comes to us because of the Old Adam. Which is the justification we can trust. If we cannot fully trust in this, then its over right now.

    I like the way fws describes this lifelong dilemma:

    fws @46 from “Advent and the Four Last Things”
    “But the Old Adam still clings to us doesn´t he? And alone and only for that reason Dust, we need the Law to Mortify him and put him in his place so that he can serve our neighbor who needs us with our good works.

    We drowned the Old Adam in our baptism , but it turns out that he is an excellent swimmer! So we need to grab him by the neck and push him under the water every day. And how do we do this? with the law! We mortify our flesh, subdue it. Run the race , train to kill him like an athlete would train.”

    Where is the line to be drawn between Law and Gospel for salvation? Can I have life if I keep sinning every day? Because I know I do — instantaneously — in thought, word, and deed. At what point will Grace be taken away from me?

    Grace is not easy but it is free. My heart is more peacefully at rest believing Jesus’ words, “Your sins are forgiven, go in peace,” than it is to believe I can keep the Law every minute of every day. I think that is what Lutherans believe. But we repent and keep trying.

  • Abby

    Porcell @104
    “However, it is through the moral Law, understood biblically and to some extent rationally, that we learn the specifics of sin. Those who diminish the Law and over-emphasize their justification run the risk of becoming antinomians. While Luther understood this to some degree, in my view Calvin understood it better.”

    Except that- – -

    “Antinomianism (a term coined by Martin Luther, from the Greek ἀντί, “against” + νόμος, “law”), is a belief or tendency in all religions that some therein consider existing laws as no longer applicable to themselves.

    Martin Luther preached justification by faith alone, but was also an outspoken critic of antinomianism, perhaps most notably in his Against the Antinomians (1539). Few groups or sects, outside of Christian anarchism or Jewish anarchism, explicitly call themselves “antinomian”.” from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomians

    And isn’t the first thing we see upon opening “Luther’s Small Catechism” is the teaching of the Ten Commandments with meanings?

    No Christian believes it is permissable to sin willy-nilly. That is why life is so hard–the constant repentance. And even if I was in a coma–I would be sinning because it is “attached” to me! Only upon my death will this Old Adam be detached from me forever. I would love to be rid of this struggle now! Romans 5 and 6 describes it so well and gives us the assurance that we are covered by Christ’s righteousness instead of the death that comes to us because of the Old Adam. Which is the justification we can trust. If we cannot fully trust in this, then its over right now.

    I like the way fws describes this lifelong dilemma:

    fws @46 from “Advent and the Four Last Things”
    “But the Old Adam still clings to us doesn´t he? And alone and only for that reason Dust, we need the Law to Mortify him and put him in his place so that he can serve our neighbor who needs us with our good works.

    We drowned the Old Adam in our baptism , but it turns out that he is an excellent swimmer! So we need to grab him by the neck and push him under the water every day. And how do we do this? with the law! We mortify our flesh, subdue it. Run the race , train to kill him like an athlete would train.”

    Where is the line to be drawn between Law and Gospel for salvation? Can I have life if I keep sinning every day? Because I know I do — instantaneously — in thought, word, and deed. At what point will Grace be taken away from me?

    Grace is not easy but it is free. My heart is more peacefully at rest believing Jesus’ words, “Your sins are forgiven, go in peace,” than it is to believe I can keep the Law every minute of every day. I think that is what Lutherans believe. But we repent and keep trying.

  • Abby

    Romans 7 & 8 should also be added to the above.

  • Abby

    Romans 7 & 8 should also be added to the above.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson

    Perhaps you are the exception to the rule in modern Evangelicalism, but if you lie down with dogs, expect to get up with fleas. So you get lumped in with the rest of them. Terrible shorthand, I know, but I have precious little to work with.

    I don’t lie down with dogs, but I often speak to them, even though their fleas are apparent from the get go. They lump themselves in with ugly harsh rhetoric, which is their badge, worn with a prideful heart, much to their disgrace.

    “You think your position is strongest. It is likely the weakest presented. And quoting volumes of Scripture to proof-text your point means very little. Why? Because you never explain why the particular passages you cite are relevant to the issue or how they can be viewed. You divorce the passages from their context and expect that to be an argument. It’s not. It’s divorcing passages from their context.”

    The Scripture quoted shouldn’t need to be explained to one who purports to understand the Bible. Most likely the one complaining of Scripture is married instead to another book. The “divorce” is sadly observed at the angry mocker, who if they took the time to read the Bible instead of another book, might understand. There is no other book on earth that is inspired of God, except the Bible…. NONE, even though little man depends upon the works of others as his source of understanding the Bible which he lays aside.

    I will offer a suggestion. Try the standard Lutheran fallback, “What does this mean?” And, then exegete, exegete, exegete. Explain yourself! This may be hard in this limited blog context, but try. I’m not completely closed-minded that I’m not willing to listen, if you can make a credible argument. Also, remember, Scripture interprets Scripture and the focus should not be on applying the Bible to our selves, but applying our selves to the stories of the Bible.

    The Bible is our complete guide, reading and applying its truths to our lives. The Bible isn’t made up solely of “stories” it is God’s truth, warnings from the LORD Jesus as to the outcome of those who don’t believe. Jesus spoke more about hell while he preached and taught on earth than He did on heaven. Jesus warned over and over again, the wages of sin. He told people to repent and their sins. Repentance is lost on many a starchy shirt.

    “My accusation stands – defend your worship practices. I have seen precious little in “evangelical” churches that would be called worship. Praise bands are not worship. That is a liberal practice. If you don’t like the term, then provide another definition, but it sure isn’t tradition or orthodoxy that I’ve seen displayed in evangelical congregations. It often IS an untoward liberality in worship. It is NOT adiaphora.

    Unfortunately you stick your foot where it doesn’t belong – If you had visited most churches who are Evangelical, Bible Believing, you would not have witnessed any sort of “liberal” practices.. You pretend to know what other churches are all about, while going to your Lutheran Church – with your limited knowledge I doubt you know much more than what you read about, such as the Emergent Church, which I nor my fellow Christians have any part of.

    You wrote: “Most modern Evangelicals are not heretics, but some come very close, and some commit blasphemy regularly. Listen to Pirate Christian Radio regularly and you’ll know the context of which I speak.” So this is where you get your information? – “Pirate Christian Radio” This is your twisted idea of “Evangelicals” no wonder you’re confused. The Emergent Church has not part in any church I have been affiliated with. Your problem Peterson, you aren’t seeing it first hand, instead you’ve got your ear to your fav Lutheran radio broadcast.

    “So, to lay it out. My argument:”

    No Peterson, that was a rant 1 through 7 – Since you have given your source “Pirate Christian Radio” it’s easy to understand how and why you believe – your confusion is sad indeed, but there is still time to open your Bible, shut off your radio – The Emergent Church isn’t in the mix.

    YOU WROTE:

    “The term “modern Evanglical” is slippery and I am casting a wide net. I am lumping in much of the emerging/emergent crowd into modern Evangelicalism as I see little real difference.”

    You can’t see the difference, the reason: You are looking at The Emergent Church, and others just like them, lumping everything together, what you have is a religious malt, which you serve up, for your own purposes ….. who are you to throw everyone in the Evangelical Christian Church into one malt? Christ knows what’s going on down here, He can see those who are true Believers and those who aren’t, do you think He sees you, or your nasty accusations against other Believers? Who died and put you in charge?

    23 Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles.

    24 Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who dealeth in proud wrath. Proverbs 21

  • Grace

    SKPeterson

    Perhaps you are the exception to the rule in modern Evangelicalism, but if you lie down with dogs, expect to get up with fleas. So you get lumped in with the rest of them. Terrible shorthand, I know, but I have precious little to work with.

    I don’t lie down with dogs, but I often speak to them, even though their fleas are apparent from the get go. They lump themselves in with ugly harsh rhetoric, which is their badge, worn with a prideful heart, much to their disgrace.

    “You think your position is strongest. It is likely the weakest presented. And quoting volumes of Scripture to proof-text your point means very little. Why? Because you never explain why the particular passages you cite are relevant to the issue or how they can be viewed. You divorce the passages from their context and expect that to be an argument. It’s not. It’s divorcing passages from their context.”

    The Scripture quoted shouldn’t need to be explained to one who purports to understand the Bible. Most likely the one complaining of Scripture is married instead to another book. The “divorce” is sadly observed at the angry mocker, who if they took the time to read the Bible instead of another book, might understand. There is no other book on earth that is inspired of God, except the Bible…. NONE, even though little man depends upon the works of others as his source of understanding the Bible which he lays aside.

    I will offer a suggestion. Try the standard Lutheran fallback, “What does this mean?” And, then exegete, exegete, exegete. Explain yourself! This may be hard in this limited blog context, but try. I’m not completely closed-minded that I’m not willing to listen, if you can make a credible argument. Also, remember, Scripture interprets Scripture and the focus should not be on applying the Bible to our selves, but applying our selves to the stories of the Bible.

    The Bible is our complete guide, reading and applying its truths to our lives. The Bible isn’t made up solely of “stories” it is God’s truth, warnings from the LORD Jesus as to the outcome of those who don’t believe. Jesus spoke more about hell while he preached and taught on earth than He did on heaven. Jesus warned over and over again, the wages of sin. He told people to repent and their sins. Repentance is lost on many a starchy shirt.

    “My accusation stands – defend your worship practices. I have seen precious little in “evangelical” churches that would be called worship. Praise bands are not worship. That is a liberal practice. If you don’t like the term, then provide another definition, but it sure isn’t tradition or orthodoxy that I’ve seen displayed in evangelical congregations. It often IS an untoward liberality in worship. It is NOT adiaphora.

    Unfortunately you stick your foot where it doesn’t belong – If you had visited most churches who are Evangelical, Bible Believing, you would not have witnessed any sort of “liberal” practices.. You pretend to know what other churches are all about, while going to your Lutheran Church – with your limited knowledge I doubt you know much more than what you read about, such as the Emergent Church, which I nor my fellow Christians have any part of.

    You wrote: “Most modern Evangelicals are not heretics, but some come very close, and some commit blasphemy regularly. Listen to Pirate Christian Radio regularly and you’ll know the context of which I speak.” So this is where you get your information? – “Pirate Christian Radio” This is your twisted idea of “Evangelicals” no wonder you’re confused. The Emergent Church has not part in any church I have been affiliated with. Your problem Peterson, you aren’t seeing it first hand, instead you’ve got your ear to your fav Lutheran radio broadcast.

    “So, to lay it out. My argument:”

    No Peterson, that was a rant 1 through 7 – Since you have given your source “Pirate Christian Radio” it’s easy to understand how and why you believe – your confusion is sad indeed, but there is still time to open your Bible, shut off your radio – The Emergent Church isn’t in the mix.

    YOU WROTE:

    “The term “modern Evanglical” is slippery and I am casting a wide net. I am lumping in much of the emerging/emergent crowd into modern Evangelicalism as I see little real difference.”

    You can’t see the difference, the reason: You are looking at The Emergent Church, and others just like them, lumping everything together, what you have is a religious malt, which you serve up, for your own purposes ….. who are you to throw everyone in the Evangelical Christian Church into one malt? Christ knows what’s going on down here, He can see those who are true Believers and those who aren’t, do you think He sees you, or your nasty accusations against other Believers? Who died and put you in charge?

    23 Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles.

    24 Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who dealeth in proud wrath. Proverbs 21

  • SKPeterson

    Count me a Berean, Grace. I will test you, because you make so little sense. You say you rely upon the Bible. So do I. I just don’t think I own it. Am I prideful? Damn straight. And you’ve got a little whiff of it about you too. Basically you’ve accused me of being ignorant of the Bible or believing it is just stories. That is as false an accusation as my lumping you in with the Emergents. More so, I’d say.

    Pirate Christian Radio is not my only source for this. You can try Issues, Etc. or White Horse Inn, or I can watch almost every single program on TCN. Beth Moore, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar. They are all evangelicals. They also don’t have worship. That accusation stands and you have not defended your position.

  • SKPeterson

    Count me a Berean, Grace. I will test you, because you make so little sense. You say you rely upon the Bible. So do I. I just don’t think I own it. Am I prideful? Damn straight. And you’ve got a little whiff of it about you too. Basically you’ve accused me of being ignorant of the Bible or believing it is just stories. That is as false an accusation as my lumping you in with the Emergents. More so, I’d say.

    Pirate Christian Radio is not my only source for this. You can try Issues, Etc. or White Horse Inn, or I can watch almost every single program on TCN. Beth Moore, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar. They are all evangelicals. They also don’t have worship. That accusation stands and you have not defended your position.

  • Grace

    Peterson,

    You have proven you aren’t able to discern between false teaching Evangelicals, and those who’s doctrine is sound?

    Have you attended any of the most noted Emergent Churches, if so which ones? I have, I wanted to know, I also do extended research, not only on the Emergent Church but the cults. That is the work I have been involved with for almost eight years. I’m very aware of who they are.

    You have the false idea that everyone who says they are an Evangelical falls into the same category. How many American’s say they are Christians, …… and then ask them to define what that means…… too often they will tell you it’s being a good person, that’s their answer. They know very little about Christ and Salvation. In this way, perhaps you can comprehend how ridiculous your comparisons are.

    Listening to radio, reading blogs, such as you’ve mentioned are fine, but they don’t take the place of actually studying exactly what they (Emergent Church, etc.) believe.

    It would be the same as shoving all the Lutherans together, including ELCA who believes its just dandy to have homosexuals and women as pastors, and then it’s OK to have homosexuals who have “partners” – Is this the Lutheran Church you go to? …… I bet it isn’t. If one couldn’t discern the difference, or spend time researching it, and then make the comparison you have, (dumping you all together) it would sound just as ignorant as you do.

    Did you mean TBN, ? when you wrote: “I can watch almost every single program on TCN.”

  • Grace

    Peterson,

    You have proven you aren’t able to discern between false teaching Evangelicals, and those who’s doctrine is sound?

    Have you attended any of the most noted Emergent Churches, if so which ones? I have, I wanted to know, I also do extended research, not only on the Emergent Church but the cults. That is the work I have been involved with for almost eight years. I’m very aware of who they are.

    You have the false idea that everyone who says they are an Evangelical falls into the same category. How many American’s say they are Christians, …… and then ask them to define what that means…… too often they will tell you it’s being a good person, that’s their answer. They know very little about Christ and Salvation. In this way, perhaps you can comprehend how ridiculous your comparisons are.

    Listening to radio, reading blogs, such as you’ve mentioned are fine, but they don’t take the place of actually studying exactly what they (Emergent Church, etc.) believe.

    It would be the same as shoving all the Lutherans together, including ELCA who believes its just dandy to have homosexuals and women as pastors, and then it’s OK to have homosexuals who have “partners” – Is this the Lutheran Church you go to? …… I bet it isn’t. If one couldn’t discern the difference, or spend time researching it, and then make the comparison you have, (dumping you all together) it would sound just as ignorant as you do.

    Did you mean TBN, ? when you wrote: “I can watch almost every single program on TCN.”

  • Tom Hering

    Personally, I would never say all Evangelicals are alike in most points. But I would say they are alike in one point: teaching that once you are saved by grace through faith in Christ, you need to make efforts to keep the Law, in order to stay saved.

  • Tom Hering

    Personally, I would never say all Evangelicals are alike in most points. But I would say they are alike in one point: teaching that once you are saved by grace through faith in Christ, you need to make efforts to keep the Law, in order to stay saved.

  • Grace

    13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

    14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:</code

    15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

    16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

    17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 1 Peter 1

  • Grace

    13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

    14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:</code

    15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

    16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

    17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 1 Peter 1

  • Tom Hering

    Thank you for proving my point, Grace.

  • Tom Hering

    Thank you for proving my point, Grace.

  • Grace

    I didn’t prove your point whatsoever! Read it over again -

  • Grace

    I didn’t prove your point whatsoever! Read it over again -

  • Tom Hering

    Why does Peter tell us, not to place our hope in our own efforts, but rather to “hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ”? (1:13, NASB.)

  • Tom Hering

    Why does Peter tell us, not to place our hope in our own efforts, but rather to “hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ”? (1:13, NASB.)

  • Tom Hering

    “I didn’t prove your point whatsoever!”

    So you’re saying we don’t need to make an effort to keep the Law in order to remain saved? I’d be joyful if that’s the case.

  • Tom Hering

    “I didn’t prove your point whatsoever!”

    So you’re saying we don’t need to make an effort to keep the Law in order to remain saved? I’d be joyful if that’s the case.

  • Grace

    What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? James 2:14

    Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17

    Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. James 2:18

    But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20

    Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? James 2:22

    Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
    James 2:24

  • Grace

    What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? James 2:14

    Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17

    Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. James 2:18

    But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20

    Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? James 2:22

    Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
    James 2:24

  • Tom Hering

    I’ve never known faith to be without works. After all, Christ lives, and the Spirit dwells, in the one who has been given the gift of faith. So, yes, of course: by his works we can see that a man is justified. Our eyes can observe works that are outward and visible, and so observe evidence of faith, which is inward and invisible.

  • Tom Hering

    I’ve never known faith to be without works. After all, Christ lives, and the Spirit dwells, in the one who has been given the gift of faith. So, yes, of course: by his works we can see that a man is justified. Our eyes can observe works that are outward and visible, and so observe evidence of faith, which is inward and invisible.

  • SKPeterson

    CTN. My bad. Yes, I can discern the differences Grace. The differences are far less than you think. And all of us Lutherans do get lumped together, whether we like it or not. So all of you Evangelicals get lumped together, like it or not. Also, where did the emergents emerge from? The evangelical non-denominational congregations. Birthed in the same bed, so to speak.

    Oh, and your earlier quip about following the thinking of other men. How absolutely shallow. Do I rely on the teachings of other men? Yes, and I am thankful for it. They are called Apostles, Fathers of the Church, theologians, and pastors. You seem to think them of no import. You realize the end point of that, right? It’s just you. The Church of Me. You prove my point, although I doubt you will accept it or recognize it.

    Finally, Grace, you appear by your quotes to believe that you can be saved by your own works. Cooperating in your salvation. This explains much. It is why we Lutherans have a hard time arguing with you – we acknowledge we’re sinners and prone to error. You think you’re beyond that.

  • SKPeterson

    CTN. My bad. Yes, I can discern the differences Grace. The differences are far less than you think. And all of us Lutherans do get lumped together, whether we like it or not. So all of you Evangelicals get lumped together, like it or not. Also, where did the emergents emerge from? The evangelical non-denominational congregations. Birthed in the same bed, so to speak.

    Oh, and your earlier quip about following the thinking of other men. How absolutely shallow. Do I rely on the teachings of other men? Yes, and I am thankful for it. They are called Apostles, Fathers of the Church, theologians, and pastors. You seem to think them of no import. You realize the end point of that, right? It’s just you. The Church of Me. You prove my point, although I doubt you will accept it or recognize it.

    Finally, Grace, you appear by your quotes to believe that you can be saved by your own works. Cooperating in your salvation. This explains much. It is why we Lutherans have a hard time arguing with you – we acknowledge we’re sinners and prone to error. You think you’re beyond that.

  • Grace

    Peterson, I leave you with this, because your post is not worth commenting on. You have no real knowledge outside your radio program and blogs –

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

    What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? James 2:14

    Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17

  • Grace

    Peterson, I leave you with this, because your post is not worth commenting on. You have no real knowledge outside your radio program and blogs –

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    2 Timothy 2:15

    What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? James 2:14

    Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James 2:17

  • Tom Hering

    Rightly dividing the word of truth is exactly what you don’t do, Grace. The way you mishandle the Epistle of James is a perfect example. You use it to argue against the doctrine of “faith alone” and in support of the doctrine of “faith plus” – exactly the way a Roman Catholic would.

    Did you know that you’re functionally Roman Catholic, Grace? And that you prove this, here, again and again?

  • Tom Hering

    Rightly dividing the word of truth is exactly what you don’t do, Grace. The way you mishandle the Epistle of James is a perfect example. You use it to argue against the doctrine of “faith alone” and in support of the doctrine of “faith plus” – exactly the way a Roman Catholic would.

    Did you know that you’re functionally Roman Catholic, Grace? And that you prove this, here, again and again?

  • Grace

    Tom –

    LOL, nay, you’re confused, as you often prove. You see Tom, you can’t cope with the book of James, it’s a tough one for you. It was a bur in Luther’s saddle just like it is for anyone who discards James. Luther didn’t like the book of James, as one can see from the quote below:

    “St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw.for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Martin Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546

    The Bible clearly states that man is not justified by faith alone in James 2:24. The LORD inspired James to write this epistle. Yet the Lutherans take Luther’s word of OVER the inspired writing of Saint James.

    24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

    ("works" - - "justified" - - "not by faith only")

    25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2

    ("faith without works is dead also")

    The book of James is inspired of God, it is His inerrant Word!

  • Grace

    Tom –

    LOL, nay, you’re confused, as you often prove. You see Tom, you can’t cope with the book of James, it’s a tough one for you. It was a bur in Luther’s saddle just like it is for anyone who discards James. Luther didn’t like the book of James, as one can see from the quote below:

    “St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw.for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Martin Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546

    The Bible clearly states that man is not justified by faith alone in James 2:24. The LORD inspired James to write this epistle. Yet the Lutherans take Luther’s word of OVER the inspired writing of Saint James.

    24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

    ("works" - - "justified" - - "not by faith only")

    25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2

    ("faith without works is dead also")

    The book of James is inspired of God, it is His inerrant Word!

  • Tom Hering

    I can “cope” with the Epistle of James just fine, Grace. So could Luther, though he had some doubts about it, as did the early church. But both the early church and Luther accepted it as canonical in the end. In Luther’s case, because he reconciled it with Paul’s teaching on faith. “Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith” (Bainton, Here I Stand, pg. 259).

    “The Bible clearly states that man is not justified by faith alone in James 2:24.” – Your words @ 150.

    How is your view of justification any different from that of a Roman Catholic, Grace? Are you going to tell us, or just make excuses not to, the way you always do?

  • Tom Hering

    I can “cope” with the Epistle of James just fine, Grace. So could Luther, though he had some doubts about it, as did the early church. But both the early church and Luther accepted it as canonical in the end. In Luther’s case, because he reconciled it with Paul’s teaching on faith. “Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith” (Bainton, Here I Stand, pg. 259).

    “The Bible clearly states that man is not justified by faith alone in James 2:24.” – Your words @ 150.

    How is your view of justification any different from that of a Roman Catholic, Grace? Are you going to tell us, or just make excuses not to, the way you always do?

  • Porcell

    Tom, ah, yes, when pinned in the corner by superb logic, use the dreaded C word.

  • Porcell

    Tom, ah, yes, when pinned in the corner by superb logic, use the dreaded C word.

  • Grace

    Tom – 151

    “How is your view of justification any different from that of a Roman Catholic, Grace? Are you going to tell us, or just make excuses not to, the way you always do?”

    Tom, we have been over this before, in fact I believe more than once or twice. I don’t have time to play your game again. You will just have to accept the answers I’ve given in the past, whether you like them or not, or whether they have satisfied you.

    Below is another thread regarding “justification” – you can start by reading Dr. Veith’s post #32 and go from there.

    32 – Gene Veith – November 26, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    “So, Grace, what do you think of N. T. Wright, the subject of the original post? Do you accept his view of justification or do you accept the traditional one, as articulated by Luther and most evangelicals up until now? Which do you think is most faithful to the Bible?”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/11/26/justification-as-inclusion/

  • Grace

    Tom – 151

    “How is your view of justification any different from that of a Roman Catholic, Grace? Are you going to tell us, or just make excuses not to, the way you always do?”

    Tom, we have been over this before, in fact I believe more than once or twice. I don’t have time to play your game again. You will just have to accept the answers I’ve given in the past, whether you like them or not, or whether they have satisfied you.

    Below is another thread regarding “justification” – you can start by reading Dr. Veith’s post #32 and go from there.

    32 – Gene Veith – November 26, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    “So, Grace, what do you think of N. T. Wright, the subject of the original post? Do you accept his view of justification or do you accept the traditional one, as articulated by Luther and most evangelicals up until now? Which do you think is most faithful to the Bible?”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/11/26/justification-as-inclusion/

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @ 152

    ok. So I understand from what you say that it is no insult to be considered functionally Roman Catholic . Cool.

    And that you are praising Grace for having the superb logic of being functionally Roman Catholic. Ok. Praise from one functionally Roman Catholic to another. Also cool Peter.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @ 152

    ok. So I understand from what you say that it is no insult to be considered functionally Roman Catholic . Cool.

    And that you are praising Grace for having the superb logic of being functionally Roman Catholic. Ok. Praise from one functionally Roman Catholic to another. Also cool Peter.

  • Grace

    Porcell – it’s his fav “C”

    I have posted a link to the discussion regarding “justifcation” – I realize we both had ‘words’ that I’m sorry for. I almost decided not to post the link, but then realized it was best. ;)

  • Grace

    Porcell – it’s his fav “C”

    I have posted a link to the discussion regarding “justifcation” – I realize we both had ‘words’ that I’m sorry for. I almost decided not to post the link, but then realized it was best. ;)

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Porcell, what corner?

    Also, your apparent support for Grace here is strange, given that you have irreverantly dismissed a very important aspect of her theology – in her theological system, the specifics of her eschatology plays a very important role. However, in the following thread you dismissed a discussion thereof as “a form of religious babble”, comment 62, and “a miasma of irrelevant babble”, comment 68. I refer to this thread: http://www.geneveith.com/2010/11/26/justification-as-inclusion/

    Really, are you able to spot the inconsistency? Or is it rather a sign that you will side with whoever happens to oppose the “liberals” (in this case Tom, although in my view he is the orthodox one on this thread), irrespective of anything else?

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Porcell, what corner?

    Also, your apparent support for Grace here is strange, given that you have irreverantly dismissed a very important aspect of her theology – in her theological system, the specifics of her eschatology plays a very important role. However, in the following thread you dismissed a discussion thereof as “a form of religious babble”, comment 62, and “a miasma of irrelevant babble”, comment 68. I refer to this thread: http://www.geneveith.com/2010/11/26/justification-as-inclusion/

    Really, are you able to spot the inconsistency? Or is it rather a sign that you will side with whoever happens to oppose the “liberals” (in this case Tom, although in my view he is the orthodox one on this thread), irrespective of anything else?

  • Grace

    Louis,

    Trying to stir the pot regarding the ‘words’ Peter and I had, will not result in any sort of dispute from me. I have respected Peter’s stand on many issues, but disagreed on others,…. Playing the divide and conquer game is juvenile!

  • Grace

    Louis,

    Trying to stir the pot regarding the ‘words’ Peter and I had, will not result in any sort of dispute from me. I have respected Peter’s stand on many issues, but disagreed on others,…. Playing the divide and conquer game is juvenile!

  • Tom Hering

    So you’re going to excuse yourself once again, Grace? With the excuse that you don’t have to answer those who are – in your view (and your view alone) – messing with your mind? What happened to your enthusiastic acceptance of Porcell’s advice to “defend your position”? Easier said than done, eh?

  • Tom Hering

    So you’re going to excuse yourself once again, Grace? With the excuse that you don’t have to answer those who are – in your view (and your view alone) – messing with your mind? What happened to your enthusiastic acceptance of Porcell’s advice to “defend your position”? Easier said than done, eh?

  • Grace

    Louis – 156

    I already gave the link in post #153 – you’re a hoot!

  • Grace

    Louis – 156

    I already gave the link in post #153 – you’re a hoot!

  • Grace

    Poor Tom – Hit the link, read what you wish – I’m not going over it with you again.

  • Grace

    Poor Tom – Hit the link, read what you wish – I’m not going over it with you again.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@152), as the one here most stridently arguing for how we should all (except you, of course) become Roman Catholics, you of all people should realize that Tom was not (@151) using “the dreaded C word” merely as a pejorative, but simply as a matter of fact.

    Grace is, in the most factual way possible, aligning herself with Roman Catholic dogma when she explicates James. Again, this is basic stuff that a Catholic fan like you should know. Council of Trent, anyone?

    If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. …

    If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed. …

    If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

    Grace reads James as normative over and against the rest of Scripture. As do the Catholics.

    Of course, Grace’s argument along these lines appears to be because, as she says (@150), “The book of James is inspired of God, it is His inerrant Word!” One wonders why she doesn’t believe the same about Romans — because, indeed, if one reads Romans (and Ephesians, and quite a few other books) as normative over and against James (as Tom and I do), you do not arrive at Grace’s conclusion.

    Of course, Grace’s statement begs the question: How do we know the book of James is inspired, should be part of the Bible, and — crucial to Grace’s argument — that it should be read as the norm by which all other NT books are understood? Grace has never addressed these questions when they were posed to her earlier.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@152), as the one here most stridently arguing for how we should all (except you, of course) become Roman Catholics, you of all people should realize that Tom was not (@151) using “the dreaded C word” merely as a pejorative, but simply as a matter of fact.

    Grace is, in the most factual way possible, aligning herself with Roman Catholic dogma when she explicates James. Again, this is basic stuff that a Catholic fan like you should know. Council of Trent, anyone?

    If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. …

    If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed. …

    If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

    Grace reads James as normative over and against the rest of Scripture. As do the Catholics.

    Of course, Grace’s argument along these lines appears to be because, as she says (@150), “The book of James is inspired of God, it is His inerrant Word!” One wonders why she doesn’t believe the same about Romans — because, indeed, if one reads Romans (and Ephesians, and quite a few other books) as normative over and against James (as Tom and I do), you do not arrive at Grace’s conclusion.

    Of course, Grace’s statement begs the question: How do we know the book of James is inspired, should be part of the Bible, and — crucial to Grace’s argument — that it should be read as the norm by which all other NT books are understood? Grace has never addressed these questions when they were posed to her earlier.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Ah, I was too slow in writing my comment!

    Already Grace has bowed out of the discussion. As she does with surprising regularity, whenever she doesn’t want to answer someone’s questions. Not that she’s necessarily stopped commenting. She just refuses to explain herself anymore.

    “I don’t have time to play your game again.” It is your constant refrain, Grace … when you feel like using it, that is. After all, you had time to write 47 comments on this thread alone, but when it comes time to explain yourself in ways you don’t like … why, would you look at the hour!

    No time! Games! Being forced to answer the same thing 15 times. No time! One more comment! No time! LOL! No time! A hoot!

    Next time you enter a conversation Grace, I will take bets as to how long you’ll go before you pull out the “no time” card. We have to have something to talk about after you refuse to explain yourself! :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Ah, I was too slow in writing my comment!

    Already Grace has bowed out of the discussion. As she does with surprising regularity, whenever she doesn’t want to answer someone’s questions. Not that she’s necessarily stopped commenting. She just refuses to explain herself anymore.

    “I don’t have time to play your game again.” It is your constant refrain, Grace … when you feel like using it, that is. After all, you had time to write 47 comments on this thread alone, but when it comes time to explain yourself in ways you don’t like … why, would you look at the hour!

    No time! Games! Being forced to answer the same thing 15 times. No time! One more comment! No time! LOL! No time! A hoot!

    Next time you enter a conversation Grace, I will take bets as to how long you’ll go before you pull out the “no time” card. We have to have something to talk about after you refuse to explain yourself! :)

  • Grace

    tODD – you are one confused individual – If one brings the book of James into the mix, they are chastized, and thought of as Roman Catholic –

    You are so glued to the Book of Concord and Luther you aren’t able to read the Word of God without his guidance and tutelage.

  • Grace

    tODD – you are one confused individual – If one brings the book of James into the mix, they are chastized, and thought of as Roman Catholic –

    You are so glued to the Book of Concord and Luther you aren’t able to read the Word of God without his guidance and tutelage.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Grace @ 159 – I was slow in writing my comment, and only saw yours after publishing.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Grace @ 159 – I was slow in writing my comment, and only saw yours after publishing.

  • Tom Hering

    The guidance and tutelage of your own mind is superior to that of the great Christians who’ve gone before us, Grace?

  • Tom Hering

    The guidance and tutelage of your own mind is superior to that of the great Christians who’ve gone before us, Grace?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@163), for one accusing me of being “confused”, you’re not doing a bang-up job of understanding what I said.

    First of all, the only objection I see being raised to labeling your theology “Catholic” is that, well, you don’t like that label. Seriously, compare what you’re saying to the sections of official Catholic dogma from the Council of Trent (above). What about what you’re saying is not straight Catholic teaching?

    Secondly, I didn’t “chastize” you for bringing James into the mix. I said you were wrong to assert that James trumps pretty much the rest of the NT (most notably Romans) on the doctrine of justification.

    Anyone who has spent time reading the Bible recognizes that, on the surface, there is an apparent tension between James and, oh, let’s just say, Romans, on the issue of justification. You and Rome have chosen to resolve that issue by assuming James trumps Romans, and faith is not the only thing involved in justification.

    Of course, you still have yet to address the fundamental question here, which I stated in the last paragraph of my comment above (@161). Judging from your past behavior, I have to assume you never will, whether because you can’t or merely because you “don’t have time”.

    Grace, I haven’t said word one about the Book of Concord or Luther in this thread. As usual, while you accuse me of being beholden to them, you yourself have actually talked about them more. But I suppose it makes it easier for you to claim that I’m not making my argument from Scripture alone, doesn’t it?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@163), for one accusing me of being “confused”, you’re not doing a bang-up job of understanding what I said.

    First of all, the only objection I see being raised to labeling your theology “Catholic” is that, well, you don’t like that label. Seriously, compare what you’re saying to the sections of official Catholic dogma from the Council of Trent (above). What about what you’re saying is not straight Catholic teaching?

    Secondly, I didn’t “chastize” you for bringing James into the mix. I said you were wrong to assert that James trumps pretty much the rest of the NT (most notably Romans) on the doctrine of justification.

    Anyone who has spent time reading the Bible recognizes that, on the surface, there is an apparent tension between James and, oh, let’s just say, Romans, on the issue of justification. You and Rome have chosen to resolve that issue by assuming James trumps Romans, and faith is not the only thing involved in justification.

    Of course, you still have yet to address the fundamental question here, which I stated in the last paragraph of my comment above (@161). Judging from your past behavior, I have to assume you never will, whether because you can’t or merely because you “don’t have time”.

    Grace, I haven’t said word one about the Book of Concord or Luther in this thread. As usual, while you accuse me of being beholden to them, you yourself have actually talked about them more. But I suppose it makes it easier for you to claim that I’m not making my argument from Scripture alone, doesn’t it?

  • SKPeterson

    So, Grace, I take it that you have no answer which is why you casually dismiss it, that seems to be your modus operandi. You follow your logic to the conclusions reached by the Roman Catholic Church on the need for good works to cooperate in your salvation. This raises a few questions: How many good works must you do? Can you save your good works in a bank, or with a point system? Here’s the biggest one – if you can save yourself by your works, why did Jesus have to come at all? You’ve apparently got the Law down pat, so you’re good to go, despite what Paul says in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and John says in his letters (see I do read the Bible Grace, I just read it better than you. That isn’t arrogance, it’s demonstrated fact by this post thread and others. Tom reads it better, fws reads it better, tODD reads it better, Louis reads it better, too). See, here’s the rub, if James is as important as Romans or Ephesians or the other books of the Bible, how’s about we go ahead and invoke 1 Timothy 2:12.

    Here’s how the exhortation to good works in James can be viewed from a Lutheran, from Chemnitz:

    It is necessary to do good works commanded by God, not that we may trust to earn grace by them, but because of the will and command of God, likewise to exercise faith, and for the sake of confession and giving of thanks.

    I. Because our good works are due obedience commanded by God which we creatures owe the Creator, and they are as it were thanksgiving for the favors of God and sacrifices pleasing to God because of Christ.

    II. That our heavenly Father might be glorified thereby.

    III. That our faith might be exercised and increased by our good works, so that it may grow and be stirred up.

    IV. That our neighbor might be edified by our good works and spurred to imitation and be helped in need.

    V. That we might make our calling sure by good works and testify that our faith is neither feigned nor dead.

    VI. Though our good works do not merit either justification or salvation, yet they are to be done, since they have promises of this life and of that which is to come. 1 Ti 4:8.

  • SKPeterson

    So, Grace, I take it that you have no answer which is why you casually dismiss it, that seems to be your modus operandi. You follow your logic to the conclusions reached by the Roman Catholic Church on the need for good works to cooperate in your salvation. This raises a few questions: How many good works must you do? Can you save your good works in a bank, or with a point system? Here’s the biggest one – if you can save yourself by your works, why did Jesus have to come at all? You’ve apparently got the Law down pat, so you’re good to go, despite what Paul says in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and John says in his letters (see I do read the Bible Grace, I just read it better than you. That isn’t arrogance, it’s demonstrated fact by this post thread and others. Tom reads it better, fws reads it better, tODD reads it better, Louis reads it better, too). See, here’s the rub, if James is as important as Romans or Ephesians or the other books of the Bible, how’s about we go ahead and invoke 1 Timothy 2:12.

    Here’s how the exhortation to good works in James can be viewed from a Lutheran, from Chemnitz:

    It is necessary to do good works commanded by God, not that we may trust to earn grace by them, but because of the will and command of God, likewise to exercise faith, and for the sake of confession and giving of thanks.

    I. Because our good works are due obedience commanded by God which we creatures owe the Creator, and they are as it were thanksgiving for the favors of God and sacrifices pleasing to God because of Christ.

    II. That our heavenly Father might be glorified thereby.

    III. That our faith might be exercised and increased by our good works, so that it may grow and be stirred up.

    IV. That our neighbor might be edified by our good works and spurred to imitation and be helped in need.

    V. That we might make our calling sure by good works and testify that our faith is neither feigned nor dead.

    VI. Though our good works do not merit either justification or salvation, yet they are to be done, since they have promises of this life and of that which is to come. 1 Ti 4:8.

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    Please try to hear me in the spirit intended, as someone who wants to offer something from the heart. Take it for what it is worth. I don’t like any of the bitterness, even my own, which flairs up too.

    What is the point of grace? Doesn’t it completely lose its meaning if it is true that you actually are required to add something to it in order to make it effective? There is no grace at all if that is the case. It is the character of grace being completely and absolutely unmerited that make it what it is, bestowed upon us out of the mercy of God’s loving heart through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Shall I tell you again how much I love to hear your name? It’s because of this very thing, that in Christ, of all things, finally, We are, you are, I am, reconciled. And this is true not because of anything I or you have done or can do but because God wills it to be so. God is love, and he loves you and me this much, that the gave his Son.

    What exactly could we add to that grace Grace – to the innocent, bitter suffering and death of our Lord on the cross for your sake and mine? What measure of works could be accounted with what God himself poured out for you and me there on Calvary?
    I can understand the desire to want to offer our works to God in gratitude for this amazing grace he has given to us, but God does not need them from us. He has spoken this to us in His Son – completely, eternally, for us, forever. This is the very good news of the Gospel that makes us free, you and me Grace, to be His people by his grace. What he needs from us is to love one another. that is the work he wants from us – love for each other.

    Jesus loves you Grace. He loves you when you don’t do a thing.

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    Please try to hear me in the spirit intended, as someone who wants to offer something from the heart. Take it for what it is worth. I don’t like any of the bitterness, even my own, which flairs up too.

    What is the point of grace? Doesn’t it completely lose its meaning if it is true that you actually are required to add something to it in order to make it effective? There is no grace at all if that is the case. It is the character of grace being completely and absolutely unmerited that make it what it is, bestowed upon us out of the mercy of God’s loving heart through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Shall I tell you again how much I love to hear your name? It’s because of this very thing, that in Christ, of all things, finally, We are, you are, I am, reconciled. And this is true not because of anything I or you have done or can do but because God wills it to be so. God is love, and he loves you and me this much, that the gave his Son.

    What exactly could we add to that grace Grace – to the innocent, bitter suffering and death of our Lord on the cross for your sake and mine? What measure of works could be accounted with what God himself poured out for you and me there on Calvary?
    I can understand the desire to want to offer our works to God in gratitude for this amazing grace he has given to us, but God does not need them from us. He has spoken this to us in His Son – completely, eternally, for us, forever. This is the very good news of the Gospel that makes us free, you and me Grace, to be His people by his grace. What he needs from us is to love one another. that is the work he wants from us – love for each other.

    Jesus loves you Grace. He loves you when you don’t do a thing.

  • Tom Hering

    “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain – if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”

    “Even so Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘all the nations will be blessed in you.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.”

    “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.’ [Cf. James 2:10.] Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘the righteous man shall live by faith.’ However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘he who practices them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, ‘cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’ – in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (Galatians 1:1-14.)

    “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” (James 2:10.)

  • Tom Hering

    “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain – if indeed it was in vain? So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”

    “Even so Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘all the nations will be blessed in you.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.”

    “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.’ [Cf. James 2:10.] Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘the righteous man shall live by faith.’ However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘he who practices them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us – for it is written, ‘cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’ – in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (Galatians 1:1-14.)

    “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” (James 2:10.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X