Baptists debate alcohol

Two decades after declaring victory in the war over biblical inerrancy, Southern Baptists are battling about booze.

Seeking to remain relevant in today’s culture, many Baptists have abandoned former taboos against social activities like dancing and going to movies. Now some are questioning the denomination’s historic position of abstaining from alcohol, prompting others to draw a line. . . .

The ruckus — and the post-convention blogs that kept the argument alive — prompted Peter Lumpkins, a Southern Baptist pastor for more than 20 years before turning to a writing ministry, to pen his first book: Alcohol Today: Abstinence in an Age of Indulgence, in 2009.

“One would be hard-pressed to locate a belief — outside believers’ baptism by immersion itself — which reflects more unity among Southern Baptists than abstinence from intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes,” Lumpkins said in an e-mail interview.

Lumpkins, who blogs at SBC Tomorrow, said younger Southern Baptist leaders do not appreciate that history and instead view teetotalism as extra-biblical and nothing more than “Pharisaical legalism.”

Lumpkins is among Southern Baptists who view relaxed attitudes about social drinking as the biggest controversy facing the Southern Baptist Convention since the “conservative resurgence” debate over Scripture in the 1980s. . . .

Lumpkins describes “a cataclysmic moral shift away from biblical holiness expressed in biblical Lordship toward the relativistic, postmodern norms of American pop culture, including its hedonistic obsession with fulfilling desires.”

Unless the “Christian hedonism” trend is halted, Lumpkins fears “the largest Protestant voice for abstinence soon will succumb to the ominous lure of an age of indulgence. We will forfeit our biblical heritage to the whims of an obsessive pop morality that wildly sniffs the wind but for the faintest scent of pleasure fulfilled.”

Lumpkins, a binge drinker in his youth, says the church has “conceded its historic role as the moral conscience of our culture, particularly as it forfeited its once-strong position on abstinence from intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes.” . . .

He also lays out a biblical case for abstinence. While there are verses that seem to praise wine, he says, there are others that condemn wine, a point overlooked by those who argue the Bible only condemns drunkenness and not drinking.

His final hurdle is the story in the Gospel of John about the wedding feast in Cana where Jesus turns water into wine. Lumpkins says the Greek and Hebrew words translated “wine” don’t distinguish between fresh and fermented grape juice, and he doubts the Son of God would “manifest forth his glory” by sprucing up a party that had run out of alcohol.

via Baptists debate social drinking | The Christian Century.

Isn’t the argument that Jesus didn’t create alcohol because he wouldn’t rather circular?  And since when do Jewish weddings serve grape juice?  Making abstinence from alcohol a matter of Biblical teaching just cannot be done.   I’m curious where Baptists are coming down on this debate.  I’d like to hear from you Baptists out there.

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.

  • WebMonk

    Baptists are always debating alcohol usage. I’m not part of the SBC, but I am fairly well plugged into the large-scale goings on in the denomination, and I haven’t heard of any increase in alcohol debates recently.

    I suspect that the author of this piece noticed that Lumpkin had written something that caused a bit of stir and decided to sensationalize the story and make it sound like the entire denomination is in the heated throws of a debate on the topic. Not that I can tell, at least not any more than normal – alcohol is a constant background argument for them.

  • WebMonk

    Baptists are always debating alcohol usage. I’m not part of the SBC, but I am fairly well plugged into the large-scale goings on in the denomination, and I haven’t heard of any increase in alcohol debates recently.

    I suspect that the author of this piece noticed that Lumpkin had written something that caused a bit of stir and decided to sensationalize the story and make it sound like the entire denomination is in the heated throws of a debate on the topic. Not that I can tell, at least not any more than normal – alcohol is a constant background argument for them.

  • http://barrywallace.wordpress.com Barry Wallace

    I attend a small Southern Baptist Church. We recently changed our church covenant, for a variety of reasons which I won’t go into here. One of the things we did, though, was entirely remove any reference to alcohol from the covenant. The standard Baptist covenant flatly prohibits the use or sale of alcohol.

  • http://barrywallace.wordpress.com Barry Wallace

    I attend a small Southern Baptist Church. We recently changed our church covenant, for a variety of reasons which I won’t go into here. One of the things we did, though, was entirely remove any reference to alcohol from the covenant. The standard Baptist covenant flatly prohibits the use or sale of alcohol.

  • Dan Kempin

    There is certainly a valid point about Christian hedonism–alive and well among lutherans, I might add. (For those who paint Luther as a rosy faced proponent of “lutheran lemonade,” I say: Show me in his own words the Luther that is so often portrayed on beer glasses.) Refusal to partake of intoxicating drink can, I think, be a powerful statement. The problem with the Baptist position is that such a statement MUST BE VOLUNTARY! To freely give up what you are free to do out of love for your neighbor is noble. To argue that something is forbidden, even though it is not forbidden, because it would just be better for everybody if it was forbidden–well that IS Pharisaical legalism. (It isn’t enough to just keep the law of God. I’m going to keep it extra!)

  • Dan Kempin

    There is certainly a valid point about Christian hedonism–alive and well among lutherans, I might add. (For those who paint Luther as a rosy faced proponent of “lutheran lemonade,” I say: Show me in his own words the Luther that is so often portrayed on beer glasses.) Refusal to partake of intoxicating drink can, I think, be a powerful statement. The problem with the Baptist position is that such a statement MUST BE VOLUNTARY! To freely give up what you are free to do out of love for your neighbor is noble. To argue that something is forbidden, even though it is not forbidden, because it would just be better for everybody if it was forbidden–well that IS Pharisaical legalism. (It isn’t enough to just keep the law of God. I’m going to keep it extra!)

  • Larry

    I’m an ex-SB and having come from this I’m very plugged in to it. Half of our family are either involved directly in the ministry or are ministers within the SB realm. This ad nausem debate of theirs really shows what their theology is about and unbelievers pick up on it – more than one time my wife and I heard unbelievers state, “oh, they don’t drink because they think that will get them into heaven” (word for word). So if they think they are protecting their witness they are, that the SB witness is “not drinking gets you into heaven” and not “Christ and Him crucified”, they are literally protecting THEIR witness and not the Christian witness.

    Lumpkin’s “exegesis” of these passages are simply foolish. His exegesis on the language doesn’t even pass a basic ‘laugh test’ of languages whose cultures to this day do not recognize the western hemisphere AMERICAN Southern Baptist interpretation of their own language and culture. His exegesis is like a Chinese man from the region of Salar via his particular sect of Buddhism interpreting statements in American language referencing “garage sells” as “must mean selling of garages” and insisting that THAT is what it means even if we over here who developed and used the very term say, “you got it ALL wrong”.

    His assertion of “caving into the culture” is nothing more than a false accusation, ad hominem and rank red herring to those within seeking to return Biblical reality to the issue. Drunkenness within ANY culture, time and space, is always an issue and furthermore ANY thing can be abused by the wider pagan culture. In fact the Lord Himself during His earthly ministry recognizes this in that culture when he says the Pharisees call Him a drunkard for drinking, which also kind of blows out of the water Lumpkins utter non-sense regarding the wedding feast and Jesus miracle of turning water into wine. This also shows that they do NOT really hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, at least not, Sola Scriptura as Luther proclaimed. Because their wrangling of the terms for “wine” using their fallen human reasoning in the wedding feast passage is really not substantially different when they don’t sola scriptura when Christ said, “this is My body…this is My blood…” or when Peter said, “this baptism saves you”.

    So, they huff and puff a LOT about this issue but don’t mind too much the gluttony that goes on at a much wider rate than drunkenness among the pagan culture and I knew more than one SB pastor/minister whose stomach well over cast his belt. Yet alcohol is cast as taboo while a fried chicken/potato salad fellowship meal allowed for much over indulgence within the church doors. I’m not saying that to “pick on food”, but to make a comparative point about this broader issue. It’s like Luther said, ‘men go wrong with the sun, moon and women…shall we too eliminate them’. In fact one might argue based on the shear numbers that men indeed go more wrong with idol worship, women and food in the broader culture so let’s just eliminate that too. In the broader culture of American indulgence heart disease and diabetes due to over eating is STILL by FAR the greater effect and killer than is alcoholism. So, rather than moderate they should quite eating to be consistent, stop marrying and consummating the marriages, since sex is wildly out of control in the culture and stop worshipping since idolatry is at the root of everything in the culture and being most over indulged into above all things.

    Furthermore, and this has been proven more times than can be counted, the biblical references of the goodness of wine far out weigh the negatives, of which the later is man’s sin not the created creature and good gift God blessed in the beginning when He said all that HE created was good, very good indeed. Lumpkin’s entire argument is nothing more than fallen man blaming creation for his own sinfulness. In fact the Bible does speak in the OT that the taking away of wine is a sign of cursing, not blessing, and that wine is a blessing. He conveniently misses all those passages.

    James Boyce, Southern’s first president (1888) was a wine conisseur, and drunkenness and indulgence in the broader culture was not that different than today.

    Most of all Christ had/has no problem giving us His precious blood by the means of wine. And the references of the great feast that CHRIST has prepared for us in the eternal kingdom, reference wine much.

    Lumpkin makes little of the arising Baptist against this who are beginning to at least go in the return direction of the bible on this and at least are seeing the Gospel again in this. It is not nearly as small as is publically debated. Yes, it appears small because there is still this public SB pressure to never even say the word “beer” or speak of it, a quick “hush, hush” to keep “the peace”. But brooding deeply underneath in quite personal SB conversations its brought up a lot. The “hush hush” is kind of like the squelching one might find in a former Soviet block country, one dare not publically or loudly talk about it, but the whispers are numerous and deafening. There’s an old SB joke that is a joke and funny among because of its real truth that goes like this: When you go fishing always take two SB friends with you and never one. Because if you take two with you they won’t drink any of your beer and there will be more for you, but if you take one he’ll drink it all.

    I mean it’s really like a form of oppressive totalitarianism if you are within that religion’s culture. When I was there I abstained too, and one looks down upon anyone that even pops a top like a Pharisee, I mean I’m ashamed of the way I use to think on this and would have agreed with Lumpkin. Numerous times when my wife and I would visit fellow churchmen at our church or others after supper they’d whisper, no joke, in their own homes as if somebody bugged the lights, “We have wine (usually pointing to some dark hidden place under the sink or something) if you all would like some”, then the voice volume would rise as we all blushed, “or we can fix some coffee”. Of course being good Pharisees we all would rattle our heads in affirmation, “Yea, yea, coffee sounds good”.

    In fact I’ve seen this happen first hand more than once. Some congregants finally seeing the Gospel afresh peel off from the SB culture and in the wake of that fresh look at the Gospel they suddenly find, hey beer, wine and alcohol in moderation and good use are gifts from God. It’s yours to enjoy if you do and don’t worry if you don’t like the taste of it, either way. In fact the churches I’d been at while in that denomination that promote this abstinence without fail no longer even minimally preach the Gospel in any minimal form that a sect might do.

  • Larry

    I’m an ex-SB and having come from this I’m very plugged in to it. Half of our family are either involved directly in the ministry or are ministers within the SB realm. This ad nausem debate of theirs really shows what their theology is about and unbelievers pick up on it – more than one time my wife and I heard unbelievers state, “oh, they don’t drink because they think that will get them into heaven” (word for word). So if they think they are protecting their witness they are, that the SB witness is “not drinking gets you into heaven” and not “Christ and Him crucified”, they are literally protecting THEIR witness and not the Christian witness.

    Lumpkin’s “exegesis” of these passages are simply foolish. His exegesis on the language doesn’t even pass a basic ‘laugh test’ of languages whose cultures to this day do not recognize the western hemisphere AMERICAN Southern Baptist interpretation of their own language and culture. His exegesis is like a Chinese man from the region of Salar via his particular sect of Buddhism interpreting statements in American language referencing “garage sells” as “must mean selling of garages” and insisting that THAT is what it means even if we over here who developed and used the very term say, “you got it ALL wrong”.

    His assertion of “caving into the culture” is nothing more than a false accusation, ad hominem and rank red herring to those within seeking to return Biblical reality to the issue. Drunkenness within ANY culture, time and space, is always an issue and furthermore ANY thing can be abused by the wider pagan culture. In fact the Lord Himself during His earthly ministry recognizes this in that culture when he says the Pharisees call Him a drunkard for drinking, which also kind of blows out of the water Lumpkins utter non-sense regarding the wedding feast and Jesus miracle of turning water into wine. This also shows that they do NOT really hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, at least not, Sola Scriptura as Luther proclaimed. Because their wrangling of the terms for “wine” using their fallen human reasoning in the wedding feast passage is really not substantially different when they don’t sola scriptura when Christ said, “this is My body…this is My blood…” or when Peter said, “this baptism saves you”.

    So, they huff and puff a LOT about this issue but don’t mind too much the gluttony that goes on at a much wider rate than drunkenness among the pagan culture and I knew more than one SB pastor/minister whose stomach well over cast his belt. Yet alcohol is cast as taboo while a fried chicken/potato salad fellowship meal allowed for much over indulgence within the church doors. I’m not saying that to “pick on food”, but to make a comparative point about this broader issue. It’s like Luther said, ‘men go wrong with the sun, moon and women…shall we too eliminate them’. In fact one might argue based on the shear numbers that men indeed go more wrong with idol worship, women and food in the broader culture so let’s just eliminate that too. In the broader culture of American indulgence heart disease and diabetes due to over eating is STILL by FAR the greater effect and killer than is alcoholism. So, rather than moderate they should quite eating to be consistent, stop marrying and consummating the marriages, since sex is wildly out of control in the culture and stop worshipping since idolatry is at the root of everything in the culture and being most over indulged into above all things.

    Furthermore, and this has been proven more times than can be counted, the biblical references of the goodness of wine far out weigh the negatives, of which the later is man’s sin not the created creature and good gift God blessed in the beginning when He said all that HE created was good, very good indeed. Lumpkin’s entire argument is nothing more than fallen man blaming creation for his own sinfulness. In fact the Bible does speak in the OT that the taking away of wine is a sign of cursing, not blessing, and that wine is a blessing. He conveniently misses all those passages.

    James Boyce, Southern’s first president (1888) was a wine conisseur, and drunkenness and indulgence in the broader culture was not that different than today.

    Most of all Christ had/has no problem giving us His precious blood by the means of wine. And the references of the great feast that CHRIST has prepared for us in the eternal kingdom, reference wine much.

    Lumpkin makes little of the arising Baptist against this who are beginning to at least go in the return direction of the bible on this and at least are seeing the Gospel again in this. It is not nearly as small as is publically debated. Yes, it appears small because there is still this public SB pressure to never even say the word “beer” or speak of it, a quick “hush, hush” to keep “the peace”. But brooding deeply underneath in quite personal SB conversations its brought up a lot. The “hush hush” is kind of like the squelching one might find in a former Soviet block country, one dare not publically or loudly talk about it, but the whispers are numerous and deafening. There’s an old SB joke that is a joke and funny among because of its real truth that goes like this: When you go fishing always take two SB friends with you and never one. Because if you take two with you they won’t drink any of your beer and there will be more for you, but if you take one he’ll drink it all.

    I mean it’s really like a form of oppressive totalitarianism if you are within that religion’s culture. When I was there I abstained too, and one looks down upon anyone that even pops a top like a Pharisee, I mean I’m ashamed of the way I use to think on this and would have agreed with Lumpkin. Numerous times when my wife and I would visit fellow churchmen at our church or others after supper they’d whisper, no joke, in their own homes as if somebody bugged the lights, “We have wine (usually pointing to some dark hidden place under the sink or something) if you all would like some”, then the voice volume would rise as we all blushed, “or we can fix some coffee”. Of course being good Pharisees we all would rattle our heads in affirmation, “Yea, yea, coffee sounds good”.

    In fact I’ve seen this happen first hand more than once. Some congregants finally seeing the Gospel afresh peel off from the SB culture and in the wake of that fresh look at the Gospel they suddenly find, hey beer, wine and alcohol in moderation and good use are gifts from God. It’s yours to enjoy if you do and don’t worry if you don’t like the taste of it, either way. In fact the churches I’d been at while in that denomination that promote this abstinence without fail no longer even minimally preach the Gospel in any minimal form that a sect might do.

  • Eric Brown

    This is what happens when you start doing theology not on the basis of what the Scriptures say but rather on the basis of what you as an individual fear will happen if you just can’t make other people behave.

  • Eric Brown

    This is what happens when you start doing theology not on the basis of what the Scriptures say but rather on the basis of what you as an individual fear will happen if you just can’t make other people behave.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    I’m a Baptist both by history and personal conviction, and suffice it to say that I’m convinced that when the words “yayin” or “oinos” are used, they refer to ordinary wine with alcohol. To put it mildly, to claim otherwise puts the lie to the idea that the speaker believes in the inerrancy of Scripture–it is to deny the first of the historic Fundamentals.

    And Psalms 149 and 150 refer to a type of dancing, too. I’m not entirely sure what it looked like, but that’s what the Hebrew means.

    (yes, I’ll make the claim; to refuse mandatory teetotaling and abstention from moving one’s feet is at the core of anything we ough to call “genuine” fundamentalism)

    Now in a world where too many don’t know how to drink without getting drunk and dance without it looking an awful lot like something more significant is going to happen, I can understand voluntary, Romans 14 abstinence from these, but let’s not claim it’s a mandate from the Scriptures.

    (I personally apply Romans 14 in drinking by avoiding mass produced American beers….I’ve often seen people drunk on Bud, not very often on microbrews)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    I’m a Baptist both by history and personal conviction, and suffice it to say that I’m convinced that when the words “yayin” or “oinos” are used, they refer to ordinary wine with alcohol. To put it mildly, to claim otherwise puts the lie to the idea that the speaker believes in the inerrancy of Scripture–it is to deny the first of the historic Fundamentals.

    And Psalms 149 and 150 refer to a type of dancing, too. I’m not entirely sure what it looked like, but that’s what the Hebrew means.

    (yes, I’ll make the claim; to refuse mandatory teetotaling and abstention from moving one’s feet is at the core of anything we ough to call “genuine” fundamentalism)

    Now in a world where too many don’t know how to drink without getting drunk and dance without it looking an awful lot like something more significant is going to happen, I can understand voluntary, Romans 14 abstinence from these, but let’s not claim it’s a mandate from the Scriptures.

    (I personally apply Romans 14 in drinking by avoiding mass produced American beers….I’ve often seen people drunk on Bud, not very often on microbrews)

  • Booklover

    “Lumpkins, a binge drinker in his youth…”

    I’m wondering if Lumpkins wasn’t raised Baptist, with a strong admonition against drink.

    I remember the videos we watched in 4H which warned against drunken driving. In it, the counselor in the movie said that cultures which accept a drink or two with meals have far fewer alcoholics. He described two groups as having the most alcoholics. One of those groups was the Southern Baptists, who strongly caution against drinking; then, almost as a reaction against this verboten item, turn to it with fervor. I am sorry to say that I married into that type of situation. When a substance is so strictly forbidden, it becomes tantalizing.

    Alcohol appears to be a blessing and a curse. I believe that biblically, wine is a blessing from God, but drunkenness is a sin. I tried to raise my four sons to accept it that way, but I can see where it is being used far more than is comfortable. Here in Montana, the rate of drunken driving accidents and deaths are totally unacceptable.

  • Booklover

    “Lumpkins, a binge drinker in his youth…”

    I’m wondering if Lumpkins wasn’t raised Baptist, with a strong admonition against drink.

    I remember the videos we watched in 4H which warned against drunken driving. In it, the counselor in the movie said that cultures which accept a drink or two with meals have far fewer alcoholics. He described two groups as having the most alcoholics. One of those groups was the Southern Baptists, who strongly caution against drinking; then, almost as a reaction against this verboten item, turn to it with fervor. I am sorry to say that I married into that type of situation. When a substance is so strictly forbidden, it becomes tantalizing.

    Alcohol appears to be a blessing and a curse. I believe that biblically, wine is a blessing from God, but drunkenness is a sin. I tried to raise my four sons to accept it that way, but I can see where it is being used far more than is comfortable. Here in Montana, the rate of drunken driving accidents and deaths are totally unacceptable.

  • Bart

    I too, as a Baptist, think it is perfectly ok to drink. I think what needs to be said already has been.

    Also, “social drinking as the biggest controversy facing the Southern Baptist Convention since the “conservative resurgence” debate over Scripture in the 1980s” shows that Lumpkin is quite foolish really. I do hope nobody listens to him and his logic. Next thing you know we will be banning marriage because sex inevitably makes one a profligate. Youth need to learn how to drink properly and in a controlled manner in the age of binge. This is true temperance, and as such should be the focus of the SBC’s goals for practice. Unfortunately, I fear there are so many elements under the control of fundamentalism that will fight for a mere crystallization of the 1950s with a theology that reaches no farther back that the 1820s.

  • Bart

    I too, as a Baptist, think it is perfectly ok to drink. I think what needs to be said already has been.

    Also, “social drinking as the biggest controversy facing the Southern Baptist Convention since the “conservative resurgence” debate over Scripture in the 1980s” shows that Lumpkin is quite foolish really. I do hope nobody listens to him and his logic. Next thing you know we will be banning marriage because sex inevitably makes one a profligate. Youth need to learn how to drink properly and in a controlled manner in the age of binge. This is true temperance, and as such should be the focus of the SBC’s goals for practice. Unfortunately, I fear there are so many elements under the control of fundamentalism that will fight for a mere crystallization of the 1950s with a theology that reaches no farther back that the 1820s.

  • Booklover

    As was mentioned so eloquently by Larry, wine is the blessed means given to us by our Lord in His Supper.

    There have been men who think they know better than God, who replace that wine with a different substance. Witness a Methodist Mr. Welch in the 1800′s, who just happened to make quite a profit off the whole deal.

  • Booklover

    As was mentioned so eloquently by Larry, wine is the blessed means given to us by our Lord in His Supper.

    There have been men who think they know better than God, who replace that wine with a different substance. Witness a Methodist Mr. Welch in the 1800′s, who just happened to make quite a profit off the whole deal.

  • Joe

    “I’ve often seen people drunk on Bud, not very often on microbrews”

    Almost did a spit take on that one, Bike. Was this a serious statement? Here in Milwaukee you can see people drunk on macrobrews, microbrews and anything in between. The only difference is the amount of disposable income of the drinker.

  • Joe

    “I’ve often seen people drunk on Bud, not very often on microbrews”

    Almost did a spit take on that one, Bike. Was this a serious statement? Here in Milwaukee you can see people drunk on macrobrews, microbrews and anything in between. The only difference is the amount of disposable income of the drinker.

  • Booklover

    #8 continued. . .
    Upon further reading, one site said Mr. Welch did not make a profit from his grape juice. (Alhough I would imagine his son did.) Either way, it seems odd to have the chutzpah to change hundreds of years of tradition using one’s own product.

  • Booklover

    #8 continued. . .
    Upon further reading, one site said Mr. Welch did not make a profit from his grape juice. (Alhough I would imagine his son did.) Either way, it seems odd to have the chutzpah to change hundreds of years of tradition using one’s own product.

  • Dave

    Booklover: That was interesting. I never knew grape juice was actually “invented” by someone specifically looking for a way to have a nonalcoholic drink for church.

    I grew up in the GARBC denomination. (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches) I don’t remember specifics, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we considered the Southern Baptists too liberal. :-)

  • Dave

    Booklover: That was interesting. I never knew grape juice was actually “invented” by someone specifically looking for a way to have a nonalcoholic drink for church.

    I grew up in the GARBC denomination. (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches) I don’t remember specifics, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we considered the Southern Baptists too liberal. :-)

  • Dan Kempin

    Booklover, #6

    ” the counselor in the movie said that cultures which accept a drink or two with meals have far fewer alcoholics.”

    There is something to the ancient saying that we always desire what is forbidden. I spent a semester in Israel once upon a time, where beer and alcohol were available in every shop, cafe, and sidewalk cart. I never once saw a drunk Israeli, not even in the bars at night.

  • Dan Kempin

    Booklover, #6

    ” the counselor in the movie said that cultures which accept a drink or two with meals have far fewer alcoholics.”

    There is something to the ancient saying that we always desire what is forbidden. I spent a semester in Israel once upon a time, where beer and alcohol were available in every shop, cafe, and sidewalk cart. I never once saw a drunk Israeli, not even in the bars at night.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Joe; but that’s Milwaukee. :^)

    But yes, I’m serious; yes, some do get drunk on well-hopped, flavorful beers, but a lot of drinkers simply find themselves satisfied with one flavorful brew instead of a bunch of cheap swill. Plus, for those not disposed to spend a lot, the extra cost of something decent dissuades drunkenness.

    Another point of reference; Bavarians drink liters, other Germans drink a fifth to a third that amount, and this correlates to the relative hoppiness/malt content of those beers. Bavarian beers tend to be a touch lighter.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Joe; but that’s Milwaukee. :^)

    But yes, I’m serious; yes, some do get drunk on well-hopped, flavorful beers, but a lot of drinkers simply find themselves satisfied with one flavorful brew instead of a bunch of cheap swill. Plus, for those not disposed to spend a lot, the extra cost of something decent dissuades drunkenness.

    Another point of reference; Bavarians drink liters, other Germans drink a fifth to a third that amount, and this correlates to the relative hoppiness/malt content of those beers. Bavarian beers tend to be a touch lighter.

  • Shane Ayers

    As a former Southern Baptist myself, I would contend that the position on alcohol exemplifies the fundamentalist response to culture. Alcohol is, and was, frequently abused in American culture. Rather than seeking the proper function and pleasure of drink, Baptist simply marked themselves as distinct from the culture at large by rejecting alcohol entirely. This is the same approach that Baptists took to, say, the cinema. Ironically, it is the more legalistic practice of tea-totaling that has endured, while modern Baptists have largely abandoned the objection to the more subtly subversive cinema.

  • Shane Ayers

    As a former Southern Baptist myself, I would contend that the position on alcohol exemplifies the fundamentalist response to culture. Alcohol is, and was, frequently abused in American culture. Rather than seeking the proper function and pleasure of drink, Baptist simply marked themselves as distinct from the culture at large by rejecting alcohol entirely. This is the same approach that Baptists took to, say, the cinema. Ironically, it is the more legalistic practice of tea-totaling that has endured, while modern Baptists have largely abandoned the objection to the more subtly subversive cinema.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    “Christian Hedonism” what a term. Right now I’m wondering to myself how much that term applies to me.
    Well I hate sin, even when I’m guilty of it. Especially because I’m guilty of it. My life is defined in the words of Paul in Romans 7. And I try to keep that in mind when dealing with others, they are defined there too.
    I hate even more people who twist God’s word to condemn what it doesn’t condemn. It is morally reprehensible. It is the ultimate in Idolatry. The person who makes a law where God makes none, makes himself out to be God. Is guilty of blasphemy. And that isn’t a great witness to anyone.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    “Christian Hedonism” what a term. Right now I’m wondering to myself how much that term applies to me.
    Well I hate sin, even when I’m guilty of it. Especially because I’m guilty of it. My life is defined in the words of Paul in Romans 7. And I try to keep that in mind when dealing with others, they are defined there too.
    I hate even more people who twist God’s word to condemn what it doesn’t condemn. It is morally reprehensible. It is the ultimate in Idolatry. The person who makes a law where God makes none, makes himself out to be God. Is guilty of blasphemy. And that isn’t a great witness to anyone.

  • Helen F

    I recall a story told by a beloved professor at the seminary that really has stayed with me when I’m confronted by legalists:
    He had been reproached by his neighbor across the street on “the evils of imbibing alcololic beverages” to which the prof. responded,
    “I sat out on the lawn with my 6 pack and drank the whole thing in front of him.” I dont recall the teetotaler’s response but I would guess that he never objected to the “object lesson”! : )

  • Helen F

    I recall a story told by a beloved professor at the seminary that really has stayed with me when I’m confronted by legalists:
    He had been reproached by his neighbor across the street on “the evils of imbibing alcololic beverages” to which the prof. responded,
    “I sat out on the lawn with my 6 pack and drank the whole thing in front of him.” I dont recall the teetotaler’s response but I would guess that he never objected to the “object lesson”! : )

  • JonSLC

    Booklover, #6 “the counselor in the movie said that cultures which accept a drink or two with meals have far fewer alcoholics.”

    Malcolm Gladwell wrote an interesting piece in this vein a few months ago, about cultural approaches to drinking: http://gladwell.com/2010/2010_02_15_a_drinking.html

    BTW, Bike @5 “dance without it looking an awful lot like something more significant is going to happen” — well said!

  • JonSLC

    Booklover, #6 “the counselor in the movie said that cultures which accept a drink or two with meals have far fewer alcoholics.”

    Malcolm Gladwell wrote an interesting piece in this vein a few months ago, about cultural approaches to drinking: http://gladwell.com/2010/2010_02_15_a_drinking.html

    BTW, Bike @5 “dance without it looking an awful lot like something more significant is going to happen” — well said!

  • Norman Teigen

    Being concerned about the effects of alcoholism in society does not make one legalistic. All things are permissible, but not everything edifies. I feel that we Lutherans are a bit smug at times in our attitudes towards the pernicious effects of chemical abuse by using the legalistic label.

    While some Lutherans do not hesitate to use the freedom to drink alcohol as a symbol of Christian freedom, some of these same Lutherans apply the Law to condemn abortion.

    On alcohol consumption and abortion honest Christians will disagree. We would all do well not to apply our own individual preferences as binding upon the consciences of other sincere believers.

  • Norman Teigen

    Being concerned about the effects of alcoholism in society does not make one legalistic. All things are permissible, but not everything edifies. I feel that we Lutherans are a bit smug at times in our attitudes towards the pernicious effects of chemical abuse by using the legalistic label.

    While some Lutherans do not hesitate to use the freedom to drink alcohol as a symbol of Christian freedom, some of these same Lutherans apply the Law to condemn abortion.

    On alcohol consumption and abortion honest Christians will disagree. We would all do well not to apply our own individual preferences as binding upon the consciences of other sincere believers.

  • RC

    I am southern baptist but, I am on my way out the door. However, i will have a beer at dinner. My husband doesn’t drink but, doesn’t think that it is immoral. Most that I know are not quite as horrified by it as this pastor is. i suppose that is why he is writing the piece because few are making it an issue.
    However, it is true that alcohol can be a huge problem for some and there are many Christians who perhaps are recovering from a number of addictions. I think that alcohol is a great and fine however, we should be sensitive to not engage in something around someone who can’t control him or herself.
    As a Baptist this debate about alcohol is just a small reason why I contemplate leaving. These are things that are taught as if implying that it is a Sanctification issue. It is so difficult to live up to the demands and so often Christ death and resurrection is given freely at the altar call but in the next sermon it seems to be placed with a condition.
    Maybe I am being too sensitive.

  • RC

    I am southern baptist but, I am on my way out the door. However, i will have a beer at dinner. My husband doesn’t drink but, doesn’t think that it is immoral. Most that I know are not quite as horrified by it as this pastor is. i suppose that is why he is writing the piece because few are making it an issue.
    However, it is true that alcohol can be a huge problem for some and there are many Christians who perhaps are recovering from a number of addictions. I think that alcohol is a great and fine however, we should be sensitive to not engage in something around someone who can’t control him or herself.
    As a Baptist this debate about alcohol is just a small reason why I contemplate leaving. These are things that are taught as if implying that it is a Sanctification issue. It is so difficult to live up to the demands and so often Christ death and resurrection is given freely at the altar call but in the next sermon it seems to be placed with a condition.
    Maybe I am being too sensitive.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Will try to be a bit serious here; my take about the usual fundamentalist response to liquor is that as many fundamentalists “qualify for DAR membership” (their ancestors immigrated centuries ago), their forebears remembered how a farmer could drink his crop (in the form of whiskey) on the flatboat on the way to New Orleans, leaving his family destitute–and fatherless if the man happened to fall into the Big Muddy on the way. The richness of our soil here made it possible to drink a LOT more than ever before without starving, and thousands/millions of families paid a horrendous price for it. So part of it, IMO, must simply be a response to what they saw in their communities.

    Add to that a less admirable thing–Protestant suspicion of immigrants from central and eastern europe and their habit of drinking a bit more than they were used to–and you’ve got a recipe for enshrining a preference born of good and bad motives both into one’s doctrine.

    I’d like to see fundamentalism grow up and acknowledge, again, the real definitions of “oinos” and “yayin.”

    On a side note: Helen, unless your professor was really big, or took several hours to finish his six pack, he probably was on the wrong side of Ephesians 5:18 and the Biblical prohibition of drunkenness. Let’s not let the very real mistakes of one side become an excuse for our own sin!

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Will try to be a bit serious here; my take about the usual fundamentalist response to liquor is that as many fundamentalists “qualify for DAR membership” (their ancestors immigrated centuries ago), their forebears remembered how a farmer could drink his crop (in the form of whiskey) on the flatboat on the way to New Orleans, leaving his family destitute–and fatherless if the man happened to fall into the Big Muddy on the way. The richness of our soil here made it possible to drink a LOT more than ever before without starving, and thousands/millions of families paid a horrendous price for it. So part of it, IMO, must simply be a response to what they saw in their communities.

    Add to that a less admirable thing–Protestant suspicion of immigrants from central and eastern europe and their habit of drinking a bit more than they were used to–and you’ve got a recipe for enshrining a preference born of good and bad motives both into one’s doctrine.

    I’d like to see fundamentalism grow up and acknowledge, again, the real definitions of “oinos” and “yayin.”

    On a side note: Helen, unless your professor was really big, or took several hours to finish his six pack, he probably was on the wrong side of Ephesians 5:18 and the Biblical prohibition of drunkenness. Let’s not let the very real mistakes of one side become an excuse for our own sin!

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Norm,
    That is the worst bit of logic I have heard in a long time.
    For one this isn’t about worrying about the effects of alcoholism on society. One can be concerned about that even while drinking. This is a bout a “pastor” trying to make a law where there is none, and condemning people for doing something that Christ himself did. The Bible condemns drunkenness, ie alcoholism. Now if a Christian chooses not to drink that is fine, but he has no right to tell another christian not to drink. He does have the obligation to admonish his brother or sister concerning drunkenness.
    This then is not whether or not law should be applied or not. It is a matter of not making a law where there is none.
    Concerning abortion, show me how one can abort a baby without committing murder. you take the life of a baby. It is murder if the mother is not in danger of losing her life. It is that simple. There is no room for disagreement on it.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Norm,
    That is the worst bit of logic I have heard in a long time.
    For one this isn’t about worrying about the effects of alcoholism on society. One can be concerned about that even while drinking. This is a bout a “pastor” trying to make a law where there is none, and condemning people for doing something that Christ himself did. The Bible condemns drunkenness, ie alcoholism. Now if a Christian chooses not to drink that is fine, but he has no right to tell another christian not to drink. He does have the obligation to admonish his brother or sister concerning drunkenness.
    This then is not whether or not law should be applied or not. It is a matter of not making a law where there is none.
    Concerning abortion, show me how one can abort a baby without committing murder. you take the life of a baby. It is murder if the mother is not in danger of losing her life. It is that simple. There is no room for disagreement on it.

  • trotk

    Norman (@18) -

    Did you really just compare alcohol to abortion? Do you see no difference between the two? I am struggling mightily with the statement that “honest Christians will disagree” about abortion.

    Perhaps I misunderstood you. Correct me if I am wrong in thinking that you are saying that abortion is permissible.

  • trotk

    Norman (@18) -

    Did you really just compare alcohol to abortion? Do you see no difference between the two? I am struggling mightily with the statement that “honest Christians will disagree” about abortion.

    Perhaps I misunderstood you. Correct me if I am wrong in thinking that you are saying that abortion is permissible.

  • Helen F

    Bike Bubba,
    Good guess! Yes, he is big, about 6′ 3″ and yes, he took quite a long
    time in consuming the 6 pack. He made his point with the legalist and never did it again. Who knows, maybe the teetotaler became a Lutheran late on! : )

  • Helen F

    Bike Bubba,
    Good guess! Yes, he is big, about 6′ 3″ and yes, he took quite a long
    time in consuming the 6 pack. He made his point with the legalist and never did it again. Who knows, maybe the teetotaler became a Lutheran late on! : )

  • http://firstimportance.org Bart

    Surely Lumpkin’s most concerning statement is this:

    One would be hard-pressed to locate a belief — outside believers’ baptism by immersion itself — which reflects more unity among Southern Baptists than abstinence from intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes.

    Er, what about, you know, THE GOSPEL?

  • http://firstimportance.org Bart

    Surely Lumpkin’s most concerning statement is this:

    One would be hard-pressed to locate a belief — outside believers’ baptism by immersion itself — which reflects more unity among Southern Baptists than abstinence from intoxicating beverages for pleasurable purposes.

    Er, what about, you know, THE GOSPEL?

  • Rob

    To Bror –

    I would add that it is murder even if the mother’s life is threatened. As harsh as it sounds, God is the one who will choose whether that mother lives or dies in childbirth, just as He is the one who chooses whether or not the baby is concieved and lives or dies in childbirth. The so-called “health of the mother exception” is a theological fallacy. Either abortion is murder (whether for selfish or self-preservationist reasons) or it isn’t.

    But your main point is spot on. Abortion and alcohol consumption are nowhere near analagous, even if they do both fall squarely into the “Law/Left Hand” bucket.

  • Rob

    To Bror –

    I would add that it is murder even if the mother’s life is threatened. As harsh as it sounds, God is the one who will choose whether that mother lives or dies in childbirth, just as He is the one who chooses whether or not the baby is concieved and lives or dies in childbirth. The so-called “health of the mother exception” is a theological fallacy. Either abortion is murder (whether for selfish or self-preservationist reasons) or it isn’t.

    But your main point is spot on. Abortion and alcohol consumption are nowhere near analagous, even if they do both fall squarely into the “Law/Left Hand” bucket.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Rob,
    Killing in the name of self preservation or self defense is not considered murder. you still take the life yes, but it is not the same as murder, any more than killing on the battlefield as a soldier, or a cop shooting a man in the line of duty, or the hang man pulling the switch is murder. There is a difference.
    A woman going to have an abortion because she doesn’t want to care for a baby is very different that the baby losing its life because the mom’s life was in danger, if the mom’s life is actually in danger.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Rob,
    Killing in the name of self preservation or self defense is not considered murder. you still take the life yes, but it is not the same as murder, any more than killing on the battlefield as a soldier, or a cop shooting a man in the line of duty, or the hang man pulling the switch is murder. There is a difference.
    A woman going to have an abortion because she doesn’t want to care for a baby is very different that the baby losing its life because the mom’s life was in danger, if the mom’s life is actually in danger.

  • DonS

    Growing up Baptist, we were taught not to drink, dance, or go to movies, because you were supporting an evil industry. It wasn’t taught as being a sin issue, but rather as being lifestyle/witness/stewardship issue. I believe all of this grew out of the early 20th century temperance movement and got ingrained into the church culture. It wasn’t just Baptists. I attended a Christian college affiliated with the Wesleyan denomination, and we had to sign a pledge (this was 1977-80) that we would not dance, drink, or see movies while enrolled. Not as a matter of sin, but rather of community. And this particular college was a liberal arts college considered to be on the liberal side. Many Christian colleges, of various denominational affiliations, had far stricter pledges than our’s.

    A real problem is that when pastors teach these things from the pulpit, their congregants assume that it is a salvation issue, rather than a lifestyle suggestion. The legalism ultimately becomes ingrained in the church culture, and its teachings become known to the adjacent community. Then, if someone known to be a Christian is seen attending a movie, dancing, or having a glass of wine with dinner, they are assumed by their non-Christian neighbors to be in sin. So, you kind of get trapped in the legalism even if you don’t buy it, and even if you don’t attend the legalistic church, not wanting your non-Christian (and Christian) neighbors to stumble because of your “sin”. Even to this day, though I am no longer a Baptist, don’t attend a church having a legalistic flavor, and live in free-wheeling southern California, I am careful about where and when I drink in order to avoid the stumbling issue. Thankfully, at least in our area (probably not so much yet in the south), this problem is fading over time as the legalism fades from the pulpits of our churches.

    I still have pretty strong connections to SBC in the south, because of my parents attending an SBC church until my dad passed away and my mom moved back north a few years ago, and it does seem as if the culture is changing even there. Lumpkins is in the distinct minority in his views, from my perspective, and this article is an exaggeration of the state of the SBC.

  • DonS

    Growing up Baptist, we were taught not to drink, dance, or go to movies, because you were supporting an evil industry. It wasn’t taught as being a sin issue, but rather as being lifestyle/witness/stewardship issue. I believe all of this grew out of the early 20th century temperance movement and got ingrained into the church culture. It wasn’t just Baptists. I attended a Christian college affiliated with the Wesleyan denomination, and we had to sign a pledge (this was 1977-80) that we would not dance, drink, or see movies while enrolled. Not as a matter of sin, but rather of community. And this particular college was a liberal arts college considered to be on the liberal side. Many Christian colleges, of various denominational affiliations, had far stricter pledges than our’s.

    A real problem is that when pastors teach these things from the pulpit, their congregants assume that it is a salvation issue, rather than a lifestyle suggestion. The legalism ultimately becomes ingrained in the church culture, and its teachings become known to the adjacent community. Then, if someone known to be a Christian is seen attending a movie, dancing, or having a glass of wine with dinner, they are assumed by their non-Christian neighbors to be in sin. So, you kind of get trapped in the legalism even if you don’t buy it, and even if you don’t attend the legalistic church, not wanting your non-Christian (and Christian) neighbors to stumble because of your “sin”. Even to this day, though I am no longer a Baptist, don’t attend a church having a legalistic flavor, and live in free-wheeling southern California, I am careful about where and when I drink in order to avoid the stumbling issue. Thankfully, at least in our area (probably not so much yet in the south), this problem is fading over time as the legalism fades from the pulpits of our churches.

    I still have pretty strong connections to SBC in the south, because of my parents attending an SBC church until my dad passed away and my mom moved back north a few years ago, and it does seem as if the culture is changing even there. Lumpkins is in the distinct minority in his views, from my perspective, and this article is an exaggeration of the state of the SBC.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    Perhaps I’ve missed the boat but alcohol has never been a component of my Lutheran identity. I don’t really understand the emotions it evokes on our side or among the Baptists.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    Perhaps I’ve missed the boat but alcohol has never been a component of my Lutheran identity. I don’t really understand the emotions it evokes on our side or among the Baptists.

  • http://satellitesaint.blogspot.com/ Tucker

    I grew up a Conservative Baptist. I remember my parents and their good Baptist friends in the 1970′s exercising their “new freedom” to have a glass of wine, etc. It was what all the young, hip, legalistic-without-knowing-it Christians were doing then. And it was the 1970′s. Still it got complicated for me as I tried to understand why drinking was both sinful and not sinful.

    Now that I am much older and wiser I preach a simple creed: Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, and enjoy a good beer whenever you can.

  • http://satellitesaint.blogspot.com/ Tucker

    I grew up a Conservative Baptist. I remember my parents and their good Baptist friends in the 1970′s exercising their “new freedom” to have a glass of wine, etc. It was what all the young, hip, legalistic-without-knowing-it Christians were doing then. And it was the 1970′s. Still it got complicated for me as I tried to understand why drinking was both sinful and not sinful.

    Now that I am much older and wiser I preach a simple creed: Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, and enjoy a good beer whenever you can.

  • George A. Marquart

    It is true that Jews do not recognize Christianity,
    Roman Catholics do not recognize Lutherans,
    and Baptists do not recognize their friends in a liquor store.

    Ein Prosit, ein Prosit,
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    It is true that Jews do not recognize Christianity,
    Roman Catholics do not recognize Lutherans,
    and Baptists do not recognize their friends in a liquor store.

    Ein Prosit, ein Prosit,
    George A. Marquart

  • http://electexiles.wordpress.com/ Drew

    “Seeking to remain relevant in today’s culture, many Baptists have abandoned former taboos against social activities like dancing and going to movies. Now some are questioning the denomination’s historic position of abstaining from alcohol, prompting others to draw a line. . . ..”

    The ignorance of this statement is a little unnerving. First in that this line assumes motives that it cannot prove exist. It would be like me saying, “all teetotalers are against alcohol because they want to be culturally irrelevant.” Most of the Christians I know who are not teetolaters can make a biblical case for such–and a better one than “wine” doesn’t mean “not grape juice” in John’s gospel.

    Further, the examples of “dancing and going to the movies” are taboos that Baptist caved too due to cultural pressure, then praise the Lord, because you can’t make a biblical case against either of those activities. I hope that some Baptists have changed their position due to exegesis rather than culture, but in the end it doesn’t matter because you simply cannot make an exegetical arguement from Scripture that abstinence is the only policy for the Christian.

    Also calling abstinence only a “historic Baptist belief” is more than a little anachronistic and fails to exhibit and accurate awareness of the autonomy of Southern Baptist churches.

  • http://electexiles.wordpress.com/ Drew

    “Seeking to remain relevant in today’s culture, many Baptists have abandoned former taboos against social activities like dancing and going to movies. Now some are questioning the denomination’s historic position of abstaining from alcohol, prompting others to draw a line. . . ..”

    The ignorance of this statement is a little unnerving. First in that this line assumes motives that it cannot prove exist. It would be like me saying, “all teetotalers are against alcohol because they want to be culturally irrelevant.” Most of the Christians I know who are not teetolaters can make a biblical case for such–and a better one than “wine” doesn’t mean “not grape juice” in John’s gospel.

    Further, the examples of “dancing and going to the movies” are taboos that Baptist caved too due to cultural pressure, then praise the Lord, because you can’t make a biblical case against either of those activities. I hope that some Baptists have changed their position due to exegesis rather than culture, but in the end it doesn’t matter because you simply cannot make an exegetical arguement from Scripture that abstinence is the only policy for the Christian.

    Also calling abstinence only a “historic Baptist belief” is more than a little anachronistic and fails to exhibit and accurate awareness of the autonomy of Southern Baptist churches.

  • trotk

    DonS (@27) -

    I have a gripe with the “stumbling argument.” Christ (and Paul) were referring to us doing things with our liberty that caused others to sin, whether it was just a sin against their conscience or something inherently sinful.

    Usually when people say “stumble” in this context now, they are referring to other believers get offended. These aren’t the same things.

    If a Christian knows they have the freedom to drink, you can’t make him stumble by drinking, because he can’t sin against his conscience in this instance, because his conscience isn’t binding him.

    If a Christian believes drinking is sinful, you can only make him stumble if you cause him to drink against his conscience. Angering him or offending him by your action isn’t making him stumble.

    The normal response when a Baptist teetotaler sees a Christian drinking is not to go drink against the conscience. It is condemnation of the drinker, which isn’t stumbling.

    On a different note, always remember Psalm 104:14-15

  • trotk

    DonS (@27) -

    I have a gripe with the “stumbling argument.” Christ (and Paul) were referring to us doing things with our liberty that caused others to sin, whether it was just a sin against their conscience or something inherently sinful.

    Usually when people say “stumble” in this context now, they are referring to other believers get offended. These aren’t the same things.

    If a Christian knows they have the freedom to drink, you can’t make him stumble by drinking, because he can’t sin against his conscience in this instance, because his conscience isn’t binding him.

    If a Christian believes drinking is sinful, you can only make him stumble if you cause him to drink against his conscience. Angering him or offending him by your action isn’t making him stumble.

    The normal response when a Baptist teetotaler sees a Christian drinking is not to go drink against the conscience. It is condemnation of the drinker, which isn’t stumbling.

    On a different note, always remember Psalm 104:14-15

  • Dust

    Right on Bart, DonS and especially SAL…..wish Lutherans could get as worked up about how their attitude about divorce has changed over time…perhaps a response to conform to cultural relevance or pressures too? And unlike the evils of alcohol, on this one, the Bible is much clearer on what is has to say?????? Cheers!

  • Dust

    Right on Bart, DonS and especially SAL…..wish Lutherans could get as worked up about how their attitude about divorce has changed over time…perhaps a response to conform to cultural relevance or pressures too? And unlike the evils of alcohol, on this one, the Bible is much clearer on what is has to say?????? Cheers!

  • Digital

    Cheers, a topic for my Theology on Tap group tonight :)

  • Digital

    Cheers, a topic for my Theology on Tap group tonight :)

  • boaz

    What’s funny is so-called confessional Lutheran make all the same bad pietistic arguments when arguing we need rules restricting worship practices. We can mandate human traditions without burdening consciences or making anybody think traditions are necessary to merit grace, and rules requiring particular traditions don’t need to be justified by showing how its needed to protect the weak. We’re retaining the reformers practices and our motives our pure, and we take offense at those who abandon traditions.

    It’s the sinful rejection of Christian freedom. I am only free to love and serve my neighbor by making my own sacrifices, I may never force my neighbor to serve me my sacrificing the way I think he should.

    Oh terrible freedom! I need rules to confirm my merit!

  • boaz

    What’s funny is so-called confessional Lutheran make all the same bad pietistic arguments when arguing we need rules restricting worship practices. We can mandate human traditions without burdening consciences or making anybody think traditions are necessary to merit grace, and rules requiring particular traditions don’t need to be justified by showing how its needed to protect the weak. We’re retaining the reformers practices and our motives our pure, and we take offense at those who abandon traditions.

    It’s the sinful rejection of Christian freedom. I am only free to love and serve my neighbor by making my own sacrifices, I may never force my neighbor to serve me my sacrificing the way I think he should.

    Oh terrible freedom! I need rules to confirm my merit!

  • Pete

    RC (@19),

    “It is so difficult to live up to the demands and so often Christ death and resurrection is given freely at the altar call but in the next sermon it seems to be placed with a condition.”

    I don’t think you’re on your way out the door – I think you’re at least into the front yard, possibly even to the street. You have magnificently articulated the complaint that we hear repeatedly from those who leave the Baptist/Contemporary Evangelical realm for the Reformation Theology realm. Welcome.

  • Pete

    RC (@19),

    “It is so difficult to live up to the demands and so often Christ death and resurrection is given freely at the altar call but in the next sermon it seems to be placed with a condition.”

    I don’t think you’re on your way out the door – I think you’re at least into the front yard, possibly even to the street. You have magnificently articulated the complaint that we hear repeatedly from those who leave the Baptist/Contemporary Evangelical realm for the Reformation Theology realm. Welcome.

  • Digital

    I would also like to add.
    I will go on record as saying that by being a beer/scotch drinker Christ has used me to sway more people from drunkeness, led more to Him, and been more fruitful than not being a beer/scotch drinker would have allowed.

    Can teetolars say the same?

  • Digital

    I would also like to add.
    I will go on record as saying that by being a beer/scotch drinker Christ has used me to sway more people from drunkeness, led more to Him, and been more fruitful than not being a beer/scotch drinker would have allowed.

    Can teetolars say the same?

  • Bart

    Pete, I really do find it fascinating that it is Reformed Baptists that take a hands-off approach to drinking. I think it’s because they at least have a historical consciousness hearkening back to the London Confession.

  • Bart

    Pete, I really do find it fascinating that it is Reformed Baptists that take a hands-off approach to drinking. I think it’s because they at least have a historical consciousness hearkening back to the London Confession.

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

    “What’s funny is so-called confessional Lutheran make all the same bad pietistic arguments when arguing we need rules restricting worship practices. We can mandate human traditions without burdening consciences or making anybody think traditions are necessary to merit grace, and rules requiring particular traditions don’t need to be justified by showing how its needed to protect the weak.”

    I thought the argument was that the restrictive rules were actually based on biblical practice/mandates, not human traditions. Do I misunderstand?

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

    “What’s funny is so-called confessional Lutheran make all the same bad pietistic arguments when arguing we need rules restricting worship practices. We can mandate human traditions without burdening consciences or making anybody think traditions are necessary to merit grace, and rules requiring particular traditions don’t need to be justified by showing how its needed to protect the weak.”

    I thought the argument was that the restrictive rules were actually based on biblical practice/mandates, not human traditions. Do I misunderstand?

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    George @ 30 – If you have baptist friends, always take 2 with you when you go fishing, never one. If you take one, he’ll drink all your beer. If you take 2, all the beer will be yours!

    But I would venture to say that the relatively poor response from non-drinking baptists here is because that particular segment of baptists genereally don’t associate with anybody else, much less read their blogs. It is a closed community, in my experience at least. The first drinking baptist I ever encountered was of the “Reformed Baptist” stripe.

    Drew @ 31 – I’d be interested in the “biblical case for teetotalism” you mention, because I’ve never seen one that is remotely watertight.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    George @ 30 – If you have baptist friends, always take 2 with you when you go fishing, never one. If you take one, he’ll drink all your beer. If you take 2, all the beer will be yours!

    But I would venture to say that the relatively poor response from non-drinking baptists here is because that particular segment of baptists genereally don’t associate with anybody else, much less read their blogs. It is a closed community, in my experience at least. The first drinking baptist I ever encountered was of the “Reformed Baptist” stripe.

    Drew @ 31 – I’d be interested in the “biblical case for teetotalism” you mention, because I’ve never seen one that is remotely watertight.

  • trotk

    Louis, much like a leaky wine skin, right?

  • trotk

    Louis, much like a leaky wine skin, right?

  • DonS

    LOL @ Louis @ 40 and your fishing scenario! Also, it’s kind of odd to see a Lutheran talking about another denomination being a “closed community”, isn’t it? ;-)

    TrotK @ 32: Regarding the issue of “stumbling”, I’m not advocating what others might do, just saying that it is a consideration to me when I am in a public setting. And it’s as much about other non-Christians seeing me (who know me and that I am a Christian) as it is about other Christians. This is what I was referring to earlier as the cultural view of Christianity. It’s a personal thing of mine, not based in any Scripture that I know of. I just generally choose to abstain in those settings.

    As for fellow Christians, in our part of the world, few Christians will get openly indignant because someone else they know to be one is drinking. But, I believe there are still those fellow believers out there who think drinking is sinful. They are private doubts. While I wouldn’t mind having an open discussion with those Christians, explaining why I don’t believe their view is correct, using biblical context, I don’t want to necessarily have them see me drinking, assume that if I’m doing it it must be OK, and then start drinking themselves, without fully resolving the issue in their minds. I want them to resolve their doubts through biblical study, not just through my unintended and unknowing example.

    Again, this is just my personal conviction, based on Paul’s approach in the case of meat sacrificed to idols. To me, it’s no big deal not to drink in public where other people I know are around, so as a practice I don’t do it.

  • DonS

    LOL @ Louis @ 40 and your fishing scenario! Also, it’s kind of odd to see a Lutheran talking about another denomination being a “closed community”, isn’t it? ;-)

    TrotK @ 32: Regarding the issue of “stumbling”, I’m not advocating what others might do, just saying that it is a consideration to me when I am in a public setting. And it’s as much about other non-Christians seeing me (who know me and that I am a Christian) as it is about other Christians. This is what I was referring to earlier as the cultural view of Christianity. It’s a personal thing of mine, not based in any Scripture that I know of. I just generally choose to abstain in those settings.

    As for fellow Christians, in our part of the world, few Christians will get openly indignant because someone else they know to be one is drinking. But, I believe there are still those fellow believers out there who think drinking is sinful. They are private doubts. While I wouldn’t mind having an open discussion with those Christians, explaining why I don’t believe their view is correct, using biblical context, I don’t want to necessarily have them see me drinking, assume that if I’m doing it it must be OK, and then start drinking themselves, without fully resolving the issue in their minds. I want them to resolve their doubts through biblical study, not just through my unintended and unknowing example.

    Again, this is just my personal conviction, based on Paul’s approach in the case of meat sacrificed to idols. To me, it’s no big deal not to drink in public where other people I know are around, so as a practice I don’t do it.

  • DonS

    Hmm, looking back @ my post @ 42, I realize it may look a little inconsistent. When I said this: “It’s a personal thing of mine, not based in any Scripture that I know of”, I was referring to stumbling other non-believers. When I said this: “Again, this is just my personal conviction, based on Paul’s approach in the case of meat sacrificed to idols”, I was referring to stumbling other believers.

  • DonS

    Hmm, looking back @ my post @ 42, I realize it may look a little inconsistent. When I said this: “It’s a personal thing of mine, not based in any Scripture that I know of”, I was referring to stumbling other non-believers. When I said this: “Again, this is just my personal conviction, based on Paul’s approach in the case of meat sacrificed to idols”, I was referring to stumbling other believers.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bror @15

    bror I understood brother teigens comment to mean that christians can disagree on how to respond to the serious problem of abortion.

    for example: I do believe that abortion is murder. I believe it is a tragedy, and I dont believe, because of the nature of the crime, that passing a law to outlaw it will result in fewer abortions and will probably complicate things by endangering the life of the baby and mother and will discourage alternative couseling by pushing everything underground. Brasil where abortion is illegal and prosecuted is a great case study to make my point?

    so what to do? overturn roe v wade and turn things to the 50 states do debate? pass more laws? try to win this thing by getting a majority to agree and then force the 49% to go along?

    Norm is right. alchohol IS a great, maybe the greatest social problem we have right now besides abortion. it is a greater problem than any other drug problem and alcolhol is a drug. Prohibition sounds faaabulous on paper, but did not work. criminalizing abortion will not work for all the same dynamics.

    ok norms point is that you can disagree with all I said. and I can disagree with all you say and still who knows. in this way the issues of alcohol and the missuse of are similar. he is not really equating abortion exactly with alcohol. he is equating the limits as to what society can do about these problems and what is actually effective and the fact we can all disagree on these things.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bror @15

    bror I understood brother teigens comment to mean that christians can disagree on how to respond to the serious problem of abortion.

    for example: I do believe that abortion is murder. I believe it is a tragedy, and I dont believe, because of the nature of the crime, that passing a law to outlaw it will result in fewer abortions and will probably complicate things by endangering the life of the baby and mother and will discourage alternative couseling by pushing everything underground. Brasil where abortion is illegal and prosecuted is a great case study to make my point?

    so what to do? overturn roe v wade and turn things to the 50 states do debate? pass more laws? try to win this thing by getting a majority to agree and then force the 49% to go along?

    Norm is right. alchohol IS a great, maybe the greatest social problem we have right now besides abortion. it is a greater problem than any other drug problem and alcolhol is a drug. Prohibition sounds faaabulous on paper, but did not work. criminalizing abortion will not work for all the same dynamics.

    ok norms point is that you can disagree with all I said. and I can disagree with all you say and still who knows. in this way the issues of alcohol and the missuse of are similar. he is not really equating abortion exactly with alcohol. he is equating the limits as to what society can do about these problems and what is actually effective and the fact we can all disagree on these things.

  • http://simdan.com SimDan

    “It’s the sinful rejection of Christian freedom. I am only free to love and serve my neighbor by making my own sacrifices, I may never force my neighbor to serve me my sacrificing the way I think he should.”

    If you think that’s primary purpose of worship, it’s no wonder you would reject the Confessional position.

  • http://simdan.com SimDan

    “It’s the sinful rejection of Christian freedom. I am only free to love and serve my neighbor by making my own sacrifices, I may never force my neighbor to serve me my sacrificing the way I think he should.”

    If you think that’s primary purpose of worship, it’s no wonder you would reject the Confessional position.

  • Bart

    I think SimDan has really hit the breaking point of the whole debate. Will the SBC become truly confessional or not? If it does not, the teetolling drums will continue to sound strongly in the Baptist camp. If it does, than maybe we can look back on it as an embarrassing mistake, like that sweater I got for Christmas this year.

  • Bart

    I think SimDan has really hit the breaking point of the whole debate. Will the SBC become truly confessional or not? If it does not, the teetolling drums will continue to sound strongly in the Baptist camp. If it does, than maybe we can look back on it as an embarrassing mistake, like that sweater I got for Christmas this year.

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

    “Prohibition sounds faaabulous on paper, but did not work.”

    Yeah, because selling and transporting alcohol isn’t wrong. Producing and drinking alcohol was never outlawed.

    “criminalizing abortion will not work for all the same dynamics.”

    Always worked before, and the dynamics are not the same. Just like making other forms of murder illegal and therefore punished. Laws can’t eliminate crime, but they do reduce it. Murder/abortion are categorically wrong and evil. Drinking alcohol and taking drugs aren’t evil. Getting intoxicated or addicted is stupid and an inherent risk, which is not so great, but lots of activities have risks. That doesn’t make them evil and wrong like planning to kill someone and then killing them.

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

    “Prohibition sounds faaabulous on paper, but did not work.”

    Yeah, because selling and transporting alcohol isn’t wrong. Producing and drinking alcohol was never outlawed.

    “criminalizing abortion will not work for all the same dynamics.”

    Always worked before, and the dynamics are not the same. Just like making other forms of murder illegal and therefore punished. Laws can’t eliminate crime, but they do reduce it. Murder/abortion are categorically wrong and evil. Drinking alcohol and taking drugs aren’t evil. Getting intoxicated or addicted is stupid and an inherent risk, which is not so great, but lots of activities have risks. That doesn’t make them evil and wrong like planning to kill someone and then killing them.

  • Grace

    I agree with sg. Abortion is murder.

    A new life within a woman’s womb deserves to live. Killing an unborn child is not only a murder who seeks it, but the abortionist who performs the deed. Because it is legal in the U.S. doesn’t change God’s laws.

    Drinking wine in moderation is not a sin. Drunkeness is a sin.

    Baptists for the most part of long since discarded the idea that drinking wine, with dinner, etc., is a sin. Excess is sinful!

  • Grace

    I agree with sg. Abortion is murder.

    A new life within a woman’s womb deserves to live. Killing an unborn child is not only a murder who seeks it, but the abortionist who performs the deed. Because it is legal in the U.S. doesn’t change God’s laws.

    Drinking wine in moderation is not a sin. Drunkeness is a sin.

    Baptists for the most part of long since discarded the idea that drinking wine, with dinner, etc., is a sin. Excess is sinful!

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in 21st Century

    SBC finally waking up to the Biblically untenable position of complete abstinence from alcohol! I’ll drink to that!
    Maybe they will finally wake up to the wretched state of Baptist hermeneutics and realize that Jesus really did mean “This is my body”.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in 21st Century

    SBC finally waking up to the Biblically untenable position of complete abstinence from alcohol! I’ll drink to that!
    Maybe they will finally wake up to the wretched state of Baptist hermeneutics and realize that Jesus really did mean “This is my body”.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @18

    no one here is saying that abortion is not heinous is not murder and is the equivalent of getting drunk sg. try to read with a little nuance. remember that you are all about the facts and metrics?

    and this thread is about the sbc and alcohol. so lets not veer too far ok?

    i was trying to read norm teigens post in the spirit of the 8th commandment. thats all. relax dear sister.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @18

    no one here is saying that abortion is not heinous is not murder and is the equivalent of getting drunk sg. try to read with a little nuance. remember that you are all about the facts and metrics?

    and this thread is about the sbc and alcohol. so lets not veer too far ok?

    i was trying to read norm teigens post in the spirit of the 8th commandment. thats all. relax dear sister.

  • Larry

    That’s just it, the SB are never identified as a group “knowing the Gospel”. Without exception whether it’s a rank unbeliever, Roman Catholic or some other person that doesn’t really have a “doctrinal dog” in the fight (i.e. just speaking innocently and plainly and honestly) they (as I was) never identified as “Man they preach Christ and Him crucified all the time”. Rather one hears constantly, “they don’t believe in drinking and they don’t baptize babies”. So, I suppose, they got the witness they wanted and speak the most loudly and proliferate about.

    Even to this day I hear people say, “Oh they (baptist/SB) don’t believe in drinking” or the worse version, “they believe not drinking is one way they get to heaven”.

    And that really does show the point that it’s not a side issue but a primary issue. Put another way, why are the reformed identified as the, “that’s the group that talks about election all the time”. Denial is a tricky friend! If every time I enter a room and I note that everyone says, “whew what’s that stinking odor”, I might consider that which I exude (my witness) is that odor.

    And there are MANY baptist, baptist heading out the door and ex-baptist who are honest enough to admit this issue. But they will be tagged by the larger pietism in the denomination and culture.

    Another way to look at it, “if I’m an honest observer, what am I observing”, that is the real witness, the visible expression being given. Thus, one doesn’t have to take my word for it, just ask some non-SB about SB, their ‘witness’ will be expressed.

  • Larry

    That’s just it, the SB are never identified as a group “knowing the Gospel”. Without exception whether it’s a rank unbeliever, Roman Catholic or some other person that doesn’t really have a “doctrinal dog” in the fight (i.e. just speaking innocently and plainly and honestly) they (as I was) never identified as “Man they preach Christ and Him crucified all the time”. Rather one hears constantly, “they don’t believe in drinking and they don’t baptize babies”. So, I suppose, they got the witness they wanted and speak the most loudly and proliferate about.

    Even to this day I hear people say, “Oh they (baptist/SB) don’t believe in drinking” or the worse version, “they believe not drinking is one way they get to heaven”.

    And that really does show the point that it’s not a side issue but a primary issue. Put another way, why are the reformed identified as the, “that’s the group that talks about election all the time”. Denial is a tricky friend! If every time I enter a room and I note that everyone says, “whew what’s that stinking odor”, I might consider that which I exude (my witness) is that odor.

    And there are MANY baptist, baptist heading out the door and ex-baptist who are honest enough to admit this issue. But they will be tagged by the larger pietism in the denomination and culture.

    Another way to look at it, “if I’m an honest observer, what am I observing”, that is the real witness, the visible expression being given. Thus, one doesn’t have to take my word for it, just ask some non-SB about SB, their ‘witness’ will be expressed.

  • Larry

    What is the witness? When I was in Salt Lake and Provo “witnessing” to the mormons during their pageant as a SB on a “mission trip” we all knew well, having studied the apologetics, that devout Mormons don’t drink caffeinated beverages. The restaurants out there and their employees, Mormon or “pagans” (as they call them) are well aware that if one orders tea at the local Steak and Shake that that person is either not a Mormon or a “backslidden” one. When one spoke to non-Mormon persons out there they would say, “They don’t drink coffee or tea because they believe that will help them get to heaven” (which is awfully familiar sounding, just replace “coffee” and “tea” with “beer” and “wine” or caffeine with alcohol). Hypothetically if “tea” appeared in the Scriptures I suppose a Mormon exegeting scripture the way Lumkin does using the same “exegetical principle” he does might say, “the Greek word for tea doesn’t differentiate between caffeinated and de-caffeinated tea”.

    So what is the “witness”? Three men sit down at the table to eat and drink, one a Muslim, the other a Mormon and the other a Southern Baptist. None of them order any alcohol and in fact when asked if they’d like an alcoholic beverage before eating they make certain of the fact they do not! All other things being equal and based on that “witness” which one is the Christian?

    The “moral” irony of the SB position on this is that it actually perpetuates the very thing it wishes to “witness against”. Rather than proclaim Christ forgiveness and Christ’s righteousness is yours so that nothing is left to do and thereby cause people to say, “Hey, I get it, and this beer and wine are gifts of God to enjoy not abuse”, they say, “Don’t drink, don’t eat” (a doctrine of demons Paul called such).

    There’s a true story of a Reformed pastor back many moons ago in America who simply hated the taste of whiskey just on taste preference (much like that vile vegetable lima beans;-)). But when he heard the teetotaling Methodist were coming to town he said, “Now I will HAVE to drink some whiskey in order to protect and proclaim the Gospel”. Not many today see that.

    Adiaphora works that way. To wit: If they say don’t drink, then to proclaim, protect and bear witness to the Gospel one MUST do so else one joins their denial of the Gospel (e.g. Peter in Galatians). Yet, if one says, “By drinking beer or wine I better understand the Gospel than you do who does not (the weaker brother)”, then one’s job is to not drink.

    Luther did something similar back when the enthusiast were tearing down, at his absence in hiding (he came out of hiding), pictures and wearing cloaks…etc…he came back cut his hair in monk style again, donned the cowl and even (this is shocker even to most Lutherans) went back to administering the LS under one kind (which he deemed wrong otherwise). Why? For the weak in the faith who were being destroyed by the enthusiast radical changes to otherwise adiaphora. It takes TIME and TEACHING.

  • Larry

    What is the witness? When I was in Salt Lake and Provo “witnessing” to the mormons during their pageant as a SB on a “mission trip” we all knew well, having studied the apologetics, that devout Mormons don’t drink caffeinated beverages. The restaurants out there and their employees, Mormon or “pagans” (as they call them) are well aware that if one orders tea at the local Steak and Shake that that person is either not a Mormon or a “backslidden” one. When one spoke to non-Mormon persons out there they would say, “They don’t drink coffee or tea because they believe that will help them get to heaven” (which is awfully familiar sounding, just replace “coffee” and “tea” with “beer” and “wine” or caffeine with alcohol). Hypothetically if “tea” appeared in the Scriptures I suppose a Mormon exegeting scripture the way Lumkin does using the same “exegetical principle” he does might say, “the Greek word for tea doesn’t differentiate between caffeinated and de-caffeinated tea”.

    So what is the “witness”? Three men sit down at the table to eat and drink, one a Muslim, the other a Mormon and the other a Southern Baptist. None of them order any alcohol and in fact when asked if they’d like an alcoholic beverage before eating they make certain of the fact they do not! All other things being equal and based on that “witness” which one is the Christian?

    The “moral” irony of the SB position on this is that it actually perpetuates the very thing it wishes to “witness against”. Rather than proclaim Christ forgiveness and Christ’s righteousness is yours so that nothing is left to do and thereby cause people to say, “Hey, I get it, and this beer and wine are gifts of God to enjoy not abuse”, they say, “Don’t drink, don’t eat” (a doctrine of demons Paul called such).

    There’s a true story of a Reformed pastor back many moons ago in America who simply hated the taste of whiskey just on taste preference (much like that vile vegetable lima beans;-)). But when he heard the teetotaling Methodist were coming to town he said, “Now I will HAVE to drink some whiskey in order to protect and proclaim the Gospel”. Not many today see that.

    Adiaphora works that way. To wit: If they say don’t drink, then to proclaim, protect and bear witness to the Gospel one MUST do so else one joins their denial of the Gospel (e.g. Peter in Galatians). Yet, if one says, “By drinking beer or wine I better understand the Gospel than you do who does not (the weaker brother)”, then one’s job is to not drink.

    Luther did something similar back when the enthusiast were tearing down, at his absence in hiding (he came out of hiding), pictures and wearing cloaks…etc…he came back cut his hair in monk style again, donned the cowl and even (this is shocker even to most Lutherans) went back to administering the LS under one kind (which he deemed wrong otherwise). Why? For the weak in the faith who were being destroyed by the enthusiast radical changes to otherwise adiaphora. It takes TIME and TEACHING.

  • Bart

    Dr. Luther @50: It is probably quite doubtful. Even their earliest confessions during the Reformation denied the Real Presence of Communion. The most I’ve seen some of the best Baptists go for is Calvin’s interpretation of spiritual presence and feeding on Christ. They ultimately, then, belong in the camp of Zwingli in those matters. It’s actually one of the main things that is causing me to want to change, if I could get convinced of some other important doctrines. Some of their more up to date stuff by their best can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Supper-Remembering-Proclaiming-Theology/dp/0805447571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294320497&sr=8-1

    I think the only hope for returning Baptists to little c catholics and not ecumenicists will be through such as Norman Geisler (confusing character though he is), the Thomistic Baptist. I think it is through contact with very old metaphysics that Baptist theologians will abandon radical individualism, strains of Landmarkism, and the obsession with volition to the point of nominalism.

  • Bart

    Dr. Luther @50: It is probably quite doubtful. Even their earliest confessions during the Reformation denied the Real Presence of Communion. The most I’ve seen some of the best Baptists go for is Calvin’s interpretation of spiritual presence and feeding on Christ. They ultimately, then, belong in the camp of Zwingli in those matters. It’s actually one of the main things that is causing me to want to change, if I could get convinced of some other important doctrines. Some of their more up to date stuff by their best can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Supper-Remembering-Proclaiming-Theology/dp/0805447571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294320497&sr=8-1

    I think the only hope for returning Baptists to little c catholics and not ecumenicists will be through such as Norman Geisler (confusing character though he is), the Thomistic Baptist. I think it is through contact with very old metaphysics that Baptist theologians will abandon radical individualism, strains of Landmarkism, and the obsession with volition to the point of nominalism.

  • Larry

    I don’t think one will ever “get rid of Baptist” as in the constituted confessions and institution in which people go into. Even Luther recognized that heresy until the end is here to stay and its “positive” effects are that it forces us otherwise lazy sinners to indeed search the Scriptures, so that we don’t become complacent. Now that’s not approving of heresy but recognizing that if I touch a hot fire and feel the pain I’m motivated away from it in opposition to my normal indolence.

    I.e. I doubt there will be this en mass at the SB Convention that says, we the SBC would like to sign on to the Augsburg Confessions, although one might see an entire local church do this. However, the hope I see happening is that the individual Christians, especially the laity, within hear more and more of the Gospel, begin looking into the orthodox confessions and Scripture and begin to see and thereby moved over into the Gospel confession of the Lutheran church (assuming said churches themselves don’t fall away, which can happen, e.g. Rome who once received the greatest Gospel letter from Paul himself). And we see this happening with many such as myself and many others.

    Granted it’s not or at least rarely, I’ve never heard of it personally, a move that happens in a moments time. It’s as Bart seems to indicate a slower cautious ‘looking into’ and studying kind of thing. It takes time to have one’s paradigm reoriented so that the whole orthodoxy flows, as it were. It takes time to realize that for example “Baptism” has a whole different meaning between Luther, Calvin and Baptist. One has to unconfused the confusion on that, which is why we should never pretend “we speak of the same thing only differently”, if we did then we could speak similarly. Thus, one has to identify the differences and go to the scriptures. Same thing with “sola scriptura”, all would say “yes to that”, but do all really mean THAT or does reason sneak in under the guise of “sola scriptura”. E.g. do you come at “this is My body” purely and on face value or do you really depart from it BASED on something reason cannot handle? BIG QUESTION for one to ask one’s self, that was an eye opener for me. One must see the opposition between faith and reason on this issue and all articles of faith.

  • Larry

    I don’t think one will ever “get rid of Baptist” as in the constituted confessions and institution in which people go into. Even Luther recognized that heresy until the end is here to stay and its “positive” effects are that it forces us otherwise lazy sinners to indeed search the Scriptures, so that we don’t become complacent. Now that’s not approving of heresy but recognizing that if I touch a hot fire and feel the pain I’m motivated away from it in opposition to my normal indolence.

    I.e. I doubt there will be this en mass at the SB Convention that says, we the SBC would like to sign on to the Augsburg Confessions, although one might see an entire local church do this. However, the hope I see happening is that the individual Christians, especially the laity, within hear more and more of the Gospel, begin looking into the orthodox confessions and Scripture and begin to see and thereby moved over into the Gospel confession of the Lutheran church (assuming said churches themselves don’t fall away, which can happen, e.g. Rome who once received the greatest Gospel letter from Paul himself). And we see this happening with many such as myself and many others.

    Granted it’s not or at least rarely, I’ve never heard of it personally, a move that happens in a moments time. It’s as Bart seems to indicate a slower cautious ‘looking into’ and studying kind of thing. It takes time to have one’s paradigm reoriented so that the whole orthodoxy flows, as it were. It takes time to realize that for example “Baptism” has a whole different meaning between Luther, Calvin and Baptist. One has to unconfused the confusion on that, which is why we should never pretend “we speak of the same thing only differently”, if we did then we could speak similarly. Thus, one has to identify the differences and go to the scriptures. Same thing with “sola scriptura”, all would say “yes to that”, but do all really mean THAT or does reason sneak in under the guise of “sola scriptura”. E.g. do you come at “this is My body” purely and on face value or do you really depart from it BASED on something reason cannot handle? BIG QUESTION for one to ask one’s self, that was an eye opener for me. One must see the opposition between faith and reason on this issue and all articles of faith.

  • Larry

    Another thing that causes us pause in moving to 200 proof Gospel is this: The Gospel 200 proof to a fundamentally “I must have my own righteousness” fallen being is scary as hell. Because the root of our idolatry is that. And we think THAT is God and so it’s scary to find and against all reason to adhere to “forgiveness of sin” and “Christ’s righteousness for you” by shear declaration to that which is not so that literally NOTHING is left to be done. I mean the Gospel is scary in that sense to fallen man. It looks like you are giving everything up, and it is, that is to be crucified with Christ. And the old Adam simply will not ever give up with out a fight.

    To really admit one’s need as a true beggar and not a pretend beggar, true sinner through and through and not pretend sinner is simply not normal to our fallen nature. We are willing to admit we are sinners per se, but not really SINNERS. We might pray, “Lord I can’t do your law or improve” but often that’s a pretend sinners prayer. What we hardly will pray is “Lord, I won’t do Law or improve…save me from myself”, which is a real profession of real sin and real profession of dead in sins and trespasses. And even more, post conversion, we won’t confess that last prayer/confession for we think “once saved” that’s not real for us like it was before. Luther called this in his HD a perilous surrender of the fear of God.

  • Larry

    Another thing that causes us pause in moving to 200 proof Gospel is this: The Gospel 200 proof to a fundamentally “I must have my own righteousness” fallen being is scary as hell. Because the root of our idolatry is that. And we think THAT is God and so it’s scary to find and against all reason to adhere to “forgiveness of sin” and “Christ’s righteousness for you” by shear declaration to that which is not so that literally NOTHING is left to be done. I mean the Gospel is scary in that sense to fallen man. It looks like you are giving everything up, and it is, that is to be crucified with Christ. And the old Adam simply will not ever give up with out a fight.

    To really admit one’s need as a true beggar and not a pretend beggar, true sinner through and through and not pretend sinner is simply not normal to our fallen nature. We are willing to admit we are sinners per se, but not really SINNERS. We might pray, “Lord I can’t do your law or improve” but often that’s a pretend sinners prayer. What we hardly will pray is “Lord, I won’t do Law or improve…save me from myself”, which is a real profession of real sin and real profession of dead in sins and trespasses. And even more, post conversion, we won’t confess that last prayer/confession for we think “once saved” that’s not real for us like it was before. Luther called this in his HD a perilous surrender of the fear of God.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Bart @ 54.
    “It’s actually one of the main things that is causing me to want to change, if I could get convinced of some other important doctrines.”
    What do you mean by this? What doctrines are you wanting to be convinced about? What way are you wanting to change?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Bart @ 54.
    “It’s actually one of the main things that is causing me to want to change, if I could get convinced of some other important doctrines.”
    What do you mean by this? What doctrines are you wanting to be convinced about? What way are you wanting to change?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I mean, I’m always willing to help a man leave baptist theology behind.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I mean, I’m always willing to help a man leave baptist theology behind.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    DonS @ 43 – I meant culturally, socially closed. Not closed communion.

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    DonS @ 43 – I meant culturally, socially closed. Not closed communion.

  • http://electexiles.wordpress.com/ Drew

    Louis @41 I think either you misread my comment or I said it poorly, probably the later, but I too have never seen a biblical case for teetotalism that was water tight–they are all based on obscure word studies that say oinos (wine in Greek) actually doesn’t mean wine.

    That is why I don’t preach teetotalism because every exegetical argument I have heard for is is laughable.

    Because I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I cannot expect people to keep rules the Bible doesn’t inforce upon them.

  • http://electexiles.wordpress.com/ Drew

    Louis @41 I think either you misread my comment or I said it poorly, probably the later, but I too have never seen a biblical case for teetotalism that was water tight–they are all based on obscure word studies that say oinos (wine in Greek) actually doesn’t mean wine.

    That is why I don’t preach teetotalism because every exegetical argument I have heard for is is laughable.

    Because I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I cannot expect people to keep rules the Bible doesn’t inforce upon them.

  • kerner

    fws @51:

    But the unborn are our neighbors Frank. How are we to characterize killing them as a mere social problem? How can anything less than a legal prohibition against killing our neighbors be a satisfactory expression of our Christian duty to love and serve them?

    Much as he may mean well, Norman is seriously wrong about this.

  • kerner

    fws @51:

    But the unborn are our neighbors Frank. How are we to characterize killing them as a mere social problem? How can anything less than a legal prohibition against killing our neighbors be a satisfactory expression of our Christian duty to love and serve them?

    Much as he may mean well, Norman is seriously wrong about this.

  • Larry

    Exactly. It would be like a Greek saying (and I don’t know Greek so I’m attempting a parallel rather roughly here), “wine (oinos en Agglika) “oinos””.

    But yet go to the store and ask for some wine and see if they give you grape juice. Better yet, try skirting the law with that argument on wine versus grape juice, “no, no ociffer (hic) by wine I meant I drank grape juice because wine doesn’t mean wine as oinos doesn’t mean oinos”.

  • Larry

    Exactly. It would be like a Greek saying (and I don’t know Greek so I’m attempting a parallel rather roughly here), “wine (oinos en Agglika) “oinos””.

    But yet go to the store and ask for some wine and see if they give you grape juice. Better yet, try skirting the law with that argument on wine versus grape juice, “no, no ociffer (hic) by wine I meant I drank grape juice because wine doesn’t mean wine as oinos doesn’t mean oinos”.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 59: So did I :-)

  • DonS

    Louis @ 59: So did I :-)

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Drew @ 60 – my fault. :)

  • http://theobservationtree.blogspot.com Louis

    Drew @ 60 – my fault. :)

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 61

    murder of all forms is a social problem. and what is the solution: will laws bring murder rates to zero: no. but laws do serve as a deterrent in most cases. in the case of abortion, the mother is able to conceal the pregnancy at least in the early stages and so it is a more complex social problem. the general laws against murder dont work as well in that case. also, in first century times the head of household had legal right to kill any family member or slave including leaving babies die of exposure. I think localizing that authority in the mother is really a return to that pre christian social convention. the early christians changed things by example and teaching. I dont think a lasting solution will be had any other way. and you can disagree with me. that is what norm is saying i think….

    I dont believe norm is equating alcohol or alcoholism to abortion in the way you are assuming.

    I believe he is merely saying that the way we should go about dealing with the issue is open to disagreement among christians just as are issues on temperance.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 61

    murder of all forms is a social problem. and what is the solution: will laws bring murder rates to zero: no. but laws do serve as a deterrent in most cases. in the case of abortion, the mother is able to conceal the pregnancy at least in the early stages and so it is a more complex social problem. the general laws against murder dont work as well in that case. also, in first century times the head of household had legal right to kill any family member or slave including leaving babies die of exposure. I think localizing that authority in the mother is really a return to that pre christian social convention. the early christians changed things by example and teaching. I dont think a lasting solution will be had any other way. and you can disagree with me. that is what norm is saying i think….

    I dont believe norm is equating alcohol or alcoholism to abortion in the way you are assuming.

    I believe he is merely saying that the way we should go about dealing with the issue is open to disagreement among christians just as are issues on temperance.

  • Rob

    @ Bror #27 – A bit of a late reply – sorry. I would argue that the soldier, cop, and hangman are all fulfilling a vocation which requires taking the life of another to preserve the lives of others. This is extremely different from self-preservation (though that may be a concurrent effect in the case of the soldier or police officer). The point is that they are actually serving others by taking the life of those who threaten them. The preservation of their own life is a secondary concern. In practice, this is proven time and again by the soldiers who throw themselves on explosives to save their fellow soldiers, etc.

    A woman choosing to take the life of an unborn baby for self-preservation is not saving others, but herself. Thus, she is taking the life of one she is called to protect (the child) in order to save the life that God calls us to lay down (her own). That’s the opposite of the theology of the cross and, sadly, indicates a lack of faith in God’s plan and provision. As hard as it is this is an example where I believe that the theology of the cross must be borne. There are women who have been told that remaining pregnant might kill them who instead lived to deliver a healthy baby. These women took the course they did because they would rather give their lives than willingly take the life of their child. It would be brutally hard to counsel a woman in the face of this (statistically very rare) situation, but the theology of the cross certainly points to it. “Greater love has no man than this…”

    Thus, I still maintain that an abortion is not acceptable Biblically in any circumstance, for every abortion takes a life because of an unwillingness to rely fully on God’s provision. Yet, for those who have already fallen, praise God that grace increases all the more.

  • Rob

    @ Bror #27 – A bit of a late reply – sorry. I would argue that the soldier, cop, and hangman are all fulfilling a vocation which requires taking the life of another to preserve the lives of others. This is extremely different from self-preservation (though that may be a concurrent effect in the case of the soldier or police officer). The point is that they are actually serving others by taking the life of those who threaten them. The preservation of their own life is a secondary concern. In practice, this is proven time and again by the soldiers who throw themselves on explosives to save their fellow soldiers, etc.

    A woman choosing to take the life of an unborn baby for self-preservation is not saving others, but herself. Thus, she is taking the life of one she is called to protect (the child) in order to save the life that God calls us to lay down (her own). That’s the opposite of the theology of the cross and, sadly, indicates a lack of faith in God’s plan and provision. As hard as it is this is an example where I believe that the theology of the cross must be borne. There are women who have been told that remaining pregnant might kill them who instead lived to deliver a healthy baby. These women took the course they did because they would rather give their lives than willingly take the life of their child. It would be brutally hard to counsel a woman in the face of this (statistically very rare) situation, but the theology of the cross certainly points to it. “Greater love has no man than this…”

    Thus, I still maintain that an abortion is not acceptable Biblically in any circumstance, for every abortion takes a life because of an unwillingness to rely fully on God’s provision. Yet, for those who have already fallen, praise God that grace increases all the more.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Rob,
    In situations where it is one life or another, I prefer to just shut up concerning the decision that is made, and forgive. Of course, I’d forgive the woman who had an abortion for any reason if she was repentant. But I really think you turn the theology of the cross as you call it there into law the way you handle it. Who are you to say which life is to be laid down or not? Perhaps the mom already has other children, parents etc. dependant on her. I’m certainly not going to pass judgment on the woman in this situation.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Rob,
    In situations where it is one life or another, I prefer to just shut up concerning the decision that is made, and forgive. Of course, I’d forgive the woman who had an abortion for any reason if she was repentant. But I really think you turn the theology of the cross as you call it there into law the way you handle it. Who are you to say which life is to be laid down or not? Perhaps the mom already has other children, parents etc. dependant on her. I’m certainly not going to pass judgment on the woman in this situation.

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

    “A woman choosing to take the life of an unborn baby for self-preservation is not saving others, but herself. Thus, she is taking the life of one she is called to protect (the child) in order to save the life that God calls us to lay down (her own). That’s the opposite of the theology of the cross and, sadly, indicates a lack of faith in God’s plan and provision.”

    The cases of life threatening pregnancies are infinitesimally small or so late in pregnancy that both lives can be saved anyway. Jill Stanek’s blog links to much good info on such rare cases.

    Okay, back to booze.

    This is tangential but what about Muslim opposition to alcohol? Where do these ideas come from? Are they just intended to help people avoid all out drunkenness in populations plagued by such? Can we assume Baptists meant well but went to far in a total prohibition of alcohol?

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

    “A woman choosing to take the life of an unborn baby for self-preservation is not saving others, but herself. Thus, she is taking the life of one she is called to protect (the child) in order to save the life that God calls us to lay down (her own). That’s the opposite of the theology of the cross and, sadly, indicates a lack of faith in God’s plan and provision.”

    The cases of life threatening pregnancies are infinitesimally small or so late in pregnancy that both lives can be saved anyway. Jill Stanek’s blog links to much good info on such rare cases.

    Okay, back to booze.

    This is tangential but what about Muslim opposition to alcohol? Where do these ideas come from? Are they just intended to help people avoid all out drunkenness in populations plagued by such? Can we assume Baptists meant well but went to far in a total prohibition of alcohol?

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

    “Perhaps the mom already has other children, parents etc. dependant on her. I’m certainly not going to pass judgment on the woman in this situation.”

    How about the abortionist? pass on judging him, too?

    What about adoption? It is the 21st century USA and lots of nice families would love that baby. No justification at all to kill unwanted kids. Remember the Solomon and the baby? The loving mother preferred losing the child to killing him.

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

    “Perhaps the mom already has other children, parents etc. dependant on her. I’m certainly not going to pass judgment on the woman in this situation.”

    How about the abortionist? pass on judging him, too?

    What about adoption? It is the 21st century USA and lots of nice families would love that baby. No justification at all to kill unwanted kids. Remember the Solomon and the baby? The loving mother preferred losing the child to killing him.

  • kerner

    Actually, fws @ 65, I agree with most of what you have said, and I am particularly glad you brought up the historical aspect of this. At the very heart of this issue is whether any person has the right to treat another as property, disposable; or whether parents have an an affirmative duty to raise and support their children. The whole debate over whether a child is developed enough to “live on its own” is just silly to me. Human young are helpless for a longer time than the young of any other species. When my oldest was born, it was -20 degrees fahrenheit outside. What if I had said to her, “well, you can live on your own now”, and pitched her into a snowbank, there isn’t a person on this blog who wouldn’t be calling for my arrest and punishment. But that would not have been so in the first century, nor would it have been so in many Asian cultures until much more recently.

    And I would just love to see how a pro-choice argument against child support would go over in court. If Mom can choose to abort the baby because she doesn’t want the responsibility, why do we get upset when Dad “chooses” not to pay child support?

    It has been Christian civilization that developed the concept of parents having a legal duty to protect their children. And every state still makes it a crime to even neglect the health and safety of children. Parents who neglect or intentionally abuse their children are prosecuted every day in this country. I don’t know why prosecuting abortions is such a problem for some people. Abortion is nothing more nor less than child abuse of the very youngest of children.

    But you are also correct that a society’s criminal code will not be effectively enforced if it doesn’t reflect that society’s moral code. Which is just a fancy way of saying that passing a law against something won’t do much good if most people don’t think that thing is wrong.

    Back to booze.

    sg, I bet if you take your usual statistical approach to the question of why certain cultures want to prohibit alcohol, you will find that those cultures that have prohibitions against alcohol are also those with widespread serious binge drinking problems, such as the American south and southern Asia.

  • kerner

    Actually, fws @ 65, I agree with most of what you have said, and I am particularly glad you brought up the historical aspect of this. At the very heart of this issue is whether any person has the right to treat another as property, disposable; or whether parents have an an affirmative duty to raise and support their children. The whole debate over whether a child is developed enough to “live on its own” is just silly to me. Human young are helpless for a longer time than the young of any other species. When my oldest was born, it was -20 degrees fahrenheit outside. What if I had said to her, “well, you can live on your own now”, and pitched her into a snowbank, there isn’t a person on this blog who wouldn’t be calling for my arrest and punishment. But that would not have been so in the first century, nor would it have been so in many Asian cultures until much more recently.

    And I would just love to see how a pro-choice argument against child support would go over in court. If Mom can choose to abort the baby because she doesn’t want the responsibility, why do we get upset when Dad “chooses” not to pay child support?

    It has been Christian civilization that developed the concept of parents having a legal duty to protect their children. And every state still makes it a crime to even neglect the health and safety of children. Parents who neglect or intentionally abuse their children are prosecuted every day in this country. I don’t know why prosecuting abortions is such a problem for some people. Abortion is nothing more nor less than child abuse of the very youngest of children.

    But you are also correct that a society’s criminal code will not be effectively enforced if it doesn’t reflect that society’s moral code. Which is just a fancy way of saying that passing a law against something won’t do much good if most people don’t think that thing is wrong.

    Back to booze.

    sg, I bet if you take your usual statistical approach to the question of why certain cultures want to prohibit alcohol, you will find that those cultures that have prohibitions against alcohol are also those with widespread serious binge drinking problems, such as the American south and southern Asia.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I’m not sure this article is very fair. I’m an SBCer, and I can tell you that there aren’t a whole lot of people who take Peter Lumpkins very seriously. His recent words throughout the Caner debacle have only served to alienate him further from reality and those who choose to live in it.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I’m not sure this article is very fair. I’m an SBCer, and I can tell you that there aren’t a whole lot of people who take Peter Lumpkins very seriously. His recent words throughout the Caner debacle have only served to alienate him further from reality and those who choose to live in it.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 70

    Thanks kerner. I think that that broader historical context is missing in the larger debate about where the line is to be drawn between parental authority and perogative and how far the government can morally be allowed to meddle in the parent child relationship.

    in pre christian times, the head of the family had absolute power over child wives and slaves. life and death power. I do believe that christians did not oppose this because of what st paul says “the powers that be are ordained of God.”

    So st paul told slaves to go back to their master, and there wasnt any commentary, surprisingly, on abortion or infanticide, which were very rampant then.

    And so probably the advice would have been also to not meddle in hitlers germany or saddams iraq even if we saw horrible atrocities being committed. and the advice would not be to meddle in those families that practiced abortion or infanticide.

    But then christians were known to not practice those things, and to take in the children left out to die from exposure as well.

    So now the government has decided to revert to the pre christian governmental model of giving the head of household, now the mother, the power they once had. And they do this in a very very inconsistent manner just as you pointed out.

    Maybe the better christian argument is to insist on consistency and point out the logical inconsistency of what is being done. This would be a way christians could argue and persuade without having to resort to any biblical argument at all.

    But we christians do not have this broader historical context and we imagine that it is good to try to get a majority to agree with us, and then use political power to make those who do not agree do what we know is right. It wont work. it was tried in history in various forms. norm tiegen is right to point to prohibition as somewhat of a parallel to the effort to criminalize abortion.

    and sg, no one here that I know of would argue against the fact that abortion is murder ok? nuance sg!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 70

    Thanks kerner. I think that that broader historical context is missing in the larger debate about where the line is to be drawn between parental authority and perogative and how far the government can morally be allowed to meddle in the parent child relationship.

    in pre christian times, the head of the family had absolute power over child wives and slaves. life and death power. I do believe that christians did not oppose this because of what st paul says “the powers that be are ordained of God.”

    So st paul told slaves to go back to their master, and there wasnt any commentary, surprisingly, on abortion or infanticide, which were very rampant then.

    And so probably the advice would have been also to not meddle in hitlers germany or saddams iraq even if we saw horrible atrocities being committed. and the advice would not be to meddle in those families that practiced abortion or infanticide.

    But then christians were known to not practice those things, and to take in the children left out to die from exposure as well.

    So now the government has decided to revert to the pre christian governmental model of giving the head of household, now the mother, the power they once had. And they do this in a very very inconsistent manner just as you pointed out.

    Maybe the better christian argument is to insist on consistency and point out the logical inconsistency of what is being done. This would be a way christians could argue and persuade without having to resort to any biblical argument at all.

    But we christians do not have this broader historical context and we imagine that it is good to try to get a majority to agree with us, and then use political power to make those who do not agree do what we know is right. It wont work. it was tried in history in various forms. norm tiegen is right to point to prohibition as somewhat of a parallel to the effort to criminalize abortion.

    and sg, no one here that I know of would argue against the fact that abortion is murder ok? nuance sg!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 70

    “At the very heart of this issue is whether any person has the right to treat another as property, disposable; or whether parents have an an affirmative duty to raise and support their children.”

    the norm of history, from families that became tribes that became feudalism that became principalities , kingdoms and empires that then became city states and then nation states is the idea that the citizens were the property of the monarch. This is the historical norm kerner.

    the american experiment is the exception. and we take this startling departure from all of history for granted. in our system, at least in theory, the govt belongs to the people. This really confuses us when we think of our duty to govt and at the same time think that we ARE the government (which we are not).

    socialism really is a reversion back to feudalism. frederick hayak was exactly right. the people are the property of the state. not a monarch any longer, but the government. But this is not morally wrong. it is the historical norm.

    that is where libertarians , republicans and other conservatives are wrong and lack historical perspective. It is not wrong, but it is also , in many ways but not all, unwise.

    so who gets to decide where governmental authority resides ? I guess God does. “the powers that be”.

    these can come about in many ways, including a coup d etat.

    and I think our lutheran confessions explain how this works very well indeed.

    here:

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    pertinent excerpt:

    “It is God´s desire that our present life be kept under restraint, and lived in peace, tranquility and harmony. God here wants each person to attend to his own affairs and not interfere with the business, property or person of anyone else. Because God really wants this, He has even added a blessing in Leviticus 18:5: “Which if a man do, he shall live in them” which means that whoever men see is honest, will enjoy a good and long life.

    Now on the other hand, if men are not willing to voluntarily practice being righteous, God sends dictatorships, armed police and brute force to restrain and check those who refuse to be righteous. Where even this is not enough and government can no longer restrain anyone, then God sends famine, war and other terrible things, to subvert the government and destroy evil men. This has happened to the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

    From all this, we can learn God´s Will: earthly righteousness is to be practiced and maintained. We can also know that God will provide what is necessary to make this happen. If it does not happen, God will take it away and instead destroy everything. What this all should tell us is that God is very serious about earthly righteousness!

    This is the entire short sum and substance of this righteousness on earth.”

    the entire luther sermon is an eye opener. it is part of our confessions due to the fact that the Formula in art Vi references this sermon as a further explanation of what article VI says.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    kerner @ 70

    “At the very heart of this issue is whether any person has the right to treat another as property, disposable; or whether parents have an an affirmative duty to raise and support their children.”

    the norm of history, from families that became tribes that became feudalism that became principalities , kingdoms and empires that then became city states and then nation states is the idea that the citizens were the property of the monarch. This is the historical norm kerner.

    the american experiment is the exception. and we take this startling departure from all of history for granted. in our system, at least in theory, the govt belongs to the people. This really confuses us when we think of our duty to govt and at the same time think that we ARE the government (which we are not).

    socialism really is a reversion back to feudalism. frederick hayak was exactly right. the people are the property of the state. not a monarch any longer, but the government. But this is not morally wrong. it is the historical norm.

    that is where libertarians , republicans and other conservatives are wrong and lack historical perspective. It is not wrong, but it is also , in many ways but not all, unwise.

    so who gets to decide where governmental authority resides ? I guess God does. “the powers that be”.

    these can come about in many ways, including a coup d etat.

    and I think our lutheran confessions explain how this works very well indeed.

    here:

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    pertinent excerpt:

    “It is God´s desire that our present life be kept under restraint, and lived in peace, tranquility and harmony. God here wants each person to attend to his own affairs and not interfere with the business, property or person of anyone else. Because God really wants this, He has even added a blessing in Leviticus 18:5: “Which if a man do, he shall live in them” which means that whoever men see is honest, will enjoy a good and long life.

    Now on the other hand, if men are not willing to voluntarily practice being righteous, God sends dictatorships, armed police and brute force to restrain and check those who refuse to be righteous. Where even this is not enough and government can no longer restrain anyone, then God sends famine, war and other terrible things, to subvert the government and destroy evil men. This has happened to the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

    From all this, we can learn God´s Will: earthly righteousness is to be practiced and maintained. We can also know that God will provide what is necessary to make this happen. If it does not happen, God will take it away and instead destroy everything. What this all should tell us is that God is very serious about earthly righteousness!

    This is the entire short sum and substance of this righteousness on earth.”

    the entire luther sermon is an eye opener. it is part of our confessions due to the fact that the Formula in art Vi references this sermon as a further explanation of what article VI says.

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

    “the norm of history, from families that became tribes that became feudalism that became principalities , kingdoms and empires that then became city states and then nation states is the idea that the citizens were the property of the monarch. This is the historical norm kerner.”

    “the american experiment is the exception. and we take this startling departure from all of history for granted. in our system, at least in theory, the govt belongs to the people.”

    This is just not true. Where do you get these ideas? Have you read original source histories? You must have if you have read the Old Testament. Monarchs didn’t think they owned the people. There is no evidence that they did. Now fathers had quite a bit of legal authority, to be sure. Iceland had a democracy way back like a thousand years ago. There was the Roman republic. Greek democracy, etc. Plenty of monarchs were essentially elected, like the Holy Roman Emperor. Norway never had feudalism, etc.

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

    “the norm of history, from families that became tribes that became feudalism that became principalities , kingdoms and empires that then became city states and then nation states is the idea that the citizens were the property of the monarch. This is the historical norm kerner.”

    “the american experiment is the exception. and we take this startling departure from all of history for granted. in our system, at least in theory, the govt belongs to the people.”

    This is just not true. Where do you get these ideas? Have you read original source histories? You must have if you have read the Old Testament. Monarchs didn’t think they owned the people. There is no evidence that they did. Now fathers had quite a bit of legal authority, to be sure. Iceland had a democracy way back like a thousand years ago. There was the Roman republic. Greek democracy, etc. Plenty of monarchs were essentially elected, like the Holy Roman Emperor. Norway never had feudalism, etc.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 74

    well. yes I can read classical greek, latin and german sg. so not only have I read the source histories. I have read them in the original languages. you are right about the greek city states and the roman republic. and these are what are government is modeled after largely. so there are exceptions to world history. swedish monarchs were elected as well. I am aware of all these things. I painted with a broad brush not noting exceptions. and these are all exceptions .

    the vikings were not feudal? dont know about them. clue me in. interesting.

    I still stand largely by what I am saying. the basic idea being that people were the property of the monarch or tribal leader (think ot patriarchs and especially consider the status of women in OT times which is pretty much what women in muslim countries experience today right?). so sg. I think you are maybe overstating even as I did?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 74

    well. yes I can read classical greek, latin and german sg. so not only have I read the source histories. I have read them in the original languages. you are right about the greek city states and the roman republic. and these are what are government is modeled after largely. so there are exceptions to world history. swedish monarchs were elected as well. I am aware of all these things. I painted with a broad brush not noting exceptions. and these are all exceptions .

    the vikings were not feudal? dont know about them. clue me in. interesting.

    I still stand largely by what I am saying. the basic idea being that people were the property of the monarch or tribal leader (think ot patriarchs and especially consider the status of women in OT times which is pretty much what women in muslim countries experience today right?). so sg. I think you are maybe overstating even as I did?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @74

    “Now fathers had quite a bit of legal authority, to be sure. ”

    lets bring this forward abit… in massachussetts as recently as 185o, court cases show that women and children enjoyed exactly the same legal status as slaves . This was the basic legal reasoning of the time there. so what you say about republics and all…. well. that applied to white or free male property holders. it was NOTHING close to what we have now. so dont backflush our current situation and so indulge in anachronism.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @74

    “Now fathers had quite a bit of legal authority, to be sure. ”

    lets bring this forward abit… in massachussetts as recently as 185o, court cases show that women and children enjoyed exactly the same legal status as slaves . This was the basic legal reasoning of the time there. so what you say about republics and all…. well. that applied to white or free male property holders. it was NOTHING close to what we have now. so dont backflush our current situation and so indulge in anachronism.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    @sg #74

    I’ve got to go with fws on this one. The (very large quantities of graduate level) history books I’ve read say pretty much the same – with original sources footnoted. A good starting place is Plato’s republic, and don’t stop until you get to Machiavelli’s the prince at least (although one simply can’t understand American politics without reading Neitzsche and Marx).

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    @sg #74

    I’ve got to go with fws on this one. The (very large quantities of graduate level) history books I’ve read say pretty much the same – with original sources footnoted. A good starting place is Plato’s republic, and don’t stop until you get to Machiavelli’s the prince at least (although one simply can’t understand American politics without reading Neitzsche and Marx).

  • Larry

    John,

    I would agree that Peter Lumpkin is not taken seriously by most of the laity, I would agree. But the Sanhedrin of the SB (and other linked Baptist), i.e. the theologians, seminary leaders/teachers, pastors do in fact by majority report agree with Lumpkin and similarly argue. Baptist of today both SB and those who heavily influence that denomination baptist but are outside of the official SB camp who have argued similarly if not down right the same way as Lumpkin include: Dr. Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, John Piper, L. Paige Patterson, Danny Akin to name a few. I personally had no SB minister in my stint within that disagreed with his style of argument or argument as a whole. And that’s why the laity “whisper” the issue in quite corners.

    They all use these “jedi mind trick” (to borrow a Reformed persons comment on it) exegetical gymnastics to argue the point

    For example Patterson appeals to the Nazarite vow for prohibition, nothing could be more out of context. He appeals to John the Baptizer for his abstinence but then fails to mention Jesus’, the Lord and God, partaking. In trying to hypnotize away, “these are not the droids you are seeking”, the miracle at Cana concerning water to wine he admits that no one can affirm whether it was alcoholic wine or grape juice (which is nonsense given the text concerning most giving the poorer wine after many have consumed, the implication is clear to even a two year old) Patterson casts his spell that in this MIRACLE from the Creator’s hand that, “Also, there was no time for fermentation to take place subsequent to the miracle.” He further comments, assuming Jesus did make alcoholic fermented wine in his own comment that, “The text nowhere indicates that Jesus participated. Either way the argument is from silence.” Seriously? He wants us to take him seriously? Are we to believe that the Lord was like some kind of drug dealer who makes the drugs and distributes them while he never partakes in such evil. Such ignorant blaspheme and hypocrisy is painfully obvious.

    Such arguments are so stupid and foolish, and those are PRECISELY the correct words to describe them as to be pure dung (to borrow a term from Paul). The absurdity of such arguments are painfully obvious so much that they are visibly trying to push an falsehood.

    When Luther dealt with Erasmus he at least complimented Erasmus’ acumen – at least Erasmus was intellectually capable – as being at least silver dishes, he just happen to serve doctrinal dung on them (as Luther put it). But these arguments, Paige’s and Lumpkins are like serving dung with a sewer pipe. They are neither doctrinal good nor intellectually anything but a joke.

  • Larry

    John,

    I would agree that Peter Lumpkin is not taken seriously by most of the laity, I would agree. But the Sanhedrin of the SB (and other linked Baptist), i.e. the theologians, seminary leaders/teachers, pastors do in fact by majority report agree with Lumpkin and similarly argue. Baptist of today both SB and those who heavily influence that denomination baptist but are outside of the official SB camp who have argued similarly if not down right the same way as Lumpkin include: Dr. Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, John Piper, L. Paige Patterson, Danny Akin to name a few. I personally had no SB minister in my stint within that disagreed with his style of argument or argument as a whole. And that’s why the laity “whisper” the issue in quite corners.

    They all use these “jedi mind trick” (to borrow a Reformed persons comment on it) exegetical gymnastics to argue the point

    For example Patterson appeals to the Nazarite vow for prohibition, nothing could be more out of context. He appeals to John the Baptizer for his abstinence but then fails to mention Jesus’, the Lord and God, partaking. In trying to hypnotize away, “these are not the droids you are seeking”, the miracle at Cana concerning water to wine he admits that no one can affirm whether it was alcoholic wine or grape juice (which is nonsense given the text concerning most giving the poorer wine after many have consumed, the implication is clear to even a two year old) Patterson casts his spell that in this MIRACLE from the Creator’s hand that, “Also, there was no time for fermentation to take place subsequent to the miracle.” He further comments, assuming Jesus did make alcoholic fermented wine in his own comment that, “The text nowhere indicates that Jesus participated. Either way the argument is from silence.” Seriously? He wants us to take him seriously? Are we to believe that the Lord was like some kind of drug dealer who makes the drugs and distributes them while he never partakes in such evil. Such ignorant blaspheme and hypocrisy is painfully obvious.

    Such arguments are so stupid and foolish, and those are PRECISELY the correct words to describe them as to be pure dung (to borrow a term from Paul). The absurdity of such arguments are painfully obvious so much that they are visibly trying to push an falsehood.

    When Luther dealt with Erasmus he at least complimented Erasmus’ acumen – at least Erasmus was intellectually capable – as being at least silver dishes, he just happen to serve doctrinal dung on them (as Luther put it). But these arguments, Paige’s and Lumpkins are like serving dung with a sewer pipe. They are neither doctrinal good nor intellectually anything but a joke.

  • Larry

    As to “witness”. Myself, my wife and some of my fellow close friends who are still baptist and see this issue have universally found that partaking of wine or beer in a social setting or something has actually opened the door to the Gospel. It almost universally goes like this: You are in some setting socially, X unbelievers knows you are a Christian. He/she orders a drink, then you order one. The table goes silent and they say, “I though you were a Christian”. Could the door to the Gospel be more wide. We are always complaining about “opportunities”, here the unbeliever has practically rolled out a red carpet. The simple response to initiate? “What is it that you think Christianity and the Gospel is all about”. And off you go.

    Try that out in place of all those useless evangelism programs which boil down to nothing more than me talking about me about how I was once (insert bad things) and Jesus/the Lord “took all that away from” moral repair jobs that differs not one wit from other religions testimonies (Mormons, Islam – check out Malcolm X’s conversion testimony from his drinking/rough days to moral conversion to the nation of Islam). Instead of, as these “evangelism” programs instructing, “think about how your life was changed and give them a testimony”, maybe and evangelism program should say, “hey hang out with them and have a beer”. I’m speaking a bit tongue and cheek there, but you get the idea.

    In fact my best Christian friend is a baptist pastor who preaches strong Law and Gospel (as much as can be done under that confessional constraint) and he has had more times and opportunities to witness to an unbeliever or fallen away other Christian concerning 200 proof Gospel by flipping the “moralism” at hand on its head to them and basically say, “that’s what you think the Christian faith is all about…”. One life long RC he was talking to one time on a business trip (he’s bi-vocational) was talking about “as a Christian” some moral issue concerning a woman they just saw with tattoos and nose rings at the minit mart. Long story short my buddy told him that had he never heard that for Christ’s sakes ALL our sin is forgiven and ALL his righteousness is now ours and that nothing is left to do. The guy was shell shocked, a life long RC and active one. For the next 300 miles, literally, he kept pondering that thought all the way home saying periodically, “that’s the most astonishing and incredible thing I’ve ever heard in my life”. He went home to tell his RC mother and her reply? You must have been talking to a Lutheran.
    True story.

  • Larry

    As to “witness”. Myself, my wife and some of my fellow close friends who are still baptist and see this issue have universally found that partaking of wine or beer in a social setting or something has actually opened the door to the Gospel. It almost universally goes like this: You are in some setting socially, X unbelievers knows you are a Christian. He/she orders a drink, then you order one. The table goes silent and they say, “I though you were a Christian”. Could the door to the Gospel be more wide. We are always complaining about “opportunities”, here the unbeliever has practically rolled out a red carpet. The simple response to initiate? “What is it that you think Christianity and the Gospel is all about”. And off you go.

    Try that out in place of all those useless evangelism programs which boil down to nothing more than me talking about me about how I was once (insert bad things) and Jesus/the Lord “took all that away from” moral repair jobs that differs not one wit from other religions testimonies (Mormons, Islam – check out Malcolm X’s conversion testimony from his drinking/rough days to moral conversion to the nation of Islam). Instead of, as these “evangelism” programs instructing, “think about how your life was changed and give them a testimony”, maybe and evangelism program should say, “hey hang out with them and have a beer”. I’m speaking a bit tongue and cheek there, but you get the idea.

    In fact my best Christian friend is a baptist pastor who preaches strong Law and Gospel (as much as can be done under that confessional constraint) and he has had more times and opportunities to witness to an unbeliever or fallen away other Christian concerning 200 proof Gospel by flipping the “moralism” at hand on its head to them and basically say, “that’s what you think the Christian faith is all about…”. One life long RC he was talking to one time on a business trip (he’s bi-vocational) was talking about “as a Christian” some moral issue concerning a woman they just saw with tattoos and nose rings at the minit mart. Long story short my buddy told him that had he never heard that for Christ’s sakes ALL our sin is forgiven and ALL his righteousness is now ours and that nothing is left to do. The guy was shell shocked, a life long RC and active one. For the next 300 miles, literally, he kept pondering that thought all the way home saying periodically, “that’s the most astonishing and incredible thing I’ve ever heard in my life”. He went home to tell his RC mother and her reply? You must have been talking to a Lutheran.
    True story.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 79

    hahahahahaha!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 79

    hahahahahaha!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 79

    consider that story you shared about ordering a drink. now put that in the context of myself being a gay man and making no secret of it in strategic situations. and they know already that I am a christian.

    red carpet? off and running? for sure interesting conversations. what is it that you think the holy gospel and christianity are about. road? meet some serious rubber.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 79

    consider that story you shared about ordering a drink. now put that in the context of myself being a gay man and making no secret of it in strategic situations. and they know already that I am a christian.

    red carpet? off and running? for sure interesting conversations. what is it that you think the holy gospel and christianity are about. road? meet some serious rubber.

  • Larry

    Oh yea, I’ve more than once seen a very liberal unbeliever do a double take on a moral issue when I basically say, ‘that’s really not at all the Christian faith’. Then you spell it out. Sometimes you get shock or the reaction I described above, but sometimes you suddenly get a moral law from this heretofore libertine liberal type who was beating up on the right for their morality. Odd how we all like SOME law somewhere in the equation to back to God no matter how otherwise politically or socially we pretend to be libertine.

    I’ve found myself the enemy, oddly enough, of two sworn enemies in conversations, a political right person and a policitcal left person.

    Hey, want to bring the political left and right together in unity and peace and a true spirit of bipartisianship? Preach the 200 proof Gospel, they’ll unit morally to hang us all.

  • Larry

    Oh yea, I’ve more than once seen a very liberal unbeliever do a double take on a moral issue when I basically say, ‘that’s really not at all the Christian faith’. Then you spell it out. Sometimes you get shock or the reaction I described above, but sometimes you suddenly get a moral law from this heretofore libertine liberal type who was beating up on the right for their morality. Odd how we all like SOME law somewhere in the equation to back to God no matter how otherwise politically or socially we pretend to be libertine.

    I’ve found myself the enemy, oddly enough, of two sworn enemies in conversations, a political right person and a policitcal left person.

    Hey, want to bring the political left and right together in unity and peace and a true spirit of bipartisianship? Preach the 200 proof Gospel, they’ll unit morally to hang us all.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @82

    and we need to know too that the enemy is us as well. there is no us vs them. this is satans trick.

    gay men and lesbians have alot of anger issues. I think it is understandable. they play the victim. which can turn into aggression on a dime.

    so the arguments about nature and nurture and natural law and what is and is not homosexuality is sort of… ” happy winter solstice!” it is maybe useful to discuss to aleviate human suffering in a way that God does demand and want us to do. But.

    It is earthly perishable stuff that has NOTHING to do with eternity. It may matter terribly in terms of delivering the earthly and godly righteousness that is alone love for neighbor. But then it will always result in pharisee or despairing judas for either the homosexual or the righteous christian on either side of the equation. without christ this is the only possibility.

    this line of argument needs to be firmly separated and exiled from any religious discussion except to highlight the law that always accuses and to emphasize that it is the same law that accuses and condemns us all. so that then Christ alone by invisible faith alone is alone what is left in the heavenly kingdom.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @82

    and we need to know too that the enemy is us as well. there is no us vs them. this is satans trick.

    gay men and lesbians have alot of anger issues. I think it is understandable. they play the victim. which can turn into aggression on a dime.

    so the arguments about nature and nurture and natural law and what is and is not homosexuality is sort of… ” happy winter solstice!” it is maybe useful to discuss to aleviate human suffering in a way that God does demand and want us to do. But.

    It is earthly perishable stuff that has NOTHING to do with eternity. It may matter terribly in terms of delivering the earthly and godly righteousness that is alone love for neighbor. But then it will always result in pharisee or despairing judas for either the homosexual or the righteous christian on either side of the equation. without christ this is the only possibility.

    this line of argument needs to be firmly separated and exiled from any religious discussion except to highlight the law that always accuses and to emphasize that it is the same law that accuses and condemns us all. so that then Christ alone by invisible faith alone is alone what is left in the heavenly kingdom.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Larry, those are some good points – especially the gospel argument in 79, which I have been using for years. And you are right, Patterson has far more influence than Lumpkins, and is a theological teetotaler.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Larry, those are some good points – especially the gospel argument in 79, which I have been using for years. And you are right, Patterson has far more influence than Lumpkins, and is a theological teetotaler.

  • Rob

    So, Frank, where does the third use of the law come in? How about the mortification you speak of so frequently? Don’t forget – the Law and the Gospel are both created by God and are both inherently good. The Gospel does not abolish the Law, but fulfills it. While on this mortal coil, we must live in the tension between Law and Gospel, constantly accused and re-formed by one, constantly comforted and renewed by the other. We can’t just pick the one we like and ignore the other. You end up with either Pharisaism or antinomianism.

    And for someone normally so cautious with clarity, you have made quite a loaded yet unclear statement: “I am a gay man.” Obviously, this can mean different things to different people. Is this, “I am a man who must struggle against homosexual temptations,” or “I am a man who commits sexual acts with another man”? I understand if you’d prefer not, but care to delve into this a little? Happy to do it by personal e-mail if that’s more appropriate.

  • Rob

    So, Frank, where does the third use of the law come in? How about the mortification you speak of so frequently? Don’t forget – the Law and the Gospel are both created by God and are both inherently good. The Gospel does not abolish the Law, but fulfills it. While on this mortal coil, we must live in the tension between Law and Gospel, constantly accused and re-formed by one, constantly comforted and renewed by the other. We can’t just pick the one we like and ignore the other. You end up with either Pharisaism or antinomianism.

    And for someone normally so cautious with clarity, you have made quite a loaded yet unclear statement: “I am a gay man.” Obviously, this can mean different things to different people. Is this, “I am a man who must struggle against homosexual temptations,” or “I am a man who commits sexual acts with another man”? I understand if you’d prefer not, but care to delve into this a little? Happy to do it by personal e-mail if that’s more appropriate.

  • Stephen

    Rob @ 85

    For one thing, Frank being gay and having a homosexual relationship with a man has nothing to do with his salvation. In the same way, drinking alcohol has nothing to do with salvation. Following rules has nothing to do with salvation. And for another, following moral rules also has nothing to do in and of itself with the purposes of the Law. If it did, Jesus would be a sinner, because he broke the rules when he walked through a wheat field and ate the husks off the stalks of wheat on the Sabbath. By that measure, and the measure being applied to homosexuality and drinking by Baptists here, he would have broken the Law. How is it that Jesus did not break the Law in the 3rd commandment as the Pharisees accused him of doing? They were, in fact, accusing him of sin.

    “Man was not made for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man.”

    What is the whole of the Law? Loving God and loving the neighbor, not following rules. The commandments are there to help us in doing this love and to convict us when we fail in that, driving us to confession and the forgiveness that awaits, in which we live and move and have our very being as Christians. This is the Law’s use. it always accuses. It happens in our conscience, put there by God. It happens even for the unbeliever, driven to do good “works of the law” by that same conscience. This is how God gets love and mercy done in the world – through means. He does not need our sacrifice of good works, of following rules to please him that make us moral people. He has said so in his Son. That is just Catholicism and Calvinism gone awry and mixing law and gospel. The righteous shall live by faith in Christ alone. He desires mercy not sacrifice. Asking homosexuals to sacrifice themselves to a standard of moral purity that accomplishes nothing but their misery is idolatry. It places faith in what we do or do not do rather than in the love and mercy of God in Christ Jesus. The same is true of any earthly thing, including the consumption of alcohol. What matters is love and mercy. These results are the whole of the Law and what God desires on earth as it is in heaven.

  • Stephen

    Rob @ 85

    For one thing, Frank being gay and having a homosexual relationship with a man has nothing to do with his salvation. In the same way, drinking alcohol has nothing to do with salvation. Following rules has nothing to do with salvation. And for another, following moral rules also has nothing to do in and of itself with the purposes of the Law. If it did, Jesus would be a sinner, because he broke the rules when he walked through a wheat field and ate the husks off the stalks of wheat on the Sabbath. By that measure, and the measure being applied to homosexuality and drinking by Baptists here, he would have broken the Law. How is it that Jesus did not break the Law in the 3rd commandment as the Pharisees accused him of doing? They were, in fact, accusing him of sin.

    “Man was not made for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man.”

    What is the whole of the Law? Loving God and loving the neighbor, not following rules. The commandments are there to help us in doing this love and to convict us when we fail in that, driving us to confession and the forgiveness that awaits, in which we live and move and have our very being as Christians. This is the Law’s use. it always accuses. It happens in our conscience, put there by God. It happens even for the unbeliever, driven to do good “works of the law” by that same conscience. This is how God gets love and mercy done in the world – through means. He does not need our sacrifice of good works, of following rules to please him that make us moral people. He has said so in his Son. That is just Catholicism and Calvinism gone awry and mixing law and gospel. The righteous shall live by faith in Christ alone. He desires mercy not sacrifice. Asking homosexuals to sacrifice themselves to a standard of moral purity that accomplishes nothing but their misery is idolatry. It places faith in what we do or do not do rather than in the love and mercy of God in Christ Jesus. The same is true of any earthly thing, including the consumption of alcohol. What matters is love and mercy. These results are the whole of the Law and what God desires on earth as it is in heaven.

  • Chris

    Hi Gene,

  • Chris

    Hi Gene,

  • Rob

    Stephen – so there is no such thing as the third use of the Law and now I can just chuck out the whole idea of sanctification? or mortification? Self-sacrifice is a non-Christian idea?

    Frank – you tracking with much or any of Stephen’s line of argumentation? Sounds a lot like: “We shall go on sinning so that the grace may increase.” Paul might have a bone to pick here…

  • Rob

    Stephen – so there is no such thing as the third use of the Law and now I can just chuck out the whole idea of sanctification? or mortification? Self-sacrifice is a non-Christian idea?

    Frank – you tracking with much or any of Stephen’s line of argumentation? Sounds a lot like: “We shall go on sinning so that the grace may increase.” Paul might have a bone to pick here…

  • Chris

    Hi Gene,
    I am a Baptist Pastor, but cannot help clear things up on this one. I think it takes quite an ingenious but flawed hermeneutic to make the wine in the Scripture anything but fermented fruit of the vine. It is not “just” grape juice, raisin paste or even watered down grape juice to deaden the potency. It is simply wine!! And when consumed in moderation for the glory of God is a great blessing. Thanks.

  • Chris

    Hi Gene,
    I am a Baptist Pastor, but cannot help clear things up on this one. I think it takes quite an ingenious but flawed hermeneutic to make the wine in the Scripture anything but fermented fruit of the vine. It is not “just” grape juice, raisin paste or even watered down grape juice to deaden the potency. It is simply wine!! And when consumed in moderation for the glory of God is a great blessing. Thanks.

  • Stephen

    Rob @88

    You misunderstand. That law always accuses. We do not “use” it, as if we wield it like weapon on others. It uses us. It does us in completely and finally. It kills us in fact. The law is spiritual says Paul. It is the vehicle by which the Holy Spirit kills the Old Adam sinner.

    But you are confusing this with following rules. The whole of the law is not following rules, it is love. If it were about following rules, then we could just do what the Pharisees ask and keep the rules in tact and we would not need a savior. Paul explains why this does not work in Romans 3. Rule-following actually creates an aversion to the law because the law is a matter of the heart and not a matter of outward “doing.” We need new hearts. We need to be saved. We need to love God and our neighbor. This is the whole of the law, what matters to God, and we can’t do this. This is what our confessions affirm in the explanation to the Third Article of the Creed. Read it again to understand your sanctification. You have that sanctification as the one that you are in Christ, not as something you do by following rules. Catholicism, neo-scholastic Calvinsim and a lot of modern Lutheran stuff slips into the idea that sanctification is some kind of “process” we do. It’s not that. It is who we are in Christ, our heavenly righeousness.

    Self-sacrifice can be a good thing if and only if it leads to love of neighbor. In and of itself it is just another filthy rag works righteous thing we think God wants but does not need. Our neighbor, on the other hand, may very well need it. Now, if you can give me one good, sound reason why gay people need to stop being gay and having gay relationships for the sake of the neighbor I’ll listen. If that kind of sacrifice were necessary for the neighbor, you might be able to make some kind of case. But as far as I can tell, pushing them back into the closet, and doing the further injustice of keeping them away from the fellowship of the church and the Gospel that is for all people, only leads to their misery, distress and torment. Their “proclivities” may be unpleasant or strange to the majority, but prohibiting them does not produce love and mercy for anyone which is what God desires and is the whole of the law.

    “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

  • Stephen

    Rob @88

    You misunderstand. That law always accuses. We do not “use” it, as if we wield it like weapon on others. It uses us. It does us in completely and finally. It kills us in fact. The law is spiritual says Paul. It is the vehicle by which the Holy Spirit kills the Old Adam sinner.

    But you are confusing this with following rules. The whole of the law is not following rules, it is love. If it were about following rules, then we could just do what the Pharisees ask and keep the rules in tact and we would not need a savior. Paul explains why this does not work in Romans 3. Rule-following actually creates an aversion to the law because the law is a matter of the heart and not a matter of outward “doing.” We need new hearts. We need to be saved. We need to love God and our neighbor. This is the whole of the law, what matters to God, and we can’t do this. This is what our confessions affirm in the explanation to the Third Article of the Creed. Read it again to understand your sanctification. You have that sanctification as the one that you are in Christ, not as something you do by following rules. Catholicism, neo-scholastic Calvinsim and a lot of modern Lutheran stuff slips into the idea that sanctification is some kind of “process” we do. It’s not that. It is who we are in Christ, our heavenly righeousness.

    Self-sacrifice can be a good thing if and only if it leads to love of neighbor. In and of itself it is just another filthy rag works righteous thing we think God wants but does not need. Our neighbor, on the other hand, may very well need it. Now, if you can give me one good, sound reason why gay people need to stop being gay and having gay relationships for the sake of the neighbor I’ll listen. If that kind of sacrifice were necessary for the neighbor, you might be able to make some kind of case. But as far as I can tell, pushing them back into the closet, and doing the further injustice of keeping them away from the fellowship of the church and the Gospel that is for all people, only leads to their misery, distress and torment. Their “proclivities” may be unpleasant or strange to the majority, but prohibiting them does not produce love and mercy for anyone which is what God desires and is the whole of the law.

    “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @85

    FWS well. I wrote a beautiful and very very long winded response. and it disappeart with an errant key stroke! lucky you. So lets do this again…rather than be preachy, I hope you will let me ask questions in response to your questions. It might be more interesting that way. Can we experiment with that?

    First I need to ask dear Rob: are you Lutheran or what? It will save time to know that.

    I am going to assume certain things about your thinking from the questions you ask. If I am off base, please just disclaim and redirect. I am aiming to be useful to you and not argue in order to try to win a point ok? help me do that service to you dear Rob.

    ROB So, Frank, where does the third use of the law come in?

    FWS What do you thing the Lutheran Third Use of the Law is? Can you show me from the Lutheran Confessions? remember the law always accuses. the law always accuses. the law always kills us. Did I say always? yes. always.

    ROB How about the mortification you speak of so frequently?

    FWS How about it? what is mortification to you? is it a form of righeousness? is the point of it to show God our obedience? why are we being mortified? Is your idea that what I am guessing you would call “practicing” homosexuals cannot or do not practice mortification and virtue? Why would you say they do not? Can you imagine that a homo trying to be in a monogamous relationship or a single homo is not or cannot practice virtue and mortification? why or why not?

    ROB Don’t forget – the Law and the Gospel are both created by God and are both inherently good.

    FWS Good point. I agree. Why is the Law good? what is the proof of that ? Is there tangible proof, or is this something only christians can know accepting this on faith?

    ROB The Gospel does not abolish the Law, but fulfills it.

    FWS Does the new man in the believer need the law? Why or why not? does the old adam in the believer need the law? why or why not? what does scripture say is the fulfillment of the Law? Does Love=Gospel? How or how not?

    ROB While on this mortal coil, we must live in the tension between Law and Gospel, constantly accused and re-formed by one,….

    FWS ‘reformed’ . doesnt the law always kill us? how is that being re-formed? in what sense?

    ROB …. constantly comforted and renewed by the other.

    FWS ‘renewed’ . this sounds like a process. so when we put on christ and recieve the new man, is this new man only a partial new man or a partial christ?

    ROB We can’t just pick the one we like and ignore the other.

    FWS Agreed! why? we dont do the law. the law does us to death. and we dont do the Gospel either. The gospel gives us the new birth. no one choses to be born. it just happens. ditto new birth.

    ROB. You end up with either Pharisaism or antinomianism.

    FWS The confessions say that the Law without christ ends up as self-righteous pharisee or despairing Judas. So the confessions say that rejecting the law results in legalism and rejecting the gospel results in legalism. rejecting either has the same consequence!

    how? some christians say that the law no longer applies to christians. this IS actually true if the new man and would be completely true then of the believer, except for one fly in the ointment: that Old adam still clings to us. so the law is still in full effect only on the old adam, even for believers. We believers still have our old adams . our physical death is the proof that this is so.

    so those christians who imagine that the law no longer applies (we call them anti-nomians or anti-law) also imagine that the Law , aka the nagging conscience, can be abolished simply by grabbing an erasure and erasing those three letters L.A. W. But the law continues to accuse. So what do they do? they turn christ and the gospel into law. that is what they do! so christ becomes a new moses of example and rules (and he is Example), and this destroys the gospel message that he is Savior apart from being Example. We put on Christ in two ways. we put on christ as Example. We put on Christ as Savior. We dont really need christ as example. Ghandi and the saints work for that. We desperately need Christ as Savior , since no one else can do that.

    I suspect you are confusing that word antinomian with libertine and pharisee with legalist. so you say that rejecting the law results in license and rejecting the gospel results in legalism. this is simply not how the confessions present this. I know that some modern lutherans present things this way. they are wrong.

    ROB And for someone normally so cautious with clarity, you have made quite a loaded yet unclear statement: “I am a gay man.”

    FWS Ok. Unclear to anyone who is gay? no. Unclear to the medical, scientific or psychiatric community? no. and remember , homosexual is a medical term. Like the word “clinical depressions”. One would not translate “sadness” in scripture, as “clinical depression”. that would be silly wouldnt it?

    ROB Obviously, this can mean different things to different people.

    FWS Not to a single homosexual and not to doctors, or psychiatrists ( I discount patently dishonest men like those in NARTH here). So who else matters and why? why does it matter to you rob? why does it matter at all ? Will it make an eternal difference to anyone? how? why?

    ROB Is this, “I am a man who must struggle against homosexual temptations,” or “I am a man who commits sexual acts with another man”?

    FWS why do you want or feel you need to know? Why does it matter to you personally? Imagine yourself in church? would you ask your pastor whether or not he struggles against sexual temptations? whether or not he has sexual acts with women? would you ask the single grandmothers there? children? teens? married folk? why or why not? why would it matter to your or not? wouldnt you cring alittle at asking such a personal question? why not? why?

    ROB I understand if you’d prefer not, but care to delve into this a little?

    FWS: Why would you have this understanding. Do perfect strangers walk up to you and ask you about your sex life and if you are tempted sexually? How would you respond?

    ROB Happy to do it by personal e-mail if that’s more appropriate.

    FWS why would a personal email be more or less appropriate rob?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @85

    FWS well. I wrote a beautiful and very very long winded response. and it disappeart with an errant key stroke! lucky you. So lets do this again…rather than be preachy, I hope you will let me ask questions in response to your questions. It might be more interesting that way. Can we experiment with that?

    First I need to ask dear Rob: are you Lutheran or what? It will save time to know that.

    I am going to assume certain things about your thinking from the questions you ask. If I am off base, please just disclaim and redirect. I am aiming to be useful to you and not argue in order to try to win a point ok? help me do that service to you dear Rob.

    ROB So, Frank, where does the third use of the law come in?

    FWS What do you thing the Lutheran Third Use of the Law is? Can you show me from the Lutheran Confessions? remember the law always accuses. the law always accuses. the law always kills us. Did I say always? yes. always.

    ROB How about the mortification you speak of so frequently?

    FWS How about it? what is mortification to you? is it a form of righeousness? is the point of it to show God our obedience? why are we being mortified? Is your idea that what I am guessing you would call “practicing” homosexuals cannot or do not practice mortification and virtue? Why would you say they do not? Can you imagine that a homo trying to be in a monogamous relationship or a single homo is not or cannot practice virtue and mortification? why or why not?

    ROB Don’t forget – the Law and the Gospel are both created by God and are both inherently good.

    FWS Good point. I agree. Why is the Law good? what is the proof of that ? Is there tangible proof, or is this something only christians can know accepting this on faith?

    ROB The Gospel does not abolish the Law, but fulfills it.

    FWS Does the new man in the believer need the law? Why or why not? does the old adam in the believer need the law? why or why not? what does scripture say is the fulfillment of the Law? Does Love=Gospel? How or how not?

    ROB While on this mortal coil, we must live in the tension between Law and Gospel, constantly accused and re-formed by one,….

    FWS ‘reformed’ . doesnt the law always kill us? how is that being re-formed? in what sense?

    ROB …. constantly comforted and renewed by the other.

    FWS ‘renewed’ . this sounds like a process. so when we put on christ and recieve the new man, is this new man only a partial new man or a partial christ?

    ROB We can’t just pick the one we like and ignore the other.

    FWS Agreed! why? we dont do the law. the law does us to death. and we dont do the Gospel either. The gospel gives us the new birth. no one choses to be born. it just happens. ditto new birth.

    ROB. You end up with either Pharisaism or antinomianism.

    FWS The confessions say that the Law without christ ends up as self-righteous pharisee or despairing Judas. So the confessions say that rejecting the law results in legalism and rejecting the gospel results in legalism. rejecting either has the same consequence!

    how? some christians say that the law no longer applies to christians. this IS actually true if the new man and would be completely true then of the believer, except for one fly in the ointment: that Old adam still clings to us. so the law is still in full effect only on the old adam, even for believers. We believers still have our old adams . our physical death is the proof that this is so.

    so those christians who imagine that the law no longer applies (we call them anti-nomians or anti-law) also imagine that the Law , aka the nagging conscience, can be abolished simply by grabbing an erasure and erasing those three letters L.A. W. But the law continues to accuse. So what do they do? they turn christ and the gospel into law. that is what they do! so christ becomes a new moses of example and rules (and he is Example), and this destroys the gospel message that he is Savior apart from being Example. We put on Christ in two ways. we put on christ as Example. We put on Christ as Savior. We dont really need christ as example. Ghandi and the saints work for that. We desperately need Christ as Savior , since no one else can do that.

    I suspect you are confusing that word antinomian with libertine and pharisee with legalist. so you say that rejecting the law results in license and rejecting the gospel results in legalism. this is simply not how the confessions present this. I know that some modern lutherans present things this way. they are wrong.

    ROB And for someone normally so cautious with clarity, you have made quite a loaded yet unclear statement: “I am a gay man.”

    FWS Ok. Unclear to anyone who is gay? no. Unclear to the medical, scientific or psychiatric community? no. and remember , homosexual is a medical term. Like the word “clinical depressions”. One would not translate “sadness” in scripture, as “clinical depression”. that would be silly wouldnt it?

    ROB Obviously, this can mean different things to different people.

    FWS Not to a single homosexual and not to doctors, or psychiatrists ( I discount patently dishonest men like those in NARTH here). So who else matters and why? why does it matter to you rob? why does it matter at all ? Will it make an eternal difference to anyone? how? why?

    ROB Is this, “I am a man who must struggle against homosexual temptations,” or “I am a man who commits sexual acts with another man”?

    FWS why do you want or feel you need to know? Why does it matter to you personally? Imagine yourself in church? would you ask your pastor whether or not he struggles against sexual temptations? whether or not he has sexual acts with women? would you ask the single grandmothers there? children? teens? married folk? why or why not? why would it matter to your or not? wouldnt you cring alittle at asking such a personal question? why not? why?

    ROB I understand if you’d prefer not, but care to delve into this a little?

    FWS: Why would you have this understanding. Do perfect strangers walk up to you and ask you about your sex life and if you are tempted sexually? How would you respond?

    ROB Happy to do it by personal e-mail if that’s more appropriate.

    FWS why would a personal email be more or less appropriate rob?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 85

    ONLY conservative christians feel that they have some sort of right to ask me about the status of my sex life . I cannot even begin to imagine anyone else thinking of doing that.

    under what circumstances would it be appropriate for a total stranger to start asking you or your wife (if you have one) about the personal details of your sex life?

    why is that?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 85

    ONLY conservative christians feel that they have some sort of right to ask me about the status of my sex life . I cannot even begin to imagine anyone else thinking of doing that.

    under what circumstances would it be appropriate for a total stranger to start asking you or your wife (if you have one) about the personal details of your sex life?

    why is that?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @88

    ROB Stephen – so there is no such thing as the third use of the Law

    FWS. Which 3rd use? the calvinist one that says that the law powers sanctification or the Lutheran one that stephen advocates?

    ROB and now I can just chuck out the whole idea of sanctification?

    FWS Nope. Only the gospel can work sanctification. law is excluded fully here.

    ROB or mortification?

    FWS Everyone is being mortified whether they know it or not. the law does us. we dont do the law.

    ROB Self-sacrifice is a non-Christian idea?

    FRANK There is nothing christian about any part of the law. law works whether christ rose from the dead or not. pagan atheists can know and do the law as well or better than any deist or christian.

    ROB Frank – you tracking with much or any of Stephen’s line of argumentation? Sounds a lot like: “We shall go on sinning so that the grace may increase.” Paul might have a bone to pick here…

    FWS by no means! Give me just ONE place where stephen is arguing that we should increase grace by deliberately sinning more. just one.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @88

    ROB Stephen – so there is no such thing as the third use of the Law

    FWS. Which 3rd use? the calvinist one that says that the law powers sanctification or the Lutheran one that stephen advocates?

    ROB and now I can just chuck out the whole idea of sanctification?

    FWS Nope. Only the gospel can work sanctification. law is excluded fully here.

    ROB or mortification?

    FWS Everyone is being mortified whether they know it or not. the law does us. we dont do the law.

    ROB Self-sacrifice is a non-Christian idea?

    FRANK There is nothing christian about any part of the law. law works whether christ rose from the dead or not. pagan atheists can know and do the law as well or better than any deist or christian.

    ROB Frank – you tracking with much or any of Stephen’s line of argumentation? Sounds a lot like: “We shall go on sinning so that the grace may increase.” Paul might have a bone to pick here…

    FWS by no means! Give me just ONE place where stephen is arguing that we should increase grace by deliberately sinning more. just one.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob lets get back to talking about alcohol and baptists. my email is fwsonnek@gmail.com

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob lets get back to talking about alcohol and baptists. my email is fwsonnek@gmail.com

  • Grace

    Fws – 92

    Rob #85:

    “And for someone normally so cautious with clarity, you have made quite a loaded yet unclear statement: “I am a gay man.” Obviously, this can mean different things to different people. Is this, “I am a man who must struggle against homosexual temptations,” or “I am a man who commits sexual acts with another man”? I understand if you’d prefer not, but care to delve into this a little? Happy to do it by personal e-mail if that’s more appropriate.”

    Rob was asking you a straightforward question. Then in post #88 Rob says:

    Rob #88 “Frank – you tracking with much or any of Stephen’s line of argumentation? Sounds a lot like: “We shall go on sinning so that the grace may increase.” Paul might have a bone to pick here…”

    Frank, then you, instead of answering a the question start a whole NEW long list of questions of your own in post #91 …. which detours his question.

    Frank – - “ONLY conservative christians feel that they have some sort of right to ask me about the status of my sex life . I cannot even begin to imagine anyone else thinking of doing that.

    under what circumstances would it be appropriate for a total stranger to start asking you or your wife (if you have one) about the personal details of your sex life?

    why is that?”

    Most any Christian Believer would get around to asking you that question. The Bible doesn’t in any way state that same sex individuals can sexualize each other, those who are male and female can marry and enjoy sexual relations. Romans 1 is very clear regarding homosexuality between men/men and women/women –

    Rob didn’t ask you “personal details” he asked you Is this, “I am a man who must struggle against homosexual temptations,” or “I am a man who commits sexual acts with another man”? Details are one thing, a sexual relation is another…. “details” of exactly what you do was not asked.

    This after your post #81

    Frank #81 “consider that story you shared about ordering a drink. now put that in the context of myself being a gay man and making no secret of it in strategic situations. and they know already that I am a christian.

    red carpet? off and running? for sure interesting conversations. what is it that you think the holy gospel and christianity are about. road? meet some serious rubber.”

    The first question most would ask is “if you are a Christian, do you live a sexually active life as same-sex”? Frank, most all people if they have even a hint of what the Bible says, know very well that the LORD doesn’t condone homosexuality, acted out either in a one to one long relationship, or a one night stand.

    You are avoiding the question, …… Rob made it clear you could email him even you would prefer – asking him to fill in the blanks of a long list of yours is a cop out.

    It appears you don’t want to answer the question. Based on Romans 1, there appears to be a conflict!

  • Grace

    Fws – 92

    Rob #85:

    “And for someone normally so cautious with clarity, you have made quite a loaded yet unclear statement: “I am a gay man.” Obviously, this can mean different things to different people. Is this, “I am a man who must struggle against homosexual temptations,” or “I am a man who commits sexual acts with another man”? I understand if you’d prefer not, but care to delve into this a little? Happy to do it by personal e-mail if that’s more appropriate.”

    Rob was asking you a straightforward question. Then in post #88 Rob says:

    Rob #88 “Frank – you tracking with much or any of Stephen’s line of argumentation? Sounds a lot like: “We shall go on sinning so that the grace may increase.” Paul might have a bone to pick here…”

    Frank, then you, instead of answering a the question start a whole NEW long list of questions of your own in post #91 …. which detours his question.

    Frank – - “ONLY conservative christians feel that they have some sort of right to ask me about the status of my sex life . I cannot even begin to imagine anyone else thinking of doing that.

    under what circumstances would it be appropriate for a total stranger to start asking you or your wife (if you have one) about the personal details of your sex life?

    why is that?”

    Most any Christian Believer would get around to asking you that question. The Bible doesn’t in any way state that same sex individuals can sexualize each other, those who are male and female can marry and enjoy sexual relations. Romans 1 is very clear regarding homosexuality between men/men and women/women –

    Rob didn’t ask you “personal details” he asked you Is this, “I am a man who must struggle against homosexual temptations,” or “I am a man who commits sexual acts with another man”? Details are one thing, a sexual relation is another…. “details” of exactly what you do was not asked.

    This after your post #81

    Frank #81 “consider that story you shared about ordering a drink. now put that in the context of myself being a gay man and making no secret of it in strategic situations. and they know already that I am a christian.

    red carpet? off and running? for sure interesting conversations. what is it that you think the holy gospel and christianity are about. road? meet some serious rubber.”

    The first question most would ask is “if you are a Christian, do you live a sexually active life as same-sex”? Frank, most all people if they have even a hint of what the Bible says, know very well that the LORD doesn’t condone homosexuality, acted out either in a one to one long relationship, or a one night stand.

    You are avoiding the question, …… Rob made it clear you could email him even you would prefer – asking him to fill in the blanks of a long list of yours is a cop out.

    It appears you don’t want to answer the question. Based on Romans 1, there appears to be a conflict!

  • Grace

    I can’t be blamed for hijacking this thread!

    Frank mentioned it FIRST in post #81 and then in other posts.

    Frank #81 “consider that story you shared about ordering a drink. now put that in the context of myself being a gay man and making no secret of it in strategic situations. and they know already that I am a christian.”

  • Grace

    I can’t be blamed for hijacking this thread!

    Frank mentioned it FIRST in post #81 and then in other posts.

    Frank #81 “consider that story you shared about ordering a drink. now put that in the context of myself being a gay man and making no secret of it in strategic situations. and they know already that I am a christian.”

  • Stephen

    Grace-

    This post is essentially about legalism, which you are bound and determined to impose on others. So whether it is about homosexuality or alcohol, can you offer one good reason why abstaining from a gay relationship leads to love of neighbor which is the whole of the law as our Lord taught? Where is the proof that it leads to love?

    And as for Romans 1, using simple logic, it seems to me that those who gave up natural relations for unnatural ones would be heterosexuals not homosexuals. Homosexuals have no “natural” inclination toward the opposite sex. The scriptures aren’t talking about homosexuality as we know it to be today. Paul is referring to temple rituals carried on by idol worshiping Greeks who used slaves to assert their political and social dominance. There were no mutual sexual relationship sin the first century, heterosexual or otherwise.

    But I’m sure none of that carries any weight with you and you think it is all a trick. You still can’t and won’t answer my first question. In the same way that alcohol should be avoided if it is ruining relationships, ANY relationship that is harmful should be avoided. But that has nothing to do with who one has sex with any more than it has to do with booze. It has to do with love.

  • Stephen

    Grace-

    This post is essentially about legalism, which you are bound and determined to impose on others. So whether it is about homosexuality or alcohol, can you offer one good reason why abstaining from a gay relationship leads to love of neighbor which is the whole of the law as our Lord taught? Where is the proof that it leads to love?

    And as for Romans 1, using simple logic, it seems to me that those who gave up natural relations for unnatural ones would be heterosexuals not homosexuals. Homosexuals have no “natural” inclination toward the opposite sex. The scriptures aren’t talking about homosexuality as we know it to be today. Paul is referring to temple rituals carried on by idol worshiping Greeks who used slaves to assert their political and social dominance. There were no mutual sexual relationship sin the first century, heterosexual or otherwise.

    But I’m sure none of that carries any weight with you and you think it is all a trick. You still can’t and won’t answer my first question. In the same way that alcohol should be avoided if it is ruining relationships, ANY relationship that is harmful should be avoided. But that has nothing to do with who one has sex with any more than it has to do with booze. It has to do with love.

  • Rob

    Just for clarity, there are three points worth making publicly, then I will discuss with Frank privately:

    1) Yes, I am a Lutheran – after tours of duty as a Presbyterian, Baptist, Evangelical Free, and Assemblies of God. I have been studying it closely for a year-and-a-half now. The Confessions, all the LCMS CTCR papers, Walther’s Law and Gospel, Giertz’ Hammer of God, most of Bonhoeffer’s corpus, Bainton’s biography as well as Kolb’s, Siemon-Netto’s Fabricated Luther, Vieth’s Spirituality of the Cross. All of these have been read and studied within the last 18 months. Not what the list will end up, but they are all there and still pretty fresh.

    2) I did not bring up Frank’s sexuality in so public a forum and would not dream of doing so. He made a blanket and potentially confusing statement and has bristled that it is inappropriate for me to ask him to clarify that statement. If so, then it was an inappropriate statement to make.

    3) I have always enjoyed and respected Frank’s discussion of Law and Gospel, even if he is a bit quick to declare himself right and all other interpretations wrong. Here, I simply asked him to align a statement with other commonly-discussed Lutheran doctrines, and he instead used the opportunity to grill me.

    Frank, I will hopefully get to this via e-mail next week, but I can guarantee it won’t happen this weekend, with two toddlers at home, an elders’ retreat tomorrow, and services on Sunday. I guess my closing comment is that for someone so quick to declare how pleased you are to make your statement about being gay, I sure feel pilloried for replying.

  • Rob

    Just for clarity, there are three points worth making publicly, then I will discuss with Frank privately:

    1) Yes, I am a Lutheran – after tours of duty as a Presbyterian, Baptist, Evangelical Free, and Assemblies of God. I have been studying it closely for a year-and-a-half now. The Confessions, all the LCMS CTCR papers, Walther’s Law and Gospel, Giertz’ Hammer of God, most of Bonhoeffer’s corpus, Bainton’s biography as well as Kolb’s, Siemon-Netto’s Fabricated Luther, Vieth’s Spirituality of the Cross. All of these have been read and studied within the last 18 months. Not what the list will end up, but they are all there and still pretty fresh.

    2) I did not bring up Frank’s sexuality in so public a forum and would not dream of doing so. He made a blanket and potentially confusing statement and has bristled that it is inappropriate for me to ask him to clarify that statement. If so, then it was an inappropriate statement to make.

    3) I have always enjoyed and respected Frank’s discussion of Law and Gospel, even if he is a bit quick to declare himself right and all other interpretations wrong. Here, I simply asked him to align a statement with other commonly-discussed Lutheran doctrines, and he instead used the opportunity to grill me.

    Frank, I will hopefully get to this via e-mail next week, but I can guarantee it won’t happen this weekend, with two toddlers at home, an elders’ retreat tomorrow, and services on Sunday. I guess my closing comment is that for someone so quick to declare how pleased you are to make your statement about being gay, I sure feel pilloried for replying.

  • Grace

    Stephen

    “This post is essentially about legalism, which you are bound and determined to impose on others. So whether it is about homosexuality or alcohol, can you offer one good reason why abstaining from a gay relationship leads to love of neighbor which is the whole of the law as our Lord taught? Where is the proof that it leads to love?”

    You can throw out the entire Word of God, and depend upon “love” no matter how you connect that word with sin, and then excuse it because it is all about love, ….. and who’s love is it? – does it line up with God’s Word? – or mans love for his sin, and defying God as he sins in love? Paul makes it very clear in Romans 1.

    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
    1 Corinthians 10:13

    Instead of taking the “escape” which is offered by God, skip it, call it love and continue to sin!

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also, the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1

    A “reprobate mind” is a mind void of conscience, it has been seared and no longer looks at evil, as evil………but goes along as in verse 28 “And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND.

    Legalism is used by many to circumvent the Word of God, there is no place in the Bible which gives man that right – it is not an artful maneuver, but a willful attempt to sin without the consequence.

  • Grace

    Stephen

    “This post is essentially about legalism, which you are bound and determined to impose on others. So whether it is about homosexuality or alcohol, can you offer one good reason why abstaining from a gay relationship leads to love of neighbor which is the whole of the law as our Lord taught? Where is the proof that it leads to love?”

    You can throw out the entire Word of God, and depend upon “love” no matter how you connect that word with sin, and then excuse it because it is all about love, ….. and who’s love is it? – does it line up with God’s Word? – or mans love for his sin, and defying God as he sins in love? Paul makes it very clear in Romans 1.

    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
    1 Corinthians 10:13

    Instead of taking the “escape” which is offered by God, skip it, call it love and continue to sin!

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also, the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1

    A “reprobate mind” is a mind void of conscience, it has been seared and no longer looks at evil, as evil………but goes along as in verse 28 “And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND.

    Legalism is used by many to circumvent the Word of God, there is no place in the Bible which gives man that right – it is not an artful maneuver, but a willful attempt to sin without the consequence.

  • Stephen

    Grace-

    Oh, so now I’m a reprobate. Did you miss the whole part about what Jesus taught is the whole of the law? I think so. Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10. I used that for my question to you which you still have not answered. Par for the course.

  • Stephen

    Grace-

    Oh, so now I’m a reprobate. Did you miss the whole part about what Jesus taught is the whole of the law? I think so. Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10. I used that for my question to you which you still have not answered. Par for the course.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dear rob @ 98

    wow. I am very very very sorry that you feel “plloried” that sincerely was not my aim dear brother.

    so I miserably failed in my aim, which (and you may find this in-credible) was to make you feel respected and served. I did an initial response that seemed too long and more like a speach than an attempt at dialog. and that , mercifully got zapped by hitting the wrong key.

    so I tried instead to ask you questions to allow for give and take. and now I realize that the question format probably made you feel like you were being cross examined by a hostile attorney on the witness stand. And I would hope you would accept my sincere and heartfelt apology for that. it was not my intention. it is not easy to be blonde or norwegian.

    you are a sincere man sincerely looking for truth. and I hope I can assume that what attracted you to the lutheran confessions is the sweet comfort they offer to those with a troubled conscience and who feel the weight and burden of sin.

    welcome. we are there for the same reasons.

    Rob, I always am mindful that there are alot of persons out there who read our exchanges and never comment. many are gay men and lesbians . others are just hurting from sin and its consequences.

    so when I respond in a way that does not look like love, that really bothers me. so again please do forgivement.

    the point of the morality that pleases God is not obedience to him or his rules, but rather my obedience to YOU dear brother. God wants me to be obedient to you and literally kill my self in the process of being obedient to you and having you be the sole judge of my righteousness or love for you.

    this is what being a servant is right? who is the judge of the servant? the divine temp agency that send me to serve you, or you?

    I will try my best to serve you better, and you can teach me please how I can best go about doing that ok?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dear rob @ 98

    wow. I am very very very sorry that you feel “plloried” that sincerely was not my aim dear brother.

    so I miserably failed in my aim, which (and you may find this in-credible) was to make you feel respected and served. I did an initial response that seemed too long and more like a speach than an attempt at dialog. and that , mercifully got zapped by hitting the wrong key.

    so I tried instead to ask you questions to allow for give and take. and now I realize that the question format probably made you feel like you were being cross examined by a hostile attorney on the witness stand. And I would hope you would accept my sincere and heartfelt apology for that. it was not my intention. it is not easy to be blonde or norwegian.

    you are a sincere man sincerely looking for truth. and I hope I can assume that what attracted you to the lutheran confessions is the sweet comfort they offer to those with a troubled conscience and who feel the weight and burden of sin.

    welcome. we are there for the same reasons.

    Rob, I always am mindful that there are alot of persons out there who read our exchanges and never comment. many are gay men and lesbians . others are just hurting from sin and its consequences.

    so when I respond in a way that does not look like love, that really bothers me. so again please do forgivement.

    the point of the morality that pleases God is not obedience to him or his rules, but rather my obedience to YOU dear brother. God wants me to be obedient to you and literally kill my self in the process of being obedient to you and having you be the sole judge of my righteousness or love for you.

    this is what being a servant is right? who is the judge of the servant? the divine temp agency that send me to serve you, or you?

    I will try my best to serve you better, and you can teach me please how I can best go about doing that ok?

  • Grace

    Stephen,

    You now throw out Romans 1? Was Paul off when he made it clear regarding homosexuals in Romans 1? – should we discard this one, and keep what Paul wrote in all the other books?

    We can play a “keep this passage, and throw that one down the drain” ?

    Stephen – do you support same sex, sexual relationships ie; homosexual/gay ?

  • Grace

    Stephen,

    You now throw out Romans 1? Was Paul off when he made it clear regarding homosexuals in Romans 1? – should we discard this one, and keep what Paul wrote in all the other books?

    We can play a “keep this passage, and throw that one down the drain” ?

    Stephen – do you support same sex, sexual relationships ie; homosexual/gay ?

  • Grace

    fws – 101

    Still no answer to Rob’s question.

    Fws, you don’t have to answer, that is true, but you sure have danced around the question, which is most likely the answer.

    How can you ask questions when you can’t give an answer, especially when you made the first move in post #81?

    “Frank #81 “consider that story you shared about ordering a drink. now put that in the context of myself being a gay man and making no secret of it in strategic situations. and they know already that I am a christian.

    red carpet? off and running? for sure interesting conversations. what is it that you think the holy gospel and christianity are about. road? meet some serious rubber.”

    IF, the rubber has hit the road, …. it hasn’t made any traction!

  • Grace

    fws – 101

    Still no answer to Rob’s question.

    Fws, you don’t have to answer, that is true, but you sure have danced around the question, which is most likely the answer.

    How can you ask questions when you can’t give an answer, especially when you made the first move in post #81?

    “Frank #81 “consider that story you shared about ordering a drink. now put that in the context of myself being a gay man and making no secret of it in strategic situations. and they know already that I am a christian.

    red carpet? off and running? for sure interesting conversations. what is it that you think the holy gospel and christianity are about. road? meet some serious rubber.”

    IF, the rubber has hit the road, …. it hasn’t made any traction!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 98

    i would skip simon netto especially on the two kingdoms. here is reformed or even scholastic/aquinan there as he is too on natural law. and bonhoffer is great but not where to go to understand lutheranism.

    I would really really suggest that you study aristotles virtue ethics.
    why? that is the water that all the fish of the reformation swam in. one cannot understand the lutheran or even the reformed or roman confessions without understanding aristotles take on how we acquire virtue.

    the Lutheran confessions laud aristotle and let him remain pagan. The say there is no such thing as ‘christian morality”. there is just morality. the same stuff that christian and pagan both are to do and can fully know and do apart from christ.

    and then there is that other Righteousness that is fully apart from any morality.

    and the main point of the augsburg confession is to oppose aquinas’ baptism of aristotle into theology in the form of natural law and ‘philosophical righteousness’.

    Once you have that down, I would invite you to do what I am doing right now. I am topically working through each part of the confessions. i am on original sin right now. and it is all law and gospel. law and gospel.

    ” even if he is a bit quick to declare himself right and all other interpretations wrong.” I try, consciously, to paraphrase and plagarize from the confessions. you should start noticing that few Lutherans actually organically rely in the confessions for their theology. they are doing what you are doing. they are reading everything but the confessions. and when they do use the confessions, it is to proof text and not really get into the reasoning and pattern of the confessional arguments. which by the way is always , very repetitively, law and gospel law and gospel. so yes I reject whatever claims to be Lutheran and does not square with our Confessions. and I am grateful when people show me I am wrong on some reading of the confessions. but that rarely happens since nobody really reads them!

    do yourself a favor rob and dont just read them. take a topic like original sin and wrestle with it. try to paraphrase it in plain english to get past all the awful translations that really are german and dont sound like normal english.

    “and has bristled that it is inappropriate for me to ask him to clarify that statement. ”

    I did not mean to bristle. my. if I got upset by that, i could not continue to go to church. but again. there are alot of gays and lesbians who listen in to us. it seems odd to think it is ok to casually ask what you asked of anyone.

    ” for someone so quick to declare how pleased you are to make your statement about being gay, I sure feel pilloried for replying.”

    Rob. it would be so very much easier to not mention that fact.
    but I am here to serve. saying I am gay is not about me. that does not matter. It has nothing at all to do with my salvation or that of others. but then if I do mention it. then even those who are not gay will maybe see just how wonderful the holy gospel is. we are all burdened by sin . you note here that others do not sit me outside of the church. this is not normal. I am the face of gay men on this site. I am just a person like anyone else. and I need to hear the holy gospel. that is ALONE what will save me.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 98

    i would skip simon netto especially on the two kingdoms. here is reformed or even scholastic/aquinan there as he is too on natural law. and bonhoffer is great but not where to go to understand lutheranism.

    I would really really suggest that you study aristotles virtue ethics.
    why? that is the water that all the fish of the reformation swam in. one cannot understand the lutheran or even the reformed or roman confessions without understanding aristotles take on how we acquire virtue.

    the Lutheran confessions laud aristotle and let him remain pagan. The say there is no such thing as ‘christian morality”. there is just morality. the same stuff that christian and pagan both are to do and can fully know and do apart from christ.

    and then there is that other Righteousness that is fully apart from any morality.

    and the main point of the augsburg confession is to oppose aquinas’ baptism of aristotle into theology in the form of natural law and ‘philosophical righteousness’.

    Once you have that down, I would invite you to do what I am doing right now. I am topically working through each part of the confessions. i am on original sin right now. and it is all law and gospel. law and gospel.

    ” even if he is a bit quick to declare himself right and all other interpretations wrong.” I try, consciously, to paraphrase and plagarize from the confessions. you should start noticing that few Lutherans actually organically rely in the confessions for their theology. they are doing what you are doing. they are reading everything but the confessions. and when they do use the confessions, it is to proof text and not really get into the reasoning and pattern of the confessional arguments. which by the way is always , very repetitively, law and gospel law and gospel. so yes I reject whatever claims to be Lutheran and does not square with our Confessions. and I am grateful when people show me I am wrong on some reading of the confessions. but that rarely happens since nobody really reads them!

    do yourself a favor rob and dont just read them. take a topic like original sin and wrestle with it. try to paraphrase it in plain english to get past all the awful translations that really are german and dont sound like normal english.

    “and has bristled that it is inappropriate for me to ask him to clarify that statement. ”

    I did not mean to bristle. my. if I got upset by that, i could not continue to go to church. but again. there are alot of gays and lesbians who listen in to us. it seems odd to think it is ok to casually ask what you asked of anyone.

    ” for someone so quick to declare how pleased you are to make your statement about being gay, I sure feel pilloried for replying.”

    Rob. it would be so very much easier to not mention that fact.
    but I am here to serve. saying I am gay is not about me. that does not matter. It has nothing at all to do with my salvation or that of others. but then if I do mention it. then even those who are not gay will maybe see just how wonderful the holy gospel is. we are all burdened by sin . you note here that others do not sit me outside of the church. this is not normal. I am the face of gay men on this site. I am just a person like anyone else. and I need to hear the holy gospel. that is ALONE what will save me.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 98

    disclosure of being gay is always a strategic decision. the criterion is whether I can do righteousness better with or without disclosing that fact.

    here is how that looks in practice:

    at my local church here in brasil, the pastor knows every. thing. about. me. i go to private confessions weekly. how could he NOT know. but no one in the congregation has been told by me. it is a very conservative congretation. my disclosing that would then potentially be disruption and distraction from Jesus. now I will not lie. as people get to know and like me and what to be included in my life they will ask questions. I will be honest. this is about faith. I trust the truth and I will live in light and not in darkness. but this is a long process and it is about others and not me.

    I can get the fellowship I do need as a gay man outside the church. and there there are many who love jesus but see no room for themselves at a church. so in time maybe they will want to go to church with me. I have found that those men and women who do are so very grateful to hear the holy gospel, that they too are more than willing to not talk about their sexuality with others so that christ might increase and we might decrease. but I urge them always to be completely honest with the pastor.

    I hope that helps. now if you were a member at my church and asked me those questions, i would ask you in the same way why you want to know. and this would really to be to protect others and the peace in the church. I really dont have anything to fear by being honest and not lying.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 98

    disclosure of being gay is always a strategic decision. the criterion is whether I can do righteousness better with or without disclosing that fact.

    here is how that looks in practice:

    at my local church here in brasil, the pastor knows every. thing. about. me. i go to private confessions weekly. how could he NOT know. but no one in the congregation has been told by me. it is a very conservative congretation. my disclosing that would then potentially be disruption and distraction from Jesus. now I will not lie. as people get to know and like me and what to be included in my life they will ask questions. I will be honest. this is about faith. I trust the truth and I will live in light and not in darkness. but this is a long process and it is about others and not me.

    I can get the fellowship I do need as a gay man outside the church. and there there are many who love jesus but see no room for themselves at a church. so in time maybe they will want to go to church with me. I have found that those men and women who do are so very grateful to hear the holy gospel, that they too are more than willing to not talk about their sexuality with others so that christ might increase and we might decrease. but I urge them always to be completely honest with the pastor.

    I hope that helps. now if you were a member at my church and asked me those questions, i would ask you in the same way why you want to know. and this would really to be to protect others and the peace in the church. I really dont have anything to fear by being honest and not lying.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 103

    how did we get from baptists and alcohol to frank and homosexuality.

    I am going to do with you what I do with all people who refuse to be polite. I am going to ignore you until you decide that it it is necessary to be nice.

    rob, please lets take homosexuality off line. it will be more productive for you. and lets get back to the baptists ok? is it ok to ask for that?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 103

    how did we get from baptists and alcohol to frank and homosexuality.

    I am going to do with you what I do with all people who refuse to be polite. I am going to ignore you until you decide that it it is necessary to be nice.

    rob, please lets take homosexuality off line. it will be more productive for you. and lets get back to the baptists ok? is it ok to ask for that?

  • Stephen

    Rob @ 98

    In defense of my friend Frank, it seems he has some right to be defensive. It is a little like he admitted to drinking and suddenly was attacked for being an alcoholic who was wrecking his life without evidence. Does drinking automatically wreck one’s life? Does being gay or having a gay relationship do that? And what does any of it have to do with salvation? What he indicated by mentioning his homosexuality is that it has no consequence whatsoever in terms of his salvation. The same is true for booze in Larry’s illustration. That is to say that the shock people have that Larry was discussing show that we miss the point entirely when it comes to the heart of the matter if morality is all we talk about when the discussion gravitates to what it means to be a Christian.

    As you can see, Grace thinks the whole thing is about morality and she is way off. It is about Jesus Christ and his gospel of salvation. Anyone can be moral. They don’t need a crucified Jesus Christ for that. That is the law/gospel distinction that I hope you are getting from all that reading. We do moral things for the sake of our neighbor because that is what our conscience demands, for one thing (works of the law, driven out of Old Adam – true for Christians and none Christians), and we also express them as fruits of the Spirit from a clean and new heart that is born of Spirit – that gift we receive as new creations in Christ. But none of us knows the difference (though some, like Grace, think they are assigned the job of pointing out who is and isn’t doing truly “Christian” things. But that’s beside the point.).

    My point would be to cut him just a tiny bit of slack for defending territory that he has staked out not simply for himself but for you too. Because what Frank says over and over here is a pure law/gospel thing – that nothing can be added to Jesus Christ and him crucified. There is not one thing that we can do or not do that merits inclusion into that grace which is given to us through Christ alone. We Lutherans affirm that this is a baptismal promise which we have through faith.

    So we can have great discussions about the law and morality, but they are different kind of discussion, and we don’t need to kid ourselves that Christians are any more moral than anyone else. And we also miss the point of how the law functions if we see it as purely a matter of following rules. In fact, it becomes a force for idolatry, which is rampant in religion. It leads to biblicism (about two posts ago) and all the legalism, phariseeism and other divisive and painful problems we inflict on each other with religion. There is no mercy, nor forgiveness, and not the love which is meant as the end product of our earthly righteousness, the very thing Jesus himself teaches us is the whole use of the law upon our hearts.

    Hebrews 10:1

  • Stephen

    Rob @ 98

    In defense of my friend Frank, it seems he has some right to be defensive. It is a little like he admitted to drinking and suddenly was attacked for being an alcoholic who was wrecking his life without evidence. Does drinking automatically wreck one’s life? Does being gay or having a gay relationship do that? And what does any of it have to do with salvation? What he indicated by mentioning his homosexuality is that it has no consequence whatsoever in terms of his salvation. The same is true for booze in Larry’s illustration. That is to say that the shock people have that Larry was discussing show that we miss the point entirely when it comes to the heart of the matter if morality is all we talk about when the discussion gravitates to what it means to be a Christian.

    As you can see, Grace thinks the whole thing is about morality and she is way off. It is about Jesus Christ and his gospel of salvation. Anyone can be moral. They don’t need a crucified Jesus Christ for that. That is the law/gospel distinction that I hope you are getting from all that reading. We do moral things for the sake of our neighbor because that is what our conscience demands, for one thing (works of the law, driven out of Old Adam – true for Christians and none Christians), and we also express them as fruits of the Spirit from a clean and new heart that is born of Spirit – that gift we receive as new creations in Christ. But none of us knows the difference (though some, like Grace, think they are assigned the job of pointing out who is and isn’t doing truly “Christian” things. But that’s beside the point.).

    My point would be to cut him just a tiny bit of slack for defending territory that he has staked out not simply for himself but for you too. Because what Frank says over and over here is a pure law/gospel thing – that nothing can be added to Jesus Christ and him crucified. There is not one thing that we can do or not do that merits inclusion into that grace which is given to us through Christ alone. We Lutherans affirm that this is a baptismal promise which we have through faith.

    So we can have great discussions about the law and morality, but they are different kind of discussion, and we don’t need to kid ourselves that Christians are any more moral than anyone else. And we also miss the point of how the law functions if we see it as purely a matter of following rules. In fact, it becomes a force for idolatry, which is rampant in religion. It leads to biblicism (about two posts ago) and all the legalism, phariseeism and other divisive and painful problems we inflict on each other with religion. There is no mercy, nor forgiveness, and not the love which is meant as the end product of our earthly righteousness, the very thing Jesus himself teaches us is the whole use of the law upon our hearts.

    Hebrews 10:1

  • Grace

    fws – 106

    “how did we get from baptists and alcohol to frank and homosexuality.”

    You brought it up in post #81, that’s how!

    “I am going to do with you what I do with all people who refuse to be polite. I am going to ignore you until you decide that it it is necessary to be nice.”

    Is it un-“polite” that Rob asked a question, and then you made a list of questions for him to answer, leaving out the answer to his question – OR that I asked you about it. I have been polite, you just don’t like the questions, and find a lot of non traction (going no where) in doing so.

    Ignore all you like!

  • Grace

    fws – 106

    “how did we get from baptists and alcohol to frank and homosexuality.”

    You brought it up in post #81, that’s how!

    “I am going to do with you what I do with all people who refuse to be polite. I am going to ignore you until you decide that it it is necessary to be nice.”

    Is it un-“polite” that Rob asked a question, and then you made a list of questions for him to answer, leaving out the answer to his question – OR that I asked you about it. I have been polite, you just don’t like the questions, and find a lot of non traction (going no where) in doing so.

    Ignore all you like!

  • Stephen

    Grace-

    Why should I answer your questions? You insult my parents, my grandparents and my friends, not to mention me. Your actions are unloving. I gave you something of what I think about Romans 1 already. I didn’t throw it out. And I pointed you directly to the teaching of Jesus Christ himself but you disregard it. Why should I regard anything you say at all? You can wallpaper this blog with scripture all you want. Even Satan can quote scripture so why should I be impressed? Call me names all you want. They mean nothing.

  • Stephen

    Grace-

    Why should I answer your questions? You insult my parents, my grandparents and my friends, not to mention me. Your actions are unloving. I gave you something of what I think about Romans 1 already. I didn’t throw it out. And I pointed you directly to the teaching of Jesus Christ himself but you disregard it. Why should I regard anything you say at all? You can wallpaper this blog with scripture all you want. Even Satan can quote scripture so why should I be impressed? Call me names all you want. They mean nothing.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@108), surely you of all people will understand that FWS (and Stephen, and I) simply do not have time to answer all your many questions. We’ve given you the answers, you just don’t like the answers we’ve given. So you ask, and ask, and ask again and again, but that won’t change our answer. But you keep asking. Well, we’re not playing that game — we don’t have time!

    I know you’ll understand.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@108), surely you of all people will understand that FWS (and Stephen, and I) simply do not have time to answer all your many questions. We’ve given you the answers, you just don’t like the answers we’ve given. So you ask, and ask, and ask again and again, but that won’t change our answer. But you keep asking. Well, we’re not playing that game — we don’t have time!

    I know you’ll understand.

  • Stephen

    tODD -

    What was it they said on Family Feud? Oh yeah . . .

    “Good answer, good answer, good answer! “

  • Stephen

    tODD -

    What was it they said on Family Feud? Oh yeah . . .

    “Good answer, good answer, good answer! “

  • Grace

    tODD – Oh I understand, and I’m sure many, many others who read this blog understand as well.

    The sin issue get’s all muddled up when you try to place your trust in “love” rather than God’s Word and His directives.

    There was no reason to make all the warning which Christ made, and His Apostles, and then Paul, against sin….

    There are many Christians who heed the warnings, and then there are those who don’t!

  • Grace

    tODD – Oh I understand, and I’m sure many, many others who read this blog understand as well.

    The sin issue get’s all muddled up when you try to place your trust in “love” rather than God’s Word and His directives.

    There was no reason to make all the warning which Christ made, and His Apostles, and then Paul, against sin….

    There are many Christians who heed the warnings, and then there are those who don’t!

  • Stephen

    Grace-

    Trust in his “directives?” I thought faith was about trust in Jesus Christ alone, in whom we live and move and have our being. He is the one who commands us to love one another, is he not? Is that what you mean by “directives” because I am all for it. Everything I have said points to the need to look at how what we do fulfills this law (“directive”) or not. And when we do not “heed” this “directive” we must repent of our sin and fall on the mercy of Christ. We do not do things to conform to a code of morality so that God will be pleased. That is not what Christ taught. My Sabbath Day illustration makes this point. We do them for the good of others.

    Furthermore, any “requirement” of holiness is kept in Christ by his merits alone and nothing that we do. It is given to us and received through faith alone. It is grace. You can’t get it. He gives it and so you have it freely. If you haven’t heard that lately, then let me tell you again. Christ died for you Grace. That is the gospel. It is for you.

  • Stephen

    Grace-

    Trust in his “directives?” I thought faith was about trust in Jesus Christ alone, in whom we live and move and have our being. He is the one who commands us to love one another, is he not? Is that what you mean by “directives” because I am all for it. Everything I have said points to the need to look at how what we do fulfills this law (“directive”) or not. And when we do not “heed” this “directive” we must repent of our sin and fall on the mercy of Christ. We do not do things to conform to a code of morality so that God will be pleased. That is not what Christ taught. My Sabbath Day illustration makes this point. We do them for the good of others.

    Furthermore, any “requirement” of holiness is kept in Christ by his merits alone and nothing that we do. It is given to us and received through faith alone. It is grace. You can’t get it. He gives it and so you have it freely. If you haven’t heard that lately, then let me tell you again. Christ died for you Grace. That is the gospel. It is for you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@112), I’m concerned you (and the many, many others who read this blog) may not have caught my subtle references, so allow me to explain that the “don’t have time” gambit isn’t actually mine. I learned it by watching you. I learned it by watching you, okay? (See also these other comments in that thread: [1] [2]) I learned it by watching you!

    [1] geneveith.com/2010/12/03/the-bloodiest-war-since-wwii/#comment-100238
    [2] geneveith.com/2010/12/03/the-bloodiest-war-since-wwii/#comment-99657

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@112), I’m concerned you (and the many, many others who read this blog) may not have caught my subtle references, so allow me to explain that the “don’t have time” gambit isn’t actually mine. I learned it by watching you. I learned it by watching you, okay? (See also these other comments in that thread: [1] [2]) I learned it by watching you!

    [1] geneveith.com/2010/12/03/the-bloodiest-war-since-wwii/#comment-100238
    [2] geneveith.com/2010/12/03/the-bloodiest-war-since-wwii/#comment-99657

  • Grace

    NOTE: the passage below is a WARNING to the “Saints/Believers

    1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

    2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

    3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

    (“let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;”) “once” – “named” – “saints”

    4
    Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

    5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

    (“hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”) These are “saints” as mentioned in verse 3 –

    6
    Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

    (“vain words” – “wrath of God upon the children of disobedience”) “vain words”

    7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

    8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:. Ephesians 5

  • Grace

    NOTE: the passage below is a WARNING to the “Saints/Believers

    1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

    2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

    3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

    (“let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;”) “once” – “named” – “saints”

    4
    Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

    5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

    (“hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”) These are “saints” as mentioned in verse 3 –

    6
    Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

    (“vain words” – “wrath of God upon the children of disobedience”) “vain words”

    7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

    8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:. Ephesians 5

  • Stephen

    Grace –

    It’s like you don’t actually read what people write. For one thing, where in any of what you posted is there an outright condemnation of homosexuals? You know what I think? I think you are terrified of God because all you do is go around trying to terrorize others. You just don’t get it.

    Oh well, it’s like tODD says, who has the time. As far as walking in the light, you are stuck in darkness in a place where there is no grace at all.

  • Stephen

    Grace –

    It’s like you don’t actually read what people write. For one thing, where in any of what you posted is there an outright condemnation of homosexuals? You know what I think? I think you are terrified of God because all you do is go around trying to terrorize others. You just don’t get it.

    Oh well, it’s like tODD says, who has the time. As far as walking in the light, you are stuck in darkness in a place where there is no grace at all.

  • Grace

    Stephen 116

    ” For one thing, where in any of what you posted is there an outright condemnation of homosexuals?”

    Romans 1 written by Saint Paul makes the point !!

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also, the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    to continue:

    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
    Romans 1

  • Grace

    Stephen 116

    ” For one thing, where in any of what you posted is there an outright condemnation of homosexuals?”

    Romans 1 written by Saint Paul makes the point !!

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also, the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    to continue:

    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
    Romans 1

  • Grace

    There are churches (thankfully not to many) who embrace homosexuality as not being sinful, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is.

    The ELCA allows homosexual pastors and those who are same sex couples to pastor churches -

  • Grace

    There are churches (thankfully not to many) who embrace homosexuality as not being sinful, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is.

    The ELCA allows homosexual pastors and those who are same sex couples to pastor churches -

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And then while I was busy compiling all that extensive research, Stephen (@113) goes off and gets to the rest of what I was going to say.

    It would be just as foolish and muddled to place your trust in love as it would be to place your trust in how well you follow Jesus’ “directives”.

    The point of any warning against sin — that is, the point of the Law — is not to get us to try harder, do better, and “heed the warnings”. The reason for this is simple: we can’t.

    “There are many Christians who heed the warnings, and then there are those who don’t!” Pish. There are no Christians who heed the warnings! There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, … and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

    Grace, you are no better at “heeding the warnings” than the most miserable sinner you could imagine. That’s why Christ had to come. To forgive you for all the times you don’t heed him or his Word.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And then while I was busy compiling all that extensive research, Stephen (@113) goes off and gets to the rest of what I was going to say.

    It would be just as foolish and muddled to place your trust in love as it would be to place your trust in how well you follow Jesus’ “directives”.

    The point of any warning against sin — that is, the point of the Law — is not to get us to try harder, do better, and “heed the warnings”. The reason for this is simple: we can’t.

    “There are many Christians who heed the warnings, and then there are those who don’t!” Pish. There are no Christians who heed the warnings! There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, … and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

    Grace, you are no better at “heeding the warnings” than the most miserable sinner you could imagine. That’s why Christ had to come. To forgive you for all the times you don’t heed him or his Word.

  • Grace

    tODD

    If it’s so difficult to try and follow the LORD’s teachings, ….. why did the LORD give them to us who Believe to follow?

    Throw up your hands, do what you wish, read the creeeds, study the BoC and any other writings ,…….. and everything will just be wonderful…. NOT!

  • Grace

    tODD

    If it’s so difficult to try and follow the LORD’s teachings, ….. why did the LORD give them to us who Believe to follow?

    Throw up your hands, do what you wish, read the creeeds, study the BoC and any other writings ,…….. and everything will just be wonderful…. NOT!

  • Grace

    tODD – 119

    “There are no Christians who heed the warnings! “

    tODD, you are WRONG – many people have relied on the LORD, taken His promise and flee temptation. If you haven’t applied 1 Corinthians 10:13 to your life, I would highly suggest you do.

    People have the ability to turn from sin, … as the passage in 1 Corinthians 10:13 states:

    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

    God gives an escape, that any one of us can bear temptation, we have a CHOICE, – - this passage proves it.

  • Grace

    tODD – 119

    “There are no Christians who heed the warnings! “

    tODD, you are WRONG – many people have relied on the LORD, taken His promise and flee temptation. If you haven’t applied 1 Corinthians 10:13 to your life, I would highly suggest you do.

    People have the ability to turn from sin, … as the passage in 1 Corinthians 10:13 states:

    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

    God gives an escape, that any one of us can bear temptation, we have a CHOICE, – - this passage proves it.

  • trotk

    Grace, I feel for you here, because this is a hard conversation for anyone, especially someone who believes that our works are necessary before God.

    I will challenge your constant presentation of I Cor. 10:13, though, because you have ripped it out of its context.

    Read the whole chapter. It is about idolatry. What is the sin that is associated with idolatry? Faith in something other than the one, true God.

    And so what is the temptation referred to? To abandon faith in God. This is not a chapter about our righteous acts. All of the sin listed in this chapter stems from abandoning faith in God. That is why the verse following the one you quote so often says, “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.”

    Grace, idolatry is about the heart, not our actions. The actions flow from the heart. Idolatry is about losing faith in God’s goodness.

    On the other hand, faith is about trusting the goodness and salvation of Christ. In spite of my sin.

    Grace, I beg you to read Romans 7:14-8:4, over and over and over, until it sinks in that our flesh is sold into bondage to sin and our only hope is in the work of Christ.

  • trotk

    Grace, I feel for you here, because this is a hard conversation for anyone, especially someone who believes that our works are necessary before God.

    I will challenge your constant presentation of I Cor. 10:13, though, because you have ripped it out of its context.

    Read the whole chapter. It is about idolatry. What is the sin that is associated with idolatry? Faith in something other than the one, true God.

    And so what is the temptation referred to? To abandon faith in God. This is not a chapter about our righteous acts. All of the sin listed in this chapter stems from abandoning faith in God. That is why the verse following the one you quote so often says, “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.”

    Grace, idolatry is about the heart, not our actions. The actions flow from the heart. Idolatry is about losing faith in God’s goodness.

    On the other hand, faith is about trusting the goodness and salvation of Christ. In spite of my sin.

    Grace, I beg you to read Romans 7:14-8:4, over and over and over, until it sinks in that our flesh is sold into bondage to sin and our only hope is in the work of Christ.

  • Rob

    And here we go. Prior to trotk’s comment, the lines of argument are pretty much one side screaming “Antinomian!” and the other side screaming “Pharisee!”

    Meanwhile, this was all hashed out about four hundred years ago and is still taught in basic confirmation as the third use of the law. Go read the formula of concord, either the epitome (http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law.) or the solid declaration (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php)

    That’s why my first comments to both Stephen and Frank pointed to this essential teaching – there’s a reason the Formula of Concord puts it right after its discussion of Law and Gospel.

  • Rob

    And here we go. Prior to trotk’s comment, the lines of argument are pretty much one side screaming “Antinomian!” and the other side screaming “Pharisee!”

    Meanwhile, this was all hashed out about four hundred years ago and is still taught in basic confirmation as the third use of the law. Go read the formula of concord, either the epitome (http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VI.%20The%20Third%20Use%20of%20the%20Law.) or the solid declaration (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php)

    That’s why my first comments to both Stephen and Frank pointed to this essential teaching – there’s a reason the Formula of Concord puts it right after its discussion of Law and Gospel.

  • Stephen

    So if one drink makes a person impaired legally, does that make them drunk? By law it does, and if so, all drinking is some sense sin. Better put that Cakebread up forever Grace because you are unclean. You are on the sin hit list you posted. And for that matter, your approval of any kind of drinking given all the wreckage it causes in people’s lives would certainly make you a reprobate by all the measures you’ve leveled here.

    I have seen legalists when they find that loophole mentioned in this thread which they enjoy for themselves in secret come over and drink all my good wine because they can’t do it at home or around their family. It is sad. Enforcing the law on others to keep the law outwardly creates aversion to it inwardly just as St. Paul teaches in Romans 3. Or as Jesus said, outwardly the tomb is whitewashed and all spiffy. But inside it is full of dead man’s bones. No wonder they want to drown it in other people’s wine.

  • Stephen

    So if one drink makes a person impaired legally, does that make them drunk? By law it does, and if so, all drinking is some sense sin. Better put that Cakebread up forever Grace because you are unclean. You are on the sin hit list you posted. And for that matter, your approval of any kind of drinking given all the wreckage it causes in people’s lives would certainly make you a reprobate by all the measures you’ve leveled here.

    I have seen legalists when they find that loophole mentioned in this thread which they enjoy for themselves in secret come over and drink all my good wine because they can’t do it at home or around their family. It is sad. Enforcing the law on others to keep the law outwardly creates aversion to it inwardly just as St. Paul teaches in Romans 3. Or as Jesus said, outwardly the tomb is whitewashed and all spiffy. But inside it is full of dead man’s bones. No wonder they want to drown it in other people’s wine.

  • Rob

    Hit send too soon. Meant to close with:

    There is a reason that Absolution and Communion remain daily needs. We daily need God’s grace because we daily fall short of his standard. Short-sell the Law and you short-sell the Gospel.

  • Rob

    Hit send too soon. Meant to close with:

    There is a reason that Absolution and Communion remain daily needs. We daily need God’s grace because we daily fall short of his standard. Short-sell the Law and you short-sell the Gospel.

  • Grace

    1 Corinthians 10:13 isn’t out of context – the problem is, those who don’t want to please God.

    You can read the BoC till you breath your last breath, but it is only through the Word of God that you will find answers. God didn’t inspire, the inerrant Word, so that just a FEW people could read it, and then tell you what it means – the LORD provided His Word for all of us – the HOLY Spirit, if it dwells within you will guide you.

  • Grace

    1 Corinthians 10:13 isn’t out of context – the problem is, those who don’t want to please God.

    You can read the BoC till you breath your last breath, but it is only through the Word of God that you will find answers. God didn’t inspire, the inerrant Word, so that just a FEW people could read it, and then tell you what it means – the LORD provided His Word for all of us – the HOLY Spirit, if it dwells within you will guide you.

  • Stephen

    Rob @123

    I didn’t see your post while I was writing mine. I have read what you suggest and am studying the Confessions these days quite a bit. I’m working over both Catechisms at the moment, with diversions into various parts of the Book of Concord. I’m not sure what your point is there in your post about the 3rd use. But no worries. I hope you get some time with your family over the weekend. Grace, while I hate to say what may sound like such an unkind thing, is becoming a distraction I’m afraid (the commenter, not the precious gift of God’s forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ given to us freely, that which she seems to completely miss the point about). She’s insulting and does not really want to have a conversation. She doesn’t answer questions and, if you haven’t noticed, comes here largely to condemn Lutherans.

    But if there is something in what I have written that does not jibe with what you read in the Confessions, by all means point it out to me. I want to know. Peace always from another Lutheran daddy.

  • Stephen

    Rob @123

    I didn’t see your post while I was writing mine. I have read what you suggest and am studying the Confessions these days quite a bit. I’m working over both Catechisms at the moment, with diversions into various parts of the Book of Concord. I’m not sure what your point is there in your post about the 3rd use. But no worries. I hope you get some time with your family over the weekend. Grace, while I hate to say what may sound like such an unkind thing, is becoming a distraction I’m afraid (the commenter, not the precious gift of God’s forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ given to us freely, that which she seems to completely miss the point about). She’s insulting and does not really want to have a conversation. She doesn’t answer questions and, if you haven’t noticed, comes here largely to condemn Lutherans.

    But if there is something in what I have written that does not jibe with what you read in the Confessions, by all means point it out to me. I want to know. Peace always from another Lutheran daddy.

  • Stephen

    Rob –

    Oops. Also missed that last bit too. Still confused. Not sure what that means either. You will have to elaborate for me if it has anything to do with what we’ve been talking about regarding homosexuality, sin, the law, what it is and how it is “used” or works on us, etc.

  • Stephen

    Rob –

    Oops. Also missed that last bit too. Still confused. Not sure what that means either. You will have to elaborate for me if it has anything to do with what we’ve been talking about regarding homosexuality, sin, the law, what it is and how it is “used” or works on us, etc.

  • trotk

    Grace, you haven’t responded to what I said, other than to say,”Is not!”
    I haven’t taken anything from the Book of Concord here. It may or may not address this chapter of I Corinthians. What I wrote may or may not coincide with it. I don’t know, because I haven’t read more than a few passages of it, and because I am not Lutheran, and thus easily could say something a Lutheran or the Book of Concord would disagree with. But all this is just an avoidance tactic on your part.
    Address the issue, Grace. At least read the verse that follows 13. Why would Paul follow 13 with “Therefore (a connecting word), my beloved, flee idolatry,” if he were not referring to idolatry in 13? All sin stems from idolatry, that is, placing your trust in something other than God. This means that the issue is faith. That God exists, and that He is good (ie- that Christ sacrificed Himself for us).
    The temptation referred to in verse 13 is the temptation to stop believing this and attempt to procure your salvation and happiness on your own terms. Like the Jews did with the golden calf, or like when they grumbled (is God really doing what is best?). Verse 13 is about trusting that God is good enough to give us the grace of sustaining our faith, because He is, after all, its author and perfecter.

  • trotk

    Grace, you haven’t responded to what I said, other than to say,”Is not!”
    I haven’t taken anything from the Book of Concord here. It may or may not address this chapter of I Corinthians. What I wrote may or may not coincide with it. I don’t know, because I haven’t read more than a few passages of it, and because I am not Lutheran, and thus easily could say something a Lutheran or the Book of Concord would disagree with. But all this is just an avoidance tactic on your part.
    Address the issue, Grace. At least read the verse that follows 13. Why would Paul follow 13 with “Therefore (a connecting word), my beloved, flee idolatry,” if he were not referring to idolatry in 13? All sin stems from idolatry, that is, placing your trust in something other than God. This means that the issue is faith. That God exists, and that He is good (ie- that Christ sacrificed Himself for us).
    The temptation referred to in verse 13 is the temptation to stop believing this and attempt to procure your salvation and happiness on your own terms. Like the Jews did with the golden calf, or like when they grumbled (is God really doing what is best?). Verse 13 is about trusting that God is good enough to give us the grace of sustaining our faith, because He is, after all, its author and perfecter.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 123

    what most american lutherans teach in “basic confirmation class’ is that there is a third use of the law, that is just for christians, that is meant to coach and instruct them on how to live a sanctified and christian life.

    there are two problems with this teaching rob. article VI teaches the exact opposite of this. and ….this is classic calvinism. it is not lutheran.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 123

    what most american lutherans teach in “basic confirmation class’ is that there is a third use of the law, that is just for christians, that is meant to coach and instruct them on how to live a sanctified and christian life.

    there are two problems with this teaching rob. article VI teaches the exact opposite of this. and ….this is classic calvinism. it is not lutheran.

  • Stephen

    To clarify Frank.

    It sounds like you said that Article VI is not Lutheran.

    What you meant is that this confirmation class, sanctified life, 3rd use “that is just for Christians” teaching is not Lutheran. It is, rather, a creeping Calvinism sneaking up on us modern Lutherans. It is the opposite of what our Confessions teach in Article VI. The Confessions are the true Lutheran teaching on sanctification.

    Please confirm.

  • Stephen

    To clarify Frank.

    It sounds like you said that Article VI is not Lutheran.

    What you meant is that this confirmation class, sanctified life, 3rd use “that is just for Christians” teaching is not Lutheran. It is, rather, a creeping Calvinism sneaking up on us modern Lutherans. It is the opposite of what our Confessions teach in Article VI. The Confessions are the true Lutheran teaching on sanctification.

    Please confirm.

  • Grace

    Rob,

    You can think what you wish, but you are wrong. I thought you were different than some of the others, but I see that I’m wrong.

  • Grace

    Rob,

    You can think what you wish, but you are wrong. I thought you were different than some of the others, but I see that I’m wrong.

  • Stephen

    Well Grace it’s nice to know you can admit when you’re wrong. ; )

  • Stephen

    Well Grace it’s nice to know you can admit when you’re wrong. ; )

  • Grace

    Don’t forget, this WAS a discussion about drinking alcohol untill fws decided to, …. shall we say ‘change the topic’ of the thread – in post #81 –

    Post 132 should have been addressed to Stephen…… but more important it should not have been writeen at all. Sorry Rob.

  • Grace

    Don’t forget, this WAS a discussion about drinking alcohol untill fws decided to, …. shall we say ‘change the topic’ of the thread – in post #81 –

    Post 132 should have been addressed to Stephen…… but more important it should not have been writeen at all. Sorry Rob.

  • trotk

    Grace, what exactly was Rob wrong about?

  • trotk

    Grace, what exactly was Rob wrong about?

  • Grace

    Stephen – 133

    Not about you!!

  • Grace

    Stephen – 133

    Not about you!!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    stephen at 131

    yes thats it stephen.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    stephen at 131

    yes thats it stephen.

  • Stephen

    Huh?

  • Stephen

    Huh?

  • trotk

    Stephen, go back and reread your comment about Grace, and then hers at 132, except substitute your name for Rob.

  • trotk

    Stephen, go back and reread your comment about Grace, and then hers at 132, except substitute your name for Rob.

  • trotk

    Your comment at 127, that is.

  • trotk

    Your comment at 127, that is.

  • trotk

    Grace, I would love to actually have a discussion with you about I Cor. 10.

  • trotk

    Grace, I would love to actually have a discussion with you about I Cor. 10.

  • trotk

    Frank, I am right to say that the third use of the Law is very similar to the first, except that it is worked upon the old Adam still clinging to the believer, rather than upon the whole man?

  • trotk

    Frank, I am right to say that the third use of the Law is very similar to the first, except that it is worked upon the old Adam still clinging to the believer, rather than upon the whole man?

  • Stephen

    What was I wrong about Grace? The way you insult my parents and grandparents and all the other “cradle Lutherans” here? Your refusing to answer direct questions time and time again? The way you obfuscate and change direction and dance around and pretend to be on to more important things because you have no answer? The way you call everyone else a sinner except yourself? The way you refuse to listen to the someone who points you directly to the teaching of Jesus Christ and answer to that, which you obviously cannot do? The way you call people names, slander them, bear false witness against them, and then claim yourself to be a true follower of the law, one who heeds where others do not? This is how you treat people who are kind to you? This is what you have done to me.

    That’s fine. Go ahead and keep the law, every inch of it. I would recommend not drinking at all just in case you get the least bit tipsy though. That might just make you a rule breaker and a drunkard. Do this and you will live, but if you don’t manage to do it, well then you won’t, live that is. But don’t worry. As you read the scriptures, you will always have a ready escape for any and all temptations to any possible sin that comes your way. So be ye therefore perfect. Do this and you will live. You have a lot of ground to make up. Get going. Head on out the door. The world is waiting for you and your perfect self. Go set it right.

  • Stephen

    What was I wrong about Grace? The way you insult my parents and grandparents and all the other “cradle Lutherans” here? Your refusing to answer direct questions time and time again? The way you obfuscate and change direction and dance around and pretend to be on to more important things because you have no answer? The way you call everyone else a sinner except yourself? The way you refuse to listen to the someone who points you directly to the teaching of Jesus Christ and answer to that, which you obviously cannot do? The way you call people names, slander them, bear false witness against them, and then claim yourself to be a true follower of the law, one who heeds where others do not? This is how you treat people who are kind to you? This is what you have done to me.

    That’s fine. Go ahead and keep the law, every inch of it. I would recommend not drinking at all just in case you get the least bit tipsy though. That might just make you a rule breaker and a drunkard. Do this and you will live, but if you don’t manage to do it, well then you won’t, live that is. But don’t worry. As you read the scriptures, you will always have a ready escape for any and all temptations to any possible sin that comes your way. So be ye therefore perfect. Do this and you will live. You have a lot of ground to make up. Get going. Head on out the door. The world is waiting for you and your perfect self. Go set it right.

  • trotk

    Or, as an alternative, remember that the kingdom of heaven is given to the beggars in spirit (those who admit before God that their righteousness is filthy rags), those who mourn (over the depth of their own sin) will be comforted, the humbled will inherit the earth, and righteousness will be given to those who hunger for it (remember you can’t hunger for what you already have).

    Grace, read Romans 7:14-8:4.

  • trotk

    Or, as an alternative, remember that the kingdom of heaven is given to the beggars in spirit (those who admit before God that their righteousness is filthy rags), those who mourn (over the depth of their own sin) will be comforted, the humbled will inherit the earth, and righteousness will be given to those who hunger for it (remember you can’t hunger for what you already have).

    Grace, read Romans 7:14-8:4.

  • trotk

    Frank, my comment at 142 was meant to be a question (“am I right…”)

  • trotk

    Frank, my comment at 142 was meant to be a question (“am I right…”)

  • Grace

    Stephen – 132

    “What was I wrong about Grace? The way you insult my parents and grandparents and all the other “cradle Lutherans” here? “

    Stephen, that is the silliest accusation I have ever read, or heard.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 132

    “What was I wrong about Grace? The way you insult my parents and grandparents and all the other “cradle Lutherans” here? “

    Stephen, that is the silliest accusation I have ever read, or heard.

  • Grace

    Sorry – post #146 should have read:

    Stephen – 143

  • Grace

    Sorry – post #146 should have read:

    Stephen – 143

  • Stephen

    trotk-

    I think Frank went to bed. But I think Frank is trying to say that these 1, 2, 3 distinctions are not helpful or even very Confessional. They were later Reformed ways of understanding the law and read back into our Confessions. But the Lutheran understanding of sanctification does not actually bracket them as such. So what he has been doing (or so it seems to me) is starting with sanctification and working out from there, from the whole point of the law for Christians, and for everyone – that it resides in the conscience, in the heart, and it connects us to everything else, up to and including the way we live in the world among our fellows, religiously, socially, civilly, as well as the way God works in the world and makes use of means in his creation to get love and mercy and even his word of salvation to us all. This is the whole point of what Jesus teaches – that the Sabbath was made for us – what Paul teaches – that outward keeping of the law creates aversion to it, and that what matters is a new creation – and what our Lutheran Confessions teach – true worship is faith in Jesus Christ.

    It is an amazing thing. God has nothing but good gifts he wants to get to us, and through the task of faithful obedience we receive them. I stumbled on Hebrews 10:1 today. It’s great. The law is a shadow of what is to come. The law is good. We see that through a dark glass, the dark glass of a sinful old Adam who wants to rule by what he can accomplish by his works. He does not want to die. That is what Frank is teaching. The law is good because, contrary to what Grace and Old Adam think, there is nothing to prove and everything to receive.

  • Stephen

    trotk-

    I think Frank went to bed. But I think Frank is trying to say that these 1, 2, 3 distinctions are not helpful or even very Confessional. They were later Reformed ways of understanding the law and read back into our Confessions. But the Lutheran understanding of sanctification does not actually bracket them as such. So what he has been doing (or so it seems to me) is starting with sanctification and working out from there, from the whole point of the law for Christians, and for everyone – that it resides in the conscience, in the heart, and it connects us to everything else, up to and including the way we live in the world among our fellows, religiously, socially, civilly, as well as the way God works in the world and makes use of means in his creation to get love and mercy and even his word of salvation to us all. This is the whole point of what Jesus teaches – that the Sabbath was made for us – what Paul teaches – that outward keeping of the law creates aversion to it, and that what matters is a new creation – and what our Lutheran Confessions teach – true worship is faith in Jesus Christ.

    It is an amazing thing. God has nothing but good gifts he wants to get to us, and through the task of faithful obedience we receive them. I stumbled on Hebrews 10:1 today. It’s great. The law is a shadow of what is to come. The law is good. We see that through a dark glass, the dark glass of a sinful old Adam who wants to rule by what he can accomplish by his works. He does not want to die. That is what Frank is teaching. The law is good because, contrary to what Grace and Old Adam think, there is nothing to prove and everything to receive.

  • Grace

    QUESTION:

    Was Romans 1:28 LAW?

    Was Ephesians 5:1-8 LAW?

    Paul wrote both these books – He was making statements in Romans 1 regarding sin and its consequences. In Ephesians 5, Paul is speaking to Believers/Saints – - is this the LAW that Paul is WARNING the Saints of, or is it a WARNING that can be discounted, since it interferes with someones life?

  • Grace

    QUESTION:

    Was Romans 1:28 LAW?

    Was Ephesians 5:1-8 LAW?

    Paul wrote both these books – He was making statements in Romans 1 regarding sin and its consequences. In Ephesians 5, Paul is speaking to Believers/Saints – - is this the LAW that Paul is WARNING the Saints of, or is it a WARNING that can be discounted, since it interferes with someones life?

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    “Be perfect” – Jesus, Matthew 5:48

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    “Be perfect” – Jesus, Matthew 5:48

  • Grace

    Do you believe what Paul wrote:

    Was Romans 1:28 LAW?

    Was Ephesians 5:1-8 LAW?

    Was this Law?

    Paul wrote both these books – He was making statements in Romans 1 regarding sin and its consequences.

    In Ephesians 5, Paul is speaking to Believers/Saints – – is this the LAW that Paul is WARNING the Saints of, or is it a WARNING
    ……that can be discounted…… since it interferes with someones life choices?

  • Grace

    Do you believe what Paul wrote:

    Was Romans 1:28 LAW?

    Was Ephesians 5:1-8 LAW?

    Was this Law?

    Paul wrote both these books – He was making statements in Romans 1 regarding sin and its consequences.

    In Ephesians 5, Paul is speaking to Believers/Saints – – is this the LAW that Paul is WARNING the Saints of, or is it a WARNING
    ……that can be discounted…… since it interferes with someones life choices?

  • Grace

    I read above my post 151:

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

    Scripture proving anything incorrect needs “moderation” ? That should awaken any Christian Believer !!!

  • Grace

    I read above my post 151:

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

    Scripture proving anything incorrect needs “moderation” ? That should awaken any Christian Believer !!!

  • Grace

    Do you believe what Paul wrote:

    Was Romans 1:28 LAW?

    Was Ephesians 5:1-8 LAW?

    Was this Law?

    Paul wrote both these books – He was making statements in Romans 1 regarding sin and its consequences.

    In Ephesians 5, Paul is speaking to Believers/Saints – – is this the LAW that Paul is WARNING the Saints of, or is it a WARNING ……that can be discounted…… since it interferes with someones life choices?

  • Grace

    Do you believe what Paul wrote:

    Was Romans 1:28 LAW?

    Was Ephesians 5:1-8 LAW?

    Was this Law?

    Paul wrote both these books – He was making statements in Romans 1 regarding sin and its consequences.

    In Ephesians 5, Paul is speaking to Believers/Saints – – is this the LAW that Paul is WARNING the Saints of, or is it a WARNING ……that can be discounted…… since it interferes with someones life choices?

  • http://www.lutheran-resources.org Chaplain Dave Reedy

    Two reasons why this former baptist type turned Lutheran doesn’t buy a “scriptural” argument that Jesus created grape juice at Cana.
    1. They were drinking wine at the wedding feast. So close to passover, the grapes had not ripened on the vine and so the only drinkable fruit of the vine would have been fermented as they didn’t have pasteurization.
    2. As it was customary to drink wine at these feasts, one can hardly understand how those not learned in the value of the abstinence of spirits of alcohol would have so praised the quality of their beverage.

    As I tell my non-drinking friends — Lutheran drink beer — it just has to be good bear because we do it in moderation.

  • http://www.lutheran-resources.org Chaplain Dave Reedy

    Two reasons why this former baptist type turned Lutheran doesn’t buy a “scriptural” argument that Jesus created grape juice at Cana.
    1. They were drinking wine at the wedding feast. So close to passover, the grapes had not ripened on the vine and so the only drinkable fruit of the vine would have been fermented as they didn’t have pasteurization.
    2. As it was customary to drink wine at these feasts, one can hardly understand how those not learned in the value of the abstinence of spirits of alcohol would have so praised the quality of their beverage.

    As I tell my non-drinking friends — Lutheran drink beer — it just has to be good bear because we do it in moderation.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    trotke @ 142

    TROTK “Frank, I am right to say that the third use of the Law is very similar to the first,

    FWS I get confused on first , second , third. whos on first? I learned in catechism mirror, curb and rule. but I think most think curb, mirror, rule.

    I think we Lutherans forget that there is only one Law. And …”the Law always accuses.” “The Law always accuses.” is repeated over and over and over and over and over and…. in the Confessions like some sort of mantra.

    Also there is the “third use” that Melancthon and Calvin cooked up as a sort of sanctification helper or safe-non-killing use or sanctification helper. key words : gospel exhortation, gospel encouragement or reminder, sanctified living. This is really just antinomianism. it is ‘believer doesnt really need the regular killing law anymore.” So now ,when I say “Third use” I always say “TRhe LUTHERAN Third use”.

    So what is that “Lutheran Third Use? ” It is to inform us that there is no religious or christian use of the Law. Ie: there is no calvinistic or roman catholic use of the law that is about and aimed at obedience to God by following some metric regardless of the consequences to neighbor, and sacrifice.

    Reread FC art VI, especially here where I have woven together the epitome with the solid declaration . read it looking for the law and gospel, heavenly kingdom new man and gospel and earthly kingdom old adam and law.

    You will find exactly what I am saying…. the english translation sucks. it reads like german and doesnt make the confessions speak good and proper english. so you may need to have to try to paraphrase the article in your own words to really get it.

    here:

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=13

    even better idea: first read the luther sermon that art Vi says is it’s template, then read art VI in that law gospel, two kinds of righteousness and two kingdoms way…. it will take on clarity.

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    ROB brother! If you are reading this, this is for you too on the topics of mortification and third use. Dont confuse the calvinistic third use that has even been adopted by most LCMS pastors and their recent ancestors with the LUTHERAN third use in article VI and do not try to read into article VI that calvinistic use. It is not there.

    TROTKE except that it is worked upon the old Adam still clinging to the believer, rather than upon the whole man?”

    FWS Yes that is it trotke! Better even: the law is never about the new man in the believer. never. it is ALWAYS about killing the old adam to make him serve others. We are literally commanded to kill ourselves trying to love our neighbor and be his servant and obey our neighbor and his will and desire, as every good servant , by definition, is to do.

    It is about being a living sacrifice to others rather than offering up dead sacrifices of Obedience to the Sovreign God , aka “morality-by-the-metrics.”

    How does one wrap a metric around “love your neighbor as you love your own self”?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    trotke @ 142

    TROTK “Frank, I am right to say that the third use of the Law is very similar to the first,

    FWS I get confused on first , second , third. whos on first? I learned in catechism mirror, curb and rule. but I think most think curb, mirror, rule.

    I think we Lutherans forget that there is only one Law. And …”the Law always accuses.” “The Law always accuses.” is repeated over and over and over and over and over and…. in the Confessions like some sort of mantra.

    Also there is the “third use” that Melancthon and Calvin cooked up as a sort of sanctification helper or safe-non-killing use or sanctification helper. key words : gospel exhortation, gospel encouragement or reminder, sanctified living. This is really just antinomianism. it is ‘believer doesnt really need the regular killing law anymore.” So now ,when I say “Third use” I always say “TRhe LUTHERAN Third use”.

    So what is that “Lutheran Third Use? ” It is to inform us that there is no religious or christian use of the Law. Ie: there is no calvinistic or roman catholic use of the law that is about and aimed at obedience to God by following some metric regardless of the consequences to neighbor, and sacrifice.

    Reread FC art VI, especially here where I have woven together the epitome with the solid declaration . read it looking for the law and gospel, heavenly kingdom new man and gospel and earthly kingdom old adam and law.

    You will find exactly what I am saying…. the english translation sucks. it reads like german and doesnt make the confessions speak good and proper english. so you may need to have to try to paraphrase the article in your own words to really get it.

    here:

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=13

    even better idea: first read the luther sermon that art Vi says is it’s template, then read art VI in that law gospel, two kinds of righteousness and two kingdoms way…. it will take on clarity.

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    ROB brother! If you are reading this, this is for you too on the topics of mortification and third use. Dont confuse the calvinistic third use that has even been adopted by most LCMS pastors and their recent ancestors with the LUTHERAN third use in article VI and do not try to read into article VI that calvinistic use. It is not there.

    TROTKE except that it is worked upon the old Adam still clinging to the believer, rather than upon the whole man?”

    FWS Yes that is it trotke! Better even: the law is never about the new man in the believer. never. it is ALWAYS about killing the old adam to make him serve others. We are literally commanded to kill ourselves trying to love our neighbor and be his servant and obey our neighbor and his will and desire, as every good servant , by definition, is to do.

    It is about being a living sacrifice to others rather than offering up dead sacrifices of Obedience to the Sovreign God , aka “morality-by-the-metrics.”

    How does one wrap a metric around “love your neighbor as you love your own self”?

  • Tom Hering

    Does the Law apply to a Christian? Of course it does, insofar as the Old Adam – the slave of sin – is still part of a Christian. The Law accuses the Old Adam, and compels him – through the promise of reward and the threat of punishment – to love his neighbor. And it literally kills him to do it. A little more each time.

    But the Law does not apply to a Christian insofar as he is a New Creation. The New Creation is right to rebuke the Law by saying, “You may threaten my Old Adam, and that is good, but you have nothing to say to me. For Christ’s perfect righteousness is credited to me. Oh, and by the way, I find myself – the slave of God – loving my neighbor spontaneously.”

    This is what “Grace” just doesn’t get. That some verses of Scripture address the Old Adam, and others the New Creation. She thinks they all address the New Creation. So she fails to rightly divide the Word, and mixes up Law and Gospel.

  • Tom Hering

    Does the Law apply to a Christian? Of course it does, insofar as the Old Adam – the slave of sin – is still part of a Christian. The Law accuses the Old Adam, and compels him – through the promise of reward and the threat of punishment – to love his neighbor. And it literally kills him to do it. A little more each time.

    But the Law does not apply to a Christian insofar as he is a New Creation. The New Creation is right to rebuke the Law by saying, “You may threaten my Old Adam, and that is good, but you have nothing to say to me. For Christ’s perfect righteousness is credited to me. Oh, and by the way, I find myself – the slave of God – loving my neighbor spontaneously.”

    This is what “Grace” just doesn’t get. That some verses of Scripture address the Old Adam, and others the New Creation. She thinks they all address the New Creation. So she fails to rightly divide the Word, and mixes up Law and Gospel.

  • Larry

    Now I know I’m going to make all kinds of friends writing this, but alas:

    The irony of Grace’s point about Romans 1 is that she misses its entire point. No one is saying X action is not a sin but in such a focus it misses the real sin that is infinitely worse that Paul is speaking of.

    Pietistic legalist and hidden works righteousness ALWAYS focuses on those later verses of Paul’s completely missing the early ones that indicate that the ROOT and HEAD of all sin, yes even original sin where it all started was not and is not that lower set of verses of what we might label as the “negative sin list”. Rather idolatry. To put a very sharp point on this, idolatry and false doctrine (which is the same thing) is infinitely more sinful than all the “negative sins” we so list such as sexual sin, theft, murder, etc… In fact the later are merely effects of the cause which is idolatry and false doctrine. Thus, Paul says “because of this (idolatry and false doctrine)” then to the “effects sins”. Yet false religion under the guise of “Christian” focuses on the later utterly blind to the former.

    A sharper point: When one says “baptism does nothing” and “a few drops of water does nothing” (does nothing = vain), then one is saying that the name of God does nothing (baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). And when one does that they say that the name of God, in baptism, is vain and this violates the second commandment then sets up an idol called faith violating the first commandment = idolatry and false doctrine the very root and source of the effect sins, the normal horizontal sin list toward neighbor. In fact when one says this of baptism or the Lord’s Supper it is a GREATER sin by infinite measure than the secondary effect sins toward neighbor (the more or less negative sin list). In fact to do such is to preach, teach and confess against the very Lord’s Prayer that the Lord gave us when saying “Hallowed be Thy name”, Luther commenting on every Lord’s Prayer being a polemic says, “Therefore no one can pray the Lord’s Prayer correctly without cursing. For when he prays: “Hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done,” he must put all the opposition to this on one pile and say: Curses, maledictions, and disgrace on every other name and every other kingdom! May they be ruined and torn apart! May all their schemes and wisdom and plans run aground!” (What Luther Says, Volume II) And this includes false “Christian labeled” heterodoxies.

    An even sharper point lest we pick only on false baptismal doctrines: So that when many huff and puff much about the ELCA issue that happened recently allowing homosexual ordination that many heterodox false teachers reacted against, what was REALLY missed and was INFINITELY worse was their opening their communion doors to the UMC, a heterodox (false) church.

    Thus, the great temptation for us is to gag on gnats and swallow camels.

  • Larry

    Now I know I’m going to make all kinds of friends writing this, but alas:

    The irony of Grace’s point about Romans 1 is that she misses its entire point. No one is saying X action is not a sin but in such a focus it misses the real sin that is infinitely worse that Paul is speaking of.

    Pietistic legalist and hidden works righteousness ALWAYS focuses on those later verses of Paul’s completely missing the early ones that indicate that the ROOT and HEAD of all sin, yes even original sin where it all started was not and is not that lower set of verses of what we might label as the “negative sin list”. Rather idolatry. To put a very sharp point on this, idolatry and false doctrine (which is the same thing) is infinitely more sinful than all the “negative sins” we so list such as sexual sin, theft, murder, etc… In fact the later are merely effects of the cause which is idolatry and false doctrine. Thus, Paul says “because of this (idolatry and false doctrine)” then to the “effects sins”. Yet false religion under the guise of “Christian” focuses on the later utterly blind to the former.

    A sharper point: When one says “baptism does nothing” and “a few drops of water does nothing” (does nothing = vain), then one is saying that the name of God does nothing (baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). And when one does that they say that the name of God, in baptism, is vain and this violates the second commandment then sets up an idol called faith violating the first commandment = idolatry and false doctrine the very root and source of the effect sins, the normal horizontal sin list toward neighbor. In fact when one says this of baptism or the Lord’s Supper it is a GREATER sin by infinite measure than the secondary effect sins toward neighbor (the more or less negative sin list). In fact to do such is to preach, teach and confess against the very Lord’s Prayer that the Lord gave us when saying “Hallowed be Thy name”, Luther commenting on every Lord’s Prayer being a polemic says, “Therefore no one can pray the Lord’s Prayer correctly without cursing. For when he prays: “Hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done,” he must put all the opposition to this on one pile and say: Curses, maledictions, and disgrace on every other name and every other kingdom! May they be ruined and torn apart! May all their schemes and wisdom and plans run aground!” (What Luther Says, Volume II) And this includes false “Christian labeled” heterodoxies.

    An even sharper point lest we pick only on false baptismal doctrines: So that when many huff and puff much about the ELCA issue that happened recently allowing homosexual ordination that many heterodox false teachers reacted against, what was REALLY missed and was INFINITELY worse was their opening their communion doors to the UMC, a heterodox (false) church.

    Thus, the great temptation for us is to gag on gnats and swallow camels.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom hering @ 156

    you ROCK! I got goosebumps seeing what we believe as reflected in article Vi of the formula restated so elegantly and powerfully.

    very very very nice! that is exactly what the Lutheran position is.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom hering @ 156

    you ROCK! I got goosebumps seeing what we believe as reflected in article Vi of the formula restated so elegantly and powerfully.

    very very very nice! that is exactly what the Lutheran position is.

  • Stephen

    Larry –

    That was awesome!

  • Stephen

    Larry –

    That was awesome!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @157

    exactly. right.

    legalists and antinomians who are really even more legalistic than the legalists because they turn gospel into a new law and christ into moses……

    really go after the symptoms and not the root of the disease. which is idolatry and unbelief

    and they imagine that this is us vs them. as tom points out in the post just prior to yours, the line between christian and pagan passes down the middle of all of us . that is why the same liturgy and the same law and gospel needs to be served up to christian and pagan alike. evangelism directors and programs are absurd. evangelism is everything the churchs do in the divine service and the administration of word and sacrament by her pastors.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @157

    exactly. right.

    legalists and antinomians who are really even more legalistic than the legalists because they turn gospel into a new law and christ into moses……

    really go after the symptoms and not the root of the disease. which is idolatry and unbelief

    and they imagine that this is us vs them. as tom points out in the post just prior to yours, the line between christian and pagan passes down the middle of all of us . that is why the same liturgy and the same law and gospel needs to be served up to christian and pagan alike. evangelism directors and programs are absurd. evangelism is everything the churchs do in the divine service and the administration of word and sacrament by her pastors.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 158, you’ve taught me well, then. Thanks.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 158, you’ve taught me well, then. Thanks.

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

    “This is what “Grace” just doesn’t get. That some verses of Scripture address the Old Adam, and others the New Creation. She thinks they all address the New Creation. So she fails to rightly divide the Word, and mixes up Law and Gospel.”

    Maybe, but we are still both old Adam and new creation. Simultaneously saint and sinner. The Law is good. We aren’t.

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

    “This is what “Grace” just doesn’t get. That some verses of Scripture address the Old Adam, and others the New Creation. She thinks they all address the New Creation. So she fails to rightly divide the Word, and mixes up Law and Gospel.”

    Maybe, but we are still both old Adam and new creation. Simultaneously saint and sinner. The Law is good. We aren’t.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 162

    and how do we know the law is good? easy. love your neighbor as you want to be loved.

    but it is easy to know and very very hard to do. we all want to be loved and especially to be loved with that love that still loves and covers our faults and flaws and salves them. but we dont want to give that same love to others unless they meet a stack of conditions. instead we just keep piling on excuses and conditions so we dont have to love as we should. or we confuse pity for love. or we confuse condescension for love. or we love to get something back or we love in destructive ways that are not really love or about others but all about what we want. and our hearts deceive us to make that all worse. we do evil thinking it is gods will or morality or we do good for very evil reasons.

    and as for love for God? we hate God. we hate that nagging conscience he put into us. we want to be free from it. to the very bottom of our hearts we would really rather do the contrary to what our consciences demand of us. and often we do just that. or we do exactly what the law demands without love. or worse we demand of others what we would never demand of ourselves. smell the burning flesh of sacrifice. this is what our Old Adam lives for. he is deeply religious and full of faith.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 162

    and how do we know the law is good? easy. love your neighbor as you want to be loved.

    but it is easy to know and very very hard to do. we all want to be loved and especially to be loved with that love that still loves and covers our faults and flaws and salves them. but we dont want to give that same love to others unless they meet a stack of conditions. instead we just keep piling on excuses and conditions so we dont have to love as we should. or we confuse pity for love. or we confuse condescension for love. or we love to get something back or we love in destructive ways that are not really love or about others but all about what we want. and our hearts deceive us to make that all worse. we do evil thinking it is gods will or morality or we do good for very evil reasons.

    and as for love for God? we hate God. we hate that nagging conscience he put into us. we want to be free from it. to the very bottom of our hearts we would really rather do the contrary to what our consciences demand of us. and often we do just that. or we do exactly what the law demands without love. or worse we demand of others what we would never demand of ourselves. smell the burning flesh of sacrifice. this is what our Old Adam lives for. he is deeply religious and full of faith.

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

    fws @ 76 and John @ 77

    I have to respectfully disagree.

    “lets bring this forward abit… in massachussetts as recently as 185o, court cases show that women and children enjoyed exactly the same legal status as slaves. This was the basic legal reasoning of the time there.”

    Yeah, but without knowing exactly what that legal status was, it is hard to say if it was really evil or just and organic development. I am not endorsing it, as I don’t even know what it was. But slavery being such an American hobgoblin, it is easy to compare something to slavery and thereby condemn it by association while ignoring rational criteria.

    “This was the basic legal reasoning of the time there. so what you say about republics and all…. well. that applied to white or free male property holders. it was NOTHING close to what we have now. so dont backflush our current situation and so indulge in anachronism.”

    Okay, but so what? That is not the same as monarchs thinking they owned people. In some cases it may have degenerated into such. However, in general there was a sort of ethnic/national/religious solidarity between the monarch and the people. He was their lord and defender. He was there to help them thwart their enemies and preserve their lands, homes, families and lives. The Holy Roman Emperor was there to unite and defend Christendom. He wasn’t a tyrant.

    I am not saying that men don’t get drunk with power, but the average guy believed the monarch was on his side so to speak, at least against enemy tribes, and foreign powers. In order that the monarch and nobility remain strong enough to actually accomplish that, they needed the obedience and economic productivity of the people.

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

    fws @ 76 and John @ 77

    I have to respectfully disagree.

    “lets bring this forward abit… in massachussetts as recently as 185o, court cases show that women and children enjoyed exactly the same legal status as slaves. This was the basic legal reasoning of the time there.”

    Yeah, but without knowing exactly what that legal status was, it is hard to say if it was really evil or just and organic development. I am not endorsing it, as I don’t even know what it was. But slavery being such an American hobgoblin, it is easy to compare something to slavery and thereby condemn it by association while ignoring rational criteria.

    “This was the basic legal reasoning of the time there. so what you say about republics and all…. well. that applied to white or free male property holders. it was NOTHING close to what we have now. so dont backflush our current situation and so indulge in anachronism.”

    Okay, but so what? That is not the same as monarchs thinking they owned people. In some cases it may have degenerated into such. However, in general there was a sort of ethnic/national/religious solidarity between the monarch and the people. He was their lord and defender. He was there to help them thwart their enemies and preserve their lands, homes, families and lives. The Holy Roman Emperor was there to unite and defend Christendom. He wasn’t a tyrant.

    I am not saying that men don’t get drunk with power, but the average guy believed the monarch was on his side so to speak, at least against enemy tribes, and foreign powers. In order that the monarch and nobility remain strong enough to actually accomplish that, they needed the obedience and economic productivity of the people.

  • Grace

    There is no “sharp point” or “sharper point” – Scripture is the source, all the flip/flopping doesn’t cut it…. it’s dull!

    Paul’s words in Ephesians stand as they are!

    If Paul preached Ephesians 5 to the vast majority of you, ….. you would not understand the words, even though they are very easy to comprehend, the meaning is straightforward. The problem you have is; you cannot accept the consequences of sin. You can go back and read post 115 with Scripture, but I doubt you want to take it as Paul stated.

    The same situation exists with Romans 1 – again you bob and float ideas that aren’t Scriptural, but rather dismiss what Paul clearly stated regarding sin and homosexual sin. It’s your loss!

  • Grace

    There is no “sharp point” or “sharper point” – Scripture is the source, all the flip/flopping doesn’t cut it…. it’s dull!

    Paul’s words in Ephesians stand as they are!

    If Paul preached Ephesians 5 to the vast majority of you, ….. you would not understand the words, even though they are very easy to comprehend, the meaning is straightforward. The problem you have is; you cannot accept the consequences of sin. You can go back and read post 115 with Scripture, but I doubt you want to take it as Paul stated.

    The same situation exists with Romans 1 – again you bob and float ideas that aren’t Scriptural, but rather dismiss what Paul clearly stated regarding sin and homosexual sin. It’s your loss!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 164

    i would be wrong to put a value judgement on people being property. there is nothing moraly wrong with slavery or with women or children as chattel . and you are right, even in that system there is still the obligation of love for neighbor.

    it is modern natural law theory that says all should be equals. society would be chaos if everyone was equal in the earthly kingdom of god. it is not even true in the heavenly kingdom. there are greater rewards and crowns for some and there is an order there too.

    even dictators ultimately rule by the consent of those they rule. and just because people are conceptually property of the state or monarch in a feudal monarchic or socialistic state does not make that form of government morally better or worse.

    I think that is my point sg. there is not a moral argument to be made about this. the goal is civil order so that each may enjoy his life in peace .

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 164

    i would be wrong to put a value judgement on people being property. there is nothing moraly wrong with slavery or with women or children as chattel . and you are right, even in that system there is still the obligation of love for neighbor.

    it is modern natural law theory that says all should be equals. society would be chaos if everyone was equal in the earthly kingdom of god. it is not even true in the heavenly kingdom. there are greater rewards and crowns for some and there is an order there too.

    even dictators ultimately rule by the consent of those they rule. and just because people are conceptually property of the state or monarch in a feudal monarchic or socialistic state does not make that form of government morally better or worse.

    I think that is my point sg. there is not a moral argument to be made about this. the goal is civil order so that each may enjoy his life in peace .

  • Tom Hering

    “Maybe, but we are still both old Adam and new creation. Simultaneously saint and sinner.” – sg @ 162.

    I don’t see where I said anything different @ 156.

    “The Law is good.” – @ 162.

    I said that too. But for whom is it good? The Old Adam only – not the New Creation.

    “We aren’t [good].” – @ 162.

    So what? Insofar as I’m still Old Adam, I’m being conformed to the image of Christ, by force. Insofar as I’m a New Creation, I’m already sanctified.

  • Tom Hering

    “Maybe, but we are still both old Adam and new creation. Simultaneously saint and sinner.” – sg @ 162.

    I don’t see where I said anything different @ 156.

    “The Law is good.” – @ 162.

    I said that too. But for whom is it good? The Old Adam only – not the New Creation.

    “We aren’t [good].” – @ 162.

    So what? Insofar as I’m still Old Adam, I’m being conformed to the image of Christ, by force. Insofar as I’m a New Creation, I’m already sanctified.

  • Tom Hering

    “… you would not understand the words … you cannot accept the consequences of sin … I doubt you want to take it as Paul stated … you bob and float ideas that aren’t Scriptural … dismiss what Paul clearly stated.” – “Grace” @ 165.

    My, my, my. “Grace” is God now. Looking into our hearts. Even knowing exactly how we read Scripture. Where’s your Throne located, “Grace”? I want to rush right over and bow down before you.

  • Tom Hering

    “… you would not understand the words … you cannot accept the consequences of sin … I doubt you want to take it as Paul stated … you bob and float ideas that aren’t Scriptural … dismiss what Paul clearly stated.” – “Grace” @ 165.

    My, my, my. “Grace” is God now. Looking into our hearts. Even knowing exactly how we read Scripture. Where’s your Throne located, “Grace”? I want to rush right over and bow down before you.

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

    Tom, my only point was that Grace brings up the law because it is still useful. It convicts us, so we repent. That’s all.

    Martin Luther’s first thesis:

    “1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.”

    http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

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

    Tom, my only point was that Grace brings up the law because it is still useful. It convicts us, so we repent. That’s all.

    Martin Luther’s first thesis:

    “1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.”

    http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 169

    indeed sg! Luther also said “Life is Mortification”. which roughly means “life is about the process of dying”. This is what the law does sg. It kills us. It always always accuses us.

    And at the same time the Law in our conscience , is what God the Holy Spirit uses to produce all the fatherly divine goodness and mercy that we find in the first article of the creed in the catechism and also the 4th petition of the Lords Prayer. The Holy Spirit kills Old Adam of christian and pagan alike with the Law in order that your and my old adam is made to love our neighbor and give him daily bread.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 169

    indeed sg! Luther also said “Life is Mortification”. which roughly means “life is about the process of dying”. This is what the law does sg. It kills us. It always always accuses us.

    And at the same time the Law in our conscience , is what God the Holy Spirit uses to produce all the fatherly divine goodness and mercy that we find in the first article of the creed in the catechism and also the 4th petition of the Lords Prayer. The Holy Spirit kills Old Adam of christian and pagan alike with the Law in order that your and my old adam is made to love our neighbor and give him daily bread.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 169

    grace is not talking about the law as you are sg, to bring us , broken and dispairing of being able to keep the law at all, to Christ. She is far from that sg.

    nor does she think that the point and purpose of the Law is to be obedience to our neighbor in love as their servant and see our neighbor as being our judge as to our righteousness.

    Grace has told us and shown us that the point and purpose of her doing the law is obedience to God as sacrifice , regardless of the effect of her doing on the happiness of her neighbor. She is no servant. A good servant is by definition obedient to those they serve and their goal is to please those they serve. for those they serve will judge whether or not they are righteous in their tasks.

    Grace can be proud and mean to others here because she is certain that she is obedient to God and that is all that matters to her. She is certain that she is keeping God’s rules.

    Smell the burning flesh on the altar of sacrifice sg. And she is inviting all here to become like her.

    I know Martin Luther sg. Grace is no Martin Luther. if you think Grace is modeling the repentance that Luther is talking about at the very start of his career … ahem.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 169

    grace is not talking about the law as you are sg, to bring us , broken and dispairing of being able to keep the law at all, to Christ. She is far from that sg.

    nor does she think that the point and purpose of the Law is to be obedience to our neighbor in love as their servant and see our neighbor as being our judge as to our righteousness.

    Grace has told us and shown us that the point and purpose of her doing the law is obedience to God as sacrifice , regardless of the effect of her doing on the happiness of her neighbor. She is no servant. A good servant is by definition obedient to those they serve and their goal is to please those they serve. for those they serve will judge whether or not they are righteous in their tasks.

    Grace can be proud and mean to others here because she is certain that she is obedient to God and that is all that matters to her. She is certain that she is keeping God’s rules.

    Smell the burning flesh on the altar of sacrifice sg. And she is inviting all here to become like her.

    I know Martin Luther sg. Grace is no Martin Luther. if you think Grace is modeling the repentance that Luther is talking about at the very start of his career … ahem.

  • Grace

    fws

    “Grace has told us and shown us that the point and purpose of her doing the law is obedience to God as sacrifice , regardless of the effect of her doing on the happiness of her neighbor.”

    I want to please God fws, by doing so, I try to do what He desires, what He has stated in the Bible, and that would include what His Son Jesus preached and taught. I am not perfect, nor have I ever said I was, or that I measured up to prefection – The happiness of my neighbor cannot come between God and me……. I serve God, and that includes honoring Him, loving others even when they are not lovable,… but it does not include doing anything that would displease God to make another ANYONE happy.

    “She is no servant. A good servant is by definition obedient to those they serve and their goal is to please those they serve. for those they serve will judge whether or not they are righteous in their tasks.”

    I serve God first, before anyone or anything – He, and He alone are to be served FIRST. My righteousness is for God to decide, He knows my heart, and everything about me. For you to declare that “She is no servant” – you have service to others confused with serving God, and doing what He has told us in His Word. No one can keep the law, we know this, however that doesn’t mean that we willfully go about hurting others, stealing, fornicating, dishonoring our parents, backbitting/gossip, lying and many other hurtful acts.

    12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

    13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

    14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

    15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

    16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

    17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 1 Peter 3:12

  • Grace

    fws

    “Grace has told us and shown us that the point and purpose of her doing the law is obedience to God as sacrifice , regardless of the effect of her doing on the happiness of her neighbor.”

    I want to please God fws, by doing so, I try to do what He desires, what He has stated in the Bible, and that would include what His Son Jesus preached and taught. I am not perfect, nor have I ever said I was, or that I measured up to prefection – The happiness of my neighbor cannot come between God and me……. I serve God, and that includes honoring Him, loving others even when they are not lovable,… but it does not include doing anything that would displease God to make another ANYONE happy.

    “She is no servant. A good servant is by definition obedient to those they serve and their goal is to please those they serve. for those they serve will judge whether or not they are righteous in their tasks.”

    I serve God first, before anyone or anything – He, and He alone are to be served FIRST. My righteousness is for God to decide, He knows my heart, and everything about me. For you to declare that “She is no servant” – you have service to others confused with serving God, and doing what He has told us in His Word. No one can keep the law, we know this, however that doesn’t mean that we willfully go about hurting others, stealing, fornicating, dishonoring our parents, backbitting/gossip, lying and many other hurtful acts.

    12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

    13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

    14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

    15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

    16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

    17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 1 Peter 3:12

  • Tom Hering

    “My righteousness is for God to decide …” – “Grace” @ 172.

    He already has. It’s filthy rags.

  • Tom Hering

    “My righteousness is for God to decide …” – “Grace” @ 172.

    He already has. It’s filthy rags.

  • Leviathan

    Grace @ 172

    Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”

  • Leviathan

    Grace @ 172

    Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”

  • Stephen

    Whoa Tom, you’re good! Hey, looks like there’s a fish in the water. Just might swallow someone.

    All this talk about Baptists and drinking has me hankering for a pale ale of some sort – something soft, not too thick, and slightly sweet. I had some stuff at my brother’s house over the holidays that was excellent from NY. New on the market in Texas. Can’t recall it now and I couldn’t find it around here where I live.

    Oh man, now I want some Saison Dupont Belgian ale. Too late. Stores are about closed. Chocolate milk for me.

  • Stephen

    Whoa Tom, you’re good! Hey, looks like there’s a fish in the water. Just might swallow someone.

    All this talk about Baptists and drinking has me hankering for a pale ale of some sort – something soft, not too thick, and slightly sweet. I had some stuff at my brother’s house over the holidays that was excellent from NY. New on the market in Texas. Can’t recall it now and I couldn’t find it around here where I live.

    Oh man, now I want some Saison Dupont Belgian ale. Too late. Stores are about closed. Chocolate milk for me.

  • Tom Hering

    “Chocolate milk for me.”

    Pretend it’s a porter with chocolatey hops.

  • Tom Hering

    “Chocolate milk for me.”

    Pretend it’s a porter with chocolatey hops.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom hering @ 173

    actually the hebrew translation of what you refer to from isaiah says that God declares Grace’s best righteousness as a used tampon at the peak of the menstrual cycle. ….

    eeeeeewwwww.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom hering @ 173

    actually the hebrew translation of what you refer to from isaiah says that God declares Grace’s best righteousness as a used tampon at the peak of the menstrual cycle. ….

    eeeeeewwwww.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Leviathan @ 174

    Our Grace gets twitchy when someone asks questions she already has answered. She answered that question already:

    “The happiness of my neighbor cannot come between God and me… it does not include doing anything… that would … make another ANYONE happy.”

    and…

    “I serve God first, before anyone or anything – He, and He alone are to be served FIRST. For you to declare that “She is no servant” – you have service to others confused with serving God.”

    So “Love your neighbor as you love yourself” and the story of the good samaritan has nothing to do with serving others or being their servant according to grace. it is ALL and ONLY about serving God even if that “serving” appears to hurt others as everyone complains she is doing here. She cant help that her serving her God hurts others. that is not her concern. Period.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Leviathan @ 174

    Our Grace gets twitchy when someone asks questions she already has answered. She answered that question already:

    “The happiness of my neighbor cannot come between God and me… it does not include doing anything… that would … make another ANYONE happy.”

    and…

    “I serve God first, before anyone or anything – He, and He alone are to be served FIRST. For you to declare that “She is no servant” – you have service to others confused with serving God.”

    So “Love your neighbor as you love yourself” and the story of the good samaritan has nothing to do with serving others or being their servant according to grace. it is ALL and ONLY about serving God even if that “serving” appears to hurt others as everyone complains she is doing here. She cant help that her serving her God hurts others. that is not her concern. Period.

  • Leviathan

    FWS @ 178 4 Grace @ 172

    Gen 4:3In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7If you do well, will you not be accepted?b And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

    1 Cor: 14Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

  • Leviathan

    FWS @ 178 4 Grace @ 172

    Gen 4:3In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. 6The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7If you do well, will you not be accepted?b And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

    1 Cor: 14Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 177: No, not a tampon, because that’s a sanitary method. The image in Isaiah compares our attempts at righteousness to an ineffective method of personal hygiene, i.e., the use of rags. No matter how scrupulous you are in their use, you never really get clean.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank @ 177: No, not a tampon, because that’s a sanitary method. The image in Isaiah compares our attempts at righteousness to an ineffective method of personal hygiene, i.e., the use of rags. No matter how scrupulous you are in their use, you never really get clean.

  • Stephen

    The Gospel lesson this morning on the baptism of Jesus in Matthew seems to make the point doesn’t it? There’s all the “necessary righteousness” ever needed. It isn’t about the individual sins we do or do not do. Those come and go under the law. If we wish to live by that, well, good luck with that project. Only death awaits as the law kills. It isn’t what faith in Christ is all about. This is Larry’s brilliant and very sharp point in post# 157 that the heterodox such as Grace just do not get in their blasphemy against the name of God. What does The Father in Heaven say?

    “This is my Son. In Him I am well pleased.” Christ alone.

    This is our baptism into Christ. That is an Epiphany. Wow!

  • Stephen

    The Gospel lesson this morning on the baptism of Jesus in Matthew seems to make the point doesn’t it? There’s all the “necessary righteousness” ever needed. It isn’t about the individual sins we do or do not do. Those come and go under the law. If we wish to live by that, well, good luck with that project. Only death awaits as the law kills. It isn’t what faith in Christ is all about. This is Larry’s brilliant and very sharp point in post# 157 that the heterodox such as Grace just do not get in their blasphemy against the name of God. What does The Father in Heaven say?

    “This is my Son. In Him I am well pleased.” Christ alone.

    This is our baptism into Christ. That is an Epiphany. Wow!

  • Dust

    to FWS, Tom above….when Isaiah talks about all “our” righteousness is but filthy rags, could it not be that that refers to those things we try to do on our own of which we believe we are the source of the good deeds? But there is another kind of “righteousness” that comes from God and that is when we do something as an act of faith, and believe it is not us, but God working thru us? Like in Hebrews 11:6??? And there are many other verses that address the difference in an action done with faith or without faith, and those without as being sin?

    This is something that I just don’t think Lutherans want to try and understand..that there are lots of real Christians who enjoy being good and kind and want to do what the Law and God require of them AND they believe they can only do it with God’s help AND it is not them that do it, but God working thru them and thru their faith. They are grateful and humble servants who will receive their reward in Heaven someday…not based on these works, but saved by grace thru their faith. Well, something like that….and that is what Lutherans believe too, eh?

    Thank you and good day!

  • Dust

    to FWS, Tom above….when Isaiah talks about all “our” righteousness is but filthy rags, could it not be that that refers to those things we try to do on our own of which we believe we are the source of the good deeds? But there is another kind of “righteousness” that comes from God and that is when we do something as an act of faith, and believe it is not us, but God working thru us? Like in Hebrews 11:6??? And there are many other verses that address the difference in an action done with faith or without faith, and those without as being sin?

    This is something that I just don’t think Lutherans want to try and understand..that there are lots of real Christians who enjoy being good and kind and want to do what the Law and God require of them AND they believe they can only do it with God’s help AND it is not them that do it, but God working thru them and thru their faith. They are grateful and humble servants who will receive their reward in Heaven someday…not based on these works, but saved by grace thru their faith. Well, something like that….and that is what Lutherans believe too, eh?

    Thank you and good day!

  • Dust

    to Stephen above…..am sure you know that the official Lutheran teaching is that many of those churches that you say “blasphemy” against the Lord, are thought of as Christian? Our church teaches that others may indeed have teachings different from our (as regards baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for example) but we don’t go so far as to say they are not Christians. Well, perhaps some do! Am pretty sure the Luths don’t go so far as to declare their different positions as blasphemy either? Hope not, but perhaps some do, yikes!

  • Dust

    to Stephen above…..am sure you know that the official Lutheran teaching is that many of those churches that you say “blasphemy” against the Lord, are thought of as Christian? Our church teaches that others may indeed have teachings different from our (as regards baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for example) but we don’t go so far as to say they are not Christians. Well, perhaps some do! Am pretty sure the Luths don’t go so far as to declare their different positions as blasphemy either? Hope not, but perhaps some do, yikes!

  • Stephen

    Dust @ 182

    If you read the verses right after that about what Abraham did “by faith” the picture might shift some. I think you are mixing you law and gospel there in what you say. For a lack of a better way to describe the difference between Old Adam and new creation, there is a cosmic difference between wanting or desiring to do something, no matter how sincere or earnest, and just doing it. Old Adam is driven by the law – love you neighbor is a commandment of law on the conscience. New creations are love the way a good tree bears good fruit. It does not have to try. But we cannot discern this by “inspecting” the situation, though some think they can. God makes both things happen. Does that make sense.

    There is a line from a song I like that goes “The funny thing about humility, as soon as you know you are being humble, you are no longer humble.” It is like that. We mix law and gospel when we try to see in our works, our doing of good things, that which is “truly” a holy, sanctified and Christian thing. We are sinners. This is what we know in our bodies while we live. However, we also receive though faith the glorious promise of our redemption announced to us in the Gospel. This is an eternal thing, our heavenly righteousness, and it is ever so very much who we are because it is who God say that we are in Christ. What God says is what really matters. It’s really the only thing actually. Look there for meaning, not to what we do. What we do is all sin as far as we can tell. God will make of it what He will. Our part is obedience, repentance and thanksgiving. In that is doing of the love and mercy that God desires for others from us.

  • Stephen

    Dust @ 182

    If you read the verses right after that about what Abraham did “by faith” the picture might shift some. I think you are mixing you law and gospel there in what you say. For a lack of a better way to describe the difference between Old Adam and new creation, there is a cosmic difference between wanting or desiring to do something, no matter how sincere or earnest, and just doing it. Old Adam is driven by the law – love you neighbor is a commandment of law on the conscience. New creations are love the way a good tree bears good fruit. It does not have to try. But we cannot discern this by “inspecting” the situation, though some think they can. God makes both things happen. Does that make sense.

    There is a line from a song I like that goes “The funny thing about humility, as soon as you know you are being humble, you are no longer humble.” It is like that. We mix law and gospel when we try to see in our works, our doing of good things, that which is “truly” a holy, sanctified and Christian thing. We are sinners. This is what we know in our bodies while we live. However, we also receive though faith the glorious promise of our redemption announced to us in the Gospel. This is an eternal thing, our heavenly righteousness, and it is ever so very much who we are because it is who God say that we are in Christ. What God says is what really matters. It’s really the only thing actually. Look there for meaning, not to what we do. What we do is all sin as far as we can tell. God will make of it what He will. Our part is obedience, repentance and thanksgiving. In that is doing of the love and mercy that God desires for others from us.

  • Stephen

    “Does that make sense?” was a question. Please let me know. I left out an “r” or two in my “your” I see. My keyboard sticks.

  • Stephen

    “Does that make sense?” was a question. Please let me know. I left out an “r” or two in my “your” I see. My keyboard sticks.

  • Tom Hering

    “… there is another kind of ‘righteousness’ that comes from God …” – @ 182.

    Dust, are you saying something other than – or in addition to – Christ’s perfect righteousness (credited to us) makes us righteous in God’s eyes?

    “… that is when we do something as an act of faith, and believe it is not us, but God working thru us …” – @ 182.

    How do you know – how do you really know – it’s God working through you? Does believing it make it so? And why would God need to make you righteous through “acts of faith” when He has already declared you righteous because of His Son? Do you really think you can add anything to what Jesus accomplished in your place? In your place.

  • Tom Hering

    “… there is another kind of ‘righteousness’ that comes from God …” – @ 182.

    Dust, are you saying something other than – or in addition to – Christ’s perfect righteousness (credited to us) makes us righteous in God’s eyes?

    “… that is when we do something as an act of faith, and believe it is not us, but God working thru us …” – @ 182.

    How do you know – how do you really know – it’s God working through you? Does believing it make it so? And why would God need to make you righteous through “acts of faith” when He has already declared you righteous because of His Son? Do you really think you can add anything to what Jesus accomplished in your place? In your place.

  • Stephen

    Tom –

    Why do I have to write long paragraphs and you write three sentences to make the same point? ARGH!

    I LOVED that gospel today. The light from the stained glass windows came through and hit me while it was being read – right through the cross. Is that an Epiphany?

  • Stephen

    Tom –

    Why do I have to write long paragraphs and you write three sentences to make the same point? ARGH!

    I LOVED that gospel today. The light from the stained glass windows came through and hit me while it was being read – right through the cross. Is that an Epiphany?

  • Tom Hering

    “My keyboard sticks.” – Stephen @ 185.

    Chocolate milk? :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “My keyboard sticks.” – Stephen @ 185.

    Chocolate milk? :-D

  • Stephen

    Dust @183

    I know that is harsh and scary to say “blasphemy” but what do they say? “If the shoe fits.”

    Here’s the deal. We are all blasphemers because we cannot keep the commandments. Thanks God for Jesus Christ who has come and keeps them for us, giving to us by grace his righteousness through our baptism so that we are not condemned in our blasphemy.

    But some churches/denominations actually teach things that are contrary to keeping them, and so their members continue in it and encourage others to do so. What do I mean? They teach thing that are essentially idolatry, things like works righteousness and the kind of heterodox teaching Larry referred to that sees no value in baptism in the name of the one, true and living God. Instead, they place all importance on the act of the believer, what they do and not what God does in Jesus Christ. What matters is their acceptance or denial of whatever “message” is presented. This is essentially a project in building something up in place of God Himself. They call sacraments, things that involve the hallowed name of God and his actions for us, “ordinances” and make them works of men. It is a sacrificial work God does not need. “This is my Son. In Him I am well pleased.” In him I am well pleased. Christ alone. Teaching that this sacrament is some kind of work of righteousness is simply teaching false doctrine and blasphemy. This is to profane and make useless God’s very name. It is that serious, and I have been around this arrogance my whole life.

    That’s the sharp point and it’s a spear. That does not mean other denominations are not populated by Christians, but the do not teach orthodox faith on certain things. Read this if you want more:

    http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/pieperohcintro.htm

  • Stephen

    Dust @183

    I know that is harsh and scary to say “blasphemy” but what do they say? “If the shoe fits.”

    Here’s the deal. We are all blasphemers because we cannot keep the commandments. Thanks God for Jesus Christ who has come and keeps them for us, giving to us by grace his righteousness through our baptism so that we are not condemned in our blasphemy.

    But some churches/denominations actually teach things that are contrary to keeping them, and so their members continue in it and encourage others to do so. What do I mean? They teach thing that are essentially idolatry, things like works righteousness and the kind of heterodox teaching Larry referred to that sees no value in baptism in the name of the one, true and living God. Instead, they place all importance on the act of the believer, what they do and not what God does in Jesus Christ. What matters is their acceptance or denial of whatever “message” is presented. This is essentially a project in building something up in place of God Himself. They call sacraments, things that involve the hallowed name of God and his actions for us, “ordinances” and make them works of men. It is a sacrificial work God does not need. “This is my Son. In Him I am well pleased.” In him I am well pleased. Christ alone. Teaching that this sacrament is some kind of work of righteousness is simply teaching false doctrine and blasphemy. This is to profane and make useless God’s very name. It is that serious, and I have been around this arrogance my whole life.

    That’s the sharp point and it’s a spear. That does not mean other denominations are not populated by Christians, but the do not teach orthodox faith on certain things. Read this if you want more:

    http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/pieperohcintro.htm

  • Larry

    “My righteousness is for God to decide, He knows my heart, and everything about me.”

    This statement right here should not be a comfort but a shear terror to anyone actually hearing what the Law states. This is why, this very statement, the prophet Jeremiah says in 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” For such statements the prophet spoke these very words because such statements reflect the very SELF deception of the human heart.

    It is as Luther states in his HD first thesis, “The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him”.

    What Grace fails to see is that the highest worship and service to God IS to RECEIVE the forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness, and by building up her own righteousness she violates the first three commandments of God and in no way loves her neighbor.

    The Law is good indeed in and of itself, but fallen man (as Grace exudes) does as Luther points out in Thesis 24 “Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.”

    And this is the way fallen man and all manner of enthusiasm operates, upside down.

  • Larry

    “My righteousness is for God to decide, He knows my heart, and everything about me.”

    This statement right here should not be a comfort but a shear terror to anyone actually hearing what the Law states. This is why, this very statement, the prophet Jeremiah says in 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” For such statements the prophet spoke these very words because such statements reflect the very SELF deception of the human heart.

    It is as Luther states in his HD first thesis, “The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him”.

    What Grace fails to see is that the highest worship and service to God IS to RECEIVE the forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness, and by building up her own righteousness she violates the first three commandments of God and in no way loves her neighbor.

    The Law is good indeed in and of itself, but fallen man (as Grace exudes) does as Luther points out in Thesis 24 “Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.”

    And this is the way fallen man and all manner of enthusiasm operates, upside down.

  • Stephen

    Tom @ 188

    Dr. Pepper

  • Stephen

    Tom @ 188

    Dr. Pepper

  • Stephen

    Dust -

    Come to think of it, Larry pointing to the Heidelberg Disputations is better:

    http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php

    I remember the first time I read them they just about took my head off. Get yourself a glass of 96 pt. wine, something really meditative (I’m trying to bring it back to booze somehow) and work on them for a bit. The book of Concord will never steer you wrong on these questions of doctrine, and the HD is about the most straight-forward thing in there next to the Small Catechism that I can think of. Gerhard Forde’s book “On Being a Theologian of the Cross” is also a good read on what they imply.

  • Stephen

    Dust -

    Come to think of it, Larry pointing to the Heidelberg Disputations is better:

    http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php

    I remember the first time I read them they just about took my head off. Get yourself a glass of 96 pt. wine, something really meditative (I’m trying to bring it back to booze somehow) and work on them for a bit. The book of Concord will never steer you wrong on these questions of doctrine, and the HD is about the most straight-forward thing in there next to the Small Catechism that I can think of. Gerhard Forde’s book “On Being a Theologian of the Cross” is also a good read on what they imply.

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

    What is with the crass adolescent hygiene comparisons?

    Stuff like that makes me yearn for the aspbergery atheists over at the science blogs. Talk about a nasty image for a Christian blog.

    Come on guys. You can do better.

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

    What is with the crass adolescent hygiene comparisons?

    Stuff like that makes me yearn for the aspbergery atheists over at the science blogs. Talk about a nasty image for a Christian blog.

    Come on guys. You can do better.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sadly, I think I understand Grace’s position a lot more now.

    “tODD, you are WRONG – many people have relied on the LORD, taken His promise and flee temptation” (@121). What does it mean to a Christian to “rely on the Lord”? It means to trust his promise that by Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, we are truly forgiven for all our sins, and thereby made holy children of God. What does it mean to Grace to “rely on the Lord”? Note how she equates that supposed “reliance” and equates it with something she does: “flee temptation”.

    I rely on God because I have no other option. I am a wretched, sinful being, by nature an enemy of God. I must rely on him for my salvation, for without it, I am dead in my sins — no “good” I do will improve things with God. But Grace “relies” on God and then tries to make herself better.

    Grace reads 1 Corinthians 10:13 and finds in it the most burdensome of instructions: in every situation, God has given you an out, so you must find that out! You have to! Grace reads this as a challenge from God for what she must do, perhaps in order to impress God. And since Grace believes as she does, she also has convinced herself that she is, in fact, capable of finding this “out” — that she is, as such, capable of following the Law. What a horrifying way to live.

    Because that’s not what 1 Corinthians 10 is trying to tell us. It’s not about how faithful we can be at all. Because the Bible makes clear that we are not faithful. We are whores. But what does 1 Corinthians say, in the middle of Grace’s favorite passage? “God is faithful.” How does the old song go? “Great is my faithfulness”? No.

    Yes, it is true — God does provide a way out in every situation, such that we cannot accuse him of causing us to sin, or even of tempting us to sin. But any Christian who is at all honest with himself will admit that his days are filled with not choosing God’s way out of sinful situations. Ah, but we have Jesus — our “way out” of this wretched body of death. And God has provided Him.

    So you can trust in Jesus and his faithfulness, or you can trust in your own ability to get out of sinful situations. But since the Bible makes clear over and over and over that we are sinful by nature, why would you choose the latter? Why would you focus, Grace, on your ability to make “a CHOICE”? Because we all know you fail at that choice, time and time again, to the point that it doesn’t look like a choice at all — it just looks like you sinning, repeatedly. Me too.

    But you seem to think you’re something else when you arrive at such choices, Grace. But hey, I’ve got Jesus’ forgiveness, and you have your ability to make good choices. Good luck with that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sadly, I think I understand Grace’s position a lot more now.

    “tODD, you are WRONG – many people have relied on the LORD, taken His promise and flee temptation” (@121). What does it mean to a Christian to “rely on the Lord”? It means to trust his promise that by Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, we are truly forgiven for all our sins, and thereby made holy children of God. What does it mean to Grace to “rely on the Lord”? Note how she equates that supposed “reliance” and equates it with something she does: “flee temptation”.

    I rely on God because I have no other option. I am a wretched, sinful being, by nature an enemy of God. I must rely on him for my salvation, for without it, I am dead in my sins — no “good” I do will improve things with God. But Grace “relies” on God and then tries to make herself better.

    Grace reads 1 Corinthians 10:13 and finds in it the most burdensome of instructions: in every situation, God has given you an out, so you must find that out! You have to! Grace reads this as a challenge from God for what she must do, perhaps in order to impress God. And since Grace believes as she does, she also has convinced herself that she is, in fact, capable of finding this “out” — that she is, as such, capable of following the Law. What a horrifying way to live.

    Because that’s not what 1 Corinthians 10 is trying to tell us. It’s not about how faithful we can be at all. Because the Bible makes clear that we are not faithful. We are whores. But what does 1 Corinthians say, in the middle of Grace’s favorite passage? “God is faithful.” How does the old song go? “Great is my faithfulness”? No.

    Yes, it is true — God does provide a way out in every situation, such that we cannot accuse him of causing us to sin, or even of tempting us to sin. But any Christian who is at all honest with himself will admit that his days are filled with not choosing God’s way out of sinful situations. Ah, but we have Jesus — our “way out” of this wretched body of death. And God has provided Him.

    So you can trust in Jesus and his faithfulness, or you can trust in your own ability to get out of sinful situations. But since the Bible makes clear over and over and over that we are sinful by nature, why would you choose the latter? Why would you focus, Grace, on your ability to make “a CHOICE”? Because we all know you fail at that choice, time and time again, to the point that it doesn’t look like a choice at all — it just looks like you sinning, repeatedly. Me too.

    But you seem to think you’re something else when you arrive at such choices, Grace. But hey, I’ve got Jesus’ forgiveness, and you have your ability to make good choices. Good luck with that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Catching up with more recent statements of Grace’s theology (@172) …

    I’m glad to see Grace admit, “I am not perfect, nor have I ever said I was, or that I measured up to prefection.” It’s a start. The question is: well, what next? There are two options, basically: (1) trust that Jesus has forgiven you, or (2) try harder. What do you think this sounds like, though:

    I want to please God fws, by doing so, I try to do what He desires, what He has stated in the Bible, and that would include what His Son Jesus preached and taught.

    How about this?

    I serve God, and that includes honoring Him, loving others even when they are not lovable,… but it does not include doing anything that would displease God to make another ANYONE happy.

    Okay, well, how about this?

    I serve God first, before anyone or anything – He, and He alone are to be served FIRST. My righteousness is for God to decide, He knows my heart, and everything about me.

    What do these statements say about whom Grace is trusting? Who is the actor, the subject in these statements — Grace, or Jesus? What is being evaluated — Grace’s merit, or Christ’s? How does Grace tell us “her righteousness” is to be “decided” — based on what is in her heart, or God’s heart?

    Try harder, Grace! Try harder! Maybe if you avoid sinning more, if you impress your god with your faithfulness, then he will consider you righteous and let you into his kingdom! No, I did not make a capitalization error just now.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Catching up with more recent statements of Grace’s theology (@172) …

    I’m glad to see Grace admit, “I am not perfect, nor have I ever said I was, or that I measured up to prefection.” It’s a start. The question is: well, what next? There are two options, basically: (1) trust that Jesus has forgiven you, or (2) try harder. What do you think this sounds like, though:

    I want to please God fws, by doing so, I try to do what He desires, what He has stated in the Bible, and that would include what His Son Jesus preached and taught.

    How about this?

    I serve God, and that includes honoring Him, loving others even when they are not lovable,… but it does not include doing anything that would displease God to make another ANYONE happy.

    Okay, well, how about this?

    I serve God first, before anyone or anything – He, and He alone are to be served FIRST. My righteousness is for God to decide, He knows my heart, and everything about me.

    What do these statements say about whom Grace is trusting? Who is the actor, the subject in these statements — Grace, or Jesus? What is being evaluated — Grace’s merit, or Christ’s? How does Grace tell us “her righteousness” is to be “decided” — based on what is in her heart, or God’s heart?

    Try harder, Grace! Try harder! Maybe if you avoid sinning more, if you impress your god with your faithfulness, then he will consider you righteous and let you into his kingdom! No, I did not make a capitalization error just now.

  • Tom Hering

    “Talk about a nasty image for a Christian blog.” – sg @ 193.

    You’ll have to make your complaint to Isaiah when you see him, sg. He’s the one who compared “all our righteous acts” to “mentruous cloth” (literal translation).

  • Tom Hering

    “Talk about a nasty image for a Christian blog.” – sg @ 193.

    You’ll have to make your complaint to Isaiah when you see him, sg. He’s the one who compared “all our righteous acts” to “mentruous cloth” (literal translation).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oops, I missed an old post of Grace’s I was going to reply to (@120). It’s the one that, I believe, best sums up her theology:

    If it’s so difficult to try and follow the LORD’s teachings, ….. why did the LORD give them to us who Believe to follow?

    How can one read the Bible and honestly question that it’s difficult (at best) to “follow the Lord’s teachings”? Indeed, how can one conclude anything other than that it is impossible? If it were possible to “follow the Lord’s teachings”, what need would we have of a Savior? We would just need an Instructor at that point, a Personal Coach. Indeed, this seems to be how you’re reading large chunks of the Bible — as a how-to guide.

    Doesn’t it occur to you, Grace, that in spite of this “how-to” reading, your life is nevertheless a “how-not-to” example? When you read God telling you to love your neighbor as yourself, do you find yourself thinking, “And I have, God, I have; and you know that”? Or do you find yourself on your knees, crying out to God that you haven’t, you haven’t loved your neighbor at all.

    You can try to convince us, if you want, that you “serve God first, before anyone or anything” (@172), but God knows that’s a lie. He won’t be mocked. I’m sorry Grace, but that’s the cold, hard truth. If you served God above all things, you’d be perfect. You’re not. Not at all.

    So why did God give uss the Law, then, if the point isn’t, as you assume, to make us try harder and to perfect ourselves? I’ll give you the answer, but honestly, you should read Romans. Like, all of it, not just the bits you keep quoting.

    Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

    But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oops, I missed an old post of Grace’s I was going to reply to (@120). It’s the one that, I believe, best sums up her theology:

    If it’s so difficult to try and follow the LORD’s teachings, ….. why did the LORD give them to us who Believe to follow?

    How can one read the Bible and honestly question that it’s difficult (at best) to “follow the Lord’s teachings”? Indeed, how can one conclude anything other than that it is impossible? If it were possible to “follow the Lord’s teachings”, what need would we have of a Savior? We would just need an Instructor at that point, a Personal Coach. Indeed, this seems to be how you’re reading large chunks of the Bible — as a how-to guide.

    Doesn’t it occur to you, Grace, that in spite of this “how-to” reading, your life is nevertheless a “how-not-to” example? When you read God telling you to love your neighbor as yourself, do you find yourself thinking, “And I have, God, I have; and you know that”? Or do you find yourself on your knees, crying out to God that you haven’t, you haven’t loved your neighbor at all.

    You can try to convince us, if you want, that you “serve God first, before anyone or anything” (@172), but God knows that’s a lie. He won’t be mocked. I’m sorry Grace, but that’s the cold, hard truth. If you served God above all things, you’d be perfect. You’re not. Not at all.

    So why did God give uss the Law, then, if the point isn’t, as you assume, to make us try harder and to perfect ourselves? I’ll give you the answer, but honestly, you should read Romans. Like, all of it, not just the bits you keep quoting.

    Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

    But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

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

    “You’ll have to make your complaint to Isaiah when you see him, sg. He’s the one who compared “all our righteous acts” to “mentruous cloth” (literal translation).”

    Fine, but fws didn’t state it as you just have. His rendering was far coarser. It seems he was trying to offend because he disagrees with Grace. Perhaps Isaiah was likewise trying to offend, but I don’t see how being intentionally coarse and offensive really helps this discussion today.

    As for Grace’s love of the law, I have to agree that following the law does make life better for everyone and we should all strive to do so. It seems pretty clear she doesn’t think that obedience will get her into heaven. Rather, she just wants to obey. Nothing wrong with that. I think she said she depends on Christ for her salvation not her own works.

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

    “You’ll have to make your complaint to Isaiah when you see him, sg. He’s the one who compared “all our righteous acts” to “mentruous cloth” (literal translation).”

    Fine, but fws didn’t state it as you just have. His rendering was far coarser. It seems he was trying to offend because he disagrees with Grace. Perhaps Isaiah was likewise trying to offend, but I don’t see how being intentionally coarse and offensive really helps this discussion today.

    As for Grace’s love of the law, I have to agree that following the law does make life better for everyone and we should all strive to do so. It seems pretty clear she doesn’t think that obedience will get her into heaven. Rather, she just wants to obey. Nothing wrong with that. I think she said she depends on Christ for her salvation not her own works.

  • Tom Hering

    sg @ 198: As far as I’m concerned, Grace can believe whatever she likes, and express those beliefs here as much as she likes. She just doesn’t get a pass on being challenged about her beliefs, because no one here does. She’s also free to challenge others here about their beliefs. But if she does it by characterizing others’ beliefs as lies, excuses, and Scripture-twisting, she can expect to get a very strong reaction.

  • Tom Hering

    sg @ 198: As far as I’m concerned, Grace can believe whatever she likes, and express those beliefs here as much as she likes. She just doesn’t get a pass on being challenged about her beliefs, because no one here does. She’s also free to challenge others here about their beliefs. But if she does it by characterizing others’ beliefs as lies, excuses, and Scripture-twisting, she can expect to get a very strong reaction.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 190

    “What Grace fails to see is that the highest worship and service to God IS to RECEIVE the forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness”

    SOMEone on here. I won’t name names…. is plagarizing in a poorly veiled way directly from the Lutheran Confessions.

    No wonder you are so good these days Larry!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 190

    “What Grace fails to see is that the highest worship and service to God IS to RECEIVE the forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness”

    SOMEone on here. I won’t name names…. is plagarizing in a poorly veiled way directly from the Lutheran Confessions.

    No wonder you are so good these days Larry!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 198

    point #1

    I dont have the hebrew text of isaiah in front of me right now, but I am extremely certain that the translation renders “and all our righeousness is like used menstrual rags.’

    Now you may say I am being course, but to say “used tampon” may gross you out and see coarse, but isn’t it merely an updated version of the hebrew I rendered first literally? And so the modern update shocks your sensibilities exactly as it should right? It conveys the exact idea of the hebrew text by saying it in modern contemporary english. I am not aware of women today who use menstrual rags. And actually, those were probably alot more gross than a used tampon.

    But sg. I hope you do not miss the point of isaiah. If this is what sg’s RIGHTEOUSNESS (ie her virtue and most noble and christ-like acts words and deeds) is like, then what far coarser analogy would Isaiah use for SG’s UNrighteousness?

    No I did not quote this from Isaiah out of some childish dislike for Grace. Are you really serious?

    2) The Law IS good SG. And God demands that we do it perfectly, not just try our best. and he demands not that we obey a set of rules. That would be rather easy. He demands that we a) love the Lord our God with ALL our hearts minds and body, and b) we love our neighbor as we love our own self. It IS good to do that SG! and God demands, literally, that you do DO it , or you will die! The salary you receive for not loving the way you should, and love is the fulfillment of the Law, nothing short of that, not a obey-God-according-to-a-metric obedience. is what your God demands of you. He demands that you love me perfectly SG. He demands that SG love SG perfectly as well! DO you DO that SG? what is your excuse not to? The law is good so the problem is not the law.

    So what is it that Grace should trust in? She does not trust in Christ ALONE. that is the problem. she trusts in HER faith. Grace trusts in HER works. She trusts that God will judge her heart and her works and find those two things acceptable. Isnt that right Grace?

    She has told us that she trusts in Christ + her faith + her works.

    It sounds like you are jarred because that is what you trust too SG?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 198

    point #1

    I dont have the hebrew text of isaiah in front of me right now, but I am extremely certain that the translation renders “and all our righeousness is like used menstrual rags.’

    Now you may say I am being course, but to say “used tampon” may gross you out and see coarse, but isn’t it merely an updated version of the hebrew I rendered first literally? And so the modern update shocks your sensibilities exactly as it should right? It conveys the exact idea of the hebrew text by saying it in modern contemporary english. I am not aware of women today who use menstrual rags. And actually, those were probably alot more gross than a used tampon.

    But sg. I hope you do not miss the point of isaiah. If this is what sg’s RIGHTEOUSNESS (ie her virtue and most noble and christ-like acts words and deeds) is like, then what far coarser analogy would Isaiah use for SG’s UNrighteousness?

    No I did not quote this from Isaiah out of some childish dislike for Grace. Are you really serious?

    2) The Law IS good SG. And God demands that we do it perfectly, not just try our best. and he demands not that we obey a set of rules. That would be rather easy. He demands that we a) love the Lord our God with ALL our hearts minds and body, and b) we love our neighbor as we love our own self. It IS good to do that SG! and God demands, literally, that you do DO it , or you will die! The salary you receive for not loving the way you should, and love is the fulfillment of the Law, nothing short of that, not a obey-God-according-to-a-metric obedience. is what your God demands of you. He demands that you love me perfectly SG. He demands that SG love SG perfectly as well! DO you DO that SG? what is your excuse not to? The law is good so the problem is not the law.

    So what is it that Grace should trust in? She does not trust in Christ ALONE. that is the problem. she trusts in HER faith. Grace trusts in HER works. She trusts that God will judge her heart and her works and find those two things acceptable. Isnt that right Grace?

    She has told us that she trusts in Christ + her faith + her works.

    It sounds like you are jarred because that is what you trust too SG?

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

    “She has told us that she trusts in Christ + her faith + her works.”

    Sorry, I just don’t see that in her remarks.

    I see a defense of the law as good and useful. I see statements that obeying the law is good, but it doesn’t save. Only Jesus saves.

    I don’t see that what she is expressing as her faith is any different from sola fide, solo Christo. Nor do I see her commitment to the text as different from sola scriptura. I just don’t see it.

    Whatever it is you see, is not clear to me. She seems to be saying the same thing you are saying, albeit in her own way. That is my perception.

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

    “She has told us that she trusts in Christ + her faith + her works.”

    Sorry, I just don’t see that in her remarks.

    I see a defense of the law as good and useful. I see statements that obeying the law is good, but it doesn’t save. Only Jesus saves.

    I don’t see that what she is expressing as her faith is any different from sola fide, solo Christo. Nor do I see her commitment to the text as different from sola scriptura. I just don’t see it.

    Whatever it is you see, is not clear to me. She seems to be saying the same thing you are saying, albeit in her own way. That is my perception.

  • Leviathan
  • Leviathan
  • Leviathan

    sg @ 202

    John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

    40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

    41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

  • Leviathan

    sg @ 202

    John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

    40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

    41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg 202

    grace believes that you cannot be saved without good works. Grace also believes that her faith is what saves her. If you believe these things sg too, then I would suggest that you talk this over with your pastor.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg 202

    grace believes that you cannot be saved without good works. Grace also believes that her faith is what saves her. If you believe these things sg too, then I would suggest that you talk this over with your pastor.

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

    “grace believes that you cannot be saved without good works.”

    Nah, I don’t see that. She just really loves the Word of God and thinks folks need to be honest about what the text actually says. That is what leads us to repentance, which as Luther reminds us, is what we need to do.

    “Grace also believes that her faith is what saves her.”

    sola fide.

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

    “grace believes that you cannot be saved without good works.”

    Nah, I don’t see that. She just really loves the Word of God and thinks folks need to be honest about what the text actually says. That is what leads us to repentance, which as Luther reminds us, is what we need to do.

    “Grace also believes that her faith is what saves her.”

    sola fide.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 202

    grace has been posting on here for quite a while now. I am pretty sure she would not object to my post 205 but would instead post scripture passages to try to prove that she is right on those two points.

    sg : here it is. there are two kinds of righeousness. They are both demanded by God.

    One is a visible righteousness that is obedience to our neighbor in the form of love and making our neighbors creaturely life better. God demands this sg. if we do not do it willingly, then God will force us to do it. God promises earthly blessings like long life for those who are righteous in this way. But this righteousness will perish with the earth, along with all those who offer this as obedience to God rather than obedience as servants to our neighbor. This righteousness includes everything we can see in do in our bodies. this is the “flesh” or “body” that st paul labels in his contrast between flesh and spirit in romans 8.

    then there is another invisible heavenly righteousness. this righteousness includes nothing that we can see or do in our bodies. how could it sg? all that stuff is already fully included in the earthly kingdom of God. so the heavenly kingdom includes alone, fully invisible faith in christ, alone. this heavenly Righteousness is meaningless on earth except to God and a troubled conscience SG.

    here is a luther sermon from the Lutheran Confessions that will explain this to you better than I can.

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    and here is something from the lutheran confessions that will explain how people who truly are keeping the law can be the worst sinners of all.

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    Bless you SG in your journey of becoming a Lutheran christian. You are not yet there…..

    Then there is another

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 202

    grace has been posting on here for quite a while now. I am pretty sure she would not object to my post 205 but would instead post scripture passages to try to prove that she is right on those two points.

    sg : here it is. there are two kinds of righeousness. They are both demanded by God.

    One is a visible righteousness that is obedience to our neighbor in the form of love and making our neighbors creaturely life better. God demands this sg. if we do not do it willingly, then God will force us to do it. God promises earthly blessings like long life for those who are righteous in this way. But this righteousness will perish with the earth, along with all those who offer this as obedience to God rather than obedience as servants to our neighbor. This righteousness includes everything we can see in do in our bodies. this is the “flesh” or “body” that st paul labels in his contrast between flesh and spirit in romans 8.

    then there is another invisible heavenly righteousness. this righteousness includes nothing that we can see or do in our bodies. how could it sg? all that stuff is already fully included in the earthly kingdom of God. so the heavenly kingdom includes alone, fully invisible faith in christ, alone. this heavenly Righteousness is meaningless on earth except to God and a troubled conscience SG.

    here is a luther sermon from the Lutheran Confessions that will explain this to you better than I can.

    http://www.thirduse.com/?p=10

    and here is something from the lutheran confessions that will explain how people who truly are keeping the law can be the worst sinners of all.

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    Bless you SG in your journey of becoming a Lutheran christian. You are not yet there…..

    Then there is another

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

    Leviathan, I don’t get what you mean.

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

    Leviathan, I don’t get what you mean.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 206

    “Grace also believes that her faith is what saves her.”

    sola fide.

    that is not what sola fide means at all sg. we are not saved by our faith sg. you would go straight to hell if that were the case sg. that is because your faith is as clean to God as a filthy used tampon as Isaiah says. You do not have the faith that God demands of you. Your faith is weak and defective and flawed. If this were not true you would not sin and you will never die. You are full if idolatry Sg.

    Ask your pastor if my translation is unfaithful to the intent and meaning of isaiah.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 206

    “Grace also believes that her faith is what saves her.”

    sola fide.

    that is not what sola fide means at all sg. we are not saved by our faith sg. you would go straight to hell if that were the case sg. that is because your faith is as clean to God as a filthy used tampon as Isaiah says. You do not have the faith that God demands of you. Your faith is weak and defective and flawed. If this were not true you would not sin and you will never die. You are full if idolatry Sg.

    Ask your pastor if my translation is unfaithful to the intent and meaning of isaiah.

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

    You know, fws, my son and husband read the Book of Concord in the evenings and I sit with them sometimes. I have to say from what I have read, the admonitions in the BoC to obey the law sound a lot more like Grace’s comments than they do like yours. I am limited by my human understanding as we all are, but again, that is my perception.

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

    You know, fws, my son and husband read the Book of Concord in the evenings and I sit with them sometimes. I have to say from what I have read, the admonitions in the BoC to obey the law sound a lot more like Grace’s comments than they do like yours. I am limited by my human understanding as we all are, but again, that is my perception.

  • Tom Hering

    “The Bible clearly states that man is not justified by faith alone …” – Grace @ 150 in the “Iraqi Christians” thread.

  • Tom Hering

    “The Bible clearly states that man is not justified by faith alone …” – Grace @ 150 in the “Iraqi Christians” thread.

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

    “and here is something from the lutheran confessions that will explain how people who truly are keeping the law can be the worst sinners of all.”

    Yeah, operative words “can be”.

    Keeping the law is not inherently sinful. Nor is a studying for understanding, etc. It is just that that is not saving. Only Jesus saves. Even when if we try everything right, we are still naturally sinful and still need Christ’s righteousness to save us.

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

    “and here is something from the lutheran confessions that will explain how people who truly are keeping the law can be the worst sinners of all.”

    Yeah, operative words “can be”.

    Keeping the law is not inherently sinful. Nor is a studying for understanding, etc. It is just that that is not saving. Only Jesus saves. Even when if we try everything right, we are still naturally sinful and still need Christ’s righteousness to save us.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 206

    ask her then: Grace dear? Can someone be saved without obeying God’s commandments?

    oh and grace… can someone be saved without making a decision to accept Christ into their heart?

    You really dont think you can anticipate the answers? and you agree with what Grace would say? go talk to your pastor sg.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 206

    ask her then: Grace dear? Can someone be saved without obeying God’s commandments?

    oh and grace… can someone be saved without making a decision to accept Christ into their heart?

    You really dont think you can anticipate the answers? and you agree with what Grace would say? go talk to your pastor sg.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 213

    what is the proposition you are seeking to defend? Did you actually read Luthers preface to his 1545 romans translation I sent the link to? If this is some sort of contest of who has the best logic and arguments I will just let you win and assume that that will please you if that is your aim, to win some logical duel.

    if you are trying, sincerely, to understand why a Lutheran christian would have some serious problems with what grace is saying, then we can discuss that.

    I am not asking you to agree. that would be silly. You will believe what you want. and obviously graces approach deeply resonates with your way of thinking.

    But there is no point to this if you have no interest in understanding why all the Lutherans here find what Grace is saying extremely repugnant to Christ.

    The Lutheran confessions say this sg “good works are necessary!”
    and they say this: If one has faith in Christ, then good works must follow.”

    Now then. since the lutheran confessions say both of those things, and since all the Lutherans here agree with the Lutheran confesions, then doesnt that suggest that there is something that SG just does not get yet about Lutheranism?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 213

    what is the proposition you are seeking to defend? Did you actually read Luthers preface to his 1545 romans translation I sent the link to? If this is some sort of contest of who has the best logic and arguments I will just let you win and assume that that will please you if that is your aim, to win some logical duel.

    if you are trying, sincerely, to understand why a Lutheran christian would have some serious problems with what grace is saying, then we can discuss that.

    I am not asking you to agree. that would be silly. You will believe what you want. and obviously graces approach deeply resonates with your way of thinking.

    But there is no point to this if you have no interest in understanding why all the Lutherans here find what Grace is saying extremely repugnant to Christ.

    The Lutheran confessions say this sg “good works are necessary!”
    and they say this: If one has faith in Christ, then good works must follow.”

    Now then. since the lutheran confessions say both of those things, and since all the Lutherans here agree with the Lutheran confesions, then doesnt that suggest that there is something that SG just does not get yet about Lutheranism?

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

    fws, I am only looking at what she said on this thread and I just don’t think your case is convincing. That is all. Of course, I am not going to try to figure out what she thinks beyond what she says. I just take stuff at face value. The constant refrain that I am not Lutheran enough; yawn. I just see that as manipulative. Tactics like that don’t work on me. I am not emotionally invested in the discussion.

    Tom, next time, please link or just copy the whole thing, so I don’t have to track it down. Thanks.

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

    fws, I am only looking at what she said on this thread and I just don’t think your case is convincing. That is all. Of course, I am not going to try to figure out what she thinks beyond what she says. I just take stuff at face value. The constant refrain that I am not Lutheran enough; yawn. I just see that as manipulative. Tactics like that don’t work on me. I am not emotionally invested in the discussion.

    Tom, next time, please link or just copy the whole thing, so I don’t have to track it down. Thanks.

  • Tom Hering

    “Can someone be saved without obeying God’s commandments?” – Frank @ 213.

    No. Either you must keep the whole Law perfectly, without stumbling in a single point (because then you would be guilty of breaking the whole Law) or someone else must keep it perfectly for you – a substitute. And if this substitute has done it in your place – all of it, perfectly – what is left for you to do that has the least bearing on your salvation?

  • Tom Hering

    “Can someone be saved without obeying God’s commandments?” – Frank @ 213.

    No. Either you must keep the whole Law perfectly, without stumbling in a single point (because then you would be guilty of breaking the whole Law) or someone else must keep it perfectly for you – a substitute. And if this substitute has done it in your place – all of it, perfectly – what is left for you to do that has the least bearing on your salvation?

  • Dust

    Everyone keeps putting words in Grace’s mouth…shame on you! And shame on you FWS for continuing to use the coarse “tampon” translation for Isaiah, not to mention the callous and insensitive comment:

    “actually the hebrew translation of what you refer to from isaiah says that God declares Grace’s best righteousness as a used tampon at the peak of the menstrual cycle. ….

    eeeeeewwwww.”

    You may think yourself clever and full of reality, but you have missed the mark and run close to your own kind of idolatry!

    How insensitive to women’s feelings….very close to rubbing in their face, the “curse” women must bear because of their role in the fall, very close to those primitive, heathen religions…are you aware of that, oh wise one, so full of mortification and oneself?

  • Dust

    Everyone keeps putting words in Grace’s mouth…shame on you! And shame on you FWS for continuing to use the coarse “tampon” translation for Isaiah, not to mention the callous and insensitive comment:

    “actually the hebrew translation of what you refer to from isaiah says that God declares Grace’s best righteousness as a used tampon at the peak of the menstrual cycle. ….

    eeeeeewwwww.”

    You may think yourself clever and full of reality, but you have missed the mark and run close to your own kind of idolatry!

    How insensitive to women’s feelings….very close to rubbing in their face, the “curse” women must bear because of their role in the fall, very close to those primitive, heathen religions…are you aware of that, oh wise one, so full of mortification and oneself?

  • Tom Hering

    “Everyone keeps putting words in Grace’s mouth…shame on you!” – Dust @ 217.

    What do you think of Grace’s own words quoted @ 211?

    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/12/09/why-dont-we-protect-iraqi-christians/

  • Tom Hering

    “Everyone keeps putting words in Grace’s mouth…shame on you!” – Dust @ 217.

    What do you think of Grace’s own words quoted @ 211?

    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/12/09/why-dont-we-protect-iraqi-christians/

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

    “The Lutheran confessions say this sg “good works are necessary!”
    and they say this: If one has faith in Christ, then good works must follow.”

    To me that looks exactly like what Grace says.

    Also, it is not about me. It is whether her statements say something that is not compatible with the solas. I don’t see that they do. You haven’t pointed to a statement of hers that contradicts them. Hey, I am willing to listen, but all you keep saying is your interpretations of what she said, not her actual statements. I am only discussing what she said on this thread. Now, Tom pointed to a statement she made but, I haven’t looked at it in context yet. So, maybe there is something there.

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

    “The Lutheran confessions say this sg “good works are necessary!”
    and they say this: If one has faith in Christ, then good works must follow.”

    To me that looks exactly like what Grace says.

    Also, it is not about me. It is whether her statements say something that is not compatible with the solas. I don’t see that they do. You haven’t pointed to a statement of hers that contradicts them. Hey, I am willing to listen, but all you keep saying is your interpretations of what she said, not her actual statements. I am only discussing what she said on this thread. Now, Tom pointed to a statement she made but, I haven’t looked at it in context yet. So, maybe there is something there.

  • Tom Hering

    sg, why do you feel that we, too, should only deal with Grace’s words on this thread? Do you think the related views she’s expressed on other threads have changed? What evidence is there for that?

  • Tom Hering

    sg, why do you feel that we, too, should only deal with Grace’s words on this thread? Do you think the related views she’s expressed on other threads have changed? What evidence is there for that?

  • Leviathan

    Dust and sg

    Isaiah 44:9 All who make idols are nothing,
    and the things they treasure are worthless.
    Those who would speak up for them are blind;
    they are ignorant, to their own shame.

  • Leviathan

    Dust and sg

    Isaiah 44:9 All who make idols are nothing,
    and the things they treasure are worthless.
    Those who would speak up for them are blind;
    they are ignorant, to their own shame.

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

    Leviathan, I don’t get what you are saying.

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

    Leviathan, I don’t get what you are saying.

  • Stephen

    sg

    I may not be on your favorites list, but I found something for you:

    http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH05/10b.html

    It’s on Luther’s Theology of the Cross which springs out of the Heidelberg Disputations that Larry mentioned way on down the line. The article is a quick read and quite good. I don’t know how much of this thread you have taken in, but many people have quoted Grace’s words here and shown how she veers way off course in the way she reads scripture apart from pure doctrine (which is how this got going). The article might be helpful in offering some Lutheran confessional perspective. In the same way that we all read the same bible and say that we believe what it says, it may seem like she is saying the same thing, but she very much is not. That is why we have our Confessions – to keep us orthodox, which she is not by her own words.

  • Stephen

    sg

    I may not be on your favorites list, but I found something for you:

    http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH05/10b.html

    It’s on Luther’s Theology of the Cross which springs out of the Heidelberg Disputations that Larry mentioned way on down the line. The article is a quick read and quite good. I don’t know how much of this thread you have taken in, but many people have quoted Grace’s words here and shown how she veers way off course in the way she reads scripture apart from pure doctrine (which is how this got going). The article might be helpful in offering some Lutheran confessional perspective. In the same way that we all read the same bible and say that we believe what it says, it may seem like she is saying the same thing, but she very much is not. That is why we have our Confessions – to keep us orthodox, which she is not by her own words.

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

    “sg, why do you feel that we, too, should only deal with Grace’s words on this thread?”

    It sure makes the discussion easier to follow when comments are about what is currently being discussed/stated on the thread because the comments are easy to find and follow. The vague or obscure references to stuff people have said elsewhere are just hard to follow without an actual link or quote. I made the point about only referring to her statements on this thread just as a point of clarity, so folks would not think I was referring to statements she has made elsewhere of which I am not aware.

    “Do you think the related views she’s expressed on other threads have changed?”

    I have no idea.

    “What evidence is there for that?”

    None that I know of, but I haven’t exactly hung on her every word. :-)

    It seems like discussions seem to get off track into discussions of the commenters rather than the topics. I am not interested in talking about the commenters. I am only interested in the ideas.

    Next,

    I actually thought the discussion of James was an interesting point and it wasn’t just pulling stuff out of the air. It was directly quoted. Others noted that Roman Catholics also felt the verses from James were important, so it’s not like no one else ever regarded them. I think tODD made the best clarification of how the interpretation of James should be viewed in light of other passages on the same topic. I still didn’t discern that her position on James was materially different from what fws said @ 214.

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

    “sg, why do you feel that we, too, should only deal with Grace’s words on this thread?”

    It sure makes the discussion easier to follow when comments are about what is currently being discussed/stated on the thread because the comments are easy to find and follow. The vague or obscure references to stuff people have said elsewhere are just hard to follow without an actual link or quote. I made the point about only referring to her statements on this thread just as a point of clarity, so folks would not think I was referring to statements she has made elsewhere of which I am not aware.

    “Do you think the related views she’s expressed on other threads have changed?”

    I have no idea.

    “What evidence is there for that?”

    None that I know of, but I haven’t exactly hung on her every word. :-)

    It seems like discussions seem to get off track into discussions of the commenters rather than the topics. I am not interested in talking about the commenters. I am only interested in the ideas.

    Next,

    I actually thought the discussion of James was an interesting point and it wasn’t just pulling stuff out of the air. It was directly quoted. Others noted that Roman Catholics also felt the verses from James were important, so it’s not like no one else ever regarded them. I think tODD made the best clarification of how the interpretation of James should be viewed in light of other passages on the same topic. I still didn’t discern that her position on James was materially different from what fws said @ 214.

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

    Hey, Stephan, thanks for the link. I read it. There some interesting ideas in there. That essay is the kind of stuff maybe Grace might like to read in order to understand where Lutherans are coming from. It is more thorough and less contentious than these blog discussions of the topic.

    Anyway, I will probably read it again when I am more awake.

    Good night and God bless you all.

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

    Hey, Stephan, thanks for the link. I read it. There some interesting ideas in there. That essay is the kind of stuff maybe Grace might like to read in order to understand where Lutherans are coming from. It is more thorough and less contentious than these blog discussions of the topic.

    Anyway, I will probably read it again when I am more awake.

    Good night and God bless you all.

  • Tom Hering

    “I am not interested in talking about the commenters. I am only interested in the ideas.” – sg @ 224.

    That’s not the impression I get from your comments @ 198, 202, and 206, where you defend Grace the person. But that’s okay. It’s impossible to be perfectly obedient to laws – even the ones we make for ourselves. ;-)

  • Tom Hering

    “I am not interested in talking about the commenters. I am only interested in the ideas.” – sg @ 224.

    That’s not the impression I get from your comments @ 198, 202, and 206, where you defend Grace the person. But that’s okay. It’s impossible to be perfectly obedient to laws – even the ones we make for ourselves. ;-)

  • Tom Hering

    Good night, sg, and may God bless you with refreshing sleep.

  • Tom Hering

    Good night, sg, and may God bless you with refreshing sleep.

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

    “That’s not the impression I get from your comments @ 198, 202, and 206, where you defend Grace the person.”

    All based on statements. My point is that I don’t see what you see in the statements. I don’t see much real disagreement. The positions look about the same just expressed differently.

    From my son’s bedtime story, the fierce opponents cry:

    Der Tag geht!

    Nein, du Blödsack, die Nacht kommt!

    I mean, it is the same thing.

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

    “That’s not the impression I get from your comments @ 198, 202, and 206, where you defend Grace the person.”

    All based on statements. My point is that I don’t see what you see in the statements. I don’t see much real disagreement. The positions look about the same just expressed differently.

    From my son’s bedtime story, the fierce opponents cry:

    Der Tag geht!

    Nein, du Blödsack, die Nacht kommt!

    I mean, it is the same thing.

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

    Oh, before I forget, I wondered about the James text. It seemed like a statement against universalism, or the idea that all would be saved regardless of what they believed.

    I am saying this awkwardly, but maybe you can get my meaning.

    Have you seen a discussion like that of the passage from James?

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

    Oh, before I forget, I wondered about the James text. It seemed like a statement against universalism, or the idea that all would be saved regardless of what they believed.

    I am saying this awkwardly, but maybe you can get my meaning.

    Have you seen a discussion like that of the passage from James?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 229

    you are not saved by believing in a list of doctrines or propositions and getting that list right sg… here is a good article from the LCMS president that explains that… the difference can look subtle. but it is very critical….

    http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-far-does-validity-of-confession-go.html

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 229

    you are not saved by believing in a list of doctrines or propositions and getting that list right sg… here is a good article from the LCMS president that explains that… the difference can look subtle. but it is very critical….

    http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-far-does-validity-of-confession-go.html

  • Tom Hering

    sg @ 228: If, after all that’s been said here, you don’t see a difference in positions, then you don’t see a difference in positions. What more can be said?

    I just hope you don’t believe we’re saying the same thing Grace is, but rather that she’s saying the same thing we are. As wrong as that interpretation would be, I’d find it preferable. ;-)

  • Tom Hering

    sg @ 228: If, after all that’s been said here, you don’t see a difference in positions, then you don’t see a difference in positions. What more can be said?

    I just hope you don’t believe we’re saying the same thing Grace is, but rather that she’s saying the same thing we are. As wrong as that interpretation would be, I’d find it preferable. ;-)

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

    fws, thanks for the link. I read it. It was over my head. I didn’t understand it, but thanks for trying to help.

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

    fws, thanks for the link. I read it. It was over my head. I didn’t understand it, but thanks for trying to help.

  • Stephen

    sg

    I think the takeaway piece in the essay might be this:

    “Thus the objectum fidei, the object of faith, is defined. Corresponding to the concept of faith as “holding something to be true,” the object of faith is, for a Catholic, always dogma, for example the dogma about Christ. Corresponding to the evangelical concept of faith as fiducia, as trusting the divine promise of grace in the gospel, is the fact that, for the Lutheran, the objectum fidei is not the dogma about Christ, but rather Christ Himself; not the dogma about the Trinity, but rather the Triune God; not the Bible as such, but rather God, Who speaks to us in each word of the Scripture.”

    Lots of people, many of them good Christians, say they “believe in the bible.” Well, that’s nice. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness will say that. Here, the author is saying that what matters for Catholics is whether one accepts the belief “about” (dogma) God rather than belief in God himself. Dogma is the object of faith and not Christ. Believe what the church teaches in other words. This is not evangelical.

    Likewise, when someone says they believe in the bible, what then are they saying? Well, you cannot actually be sure. This is why when you ask a Lutheran what they believe, the response would ideally be “I believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit” right out of our Confessions.

    That response is the Creed, a gospel word and witness to Jesus Christ himself that is given in scripture – the bible and what it points to in a nutshell. Sola Scriptura is not to state that we believe in the book and hold it up as the object of faith. This is the important distinction. Doing this is biblicism, and it is a very subtle thing perhaps, but also an ubiquitous practice. It is also very damaging to the gospel of Christ because it leads to a kind of idolatry, putting people in control of the word on the page, managing it to suit their own idea of what they want it to say. I have seen this in many sermons of pastors who have an idea and then bend the scripture to make it do what they want it to do. This is not faithful, but there are thousands of popular books out there filled with this kind of thing. There is no gospel of salvation, there is just people who do things for better or for worse and they either get the stamp of approval from Jesus or they don’t.

    I see this in what Grace offers here, wielding bible verses as if she has a pure, unfettered and untainted view of them. She doesn’t. She is, like all of us, full of sin and error. She also has many doctrinal ideas floating around in what she says that she is either not forthcoming about or does not realize she believes in. No one can tell because she does not answer honest questions. But this is why we have doctrine and, in Lutheranism, seek to make Christ alone (which is what all the Solas point to) the hermeneutic for testing everything we say about faith and scripture. He is the Word revealed to us in scripture, but he is not scripture. In a sense, she has it backwards. Maybe that is why it looks sort of similar.

    And I don’t think you have a weak mind and I’m not trying to snow you. You obviously have a very engaged and fertile mind. Read those Confessions for yourself. Pray that you get it and you’ll get it. Who knows how long it will take? But it’s the gospel and God wants you to have it.

  • Stephen

    sg

    I think the takeaway piece in the essay might be this:

    “Thus the objectum fidei, the object of faith, is defined. Corresponding to the concept of faith as “holding something to be true,” the object of faith is, for a Catholic, always dogma, for example the dogma about Christ. Corresponding to the evangelical concept of faith as fiducia, as trusting the divine promise of grace in the gospel, is the fact that, for the Lutheran, the objectum fidei is not the dogma about Christ, but rather Christ Himself; not the dogma about the Trinity, but rather the Triune God; not the Bible as such, but rather God, Who speaks to us in each word of the Scripture.”

    Lots of people, many of them good Christians, say they “believe in the bible.” Well, that’s nice. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness will say that. Here, the author is saying that what matters for Catholics is whether one accepts the belief “about” (dogma) God rather than belief in God himself. Dogma is the object of faith and not Christ. Believe what the church teaches in other words. This is not evangelical.

    Likewise, when someone says they believe in the bible, what then are they saying? Well, you cannot actually be sure. This is why when you ask a Lutheran what they believe, the response would ideally be “I believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit” right out of our Confessions.

    That response is the Creed, a gospel word and witness to Jesus Christ himself that is given in scripture – the bible and what it points to in a nutshell. Sola Scriptura is not to state that we believe in the book and hold it up as the object of faith. This is the important distinction. Doing this is biblicism, and it is a very subtle thing perhaps, but also an ubiquitous practice. It is also very damaging to the gospel of Christ because it leads to a kind of idolatry, putting people in control of the word on the page, managing it to suit their own idea of what they want it to say. I have seen this in many sermons of pastors who have an idea and then bend the scripture to make it do what they want it to do. This is not faithful, but there are thousands of popular books out there filled with this kind of thing. There is no gospel of salvation, there is just people who do things for better or for worse and they either get the stamp of approval from Jesus or they don’t.

    I see this in what Grace offers here, wielding bible verses as if she has a pure, unfettered and untainted view of them. She doesn’t. She is, like all of us, full of sin and error. She also has many doctrinal ideas floating around in what she says that she is either not forthcoming about or does not realize she believes in. No one can tell because she does not answer honest questions. But this is why we have doctrine and, in Lutheranism, seek to make Christ alone (which is what all the Solas point to) the hermeneutic for testing everything we say about faith and scripture. He is the Word revealed to us in scripture, but he is not scripture. In a sense, she has it backwards. Maybe that is why it looks sort of similar.

    And I don’t think you have a weak mind and I’m not trying to snow you. You obviously have a very engaged and fertile mind. Read those Confessions for yourself. Pray that you get it and you’ll get it. Who knows how long it will take? But it’s the gospel and God wants you to have it.

  • Stephen

    sg

    By saying “who knows how long it will take?” I didn’t mean to suggest you aren’t there. You are. We “lose it” all the time and need to relearn it in our baptism. If I have any clarity at all, it comes from years of struggle inside and outside the church, none of which I consider worthwhile if God had not dragged me back to church so I could hear the words “given and shed for you.” He uses whatever we’ve got, and he is using your mind and heart and experience in the lives of people around you in ways you will only know about when you get to heaven. It happens in, with and under all the stuff that is confusing and mucked up by our sin, including the anger and misunderstanding between Christians, to which I confess to having much of both. ; )

  • Stephen

    sg

    By saying “who knows how long it will take?” I didn’t mean to suggest you aren’t there. You are. We “lose it” all the time and need to relearn it in our baptism. If I have any clarity at all, it comes from years of struggle inside and outside the church, none of which I consider worthwhile if God had not dragged me back to church so I could hear the words “given and shed for you.” He uses whatever we’ve got, and he is using your mind and heart and experience in the lives of people around you in ways you will only know about when you get to heaven. It happens in, with and under all the stuff that is confusing and mucked up by our sin, including the anger and misunderstanding between Christians, to which I confess to having much of both. ; )

  • Stephen

    You know, it occurred to me that the Song Cruncher you posted is like an excellent catechetical tool. You could use that as an overlay for just about anything someone who makes faith claims or has something to say about what the scriptures say for instance.

    1) Jesus – Are they talking about Jesus or are they getting carried away in talking about themselves and their works? Nothing wrong with sharing our experiences, but our experiences are not the gospel. Ever been to a “worship” service filled with personal testimonies that go on and on about what people did or did not do? Jesus gets mentioned along the way perhaps, but you get what I mean. Same problem in the praise songs. Same problem with focusing on personal righteousness. Where’s Jesus?

    2) Clarity – Are people being coherent or are they ranting? Are they straining to make a point of some sort and at least doing some thoughtful work to get there, or are they just tossing around catch phrases, jargon, obfuscating with evasions and/or raining down bible verses without any context?

    3) Mysticism – Is it about what God has done in Jesus Christ or is it about what I have done or felt or seen or likewise can do or am willing to do to get saved or feel saved? Sort of like #1 but with a more heightened sense of drama about one’s self, especially if everything is pinned on an experience they’ve had that is referred to over and over, or a focus on one’s piety for instance, rather than on what has been done for us in Jesus. This is the difference between a baptismal theology and a born-again Christian. Not that people cannot have amazing experiences of conversion, but in either case, God is the actor. This one is about how people get that sorely confused and spend there lives thinking they actually did something. Which leads to the next one that always gets mixed up.

    4) Law and Gospel – “rubber meet road” as Frank says. Is it all mixed up? We all do this, and I think it is THE project to hear the scriptures clearly. Is the law something we do or is it something that shows us our sins? Good question. No to the first, because no matter what we do the law still accuses us and shows us our sin. As it says in 1 John:

    “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”

    And yet the law of love shows us our sin and how we fail to do this. Why? Because sin still clings to us in our Old Adam and we do not love God or our neighbor (perfectly) as the law demands. Thank God for Jesus Christ. Back to #1.

    As for explicit false teachings from Grace, well I am not as good as tODD at dredging up things around here, but it’s not important. I think Frank’s question as to why it would be that all the Lutherans here find what Grace says repeatedly repellent, unkind, and not in keeping with the gospel of Jesus Christ to be a fair question. That is not an off-hand criticism. Overlay the Cruncher on things and see what you come up with. It’s pretty cool and I’m sharing it with a few friends. Thanks for that. Peace sister.

  • Stephen

    You know, it occurred to me that the Song Cruncher you posted is like an excellent catechetical tool. You could use that as an overlay for just about anything someone who makes faith claims or has something to say about what the scriptures say for instance.

    1) Jesus – Are they talking about Jesus or are they getting carried away in talking about themselves and their works? Nothing wrong with sharing our experiences, but our experiences are not the gospel. Ever been to a “worship” service filled with personal testimonies that go on and on about what people did or did not do? Jesus gets mentioned along the way perhaps, but you get what I mean. Same problem in the praise songs. Same problem with focusing on personal righteousness. Where’s Jesus?

    2) Clarity – Are people being coherent or are they ranting? Are they straining to make a point of some sort and at least doing some thoughtful work to get there, or are they just tossing around catch phrases, jargon, obfuscating with evasions and/or raining down bible verses without any context?

    3) Mysticism – Is it about what God has done in Jesus Christ or is it about what I have done or felt or seen or likewise can do or am willing to do to get saved or feel saved? Sort of like #1 but with a more heightened sense of drama about one’s self, especially if everything is pinned on an experience they’ve had that is referred to over and over, or a focus on one’s piety for instance, rather than on what has been done for us in Jesus. This is the difference between a baptismal theology and a born-again Christian. Not that people cannot have amazing experiences of conversion, but in either case, God is the actor. This one is about how people get that sorely confused and spend there lives thinking they actually did something. Which leads to the next one that always gets mixed up.

    4) Law and Gospel – “rubber meet road” as Frank says. Is it all mixed up? We all do this, and I think it is THE project to hear the scriptures clearly. Is the law something we do or is it something that shows us our sins? Good question. No to the first, because no matter what we do the law still accuses us and shows us our sin. As it says in 1 John:

    “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”

    And yet the law of love shows us our sin and how we fail to do this. Why? Because sin still clings to us in our Old Adam and we do not love God or our neighbor (perfectly) as the law demands. Thank God for Jesus Christ. Back to #1.

    As for explicit false teachings from Grace, well I am not as good as tODD at dredging up things around here, but it’s not important. I think Frank’s question as to why it would be that all the Lutherans here find what Grace says repeatedly repellent, unkind, and not in keeping with the gospel of Jesus Christ to be a fair question. That is not an off-hand criticism. Overlay the Cruncher on things and see what you come up with. It’s pretty cool and I’m sharing it with a few friends. Thanks for that. Peace sister.

  • Stephen

    Oops!

    #235 was for you sg!

  • Stephen

    Oops!

    #235 was for you sg!

  • Grace

    Tom Hering post

    211 Tom Hering January 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm
    “The Bible clearly states that man is not justified by faith alone …” – Grace @ 150 in the “Iraqi Christians” thread.

    Tom’s post on this thread above.

    My exact post below on “Why don’t we protect Iraqi Christians” thread in CONTEXT:

    150 Grace December 14, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    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!

    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/12/09/why-dont-we-protect-iraqi-christians/

  • Grace

    Tom Hering post

    211 Tom Hering January 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm
    “The Bible clearly states that man is not justified by faith alone …” – Grace @ 150 in the “Iraqi Christians” thread.

    Tom’s post on this thread above.

    My exact post below on “Why don’t we protect Iraqi Christians” thread in CONTEXT:

    150 Grace December 14, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    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!

    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/12/09/why-dont-we-protect-iraqi-christians/

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@237)! I was worried you’d run off! Anyhow, Tom already provided (@218) a link to that thread, so you didn’t have to copy-and-paste your entire comment here.

    Anyhow, you seem committed to rehashing the James debate from that thread here. One hopes you will not likewise be committed to telling people you “don’t have time” or that you’ve “already answered those questions” once the questions go where you don’t want. Otherwise, what’s the point of your bringing it all up again? It is, after all, rude to accuse people and then not listen to their response.

    Anyhow, your comment from that thread, which you just pasted here for us, concludes: “The book of James is inspired of God, it is His inerrant Word!”

    Now, you have been asked, repeatedly, how it is that you know this. That is, on what basis do you make the claim that the book of James is “inspired” but that, say, the Gospel of Thomas is not? I have never seen you answer this question. And it’s pretty key to understanding things. Why are some books in the Bible (including the Bible that Luther translated himself, a point you have yet to acknowledge), and others are not? Or, to introduce a vocabulary word to the questions, what does the word “antilegomena” mean?

    Once you have answered those questions — or at least one of them, pretty please? — you can go on to explain why James must be read as trumping, informing, explaining, or correcting the rest of the Bible, most notably Romans. Because there is clearly an apparent tension between Romans (among others) and James.

    Your obvious (indeed, necessary) claim is that that tension is resolved by saying that James trumps Romans. James informs our reading of Ephesians. James corrects Galatians, or at least our understanding of it.

    Indeed, it would seem that James is the only book one needs to read in the Bible, so powerful is it to inform our reading of the other books!

    Was Ephesians inspired and inerrant, Grace, when Paul wrote that:

    It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Was Galatians inspired and inerrant when Paul wrote that

    a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified

    How about when Paul wrote, later on:

    For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

    Was Romans inspired and inerrant when Paul wrote that

    no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

    How about later, when Paul wrote that

    we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law

    How about even later in Romans, when Paul wrote that

    in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls

    And I’m not even trying very hard to look up these verses, Grace. The Bible speaks very clearly about the relationship between works, faith, and justification. Would that you were spending your time at least equally affirming those books and those passages!

    But you instead want us to believe that James trumps all that. And not, as we maintain, that all the above passages should, intead, inform our reading of James.

    So why is that, Grace?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@237)! I was worried you’d run off! Anyhow, Tom already provided (@218) a link to that thread, so you didn’t have to copy-and-paste your entire comment here.

    Anyhow, you seem committed to rehashing the James debate from that thread here. One hopes you will not likewise be committed to telling people you “don’t have time” or that you’ve “already answered those questions” once the questions go where you don’t want. Otherwise, what’s the point of your bringing it all up again? It is, after all, rude to accuse people and then not listen to their response.

    Anyhow, your comment from that thread, which you just pasted here for us, concludes: “The book of James is inspired of God, it is His inerrant Word!”

    Now, you have been asked, repeatedly, how it is that you know this. That is, on what basis do you make the claim that the book of James is “inspired” but that, say, the Gospel of Thomas is not? I have never seen you answer this question. And it’s pretty key to understanding things. Why are some books in the Bible (including the Bible that Luther translated himself, a point you have yet to acknowledge), and others are not? Or, to introduce a vocabulary word to the questions, what does the word “antilegomena” mean?

    Once you have answered those questions — or at least one of them, pretty please? — you can go on to explain why James must be read as trumping, informing, explaining, or correcting the rest of the Bible, most notably Romans. Because there is clearly an apparent tension between Romans (among others) and James.

    Your obvious (indeed, necessary) claim is that that tension is resolved by saying that James trumps Romans. James informs our reading of Ephesians. James corrects Galatians, or at least our understanding of it.

    Indeed, it would seem that James is the only book one needs to read in the Bible, so powerful is it to inform our reading of the other books!

    Was Ephesians inspired and inerrant, Grace, when Paul wrote that:

    It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

    Was Galatians inspired and inerrant when Paul wrote that

    a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified

    How about when Paul wrote, later on:

    For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

    Was Romans inspired and inerrant when Paul wrote that

    no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

    How about later, when Paul wrote that

    we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law

    How about even later in Romans, when Paul wrote that

    in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls

    And I’m not even trying very hard to look up these verses, Grace. The Bible speaks very clearly about the relationship between works, faith, and justification. Would that you were spending your time at least equally affirming those books and those passages!

    But you instead want us to believe that James trumps all that. And not, as we maintain, that all the above passages should, intead, inform our reading of James.

    So why is that, Grace?

  • Tom Hering

    Though I don’t see how – in this case – posting the context of her quote @ 237 in any way changes the clear meaning of her quote @ 211, I’m glad that Grace finally admits that context matters. Perhaps she’ll now think it matters when she quotes Luther or Scripture – and stop accusing us of being slippery when we insist on context.

    Probability rating: Less than zero.

  • Tom Hering

    Though I don’t see how – in this case – posting the context of her quote @ 237 in any way changes the clear meaning of her quote @ 211, I’m glad that Grace finally admits that context matters. Perhaps she’ll now think it matters when she quotes Luther or Scripture – and stop accusing us of being slippery when we insist on context.

    Probability rating: Less than zero.

  • Grace

    tODD – 238

    “Now, you have been asked, repeatedly, how it is that you know this. That is, on what basis do you make the claim that the book of James is “inspired” but that, say, the Gospel of Thomas is not? I have never seen you answer this question. “

    Below is a post I wrote back September 2010 which should answer one of your questions.

    I was very busy yesterday, and today until just a short time ago. I don’t have time to answer all your questions, some of which have already been answered a number of times.

    230 Grace September 15, 2010 at 1:42 am

    The New Testament was written in Greek – we don’t have the original documents, but we do have almost six thousand copies of the Greek manuscripts that were copied close to the originals in time. The interesting and MOST important part of these copies agree with each other and its almost one hundred percent (100%) accurate. The NT is just over being 99.5% pure textually —- taking it another step further there is about 1/2 of maybe 1% of all the manuscripts that don’t agree 100%. Most of the so called inaccuracies are nothing more than spelling errors, which in themselves are minor. It’s been pointed out many times that the errors are those which are, instead of the copy saying Jesus, instead says Jesus Christ. The documents have been proven to be accurate as that of the original manuscripts/documents – The Bible we have is the inerrant inspired Word of God.

    When the Bible is translated they don’t translate from one translation to another – they translate from the original language into our language – the translation is made from the original to whichever language the Bible is being translated, in other words it’s not done from Greek to English to French, to German – each translations is from the Greek manuscripts to whichever language the Bible will be translated into. The accuracy of the translations are trustworthy.

    When one realizes how miraculous the Old Testament is, and the findings of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls, one begins to understand the POWER of GOD to keep HIS Word pure. Nothing has changed, it is what HE wants it to be.

    God did not send His Son to die for our sin, and then allow His Word to go adrift. Then again, look at the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ how HE proves the power of HIS Hand on the Word. Read the Old Testament and prophecy and its coming to fruition in the New Testament regarding the birth and death of the LORD Jesus Christ. It’s a fit, there isn’t a piece out of place. That’s the miracle, that’s what HE gave us so that we might know the TRUTH.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/09/10/a-new-lutheran-church-gnosticism-and-the-bible/

  • Grace

    tODD – 238

    “Now, you have been asked, repeatedly, how it is that you know this. That is, on what basis do you make the claim that the book of James is “inspired” but that, say, the Gospel of Thomas is not? I have never seen you answer this question. “

    Below is a post I wrote back September 2010 which should answer one of your questions.

    I was very busy yesterday, and today until just a short time ago. I don’t have time to answer all your questions, some of which have already been answered a number of times.

    230 Grace September 15, 2010 at 1:42 am

    The New Testament was written in Greek – we don’t have the original documents, but we do have almost six thousand copies of the Greek manuscripts that were copied close to the originals in time. The interesting and MOST important part of these copies agree with each other and its almost one hundred percent (100%) accurate. The NT is just over being 99.5% pure textually —- taking it another step further there is about 1/2 of maybe 1% of all the manuscripts that don’t agree 100%. Most of the so called inaccuracies are nothing more than spelling errors, which in themselves are minor. It’s been pointed out many times that the errors are those which are, instead of the copy saying Jesus, instead says Jesus Christ. The documents have been proven to be accurate as that of the original manuscripts/documents – The Bible we have is the inerrant inspired Word of God.

    When the Bible is translated they don’t translate from one translation to another – they translate from the original language into our language – the translation is made from the original to whichever language the Bible is being translated, in other words it’s not done from Greek to English to French, to German – each translations is from the Greek manuscripts to whichever language the Bible will be translated into. The accuracy of the translations are trustworthy.

    When one realizes how miraculous the Old Testament is, and the findings of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls, one begins to understand the POWER of GOD to keep HIS Word pure. Nothing has changed, it is what HE wants it to be.

    God did not send His Son to die for our sin, and then allow His Word to go adrift. Then again, look at the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ how HE proves the power of HIS Hand on the Word. Read the Old Testament and prophecy and its coming to fruition in the New Testament regarding the birth and death of the LORD Jesus Christ. It’s a fit, there isn’t a piece out of place. That’s the miracle, that’s what HE gave us so that we might know the TRUTH.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2010/09/10/a-new-lutheran-church-gnosticism-and-the-bible/

  • Rob

    So many people more interested in being right than being loving. “And by this all men shall know you to be my disciples – that you got your theology right by golly, and made sure everyone else knew the shortcomings in theirs.”

  • Rob

    So many people more interested in being right than being loving. “And by this all men shall know you to be my disciples – that you got your theology right by golly, and made sure everyone else knew the shortcomings in theirs.”

  • Tom Hering

    Rob @ 241: You assume the Christians here don’t ultimately love one another just because they have strong, even heated, disagreements? Come on. The opposite of love is not caring. Which includes not caring enough to correct someone.

  • Tom Hering

    Rob @ 241: You assume the Christians here don’t ultimately love one another just because they have strong, even heated, disagreements? Come on. The opposite of love is not caring. Which includes not caring enough to correct someone.

  • Stephen

    Rob @241

    Have you read what has been written here or anywhere else on this blog? Because otherwise I’d say that is just condescending. You could pitch in and say something you actually care about. You’ve read all those books. If you really have any investment in what is in them, let alone what the scriptures teach, then offer it up. I doubt the fellas who traipsed around the 1st century Roman Empire hollering about the Kingdom of Heaven wrung their hands every time they might say something someone would find a tad bit challenging. And those Huns and Saxons who put together the Book of Concord likely did not sit around fretting about appearances either. C’mon Rob! There’s more going on here than one upping the other guy. Sure, there’s that, but there is also an opportunity to learn, even as you stake out your theological ground. Can’t you see that?

  • Stephen

    Rob @241

    Have you read what has been written here or anywhere else on this blog? Because otherwise I’d say that is just condescending. You could pitch in and say something you actually care about. You’ve read all those books. If you really have any investment in what is in them, let alone what the scriptures teach, then offer it up. I doubt the fellas who traipsed around the 1st century Roman Empire hollering about the Kingdom of Heaven wrung their hands every time they might say something someone would find a tad bit challenging. And those Huns and Saxons who put together the Book of Concord likely did not sit around fretting about appearances either. C’mon Rob! There’s more going on here than one upping the other guy. Sure, there’s that, but there is also an opportunity to learn, even as you stake out your theological ground. Can’t you see that?

  • Rob

    @ Tom – Well, thank you for caring enough to correct me. If you have followed along, you will have seen that I am not afraid of or averse to polite disagreement. I do feel, however, that the Internet gives license to publicly and (relatively) anonymously say things we would never say face to face, and I don’t think that’s healthy or loving. Thus, I avoid protracted dueling.

    I will offer a similar correction back to you then bow out. When the same people have the same vitriolic argument over and over again, this is not love. It is instead an instance of the “endless controversies” Paul tells Timothy to avoid. It is the opposite of “Make every effort to live at peace with all people,” and instead gives otherwise intelligent and erudite people the appearance of shrill controversy-mongers.

    And the opposite of love is not apathy, but selfish pride – a fair bit of that has been on display, I fear.

    Feel free to disagree with me, but I won’t be here to read about it. I’m done with this thread. (But happy to know that the birdflight issues will not threaten you, per the other thread from the weekend)

  • Rob

    @ Tom – Well, thank you for caring enough to correct me. If you have followed along, you will have seen that I am not afraid of or averse to polite disagreement. I do feel, however, that the Internet gives license to publicly and (relatively) anonymously say things we would never say face to face, and I don’t think that’s healthy or loving. Thus, I avoid protracted dueling.

    I will offer a similar correction back to you then bow out. When the same people have the same vitriolic argument over and over again, this is not love. It is instead an instance of the “endless controversies” Paul tells Timothy to avoid. It is the opposite of “Make every effort to live at peace with all people,” and instead gives otherwise intelligent and erudite people the appearance of shrill controversy-mongers.

    And the opposite of love is not apathy, but selfish pride – a fair bit of that has been on display, I fear.

    Feel free to disagree with me, but I won’t be here to read about it. I’m done with this thread. (But happy to know that the birdflight issues will not threaten you, per the other thread from the weekend)

  • Rob

    @Stephen (because our comments crossed in the mail) – Of course I see that – why do you think I am still here? And of course I have read the comments – you and I already had one interchange, don’t you recall?

    Your line of thought doesn’t align well with the theology you’ve purveyed – that righteousness on earth is solely about loving the neighbor. Apparently, now righteousness on earth also has a place for bashing theologies together until someone caves. Not my particular brew, thanks.

    One irony – issue a rejoinder that people should be more loving in their discourse and you get two different people saying “Come on!” What’s that say, I wonder?

    As indicated to Tom, bowing out.

  • Rob

    @Stephen (because our comments crossed in the mail) – Of course I see that – why do you think I am still here? And of course I have read the comments – you and I already had one interchange, don’t you recall?

    Your line of thought doesn’t align well with the theology you’ve purveyed – that righteousness on earth is solely about loving the neighbor. Apparently, now righteousness on earth also has a place for bashing theologies together until someone caves. Not my particular brew, thanks.

    One irony – issue a rejoinder that people should be more loving in their discourse and you get two different people saying “Come on!” What’s that say, I wonder?

    As indicated to Tom, bowing out.

  • Tom Hering

    Rob, if your conscience is telling you not to participate in the argument here, then by all means bow out. It’s never wise to go against conscience. My own conscience isn’t perfectly clear (in this or any other matter), but it’s clear enough to continue. Sorry to see you go.

  • Tom Hering

    Rob, if your conscience is telling you not to participate in the argument here, then by all means bow out. It’s never wise to go against conscience. My own conscience isn’t perfectly clear (in this or any other matter), but it’s clear enough to continue. Sorry to see you go.

  • Stephen

    Rob @ 245

    You may be right. I don’t expect anyone to cave, but I do take seriously the stakes. Maybe that seems silly to say on a blog comment, but theology matters. I wish you would offer some. All you’ve done as far as I can tell is ladle out a little shame and judgment and then taken off. I thought you might be back with something more thoughtful. Characterizing this as vitriolic and shrill controversy-mongering does not seem completely fair, but that’s your opinion.

  • Stephen

    Rob @ 245

    You may be right. I don’t expect anyone to cave, but I do take seriously the stakes. Maybe that seems silly to say on a blog comment, but theology matters. I wish you would offer some. All you’ve done as far as I can tell is ladle out a little shame and judgment and then taken off. I thought you might be back with something more thoughtful. Characterizing this as vitriolic and shrill controversy-mongering does not seem completely fair, but that’s your opinion.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@240), the reply you pasted didn’t answer my question at all.

    I didn’t ask you how we know whether the contents of the book of James have been transmitted faithfully. I asked you how it is that you know that the book of James is part of the Bible. Who made that decision? Based on what? On what basis were other books excluded from the Bible?

    I have never seen you answer this question.

    And please, “I don’t have time to answer all your questions, some of which have already been answered a number of times.” As many times as you’ve made the same points over and over on this blog, you can’t honestly complain now that you don’t want to answer a question again that you feel you’ve already answered. Especially now that you’ve shown us you can cut-and-paste previous answers.

    And if you don’t have time to answer questions given in defense to your accusations, then you don’t have time to make accusations, in the first place.

    So, before you proceed, ask yourself: do you have time to engage in a conversation here, or do you just want to accuse some of us here of something before you start ignoring our replies?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@240), the reply you pasted didn’t answer my question at all.

    I didn’t ask you how we know whether the contents of the book of James have been transmitted faithfully. I asked you how it is that you know that the book of James is part of the Bible. Who made that decision? Based on what? On what basis were other books excluded from the Bible?

    I have never seen you answer this question.

    And please, “I don’t have time to answer all your questions, some of which have already been answered a number of times.” As many times as you’ve made the same points over and over on this blog, you can’t honestly complain now that you don’t want to answer a question again that you feel you’ve already answered. Especially now that you’ve shown us you can cut-and-paste previous answers.

    And if you don’t have time to answer questions given in defense to your accusations, then you don’t have time to make accusations, in the first place.

    So, before you proceed, ask yourself: do you have time to engage in a conversation here, or do you just want to accuse some of us here of something before you start ignoring our replies?

  • Grace

    tODD – 248

    “I didn’t ask you how we know whether the contents of the book of James have been transmitted faithfully. I asked you how it is that you know that the book of James is part of the Bible. Who made that decision? Based on what? On what basis were other books excluded from the Bible?”

    Oh tODD,…. lol, I answer as I choose…….

    Luther didn’t like a number of books in the Bible. He had no substantial evidence that they were wrong, only that they didn’t line up with the doctrine he believed……. James was too difficult, so was Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, Esther, … on and on. But that’s Luther, he’s your man,….. not mine!!

    I counter with….. how does Martin Luther decide that the book of St. James is nothing but:

    “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″

    This is Luther’s retort to the book of St. James. Luther is not, a purveyor of truth

    “As many times as you’ve made the same points over and over on this blog, you can’t honestly complain now that you don’t want to answer a question again that you feel you’ve already answered. Especially now that you’ve shown us you can cut-and-paste previous answers.”

    Your question was answered my way, not dependent upon whether or not you would accept it, or believe it.
    I do and I can – Questions that are asked over and over… and my answering them is sufficient. The problem arises when you don’t get the answer you believe is correct, according to Lutheran doctrine…… that tODD is is the problem, you grapple with.

    Anyone can cut and paste, you certainly have made a hobby of doing so!

  • Grace

    tODD – 248

    “I didn’t ask you how we know whether the contents of the book of James have been transmitted faithfully. I asked you how it is that you know that the book of James is part of the Bible. Who made that decision? Based on what? On what basis were other books excluded from the Bible?”

    Oh tODD,…. lol, I answer as I choose…….

    Luther didn’t like a number of books in the Bible. He had no substantial evidence that they were wrong, only that they didn’t line up with the doctrine he believed……. James was too difficult, so was Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, Esther, … on and on. But that’s Luther, he’s your man,….. not mine!!

    I counter with….. how does Martin Luther decide that the book of St. James is nothing but:

    “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″

    This is Luther’s retort to the book of St. James. Luther is not, a purveyor of truth

    “As many times as you’ve made the same points over and over on this blog, you can’t honestly complain now that you don’t want to answer a question again that you feel you’ve already answered. Especially now that you’ve shown us you can cut-and-paste previous answers.”

    Your question was answered my way, not dependent upon whether or not you would accept it, or believe it.
    I do and I can – Questions that are asked over and over… and my answering them is sufficient. The problem arises when you don’t get the answer you believe is correct, according to Lutheran doctrine…… that tODD is is the problem, you grapple with.

    Anyone can cut and paste, you certainly have made a hobby of doing so!

  • Larry

    FWS,

    You got it brother! I’d tatto that on my forehead and the back of my hand (just to remind myself) if I could!

    When one hears things like that it makes you want to LEAP to church every Sunday, “I CAN’T wait to get there”. That’s in stark opposition to the glory theology I use to be in in which you’d be not so hiddenly warned, “Don’t forsake the gathering of the bretheren”. Which is directly Scripture, but false Christianity means “You better not or you’ll get a spanking” but confessional Christianity, aka Lutheranism means that what I quoted.

    It’s no wonder that folks, like many of my family (mostly baptist and methodist historically), drop out of church at length and forever. That kind of church is not a welcome mat for real sinners, though it is a PERFECT place for fake sinners. How does one go to church and confess honestly, “I’ve been a REAL sinner this week as is evidenced by this and that thought, word and deed”, when you “ought to be making progress”?

    In such churches run by fake sinner theology one must keep the cover on lest one be found out! In such churches when for example a young teen “gets pregnant” out of wed lock, that’s been taught so much that “this is what the church and Christiainity is all about” that such an individual gets identified and castigated either overtly or by that insidious legalistic “try harder” wagging of the finger. “We love you but you need to try harder and we can help.” Eventually failure after failure, be it this type of issue or another, one eventually becomes embarassed by one’s LACK of “getting better” and either questions their salvation or questions the whole religious operation (thus are atheist made!) because it does not in any way match reality.

    It may very well be that what has driven the abortion boat or at least initiated it in our time was NOT unbelieving society at first. But these kind of pseudo churches with pseudo sinners making it such an anthema for out of wed lock situations that the sinner is not driven to the pastor or the LS for forgiveness, but to desperate measures. Similarly, what drives drunkenness more than anything is not unbelieving society, but this false doctrinal pietism itself. Such false theology says it wishes to stop X antimoral problem, but is so stupid and anti-Scriptural that in its shear clunkiness is conspiratorially helping to cause and perpetuate what it seeks to stop.

    Such (false) theology is like a ten thumbed gorilla attempting to perform delicate brain surgery with a hammer.

  • Larry

    FWS,

    You got it brother! I’d tatto that on my forehead and the back of my hand (just to remind myself) if I could!

    When one hears things like that it makes you want to LEAP to church every Sunday, “I CAN’T wait to get there”. That’s in stark opposition to the glory theology I use to be in in which you’d be not so hiddenly warned, “Don’t forsake the gathering of the bretheren”. Which is directly Scripture, but false Christianity means “You better not or you’ll get a spanking” but confessional Christianity, aka Lutheranism means that what I quoted.

    It’s no wonder that folks, like many of my family (mostly baptist and methodist historically), drop out of church at length and forever. That kind of church is not a welcome mat for real sinners, though it is a PERFECT place for fake sinners. How does one go to church and confess honestly, “I’ve been a REAL sinner this week as is evidenced by this and that thought, word and deed”, when you “ought to be making progress”?

    In such churches run by fake sinner theology one must keep the cover on lest one be found out! In such churches when for example a young teen “gets pregnant” out of wed lock, that’s been taught so much that “this is what the church and Christiainity is all about” that such an individual gets identified and castigated either overtly or by that insidious legalistic “try harder” wagging of the finger. “We love you but you need to try harder and we can help.” Eventually failure after failure, be it this type of issue or another, one eventually becomes embarassed by one’s LACK of “getting better” and either questions their salvation or questions the whole religious operation (thus are atheist made!) because it does not in any way match reality.

    It may very well be that what has driven the abortion boat or at least initiated it in our time was NOT unbelieving society at first. But these kind of pseudo churches with pseudo sinners making it such an anthema for out of wed lock situations that the sinner is not driven to the pastor or the LS for forgiveness, but to desperate measures. Similarly, what drives drunkenness more than anything is not unbelieving society, but this false doctrinal pietism itself. Such false theology says it wishes to stop X antimoral problem, but is so stupid and anti-Scriptural that in its shear clunkiness is conspiratorially helping to cause and perpetuate what it seeks to stop.

    Such (false) theology is like a ten thumbed gorilla attempting to perform delicate brain surgery with a hammer.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 241 and a special shout out to dear sg

    This is what our Lutheran Confessions say in modern english when they say faith alone, grace alone, christ alone:

    “There is nothing we can see or do in our bodies that has any eternal consequences. or for you theology wonks… “teleological consequences.”

    There you have it sg.

    So then works really do matter on earth.

    They deliver God’s Eternal Will (love) to other of his human creatures, and he will make them happen whether we agree to his agenda or not. But those things will al perish with the earth, along with all who think that there is Life there in that some connection to God can be forged there. This is why saint Isaiah compares this kind of righeousness, even though it DOES please God and he DOES demand and make it to be done… used tampon. That is what all this is compared to that other, Heavenly Righeousness that is alone in Christ. and that is even saying that that earthly virtue IS truly a righteousness that pleases God so much that he promises both earthly and heavenly rewards for it.

    Then there is invisible faith in Christ, alone, which is meaningless on earth except to God and a troubled conscience.

    This invisible faith neither transforms nor changes us in our Old Adam.

    It instead gives us an entirely and completely completely new man that is fully and utterly in christ. that new man needs no law school or encouragement or reminder to do what is good. it just happens. We are now in christ. since when did christ need to be told how to be good?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    rob @ 241 and a special shout out to dear sg

    This is what our Lutheran Confessions say in modern english when they say faith alone, grace alone, christ alone:

    “There is nothing we can see or do in our bodies that has any eternal consequences. or for you theology wonks… “teleological consequences.”

    There you have it sg.

    So then works really do matter on earth.

    They deliver God’s Eternal Will (love) to other of his human creatures, and he will make them happen whether we agree to his agenda or not. But those things will al perish with the earth, along with all who think that there is Life there in that some connection to God can be forged there. This is why saint Isaiah compares this kind of righeousness, even though it DOES please God and he DOES demand and make it to be done… used tampon. That is what all this is compared to that other, Heavenly Righeousness that is alone in Christ. and that is even saying that that earthly virtue IS truly a righteousness that pleases God so much that he promises both earthly and heavenly rewards for it.

    Then there is invisible faith in Christ, alone, which is meaningless on earth except to God and a troubled conscience.

    This invisible faith neither transforms nor changes us in our Old Adam.

    It instead gives us an entirely and completely completely new man that is fully and utterly in christ. that new man needs no law school or encouragement or reminder to do what is good. it just happens. We are now in christ. since when did christ need to be told how to be good?

  • Larry

    Luther points out that works righteousness, ala Rome in his time was not overt “Christ +”. A tremendous mistake many make today. Rather that it comes more covertly and implied. He pointed out that when he was under the Roman theology that like all of his day he had avoided the more or less overt “works righteousness”. Such overt works righteousness makes no bones about it, it says, “you must do…in order to ‘get to heaven’”.

    Rather, and this is Grace’s faulty theology, it comes in not really having the Gospel in full which is the only Gospel there is. The implied or covert works righteousness of Rome (and Protestant theology) of which Luther spoke he was entrapped came from a theology that really is the theology of Rome and other protestant heterodoxy and pietistic Lutheranism. Everybody agrees that “forgiveness of sins…yes, yes forgiveness of sin for Christ’s sake, no works whatsoever”. And then comes this “grace”, Rome officially calls it “infusion”, protestants don’t so name it “infused” because like the term “vestments” that would be “Roman Catholic” (protestants throwing the baby out with the bath water). Rather they label it in the more or less reformed format (“reformed” big tent = every non-RC, non-Eastern Orthodox, non-Lutheran confession) as something to do in creation (Arminianism) or post conversion (Calvinism and its strains). But a “rose is a rose by any other name”. The point is that there is this grace that is this “power” or something that causes the road to good works which in the end was what “God meant to do”. Thus so far NO ONE has really LEFT Rome.

    Thus, like Rome, they see conversion and ultimately salvation as the “active righteousness” of the person and any short fall is caught under the “forgiveness of sin”. So one gets either the official on paper Roman penitential system or the informal learned “word of mouth” protestant version (e.g. Rome prescribes hail Marys, Baptist imply by learning “walk the aisle or pray the prayer one more time”).

    Thus far, NOBODY has really left Rome and one may be a “protestant” but is really Roman Catholic In Theology and doctrine, “a rose is a rose by any other name”.

    The tower experience of Luther concerning Rom. 1:17 was to discover that “the righteousness of God” is not this grace given whereby one knows one is saved via fruits (Rome, Geneva, etc…) but rather that is the righteousness of Christ GIVEN us by shear declaration such that ALL that Christ said, did and suffered is ‘just as if I/you did it’. And thus all holiness fulfilled, really, really, really is “finished”. There is no post conversion works required. This is why all theologies of glory, fallen religion, cannot understand that ‘God may cause a man to do no good works whatsoever so that He can save His soul’, in fact the opposite may occur. This is Cross religion and it is offensive to “old Adam” religion for it is the death of him, literally.

    Now there are real fruits of faith and they come via the above, and there are false fruits of faith that invert everything. The tale tell between the two is not always in the words, for the tares mimic closely the wheat so that one cannot tell. Just so, the same Words; Christ, bible, grace, gospel, fruit, faith, law, etc… are used. But the devil inverts more than anything else. So that “fruits of faith” THEMSELVES become the “new law” whereby without which “one may not really truly be saved/elect/born again/converted…etc… and thus the new hidden implied works righteousness without saying, “Hey I’m works righteousness”. And thus not the true fruits of true faith that passively receives as sufficient Christ’s righteousness without the aid of active righteousness on our part (as fruits of faith or otherwise).

    One will not glean it from just straightforward theological terminology, one must glean the Satanic inversion by the overall emphasis and speech. Pietism cannot stand for the Gospel to be the last word and will always force a “but” or similar in there. It wishes to get the last word and so it (Satanically) “cautions” when the Gospel is finished speaking and often by simply inversion of biblical terms and thoughts.
    Some examples:

    False Christianity says, “Only the works for Christ will stand”
    Christianity says, “Only the works OF Christ will stand”
    False Christianity says, “where there is life and salvation, there is forgiveness of sin”
    Christianity says, “where there is forgiveness of sin, there is life and salvation”.
    False Christianity says, “faith is ‘I believe’”
    Christianity says, “faith is ‘God cannot lie’”
    False Christianity says, “I know I’m reborn (or elect) because of the evidence of my good works”
    Christianity says, “I know I’m going to heaven because I don’t have good works” (think about it)
    False Christianity says, “look to the self and what the self is doing internally or externally”
    Christianity says, “look to the means of grace, aka the sacraments, i.e. Christ”
    False Christianity says, ”Spirit, spirit, give me the spirit operating within me”
    Christianity says, “look to the Word and means of grace where the Spirit is actually, truly and really given”
    False Christianity says, “God knows my heart”
    Christianity says, “God knows my heart so thank God for His Word and Sacraments”
    False Christianity says, “Look to feelings for the affections of forgiveness and conversion”
    Christianity says, “Your feelings are deceiving you look to the Word alone”.
    False Christianity says, “but this is absurd to all reason”
    Christianity says, “this baptism saves you, this is the real and true body and blood of Christ”

    Etc…

  • Larry

    Luther points out that works righteousness, ala Rome in his time was not overt “Christ +”. A tremendous mistake many make today. Rather that it comes more covertly and implied. He pointed out that when he was under the Roman theology that like all of his day he had avoided the more or less overt “works righteousness”. Such overt works righteousness makes no bones about it, it says, “you must do…in order to ‘get to heaven’”.

    Rather, and this is Grace’s faulty theology, it comes in not really having the Gospel in full which is the only Gospel there is. The implied or covert works righteousness of Rome (and Protestant theology) of which Luther spoke he was entrapped came from a theology that really is the theology of Rome and other protestant heterodoxy and pietistic Lutheranism. Everybody agrees that “forgiveness of sins…yes, yes forgiveness of sin for Christ’s sake, no works whatsoever”. And then comes this “grace”, Rome officially calls it “infusion”, protestants don’t so name it “infused” because like the term “vestments” that would be “Roman Catholic” (protestants throwing the baby out with the bath water). Rather they label it in the more or less reformed format (“reformed” big tent = every non-RC, non-Eastern Orthodox, non-Lutheran confession) as something to do in creation (Arminianism) or post conversion (Calvinism and its strains). But a “rose is a rose by any other name”. The point is that there is this grace that is this “power” or something that causes the road to good works which in the end was what “God meant to do”. Thus so far NO ONE has really LEFT Rome.

    Thus, like Rome, they see conversion and ultimately salvation as the “active righteousness” of the person and any short fall is caught under the “forgiveness of sin”. So one gets either the official on paper Roman penitential system or the informal learned “word of mouth” protestant version (e.g. Rome prescribes hail Marys, Baptist imply by learning “walk the aisle or pray the prayer one more time”).

    Thus far, NOBODY has really left Rome and one may be a “protestant” but is really Roman Catholic In Theology and doctrine, “a rose is a rose by any other name”.

    The tower experience of Luther concerning Rom. 1:17 was to discover that “the righteousness of God” is not this grace given whereby one knows one is saved via fruits (Rome, Geneva, etc…) but rather that is the righteousness of Christ GIVEN us by shear declaration such that ALL that Christ said, did and suffered is ‘just as if I/you did it’. And thus all holiness fulfilled, really, really, really is “finished”. There is no post conversion works required. This is why all theologies of glory, fallen religion, cannot understand that ‘God may cause a man to do no good works whatsoever so that He can save His soul’, in fact the opposite may occur. This is Cross religion and it is offensive to “old Adam” religion for it is the death of him, literally.

    Now there are real fruits of faith and they come via the above, and there are false fruits of faith that invert everything. The tale tell between the two is not always in the words, for the tares mimic closely the wheat so that one cannot tell. Just so, the same Words; Christ, bible, grace, gospel, fruit, faith, law, etc… are used. But the devil inverts more than anything else. So that “fruits of faith” THEMSELVES become the “new law” whereby without which “one may not really truly be saved/elect/born again/converted…etc… and thus the new hidden implied works righteousness without saying, “Hey I’m works righteousness”. And thus not the true fruits of true faith that passively receives as sufficient Christ’s righteousness without the aid of active righteousness on our part (as fruits of faith or otherwise).

    One will not glean it from just straightforward theological terminology, one must glean the Satanic inversion by the overall emphasis and speech. Pietism cannot stand for the Gospel to be the last word and will always force a “but” or similar in there. It wishes to get the last word and so it (Satanically) “cautions” when the Gospel is finished speaking and often by simply inversion of biblical terms and thoughts.
    Some examples:

    False Christianity says, “Only the works for Christ will stand”
    Christianity says, “Only the works OF Christ will stand”
    False Christianity says, “where there is life and salvation, there is forgiveness of sin”
    Christianity says, “where there is forgiveness of sin, there is life and salvation”.
    False Christianity says, “faith is ‘I believe’”
    Christianity says, “faith is ‘God cannot lie’”
    False Christianity says, “I know I’m reborn (or elect) because of the evidence of my good works”
    Christianity says, “I know I’m going to heaven because I don’t have good works” (think about it)
    False Christianity says, “look to the self and what the self is doing internally or externally”
    Christianity says, “look to the means of grace, aka the sacraments, i.e. Christ”
    False Christianity says, ”Spirit, spirit, give me the spirit operating within me”
    Christianity says, “look to the Word and means of grace where the Spirit is actually, truly and really given”
    False Christianity says, “God knows my heart”
    Christianity says, “God knows my heart so thank God for His Word and Sacraments”
    False Christianity says, “Look to feelings for the affections of forgiveness and conversion”
    Christianity says, “Your feelings are deceiving you look to the Word alone”.
    False Christianity says, “but this is absurd to all reason”
    Christianity says, “this baptism saves you, this is the real and true body and blood of Christ”

    Etc…

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 252

    natural law, and rome and geneva want the Law to have teleological or eternal significance.

    that is what the Lutheran Confessions reject.

    the law does not even bring us to christ. it produces pharisee or despairing Judas without christ and the holy gospel.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 252

    natural law, and rome and geneva want the Law to have teleological or eternal significance.

    that is what the Lutheran Confessions reject.

    the law does not even bring us to christ. it produces pharisee or despairing Judas without christ and the holy gospel.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 252

    natural law proponents want the law to be a revelation of God and his Eternal Will.

    the Formula of Concord art VI stands in specific and direct opposition to this. Alone Christ Incarnate is the revelation of the Eternal Will of God.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 252

    natural law proponents want the law to be a revelation of God and his Eternal Will.

    the Formula of Concord art VI stands in specific and direct opposition to this. Alone Christ Incarnate is the revelation of the Eternal Will of God.

  • Tom Hering

    Todd asks Grace about the Epistle of James and the canon of Scripture, and Grace replies by once again attacking Martin Luther (“Luther is not a purveyor of truth”). The very thing Dr. Veith asked her to stop doing when he closed the comments on another thread (@ 181).

    Either Grace is incapable of understanding the questions she’s asked, or she lacks the knowledge and argumentative skills needed to answer them. Either way, she always defaults to her anti-Lutheran bigotry.

    So again we have to ask why – given her extremely low view of Luther and Lutheranism – does Grace hang around a blog with a Lutheran twist, frequented by Lutherans? We can only conclude that she’s here to condemn Luther and Lutheranism. A conclusion that’s well supported by the evidence found in thread after thread after thread.

  • Tom Hering

    Todd asks Grace about the Epistle of James and the canon of Scripture, and Grace replies by once again attacking Martin Luther (“Luther is not a purveyor of truth”). The very thing Dr. Veith asked her to stop doing when he closed the comments on another thread (@ 181).

    Either Grace is incapable of understanding the questions she’s asked, or she lacks the knowledge and argumentative skills needed to answer them. Either way, she always defaults to her anti-Lutheran bigotry.

    So again we have to ask why – given her extremely low view of Luther and Lutheranism – does Grace hang around a blog with a Lutheran twist, frequented by Lutherans? We can only conclude that she’s here to condemn Luther and Lutheranism. A conclusion that’s well supported by the evidence found in thread after thread after thread.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom hering, larry, joe, kerner, sg. I need your mailing addresses. I have something brasilian to send all of you as late christmas presents. lets call them epiphany presents…

    my email is fwsonnek@gmail.com

    thanks

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom hering, larry, joe, kerner, sg. I need your mailing addresses. I have something brasilian to send all of you as late christmas presents. lets call them epiphany presents…

    my email is fwsonnek@gmail.com

    thanks

  • Larry

    Frank,

    natural law, and rome and geneva want:

    1. the Law to have teleological or eternal significance.
    2. the law to be a revelation of God and his Eternal Will

    Wow! That’s it in a double nutshell.

  • Larry

    Frank,

    natural law, and rome and geneva want:

    1. the Law to have teleological or eternal significance.
    2. the law to be a revelation of God and his Eternal Will

    Wow! That’s it in a double nutshell.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @257

    our friend here stephen helped me see this clearly just today. it is not that complicated is it? and I drone on for paragraph after paragraph….

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @257

    our friend here stephen helped me see this clearly just today. it is not that complicated is it? and I drone on for paragraph after paragraph….

  • boaz

    The law is Gods revealed will and Christians love the law, including the parts about living chastely and decently.

    We don’t love neighbor as we want to be loved, we love as God loved us. And we are not free in the Gospel to pursue our passions and ease our wants, but to sacrifice for our neighbors needs. Nonmarital sex, including gay sex has no place in showing love for neighbor and is wickedness needing forgiveness. It’s not ok because it doesn’t hurt anybody, that’s totally the wrong framework.

    Nonmarital sex hurts neighbor because it shows no love for neighbor, it is entirely selfish and about ones own needs and desires. Nonmarital sex does not require a spouse, anybody who pleases my senses would work. Nonmarital sex never promotes family or helps children. It’s sin. It takes an awful lot of contortions to come to q different conclusion from the confessions, especially if you really read the catechisms.

    And, anytime you argue something is not sin that scripture calls sin, you might want to think harder about whether its the Holy Spirit working in you or more likely a different sort of spirit.

  • boaz

    The law is Gods revealed will and Christians love the law, including the parts about living chastely and decently.

    We don’t love neighbor as we want to be loved, we love as God loved us. And we are not free in the Gospel to pursue our passions and ease our wants, but to sacrifice for our neighbors needs. Nonmarital sex, including gay sex has no place in showing love for neighbor and is wickedness needing forgiveness. It’s not ok because it doesn’t hurt anybody, that’s totally the wrong framework.

    Nonmarital sex hurts neighbor because it shows no love for neighbor, it is entirely selfish and about ones own needs and desires. Nonmarital sex does not require a spouse, anybody who pleases my senses would work. Nonmarital sex never promotes family or helps children. It’s sin. It takes an awful lot of contortions to come to q different conclusion from the confessions, especially if you really read the catechisms.

    And, anytime you argue something is not sin that scripture calls sin, you might want to think harder about whether its the Holy Spirit working in you or more likely a different sort of spirit.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 259

    “The law is Gods revealed will

    It takes an awful lot of contortions to come to q different conclusion from the confessions, especially if you really read the catechisms.”

    show me where the Lutheran Confessions teach this please brother or sister Boaz.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 259

    “The law is Gods revealed will

    It takes an awful lot of contortions to come to q different conclusion from the confessions, especially if you really read the catechisms.”

    show me where the Lutheran Confessions teach this please brother or sister Boaz.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@249), I suppose I should have seen your response (or non-response, as it were) coming.

    I’m not sure why I once again foolishly believed that you would engage in actual conversation. You have proven yourself the Lucy to our Charlie Brown, always promising to have a discussion, and then consistently pulling the ball away as you yell “I don’t have the time! I’ve already answered that! You just don’t like my answers!” Every. Single. Time.

    “Oh tODD,…. lol, I answer as I choose…….” More accurately, you do not answer as you choose. Because it’s pretty obvious to me that you can’t or won’t consider the question of canonicity, nor will you address the many ways in which Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. gainsay your reputed reading of James. Indeed, your theology depends on remaining ignorant on this point.

    And then you go on, in tired, tireless fashion and bash Luther with the claims that even you know to be false.

    You have no point to make, Grace, except your hatred for Luther. And that — if little else — you have made abundantly clear.

    But hey, if I believed what you did, I’d be mad at Luther, too, and I’d cling to James as if my salvation depended on it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@249), I suppose I should have seen your response (or non-response, as it were) coming.

    I’m not sure why I once again foolishly believed that you would engage in actual conversation. You have proven yourself the Lucy to our Charlie Brown, always promising to have a discussion, and then consistently pulling the ball away as you yell “I don’t have the time! I’ve already answered that! You just don’t like my answers!” Every. Single. Time.

    “Oh tODD,…. lol, I answer as I choose…….” More accurately, you do not answer as you choose. Because it’s pretty obvious to me that you can’t or won’t consider the question of canonicity, nor will you address the many ways in which Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. gainsay your reputed reading of James. Indeed, your theology depends on remaining ignorant on this point.

    And then you go on, in tired, tireless fashion and bash Luther with the claims that even you know to be false.

    You have no point to make, Grace, except your hatred for Luther. And that — if little else — you have made abundantly clear.

    But hey, if I believed what you did, I’d be mad at Luther, too, and I’d cling to James as if my salvation depended on it.

  • Stephen

    Larry and Frank,

    This is awesome!!! Did I say that already?

    I have been thinking about Galatians and being “clothed with Christ” ever since Sunday. It is as if that baptismal water that covers us is that same water of Christ’s baptism (well, actually I suppose it is. Ha!). What I mean is that in regards to having the righteousness of Christ imparted to us by “sheer declaration” (and thus why we ought to be running to church!) we get that Word of the Father “I am well pleased” spoken directly to us, the Holy Spirit descending into us in the sacrament of Holy Baptism. We are wearing that. That is what “running wet from our baptism” really is – being clothed with Christ.

    “Trinity Wear – now available at your local Lutheran church.” (or so we would hope).

    I’m saving your insights Larry. They are crushing on all fundamentalisms, false religion, and fake sinners. Fake sinners!!! I’m calling you The Crusher. Fake sinners. That’s amazing!

  • Stephen

    Larry and Frank,

    This is awesome!!! Did I say that already?

    I have been thinking about Galatians and being “clothed with Christ” ever since Sunday. It is as if that baptismal water that covers us is that same water of Christ’s baptism (well, actually I suppose it is. Ha!). What I mean is that in regards to having the righteousness of Christ imparted to us by “sheer declaration” (and thus why we ought to be running to church!) we get that Word of the Father “I am well pleased” spoken directly to us, the Holy Spirit descending into us in the sacrament of Holy Baptism. We are wearing that. That is what “running wet from our baptism” really is – being clothed with Christ.

    “Trinity Wear – now available at your local Lutheran church.” (or so we would hope).

    I’m saving your insights Larry. They are crushing on all fundamentalisms, false religion, and fake sinners. Fake sinners!!! I’m calling you The Crusher. Fake sinners. That’s amazing!

  • Stephen

    boaz @ 259

    So would that then mean that allowing gays to marry and have families, even though they are not the perfect paradigm, be a force for loving the neighbor and doing those things for family and kids? That seems to be the only issue, that people are not in committed relationships that express love for the other. Does it matter who that other is so much as long as love and commitment are the outcome, as long as kids have loving parents? If so or if not, why? Families break up, people divorce, and children get loved or not in all these situations. What is really at stake?

    I’d like to know what version of sin and/or law you are talking about. Is it a transgression against a moral code that we must live by to be good? Or a violation against some structure we think we see with our reason that is embedded in reality, in the natural world for instance, that we should imitate in our relationships?

    Again, what’s really at stake?

  • Stephen

    boaz @ 259

    So would that then mean that allowing gays to marry and have families, even though they are not the perfect paradigm, be a force for loving the neighbor and doing those things for family and kids? That seems to be the only issue, that people are not in committed relationships that express love for the other. Does it matter who that other is so much as long as love and commitment are the outcome, as long as kids have loving parents? If so or if not, why? Families break up, people divorce, and children get loved or not in all these situations. What is really at stake?

    I’d like to know what version of sin and/or law you are talking about. Is it a transgression against a moral code that we must live by to be good? Or a violation against some structure we think we see with our reason that is embedded in reality, in the natural world for instance, that we should imitate in our relationships?

    Again, what’s really at stake?

  • Larry

    Kudos to Stephen!

  • Larry

    Kudos to Stephen!

  • Stephen

    Right back at you brother Larry!

  • Stephen

    Right back at you brother Larry!

  • Grace

    “God is faithful” it is we, who ignore the “escape” when tempted to sin.

    Jesus would not have said the words below if it were not possible for the man to “sin no more” –

    14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

    15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. John 5

    Below is the amazing story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.

    1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

    2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

    3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

    4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

    5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

    6
    This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

    7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

    8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

    9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

    10
    When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

    11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. John 8

    In both cases, recorded in John, Jesus told them “sin no more” however in the first example Jesus said “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

    It becomes crystal clear that the sin does not need to be repeated. 1 Corinthians 10:13 states “God is faithful, will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape” – it is the “escape” that is so often avoided. We are all tempted everyday, but we don’t have to climb into the pig pen, allowing the temptation we face to rule our lives, giving into it. “God is faithful” we need to remember this, and depend upon Him.

    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

  • Grace

    “God is faithful” it is we, who ignore the “escape” when tempted to sin.

    Jesus would not have said the words below if it were not possible for the man to “sin no more” –

    14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

    15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. John 5

    Below is the amazing story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.

    1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

    2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

    3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

    4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

    5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

    6
    This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

    7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

    8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

    9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

    10
    When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

    11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

    12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. John 8

    In both cases, recorded in John, Jesus told them “sin no more” however in the first example Jesus said “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

    It becomes crystal clear that the sin does not need to be repeated. 1 Corinthians 10:13 states “God is faithful, will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape” – it is the “escape” that is so often avoided. We are all tempted everyday, but we don’t have to climb into the pig pen, allowing the temptation we face to rule our lives, giving into it. “God is faithful” we need to remember this, and depend upon Him.

    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

  • Stephen

    Grace @ 266

    “God is faithful” we need to remember this, and depend upon Him.”

    I believe you are catching on. Now, which direction are you running?

  • Stephen

    Grace @ 266

    “God is faithful” we need to remember this, and depend upon Him.”

    I believe you are catching on. Now, which direction are you running?

  • boaz

    Fws, who handed Moses the tablets? Who inspires Scripture? Or is there no law in scripture? Why does Luther say sixth commandment requires us to avoid lustful thoughts and live chastely? Because we should teach others to avoid lust and honor the goods of marriage.

    What’s at stake is peoples souls, who believe your nonsense that nonmarital sex doesn’t teach and promote lust, and the state of marriage, which is so disparaged this country, most children don’t experience the love of family life.

    Committed relatioship is nothing. Even those in marriage frequently sin by misusing each other for nonmartal, selfish sex. What matters is not commitment, but showing selfless love and strengthening the marriage. Further, there is nothing in scripture about committed relationships, just marriage. And what does committed relationship have to do with sex? I have lots of committed relationships. They are not marriage and to equate the two is disparages marriage the same way Luther criticized Rome for doing.

    You are right the law isn’t a moral code, and scholastic natural law is not scriptural. But you are wrong that your subjective view of what loving your neighbours is trumps Gods description of what loving your neighbor is in the law. The law is love your neighbor. It doesn’t stop there, it gives us specific commands on what that entails, which we need as our human reason cannot clearly see what the law requires, as we constantly want to make it easier for us, to avoid guilt or to confirm our goodness.

    Thus Luther does not replace the moral law taught in scripture with a generic command to love, he shows how the moral commands in scripture all relate to loving your neighbor, and are always impossible for us. Nevertheless we love the law because it is Gods will for how we should love each other. You can’t be a Christian and disagree with God on what it means to love your neighbor.

    Read others large catechism on the sixth commandment. And SD vi. I don’t think its hard to figure out.

  • boaz

    Fws, who handed Moses the tablets? Who inspires Scripture? Or is there no law in scripture? Why does Luther say sixth commandment requires us to avoid lustful thoughts and live chastely? Because we should teach others to avoid lust and honor the goods of marriage.

    What’s at stake is peoples souls, who believe your nonsense that nonmarital sex doesn’t teach and promote lust, and the state of marriage, which is so disparaged this country, most children don’t experience the love of family life.

    Committed relatioship is nothing. Even those in marriage frequently sin by misusing each other for nonmartal, selfish sex. What matters is not commitment, but showing selfless love and strengthening the marriage. Further, there is nothing in scripture about committed relationships, just marriage. And what does committed relationship have to do with sex? I have lots of committed relationships. They are not marriage and to equate the two is disparages marriage the same way Luther criticized Rome for doing.

    You are right the law isn’t a moral code, and scholastic natural law is not scriptural. But you are wrong that your subjective view of what loving your neighbours is trumps Gods description of what loving your neighbor is in the law. The law is love your neighbor. It doesn’t stop there, it gives us specific commands on what that entails, which we need as our human reason cannot clearly see what the law requires, as we constantly want to make it easier for us, to avoid guilt or to confirm our goodness.

    Thus Luther does not replace the moral law taught in scripture with a generic command to love, he shows how the moral commands in scripture all relate to loving your neighbor, and are always impossible for us. Nevertheless we love the law because it is Gods will for how we should love each other. You can’t be a Christian and disagree with God on what it means to love your neighbor.

    Read others large catechism on the sixth commandment. And SD vi. I don’t think its hard to figure out.

  • Stephen

    Boaz –

    I was the one who responded you. And when I used the term “committed relationships” well, it was the only one handy. Why? Because custom dictates that “marriage” is what you think it is – a man and a woman only. Maybe it is. I’m not sure. But does that mean that when we don’t have that there are no longer families or love? Why do we allow divorce if “marriage” is so sacrosanct that it is not even about commitment. Isn’t that what you said?

    I don’t claim to have an answer to what to do about gay relationships. shipping people off to the closet does not seem to be in anyone’s loving or best interest – not societies, not children, not anyone. There is no evidence that allowing gay people to be together and raise families is inherently bad or unloving. We don’t have a word for what that is. I’m not sure what to do about that. But when you finish what you say with this statement it leaves me to believe you are relying on some other mechanism than the Confessional and biblical truth you wanting to stand for:

    “Nevertheless we love the law because it is Gods will for how we should love each other. You can’t be a Christian and disagree with God on what it means to love your neighbor.”

    I would say “no” we hate the law because it is killing us first of all. Only a completely new man can actually do that love you describe, and as you say, it is impossible for us to do that. So either we can or we can’t – which is it? I can be a Christian and disagree with God every second of every day, and I do because I am a sinner! But because He alone has promised me in my baptism that I am His for the sake of his dear Son Jesus Christ and for no other reason at all than because it is his will to have me. Christ alone. That is what our Confessions teach us is the pure and Holy gospel of salvation that St. Paul taught us. That is the cross of Jesus Christ.

    I think you want to hold something back. Going by what you say, you want to add a condition to that. “What it means to love the neighbor?” It means death, your death. But what hear you saying is that “no, not my death, someone else’s death.” Fine then. Who’s going to die? Gays? Shall we sacrifice their lives for this law of love? That is what I hear you saying. Hold them up to it and they don’t measure up so they must be sacrificed (but I do because, well hey, I lucked out. I am safe under “marriage” or heterosexuality).

    Guess what? None of us measure up. We all need to die for our neighbor. But what is the gospel? Jesus did that for us. It truly is finished and now is promised to us as our righteousness. It is given to us completely out of the gracious love of God because God is love. We don’t need to be anything except what God says we are. And that is what is true, real, pure, perfect and righteous.

  • Stephen

    Boaz –

    I was the one who responded you. And when I used the term “committed relationships” well, it was the only one handy. Why? Because custom dictates that “marriage” is what you think it is – a man and a woman only. Maybe it is. I’m not sure. But does that mean that when we don’t have that there are no longer families or love? Why do we allow divorce if “marriage” is so sacrosanct that it is not even about commitment. Isn’t that what you said?

    I don’t claim to have an answer to what to do about gay relationships. shipping people off to the closet does not seem to be in anyone’s loving or best interest – not societies, not children, not anyone. There is no evidence that allowing gay people to be together and raise families is inherently bad or unloving. We don’t have a word for what that is. I’m not sure what to do about that. But when you finish what you say with this statement it leaves me to believe you are relying on some other mechanism than the Confessional and biblical truth you wanting to stand for:

    “Nevertheless we love the law because it is Gods will for how we should love each other. You can’t be a Christian and disagree with God on what it means to love your neighbor.”

    I would say “no” we hate the law because it is killing us first of all. Only a completely new man can actually do that love you describe, and as you say, it is impossible for us to do that. So either we can or we can’t – which is it? I can be a Christian and disagree with God every second of every day, and I do because I am a sinner! But because He alone has promised me in my baptism that I am His for the sake of his dear Son Jesus Christ and for no other reason at all than because it is his will to have me. Christ alone. That is what our Confessions teach us is the pure and Holy gospel of salvation that St. Paul taught us. That is the cross of Jesus Christ.

    I think you want to hold something back. Going by what you say, you want to add a condition to that. “What it means to love the neighbor?” It means death, your death. But what hear you saying is that “no, not my death, someone else’s death.” Fine then. Who’s going to die? Gays? Shall we sacrifice their lives for this law of love? That is what I hear you saying. Hold them up to it and they don’t measure up so they must be sacrificed (but I do because, well hey, I lucked out. I am safe under “marriage” or heterosexuality).

    Guess what? None of us measure up. We all need to die for our neighbor. But what is the gospel? Jesus did that for us. It truly is finished and now is promised to us as our righteousness. It is given to us completely out of the gracious love of God because God is love. We don’t need to be anything except what God says we are. And that is what is true, real, pure, perfect and righteous.

  • Grace

    Boaz – 259

    “Nonmarital sex, including gay sex has no place in showing love for neighbor and is wickedness needing forgiveness.”

    You’re right, sinful acts show no love, that’s the devils trick to deceive.

    “And, anytime you argue something is not sin that scripture calls sin, you might want to think harder about whether its the Holy Spirit working in you or more likely a different sort of spirit.”

    How right you are!

    9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 1 Corinthians 6

    6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

    7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
    Jude 1

  • Grace

    Boaz – 259

    “Nonmarital sex, including gay sex has no place in showing love for neighbor and is wickedness needing forgiveness.”

    You’re right, sinful acts show no love, that’s the devils trick to deceive.

    “And, anytime you argue something is not sin that scripture calls sin, you might want to think harder about whether its the Holy Spirit working in you or more likely a different sort of spirit.”

    How right you are!

    9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 1 Corinthians 6

    6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

    7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
    Jude 1

  • boaz

    Stephen, read sdvi. http://WWW.bookofconcord.org/sd-thirds.php

    Christians don’t hate the law, blessed is the man whose delight is in the law of the Lord. And Christians don’t reduce its commands if it is too hard to follow or hits some especially hard as you want to do. That’s what pharisees and moralists do.

    Those tempted by homosexuality are subject to the same impossible demands of the law as everybody else. And pastors should freely forgive them for their lust just as I’m forgiven for mine. But It’s deadly for their souls to excuse their lack of love and selfishness when they demand the church teach a different Law than Gods law.

    Our Christian freedom is never, NEVER about my needs and wants.

  • boaz

    Stephen, read sdvi. http://WWW.bookofconcord.org/sd-thirds.php

    Christians don’t hate the law, blessed is the man whose delight is in the law of the Lord. And Christians don’t reduce its commands if it is too hard to follow or hits some especially hard as you want to do. That’s what pharisees and moralists do.

    Those tempted by homosexuality are subject to the same impossible demands of the law as everybody else. And pastors should freely forgive them for their lust just as I’m forgiven for mine. But It’s deadly for their souls to excuse their lack of love and selfishness when they demand the church teach a different Law than Gods law.

    Our Christian freedom is never, NEVER about my needs and wants.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 266

    kudos for you for seeing something in the story of the adulterous woman that most people skip over.

    One would have expected Jesus to say “Now go and stop being an adulteress or prostitute. stop sleeping around.”

    but he did not say that did he?

    He said “Go and sin no more”. he said to that woman. “stop sinning. ALL your sinning. from this point forward be perfect as I am perfect . Dont commit another single sin in thought word or deed and in fact , more than that: I want you to only want to do go0d from the bottom of your heart. I dont even want have to provide you with an excape from temptation because you simply will not be tempted. You will be like Me when I was tempted by satan. I simply could not have sinned. I did not even for a moment consider it as an option that required a choice on MY part.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 266

    kudos for you for seeing something in the story of the adulterous woman that most people skip over.

    One would have expected Jesus to say “Now go and stop being an adulteress or prostitute. stop sleeping around.”

    but he did not say that did he?

    He said “Go and sin no more”. he said to that woman. “stop sinning. ALL your sinning. from this point forward be perfect as I am perfect . Dont commit another single sin in thought word or deed and in fact , more than that: I want you to only want to do go0d from the bottom of your heart. I dont even want have to provide you with an excape from temptation because you simply will not be tempted. You will be like Me when I was tempted by satan. I simply could not have sinned. I did not even for a moment consider it as an option that required a choice on MY part.

  • Grace

    fws,

    Your combination of thoughts regarding what Jesus was thinking or saying are incorrect. To committ adultery is a choice, …. Jesus was telling the woman to “go, and sin no more.”

    Long and short, you Frank are putting words in Jesus mouth –

    The passage below was given; “God is faithful” there is an “escape” – there are so called Christian Believers who cannot accept the “escape” which God offers, but instead follow their temptations – it is a choice to use the “escape” God offers, if it were NOT, then Jesus would not have told the woman “go, and sin no more.”

    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
    1 Corinthians 10:13

  • Grace

    fws,

    Your combination of thoughts regarding what Jesus was thinking or saying are incorrect. To committ adultery is a choice, …. Jesus was telling the woman to “go, and sin no more.”

    Long and short, you Frank are putting words in Jesus mouth –

    The passage below was given; “God is faithful” there is an “escape” – there are so called Christian Believers who cannot accept the “escape” which God offers, but instead follow their temptations – it is a choice to use the “escape” God offers, if it were NOT, then Jesus would not have told the woman “go, and sin no more.”

    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
    1 Corinthians 10:13

  • Stephen

    Boaz -

    I’ve read the Book of Concord and study it often, as I do the Small and Large Catechism. They are all sitting on my desk and I have links already. Thanks.

    When you say:

    “But It’s deadly for their souls to excuse their lack of love and selfishness when they demand the church teach a different Law than Gods law.”

    It sounds like you are peering into their hearts. What do you know about all that? Is it all those things or is it something else, some “act” you cannot stomach for yourself? Again, what is really at stake? Are the things St. Paul talks about in Romans 1 for instance really the same thing as gays who want to live together and raise families?

    I also think that the term that has recently been translated as “homosexual” or “homosexual offender” is a mistake and expresses a deep cultural bias. Homosexual is a 19th clinical term that has not place in scripture. But that’s another conversation.

    As far as the well-being of children goes, how many gay teenagers shall we sacrifice to suicide now that they are labeled as outside the grace of God? As Larry gave in his list above in post #252:

    False Christianity says, “where there is life and salvation, there is forgiveness of sin”
    Christianity says, “where there is forgiveness of sin, there is life and salvation”.

    In other words, get your act together and then you can have grace. That’s not the gospel for all, it is only for some. Who do you think would be sitting at that table with Jesus eating lunch when the Pharisees stopped by to condemn him? Pick the people that are outside the religious sphere and you might be close to an answer I’d say.

    But the truth is, we should all be wanting to sit at that table. Instead, we are saying “Hey Jesus, don’t be over there with them. They sin.” What does Jesus say? I came for the sick. The fact is we are all sick.

    There is no different law. You are not somehow safe and secure because you are married and heterosexual and don’t cheat on your wife. What does Jesus say? Out of the heart comes all manner of things. What does Paul say in Romans 3? The outward keeping of the law causes an aversion to it and makes it worse (read Larry’s excellent posts again).

    So where does this leave gays? In need of the very same Jesus you do because we are all damned. But they don’t get him by not doing gay things. They get him through faith that he gives.

    Where does this leave kids? In need of grace and baptism and parents to raise them and love them. And I see no evidence why gay people cannot do this and express what it means to love another person in a committed way (again, don’t have word yet) so that kids see that and grow up to do the same thing in whatever way that turns out to be. Love is the goal, not some paradigm we must wedge people into, like it or not.

  • Stephen

    Boaz -

    I’ve read the Book of Concord and study it often, as I do the Small and Large Catechism. They are all sitting on my desk and I have links already. Thanks.

    When you say:

    “But It’s deadly for their souls to excuse their lack of love and selfishness when they demand the church teach a different Law than Gods law.”

    It sounds like you are peering into their hearts. What do you know about all that? Is it all those things or is it something else, some “act” you cannot stomach for yourself? Again, what is really at stake? Are the things St. Paul talks about in Romans 1 for instance really the same thing as gays who want to live together and raise families?

    I also think that the term that has recently been translated as “homosexual” or “homosexual offender” is a mistake and expresses a deep cultural bias. Homosexual is a 19th clinical term that has not place in scripture. But that’s another conversation.

    As far as the well-being of children goes, how many gay teenagers shall we sacrifice to suicide now that they are labeled as outside the grace of God? As Larry gave in his list above in post #252:

    False Christianity says, “where there is life and salvation, there is forgiveness of sin”
    Christianity says, “where there is forgiveness of sin, there is life and salvation”.

    In other words, get your act together and then you can have grace. That’s not the gospel for all, it is only for some. Who do you think would be sitting at that table with Jesus eating lunch when the Pharisees stopped by to condemn him? Pick the people that are outside the religious sphere and you might be close to an answer I’d say.

    But the truth is, we should all be wanting to sit at that table. Instead, we are saying “Hey Jesus, don’t be over there with them. They sin.” What does Jesus say? I came for the sick. The fact is we are all sick.

    There is no different law. You are not somehow safe and secure because you are married and heterosexual and don’t cheat on your wife. What does Jesus say? Out of the heart comes all manner of things. What does Paul say in Romans 3? The outward keeping of the law causes an aversion to it and makes it worse (read Larry’s excellent posts again).

    So where does this leave gays? In need of the very same Jesus you do because we are all damned. But they don’t get him by not doing gay things. They get him through faith that he gives.

    Where does this leave kids? In need of grace and baptism and parents to raise them and love them. And I see no evidence why gay people cannot do this and express what it means to love another person in a committed way (again, don’t have word yet) so that kids see that and grow up to do the same thing in whatever way that turns out to be. Love is the goal, not some paradigm we must wedge people into, like it or not.

  • Grace

    Stephen – 274

    “And I see no evidence why gay people cannot do this and express what it means to love another person in a committed way (again, don’t have word yet) so that kids see that and grow up to do the same thing in whatever way that turns out to be. Love is the goal, not some paradigm we must wedge people into, like it or not.”

    All the Scripture regarding homosexuality being sin, including Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, Jude 1 – and you CONTINUE to make an argument pro-homosexual committed relationships? There isn’t one passage of Scripture that supports your view.

    The passage in Romans 1 fits:

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Romans 1:28

  • Grace

    Stephen – 274

    “And I see no evidence why gay people cannot do this and express what it means to love another person in a committed way (again, don’t have word yet) so that kids see that and grow up to do the same thing in whatever way that turns out to be. Love is the goal, not some paradigm we must wedge people into, like it or not.”

    All the Scripture regarding homosexuality being sin, including Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, Jude 1 – and you CONTINUE to make an argument pro-homosexual committed relationships? There isn’t one passage of Scripture that supports your view.

    The passage in Romans 1 fits:

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Romans 1:28

  • Grace

    Definition: reprobate

    1. somebody immoral: a disreputable or immoral person

    2. religion somebody damned: somebody whose soul is believed to be damned

  • Grace

    Definition: reprobate

    1. somebody immoral: a disreputable or immoral person

    2. religion somebody damned: somebody whose soul is believed to be damned

  • boaz

    Fws, are you or are you not arguing that the church should not condemn gay sex and as against Gods law? I’m not peering into anybody’s heart, just blog comments.

    Is it not deadly for souls for the church not to condemn sin? How will sinners know they need the Gospel? Moreover, we fashion a false god of our own making when we redefine love to suit our own wants and desires.

    Most of your response has nothing to do with what I said. Of course forgiveness and faith come before works, we are all sinners in need of grace, and sin repeatedly, gays and straight. Marriage doesn’t mean lust stops either. With faith we see the law is love, it is good, it is the old Adam that is wicked and needs daily drowning. Those with faith do not want to continue in sin, they repent of it daily. That includes those tempted by any type of lust.

    Nothing in your response comes from scripture or the confessions. You can dress It up however you want it with evidence or sociology, it always comes back to what you want to do. Too bad. Repent.

  • boaz

    Fws, are you or are you not arguing that the church should not condemn gay sex and as against Gods law? I’m not peering into anybody’s heart, just blog comments.

    Is it not deadly for souls for the church not to condemn sin? How will sinners know they need the Gospel? Moreover, we fashion a false god of our own making when we redefine love to suit our own wants and desires.

    Most of your response has nothing to do with what I said. Of course forgiveness and faith come before works, we are all sinners in need of grace, and sin repeatedly, gays and straight. Marriage doesn’t mean lust stops either. With faith we see the law is love, it is good, it is the old Adam that is wicked and needs daily drowning. Those with faith do not want to continue in sin, they repent of it daily. That includes those tempted by any type of lust.

    Nothing in your response comes from scripture or the confessions. You can dress It up however you want it with evidence or sociology, it always comes back to what you want to do. Too bad. Repent.

  • Grace

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Romans 1:28

    A reprobate mind is without conscience, that is most likely why those who choose to sin do so, and argue it’s reasons – however un-Scriptural they are.

    Definition: Reprobate Strongs Greek

    adokimos – ad-ok’-ee-mos

    unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):–castaway, rejected, reprobate.

  • Grace

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Romans 1:28

    A reprobate mind is without conscience, that is most likely why those who choose to sin do so, and argue it’s reasons – however un-Scriptural they are.

    Definition: Reprobate Strongs Greek

    adokimos – ad-ok’-ee-mos

    unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or morally):–castaway, rejected, reprobate.

  • Larry

    What pietist fail to see is that they HAVE reduced the commands of Scripture and the Law such that its not “really the Law”, requiring the heart…etc…

    The problem is they don’t really “HEAR” the Law though they “hear” its Words, nor do they understand the chief head of the Law that Luther ALWAYS points out that is really a Gospel, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt out of the land of bondage, you shall have no other gods beside of Me.” This they do not grasp in the least, thus without the head of the Gospel, “I forgive you for Christ’s sake and His righteousness is yours so that NOTHING is left to do”, they violate the first commandment which heads the “neighbor commandments” all they do they do to the damnation of their souls because they are constructing their own active righteousness before heaven.

    Thus, they don’t understand that at the end of the day, by way of example, believers baptism is worse a sin than sexually illicit behavior. It never occurs to them that a “gay parade” is far worse a sin than is the doctrine of ‘believers baptism’ or a “LS” that is merely a sign or memorial. It occurs to them that the tornado that hit when ELCA made their vote to admit the ordination of homosexuals that that was a sign of God’s displeasure, it never occurs to them to think or say, “the tornado was a sign against the opening of the communion doors to the UMC and thus the giving up of the confession of the Christian faith.” Not that I’m given to signs on such anyway, but to make the point. To this they will like the Pharisees of old toward Stephen, gnash their teeth and find stones to kill with, proving thus their real self righteousness being built up.

    In Luther’s HD he makes earth shattering observation that “you must realize that even when the Law comes to you and bids you do X or don’t do Y, you must clearly understand that you have ALREADY fallen into damnable sin, whether you do or don’t do what it says”

    The “trying to do” before God unto more or less active righteousness is what Luther discovered was where Rome’s (and Protestants post Luther) hidden works righteousness is found. Such pietism may not engage in overt sins but pious sins such that they will thrust their good works down someone’s throat so they may selfISHLY, know they are saved/elect/etc…. That is not loving the neighbor worse than an overt thief who grabs my wallet.

  • Larry

    What pietist fail to see is that they HAVE reduced the commands of Scripture and the Law such that its not “really the Law”, requiring the heart…etc…

    The problem is they don’t really “HEAR” the Law though they “hear” its Words, nor do they understand the chief head of the Law that Luther ALWAYS points out that is really a Gospel, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt out of the land of bondage, you shall have no other gods beside of Me.” This they do not grasp in the least, thus without the head of the Gospel, “I forgive you for Christ’s sake and His righteousness is yours so that NOTHING is left to do”, they violate the first commandment which heads the “neighbor commandments” all they do they do to the damnation of their souls because they are constructing their own active righteousness before heaven.

    Thus, they don’t understand that at the end of the day, by way of example, believers baptism is worse a sin than sexually illicit behavior. It never occurs to them that a “gay parade” is far worse a sin than is the doctrine of ‘believers baptism’ or a “LS” that is merely a sign or memorial. It occurs to them that the tornado that hit when ELCA made their vote to admit the ordination of homosexuals that that was a sign of God’s displeasure, it never occurs to them to think or say, “the tornado was a sign against the opening of the communion doors to the UMC and thus the giving up of the confession of the Christian faith.” Not that I’m given to signs on such anyway, but to make the point. To this they will like the Pharisees of old toward Stephen, gnash their teeth and find stones to kill with, proving thus their real self righteousness being built up.

    In Luther’s HD he makes earth shattering observation that “you must realize that even when the Law comes to you and bids you do X or don’t do Y, you must clearly understand that you have ALREADY fallen into damnable sin, whether you do or don’t do what it says”

    The “trying to do” before God unto more or less active righteousness is what Luther discovered was where Rome’s (and Protestants post Luther) hidden works righteousness is found. Such pietism may not engage in overt sins but pious sins such that they will thrust their good works down someone’s throat so they may selfISHLY, know they are saved/elect/etc…. That is not loving the neighbor worse than an overt thief who grabs my wallet.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 268

    BOAZ Fws, who handed Moses the tablets?

    FWS God did. Through Moses. And they were for the Jews only.

    BOAZ Who inspires Scripture?

    FWS God the Holy Spirit did and he creates children of abraham from hearts of stone just as Jesus says, alone through the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.

    BOAZ Or is there no law in scripture?

    FWS The Holy Scripture has alot of law in it. It is mostly Law in fact. But the Scriptures exist, alone, as a testimony to Christ and to have us know Christ as our Savior.

    The Law contained in the Scriptures is the exact SAME Law that any Pagan can know, Ghandi, buddha, mohammed , athiests. There is not one shred of Law in the Bible that requires faith in a god or even knowledge of the Holy Scriptures to know and even do externally.

    BOAZ Why does Luther say sixth commandment requires us to avoid lustful thoughts and live chastely? Because we should teach others to avoid lust and honor the goods of marriage.

    FWS Luther , as would any pagan such as aristotle, would tell us this is so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, and that we help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need.

    In the small catechism, in intructions for preparation for confessions, Luther has us apply the Law to ourselves in the only way we really can which is situationally: “consider your station in life, where God has placed you , according to the 10 commandments: are you a father , mother, son, daughter, husband, wife or worker? have you been disobedient , unfaithful or lazy? Have you been hot tempered, rude or quarrelsome? Have you hurt someone by your words or deeds? Have you stolen, been negligent, wasted anything or done any harm?”

    See. This is not about morality-by-the-metrics. The Law demands far more than to dot i’s and to cross t’s as some sort of Obedience to God that he wants or needs.

    True earthly righeousness is to be obedient to who? We are to be servants of others. So let me ask you boaz: a servant is obedient to whom and is judged by whom? he is judged by whom he serves. He serves at the pleasure of whom he serves and whom he serves God appoints as the judge of that servant. So God’s will is that you place yourself under the judgement of your neighbor as to your earthly righeousness right? Your neighbor is the one who will keep score as to whether you are righteous. and on what basis is the score keeping? You ask your neighbor: do you feel loved by me in my words and deeds?

    And dont be silly. This does not mean we indulge others. it is not love to give candy to someone when they need nourishing food. But neither is it our duty to be parent or to offer unrequested criticism to others. We are to mind to our own business and stay out of the personal lives, property and business of others unless it is our vocation or station in life as a parent or judge or other such person to meddle in such things.

    BOAZ What’s at stake is peoples souls, …..

    FWS There is nothing we can do in our bodies that will mean the difference between heaven and hell Boaz. This is exactly what being saved by grace through invisible faith in Christ alone means.

    BOAZ …..who believe your nonsense that nonmarital sex doesn’t teach and promote lust,

    FWS Be careful not to slander me dear Brother by putting words into my mouth. Where did I say this Boaz?

    BOAZ and the state of marriage, which is so disparaged this country, most children don’t experience the love of family life.

    FWS Ok. the state of marriage is in a sorry state. Agreed. Maybe if people would pay more attention to divorce and less to homosexual marriage this would get better? Gay marriage affects a small minority. Divorce is HUGE. so what is wrong with the current picture of people getting hot over gay marriage and relatively silent about trying to overturn divorce laws? and I am sad for children. even those in two parent male/female households often are deprived of love that they need and deserve. Ok. Boaz , what does this have to do with what?

    BOAZ Committed relatioship is nothing. Even those in marriage frequently sin by misusing each other for nonmartal, selfish sex. What matters is not commitment, but showing selfless love and strengthening the marriage.

    FWS Agree fully here dear brother. Sin reigns doesnt it?

    BOAZ Further, there is nothing in scripture about committed relationships, just marriage.

    FWS Dunno. depends on how you define marriage. adam and even, ot patriarchs, etc. did they have a ceremony? certificate?

    BOAZ And what does committed relationship have to do with sex?
    I have lots of committed relationships. They are not marriage ….

    FWS Ok. I agree completely!

    BOAZ…..and to equate the two is disparages marriage the same way Luther criticized Rome for doing.

    FWS How is this true brother Boaz? Show me something Luther wrote or in the confessions that shows how this was the error Rome made that Luther and the Lutherans criticize.

    BOAZ You are right the law isn’t a moral code,

    FWS Well. I would not go that far. The Law can take the form of being codified. Civil law IS law and it is something we must follow. God wills this. and the Jews for that reason were required to keep the law in the old testament. The real point is not what form the law comes to us in, the point is rather that a) the law always accuses us and kills our Old Adam. Literally kills him. not metaphorically or figuratively. Luther says that “life is mortification”. Life is literally the process of physical deathing. and the spiritual deathing of the Old Adam since the Law is spiritual. and b) On earth the righeousness that the Law demands of us is visible , evidence-ial obedience to the needs of our neighbor by doing love , making his creaturely life better. period. Keeping the Law to maintain our relationship with Him by our obedience to Him the bible calls by the name “idolatry” “spiritual adultery” ” empty or dead sacrifice” and “useless.”

    BOAZ and scholastic natural law is not scriptural.

    FWS Lots of forms of the Law are nowhere in scripture but God still demands that we keep those laws. Eg city parking ordinances. This is a moral requirement. But the point is that no law has eternal consequences. People do not go to hell because of what they do or do not do. Nor to heaven for that reason either. But on earth God desires that we obey the law. And we should learn to do this willingly and meticulously so that God does not need to force us to do it with earthly punishment and sufferings.

    BOAZ But you are wrong that your subjective view of what loving your neighbours is trumps Gods description of what loving your neighbor is in the law.

    FWS Where is God’s description of what loving our neighbor looks like dear brother Boaz? The story of the Good Samaritan is one I can think of. In the small catechism Luther supplements the 10 commandments doesnt he? the original only referred to Virtue. all the self stuff. self -discipline, self-restraint, self-control. These are the “do nots.” The bible calls this mortification of the flesh. It is “do no harm.” But then Luther adds love doesnt he? and that part looks like “We should help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need!” So how would one codify this thing called love into a law? Cant really be done can it? Imagine you trying to write up a list of rules to follow with your wife and then convince her that following that set of rules is the full extent of what is your love for her. She would rightfully hate that wouldnt she? Why? Because your heart would not be delivered to her. Love is a heart thing that expresses itself in actions. it is not actions only is it?

    BOAZ the law is love your neighbor. It doesn’t stop there, it gives us specific commands on what that entails, which we need as our human reason cannot clearly see what the law requires, as we constantly want to make it easier for us, to avoid guilt or to confirm our goodness.

    FWS See my last comment. Imagine doing this in your relationship with your loved ones and nothing more and then claiming that as love.

    here is something from the Lutheran Confessions to help see what God’s Law demands of us from our hearts…

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    BOAZ Thus Luther does not replace the moral law taught in scripture with a generic command to love,

    FWS Love is the fulfillment or keeping of the Law.

    BOAZ he shows how the moral commands in scripture all relate to loving your neighbor,

    FWS Fully agree! Virtue/Mortification, which is self control and do no harm is the necessary factory for the production of love, but it is not love unless there are shipments of daily bread from that factory that is your and my sinful old adam forced to be virtuous by the metrics of the law.

    BOAZ and are always impossible for us.

    FWS Amen brother BOAZ! Always. Im-possible. The LAW always accuses. the law ALWAYS accuses. The Law always ACCUSES. The law only kills and demands more and more. It gives nothing in return.

    BOAZ Nevertheless we love the law because it is Gods will for how we should love each other.

    FWS No Old Adam really loves the law. “All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not. “…Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You’d rather act otherwise if the law didn’t exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared. Furthermore, the law increases sin, as St. Paul says in chapter 5. That is because a person becomes more and more an enemy of the law the more it demands of him what he can’t possibly do.”

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    BOAZ You can’t be a Christian and disagree with God on what it means to love your neighbor.

    FWS Dear brother, You as a christian are an New Man in christ. You can ONLY do good. You simply CANNOT sin! 1 john. Could Christ sin? No. Neither can you since you are In christ. But , also as a christian, at the same time, if you say you have no sin you deceave yourself and the Truth is not in you. Contradiction? no. how can both be true at the same time? this is how: but the same Old Adam that you were as a pagan enemy of God remains in you after your baptism. the Old you. the Old adam you once were Boaz. And so that part of you, as a christian, can do nothing but sin. You, that is “you” according to your old adam flesh, still hates God from the very bottom of his heart. there is no reforming you as old Adam. Death is the only cure. And isnt it great that the Holy Spirit is on that task! he is killing you (aka mortifying you) with the Law. and you are participating in that death in your new man! This is what you are doing when you do as st paul says: run the race, fight the good fight, subdue the flesh, love your neighbor…. you are literally stumbling over your old self and flesh and killing yourself in service to others, You are a living sacrifice having the life poured out of you for others.

    BOAZ Read others large catechism on the sixth commandment. And SD vi. I don’t think its hard to figure out.

    FWS Excellent advice! I will do that! Thank you Boaz. sincerely.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 268

    BOAZ Fws, who handed Moses the tablets?

    FWS God did. Through Moses. And they were for the Jews only.

    BOAZ Who inspires Scripture?

    FWS God the Holy Spirit did and he creates children of abraham from hearts of stone just as Jesus says, alone through the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.

    BOAZ Or is there no law in scripture?

    FWS The Holy Scripture has alot of law in it. It is mostly Law in fact. But the Scriptures exist, alone, as a testimony to Christ and to have us know Christ as our Savior.

    The Law contained in the Scriptures is the exact SAME Law that any Pagan can know, Ghandi, buddha, mohammed , athiests. There is not one shred of Law in the Bible that requires faith in a god or even knowledge of the Holy Scriptures to know and even do externally.

    BOAZ Why does Luther say sixth commandment requires us to avoid lustful thoughts and live chastely? Because we should teach others to avoid lust and honor the goods of marriage.

    FWS Luther , as would any pagan such as aristotle, would tell us this is so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, and that we help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need.

    In the small catechism, in intructions for preparation for confessions, Luther has us apply the Law to ourselves in the only way we really can which is situationally: “consider your station in life, where God has placed you , according to the 10 commandments: are you a father , mother, son, daughter, husband, wife or worker? have you been disobedient , unfaithful or lazy? Have you been hot tempered, rude or quarrelsome? Have you hurt someone by your words or deeds? Have you stolen, been negligent, wasted anything or done any harm?”

    See. This is not about morality-by-the-metrics. The Law demands far more than to dot i’s and to cross t’s as some sort of Obedience to God that he wants or needs.

    True earthly righeousness is to be obedient to who? We are to be servants of others. So let me ask you boaz: a servant is obedient to whom and is judged by whom? he is judged by whom he serves. He serves at the pleasure of whom he serves and whom he serves God appoints as the judge of that servant. So God’s will is that you place yourself under the judgement of your neighbor as to your earthly righeousness right? Your neighbor is the one who will keep score as to whether you are righteous. and on what basis is the score keeping? You ask your neighbor: do you feel loved by me in my words and deeds?

    And dont be silly. This does not mean we indulge others. it is not love to give candy to someone when they need nourishing food. But neither is it our duty to be parent or to offer unrequested criticism to others. We are to mind to our own business and stay out of the personal lives, property and business of others unless it is our vocation or station in life as a parent or judge or other such person to meddle in such things.

    BOAZ What’s at stake is peoples souls, …..

    FWS There is nothing we can do in our bodies that will mean the difference between heaven and hell Boaz. This is exactly what being saved by grace through invisible faith in Christ alone means.

    BOAZ …..who believe your nonsense that nonmarital sex doesn’t teach and promote lust,

    FWS Be careful not to slander me dear Brother by putting words into my mouth. Where did I say this Boaz?

    BOAZ and the state of marriage, which is so disparaged this country, most children don’t experience the love of family life.

    FWS Ok. the state of marriage is in a sorry state. Agreed. Maybe if people would pay more attention to divorce and less to homosexual marriage this would get better? Gay marriage affects a small minority. Divorce is HUGE. so what is wrong with the current picture of people getting hot over gay marriage and relatively silent about trying to overturn divorce laws? and I am sad for children. even those in two parent male/female households often are deprived of love that they need and deserve. Ok. Boaz , what does this have to do with what?

    BOAZ Committed relatioship is nothing. Even those in marriage frequently sin by misusing each other for nonmartal, selfish sex. What matters is not commitment, but showing selfless love and strengthening the marriage.

    FWS Agree fully here dear brother. Sin reigns doesnt it?

    BOAZ Further, there is nothing in scripture about committed relationships, just marriage.

    FWS Dunno. depends on how you define marriage. adam and even, ot patriarchs, etc. did they have a ceremony? certificate?

    BOAZ And what does committed relationship have to do with sex?
    I have lots of committed relationships. They are not marriage ….

    FWS Ok. I agree completely!

    BOAZ…..and to equate the two is disparages marriage the same way Luther criticized Rome for doing.

    FWS How is this true brother Boaz? Show me something Luther wrote or in the confessions that shows how this was the error Rome made that Luther and the Lutherans criticize.

    BOAZ You are right the law isn’t a moral code,

    FWS Well. I would not go that far. The Law can take the form of being codified. Civil law IS law and it is something we must follow. God wills this. and the Jews for that reason were required to keep the law in the old testament. The real point is not what form the law comes to us in, the point is rather that a) the law always accuses us and kills our Old Adam. Literally kills him. not metaphorically or figuratively. Luther says that “life is mortification”. Life is literally the process of physical deathing. and the spiritual deathing of the Old Adam since the Law is spiritual. and b) On earth the righeousness that the Law demands of us is visible , evidence-ial obedience to the needs of our neighbor by doing love , making his creaturely life better. period. Keeping the Law to maintain our relationship with Him by our obedience to Him the bible calls by the name “idolatry” “spiritual adultery” ” empty or dead sacrifice” and “useless.”

    BOAZ and scholastic natural law is not scriptural.

    FWS Lots of forms of the Law are nowhere in scripture but God still demands that we keep those laws. Eg city parking ordinances. This is a moral requirement. But the point is that no law has eternal consequences. People do not go to hell because of what they do or do not do. Nor to heaven for that reason either. But on earth God desires that we obey the law. And we should learn to do this willingly and meticulously so that God does not need to force us to do it with earthly punishment and sufferings.

    BOAZ But you are wrong that your subjective view of what loving your neighbours is trumps Gods description of what loving your neighbor is in the law.

    FWS Where is God’s description of what loving our neighbor looks like dear brother Boaz? The story of the Good Samaritan is one I can think of. In the small catechism Luther supplements the 10 commandments doesnt he? the original only referred to Virtue. all the self stuff. self -discipline, self-restraint, self-control. These are the “do nots.” The bible calls this mortification of the flesh. It is “do no harm.” But then Luther adds love doesnt he? and that part looks like “We should help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need!” So how would one codify this thing called love into a law? Cant really be done can it? Imagine you trying to write up a list of rules to follow with your wife and then convince her that following that set of rules is the full extent of what is your love for her. She would rightfully hate that wouldnt she? Why? Because your heart would not be delivered to her. Love is a heart thing that expresses itself in actions. it is not actions only is it?

    BOAZ the law is love your neighbor. It doesn’t stop there, it gives us specific commands on what that entails, which we need as our human reason cannot clearly see what the law requires, as we constantly want to make it easier for us, to avoid guilt or to confirm our goodness.

    FWS See my last comment. Imagine doing this in your relationship with your loved ones and nothing more and then claiming that as love.

    here is something from the Lutheran Confessions to help see what God’s Law demands of us from our hearts…

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    BOAZ Thus Luther does not replace the moral law taught in scripture with a generic command to love,

    FWS Love is the fulfillment or keeping of the Law.

    BOAZ he shows how the moral commands in scripture all relate to loving your neighbor,

    FWS Fully agree! Virtue/Mortification, which is self control and do no harm is the necessary factory for the production of love, but it is not love unless there are shipments of daily bread from that factory that is your and my sinful old adam forced to be virtuous by the metrics of the law.

    BOAZ and are always impossible for us.

    FWS Amen brother BOAZ! Always. Im-possible. The LAW always accuses. the law ALWAYS accuses. The Law always ACCUSES. The law only kills and demands more and more. It gives nothing in return.

    BOAZ Nevertheless we love the law because it is Gods will for how we should love each other.

    FWS No Old Adam really loves the law. “All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not. “…Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You’d rather act otherwise if the law didn’t exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared. Furthermore, the law increases sin, as St. Paul says in chapter 5. That is because a person becomes more and more an enemy of the law the more it demands of him what he can’t possibly do.”

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    BOAZ You can’t be a Christian and disagree with God on what it means to love your neighbor.

    FWS Dear brother, You as a christian are an New Man in christ. You can ONLY do good. You simply CANNOT sin! 1 john. Could Christ sin? No. Neither can you since you are In christ. But , also as a christian, at the same time, if you say you have no sin you deceave yourself and the Truth is not in you. Contradiction? no. how can both be true at the same time? this is how: but the same Old Adam that you were as a pagan enemy of God remains in you after your baptism. the Old you. the Old adam you once were Boaz. And so that part of you, as a christian, can do nothing but sin. You, that is “you” according to your old adam flesh, still hates God from the very bottom of his heart. there is no reforming you as old Adam. Death is the only cure. And isnt it great that the Holy Spirit is on that task! he is killing you (aka mortifying you) with the Law. and you are participating in that death in your new man! This is what you are doing when you do as st paul says: run the race, fight the good fight, subdue the flesh, love your neighbor…. you are literally stumbling over your old self and flesh and killing yourself in service to others, You are a living sacrifice having the life poured out of you for others.

    BOAZ Read others large catechism on the sixth commandment. And SD vi. I don’t think its hard to figure out.

    FWS Excellent advice! I will do that! Thank you Boaz. sincerely.

  • Larry

    Mistake corrected:

    “It never occurs to them that a “gay parade” is far worse a sin than is the doctrine of ‘believers baptism’ or a “LS” that is merely a sign or memorial.”

    Should read: “It never occurs to them that a “gay parade” is far LESS a sin than is the doctrine of ‘believers baptism’ or a “LS” that is merely a sign or memorial. “

  • Larry

    Mistake corrected:

    “It never occurs to them that a “gay parade” is far worse a sin than is the doctrine of ‘believers baptism’ or a “LS” that is merely a sign or memorial.”

    Should read: “It never occurs to them that a “gay parade” is far LESS a sin than is the doctrine of ‘believers baptism’ or a “LS” that is merely a sign or memorial. “

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    As I said to boaz, “homosexual” is a 19th c. clinical term that has no place in scripture. Romans 1 refers to temple practices of Greeks that Paul saw around him. It has to do with using others sexually in the worship of false gods. Giving up natural affections would not apply to gay people as their natural affections . . . are not affected. Using this logic, they would become heterosexual. False gods are the real problem and where all those “reprobates” come from.

    The terms used such as 1 Corinthians 6 refer to, as best can be determined, other illicit sexual practices such as male prostitution and maybe (because the best scholarship cannot really determine the answer to the definition of the word) the “johns” that take advantage of their services.

    In either case, it is not about gay relationships between consenting adults. In fact, their were no consenting adults of ANY kind in the 1st. century. Paul’s instructions on submission to EACH OTHER in marriage are fairly radical actually. But in any case, homosexuality as it known today and expressed between consenting adults who love each other is never in view in the scriptures ANYWHERE!

    It is not about what is convenient. I dare say that plenty of gay people would do the “convenient” thing and just live a celibate life because they have to suffer so much grief for no good purpose whatsoever. And I know for certain that many do just that. They choose to sacrifice themselves in this way. And who is asking them to do that? The church especially. Moralists. But why, when we have all been given the final and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross?

    But you won’t begin to get any of this until you give up your sin/works (same stew) and hand them over to the One who has done it all for you. He’s your savior. Let him be that for you. He’s given it all to you by grace.

    Hey, there’s your name again.

  • Stephen

    Grace -

    As I said to boaz, “homosexual” is a 19th c. clinical term that has no place in scripture. Romans 1 refers to temple practices of Greeks that Paul saw around him. It has to do with using others sexually in the worship of false gods. Giving up natural affections would not apply to gay people as their natural affections . . . are not affected. Using this logic, they would become heterosexual. False gods are the real problem and where all those “reprobates” come from.

    The terms used such as 1 Corinthians 6 refer to, as best can be determined, other illicit sexual practices such as male prostitution and maybe (because the best scholarship cannot really determine the answer to the definition of the word) the “johns” that take advantage of their services.

    In either case, it is not about gay relationships between consenting adults. In fact, their were no consenting adults of ANY kind in the 1st. century. Paul’s instructions on submission to EACH OTHER in marriage are fairly radical actually. But in any case, homosexuality as it known today and expressed between consenting adults who love each other is never in view in the scriptures ANYWHERE!

    It is not about what is convenient. I dare say that plenty of gay people would do the “convenient” thing and just live a celibate life because they have to suffer so much grief for no good purpose whatsoever. And I know for certain that many do just that. They choose to sacrifice themselves in this way. And who is asking them to do that? The church especially. Moralists. But why, when we have all been given the final and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross?

    But you won’t begin to get any of this until you give up your sin/works (same stew) and hand them over to the One who has done it all for you. He’s your savior. Let him be that for you. He’s given it all to you by grace.

    Hey, there’s your name again.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    @ 277 boaz January 11, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    FWS I want you to know that I am taking some time and care to answer your posts in good detail because you are being extremely thoughtful, you are obviously seeking to discuss the truth as a brother and not try to win an argument or have a duel of intellect of egos. Your comments are really quite excellent in that they drive towards the very heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter is not homosexuality. It is sin and grace. and it is about us all in exactly the same way isnt it?

    BOAZ Fws, are you or are you not arguing that the church should not condemn gay sex and as against Gods law? I’m not peering into anybody’s heart, just blog comments.

    FWS What I have to say about this really doesnt matter does it because I am full of sin and self interest. As a gay man and as an old adam, I will of course want and that will be hopelessly mired and mixed with sin. That is just a sad fact. So let’s try to appeal to something beyond me that is sure and certain.

    Our Confessions, in article XXIII of the Apology “On priestly celebacy” says the following:

    1) It points out that the sex drive , like any other force of nature such as gravity, is irresistable. The only exception to this is those rare times when God works a miracle and suspends those forces.

    2) This miracle, when it rarely happens is called “the gift of celebacy.” It is a gift. No one can chose it.

    3) So to demand that men and women be celebate is cruel. It is the moral equivalent of the church telling men that they will go to hell unless they can somehow make rocks fall up. it is an exercise in futility the confessions say.

    4) Furthermore, this demand just breeds sin. Men are driven to despair at this. So they just give up at trying to show the sexual self restraint that God demands for the same of their own wellbeing and that of others. Worse still, they despair at believing Christ died for them and forgives them. They depair at trusting the ONE thing that could mean eternity for them because the Church says it is not for them unless they can somehow succeed in doing the moral equivalent of making rocks fall up.

    5) So then the debauchery that results is to be laid directly upon the doorstep of any church group demanding this celebacy that is impossible short of a miracle. Who is to blame for gay debauchery? The church who demands celebacy to avoid hell is directly to blame our Confessions demand that we confess.

    6) So what is the solution? The Lutheran Confessions say the only way to channel this irrisistable force of nature called the sex drive is to get married to a female. Period. They say there is NO other way short of a miracle to channel the sex drive. Even then it can only be channeled. It cannot be abrogated or negated. The sex drive will always drive us. we cannot drive it. we can only steer it into ways that do no harm and help and befriend and makes the life of someone better because they are getting the orgasms that God wants them to have in a way that makes their life and the life of another someone feel really really good! that toecurling , goosebump making good that makes us want to get up and do stuff. and this is not just about the sex act then is it?

    7) Now. It is obvious that the Confessions did not know about a human condition called homosexuality, or a non terracentric universe. So then the questions is this one: we know that facts 1 through 5 are what they are. True whether straight or gay. and now in 2010 some of us claim to know that heterosexual marriage is not only not possible for 2-10% of the worlds population, it would also be an incredibly immoral thing for a homosexual to do . It would mean sacrificing the needs of an innocent female and literally ruining her life in a misguided attempt to avoid going to hell since one cannot make rocks fall up.

    so what would you suggest is the solution that keeps the Law of God, whos entire point and purpose is to make the creaturely lives of others happier?

    Is it not deadly for souls for the church not to condemn sin? How will sinners know they need the Gospel? Moreover, we fashion a false god of our own making when we redefine love to suit our own wants and desires.

    Most of your response has nothing to do with what I said. Of course forgiveness and faith come before works, we are all sinners in need of grace, and sin repeatedly, gays and straight. Marriage doesn’t mean lust stops either. With faith we see the law is love, it is good, it is the old Adam that is wicked and needs daily drowning. Those with faith do not want to continue in sin, they repent of it daily. That includes those tempted by any type of lust.

    Nothing in your response comes from scripture or the confessions. You can dress It up however you want it with evidence or sociology, it always comes back to what you want to do. Too bad. Repent

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    @ 277 boaz January 11, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    FWS I want you to know that I am taking some time and care to answer your posts in good detail because you are being extremely thoughtful, you are obviously seeking to discuss the truth as a brother and not try to win an argument or have a duel of intellect of egos. Your comments are really quite excellent in that they drive towards the very heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter is not homosexuality. It is sin and grace. and it is about us all in exactly the same way isnt it?

    BOAZ Fws, are you or are you not arguing that the church should not condemn gay sex and as against Gods law? I’m not peering into anybody’s heart, just blog comments.

    FWS What I have to say about this really doesnt matter does it because I am full of sin and self interest. As a gay man and as an old adam, I will of course want and that will be hopelessly mired and mixed with sin. That is just a sad fact. So let’s try to appeal to something beyond me that is sure and certain.

    Our Confessions, in article XXIII of the Apology “On priestly celebacy” says the following:

    1) It points out that the sex drive , like any other force of nature such as gravity, is irresistable. The only exception to this is those rare times when God works a miracle and suspends those forces.

    2) This miracle, when it rarely happens is called “the gift of celebacy.” It is a gift. No one can chose it.

    3) So to demand that men and women be celebate is cruel. It is the moral equivalent of the church telling men that they will go to hell unless they can somehow make rocks fall up. it is an exercise in futility the confessions say.

    4) Furthermore, this demand just breeds sin. Men are driven to despair at this. So they just give up at trying to show the sexual self restraint that God demands for the same of their own wellbeing and that of others. Worse still, they despair at believing Christ died for them and forgives them. They depair at trusting the ONE thing that could mean eternity for them because the Church says it is not for them unless they can somehow succeed in doing the moral equivalent of making rocks fall up.

    5) So then the debauchery that results is to be laid directly upon the doorstep of any church group demanding this celebacy that is impossible short of a miracle. Who is to blame for gay debauchery? The church who demands celebacy to avoid hell is directly to blame our Confessions demand that we confess.

    6) So what is the solution? The Lutheran Confessions say the only way to channel this irrisistable force of nature called the sex drive is to get married to a female. Period. They say there is NO other way short of a miracle to channel the sex drive. Even then it can only be channeled. It cannot be abrogated or negated. The sex drive will always drive us. we cannot drive it. we can only steer it into ways that do no harm and help and befriend and makes the life of someone better because they are getting the orgasms that God wants them to have in a way that makes their life and the life of another someone feel really really good! that toecurling , goosebump making good that makes us want to get up and do stuff. and this is not just about the sex act then is it?

    7) Now. It is obvious that the Confessions did not know about a human condition called homosexuality, or a non terracentric universe. So then the questions is this one: we know that facts 1 through 5 are what they are. True whether straight or gay. and now in 2010 some of us claim to know that heterosexual marriage is not only not possible for 2-10% of the worlds population, it would also be an incredibly immoral thing for a homosexual to do . It would mean sacrificing the needs of an innocent female and literally ruining her life in a misguided attempt to avoid going to hell since one cannot make rocks fall up.

    so what would you suggest is the solution that keeps the Law of God, whos entire point and purpose is to make the creaturely lives of others happier?

    Is it not deadly for souls for the church not to condemn sin? How will sinners know they need the Gospel? Moreover, we fashion a false god of our own making when we redefine love to suit our own wants and desires.

    Most of your response has nothing to do with what I said. Of course forgiveness and faith come before works, we are all sinners in need of grace, and sin repeatedly, gays and straight. Marriage doesn’t mean lust stops either. With faith we see the law is love, it is good, it is the old Adam that is wicked and needs daily drowning. Those with faith do not want to continue in sin, they repent of it daily. That includes those tempted by any type of lust.

    Nothing in your response comes from scripture or the confessions. You can dress It up however you want it with evidence or sociology, it always comes back to what you want to do. Too bad. Repent

  • Dust

    to Stephen at 269…..here’s a snippet of your comment:

    “Because custom dictates that “marriage” is what you think it is – a man and a woman only. Maybe it is. I’m not sure.”

    It seems somewhat disingenuous, in the least, to say you are not sure about what the Bible defines as a marriage, when everywhere in the holy scriptures, every relationship is presented as between a man and a woman. Starting with the first one, Adam and Eve. And isn’t there a verse about a man “leaving his mother and father” and cleaving to his wife, etc.? Can you come up with one example from scripture of a homosexual marriage? And yet, you are not sure, hmmm, what is wrong with this picture?

    On the other hand, you are supremely confident and sure that the only thing one needs is faith and that works play absolutely no role in our Christian life, or in the least, you minimize and mock those who think differently that you. Yet, all over scripture, and in the comments the kind folks here are pointing out to you, there is much more evidence that your position is not entirely sound, or at least the possibility of some other kind of interpretation. Yet in the face of all that paradoxical scripture, you can’t at least admit a little bit of possibility of some truth to the comments of the folks who disagree with you? Perhaps out of some kind of intellectual honesty at least?

    So really, how can you come to such inconsistent conclusions on 2 topics that have nearly opposite kinds of support from scripture? The conclusion on which you are not sure, has at least some support from the bible, and the conclusion on which you are so sure, has plenty of paradoxical, if not seemingly contradictory verses! Is there some cultural pressure involved here? The same kind you mocked in your comment above, but in the opposite direction? Maybe there is…I am not sure!

    Mind you, this is not to say am saying marriage or civil unions for non-hets is wrong in a cultural way, but that doesn’t mean the bible agrees with it or supports it, and you should not try to twist the scriptures around that way, just to fit in with the current cultural atmosphere.

    Well, anyway, that’s my theory and am sticking with it…thank you and good luck!

  • Dust

    to Stephen at 269…..here’s a snippet of your comment:

    “Because custom dictates that “marriage” is what you think it is – a man and a woman only. Maybe it is. I’m not sure.”

    It seems somewhat disingenuous, in the least, to say you are not sure about what the Bible defines as a marriage, when everywhere in the holy scriptures, every relationship is presented as between a man and a woman. Starting with the first one, Adam and Eve. And isn’t there a verse about a man “leaving his mother and father” and cleaving to his wife, etc.? Can you come up with one example from scripture of a homosexual marriage? And yet, you are not sure, hmmm, what is wrong with this picture?

    On the other hand, you are supremely confident and sure that the only thing one needs is faith and that works play absolutely no role in our Christian life, or in the least, you minimize and mock those who think differently that you. Yet, all over scripture, and in the comments the kind folks here are pointing out to you, there is much more evidence that your position is not entirely sound, or at least the possibility of some other kind of interpretation. Yet in the face of all that paradoxical scripture, you can’t at least admit a little bit of possibility of some truth to the comments of the folks who disagree with you? Perhaps out of some kind of intellectual honesty at least?

    So really, how can you come to such inconsistent conclusions on 2 topics that have nearly opposite kinds of support from scripture? The conclusion on which you are not sure, has at least some support from the bible, and the conclusion on which you are so sure, has plenty of paradoxical, if not seemingly contradictory verses! Is there some cultural pressure involved here? The same kind you mocked in your comment above, but in the opposite direction? Maybe there is…I am not sure!

    Mind you, this is not to say am saying marriage or civil unions for non-hets is wrong in a cultural way, but that doesn’t mean the bible agrees with it or supports it, and you should not try to twist the scriptures around that way, just to fit in with the current cultural atmosphere.

    Well, anyway, that’s my theory and am sticking with it…thank you and good luck!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @277 continued…

    BOAZ Is it not deadly for souls for the church not to condemn sin?

    FWS It absolutely is. Just as it is deadly for the Church to deviate from Gods Word as in point 4) from the apology to the augsburg confession on priestly celebacy. The Law apart from christ will produce pharisee or depairing Judas. So man will make up new laws … like demanding celebacy of others… to avoid the nagging conscience that always accuses apart from christ.

    BOAZ How will sinners know they need the Gospel?

    FWS they will not know because a homosexual will think that he can earn heaven by becoming celebate and trying harder, and others will think the same thing. .. they are not perfect sexually but at least they are not gay perverts! And maybe a gay man will succeed at avoiding sex and go to hell because he has no Christ. sad for that to happen.

    BOAZ Moreover, we fashion a false god of our own making when we redefine love to suit our own wants and desires.

    FWS We all do this dont we. we are all guilty of exactly this idolatry. This can especially be true of men and women who are married and who look like the perfect picture of moral marital bliss. They have no Christ. They think marriage will give them eternal life. they are going to hell. Mormons fit this description perfectly dont they? and then there is the rest of us. we get married for all the wrong and selfish reasons. we dont love our spouses or honor them. etc etc etc.. Like you said earlier : it is im-possible to love as we should and so keep the law as God demands. But we should try. Why should we try? Because God will make love happen whether we are willing or not. but if we are not doing this willingly, god will send suffering and punishment to make us do this loving. We really have no choice of doing the law or not. the law does us. we dont do it. the choice we have is to do it the easy way or the hard way here on earth.

    BOAZ Most of your response has nothing to do with what I said.

    FWS I hope you accept my sincere apology then Boaz. there is no point if my commenting if it does not serve you and is of no use to you.

    BOAZ Of course forgiveness and faith come before works, we are all sinners in need of grace, and sin repeatedly, gays and straight.

    FWS I am always grateful to hear that said boaz. It is comforting isnt it?

    BOAZ Marriage doesn’t mean lust stops either.

    FWS Indeed. The confessions say the sex drive is normal . it existed before the fall. but concupiscence, that always-desire of the heart to look for its good and completion in created things rather than God makes a mess of things what is , of itself, a good thing.

    BOAZ With faith we see the law is love, it is good,

    FWS Yes! We see that it is the Law that the HS uses to make Old Adams everywhere provide the goodness and mercy of the 1st article and the 4th petition in the small catechism just like Jesus describes in luke 18 where god makes justice happen even out of a completely law-less judge nagged to death by a conscience widowed from love. will faith be found when christ returns? wrong question! God makes his will happen even in our un-faith-full-ness. Gods goodness and mercy will happen any way. anyway. And so God sends his Son. while we are yet like that law-less judge and old adams without the new man.

    BOAZ it is the old Adam that is wicked and needs daily drowning.

    FWS this is exactly right boaz! that is the OLD you. it is who you were. It is not who you are. The Old adam is an excellent swimmer isnt he? ha!

    BOAZ Those with faith do not want to continue in sin, they repent of it daily. That includes those tempted by any type of lust.

    FWS Amen! This is exactly right. Our new man cannot sin. and he continuously wars with the Old adam and works at killing him. Lust is really the same deal as coveting isnt it? it is the opposite of helping and befriending our neighbor in every bodily need. It is theft. It is taking something from someone against their best interest. Sometimes people even ask us to do this to them (prostitutes for example) . It is still wrong.

    BOAZ Nothing in your response comes from scripture or the confessions.

    FWS Ok. well you now have two new responses and every line is from the confessions or scriptures.

    BOAZ You can dress It up however you want it with evidence or sociology,

    FWS In the earthly kingdom this pleases God. scientists and sociologists are blessings. But no one should do this when it is about what God says is a Righteousness that is pleasing to him. There alone, reason and logic will fail us and will drive us to seek a relationship with God based on the Law because the law is Reasonable. Old adam love this stuff. So if and where I am doing this I simply need to stop and repent. Show me dear brother where exactly and on what point I am doing this ok? Bless you for reminding me that our Reason must be made captive to the Word of God when it comes to Christ and our relationship with God .

    BOAZit always comes back to what you want to do. Too bad.

    FWS Aint that the God-honest truth for each and every one of us? I have no excuse. I need to repent of this. My old adam needs to die.

    BOAZ Repent

    FWS In hearing the Holy Gospel God grant me true repentance in turning in faith to Christ. May God also grant this repentance to you dear brother.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @277 continued…

    BOAZ Is it not deadly for souls for the church not to condemn sin?

    FWS It absolutely is. Just as it is deadly for the Church to deviate from Gods Word as in point 4) from the apology to the augsburg confession on priestly celebacy. The Law apart from christ will produce pharisee or depairing Judas. So man will make up new laws … like demanding celebacy of others… to avoid the nagging conscience that always accuses apart from christ.

    BOAZ How will sinners know they need the Gospel?

    FWS they will not know because a homosexual will think that he can earn heaven by becoming celebate and trying harder, and others will think the same thing. .. they are not perfect sexually but at least they are not gay perverts! And maybe a gay man will succeed at avoiding sex and go to hell because he has no Christ. sad for that to happen.

    BOAZ Moreover, we fashion a false god of our own making when we redefine love to suit our own wants and desires.

    FWS We all do this dont we. we are all guilty of exactly this idolatry. This can especially be true of men and women who are married and who look like the perfect picture of moral marital bliss. They have no Christ. They think marriage will give them eternal life. they are going to hell. Mormons fit this description perfectly dont they? and then there is the rest of us. we get married for all the wrong and selfish reasons. we dont love our spouses or honor them. etc etc etc.. Like you said earlier : it is im-possible to love as we should and so keep the law as God demands. But we should try. Why should we try? Because God will make love happen whether we are willing or not. but if we are not doing this willingly, god will send suffering and punishment to make us do this loving. We really have no choice of doing the law or not. the law does us. we dont do it. the choice we have is to do it the easy way or the hard way here on earth.

    BOAZ Most of your response has nothing to do with what I said.

    FWS I hope you accept my sincere apology then Boaz. there is no point if my commenting if it does not serve you and is of no use to you.

    BOAZ Of course forgiveness and faith come before works, we are all sinners in need of grace, and sin repeatedly, gays and straight.

    FWS I am always grateful to hear that said boaz. It is comforting isnt it?

    BOAZ Marriage doesn’t mean lust stops either.

    FWS Indeed. The confessions say the sex drive is normal . it existed before the fall. but concupiscence, that always-desire of the heart to look for its good and completion in created things rather than God makes a mess of things what is , of itself, a good thing.

    BOAZ With faith we see the law is love, it is good,

    FWS Yes! We see that it is the Law that the HS uses to make Old Adams everywhere provide the goodness and mercy of the 1st article and the 4th petition in the small catechism just like Jesus describes in luke 18 where god makes justice happen even out of a completely law-less judge nagged to death by a conscience widowed from love. will faith be found when christ returns? wrong question! God makes his will happen even in our un-faith-full-ness. Gods goodness and mercy will happen any way. anyway. And so God sends his Son. while we are yet like that law-less judge and old adams without the new man.

    BOAZ it is the old Adam that is wicked and needs daily drowning.

    FWS this is exactly right boaz! that is the OLD you. it is who you were. It is not who you are. The Old adam is an excellent swimmer isnt he? ha!

    BOAZ Those with faith do not want to continue in sin, they repent of it daily. That includes those tempted by any type of lust.

    FWS Amen! This is exactly right. Our new man cannot sin. and he continuously wars with the Old adam and works at killing him. Lust is really the same deal as coveting isnt it? it is the opposite of helping and befriending our neighbor in every bodily need. It is theft. It is taking something from someone against their best interest. Sometimes people even ask us to do this to them (prostitutes for example) . It is still wrong.

    BOAZ Nothing in your response comes from scripture or the confessions.

    FWS Ok. well you now have two new responses and every line is from the confessions or scriptures.

    BOAZ You can dress It up however you want it with evidence or sociology,

    FWS In the earthly kingdom this pleases God. scientists and sociologists are blessings. But no one should do this when it is about what God says is a Righteousness that is pleasing to him. There alone, reason and logic will fail us and will drive us to seek a relationship with God based on the Law because the law is Reasonable. Old adam love this stuff. So if and where I am doing this I simply need to stop and repent. Show me dear brother where exactly and on what point I am doing this ok? Bless you for reminding me that our Reason must be made captive to the Word of God when it comes to Christ and our relationship with God .

    BOAZit always comes back to what you want to do. Too bad.

    FWS Aint that the God-honest truth for each and every one of us? I have no excuse. I need to repent of this. My old adam needs to die.

    BOAZ Repent

    FWS In hearing the Holy Gospel God grant me true repentance in turning in faith to Christ. May God also grant this repentance to you dear brother.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    hmm. we are along way off from baptists and drinking. .. or are we?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    hmm. we are along way off from baptists and drinking. .. or are we?

  • Stephen

    Dust @ 284

    “Yet in the face of all that paradoxical scripture, you can’t at least admit a little bit of possibility of some truth to the comments of the folks who disagree with you? Perhaps out of some kind of intellectual honesty at least?”

    I’m not sure what you mean by paradoxical scripture. But I think I did say that there were not words for the kinds of relationships I was describing. This was because the use of the term “committed relationships” was not satisfactory. And I did use terms like “maybe.”

    I’m not sure if you are suggesting I be less certain or more. On the one hand, I need to ease up on some things and be a little less sure of myself because of all the nice people saying things from the bible and be more circumspect, but on the other I need some kind of rock-solid “proof text” for homosexual marriage to make everything I am saying valid. That is a paradox. Or it’s a rock and hard place.

    Were Adam and Eve married? What are we talking about? I know for sure there were a few fellows along the way, like Abraham and Jacob and David, who had more than one wife. Where did all that end up? what is the law and who does it condemn and why? Are some safe from parts of it while others aren’t? That is all I hear.

    I don’t think I am twisting anything and I would kindly ask you to show me how I am. I’ve given at least a few exegetical comments here on the very verses that seem to have everyone all bent out of shape. Talk about those. I have also referred to the Lutheran Confessions to make many of my points. Talk about that.

  • Stephen

    Dust @ 284

    “Yet in the face of all that paradoxical scripture, you can’t at least admit a little bit of possibility of some truth to the comments of the folks who disagree with you? Perhaps out of some kind of intellectual honesty at least?”

    I’m not sure what you mean by paradoxical scripture. But I think I did say that there were not words for the kinds of relationships I was describing. This was because the use of the term “committed relationships” was not satisfactory. And I did use terms like “maybe.”

    I’m not sure if you are suggesting I be less certain or more. On the one hand, I need to ease up on some things and be a little less sure of myself because of all the nice people saying things from the bible and be more circumspect, but on the other I need some kind of rock-solid “proof text” for homosexual marriage to make everything I am saying valid. That is a paradox. Or it’s a rock and hard place.

    Were Adam and Eve married? What are we talking about? I know for sure there were a few fellows along the way, like Abraham and Jacob and David, who had more than one wife. Where did all that end up? what is the law and who does it condemn and why? Are some safe from parts of it while others aren’t? That is all I hear.

    I don’t think I am twisting anything and I would kindly ask you to show me how I am. I’ve given at least a few exegetical comments here on the very verses that seem to have everyone all bent out of shape. Talk about those. I have also referred to the Lutheran Confessions to make many of my points. Talk about that.

  • Dust

    fws….not really. go ahead and drink and get drunk….go ahead and sleep with your neighbor’s wife…..go ahead and do whatever the f you want….we are clothed in Christ and the Father does not see any of it, he sees only the pure life of his Son…as long as you have faith, eh?

  • Dust

    fws….not really. go ahead and drink and get drunk….go ahead and sleep with your neighbor’s wife…..go ahead and do whatever the f you want….we are clothed in Christ and the Father does not see any of it, he sees only the pure life of his Son…as long as you have faith, eh?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 284

    It really would be helpful to respond to the comments steve made specifically where he offers his understanding of a particular scripture passage or something specifically from the confessions.

    steve is being pretty granular in his comments and you are just saying “steve you are twisting things.” fair enuf. where is the beef dust? show us precisely where he is doing this.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 284

    It really would be helpful to respond to the comments steve made specifically where he offers his understanding of a particular scripture passage or something specifically from the confessions.

    steve is being pretty granular in his comments and you are just saying “steve you are twisting things.” fair enuf. where is the beef dust? show us precisely where he is doing this.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 288

    How you get that from what I wrote is … well. … you didnt read what I wrote or you simply did not understand one little bit of it.

    God will punish us if we hurt others and he will force us to do what is in the best interest of others as well. where did I say anything at all that contradicts that as a fact. show me!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 288

    How you get that from what I wrote is … well. … you didnt read what I wrote or you simply did not understand one little bit of it.

    God will punish us if we hurt others and he will force us to do what is in the best interest of others as well. where did I say anything at all that contradicts that as a fact. show me!

  • boaz

    Fws

    I hate to be rough, especially since I think we agree for the most part on law and gospel. I think you have blinders on when it comes to this issue though. Christ said simple lust is sin. Your explanation of law has to account for that. How is lust not showing love to neighbor? How is avoiding lust loving your neighbor? You can only explain it in relation to marriage and family and protecting marital sex from selfish sex that serves no good other than easing human itches.

    Its not an easy teaching, for sure. It’s like telling a starving family they can’t steal a chicken from the rich neighbor who has abundant livestock. Because it is a great burden, and because there Is stigma associated with the temptation, Christians should be compassionate and churches should never make forgiveness conditional. none of us really can or should judge anothers repentance.

    I can judge the doctrine you advocate for, and that’s all I’m criticizing. One who has Nonmarital sex must repent, no different than one who engages in any other sin, because it promotes selfish lust and disparages the good of marriage.

  • boaz

    Fws

    I hate to be rough, especially since I think we agree for the most part on law and gospel. I think you have blinders on when it comes to this issue though. Christ said simple lust is sin. Your explanation of law has to account for that. How is lust not showing love to neighbor? How is avoiding lust loving your neighbor? You can only explain it in relation to marriage and family and protecting marital sex from selfish sex that serves no good other than easing human itches.

    Its not an easy teaching, for sure. It’s like telling a starving family they can’t steal a chicken from the rich neighbor who has abundant livestock. Because it is a great burden, and because there Is stigma associated with the temptation, Christians should be compassionate and churches should never make forgiveness conditional. none of us really can or should judge anothers repentance.

    I can judge the doctrine you advocate for, and that’s all I’m criticizing. One who has Nonmarital sex must repent, no different than one who engages in any other sin, because it promotes selfish lust and disparages the good of marriage.

  • Dust

    This is what our Lutheran Confessions say in modern english when they say faith alone, grace alone, christ alone:

    “There is nothing we can see or do in our bodies that has any eternal consequences. or for you theology wonks… “teleological consequences.”

    There you have it sg.

    There you have it FWS :)

  • Dust

    This is what our Lutheran Confessions say in modern english when they say faith alone, grace alone, christ alone:

    “There is nothing we can see or do in our bodies that has any eternal consequences. or for you theology wonks… “teleological consequences.”

    There you have it sg.

    There you have it FWS :)

  • Stephen

    fws @ 286

    Maybe we should go fishing with some Baptists, bring lots of beer, tell hem we’re Lutherans so “it’s cool” then watch them drink it all. And then when we are way out on the lake in a boat, tell them you’re gay.

    “I love you man!” (Beer commercial quote) tears flowing, man hugs all around . . .

    Hey, I got a fish! I got one too! Me too! This is the best fishing trip ever!!!

    And then they sang a song under the stars.

  • Stephen

    fws @ 286

    Maybe we should go fishing with some Baptists, bring lots of beer, tell hem we’re Lutherans so “it’s cool” then watch them drink it all. And then when we are way out on the lake in a boat, tell them you’re gay.

    “I love you man!” (Beer commercial quote) tears flowing, man hugs all around . . .

    Hey, I got a fish! I got one too! Me too! This is the best fishing trip ever!!!

    And then they sang a song under the stars.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Dust January 11, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    This is what our Lutheran Confessions say in modern english when they say faith alone, grace alone, christ alone:

    “There is nothing we can see or do in our bodies that has any eternal consequences. or for you theology wonks… “teleological consequences.”

    There you have it FWS

    Ok Dust. You then propose the opposite as being true then?

    Ok Dust I bite. What is that “something” that we are able to and must see or do in our bodies that will determine where we spend eternity?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Dust January 11, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    This is what our Lutheran Confessions say in modern english when they say faith alone, grace alone, christ alone:

    “There is nothing we can see or do in our bodies that has any eternal consequences. or for you theology wonks… “teleological consequences.”

    There you have it FWS

    Ok Dust. You then propose the opposite as being true then?

    Ok Dust I bite. What is that “something” that we are able to and must see or do in our bodies that will determine where we spend eternity?

  • Dust

    Stephen….sounds great, we’ll use your “worms” of course :)

  • Dust

    Stephen….sounds great, we’ll use your “worms” of course :)

  • Dust

    FWS….not really, Galatians is pretty clear about nothing we can do can save us, or condemn us….so why not “live it up” as per my suggestion FWS?

  • Dust

    FWS….not really, Galatians is pretty clear about nothing we can do can save us, or condemn us….so why not “live it up” as per my suggestion FWS?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 291

    BOAZ “Christ said simple lust is sin. Your explanation of law has to account for that. How is lust not showing love to neighbor?”

    FWS I sincerely thought that I already answered that question. fws @ 285. what part of that do you not agree with or is not answering this question?

    BOAZ How is avoiding lust loving your neighbor?

    FWS GREAT question. Love = Godly biblical morality. The roman church said that mortification/virtue in the form of enforced celebacy is righeousness even if it does not produce love. Lutherans say this is sacrifice and idolatry to demand this. And it is not love do demand this. It is cruel because without the aid of marriage it is impossible to even begin to channel or control.

    Avoiding lust or even monogamy is NOT love and so it is not the earthly righeousness that God demands , even though he DOES demand self control in that we do no harm to others. Avoiding lust is something God demands of us nevertheless.

    Did you even bother to read what I wrote on article XXIII apology “on priestly celebacy Boaz. why am I spending all this time trying to serve you if you are just going to blow what I write off? In that case I cannot serve you and need to stop responding eh?

    BOAZ You can only explain it in relation to marriage and family and protecting marital sex from selfish sex that serves no good other than easing human itches.

    FWS I cannot defend men or women gay or heterosexual who use others for their sexual pleasure. this includes heterosexual married couples. But what about gay men and lesbians who pair off deliberately to control or at least channel that sex drive that is an irresistable force of nature (the Confessions say this, so if you do not agree with this, take it up with the confessions and not with me ok Boaz).

    Do you imagine that the same effort at self control and sacrifice are not maybe even harder for a gay couple aiming at monogamy and sexual fidelity than it is for a heterosexual couple that has every possible social support of church and state fully supporting that effort?

    IF you are assuming that somehow gay men and women are driven differently by the sex drive such that gay sexuality is pure lust and predatory ala romans 1 in a way different than heterosexual sexuality , then you are really guilty of a stereotype not based in any reality I am aware of.

    And you are reducing gay men and women to something less than human. Imagine someone telling you or assuming that your relationship with your wife is about pure predatory unbridled lust and has no other basis. how would you feel about that characterization and pre-judgement about you and your wifes relationship?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 291

    BOAZ “Christ said simple lust is sin. Your explanation of law has to account for that. How is lust not showing love to neighbor?”

    FWS I sincerely thought that I already answered that question. fws @ 285. what part of that do you not agree with or is not answering this question?

    BOAZ How is avoiding lust loving your neighbor?

    FWS GREAT question. Love = Godly biblical morality. The roman church said that mortification/virtue in the form of enforced celebacy is righeousness even if it does not produce love. Lutherans say this is sacrifice and idolatry to demand this. And it is not love do demand this. It is cruel because without the aid of marriage it is impossible to even begin to channel or control.

    Avoiding lust or even monogamy is NOT love and so it is not the earthly righeousness that God demands , even though he DOES demand self control in that we do no harm to others. Avoiding lust is something God demands of us nevertheless.

    Did you even bother to read what I wrote on article XXIII apology “on priestly celebacy Boaz. why am I spending all this time trying to serve you if you are just going to blow what I write off? In that case I cannot serve you and need to stop responding eh?

    BOAZ You can only explain it in relation to marriage and family and protecting marital sex from selfish sex that serves no good other than easing human itches.

    FWS I cannot defend men or women gay or heterosexual who use others for their sexual pleasure. this includes heterosexual married couples. But what about gay men and lesbians who pair off deliberately to control or at least channel that sex drive that is an irresistable force of nature (the Confessions say this, so if you do not agree with this, take it up with the confessions and not with me ok Boaz).

    Do you imagine that the same effort at self control and sacrifice are not maybe even harder for a gay couple aiming at monogamy and sexual fidelity than it is for a heterosexual couple that has every possible social support of church and state fully supporting that effort?

    IF you are assuming that somehow gay men and women are driven differently by the sex drive such that gay sexuality is pure lust and predatory ala romans 1 in a way different than heterosexual sexuality , then you are really guilty of a stereotype not based in any reality I am aware of.

    And you are reducing gay men and women to something less than human. Imagine someone telling you or assuming that your relationship with your wife is about pure predatory unbridled lust and has no other basis. how would you feel about that characterization and pre-judgement about you and your wifes relationship?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 296

    galatians. really. give us more specifics. please.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 296

    galatians. really. give us more specifics. please.

  • Stephen

    Dust @ 295

    My brother has boat and he’s a champion bass fisherman. He knows all the good spots! Do you have license in Texas?

    As for the “live it up” comment, that’s not altogether a bad idea. We can do a lot of loving of our neighbor when we are not bracketing them into categories that do NO ONE (this is the point) any earthly good at all. If the end result we are after is adherence to the law at all costs and not love, then we can’t live it up. We can’t live really. We have to stare at ourselves and guard ourselves and “not touch” anything that might get us off course. That is what the killing law feels like for gay people is what I hear Frank saying. But it is like that for straight people too. There is no ability to relate, to truly be free to love.

    We should condemn what is not love and support what is. The commandments teach us how to discern the difference. We will fail in the particulars because we are sinners, but not because we messed up on following the rules outwardly. The law is not defined by categories and institutions or rules at the essential level that our Confessions want to get us to see – at the level of the heart. The law of love is about the conscience.

    Do we want gay people to have and be loved and know the experience of love in the fullest sense of the word, deep in the heart? Or is this only prescribed for certain people who fit into these slots “organically” or naturally” or “culturally” (or whatever category we apply). For the rest, it seems to me, it’s conditional essentially. And so there is no love, or there are portions dolled out here and there. With one hand we give and the other hand we take says religion that want to make the end result the law. But then end is love, and that love is Christ.

  • Stephen

    Dust @ 295

    My brother has boat and he’s a champion bass fisherman. He knows all the good spots! Do you have license in Texas?

    As for the “live it up” comment, that’s not altogether a bad idea. We can do a lot of loving of our neighbor when we are not bracketing them into categories that do NO ONE (this is the point) any earthly good at all. If the end result we are after is adherence to the law at all costs and not love, then we can’t live it up. We can’t live really. We have to stare at ourselves and guard ourselves and “not touch” anything that might get us off course. That is what the killing law feels like for gay people is what I hear Frank saying. But it is like that for straight people too. There is no ability to relate, to truly be free to love.

    We should condemn what is not love and support what is. The commandments teach us how to discern the difference. We will fail in the particulars because we are sinners, but not because we messed up on following the rules outwardly. The law is not defined by categories and institutions or rules at the essential level that our Confessions want to get us to see – at the level of the heart. The law of love is about the conscience.

    Do we want gay people to have and be loved and know the experience of love in the fullest sense of the word, deep in the heart? Or is this only prescribed for certain people who fit into these slots “organically” or naturally” or “culturally” (or whatever category we apply). For the rest, it seems to me, it’s conditional essentially. And so there is no love, or there are portions dolled out here and there. With one hand we give and the other hand we take says religion that want to make the end result the law. But then end is love, and that love is Christ.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 291

    God sometimes brings us crosses and we need to see Gods love in that and trust in faith. I am for the most part impotent and that is a cross. I would LOVE to have an intimate adult relationship which is hard to do if you are impotent.

    but that is different Boaz. it is something God brings. and I am right to seek medical treatment for that condition since it is not a happy place to be. but if that fails…. I need to accept that.

    But this is not the same as someone making up a rule that God did not make demanding something of someone that is ordinarily as impossible as making rocks fall up upon penalty of the threat of eternal damnation. and further excluding someone from a congregation and the certainty of the holy gospel unless and untill they are able to do the moral equivalent of making rocks fall up.

    what am I missing here from my understanding of the confessions article XXIII of the apology?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 291

    God sometimes brings us crosses and we need to see Gods love in that and trust in faith. I am for the most part impotent and that is a cross. I would LOVE to have an intimate adult relationship which is hard to do if you are impotent.

    but that is different Boaz. it is something God brings. and I am right to seek medical treatment for that condition since it is not a happy place to be. but if that fails…. I need to accept that.

    But this is not the same as someone making up a rule that God did not make demanding something of someone that is ordinarily as impossible as making rocks fall up upon penalty of the threat of eternal damnation. and further excluding someone from a congregation and the certainty of the holy gospel unless and untill they are able to do the moral equivalent of making rocks fall up.

    what am I missing here from my understanding of the confessions article XXIII of the apology?

  • Stephen

    I said this and it was maybe a mistaken way to put it:

    “That is what the killing law feels like for gay people is what I hear Frank saying.”

    I sort of mucked this up a bit I think. What is painful, as I hear it, is being asked to limit oneself against something that one has no power to eliminate – the sex drive. It needs to be channeled so that sin does not enter into it. But asking certain people to remain celibate without a miracle is cruel. This is legalism, and sort of similar as to why it is also cruel to demand people completely refrain from the pleasure of drinking like the Baptists do. that’s where this whole thing got started – legalism.

    This is different than saying that the law is killing. It is doing just that to all of us and we are powerless against it. The law in the way that we have been discussing it here is anything that our conscience tells us that love for the neighbor demands. We cannot do this. We would literally, actually have to do what Jesus did:

    “No greater gift has anyone than this . . .”

    You know the rest. He did that for us, and he gives it to us. What is left? To live ourselves to death, or until death, “live it up” for the neighbor in our vocations. Or perhaps another way to say it would be to “live it up” in that death, the death of Christ on the cross which is our death and our life in baptism, until we die and are raised. What does that life look like? Love. Imperfect, stumbling over our Old Adam, serving the neighbor love. Seek repentance and ye shall find love that completely undoes those reified structures we want others to fit into “before” we will love them. How do we know this? Because it is done for us. That’s what I hear in the Gospel.

    Drag some other condition in there if you must, but why? Why do that to another if you have been given such a gift? I think I have some idea why we do this. Because we think God likes it and appreciates it and will see it and think highly of it that we did the right thing. That is sacrifice. Look to Jesus. Does God need that?

  • Stephen

    I said this and it was maybe a mistaken way to put it:

    “That is what the killing law feels like for gay people is what I hear Frank saying.”

    I sort of mucked this up a bit I think. What is painful, as I hear it, is being asked to limit oneself against something that one has no power to eliminate – the sex drive. It needs to be channeled so that sin does not enter into it. But asking certain people to remain celibate without a miracle is cruel. This is legalism, and sort of similar as to why it is also cruel to demand people completely refrain from the pleasure of drinking like the Baptists do. that’s where this whole thing got started – legalism.

    This is different than saying that the law is killing. It is doing just that to all of us and we are powerless against it. The law in the way that we have been discussing it here is anything that our conscience tells us that love for the neighbor demands. We cannot do this. We would literally, actually have to do what Jesus did:

    “No greater gift has anyone than this . . .”

    You know the rest. He did that for us, and he gives it to us. What is left? To live ourselves to death, or until death, “live it up” for the neighbor in our vocations. Or perhaps another way to say it would be to “live it up” in that death, the death of Christ on the cross which is our death and our life in baptism, until we die and are raised. What does that life look like? Love. Imperfect, stumbling over our Old Adam, serving the neighbor love. Seek repentance and ye shall find love that completely undoes those reified structures we want others to fit into “before” we will love them. How do we know this? Because it is done for us. That’s what I hear in the Gospel.

    Drag some other condition in there if you must, but why? Why do that to another if you have been given such a gift? I think I have some idea why we do this. Because we think God likes it and appreciates it and will see it and think highly of it that we did the right thing. That is sacrifice. Look to Jesus. Does God need that?

  • Stephen

    I mucked this up too;

    “It needs to be channeled so that sin does not enter into it.”

    It should say something like “It needs to be channeled so that there is an outlet and love can happen” or some other thing that is the opposite of pushing gays into the closet and excluding them from Gospel, which I do not think is what God commands us to do for the sake of morality or family or being faithful to scriptures or anything. What he does command is that we figure out a way to serve them with everything we’ve got.

    I would challenge anyone reading these comments who is even wondering what they think about this conversation to stop for a moment the next time they encounter a gay person and ask themselves “What Gospel do I have to give them right now?” See what answer comes. What are the conditions that are there and why? Did Jesus die for them? What gives (or doesn’t)?

  • Stephen

    I mucked this up too;

    “It needs to be channeled so that sin does not enter into it.”

    It should say something like “It needs to be channeled so that there is an outlet and love can happen” or some other thing that is the opposite of pushing gays into the closet and excluding them from Gospel, which I do not think is what God commands us to do for the sake of morality or family or being faithful to scriptures or anything. What he does command is that we figure out a way to serve them with everything we’ve got.

    I would challenge anyone reading these comments who is even wondering what they think about this conversation to stop for a moment the next time they encounter a gay person and ask themselves “What Gospel do I have to give them right now?” See what answer comes. What are the conditions that are there and why? Did Jesus die for them? What gives (or doesn’t)?

  • Dust

    FWS at 298….you are the big expert and you don’t know where this is in Galations? You should go fishing with Stephen and you can look it up together perhaps?

    My guess is don’t want to answer, simply and directly, without a lot of flowery language from your confessions….because you are afraid your answer would make you sound a little like Grace and Boaz…God forbid, eh ;)

  • Dust

    FWS at 298….you are the big expert and you don’t know where this is in Galations? You should go fishing with Stephen and you can look it up together perhaps?

    My guess is don’t want to answer, simply and directly, without a lot of flowery language from your confessions….because you are afraid your answer would make you sound a little like Grace and Boaz…God forbid, eh ;)

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 303.

    I did not feel love in your post. it felt more like some sort of wierd taunt.

    I could be wrong. hope I am. but that is what it felt like. God bless.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 303.

    I did not feel love in your post. it felt more like some sort of wierd taunt.

    I could be wrong. hope I am. but that is what it felt like. God bless.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 303. you were the one who pointed to galatians. no need to guess. my request to you was a sincere and rather simple one. you made some claim about galatians. tell us more about what is on your mind from the text of galatians.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    dust @ 303. you were the one who pointed to galatians. no need to guess. my request to you was a sincere and rather simple one. you made some claim about galatians. tell us more about what is on your mind from the text of galatians.

  • Dust

    FWS…

    For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
    Galatians 5:6

    And the rest of Chapter 5 is pretty good!

    It was always explained to me that this verse shows there is nothing that we can do to win our salvation, and there is nothing we can do to lose it, as it is a gift of grace, thru faith and not of works, lest any should boast, etc. etc. And it sounds good to me and fully agree.

    So my question, perhaps a bit rhetorical, was then why not “live it up” and sin boldy, since as you have said,

    “There is nothing we can see or do in our bodies that has any eternal consequences. or for you theology wonks… “teleological consequences.”

    None of it affects our salvation or eternal consequences. Surely those pale in comparison to the puny consequences of our time on this planet?

    So seriously, if you can, without too many words, in simple terms, simple people can understand….like Jesus maybe, answer it?

    Thanks and God Bless you too!

  • Dust

    FWS…

    For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
    Galatians 5:6

    And the rest of Chapter 5 is pretty good!

    It was always explained to me that this verse shows there is nothing that we can do to win our salvation, and there is nothing we can do to lose it, as it is a gift of grace, thru faith and not of works, lest any should boast, etc. etc. And it sounds good to me and fully agree.

    So my question, perhaps a bit rhetorical, was then why not “live it up” and sin boldy, since as you have said,

    “There is nothing we can see or do in our bodies that has any eternal consequences. or for you theology wonks… “teleological consequences.”

    None of it affects our salvation or eternal consequences. Surely those pale in comparison to the puny consequences of our time on this planet?

    So seriously, if you can, without too many words, in simple terms, simple people can understand….like Jesus maybe, answer it?

    Thanks and God Bless you too!

  • Dust

    oops, didn’t mean to imply that Jesus was a simple person, yikes…but that he could explain things in general so simple people can understand too….have always appreciated it :)

  • Dust

    oops, didn’t mean to imply that Jesus was a simple person, yikes…but that he could explain things in general so simple people can understand too….have always appreciated it :)

  • Grace

    It appears many of you have taken the quote below to heart, now using it to justify homosexuality. I know the ELCA allows homosexual pastors, and those who are in; as homosexuals like to say….. “committed same sex relationships” -
    “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true [p. 282] and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” Martin Luther
    Epistle of August 1, 1521 to Melanchthon (This translation is taken from the official Lutheran American Edition of his complete works, vol. 42, pp. 281-82:

    Is this attitude prevalent with other Lutherans. Is this something that is an undercurrent with the majority of Lutherans, whether they are ELCA or not?

    I notice there are a few Lutherans here who are standing against homosexuality,…. I want you to know how badly I feel for you. God bless you, and keep you strong.

  • Grace

    It appears many of you have taken the quote below to heart, now using it to justify homosexuality. I know the ELCA allows homosexual pastors, and those who are in; as homosexuals like to say….. “committed same sex relationships” -
    “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true [p. 282] and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” Martin Luther
    Epistle of August 1, 1521 to Melanchthon (This translation is taken from the official Lutheran American Edition of his complete works, vol. 42, pp. 281-82:

    Is this attitude prevalent with other Lutherans. Is this something that is an undercurrent with the majority of Lutherans, whether they are ELCA or not?

    I notice there are a few Lutherans here who are standing against homosexuality,…. I want you to know how badly I feel for you. God bless you, and keep you strong.

  • Dust

    Grace….Luther does also say “but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly!” So my guess would be he would prefer folks to do the later, but just what exactly does THAT mean to a Lutheran? That in a way is a part of my question to FWS….let’s all hope he answers it!

  • Dust

    Grace….Luther does also say “but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly!” So my guess would be he would prefer folks to do the later, but just what exactly does THAT mean to a Lutheran? That in a way is a part of my question to FWS….let’s all hope he answers it!

  • Grace

    Dust,

    I find the whole discussion very sad – Very troubling, how the Scriptures are misconstrued in such obvious ways – anyone who has studied can see right through the charade regarding those who would twist passages that clearly denounce homosexual activity.

    You, SG and Boaz and several others are very different.

    God bless you Dust.

  • Grace

    Dust,

    I find the whole discussion very sad – Very troubling, how the Scriptures are misconstrued in such obvious ways – anyone who has studied can see right through the charade regarding those who would twist passages that clearly denounce homosexual activity.

    You, SG and Boaz and several others are very different.

    God bless you Dust.

  • Grace

    It’s obvious to any thinking person what sex “IS” and what sex is with male/female and what sex “IS” with homosexuals. You can go back a few years to what “IS” is!

    Eleven (11) Translations of the Bible – Romans 1:27

    New International Version
    In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    New Living Translation
    And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

    English Standard Version
    and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    New American Standard Bible
    and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    International Standard Version
    In the same way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. Males committed indecent acts with males, and received within themselves the appropriate penalty for their perversion.

    GOD’S WORD
    Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion.

    King James Bible
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    American King James Version
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

    American Standard Version
    and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

    Bible in Basic English
    And in the same way the men gave up the natural use of the woman and were burning in their desire for one another, men doing shame with men, and getting in their bodies the right reward of their evil-doing.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

  • Grace

    It’s obvious to any thinking person what sex “IS” and what sex is with male/female and what sex “IS” with homosexuals. You can go back a few years to what “IS” is!

    Eleven (11) Translations of the Bible – Romans 1:27

    New International Version
    In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

    New Living Translation
    And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

    English Standard Version
    and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    New American Standard Bible
    and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    International Standard Version
    In the same way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. Males committed indecent acts with males, and received within themselves the appropriate penalty for their perversion.

    GOD’S WORD
    Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion.

    King James Bible
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    American King James Version
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

    American Standard Version
    and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

    Bible in Basic English
    And in the same way the men gave up the natural use of the woman and were burning in their desire for one another, men doing shame with men, and getting in their bodies the right reward of their evil-doing.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

  • boaz

    One more and I’m done.

    I think you are claiming special privilege for the gay sex drive. It’s impossible to dam any sinful desire by our effort, which is why gospel preaching must always dominate. The level of effort it takes to love ones neighbor in perfection is off the charts for everybody, so talking about how difficult it is for homosexuals is irrelevant. Only those like Grace who believe the law is attainable while ole Adam hangs around should care about whether we are setting the bar too high. Whether gay or straight, churches are full of folks in love with fornication needing forgiveness.

    Sure, the confessions talk about how marriage is good because it reduces temptation for lust, but this isn’t marriages primary purpose. Marriage is a good thing apart from whether it reduces temptation or not. It’s not like fasting, the primary purpose of which is to control sin and aid contemplation of Gods word. Rome was restricting and demeaning marriage as an good thing instituted by God, burdening those suited for marriage with additional sin and guilt for no good reason.

    You can’t use that argument for gay relation ships because there is no divine ordinance for them. They aren’t part of Gods original plan for humanity that would have existed even had sin not entered the world. Otherwise, I could make the same practical argument you do for internet porn (no photos, only CG) as a good way to channel the sex drive. It might be the least offensive way to sin, but it still promotes selfish Nonmarital sex.

    Marriage is a good itself, its part of Gods framework for creation, it typifies companionship with God in the new earth, shared sacrifice modeled on Christ, and yes, the male and female sacrifices in marriage are not interchangeable.

    Christians should be compassionate of each others lapses, as all fall short. But if marriage is impossible for a homosexual, that isn’t a burden unique to gays. There are many many lonely people God has not chosen for marriage, often very angry with him about, and many desperately unhappy with the marriage they do have. I’m not going to try to offer solutions, there is no solution our sad state, and our sinful inability to find perfect comfort and peace in the Gospel. But that’s all we really have until the end of this world.

  • boaz

    One more and I’m done.

    I think you are claiming special privilege for the gay sex drive. It’s impossible to dam any sinful desire by our effort, which is why gospel preaching must always dominate. The level of effort it takes to love ones neighbor in perfection is off the charts for everybody, so talking about how difficult it is for homosexuals is irrelevant. Only those like Grace who believe the law is attainable while ole Adam hangs around should care about whether we are setting the bar too high. Whether gay or straight, churches are full of folks in love with fornication needing forgiveness.

    Sure, the confessions talk about how marriage is good because it reduces temptation for lust, but this isn’t marriages primary purpose. Marriage is a good thing apart from whether it reduces temptation or not. It’s not like fasting, the primary purpose of which is to control sin and aid contemplation of Gods word. Rome was restricting and demeaning marriage as an good thing instituted by God, burdening those suited for marriage with additional sin and guilt for no good reason.

    You can’t use that argument for gay relation ships because there is no divine ordinance for them. They aren’t part of Gods original plan for humanity that would have existed even had sin not entered the world. Otherwise, I could make the same practical argument you do for internet porn (no photos, only CG) as a good way to channel the sex drive. It might be the least offensive way to sin, but it still promotes selfish Nonmarital sex.

    Marriage is a good itself, its part of Gods framework for creation, it typifies companionship with God in the new earth, shared sacrifice modeled on Christ, and yes, the male and female sacrifices in marriage are not interchangeable.

    Christians should be compassionate of each others lapses, as all fall short. But if marriage is impossible for a homosexual, that isn’t a burden unique to gays. There are many many lonely people God has not chosen for marriage, often very angry with him about, and many desperately unhappy with the marriage they do have. I’m not going to try to offer solutions, there is no solution our sad state, and our sinful inability to find perfect comfort and peace in the Gospel. But that’s all we really have until the end of this world.

  • boaz

    By sin boldly, Luther means that we are corrupt to the core and sin is inevitable, but luckily, Jesus only died for sinners. you have to be a sinner to appreciate the Gospel. He then says let your faith be stronger.

    Those who think they do not sin have no need of Jesus, and will be those calling for Jesus at judgment he doesn’t know.

    He didn’t say say try to sin more, or don’t repent of sin, as critics like to spin it.

  • boaz

    By sin boldly, Luther means that we are corrupt to the core and sin is inevitable, but luckily, Jesus only died for sinners. you have to be a sinner to appreciate the Gospel. He then says let your faith be stronger.

    Those who think they do not sin have no need of Jesus, and will be those calling for Jesus at judgment he doesn’t know.

    He didn’t say say try to sin more, or don’t repent of sin, as critics like to spin it.

  • boaz

    Grace, Luther wrote hundreds of thousands of pages. You know all the ways divine scripture can be misconstrued, and Luther was not divinely inspired. There are many stupid and wrong things he said.

    If you notice the discussions here though, after scripture, Lutheran cite the confessions, not luther. In fact Luther privately disagreed with he confessions on a few things. If you haven’t, I suggest you read the confessions. There is no other human work as helpful for understanding scripture as the confessions. It’s not strongs, giving definitions for words, it ties together the whole of scripture identifying many many ways that we err in making scripture about us, always trying to find instructions to earn grace, and how scripture is really about how we are utterly reliant on Gods perfect love for us in Christ. Or get the Lutheran study bible from cph.org, nonlutherans can get a lot of great stuff from it, even if you stay nonluheran .

  • boaz

    Grace, Luther wrote hundreds of thousands of pages. You know all the ways divine scripture can be misconstrued, and Luther was not divinely inspired. There are many stupid and wrong things he said.

    If you notice the discussions here though, after scripture, Lutheran cite the confessions, not luther. In fact Luther privately disagreed with he confessions on a few things. If you haven’t, I suggest you read the confessions. There is no other human work as helpful for understanding scripture as the confessions. It’s not strongs, giving definitions for words, it ties together the whole of scripture identifying many many ways that we err in making scripture about us, always trying to find instructions to earn grace, and how scripture is really about how we are utterly reliant on Gods perfect love for us in Christ. Or get the Lutheran study bible from cph.org, nonlutherans can get a lot of great stuff from it, even if you stay nonluheran .

  • Stephen

    Boaz @ 312

    From about halfway into your piece -

    “You can’t use that argument for gay relation ships because there is no divine ordinance for them. They aren’t part of Gods original plan for humanity that would have existed even had sin not entered the world. Otherwise, I could make the same practical argument you do for internet porn (no photos, only CG) as a good way to channel the sex drive. It might be the least offensive way to sin, but it still promotes selfish Nonmarital sex.”

    Is everything that happens between people something that needs to have been established before the fall in order for it to be acceptable? That sounds like the standard you are applying. If so, what else shall we apply that to? Otherwise, I could make the practical argument that capitalism is wrong because it too is essentially selfish. I recall some bible verses about usury and some about sharing everything as is needed. Nothing about “capitalizing” on human need for the sake of an economy. And I suppose also that if capitalism had been established as the way to interact with our fellows by divine ordinance before the fall, then its essential self-interest would be somehow “good” and “loving” I suppose, no matter what the evidence suggests. We’d just have to accept it even though it looks nothing like what we know love to be about. It’s not selfish, isn’t that just about your entire argument?

    That sounds like a natural law argument to me, as if we are working toward some kingdom we think we know is out there and we’re sure going to get there if we obey as much as possible, or at least put up with the misery long enough. It will all work out in the end to this “telos” which is something, but it isn’t love, not the love we see when we to the cross.

    What does Jesus say? The whole of the law is love. That is what we are supposed to get out of it – to God in right worship and from God for the neighbor. The law by the Holy Sprit does what it does on us so the neighbor gets loved. How do we know this? How can we tell if our neighbor is getting loved? My wife tells me when I’m screwing up. I’ll bet ours does too. We need that. That is a hint as to what love looks like. We see it. “Off the charts” love as you describe is exactly right and we cannot do it. But what does that have to do with being gay and seeking to be in a relationship like other people who have them and fail at it constantly but still have them? Is it just the sex itself? Bad, bad, bad. Unnatural. Something like that? For you perhaps, and that is why you fit Romans 1 and all those temple rituals just as much as any gay person would. For them it isn’t unnatural.

    “Marriage is a good itself, its part of Gods framework for creation, it typifies companionship with God in the new earth, shared sacrifice modeled on Christ, and yes, the male and female sacrifices in marriage are not interchangeable.”

    But what marriage is static? If I were a drunk I guarantee my wife would take charge, probably kick me out. And she should. That is love. I don’t know what “typifies” suggests, but if marriage is that good, then why would we not want it or something like it for as many people as possible? I assume from things you’ve said before that part of what is so great about marriage is that kids get loved and raised. I totally and absolutely agree! But if they do not have the perfect set of circumstances, Ozzie and Harriet for parents like me and my wife (no really, we are) for this to happen do we chuck the whole mess? Of course not. What orphan kid does not want a parent? How many gay people want to adopt them? How would letting them marry strengthen that situation and let love happen, or make it more likely to flourish?

    “Christians should be compassionate of each others lapses, as all fall short. But if marriage is impossible for a homosexual, that isn’t a burden unique to gays. There are many many lonely people God has not chosen for marriage, often very angry with him about, and many desperately unhappy with the marriage they do have. I’m not going to try to offer solutions, there is no solution our sad state, and our sinful inability to find perfect comfort and peace in the Gospel. But that’s all we really have until the end of this world.”

    But how many of those angry, lonely people would not jump at the chance to be with someone and know the joys of a loving relationship? Would we then say something else to them if that opportunity came along. It’s not a true comparison. For gays there is no option like that, no possible chance for that to change. You are out and that is it permanently is what the church says. That includes heaven. Not because it has anything to do with love of neighbor though, just because we say so. And certainly not because avoiding gay sex will do anything at all to help them on the road to salvation. You agree with that at least it seems. But also not because avoiding who they are and relating in that way will make their lives better or more enjoyable or more noble or more anything that matters because none of it does unless it has to do with loving the neighbor which is what God is telling us all those “rules” are actually about. The only reason to ask gay people to refrain from “being gay” or being involved in a gay relationship is because we think we read it in scriptures.

    But what does Jesus say. The whole of the law is love. According to our Lord himself there is not a single jot or tittle of the law that is there for any other purpose than to do that very thing – love. Now, if we find some kind of conflict or contradiction with that, I guess we need to read that list of do’s and don’ts over a thousand times until we figure out how to love the neighbor with them. Or we need to talk to the guys who know some Greek. We need to do something if we want coherence instead all this patronizing stuff being passed off as compassion. Because Jesus says it is all about love.

    It’s not that hard. What is hard is getting over your uncomfortable feelings about homosexuality. I have done the NT exegetical work myself. I have the credentials if you need them. I’ve given some examples of how the scriptures do not lie, mean what they say exactly and how they do not differ from what Jesus said they say. They have to do with love. All of it. Why would that be? Because God is love.

    “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy not sacrifice”

  • Stephen

    Boaz @ 312

    From about halfway into your piece -

    “You can’t use that argument for gay relation ships because there is no divine ordinance for them. They aren’t part of Gods original plan for humanity that would have existed even had sin not entered the world. Otherwise, I could make the same practical argument you do for internet porn (no photos, only CG) as a good way to channel the sex drive. It might be the least offensive way to sin, but it still promotes selfish Nonmarital sex.”

    Is everything that happens between people something that needs to have been established before the fall in order for it to be acceptable? That sounds like the standard you are applying. If so, what else shall we apply that to? Otherwise, I could make the practical argument that capitalism is wrong because it too is essentially selfish. I recall some bible verses about usury and some about sharing everything as is needed. Nothing about “capitalizing” on human need for the sake of an economy. And I suppose also that if capitalism had been established as the way to interact with our fellows by divine ordinance before the fall, then its essential self-interest would be somehow “good” and “loving” I suppose, no matter what the evidence suggests. We’d just have to accept it even though it looks nothing like what we know love to be about. It’s not selfish, isn’t that just about your entire argument?

    That sounds like a natural law argument to me, as if we are working toward some kingdom we think we know is out there and we’re sure going to get there if we obey as much as possible, or at least put up with the misery long enough. It will all work out in the end to this “telos” which is something, but it isn’t love, not the love we see when we to the cross.

    What does Jesus say? The whole of the law is love. That is what we are supposed to get out of it – to God in right worship and from God for the neighbor. The law by the Holy Sprit does what it does on us so the neighbor gets loved. How do we know this? How can we tell if our neighbor is getting loved? My wife tells me when I’m screwing up. I’ll bet ours does too. We need that. That is a hint as to what love looks like. We see it. “Off the charts” love as you describe is exactly right and we cannot do it. But what does that have to do with being gay and seeking to be in a relationship like other people who have them and fail at it constantly but still have them? Is it just the sex itself? Bad, bad, bad. Unnatural. Something like that? For you perhaps, and that is why you fit Romans 1 and all those temple rituals just as much as any gay person would. For them it isn’t unnatural.

    “Marriage is a good itself, its part of Gods framework for creation, it typifies companionship with God in the new earth, shared sacrifice modeled on Christ, and yes, the male and female sacrifices in marriage are not interchangeable.”

    But what marriage is static? If I were a drunk I guarantee my wife would take charge, probably kick me out. And she should. That is love. I don’t know what “typifies” suggests, but if marriage is that good, then why would we not want it or something like it for as many people as possible? I assume from things you’ve said before that part of what is so great about marriage is that kids get loved and raised. I totally and absolutely agree! But if they do not have the perfect set of circumstances, Ozzie and Harriet for parents like me and my wife (no really, we are) for this to happen do we chuck the whole mess? Of course not. What orphan kid does not want a parent? How many gay people want to adopt them? How would letting them marry strengthen that situation and let love happen, or make it more likely to flourish?

    “Christians should be compassionate of each others lapses, as all fall short. But if marriage is impossible for a homosexual, that isn’t a burden unique to gays. There are many many lonely people God has not chosen for marriage, often very angry with him about, and many desperately unhappy with the marriage they do have. I’m not going to try to offer solutions, there is no solution our sad state, and our sinful inability to find perfect comfort and peace in the Gospel. But that’s all we really have until the end of this world.”

    But how many of those angry, lonely people would not jump at the chance to be with someone and know the joys of a loving relationship? Would we then say something else to them if that opportunity came along. It’s not a true comparison. For gays there is no option like that, no possible chance for that to change. You are out and that is it permanently is what the church says. That includes heaven. Not because it has anything to do with love of neighbor though, just because we say so. And certainly not because avoiding gay sex will do anything at all to help them on the road to salvation. You agree with that at least it seems. But also not because avoiding who they are and relating in that way will make their lives better or more enjoyable or more noble or more anything that matters because none of it does unless it has to do with loving the neighbor which is what God is telling us all those “rules” are actually about. The only reason to ask gay people to refrain from “being gay” or being involved in a gay relationship is because we think we read it in scriptures.

    But what does Jesus say. The whole of the law is love. According to our Lord himself there is not a single jot or tittle of the law that is there for any other purpose than to do that very thing – love. Now, if we find some kind of conflict or contradiction with that, I guess we need to read that list of do’s and don’ts over a thousand times until we figure out how to love the neighbor with them. Or we need to talk to the guys who know some Greek. We need to do something if we want coherence instead all this patronizing stuff being passed off as compassion. Because Jesus says it is all about love.

    It’s not that hard. What is hard is getting over your uncomfortable feelings about homosexuality. I have done the NT exegetical work myself. I have the credentials if you need them. I’ve given some examples of how the scriptures do not lie, mean what they say exactly and how they do not differ from what Jesus said they say. They have to do with love. All of it. Why would that be? Because God is love.

    “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy not sacrifice”

  • Dust

    Grace…if it helps, from my experience, most Lutherans who sit out in the pews, pretty much confess something very similar to you….guess it’s mainly the pastors and theologically “advanced” that perhaps have another perspective. It’s kind of the reverse of what a good friend in college told me about what he thought or observed was true about every day, sit in the pew Presbyterians….they heard the words “this is my body” before they had communion and believed literally “this is my body” but the pastors, who had a much superior training, knew otherwise. So it is in the Lutheran Church, from my life long experience…the highly educated and superior pastors and theologians believe one thing and say the words from the pulpit….but it is not always the same thing that the everyday people hear nor believe. So it goes, each to their own, the Lord loves us all….praise and honor and glory and might be to the Lamb, now and forever…amen :)

  • Dust

    Grace…if it helps, from my experience, most Lutherans who sit out in the pews, pretty much confess something very similar to you….guess it’s mainly the pastors and theologically “advanced” that perhaps have another perspective. It’s kind of the reverse of what a good friend in college told me about what he thought or observed was true about every day, sit in the pew Presbyterians….they heard the words “this is my body” before they had communion and believed literally “this is my body” but the pastors, who had a much superior training, knew otherwise. So it is in the Lutheran Church, from my life long experience…the highly educated and superior pastors and theologians believe one thing and say the words from the pulpit….but it is not always the same thing that the everyday people hear nor believe. So it goes, each to their own, the Lord loves us all….praise and honor and glory and might be to the Lamb, now and forever…amen :)

  • Stephen

    Boaz @ 314

    Good suggestions all. I have the Lutheran Study Bible. It’s great as far as I can tell except . . .

    . . . that page on Romans 1 is awful. It is natural law. “Bad for society” is no argument. What “society” is the author talking about? I’d say it is a kingdom of law for neighbor, not love for neighbor. And how do we know it is bad? And they never should have put the word “homosexuality” in scripture anyway. It’s a term from the 19th c. that is not even close to what those words mean. That is an agenda. It used to connote male prostitution, dealing with temple rituals, how slaves were used, etc. It’s simply not the same thing.

  • Stephen

    Boaz @ 314

    Good suggestions all. I have the Lutheran Study Bible. It’s great as far as I can tell except . . .

    . . . that page on Romans 1 is awful. It is natural law. “Bad for society” is no argument. What “society” is the author talking about? I’d say it is a kingdom of law for neighbor, not love for neighbor. And how do we know it is bad? And they never should have put the word “homosexuality” in scripture anyway. It’s a term from the 19th c. that is not even close to what those words mean. That is an agenda. It used to connote male prostitution, dealing with temple rituals, how slaves were used, etc. It’s simply not the same thing.

  • Stephen

    Dust @ 316

    Shame on me? I think that is what you said a while back. Now you are going to put down your fellow Lutherans and pastors, people who work very hard their whole lives to bring the gospel to you? Yeah, I’m just a superior acting intellectual is all I am. Not doing much work am I. That is all a bunch theologians are too. Lazy and superior. Hit that Catechism a little harder around #8 and see what you come up with. I would also check the summation of all 10.

  • Stephen

    Dust @ 316

    Shame on me? I think that is what you said a while back. Now you are going to put down your fellow Lutherans and pastors, people who work very hard their whole lives to bring the gospel to you? Yeah, I’m just a superior acting intellectual is all I am. Not doing much work am I. That is all a bunch theologians are too. Lazy and superior. Hit that Catechism a little harder around #8 and see what you come up with. I would also check the summation of all 10.

  • Grace

    Boaz – 314

    “If you haven’t, I suggest you read the confessions. There is no other human work as helpful for understanding scripture as the confessions.”

    I disagree with you most strongly…. the Bible was given to everyone. We have many people from time past who have pontificated their great knowledge of the Bible, IF, one listened to them. Often times, people listen to a man, WHO, takes a bit of truth and makes something else of it, after further study it becomes apparent they misconstrued Scripture to play to a doctrine of their own. It sounds good, but it doesn’t match Scripture, often times, the individuals complain about books of the Bible, and whole passages, because they cannot line them up with the doctrine they lay out – in order to make viable their points, they challenge the authenticity of said books.

    Martin Luther wrote the Confessions – I have no reason to re-read what he has written.

    I suggest you read the Bible, struggle with the passages using Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries – don’t rely on anyone else, see what you can learn by the HOLY Spirit directing you. God gave us His Word, anything else might be helpful, but it is not the RICHNESS of HIS WORD, nor can it nourish us with a full cup.

    “It’s not strongs, giving definitions for words, it ties together the whole of scripture identifying many many ways that we err in making scripture about us, always trying to find instructions to earn grace, and how scripture is really about how we are utterly reliant on Gods perfect love for us in Christ.”

    Strongs is both a Greek and Hebrew Dictionary which is most helpful. Boaz, when you start down the trail of “There is no other human work as helpful for understanding scripture as the confessions.” and “It’s not strongs, giving definitions for words” you have LOST the meaning of true study. Where you “err” my friend, is not looking these passages up for yourself, taking the time to check Hebrew for the OT, and Greek for the New Testament – you are trusting in Luther who wrote what you read and believe. I wouldn’t trust anyone except the LORD and His Word. It is the ONLY ONE THING we can trust.

  • Grace

    Boaz – 314

    “If you haven’t, I suggest you read the confessions. There is no other human work as helpful for understanding scripture as the confessions.”

    I disagree with you most strongly…. the Bible was given to everyone. We have many people from time past who have pontificated their great knowledge of the Bible, IF, one listened to them. Often times, people listen to a man, WHO, takes a bit of truth and makes something else of it, after further study it becomes apparent they misconstrued Scripture to play to a doctrine of their own. It sounds good, but it doesn’t match Scripture, often times, the individuals complain about books of the Bible, and whole passages, because they cannot line them up with the doctrine they lay out – in order to make viable their points, they challenge the authenticity of said books.

    Martin Luther wrote the Confessions – I have no reason to re-read what he has written.

    I suggest you read the Bible, struggle with the passages using Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries – don’t rely on anyone else, see what you can learn by the HOLY Spirit directing you. God gave us His Word, anything else might be helpful, but it is not the RICHNESS of HIS WORD, nor can it nourish us with a full cup.

    “It’s not strongs, giving definitions for words, it ties together the whole of scripture identifying many many ways that we err in making scripture about us, always trying to find instructions to earn grace, and how scripture is really about how we are utterly reliant on Gods perfect love for us in Christ.”

    Strongs is both a Greek and Hebrew Dictionary which is most helpful. Boaz, when you start down the trail of “There is no other human work as helpful for understanding scripture as the confessions.” and “It’s not strongs, giving definitions for words” you have LOST the meaning of true study. Where you “err” my friend, is not looking these passages up for yourself, taking the time to check Hebrew for the OT, and Greek for the New Testament – you are trusting in Luther who wrote what you read and believe. I wouldn’t trust anyone except the LORD and His Word. It is the ONLY ONE THING we can trust.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 314

    ” In fact Luther privately disagreed with he confessions on a few things”

    This simply cannot be true. can you prove this?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    boaz @ 314

    ” In fact Luther privately disagreed with he confessions on a few things”

    This simply cannot be true. can you prove this?

  • Tom Hering

    It’s good to question every line of our Confessions, and to compare our Confessions with Scripture. To see if they contradict God’s Word at any point. But I really, really doubt that Grace has ever done this work, so she can be knowledgeable in her rejection of our Confessions. Her statement, “Martin Luther wrote the Confessions,” makes it clear as a bell that she has no knowledge of our Confessions at all.

    How about it Grace? From now on, when you try to convince us our Confessions are not Scriptural, make an honest effort to convince us. Quote some lines from our Confessions, compare them with Scripture, and tell us why there’s a contradiction. Can you do that?

    Oh – I keep forgetting. Despite all the time you spend commenting on this blog, you “don’t have time” to deal with every little thing that’s of genuine concern to us. Maybe, though, you could find another anti-Lutheran page on the internet – a page that attacks our Confessions, specifically? And copy and paste from that?

    I know it wouldn’t result in any sort of real discussion, but at least you’d continue to amuse me. Thanks. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    It’s good to question every line of our Confessions, and to compare our Confessions with Scripture. To see if they contradict God’s Word at any point. But I really, really doubt that Grace has ever done this work, so she can be knowledgeable in her rejection of our Confessions. Her statement, “Martin Luther wrote the Confessions,” makes it clear as a bell that she has no knowledge of our Confessions at all.

    How about it Grace? From now on, when you try to convince us our Confessions are not Scriptural, make an honest effort to convince us. Quote some lines from our Confessions, compare them with Scripture, and tell us why there’s a contradiction. Can you do that?

    Oh – I keep forgetting. Despite all the time you spend commenting on this blog, you “don’t have time” to deal with every little thing that’s of genuine concern to us. Maybe, though, you could find another anti-Lutheran page on the internet – a page that attacks our Confessions, specifically? And copy and paste from that?

    I know it wouldn’t result in any sort of real discussion, but at least you’d continue to amuse me. Thanks. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Good morning, Frank.

  • Tom Hering

    Good morning, Frank.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom @ 322

    find a way to get me your email tom. todd has mine. I need to know your mailing address. I have a very late christmas present for you. it may even become a lenten present the way things are going and what I picked out for you would be good for any season on the church calendar ;)

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom @ 322

    find a way to get me your email tom. todd has mine. I need to know your mailing address. I have a very late christmas present for you. it may even become a lenten present the way things are going and what I picked out for you would be good for any season on the church calendar ;)

  • Tom Hering

    “… what I picked out for you would be good for any season on the church calendar.”

    A rosary?

  • Tom Hering

    “… what I picked out for you would be good for any season on the church calendar.”

    A rosary?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom @ 324

    a rosary can make nice jewelry for someone like … um…. madonna. . It would not become you. and it would get in the way whenever you had to do anything that would require you to lean forward….

    But I didnt pick that since I KNOW how to accessorize properly. part of the package of being gay. That didnt come naturally. it came through practice. that is why homosexuals are usually practicing homosexuals. We cant even get that right!

    No rosary Tom….. Waaaaaay better than that Tom. Keep guessing!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom @ 324

    a rosary can make nice jewelry for someone like … um…. madonna. . It would not become you. and it would get in the way whenever you had to do anything that would require you to lean forward….

    But I didnt pick that since I KNOW how to accessorize properly. part of the package of being gay. That didnt come naturally. it came through practice. that is why homosexuals are usually practicing homosexuals. We cant even get that right!

    No rosary Tom….. Waaaaaay better than that Tom. Keep guessing!

  • Tom Hering

    I couldn’t really have used the rosary to accessorize anyways. I gave away all my cone bras last year.

    “Keep guessing!” – @ 325.

    A Brazilian Lutheran lectionary?

  • Tom Hering

    I couldn’t really have used the rosary to accessorize anyways. I gave away all my cone bras last year.

    “Keep guessing!” – @ 325.

    A Brazilian Lutheran lectionary?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom hering @ 326

    those cones could maybe make great coffee filters for dunkin donuts coffee…..

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    tom hering @ 326

    those cones could maybe make great coffee filters for dunkin donuts coffee…..

  • Tom Hering

    Or pastry bags for filling donuts.

  • Tom Hering

    Or pastry bags for filling donuts.

  • Stephen

    Or dunce caps to pass around wherever you happen to be in the virtual world these days.

    Good morning! I just had banana bread and french press coffee!

  • Stephen

    Or dunce caps to pass around wherever you happen to be in the virtual world these days.

    Good morning! I just had banana bread and french press coffee!

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, are we going to get slammed again for being juvenile again?

    Good morning, Stephen. Banana bread? With or without walnuts?

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, are we going to get slammed again for being juvenile again?

    Good morning, Stephen. Banana bread? With or without walnuts?

  • Stephen

    Nutless

  • Stephen

    Nutless

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    French press coffee is among the best ways to have coffee, it’s true. And while I personally share Stephen’s predilection for banana bread recipes, I would not — keeping in mind the old dictum about your teleological status being informed by your gustation — have phrased it the way he did. Just saying.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    French press coffee is among the best ways to have coffee, it’s true. And while I personally share Stephen’s predilection for banana bread recipes, I would not — keeping in mind the old dictum about your teleological status being informed by your gustation — have phrased it the way he did. Just saying.

  • Stephen

    I gotta keep the nuttiness down to a dull roar. Just sayin’

  • Stephen

    I gotta keep the nuttiness down to a dull roar. Just sayin’

  • Simone

    I am a Baptist, and my personal opinion is that it is not a sin to drink alcoholic beverages; it is a sin, however, to become drunk. Therefore, I would never touch the stuff, because if you never try it, there is no chance of becoming addicted. Alcohol is highly addictive, not to mention very harmful to health and even harmful to others if, for instance, a family member begins to abuse alcohol. It is also a sin to be a stumbling block to others (in other words, if someone has a drinking problem, don’t drink in their presence!). In short, I personally abstain from alcohol, but I do not judge those who occasionally have a beer or drink in moderation, without becoming drunk (though this is a difficult feat). Certainly, there are Baptists who disagree with me; this is indeed a divisive issue in some churches.

  • Simone

    I am a Baptist, and my personal opinion is that it is not a sin to drink alcoholic beverages; it is a sin, however, to become drunk. Therefore, I would never touch the stuff, because if you never try it, there is no chance of becoming addicted. Alcohol is highly addictive, not to mention very harmful to health and even harmful to others if, for instance, a family member begins to abuse alcohol. It is also a sin to be a stumbling block to others (in other words, if someone has a drinking problem, don’t drink in their presence!). In short, I personally abstain from alcohol, but I do not judge those who occasionally have a beer or drink in moderation, without becoming drunk (though this is a difficult feat). Certainly, there are Baptists who disagree with me; this is indeed a divisive issue in some churches.

  • Simone

    Of course, I am below the legal drinking age and have no experience with this matter, but it is my opinion nonetheless! :)

  • Simone

    Of course, I am below the legal drinking age and have no experience with this matter, but it is my opinion nonetheless! :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Simone (@334), I’m sorry, but someone hasn’t told you the truth about alcohol.

    It is not addictive in any sense, much less “highly addictive”. People may form habits around alcohol, but in general it is no more addictive than sugar or junk food. But don’t take my word for it. Do some research and find out what the medical community says.

    It is also not “difficult” to drink in moderation, “without becoming drunk”. In general, most people can handle at least one drink at a meal without becoming drunk. There are no hard and fast rules, of course, but that’s a pretty safe rule of thumb.

    The problem with the “if I just avoid alcohol, then I avoid problems” approach is that it can become another law that you add to God’s Law. “If God says don’t do X, I’ll just avoid all things even related to X, just to be safe.” But that’s what the Pharisees did in the Gospels, and Jesus criticized them for it! The Pharisees thought they were pleasing God by “just being safe”, but it made God angry. I’d start with those accounts and ask why that was.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Simone (@334), I’m sorry, but someone hasn’t told you the truth about alcohol.

    It is not addictive in any sense, much less “highly addictive”. People may form habits around alcohol, but in general it is no more addictive than sugar or junk food. But don’t take my word for it. Do some research and find out what the medical community says.

    It is also not “difficult” to drink in moderation, “without becoming drunk”. In general, most people can handle at least one drink at a meal without becoming drunk. There are no hard and fast rules, of course, but that’s a pretty safe rule of thumb.

    The problem with the “if I just avoid alcohol, then I avoid problems” approach is that it can become another law that you add to God’s Law. “If God says don’t do X, I’ll just avoid all things even related to X, just to be safe.” But that’s what the Pharisees did in the Gospels, and Jesus criticized them for it! The Pharisees thought they were pleasing God by “just being safe”, but it made God angry. I’d start with those accounts and ask why that was.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    simone @334

    Simone. I am glad you are safe from alcohol. but the danger for you is really bananna nut bread. without nuts it is ok, but if someone you think is your grandmother tempts you to eat some of that … flee. She is really the devil only pretending to be harmless ol grandma. the bananna bread with nuts IS addictive. one bite and you are a gonner. down a path of wasted dissipated bliss. but now there are rules to follow to get around this seemingly innevitable end…

    if you get the package mix and eat that. then you are probably ok. … as long as it is not the betty crocker brand. that brand is secretly owned by cults. and it is really really good. so…

    be careful out there.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    simone @334

    Simone. I am glad you are safe from alcohol. but the danger for you is really bananna nut bread. without nuts it is ok, but if someone you think is your grandmother tempts you to eat some of that … flee. She is really the devil only pretending to be harmless ol grandma. the bananna bread with nuts IS addictive. one bite and you are a gonner. down a path of wasted dissipated bliss. but now there are rules to follow to get around this seemingly innevitable end…

    if you get the package mix and eat that. then you are probably ok. … as long as it is not the betty crocker brand. that brand is secretly owned by cults. and it is really really good. so…

    be careful out there.

  • Larry

    Beware, original sin was not a fall into baser things, but rather a religious uprising to be more pious than God Himself (Paul’s brilliant point in Rom. 1:18-ff). Once Satan via “hath God really said” which echoes much in heterodox doctrines (e.g. “don’t confuse the sign with the thing signified”) disconnects one from the Word all one is left with is that Satanic “hath God really said” and yourself. Thus we turn inward. When we do that we moved from being naked but utterly safe, trusting nakedly in the Word, to the Satanic “hath God really said” and “don’t you know you are naked and in danger”. When that happens, THEN, we begin the process of trying to religiously save ourselves. Hence God’s anger in asking, “Who told you that you were naked”. I.e. Who told you that you are in danger and cannot trust me implicitly and nakedly even beyond your own reason and are thus naked and in danger.

    There’s a wonderful scene in the movie Babett’s Feast, worth getting and watching Gospel is in the movie symbolically, that shows the bondage such false teachings from the devil do to us. Quick synopsis: There’s this more or less reformed community under this puritan type preacher who all this time preaches that enthused style of religion. The community is austere in all that they do, they eat little and what they eat is basically tasteless gruel. They drink, alcohol, none. Music and all such enjoyments are at best looked down upon, even marriage. It’s a dreary place and as they age they more and more begin to bite each others heads off, accuse of this and that that one did to the other, etc.

    Then along comes this French woman given to them as a servant named Babett, unknown to them is that she’s this culinary genius. Anyway after many years of service in this dreary way to the pastor’s, who has long past away, daughters, now all in their later years Babett wins a lottery of money, 10,000 frans. She says she wishes to use some of the money to cook a French meal for them, them meaning the two daughters and the town congregation. Eventually the allow it because she’s been a good servant all this time and they don’t want to prevent her from giving them this gift she desires so much to do for them. So Babett starts getting supplies in, all these strange exotic ingredients, sea turtle, and (gasp) wine.

    The towns people then start to regret their decision especially the two daughters and start having dreams and nightmares of their former pastor warning of temptation of the devil to the flesh (basically all things good) and they begin in their dreams to envision Babett being this temptress to the devil, a night mare they suddenly awake from in a cold sweat.

    Fast forward: she gives the feast and it is a culinary delight. At first they say, “we’ll just sit there and not be tempted, not take a bit or drink” in their pious lingo, or we might take a bite but “we won’t enjoy it”. But eventually one after another does and it is delicious. The superb wine purchased begins to relax them. They begin enjoying each other forgiving each other and confessing to each other when they wronged each other.
    There’s a key speech in the movie by a returning, now general, who as a young man fell in love with one of the daughters but due to the puritanical religion she would not marry him so he left for his career choice in the military. He had returned because this meal coincided with the celebration of their departed pastor’s birthday. For the general alone has recognized the abundance of Babette’s (i.e., Christ’s) outpouring, both its quality and quantity, when he asks whether there is any more Clos Vougeot (a superb wine) and to his bewilderment is given the rest of the bottle, its sheer and full quantity.

    General Loewenhielm’s speech, toasting with wine after much wine and the people are in the mode of relaxed warm joy, “Mercy and truth have met together. Righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another. Man, in his weakness and shortsightness, believe he must make choices in this life. He trembles at the risks he takes. We do know fear. But no. Our choice is of no importance. There comes a time when your eyes are opened. And we come to realize that mercy is infinite. We need only await it with confidence, and receive it with gratitude. Mercy imposes no conditions. And, lo! Everything we have chosen has been granted to us, and everything have rejected has also been granted. Yes, we even get back what we rejected. For mercy and truth are met together; and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another. Christ has suffered”. And they drink.

    At the end of the feast they come to find that Babett spent all her francs on the feast, thus is grace cost the purchaser everything but the recipients nothing.

  • Larry

    Beware, original sin was not a fall into baser things, but rather a religious uprising to be more pious than God Himself (Paul’s brilliant point in Rom. 1:18-ff). Once Satan via “hath God really said” which echoes much in heterodox doctrines (e.g. “don’t confuse the sign with the thing signified”) disconnects one from the Word all one is left with is that Satanic “hath God really said” and yourself. Thus we turn inward. When we do that we moved from being naked but utterly safe, trusting nakedly in the Word, to the Satanic “hath God really said” and “don’t you know you are naked and in danger”. When that happens, THEN, we begin the process of trying to religiously save ourselves. Hence God’s anger in asking, “Who told you that you were naked”. I.e. Who told you that you are in danger and cannot trust me implicitly and nakedly even beyond your own reason and are thus naked and in danger.

    There’s a wonderful scene in the movie Babett’s Feast, worth getting and watching Gospel is in the movie symbolically, that shows the bondage such false teachings from the devil do to us. Quick synopsis: There’s this more or less reformed community under this puritan type preacher who all this time preaches that enthused style of religion. The community is austere in all that they do, they eat little and what they eat is basically tasteless gruel. They drink, alcohol, none. Music and all such enjoyments are at best looked down upon, even marriage. It’s a dreary place and as they age they more and more begin to bite each others heads off, accuse of this and that that one did to the other, etc.

    Then along comes this French woman given to them as a servant named Babett, unknown to them is that she’s this culinary genius. Anyway after many years of service in this dreary way to the pastor’s, who has long past away, daughters, now all in their later years Babett wins a lottery of money, 10,000 frans. She says she wishes to use some of the money to cook a French meal for them, them meaning the two daughters and the town congregation. Eventually the allow it because she’s been a good servant all this time and they don’t want to prevent her from giving them this gift she desires so much to do for them. So Babett starts getting supplies in, all these strange exotic ingredients, sea turtle, and (gasp) wine.

    The towns people then start to regret their decision especially the two daughters and start having dreams and nightmares of their former pastor warning of temptation of the devil to the flesh (basically all things good) and they begin in their dreams to envision Babett being this temptress to the devil, a night mare they suddenly awake from in a cold sweat.

    Fast forward: she gives the feast and it is a culinary delight. At first they say, “we’ll just sit there and not be tempted, not take a bit or drink” in their pious lingo, or we might take a bite but “we won’t enjoy it”. But eventually one after another does and it is delicious. The superb wine purchased begins to relax them. They begin enjoying each other forgiving each other and confessing to each other when they wronged each other.
    There’s a key speech in the movie by a returning, now general, who as a young man fell in love with one of the daughters but due to the puritanical religion she would not marry him so he left for his career choice in the military. He had returned because this meal coincided with the celebration of their departed pastor’s birthday. For the general alone has recognized the abundance of Babette’s (i.e., Christ’s) outpouring, both its quality and quantity, when he asks whether there is any more Clos Vougeot (a superb wine) and to his bewilderment is given the rest of the bottle, its sheer and full quantity.

    General Loewenhielm’s speech, toasting with wine after much wine and the people are in the mode of relaxed warm joy, “Mercy and truth have met together. Righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another. Man, in his weakness and shortsightness, believe he must make choices in this life. He trembles at the risks he takes. We do know fear. But no. Our choice is of no importance. There comes a time when your eyes are opened. And we come to realize that mercy is infinite. We need only await it with confidence, and receive it with gratitude. Mercy imposes no conditions. And, lo! Everything we have chosen has been granted to us, and everything have rejected has also been granted. Yes, we even get back what we rejected. For mercy and truth are met together; and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another. Christ has suffered”. And they drink.

    At the end of the feast they come to find that Babett spent all her francs on the feast, thus is grace cost the purchaser everything but the recipients nothing.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 338 simone @ 334

    forget what I said. go eat that banana bread with nuts and thank God for it’s goodness and trust him that he will preserve and protect you in Christ.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 338 simone @ 334

    forget what I said. go eat that banana bread with nuts and thank God for it’s goodness and trust him that he will preserve and protect you in Christ.

  • Simone

    @Todd
    I see what you are saying, and you may be right to some extent; alcohol affects different people in different ways. But when I stated that I have no experience with alcohol, I meant I personally have never drank, not that I have never seen the effects of alcohol on others. I was not “told” about alcohol, I made my comments based on what I have observed. You mentioned the mentality of “If God says don’t do X, I’ll just avoid all things even related to X, just to be safe.” I certainly don’t hold that view; I have simply made the personal decision to abstain from alcohol. But again, I don’t judge those who drink as long as they aren’t becoming drunk!

  • Simone

    @Todd
    I see what you are saying, and you may be right to some extent; alcohol affects different people in different ways. But when I stated that I have no experience with alcohol, I meant I personally have never drank, not that I have never seen the effects of alcohol on others. I was not “told” about alcohol, I made my comments based on what I have observed. You mentioned the mentality of “If God says don’t do X, I’ll just avoid all things even related to X, just to be safe.” I certainly don’t hold that view; I have simply made the personal decision to abstain from alcohol. But again, I don’t judge those who drink as long as they aren’t becoming drunk!

  • Simone

    fws @ 339
    I must confess, I do love bannana bread!

  • Simone

    fws @ 339
    I must confess, I do love bannana bread!

  • Stephen

    LARRY!!!! WE HAVE GOT TO TALK MAN!!!

    Banana bread? Clos de Vougeot! That is the Danger Zone!

    Simone, watch that movie. By all means watch that beautiful movie.

  • Stephen

    LARRY!!!! WE HAVE GOT TO TALK MAN!!!

    Banana bread? Clos de Vougeot! That is the Danger Zone!

    Simone, watch that movie. By all means watch that beautiful movie.

  • Larry

    Stephen,

    Sure. When/where? Email?

    Larry

  • Larry

    Stephen,

    Sure. When/where? Email?

    Larry

  • Stephen
  • Stephen
  • Pingback: Episode #74 — Off-the-Cuff — Unanswered Prayers = No God? @ Take The Stand

  • Pingback: Episode #74 — Off-the-Cuff — Unanswered Prayers = No God? @ Take The Stand

  • James

    Ummmm…..which Baptists forbid alcohol. I am confused:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_denominations#North_America

    @Dan Kempin (post #3):

    You wrote:

    “Christian hedonism–alive and well among lutherans, I might add. “

    I could just as easily write something irrelevant to the argument about drinking:

    The people in Jeff Foxworthy’s jokes all are Baptists.

    Criticizing the Lutherans doesn’t explain why the Baptists should not drink. By the way, A LOT of Baptists enjoy drinking. And no Lutheran is pressuring them to drink. True, Lutherans drink, but Baptists like to drink while they pretend that they don’t. They are just sneaky about where they do it, that’s all.

  • James

    Ummmm…..which Baptists forbid alcohol. I am confused:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_denominations#North_America

    @Dan Kempin (post #3):

    You wrote:

    “Christian hedonism–alive and well among lutherans, I might add. “

    I could just as easily write something irrelevant to the argument about drinking:

    The people in Jeff Foxworthy’s jokes all are Baptists.

    Criticizing the Lutherans doesn’t explain why the Baptists should not drink. By the way, A LOT of Baptists enjoy drinking. And no Lutheran is pressuring them to drink. True, Lutherans drink, but Baptists like to drink while they pretend that they don’t. They are just sneaky about where they do it, that’s all.

  • Wally

    Baptists teach you will go to hell if you drink, or dance (even if it is partnered dancing such as Ballroom, swing dancing, etc.) or play cards (even if it is not for money).

    We get it already. And for those who don’t, aren’t they quitting church in favor of a non-denominational congregation?

  • Wally

    Baptists teach you will go to hell if you drink, or dance (even if it is partnered dancing such as Ballroom, swing dancing, etc.) or play cards (even if it is not for money).

    We get it already. And for those who don’t, aren’t they quitting church in favor of a non-denominational congregation?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 338

    that was brilliance. thanks!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    larry @ 338

    that was brilliance. thanks!

  • http://pilgrims-pub.blogspot.com Jason

    I starting going to a Baptist church and soon after the found out I enjoyed craft brewer beer and wine. The gave me a CD of a sermon by Dr Mazak. He conceded to the fact wine in the Bible was fermented and sometimes spoken of positively. He insist that wine was always diluted with water. Most of his information comes from extra biblical sources such as Pliny’s Natural History. The sole reference to water-diluted wine speaks of such a practice in a negative matter (Is.1:21). “No where in the bible does it distinguish between undiluted (so-called unsafe) wine from water diluted (so-called safe) wine. Even if this was true does not undercut the moderationist position.” “By making it a question of quantity instead of quality, the only difference is the size of the glass.”
    Quotes are from Jim West and Kenneth Gentry JR.

  • http://pilgrims-pub.blogspot.com Jason

    I starting going to a Baptist church and soon after the found out I enjoyed craft brewer beer and wine. The gave me a CD of a sermon by Dr Mazak. He conceded to the fact wine in the Bible was fermented and sometimes spoken of positively. He insist that wine was always diluted with water. Most of his information comes from extra biblical sources such as Pliny’s Natural History. The sole reference to water-diluted wine speaks of such a practice in a negative matter (Is.1:21). “No where in the bible does it distinguish between undiluted (so-called unsafe) wine from water diluted (so-called safe) wine. Even if this was true does not undercut the moderationist position.” “By making it a question of quantity instead of quality, the only difference is the size of the glass.”
    Quotes are from Jim West and Kenneth Gentry JR.

  • http://www.regularwino.com/ Regularwino

    WWJD – What would Jesus Drink!

    Just joking, but I imagine there’s a lot of evidence to say that Jesus did drink wine. In fact I wrote a piece about the type of wine Jesus was likely to drink – mainly Cab Sauv and Merlot.

    http://www.regularwino.com/history/what-wine-did-jesus-drink/

    Comments and thoughts are welcome.

    James

  • http://www.regularwino.com/ Regularwino

    WWJD – What would Jesus Drink!

    Just joking, but I imagine there’s a lot of evidence to say that Jesus did drink wine. In fact I wrote a piece about the type of wine Jesus was likely to drink – mainly Cab Sauv and Merlot.

    http://www.regularwino.com/history/what-wine-did-jesus-drink/

    Comments and thoughts are welcome.

    James


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X