Lutheran Anglicans

I met an Anglican priest the other day who, it turns out, was a big fan of Spirituality of the Cross and my other “Lutheran” books.  As I talked with him, I was astonished at how much he was into Lutheranism.  He explained that there is currently a strain in Anglicanism that is seeking to recover its Lutheran roots.

He said Anglicanism generally has had four theological strains:  (1) The mainline Protestantism of the Episcopal Church in America; (2) Anglo-Catholicism; (3) low church evangelicalism, which is often distinctly Reformed; (4) the charismatic movement.

But now, he says, a number of  Anglicans, especially young theologians, are rediscovering Luther, who was a major influence on the founders of Anglicanism, especially Thomas Cranmer.   They are finding that it is possible to be both sacramental and evangelical, liturgical and Biblical.  Above all, they are discovering that the Gospel as Luther understood it–radical, liberating–speaks powerfully to our own times and to the specific struggles of both Christians and non-Christians today.

The main force in this movement of Lutheran Anglicans or Anglican Lutherans is the Mockingbird Ministry, run by David Zahl and friends, whose main presence is the blog known as Mockingbird.  (Read the FAQ for why it’s called that.)  I have been reading and linking to it without realizing its role in a movement.  It’s a brilliant website, in both design and content.  Much of it is taken up with commentary on music, film, literature, and the culture as a whole.  But it’s also full of discussions of the distinction between Law & Gospel and the Theology of the Cross vs. the Theology of Glory.

It draws on ELCA theologians who are still Lutheran, such as Stephen Paulson and Gerhard Forde (who inspires a regular feature called “Forde Friday”), but also Missouri Synod stalwarts such as C. F. W. Walther and Rod Rosenbladt (who is called “our hero” and a formative influence).

And the design and tone are very cool and cutting-edged, not stodgy but young, sophisticated, even avant garde.

I’m not saying it’s all completely on target or could in every instance pass Missouri Synod doctrinal review–a recent post quotes Rudolph Bultmann, though one in which the liberal theologian sounds Lutheran–but it’s a good site to visit.

And it’s a challenge to us Lutheran Lutherans to remind us that, even as some of our own churches play it down, outsiders are finding our theology compelling.

 

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.

  • Gary D. Harwood

    I, a Presbyterian am also discovering the clarity of the gospel as expressed by the Lutherans. I know who David Zahl is and occasionally read his stuff on Mockingbird, but alas, the blog that is at the top of my list on my online devotionals is this one!

  • Gary D. Harwood

    I, a Presbyterian am also discovering the clarity of the gospel as expressed by the Lutherans. I know who David Zahl is and occasionally read his stuff on Mockingbird, but alas, the blog that is at the top of my list on my online devotionals is this one!

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    It is fascinating to see, hear and watch folks discover Lutheranism, and ironic that just as some are headed into Lutherans, it is often Lutherans who are struggling to walk away, no, make that…run away, from their heritage.

    However, just a word of caution about Gerhard Forde, he has really steered a whole lot of people in the wrong direction when it comes to sanctification, third use of the law, good works, etc.

    Recently a student of his had a very good critical analysis of where Forde goes so, so wrong.

    I picked up these interesting comments from an ELCA pastor who was, and still is, a very admiring student of the theology of Gehard Forde, whose influence, in my opinion, has gained far to great a toehold in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and it may well be that this attitude explains why we see some Lutheran sermons going out of their way to avoid any kind of parenesis. This of course flies directly in the face of Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions and the preaching from all confessionally Lutheran orthodox fathers of our faith, from Luther well into the 19th and 20th centuries. This attitude has spread in Lutheran circles to the point that we often see sermons and teaching that ignores, even goes out of its way, to avoid mentioning anything concrete about the life of holy living to which we are called in Christ.

    [Forde's] primary weakness can be illustrated by examining how he concludes his sermon “Justification by Faith Alone.” He proclaims, “There is nothing for me to do but just say it: You are just for Jesus’ sake. And there is nothing for you to do but just listen. Believe it, it is for you! It will really reform your life!”There is nothing for me to do? Really? Can’t we say anything, then, about what this reformed life looks like? Forde is adamant that preaching is not about moral instruction, paraenesis, growth, faith practices, or a description of what this new life accomplished through the word might look like. Most of it would amount to a “third” use of the law, an understanding of the law Forde opposed and thought was actually just a return to the first under a new guise. Forde refuses to preach about the Christian life, change, and progress for, as far as I can tell, three reasons. The first reason is anthropological, and is the most damning, for it virtually silences anyone who would even question Forde’s thinking on the matter. The second reason, this one harmatological, offers a view of humanity that does not include things like progress, growth in virtue, holiness, and the like. This second reason, less accusative in nature, is easier to engage. The third reason concerns imputed or passive righteousness, a doctrine that circles back to reason one, for it is a concept only the New Adam can understand by faith.

  • http://www.cyberbrethren.com Rev. Paul T. McCain

    It is fascinating to see, hear and watch folks discover Lutheranism, and ironic that just as some are headed into Lutherans, it is often Lutherans who are struggling to walk away, no, make that…run away, from their heritage.

    However, just a word of caution about Gerhard Forde, he has really steered a whole lot of people in the wrong direction when it comes to sanctification, third use of the law, good works, etc.

    Recently a student of his had a very good critical analysis of where Forde goes so, so wrong.

    I picked up these interesting comments from an ELCA pastor who was, and still is, a very admiring student of the theology of Gehard Forde, whose influence, in my opinion, has gained far to great a toehold in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and it may well be that this attitude explains why we see some Lutheran sermons going out of their way to avoid any kind of parenesis. This of course flies directly in the face of Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions and the preaching from all confessionally Lutheran orthodox fathers of our faith, from Luther well into the 19th and 20th centuries. This attitude has spread in Lutheran circles to the point that we often see sermons and teaching that ignores, even goes out of its way, to avoid mentioning anything concrete about the life of holy living to which we are called in Christ.

    [Forde's] primary weakness can be illustrated by examining how he concludes his sermon “Justification by Faith Alone.” He proclaims, “There is nothing for me to do but just say it: You are just for Jesus’ sake. And there is nothing for you to do but just listen. Believe it, it is for you! It will really reform your life!”There is nothing for me to do? Really? Can’t we say anything, then, about what this reformed life looks like? Forde is adamant that preaching is not about moral instruction, paraenesis, growth, faith practices, or a description of what this new life accomplished through the word might look like. Most of it would amount to a “third” use of the law, an understanding of the law Forde opposed and thought was actually just a return to the first under a new guise. Forde refuses to preach about the Christian life, change, and progress for, as far as I can tell, three reasons. The first reason is anthropological, and is the most damning, for it virtually silences anyone who would even question Forde’s thinking on the matter. The second reason, this one harmatological, offers a view of humanity that does not include things like progress, growth in virtue, holiness, and the like. This second reason, less accusative in nature, is easier to engage. The third reason concerns imputed or passive righteousness, a doctrine that circles back to reason one, for it is a concept only the New Adam can understand by faith.

  • http://1minutedailyword.com Steve Martin

    It’s a good site. They are moving in the right direction, that’s for sure.

    The thing that separates them (IMO) fom Lutherans, as well as the many others who are rediscovering Paul, Luther, Forde, Paulson, and the like, is a proper understanding of the sacraments.

    It seems to me that this is the toughest hurdle for them to overcome. The pure gospel and visable Word is still one area that a great many do not want to discuss…or seldom, anyway.

  • http://1minutedailyword.com Steve Martin

    It’s a good site. They are moving in the right direction, that’s for sure.

    The thing that separates them (IMO) fom Lutherans, as well as the many others who are rediscovering Paul, Luther, Forde, Paulson, and the like, is a proper understanding of the sacraments.

    It seems to me that this is the toughest hurdle for them to overcome. The pure gospel and visable Word is still one area that a great many do not want to discuss…or seldom, anyway.

  • http://1minutedailyword.com Steve Martin

    BTW, Forde is steering people in the RIGHT direction when it comes to the “3rd use”, etc.

    “Christ is the end of the law for all those who have faith.”

    Is He not?

    That’s all I’m going to say about that, except that Forde was free. And because of people like in him, many of us see the real freedom and have experienced the real freedom in Christ…and we will not go back into any form of bondage that any of the ‘yeah but’ folks advocate.

  • http://1minutedailyword.com Steve Martin

    BTW, Forde is steering people in the RIGHT direction when it comes to the “3rd use”, etc.

    “Christ is the end of the law for all those who have faith.”

    Is He not?

    That’s all I’m going to say about that, except that Forde was free. And because of people like in him, many of us see the real freedom and have experienced the real freedom in Christ…and we will not go back into any form of bondage that any of the ‘yeah but’ folks advocate.

  • trotk

    Though the 39 Articles aren’t binding upon us, you will find an enormous overlap between them and the Lutheran confessions. A work that reveals this is WH Griffith Thomas’ exposition of the 39 Articles (The Principles of Theology).

  • trotk

    Though the 39 Articles aren’t binding upon us, you will find an enormous overlap between them and the Lutheran confessions. A work that reveals this is WH Griffith Thomas’ exposition of the 39 Articles (The Principles of Theology).

  • fws

    Read the site carefully. There was a falling out a couple years ago between Zahl and others who maintained the site.

    The main error is that they take take words like “Grace” and “Mercy” and muddle the distinction between Law and Gospel.

    Mercy is , by definition, the opposite of what we deserve. What we deserve is Justice, which always demands our death.

    So Mercy indeed sounds like the Gospel doesn’t it? And it is that, but only when it is about what Christ has done, outside of us. And for us.

    They turn Grace and Mercy into something that WE can do , of course with the help of the Holy Spirit. This is true enough, But then they also call this “THE Gospel.” They confuse what God has done, completely outside of us and for us, with what God works in us and through us through the Law. God indeed does work grace and mercy out of us.

    Here is the Lutheran difference: He does this by killing our Old Adam with the Law. This working of grace and mercy out of us require NO Christ and NO regeneration. This work, that is ALL we can see and do, is the Holy Spirit extorting goodness and mercy out of ALL men with the Killing Law.

    Pastor McCain is right about Forde.
    And yet he too also seems to err. he thinks that the third use instructs without killing. That it is a Law that is alone for believers.

    This is reflected in his desire to have Lutherans “reevaluate” the Thomist Natural Law theories of Roman Scholasticism that the Apology categorically and emphatically rejects.

    This, if he indeed believes it, is error. It is not only unconfessional, it is opposed to the Confessions.

    The Law , in all it’s “uses” , ALWAYS and ONLY kills. This precisely means, according to FC art I, that in ALL you and I can ever see or do or think or make ourselves feel, it is that Law at work, killing our Old Adam, that is making any and all goodness and mercy happen that is evidential in us.

    The works of new man and faith are completely invisible and there is no evidential proof for any of that. Why? fruits of the Law and fruits of the gospel are identical! FC VI).

    There is nothing a true believer can do in thought, word or deed or efforted emotion that a hipocrite can not also do. And both true believer and hipocrite are commanded by the SAME Law of God to render the same righeous outward thoughts, words and deed and emotions.

  • fws

    Read the site carefully. There was a falling out a couple years ago between Zahl and others who maintained the site.

    The main error is that they take take words like “Grace” and “Mercy” and muddle the distinction between Law and Gospel.

    Mercy is , by definition, the opposite of what we deserve. What we deserve is Justice, which always demands our death.

    So Mercy indeed sounds like the Gospel doesn’t it? And it is that, but only when it is about what Christ has done, outside of us. And for us.

    They turn Grace and Mercy into something that WE can do , of course with the help of the Holy Spirit. This is true enough, But then they also call this “THE Gospel.” They confuse what God has done, completely outside of us and for us, with what God works in us and through us through the Law. God indeed does work grace and mercy out of us.

    Here is the Lutheran difference: He does this by killing our Old Adam with the Law. This working of grace and mercy out of us require NO Christ and NO regeneration. This work, that is ALL we can see and do, is the Holy Spirit extorting goodness and mercy out of ALL men with the Killing Law.

    Pastor McCain is right about Forde.
    And yet he too also seems to err. he thinks that the third use instructs without killing. That it is a Law that is alone for believers.

    This is reflected in his desire to have Lutherans “reevaluate” the Thomist Natural Law theories of Roman Scholasticism that the Apology categorically and emphatically rejects.

    This, if he indeed believes it, is error. It is not only unconfessional, it is opposed to the Confessions.

    The Law , in all it’s “uses” , ALWAYS and ONLY kills. This precisely means, according to FC art I, that in ALL you and I can ever see or do or think or make ourselves feel, it is that Law at work, killing our Old Adam, that is making any and all goodness and mercy happen that is evidential in us.

    The works of new man and faith are completely invisible and there is no evidential proof for any of that. Why? fruits of the Law and fruits of the gospel are identical! FC VI).

    There is nothing a true believer can do in thought, word or deed or efforted emotion that a hipocrite can not also do. And both true believer and hipocrite are commanded by the SAME Law of God to render the same righeous outward thoughts, words and deed and emotions.

  • fws

    trotk @ 5

    Good to see you here Stephen! Indeed. Elizabeth was probably greatly influenced by her mother Anne, who was Lutheran. And she, with the previous assistance of Cranmer until his death, produced the 39 articles in their most lasting form, that could be understood, in every article , in the Lutheran and scriptural way.

    The fact that they were deliberately written to allow also the Reformed understanding robs nothing from that fact. And this fact has given the comfort of the Gospel in word and sacrament to many, many anglicans. And it has allowed Lutheranism at its best, which is what we teach, not who we are institutionally, to do it’s good work among those who do not share with us the label “Lutheran”.

  • fws

    trotk @ 5

    Good to see you here Stephen! Indeed. Elizabeth was probably greatly influenced by her mother Anne, who was Lutheran. And she, with the previous assistance of Cranmer until his death, produced the 39 articles in their most lasting form, that could be understood, in every article , in the Lutheran and scriptural way.

    The fact that they were deliberately written to allow also the Reformed understanding robs nothing from that fact. And this fact has given the comfort of the Gospel in word and sacrament to many, many anglicans. And it has allowed Lutheranism at its best, which is what we teach, not who we are institutionally, to do it’s good work among those who do not share with us the label “Lutheran”.

  • fws

    steve martin @ 4

    There are those who , with melancthon and calvin see the 3rd use as a non killing use of the Law. And then there are those who, properly reacted against that idea but landed into the opposite error.

    the opposite of an error is the opposite error.

    There is a third way of seeing the third use as the Confessions teach it. And that is this:

    the third use ALWAYS kills because it is Law. and…
    it ONLY exists because the Old Adam still clings to the Believer.

    You are right. Steve. It is not instructions for the New Man to follow to become more sanctified. He doesnt need that!

    The third Use is instructions to the New Man to take the Law into his own hands and kill his Old Adam with it.

    And so the Third use is precisely and specifically to inform the Believer that there is no Life, ever in keeping the Law, that exercise is ONLY about death of the Old Adam. Even in the believer. For the Old Adam still clings to the Believer.

    And so we are this instructed not to devise new and “spiritual” things to do that are not commanded thinking that there is some Law we are to follow that is alone for Christians to do and that no pagan or hipocrite can do.

  • fws

    steve martin @ 4

    There are those who , with melancthon and calvin see the 3rd use as a non killing use of the Law. And then there are those who, properly reacted against that idea but landed into the opposite error.

    the opposite of an error is the opposite error.

    There is a third way of seeing the third use as the Confessions teach it. And that is this:

    the third use ALWAYS kills because it is Law. and…
    it ONLY exists because the Old Adam still clings to the Believer.

    You are right. Steve. It is not instructions for the New Man to follow to become more sanctified. He doesnt need that!

    The third Use is instructions to the New Man to take the Law into his own hands and kill his Old Adam with it.

    And so the Third use is precisely and specifically to inform the Believer that there is no Life, ever in keeping the Law, that exercise is ONLY about death of the Old Adam. Even in the believer. For the Old Adam still clings to the Believer.

    And so we are this instructed not to devise new and “spiritual” things to do that are not commanded thinking that there is some Law we are to follow that is alone for Christians to do and that no pagan or hipocrite can do.

  • http://1minutedailyword.com Steve Martin

    fws,

    Thanks, Frank.

    Yes, the “3rd use” kills. But it’s danger lies in those who try and tame it.

    The “3rd” use is (as Nestingen always points out) already contained in the 1st use.

    And, as I like to say, the law is written upon our hearts…we already know what to do (anyway), we just flat out refuse to do it.

    Thanks. Off to the salt mine. There’s gotta be a better way :D

  • http://1minutedailyword.com Steve Martin

    fws,

    Thanks, Frank.

    Yes, the “3rd use” kills. But it’s danger lies in those who try and tame it.

    The “3rd” use is (as Nestingen always points out) already contained in the 1st use.

    And, as I like to say, the law is written upon our hearts…we already know what to do (anyway), we just flat out refuse to do it.

    Thanks. Off to the salt mine. There’s gotta be a better way :D

  • rlewer

    Back to the topic of the Church of England: Dr Neelak Tjernagel wrote a book,”Henry the VIII and the Lutherans” published by CPH, c.1965. It is still valuable on this topic.

  • rlewer

    Back to the topic of the Church of England: Dr Neelak Tjernagel wrote a book,”Henry the VIII and the Lutherans” published by CPH, c.1965. It is still valuable on this topic.

  • fws

    steve @ 9

    But there IS something in the third use of the Law that ONLY the regenerated can know.

    That is this: God demands of us, in a Law that can only be found in the Bible , and there only in the first commandment something that Reason is blind to.

    That something that the the first commandment demands is that we have the right emotional response to God. It demands that we fear , love and trust in God.

    Think about how UNreasonable that demand is. No one can do that. An army of Moses could not fufill that demand .

    this is like someone’s wife saying ‘ I DEMAND that you love and trust in me!!’ And the proper and rational, and reason-able response would be: “ridiculous! You can demand that I act as-if I love and trust you. But it is impossible to demand that I DO the emotional response you are demanding.”

    So in the human courtroom of morality, we can keep the Law by doing the letter of the Law even if our heart is not really in it.
    In God’s courtroom it is different. Works are useless in pleasing God (even though God commands that we do them to please our neighbor), if our entire heart is not into the doing.

    And so the third use tells us that no matter what we do, it is to be aimed at satisfying the demands of our neighbor and not the demands of God! And so the third use commands us to DE-spiritulize our doing. Our doing is rendered , alone to give satisfaction to our neighbor. It is alone the good emotions of fear, love and trust in God that we cannot do apart from regeneration and the HS that alone does what the entire Law demands.
    And this emotional response is a gift. We can work up an emotional response. That is OUR doing and is not what we are talking about here.

  • fws

    steve @ 9

    But there IS something in the third use of the Law that ONLY the regenerated can know.

    That is this: God demands of us, in a Law that can only be found in the Bible , and there only in the first commandment something that Reason is blind to.

    That something that the the first commandment demands is that we have the right emotional response to God. It demands that we fear , love and trust in God.

    Think about how UNreasonable that demand is. No one can do that. An army of Moses could not fufill that demand .

    this is like someone’s wife saying ‘ I DEMAND that you love and trust in me!!’ And the proper and rational, and reason-able response would be: “ridiculous! You can demand that I act as-if I love and trust you. But it is impossible to demand that I DO the emotional response you are demanding.”

    So in the human courtroom of morality, we can keep the Law by doing the letter of the Law even if our heart is not really in it.
    In God’s courtroom it is different. Works are useless in pleasing God (even though God commands that we do them to please our neighbor), if our entire heart is not into the doing.

    And so the third use tells us that no matter what we do, it is to be aimed at satisfying the demands of our neighbor and not the demands of God! And so the third use commands us to DE-spiritulize our doing. Our doing is rendered , alone to give satisfaction to our neighbor. It is alone the good emotions of fear, love and trust in God that we cannot do apart from regeneration and the HS that alone does what the entire Law demands.
    And this emotional response is a gift. We can work up an emotional response. That is OUR doing and is not what we are talking about here.

  • fws

    rlewer:

    the topic is not the church of england.

    the topic is that many anglicans are , doctrinally, Lutheran.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

  • fws

    rlewer:

    the topic is not the church of england.

    the topic is that many anglicans are , doctrinally, Lutheran.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

  • fws

    rlewer

    so Lutheran doctrine is right on topic here!

  • fws

    rlewer

    so Lutheran doctrine is right on topic here!

  • Tom Hering

    If it’s impacting Anglicans in some way, Frank, yes.

  • Tom Hering

    If it’s impacting Anglicans in some way, Frank, yes.

  • Pingback: Lutheran Anglicans? « Fr Stephen Smuts

  • Pingback: Lutheran Anglicans? « Fr Stephen Smuts

  • norman teigen

    Thank you for mentioning my late uncle Neelak Tjernagel’s work. Were Uncle Neelak alive today he undoubtedly would reject the right-wing political direction of the LC-MS.

    Norman Teigen, Layman
    Evangelical Lutheran Synod

  • norman teigen

    Thank you for mentioning my late uncle Neelak Tjernagel’s work. Were Uncle Neelak alive today he undoubtedly would reject the right-wing political direction of the LC-MS.

    Norman Teigen, Layman
    Evangelical Lutheran Synod

  • Darrin Sheek

    Forde is one of the reasons I became Lutheran and one of the reasons I am pursuing pastoral ministry in the LCMS.

  • Darrin Sheek

    Forde is one of the reasons I became Lutheran and one of the reasons I am pursuing pastoral ministry in the LCMS.

  • Tom Hering

    And it’s a challenge to us Lutheran Lutherans …

    So, as we discuss Lutheran Anglicans, I have to ask if there are Anglican Anglicans? Do any of the Anglicans here know?

    (By the way, I’m pretty sure I’m a Lutheran Lutheran Lutheran. Just so you all know.)

  • Tom Hering

    And it’s a challenge to us Lutheran Lutherans …

    So, as we discuss Lutheran Anglicans, I have to ask if there are Anglican Anglicans? Do any of the Anglicans here know?

    (By the way, I’m pretty sure I’m a Lutheran Lutheran Lutheran. Just so you all know.)

  • fws

    darren sheek @16

    forde captures precisely the point that was Luthers lightbulb moment.

    he points out that romans 8 is not the movement from carnal vice to virtue. It is the movement from virtue to faith alone in Christ alone.

    At the same time, I am sadly convinced that Forde did not quite get the Law right. He was an antinomian. As such he , in practice, ended up being more moralistic and legalistic than anyone I have ever read. His dissertation on homosexuality is an eyeopener as to how he approaches morality and the Law. It is pure sacrifice and zero mercy.

  • fws

    darren sheek @16

    forde captures precisely the point that was Luthers lightbulb moment.

    he points out that romans 8 is not the movement from carnal vice to virtue. It is the movement from virtue to faith alone in Christ alone.

    At the same time, I am sadly convinced that Forde did not quite get the Law right. He was an antinomian. As such he , in practice, ended up being more moralistic and legalistic than anyone I have ever read. His dissertation on homosexuality is an eyeopener as to how he approaches morality and the Law. It is pure sacrifice and zero mercy.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom @ 17 – Are you arguing for triple predestination?

  • SKPeterson

    Tom @ 17 – Are you arguing for triple predestination?

  • Tom Hering

    SK, no, just my right to go back for seconds and thirds at the church potluck.

  • Tom Hering

    SK, no, just my right to go back for seconds and thirds at the church potluck.

  • trotk

    Tom (@17) –

    I guess it depends how one defines Anglican (just as for you, it depends how you define Lutheran, as I am certain you wouldn’t accept an ELCA definition of Lutheran when you claim your triple epithet), but I would call myself an Anglican to the fourth power.

  • trotk

    Tom (@17) –

    I guess it depends how one defines Anglican (just as for you, it depends how you define Lutheran, as I am certain you wouldn’t accept an ELCA definition of Lutheran when you claim your triple epithet), but I would call myself an Anglican to the fourth power.

  • Jonathan

    Why would someone who enjoys Lutheran theology actually want to join the right-wing synods? Stay an Anglican, Presbyterian, whatnot, and enjoy Luther’s theology and the liberty your denomination affords to follow your conscience on social and political issues. Why join the WELS, where the women are silenced, or the LCMS?

  • Jonathan

    Why would someone who enjoys Lutheran theology actually want to join the right-wing synods? Stay an Anglican, Presbyterian, whatnot, and enjoy Luther’s theology and the liberty your denomination affords to follow your conscience on social and political issues. Why join the WELS, where the women are silenced, or the LCMS?

  • Tom Hering

    An Anglican Anglican Anglican Anglican. Not quite as authentic as someone who has to say what they are ten times fast, but you’re more Anglican than I am Lutheran, and I bow in humble recognition. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    An Anglican Anglican Anglican Anglican. Not quite as authentic as someone who has to say what they are ten times fast, but you’re more Anglican than I am Lutheran, and I bow in humble recognition. :-D

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    Just a note, but Bultmann had something of a Lutheran background, ’tis true! Btw, as Steve Martin knows, I am an Anglican Luther guy, but I am perhaps one of the oldest here around the blogs? (At 62, three in the Fall)

    Let me recommend a few older British books on Luther: ‘Let God be God, An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther’, by Philip Watson. It actually comes from the Fernly-Hartley Lecture, 1947. Just grand! And, ‘Captive To The Word, Martin Luther, Doctor of Sacred Scripture’, by A. Skevington Wood. (The Paternastor Press, 1969) As too, ‘The Righteousness Of God, Luther Studies’, by Gordon Rupp. (Hodder and Stoughton, 1953). Sadly these or OP now, but check the used book shops on line.

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    Just a note, but Bultmann had something of a Lutheran background, ’tis true! Btw, as Steve Martin knows, I am an Anglican Luther guy, but I am perhaps one of the oldest here around the blogs? (At 62, three in the Fall)

    Let me recommend a few older British books on Luther: ‘Let God be God, An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther’, by Philip Watson. It actually comes from the Fernly-Hartley Lecture, 1947. Just grand! And, ‘Captive To The Word, Martin Luther, Doctor of Sacred Scripture’, by A. Skevington Wood. (The Paternastor Press, 1969) As too, ‘The Righteousness Of God, Luther Studies’, by Gordon Rupp. (Hodder and Stoughton, 1953). Sadly these or OP now, but check the used book shops on line.

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

    “Why join the WELS, where the women are silenced, or the LCMS?”

    The men here are doing a better job for me than my sisters or I could do for ourselves.

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

    “Why join the WELS, where the women are silenced, or the LCMS?”

    The men here are doing a better job for me than my sisters or I could do for ourselves.

  • SKPeterson

    Women aren’t silenced in WELS – let’s not go with that canard.

  • SKPeterson

    Women aren’t silenced in WELS – let’s not go with that canard.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS: “At the same time, I am sadly convinced that Forde did not quite get the Law right. He was an antinomian. As such he , in practice, ended up being more moralistic and legalistic than anyone I have ever read.”

    That’s curious. How does Forde, an antinomian, become more moralistic and legalistic than anyone you ever read?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    FWS: “At the same time, I am sadly convinced that Forde did not quite get the Law right. He was an antinomian. As such he , in practice, ended up being more moralistic and legalistic than anyone I have ever read.”

    That’s curious. How does Forde, an antinomian, become more moralistic and legalistic than anyone you ever read?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Thanks, SK (@26). I’m sure my wife would agree with you, but she’s not allowed to say anything.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Thanks, SK (@26). I’m sure my wife would agree with you, but she’s not allowed to say anything.

  • Bob

    The blessings go both ways — as a confessional Lutheran, I have been greatly benefited by writings from Anglicans such as John R.W. Stott and Desmond Tutu.

    I also greatly have enjoyed books by Paul Zahl, especially his church history book and Grace in Practice: A Theology of Everyday Life.

    I like rejoicing in what we have in common more than what separates us, and I think we have a lot in common. Obviously,
    from this post!

  • Bob

    The blessings go both ways — as a confessional Lutheran, I have been greatly benefited by writings from Anglicans such as John R.W. Stott and Desmond Tutu.

    I also greatly have enjoyed books by Paul Zahl, especially his church history book and Grace in Practice: A Theology of Everyday Life.

    I like rejoicing in what we have in common more than what separates us, and I think we have a lot in common. Obviously,
    from this post!

  • Jonathan

    @26 Too bad sg let the cat out of the bag….

    But the point is that one might actually be better off enjoying Lutheran theology, outside the synods.

  • Jonathan

    @26 Too bad sg let the cat out of the bag….

    But the point is that one might actually be better off enjoying Lutheran theology, outside the synods.

  • trotk

    Jonathan, to a certain extent, that is exactly what I do. But I would gladly join one of the Lutheran synods if I lost access to an Anglican church that believed and taught that Christ really meant what He said in the institution of the sacraments. The freedom I have is far less important than that. (This, by the way, is why I never could join the Reformed Episcopal Church.)

  • trotk

    Jonathan, to a certain extent, that is exactly what I do. But I would gladly join one of the Lutheran synods if I lost access to an Anglican church that believed and taught that Christ really meant what He said in the institution of the sacraments. The freedom I have is far less important than that. (This, by the way, is why I never could join the Reformed Episcopal Church.)

  • Tom Hering

    And I’d be better off enjoying my meal on the curb outside the restaurant. Besides, if you were Lutheran, you’d know our theology has nothing to do with enjoyment. Being Lutheran is redemptive suffering. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    And I’d be better off enjoying my meal on the curb outside the restaurant. Besides, if you were Lutheran, you’d know our theology has nothing to do with enjoyment. Being Lutheran is redemptive suffering. :-D

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    I like to preach to Lutherans, and I preach even “Luther” sometimes, i.e. his “theologia crucis”, but I am not a “Luther..an”, though I am closer to Luther on the Sacraments. I am an old eclectic, and even eccentric Anglican, mostly Low Church (mostly). And even sometimes I wonder just where “Luther” went with some Lutherans? ;)

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    I like to preach to Lutherans, and I preach even “Luther” sometimes, i.e. his “theologia crucis”, but I am not a “Luther..an”, though I am closer to Luther on the Sacraments. I am an old eclectic, and even eccentric Anglican, mostly Low Church (mostly). And even sometimes I wonder just where “Luther” went with some Lutherans? ;)

  • Pete

    “even as some of our own churches play it down, outsiders are finding our theology compelling.”

    I am one of those outsiders. Lutheran Theology is reaching even into America’s Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. While many in our movement are deeply immersed in the theology of glory, some of us are running to the theology of the cross.

    PS – if you are familiar with our non-denomination, you might have snickered a bit at my use of the word immerse.

  • Pete

    “even as some of our own churches play it down, outsiders are finding our theology compelling.”

    I am one of those outsiders. Lutheran Theology is reaching even into America’s Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. While many in our movement are deeply immersed in the theology of glory, some of us are running to the theology of the cross.

    PS – if you are familiar with our non-denomination, you might have snickered a bit at my use of the word immerse.

  • SKPeterson

    Pete – is your church the one that silences women by not allowing them to sing? You simply dump them in a big pool of water? Just kidding. Are they an offshoot of the old Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ Christian church? My wife grew up DoC, but when she learned that conservative Lutheranism would diminish her feminine identity almost as much as Todd’s wife, she immediately joined up.

  • SKPeterson

    Pete – is your church the one that silences women by not allowing them to sing? You simply dump them in a big pool of water? Just kidding. Are they an offshoot of the old Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ Christian church? My wife grew up DoC, but when she learned that conservative Lutheranism would diminish her feminine identity almost as much as Todd’s wife, she immediately joined up.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SK (@34), my wife has never once diminished your wife’s feminine identity.

    We WELS Lutherans are also strictly conservative grammarians too, you know.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SK (@34), my wife has never once diminished your wife’s feminine identity.

    We WELS Lutherans are also strictly conservative grammarians too, you know.

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

    @22, Jonathan, I am not aware of any of the conservative Lutheran synods requiring any kind of politics, right-wing or otherwise. You will surely find more of that in Reformed and evangelical/fundamentalist churches. This is evident on this blog, with Democratic Lutherans arguing against Republican Lutherans on political issues, while agreeing on doctrine and rallying behind each other to argue against other theologies. Lutherans are surely “free” when it comes to politics.

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

    @22, Jonathan, I am not aware of any of the conservative Lutheran synods requiring any kind of politics, right-wing or otherwise. You will surely find more of that in Reformed and evangelical/fundamentalist churches. This is evident on this blog, with Democratic Lutherans arguing against Republican Lutherans on political issues, while agreeing on doctrine and rallying behind each other to argue against other theologies. Lutherans are surely “free” when it comes to politics.

  • rlewer

    #15 Norman

    Thank you your enlightenment about Dr. Tjernagel. I took numerous courses under him at River Forest including a graduate course on “Luther and the Reformation.” Both in teaching and in style he was the epitome of a professor. I never realized that he would think that one of the legitimate purposes of government was to require all churches to provide all their employees with free condoms and “morning after” pills. I am pretty sure though that he would not have called opposition to this as a “war on women” or “right wing politics.”

  • rlewer

    #15 Norman

    Thank you your enlightenment about Dr. Tjernagel. I took numerous courses under him at River Forest including a graduate course on “Luther and the Reformation.” Both in teaching and in style he was the epitome of a professor. I never realized that he would think that one of the legitimate purposes of government was to require all churches to provide all their employees with free condoms and “morning after” pills. I am pretty sure though that he would not have called opposition to this as a “war on women” or “right wing politics.”

  • Bob

    ‘Lutherans are surely “free” when it comes to politics.’
    In theory, but not in experience. At least, not in mine.

    I was an evangelical for most of my life. I disagree with Dr. Veith’s assertion that that world is more conservative than in the CL world.
    In fact, I experienced more diversity of social and political thought in evangelicalism.

    I’ve been pretty disappointed because when it comes to public policy issues, the evangelicals and CLs seem to be cut from the same cloth — except for the fact that CLs can proudly drone on and on about Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” while voting for the latest Tea Party flash in the pan. :)

    ‘I am not aware of any of the conservative Lutheran synods requiring any kind of politics, right-wing or otherwise. ‘

    Well, of course it can’t be required. Using that word is a smokescreen. But in my experience, it’s kind of an unspoken requirement. Or perhaps, “vibe” or “mentality” is a better way to describe it.

  • Bob

    ‘Lutherans are surely “free” when it comes to politics.’
    In theory, but not in experience. At least, not in mine.

    I was an evangelical for most of my life. I disagree with Dr. Veith’s assertion that that world is more conservative than in the CL world.
    In fact, I experienced more diversity of social and political thought in evangelicalism.

    I’ve been pretty disappointed because when it comes to public policy issues, the evangelicals and CLs seem to be cut from the same cloth — except for the fact that CLs can proudly drone on and on about Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” while voting for the latest Tea Party flash in the pan. :)

    ‘I am not aware of any of the conservative Lutheran synods requiring any kind of politics, right-wing or otherwise. ‘

    Well, of course it can’t be required. Using that word is a smokescreen. But in my experience, it’s kind of an unspoken requirement. Or perhaps, “vibe” or “mentality” is a better way to describe it.

  • SKPeterson

    Todd – come now. your wife has been part of the she-woman woman haters club that is WELS-approved; my wife had no choice but to free herself from such tyranny and be LCMS.

  • SKPeterson

    Todd – come now. your wife has been part of the she-woman woman haters club that is WELS-approved; my wife had no choice but to free herself from such tyranny and be LCMS.

  • SKPeterson

    Bob @ 39 – Them’s fightin’ words. ;)

  • SKPeterson

    Bob @ 39 – Them’s fightin’ words. ;)

  • Daniel Gorman

    Gene Veith@37: “@22, Jonathan, I am not aware of any of the conservative Lutheran synods requiring any kind of politics, right-wing or otherwise. ”

    The LCMS is rapidly moving in that direction. In Pres./Rev. Harrison testimony before a congressional committee, he sought to burden the consciences of LCMS businessmen (and by implication all LCMS workers who pay for health insurance) with guilt over the purchase of insurance products that include abortion drug coverage. See 7:30 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAdkZLHXKUs&feature =related.

    Providing insurance (and making premium payments) in accordance with the powers ordained by God is not participating in the murderous sins of government or of policy beneficiaries. It is rendering “unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s.” However, rebelling against Caesar’s regulation of the insurance industry is a damnable sin (Rom. 13:2).

    If the LCMS convention ratifies Rev. Harrison’s new Mosaic law, LCMS congregations will have a green light to excommunicate members who reject Pres/Rev. Harrison right-wing political agenda. Confessional Lutherans who uphold Christ’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms and the Augsburg Confession, Art. XXVIII, could be forced to chose between obeying God or obeying Pres./Rev. Harrison. That’s an easy call.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Gene Veith@37: “@22, Jonathan, I am not aware of any of the conservative Lutheran synods requiring any kind of politics, right-wing or otherwise. ”

    The LCMS is rapidly moving in that direction. In Pres./Rev. Harrison testimony before a congressional committee, he sought to burden the consciences of LCMS businessmen (and by implication all LCMS workers who pay for health insurance) with guilt over the purchase of insurance products that include abortion drug coverage. See 7:30 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAdkZLHXKUs&feature =related.

    Providing insurance (and making premium payments) in accordance with the powers ordained by God is not participating in the murderous sins of government or of policy beneficiaries. It is rendering “unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s.” However, rebelling against Caesar’s regulation of the insurance industry is a damnable sin (Rom. 13:2).

    If the LCMS convention ratifies Rev. Harrison’s new Mosaic law, LCMS congregations will have a green light to excommunicate members who reject Pres/Rev. Harrison right-wing political agenda. Confessional Lutherans who uphold Christ’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms and the Augsburg Confession, Art. XXVIII, could be forced to chose between obeying God or obeying Pres./Rev. Harrison. That’s an easy call.

  • fws

    daniel @ 42

    No Daniel. You are looking at the symptoms and not the root problem.

    This approach is a denial of the distinction made in apology III and IV …. on justification, and on love and the fulfilling of the Law, that is between second table law keeping and that keeping of the Law in the first table that only regeneration can work.

    Harrison and Paul McCain are both fine men who must be credited with helping pull the LCMS back from the maws of abyss .

    Now they seem to have adopted the theology of the last Loci of Melancthon that was recently republished, and was opposed by the Book of Concord.

    This direction is manifest in their push to reevaluate Thomist/Scholastic Natural Law (vs the careful delimiting of this very term in the Apology opposing st Thomas here). This is a direct attack upon the Apology in our Confessions.

    In our rush to counter the antinomianism/legalism of the ELCA regarding homosexuality, we will impale our beloved Evangelical Lutheran Church upon the very pike that the Augustana/Apology previously saved us from. So we will do what? persuade many in the ELCA to bar fags from the church unless they stop sinning , and eventually we will apply those same rules to the rest of the sinning population in the same way.

    This will precisely look like leaning hard on the satanic distinction Rome makes between “willful sinning” and another kind of Old Adam wet dream that is a kind of sin that is… uh…what?… UNwilling sin (the devil made me do it!), and is “venial”, is not mortal, and does not really damn us to hell. What kind of sin is that? And then we will accuse the fags of not really repenting. Really now?

    So we will become more antinomian than the ELCA just as Rome really is, as manifested by all their legalisms.

  • fws

    daniel @ 42

    No Daniel. You are looking at the symptoms and not the root problem.

    This approach is a denial of the distinction made in apology III and IV …. on justification, and on love and the fulfilling of the Law, that is between second table law keeping and that keeping of the Law in the first table that only regeneration can work.

    Harrison and Paul McCain are both fine men who must be credited with helping pull the LCMS back from the maws of abyss .

    Now they seem to have adopted the theology of the last Loci of Melancthon that was recently republished, and was opposed by the Book of Concord.

    This direction is manifest in their push to reevaluate Thomist/Scholastic Natural Law (vs the careful delimiting of this very term in the Apology opposing st Thomas here). This is a direct attack upon the Apology in our Confessions.

    In our rush to counter the antinomianism/legalism of the ELCA regarding homosexuality, we will impale our beloved Evangelical Lutheran Church upon the very pike that the Augustana/Apology previously saved us from. So we will do what? persuade many in the ELCA to bar fags from the church unless they stop sinning , and eventually we will apply those same rules to the rest of the sinning population in the same way.

    This will precisely look like leaning hard on the satanic distinction Rome makes between “willful sinning” and another kind of Old Adam wet dream that is a kind of sin that is… uh…what?… UNwilling sin (the devil made me do it!), and is “venial”, is not mortal, and does not really damn us to hell. What kind of sin is that? And then we will accuse the fags of not really repenting. Really now?

    So we will become more antinomian than the ELCA just as Rome really is, as manifested by all their legalisms.

  • Tom Hering

    Did President Harrison speak truth to power? Not so much, as he appeared at a show hearing where his view agreed with the view of the chairman and a majority of commitee members. That’s why he was chosen to testify! He was used by politicians, and was happy to be used, but ended up embarassing his synod when the sham nature of the hearing proved obvious to everyone.

    So, okay, the LCMS has a politically conservative President who’s a tool. Does this mean the synod will become a right-wing synod, and local congregations will purge left-wing members? That’s liberal paranoia, and nothing but paranoia. Good grief, Mr. Gorman.

  • Tom Hering

    Did President Harrison speak truth to power? Not so much, as he appeared at a show hearing where his view agreed with the view of the chairman and a majority of commitee members. That’s why he was chosen to testify! He was used by politicians, and was happy to be used, but ended up embarassing his synod when the sham nature of the hearing proved obvious to everyone.

    So, okay, the LCMS has a politically conservative President who’s a tool. Does this mean the synod will become a right-wing synod, and local congregations will purge left-wing members? That’s liberal paranoia, and nothing but paranoia. Good grief, Mr. Gorman.

  • rlewer

    Where did the government get the right to force churches to provide free condoms and “morning after” pills for all its workers?

    Did you even read Harrison’s testimony? Did you notice that the District Presidents supported him unanimously. This is one of the few times Synod was united on anything.

  • rlewer

    Where did the government get the right to force churches to provide free condoms and “morning after” pills for all its workers?

    Did you even read Harrison’s testimony? Did you notice that the District Presidents supported him unanimously. This is one of the few times Synod was united on anything.

  • Tom Hering

    rlewer, I wasn’t talking about the issue. I was talking about the politics of the issue.

  • Tom Hering

    rlewer, I wasn’t talking about the issue. I was talking about the politics of the issue.

  • rlewer

    Harrison was talking about the issue, not politics. Read his testimony.

    Note also that Obama called such testimony a “war on women.” That is politics.

  • rlewer

    Harrison was talking about the issue, not politics. Read his testimony.

    Note also that Obama called such testimony a “war on women.” That is politics.

  • fws

    rlewer @ 45

    Where did the government get the right to force churches to provide free condoms and “morning after” pills for all its workers?

    My understanding is that the way the goverment forces churchs to do this is by cutting off funding. In Mass. the govt forced the catholic charities to adopt out children to gays. They shut down. The mormons could continue to refuse to adopt to gays because they received zero government funding.

    Do you have other information that you can link us to that says something different rlewer?

    Further:

    There is something sinful about providing free condoms? Where do you find that in the bible? This is part of that satanic error that Rome clings to that we Lutherans reject. The idea that any form of birth control is sinful since it countermands what they, in error, call “natural law”. Or so I thought….

  • fws

    rlewer @ 45

    Where did the government get the right to force churches to provide free condoms and “morning after” pills for all its workers?

    My understanding is that the way the goverment forces churchs to do this is by cutting off funding. In Mass. the govt forced the catholic charities to adopt out children to gays. They shut down. The mormons could continue to refuse to adopt to gays because they received zero government funding.

    Do you have other information that you can link us to that says something different rlewer?

    Further:

    There is something sinful about providing free condoms? Where do you find that in the bible? This is part of that satanic error that Rome clings to that we Lutherans reject. The idea that any form of birth control is sinful since it countermands what they, in error, call “natural law”. Or so I thought….

  • fws

    rlewer @ 45

    It would have been better for president harrisson to tell congressional members something that they DIDN’T want to hear about morality. …..

  • fws

    rlewer @ 45

    It would have been better for president harrisson to tell congressional members something that they DIDN’T want to hear about morality. …..

  • Tom Hering

    Harrison was talking about the issue, not politics. Read his testimony. – @ 47.

    Are you being deliberately dense? Of course he was talking about the issue – to politicians who agreed with him in a show hearing set up to present a single point of view.

  • Tom Hering

    Harrison was talking about the issue, not politics. Read his testimony. – @ 47.

    Are you being deliberately dense? Of course he was talking about the issue – to politicians who agreed with him in a show hearing set up to present a single point of view.

  • rlewer

    Explain to me again where the government gets the right to force churches to provide free condoms and “morning after pills” to all employees. Explain how this does not restrict freedom of religion.

    “Congress shall pass no laws …”

    Again: Read the actual testimony instead of making things up.

  • rlewer

    Explain to me again where the government gets the right to force churches to provide free condoms and “morning after pills” to all employees. Explain how this does not restrict freedom of religion.

    “Congress shall pass no laws …”

    Again: Read the actual testimony instead of making things up.

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    This thread is getting a bit too political, we do have some “freedom” of conscience here! Back to ‘Law/Gospel’ don’t ya think? :)

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    This thread is getting a bit too political, we do have some “freedom” of conscience here! Back to ‘Law/Gospel’ don’t ya think? :)

  • fws

    fr robert @ 32

    hahahah.
    share some more thoughts with us father please. it would be nice to hear more from the anglicans here. I would be interested to know, although maybe it is obvious, why some of you dont turn to the reformed anglicans or go to rome or eo or become lutheran in name as well. what qualities of the anglican communion bind you to that communion?

  • fws

    fr robert @ 32

    hahahah.
    share some more thoughts with us father please. it would be nice to hear more from the anglicans here. I would be interested to know, although maybe it is obvious, why some of you dont turn to the reformed anglicans or go to rome or eo or become lutheran in name as well. what qualities of the anglican communion bind you to that communion?

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    @fws

    Well I sure don’t have all the answers, though I would have my theological ideas and opinions! Besides loving Luther, I too love Calvin, and I would in fact be more a so-called “Calvinist”, but I am also somewhat FV or “Federal Vision” friendly. Though I am however not uncritical there! The point for me at least, as one raised Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin, is that we in the Visible and Historical Churches, simply must be seeking the biblical & theological positions. For myself this includes obviously the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles, but I would too go back a bit further to the Irish Articles 1615, and Archbishop Ussher. Nothing of course is infallible here, but we simply must seek both biblical-theological positions, as too the best of the Ecumenical Councils, and as Luther especially the Nicene “homoousios”! “In Christ, he maintains, we are confronted by God Himself, for Christ is ‘very God.’ ” Theology that is Christocentric, but always Christology that is theocentric also. And this really is always foundational in the true Church of Christ!

    Btw, as have even written on another blog today, the historical Churches of Christ simply but profoundly must be Trinitarian! Here in fact Christ Himself leads us…”for through Him (Christ) we both (Jew & Gentile Christians) have our access in one Spirit to the Father.” (St. Paul, Eph. 2:18) Here is our baptism, here is our Triune God! Here is our regenerate life! But, always Christ Jesus leading us spiritually in! And as St. Paul can say: “For to me, to live is Christ..”! (Phil. 1:21) HE is the face and image of the invisible God!

    I know, basic and simple, but really this is the essence of the Christian life…loving Christ and thus loving God! And only here can we love one another!

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    @fws

    Well I sure don’t have all the answers, though I would have my theological ideas and opinions! Besides loving Luther, I too love Calvin, and I would in fact be more a so-called “Calvinist”, but I am also somewhat FV or “Federal Vision” friendly. Though I am however not uncritical there! The point for me at least, as one raised Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin, is that we in the Visible and Historical Churches, simply must be seeking the biblical & theological positions. For myself this includes obviously the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles, but I would too go back a bit further to the Irish Articles 1615, and Archbishop Ussher. Nothing of course is infallible here, but we simply must seek both biblical-theological positions, as too the best of the Ecumenical Councils, and as Luther especially the Nicene “homoousios”! “In Christ, he maintains, we are confronted by God Himself, for Christ is ‘very God.’ ” Theology that is Christocentric, but always Christology that is theocentric also. And this really is always foundational in the true Church of Christ!

    Btw, as have even written on another blog today, the historical Churches of Christ simply but profoundly must be Trinitarian! Here in fact Christ Himself leads us…”for through Him (Christ) we both (Jew & Gentile Christians) have our access in one Spirit to the Father.” (St. Paul, Eph. 2:18) Here is our baptism, here is our Triune God! Here is our regenerate life! But, always Christ Jesus leading us spiritually in! And as St. Paul can say: “For to me, to live is Christ..”! (Phil. 1:21) HE is the face and image of the invisible God!

    I know, basic and simple, but really this is the essence of the Christian life…loving Christ and thus loving God! And only here can we love one another!

  • fws

    father robert @ 54

    There is nothing simple about starting and ending with Christ.

    It is the lifelong and most difficult task of every christian, and what it is that makes them christian, to let everything be about Christ + (sound of crickets).

    I am Lutheran because I believe we have the best formal doctrines to fall back to , in order to constantly peel off encrustations on this one thing.

    If I went to an Anglican church for example, I would be wrong to challenge the pastor on his doctrine. On what basis? But when a Lutheran pastor goes awry, I can respectfully argue on the basis of the Confessions that he took an ordination vow to follow. And I would not be doing anything wrong.

  • fws

    father robert @ 54

    There is nothing simple about starting and ending with Christ.

    It is the lifelong and most difficult task of every christian, and what it is that makes them christian, to let everything be about Christ + (sound of crickets).

    I am Lutheran because I believe we have the best formal doctrines to fall back to , in order to constantly peel off encrustations on this one thing.

    If I went to an Anglican church for example, I would be wrong to challenge the pastor on his doctrine. On what basis? But when a Lutheran pastor goes awry, I can respectfully argue on the basis of the Confessions that he took an ordination vow to follow. And I would not be doing anything wrong.

  • fws

    fr robert

    wow that is quite a journey to make from rome to anglicanism. you must have some interesting stories to tell,

  • fws

    fr robert

    wow that is quite a journey to make from rome to anglicanism. you must have some interesting stories to tell,

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    fws

    I have preached at a few Lutheran Churches, in fact several times as a guest preacher, and have several Lutheran friends & brethren. But sadly, the whole Christian West is under postmodernity today. Indeed, we all can but be faithful to Christ! And we who preach, surely must preach the “theologia crucis” – of Christ Jesus, and here is both the death & resurrection of Christ. Every Lord’s Day is a wee or little Easter! :)

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    fws

    I have preached at a few Lutheran Churches, in fact several times as a guest preacher, and have several Lutheran friends & brethren. But sadly, the whole Christian West is under postmodernity today. Indeed, we all can but be faithful to Christ! And we who preach, surely must preach the “theologia crucis” – of Christ Jesus, and here is both the death & resurrection of Christ. Every Lord’s Day is a wee or little Easter! :)

  • fws

    Indeed father robert

    as often as we eat the supper we proclaim his death until his return.

    This is not a statement that even most Lutherans feel all that comfortable with. We trip over Good Friday and rush to the Easter.

  • fws

    Indeed father robert

    as often as we eat the supper we proclaim his death until his return.

    This is not a statement that even most Lutherans feel all that comfortable with. We trip over Good Friday and rush to the Easter.

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    fws

    I am full of “stories”..I’m Irish! ;) But, yes, I have had my own journey as ‘In Christ’… it’s still going! :) I was a RMC, Royal Marine Commado for over ten years active (a mustang, enlisted to officer), and saw combat many times (my last, Gulf War 1 in my early 40′s). And I lived & taught in Israel in the late 90′s. Now that was a life-changing experience, and I am pro-Israel, and even Historic Pre-Mill, btw (ya don’t see too many of them among Anglican clergy, least not these days!)

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    fws

    I am full of “stories”..I’m Irish! ;) But, yes, I have had my own journey as ‘In Christ’… it’s still going! :) I was a RMC, Royal Marine Commado for over ten years active (a mustang, enlisted to officer), and saw combat many times (my last, Gulf War 1 in my early 40′s). And I lived & taught in Israel in the late 90′s. Now that was a life-changing experience, and I am pro-Israel, and even Historic Pre-Mill, btw (ya don’t see too many of them among Anglican clergy, least not these days!)

  • helen

    fws @ 48
    There is something sinful about providing free condoms? Where do you find that in the bible? This is part of that satanic error that Rome clings to that we Lutherans reject. The idea that any form of birth control is sinful since it countermands what they, in error, call “natural law”. Or so I thought….

    1. One sin is calling something “free” that must be paid for. Nothing is “free.” The “free” condoms provided by University Health Service are paid for, either by the University or by “Student Fees”.
    2. Condoms were not the subject of the HHS law. They are preventive and while some Lutherans may object, personally, (I’ve read them.), we wouldn’t be in DC over condoms. Seventy years ago, we might have been.

    The issue was forcing religious entities who are against abortion to pay for abortifacient drugs, whether “morning after”, “week after” or whatever they call themselves.

    The issue is freedom of religion, not women’s “right to choose” murder. (They’ve still got that; they can buy the means OTC in the grocery store, ironically.)

    The secondary question is: why should these [recreational drugs] be “free” when when drugs necessary to life have a co-pay, in some cases a very large one?

    fws @ 49
    It would have been better for president harrisson [sic] to tell congressional members something that they DIDN’T want to hear about morality. …..

    He did. The women who didn’t want to hear it, yelled and stomped out.

    But I think this is very far off the rails and I apologize for contributing to the digression.

  • helen

    fws @ 48
    There is something sinful about providing free condoms? Where do you find that in the bible? This is part of that satanic error that Rome clings to that we Lutherans reject. The idea that any form of birth control is sinful since it countermands what they, in error, call “natural law”. Or so I thought….

    1. One sin is calling something “free” that must be paid for. Nothing is “free.” The “free” condoms provided by University Health Service are paid for, either by the University or by “Student Fees”.
    2. Condoms were not the subject of the HHS law. They are preventive and while some Lutherans may object, personally, (I’ve read them.), we wouldn’t be in DC over condoms. Seventy years ago, we might have been.

    The issue was forcing religious entities who are against abortion to pay for abortifacient drugs, whether “morning after”, “week after” or whatever they call themselves.

    The issue is freedom of religion, not women’s “right to choose” murder. (They’ve still got that; they can buy the means OTC in the grocery store, ironically.)

    The secondary question is: why should these [recreational drugs] be “free” when when drugs necessary to life have a co-pay, in some cases a very large one?

    fws @ 49
    It would have been better for president harrisson [sic] to tell congressional members something that they DIDN’T want to hear about morality. …..

    He did. The women who didn’t want to hear it, yelled and stomped out.

    But I think this is very far off the rails and I apologize for contributing to the digression.

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    Note sure why my wee pic is not showing-up?

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    Note sure why my wee pic is not showing-up?

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    fws

    Indeed I love the Eucharist! I tend towards Luther’s sacramental positions somewhat also, though I don’t use “Lutheran” theology so much, as just “Luther”, or reading him. Btw, if you have not read the book by the European historian-theolog, Heiko Oberman: Luther, Man Between God and the Devil? I would highly recommend it! Many think Oberman was a Lutheran, but he was Reformed (died 2001, as I remember?) I have a copy of David Steinmetz’s book, also: Luther and Staupitz, An Essay in the Intellectual Origins of the Protestant Reformation. Just grand! Yes, I am myself a theolog and reader!

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    fws

    Indeed I love the Eucharist! I tend towards Luther’s sacramental positions somewhat also, though I don’t use “Lutheran” theology so much, as just “Luther”, or reading him. Btw, if you have not read the book by the European historian-theolog, Heiko Oberman: Luther, Man Between God and the Devil? I would highly recommend it! Many think Oberman was a Lutheran, but he was Reformed (died 2001, as I remember?) I have a copy of David Steinmetz’s book, also: Luther and Staupitz, An Essay in the Intellectual Origins of the Protestant Reformation. Just grand! Yes, I am myself a theolog and reader!

  • Tom Hering

    Explain to me again where the government gets the right to force churches to provide free condoms and “morning after pills” to all employees. Explain how this does not restrict freedom of religion. – @ 51.

    I never explained it to you a first time, rlewer. I didn’t say anything about the issue involved.

    Again: Read the actual testimony instead of making things up.

    Again, I never said anything about the issue involved, so you explain to me what I made up. All I did was comment on the way President Harrison was made – and made himself – part of a show hearing. Fact.

    I asked if you were being deliberately dense. Clearly you are being dense. I just can’t figure out, now, if it’s deliberate or natural. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Explain to me again where the government gets the right to force churches to provide free condoms and “morning after pills” to all employees. Explain how this does not restrict freedom of religion. – @ 51.

    I never explained it to you a first time, rlewer. I didn’t say anything about the issue involved.

    Again: Read the actual testimony instead of making things up.

    Again, I never said anything about the issue involved, so you explain to me what I made up. All I did was comment on the way President Harrison was made – and made himself – part of a show hearing. Fact.

    I asked if you were being deliberately dense. Clearly you are being dense. I just can’t figure out, now, if it’s deliberate or natural. :-D

  • rlewer

    Exactly. You ignore the actual issue with personal attacks on Harrison. I am not dense. I just reject your diversion.

    And this got way off the topic because someone had the desire to attack the LCMS. I did not bring this up.

    We rejoice that the Biblical teaching of Luther is being considered by others.

  • rlewer

    Exactly. You ignore the actual issue with personal attacks on Harrison. I am not dense. I just reject your diversion.

    And this got way off the topic because someone had the desire to attack the LCMS. I did not bring this up.

    We rejoice that the Biblical teaching of Luther is being considered by others.

  • Tom Hering

    Exactly. You ignore the actual issue with personal attacks on Harrison. I am not dense. I just reject your diversion.

    The person who brought up the issue of religious freedom was Daniel Gorman @ 42. The first person to respond to the issue of religious freedom was you @ 45. In between the two of you, I commented @ 44 on the way President Harrison got involved in the politics surrounding the issue. Now, how I managed @ 44 to create a diversion from a discussion that didn’t even begin until your comment @ 45 is beyond me. But you seem to have a unique way of understanding things. And my “attack” wasn’t personal. I criticized the way Harrison acted in his office of President.

    And this got way off the topic because someone had the desire to attack the LCMS. I did not bring this up.

    No, but you sure ran with it.

    We rejoice that the Biblical teaching of Luther is being considered by others.

    Do you have any evidence that this was the result of President Harrison’s appearance before Issa’s committee? Neither Luther nor Lutheran theology was ever mentioned in the reaction I heard and read about. So who exactly are these people now considering Luther’s biblical teaching?

  • Tom Hering

    Exactly. You ignore the actual issue with personal attacks on Harrison. I am not dense. I just reject your diversion.

    The person who brought up the issue of religious freedom was Daniel Gorman @ 42. The first person to respond to the issue of religious freedom was you @ 45. In between the two of you, I commented @ 44 on the way President Harrison got involved in the politics surrounding the issue. Now, how I managed @ 44 to create a diversion from a discussion that didn’t even begin until your comment @ 45 is beyond me. But you seem to have a unique way of understanding things. And my “attack” wasn’t personal. I criticized the way Harrison acted in his office of President.

    And this got way off the topic because someone had the desire to attack the LCMS. I did not bring this up.

    No, but you sure ran with it.

    We rejoice that the Biblical teaching of Luther is being considered by others.

    Do you have any evidence that this was the result of President Harrison’s appearance before Issa’s committee? Neither Luther nor Lutheran theology was ever mentioned in the reaction I heard and read about. So who exactly are these people now considering Luther’s biblical teaching?

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    Btw, can we not say no one “owns” Luther and Luther’s teaching, not even Lutherans! ;)

  • http://irishhanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    Btw, can we not say no one “owns” Luther and Luther’s teaching, not even Lutherans! ;)

  • Bob

    ‘Btw, can we not say no one “owns” Luther and Luther’s teaching, not even Lutherans!’

    Amen, Fr. Robert!

    I think sometimes Lutherans, perhaps more so the confessional type, become too parochial and forget Luther and we are part of the Church Universal.

    Fr. Robert,

    I’ve been reading a book by Fr. Robert Capon but I don’t know much about him. Can you recommend a good first or second book of his? Thanks.

  • Bob

    ‘Btw, can we not say no one “owns” Luther and Luther’s teaching, not even Lutherans!’

    Amen, Fr. Robert!

    I think sometimes Lutherans, perhaps more so the confessional type, become too parochial and forget Luther and we are part of the Church Universal.

    Fr. Robert,

    I’ve been reading a book by Fr. Robert Capon but I don’t know much about him. Can you recommend a good first or second book of his? Thanks.

  • fws

    fr robert:

    Capon’s triad about the parables is absolutely golden. It is the best think he wrote.

    He wrote another rather short book that I cannot think of the title of. something about amazed by grace or something like that. Some accuse Capon of universalism. I don’t think that is true.

  • fws

    fr robert:

    Capon’s triad about the parables is absolutely golden. It is the best think he wrote.

    He wrote another rather short book that I cannot think of the title of. something about amazed by grace or something like that. Some accuse Capon of universalism. I don’t think that is true.

  • fws

    fr robert

    what makes one Lutheran, strictly speaking, is identification with the Lutheran Confessions. There are lots of things that Luther said that Lutherans would flat out reject. Especially the early Luther.

    Reformed gravitate to his excellent Bondade of the Will for example, but Luther was still very Augustinian and not yet completely Lutheran. And since Calvin is probably the greatest disciple of Augustine that ever lived, most calvinists would resonate with and prefer the version of the not-fully-yet-Lutheran Luther represented in Bondage of the Will. And they would not like much of what Luther writes about election and sanctification later on.

    Luther say that he loved St Augustine, and then had no more need for him after he discovered Saint Paul.

  • fws

    fr robert

    what makes one Lutheran, strictly speaking, is identification with the Lutheran Confessions. There are lots of things that Luther said that Lutherans would flat out reject. Especially the early Luther.

    Reformed gravitate to his excellent Bondade of the Will for example, but Luther was still very Augustinian and not yet completely Lutheran. And since Calvin is probably the greatest disciple of Augustine that ever lived, most calvinists would resonate with and prefer the version of the not-fully-yet-Lutheran Luther represented in Bondage of the Will. And they would not like much of what Luther writes about election and sanctification later on.

    Luther say that he loved St Augustine, and then had no more need for him after he discovered Saint Paul.

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    @Bob: I must confess that I have read Capon very little. And what I have read, I passed along. One cannot read everyone, though I have tried at times. Capon is in his late 80′s I believe, and calls himself a Thomist, and he says he’s close to being a universalist. The former is fine, the latter not so good in my convictions. He kinda comes from a place in the Anglican (his Episcopal), that I have not been near myself. I am a basic conservative in my approach to Holy Scripture, even sort of a “presuppositionist”, and I like Van Til and John Frame.

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    @Bob: I must confess that I have read Capon very little. And what I have read, I passed along. One cannot read everyone, though I have tried at times. Capon is in his late 80′s I believe, and calls himself a Thomist, and he says he’s close to being a universalist. The former is fine, the latter not so good in my convictions. He kinda comes from a place in the Anglican (his Episcopal), that I have not been near myself. I am a basic conservative in my approach to Holy Scripture, even sort of a “presuppositionist”, and I like Van Til and John Frame.

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    @fws

    Indeed it is hard to peg Luther! I have spent many years reading and studying him, I even wrote or did my D. Phil on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross (years back now), and I feel I still have yet to grasp much of him! But I love reading Luther! Simply, he is always the Reformer! For me his “Simul Iustus et Peccator”: Simultaneously Sinner & Saint, is simply Pauline and brilliant!

  • http://irishanglican.wordpress Fr. Robert (Anglican)

    @fws

    Indeed it is hard to peg Luther! I have spent many years reading and studying him, I even wrote or did my D. Phil on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross (years back now), and I feel I still have yet to grasp much of him! But I love reading Luther! Simply, he is always the Reformer! For me his “Simul Iustus et Peccator”: Simultaneously Sinner & Saint, is simply Pauline and brilliant!

  • Grace

    Daniel Gorman @ 42

    RE: purchase of insurance products that include abortion drug coverage.

    “Providing insurance (and making premium payments) in accordance with the powers ordained by God is not participating in the murderous sins of government or of policy beneficiaries. It is rendering “unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s.” However, rebelling against Caesar’s regulation of the insurance industry is a damnable sin (Rom. 13:2).

    Your referrence to Romans 13:2 does not have anything to do with standing against evil, which is clearly defined in Ephesians 6 – ABORTION is EVIL, every single Christian Believer has the right to stand against evil, no matter how much the un-Godly in this nation rant and rave over abortion rights.

    When individuals claim that Christians should not be involved in politics, to change laws that are against God’s Word, it is nothing but an excuse to weaken the morality of our country, encouraging evil to prevail.

    Being submissive to evil is not Biblical. Instead we are to:

    11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Ephesians 6

    Paul appealed to Caesar – For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. Acts 25:11

    Paul a Roman citizen, who preached the gospel took advantage of the law, he took advantage of the law to defend himself. Just as Paul took advantage of the law, so can we as Believers. When our leaders, (who have been voted into office) rule over us in an ungodly manner, we have every right to oppose their evil ways, within legal means.

    Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple, of the evil doers, there was nothing meek and mild about those tables rolling and crashing about.

  • Grace

    Daniel Gorman @ 42

    RE: purchase of insurance products that include abortion drug coverage.

    “Providing insurance (and making premium payments) in accordance with the powers ordained by God is not participating in the murderous sins of government or of policy beneficiaries. It is rendering “unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s.” However, rebelling against Caesar’s regulation of the insurance industry is a damnable sin (Rom. 13:2).

    Your referrence to Romans 13:2 does not have anything to do with standing against evil, which is clearly defined in Ephesians 6 – ABORTION is EVIL, every single Christian Believer has the right to stand against evil, no matter how much the un-Godly in this nation rant and rave over abortion rights.

    When individuals claim that Christians should not be involved in politics, to change laws that are against God’s Word, it is nothing but an excuse to weaken the morality of our country, encouraging evil to prevail.

    Being submissive to evil is not Biblical. Instead we are to:

    11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Ephesians 6

    Paul appealed to Caesar – For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. Acts 25:11

    Paul a Roman citizen, who preached the gospel took advantage of the law, he took advantage of the law to defend himself. Just as Paul took advantage of the law, so can we as Believers. When our leaders, (who have been voted into office) rule over us in an ungodly manner, we have every right to oppose their evil ways, within legal means.

    Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple, of the evil doers, there was nothing meek and mild about those tables rolling and crashing about.

  • Grace

    The Draft and serving in the Armed Services:

    “Conscientious objectors
    “Conscientious objector exemptions were allowed for the Amish, Quakers and Church of the Brethren only. All other religious and political objectors were forced to participate. Some 64,700 men claimed conscientious objector status; local draft boards certified 57,000, of whom 30,000 passed the physical and 21,000 were inducted into the Army. About 80% of the 21,000 decided to abandon their objection and take up arms, but 3,989 drafted objectors refuse to serve. Most belong to historic pacifist denominations, especially Quakers, Mennonites, and Moravian Brethren, as well as a few Seventh Day Adventists and Russellites (Jehovah’s witnesses). About 15% were religious objectors from non-pacifist churches”

    Have any of you given thought to applying this same idea to the abortion part of “Health Insurance”? Those of us who are adamantly against abortion, based on Biblical beliefs have every right to “conscientiously OBJECT” to the killing of the unborn, and made to pay for their deaths by way of the abortionist, OR any other method that ends their lives.

  • Grace

    The Draft and serving in the Armed Services:

    “Conscientious objectors
    “Conscientious objector exemptions were allowed for the Amish, Quakers and Church of the Brethren only. All other religious and political objectors were forced to participate. Some 64,700 men claimed conscientious objector status; local draft boards certified 57,000, of whom 30,000 passed the physical and 21,000 were inducted into the Army. About 80% of the 21,000 decided to abandon their objection and take up arms, but 3,989 drafted objectors refuse to serve. Most belong to historic pacifist denominations, especially Quakers, Mennonites, and Moravian Brethren, as well as a few Seventh Day Adventists and Russellites (Jehovah’s witnesses). About 15% were religious objectors from non-pacifist churches”

    Have any of you given thought to applying this same idea to the abortion part of “Health Insurance”? Those of us who are adamantly against abortion, based on Biblical beliefs have every right to “conscientiously OBJECT” to the killing of the unborn, and made to pay for their deaths by way of the abortionist, OR any other method that ends their lives.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Grace@72: “Your referrence to Romans 13:2 does not have anything to do with standing against evil, which is clearly defined in Ephesians 6 – ABORTION is EVIL, every single Christian Believer has the right to stand against evil, no matter how much the un-Godly in this nation rant and rave over abortion rights.”

    Every single Christian Believer has not only the right but the responsibility to publicly condemn the government for participating in the murder of innocent children. Every single Christian Believer also has the right and the responsibility to publicly teach obedience to the government when it demands “tribute” money that may be used to finance the murder of innocent children (Romans 13:7; Mark 12:14-17).

    Left-wing church politicians condemn Christian Believers for publicly condemning Caesar’s murder of innocent children. Right-wing church politicians condemn Christian Believers for publicly stating that it is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. Christian Believers obey God rather than left-wing and/or right-wing church politicians.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Grace@72: “Your referrence to Romans 13:2 does not have anything to do with standing against evil, which is clearly defined in Ephesians 6 – ABORTION is EVIL, every single Christian Believer has the right to stand against evil, no matter how much the un-Godly in this nation rant and rave over abortion rights.”

    Every single Christian Believer has not only the right but the responsibility to publicly condemn the government for participating in the murder of innocent children. Every single Christian Believer also has the right and the responsibility to publicly teach obedience to the government when it demands “tribute” money that may be used to finance the murder of innocent children (Romans 13:7; Mark 12:14-17).

    Left-wing church politicians condemn Christian Believers for publicly condemning Caesar’s murder of innocent children. Right-wing church politicians condemn Christian Believers for publicly stating that it is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. Christian Believers obey God rather than left-wing and/or right-wing church politicians.

  • Grace

    In that case Daniel, that would have excused all who participated in the rounding up the Jews, and taking them off to the camps, of which many died in the gas chambers, because the govenment demanded them to do so, and take part . While at the same time, claiming to be Christians.

    Do you advocate that as well. How far does murder go, and torture as well to the innocent? – does it just apply to adults, young children, or just infants in the womb?

    Did you read post 73?

  • Grace

    In that case Daniel, that would have excused all who participated in the rounding up the Jews, and taking them off to the camps, of which many died in the gas chambers, because the govenment demanded them to do so, and take part . While at the same time, claiming to be Christians.

    Do you advocate that as well. How far does murder go, and torture as well to the innocent? – does it just apply to adults, young children, or just infants in the womb?

    Did you read post 73?

  • Grace

    ABORTION has become so common place, the average person, even some Christians don’t even B L I N K at the suggestion anymore.

  • Grace

    ABORTION has become so common place, the average person, even some Christians don’t even B L I N K at the suggestion anymore.

  • Grace

    If a large number of citizens in this country, would stand forward and ask that the same “Conscientious objectors” would be given the right, NOT TO PAY WHATEVER THE AMOUNT IS in TAXES to any and all abortions in any health care plan. I believe it could be instituted if enough people stood forward.

    (statistics say there are between 50 and 60 percent who do not believe in abortion )

  • Grace

    If a large number of citizens in this country, would stand forward and ask that the same “Conscientious objectors” would be given the right, NOT TO PAY WHATEVER THE AMOUNT IS in TAXES to any and all abortions in any health care plan. I believe it could be instituted if enough people stood forward.

    (statistics say there are between 50 and 60 percent who do not believe in abortion )

  • Daniel Gorman

    Grace@73: “Have any of you given thought to applying this same idea to the abortion part of “Health Insurance”?

    Government insurance regulation should forbide any coverage for abortion on demand. If self-described pro-life Republicans were actually concerned about saving children rather than scoring political points at congressional hearings, the new HHS regulation would have already passed the House.

    Carving out a “conscientious objection” exception to abortion for Christians is unworkable. Other religious groups would demand equal treatment. Should JWs be excused from paying the blood transfusion part of “Health Insurance”? Should Pentecostals be excused from paying the snake bite and poison treatment parts of “Health Insurance”? Should Christian Scientists be excused from the medical professional part of “Health Insurance”? If waivers were granted for everything, no one would pay for anything and the whole health care system would grind to a halt.

    Grace@73: “Those of us who are adamantly against abortion, based on Biblical beliefs have every right to “conscientiously OBJECT” to the killing of the unborn, and made to pay for their deaths by way of the abortionist, OR any other method that ends their lives.”

    That’s a political argument with no foundation in scripture. Christ told his followers to pay tribute to a government that would ultimately use a portion of that tribute money to execute the innocent Son of God. Paul told Christians to pay tribute to a government that was currently using a portion of their tribute money to systematically execute innocent Christians.

    Grace@75: “In that case Daniel, that would have excused all who participated in the rounding up the Jews, and taking them off to the camps, of which many died in the gas chambers, because the govenment demanded them to do so, and take part . While at the same time, claiming to be Christians.”

    There is a difference between sinning and paying tribute money to those who use the tribute money to sin. The first is forbidden to Christians and the second is commanded of Christians.

    Grace@75: “Do you advocate that as well. How far does murder go, and torture as well to the innocent? – does it just apply to adults, young children, or just infants in the womb?”

    Throughout history, Christians have frequently paid tribute to rulers who have used the money to fight unjust wars and to murder, enslave, and torture innocent people of all ages and conditions. Some notable examples are the Roman Empire, Islamic governments, Papist regimes, Fascists, and Communists.

    In the United States, have all our wars been just? Have government officials never executed, enslaved, or tortured innocent people? Would that justify our withholding tribute from those to whom it is due? Left-wing and right-wing politicians and churchmen say “Yes” depending on the circumstances. But Christ says “No” when He taught “Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s” and “My Kingdom is not of this world.”

  • Daniel Gorman

    Grace@73: “Have any of you given thought to applying this same idea to the abortion part of “Health Insurance”?

    Government insurance regulation should forbide any coverage for abortion on demand. If self-described pro-life Republicans were actually concerned about saving children rather than scoring political points at congressional hearings, the new HHS regulation would have already passed the House.

    Carving out a “conscientious objection” exception to abortion for Christians is unworkable. Other religious groups would demand equal treatment. Should JWs be excused from paying the blood transfusion part of “Health Insurance”? Should Pentecostals be excused from paying the snake bite and poison treatment parts of “Health Insurance”? Should Christian Scientists be excused from the medical professional part of “Health Insurance”? If waivers were granted for everything, no one would pay for anything and the whole health care system would grind to a halt.

    Grace@73: “Those of us who are adamantly against abortion, based on Biblical beliefs have every right to “conscientiously OBJECT” to the killing of the unborn, and made to pay for their deaths by way of the abortionist, OR any other method that ends their lives.”

    That’s a political argument with no foundation in scripture. Christ told his followers to pay tribute to a government that would ultimately use a portion of that tribute money to execute the innocent Son of God. Paul told Christians to pay tribute to a government that was currently using a portion of their tribute money to systematically execute innocent Christians.

    Grace@75: “In that case Daniel, that would have excused all who participated in the rounding up the Jews, and taking them off to the camps, of which many died in the gas chambers, because the govenment demanded them to do so, and take part . While at the same time, claiming to be Christians.”

    There is a difference between sinning and paying tribute money to those who use the tribute money to sin. The first is forbidden to Christians and the second is commanded of Christians.

    Grace@75: “Do you advocate that as well. How far does murder go, and torture as well to the innocent? – does it just apply to adults, young children, or just infants in the womb?”

    Throughout history, Christians have frequently paid tribute to rulers who have used the money to fight unjust wars and to murder, enslave, and torture innocent people of all ages and conditions. Some notable examples are the Roman Empire, Islamic governments, Papist regimes, Fascists, and Communists.

    In the United States, have all our wars been just? Have government officials never executed, enslaved, or tortured innocent people? Would that justify our withholding tribute from those to whom it is due? Left-wing and right-wing politicians and churchmen say “Yes” depending on the circumstances. But Christ says “No” when He taught “Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar’s” and “My Kingdom is not of this world.”

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 77. Refusing to pay, say, 5% of your taxes doesn’t work because you have no control over what government spends the other 95% on. Even government doesn’t have control over this, because each and every one of your pennies goes into a pool of revenue before it’s spent. So, you have to refuse to pay all of your taxes, and be willing to go to prison as a result.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 77. Refusing to pay, say, 5% of your taxes doesn’t work because you have no control over what government spends the other 95% on. Even government doesn’t have control over this, because each and every one of your pennies goes into a pool of revenue before it’s spent. So, you have to refuse to pay all of your taxes, and be willing to go to prison as a result.

  • Grace

    Daniel @ 78

    You gloss over each and every point, making acceptable that which is sin.

    You obviously ignore Ephesians 6, posted @ 72. In other words, CONSCIENCE CLEAR, it doesn’t apply to you and others who think just like you. It takes no muscle to stand limp.

    The murder of infants in the womb is not acceptable, no one should have to pay for their slaughter, when clearly they believe it is sin, based on the Bible.

  • Grace

    Daniel @ 78

    You gloss over each and every point, making acceptable that which is sin.

    You obviously ignore Ephesians 6, posted @ 72. In other words, CONSCIENCE CLEAR, it doesn’t apply to you and others who think just like you. It takes no muscle to stand limp.

    The murder of infants in the womb is not acceptable, no one should have to pay for their slaughter, when clearly they believe it is sin, based on the Bible.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    IF the health bill which Obama wanted to pass, is trashed, much of the paid abortion issue through taxes will cease to become a reality.

    Employers most certainly should NOT BE MADE to pay for insurance for their employees to seek abortions, or medication that will result in death to an infant.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    IF the health bill which Obama wanted to pass, is trashed, much of the paid abortion issue through taxes will cease to become a reality.

    Employers most certainly should NOT BE MADE to pay for insurance for their employees to seek abortions, or medication that will result in death to an infant.

  • Bob

    Grace,

    Sad to say, but I think if you are unable to counter a nuanced argument from another poster, you’re going to find your own posts to be lacking in credibility. It really matters little how ardent or
    passionate you are about what you say, if you can’t answer an argtument with substance.

    You also, in my opinion, have a very bad habit of attributing motives to others. Truth is, you’re not a mind reader, Neither am I or anyone else. Belitting someone by calling them a name
    or insuating a motive, I believe, is unworthy of our calling as Christians to think the best of someone else, especially in the household of faith, even if we don’t agree with them.

    Example:
    @ 80′You gloss over each and every point, making acceptable that which is sin.’

    When in fact, Mr. Gorman took each of your points from the previous post and answered them in detail, one by one.

  • Bob

    Grace,

    Sad to say, but I think if you are unable to counter a nuanced argument from another poster, you’re going to find your own posts to be lacking in credibility. It really matters little how ardent or
    passionate you are about what you say, if you can’t answer an argtument with substance.

    You also, in my opinion, have a very bad habit of attributing motives to others. Truth is, you’re not a mind reader, Neither am I or anyone else. Belitting someone by calling them a name
    or insuating a motive, I believe, is unworthy of our calling as Christians to think the best of someone else, especially in the household of faith, even if we don’t agree with them.

    Example:
    @ 80′You gloss over each and every point, making acceptable that which is sin.’

    When in fact, Mr. Gorman took each of your points from the previous post and answered them in detail, one by one.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Tom Hering@79: “Grace @ 77. Refusing to pay, say, 5% of your taxes doesn’t work because you have no control over what government spends the other 95% on. Even government doesn’t have control over this, because each and every one of your pennies goes into a pool of revenue before it’s spent. So, you have to refuse to pay all of your taxes, and be willing to go to prison as a result.”

    Also, you need to quit your job. Since the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, all workers subject to Medicare withholding have been subsidying abortion drugs. Or, is it only a sin to pay for abortions if Democrats pass the law?

    Grace@80: ” It takes no muscle to stand limp.”

    You can’t be limp and stand up for the precious doctrines taught in Holy Scripture and the Book of Concord. Christ’s doctrine of the Two Kingdom is under attack in Christian churches, by Lutheran synods, and in a committee of Congress: “For as soon as. . .the ordinances of men are forced upon the Church with coercion, as though it were wrong and a sin to omit them, the way is already prepared for idolatry, and by this means ordinances of men are afterwards multiplied and regarded as a divine worship. . .” Formula of Concord, SD, Adiaphora

  • Daniel Gorman

    Tom Hering@79: “Grace @ 77. Refusing to pay, say, 5% of your taxes doesn’t work because you have no control over what government spends the other 95% on. Even government doesn’t have control over this, because each and every one of your pennies goes into a pool of revenue before it’s spent. So, you have to refuse to pay all of your taxes, and be willing to go to prison as a result.”

    Also, you need to quit your job. Since the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, all workers subject to Medicare withholding have been subsidying abortion drugs. Or, is it only a sin to pay for abortions if Democrats pass the law?

    Grace@80: ” It takes no muscle to stand limp.”

    You can’t be limp and stand up for the precious doctrines taught in Holy Scripture and the Book of Concord. Christ’s doctrine of the Two Kingdom is under attack in Christian churches, by Lutheran synods, and in a committee of Congress: “For as soon as. . .the ordinances of men are forced upon the Church with coercion, as though it were wrong and a sin to omit them, the way is already prepared for idolatry, and by this means ordinances of men are afterwards multiplied and regarded as a divine worship. . .” Formula of Concord, SD, Adiaphora

  • Grace

    “Conscientious objectors” or objection can be instituted against making an employer pay for any, and all abortions, or medication that would cause the death of an infant.

    I am not a Lutheran Daniel. I don’t agree with a all Lutheran doctrine.

    Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work. Titus 3:1

    A good work, is not paying for or helping someone obtain an abortion, or making it possible by medication to abort an infant. We as Christians are not subject to obey evil orders from anyone. The passage of Scripture in Romans 13 is abused, as an escape to stand up against evil.

    Ephesians 6 is avoided at all costs.

    Tom and Daniel ——————- As for the idea of NOT PAYING TAXES: I never suggested that, what I suggested was “Conscientious objectors” or objection. Making a case that I would not pay taxes, or encourage others to follow suit is DISHONEST.

  • Grace

    “Conscientious objectors” or objection can be instituted against making an employer pay for any, and all abortions, or medication that would cause the death of an infant.

    I am not a Lutheran Daniel. I don’t agree with a all Lutheran doctrine.

    Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work. Titus 3:1

    A good work, is not paying for or helping someone obtain an abortion, or making it possible by medication to abort an infant. We as Christians are not subject to obey evil orders from anyone. The passage of Scripture in Romans 13 is abused, as an escape to stand up against evil.

    Ephesians 6 is avoided at all costs.

    Tom and Daniel ——————- As for the idea of NOT PAYING TAXES: I never suggested that, what I suggested was “Conscientious objectors” or objection. Making a case that I would not pay taxes, or encourage others to follow suit is DISHONEST.

  • Grace

    84 SHOULD READ:

    “A good work, is not paying for or helping someone obtain an abortion, or making it possible by medication to abort an infant. We as Christians are not subject to obey evil orders from anyone. The passage of Scripture in Romans 13 is abused, as an escape to knuckle under, when faced with evil rule.”

  • Grace

    84 SHOULD READ:

    “A good work, is not paying for or helping someone obtain an abortion, or making it possible by medication to abort an infant. We as Christians are not subject to obey evil orders from anyone. The passage of Scripture in Romans 13 is abused, as an escape to knuckle under, when faced with evil rule.”

  • Daniel Gorman

    Grace@85: “The passage of Scripture in Romans 13 is abused, as an escape to knuckle under, when faced with evil rule.”

    Luther wrote that the Christian must disobey the government when the government orders the Christian to sin: “Suppose my lord were wrong in going to war.” I reply: If you know for sure that he is wrong, then you should fear God rather than men ( Acts 4:1), and not fight or serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God. “Nay,” you say, “my lord compels me, takes my fief, does not give me my money, pay, and wages; and besides, I am despised and put to shame as a coward, nay, as a faith-breaker in the eyes of the world, as one who has deserted his lord in need.” I answer: You must take that risk and, with God’s help, let go what goes; He can restore it to you a hundredfold, as He promises in the Gospel, “He that leaveth house, home, wife, goods, for my sake, shall get it back a hundredfold.” In all other works, too, we must expect the danger that the rulers will compel us to do wrong; but since God will have us leave even father and mother for His sake, we must certainly leave lords for His sake.”
    That Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, M. Luther

    If the government were to compel the Christian to fight in an unjust war, harm an innocent person, participate in abortion, or sin in any way; the Christian must suffer disgrace, imprisonment, and even death rather than obey the government.

    However, the HHS regulation is not requiring the Christian businessman to participate in any unjust war, harm any innocent person, participate in any abortion, or sin in any way. Paying for insurance and disbursing benefits (aka “tribute”), as the government commands, is not a sin (Romans 13:7; Mark 12:14-17).

    You are going beyond scripture and contrary to scripture to invent and impose a new Mosaic insurance law on the Christian businessman. The Christian businessman must obey God rather than you even if he suffers disgrace, ridicule, and (an invalid) excommunication as a result.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Grace@85: “The passage of Scripture in Romans 13 is abused, as an escape to knuckle under, when faced with evil rule.”

    Luther wrote that the Christian must disobey the government when the government orders the Christian to sin: “Suppose my lord were wrong in going to war.” I reply: If you know for sure that he is wrong, then you should fear God rather than men ( Acts 4:1), and not fight or serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God. “Nay,” you say, “my lord compels me, takes my fief, does not give me my money, pay, and wages; and besides, I am despised and put to shame as a coward, nay, as a faith-breaker in the eyes of the world, as one who has deserted his lord in need.” I answer: You must take that risk and, with God’s help, let go what goes; He can restore it to you a hundredfold, as He promises in the Gospel, “He that leaveth house, home, wife, goods, for my sake, shall get it back a hundredfold.” In all other works, too, we must expect the danger that the rulers will compel us to do wrong; but since God will have us leave even father and mother for His sake, we must certainly leave lords for His sake.”
    That Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, M. Luther

    If the government were to compel the Christian to fight in an unjust war, harm an innocent person, participate in abortion, or sin in any way; the Christian must suffer disgrace, imprisonment, and even death rather than obey the government.

    However, the HHS regulation is not requiring the Christian businessman to participate in any unjust war, harm any innocent person, participate in any abortion, or sin in any way. Paying for insurance and disbursing benefits (aka “tribute”), as the government commands, is not a sin (Romans 13:7; Mark 12:14-17).

    You are going beyond scripture and contrary to scripture to invent and impose a new Mosaic insurance law on the Christian businessman. The Christian businessman must obey God rather than you even if he suffers disgrace, ridicule, and (an invalid) excommunication as a result.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I have a difficult time seeing a distinction between supporting liberal Democrats and supporting funding for abortion. It seems one is essentially the same as the other.

    Voting for a liberal pro-life third party or not voting are the only honest options for liberals who sincerely don’t wish to promote funding for abortion.

    Being a pro-life Democrat is as foolish as being a Republican in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    I have a difficult time seeing a distinction between supporting liberal Democrats and supporting funding for abortion. It seems one is essentially the same as the other.

    Voting for a liberal pro-life third party or not voting are the only honest options for liberals who sincerely don’t wish to promote funding for abortion.

    Being a pro-life Democrat is as foolish as being a Republican in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Voting for a pro-life third party candidates is the only option for liberals or conservatives wbo sincerely don’t want to promote abortion. During the Bush administration, pro-life Republicans voted for Medicare Part D which requires all employers and employees subject to Medicare withholding to subsidize abortion drugs. During the Obama adminstration, pro-life Democrats voted for Obamacare which requires all employers and employees to subsidy abortion drugs.

  • Daniel Gorman

    Voting for a pro-life third party candidates is the only option for liberals or conservatives wbo sincerely don’t want to promote abortion. During the Bush administration, pro-life Republicans voted for Medicare Part D which requires all employers and employees subject to Medicare withholding to subsidize abortion drugs. During the Obama adminstration, pro-life Democrats voted for Obamacare which requires all employers and employees to subsidy abortion drugs.

  • http://bioethike.com Robert

    fws writes,

    “This direction is manifest in their push to reevaluate Thomist/Scholastic Natural Law (vs the careful delimiting of this very term in the Apology opposing st Thomas here). This is a direct attack upon the Apology in our Confessions. ”

    What utter nonsense.

  • http://bioethike.com Robert

    fws writes,

    “This direction is manifest in their push to reevaluate Thomist/Scholastic Natural Law (vs the careful delimiting of this very term in the Apology opposing st Thomas here). This is a direct attack upon the Apology in our Confessions. ”

    What utter nonsense.

  • fws

    Robert @ 89

    You should know that I am a big fan of St Thomas. But I am a Lutheran as well, so I reject alot of what he says, while appreciating the tremendous contributions he has made to theology that even Lutherans benefit from.

    Yes. Attack upon the Apology. The Apology categorically rejects Thomist Natural Law. I can summarize where the start is:

    Lutherans believe that the Image of God was completely lost. As in 100% lost. (apology II, FC I, Smalcald, Chemnitz Loci, Gerhard Loci, etc etc). And they say that to deny this is to deny Original Sin.

    And: Lutherans believe that the Image of God consisted alone of fear, love and trust, ie faith ALONE. It was not, at all, in conformity to the Law of God.

    Tell me, please, Robert, how one would embrace this Lutheran Doctrine and also…… Thomist Natural Law. It can’t be done I say!

    Show me how what I say is utter nonsense.

  • fws

    Robert @ 89

    You should know that I am a big fan of St Thomas. But I am a Lutheran as well, so I reject alot of what he says, while appreciating the tremendous contributions he has made to theology that even Lutherans benefit from.

    Yes. Attack upon the Apology. The Apology categorically rejects Thomist Natural Law. I can summarize where the start is:

    Lutherans believe that the Image of God was completely lost. As in 100% lost. (apology II, FC I, Smalcald, Chemnitz Loci, Gerhard Loci, etc etc). And they say that to deny this is to deny Original Sin.

    And: Lutherans believe that the Image of God consisted alone of fear, love and trust, ie faith ALONE. It was not, at all, in conformity to the Law of God.

    Tell me, please, Robert, how one would embrace this Lutheran Doctrine and also…… Thomist Natural Law. It can’t be done I say!

    Show me how what I say is utter nonsense.

  • fws

    Robert @ 89

    I am most serious. I tried to reconcile our confessions to Thomist Natural Law for years and those were just the two starting sticking points. And they seem like show stoppers to me. If you have information I have missed or misunderstood, I would welcome a dialog.

    sincerely,

    frank

  • fws

    Robert @ 89

    I am most serious. I tried to reconcile our confessions to Thomist Natural Law for years and those were just the two starting sticking points. And they seem like show stoppers to me. If you have information I have missed or misunderstood, I would welcome a dialog.

    sincerely,

    frank

  • http://bioethike.com Robert

    FWS 90 and 91,

    Your mistake is that you aren’t accounting for the different definitions of “image of God,” which even Luther said was diverse. You are err by cleaving that image (which pertains primarily to righteousness) from the moral law.

    Insofar as original righteousness is concerned, man entirely lost the image of God. Nevertheless, man still possesses vestiges or remnants of that image and is able, albeit not he was in his original state, to ascertain the moral law (2nd Table) via human reason. The natural law is why we have positive (legal or civil) laws against murder. Man knows by nature that the unjustified killing of an innocent person is wrong.

    This is the consistent and consensual understanding of the image of God in Orthodox Lutheranism. Luther had high praise for Melancthon’s definition of natural law in his Loci of 1521. The definition is compatible with classic, Western Christian natural law, including Thomas’s definition of natural law.

    You should get at copy and read Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (CPH, 2011) which deals with this. In my essay, I show that the false teacher Gerhard Forde denied that the Bible is God’s Word, taught that Law/Gospel is an experiential “event,” and denied God’s eternal law, natural law, and the law in its 3rd use.

    Forde also denied the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. Further, according to Forde, Jesus did not offer his precious blood to our heavenly Father to atone God’s wrath for our sins.

    Why intelligent, thoughtful people continue to plug Gerhard Forde and his disciples Steven Paulson and Mark Mattes is beyond me. It is beyond sad–and also very telling!–that Anglicans and the Reformed are now glomming onto Forde.

  • http://bioethike.com Robert

    FWS 90 and 91,

    Your mistake is that you aren’t accounting for the different definitions of “image of God,” which even Luther said was diverse. You are err by cleaving that image (which pertains primarily to righteousness) from the moral law.

    Insofar as original righteousness is concerned, man entirely lost the image of God. Nevertheless, man still possesses vestiges or remnants of that image and is able, albeit not he was in his original state, to ascertain the moral law (2nd Table) via human reason. The natural law is why we have positive (legal or civil) laws against murder. Man knows by nature that the unjustified killing of an innocent person is wrong.

    This is the consistent and consensual understanding of the image of God in Orthodox Lutheranism. Luther had high praise for Melancthon’s definition of natural law in his Loci of 1521. The definition is compatible with classic, Western Christian natural law, including Thomas’s definition of natural law.

    You should get at copy and read Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (CPH, 2011) which deals with this. In my essay, I show that the false teacher Gerhard Forde denied that the Bible is God’s Word, taught that Law/Gospel is an experiential “event,” and denied God’s eternal law, natural law, and the law in its 3rd use.

    Forde also denied the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. Further, according to Forde, Jesus did not offer his precious blood to our heavenly Father to atone God’s wrath for our sins.

    Why intelligent, thoughtful people continue to plug Gerhard Forde and his disciples Steven Paulson and Mark Mattes is beyond me. It is beyond sad–and also very telling!–that Anglicans and the Reformed are now glomming onto Forde.

  • fws

    Robert @ 93

    Doctor Robert, I am grateful for your kind and detailed response.
    It is extremely helpful to me.
    I will value your time by taking great care in a response.

    In our shared Peace,

    Frank

  • fws

    Robert @ 93

    Doctor Robert, I am grateful for your kind and detailed response.
    It is extremely helpful to me.
    I will value your time by taking great care in a response.

    In our shared Peace,

    Frank

  • fws

    Dr Robert Baker @ 93

    You should get at copy and read Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal

    Sold! I downloaded it to my Ipad and am reading it how.

    Am I understanding you right on the following points:

    1) the Image of God was not entirely lost, it was lost only in respect to Original Innocence?
    2) The Image of God is also the ‘opinion legis” written in the heart of all men that allow man to discover/see/deduce the Natural Law that is written in creation? And this Image was severely damaged but not lost? Feel most free to quibble with even the minor details of my wording here. That quibbling would actually be helpful to me.
    3) As to Thomist Natural Law: Luther was a Thomist. The Lutheran Confessions are Thomist .
    4) In any case this is true: any difference between Thomist Natural Law and “orthodox Lutheranism” is not DISconsonant in any way whatsoever with Thomist Natural Law.
    5) May I assume that “orthodox Lutheran” would include the confessions, the writings of Luther, the Loci of Chemnitz, Gerhard, Quenstedt up through Pieper and Walther?

    Could I please ask for your direct email so as to better understand stuff from you directly once I have read the book you were the editor of? Mine is fwsonnek@gmail.com

    Thank you for your attention dear Doctor.

  • fws

    Dr Robert Baker @ 93

    You should get at copy and read Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal

    Sold! I downloaded it to my Ipad and am reading it how.

    Am I understanding you right on the following points:

    1) the Image of God was not entirely lost, it was lost only in respect to Original Innocence?
    2) The Image of God is also the ‘opinion legis” written in the heart of all men that allow man to discover/see/deduce the Natural Law that is written in creation? And this Image was severely damaged but not lost? Feel most free to quibble with even the minor details of my wording here. That quibbling would actually be helpful to me.
    3) As to Thomist Natural Law: Luther was a Thomist. The Lutheran Confessions are Thomist .
    4) In any case this is true: any difference between Thomist Natural Law and “orthodox Lutheranism” is not DISconsonant in any way whatsoever with Thomist Natural Law.
    5) May I assume that “orthodox Lutheran” would include the confessions, the writings of Luther, the Loci of Chemnitz, Gerhard, Quenstedt up through Pieper and Walther?

    Could I please ask for your direct email so as to better understand stuff from you directly once I have read the book you were the editor of? Mine is fwsonnek@gmail.com

    Thank you for your attention dear Doctor.