President announces his support for gay marriage

President Obama’s position on gay marriage has evolved to the point that he’s now all for it.  That’s what he told ABC News.

One reason he cited was his Christian faith.  “You know, we [his wife Michele and he] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.”

Will this help him or hurt him politically?  It would seem to bolster his progressive base, which has been somewhat disillusioned with him, while social conservatives are not likely to vote for him anyway.  Then again, support for gay marriage seems to be the cultural wave, with polls showing that more and more Americans are willing to change the very nature of marriage to accommodate homosexuals.

President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage | ABC News Blogs – Yahoo!.

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.

  • http://abitibibob.hubpages.com/ Bob Hunter

    So, if someone wants to marry a fish, Obama would trot out the Golden Rule and support that person’s right to marry a fish, correct? And, of course, the happy couple would have an equal right to health care, married status on their taxes, etc. (after all, fish are just less-evolved people!).

  • http://abitibibob.hubpages.com/ Bob Hunter

    So, if someone wants to marry a fish, Obama would trot out the Golden Rule and support that person’s right to marry a fish, correct? And, of course, the happy couple would have an equal right to health care, married status on their taxes, etc. (after all, fish are just less-evolved people!).

  • Pete

    Bob (@1) makes a good point. I think this whole “gay marriage” thing is much more of an assault on the dictionary than it is on family values. I don’t know of anybody who thinks that, as a society, we shouldn’t be tolerant of homosexuals. And, frankly, stable monogamous homosexuality is preferable in the civil realm than any form of predatorial sexuality – be it homo or heterosexual. But these activists want to redefine marriage and shoehorn themselves into an existing definition, when there already exists a perfectly good term for them – “civil unions”. But this is all about validation. Wonder if they’d settle for marriage with an asterisk?

  • Pete

    Bob (@1) makes a good point. I think this whole “gay marriage” thing is much more of an assault on the dictionary than it is on family values. I don’t know of anybody who thinks that, as a society, we shouldn’t be tolerant of homosexuals. And, frankly, stable monogamous homosexuality is preferable in the civil realm than any form of predatorial sexuality – be it homo or heterosexual. But these activists want to redefine marriage and shoehorn themselves into an existing definition, when there already exists a perfectly good term for them – “civil unions”. But this is all about validation. Wonder if they’d settle for marriage with an asterisk?

  • Michael B.

    @Bob Hunter
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali

    “Then again, support for gay marriage seems to be the cultural wave”
    Fox News’ Shepard Smith reacted to President Obama‘s announcing his support for gay marriage by saying that the president “is now in the 21st century.” Well, he also went a step further, critiquing Republicans for being on the “wrong side of history.
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-shep-smith-republicans-on-wrong-side-of-history-on-gay-marriage/

    Mind you, this is actually Fox News saying this.

  • Michael B.

    @Bob Hunter
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali

    “Then again, support for gay marriage seems to be the cultural wave”
    Fox News’ Shepard Smith reacted to President Obama‘s announcing his support for gay marriage by saying that the president “is now in the 21st century.” Well, he also went a step further, critiquing Republicans for being on the “wrong side of history.
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-shep-smith-republicans-on-wrong-side-of-history-on-gay-marriage/

    Mind you, this is actually Fox News saying this.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    This is an endorsement of something that God calls abomination, and is clearly defined as sin in the Old and New Testaments. This is not tolerance; this is exalting a sinful lifestyle.

    This is also a wake-up call to those in the church who still think this is a Christian nation, hopefully they get the hint now that this country is becoming more and more pagan by the day.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    This is an endorsement of something that God calls abomination, and is clearly defined as sin in the Old and New Testaments. This is not tolerance; this is exalting a sinful lifestyle.

    This is also a wake-up call to those in the church who still think this is a Christian nation, hopefully they get the hint now that this country is becoming more and more pagan by the day.

  • Joe

    If I read between the lines correctly, what the president actually said was: “I have always personally supported gay marriage. I just thought it was too politically risky to admit it before. In any event, its a state issue so I won’t be doing anything at all about it. Now to those certain donors who had recently contacted my campaign, please don’t make good on your threat to withhold contributions.”

    (Please note that I do not think the president is unique in his crass use of the this issue)

  • Joe

    If I read between the lines correctly, what the president actually said was: “I have always personally supported gay marriage. I just thought it was too politically risky to admit it before. In any event, its a state issue so I won’t be doing anything at all about it. Now to those certain donors who had recently contacted my campaign, please don’t make good on your threat to withhold contributions.”

    (Please note that I do not think the president is unique in his crass use of the this issue)

  • Susan

    Matthew J. Franck writing at Public Discourse may have helped put this situation into focus best (excerpt below):

    “So why did Obama make such an announcement now? The Grenell affair assured him, I think, that a theme of “anti-gay bigotry” can be usefully deployed against social conservatives generally, and against Romney in particular. The May 6 remarks of Vice President Biden on NBC’s “Meet the Press” turned out to be a trial balloon. They prompted renewed calls from supporters—including those in the press corps—that the president come clean, and level with the American people. Wealthy supporters of same-sex marriage talked openly of withholding large donations they would be ready to make if the president obliged them. And finally, the president must be feeling that he needs this issue—that he needs not to be talking from now until November about his dismal record on the economy, the federal debt, and the takeover of the nation’s health care system. It seems he thinks this will be a close election, and he needs the left fired up.”

    “In his ABC interview, Obama said, “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” He went on to stress (in ABC’s words) that this was only his “personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.” Of course, on issues of great public moment, a president does not have merely “personal” views. This is now, more clearly than ever, a huge campaign issue for 2012. The president will now wage an all-out campaign of calling Mitt Romney an “anti-gay” bigot for opposing what he himself would not embrace until five minutes ago. But given the track record of victories for the defense of marriage in thirty-one states, and the still-tentative declaration of the president, it is clear that he knows he is running a risky strategy. What he knows, we should know too. And we should know that if we keep our heads, and don’t buy into the “anti-gay” framing of the liberal establishment, we are strong enough to win the fight for the truth about marriage.”

    Read the whole piece here:
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5395

  • Susan

    Matthew J. Franck writing at Public Discourse may have helped put this situation into focus best (excerpt below):

    “So why did Obama make such an announcement now? The Grenell affair assured him, I think, that a theme of “anti-gay bigotry” can be usefully deployed against social conservatives generally, and against Romney in particular. The May 6 remarks of Vice President Biden on NBC’s “Meet the Press” turned out to be a trial balloon. They prompted renewed calls from supporters—including those in the press corps—that the president come clean, and level with the American people. Wealthy supporters of same-sex marriage talked openly of withholding large donations they would be ready to make if the president obliged them. And finally, the president must be feeling that he needs this issue—that he needs not to be talking from now until November about his dismal record on the economy, the federal debt, and the takeover of the nation’s health care system. It seems he thinks this will be a close election, and he needs the left fired up.”

    “In his ABC interview, Obama said, “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” He went on to stress (in ABC’s words) that this was only his “personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.” Of course, on issues of great public moment, a president does not have merely “personal” views. This is now, more clearly than ever, a huge campaign issue for 2012. The president will now wage an all-out campaign of calling Mitt Romney an “anti-gay” bigot for opposing what he himself would not embrace until five minutes ago. But given the track record of victories for the defense of marriage in thirty-one states, and the still-tentative declaration of the president, it is clear that he knows he is running a risky strategy. What he knows, we should know too. And we should know that if we keep our heads, and don’t buy into the “anti-gay” framing of the liberal establishment, we are strong enough to win the fight for the truth about marriage.”

    Read the whole piece here:
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/05/5395

  • #4 Kitty

    God defined marriage as between one man and his sister (Cain), one man and his half-sister (Abraham), one man and several wives and a hand full of concubines (Solomon), one man and a woman (Simon Peter?), one man and his brother’s widow (Gen 38:6-10), one rapist and his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), one male soldier and female prisoners of war (Deuteronomy 21:11-1) and I think we need to adhere to these traditional forms of marriage. And besides, according the the Bible homosexuality is such a vile sin that it is given the same punishment as mowing the grass on Saturday (the sabbath); DEATH (Exodus 31:13-15).

  • #4 Kitty

    God defined marriage as between one man and his sister (Cain), one man and his half-sister (Abraham), one man and several wives and a hand full of concubines (Solomon), one man and a woman (Simon Peter?), one man and his brother’s widow (Gen 38:6-10), one rapist and his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), one male soldier and female prisoners of war (Deuteronomy 21:11-1) and I think we need to adhere to these traditional forms of marriage. And besides, according the the Bible homosexuality is such a vile sin that it is given the same punishment as mowing the grass on Saturday (the sabbath); DEATH (Exodus 31:13-15).

  • fws

    bob and pete @ 1 & 2

    Sigh. The word “aweful” meant, less than 100 years ago: “something that fills one with awe”. Language changes. especially legal terms like the term “marriage” as a social contract. It is that simple.

    Bob: no one is talking about legalizing marriage to non humans. This is so simple and obvious isnt it?

    J dean @ 4

    so you are telling us God intends us to read Lev 18 as a description of a gay marriage? fact: ALL depictions of same gender sex in the bible are about married men who lust after women doing those acts. Read rom 1:27 and jewish laws on marriage if you dont believe me. It is really simple to read the bible the right way J dean.

    Joe @ 5

    Yeah. God will always ultimately use political calculation to make his mercy happen. Cf pontius pilate. We can trust God for this. It is really that simple.

    Morality for pagans and christians is the same thing:

    1) exercise the self discipline required to do no harm to neighbor.
    2)provide the same mercy to others that is your own hearts desire to receive.
    3) where we fail to do either part, God will punish us until we do it.
    It is really that simple.

    gay marriage clearly provides the only humanly available means for the sexual self discipline of 1) to happen and for them to produce the mercy towards others then of 2) to happen that is God’s intent with the Law and that God demands of all. And this will allow gays then to avoid avoid 3) from having to happen to them. it is really that simple.

    should the church do gay marriage?

    no! But…why not?

    Marriage is a government that is defined as including the vocations of mother, father, children and… the domestic hired help. That is the lutheran definition of marriage. It i that simple.

    Therefore? Churches should butt out of marriage altogeather.
    It is not the proper role of the church to marry anyone.
    It is a usurpation of the work of the other governments of family and society by the government called the church. It is that simple.

  • fws

    bob and pete @ 1 & 2

    Sigh. The word “aweful” meant, less than 100 years ago: “something that fills one with awe”. Language changes. especially legal terms like the term “marriage” as a social contract. It is that simple.

    Bob: no one is talking about legalizing marriage to non humans. This is so simple and obvious isnt it?

    J dean @ 4

    so you are telling us God intends us to read Lev 18 as a description of a gay marriage? fact: ALL depictions of same gender sex in the bible are about married men who lust after women doing those acts. Read rom 1:27 and jewish laws on marriage if you dont believe me. It is really simple to read the bible the right way J dean.

    Joe @ 5

    Yeah. God will always ultimately use political calculation to make his mercy happen. Cf pontius pilate. We can trust God for this. It is really that simple.

    Morality for pagans and christians is the same thing:

    1) exercise the self discipline required to do no harm to neighbor.
    2)provide the same mercy to others that is your own hearts desire to receive.
    3) where we fail to do either part, God will punish us until we do it.
    It is really that simple.

    gay marriage clearly provides the only humanly available means for the sexual self discipline of 1) to happen and for them to produce the mercy towards others then of 2) to happen that is God’s intent with the Law and that God demands of all. And this will allow gays then to avoid avoid 3) from having to happen to them. it is really that simple.

    should the church do gay marriage?

    no! But…why not?

    Marriage is a government that is defined as including the vocations of mother, father, children and… the domestic hired help. That is the lutheran definition of marriage. It i that simple.

    Therefore? Churches should butt out of marriage altogeather.
    It is not the proper role of the church to marry anyone.
    It is a usurpation of the work of the other governments of family and society by the government called the church. It is that simple.

  • fws

    susan @ 6

    The president will now wage an all-out campaign of calling Mitt Romney an “anti-gay” bigot for opposing what he himself would not embrace until five minutes ago.

    No he won’t
    And yes we are talking about bigotry. How is it not?

  • fws

    susan @ 6

    The president will now wage an all-out campaign of calling Mitt Romney an “anti-gay” bigot for opposing what he himself would not embrace until five minutes ago.

    No he won’t
    And yes we are talking about bigotry. How is it not?

  • Susan

    @fws

    The quote you posted is from an argument by Matthew Franck, a constitutional law professor. You are free to disagree with him. Disagreement is not bigotry.

  • Susan

    @fws

    The quote you posted is from an argument by Matthew Franck, a constitutional law professor. You are free to disagree with him. Disagreement is not bigotry.

  • Fr Gregory Hogg

    @Kitty: Citing passages of the Bible does not demonstrate that God defined a given thing according to those passages. God didn’t define accounting by Judas’ thievery, for example. And passages such as the ones you cite demonstrate that the Scriptures are not afraid to call things as they are. The faults of great men are not unnoted in its pages, so that we might both be warned and have hope of repentance ourselves.

    The definition of marriage, biblically, is found in Genesis 2: “A man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

  • Fr Gregory Hogg

    @Kitty: Citing passages of the Bible does not demonstrate that God defined a given thing according to those passages. God didn’t define accounting by Judas’ thievery, for example. And passages such as the ones you cite demonstrate that the Scriptures are not afraid to call things as they are. The faults of great men are not unnoted in its pages, so that we might both be warned and have hope of repentance ourselves.

    The definition of marriage, biblically, is found in Genesis 2: “A man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

  • #4 Kitty

    @Fr Gregory Hogg

    The definition of marriage, biblically, is found in Genesis 2: “A man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

    That doesn’t seem to describe Jesus’ idea of marriage (Matt 25:1). Or is this another one of those faults of great men?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Fr Gregory Hogg

    The definition of marriage, biblically, is found in Genesis 2: “A man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

    That doesn’t seem to describe Jesus’ idea of marriage (Matt 25:1). Or is this another one of those faults of great men?

  • Paul in MN

    FWS: I’ve been reading your comments on this blog for years now; and I have had personal exchanges with you through email. But for all your insights on other topics I simply do not understand what you are saying about “homosexuality” which you have repeatedly tried to redefine f0r our edification. I understand that NO ONE (save Christ Himself) is exempt from sexual temptation and sexual sins.

    I have read and been examined on whether I can understand and properly describe the arguments of many theologians, but I fail to understand and I cannot describe your positions on homosexuality. You assert that churches should “butt out” of performing marriages because it isn’t their role. Should they therefore butt out of education, seeing to the care of widows and orphans, burials, etc.? On what other topic do you assert that the Church has nothing to say concerning what is proper for the other estates? That idea goes against the very premise of this blog which concerns Christ and Culture.

    I am not asking you to explain it to me again. I’ve reached the point of ad nauseum in trying to understand what you’re trying to convey. As a professor of mine once quipped: “If you can’t say it clearly, you probably don’t understand it clearly.” Therefore, I suggest it would be prudent for you to accept that on this topic there is a conflict of interest for you and that your views go against two millenia of Christian discourse on the topic: namely, that sexual thoughts, words, and deeds are only proper within the confines of marriage between one man and one woman in an exclusive, life-long relationship which God Himself has instituted, sanctified, and blessed. On this, Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles have much to say and so the Church simply repeats what it has been given.

    I say, “Enough already with your attempts to twist the Word of God to satisfy your itching ears!” I don’t believe you have convinced anyone here, and this is a nice group of thoughtful, patient people.

  • Paul in MN

    FWS: I’ve been reading your comments on this blog for years now; and I have had personal exchanges with you through email. But for all your insights on other topics I simply do not understand what you are saying about “homosexuality” which you have repeatedly tried to redefine f0r our edification. I understand that NO ONE (save Christ Himself) is exempt from sexual temptation and sexual sins.

    I have read and been examined on whether I can understand and properly describe the arguments of many theologians, but I fail to understand and I cannot describe your positions on homosexuality. You assert that churches should “butt out” of performing marriages because it isn’t their role. Should they therefore butt out of education, seeing to the care of widows and orphans, burials, etc.? On what other topic do you assert that the Church has nothing to say concerning what is proper for the other estates? That idea goes against the very premise of this blog which concerns Christ and Culture.

    I am not asking you to explain it to me again. I’ve reached the point of ad nauseum in trying to understand what you’re trying to convey. As a professor of mine once quipped: “If you can’t say it clearly, you probably don’t understand it clearly.” Therefore, I suggest it would be prudent for you to accept that on this topic there is a conflict of interest for you and that your views go against two millenia of Christian discourse on the topic: namely, that sexual thoughts, words, and deeds are only proper within the confines of marriage between one man and one woman in an exclusive, life-long relationship which God Himself has instituted, sanctified, and blessed. On this, Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles have much to say and so the Church simply repeats what it has been given.

    I say, “Enough already with your attempts to twist the Word of God to satisfy your itching ears!” I don’t believe you have convinced anyone here, and this is a nice group of thoughtful, patient people.

  • fws

    susan @ 10

    a bigot is simply someone who ignores the golden rule. And they justify it by placing others in a class or group that they assert are different in a way that justifies breaking the golden rule.

    which is: Do unto others as your heart would desire others would do unto you. Love your neighbor as you love your own self.

    The professor rejects the claim of the golden rule upon his conscience. He is not disagreeing with me. He is disagreeing with God. And yes, sadly , he is doing so under cover of Law. Shameful that.

  • fws

    susan @ 10

    a bigot is simply someone who ignores the golden rule. And they justify it by placing others in a class or group that they assert are different in a way that justifies breaking the golden rule.

    which is: Do unto others as your heart would desire others would do unto you. Love your neighbor as you love your own self.

    The professor rejects the claim of the golden rule upon his conscience. He is not disagreeing with me. He is disagreeing with God. And yes, sadly , he is doing so under cover of Law. Shameful that.

  • http://www.whenisayrunrun.blogspot.com Andrew

    “Don’t cross the streams”
    Don’t cross the kingdoms

  • http://www.whenisayrunrun.blogspot.com Andrew

    “Don’t cross the streams”
    Don’t cross the kingdoms

  • Morgan

    @Kitty:

    So Jesus’s idea of marriage is based on the opening premise of a parable talking about near-eastern wedding customs? Oooookaaaay.

    If you’re waiting for Jesus to validate Genesis 2, you’re in luck. I’d point you to Matthew 19:4-5 for starters. It may sound familiar.

    And look, I’m trying to be respectful here, but you’re doing a bang up job of throwing a lot of scripture around. But rattling off verses does not a biblical expert make.

    Just my $0.02.

  • Morgan

    @Kitty:

    So Jesus’s idea of marriage is based on the opening premise of a parable talking about near-eastern wedding customs? Oooookaaaay.

    If you’re waiting for Jesus to validate Genesis 2, you’re in luck. I’d point you to Matthew 19:4-5 for starters. It may sound familiar.

    And look, I’m trying to be respectful here, but you’re doing a bang up job of throwing a lot of scripture around. But rattling off verses does not a biblical expert make.

    Just my $0.02.

  • fws

    paul @ 13

    we all are conflicted in our interests. Our new man wants what is God’s Will and our Old Adam wants the contrary. And so you are not conflicted here how exactly mr Minnesota? Break that down for me.

    Should they therefore butt out of education, seeing to the care of widows and orphans, burials, etc.? On what other topic do you assert that the Church has nothing to say concerning what is proper for the other estates?

    Who said that? Not I.

    You end with accusing me of twisting the Sacred Word of God. Yet you also say you dont understand my position. How does that work?

  • fws

    paul @ 13

    we all are conflicted in our interests. Our new man wants what is God’s Will and our Old Adam wants the contrary. And so you are not conflicted here how exactly mr Minnesota? Break that down for me.

    Should they therefore butt out of education, seeing to the care of widows and orphans, burials, etc.? On what other topic do you assert that the Church has nothing to say concerning what is proper for the other estates?

    Who said that? Not I.

    You end with accusing me of twisting the Sacred Word of God. Yet you also say you dont understand my position. How does that work?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Morgan
    Your $0.02 does not excuse the fact that Jesus’ idea of marriage included polygamy.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Morgan
    Your $0.02 does not excuse the fact that Jesus’ idea of marriage included polygamy.

  • fws

    father Hogg @ 11

    Citing passages of the Bible does not demonstrate that God defined a given thing according to those passages. God didn’t define accounting by Judas’ thievery, for example.

    True. A description is not a definition is it. Descriptions of same gender sex in the bible are always about the acts of married men for who ordinarily are desirous of sex with women. And always are about ritualistic sex or even group rape. I agree. depictions sin are not definitional of any group are they? not even the group called “sinners.”

    The definition of marriage, biblically, is found in Genesis 2: “A man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

    Ergo, adam and eve were not married. Uh. no. Description or prescription. Description or definition? a man and a prostitute are also one flesh. are a man and a male prostitute also one flesh then? nope. try again.

  • fws

    father Hogg @ 11

    Citing passages of the Bible does not demonstrate that God defined a given thing according to those passages. God didn’t define accounting by Judas’ thievery, for example.

    True. A description is not a definition is it. Descriptions of same gender sex in the bible are always about the acts of married men for who ordinarily are desirous of sex with women. And always are about ritualistic sex or even group rape. I agree. depictions sin are not definitional of any group are they? not even the group called “sinners.”

    The definition of marriage, biblically, is found in Genesis 2: “A man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

    Ergo, adam and eve were not married. Uh. no. Description or prescription. Description or definition? a man and a prostitute are also one flesh. are a man and a male prostitute also one flesh then? nope. try again.

  • fws

    morgan @16

    dont be silly. Do you REALLY think we should talk about marriage biblically and deliberately ignore what we know about context.

    Marriage in the bible was almost identical to what muslims practice today. Heck. How can you understand the metaphor of Christ as groom and church as bride if you dont understand that the ONLY form of that was for the mans father to purchase the bride for the groom and the bride has NO volition in the matter and becomes, litterally so, the chattel property of the groom.

    Without understanding this, one simply cannot understand the beautiful metaphor that is Christ and Church as groom and bride.

    I don’t agree fully with where Kitty is taking things, but dont just react. use a little nuance. she is pointing out something that is not entirely wrong. she is asking us not to assume that “marriage” was defined the same then as it is now. it was not.

    See?

  • fws

    morgan @16

    dont be silly. Do you REALLY think we should talk about marriage biblically and deliberately ignore what we know about context.

    Marriage in the bible was almost identical to what muslims practice today. Heck. How can you understand the metaphor of Christ as groom and church as bride if you dont understand that the ONLY form of that was for the mans father to purchase the bride for the groom and the bride has NO volition in the matter and becomes, litterally so, the chattel property of the groom.

    Without understanding this, one simply cannot understand the beautiful metaphor that is Christ and Church as groom and bride.

    I don’t agree fully with where Kitty is taking things, but dont just react. use a little nuance. she is pointing out something that is not entirely wrong. she is asking us not to assume that “marriage” was defined the same then as it is now. it was not.

    See?

  • Susan

    @fws

    I don’t see any point in engaging with the perverse arguments you offer. Adieu.

  • Susan

    @fws

    I don’t see any point in engaging with the perverse arguments you offer. Adieu.

  • fws

    morgan @ 16

    We are not commanded to “try” to be respectful. we are commanded to be respectful.

    This is not easy is it? It isnt for me. So we get to practice doing what “being respectful” looks like here. This is especially important where we feel a point is obvious or we have strong feelings.

    I applaud you for trying to be respectful. Encourage me to do the same where you see me slip. I need that too.

  • fws

    morgan @ 16

    We are not commanded to “try” to be respectful. we are commanded to be respectful.

    This is not easy is it? It isnt for me. So we get to practice doing what “being respectful” looks like here. This is especially important where we feel a point is obvious or we have strong feelings.

    I applaud you for trying to be respectful. Encourage me to do the same where you see me slip. I need that too.

  • Jon

    Anything but the state of the economy.

    Re-defining marriage certainly is a polarizing issue, a lot of loud noise is generated by it. There is no wonder why the administration is foisting this upon us at this time.

    The more time they can spend talking about and getting us to talk about stuff that they even say should be left up to the states to decide anyway, the less they have to say in defence of miserable state of the economy.

  • Jon

    Anything but the state of the economy.

    Re-defining marriage certainly is a polarizing issue, a lot of loud noise is generated by it. There is no wonder why the administration is foisting this upon us at this time.

    The more time they can spend talking about and getting us to talk about stuff that they even say should be left up to the states to decide anyway, the less they have to say in defence of miserable state of the economy.

  • Paul in MN

    FWS:

    I really don’t want to try again with you. However, I will reluctantly respond with this much:

    That we are all “conflicted” isn’t the point. I have merely concluded that your arguments concerning homosexuality are blind to the clear Word of God and go through great contortions in order to get the Word to say what you want to hear. My ‘proof’ is simply that you haven’t convinced me of anything on this matter from the clear Word of God. (Is there anyone here who has had their views changed by FWS on the subject of homosexuality?)

    Certainly we must all be open to the possibility that God’s Word says what we don’t want to hear. On some topics each of us must, at times, simply accept the testimony of other, wiser Christians in whom the Spirit also dwells and works.

    What of Luther and others who have gone against the generally accepted doctrine? Well, I am no Luther; but I do know some and have studied under some who knew him and others well and they haven’t come to your conclusions. Luther, for example, was able to argue convincingly that his theology was not new but was, in fact, the historic Christian faith. But who has accepted your arguments? What theologians have you convinced? I do not have the ability to understand what you have said. Can you point me to someone I know and respect who has? I will defer to their judgments. Have any of our living professors agreed with you? I just don’t hear anyone besides you saying, “We’ve gotten it wrong!”

  • Paul in MN

    FWS:

    I really don’t want to try again with you. However, I will reluctantly respond with this much:

    That we are all “conflicted” isn’t the point. I have merely concluded that your arguments concerning homosexuality are blind to the clear Word of God and go through great contortions in order to get the Word to say what you want to hear. My ‘proof’ is simply that you haven’t convinced me of anything on this matter from the clear Word of God. (Is there anyone here who has had their views changed by FWS on the subject of homosexuality?)

    Certainly we must all be open to the possibility that God’s Word says what we don’t want to hear. On some topics each of us must, at times, simply accept the testimony of other, wiser Christians in whom the Spirit also dwells and works.

    What of Luther and others who have gone against the generally accepted doctrine? Well, I am no Luther; but I do know some and have studied under some who knew him and others well and they haven’t come to your conclusions. Luther, for example, was able to argue convincingly that his theology was not new but was, in fact, the historic Christian faith. But who has accepted your arguments? What theologians have you convinced? I do not have the ability to understand what you have said. Can you point me to someone I know and respect who has? I will defer to their judgments. Have any of our living professors agreed with you? I just don’t hear anyone besides you saying, “We’ve gotten it wrong!”

  • fws

    paul @ 13

    I’ve reached the point of ad nauseum in trying to understand what you’re trying to convey. As a professor of mine once quipped: “If you can’t say it clearly, you probably don’t understand it clearly.”

    My helpful suggestion to you then, over there in minnesota, is not to waste your money on higher education. Just keep on assuming that if you dont understand someone, it must be because it is they who lack understanding. uhuh. uffda to you too.

    I would never assume such a thing myself. I dont see now I can disagree with someone without first understanding them.

    It turns out that it is not that hard to learn to understand others.

    it looks like this:

    You ask sincere and honest questions that are not intended to be baited, and you really listen, with charity, to their answers. And then you ask more questions as necessary and answer theirs in the same fashion.

  • fws

    paul @ 13

    I’ve reached the point of ad nauseum in trying to understand what you’re trying to convey. As a professor of mine once quipped: “If you can’t say it clearly, you probably don’t understand it clearly.”

    My helpful suggestion to you then, over there in minnesota, is not to waste your money on higher education. Just keep on assuming that if you dont understand someone, it must be because it is they who lack understanding. uhuh. uffda to you too.

    I would never assume such a thing myself. I dont see now I can disagree with someone without first understanding them.

    It turns out that it is not that hard to learn to understand others.

    it looks like this:

    You ask sincere and honest questions that are not intended to be baited, and you really listen, with charity, to their answers. And then you ask more questions as necessary and answer theirs in the same fashion.

  • http://ihoppe.com/blog/ Pastor Philip Hoppe

    Gene,
    Here are my thoughts on the subject about how one comes to this positions and an encouragement for us to stand firm: http://ihoppe.com/blog/?p=3180. Thanks for your blog.
    Pastor Philip Hoppe

  • http://ihoppe.com/blog/ Pastor Philip Hoppe

    Gene,
    Here are my thoughts on the subject about how one comes to this positions and an encouragement for us to stand firm: http://ihoppe.com/blog/?p=3180. Thanks for your blog.
    Pastor Philip Hoppe

  • fws

    paul in minnesota @ 24

    Luther, for example, was able to argue convincingly that his theology was not new but was, in fact, the historic Christian faith. … how many have you convinced with your arguments….

    so the test of truth is the ability to convince others that your arguments are right. nope Paul in minnesota. You know that is a nonstarter! try again.

    There are lots of Roman Catholics, non christians etc , who keep good company with your argument.

    nothing I have said is contrary to Holy Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions. Show me otherwise and I will very hastily reject my own words.

    You dont need to present a clever argument.
    Show me the text. And show me my words that are contrary to that text.

    I will most certainly repent in that case.

    Bless you brother +

  • fws

    paul in minnesota @ 24

    Luther, for example, was able to argue convincingly that his theology was not new but was, in fact, the historic Christian faith. … how many have you convinced with your arguments….

    so the test of truth is the ability to convince others that your arguments are right. nope Paul in minnesota. You know that is a nonstarter! try again.

    There are lots of Roman Catholics, non christians etc , who keep good company with your argument.

    nothing I have said is contrary to Holy Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions. Show me otherwise and I will very hastily reject my own words.

    You dont need to present a clever argument.
    Show me the text. And show me my words that are contrary to that text.

    I will most certainly repent in that case.

    Bless you brother +

  • Susan

    @Jon

    I think you are spot on. After skimming today’s news, it looks like it may be a Herculean task to get the conversations back on track. Check out this post from Mollie Hemingway at Ricochet:

    The Washington Post has delivered 5,500 devastating words of investigative journalism. The piece is thoroughly researched, well-sourced and hard-hitting.

    Is it about:

    a) the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal that gave crates of grenades to Mexican gun-running criminals?

    b) President Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko, a man convicted of public corruption who helped purchase the Obama family home in Chicago?

    c) how Obama campaign bundlers stand to benefit from the stimulus bill and Obamacare?

    d) Mitt’s childhood as a prep-school prankster, bookended with claims of anti-gay bullying?

    Yep, you answered correctly. So if you want 5,500 words on what a monster Mitt Romney was that one time at band camp, the Washington Post is your paper. I wanted to link to their investigative stories on Obama’s time at Punahou (and Columbia and Harvard and Chicago and, uh, D.C.), but I can’t seem to find them.

    And what a coincidence that this story ran today, no?

    Source – http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Pop-Quiz-What-s-The-Latest-Media-Expose-About

  • Susan

    @Jon

    I think you are spot on. After skimming today’s news, it looks like it may be a Herculean task to get the conversations back on track. Check out this post from Mollie Hemingway at Ricochet:

    The Washington Post has delivered 5,500 devastating words of investigative journalism. The piece is thoroughly researched, well-sourced and hard-hitting.

    Is it about:

    a) the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal that gave crates of grenades to Mexican gun-running criminals?

    b) President Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko, a man convicted of public corruption who helped purchase the Obama family home in Chicago?

    c) how Obama campaign bundlers stand to benefit from the stimulus bill and Obamacare?

    d) Mitt’s childhood as a prep-school prankster, bookended with claims of anti-gay bullying?

    Yep, you answered correctly. So if you want 5,500 words on what a monster Mitt Romney was that one time at band camp, the Washington Post is your paper. I wanted to link to their investigative stories on Obama’s time at Punahou (and Columbia and Harvard and Chicago and, uh, D.C.), but I can’t seem to find them.

    And what a coincidence that this story ran today, no?

    Source – http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Pop-Quiz-What-s-The-Latest-Media-Expose-About

  • fws

    jon @ 23

    the administration is foisting this upon us at this time.

    relax!

    Obama: this is a state not a federal issue. So DOMA is unconstitutional.

    Romney: This is a state not a federal issue. So DOMA is…. oops!

  • fws

    jon @ 23

    the administration is foisting this upon us at this time.

    relax!

    Obama: this is a state not a federal issue. So DOMA is unconstitutional.

    Romney: This is a state not a federal issue. So DOMA is…. oops!

  • Jon

    Frank, you are certainly fired up about this topic yourself. Just look at all your posts! And, I agree with Paul in MN that you’re not making a lot of sense and you seem to be very conflicted when it comes to this topic as you take a contrarian approach injecting all sorts of eisogesis contortions to make it fit as you want. And that’s opposed to how you otherwise do theology/doctrine on here, which I usually appreciate.

    Anyway, I’m not fired up about it–but it clearly is being foisted upon us–the national topic itself is, at least.

  • Jon

    Frank, you are certainly fired up about this topic yourself. Just look at all your posts! And, I agree with Paul in MN that you’re not making a lot of sense and you seem to be very conflicted when it comes to this topic as you take a contrarian approach injecting all sorts of eisogesis contortions to make it fit as you want. And that’s opposed to how you otherwise do theology/doctrine on here, which I usually appreciate.

    Anyway, I’m not fired up about it–but it clearly is being foisted upon us–the national topic itself is, at least.

  • Jon

    And Frank, I think you misunderstand the issue on DOMA. For Obama and Romney to say that genderless marriage is a state issue it means that they *should* say that DOMA is a good law–DOMA is meant to preserve the states’ rights to define marriage how they will–period. By Obama refusing to enforce DOMA because he believes it is unconstitutional is saying precisely that he doesn;t think it is a states’ rights issue.

  • Jon

    And Frank, I think you misunderstand the issue on DOMA. For Obama and Romney to say that genderless marriage is a state issue it means that they *should* say that DOMA is a good law–DOMA is meant to preserve the states’ rights to define marriage how they will–period. By Obama refusing to enforce DOMA because he believes it is unconstitutional is saying precisely that he doesn;t think it is a states’ rights issue.

  • fws

    pastor hoppe @ 26

    some gems here!

    Every male and female born today are still born with private parts that suggest the only biologically compatible relationship is that between man and woman.

    Ergo: a blind man has two perfectly good eyes , so that “suggests that” he needs to accept that jet pilot position since it is a sin to not provide for his family. Uhuh. Thanks for sharing.

    For again, those scriptures still testify from the first book to the last that marriage and sexuality are given only to men and women.

    I agree! Gay men and women are… you guessed it. Men and women.

    The research all shows that homosexuality is not a practice that prospers societies.

    And are we talking about marriage or homosexuality?

    Fact: sexual self control in the form of marriage, is a practice that prospers society as opposed to any other possible alternative. This is true for all men and women. Why? it is the ONLY means (according to the Bible) to sexual self discipline and good order.

    So, biblically speaking, unmarried humans of ANY kind are, literally, sexual loose cannons in society. Not only gays. This is what the bible says . cf 1 cor 7. and apology XXIII, and LC 6th commandment , and and and…..

    Why make this about homos vs heteros. Why not, as you said “all men and women”? we are all human in the same way.

    You will know someone and love someone who will choose homosexuality as their way of life.

    You dont really know any homosexuals do you? If you did you would know this: by age 6 or so, EVERY homosexual is faced with a choice as to his “sexual identity”.

    Newsflash: ALL homosexuals chose to be heterosexual. ALL homosexuals choose to identify as heterosexuals and spare no personal expense or effort in that chosen task.

    ALL. OF. THEM. I know of no exception to this rule. And I know and have known thousands of fags. Very personally.

    So that choice just happens to not be one that is available to them. I would also like to have been born as a millionare. Why not.

    You, on the other hand, have NEVER had to even think to make such a choice. Why is that? Imagine being equipped as a 6 year old as to have to make such a choice. Count your blessings!

    but here is the clincher. And these are words straight from hell and satan:

    For IF that person does not turn… [then you will be forced to chose between them and Christ!] … You must remain relationally connected to Christ. It is your life.

    So the man is saying that if someone does not become UNhomosexualized, then he will lose Christ and go to hell.

    And so will you! IF you dare to accept the homosexual as a fellow believer and not DEMAND that he become UNhomosexual.

    This is satanic talk.

    Lord have mercy ! +

  • fws

    pastor hoppe @ 26

    some gems here!

    Every male and female born today are still born with private parts that suggest the only biologically compatible relationship is that between man and woman.

    Ergo: a blind man has two perfectly good eyes , so that “suggests that” he needs to accept that jet pilot position since it is a sin to not provide for his family. Uhuh. Thanks for sharing.

    For again, those scriptures still testify from the first book to the last that marriage and sexuality are given only to men and women.

    I agree! Gay men and women are… you guessed it. Men and women.

    The research all shows that homosexuality is not a practice that prospers societies.

    And are we talking about marriage or homosexuality?

    Fact: sexual self control in the form of marriage, is a practice that prospers society as opposed to any other possible alternative. This is true for all men and women. Why? it is the ONLY means (according to the Bible) to sexual self discipline and good order.

    So, biblically speaking, unmarried humans of ANY kind are, literally, sexual loose cannons in society. Not only gays. This is what the bible says . cf 1 cor 7. and apology XXIII, and LC 6th commandment , and and and…..

    Why make this about homos vs heteros. Why not, as you said “all men and women”? we are all human in the same way.

    You will know someone and love someone who will choose homosexuality as their way of life.

    You dont really know any homosexuals do you? If you did you would know this: by age 6 or so, EVERY homosexual is faced with a choice as to his “sexual identity”.

    Newsflash: ALL homosexuals chose to be heterosexual. ALL homosexuals choose to identify as heterosexuals and spare no personal expense or effort in that chosen task.

    ALL. OF. THEM. I know of no exception to this rule. And I know and have known thousands of fags. Very personally.

    So that choice just happens to not be one that is available to them. I would also like to have been born as a millionare. Why not.

    You, on the other hand, have NEVER had to even think to make such a choice. Why is that? Imagine being equipped as a 6 year old as to have to make such a choice. Count your blessings!

    but here is the clincher. And these are words straight from hell and satan:

    For IF that person does not turn… [then you will be forced to chose between them and Christ!] … You must remain relationally connected to Christ. It is your life.

    So the man is saying that if someone does not become UNhomosexualized, then he will lose Christ and go to hell.

    And so will you! IF you dare to accept the homosexual as a fellow believer and not DEMAND that he become UNhomosexual.

    This is satanic talk.

    Lord have mercy ! +

  • fws

    jon @ 31

    1) I am , indeed, my brothers keeper. None of this affects my life personally in any way. Nor does it affect the marriage or life of anyone who is heterosexual. Disagree? How?

    But I sin by not caring about others. God demands that I be passionate about this. He demands it of me. He threatens to punish me if I refuse to render such a service. As a Lutheran christian I am uniquely equipped to contribute here . So you are suggesting it is improper for me to do so because um. why?

    2) the legal argument obama put forward for not defending doma is precisely because it is unconstitutional. In what way? Marriage laws have always been governed by the states. That is his argument. Romney too has said that marriage is a state issue that is not a subject, therefore , that is about a presidential election. What is it I am missing here Jon. Show me.

  • fws

    jon @ 31

    1) I am , indeed, my brothers keeper. None of this affects my life personally in any way. Nor does it affect the marriage or life of anyone who is heterosexual. Disagree? How?

    But I sin by not caring about others. God demands that I be passionate about this. He demands it of me. He threatens to punish me if I refuse to render such a service. As a Lutheran christian I am uniquely equipped to contribute here . So you are suggesting it is improper for me to do so because um. why?

    2) the legal argument obama put forward for not defending doma is precisely because it is unconstitutional. In what way? Marriage laws have always been governed by the states. That is his argument. Romney too has said that marriage is a state issue that is not a subject, therefore , that is about a presidential election. What is it I am missing here Jon. Show me.

  • fws

    jon @ 31

    so would you prefer to have a room full of people self contratulating each other for agreeing and agreeing how smart and sensible we all are… as we talk about “those perverts out there with their satanic agenda” …

    … is it actually maybe helpful to have a christian and lutheran queer in the room so you can practice and hone your best argument with someone who… actually disagrees with you?

    whadda concept!

    To actually discuss something, calmly and politely, with those who disagree and not with those who agree. man. who woulda thought it even possible on homo-anything.

  • fws

    jon @ 31

    so would you prefer to have a room full of people self contratulating each other for agreeing and agreeing how smart and sensible we all are… as we talk about “those perverts out there with their satanic agenda” …

    … is it actually maybe helpful to have a christian and lutheran queer in the room so you can practice and hone your best argument with someone who… actually disagrees with you?

    whadda concept!

    To actually discuss something, calmly and politely, with those who disagree and not with those who agree. man. who woulda thought it even possible on homo-anything.

  • Paul in MN

    Yes, Frank. You have me figured out. A higher education through our LCMS colleges and seminaries is certainly a waste of money because not one of our professors or graduates understands, can articulate, and agrees with your arguments. And you’re right that we all know that nothing good can come out of Minnesota because all the true intellectuals are in Brazil. And certainly we should not assume that everyone else is wrong but Frank Sonnek is right even though he has convinced no one. And now I see the logic in the idea that an argument can’t be wrong if it is unintelligible. Clearly, I was mistaken to think that whatever ideas Scripture or the Confessions don’t directly address must be allowed. How could I have been so blind to these great truths!

  • Paul in MN

    Yes, Frank. You have me figured out. A higher education through our LCMS colleges and seminaries is certainly a waste of money because not one of our professors or graduates understands, can articulate, and agrees with your arguments. And you’re right that we all know that nothing good can come out of Minnesota because all the true intellectuals are in Brazil. And certainly we should not assume that everyone else is wrong but Frank Sonnek is right even though he has convinced no one. And now I see the logic in the idea that an argument can’t be wrong if it is unintelligible. Clearly, I was mistaken to think that whatever ideas Scripture or the Confessions don’t directly address must be allowed. How could I have been so blind to these great truths!

  • cbaggettjr

    @Kitty

    Wow! Your interpretation of Matthew 25:1 is interesting. It’s wrong but interesting nonetheless. Context!

  • cbaggettjr

    @Kitty

    Wow! Your interpretation of Matthew 25:1 is interesting. It’s wrong but interesting nonetheless. Context!

  • Paul in MN

    FWS @34.

    Many here have indeed discussed these things calmly and politely with you. But have you convinced anyone?

  • Paul in MN

    FWS @34.

    Many here have indeed discussed these things calmly and politely with you. But have you convinced anyone?

  • Paul in MN

    Can we not have a discussion concerning Christ and Culture which includes anything about homosexuality without Frank Sonnek eventually telling us all that we don’t get it because we’re not queer?

  • Paul in MN

    Can we not have a discussion concerning Christ and Culture which includes anything about homosexuality without Frank Sonnek eventually telling us all that we don’t get it because we’re not queer?

  • fws

    paul @ 35 & 37

    I was not the one who suggested that the proof that an argument is the Truth is that it convinces someone.

    Most of your last two posts appears to be sarcasm. I don’t do dueling sacasm well. So I won’t.

    Many here have indeed discussed these things calmly and politely with you. But have you convinced anyone?

    The sure have Paul. They have used arguments just like yours.

    I am here in the room. Would I be wrong to say I am the first queer you have encountered or anyone here, who is a Confessional Lutheran Christian who repeatedly invites you all to argue with me based on Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions?

    You certainly are not taking me up on that invitation are you?

    I have yet to have anyone here , besides Kerner and Tom H and Todd , argue with me based upon the Scriptures and Confessions. And they are not asking me to leave .

    Your argument? “have you convinced anyone yet?” ahem. And you are a Lutheran Pastor in the LCMS. How could I have known that fact from the unitary argument you are insisting upon?

    Dare to be Lutheran Paul from Minnesota!
    Read the Confessions.
    Inhabit them. Live in them. breathe them.
    They invite us to use Law and Gospel to resolve ALL doctrinal problems.
    That is what they say on each and every page.

    I don’t want to convince anyone here I am right. I want to invite you to show me that my reading of the Confessions is wrong. To do that you would need to read them and evidence that by your response.

    How do your recent responses do that dear brother Paul and so serve me or anyone here?

  • fws

    paul @ 35 & 37

    I was not the one who suggested that the proof that an argument is the Truth is that it convinces someone.

    Most of your last two posts appears to be sarcasm. I don’t do dueling sacasm well. So I won’t.

    Many here have indeed discussed these things calmly and politely with you. But have you convinced anyone?

    The sure have Paul. They have used arguments just like yours.

    I am here in the room. Would I be wrong to say I am the first queer you have encountered or anyone here, who is a Confessional Lutheran Christian who repeatedly invites you all to argue with me based on Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions?

    You certainly are not taking me up on that invitation are you?

    I have yet to have anyone here , besides Kerner and Tom H and Todd , argue with me based upon the Scriptures and Confessions. And they are not asking me to leave .

    Your argument? “have you convinced anyone yet?” ahem. And you are a Lutheran Pastor in the LCMS. How could I have known that fact from the unitary argument you are insisting upon?

    Dare to be Lutheran Paul from Minnesota!
    Read the Confessions.
    Inhabit them. Live in them. breathe them.
    They invite us to use Law and Gospel to resolve ALL doctrinal problems.
    That is what they say on each and every page.

    I don’t want to convince anyone here I am right. I want to invite you to show me that my reading of the Confessions is wrong. To do that you would need to read them and evidence that by your response.

    How do your recent responses do that dear brother Paul and so serve me or anyone here?

  • fws

    Paul @ 38

    reread my posts here. I am inviting you to argue with me from the Word of God and the Confessions.

    I just now am hearing that you are not a homosexual Paul (probably means that).

    Thanks for sharing.

    It doesnt change my argument. Why would it?
    and my argument is that you are confusing Law and Gospel.

    you are doing it now by saying that when I argue from the Word of God that the proof that what I say is the Truth, is that I have convinced you. That is not unreasonable Paul. But….

  • fws

    Paul @ 38

    reread my posts here. I am inviting you to argue with me from the Word of God and the Confessions.

    I just now am hearing that you are not a homosexual Paul (probably means that).

    Thanks for sharing.

    It doesnt change my argument. Why would it?
    and my argument is that you are confusing Law and Gospel.

    you are doing it now by saying that when I argue from the Word of God that the proof that what I say is the Truth, is that I have convinced you. That is not unreasonable Paul. But….

  • BW

    FWS, I do like when you comment on posts like these because I do want to understand your point of view and what you are saying. It is quite a complicated matter. I’m also hoping folks like Cincinnatus, Klasie Kraalogies, and tODD weigh in because I do enjoy there posts on topics like this as well. I think we all need to continually be charitable towards FWS and others and keep talking and not shut down communication.

    I do think that this whole matter of gay marriage does need to be thought through more. If it really just a matter of two people who love each other and want to be lifelong, monogamous companions, what is wrong with civil unions conferring the same benefits as a hetero married couple? I’ve heard folks try to argue (I don’t think anyone in this thread has said this though, yet) that marriage is just about love and a contract between two people who want to spend their lives together, which is then recognized by the government, is this not a civil union?

    FWS, could not two people of the same gender pair up under a civil union, as you put it earlier practice,
    “sexual self discipline of 1) to happen and for them to produce the mercy towards others then of 2) to happen that is God’s intent with the Law and that God demands of all. And this will allow gays then to avoid avoid 3) from having to happen to them. it is really that simple.”

    Also, FWS if I read you correctly in past threads, you’ve argued that alot of relationships between gays does not involve intercourse or things of that nature, so would not a civil union work just fine?

    I will probably weigh again later this evening or tonight, hopefully after other folks have posted and replied. Please be patient with me as I try to work through this issue, as we all are. I will do my utmost to practice charity with you all as well.

  • BW

    FWS, I do like when you comment on posts like these because I do want to understand your point of view and what you are saying. It is quite a complicated matter. I’m also hoping folks like Cincinnatus, Klasie Kraalogies, and tODD weigh in because I do enjoy there posts on topics like this as well. I think we all need to continually be charitable towards FWS and others and keep talking and not shut down communication.

    I do think that this whole matter of gay marriage does need to be thought through more. If it really just a matter of two people who love each other and want to be lifelong, monogamous companions, what is wrong with civil unions conferring the same benefits as a hetero married couple? I’ve heard folks try to argue (I don’t think anyone in this thread has said this though, yet) that marriage is just about love and a contract between two people who want to spend their lives together, which is then recognized by the government, is this not a civil union?

    FWS, could not two people of the same gender pair up under a civil union, as you put it earlier practice,
    “sexual self discipline of 1) to happen and for them to produce the mercy towards others then of 2) to happen that is God’s intent with the Law and that God demands of all. And this will allow gays then to avoid avoid 3) from having to happen to them. it is really that simple.”

    Also, FWS if I read you correctly in past threads, you’ve argued that alot of relationships between gays does not involve intercourse or things of that nature, so would not a civil union work just fine?

    I will probably weigh again later this evening or tonight, hopefully after other folks have posted and replied. Please be patient with me as I try to work through this issue, as we all are. I will do my utmost to practice charity with you all as well.

  • Jon

    Why does the state “do” marriage licenses anyway? What is the purpose?

    Is it because, as the VP believes, it all comes down to the fact that two people love each other and are committed? Is it really a registry of friendships? So they can feel good about their relationship? Is that how it promotes the general welfare? Or is it a way to provide for tax breaks for couples? Or to distribute property at death?

    It must be the real reason for licensing and regulating who can get married is because only M + F = C, ala nature–natural law. It is a license for a couple to engage in procreative acts. And the best thing for C, and to ensure future genations of tax paying, citzen C’s is to have a stable M + F who are best suited to raise C. So, it’s why not just any M+F will qualify for a license to procreate–you can’t get a license to marry your opposite gendered sibling, or your opposite gendered first cousin (usually)–consanguinity, promoting fitness of future generations.

    Those who argue for genderless marriage do so only because it makes them *feel* less unequal about the fact that only M + F = C. But for M + M or F + F to lead to C requires–by nature–that at least one opposite gendered third party has to be injected into their relationship somehow. It’s biologically required to procreate. But, that M+M or F +F can somehow lead to C with some additions is not the best way that nature and millenia (or eons?) of experience tells us is the best way to get to C. That M+M or F+F can lead to C is not, by definition, marriage. It may qualify for a license for some other sort of registered relationship for tax purposes or distribution on death, etc., but it is not a license to marry.

    And you don’t have to inject any theology into it. This’s the part of the debate that natural marriage supporters don’t have, which they need to. The typical “I just think marriage is M+F” won’t cut it.

  • Jon

    Why does the state “do” marriage licenses anyway? What is the purpose?

    Is it because, as the VP believes, it all comes down to the fact that two people love each other and are committed? Is it really a registry of friendships? So they can feel good about their relationship? Is that how it promotes the general welfare? Or is it a way to provide for tax breaks for couples? Or to distribute property at death?

    It must be the real reason for licensing and regulating who can get married is because only M + F = C, ala nature–natural law. It is a license for a couple to engage in procreative acts. And the best thing for C, and to ensure future genations of tax paying, citzen C’s is to have a stable M + F who are best suited to raise C. So, it’s why not just any M+F will qualify for a license to procreate–you can’t get a license to marry your opposite gendered sibling, or your opposite gendered first cousin (usually)–consanguinity, promoting fitness of future generations.

    Those who argue for genderless marriage do so only because it makes them *feel* less unequal about the fact that only M + F = C. But for M + M or F + F to lead to C requires–by nature–that at least one opposite gendered third party has to be injected into their relationship somehow. It’s biologically required to procreate. But, that M+M or F +F can somehow lead to C with some additions is not the best way that nature and millenia (or eons?) of experience tells us is the best way to get to C. That M+M or F+F can lead to C is not, by definition, marriage. It may qualify for a license for some other sort of registered relationship for tax purposes or distribution on death, etc., but it is not a license to marry.

    And you don’t have to inject any theology into it. This’s the part of the debate that natural marriage supporters don’t have, which they need to. The typical “I just think marriage is M+F” won’t cut it.

  • fws

    paul @ 38

    Let me try again:

    1) The scriptures no where know of a distinction between homos and heteros. The presumtive rule is that all are married men and women. No where are homos singled out. they simply are not known to even exist.

    Ergo: to do law and gospel distinguishing homos from other men and women is a biblical error.

    2) your insistence that my argument is that you cant understand me because you are not a homo therefore is specious. Of COURSE you can understand me.

    Homos are EXACTLY like you are, especially in their intimate relationships with a committed partner.

    This is the only position that is tenable scripturally. There is not a different law or gospel for fags.

  • fws

    paul @ 38

    Let me try again:

    1) The scriptures no where know of a distinction between homos and heteros. The presumtive rule is that all are married men and women. No where are homos singled out. they simply are not known to even exist.

    Ergo: to do law and gospel distinguishing homos from other men and women is a biblical error.

    2) your insistence that my argument is that you cant understand me because you are not a homo therefore is specious. Of COURSE you can understand me.

    Homos are EXACTLY like you are, especially in their intimate relationships with a committed partner.

    This is the only position that is tenable scripturally. There is not a different law or gospel for fags.

  • fws

    bw @ 41

    the substance of a thing is not changed by what one calls it. It would be impossible for calling a gay union “marriage” to change the natural order of things, which is that men and women will continue to have sex, both inside and outside of marriage, and children will result.

    The sex drive is the “natural order”. Not marriage.

    God puts the governments of marriage, family and society in place to control those natural things that are misdirected by the sin in old adam. Government and Law is not the natural order of Old Adam. It is something imposed upon him by God AGAINST his will and soul and the very core of what he desires.

    government needs to order man whether gay or straight to restrain himself sexually. he does this by giving each man his “own portion” says the LC in the 6th commandment, so that men are at least discouraged of demotivated to seek out and steal the portion of someone else that is not theirs.

    Why it matters to call it marriage and not civil union. It is a practical matter. Separate but equal has been proven by recent history to be unworkable.

    besides, now we have the anti gay marriage group pushing for laws that ban also civil unions. cf ohio and north carolina. So it is not about that really for some…

  • fws

    bw @ 41

    the substance of a thing is not changed by what one calls it. It would be impossible for calling a gay union “marriage” to change the natural order of things, which is that men and women will continue to have sex, both inside and outside of marriage, and children will result.

    The sex drive is the “natural order”. Not marriage.

    God puts the governments of marriage, family and society in place to control those natural things that are misdirected by the sin in old adam. Government and Law is not the natural order of Old Adam. It is something imposed upon him by God AGAINST his will and soul and the very core of what he desires.

    government needs to order man whether gay or straight to restrain himself sexually. he does this by giving each man his “own portion” says the LC in the 6th commandment, so that men are at least discouraged of demotivated to seek out and steal the portion of someone else that is not theirs.

    Why it matters to call it marriage and not civil union. It is a practical matter. Separate but equal has been proven by recent history to be unworkable.

    besides, now we have the anti gay marriage group pushing for laws that ban also civil unions. cf ohio and north carolina. So it is not about that really for some…

  • P. C. Christian

    FoxNews web page highlight, “Is it coincidence that a day after President Obama endorses same-sex marriage, he’s heading out to Hollywood for a $40,000-a-plate campaign fundraiser with George Clooney that’s expected to raise $15 million?”

    Qweepy!

  • P. C. Christian

    FoxNews web page highlight, “Is it coincidence that a day after President Obama endorses same-sex marriage, he’s heading out to Hollywood for a $40,000-a-plate campaign fundraiser with George Clooney that’s expected to raise $15 million?”

    Qweepy!

  • fws

    jon @ 42

    I suggest you are ignoring something. most words have a basket of meanings . it is the context that governs what meaning of the word is being employed.

    Marriage , traditionally, has meant a man and woman in a committed relationship , where there is an official and legally binding declaration. But also , traditionally, 90% of the population were married without this. there would be a legally non binding ceremony. Examples: blacks up till 1900. europeans till the victorian age. Black slaves would jump over a broom as the ceremony. and then often one spouse would be sold. oops.

    Marriage-as-a-contract was overlayed upon this for persons who had means and wealth that needed to be protected, or had inheritance issues that mattered financially.

    In biblical times a family would purchase a piece of chattel property called a bride, from another family. Done. It would often also have the effect of cementing family interdealings and so could have financial implications as well. pronto.

    then there is biblical marriage, which looks like the last option. It would include polygamy. and it would include that a brother would marry his dead brothers wife, and it would include a rapist marrying his victim. The reasons for this are about property and inheritance rights.

    it would be wrong to overly our victorian notions of marriage on this. When gays do this they are wrong historically. In modern times, this romantic stuff is the defacto basis for that part of marriage that is not about legal contract. so everyone thinks this way now. lets not single out gays here.

    And then there is the legal and contractual part.

    So Jon you feel that the government should not be involved in licensing and contracting and inheritance rights and such stuff why?

    and you feel this should be something left to the churches why?

  • fws

    jon @ 42

    I suggest you are ignoring something. most words have a basket of meanings . it is the context that governs what meaning of the word is being employed.

    Marriage , traditionally, has meant a man and woman in a committed relationship , where there is an official and legally binding declaration. But also , traditionally, 90% of the population were married without this. there would be a legally non binding ceremony. Examples: blacks up till 1900. europeans till the victorian age. Black slaves would jump over a broom as the ceremony. and then often one spouse would be sold. oops.

    Marriage-as-a-contract was overlayed upon this for persons who had means and wealth that needed to be protected, or had inheritance issues that mattered financially.

    In biblical times a family would purchase a piece of chattel property called a bride, from another family. Done. It would often also have the effect of cementing family interdealings and so could have financial implications as well. pronto.

    then there is biblical marriage, which looks like the last option. It would include polygamy. and it would include that a brother would marry his dead brothers wife, and it would include a rapist marrying his victim. The reasons for this are about property and inheritance rights.

    it would be wrong to overly our victorian notions of marriage on this. When gays do this they are wrong historically. In modern times, this romantic stuff is the defacto basis for that part of marriage that is not about legal contract. so everyone thinks this way now. lets not single out gays here.

    And then there is the legal and contractual part.

    So Jon you feel that the government should not be involved in licensing and contracting and inheritance rights and such stuff why?

    and you feel this should be something left to the churches why?

  • fws

    jon @ 42

    this is the error:

    It must be the real reason for licensing and regulating who can get married is because only M + F = C, ala nature–natural law. It is a license for a couple to engage in procreative acts.

    marriage license=legal permission to have sex or procreate.

    Nope. Show me that this is true. You can’t

    I can point to persons who have not been either fined or incarcerated who have lots of sex and make lots of babies. Legal permission is not required to do any of this jon.

    in fact the Law sanctions it after the fact. that is what common law marriage is about, and paternity cases etc etc etc.

    That is your central error here in thinking. Fags dont need a licence to legally have sex. it is not about that. nor is it for anyone else.

  • fws

    jon @ 42

    this is the error:

    It must be the real reason for licensing and regulating who can get married is because only M + F = C, ala nature–natural law. It is a license for a couple to engage in procreative acts.

    marriage license=legal permission to have sex or procreate.

    Nope. Show me that this is true. You can’t

    I can point to persons who have not been either fined or incarcerated who have lots of sex and make lots of babies. Legal permission is not required to do any of this jon.

    in fact the Law sanctions it after the fact. that is what common law marriage is about, and paternity cases etc etc etc.

    That is your central error here in thinking. Fags dont need a licence to legally have sex. it is not about that. nor is it for anyone else.

  • BW

    FWS@44

    Ah I see what you mean, there are elements in society out there that do want to ban civil unions and I would agree with you, that it is not necessary to do that at all.

    What you mentioned though, about “seperate but equal” institutions not being tenable is interesting. A hetero vs. a homo couple, they’re all human beings and should be treated with dignity and respect. Of course no one is suggesting that people should be treated as second class citizens. But by their very nature and biology, the two couples are different pairings, just by the gender arrangement. And this means that one couple can procreate (the vast majority of the time), easier than the other couple.

    Again, please be patient with me on this issue.

  • BW

    FWS@44

    Ah I see what you mean, there are elements in society out there that do want to ban civil unions and I would agree with you, that it is not necessary to do that at all.

    What you mentioned though, about “seperate but equal” institutions not being tenable is interesting. A hetero vs. a homo couple, they’re all human beings and should be treated with dignity and respect. Of course no one is suggesting that people should be treated as second class citizens. But by their very nature and biology, the two couples are different pairings, just by the gender arrangement. And this means that one couple can procreate (the vast majority of the time), easier than the other couple.

    Again, please be patient with me on this issue.

  • Jon

    Frank, DOMA is intended precisely to ensure that states can define marriage how they like, and so that one state’s definition doesn’t thereby impinge on another state’s definition, insofar as the federal law is concerned about the issue collaterally. It keeps the feds on the sideline, so MA can have genderless marriage, but it can’t force a MA genderless to be recognized in NC as far as fed laws are concerned.

    Take away DOMA because it is felt that it is “unequal” in treatment at the federal collateral level, and you by definition and not just in effect take away the states’ rights. The Supremacy Clause. Now as far as the Feds are concerned the MA couple has to be recognized in NC for fed law purposes.

  • Jon

    Frank, DOMA is intended precisely to ensure that states can define marriage how they like, and so that one state’s definition doesn’t thereby impinge on another state’s definition, insofar as the federal law is concerned about the issue collaterally. It keeps the feds on the sideline, so MA can have genderless marriage, but it can’t force a MA genderless to be recognized in NC as far as fed laws are concerned.

    Take away DOMA because it is felt that it is “unequal” in treatment at the federal collateral level, and you by definition and not just in effect take away the states’ rights. The Supremacy Clause. Now as far as the Feds are concerned the MA couple has to be recognized in NC for fed law purposes.

  • SKPeterson

    Let’s face it – Obama in favor of gay marriage has the news relevance of “scientist affirms sun rises in the east.”

  • SKPeterson

    Let’s face it – Obama in favor of gay marriage has the news relevance of “scientist affirms sun rises in the east.”

  • Morgan

    @FWS #20:
    I don’t quite know how to take some of that. Sorry, I’m pretty thick, sometimes.

    I do disagree with you on one thing: Kitty’s not introducing nuance or subtle critique, and encouraging all of us to see this enlightened broader Biblical context or whatever… she’s essentially trolling, gleefully Scotch taping verses while ignoring other important (and painfully clear) passages. I was simply pointing that out.

    @Kitty #18:
    Are you seriously suggesting that the guy getting married was marrying all 10 “virgins” AND his bride?! And this proves that Jesus advocated polygamy? Please tell me I’m misunderstanding.

    Two points here. First, the virgins were likely bridesmaids and would have made up part of the wedding procession. Bridesmaids are, um… usually different than the bride. Slightly. (Yes, FWS, even back then.) Second, this is a PARABLE meant to illustrate readiness for the coming kingdom, illustrating how suddenly it would come. It’s not there to say much, if anything about marriage. At all. It’s dangerous to prooftext from parables.

    You didn’t just miss the point, Kitty. You drove 600 miles past it, picked up a burger and a vanilla shake, got back in the car and kept driving until you hit the coast.

    Polygamy. Wow.

  • Morgan

    @FWS #20:
    I don’t quite know how to take some of that. Sorry, I’m pretty thick, sometimes.

    I do disagree with you on one thing: Kitty’s not introducing nuance or subtle critique, and encouraging all of us to see this enlightened broader Biblical context or whatever… she’s essentially trolling, gleefully Scotch taping verses while ignoring other important (and painfully clear) passages. I was simply pointing that out.

    @Kitty #18:
    Are you seriously suggesting that the guy getting married was marrying all 10 “virgins” AND his bride?! And this proves that Jesus advocated polygamy? Please tell me I’m misunderstanding.

    Two points here. First, the virgins were likely bridesmaids and would have made up part of the wedding procession. Bridesmaids are, um… usually different than the bride. Slightly. (Yes, FWS, even back then.) Second, this is a PARABLE meant to illustrate readiness for the coming kingdom, illustrating how suddenly it would come. It’s not there to say much, if anything about marriage. At all. It’s dangerous to prooftext from parables.

    You didn’t just miss the point, Kitty. You drove 600 miles past it, picked up a burger and a vanilla shake, got back in the car and kept driving until you hit the coast.

    Polygamy. Wow.

  • Jon

    No, it’s indeed a procreate license, Frank. Not a license to do whatever it is that same gendered persons might like to call it. In my estimation, we started going down hill by relaxing adultery and bastardy type laws. We took away the stigma of confining the procreative act to the marrital confines. Its a progression in how fornication is no longer shunned. And people are convincing themselves that it really doesn’t have an impact on society. We’ve forgotten what the barrier in the road was put there for.

  • Jon

    No, it’s indeed a procreate license, Frank. Not a license to do whatever it is that same gendered persons might like to call it. In my estimation, we started going down hill by relaxing adultery and bastardy type laws. We took away the stigma of confining the procreative act to the marrital confines. Its a progression in how fornication is no longer shunned. And people are convincing themselves that it really doesn’t have an impact on society. We’ve forgotten what the barrier in the road was put there for.

  • fws

    jon @ 42

    so if a marriage license is so obviously not about getting permission to have sex or procreate, then what is it about?

    It is about social acceptance.
    not social aprobation.

    The legal right for a black to get a license to marry a white became law in 1970. mixed couples obtained from this social acceptance. as in: MY marriage has, legally, every single right or priviledge the government has chosen to grant YOUR marriage.

    But this has not won social approbation. There are still lots of people who for various reasons, some perfectly reasonable, do not approve of mixed race couples pairing off.

    That is why civil unions and separate but equal , by definition, can’t work.

    And there is another reason. civil unions will undermine civil marriage. Heterosexuals too will opt for the lighter requirements of a civil union and not get married. it happened in France.

  • fws

    jon @ 42

    so if a marriage license is so obviously not about getting permission to have sex or procreate, then what is it about?

    It is about social acceptance.
    not social aprobation.

    The legal right for a black to get a license to marry a white became law in 1970. mixed couples obtained from this social acceptance. as in: MY marriage has, legally, every single right or priviledge the government has chosen to grant YOUR marriage.

    But this has not won social approbation. There are still lots of people who for various reasons, some perfectly reasonable, do not approve of mixed race couples pairing off.

    That is why civil unions and separate but equal , by definition, can’t work.

    And there is another reason. civil unions will undermine civil marriage. Heterosexuals too will opt for the lighter requirements of a civil union and not get married. it happened in France.

  • Susan

    So true, SKPeterson,

    All that he did, in fact, is confirm that he is a perfectly ordinary liberal Protestant Christian.

  • Susan

    So true, SKPeterson,

    All that he did, in fact, is confirm that he is a perfectly ordinary liberal Protestant Christian.

  • fws

    I dont like that the National Organization for Marriage is premising themselves on a big fat lie.

    “SAVE marriage by ….FORBIDDING gay marriage and also civil unions!”

    This is to say that if we PERMIT gay marriages and civil unions, that the heterosexual MARRIAGE of everyone WILL be destroyed,

    Can anyone describe to me, tell me a story, of how this would happen or could happen? what would such a scenario look like? This would be impossible.

    And since this is such a big fat lie, why isnt anyone calling them on it.

    And this is NOT about children being only with their biological parents. Divorce happens. Gays can adopt. These fact will not even be chipped away at or reduced in ANY way by preventing a couple of fags from buying a marriage license.

    It is not even about marriage, since divorce is pretty darnd obviously THE bigger and truly direct threat to marriage. it ends marriage! It is lethal to marriage. But no constitutional amendments looming on the horizon to fix that problem eh?

    So tell me. why should I not think that this is all about bigotry since it will do absolutely nothing at all, not even a tiny bit, to
    a) save marriage or
    b) reduce the divorce rate or
    c) ensure that more children are raised with their biological parents.

  • fws

    I dont like that the National Organization for Marriage is premising themselves on a big fat lie.

    “SAVE marriage by ….FORBIDDING gay marriage and also civil unions!”

    This is to say that if we PERMIT gay marriages and civil unions, that the heterosexual MARRIAGE of everyone WILL be destroyed,

    Can anyone describe to me, tell me a story, of how this would happen or could happen? what would such a scenario look like? This would be impossible.

    And since this is such a big fat lie, why isnt anyone calling them on it.

    And this is NOT about children being only with their biological parents. Divorce happens. Gays can adopt. These fact will not even be chipped away at or reduced in ANY way by preventing a couple of fags from buying a marriage license.

    It is not even about marriage, since divorce is pretty darnd obviously THE bigger and truly direct threat to marriage. it ends marriage! It is lethal to marriage. But no constitutional amendments looming on the horizon to fix that problem eh?

    So tell me. why should I not think that this is all about bigotry since it will do absolutely nothing at all, not even a tiny bit, to
    a) save marriage or
    b) reduce the divorce rate or
    c) ensure that more children are raised with their biological parents.

  • DonS

    Back in 1996, Obama supported gay marriage in a questionnaire he signed for a gay rights group: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/17/247743/pfeiffer-obama-did-not-write-his-1996-questionnaire-supporting-gay-marriage/?mobile=nc

    Of course, his position now is that a “staffer” filled it out, presumably incorrectly, though he signed it.

    So, perhaps, he devolved, and now has re-evolved, on this issue. A probing media would want to investigate the apparent cynicism with which Obama approaches this issue, but since we have a fawning one, I don’t think he will suffer much fallout from his flip-flopping. That only applies to Republicans, apparently.

    Then again, support for gay marriage seems to be the cultural wave, with polls showing that more and more Americans are willing to change the very nature of marriage to accommodate homosexuals.

    Dr. Veith, a poll in the form of a vote was just taken in North Carolina this week, an Obama state in 2008, which came out 60-40 against gay marriage. No state taking a vote of the public has ever supported gay marriage. I’m not saying that the media swarm on this issue, all in one direction, is not having some effect on the easily media-infatuated segments of our population, but clearly this effort is being driven in the face of public opinion against the notion of homosexual marriage. Polling on some of these “coolness” issues tends to be skewed by respondents’ unwillingness to appear “uncool” in their answers. But the voting booth is private.

    Personally, I think this current gay marriage swarm is a deliberate political strategy to distract from the continuing economic disasters which are seriously damaging Obama’s re-election campaign.

  • DonS

    Back in 1996, Obama supported gay marriage in a questionnaire he signed for a gay rights group: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/17/247743/pfeiffer-obama-did-not-write-his-1996-questionnaire-supporting-gay-marriage/?mobile=nc

    Of course, his position now is that a “staffer” filled it out, presumably incorrectly, though he signed it.

    So, perhaps, he devolved, and now has re-evolved, on this issue. A probing media would want to investigate the apparent cynicism with which Obama approaches this issue, but since we have a fawning one, I don’t think he will suffer much fallout from his flip-flopping. That only applies to Republicans, apparently.

    Then again, support for gay marriage seems to be the cultural wave, with polls showing that more and more Americans are willing to change the very nature of marriage to accommodate homosexuals.

    Dr. Veith, a poll in the form of a vote was just taken in North Carolina this week, an Obama state in 2008, which came out 60-40 against gay marriage. No state taking a vote of the public has ever supported gay marriage. I’m not saying that the media swarm on this issue, all in one direction, is not having some effect on the easily media-infatuated segments of our population, but clearly this effort is being driven in the face of public opinion against the notion of homosexual marriage. Polling on some of these “coolness” issues tends to be skewed by respondents’ unwillingness to appear “uncool” in their answers. But the voting booth is private.

    Personally, I think this current gay marriage swarm is a deliberate political strategy to distract from the continuing economic disasters which are seriously damaging Obama’s re-election campaign.

  • fws

    lets face it.

    the real objection to gay marriage is the fear that it will be “normalized” and it will gain “social acceptance” and so homosexuality will no longer be perceived as inherently evil or harmful.

    And then what will happen? Well now. Since being homosexual is so very “obviously” a choice, our sons and daughters will start chosing to be gay.

    Gay marriage is just a piece of a large very hidden gay agenda to recruit our youth. Soon they will hit the streets with clipboards promising free toasters and other attractive premiums to get our youth to sign away their innocent lives on the forms that are on that clipboard.

    And I am sure that somewhere, someone will find what I just wrote here and post it somewhere else as proof that such an agenda exists.

    Does anyone even think about what it is that NOM is saying. Really? as in engage brain….

  • fws

    lets face it.

    the real objection to gay marriage is the fear that it will be “normalized” and it will gain “social acceptance” and so homosexuality will no longer be perceived as inherently evil or harmful.

    And then what will happen? Well now. Since being homosexual is so very “obviously” a choice, our sons and daughters will start chosing to be gay.

    Gay marriage is just a piece of a large very hidden gay agenda to recruit our youth. Soon they will hit the streets with clipboards promising free toasters and other attractive premiums to get our youth to sign away their innocent lives on the forms that are on that clipboard.

    And I am sure that somewhere, someone will find what I just wrote here and post it somewhere else as proof that such an agenda exists.

    Does anyone even think about what it is that NOM is saying. Really? as in engage brain….

  • DonS

    Here’s an example of that tough, probing “down the middle” media coverage on this issue — Robin Roberts, intrepid objective ABC reporter, is “getting chills again”:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/10/abcs_robin_roberts_on_interviewing_obama_im_getting_chill_again.html

    Of course, that evil Dick Cheney said pretty much the exact same thing Obama just historically announced, back in 2009:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html

    No chills?

  • DonS

    Here’s an example of that tough, probing “down the middle” media coverage on this issue — Robin Roberts, intrepid objective ABC reporter, is “getting chills again”:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/10/abcs_robin_roberts_on_interviewing_obama_im_getting_chill_again.html

    Of course, that evil Dick Cheney said pretty much the exact same thing Obama just historically announced, back in 2009:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html

    No chills?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Morgan 51
    Bridesmaids? What!? You mean like in our white, middle class, suburban, 21st century type weddings? Oh please.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Morgan 51
    Bridesmaids? What!? You mean like in our white, middle class, suburban, 21st century type weddings? Oh please.

  • fws

    bw @ 48

    …no one is suggesting that people should be treated as second class citizens. But by their very nature and biology, the two couples are different pairings, just by the gender arrangement.

    1) I have never heard anyone, ever, debate that a male/female paring is different in this way. This fact is not in play as debatable.

    2) discrimination, even against a class of persons, is neither wrong, immoral or unconstitutional. It happens all the time! The govt discriminates against a class called “blind persons”. The are refused drivers licenses.
    There are strict legal doctrines that govern when this is appropriate.

    3) Given the fact that you mentioned, and given that it IS a real difference between hetero couples and gay couples, what would be a NECESSARY difference in marriage laws for gays vs hetero couples that would be necessary as a practical matter here? That I believe is the question BW.

    Wow. This sounds like a real discussion. Interesting when that happens.

  • fws

    bw @ 48

    …no one is suggesting that people should be treated as second class citizens. But by their very nature and biology, the two couples are different pairings, just by the gender arrangement.

    1) I have never heard anyone, ever, debate that a male/female paring is different in this way. This fact is not in play as debatable.

    2) discrimination, even against a class of persons, is neither wrong, immoral or unconstitutional. It happens all the time! The govt discriminates against a class called “blind persons”. The are refused drivers licenses.
    There are strict legal doctrines that govern when this is appropriate.

    3) Given the fact that you mentioned, and given that it IS a real difference between hetero couples and gay couples, what would be a NECESSARY difference in marriage laws for gays vs hetero couples that would be necessary as a practical matter here? That I believe is the question BW.

    Wow. This sounds like a real discussion. Interesting when that happens.

  • Pete

    @43, fws says this: ” The scriptures no where know of a distinction between homos and heteros. The presumtive rule is that all are married men and women. No where are homos singled out. they simply are not known to even exist.”
    Any other opinions on this? Lotsa biblical scholars frequent this blog. Help me out – I’m thinking he’s just plain wrong on this one.

  • Pete

    @43, fws says this: ” The scriptures no where know of a distinction between homos and heteros. The presumtive rule is that all are married men and women. No where are homos singled out. they simply are not known to even exist.”
    Any other opinions on this? Lotsa biblical scholars frequent this blog. Help me out – I’m thinking he’s just plain wrong on this one.

  • Jon

    And now the president is winging his way out to Hollywierd for a $40,000 a plate fundraiser this evening. How about them apples?!

    Anything but the economy.

  • Jon

    And now the president is winging his way out to Hollywierd for a $40,000 a plate fundraiser this evening. How about them apples?!

    Anything but the economy.

  • fws

    jon @ 49

    I am not a constitutional lawyer. It appears from what you write that neither are you. I hope I am not wrong there! ;)

    In the constitution is the “full faith and credit’ clause. That clause requires each state to recognize the legal acts of all other states. This is precisely what allows our federal system to be a nation and not just a confederation like the EU is now.

    it is held that DOMA is unconstitutional precisely because it overthrows the full faith and credit act.

    And you are right. Now there are a few practical federal considerations. Imigration laws come to mind, as do federal benefits and federal employee regulations etc. You are saying DOMA was primarily created to address such issues? If so I think that is not true even in the slightest.

  • fws

    jon @ 49

    I am not a constitutional lawyer. It appears from what you write that neither are you. I hope I am not wrong there! ;)

    In the constitution is the “full faith and credit’ clause. That clause requires each state to recognize the legal acts of all other states. This is precisely what allows our federal system to be a nation and not just a confederation like the EU is now.

    it is held that DOMA is unconstitutional precisely because it overthrows the full faith and credit act.

    And you are right. Now there are a few practical federal considerations. Imigration laws come to mind, as do federal benefits and federal employee regulations etc. You are saying DOMA was primarily created to address such issues? If so I think that is not true even in the slightest.

  • fws

    jon @ 49

    the supremacy clause takes away states rights when invoked. Interesting theory.

    When the supremes declared that the virginia law that made it illegal for a black to marry a white (Loving vs state of virginia) they were abridging states rights.

    it was perfectly constitutional to do this.

    But your argument is that somehow, the removal of doma would abridge states rights? how would that be? that each state would have to recognize marriages validated in another state? It has always been that way, except for mixed race couples until the case in 1970 i just mentioned. And virginia DID actually imprison that couple. no DOMA was required for Virginia to do this right up until the supremes decided otherwise.

    Agree jon?

  • fws

    jon @ 49

    the supremacy clause takes away states rights when invoked. Interesting theory.

    When the supremes declared that the virginia law that made it illegal for a black to marry a white (Loving vs state of virginia) they were abridging states rights.

    it was perfectly constitutional to do this.

    But your argument is that somehow, the removal of doma would abridge states rights? how would that be? that each state would have to recognize marriages validated in another state? It has always been that way, except for mixed race couples until the case in 1970 i just mentioned. And virginia DID actually imprison that couple. no DOMA was required for Virginia to do this right up until the supremes decided otherwise.

    Agree jon?

  • fws

    jon @ 52

    No, it’s indeed a procreate license, Frank.

    saying doesnt make it so. I gave you my reasoning , and you did not address my arguments did you. Not a one of them. This is sort of a “yes it is!” ‘no it isnt” ” YES. it IS!””no…” Address my logic jon please. Instead you gave me your REAL concern….

    We took away the stigma of confining the procreative act to the marrital confines….fornication is no longer shunned.

    Your aim is what?
    You wish for homosexuals to be socially stigmatized.

    At last some honesty here. Refreshing! Thanks!

  • fws

    jon @ 52

    No, it’s indeed a procreate license, Frank.

    saying doesnt make it so. I gave you my reasoning , and you did not address my arguments did you. Not a one of them. This is sort of a “yes it is!” ‘no it isnt” ” YES. it IS!””no…” Address my logic jon please. Instead you gave me your REAL concern….

    We took away the stigma of confining the procreative act to the marrital confines….fornication is no longer shunned.

    Your aim is what?
    You wish for homosexuals to be socially stigmatized.

    At last some honesty here. Refreshing! Thanks!

  • Jon

    So tell me. why should I not think that this is all about bigotry since it will do absolutely nothing at all, not even a tiny bit, to
    a) save marriage or
    b) reduce the divorce rate or
    c) ensure that more children are raised with their biological parents.

    a) & b) Because we have already devalued marriage by making no fault divorce and destigmatizing fornication.

    c) because in cases of M+M (+F) = C, you take away C’s connection to F her biological mother, and viceversa for F+F (+M), you eliminate and deprive C of the natural biologal parent

    We have already devalued marriage to the point that it is practically reduced to a friendship registry. Perhaps society ought not have the registry any longer since it does no good for families and natural children as Frank believes.

  • Jon

    So tell me. why should I not think that this is all about bigotry since it will do absolutely nothing at all, not even a tiny bit, to
    a) save marriage or
    b) reduce the divorce rate or
    c) ensure that more children are raised with their biological parents.

    a) & b) Because we have already devalued marriage by making no fault divorce and destigmatizing fornication.

    c) because in cases of M+M (+F) = C, you take away C’s connection to F her biological mother, and viceversa for F+F (+M), you eliminate and deprive C of the natural biologal parent

    We have already devalued marriage to the point that it is practically reduced to a friendship registry. Perhaps society ought not have the registry any longer since it does no good for families and natural children as Frank believes.

  • http://abitibibob.hubpages.com/ Bob Hunter

    @fws “Bob: no one is talking about legalizing marriage to non humans. This is so simple and obvious isnt it?” Now, who are you to determine what marriage should be or shouldn’t be? Who says another human being shouldn’t be able to marry a non-human, a fish, a monkey, or a piece of paper? That’s discrimination if you deny someone that right. No, wait, that’s probably what you’d say about homosexual marriage, isn’t it?

  • http://abitibibob.hubpages.com/ Bob Hunter

    @fws “Bob: no one is talking about legalizing marriage to non humans. This is so simple and obvious isnt it?” Now, who are you to determine what marriage should be or shouldn’t be? Who says another human being shouldn’t be able to marry a non-human, a fish, a monkey, or a piece of paper? That’s discrimination if you deny someone that right. No, wait, that’s probably what you’d say about homosexual marriage, isn’t it?

  • fws

    pete @ 61

    gimme a for instance in scriptures Pete where you think this is wrong.

    Rom 1:27? Nope. “and they left their women, doing what was not their normal inclination to do…”
    Lev 18. Nope. ALL jewish men and women were married off.
    Sodom and Gomorrah? read the story again.

    Heterosexual men who were married and were ordinarily inclined to be sexually attracted to females.

    There is simply no such thing as homosexuality in the bible. Therefore there is also no such thing as heterosexuality. Words that represent clasifications only exist if they contrast to a different classification.

    There are only men and women all driven by the sex drive which God has ordered.
    And ALL those men and women have that normal ordering inflamed and perverted by sin.

    And so ALL are commanded to be married for that reason.
    male to female marriage is what this means in the bible, because, remember, there is no such class as homosexual known to the bible.

  • fws

    pete @ 61

    gimme a for instance in scriptures Pete where you think this is wrong.

    Rom 1:27? Nope. “and they left their women, doing what was not their normal inclination to do…”
    Lev 18. Nope. ALL jewish men and women were married off.
    Sodom and Gomorrah? read the story again.

    Heterosexual men who were married and were ordinarily inclined to be sexually attracted to females.

    There is simply no such thing as homosexuality in the bible. Therefore there is also no such thing as heterosexuality. Words that represent clasifications only exist if they contrast to a different classification.

    There are only men and women all driven by the sex drive which God has ordered.
    And ALL those men and women have that normal ordering inflamed and perverted by sin.

    And so ALL are commanded to be married for that reason.
    male to female marriage is what this means in the bible, because, remember, there is no such class as homosexual known to the bible.

  • Jon

    Frank, all fornication ought to be shunned. It is not healthy for society. That was our morality. However, the sexual revolution has taught us to believe otherwise.

    I proposed my reason in argument why the state licenses marriage. You gave me an argument for lots of other things, but you have not said why you believe the state got into the marriage business in the first place.

    We’ve discussed this axiom here a long while back–what is the purpose/usefulness of the barrier, before you tear it down?

    All you’ve said so far is, basically, I can see no purpose for it. Bigot, bigot, bigot.

  • Jon

    Frank, all fornication ought to be shunned. It is not healthy for society. That was our morality. However, the sexual revolution has taught us to believe otherwise.

    I proposed my reason in argument why the state licenses marriage. You gave me an argument for lots of other things, but you have not said why you believe the state got into the marriage business in the first place.

    We’ve discussed this axiom here a long while back–what is the purpose/usefulness of the barrier, before you tear it down?

    All you’ve said so far is, basically, I can see no purpose for it. Bigot, bigot, bigot.

  • Paul in MN

    Re: FW@68.

    There it is. That’s his conclusion from Scripture that we all must accept in order to accept FWS’ arguments on homosexuality. Now: are there any theologians among us who would agree with this statement: “There is simply no such thing as homosexuality in the bible.”? Do any of our exegetes read Romans 1 or Leviticus 18 as Frank does? Or, do we conclude that Frank does not properly read the Scriptures in regard to homosexuality since he cannot maintain his position without doing so? Since I can find no theologian among us who reads these Scriptures this way, I conclude that Frank is reading them wrongly and therefore making erroneous conclusions. What’s not patient, friendly, tolerant, or reasonable about that?

  • Paul in MN

    Re: FW@68.

    There it is. That’s his conclusion from Scripture that we all must accept in order to accept FWS’ arguments on homosexuality. Now: are there any theologians among us who would agree with this statement: “There is simply no such thing as homosexuality in the bible.”? Do any of our exegetes read Romans 1 or Leviticus 18 as Frank does? Or, do we conclude that Frank does not properly read the Scriptures in regard to homosexuality since he cannot maintain his position without doing so? Since I can find no theologian among us who reads these Scriptures this way, I conclude that Frank is reading them wrongly and therefore making erroneous conclusions. What’s not patient, friendly, tolerant, or reasonable about that?

  • Grace

    DonS @ 56

    “No state taking a vote of the public has ever supported gay marriage.”

    Don is correct – and that includes the state of California. REMEMBER Proposition 8? Keep in mind, California is a liberal state to a large degree, but STILL voted AGAINST homosexual marriage. That should should serve to prove, just how much this country abhors such a plan.

    Now, after all the humbug remarks made by pro-homosexual anybody’s and those who are homosexuals, hiding behind their trumped up re-worked passages of Scripture, namely Romans 1 – NOW pronouncing their sins to be acceptable, even to the point of homosexual marriage?

    The golden rule, doesn’t encompass, or include sin – which was mentioned further up on this thread.

    Don also stated:

    “Personally, I think this current gay marriage swarm is a deliberate political strategy to distract from the continuing economic disasters which are seriously damaging Obama’s re-election campaign.

    This too is correct.

  • Grace

    DonS @ 56

    “No state taking a vote of the public has ever supported gay marriage.”

    Don is correct – and that includes the state of California. REMEMBER Proposition 8? Keep in mind, California is a liberal state to a large degree, but STILL voted AGAINST homosexual marriage. That should should serve to prove, just how much this country abhors such a plan.

    Now, after all the humbug remarks made by pro-homosexual anybody’s and those who are homosexuals, hiding behind their trumped up re-worked passages of Scripture, namely Romans 1 – NOW pronouncing their sins to be acceptable, even to the point of homosexual marriage?

    The golden rule, doesn’t encompass, or include sin – which was mentioned further up on this thread.

    Don also stated:

    “Personally, I think this current gay marriage swarm is a deliberate political strategy to distract from the continuing economic disasters which are seriously damaging Obama’s re-election campaign.

    This too is correct.

  • fws

    bob hunter @ 67

    Now, who are you to determine what marriage should be or shouldn’t be? Who says another human being shouldn’t be able to marry a non-human, a fish, a monkey, or a piece of paper? That’s discrimination if you deny someone that right.

    1) no one is arguing that discrimination is per se wrong. Discrimination, against a class, is often necessary. We discriminate against the blind and deny them a drivers license.

    2) Who am I to say what anything is to be you ask?

    Yes Bob. theoretically the government could require you to wear whipped cream on your head all day. But they wouldnt.

    Your theory is that if gay marriage is legalized, then the next logical thought that will pop into the minds of legislators will be to make you go find a fish and marry it.

    You must be a republican. Only republicans would make decisions that look so logical….;)

  • fws

    bob hunter @ 67

    Now, who are you to determine what marriage should be or shouldn’t be? Who says another human being shouldn’t be able to marry a non-human, a fish, a monkey, or a piece of paper? That’s discrimination if you deny someone that right.

    1) no one is arguing that discrimination is per se wrong. Discrimination, against a class, is often necessary. We discriminate against the blind and deny them a drivers license.

    2) Who am I to say what anything is to be you ask?

    Yes Bob. theoretically the government could require you to wear whipped cream on your head all day. But they wouldnt.

    Your theory is that if gay marriage is legalized, then the next logical thought that will pop into the minds of legislators will be to make you go find a fish and marry it.

    You must be a republican. Only republicans would make decisions that look so logical….;)

  • formerly just steve

    Disingenuous tripe. The double standard here is glaringly obvious, by the way. Obama gets away with using his Christianity as a reason to support this or that legislation when any, any Republican president would be slammed as a religious zealot ramming theocracy down our throats. Think what you want about gay marriage. Whatever. I’m just really tired of the condescending lies.

  • formerly just steve

    Disingenuous tripe. The double standard here is glaringly obvious, by the way. Obama gets away with using his Christianity as a reason to support this or that legislation when any, any Republican president would be slammed as a religious zealot ramming theocracy down our throats. Think what you want about gay marriage. Whatever. I’m just really tired of the condescending lies.

  • Puzzled about this

    Wait, what is this? http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

    A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

    Is the icon suggesting that a gay “wedding” is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

    While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 – 518) explained that, “we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. This is not a case of simple “adelphopoiia.” In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

    Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

    Is the above revisionism?

  • Puzzled about this

    Wait, what is this? http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

    A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

    Is the icon suggesting that a gay “wedding” is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

    While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 – 518) explained that, “we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. This is not a case of simple “adelphopoiia.” In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

    Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

    Is the above revisionism?

  • fws

    jon @ 69

    I proposed my reason in argument why the state licenses marriage.

    Yes. You stated that marriage licenses are permission to a) have sex and b) procreate. I argued that this seems obviously not true here:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149199
    So then rather than addressing my objections direct you change direction:

    …but you have not said why you believe the state got into the marriage business in the first place.

    I discussed that here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149195

    and here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149197

    We’ve discussed this axiom here a long while back–what is the purpose/usefulness of the barrier, before you tear it down?

    Who is talking about removing the societal control called legal marriage? I am proposing that we expand the restriction and barrier and tighten it considerably by insisting on including that 3-10% of the population that is gay!

    All you’ve said so far is, basically, I can see no purpose for it. Bigot, bigot, bigot.

    Yes I can see no purpose for not insisting that society also regulate the relationship of the homos. And if I can see NO reason not to do that and the ONLY reason I DO hear is “God doesnt like it and that is that”, then , yes. Bigotry.

    Dont twist what I just said please. God’s Will DOES matter. But God’s will, as it pertains to the second table lawkeeping has zero mystery to it. Reason is fully able to know why. That why is twofold and simple: a) do no harm, and b) do to other the same mercy and goodness your heart desires to be done to you by others.

    If we fail to do either of these or insist on only one, then God WILL punish us and make us suffer until we start doing what he demands of us.

    gay marriage a) does no harm, b) is the only biblically identified means given to any human to exercise sexual self control and so avoid harm to others, and c) is a source of goodness and mercy to gays for exactly ALL the same reasons it is that for heterosexuals. I agree that heterosexual couples , in addition, have the gift of being able to create life by their sex. That is a blessing to homosexuals as well. We should thank God for this daily.

  • fws

    jon @ 69

    I proposed my reason in argument why the state licenses marriage.

    Yes. You stated that marriage licenses are permission to a) have sex and b) procreate. I argued that this seems obviously not true here:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149199
    So then rather than addressing my objections direct you change direction:

    …but you have not said why you believe the state got into the marriage business in the first place.

    I discussed that here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149195

    and here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149197

    We’ve discussed this axiom here a long while back–what is the purpose/usefulness of the barrier, before you tear it down?

    Who is talking about removing the societal control called legal marriage? I am proposing that we expand the restriction and barrier and tighten it considerably by insisting on including that 3-10% of the population that is gay!

    All you’ve said so far is, basically, I can see no purpose for it. Bigot, bigot, bigot.

    Yes I can see no purpose for not insisting that society also regulate the relationship of the homos. And if I can see NO reason not to do that and the ONLY reason I DO hear is “God doesnt like it and that is that”, then , yes. Bigotry.

    Dont twist what I just said please. God’s Will DOES matter. But God’s will, as it pertains to the second table lawkeeping has zero mystery to it. Reason is fully able to know why. That why is twofold and simple: a) do no harm, and b) do to other the same mercy and goodness your heart desires to be done to you by others.

    If we fail to do either of these or insist on only one, then God WILL punish us and make us suffer until we start doing what he demands of us.

    gay marriage a) does no harm, b) is the only biblically identified means given to any human to exercise sexual self control and so avoid harm to others, and c) is a source of goodness and mercy to gays for exactly ALL the same reasons it is that for heterosexuals. I agree that heterosexual couples , in addition, have the gift of being able to create life by their sex. That is a blessing to homosexuals as well. We should thank God for this daily.

  • Grace

    Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens
    By Todd Starnes Apr 27, 2012

    “As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

    The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”

    Savage, and his husband, were also guests at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception. He was also invited to a White House anti-bullying conference.

    Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.”
    _____________another excerpt
    ““It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”

    Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.

    READ the REST: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html

    Watch the VIDEO, this is what high school children are listening to. As for what LGBT stands for – “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender”

    What does all this have to do with homosexual marriage being OK’d by Obama? Think about it.

  • Grace

    Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens
    By Todd Starnes Apr 27, 2012

    “As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

    The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a sex advice column called “Savage Love.”

    Savage, and his husband, were also guests at the White House for President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception. He was also invited to a White House anti-bullying conference.

    Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.”
    _____________another excerpt
    ““It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”

    Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his partner looked in a speedo.

    READ the REST: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html

    Watch the VIDEO, this is what high school children are listening to. As for what LGBT stands for – “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender”

    What does all this have to do with homosexual marriage being OK’d by Obama? Think about it.

  • fws

    paul @ 70

    Now: are there any theologians among us who would agree with this statement: “There is simply no such thing as homosexuality in the bible.”?

    My post to you said this. Do me the polite curtesy of quoting me as you yourself would want to be quoted. Give your readers some context to chew on as well. Most minnesotans would do that and are courteous in that way. So I know this was merely an oversight right?

    1) The scriptures no where know of a distinction between homos and heteros. The presumtive rule is that all are married men and women. No where are homos singled out. they simply are not known to even exist.

    post @ 43

  • fws

    paul @ 70

    Now: are there any theologians among us who would agree with this statement: “There is simply no such thing as homosexuality in the bible.”?

    My post to you said this. Do me the polite curtesy of quoting me as you yourself would want to be quoted. Give your readers some context to chew on as well. Most minnesotans would do that and are courteous in that way. So I know this was merely an oversight right?

    1) The scriptures no where know of a distinction between homos and heteros. The presumtive rule is that all are married men and women. No where are homos singled out. they simply are not known to even exist.

    post @ 43

  • fws

    puzzled about this @ 74

    sounds like someone is trying to make a case with scant evidence. something doesnt smell right.

    revisionism is that depending on who is saying what and what it is that is being revised.

    Example: john calvin was a revisionist. those who revise him are also revisionists. Probably both are wrong, but it is n0t because they are revisionists.

    Luther was a revisionist who corrected the revisionism of rome. Luther was right to be a revisionist.

  • fws

    puzzled about this @ 74

    sounds like someone is trying to make a case with scant evidence. something doesnt smell right.

    revisionism is that depending on who is saying what and what it is that is being revised.

    Example: john calvin was a revisionist. those who revise him are also revisionists. Probably both are wrong, but it is n0t because they are revisionists.

    Luther was a revisionist who corrected the revisionism of rome. Luther was right to be a revisionist.

  • Grace

    Puzzled @ 74

    Be puzzled no more:

    10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

    11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
    1 TImothy 1

    3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

    4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
    2 Timothy 4

    There you have it “Puzzled” – right from the Word of God, not from a painting from anywhere. There are lots of paintings, but there is only ONE Word of God, ONLY ONE!

  • Grace

    Puzzled @ 74

    Be puzzled no more:

    10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

    11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
    1 TImothy 1

    3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

    4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
    2 Timothy 4

    There you have it “Puzzled” – right from the Word of God, not from a painting from anywhere. There are lots of paintings, but there is only ONE Word of God, ONLY ONE!

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

    God defines marriage? Okay whatever.

    Biology defines marriage. The fusion of gametes makes people. Society has an interest in those people. The laws of secular states such as our own serve specific purposes such as protecting kids by making sure someone takes care of them most preferably the people who made them.

    Gay behavior doesn’t produce kids, so society has no interest in the friendship of independent adults no matter how much they like each other.

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

    God defines marriage? Okay whatever.

    Biology defines marriage. The fusion of gametes makes people. Society has an interest in those people. The laws of secular states such as our own serve specific purposes such as protecting kids by making sure someone takes care of them most preferably the people who made them.

    Gay behavior doesn’t produce kids, so society has no interest in the friendship of independent adults no matter how much they like each other.

  • Grace

    Paul @ 70

    Your post is correct.

    The following was posted by fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012-
    On Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.”
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

  • Grace

    Paul @ 70

    Your post is correct.

    The following was posted by fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012-
    On Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.”
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

  • HistoryProfBrad

    I have found this to be a lively and fascinating thread discussion. Thanks to everyone participating, with the exception of Kitty, whose snarky posts fully demonstrate how ad hominem arguments and scripture tossing have become acceptable as legitimate points of debate. Then again, I kinda enjoy reading Kitty’s posts as it demonstrates to me the lengths that someone will go to in order to feel a sense of intellectual superiority.

  • HistoryProfBrad

    I have found this to be a lively and fascinating thread discussion. Thanks to everyone participating, with the exception of Kitty, whose snarky posts fully demonstrate how ad hominem arguments and scripture tossing have become acceptable as legitimate points of debate. Then again, I kinda enjoy reading Kitty’s posts as it demonstrates to me the lengths that someone will go to in order to feel a sense of intellectual superiority.

  • fws

    sg @ 80

    close sg. but not quite it. God is the God of biological laws.

    The confessions call those “ordinances of God”. they set up a class of “law” that is amoral (as opposed to the second table law found in reason and the 1st table law found only in the Bible.).

    And is the author of Government. The Confessions tell us (LC 4th commandment) that there are 3 governments God uses to make Old Adam obey his second table laws : family/marriage, society/government and the church.

    marriage is a government that includes the vocations of father , mother, son , daughter, butlers, gardeners, cleaning ladies, and chauffeurs among others if you are rich!

  • fws

    sg @ 80

    close sg. but not quite it. God is the God of biological laws.

    The confessions call those “ordinances of God”. they set up a class of “law” that is amoral (as opposed to the second table law found in reason and the 1st table law found only in the Bible.).

    And is the author of Government. The Confessions tell us (LC 4th commandment) that there are 3 governments God uses to make Old Adam obey his second table laws : family/marriage, society/government and the church.

    marriage is a government that includes the vocations of father , mother, son , daughter, butlers, gardeners, cleaning ladies, and chauffeurs among others if you are rich!

  • fws

    brad @ 82

    I can guarantee you that there is NO other blog on the entire internet that has a regular contributor who is gay and is also accepted as ‘being in the room” and not referred to as a “they” or “those”.

    I would invite you consider the Lutheran difference by reading the Lutheran Confessions.

    And my friends here rarely agree with me here on this topic of homosexuality by the way!

    I am glad you feel good about being here with us.

  • fws

    brad @ 82

    I can guarantee you that there is NO other blog on the entire internet that has a regular contributor who is gay and is also accepted as ‘being in the room” and not referred to as a “they” or “those”.

    I would invite you consider the Lutheran difference by reading the Lutheran Confessions.

    And my friends here rarely agree with me here on this topic of homosexuality by the way!

    I am glad you feel good about being here with us.

  • #4 Kitty

    @81 HistoryProfBrad,
    Snarky? yeah, I’ll accept that but
    where am I guilty of ad hominem arguments?
    and…

    Then again, I kinda enjoy reading Kitty’s posts as it demonstrates to me the lengths that someone will go to in order to feel a sense of intellectual superiority.

    This is beneath you.

  • #4 Kitty

    @81 HistoryProfBrad,
    Snarky? yeah, I’ll accept that but
    where am I guilty of ad hominem arguments?
    and…

    Then again, I kinda enjoy reading Kitty’s posts as it demonstrates to me the lengths that someone will go to in order to feel a sense of intellectual superiority.

    This is beneath you.

  • Grace

    You can name all the vocations mentioned above, add some if wish, but there is nothing in the Bible which promotes, homosexual unions of any type, it’s sin – Paul made it clear in Romans 1, which most all homosexuals find a way to re-word – re-structure, so that they might still practice a sin which Saint Paul made clear, repreesented a REPROBATE MIND.

    REPROBATE is used in only four (4) times in Scripture:

    Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.
    Jeremiah 6:30

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Romans 1:28

    Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
    2 Timothy 3:8

    They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
    Titus 1:16

  • Grace

    You can name all the vocations mentioned above, add some if wish, but there is nothing in the Bible which promotes, homosexual unions of any type, it’s sin – Paul made it clear in Romans 1, which most all homosexuals find a way to re-word – re-structure, so that they might still practice a sin which Saint Paul made clear, repreesented a REPROBATE MIND.

    REPROBATE is used in only four (4) times in Scripture:

    Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.
    Jeremiah 6:30

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    Romans 1:28

    Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
    2 Timothy 3:8

    They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
    Titus 1:16

  • Jonathan

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/victory-through-lexicography/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BleedingHeartLibertarians+%28Bleeding+Heart+Libertarians%29

    Interesting link about how the concept of marriage has changed over time; so much so, that many people today who (along w/their churhes) firmly believe they are married would not have been considered so in the past.

  • Jonathan

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/victory-through-lexicography/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BleedingHeartLibertarians+%28Bleeding+Heart+Libertarians%29

    Interesting link about how the concept of marriage has changed over time; so much so, that many people today who (along w/their churhes) firmly believe they are married would not have been considered so in the past.

  • Grace

    Jonathan

    The concept of marriage according to Scripture will always be the bur in the saddle of the un-Godly, and those who oppose Scripture. The pagans are a perfect example.

  • Grace

    Jonathan

    The concept of marriage according to Scripture will always be the bur in the saddle of the un-Godly, and those who oppose Scripture. The pagans are a perfect example.

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

    “God is the God of biological laws.”

    Yes, of course.

    But God is supernatural.

    We don’t even need to go that far to deal with natural events and situations. Just like we don’t need to use the Bible to process, distribute and regulate antibiotics. Sure, God created the system, but we can understand it on just the natural level. And yes, beyond and before that we understand that the supernatural is above and beyond the natural.

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

    “God is the God of biological laws.”

    Yes, of course.

    But God is supernatural.

    We don’t even need to go that far to deal with natural events and situations. Just like we don’t need to use the Bible to process, distribute and regulate antibiotics. Sure, God created the system, but we can understand it on just the natural level. And yes, beyond and before that we understand that the supernatural is above and beyond the natural.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I really wish moron politicians of any brand would quit trashing Scripture by their inability to understand. The Golden Rule is not what Mr. Obama thinks it is. If one wishes to understand the “Golden Rule” one must understand what is meant by “for this is the Law and the Prophets. ” Ask yourself, what does Jesus continually say the Law and the Prophets are about? If you are struggling it is the obvious Sunday School answer. Jesus. It is all the more clear when you take in the other bookend, “if you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” What is the good thing the Father gives us? Jesus! Not more law.

    It makes me sick to see people bastardize the Gospel as Law, it makes me doubly sick to see somebody use it to justify the endorsement of sin.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    I really wish moron politicians of any brand would quit trashing Scripture by their inability to understand. The Golden Rule is not what Mr. Obama thinks it is. If one wishes to understand the “Golden Rule” one must understand what is meant by “for this is the Law and the Prophets. ” Ask yourself, what does Jesus continually say the Law and the Prophets are about? If you are struggling it is the obvious Sunday School answer. Jesus. It is all the more clear when you take in the other bookend, “if you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” What is the good thing the Father gives us? Jesus! Not more law.

    It makes me sick to see people bastardize the Gospel as Law, it makes me doubly sick to see somebody use it to justify the endorsement of sin.

  • fws

    jonathan @ 87

    That is an ok article as far as it goes, but I think that the others here would argue that THE essence of marriage is male/female . It is the irreducable one thing that defines what marriage IS .

    But then they need to add other stuff and call those things essence too. Since a man and a prostitute, or a man and a concubine are not “married” in their thinking. Even though they are a “one flesh union” none the less!

    So then it a legalistic sorting out of what other “essentials” get thrown into the basket.

    Your article suggests that one essential is that the woman become the literal chattel property of the man. This has also, always been part of any and all marriages throughout history. But is it essential or not? if it IS essential, then your article is right. There are no marriages today.

    The along come the roman catholics. they argue for aristotelian notions of essense and sorta mush those into christianity as being the only christian way to think. Arustotles ideas become Divine Design or Natural Law. So that is required now to inform us as to what the essentials are beyond penis in vagina since that alone , obviously does not make marriage even though it DOES define one flesh union!

    So then we are to delve into biological form and function as the irrefutable and undeliable facts that are exactly equal to being the Moral Law of God

    So one of you here…. what are the elements we must biblically assert are the essence or essentials to call something “marriage”? what say you all?

  • fws

    jonathan @ 87

    That is an ok article as far as it goes, but I think that the others here would argue that THE essence of marriage is male/female . It is the irreducable one thing that defines what marriage IS .

    But then they need to add other stuff and call those things essence too. Since a man and a prostitute, or a man and a concubine are not “married” in their thinking. Even though they are a “one flesh union” none the less!

    So then it a legalistic sorting out of what other “essentials” get thrown into the basket.

    Your article suggests that one essential is that the woman become the literal chattel property of the man. This has also, always been part of any and all marriages throughout history. But is it essential or not? if it IS essential, then your article is right. There are no marriages today.

    The along come the roman catholics. they argue for aristotelian notions of essense and sorta mush those into christianity as being the only christian way to think. Arustotles ideas become Divine Design or Natural Law. So that is required now to inform us as to what the essentials are beyond penis in vagina since that alone , obviously does not make marriage even though it DOES define one flesh union!

    So then we are to delve into biological form and function as the irrefutable and undeliable facts that are exactly equal to being the Moral Law of God

    So one of you here…. what are the elements we must biblically assert are the essence or essentials to call something “marriage”? what say you all?

  • fws

    dr Luther @ 90

    Nooooooo! there IS a second table Law. God uses that Law to extort out of all Old Adams the goodness and mercy he give all men in the first article, and with which he also provides the preaching of Law and gospel and administration of the sacraments in church.

    the golden rule, as all know, is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. or as jesus’ clever attorney sums it “love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    the exact argument of the Apology is that NO Jesus and NO HS is needed to do any of this at all!

    I hope I am misunderstanding you! wow.

  • fws

    dr Luther @ 90

    Nooooooo! there IS a second table Law. God uses that Law to extort out of all Old Adams the goodness and mercy he give all men in the first article, and with which he also provides the preaching of Law and gospel and administration of the sacraments in church.

    the golden rule, as all know, is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. or as jesus’ clever attorney sums it “love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    the exact argument of the Apology is that NO Jesus and NO HS is needed to do any of this at all!

    I hope I am misunderstanding you! wow.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m sorry, but Kitty (@18), are you really trying to tell us that, in the parable of the ten virgins, that … the ten virgins were all to be married to the bridegroom? And this in the defense of your claim that Jesus “defined” marriage as including polygamy?

    I mean, did you read the whole parable? Or did you notice that it’s … a parable? And thus its symbolic elements are unlikely to themselves be a prescription, as they point us to a deeper meaning? Do you think that every description equals a definition? (The quick answer appears to be: yes, cf. @7).

    Why are the alleged brides required to bear lamps? Why does the groom decide not to marry some of the brides? Do these ten virgins not seem a bit like they’re helping with the ceremony, rather than to be married in it?

    There are ways to make biblical arguments for polygamy — though I think you’ll find it difficult to make a compelling argument that polygamy was actually sanctioned by God — but poor reading isn’t one I’d suggest.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m sorry, but Kitty (@18), are you really trying to tell us that, in the parable of the ten virgins, that … the ten virgins were all to be married to the bridegroom? And this in the defense of your claim that Jesus “defined” marriage as including polygamy?

    I mean, did you read the whole parable? Or did you notice that it’s … a parable? And thus its symbolic elements are unlikely to themselves be a prescription, as they point us to a deeper meaning? Do you think that every description equals a definition? (The quick answer appears to be: yes, cf. @7).

    Why are the alleged brides required to bear lamps? Why does the groom decide not to marry some of the brides? Do these ten virgins not seem a bit like they’re helping with the ceremony, rather than to be married in it?

    There are ways to make biblical arguments for polygamy — though I think you’ll find it difficult to make a compelling argument that polygamy was actually sanctioned by God — but poor reading isn’t one I’d suggest.

  • fws

    dr luther @90

    ANY and ALL goodness and mercy that is done on earth is somethibng that God works. He does it by driving old adam and extorting those things out of them with the Law.

    from the ‘unworthy, those who dont pray and even for all the wicked ” (small catechism) for others who are equally unworthy, faithless and wicked.

    futher God even makes this happen in antonomians who are dead to love. amazing that! Luke 18 and the antinomian judge.

  • fws

    dr luther @90

    ANY and ALL goodness and mercy that is done on earth is somethibng that God works. He does it by driving old adam and extorting those things out of them with the Law.

    from the ‘unworthy, those who dont pray and even for all the wicked ” (small catechism) for others who are equally unworthy, faithless and wicked.

    futher God even makes this happen in antonomians who are dead to love. amazing that! Luke 18 and the antinomian judge.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, I think Joe (@5) got this right. It has been particularly tiresome watching my liberal Facebook friends get all giddy over this interview — interview, mind you!

    It’s not like Obama’s promised to do anything! He just said, “I woke up this morning, and I was all, ‘Hey, gay marriage is cool now.’” (NB: may not be an actual quote). And all the liberals who were lukewarm about him said, “Oh, I just knew you’d come around, Barack! I knew you still loved us! We’re best friends, aren’t we, Barack? Like always! Best friends! You’re one of us!”

    Suckers, all of them. Hello? Election year!

    Still, it gives me extreme pause for the future of our country, that so many people seem to think that the mercurial whim of one man — i.e., the President — should have some immediate legal impact. They all seem to have missed the whole “states’ rights” loophole in his interview. Because, like, what? Extreme federal government superpowers for the win! This one guy changed his mind in an election-year interview, so let’s get on this thing!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, I think Joe (@5) got this right. It has been particularly tiresome watching my liberal Facebook friends get all giddy over this interview — interview, mind you!

    It’s not like Obama’s promised to do anything! He just said, “I woke up this morning, and I was all, ‘Hey, gay marriage is cool now.’” (NB: may not be an actual quote). And all the liberals who were lukewarm about him said, “Oh, I just knew you’d come around, Barack! I knew you still loved us! We’re best friends, aren’t we, Barack? Like always! Best friends! You’re one of us!”

    Suckers, all of them. Hello? Election year!

    Still, it gives me extreme pause for the future of our country, that so many people seem to think that the mercurial whim of one man — i.e., the President — should have some immediate legal impact. They all seem to have missed the whole “states’ rights” loophole in his interview. Because, like, what? Extreme federal government superpowers for the win! This one guy changed his mind in an election-year interview, so let’s get on this thing!

  • fws

    to all:

    what is the biblical essense that “defines marriage”.

    let me try:

    1) it always includes the vocation of husband and wife
    2) sex
    3) lifelong commitment
    4) indissoluble (this is being debated among conservatives)
    5) no love is necessary at inception.
    6) children and household servants, if they exist, are included in the definition.
    7) it can be polygamous and still be marriage
    8) the woman is the property of her husband (only in the past 100 years or so has this not been the case)
    9) it is the unit of government established by God which is the craddle for the other two called government and church.
    10) other stuff.

  • fws

    to all:

    what is the biblical essense that “defines marriage”.

    let me try:

    1) it always includes the vocation of husband and wife
    2) sex
    3) lifelong commitment
    4) indissoluble (this is being debated among conservatives)
    5) no love is necessary at inception.
    6) children and household servants, if they exist, are included in the definition.
    7) it can be polygamous and still be marriage
    8) the woman is the property of her husband (only in the past 100 years or so has this not been the case)
    9) it is the unit of government established by God which is the craddle for the other two called government and church.
    10) other stuff.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @fws – I am not negating the Law. What I am saying is the popular interpretation of the so called “golden rule” is wrong.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @fws – I am not negating the Law. What I am saying is the popular interpretation of the so called “golden rule” is wrong.

  • fws

    todd @ 95

    hahahahahaha. you are exactly right

    it is a non event.

  • fws

    todd @ 95

    hahahahahaha. you are exactly right

    it is a non event.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Paul in MN (@24) asked:

    Is there anyone here who has had their views changed by FWS on the subject of homosexuality?

    Short answer: yes. Not necessarily how you’d think — or perhaps to the degree that FWS might want — but yes.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Paul in MN (@24) asked:

    Is there anyone here who has had their views changed by FWS on the subject of homosexuality?

    Short answer: yes. Not necessarily how you’d think — or perhaps to the degree that FWS might want — but yes.

  • fws

    dr luther @ 97

    it felt like you were conflating the first article gifts into the second article gifts. Can you see what I mean and give me more clarity? thanks.

  • fws

    dr luther @ 97

    it felt like you were conflating the first article gifts into the second article gifts. Can you see what I mean and give me more clarity? thanks.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The biblical essence of marriage is nothing less than the image of God. Polygamy is not considered marriage. It is an aberration. Anything outside of one man and one women is an aberration. To say “well God didn’t condemn the patriarchs” is to ignore the rest of testimony of Scripture, namely Creation which directly links man and woman in the image of God and “husband of one wife” which draws together imagery revealed through Paul of Jesus and church expressed as marriage and in marriage and so we are brought in full circle.

    If it breaks the image of God is to be condemned. Marriage at it’s heart is a theological construct because it is created by God. The so called secular realm has co-opted it because it found it useful for good order, but that does not give it license to define marriage.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The biblical essence of marriage is nothing less than the image of God. Polygamy is not considered marriage. It is an aberration. Anything outside of one man and one women is an aberration. To say “well God didn’t condemn the patriarchs” is to ignore the rest of testimony of Scripture, namely Creation which directly links man and woman in the image of God and “husband of one wife” which draws together imagery revealed through Paul of Jesus and church expressed as marriage and in marriage and so we are brought in full circle.

    If it breaks the image of God is to be condemned. Marriage at it’s heart is a theological construct because it is created by God. The so called secular realm has co-opted it because it found it useful for good order, but that does not give it license to define marriage.

  • Jonathan

    @90 – As for essential:
    Marriage isn’t as simple as ‘one man, one woman.’ Marriage has always been regulated in one form or another: to forbid unions among people of different races or people deemed too young or too closely related or who already had one spouse.

    The dissolution of marriage has also been strictly regulated: No divorce, divorce only on certain grounds, no-fault divorce. Marriage is a highly cultural union. If St. Mary was truly 14 or so, as some think, when she married St. Joseph, that marriage would not be valid in the state I live in. Before the Church recognized marriage as a sacrament, people simply announced their plans to marry, or among families or clans, moved in and began to have children.

    Marriage is as marriage does.

    Our civilization’s penchant to have all these things recorded somewhere (and thus adjudicated by the courts, ecclesial and civil) led to marriage licenses. I doubt the Bible sets forth a particular kind of marriage. The Book covers thousands of years and many cultures; people like David, Abraham, Peter, had wives according to their cultural norms.

  • Jonathan

    @90 – As for essential:
    Marriage isn’t as simple as ‘one man, one woman.’ Marriage has always been regulated in one form or another: to forbid unions among people of different races or people deemed too young or too closely related or who already had one spouse.

    The dissolution of marriage has also been strictly regulated: No divorce, divorce only on certain grounds, no-fault divorce. Marriage is a highly cultural union. If St. Mary was truly 14 or so, as some think, when she married St. Joseph, that marriage would not be valid in the state I live in. Before the Church recognized marriage as a sacrament, people simply announced their plans to marry, or among families or clans, moved in and began to have children.

    Marriage is as marriage does.

    Our civilization’s penchant to have all these things recorded somewhere (and thus adjudicated by the courts, ecclesial and civil) led to marriage licenses. I doubt the Bible sets forth a particular kind of marriage. The Book covers thousands of years and many cultures; people like David, Abraham, Peter, had wives according to their cultural norms.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon said (@31):

    DOMA is meant to preserve the states’ rights to define marriage how they will

    That’s beautiful. Now, for your next trick, I want you to prove that true is false.

    Paul in MN asked (@38):

    Can we not have a discussion concerning Christ and Culture which includes anything about homosexuality without Frank Sonnek eventually telling us all that we don’t get it because we’re not queer?

    To which I would ask, in return: Can we not have a discussion concerning Christ and culture which includes anything about homosexuality without most of the commenters telling FWS that he doesn’t get it because he’s queer?

    Which is to say, it sounds like you’re explicitly requesting an echo-chamber to be built to your specifications. Is that what you want?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon said (@31):

    DOMA is meant to preserve the states’ rights to define marriage how they will

    That’s beautiful. Now, for your next trick, I want you to prove that true is false.

    Paul in MN asked (@38):

    Can we not have a discussion concerning Christ and Culture which includes anything about homosexuality without Frank Sonnek eventually telling us all that we don’t get it because we’re not queer?

    To which I would ask, in return: Can we not have a discussion concerning Christ and culture which includes anything about homosexuality without most of the commenters telling FWS that he doesn’t get it because he’s queer?

    Which is to say, it sounds like you’re explicitly requesting an echo-chamber to be built to your specifications. Is that what you want?

  • Jon

    sg @ 79 & 88– +1!

    And, Frank, how are servants part of a marriage? A single person, say, like Bruce Wayne, can have servants and even a ward, and not be married. Aren’t they really just part of a household? Or are you talking about a mariage that combines households of husband and wife? I don’t see how household defines marriage.

  • Jon

    sg @ 79 & 88– +1!

    And, Frank, how are servants part of a marriage? A single person, say, like Bruce Wayne, can have servants and even a ward, and not be married. Aren’t they really just part of a household? Or are you talking about a mariage that combines households of husband and wife? I don’t see how household defines marriage.

  • Grace

    Making marriage an option won’t change the spread of HIV/AIDS, it will just become a bigger problem. If one partner has HIV and working, then his health insurance would ‘kick in’ for the infected partner. Sin begets more sin, more pain, more sorrow, and then death.

    Homosexuality has brought THOUSANDS to their death, and many more will die. 1 in 5 are so carless, they don’t even know they have HIV. How could anyone live this lifestyle, not be medically checked out, and ignorant of such a disease? – when they take part in the very acts that result in constant medical care, when symptoms finally appear.

    WHO DO YOU THINK PAYS FOR THIS?

    U.S. Statistics

    “The first cases of what would later become known as AIDS were reported in the United States in June of 1981. Since then, 1.7 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have been infected with HIV, including over 619,000 who have already died and approximately 1.2 million (1,178,350) adults and adolescents who were living with HIV infection at the end of 2008, the most recent year for which national prevalence estimates are available. The impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic spans the nation with HIV diagnoses having been reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. dependencies, possessions, and associated nations.

    HIV in the United States*

    CDC estimates that more than one million people are living with HIV in the U.S.. One in five (20%) of those people living with HIV is unaware of their infection.

    Despite increases in the total number of people living with HIV in the U.S. in recent years, the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. However, new infections continue at far too high a level, with approximately 50,000 Americans becoming infected with HIV each year.

    More than 17,000 people with AIDS in the U.S. died in 2009 and more than 619,000 people with AIDS in the U.S. have died since the epidemic began. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are strongly affected and represent the majority of persons who have died.”

    http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/overview/statistics/

  • Grace

    Making marriage an option won’t change the spread of HIV/AIDS, it will just become a bigger problem. If one partner has HIV and working, then his health insurance would ‘kick in’ for the infected partner. Sin begets more sin, more pain, more sorrow, and then death.

    Homosexuality has brought THOUSANDS to their death, and many more will die. 1 in 5 are so carless, they don’t even know they have HIV. How could anyone live this lifestyle, not be medically checked out, and ignorant of such a disease? – when they take part in the very acts that result in constant medical care, when symptoms finally appear.

    WHO DO YOU THINK PAYS FOR THIS?

    U.S. Statistics

    “The first cases of what would later become known as AIDS were reported in the United States in June of 1981. Since then, 1.7 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have been infected with HIV, including over 619,000 who have already died and approximately 1.2 million (1,178,350) adults and adolescents who were living with HIV infection at the end of 2008, the most recent year for which national prevalence estimates are available. The impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic spans the nation with HIV diagnoses having been reported in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. dependencies, possessions, and associated nations.

    HIV in the United States*

    CDC estimates that more than one million people are living with HIV in the U.S.. One in five (20%) of those people living with HIV is unaware of their infection.

    Despite increases in the total number of people living with HIV in the U.S. in recent years, the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. However, new infections continue at far too high a level, with approximately 50,000 Americans becoming infected with HIV each year.

    More than 17,000 people with AIDS in the U.S. died in 2009 and more than 619,000 people with AIDS in the U.S. have died since the epidemic began. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are strongly affected and represent the majority of persons who have died.”

    http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/overview/statistics/

  • fws

    dr Luther @ 101

    what do you do then, with the Apology, art II that says that Original Righteousness is the same thing as the Image of God, and that the Image of God is faith?

    Your definition of the Image of God seems to be quite different.

  • fws

    dr Luther @ 101

    what do you do then, with the Apology, art II that says that Original Righteousness is the same thing as the Image of God, and that the Image of God is faith?

    Your definition of the Image of God seems to be quite different.

  • http://! fws

    jon @ 104

    I am a lutheran christian Jon. In the Large Catechism on the 4th commandment, Luther defines marriage , in its essencce, as being one of the 3 governments on earth along with civil government and the church.

    within marriage there are vocations. those vocations include husband and wife and might also include children and also the domestic help. it is a pity this is all new stuff for you if you are a Lutheran. that is what results when those claiming to be Lutheran dont read the Confessions that define them as such!

    I know this sounds wildly different than how dr luther defines it here. I am quoting the REAL Dr Luther!

    are you listening in dr luther here?

  • http://! fws

    jon @ 104

    I am a lutheran christian Jon. In the Large Catechism on the 4th commandment, Luther defines marriage , in its essencce, as being one of the 3 governments on earth along with civil government and the church.

    within marriage there are vocations. those vocations include husband and wife and might also include children and also the domestic help. it is a pity this is all new stuff for you if you are a Lutheran. that is what results when those claiming to be Lutheran dont read the Confessions that define them as such!

    I know this sounds wildly different than how dr luther defines it here. I am quoting the REAL Dr Luther!

    are you listening in dr luther here?

  • http://! fws

    dr Luther @c101

    “Marriage at it’s heart is a theological construct because it is created by God. ”

    ok . by that definition so is every other government. marriage is not a sacrament. there is nothing more theological about it than any other form of government. read how luther defines marriage in the LC on the 4th commandment please. then the 6th at the very beginning.

  • http://! fws

    dr Luther @c101

    “Marriage at it’s heart is a theological construct because it is created by God. ”

    ok . by that definition so is every other government. marriage is not a sacrament. there is nothing more theological about it than any other form of government. read how luther defines marriage in the LC on the 4th commandment please. then the 6th at the very beginning.

  • Grace

    So now, the “Confessions” trump the Word of God?

  • Grace

    So now, the “Confessions” trump the Word of God?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @106 fws, do you have a paragraph number?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @106 fws, do you have a paragraph number?

  • fws

    dr Luther @ 110. are we talking about the image of God or the definition of the essence of marriage?

    Image of God in the Apology:

    1) “the main point. 8] [of original sin is]…. the more serious faults of human nature…, contempt for God, being destitute of fear and confidence in God, hatred of God’s judgment, flight from God as from a tyrant when He judges, anger toward God, despair of grace, putting one’s trust in present things [money, property, friends], etc. These diseases, which are in the highest degree contrary to the Law of God, the scholastics do not notice. …original sin …is ignorance ,… contempt …, [absence] of fear…and trust…[and] inability to love God. These are the chief faults of human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the Decalog.

    Summary: original sin is lack/absence of fear, love and trust in God which was the very image of God.
    Plus it is concupiscience. Concupiscience is redefined here as the vicious insistence in placing fear love and trust in anything but God.
    The Image of God was totally lost.
    if the image of God is the Divine Design or Natural Law it was only badly damaged . It was not completely Lost. Rome is wrong!
    The Image of God is faith and NOT conformity to the Law. not natural or any other Law.

    2) Therefore original righteousness was…not only…..Bodily qualities [cf Aquinan Natural Law]… but also, a quite certain knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly 18] the rectitude and power to yield these affections … the greatest feature….was a bright light in the heart to know God and His work….

    And Scripture testifies to this, when it says, Gen. 1:27, that man was fashioned in the image and likeness of God.

    What else is this than…wisdom and righteousness as apprehended God, and in which God was reflected, i.e., to man there were given the gifts of the knowledge of God, the fear of God, confidence in God, and the like?

    20] And Paul shows in the Epistles to the Ephesians 5:9, and Colossians 3:10, that the image of God is the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth.

    21] Nor does Longobard fear to say that original righteousness is the very likeness to God which God implanted in man. 22] We recount the opinions of the ancients, which in no way interfere with Augustine’s interpretation of the image.

    23] …the knowledge of God, confidence in God, the fear and love of God or…the light in the heart which creates a love and desire for these matters…fear and confidence in God…[we mean here]…denying fear and confidence toward God, to wit, not only the acts, but also the gifts and power to produce these acts [meaning:] that we have no good heart [emotions!] toward God, which truly loves God, not only that we are unable to do or achieve any perfectly good work…

    they are arguing here that fear, love and trust… that is faith! is the Original Righteousness and Image as opposed to what? Conformity to the Law of God.

    [Now this in the context of Aristotle/St Thomas]
    3) For he means that when righteousness had been lost, concupiscence came in its place …diseased nature cannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal things. God’s judgment it either contemns, when at ease, or hates, when thoroughly terrified. … indeed.. concupiscence [is not only] only a corruption of the qualities of the body [ie natural appetites], but also, in the higher powers [ie love and will], a vicious turning to carnal things.

  • fws

    dr Luther @ 110. are we talking about the image of God or the definition of the essence of marriage?

    Image of God in the Apology:

    1) “the main point. 8] [of original sin is]…. the more serious faults of human nature…, contempt for God, being destitute of fear and confidence in God, hatred of God’s judgment, flight from God as from a tyrant when He judges, anger toward God, despair of grace, putting one’s trust in present things [money, property, friends], etc. These diseases, which are in the highest degree contrary to the Law of God, the scholastics do not notice. …original sin …is ignorance ,… contempt …, [absence] of fear…and trust…[and] inability to love God. These are the chief faults of human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the Decalog.

    Summary: original sin is lack/absence of fear, love and trust in God which was the very image of God.
    Plus it is concupiscience. Concupiscience is redefined here as the vicious insistence in placing fear love and trust in anything but God.
    The Image of God was totally lost.
    if the image of God is the Divine Design or Natural Law it was only badly damaged . It was not completely Lost. Rome is wrong!
    The Image of God is faith and NOT conformity to the Law. not natural or any other Law.

    2) Therefore original righteousness was…not only…..Bodily qualities [cf Aquinan Natural Law]… but also, a quite certain knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly 18] the rectitude and power to yield these affections … the greatest feature….was a bright light in the heart to know God and His work….

    And Scripture testifies to this, when it says, Gen. 1:27, that man was fashioned in the image and likeness of God.

    What else is this than…wisdom and righteousness as apprehended God, and in which God was reflected, i.e., to man there were given the gifts of the knowledge of God, the fear of God, confidence in God, and the like?

    20] And Paul shows in the Epistles to the Ephesians 5:9, and Colossians 3:10, that the image of God is the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth.

    21] Nor does Longobard fear to say that original righteousness is the very likeness to God which God implanted in man. 22] We recount the opinions of the ancients, which in no way interfere with Augustine’s interpretation of the image.

    23] …the knowledge of God, confidence in God, the fear and love of God or…the light in the heart which creates a love and desire for these matters…fear and confidence in God…[we mean here]…denying fear and confidence toward God, to wit, not only the acts, but also the gifts and power to produce these acts [meaning:] that we have no good heart [emotions!] toward God, which truly loves God, not only that we are unable to do or achieve any perfectly good work…

    they are arguing here that fear, love and trust… that is faith! is the Original Righteousness and Image as opposed to what? Conformity to the Law of God.

    [Now this in the context of Aristotle/St Thomas]
    3) For he means that when righteousness had been lost, concupiscence came in its place …diseased nature cannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal things. God’s judgment it either contemns, when at ease, or hates, when thoroughly terrified. … indeed.. concupiscence [is not only] only a corruption of the qualities of the body [ie natural appetites], but also, in the higher powers [ie love and will], a vicious turning to carnal things.

  • fws

    dr Luther @110

    the essense of marriage is that it is a form of goverment in the same sense as are the church and civil government.

    large catechism. 4th commandment. 6th commandment. read the whole section.

  • fws

    dr Luther @110

    the essense of marriage is that it is a form of goverment in the same sense as are the church and civil government.

    large catechism. 4th commandment. 6th commandment. read the whole section.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS, I know that in the past, you’ve noted how posts on homosexuality generate lots of comments on this blog. Do you mind if I point out to you that, as of this writing, 44 out of 112 comments here are yours? That’s just under 40%.

    I understand your interest in this topic, but might I also suggest that volume is no way to solve a communication problem, whether we’re talking about the amplitude of sound waves or cubic meters of air.

    Your brother in Christ, tODD

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS, I know that in the past, you’ve noted how posts on homosexuality generate lots of comments on this blog. Do you mind if I point out to you that, as of this writing, 44 out of 112 comments here are yours? That’s just under 40%.

    I understand your interest in this topic, but might I also suggest that volume is no way to solve a communication problem, whether we’re talking about the amplitude of sound waves or cubic meters of air.

    Your brother in Christ, tODD

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @111 I thought as much, there is nothing with in Article II which supports your argument. Please in the future do not butcher a text and call it a quote. Even in your highly butchered quote there is nothing concerning the image of God. If there were the confessions would stand in direct contradiction to Scripture which they don’t. So, “So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.” Genesis 2:27 In the image of God he created them – male and female. In short, the confessions, they do not say what you think they say.

    This isn’t the only time this kind of thing comes up. God uses marriage to describe his relationship with his people Hosea, the parables, Paul’s letters. When Paul brings up the sin of Adam and Eve ask what was destroyed. It was the image of God.

    BTW, marriage is a weird thing, ultimately it is about the Gospel. Notice how when Paul speaks of marriage, particularly in Ephesians, he is talking about the Gospel.

    Also, one does not need to be a sacrament to be a theological construct. And guess what, government is a theological construct. God didn’t give a lot in the way of the how, but He sure said a lot about the what it should do.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @111 I thought as much, there is nothing with in Article II which supports your argument. Please in the future do not butcher a text and call it a quote. Even in your highly butchered quote there is nothing concerning the image of God. If there were the confessions would stand in direct contradiction to Scripture which they don’t. So, “So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.” Genesis 2:27 In the image of God he created them – male and female. In short, the confessions, they do not say what you think they say.

    This isn’t the only time this kind of thing comes up. God uses marriage to describe his relationship with his people Hosea, the parables, Paul’s letters. When Paul brings up the sin of Adam and Eve ask what was destroyed. It was the image of God.

    BTW, marriage is a weird thing, ultimately it is about the Gospel. Notice how when Paul speaks of marriage, particularly in Ephesians, he is talking about the Gospel.

    Also, one does not need to be a sacrament to be a theological construct. And guess what, government is a theological construct. God didn’t give a lot in the way of the how, but He sure said a lot about the what it should do.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank – I don’t see how your definitions @ 107 conflict with dr. Luther @ 101. He has not denied the definition of the family as set out as the basis for government. He has not denied the doctrine of Two Kingdoms. He has not denied the vocational roles that exist within families. From a confessional standpoint, what he is addressing is entirely in line with what is in the Apology in the sections addressing both marriage and celibacy. The same themes are addressed in the Smalcald Articles as well. You know this.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank – I don’t see how your definitions @ 107 conflict with dr. Luther @ 101. He has not denied the definition of the family as set out as the basis for government. He has not denied the doctrine of Two Kingdoms. He has not denied the vocational roles that exist within families. From a confessional standpoint, what he is addressing is entirely in line with what is in the Apology in the sections addressing both marriage and celibacy. The same themes are addressed in the Smalcald Articles as well. You know this.

  • fws

    dr Luther @110

    dont just read the text of the apology. consider it in context.

    they are arguing for the proposition that the Image of God and Original righeousness was for Adam, and so is for us as well: faith. Alone!

    Our Works are a consequence or fruit.
    The are the consequence of either sin (the absence of that faith) or faith, which is fear, love and trust. The bible passage that says this is “whatever is not of faith is sin”. the opposite of sin is not the goodness of comforming to Divine Design. It is faith!

    This must be the context into which you place what is said in Apology II.

    so what is it they are arguing against as a proposition?
    It is this:
    Original sin is mans deviance from Thomist Natural Law. Original sin is non conformity to the Law of God.
    Therefore Original Righeousness consisted in conformity to God’s Divine Design. Original Righteousness is conformity to the Law.
    So then the end of the Gospel is really to reconform us to the Law.
    The Gospel serves the Law.

    Instead the Confessions say that you have the Image of God fully and completely restored, and instantaneously so, Dr Luther , insofar as you were regenerated in baptism (FC VI). That is the radical proposition of our Confessions against Thomist Scholastic Roman Catholicism.

  • fws

    dr Luther @110

    dont just read the text of the apology. consider it in context.

    they are arguing for the proposition that the Image of God and Original righeousness was for Adam, and so is for us as well: faith. Alone!

    Our Works are a consequence or fruit.
    The are the consequence of either sin (the absence of that faith) or faith, which is fear, love and trust. The bible passage that says this is “whatever is not of faith is sin”. the opposite of sin is not the goodness of comforming to Divine Design. It is faith!

    This must be the context into which you place what is said in Apology II.

    so what is it they are arguing against as a proposition?
    It is this:
    Original sin is mans deviance from Thomist Natural Law. Original sin is non conformity to the Law of God.
    Therefore Original Righeousness consisted in conformity to God’s Divine Design. Original Righteousness is conformity to the Law.
    So then the end of the Gospel is really to reconform us to the Law.
    The Gospel serves the Law.

    Instead the Confessions say that you have the Image of God fully and completely restored, and instantaneously so, Dr Luther , insofar as you were regenerated in baptism (FC VI). That is the radical proposition of our Confessions against Thomist Scholastic Roman Catholicism.

  • Pete

    to jon @104

    You know, I always had this suspicion about Bruce Wayne…

  • Pete

    to jon @104

    You know, I always had this suspicion about Bruce Wayne…

  • SKPeterson

    And I see that in the time between when I wrote this and I was interrupted before sending this – you two have been going over this ground.

  • SKPeterson

    And I see that in the time between when I wrote this and I was interrupted before sending this – you two have been going over this ground.

  • Jonathan

    @114, Dr. L, what’s your opinion about states’ laws that recognize marriages between divorced people?

  • Jonathan

    @114, Dr. L, what’s your opinion about states’ laws that recognize marriages between divorced people?

  • fws

    sk peterson at 115

    what really took me back was his identifying the Image of God with marriage. that is totally contrary and at war with what the Confessions say about both marriage and the Image of God.

    The Image of God is identified as being, specifically, Original Righeousness.

    if the Image of God is conformity to Gods Design in Marriage, than Original Righeousness must be defined as a restoration of conformity to Divine Law.

    This notion is the precise notion that the Apology exists to refute at its very core. The righeousness of God is Christ and we are restored to that righeousness alone by faith. Apart from works and the Law.

    I am very very surprised at this turn. I MUST be misunderstanding what dr Luther is saying. He simply cant be as far astray as I am imagining right now.

  • fws

    sk peterson at 115

    what really took me back was his identifying the Image of God with marriage. that is totally contrary and at war with what the Confessions say about both marriage and the Image of God.

    The Image of God is identified as being, specifically, Original Righeousness.

    if the Image of God is conformity to Gods Design in Marriage, than Original Righeousness must be defined as a restoration of conformity to Divine Law.

    This notion is the precise notion that the Apology exists to refute at its very core. The righeousness of God is Christ and we are restored to that righeousness alone by faith. Apart from works and the Law.

    I am very very surprised at this turn. I MUST be misunderstanding what dr Luther is saying. He simply cant be as far astray as I am imagining right now.

  • Pete

    tODD @113

    You’re right. Once we hit comment #50 or so, that image from one of the Matrix movies with Neo in a courtyard fighting off wave after wave of Mr. Smiths just locked in.

  • Pete

    tODD @113

    You’re right. Once we hit comment #50 or so, that image from one of the Matrix movies with Neo in a courtyard fighting off wave after wave of Mr. Smiths just locked in.

  • fws

    Marriage is defined, in its essence as one of three earthly governments. Government signals… Law as a tool of extortion and coercion wielded upon Old Adam!

    Marriage was not necessary before the fall and will not be after the fall precisely because of this.

    Mariage is an estate , marriage is an ordo.
    these both mean marriage is a government.
    Within that government are vocations. yes the household servants are possible vocations there.

    this is the Lutheran teaching on marriage.

    it can be found in the large catechism in the 4th and 6th commandments.

  • fws

    Marriage is defined, in its essence as one of three earthly governments. Government signals… Law as a tool of extortion and coercion wielded upon Old Adam!

    Marriage was not necessary before the fall and will not be after the fall precisely because of this.

    Mariage is an estate , marriage is an ordo.
    these both mean marriage is a government.
    Within that government are vocations. yes the household servants are possible vocations there.

    this is the Lutheran teaching on marriage.

    it can be found in the large catechism in the 4th and 6th commandments.

  • fws

    sk peterson and dr luther

    I sincerely sincerely hope that I am overreacting and missing something dr luther is saying that would allow me to take what was written in the Confessional sense.

    help me please see that. I would appreciate!

  • fws

    sk peterson and dr luther

    I sincerely sincerely hope that I am overreacting and missing something dr luther is saying that would allow me to take what was written in the Confessional sense.

    help me please see that. I would appreciate!

  • Grace

    There are other examples, but these will do nicely. The LORD, nor HIS Apostles speak of husbands married to husbands, or wives married to wives.

    24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
    Ephesians 5

    ( It doesn’t say anything about wives to wives, nor does it state husbands love your husbands. )

    18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

    19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

    Colossians 3

    ( No mention here about husbands submitting to husbands )

    Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Timothy 3:12

    ( Not one word of a deacon being the husband of a husband. )

    4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
    Titus 2

    ( They are not talking husbands married to husband, or a wife married to a wife. )

  • Grace

    There are other examples, but these will do nicely. The LORD, nor HIS Apostles speak of husbands married to husbands, or wives married to wives.

    24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
    Ephesians 5

    ( It doesn’t say anything about wives to wives, nor does it state husbands love your husbands. )

    18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

    19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

    Colossians 3

    ( No mention here about husbands submitting to husbands )

    Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Timothy 3:12

    ( Not one word of a deacon being the husband of a husband. )

    4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
    Titus 2

    ( They are not talking husbands married to husband, or a wife married to a wife. )

  • Jon

    Frank, 107

    Can you be more specific about the LC, what paragraphs you are referring to define about “marriage”?

    I don’t see anywhere in there he talks of the marriage elements you are talking about. In fact, he doesn’t use any derivation of the word “marry” or “marriage” in LC 4th commandment that my computer could find.

    He does indeed talk about vocations of husband, wife. And it talks of the duties of children to obey parents, even servants to obey masters. But marriage itself? No. It’s talking about parent/child-like relationships and a smoothly running “household” or organization, and the woes that come when you don’t obey and don’t have a smooth operation.

    But no discussion in the context of what makes a “marriage” by its most basic elements. At least he doesn’t say “marriage = x, y, z.” Christian household = x, y, z, yes, he certainly does. But to equate that with the meaning of marriage, its essential requirements? I’m not sure I follow you.

  • Jon

    Frank, 107

    Can you be more specific about the LC, what paragraphs you are referring to define about “marriage”?

    I don’t see anywhere in there he talks of the marriage elements you are talking about. In fact, he doesn’t use any derivation of the word “marry” or “marriage” in LC 4th commandment that my computer could find.

    He does indeed talk about vocations of husband, wife. And it talks of the duties of children to obey parents, even servants to obey masters. But marriage itself? No. It’s talking about parent/child-like relationships and a smoothly running “household” or organization, and the woes that come when you don’t obey and don’t have a smooth operation.

    But no discussion in the context of what makes a “marriage” by its most basic elements. At least he doesn’t say “marriage = x, y, z.” Christian household = x, y, z, yes, he certainly does. But to equate that with the meaning of marriage, its essential requirements? I’m not sure I follow you.

  • formerly just steve

    On a side note, Cranach appears to be alive and well!

  • formerly just steve

    On a side note, Cranach appears to be alive and well!

  • Dr Luther in the 21st century

    @123. I think the issue is you are trying to get the confessions to answer a question they don’t touch. The confessions are silent on the topic of the image of God. They speak of who He is but they never address His image. Judging by Luther’s commentary on Genesis, original righteousness refers to the state of sinlessness but does not reference His image. Luther focuses only on the redemption story and never really dissects “image of God”.

    Also, I am not sure why you are thinking marriage saves. When I say marriage is about the Gospel it is not to say it is the Gospel and therefore saves.

  • Dr Luther in the 21st century

    @123. I think the issue is you are trying to get the confessions to answer a question they don’t touch. The confessions are silent on the topic of the image of God. They speak of who He is but they never address His image. Judging by Luther’s commentary on Genesis, original righteousness refers to the state of sinlessness but does not reference His image. Luther focuses only on the redemption story and never really dissects “image of God”.

    Also, I am not sure why you are thinking marriage saves. When I say marriage is about the Gospel it is not to say it is the Gospel and therefore saves.

  • SKPeterson

    OK – we have Smalcald Article XI The Marriage of Priests which affirms that marriage is created and ordained by God, and the Apology Article XXIII.

    Those aren’t the only places where marriage is addressed, as there are comments scattered in the sections on monastic vows.

  • SKPeterson

    OK – we have Smalcald Article XI The Marriage of Priests which affirms that marriage is created and ordained by God, and the Apology Article XXIII.

    Those aren’t the only places where marriage is addressed, as there are comments scattered in the sections on monastic vows.

  • Dr Luther in the 21st century

    Clarification – I am not sure why you are thinking I am saying marriage saves…

  • Dr Luther in the 21st century

    Clarification – I am not sure why you are thinking I am saying marriage saves…

  • fws

    dr luther @ 127

    The confessions are silent on the topic of the image of God. They speak of who He is but they never address His image.

    To the very utter contrary, Apology art II. see my post @ 111: Image of God=Original Righeousness=Faith is the very heart of Apology II and is therefore the foundation for what follows in art III and IV.

    Dear brother, did you read what I presented in post 111? And did you read what I said about reading apology II considering the context, what is the contrary proposition that the Scholastics were arguing for?

    I am stunned you would assert that.

    Also, I am not sure why you are thinking marriage saves. When I say marriage is about the Gospel it is not to say it is the Gospel and therefore saves.

    Marriage is about death for Old Adam. it is about mortification. It is 100% Law. there is NOTHING about marriage that is Gospel. Not one even teeny tiney part of it.

    Your suggesting it is Gospel in any way whatsoever is an utter and total confusion of Law and Gospel.

    I am trying to be as radically absolute here as is possible. This single point needs to be bold and underlined.

  • fws

    dr luther @ 127

    The confessions are silent on the topic of the image of God. They speak of who He is but they never address His image.

    To the very utter contrary, Apology art II. see my post @ 111: Image of God=Original Righeousness=Faith is the very heart of Apology II and is therefore the foundation for what follows in art III and IV.

    Dear brother, did you read what I presented in post 111? And did you read what I said about reading apology II considering the context, what is the contrary proposition that the Scholastics were arguing for?

    I am stunned you would assert that.

    Also, I am not sure why you are thinking marriage saves. When I say marriage is about the Gospel it is not to say it is the Gospel and therefore saves.

    Marriage is about death for Old Adam. it is about mortification. It is 100% Law. there is NOTHING about marriage that is Gospel. Not one even teeny tiney part of it.

    Your suggesting it is Gospel in any way whatsoever is an utter and total confusion of Law and Gospel.

    I am trying to be as radically absolute here as is possible. This single point needs to be bold and underlined.

  • Michael B.

    Wow. There’s as many opinions on homosexuality as there are posters.

  • Michael B.

    Wow. There’s as many opinions on homosexuality as there are posters.

  • Grace

    Michael,

    I don’t agree with you.

    Sin is a popular topic, there are lots of so called Christians who make every effort to distort God’s Word, using every and all books written by man, and the Bible, to condone almost any sexual sin.

  • Grace

    Michael,

    I don’t agree with you.

    Sin is a popular topic, there are lots of so called Christians who make every effort to distort God’s Word, using every and all books written by man, and the Bible, to condone almost any sexual sin.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @130 I feel that you are trying to self justify here. If you make marriage law you can safely ignore it, but if it is something more then it becomes very sticking considering your life. I was trying to refrain from saying such. But I cannot in the face of blatant twisting of the confessions, ignoring of definitions, etc. Until you come to grips with core issues I see no point in going on.

    You are attempting to make the confessions speak where they are silent. You are changing how “original innocence” is used. You are ignoring the plain text of the Genesis account. You are ignoring Paul speaking in Gospel terms about the relationship of marriage in Eph 5. Until you stop, there is no point in continuing.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @130 I feel that you are trying to self justify here. If you make marriage law you can safely ignore it, but if it is something more then it becomes very sticking considering your life. I was trying to refrain from saying such. But I cannot in the face of blatant twisting of the confessions, ignoring of definitions, etc. Until you come to grips with core issues I see no point in going on.

    You are attempting to make the confessions speak where they are silent. You are changing how “original innocence” is used. You are ignoring the plain text of the Genesis account. You are ignoring Paul speaking in Gospel terms about the relationship of marriage in Eph 5. Until you stop, there is no point in continuing.

  • Grace

    21st Century

    The most serious mistake is distorting Scripture, it is the inerrant Word of God.

    If one can change the meaning of homosexuality, then they, and others can change fornication, pornography, prostitution, and a host of other sexual sins.

    In ancient Greece and Rome, the pagans along with others practiced such dastardly acts, to amuse, and satisfy their animal instincts. It’s no different today, it’s just getting worse.

    The painful truth is; our children and grandchildren are witnessing this garbage, not just on T.V. but in magazines, and if that weren’t enough craming the ideas into their heads in public education. See post number 76 regarding, “LGBT stands for – “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender” -

  • Grace

    21st Century

    The most serious mistake is distorting Scripture, it is the inerrant Word of God.

    If one can change the meaning of homosexuality, then they, and others can change fornication, pornography, prostitution, and a host of other sexual sins.

    In ancient Greece and Rome, the pagans along with others practiced such dastardly acts, to amuse, and satisfy their animal instincts. It’s no different today, it’s just getting worse.

    The painful truth is; our children and grandchildren are witnessing this garbage, not just on T.V. but in magazines, and if that weren’t enough craming the ideas into their heads in public education. See post number 76 regarding, “LGBT stands for – “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender” -

  • Michael B.

    @Grace

    “Sin is a popular topic, there are lots of so called Christians who make every effort to distort God’s Word, using every and all books written by man, and the Bible, to condone almost any sexual sin.”

    Even the most liberal Christian has to concede that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. I don’t at all disagree with you on that.

  • Michael B.

    @Grace

    “Sin is a popular topic, there are lots of so called Christians who make every effort to distort God’s Word, using every and all books written by man, and the Bible, to condone almost any sexual sin.”

    Even the most liberal Christian has to concede that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. I don’t at all disagree with you on that.

  • fws

    sk @ 128

    It is far more simple than that. The Confessions define what marriage is, as of it’s essence, in the Large Catechism.

    The Confessions say this:
    First he summarized the 4th and 6th commandments in the 6th commandment:

    206]…God honors and extols this [estate called matrimony], …by His commandment He both sanctions and guards it. He has sanctioned it above in the Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother; but here He has (as we said) hedged it about and protected it.

    Luther just asserted that the topic of both the 4th and 6th commandments is “the estate of matrimony”!

    So what is it he says matrimony is and does in the 4th commandment? I think you will see that he defines this estate of matrimony as being, of the essence, an earthly government. Let’s see if I am right! In the 4th commandment he says this:

    108] We must, …parents as in God’s stead,…lowly, poor, frail, and queer….nevertheless …. They are not to be deprived of their honor because of their conduct or their failings. … we are, …all alike in the eyes of God; but among us there must necessarily be such inequality and ordered difference, …therefore God commands …, that you obey me as your father, and that I have the supremacy. …we observe modesty toward them, … yield to them and be silent, even though they go too far. 111] …we …serve them, help them, and provide for them …with humility and reverence, as doing it before God.; For God has assigned this estate the highest place, yea, has set it up in His own stead, upon earth.

    whoever observes …shall have happy days, … whoever is disobedient shall the sooner perish,… For to have long life…is not only to become old, but to have everything which belongs to long life, such as health, wife, and children, livelihood, peace, good government, etc., without which this life can neither be enjoyed in cheerfulness nor long endure.

    135] If, therefore, you will not obey father and mother and submit to their discipline, then obey the hangman; if you will not obey him, then submit to the skeleton-man, i.e., death …because they will not submit to discipline in kindness, so that, by the punishment of God, they bring it about that we behold their misfortune and grief?

    then this…

    141] In this commandment belongs… all kinds of obedience to persons in authority who have to command and to govern. For all authority flows and is propagated from the authority of parents. For where a father is unable alone to educate his [rebellious and irritable] child, he employs a schoolmaster … if he be too weak, he enlists the aid of his friends and neighbors; if he departs this life, he delegates and confers his authority and government upon others who are appointed for the purpose.

    And here we read that domestic servants are included in the definition of what the estate [ie government] of matrimony is! The definition of marriage includes domestic help!

    142] Likewise, he must have domestics, man-servants and maid-servants, under himself for the management of the household, so that all whom we call masters are in the place of parents and must derive their power and authority to govern from them. Hence also they are all called fathers in the Scriptures, as those who in their government perform the functions of a father, and should have a paternal heart toward their subordinates. As also from antiquity the Romans…called their national rulers and overlords patres patriae, that is, fathers of the entire country, for a great shame to us who would be Christians that we do not likewise call them so, or, at least, do not esteem and honor them as such.

    and now this is said about the IRS, congress and the president :)

    150] The same also is to be said of obedience to civil government, which (as we have said) is all embraced in the estate of fatherhood and extends farthest of all relations. For here the father is not one of a single family, but of as many people as he has tenants, citizens, or subjects. For through them, as through our parents, God gives to us food, house and home, protection and security. Therefore, since they bear such name and title with all honor as their highest dignity, it is our duty to honor them and to esteem them great as the dearest treasure and the most precious jewel upon earth.

    151] He, now, who is obedient here, … will receive joy and happiness for his reward. If he will not do it in love, but despises and resists [authority] or rebels, let him also know, on the other hand, that he shall have no favor nor blessing,…become a victim to the hangman, perish by war, pestilence, and famine, or experience no good in his children, and be obliged to suffer injury, injustice, and violence at the hands of his servants, neighbors, or strangers and tyrants; so that what we seek and deserve is paid back and comes home to us.

    Comment: !!!

    158] Thus we have two kinds of fathers presented in this commandment, fathers in blood and fathers in office, or those to whom belongs the care of the family, and those to whom belongs the care of the country.

    Besides these there are yet spiritual fathers; For those only are called spiritual fathers who govern and guide us by the Word of God; 159] as St. Paul boasts his fatherhood 1 Cor. 4:15, where he says: In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.
    161] … those who would be Christians are under obligation..that they deal well with them and provide for them.

    Three earthly estates/ordos/governments. Matrimony, society, church. Same essence. Law. Mortification. NO gospel here.

    And God desires to have it embraced in this commandment when He speaks of father and mother. 168] For He does not wish to have in this office and government knaves and tyrants; …they should… …support and provide for the bodily necessities of their children, servants, subjects, etc. , but, most of all, to train them to the honor and praise of God. 169]

    But for this purpose He has given us children, … have them learn and study something, 174] that they may be employed for whatever need there is [to have them instructed and trained in a liberal education, that men may be able to have their aid in government and in whatever is necessary]. …give us … men by whom land and people might be improved, and likewise well-educated citizens, chaste and domestic wives, who afterwards would rear godly children and servants.

    176] …by…. fail[ing] on your part to bring up your child to usefulness and piety, … you bring upon yourself all sin and wrath, thus earning hell by your own children, even though you be otherwise pious and holy. 177] And because this is disregarded, God so fearfully punishes the world that there is no discipline, government, or peace, of which we all complain, but do not see that it is our fault; for as we train them, we have spoiled and disobedient children and subjects.

    That’s it. Nothing theological about Image of God and such. Not. There!

    Apology art XXIII really is all about the 6th commandment. Here:

    211] In the second place, you must know also that it is not only an honorable, but also a necessary state, and it is solemnly commanded by God that, in general, in all conditions, men and women, who were created for it, shall be found in this estate; yet with some exceptions (although few) whom God has especially excepted, so that they are not fit for the married estate, or whom He has released by a high, supernatural gift that they can maintain chastity without this estate. 212] For where nature has its course, as it is implanted by God, it is not possible to remain chaste without marriage. For flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and the natural inclination and excitement have their course without let or hindrance, as everybody sees and feels. In order, therefore, that it may be the more easy in some degree to avoid inchastity, God has commanded the estate of matrimony, that every one may have his proper portion and be satisfied therewith; although God’s grace besides is required in order that the heart also may be pure.

    So talk about marriage being about the Image of God and the Gospel is nonesense.

    This is a very comprehensive Lutheran teaching about what matrimony is definitionally.

  • fws

    sk @ 128

    It is far more simple than that. The Confessions define what marriage is, as of it’s essence, in the Large Catechism.

    The Confessions say this:
    First he summarized the 4th and 6th commandments in the 6th commandment:

    206]…God honors and extols this [estate called matrimony], …by His commandment He both sanctions and guards it. He has sanctioned it above in the Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother; but here He has (as we said) hedged it about and protected it.

    Luther just asserted that the topic of both the 4th and 6th commandments is “the estate of matrimony”!

    So what is it he says matrimony is and does in the 4th commandment? I think you will see that he defines this estate of matrimony as being, of the essence, an earthly government. Let’s see if I am right! In the 4th commandment he says this:

    108] We must, …parents as in God’s stead,…lowly, poor, frail, and queer….nevertheless …. They are not to be deprived of their honor because of their conduct or their failings. … we are, …all alike in the eyes of God; but among us there must necessarily be such inequality and ordered difference, …therefore God commands …, that you obey me as your father, and that I have the supremacy. …we observe modesty toward them, … yield to them and be silent, even though they go too far. 111] …we …serve them, help them, and provide for them …with humility and reverence, as doing it before God.; For God has assigned this estate the highest place, yea, has set it up in His own stead, upon earth.

    whoever observes …shall have happy days, … whoever is disobedient shall the sooner perish,… For to have long life…is not only to become old, but to have everything which belongs to long life, such as health, wife, and children, livelihood, peace, good government, etc., without which this life can neither be enjoyed in cheerfulness nor long endure.

    135] If, therefore, you will not obey father and mother and submit to their discipline, then obey the hangman; if you will not obey him, then submit to the skeleton-man, i.e., death …because they will not submit to discipline in kindness, so that, by the punishment of God, they bring it about that we behold their misfortune and grief?

    then this…

    141] In this commandment belongs… all kinds of obedience to persons in authority who have to command and to govern. For all authority flows and is propagated from the authority of parents. For where a father is unable alone to educate his [rebellious and irritable] child, he employs a schoolmaster … if he be too weak, he enlists the aid of his friends and neighbors; if he departs this life, he delegates and confers his authority and government upon others who are appointed for the purpose.

    And here we read that domestic servants are included in the definition of what the estate [ie government] of matrimony is! The definition of marriage includes domestic help!

    142] Likewise, he must have domestics, man-servants and maid-servants, under himself for the management of the household, so that all whom we call masters are in the place of parents and must derive their power and authority to govern from them. Hence also they are all called fathers in the Scriptures, as those who in their government perform the functions of a father, and should have a paternal heart toward their subordinates. As also from antiquity the Romans…called their national rulers and overlords patres patriae, that is, fathers of the entire country, for a great shame to us who would be Christians that we do not likewise call them so, or, at least, do not esteem and honor them as such.

    and now this is said about the IRS, congress and the president :)

    150] The same also is to be said of obedience to civil government, which (as we have said) is all embraced in the estate of fatherhood and extends farthest of all relations. For here the father is not one of a single family, but of as many people as he has tenants, citizens, or subjects. For through them, as through our parents, God gives to us food, house and home, protection and security. Therefore, since they bear such name and title with all honor as their highest dignity, it is our duty to honor them and to esteem them great as the dearest treasure and the most precious jewel upon earth.

    151] He, now, who is obedient here, … will receive joy and happiness for his reward. If he will not do it in love, but despises and resists [authority] or rebels, let him also know, on the other hand, that he shall have no favor nor blessing,…become a victim to the hangman, perish by war, pestilence, and famine, or experience no good in his children, and be obliged to suffer injury, injustice, and violence at the hands of his servants, neighbors, or strangers and tyrants; so that what we seek and deserve is paid back and comes home to us.

    Comment: !!!

    158] Thus we have two kinds of fathers presented in this commandment, fathers in blood and fathers in office, or those to whom belongs the care of the family, and those to whom belongs the care of the country.

    Besides these there are yet spiritual fathers; For those only are called spiritual fathers who govern and guide us by the Word of God; 159] as St. Paul boasts his fatherhood 1 Cor. 4:15, where he says: In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.
    161] … those who would be Christians are under obligation..that they deal well with them and provide for them.

    Three earthly estates/ordos/governments. Matrimony, society, church. Same essence. Law. Mortification. NO gospel here.

    And God desires to have it embraced in this commandment when He speaks of father and mother. 168] For He does not wish to have in this office and government knaves and tyrants; …they should… …support and provide for the bodily necessities of their children, servants, subjects, etc. , but, most of all, to train them to the honor and praise of God. 169]

    But for this purpose He has given us children, … have them learn and study something, 174] that they may be employed for whatever need there is [to have them instructed and trained in a liberal education, that men may be able to have their aid in government and in whatever is necessary]. …give us … men by whom land and people might be improved, and likewise well-educated citizens, chaste and domestic wives, who afterwards would rear godly children and servants.

    176] …by…. fail[ing] on your part to bring up your child to usefulness and piety, … you bring upon yourself all sin and wrath, thus earning hell by your own children, even though you be otherwise pious and holy. 177] And because this is disregarded, God so fearfully punishes the world that there is no discipline, government, or peace, of which we all complain, but do not see that it is our fault; for as we train them, we have spoiled and disobedient children and subjects.

    That’s it. Nothing theological about Image of God and such. Not. There!

    Apology art XXIII really is all about the 6th commandment. Here:

    211] In the second place, you must know also that it is not only an honorable, but also a necessary state, and it is solemnly commanded by God that, in general, in all conditions, men and women, who were created for it, shall be found in this estate; yet with some exceptions (although few) whom God has especially excepted, so that they are not fit for the married estate, or whom He has released by a high, supernatural gift that they can maintain chastity without this estate. 212] For where nature has its course, as it is implanted by God, it is not possible to remain chaste without marriage. For flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and the natural inclination and excitement have their course without let or hindrance, as everybody sees and feels. In order, therefore, that it may be the more easy in some degree to avoid inchastity, God has commanded the estate of matrimony, that every one may have his proper portion and be satisfied therewith; although God’s grace besides is required in order that the heart also may be pure.

    So talk about marriage being about the Image of God and the Gospel is nonesense.

    This is a very comprehensive Lutheran teaching about what matrimony is definitionally.

  • Grace

    As I stated before “It’s no different today, it’s just getting worse. “

    These magazine covers are seen by our children, grandchildren. How can anyone condone such garbage?

    WARNING – this is a very graphic photo on the front of magazine

    Time Cover: ‘Are You Mom Enough?’

    By Greg Pollowitz
    May 10, 2012

    http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/299565/itimei-cover-are-you-mom-enough-greg-pollowitz#

    WARNING - this is just as graphic, with a story to match.

    Hit the LINK and read the story for yourself.

    The Backstory
    Thursday, May 10, 2012 | By Feifei Sun
    Behind the Cover: Are You Mom Enough?

    http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/10/parenting/#1

  • Grace

    As I stated before “It’s no different today, it’s just getting worse. “

    These magazine covers are seen by our children, grandchildren. How can anyone condone such garbage?

    WARNING – this is a very graphic photo on the front of magazine

    Time Cover: ‘Are You Mom Enough?’

    By Greg Pollowitz
    May 10, 2012

    http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/299565/itimei-cover-are-you-mom-enough-greg-pollowitz#

    WARNING - this is just as graphic, with a story to match.

    Hit the LINK and read the story for yourself.

    The Backstory
    Thursday, May 10, 2012 | By Feifei Sun
    Behind the Cover: Are You Mom Enough?

    http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/10/parenting/#1

  • Grace

    The above photo was/is on the front page of DRUDGE:

    http://www.drudgereport.com/

  • Grace

    The above photo was/is on the front page of DRUDGE:

    http://www.drudgereport.com/

  • fws

    dr luther @ 133

    Time out. You said:

    The confessions are silent on the topic of the image of God. They speak of who He is but they never address His image. Judging by Luther’s commentary on Genesis…..

    You were wrong. my post 111 .
    Admit you are wrong? noooooo. instead you say this:

    @130 I feel that you are trying to self justify here….You are attempting to make the confessions speak where they are silent. You are changing how “original innocence” is used. You are ignoring the plain text of the Genesis account.

    I am quoting the Apology. Which “original innocence. ” And says that the original righteousness is the Image of God. So how is it me that is changing anything here Dr Luther. Can you help on this point SK petersen? Yikes.

    You are ignoring Paul speaking in Gospel terms about the relationship of marriage in Eph 5.

    Ok here you have a point and I apologize. I should have dealt more directly with the text you presented rather than just make an assertion.

    you say in post 127 “When I say marriage is about the Gospel it is not to say it is the Gospel “.

    Let me slow down here then and listen. Marriage is “about the Gospel” but is not the gospel.Marriage is it a fruit of the gospel? Pagans dont have marriage? “it is about the gospel” means what to you? Marriage is not Law then? we DO agree that marriage is NOT a sacrament right? or do we?…….

    Let’s go to Eph 5 ok?

    Dont accuse me of ignoring your points. That is neither fair nor true Dr Luther! This is not an argument for gay marriage Dr Luther and is totally off topic. Ok? You were the one who brought up the image of God and connected it to Marriage. And you are wrong.

    Let’s go to eph 5 directly ok?

    Let’s look for something that looks like “marriage is about the Gospel.” or…
    that maybe contradicts what frank says: “marriage is ALL about the Law. it is ALL about mortification. It is about death.

    Wives, submit to your own husbands, as as to the Lord.

    Wives, mortify your flesh. Law. Follow the church as your example. STILL Law. The Law always accuses.

    For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

    This unpacks that word submit. Law word. Context: The father of the groom bought every wife addressed here. She is legally the chattel property of the husband. He can do with her whatever he pleases. legally. And thus the Church is to Christ!

    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

    Mega Law. The Law always accuses. Mega mega Law. SUPER condemning Law. Yikes.

    that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

    This defines that law word love . Pure Law for the husband. Mortification. Death for his Old Adam. Loving for the husband is about killing his Old Adam.

    Aha! But here we have what Christ did. Gospel? No. This is Christ as Example! That is Law too!

    the Law reveals the righteous, immutable will of God. It describes what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God. In this passage there is the implied threat for husbands who don’t follow the Example of Christ with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments. It IS true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is STILL Law! It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath

    Where is THIS saying that marriage is “about” what Christ did? “marriage is about the gospel”? No gospel here. None. 200 proof Law. Law law law law.

    In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it,

    Law. More Law. should. Love. As their own bodies! Laaaaaaw!

    just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

    More Christ as Example. This is terrifying Law! mega law. God says “husbands be exactly like Christ!” trembling yet? Do you DO that Dr Luther?

    “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

    Ah. Description. even with the shall there. The context describes something that happens. The Mystery referring to Christ is what here? Leaving? Cleaving? becoming one flesh? (sex with a prostitute we are told is also that. All of it? “refers to” as in pictures? “is about the gospel? ” marriage? My vote is “all of the above”. And “all of the above ” is…. all Law. It all refers to Christ as Example.

    <blockquote. However,…

    That transitional word means alot here! Dont skip over it lightly!

    let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

    More Law.
    “Marriage is about the Gospel?” Where is that in this text?

    (Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV)

  • fws

    dr luther @ 133

    Time out. You said:

    The confessions are silent on the topic of the image of God. They speak of who He is but they never address His image. Judging by Luther’s commentary on Genesis…..

    You were wrong. my post 111 .
    Admit you are wrong? noooooo. instead you say this:

    @130 I feel that you are trying to self justify here….You are attempting to make the confessions speak where they are silent. You are changing how “original innocence” is used. You are ignoring the plain text of the Genesis account.

    I am quoting the Apology. Which “original innocence. ” And says that the original righteousness is the Image of God. So how is it me that is changing anything here Dr Luther. Can you help on this point SK petersen? Yikes.

    You are ignoring Paul speaking in Gospel terms about the relationship of marriage in Eph 5.

    Ok here you have a point and I apologize. I should have dealt more directly with the text you presented rather than just make an assertion.

    you say in post 127 “When I say marriage is about the Gospel it is not to say it is the Gospel “.

    Let me slow down here then and listen. Marriage is “about the Gospel” but is not the gospel.Marriage is it a fruit of the gospel? Pagans dont have marriage? “it is about the gospel” means what to you? Marriage is not Law then? we DO agree that marriage is NOT a sacrament right? or do we?…….

    Let’s go to Eph 5 ok?

    Dont accuse me of ignoring your points. That is neither fair nor true Dr Luther! This is not an argument for gay marriage Dr Luther and is totally off topic. Ok? You were the one who brought up the image of God and connected it to Marriage. And you are wrong.

    Let’s go to eph 5 directly ok?

    Let’s look for something that looks like “marriage is about the Gospel.” or…
    that maybe contradicts what frank says: “marriage is ALL about the Law. it is ALL about mortification. It is about death.

    Wives, submit to your own husbands, as as to the Lord.

    Wives, mortify your flesh. Law. Follow the church as your example. STILL Law. The Law always accuses.

    For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

    This unpacks that word submit. Law word. Context: The father of the groom bought every wife addressed here. She is legally the chattel property of the husband. He can do with her whatever he pleases. legally. And thus the Church is to Christ!

    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

    Mega Law. The Law always accuses. Mega mega Law. SUPER condemning Law. Yikes.

    that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

    This defines that law word love . Pure Law for the husband. Mortification. Death for his Old Adam. Loving for the husband is about killing his Old Adam.

    Aha! But here we have what Christ did. Gospel? No. This is Christ as Example! That is Law too!

    the Law reveals the righteous, immutable will of God. It describes what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God. In this passage there is the implied threat for husbands who don’t follow the Example of Christ with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments. It IS true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is STILL Law! It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath

    Where is THIS saying that marriage is “about” what Christ did? “marriage is about the gospel”? No gospel here. None. 200 proof Law. Law law law law.

    In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it,

    Law. More Law. should. Love. As their own bodies! Laaaaaaw!

    just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

    More Christ as Example. This is terrifying Law! mega law. God says “husbands be exactly like Christ!” trembling yet? Do you DO that Dr Luther?

    “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

    Ah. Description. even with the shall there. The context describes something that happens. The Mystery referring to Christ is what here? Leaving? Cleaving? becoming one flesh? (sex with a prostitute we are told is also that. All of it? “refers to” as in pictures? “is about the gospel? ” marriage? My vote is “all of the above”. And “all of the above ” is…. all Law. It all refers to Christ as Example.

    <blockquote. However,…

    That transitional word means alot here! Dont skip over it lightly!

    let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

    More Law.
    “Marriage is about the Gospel?” Where is that in this text?

    (Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV)

  • Grace

    Michael @ 135

    “Even the most liberal Christian has to concede that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. I don’t at all disagree with you on that.”

    I’m glad. I must have misunderstood what you were posting.

    Sorry Michael ;)

  • Grace

    Michael @ 135

    “Even the most liberal Christian has to concede that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. I don’t at all disagree with you on that.”

    I’m glad. I must have misunderstood what you were posting.

    Sorry Michael ;)

  • fws

    dr luther @ 133

    If you make marriage law you can safely ignore it, but if marriage is something more [than law] [ABOUT the gospel but NOT the gospel for example!] then it becomes very sticking considering your life.

    Unscriptural. The exact Opposite is true:
    No one can ignore the Law. The Law always accuses. it is written in our Brains. (rom 2:15 , apology III). It will never every leave the conscience in peace….. until we are hidden in Christ.
    In contrast, the Gospel can be ignored and reason will always do this.
    So what? Marriage is not Law it is, instead, “about the Gospel”, but… “it is not Gospel”. Huh?

    @130 I feel that you are trying to self justify here
    …[you are} .blatant[ly] twisting …the confessions,
    ignoring of definitions, etc.
    [ you are not coming] to grips with core issues
    You are attempting to make the confessions speak where they are silent.
    You are changing how “original innocence” is used.
    You are ignoring the plain text of the Genesis account.
    You are ignoring Paul speaking in Gospel terms about the relationship of marriage in Eph 5.

    I see no point in going on.
    Until you stop, there is no point in continuing.

    My. That is quite a list. Feel free to picture me clutching my pearls.

    I made an honest attempt to address the few points in your 8 (count em!) accusations that you identified specifically enough for me to do so.
    I went through eph 5. Conclusion: Marriage=Law. So not about the Gospel.
    I quoted the confessions at length. I twisted them? where?
    I redefined ‘original innocence’ ? where?
    we reviewed the confessional definition/description of marriage in the large catechism that defines marriage as …a government. Um… Law.

    So what else are you asking me to do to respond to your list of accusations in a sincere and christlike way?

  • fws

    dr luther @ 133

    If you make marriage law you can safely ignore it, but if marriage is something more [than law] [ABOUT the gospel but NOT the gospel for example!] then it becomes very sticking considering your life.

    Unscriptural. The exact Opposite is true:
    No one can ignore the Law. The Law always accuses. it is written in our Brains. (rom 2:15 , apology III). It will never every leave the conscience in peace….. until we are hidden in Christ.
    In contrast, the Gospel can be ignored and reason will always do this.
    So what? Marriage is not Law it is, instead, “about the Gospel”, but… “it is not Gospel”. Huh?

    @130 I feel that you are trying to self justify here
    …[you are} .blatant[ly] twisting …the confessions,
    ignoring of definitions, etc.
    [ you are not coming] to grips with core issues
    You are attempting to make the confessions speak where they are silent.
    You are changing how “original innocence” is used.
    You are ignoring the plain text of the Genesis account.
    You are ignoring Paul speaking in Gospel terms about the relationship of marriage in Eph 5.

    I see no point in going on.
    Until you stop, there is no point in continuing.

    My. That is quite a list. Feel free to picture me clutching my pearls.

    I made an honest attempt to address the few points in your 8 (count em!) accusations that you identified specifically enough for me to do so.
    I went through eph 5. Conclusion: Marriage=Law. So not about the Gospel.
    I quoted the confessions at length. I twisted them? where?
    I redefined ‘original innocence’ ? where?
    we reviewed the confessional definition/description of marriage in the large catechism that defines marriage as …a government. Um… Law.

    So what else are you asking me to do to respond to your list of accusations in a sincere and christlike way?

  • fws

    todd @ 113

    i am the only confessional lutheran fag on the site. If there was anyone else, either another gurly-man or a surogate honorary one, who wanted to step in and do the confessions and scripture on this point I would be very very pleased….

    but there isnt. so we COULD have the conversation be about how we all agree. Without me it would be that. wouldnt that be boring?

    we have gone now from this being about homosexuality to a discussion about whether matrimony is law or gospel. and whether the Image of God is law or gospel as well.

    Interesting how homo stuff can lead to some stuff that is waaaaay nmore important that a couple of sissies wanting to make a home for each other and their kids…

    but you wouldnt know from dr luther that those doctrinal points serve as anything other than arguments for or against the gay agenda.

    “@130 I feel that you are trying to self justify here. If you make marriage law you can safely ignore it, but if it is something more then it becomes very sticking considering your life. I was trying to refrain from saying such. But I cannot … ”

    There you have it.

    Since I am a fag,….
    I couldnt possibly have an interest in sound doctrine beyond what I need of it to futher the gay agenda. Obviously if one disagrees, somehow … I am constructing an argument in order to self justify.

    it is obvious that I am doing that to avoid having anything that is “about the gospel” and is not law, become very sticking … as we all ponder and consider my personal life.

  • fws

    todd @ 113

    i am the only confessional lutheran fag on the site. If there was anyone else, either another gurly-man or a surogate honorary one, who wanted to step in and do the confessions and scripture on this point I would be very very pleased….

    but there isnt. so we COULD have the conversation be about how we all agree. Without me it would be that. wouldnt that be boring?

    we have gone now from this being about homosexuality to a discussion about whether matrimony is law or gospel. and whether the Image of God is law or gospel as well.

    Interesting how homo stuff can lead to some stuff that is waaaaay nmore important that a couple of sissies wanting to make a home for each other and their kids…

    but you wouldnt know from dr luther that those doctrinal points serve as anything other than arguments for or against the gay agenda.

    “@130 I feel that you are trying to self justify here. If you make marriage law you can safely ignore it, but if it is something more then it becomes very sticking considering your life. I was trying to refrain from saying such. But I cannot … ”

    There you have it.

    Since I am a fag,….
    I couldnt possibly have an interest in sound doctrine beyond what I need of it to futher the gay agenda. Obviously if one disagrees, somehow … I am constructing an argument in order to self justify.

    it is obvious that I am doing that to avoid having anything that is “about the gospel” and is not law, become very sticking … as we all ponder and consider my personal life.

  • Grace

    Oh my, we have the usual phrase to shock the masses. LOL

    “i am the only confessional lutheran fag on the site.”

    AND

    “Since I am a fag,….”

    Cute? No, it’s just a way of saying something that no one else would never say or post. It’s a “typical” ……… “I cannot have my way” – “no one is buying this rhetoric” so…… I’ll throw out the the only word that we use, and the OTHERS won’t.

    It’s the GOSPEL, it’s always been the Gospel since Christ was born, taught/preached the Gospel, suffered on the cross, resurrected, and then spent 40 days with HIS Apostles – it hasn’t changed. What has changed is the homosexuals who want to devise ways in which they might travel backwards, or any way in which they might change the meaning of God’s Word.

    Even those in California who are liberal voted against same sex marriage. WHY? Because in their hearts, they know it is inherently sinful and wrong.

  • Grace

    Oh my, we have the usual phrase to shock the masses. LOL

    “i am the only confessional lutheran fag on the site.”

    AND

    “Since I am a fag,….”

    Cute? No, it’s just a way of saying something that no one else would never say or post. It’s a “typical” ……… “I cannot have my way” – “no one is buying this rhetoric” so…… I’ll throw out the the only word that we use, and the OTHERS won’t.

    It’s the GOSPEL, it’s always been the Gospel since Christ was born, taught/preached the Gospel, suffered on the cross, resurrected, and then spent 40 days with HIS Apostles – it hasn’t changed. What has changed is the homosexuals who want to devise ways in which they might travel backwards, or any way in which they might change the meaning of God’s Word.

    Even those in California who are liberal voted against same sex marriage. WHY? Because in their hearts, they know it is inherently sinful and wrong.

  • Grace

    No one cares about your “personal life” – you’re the one who stages these debates in order to dramatize whatever moment you believe to be to your advantage. LOL

  • Grace

    No one cares about your “personal life” – you’re the one who stages these debates in order to dramatize whatever moment you believe to be to your advantage. LOL

  • Grace

    Homosexuals are prone to believe that those who know they were created to love, marry and bear children with the opposite sex are unable to understand the homosexual perversion. Their right.

    The reason homosexuals are right in this respect is because they are wrong in thinking homosexual behavior is in-born, it’s not, it’s an outgrowth of denying what God has set down, from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve as…… a man and a woman. Its simple, but at the same time, has no roots in the pattern of homosexual thinking, which is rooted in that which is, as Paul wrote a REPROBATE MIND. All that is discarded as so much trash, … WHY?

    One cannot continue in sin without a willful desire for whatever is the long awaited outcome. The homosexual desires that of their own sex – why? The “WHY” isn’t important, the reason is simple, they aren’t interested in God’s provision for sinful man – that is repentance of sin, turning from sin, and seeking Christ. It’s all about them, their “instant gratification” – which never ends, it becomes a “gratification” at any cost – which includes family, disease, and heartbreak.

    Homosexuals are not hopeless, they are lost in lust, but they can be brought back to a fruitful life through Christ. Without Christ, they will continue on the same road, with all the stomping about, parades, flip remarks, and the disease which follows them throughout their lives.

    We as Believers can and should be in prayer regarding those who are homosexual. Those who know, friends, relatives, or anyone.

  • Grace

    Homosexuals are prone to believe that those who know they were created to love, marry and bear children with the opposite sex are unable to understand the homosexual perversion. Their right.

    The reason homosexuals are right in this respect is because they are wrong in thinking homosexual behavior is in-born, it’s not, it’s an outgrowth of denying what God has set down, from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve as…… a man and a woman. Its simple, but at the same time, has no roots in the pattern of homosexual thinking, which is rooted in that which is, as Paul wrote a REPROBATE MIND. All that is discarded as so much trash, … WHY?

    One cannot continue in sin without a willful desire for whatever is the long awaited outcome. The homosexual desires that of their own sex – why? The “WHY” isn’t important, the reason is simple, they aren’t interested in God’s provision for sinful man – that is repentance of sin, turning from sin, and seeking Christ. It’s all about them, their “instant gratification” – which never ends, it becomes a “gratification” at any cost – which includes family, disease, and heartbreak.

    Homosexuals are not hopeless, they are lost in lust, but they can be brought back to a fruitful life through Christ. Without Christ, they will continue on the same road, with all the stomping about, parades, flip remarks, and the disease which follows them throughout their lives.

    We as Believers can and should be in prayer regarding those who are homosexual. Those who know, friends, relatives, or anyone.

  • JonathanH

    After skimming the highest number of comments on any of these blog posts, I still don’t really know fws’s core argument (also, please don’t call yourself a fag; it sounds (is?) self-deprecating, and it seems like a call for attention).

  • JonathanH

    After skimming the highest number of comments on any of these blog posts, I still don’t really know fws’s core argument (also, please don’t call yourself a fag; it sounds (is?) self-deprecating, and it seems like a call for attention).

  • Grace

    JonathanH @ 145

    Read my previous post. We posted at the same time.

    YOU WROTE: “After skimming the highest number of comments on any of these blog posts, I still don’t really know fws’s core argument (also, please don’t call yourself a fag; it sounds (is?) self-deprecating, and it seems like a call for attention).”

    You’re right, it does.

  • Grace

    JonathanH @ 145

    Read my previous post. We posted at the same time.

    YOU WROTE: “After skimming the highest number of comments on any of these blog posts, I still don’t really know fws’s core argument (also, please don’t call yourself a fag; it sounds (is?) self-deprecating, and it seems like a call for attention).”

    You’re right, it does.

  • Marie

    fws:”Marriage is defined, in its essence as one of three earthly governments.” (priesthood, marriage, and civil government, right?)
    and…..
    “Marriage was not necessary before the fall and will not be after the fall precisely because of this.”

    This is where your argument is least convincing, jumping from your first statement to your second one. Marriage, the legal contract described in the above comments, of course is Law–the government reigning in our evil so we don’t destroy everyone around us with our proclivities. We agree there.

    However, marriage was present before the Fall. Were not Adam and Eve husband and wife before they ate of the fruit? If not, what were they? Was marriage before the Fall and after the Fall in essence different? How? And how about the marriage of the Lamb when Christ returns? We will not be given in marriage to each other in Eternity, but the perfected Bride will be joined to her Perfect Husband. That’s about as far from “not necessary” as one can get. I do not believe the marriages we enjoy on earth are the Real Deal, and the marriage we will enjoy in Heaven is just a picture, a representation, a metaphor–but rather the opposite. The way you are representing marriage (correct me if I’m wrong) is that it is necessary for us sinners, like when God granted divorce to the Israelites

    I also must say marriage gives husbands and wives great comfort, and the sacrificial, forgiving love a husband shows his wife is quite perfect, when loved through Christ, in their baptisms. And in that sense, Gospel is preached through marriage.

    You could argue that since the relationship of parent-child is all Law in this sinful world (duties and obligations and discipline), there will be no fathers, mothers, or children in Heaven. And there weren’t before the Fall.

    Please correct me if I misrepresented/misunderstood your arguments.
    ———–

    Also, total “campaign time” move on Obama’s part (Biden blunders, Obama reluctantly responds, Biden apologizes.) I call scripted.

    ———–
    As far as the 19th century romantic ideals surrounding modern marriage (I think we’re actually more romantic about it then folks were then), if that’s how most folks want to define “marriage”–love, committed relationship, “soul mate,” a sexual relationship–then homosexuals have a pretty good argument that there is nothing to prevent them from marrying, too, since they can have all those things (defining sexual relationship loosely…).

    Good discussion.

  • Marie

    fws:”Marriage is defined, in its essence as one of three earthly governments.” (priesthood, marriage, and civil government, right?)
    and…..
    “Marriage was not necessary before the fall and will not be after the fall precisely because of this.”

    This is where your argument is least convincing, jumping from your first statement to your second one. Marriage, the legal contract described in the above comments, of course is Law–the government reigning in our evil so we don’t destroy everyone around us with our proclivities. We agree there.

    However, marriage was present before the Fall. Were not Adam and Eve husband and wife before they ate of the fruit? If not, what were they? Was marriage before the Fall and after the Fall in essence different? How? And how about the marriage of the Lamb when Christ returns? We will not be given in marriage to each other in Eternity, but the perfected Bride will be joined to her Perfect Husband. That’s about as far from “not necessary” as one can get. I do not believe the marriages we enjoy on earth are the Real Deal, and the marriage we will enjoy in Heaven is just a picture, a representation, a metaphor–but rather the opposite. The way you are representing marriage (correct me if I’m wrong) is that it is necessary for us sinners, like when God granted divorce to the Israelites

    I also must say marriage gives husbands and wives great comfort, and the sacrificial, forgiving love a husband shows his wife is quite perfect, when loved through Christ, in their baptisms. And in that sense, Gospel is preached through marriage.

    You could argue that since the relationship of parent-child is all Law in this sinful world (duties and obligations and discipline), there will be no fathers, mothers, or children in Heaven. And there weren’t before the Fall.

    Please correct me if I misrepresented/misunderstood your arguments.
    ———–

    Also, total “campaign time” move on Obama’s part (Biden blunders, Obama reluctantly responds, Biden apologizes.) I call scripted.

    ———–
    As far as the 19th century romantic ideals surrounding modern marriage (I think we’re actually more romantic about it then folks were then), if that’s how most folks want to define “marriage”–love, committed relationship, “soul mate,” a sexual relationship–then homosexuals have a pretty good argument that there is nothing to prevent them from marrying, too, since they can have all those things (defining sexual relationship loosely…).

    Good discussion.

  • Susan

    A problem that I see within this discussion is a lack of acknowledgment of foundational truth about sex. God created the union of a man and a woman to be held within marriage with a command to be fruitful and multiply. Sodomy is a sinful act and perversion of the sexual act, just as are incest, adultery, fornication, and lust. The question is whether we believe what the bible teaches about sex and whether we repent of our sinful perversions of the sexual act. We are to confess the truth and repent of our perversions including perverting God’s Word and the confessions in an attempt to justify sexual sin.

  • Susan

    A problem that I see within this discussion is a lack of acknowledgment of foundational truth about sex. God created the union of a man and a woman to be held within marriage with a command to be fruitful and multiply. Sodomy is a sinful act and perversion of the sexual act, just as are incest, adultery, fornication, and lust. The question is whether we believe what the bible teaches about sex and whether we repent of our sinful perversions of the sexual act. We are to confess the truth and repent of our perversions including perverting God’s Word and the confessions in an attempt to justify sexual sin.

  • fws

    jonathanh @146

    Wow. I sure hope you are not reading what I am writing as some long chain of argument supporting the proposition of gay marriage. It is soooo not that.

    You should read that the proposition I am proposing is that ALL our works are of the Law and the sight of them should condemn and terrify us. Including those both inside and outside of marriage. And so we should then know to hide ALL our own works inside the works of Another.

    Mariage is law. there is NO gospel in it. What is gospel or “of the gospel” is alone what Christ has done. What we do=law what christ has done to save us=gospel. Marriage is pure law.

  • fws

    jonathanh @146

    Wow. I sure hope you are not reading what I am writing as some long chain of argument supporting the proposition of gay marriage. It is soooo not that.

    You should read that the proposition I am proposing is that ALL our works are of the Law and the sight of them should condemn and terrify us. Including those both inside and outside of marriage. And so we should then know to hide ALL our own works inside the works of Another.

    Mariage is law. there is NO gospel in it. What is gospel or “of the gospel” is alone what Christ has done. What we do=law what christ has done to save us=gospel. Marriage is pure law.

  • fws

    marie @ 148

    The argument I presente as to what marriage is is not mine. It is what the Lutheran Confessions say. I quoted them at length to show that.

    I won’t cover your entire post , but will home in on the part that identifies your error throughout. The error is to confuse Law and Gospel.

    Here:

    “I also must say marriage gives husbands and wives great comfort, and the sacrificial, forgiving love a husband shows his wife is quite perfect, when loved through Christ, in their baptisms. And in that sense, Gospel is preached through marriage. ”

    No.sister marie, That is no Gospel. What you described is ALL law.

    It IS true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is STILL Law! It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath

    Again: the Gospel is alone what we cannot do and so was done for us by Another who is Christ.

    Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government. it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall, and there will be no need for that in the resurrection. And there is no need for that even now, insofar as we are regenerated.

  • fws

    marie @ 148

    The argument I presente as to what marriage is is not mine. It is what the Lutheran Confessions say. I quoted them at length to show that.

    I won’t cover your entire post , but will home in on the part that identifies your error throughout. The error is to confuse Law and Gospel.

    Here:

    “I also must say marriage gives husbands and wives great comfort, and the sacrificial, forgiving love a husband shows his wife is quite perfect, when loved through Christ, in their baptisms. And in that sense, Gospel is preached through marriage. ”

    No.sister marie, That is no Gospel. What you described is ALL law.

    It IS true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is STILL Law! It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath

    Again: the Gospel is alone what we cannot do and so was done for us by Another who is Christ.

    Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government. it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall, and there will be no need for that in the resurrection. And there is no need for that even now, insofar as we are regenerated.

  • fws

    susan @ 149

    There ARE topics that are more important than sex. I would suggest that the Righeousness of Christ is one of those.

    So discussions on what the Image of God is and what the Original Righeousness before the fall consisted of are a movement beyond the narrow and comparatively trivial question of whether or not the county clerk should let a homo purchase a piece of paper called a marriage license.

    I get it now.

    Everything I write here is to be understood as part of a justification or argument for homosexuality or gay marriage.

    nope. I thought we had moved on from that topic when we started talking about law and gospel. Aparently others arent seeing it that way.

  • fws

    susan @ 149

    There ARE topics that are more important than sex. I would suggest that the Righeousness of Christ is one of those.

    So discussions on what the Image of God is and what the Original Righeousness before the fall consisted of are a movement beyond the narrow and comparatively trivial question of whether or not the county clerk should let a homo purchase a piece of paper called a marriage license.

    I get it now.

    Everything I write here is to be understood as part of a justification or argument for homosexuality or gay marriage.

    nope. I thought we had moved on from that topic when we started talking about law and gospel. Aparently others arent seeing it that way.

  • fws

    let me try again.

    some in the LCMS are encouraging us to return to Rome and embrace Scholastic Thomist Natural Law. This is wrong and evil. Ok. The impetus for that is the homosexual topic . I know that.

    So we will embrace the dirty bathwater of Rome and throw out the baby Jesus to be saved from the homos.

    Apology art II Identifies Original Rigtheousness as being the very Image of God which it identifies as being , alone, Faith!

    Thomist Natural Law suggests that the restoration of the Image of God is the reconformity of man to Divine Design. Law. Aristotle really. In this schema, the Gospel serves the Law. The Gospel is then our enabler to allow us to return to conformity to Divine Design.

    This is the doctrine of satan that is the central thing argued against in the Apology . Especially in II – IV.

    I hit a nerve with Dr Luther. The nerve is precisely this point.

    He wishes to make marriage, God’s Divine Design per natural law, into being “of the gospel”. No he says, marriage is not Gospel. The Gospel is what Christ did. But then he takes us here:

    The role of the Gospel is to enable us to return to the Divine Image and Design that is uniquely found in marriage.

    So the Gospel ends up being about serving the Law.

    Please look past the fact that I am a homo and understand that way more is at stake here than whether or not we let a couple of queers get married or not.

  • fws

    let me try again.

    some in the LCMS are encouraging us to return to Rome and embrace Scholastic Thomist Natural Law. This is wrong and evil. Ok. The impetus for that is the homosexual topic . I know that.

    So we will embrace the dirty bathwater of Rome and throw out the baby Jesus to be saved from the homos.

    Apology art II Identifies Original Rigtheousness as being the very Image of God which it identifies as being , alone, Faith!

    Thomist Natural Law suggests that the restoration of the Image of God is the reconformity of man to Divine Design. Law. Aristotle really. In this schema, the Gospel serves the Law. The Gospel is then our enabler to allow us to return to conformity to Divine Design.

    This is the doctrine of satan that is the central thing argued against in the Apology . Especially in II – IV.

    I hit a nerve with Dr Luther. The nerve is precisely this point.

    He wishes to make marriage, God’s Divine Design per natural law, into being “of the gospel”. No he says, marriage is not Gospel. The Gospel is what Christ did. But then he takes us here:

    The role of the Gospel is to enable us to return to the Divine Image and Design that is uniquely found in marriage.

    So the Gospel ends up being about serving the Law.

    Please look past the fact that I am a homo and understand that way more is at stake here than whether or not we let a couple of queers get married or not.

  • Susan

    @fws

    Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational. Trying to skirt the issue of the sinfulness of sodomy and the need for forgiveness of that sin does not change the need to repent. Unrepentant sin cannot hide by pretending it doesn’t matter or by trying to change the subject to the image and righteousness of God or by perverting God’s Word and the Lutheran confessions. Sodomy is condemned as sin.

  • Susan

    @fws

    Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational. Trying to skirt the issue of the sinfulness of sodomy and the need for forgiveness of that sin does not change the need to repent. Unrepentant sin cannot hide by pretending it doesn’t matter or by trying to change the subject to the image and righteousness of God or by perverting God’s Word and the Lutheran confessions. Sodomy is condemned as sin.

  • fws

    let me try again…

    Apology art II Identifies Original Rigtheousness as being the very Image of God which it identifies as being , alone, Faith!

    why is this such a critical point?

    The restoration of tbe Image of God and Original Righteousness then, can ONLY happen in Baptismal Regeneration. And in that regeneration is IMMEDIATE restoration to the very Image of God and Original Righteousness.,

    If instead the Original Righteousness and Image of God consisted of a conformity to natural Law, Divine Design and Law, then several things will follow…

    a) the Image was not entirely lost. Andso…
    b) the restoration is to the Law. and so…
    c) the Gospel becomes the enabler which allows us to have the Image and Original Innocence restored.

    it is point c ) where Marriage is not the Gospel. They say: ” Rest assured! We know that Christ is the Gospel. But… marriage is “of the gospel”. It is Marriage that is the full revelation of the Image of God. And marriage is “of the Gospel” , in the precise sense that it is the Gospel that enables us both to see this fact and move closer to becoming that Image and so return to original innocence.

    And they confuse law and gospel in eph 5 in precisely a way to make that point.

    There is an issue here that goes way beyond the questions revolving around homosexuality. They are important issues. They are at the very core of our Christian and Lutheran faith.

  • fws

    let me try again…

    Apology art II Identifies Original Rigtheousness as being the very Image of God which it identifies as being , alone, Faith!

    why is this such a critical point?

    The restoration of tbe Image of God and Original Righteousness then, can ONLY happen in Baptismal Regeneration. And in that regeneration is IMMEDIATE restoration to the very Image of God and Original Righteousness.,

    If instead the Original Righteousness and Image of God consisted of a conformity to natural Law, Divine Design and Law, then several things will follow…

    a) the Image was not entirely lost. Andso…
    b) the restoration is to the Law. and so…
    c) the Gospel becomes the enabler which allows us to have the Image and Original Innocence restored.

    it is point c ) where Marriage is not the Gospel. They say: ” Rest assured! We know that Christ is the Gospel. But… marriage is “of the gospel”. It is Marriage that is the full revelation of the Image of God. And marriage is “of the Gospel” , in the precise sense that it is the Gospel that enables us both to see this fact and move closer to becoming that Image and so return to original innocence.

    And they confuse law and gospel in eph 5 in precisely a way to make that point.

    There is an issue here that goes way beyond the questions revolving around homosexuality. They are important issues. They are at the very core of our Christian and Lutheran faith.

  • fws

    Dare to be Lutheran. Read the confessions.

    Read the Apology in the context of what it is directly opposing in Scholastic Aristotelianism and Thomist Natural Law.

    The Image of God is Adamic Original Righeousness.
    And those are the fear, love , trust and knowledge of God that is invisible faith, apart from works.

  • fws

    Dare to be Lutheran. Read the confessions.

    Read the Apology in the context of what it is directly opposing in Scholastic Aristotelianism and Thomist Natural Law.

    The Image of God is Adamic Original Righeousness.
    And those are the fear, love , trust and knowledge of God that is invisible faith, apart from works.

  • fws

    susan @ 154

    “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational. ”

    Any Confessional Lutherans here besides me want to take the mic and respond to this heresy?

  • fws

    susan @ 154

    “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational. ”

    Any Confessional Lutherans here besides me want to take the mic and respond to this heresy?

  • Susan

    @fws.

    No, it is not heresy and you are not permitted to continue in unrepentant sin, no matter how you would try to twist the Lutheran confessions and God’s Word. The baptismal life of faith is one of daily repentance of sin and faith in Christ. It is not one of wallowing in unrepentant sin and seeking ways to justify sin.

    Romans 6:1-14

    Now what is our response to be? Shall we sin to our heart’s content and see how far we can exploit the grace of God? What a ghastly thought! We, who have died to sin – how could we live in sin a moment longer? Have you forgotten that all of us who were baptised into Jesus Christ were, by that very action, sharing in his death? We were dead and buried with him in baptism, so that just as he was raised from the dead by that splendid Revelation of the Father’s power so we too might rise to life on a new plane altogether. If we have, as it were, shared his death, let us rise and live our new lives with him! Let us never forget that our old selves died with him on the cross that the tyranny of sin over us might be broken – for a dead man can safely be said to be immune to the power of sin. And if we were dead men with him we can believe that we shall also be men newly alive with him. We can be sure that the risen Christ never dies again – death’s power to touch him is finished. He died, because of sin, once: he lives for God for ever. In the same way look upon yourselves as dead to the appeal and power of sin but alive and sensitive to the call of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Do not, then, allow sin to establish any power over your mortal bodies in making you give way to your lusts. Nor hand over your organs to be, as it were, weapons of evil for the devil’s purposes. But, like men rescued from certain death, put yourselves in God’s hands as weapons of good for his own purposes. For sin is not meant to be your master – you are no longer living under the Law, but under grace.

  • Susan

    @fws.

    No, it is not heresy and you are not permitted to continue in unrepentant sin, no matter how you would try to twist the Lutheran confessions and God’s Word. The baptismal life of faith is one of daily repentance of sin and faith in Christ. It is not one of wallowing in unrepentant sin and seeking ways to justify sin.

    Romans 6:1-14

    Now what is our response to be? Shall we sin to our heart’s content and see how far we can exploit the grace of God? What a ghastly thought! We, who have died to sin – how could we live in sin a moment longer? Have you forgotten that all of us who were baptised into Jesus Christ were, by that very action, sharing in his death? We were dead and buried with him in baptism, so that just as he was raised from the dead by that splendid Revelation of the Father’s power so we too might rise to life on a new plane altogether. If we have, as it were, shared his death, let us rise and live our new lives with him! Let us never forget that our old selves died with him on the cross that the tyranny of sin over us might be broken – for a dead man can safely be said to be immune to the power of sin. And if we were dead men with him we can believe that we shall also be men newly alive with him. We can be sure that the risen Christ never dies again – death’s power to touch him is finished. He died, because of sin, once: he lives for God for ever. In the same way look upon yourselves as dead to the appeal and power of sin but alive and sensitive to the call of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Do not, then, allow sin to establish any power over your mortal bodies in making you give way to your lusts. Nor hand over your organs to be, as it were, weapons of evil for the devil’s purposes. But, like men rescued from certain death, put yourselves in God’s hands as weapons of good for his own purposes. For sin is not meant to be your master – you are no longer living under the Law, but under grace.

  • Marie

    I’m sorry I included that last bit, since you ignored the rest. Do you not believe that marriage is eternal, insofar as the Church and Christ are joined in marriage eternally? Also, you never addressed whether Adam and Eve were married pre-Fall. The governments mentioned in our confessions–priest, marriage, and human government–seem to have existed since Creation, not since the Fall, and so are present (would have been) in human society even without sin.

    Please answer: Are you arguing that marriage is a government–a necessary government–to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?

    I am not interested in whether anyone in discussion is heterosexual or homosexual. Or rather, have engaged in heterosexual or homosexual sex. I’m sincerely interested in your theology surrounding marriage and how you defend it. Perhaps this is old hat for others on this site, but I have never heard this particular argument before.

    I also have been taught not to parse verses according to Law and Gospel. Do you not believe that “Christ died for sinners” is both Law and Gospel at once? If God’s Word is read–say that Ephesians passage–in church, can not my husband hear Law and I hear Gospel? Again, my husband loves me because Christ died for us both and covers our sin with his Righteousness. That might be complete Law for him, but is Gospel for me.

    I am asking these questions in earnest–please answer them earnestly.

  • Marie

    I’m sorry I included that last bit, since you ignored the rest. Do you not believe that marriage is eternal, insofar as the Church and Christ are joined in marriage eternally? Also, you never addressed whether Adam and Eve were married pre-Fall. The governments mentioned in our confessions–priest, marriage, and human government–seem to have existed since Creation, not since the Fall, and so are present (would have been) in human society even without sin.

    Please answer: Are you arguing that marriage is a government–a necessary government–to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?

    I am not interested in whether anyone in discussion is heterosexual or homosexual. Or rather, have engaged in heterosexual or homosexual sex. I’m sincerely interested in your theology surrounding marriage and how you defend it. Perhaps this is old hat for others on this site, but I have never heard this particular argument before.

    I also have been taught not to parse verses according to Law and Gospel. Do you not believe that “Christ died for sinners” is both Law and Gospel at once? If God’s Word is read–say that Ephesians passage–in church, can not my husband hear Law and I hear Gospel? Again, my husband loves me because Christ died for us both and covers our sin with his Righteousness. That might be complete Law for him, but is Gospel for me.

    I am asking these questions in earnest–please answer them earnestly.

  • Paul in MN

    FWS: Who else reads the Scriptures and the Confessions like this? Have you convinced anyone? Or shall this poor parish pastor, unequipped to function at your level of critical thinking, rely upon five hundred years of Lutheran doctrine and practice? Since I am apparently so thick, point me to someone still living that I can read and inquire of who says, “Yes. Frank has it right.” Please? Or are you the only one who properly understands Scripture, Luther, and the Confessions on this matter?

  • Paul in MN

    FWS: Who else reads the Scriptures and the Confessions like this? Have you convinced anyone? Or shall this poor parish pastor, unequipped to function at your level of critical thinking, rely upon five hundred years of Lutheran doctrine and practice? Since I am apparently so thick, point me to someone still living that I can read and inquire of who says, “Yes. Frank has it right.” Please? Or are you the only one who properly understands Scripture, Luther, and the Confessions on this matter?

  • fws

    marie @ 159

    Dear marie,

    Here y0u go!

    Do you not believe that marriage is eternal, insofar as the Church and Christ are joined in marriage eternally?

    No. Christ is not joined in marriage to the Church eternally. That is a metaphor. A metaphor is not a statement of fact. It is “the relationship of Christ to the Church is like “. Eph 5 is not telling us to say that marriage=gospel, or even that marriage is “gospel-ish” or is a fruit of the gospel. it is true that the Gospel here is being used to illustrate what the Law is. But what is depicted in that case is Law in Eph 5. Mormons believe that marriage is eternal. Apparently some Roman Catholics and Roman leaning Lutherans do too. This is a crass and extremely disturbing form of idolatry. Why?
    The false idea here is that the Image of God is revealed and known in marriage. For anyone claiming to be Lutheran, this profound error that is , exactly so, the Romans 1 error of worshipping Creaturely-Image-as-Image-of-of-God rather than the Creator himself. And God condemns all who do this. Therefore Romans 2:1 condemns each and every single person who reads the Epistle to the Romans.

    Also, you never addressed whether Adam and Eve were married pre-Fall. The governments mentioned in our confessions–priest, marriage, and human government–seem to have existed since Creation, not since the Fall, and so are present (would have been) in human society even without sin.

    Let’s consider what you just said. St Paul says this about Government ” They bear the sword for a good reason! He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” See? Romans 13:4 defines and describes for us, the purpose of Government. It is also true that Government exists to provide for our physical needs and security. But Government=Sword. Physical force supplied by God to stop wrongdoers. Marriage is such a government. See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.
    So you are saying Adam before the fall needed this? and that we will need this also after the fall? and that we need this according to the New Man we are created into in Regenerating Baptism?

    Please answer: Are you arguing that marriage is a government–a necessary government–to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?

    Yes. I am saying exactly that. But then I also need to add then that the justice/sacrifice that is worked in marriage and other governments is not the ultimate Eternal Will of God. God desire mercy not that sacrifice. So the aim of God is to extort Mercy out of us with marriage being the club and blunt instrument to do that with. Here is how that works:
    God uses government to force adam to exercise the self-control and self-less-ness that is death. We call this mortification. Mortification is latinate for “deathing”. So Marriage for YOU is about your death! But here is the deal: that same thing that is YOUR death, provides creaturely life for OTHERS. And marriage that is the death of other Old Adams such as your husband, brings YOU the fruit of Goodness and Mercy that is God’s true will for YOU. See?
    What is death for YOU is small-l life for OTHERS.
    Conversely: What gives YOU small-l life that is goodness and mercy can only be made to happen, sadly, by the death of OTHERS.
    So then Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others, and it is death for you for the purpose of your providing life, goodness and mercy for others.
    Note that mercy is the opposite of Justice and sacrifice. The Law demands a death. justice always demands a sacrifice. that is it’s deadly work. but mercy is the opposite of justice. it is the oppoite of what we deserve.
    This sounds like grace. this sounds like Gospel. But it is not. It is a fruit of the justice working , sacrifice/death demanding Law of God.
    This Mercy happens to be the SAME fruit that the One Sacrifice and Death of Christ worked for us, and is now working through us and in us. Same fruit. One is produced by our death. The other, is produced, alone , by that One Death that was the death of Life Himself. And that Mercy will never end!
    The work of the law is justice and sacrifice being done. The fruit of the Law that God desires is mercy.

    I am not interested in whether anyone in discussion is heterosexual or homosexual. Or rather, have engaged in heterosexual or homosexual sex. I’m sincerely interested in your theology surrounding marriage and how you defend it. Perhaps this is old hat for others on this site, but I have never heard this particular argument before.

    I propose that what I am saying is THE central core theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I am sad that you have never heard this before. This goes way beyond marriage or homosexuality or any other kind of morality you can think of our imagine with your reason.

    I also have been taught not to parse verses according to Law and Gospel. Do you not believe that “Christ died for sinners” is both Law and Gospel at once?

    Excellent question! Did you do a typo? Did you mean to say that you HAVE been taught to parse verses using the distinction of Law and Gospel. What would that look like to you?

    If God’s Word is read–say that Ephesians passage–in church, can not my husband hear Law and I hear Gospel?

    No. Your husband should hear the most terrifying Law and that should have him hide ALL he does in his marriage in the Works of Another. Eph 5 should literally terrify him. That is the proper emotional response to seeing what the Law demands. Only those who trust in Christ can have that response. Why? We and our works are hidden in Christ beyond the reach of the killing Law. So the Law cannot accuse us any more. So God can truly be for us an Object of love only when the Law loses its power to kill us. So then we stop fleeing from God’s Judgement by either self justifying as a good pharisee by pointing to our works or commiting the grave sin of despairing like Judas. And… we can now fearlessly take up the killing Law to kill our Old Adam. That is now our life’s task here on earth!
    You do not hear gospel in this. You receive the creaturly 1st article goodness and mercy that is transitory and will end in this life from your husbands Old Adam that is dying. this mercy pertains to this earthly life and will end with it. And then you will bask in that One Mercy that is alone from Life to Life eternal.

    Again, my husband loves me because Christ died for us both and covers our sin with his Righteousness.

    All of your husbands thought, words, deeds and emotions that are love are done because the Law written in his conscience nags at him, and offeres not only a stick of punishment if he refuse, but also the sweet carrot of incentive. you might give him more nookie-nookie for example if he is romantic. Old Adam operates at that crass level.
    And then, the Gospel part of this is that your husband sees that this is the rotten truth about ALL he does, and so he knows to hide ALL he does in the Works of Another! This is the Mercy that the Law drives us to. This is the Law being the Schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.

    That might be complete Law for him, but is Gospel for me.

    It is the work of the Law which is to make your husband dead-to-rights , the human cannon fodder that justice produces and works. And the result of that is creaturely, transatory mercy and goodness for you! This mercy is NOT the Gospel. it is for this life only and will perish with it. The Goodness and Mercy that is Life and not death is to hide ALL we can do in the Works of Another. .

    I am asking these questions in earnest–please answer them earnestly.

    i hope what I have writtten to you dear sister give you that Peace that Marriage cannot give.

  • fws

    marie @ 159

    Dear marie,

    Here y0u go!

    Do you not believe that marriage is eternal, insofar as the Church and Christ are joined in marriage eternally?

    No. Christ is not joined in marriage to the Church eternally. That is a metaphor. A metaphor is not a statement of fact. It is “the relationship of Christ to the Church is like “. Eph 5 is not telling us to say that marriage=gospel, or even that marriage is “gospel-ish” or is a fruit of the gospel. it is true that the Gospel here is being used to illustrate what the Law is. But what is depicted in that case is Law in Eph 5. Mormons believe that marriage is eternal. Apparently some Roman Catholics and Roman leaning Lutherans do too. This is a crass and extremely disturbing form of idolatry. Why?
    The false idea here is that the Image of God is revealed and known in marriage. For anyone claiming to be Lutheran, this profound error that is , exactly so, the Romans 1 error of worshipping Creaturely-Image-as-Image-of-of-God rather than the Creator himself. And God condemns all who do this. Therefore Romans 2:1 condemns each and every single person who reads the Epistle to the Romans.

    Also, you never addressed whether Adam and Eve were married pre-Fall. The governments mentioned in our confessions–priest, marriage, and human government–seem to have existed since Creation, not since the Fall, and so are present (would have been) in human society even without sin.

    Let’s consider what you just said. St Paul says this about Government ” They bear the sword for a good reason! He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” See? Romans 13:4 defines and describes for us, the purpose of Government. It is also true that Government exists to provide for our physical needs and security. But Government=Sword. Physical force supplied by God to stop wrongdoers. Marriage is such a government. See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.
    So you are saying Adam before the fall needed this? and that we will need this also after the fall? and that we need this according to the New Man we are created into in Regenerating Baptism?

    Please answer: Are you arguing that marriage is a government–a necessary government–to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?

    Yes. I am saying exactly that. But then I also need to add then that the justice/sacrifice that is worked in marriage and other governments is not the ultimate Eternal Will of God. God desire mercy not that sacrifice. So the aim of God is to extort Mercy out of us with marriage being the club and blunt instrument to do that with. Here is how that works:
    God uses government to force adam to exercise the self-control and self-less-ness that is death. We call this mortification. Mortification is latinate for “deathing”. So Marriage for YOU is about your death! But here is the deal: that same thing that is YOUR death, provides creaturely life for OTHERS. And marriage that is the death of other Old Adams such as your husband, brings YOU the fruit of Goodness and Mercy that is God’s true will for YOU. See?
    What is death for YOU is small-l life for OTHERS.
    Conversely: What gives YOU small-l life that is goodness and mercy can only be made to happen, sadly, by the death of OTHERS.
    So then Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others, and it is death for you for the purpose of your providing life, goodness and mercy for others.
    Note that mercy is the opposite of Justice and sacrifice. The Law demands a death. justice always demands a sacrifice. that is it’s deadly work. but mercy is the opposite of justice. it is the oppoite of what we deserve.
    This sounds like grace. this sounds like Gospel. But it is not. It is a fruit of the justice working , sacrifice/death demanding Law of God.
    This Mercy happens to be the SAME fruit that the One Sacrifice and Death of Christ worked for us, and is now working through us and in us. Same fruit. One is produced by our death. The other, is produced, alone , by that One Death that was the death of Life Himself. And that Mercy will never end!
    The work of the law is justice and sacrifice being done. The fruit of the Law that God desires is mercy.

    I am not interested in whether anyone in discussion is heterosexual or homosexual. Or rather, have engaged in heterosexual or homosexual sex. I’m sincerely interested in your theology surrounding marriage and how you defend it. Perhaps this is old hat for others on this site, but I have never heard this particular argument before.

    I propose that what I am saying is THE central core theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I am sad that you have never heard this before. This goes way beyond marriage or homosexuality or any other kind of morality you can think of our imagine with your reason.

    I also have been taught not to parse verses according to Law and Gospel. Do you not believe that “Christ died for sinners” is both Law and Gospel at once?

    Excellent question! Did you do a typo? Did you mean to say that you HAVE been taught to parse verses using the distinction of Law and Gospel. What would that look like to you?

    If God’s Word is read–say that Ephesians passage–in church, can not my husband hear Law and I hear Gospel?

    No. Your husband should hear the most terrifying Law and that should have him hide ALL he does in his marriage in the Works of Another. Eph 5 should literally terrify him. That is the proper emotional response to seeing what the Law demands. Only those who trust in Christ can have that response. Why? We and our works are hidden in Christ beyond the reach of the killing Law. So the Law cannot accuse us any more. So God can truly be for us an Object of love only when the Law loses its power to kill us. So then we stop fleeing from God’s Judgement by either self justifying as a good pharisee by pointing to our works or commiting the grave sin of despairing like Judas. And… we can now fearlessly take up the killing Law to kill our Old Adam. That is now our life’s task here on earth!
    You do not hear gospel in this. You receive the creaturly 1st article goodness and mercy that is transitory and will end in this life from your husbands Old Adam that is dying. this mercy pertains to this earthly life and will end with it. And then you will bask in that One Mercy that is alone from Life to Life eternal.

    Again, my husband loves me because Christ died for us both and covers our sin with his Righteousness.

    All of your husbands thought, words, deeds and emotions that are love are done because the Law written in his conscience nags at him, and offeres not only a stick of punishment if he refuse, but also the sweet carrot of incentive. you might give him more nookie-nookie for example if he is romantic. Old Adam operates at that crass level.
    And then, the Gospel part of this is that your husband sees that this is the rotten truth about ALL he does, and so he knows to hide ALL he does in the Works of Another! This is the Mercy that the Law drives us to. This is the Law being the Schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.

    That might be complete Law for him, but is Gospel for me.

    It is the work of the Law which is to make your husband dead-to-rights , the human cannon fodder that justice produces and works. And the result of that is creaturely, transatory mercy and goodness for you! This mercy is NOT the Gospel. it is for this life only and will perish with it. The Goodness and Mercy that is Life and not death is to hide ALL we can do in the Works of Another. .

    I am asking these questions in earnest–please answer them earnestly.

    i hope what I have writtten to you dear sister give you that Peace that Marriage cannot give.

  • fws

    Paul @ 160

    yes. I can point you to men who are also pastors or doctors of the church . All of these men happen to COMPLETELY and UTTERLY disagree with me regarding my views toward homosexuality. I want to be very clear on that dear pastor Paul-from-minesota.

    They dont have an agenda other than their ordination vows which they take seriuously as do you dear pastor I can see.

    I ask for your forgiveness whereever I have responded to your sarcasm with my own. It was uncalled for, unloving, unkind and unuseful to either of us or the other readers here. Please forgive me.

    They oppose my views on homosexuality and yet embrace the understanding of the Confessions I share with them . Why? It just happens to be the truth.

    Yes. They also read the Lutheran Confessions exactly as I do.

    Dr Veith who is the owner of this site is one of those. So is William Cwirla, who is an LCMS pastor in California and has a site with another pastor with identical views called “the God whisperers”. Also Rod Rosemblatt. Reformation press and it’s owner (Pat Kyle, who reads this blog) is also a good resource for this Confessional way of thinking. He is a dear friend of mine. I am told that Steve Paulson of the ELCA is a seminary professor who reads the Confessions this way as well. I havent read his book yet. His most recent book “Lutheran Theology” I am told is all over what i am saying to you here.

    There are many. Seek them out. They will do a better job at explaining this all than I can.!

    I repent that I revealed that I am a gay man. It is a disservice to you and others here . Why? It distracts from what I say. it is a distraction from Christ. You end up not really reading what i am saying, but rather read into it looking for that other shoe to drop where I am trying to construct a case to self justify.

    Pastor Paul: Only a crazy man would insist on trying a case that has already gone to court and been dismissed! My case has been dismissed in Christ. My identifying as gay was an attempt at doing the mercy of showing that gays are also of the church and should be addressed as baptized fellow believers and not as “they’ or “them” or “those’ outside the room called church.

    but by doing that I am doing what I accuse others of. I am using the Law to make some change happen. the Law is powerless to end sin. Only the Gospel can do that. I was showing a lack of faith in this fact. Again. forgive me also for this lack of proper service to you that you are entitled to and that God demands of me.

    pray with me that God will not need to punish me for this and my many other sins in order to make me do what you and others need of me.

    bless you Pastor Paul! +

  • fws

    Paul @ 160

    yes. I can point you to men who are also pastors or doctors of the church . All of these men happen to COMPLETELY and UTTERLY disagree with me regarding my views toward homosexuality. I want to be very clear on that dear pastor Paul-from-minesota.

    They dont have an agenda other than their ordination vows which they take seriuously as do you dear pastor I can see.

    I ask for your forgiveness whereever I have responded to your sarcasm with my own. It was uncalled for, unloving, unkind and unuseful to either of us or the other readers here. Please forgive me.

    They oppose my views on homosexuality and yet embrace the understanding of the Confessions I share with them . Why? It just happens to be the truth.

    Yes. They also read the Lutheran Confessions exactly as I do.

    Dr Veith who is the owner of this site is one of those. So is William Cwirla, who is an LCMS pastor in California and has a site with another pastor with identical views called “the God whisperers”. Also Rod Rosemblatt. Reformation press and it’s owner (Pat Kyle, who reads this blog) is also a good resource for this Confessional way of thinking. He is a dear friend of mine. I am told that Steve Paulson of the ELCA is a seminary professor who reads the Confessions this way as well. I havent read his book yet. His most recent book “Lutheran Theology” I am told is all over what i am saying to you here.

    There are many. Seek them out. They will do a better job at explaining this all than I can.!

    I repent that I revealed that I am a gay man. It is a disservice to you and others here . Why? It distracts from what I say. it is a distraction from Christ. You end up not really reading what i am saying, but rather read into it looking for that other shoe to drop where I am trying to construct a case to self justify.

    Pastor Paul: Only a crazy man would insist on trying a case that has already gone to court and been dismissed! My case has been dismissed in Christ. My identifying as gay was an attempt at doing the mercy of showing that gays are also of the church and should be addressed as baptized fellow believers and not as “they’ or “them” or “those’ outside the room called church.

    but by doing that I am doing what I accuse others of. I am using the Law to make some change happen. the Law is powerless to end sin. Only the Gospel can do that. I was showing a lack of faith in this fact. Again. forgive me also for this lack of proper service to you that you are entitled to and that God demands of me.

    pray with me that God will not need to punish me for this and my many other sins in order to make me do what you and others need of me.

    bless you Pastor Paul! +

  • fws

    pastor Paul from minnesota @ 160

    On this blog you can also add “Larry” , “Bror Erickson”, ” Todd”, “Dan Kempin”, “Tom Hering” and quite a few others to your list of resources here. “kerner” is quickly coming around!

    Note again that , without exception, all of these men strongly and completely disagree with my views on homosexuality.

    yet they agree with my reading of the Confessions otherwise.

    This is because it happens to be what the Confessions say. It is the truth. It is not frank’s truth. It is THE Truth that the Holy Scriptures exist to proclaim.

  • fws

    pastor Paul from minnesota @ 160

    On this blog you can also add “Larry” , “Bror Erickson”, ” Todd”, “Dan Kempin”, “Tom Hering” and quite a few others to your list of resources here. “kerner” is quickly coming around!

    Note again that , without exception, all of these men strongly and completely disagree with my views on homosexuality.

    yet they agree with my reading of the Confessions otherwise.

    This is because it happens to be what the Confessions say. It is the truth. It is not frank’s truth. It is THE Truth that the Holy Scriptures exist to proclaim.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    It appears that in your zeal to validate your interpretations via name dropping, you seem to dismiss the importance of the what/when/where/why/how these same names, who disagree with your denial that sodomy is sexual sin and the need for repentance. That you would choose to portray yourself as trustworthy in interpreting the Book of Concord when you only accept the BOC piecemeal and would attempt to lead others into approval of your sexual errors is not acceptable. Confession and absolution is for sinners and sodomy is sin to be repented and confessed.

    Large Catechism

    Sixth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery

    Excerpt against all forms of sexual sin:

    But because among us there is such a shameful mess and the very dregs of all vice and lewdness, this commandment is directed also against all manner of unchastity, whatever it may be called; and not only is the external act forbidden, but also every kind of cause, incitement, and means, so that the heart, the lips, and the whole body may be chaste and afford no opportunity, help, or persuasion to in chastity. And not only this, but that we also make resistance, afford protection and rescue wherever there is danger and need; and again, that we give help and counsel, so as to maintain our neighbor’s honor. For whenever you omit this when you could make resistance, or connive at it as if it did not concern you, you are as truly guilty as the one perpetrating the deed. Thus, to state it in the briefest manner, there is required this much, that every one both live chastely himself and help his neighbor do the same, so that God by this commandment wishes to hedge round about and protect [as with a rampart] every spouse that no one trespass against them.

    Excerpt expounding the exclusivity of marriage to men and women for only they can beget children:

    But since this commandment is aimed directly at the state of matrimony and gives occasion to speak of the same, you must well understand and mark, first, how gloriously God honors and extols this estate, inasmuch as by His commandment He both sanctions and guards it. He has sanctioned it above in the Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother; but here He has (as we said) hedged it about and protected it. Therefore He also wishes us to honor it, and to maintain and conduct it as a divine and blessed estate; because, in the first place, He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately (as is evident), not for lewdness, but that they should [legitimately] live together, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    It appears that in your zeal to validate your interpretations via name dropping, you seem to dismiss the importance of the what/when/where/why/how these same names, who disagree with your denial that sodomy is sexual sin and the need for repentance. That you would choose to portray yourself as trustworthy in interpreting the Book of Concord when you only accept the BOC piecemeal and would attempt to lead others into approval of your sexual errors is not acceptable. Confession and absolution is for sinners and sodomy is sin to be repented and confessed.

    Large Catechism

    Sixth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery

    Excerpt against all forms of sexual sin:

    But because among us there is such a shameful mess and the very dregs of all vice and lewdness, this commandment is directed also against all manner of unchastity, whatever it may be called; and not only is the external act forbidden, but also every kind of cause, incitement, and means, so that the heart, the lips, and the whole body may be chaste and afford no opportunity, help, or persuasion to in chastity. And not only this, but that we also make resistance, afford protection and rescue wherever there is danger and need; and again, that we give help and counsel, so as to maintain our neighbor’s honor. For whenever you omit this when you could make resistance, or connive at it as if it did not concern you, you are as truly guilty as the one perpetrating the deed. Thus, to state it in the briefest manner, there is required this much, that every one both live chastely himself and help his neighbor do the same, so that God by this commandment wishes to hedge round about and protect [as with a rampart] every spouse that no one trespass against them.

    Excerpt expounding the exclusivity of marriage to men and women for only they can beget children:

    But since this commandment is aimed directly at the state of matrimony and gives occasion to speak of the same, you must well understand and mark, first, how gloriously God honors and extols this estate, inasmuch as by His commandment He both sanctions and guards it. He has sanctioned it above in the Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother; but here He has (as we said) hedged it about and protected it. Therefore He also wishes us to honor it, and to maintain and conduct it as a divine and blessed estate; because, in the first place, He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately (as is evident), not for lewdness, but that they should [legitimately] live together, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God.

  • fws

    susan @ 164

    We are not saved by either the quality or quantity of our repentence. Repentence is a good work. God does indeed demands that we do it. We deserve temporal and eternal death precisely BECAUSE we dont do this as we ought.

    You dont repent enough or the right way Susan. Your repentence is a lie and stench in the site of God to the extent that it is something you do. I know this to be a fact because the bible tells me this about you. And I also know this to be a fact because it is also true about me!

    ALL men and women sin sexually in thought, word and deed and emotionally as well. It needs to be repented of because this sin merits temporal punishment and eternal death.

    Why are you singling out homosexuals? How do you feel they are any different than any other human as sinners? In what way is their sinning any less condemning of your own sexual sinning?

    how is what I just said in any way less than what the Lutheran Confessions say which you just quoted?

    Repent susan. Turn to the hide your vile repentance , that Isaiah says is the moral equivalent of a used tampon (Isaiah says this, not me!

    Repent and turn to hide all that ugliness in the Works of Another.
    And pray that I do the exact same thing!

    bless you in this holy work Susan!

  • fws

    susan @ 164

    We are not saved by either the quality or quantity of our repentence. Repentence is a good work. God does indeed demands that we do it. We deserve temporal and eternal death precisely BECAUSE we dont do this as we ought.

    You dont repent enough or the right way Susan. Your repentence is a lie and stench in the site of God to the extent that it is something you do. I know this to be a fact because the bible tells me this about you. And I also know this to be a fact because it is also true about me!

    ALL men and women sin sexually in thought, word and deed and emotionally as well. It needs to be repented of because this sin merits temporal punishment and eternal death.

    Why are you singling out homosexuals? How do you feel they are any different than any other human as sinners? In what way is their sinning any less condemning of your own sexual sinning?

    how is what I just said in any way less than what the Lutheran Confessions say which you just quoted?

    Repent susan. Turn to the hide your vile repentance , that Isaiah says is the moral equivalent of a used tampon (Isaiah says this, not me!

    Repent and turn to hide all that ugliness in the Works of Another.
    And pray that I do the exact same thing!

    bless you in this holy work Susan!

  • Paul in MN

    Frank: What I don’t understand is how you can have the same reading/understanding Scriptures and the Confessions and end up with such drastically different conclusions. If ten people get on the same airplane, they should all arrive at the same destination. But if one of them arrives elsewhere, we must honestly consider the possibility that they weren’t really on the same plane at all. Or perhaps we should believe that you got on another plane and went elsewhere or that either you or they continued on too far. How can they utterly and completely disagree with your conclusions while agreeing with your reading/understanding of the Scriptures and Confessions?

    Let’s take a different issue for illustration. If one of our pastors makes the assertion that the Scriptures and Confessions support the conclusion that women should be ordained to the office of Pastor, have we not said that they arrive at that conclusion because they read the Scriptures and Confessions differently? I suggest that our present “worship wars” in the LCMS stem from different readings of the Scriptures and Confessions; from the inclusion or exclusion or importance of different passages. Again, it seems that our different conclusion originate in how we read and use the Scriptures and Confessions. Would we not expect o come to the same conclusions by adhering to the same normative documents?

    Since you have revealed that all these pastors and doctors of the church have utterly and completely disagreed with you on your conclusions, I must conclude, for myself, that you cannot have the same reading/understanding of the normative documents — else they would not be normative for doctrine and practice and we would all be free to draw whatever conclusions seem best to us, which would not be normative at all.

    For example, I have read and immensely enjoyed and appreciated the good Dr. Veith’s book (with his daughter, of course) on vocation in the family. I found it refreshing, much-needed, and in full agreement with the Scriptures and Confessions. I especially appreciated their clarity on how the vocations of husband, wife, parent, child all reflected the GOSPEL. I see that by the family, built into the creation, I learn what it means that God is my loving Father because I have been a father. I see the love and concern of Christ for His Bride, the Church because I have been a husband. Yes, I see where human fathers and husbands fail, but I see more clearly how Christ completely fulfills these roles. I see then that marriage not only points to the Gospel, that Christ is Lord and Savior, Redeemer and Friend, but that in my marriage I have a “foretaste” of the Gospel; that is, of the joy which is to come when I shall see and receive in Christ so much more than I have already been shown in my family. Marriage is intended by God not for our mortification, but for our mutual joy and the support given in adversity, for the procreation of children (is that not clearly Good News that Goad has included me in His work of Giving Life; something that is impossible outside of a heterosexual relations?).

    To continue: my wife shows me what it means that my sins are forgiven and remembered no more, even though she knows me better than anyone else on the planet, knows that I will continue to sin, yet renews her love for me, setting aside what is best for herself to do for me what I cannot do for myself (and what no male could do for me!). So in marriage we not ONLY see our sins and our need for forgiveness (the second use of the Law), in marriage we not ONLY have a curb from other great shame and vice (the first use of the Law), but we also have forgiveness, communion, and the joy of participating in the work of the Gospel for one another and together for our children. It not only points us to the Gospel but involves us in the work of the Gospel, not merely in mortification of the Old Adam. Is this merely the third use of the Law? I think not, because my wife is God’s primary way of showing me His love and what it means to love. This is why a man is to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife: it is through her (not ‘him’) that God has ordained to bless me.

    Now, I thank you for having been so honest as to say that these teachers and doctors of the Church utterly and completely disagree with you on your conclusions concerning homosexuality. But next, I would like to hear from them. Many of the readers here have been named as having the same reading of the Scriptures and Confessions as you have – even our gracious host, Dr. Veith. What do they say about how they can have the same reading of the Scriptures and Confessions as you have (as you have claimed) and yet have reached such different conclusions?

    I ask those who have been named: do you read the Scriptures and the Confessions as FWS does? How do you account for the drastic differences in Frank’s conclusions? I honestly want to know.

  • Paul in MN

    Frank: What I don’t understand is how you can have the same reading/understanding Scriptures and the Confessions and end up with such drastically different conclusions. If ten people get on the same airplane, they should all arrive at the same destination. But if one of them arrives elsewhere, we must honestly consider the possibility that they weren’t really on the same plane at all. Or perhaps we should believe that you got on another plane and went elsewhere or that either you or they continued on too far. How can they utterly and completely disagree with your conclusions while agreeing with your reading/understanding of the Scriptures and Confessions?

    Let’s take a different issue for illustration. If one of our pastors makes the assertion that the Scriptures and Confessions support the conclusion that women should be ordained to the office of Pastor, have we not said that they arrive at that conclusion because they read the Scriptures and Confessions differently? I suggest that our present “worship wars” in the LCMS stem from different readings of the Scriptures and Confessions; from the inclusion or exclusion or importance of different passages. Again, it seems that our different conclusion originate in how we read and use the Scriptures and Confessions. Would we not expect o come to the same conclusions by adhering to the same normative documents?

    Since you have revealed that all these pastors and doctors of the church have utterly and completely disagreed with you on your conclusions, I must conclude, for myself, that you cannot have the same reading/understanding of the normative documents — else they would not be normative for doctrine and practice and we would all be free to draw whatever conclusions seem best to us, which would not be normative at all.

    For example, I have read and immensely enjoyed and appreciated the good Dr. Veith’s book (with his daughter, of course) on vocation in the family. I found it refreshing, much-needed, and in full agreement with the Scriptures and Confessions. I especially appreciated their clarity on how the vocations of husband, wife, parent, child all reflected the GOSPEL. I see that by the family, built into the creation, I learn what it means that God is my loving Father because I have been a father. I see the love and concern of Christ for His Bride, the Church because I have been a husband. Yes, I see where human fathers and husbands fail, but I see more clearly how Christ completely fulfills these roles. I see then that marriage not only points to the Gospel, that Christ is Lord and Savior, Redeemer and Friend, but that in my marriage I have a “foretaste” of the Gospel; that is, of the joy which is to come when I shall see and receive in Christ so much more than I have already been shown in my family. Marriage is intended by God not for our mortification, but for our mutual joy and the support given in adversity, for the procreation of children (is that not clearly Good News that Goad has included me in His work of Giving Life; something that is impossible outside of a heterosexual relations?).

    To continue: my wife shows me what it means that my sins are forgiven and remembered no more, even though she knows me better than anyone else on the planet, knows that I will continue to sin, yet renews her love for me, setting aside what is best for herself to do for me what I cannot do for myself (and what no male could do for me!). So in marriage we not ONLY see our sins and our need for forgiveness (the second use of the Law), in marriage we not ONLY have a curb from other great shame and vice (the first use of the Law), but we also have forgiveness, communion, and the joy of participating in the work of the Gospel for one another and together for our children. It not only points us to the Gospel but involves us in the work of the Gospel, not merely in mortification of the Old Adam. Is this merely the third use of the Law? I think not, because my wife is God’s primary way of showing me His love and what it means to love. This is why a man is to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife: it is through her (not ‘him’) that God has ordained to bless me.

    Now, I thank you for having been so honest as to say that these teachers and doctors of the Church utterly and completely disagree with you on your conclusions concerning homosexuality. But next, I would like to hear from them. Many of the readers here have been named as having the same reading of the Scriptures and Confessions as you have – even our gracious host, Dr. Veith. What do they say about how they can have the same reading of the Scriptures and Confessions as you have (as you have claimed) and yet have reached such different conclusions?

    I ask those who have been named: do you read the Scriptures and the Confessions as FWS does? How do you account for the drastic differences in Frank’s conclusions? I honestly want to know.

  • fws

    susan @ 164

    No name dropping at all. I was asked by a Lutheran Pastor here to provide him with names of other pastors or doctors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

    These men read the Confessions as having , as their central premise, to teach and show us how to use the proper distinction of Law and Gospel to clear um all doctrinal error and controversy.

    This is not my private opinion Susan. I am personally wrong on probably everything you could imagine. But not on what the Confessions teach, for fortunately, that teaching is not mine!

    And none of those names will validate any of my opinions at all that are specifically about homosexuality. So your point is what dear sister in Christ?

    You are throwing quite a number of accusations in my direction. Show me that any of them are true rather than vent.

    bless you!+

  • fws

    susan @ 164

    No name dropping at all. I was asked by a Lutheran Pastor here to provide him with names of other pastors or doctors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

    These men read the Confessions as having , as their central premise, to teach and show us how to use the proper distinction of Law and Gospel to clear um all doctrinal error and controversy.

    This is not my private opinion Susan. I am personally wrong on probably everything you could imagine. But not on what the Confessions teach, for fortunately, that teaching is not mine!

    And none of those names will validate any of my opinions at all that are specifically about homosexuality. So your point is what dear sister in Christ?

    You are throwing quite a number of accusations in my direction. Show me that any of them are true rather than vent.

    bless you!+

  • fws

    Paul @ 166

    ” Since you have revealed that all these pastors and doctors of the church have utterly and completely disagreed with you on your conclusions”

    sheesh. “your conclusions”.

    You seem ( I could be wrong), to be reading 100% of what I write as having something, at least tenuously, to do with homosexuality.

    Stop. That. This is your error.

    What… just because I am a homo, you are assuming that the topic of homosexuality consumes me and my thinking that way?

    Like maybe your heterosexuality consumes your own thinking (that was a sarcastic and not serious comment. )

    my personal opinion that the government should issue marriage licenses to homos is based upon reason. I would never attempt to try to find support or approval for that in either Holy Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions.

    Why not? It ain’t there.

    So what is left here that are “my conclusions”? Try going back and reading all I wrote as though I was not a gay man and had no other shoe to drop and n0 agenda at all of excusing homosexual sinning or any other kind of sexual sinning.

    You will then see , clearly so, ALL the conclusions that I draw from the Confessions that the other men I have listed fully concur with.

    You are starting to make me feel that you are being less than sincere with me Paul. I hope that I am wrong and need to repent of that opinion.

    Show me.

  • fws

    Paul @ 166

    ” Since you have revealed that all these pastors and doctors of the church have utterly and completely disagreed with you on your conclusions”

    sheesh. “your conclusions”.

    You seem ( I could be wrong), to be reading 100% of what I write as having something, at least tenuously, to do with homosexuality.

    Stop. That. This is your error.

    What… just because I am a homo, you are assuming that the topic of homosexuality consumes me and my thinking that way?

    Like maybe your heterosexuality consumes your own thinking (that was a sarcastic and not serious comment. )

    my personal opinion that the government should issue marriage licenses to homos is based upon reason. I would never attempt to try to find support or approval for that in either Holy Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions.

    Why not? It ain’t there.

    So what is left here that are “my conclusions”? Try going back and reading all I wrote as though I was not a gay man and had no other shoe to drop and n0 agenda at all of excusing homosexual sinning or any other kind of sexual sinning.

    You will then see , clearly so, ALL the conclusions that I draw from the Confessions that the other men I have listed fully concur with.

    You are starting to make me feel that you are being less than sincere with me Paul. I hope that I am wrong and need to repent of that opinion.

    Show me.

  • fws

    paul @ 166

    “I see then that marriage not only points to the Gospel, that Christ is Lord and Savior, Redeemer and Friend, but that in my marriage I have a “foretaste” of the Gospel; ”

    no. NO!

    The Formula of Concord on Law and Gospel. Solid Declaration:

    the Law reveals the righteous, immutable will of God. It describes what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God. In this passage there is the implied threat for husbands who don’t follow the Example of Christ with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments.

    It IS true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is STILL Law!

    This is the precise case in Ephesians 5 Pastor Paul!

    It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. ……

    ….For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath…

    see my exegesis of Eph 5 in this thread here Pastor Paul:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149312

    see the Confessional definition of the estate/government of Matrimony/ Marriage here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149307

    See where the Lutheran Confessions make a huge deal out of the Image of God being that Original Righeousness that is the same faith in Christ that is also baptismal righeouness! And why that matters as the beating heart of Lutheranism.
    Here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149270

    See my Law /Gospel response to Marie that applies all this and ties it together practically here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149382

    You should see that there is not the slightest tilt towards trying to justify homosexual sin or homosexual marriage in any of these writtings.

    If they hit a nerve with you, then good! You need to reject the stuff you believe that is really the roman catholic roman scholasticism masquerading as a “third use” that is not that at all.

    The Law ALWAYS kills. The Law. ALWAYS accuses. always always always always. 8 days a week! there is no such thing as a kind of ” law that is of the gospel” that you have so carefully described.

    what you believe is classic antinomianism, which is precisely to call what is law “gospel”.

    Bless you in your journey back to Lutheranism and out of the wilderness of Thomist Natural Law that is the sin of Romans 1.

  • fws

    paul @ 166

    “I see then that marriage not only points to the Gospel, that Christ is Lord and Savior, Redeemer and Friend, but that in my marriage I have a “foretaste” of the Gospel; ”

    no. NO!

    The Formula of Concord on Law and Gospel. Solid Declaration:

    the Law reveals the righteous, immutable will of God. It describes what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God. In this passage there is the implied threat for husbands who don’t follow the Example of Christ with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments.

    It IS true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is STILL Law!

    This is the precise case in Ephesians 5 Pastor Paul!

    It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. ……

    ….For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath…

    see my exegesis of Eph 5 in this thread here Pastor Paul:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149312

    see the Confessional definition of the estate/government of Matrimony/ Marriage here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149307

    See where the Lutheran Confessions make a huge deal out of the Image of God being that Original Righeousness that is the same faith in Christ that is also baptismal righeouness! And why that matters as the beating heart of Lutheranism.
    Here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149270

    See my Law /Gospel response to Marie that applies all this and ties it together practically here:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149382

    You should see that there is not the slightest tilt towards trying to justify homosexual sin or homosexual marriage in any of these writtings.

    If they hit a nerve with you, then good! You need to reject the stuff you believe that is really the roman catholic roman scholasticism masquerading as a “third use” that is not that at all.

    The Law ALWAYS kills. The Law. ALWAYS accuses. always always always always. 8 days a week! there is no such thing as a kind of ” law that is of the gospel” that you have so carefully described.

    what you believe is classic antinomianism, which is precisely to call what is law “gospel”.

    Bless you in your journey back to Lutheranism and out of the wilderness of Thomist Natural Law that is the sin of Romans 1.

  • Ross

    fws @ 165

    “Repentence is a good work.”

    ————————————————————

    Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Of Repentance:
    “Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.”

    Acts 5:31
    “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”

    Acts 11:18
    “When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

  • Ross

    fws @ 165

    “Repentence is a good work.”

    ————————————————————

    Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Of Repentance:
    “Now, repentance consists properly of these two parts: One is contrition, that is, terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.”

    Acts 5:31
    “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”

    Acts 11:18
    “When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

  • Susan

    @fws,

    No one is picking on you. The issue came up because of the topic of the blog post and your denial of the truth about sodomy. I find it interesting that you claim sodomy is not a sin and would seek to persuade others to accept your false view on homosexuality, but when confronted with the truth via scripture and confessions, you claim victimhood and launch a personal attack upon me calling me to repent via your vain presumptions that I do not understand the depth of my sin. Balderdash.

    That you get some things right is good, but the bible has strong words regarding false teaching and unrepentance. That you would continue to attempt to persuade others to your way of thinking regarding homosexuality after being told you were wrong by a litany of well-respected Lutherans who are solid in scripture and the confessions is a serious problem. It shows no regard, or submission, or respect for the Lutheran confessions and the Lutheran pastors.

    You are no different than the rest of us. The bible calls for all of us to repent and confess our sins, and receive forgiveness. It is unreasonable to expect love to coddle you and leave you in your sin, or for love to disregard the harm you may cause a neighbor via false teaching. It’s not all about you. There are other people to be considered.

    Lastly, many people have shown you your error via the bible and the confessions. No one needs to keep repeating the truth at this point. You are wrong and your choice is to repent or to continue to refuse the Truth.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    No one is picking on you. The issue came up because of the topic of the blog post and your denial of the truth about sodomy. I find it interesting that you claim sodomy is not a sin and would seek to persuade others to accept your false view on homosexuality, but when confronted with the truth via scripture and confessions, you claim victimhood and launch a personal attack upon me calling me to repent via your vain presumptions that I do not understand the depth of my sin. Balderdash.

    That you get some things right is good, but the bible has strong words regarding false teaching and unrepentance. That you would continue to attempt to persuade others to your way of thinking regarding homosexuality after being told you were wrong by a litany of well-respected Lutherans who are solid in scripture and the confessions is a serious problem. It shows no regard, or submission, or respect for the Lutheran confessions and the Lutheran pastors.

    You are no different than the rest of us. The bible calls for all of us to repent and confess our sins, and receive forgiveness. It is unreasonable to expect love to coddle you and leave you in your sin, or for love to disregard the harm you may cause a neighbor via false teaching. It’s not all about you. There are other people to be considered.

    Lastly, many people have shown you your error via the bible and the confessions. No one needs to keep repeating the truth at this point. You are wrong and your choice is to repent or to continue to refuse the Truth.

  • Paul in MN

    As I tried to demonstrate in my previous post, the conclusions I have in mind are far from merely the one concerning homosexuality; although, that too is not insignificant. Rather, the fact that they, as you have said, utterly and completely disagree with you on that point raises the question of what other assertions you make concerning other issues so that you may arrive at that conclusion without injustice to the Word or Confessions. Here are some of your statements which I question (in no particular order):

    “The false idea here is that the Image of God is revealed and known in marriage. For anyone claiming to be Lutheran, this profound error that is, exactly so, the Romans error of of worshiping Creaturely-Image-as-Image-of-of-God rather than the Creator himself.” I don’t know what you’re saying here.

    “Government=Sword. Physical force supplied by God to stop wrongdoers. Marriage is such a government.” I ask: is not marriage much more than an instrument of the First use of the Law?

    In the same place you say: “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.” I have always thought that there will be “Church Triumphant” in heaven; an “Israel” or “People of God”. Furthermore, I don’t see the purpose of marriage as primarily or even in a significant part to be “a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.” Wow! Marriage as bearing the sword. Really? Marriage as a means to punish? Does Cwirla or Veith agree with you on this?

    When Marie asked you “Are you arguing that marriage is a government-a necessary government-to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?” you replied @161 “Yes. I am saying exactly that.” A little further on you say, “So the aim of God is to extort Mercy out of us with marriage being the club and blunt instrument to do that with.” Wow! Dr. Veith? Would you please confirm or deny that you agree with this? Frank is claiming that you do. And here, Frank, I am not talking about homosexuality at all. The topic is marriage. Even more, the topic is the distinction between law and gospel which is at the very core of “how we read/understand” the Scriptures — which is what my challenge to you is all about.

    Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.” I cannot agree. Christ died for me. Christ died for my wife. I ‘give up’ or ‘submit’ to her and she to me out of reverence to Christ. But we do not “die for each other” and we do not “give life” to each other (except as it is procreative).

    I cannot see how it was the purpose of Paul in Ephesians 5 to preach terror into the hearts of his hearers. He exhorts them to “walk in love” and to be imitators of God, but our motivation to do this is not out of terror from the Law. In Ephes. 4:1 Paul speaks of walking in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called.” Have we been called by terror for terror? Are we, who have been called, to walk now in terror? And yet you say to Marie, “Your husband should hear the most terrifying Law” when hearing Ephesians 5 read in the assembly of believers.

    @157 you have called Susan’s statement a heresy. She wrote “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational.” You then wrote: “Any Confessional Lutherans here besides me want to take the mic and respond to this heresy?” I don’t see the heresy. Perhaps those whom you say agree with your reading of Scripture and the Confessions will take your invitation and show us how that statement is heresy. Does anyone else here agree with Frank that Susan’s statement is a heresy: “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there can be no forgiveness.”

    If I, as a simple parish pastor, speak to any believer concerning an ongoing sin, can there be forgiveness for that person who refuses to accept that it is a sin? And when every teacher and doctor of the church has “completely” and “utterly” disagreed with Frank – as he, himself has told us – concerning the sinfulness of sodomy, is that not a refusal to repent apart from which there can be no forgiveness? So if a man comes to me, as his pastor, confessing that he is a murderer but doesn’t repent of that sin claiming that we are all sinners and murder everyday in our hearts, shall I offer this man the forgiveness of the Gospel? Dr. Veith? Others? I do not see that Frank understands the very fundamental distinction between law and gospel.

    @151 you wrote: “Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government, it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall.” I will see your point if you also say that there is *another* sense that marriage is not government and not about law. You qualified your answer by saying, “in the sense that it is government.” But do you acknowledge any other ‘sense’ of marriage?

    In the same post, you wrote, “The preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath.” It is, however, also the illustration and fulfillment of His love. See how He loved us! And if Paul says that we shall know nothing except Christ and Him crucified is the Apostle saying that we shall only preach the Law? Of course not. The death of Christ is also Gospel – that Christ loved me and gave His life for me.” Paul also writes: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ crucified is Gospel to those who are being saved!

    So you can see, I hope, there is a great deal beyond homosexuality that concerns me. That may be the conclusion which makes your different reading of Scripture and the Confessions apparent, but it is the methodology that is at issue.

  • Paul in MN

    As I tried to demonstrate in my previous post, the conclusions I have in mind are far from merely the one concerning homosexuality; although, that too is not insignificant. Rather, the fact that they, as you have said, utterly and completely disagree with you on that point raises the question of what other assertions you make concerning other issues so that you may arrive at that conclusion without injustice to the Word or Confessions. Here are some of your statements which I question (in no particular order):

    “The false idea here is that the Image of God is revealed and known in marriage. For anyone claiming to be Lutheran, this profound error that is, exactly so, the Romans error of of worshiping Creaturely-Image-as-Image-of-of-God rather than the Creator himself.” I don’t know what you’re saying here.

    “Government=Sword. Physical force supplied by God to stop wrongdoers. Marriage is such a government.” I ask: is not marriage much more than an instrument of the First use of the Law?

    In the same place you say: “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.” I have always thought that there will be “Church Triumphant” in heaven; an “Israel” or “People of God”. Furthermore, I don’t see the purpose of marriage as primarily or even in a significant part to be “a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.” Wow! Marriage as bearing the sword. Really? Marriage as a means to punish? Does Cwirla or Veith agree with you on this?

    When Marie asked you “Are you arguing that marriage is a government-a necessary government-to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?” you replied @161 “Yes. I am saying exactly that.” A little further on you say, “So the aim of God is to extort Mercy out of us with marriage being the club and blunt instrument to do that with.” Wow! Dr. Veith? Would you please confirm or deny that you agree with this? Frank is claiming that you do. And here, Frank, I am not talking about homosexuality at all. The topic is marriage. Even more, the topic is the distinction between law and gospel which is at the very core of “how we read/understand” the Scriptures — which is what my challenge to you is all about.

    Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.” I cannot agree. Christ died for me. Christ died for my wife. I ‘give up’ or ‘submit’ to her and she to me out of reverence to Christ. But we do not “die for each other” and we do not “give life” to each other (except as it is procreative).

    I cannot see how it was the purpose of Paul in Ephesians 5 to preach terror into the hearts of his hearers. He exhorts them to “walk in love” and to be imitators of God, but our motivation to do this is not out of terror from the Law. In Ephes. 4:1 Paul speaks of walking in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called.” Have we been called by terror for terror? Are we, who have been called, to walk now in terror? And yet you say to Marie, “Your husband should hear the most terrifying Law” when hearing Ephesians 5 read in the assembly of believers.

    @157 you have called Susan’s statement a heresy. She wrote “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational.” You then wrote: “Any Confessional Lutherans here besides me want to take the mic and respond to this heresy?” I don’t see the heresy. Perhaps those whom you say agree with your reading of Scripture and the Confessions will take your invitation and show us how that statement is heresy. Does anyone else here agree with Frank that Susan’s statement is a heresy: “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there can be no forgiveness.”

    If I, as a simple parish pastor, speak to any believer concerning an ongoing sin, can there be forgiveness for that person who refuses to accept that it is a sin? And when every teacher and doctor of the church has “completely” and “utterly” disagreed with Frank – as he, himself has told us – concerning the sinfulness of sodomy, is that not a refusal to repent apart from which there can be no forgiveness? So if a man comes to me, as his pastor, confessing that he is a murderer but doesn’t repent of that sin claiming that we are all sinners and murder everyday in our hearts, shall I offer this man the forgiveness of the Gospel? Dr. Veith? Others? I do not see that Frank understands the very fundamental distinction between law and gospel.

    @151 you wrote: “Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government, it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall.” I will see your point if you also say that there is *another* sense that marriage is not government and not about law. You qualified your answer by saying, “in the sense that it is government.” But do you acknowledge any other ‘sense’ of marriage?

    In the same post, you wrote, “The preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath.” It is, however, also the illustration and fulfillment of His love. See how He loved us! And if Paul says that we shall know nothing except Christ and Him crucified is the Apostle saying that we shall only preach the Law? Of course not. The death of Christ is also Gospel – that Christ loved me and gave His life for me.” Paul also writes: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ crucified is Gospel to those who are being saved!

    So you can see, I hope, there is a great deal beyond homosexuality that concerns me. That may be the conclusion which makes your different reading of Scripture and the Confessions apparent, but it is the methodology that is at issue.

  • fws

    susan @ 171

    where are the words of mine that are claiming victimhood?

    My call for your repentance you reject then as uncalled for?

  • fws

    susan @ 171

    where are the words of mine that are claiming victimhood?

    My call for your repentance you reject then as uncalled for?

  • fws

    ross @ 170

    Excellent. Apology VII! One my favorites.

    The Confessions beg for us to read them , in all it’s parts, as an exercise in showing us how to apply the distinction of Law and Gospel to any controversy to clarify and resolve it.

    Article VII says there is a law part to repentence. that is the part God commands is to do that we can do. second table Law. This kind of Law in the Confessions is called the law of reason, natural law, philosophical righeousness, outward works, civic righeousness and Old Adam righeousness to name just a few synonyms.

    This is the Law written in the reason of All (rom 2:15) and that all can do in thought, word, deed and emotions.

    This is the repentence Susan is calling me to. She is asking me to do something. To repent is a work here. It is a good work because God’s Word demands it of us and by it, makes us serve others.

    Then there is the second part of repentence. That is what the Law demands in the first table that we cannot do. The law demands there that we not only DO, but that we do spontaneously, without any effort or moral choice needed, because we do from the bottom of our heart.
    We cannot do this. Only regeneration can make this happen!

    So yes. Repentence is a good work. God demands it. And he will punish us if we do not do it!

  • fws

    ross @ 170

    Excellent. Apology VII! One my favorites.

    The Confessions beg for us to read them , in all it’s parts, as an exercise in showing us how to apply the distinction of Law and Gospel to any controversy to clarify and resolve it.

    Article VII says there is a law part to repentence. that is the part God commands is to do that we can do. second table Law. This kind of Law in the Confessions is called the law of reason, natural law, philosophical righeousness, outward works, civic righeousness and Old Adam righeousness to name just a few synonyms.

    This is the Law written in the reason of All (rom 2:15) and that all can do in thought, word, deed and emotions.

    This is the repentence Susan is calling me to. She is asking me to do something. To repent is a work here. It is a good work because God’s Word demands it of us and by it, makes us serve others.

    Then there is the second part of repentence. That is what the Law demands in the first table that we cannot do. The law demands there that we not only DO, but that we do spontaneously, without any effort or moral choice needed, because we do from the bottom of our heart.
    We cannot do this. Only regeneration can make this happen!

    So yes. Repentence is a good work. God demands it. And he will punish us if we do not do it!

  • fws

    susan @ 171

    Feel free to take issue with anything I wrote. You were the one who skipped over that part and made it personal. You did that ate 149, 154 and 158. This is true even if you put it in the 3rd person till 158 and after.

    You are right to call me to repentence of my sin.
    As I am right to return the favor.
    You are wrong, without knowing me, to assume that I engage in a particular sin. And you would be perverted and disrespectful to insist on delving into my personal life further. So , of course you won’t do that will you?

  • fws

    susan @ 171

    Feel free to take issue with anything I wrote. You were the one who skipped over that part and made it personal. You did that ate 149, 154 and 158. This is true even if you put it in the 3rd person till 158 and after.

    You are right to call me to repentence of my sin.
    As I am right to return the favor.
    You are wrong, without knowing me, to assume that I engage in a particular sin. And you would be perverted and disrespectful to insist on delving into my personal life further. So , of course you won’t do that will you?

  • Susan

    @fws,

    I’m not the one claiming sodomy isn’t sin. The ball is still in your court to repent, agree with God, and confess that sodomy is sin.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    I’m not the one claiming sodomy isn’t sin. The ball is still in your court to repent, agree with God, and confess that sodomy is sin.

  • fws

    paul @ 172

    Now I can understand what you are objecting to. That is a huge and helpful step.

    I am so glad to hear that you are not distracted by the background noise of the gay stuff. What you have listed is way way more important!

    I will take great care in responding to your most recent post dear Pastor Paul.

    To answer your main question in brief: Yes the others would agree with me. But let me read your response carefully.

    there is always a chance that we dont have an honest disagreement but are talking past one another. I will of course, read what you write with charity, which means that I will look for agreement wherever possible.

    Bless you dear Pastor! +

    Frank

  • fws

    paul @ 172

    Now I can understand what you are objecting to. That is a huge and helpful step.

    I am so glad to hear that you are not distracted by the background noise of the gay stuff. What you have listed is way way more important!

    I will take great care in responding to your most recent post dear Pastor Paul.

    To answer your main question in brief: Yes the others would agree with me. But let me read your response carefully.

    there is always a chance that we dont have an honest disagreement but are talking past one another. I will of course, read what you write with charity, which means that I will look for agreement wherever possible.

    Bless you dear Pastor! +

    Frank

  • fws

    susan @ 171

    can you point me to anywhere ever that I have expressed the opinion that sodomy is not a sin? Should I assume that you mean that sodomy is anal sex practiced by either two men or a man and a woman?

    That is the normal definition of that word isnt it?

  • fws

    susan @ 171

    can you point me to anywhere ever that I have expressed the opinion that sodomy is not a sin? Should I assume that you mean that sodomy is anal sex practiced by either two men or a man and a woman?

    That is the normal definition of that word isnt it?

  • Gary

    Fws, fwiw (see that? I made a joke there) I too think it’s odd Susan keeps referring specifically to “sodomy.” I think she’s only using it as her preferred term for homosexual bedroom activities. In other words, she may accuse lesbian lovers of practicing sodomy also, irrespective of other (legal) definitions. I think the term is unhelpful.

  • Gary

    Fws, fwiw (see that? I made a joke there) I too think it’s odd Susan keeps referring specifically to “sodomy.” I think she’s only using it as her preferred term for homosexual bedroom activities. In other words, she may accuse lesbian lovers of practicing sodomy also, irrespective of other (legal) definitions. I think the term is unhelpful.

  • Gary

    Btw, Frank, I’m SO glad you pointed out that Ephesians 5 is a metaphor. Of course it is. I pull my hair out when I hear Lutherans (who should know better) asserting absurd stuff based on a literal interpretation
    of this passage.

  • Gary

    Btw, Frank, I’m SO glad you pointed out that Ephesians 5 is a metaphor. Of course it is. I pull my hair out when I hear Lutherans (who should know better) asserting absurd stuff based on a literal interpretation
    of this passage.

  • Grace

    Gary @ 179

    Which passage in Ephesians 5 do you consider a “metaphor” ?

  • Grace

    Gary @ 179

    Which passage in Ephesians 5 do you consider a “metaphor” ?

  • #4 Kitty

    I’m not the one claiming sodomy isn’t sin. The ball is still in your court to repent, agree with God, and confess that sodomy is sin.

    LOL~ not if done right.

  • #4 Kitty

    I’m not the one claiming sodomy isn’t sin. The ball is still in your court to repent, agree with God, and confess that sodomy is sin.

    LOL~ not if done right.

  • Gary

    Grace, as Frank first posted, everything that suggests the relationship of Christ to the Church is LIKE that of a husband to his wife. That’s Paul’s interpretation.

  • Gary

    Grace, as Frank first posted, everything that suggests the relationship of Christ to the Church is LIKE that of a husband to his wife. That’s Paul’s interpretation.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    There is a revealing pattern of others calling you on something and your response is to demand proof, obfuscate, complain of not receiving suitable niceties, and so forth. There is a litany of your self-referential comments on being the expert Lutheran queer, fag, homosexual, and etcetera labels with the demand that you should be consulted, understood, and respected. There is also this:

    Posted by fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012-
    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.” … not all sex that is between two men is “homosexual sex”.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

    Don’t try to drag me into engaging with your supposed, nuanced, expert, understanding of what constitutes sinful sex. It is enough to use the biblical word: sodomy. The ball is still in your court to repent/agree with God and respect the litany of orthodox Lutherans who have tried to correct you.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    There is a revealing pattern of others calling you on something and your response is to demand proof, obfuscate, complain of not receiving suitable niceties, and so forth. There is a litany of your self-referential comments on being the expert Lutheran queer, fag, homosexual, and etcetera labels with the demand that you should be consulted, understood, and respected. There is also this:

    Posted by fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012-
    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.” … not all sex that is between two men is “homosexual sex”.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

    Don’t try to drag me into engaging with your supposed, nuanced, expert, understanding of what constitutes sinful sex. It is enough to use the biblical word: sodomy. The ball is still in your court to repent/agree with God and respect the litany of orthodox Lutherans who have tried to correct you.

  • Paul in MN

    Gary @182.

    Actually, I do believe it’s the other way around: the relationship between husband and wife is to be LIKE the relationship between Christ and the Church. It’s prescriptive, not descriptive, I would say. Christ is the antitype and marriage is the type.

  • Paul in MN

    Gary @182.

    Actually, I do believe it’s the other way around: the relationship between husband and wife is to be LIKE the relationship between Christ and the Church. It’s prescriptive, not descriptive, I would say. Christ is the antitype and marriage is the type.

  • Paul in MN

    continued: The section from Ephesians chapter 5 begins “Be imitators of God.” Then see, for example, verse 25: “Husbands, love your wives, AS CHRIST LOVED the Church and gave himself up for her . . .”. The love of Christ for His bride, the Church, comes first. Husbands are to imitate that.

  • Paul in MN

    continued: The section from Ephesians chapter 5 begins “Be imitators of God.” Then see, for example, verse 25: “Husbands, love your wives, AS CHRIST LOVED the Church and gave himself up for her . . .”. The love of Christ for His bride, the Church, comes first. Husbands are to imitate that.

  • fws

    paul @ 185

    marie at 189 says this “the Church and Christ are joined in marriage eternally? ”

    I can’t find that teaching in the bible. Nor can I find where the bible says that Christ is the husband and the church is the wife. It is not in Ephesians 5.

    What I called a metaphor was Marie’s metaphor as far as I can tell. The relation of christ to the church is “like ” that of a husband and wife.

  • fws

    paul @ 185

    marie at 189 says this “the Church and Christ are joined in marriage eternally? ”

    I can’t find that teaching in the bible. Nor can I find where the bible says that Christ is the husband and the church is the wife. It is not in Ephesians 5.

    What I called a metaphor was Marie’s metaphor as far as I can tell. The relation of christ to the church is “like ” that of a husband and wife.

  • fws

    paul @ 185 and 186

    you are right,.
    there is no metaphor there in eph 5
    There is also not a cause and effect relationship there either. as in..
    marriage is a fruit of the gospel. no. marriage is law.
    Neither is marriage a metaphor for the relation of christ and his church.
    Vines are that.
    Pig bladders are that even.

    not marriage.

    Where is there a passage that says christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride? It is not eph 5. The only place I can find this metaphor is on the parable of the 10 virgins.

  • fws

    paul @ 185 and 186

    you are right,.
    there is no metaphor there in eph 5
    There is also not a cause and effect relationship there either. as in..
    marriage is a fruit of the gospel. no. marriage is law.
    Neither is marriage a metaphor for the relation of christ and his church.
    Vines are that.
    Pig bladders are that even.

    not marriage.

    Where is there a passage that says christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride? It is not eph 5. The only place I can find this metaphor is on the parable of the 10 virgins.

  • fws

    paul at 185 and 186

    “dr luther” says that marriage is “of the gospel” but it is not the gospel. He didnt bother to unpack his bags before he checked out.

    The best I ca n understand what he meant is that marriage is a fruit of the gospel and faith. But then pagan marriages are not real marriages? Pagans cant really do marriage?

  • fws

    paul at 185 and 186

    “dr luther” says that marriage is “of the gospel” but it is not the gospel. He didnt bother to unpack his bags before he checked out.

    The best I ca n understand what he meant is that marriage is a fruit of the gospel and faith. But then pagan marriages are not real marriages? Pagans cant really do marriage?

  • fws

    pastor paul .
    here is the response to your long post to me. Mine is , of course , longer. Muuuuch longer.

    the rest of you: skip over this to the next post if it is not of interest to you ok? Sorry for that small inconvenence.

    Here are some of your statements which I question (in no particular order):

    Ok Pastor Paul. I will deal with them in the order which you have presented them. Thank you.
    “Government=Sword. Physical force supplied by God to stop wrongdoers. Marriage is such a government.” I ask: is not marriage much more than an instrument of the First use of the Law?
    “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”
    “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”

    I have always thought that there will be “Church Triumphant” in heaven; an “Israel” or “People of God”. Furthermore, I don’t see the purpose of marriage as primarily or even in a significant part to be “a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”
    Wow! Marriage as bearing the sword. Really? Marriage as a means to punish? Does Cwirla or Veith agree with you on this?

    When Marie asked you “Are you arguing that marriage is a government-a necessary government-to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?” you replied @161 “Yes. I am saying exactly that.”
    A little further on you say, “So the aim of God is to extort Mercy out of us with marriage being the club and blunt instrument to do that with.” Wow!
    Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.”

    I cannot agree.

    The Large Catechism is in the Book of Concord. So the answer is Yes as to Cwirla and Veith.

    All of those quotes are paraphrases of the LC 4th commandment and the 6th as well.
    Note that at the start of the 6th commandment Luther makes clear that 4 and 6 are all about the topic of Matrimony.
    Is marriage more than the sword? No.
    But the God desired fruit of all government is more. It is to provide for us bodily and to protect us.
    You will find me exegeting the entire LC 4th commandment here.
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149307
    Dont take my word that the Confessions say any of this. Read for your own self!

    Even more, the topic is the distinction between law and gospel which is at the very core of “how we read/understand” the Scriptures — which is what my challenge to you is all about.

    Excellent that you and I agree that this, really, is the real issue behind all of this. Really excellent pastor Paul!

    Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.” I cannot agree.

    So then where do you place mortification in the christian life. What purpose does mortification serve in God’s ecology/economy?
    I can also phrase this as: “Marriage requres the sacrifice of YOUR old adame that results in mercy for OTHER Old Adams.”

    Christ died for me. Christ died for my wife.

    In Ephesians 5 this is Law. The formula explains why that is this way (FC SD Law and Gospel):

    It is true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is still Law.
    the Law reveals the righteous, immutable will of God. It describes what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God.

    In Eph 5 there is the implied threat for husbands who don’t follow the Example of Christ with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments.

    It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. ….For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath

    Apply this now Paul to what you read in Eph 5 ok? Exegete Eph 5 following these directions from the Formula.

    I ‘give up’ or ‘submit’ to her and she to me out of reverence to Christ. But we do not “die for each other” and we do not “give life” to each other (except as it is procreative).

    The Confessions tell us that you do not do this out of reverence for Christ. You and your wife do this because your Old Adams are being driven and extorted to do this by the Law. The theological word that describes this is the word “mortification.” Mortification is latinate and means the process of “deathing.”
    You are told that what baptism signifies is precisely this death, in the Small Catechism. You are to daily drown (ie KILL!) your old adam by daily grinding down and repentence. Luther goes so far as to say this: “Life is mortification.’ Kenneth Korby repeat him and says: “Life is death” in is commentary on Ephesians. And then Korby adds this: “It does not follow that death is Life.”

    I cannot see how it was the purpose of Paul in Ephesians 5 to preach terror into the hearts of his hearers.

    Well now. Earlier I proposed to you, that the FC instructs us to read Eph 5 as Law. the FC says that the Gospel is often used to illustrate or explain the Law. And it does this by using Christ as Example. Christ as Example is Law. May I please for arguments sake assume that you now accept this.
    So now we can move on to that word terrify.The work of the Law is to terrify. IF Eph 5 is Law, then it’s purpose IS to terrify us. This is simply what the Augustana , in the section “on justification” says the Law always does.
    38] Paul says, Rom. 4, 15: The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences.
    This terrifying is actually The third (or theological) use of the Law. Only the Law applied by Christ himself can terrify a heart. This is where Christ personally takes the Law into his own hands. This is where Christ shows us that even though we are outwardly keeping the Law very tidily and to the letter, still…. we are not doing it from the bottom of our heart. The proof for this is obvious: We must work , and work hard, at being good! Why? It is not what our heart would prefer to do if it were not for the Law driving us! Read more on this in the FC on Law and Gospel!
    I will instead encourage you to download the pdf of the Book of Concord from the bookofconcord.org website, and do a word search on terrify. It will greatly illuminate your thinking.

    He exhorts them to “walk in love” and to be imitators of God, but our motivation to do this is not out of terror from the Law. In Ephes. 4:1 Paul speaks of walking in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called.” Have we been called by terror for terror? Are we, who have been called, to walk now in terror? And yet you say to Marie, “Your husband should hear the most terrifying Law” when hearing Ephesians 5 read in the assembly of believers.

    First let me agree. We are not called by terror for terror. We are called from Grace to Grace. And we, as New Men, can no longer be terrified by the Law! We are dead to the Law! The Law is never aimed at us as New Man.
    And yet… what I said to Marie is also true!
    How can that be? How this can be will be made amply clear by quoting, without any comment at all, passages from our Confessions that talk about being terrified over sin. I will quote a quite a few, since they bring such joy to my heart. They are the diamonds set in the Crown of Lutheranism that is her Confessions.
    106] .Augustine says..By the Law we fear God; by faith we hope in God. But to those fearing punishment grace is hidden; and the soul laboring under this fear [at the same time] betakes itself by faith to God’s mercy, in order that He may give what He commands. Here he teaches that by the Law hearts are terrified, but by faith they receive consolation. (Ap III “on justification”. Bente pdf)

    115] Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. (ibid)

    21] Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins,and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. Wherefore 22] it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So, too 8, 12. 13: We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

    23] Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin.

    24] From these effects of faith the adversaries select one, namely, love, and teach that love justifies. Thus it is clearly apparent that they teach only the Law. They do not teach that remission of sins through faith is first received. They do not teach of Christ as Mediator, that for Christ’s sake we have a gracious God, but because of our love. And yet, what the nature of this love is they do not say, neither 25] can they say. (Ap. IV Bente)

    32] But faith is that which freely apprehends God’s mercy on account of God’s Word which relies upon God’s mercy and Word, and not upon one’s own work. If any one denies that this is faith [if any one imagines that he can rely at the same time upon God and his own works], he does not understand at all 33] what faith is. For the terrified conscience is not satisfied with its own works, but must cry after mercy, and is comforted and encouraged alone by God’s Word. (ibid)

    Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term faith. For we do not speak of idle
    knowledge that merely the history concerning Christ should be known, such as devils have, but of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and consoles terrified hearts , the new light and power which the Holy Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of death, of sin, etc..

    129] Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the adversaries dream as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to believe! etc., nor a human power , thought which I can form for myself, but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which we overcome the devil and death. (ibid)

    150]….For although in the doctrine of repentance the scholastics have said nothing at all concerning faith, yet we think that none of our adversaries is so mad as to deny that absolution is a voice of the Gospel. And absolution ought to be received by faith, in order that it may cheer the terrified conscience. (ibid)

    171] Thus, therefore, we teach that man is justified, as we have above said, when conscience, terrified by the preaching of repentance, is cheered and believes that for Christ’s sake it has a reconciled God. (ibid. Also cf Small Catechism on Baptism: “Baptism signifies that we are to drown the Old Adam by daily …. repentence.)

    In the doctrine of the adversaries concerning justification no mention is made of Christ, and how we ought to set Him against the wrath of God, as though, indeed, we were able to overcome the wrath of God by love, or to love an angry God. 180] In regard to these things, consciences are left in uncertainty. For if they are to think that they have a reconciled God for the reason that they love, and that they observe the Law, they must needs always doubt whether they have a reconciled God, because they either do not feel this love, as the adversariesacknowledge, or they certainly feel that it is very small; and much more frequently do they feel that they are angry at the judgment of God, who oppresses human nature with many terrible evils, with troubles of this life, the terrors of eternal wrath, etc. When, therefore, will conscience be at rest, when will it be pacified? When, in this doubt and in these terrors, will it love God? What else is the doctrine of the Law than a doctrine of despair? 181] And let any one of our adversaries come forward who can teach us concerning this love, how he himself loves God. They do not at all understand what they say; they only cho, just like the walls of a house, the little word “love,” without understanding it. So confused and obscure is their doctrine: it not only transfers the glory of Christ to human works, but also leads consciences either to presumption or to despair. 182] But ours, we hope, is readily understood by pious minds, and brings godly and salutary consolation to terrified consciences. (ibid)

    10] …When, however, will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great terrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which those certainly taste [present tense!] who are truly converted, be able to decide whether it fears God for His own sake [out of love it fears God, as its God], or is fleeing from eternal punishments? [These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words.] These great emotions can be distinguished in letters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these sweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all good and wise men [who also desire to know the truth]. (ap “of repentence” bente)

    28] From contrition we separate those idle and infinite discussions, as to when we grieve from love of God, and when from fear of punishment. For these are nothing but mere words and a useless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state of mind of a terrified conscience. But we say that contrition is the true terror of conscience, which feels that God is angry with sin, and which grieves that it has sinned. And this contrition takes place in this manner when sins are censured by the Word of God, because the sum of the preaching of the Gospel is this, namely, to convict of sin, and to offer for Christ’s sake the remission of sins and righteousness, and the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, and that as regenerate men we should do good works. (ibid)

    53] For the two chief works of God in men are these, to terrify, and to justify and quicken those who have been terrified. Into these two works all Scripture has been distributed. The one part is the Law, which shows, reproves, and condemns sins. The other part is the Gospel, i.e., the promise of grace bestowed in Christ, and this promise is constantly repeated in the whole of Scripture, first having been delivered to Adam [I will put enmity, etc., Gen. 3, 15], afterwards to the patriarchs; then, still more clearly proclaimed by the prophets; lastly, preached and set forth among the Jews by Christ, and disseminated over the entire world by the apostles. 54] For all the saints were justified by faith in this promise, and not by their own attrition or contrition. (ibid)

    For a terrified conscience cannot set against God’s wrath our works or our love, but it is at length pacified when it apprehends Christ as Mediator, and believes the promises given for His sake. (ibid)

    95] But here we must know that this faith ought to be confident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the sake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience sees that these 96] works are unworthy. Accordingly,Ambrose speaks admirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to believe both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a handwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins.

    61] Job is excused that he was not afflicted on account of past evil deeds; therefore afflictions are not always punishments or signs of wrath. Yea, terrified consciences are to be taught that other ends of afflictions are more important that they should learn to regard troubles far differently, namely, as signs of grace, lest they think that they are rejected by God when in afflictions they see nothing but God’s punishment and anger.
    The other more important ends are to be considered, namely, that God is doing His strange work so that He may be able to do His own work, etc., as Isaiah 28 teaches in a long discourse.
    62] And when the disciples asked concerning the blind man who sinned, John 9, 2. 3, Christ replies that the cause of his blindness is not sin, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
    And in Jeremiah, 49, 12, it is said: They whose judgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly drunken. Thus the prophets and John the Baptist and other saints were killed.
    63] Therefore afflictions are not always punishments for certain past deeds, but they are the works of God, intended for our profit, and that the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness how He can help in the midst of death. (ibid)

    Now here is an excellent place to put our discussion into perspective. You properly said Paul , that our disagreement really seems to be centered in our method of interpreting scripture. It is a Law and Gospel difference you and I have. I would agree that this seems to be the case.

    I propose that this section will assist us in sorting out what is meant by Law and Gospel. This is where the Confessions first lay out, in great detail, what they see as that distinction. It is in the Apology on Free will. They first touch on this at the start of both art III and art IV, Here they fully expand:

    70] … The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can…render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft.

    Since there is left in human nature reason and judgment concerning [ALL!] objects subjected to the senses , choice between these things, the liberty and power to render civil righteousness, are also left.

    For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal nature, i.e., reason, renders by itself, 71] without the Holy Ghost

    73] Therefore, … we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward works of the Law.

    Make sure you catch what was just said! No Christ. No Holy Spirit and No bible are necessary to do everything right in a marriage or in any other thing we can think, do, say or work up our emotions over. The confessions call this kind of righeousness as “second table righeousness” , “civic righeousness”, “ethics”, “morality”, and “the righeousness of reason” and “natural law” which they narrowly designate as being reason.

    Although the power of concupiscence is such that men more frequently obey evil dispositions than sound judgment. And the devil, who is efficacious in the godless, as Paul says, Eph. 2, 2, does not cease to incite this feeble nature to various offenses. These are the reasons why even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see that not even the philosophers themselves, who seem 72] to have aspired after this righteousness, attained it.

    And make sure you catch this too! The failure to keep the Law is NOT because the Law written in the Reason and Conscience of all is deficient or missing important details that must be provided by the Bible! It it is rather because of the heart coveting.

    But it is false to say that he who performs the works of the commandments without grace does not sin. …

    Why is this?

    For human hearts without the Holy Ghost are without the fear of God; without trust toward God, they do not believe that they are heard, forgiven, helped, and preserved by God. Therefore they are godless. For neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7, 18. And without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11, 6.

    Luther in his Preface to Romans: You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That’s the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn’t let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

    73] … we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, to fear God, to believe God, to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc. These are the works of the First Table, which the heart cannot render without the Holy Ghost, as Paul says, 1 Cor. , 14: The natural man, i.e., man using only natural strength, receiveth not the things 74] of the Spirit of God.

    And this can be decided if men consider what their hearts believe concerning God’s will, whether they are truly confident that they are regarded and heardby God.

    Even for saints to retain this faith and, as Peter says (1 Pet. 1, 8), to risk and commit himself entirely to God, whom he does not see, to love Christ, and esteem Him highly, whom he does not see is difficult, so far is it from existing in the godless.

    But it is conceived, as we have said above, when terrified hearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation when we are born anew of the Holy Ghost.

    75] Therefore such a [distinction of Law and Gospel] … is of advantage in which:

    civil righteousness is ascribed to the free will [Old Adam driven by the Law written in Reason] and

    spiritual righteousness to the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate [New man , spontaneously moved by new emotions that are fear, love and trust].

    Outward righeousness that is ALL that we can see, do, think, emote and know with our senses. Versus; Inner, Spritual Righeousness which is ALONE, of invisible faith.

    For thus the outward discipline is retained, because all men ought to know equally, both that God requires this civil righteousness God will not tolerate indecent wild, reckless conduct, and that, in a measure, we can afford it.

    And yet a distinction is shown between human and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and it can be understood for what there is need of the Holy Ghost.

    76] Nor has this distribution been invented by us, but Scripture most clearly teaches it.

    @157 you have called Susan’s statement a heresy. She wrote
    “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational.”
    You then wrote: “Any Confessional Lutherans here besides me want to take the mic and respond to this heresy?”
    I don’t see the heresy. Perhaps those whom you say agree with your reading of Scripture and the Confessions will take your invitation and show us how that statement is heresy. Does anyone else here agree with Frank that Susan’s statement is a heresy?

    All of us are guity of unrepentant sin. The scriptures say that the heart is deceiptful beyond knowing. Calvinists willfully deny the clear words of Holy Scripture on so many things. Fundamental things of the faith. They willfully persist in this. They insist it is not sin. Homosexuals insist that homosexuality, per se, is not a sin. Homosexuality is not sodomy. Sodomy is anal sex whether it be between a man and woman or man and man. So does this willful denial of God’s Word damn calvinists and for them “there is no forgiveness”. I say no. Why not?
    95] But here we must know that this faith ought to be confident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the sake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience sees that these 96] works are unworthy. Accordingly,Ambrose speaks admirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to believe both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a handwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins. (Apology “on repentence”)

    At the same time this is also true:

    23] Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin. ( ap III Bente)

    but take good care here before you say “aha! Gotcha!”. For the Confessions also refer to this writing as a further amplification of what they say:

    Sin in the Scriptures means not only external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers. Therefore the word do should refer to a person’s completely falling into sin. No external work of sin happens, after all, unless a person commit himself to it completely, body and soul. In particular, the Scriptures see into the heart, to the root and main source of all sin: unbelief in the depth of the heart. Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That’s what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Genesis 3). (Luther’s Preface to his 1545 Romans Translation).
    The distinction between “willful sinning” and other sinning is contrary to our Lutheran Confessions! ALL sinning is willed . NO sin happens, unless the person commits himself to that sin completely, body and soul!

    If I, as a simple parish pastor, speak to any believer concerning an ongoing sin, can there be forgiveness for that person who refuses to accept that it is a sin?

    Put this in the context of a Calvinist who refuses to accept that is false doctrines are false and therefore sinful.

    And when every teacher and doctor of the church has “completely” and “utterly” disagreed with Frank – as he, himself has told us – concerning the sinfulness of sodomy, is that not a refusal to repent apart from which there can be no forgiveness?

    This is a shameless twisting of someones words. Frank has never talked about sodomy in this thread except to offer the dictionary definition of it.

    So if a man comes to me, as his pastor, confessing that he is a murderer but doesn’t repent of that sin claiming that we are all sinners and murder everyday in our hearts, shall I offer this man the forgiveness of the Gospel?

    We would need to know more. The man is coming… to confession! And he is saying that he does not feel repentent? That he confesses he is truly not repentant of the murder in his heart? That would be called telling the truth!

    Dr. Veith? Others? I do not see that Frank understands the very fundamental distinction between law and gospel.

    @151 you wrote: “Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government, it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall.” I will see your point if you also say that there is *another* sense that marriage is not government and not about law. You qualified your answer by saying, “in the sense that it is government.” But do you acknowledge any other ‘sense’ of marriage?

    The purpose and definition of Matrimony is defined in our Confessions in the Large catechism in the 4th and 6th commandment. What does it say? I already presented a detailed exegesis of that text to you. I dont think I need to repeat it.

    In the same post, you wrote, “The preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath.”
    It is, however, also the illustration and fulfillment of His love. See how He loved us! And if Paul says that we shall know nothing except Christ and Him crucified is the Apostle saying that we shall only preach the Law? Of course not. The death of Christ is also Gospel – that Christ loved me and gave His life for me.” Paul also writes: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ crucified is Gospel to those who are being saved!

    Amen! SHOUT that brother!

    []the difference in your reading of Scripture and the Confessions [is] apparent, but it is the methodology that is at issue.

    I agree. We appear to differ as to how to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel. We also disagree as to what the function of the Law is. Especially the third use. You seem to feel there is a Law that does not kill and does not terrify and does not accuse. You seem to identify that with a third use even though you have not specifically mentioned the third use.

  • fws

    pastor paul .
    here is the response to your long post to me. Mine is , of course , longer. Muuuuch longer.

    the rest of you: skip over this to the next post if it is not of interest to you ok? Sorry for that small inconvenence.

    Here are some of your statements which I question (in no particular order):

    Ok Pastor Paul. I will deal with them in the order which you have presented them. Thank you.
    “Government=Sword. Physical force supplied by God to stop wrongdoers. Marriage is such a government.” I ask: is not marriage much more than an instrument of the First use of the Law?
    “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”
    “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”

    I have always thought that there will be “Church Triumphant” in heaven; an “Israel” or “People of God”. Furthermore, I don’t see the purpose of marriage as primarily or even in a significant part to be “a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”
    Wow! Marriage as bearing the sword. Really? Marriage as a means to punish? Does Cwirla or Veith agree with you on this?

    When Marie asked you “Are you arguing that marriage is a government-a necessary government-to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?” you replied @161 “Yes. I am saying exactly that.”
    A little further on you say, “So the aim of God is to extort Mercy out of us with marriage being the club and blunt instrument to do that with.” Wow!
    Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.”

    I cannot agree.

    The Large Catechism is in the Book of Concord. So the answer is Yes as to Cwirla and Veith.

    All of those quotes are paraphrases of the LC 4th commandment and the 6th as well.
    Note that at the start of the 6th commandment Luther makes clear that 4 and 6 are all about the topic of Matrimony.
    Is marriage more than the sword? No.
    But the God desired fruit of all government is more. It is to provide for us bodily and to protect us.
    You will find me exegeting the entire LC 4th commandment here.
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149307
    Dont take my word that the Confessions say any of this. Read for your own self!

    Even more, the topic is the distinction between law and gospel which is at the very core of “how we read/understand” the Scriptures — which is what my challenge to you is all about.

    Excellent that you and I agree that this, really, is the real issue behind all of this. Really excellent pastor Paul!

    Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.” I cannot agree.

    So then where do you place mortification in the christian life. What purpose does mortification serve in God’s ecology/economy?
    I can also phrase this as: “Marriage requres the sacrifice of YOUR old adame that results in mercy for OTHER Old Adams.”

    Christ died for me. Christ died for my wife.

    In Ephesians 5 this is Law. The formula explains why that is this way (FC SD Law and Gospel):

    It is true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is still Law.
    the Law reveals the righteous, immutable will of God. It describes what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God.

    In Eph 5 there is the implied threat for husbands who don’t follow the Example of Christ with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments.

    It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. ….For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath

    Apply this now Paul to what you read in Eph 5 ok? Exegete Eph 5 following these directions from the Formula.

    I ‘give up’ or ‘submit’ to her and she to me out of reverence to Christ. But we do not “die for each other” and we do not “give life” to each other (except as it is procreative).

    The Confessions tell us that you do not do this out of reverence for Christ. You and your wife do this because your Old Adams are being driven and extorted to do this by the Law. The theological word that describes this is the word “mortification.” Mortification is latinate and means the process of “deathing.”
    You are told that what baptism signifies is precisely this death, in the Small Catechism. You are to daily drown (ie KILL!) your old adam by daily grinding down and repentence. Luther goes so far as to say this: “Life is mortification.’ Kenneth Korby repeat him and says: “Life is death” in is commentary on Ephesians. And then Korby adds this: “It does not follow that death is Life.”

    I cannot see how it was the purpose of Paul in Ephesians 5 to preach terror into the hearts of his hearers.

    Well now. Earlier I proposed to you, that the FC instructs us to read Eph 5 as Law. the FC says that the Gospel is often used to illustrate or explain the Law. And it does this by using Christ as Example. Christ as Example is Law. May I please for arguments sake assume that you now accept this.
    So now we can move on to that word terrify.The work of the Law is to terrify. IF Eph 5 is Law, then it’s purpose IS to terrify us. This is simply what the Augustana , in the section “on justification” says the Law always does.
    38] Paul says, Rom. 4, 15: The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences.
    This terrifying is actually The third (or theological) use of the Law. Only the Law applied by Christ himself can terrify a heart. This is where Christ personally takes the Law into his own hands. This is where Christ shows us that even though we are outwardly keeping the Law very tidily and to the letter, still…. we are not doing it from the bottom of our heart. The proof for this is obvious: We must work , and work hard, at being good! Why? It is not what our heart would prefer to do if it were not for the Law driving us! Read more on this in the FC on Law and Gospel!
    I will instead encourage you to download the pdf of the Book of Concord from the bookofconcord.org website, and do a word search on terrify. It will greatly illuminate your thinking.

    He exhorts them to “walk in love” and to be imitators of God, but our motivation to do this is not out of terror from the Law. In Ephes. 4:1 Paul speaks of walking in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called.” Have we been called by terror for terror? Are we, who have been called, to walk now in terror? And yet you say to Marie, “Your husband should hear the most terrifying Law” when hearing Ephesians 5 read in the assembly of believers.

    First let me agree. We are not called by terror for terror. We are called from Grace to Grace. And we, as New Men, can no longer be terrified by the Law! We are dead to the Law! The Law is never aimed at us as New Man.
    And yet… what I said to Marie is also true!
    How can that be? How this can be will be made amply clear by quoting, without any comment at all, passages from our Confessions that talk about being terrified over sin. I will quote a quite a few, since they bring such joy to my heart. They are the diamonds set in the Crown of Lutheranism that is her Confessions.
    106] .Augustine says..By the Law we fear God; by faith we hope in God. But to those fearing punishment grace is hidden; and the soul laboring under this fear [at the same time] betakes itself by faith to God’s mercy, in order that He may give what He commands. Here he teaches that by the Law hearts are terrified, but by faith they receive consolation. (Ap III “on justification”. Bente pdf)

    115] Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. (ibid)

    21] Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins,and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. Wherefore 22] it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So, too 8, 12. 13: We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

    23] Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin.

    24] From these effects of faith the adversaries select one, namely, love, and teach that love justifies. Thus it is clearly apparent that they teach only the Law. They do not teach that remission of sins through faith is first received. They do not teach of Christ as Mediator, that for Christ’s sake we have a gracious God, but because of our love. And yet, what the nature of this love is they do not say, neither 25] can they say. (Ap. IV Bente)

    32] But faith is that which freely apprehends God’s mercy on account of God’s Word which relies upon God’s mercy and Word, and not upon one’s own work. If any one denies that this is faith [if any one imagines that he can rely at the same time upon God and his own works], he does not understand at all 33] what faith is. For the terrified conscience is not satisfied with its own works, but must cry after mercy, and is comforted and encouraged alone by God’s Word. (ibid)

    Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term faith. For we do not speak of idle
    knowledge that merely the history concerning Christ should be known, such as devils have, but of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and consoles terrified hearts , the new light and power which the Holy Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of death, of sin, etc..

    129] Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the adversaries dream as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to believe! etc., nor a human power , thought which I can form for myself, but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which we overcome the devil and death. (ibid)

    150]….For although in the doctrine of repentance the scholastics have said nothing at all concerning faith, yet we think that none of our adversaries is so mad as to deny that absolution is a voice of the Gospel. And absolution ought to be received by faith, in order that it may cheer the terrified conscience. (ibid)

    171] Thus, therefore, we teach that man is justified, as we have above said, when conscience, terrified by the preaching of repentance, is cheered and believes that for Christ’s sake it has a reconciled God. (ibid. Also cf Small Catechism on Baptism: “Baptism signifies that we are to drown the Old Adam by daily …. repentence.)

    In the doctrine of the adversaries concerning justification no mention is made of Christ, and how we ought to set Him against the wrath of God, as though, indeed, we were able to overcome the wrath of God by love, or to love an angry God. 180] In regard to these things, consciences are left in uncertainty. For if they are to think that they have a reconciled God for the reason that they love, and that they observe the Law, they must needs always doubt whether they have a reconciled God, because they either do not feel this love, as the adversariesacknowledge, or they certainly feel that it is very small; and much more frequently do they feel that they are angry at the judgment of God, who oppresses human nature with many terrible evils, with troubles of this life, the terrors of eternal wrath, etc. When, therefore, will conscience be at rest, when will it be pacified? When, in this doubt and in these terrors, will it love God? What else is the doctrine of the Law than a doctrine of despair? 181] And let any one of our adversaries come forward who can teach us concerning this love, how he himself loves God. They do not at all understand what they say; they only cho, just like the walls of a house, the little word “love,” without understanding it. So confused and obscure is their doctrine: it not only transfers the glory of Christ to human works, but also leads consciences either to presumption or to despair. 182] But ours, we hope, is readily understood by pious minds, and brings godly and salutary consolation to terrified consciences. (ibid)

    10] …When, however, will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great terrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which those certainly taste [present tense!] who are truly converted, be able to decide whether it fears God for His own sake [out of love it fears God, as its God], or is fleeing from eternal punishments? [These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words.] These great emotions can be distinguished in letters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these sweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all good and wise men [who also desire to know the truth]. (ap “of repentence” bente)

    28] From contrition we separate those idle and infinite discussions, as to when we grieve from love of God, and when from fear of punishment. For these are nothing but mere words and a useless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state of mind of a terrified conscience. But we say that contrition is the true terror of conscience, which feels that God is angry with sin, and which grieves that it has sinned. And this contrition takes place in this manner when sins are censured by the Word of God, because the sum of the preaching of the Gospel is this, namely, to convict of sin, and to offer for Christ’s sake the remission of sins and righteousness, and the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, and that as regenerate men we should do good works. (ibid)

    53] For the two chief works of God in men are these, to terrify, and to justify and quicken those who have been terrified. Into these two works all Scripture has been distributed. The one part is the Law, which shows, reproves, and condemns sins. The other part is the Gospel, i.e., the promise of grace bestowed in Christ, and this promise is constantly repeated in the whole of Scripture, first having been delivered to Adam [I will put enmity, etc., Gen. 3, 15], afterwards to the patriarchs; then, still more clearly proclaimed by the prophets; lastly, preached and set forth among the Jews by Christ, and disseminated over the entire world by the apostles. 54] For all the saints were justified by faith in this promise, and not by their own attrition or contrition. (ibid)

    For a terrified conscience cannot set against God’s wrath our works or our love, but it is at length pacified when it apprehends Christ as Mediator, and believes the promises given for His sake. (ibid)

    95] But here we must know that this faith ought to be confident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the sake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience sees that these 96] works are unworthy. Accordingly,Ambrose speaks admirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to believe both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a handwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins.

    61] Job is excused that he was not afflicted on account of past evil deeds; therefore afflictions are not always punishments or signs of wrath. Yea, terrified consciences are to be taught that other ends of afflictions are more important that they should learn to regard troubles far differently, namely, as signs of grace, lest they think that they are rejected by God when in afflictions they see nothing but God’s punishment and anger.
    The other more important ends are to be considered, namely, that God is doing His strange work so that He may be able to do His own work, etc., as Isaiah 28 teaches in a long discourse.
    62] And when the disciples asked concerning the blind man who sinned, John 9, 2. 3, Christ replies that the cause of his blindness is not sin, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
    And in Jeremiah, 49, 12, it is said: They whose judgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly drunken. Thus the prophets and John the Baptist and other saints were killed.
    63] Therefore afflictions are not always punishments for certain past deeds, but they are the works of God, intended for our profit, and that the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness how He can help in the midst of death. (ibid)

    Now here is an excellent place to put our discussion into perspective. You properly said Paul , that our disagreement really seems to be centered in our method of interpreting scripture. It is a Law and Gospel difference you and I have. I would agree that this seems to be the case.

    I propose that this section will assist us in sorting out what is meant by Law and Gospel. This is where the Confessions first lay out, in great detail, what they see as that distinction. It is in the Apology on Free will. They first touch on this at the start of both art III and art IV, Here they fully expand:

    70] … The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can…render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft.

    Since there is left in human nature reason and judgment concerning [ALL!] objects subjected to the senses , choice between these things, the liberty and power to render civil righteousness, are also left.

    For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal nature, i.e., reason, renders by itself, 71] without the Holy Ghost

    73] Therefore, … we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward works of the Law.

    Make sure you catch what was just said! No Christ. No Holy Spirit and No bible are necessary to do everything right in a marriage or in any other thing we can think, do, say or work up our emotions over. The confessions call this kind of righeousness as “second table righeousness” , “civic righeousness”, “ethics”, “morality”, and “the righeousness of reason” and “natural law” which they narrowly designate as being reason.

    Although the power of concupiscence is such that men more frequently obey evil dispositions than sound judgment. And the devil, who is efficacious in the godless, as Paul says, Eph. 2, 2, does not cease to incite this feeble nature to various offenses. These are the reasons why even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see that not even the philosophers themselves, who seem 72] to have aspired after this righteousness, attained it.

    And make sure you catch this too! The failure to keep the Law is NOT because the Law written in the Reason and Conscience of all is deficient or missing important details that must be provided by the Bible! It it is rather because of the heart coveting.

    But it is false to say that he who performs the works of the commandments without grace does not sin. …

    Why is this?

    For human hearts without the Holy Ghost are without the fear of God; without trust toward God, they do not believe that they are heard, forgiven, helped, and preserved by God. Therefore they are godless. For neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7, 18. And without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11, 6.

    Luther in his Preface to Romans: You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That’s the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn’t let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

    73] … we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, to fear God, to believe God, to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc. These are the works of the First Table, which the heart cannot render without the Holy Ghost, as Paul says, 1 Cor. , 14: The natural man, i.e., man using only natural strength, receiveth not the things 74] of the Spirit of God.

    And this can be decided if men consider what their hearts believe concerning God’s will, whether they are truly confident that they are regarded and heardby God.

    Even for saints to retain this faith and, as Peter says (1 Pet. 1, 8), to risk and commit himself entirely to God, whom he does not see, to love Christ, and esteem Him highly, whom he does not see is difficult, so far is it from existing in the godless.

    But it is conceived, as we have said above, when terrified hearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation when we are born anew of the Holy Ghost.

    75] Therefore such a [distinction of Law and Gospel] … is of advantage in which:

    civil righteousness is ascribed to the free will [Old Adam driven by the Law written in Reason] and

    spiritual righteousness to the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate [New man , spontaneously moved by new emotions that are fear, love and trust].

    Outward righeousness that is ALL that we can see, do, think, emote and know with our senses. Versus; Inner, Spritual Righeousness which is ALONE, of invisible faith.

    For thus the outward discipline is retained, because all men ought to know equally, both that God requires this civil righteousness God will not tolerate indecent wild, reckless conduct, and that, in a measure, we can afford it.

    And yet a distinction is shown between human and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and it can be understood for what there is need of the Holy Ghost.

    76] Nor has this distribution been invented by us, but Scripture most clearly teaches it.

    @157 you have called Susan’s statement a heresy. She wrote
    “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational.”
    You then wrote: “Any Confessional Lutherans here besides me want to take the mic and respond to this heresy?”
    I don’t see the heresy. Perhaps those whom you say agree with your reading of Scripture and the Confessions will take your invitation and show us how that statement is heresy. Does anyone else here agree with Frank that Susan’s statement is a heresy?

    All of us are guity of unrepentant sin. The scriptures say that the heart is deceiptful beyond knowing. Calvinists willfully deny the clear words of Holy Scripture on so many things. Fundamental things of the faith. They willfully persist in this. They insist it is not sin. Homosexuals insist that homosexuality, per se, is not a sin. Homosexuality is not sodomy. Sodomy is anal sex whether it be between a man and woman or man and man. So does this willful denial of God’s Word damn calvinists and for them “there is no forgiveness”. I say no. Why not?
    95] But here we must know that this faith ought to be confident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the sake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience sees that these 96] works are unworthy. Accordingly,Ambrose speaks admirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to believe both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a handwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins. (Apology “on repentence”)

    At the same time this is also true:

    23] Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin. ( ap III Bente)

    but take good care here before you say “aha! Gotcha!”. For the Confessions also refer to this writing as a further amplification of what they say:

    Sin in the Scriptures means not only external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers. Therefore the word do should refer to a person’s completely falling into sin. No external work of sin happens, after all, unless a person commit himself to it completely, body and soul. In particular, the Scriptures see into the heart, to the root and main source of all sin: unbelief in the depth of the heart. Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That’s what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Genesis 3). (Luther’s Preface to his 1545 Romans Translation).
    The distinction between “willful sinning” and other sinning is contrary to our Lutheran Confessions! ALL sinning is willed . NO sin happens, unless the person commits himself to that sin completely, body and soul!

    If I, as a simple parish pastor, speak to any believer concerning an ongoing sin, can there be forgiveness for that person who refuses to accept that it is a sin?

    Put this in the context of a Calvinist who refuses to accept that is false doctrines are false and therefore sinful.

    And when every teacher and doctor of the church has “completely” and “utterly” disagreed with Frank – as he, himself has told us – concerning the sinfulness of sodomy, is that not a refusal to repent apart from which there can be no forgiveness?

    This is a shameless twisting of someones words. Frank has never talked about sodomy in this thread except to offer the dictionary definition of it.

    So if a man comes to me, as his pastor, confessing that he is a murderer but doesn’t repent of that sin claiming that we are all sinners and murder everyday in our hearts, shall I offer this man the forgiveness of the Gospel?

    We would need to know more. The man is coming… to confession! And he is saying that he does not feel repentent? That he confesses he is truly not repentant of the murder in his heart? That would be called telling the truth!

    Dr. Veith? Others? I do not see that Frank understands the very fundamental distinction between law and gospel.

    @151 you wrote: “Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government, it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall.” I will see your point if you also say that there is *another* sense that marriage is not government and not about law. You qualified your answer by saying, “in the sense that it is government.” But do you acknowledge any other ‘sense’ of marriage?

    The purpose and definition of Matrimony is defined in our Confessions in the Large catechism in the 4th and 6th commandment. What does it say? I already presented a detailed exegesis of that text to you. I dont think I need to repeat it.

    In the same post, you wrote, “The preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath.”
    It is, however, also the illustration and fulfillment of His love. See how He loved us! And if Paul says that we shall know nothing except Christ and Him crucified is the Apostle saying that we shall only preach the Law? Of course not. The death of Christ is also Gospel – that Christ loved me and gave His life for me.” Paul also writes: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ crucified is Gospel to those who are being saved!

    Amen! SHOUT that brother!

    []the difference in your reading of Scripture and the Confessions [is] apparent, but it is the methodology that is at issue.

    I agree. We appear to differ as to how to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel. We also disagree as to what the function of the Law is. Especially the third use. You seem to feel there is a Law that does not kill and does not terrify and does not accuse. You seem to identify that with a third use even though you have not specifically mentioned the third use.

  • fws

    ok paul . the formatting came out to be unreadable. let me try again.

  • fws

    ok paul . the formatting came out to be unreadable. let me try again.

  • fws

    PAUL Here are some of your statements which I question (in no particular order):

    FRANK Ok Pastor Paul. I will deal with them in the order which you have presented them. Thank you.

    “Government=Sword. Physical force supplied by God to stop wrongdoers. Marriage is such a government.” I ask: is not marriage much more than an instrument of the First use of the Law?

    “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”

    “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”

    PAUL I have always thought that there will be “Church Triumphant” in heaven; an “Israel” or “People of God”.

    Furthermore, I don’t see the purpose of marriage as primarily or even in a significant part to be “a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”

    Wow! Marriage as bearing the sword. Really? Marriage as a means to punish? Does Cwirla or Veith agree with you on this?

    FRANK

    When Marie asked you “Are you arguing that marriage is a government-a necessary government-to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?” you replied @161 “Yes. I am saying exactly that.”
    A little further on you say, “So the aim of God is to extort Mercy out of us with marriage being the club and blunt instrument to do that with.” Wow!

    Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.”

    PAUL I cannot agree.

    FRANK The Large Catechism is in the Book of Concord. So the answer is Yes as to Cwirla and Veith.

    All of those quotes are paraphrases of the LC 4th commandment and the 6th as well.
    Note that at the start of the 6th commandment Luther makes clear that 4 and 6 are all about the topic of Matrimony.
    Is marriage more than the sword? No.
    But the God desired fruit of all government is more. It is to provide for us bodily and to protect us.
    You will find me exegeting the entire LC 4th commandment here.
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149307
    Dont take my word that the Confessions say any of this. Read for your own self!

    PAUL Even more, the topic is the distinction between law and gospel which is at the very core of “how we read/understand” the Scriptures — which is what my challenge to you is all about.

    FRANK Excellent that you and I agree that this, really, is the real issue behind all of this. Really excellent pastor Paul!

    PAUL Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.” I cannot agree.

    FRANK So then where do you place mortification in the christian life. What purpose does mortification serve in God’s ecology/economy?
    I can also phrase this as: “Marriage requres the sacrifice of YOUR old adame that results in mercy for OTHER Old Adams.”

    PAUL Christ died for me. Christ died for my wife.

    FRANK In the specific context of Ephesians 5 this is Law. The formula explains why that is this way (FC SD Law and Gospel):

    It is true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is still Law.
    the Law reveals the righteous, immutable will of God. It describes what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God.

    In Eph 5 there is the implied threat for husbands who don’t follow the Example of Christ with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments.

    It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. ….For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath

    Apply this now Paul to what you read in Eph 5 ok? Exegete Eph 5 following these directions from the Formula.

    PAUL I ‘give up’ or ‘submit’ to her and she to me out of reverence to Christ. But we do not “die for each other” and we do not “give life” to each other (except as it is procreative).

    FRANK The Confessions tell us that you do not do this out of reverence for Christ. You and your wife do this because your Old Adams are being driven and extorted to do this by the Law.

    The theological word that describes this is the word “mortification.” Mortification is latinate and means the process of “deathing.”
    You are told that what baptism signifies is precisely this death, in the Small Catechism. You are to daily drown (ie KILL!) your old adam by daily grinding down and repentence.

    Luther goes so far as to say this: “Life is mortification.’ Kenneth Korby repeat him and says: “Life is death” in is commentary on Ephesians. And then Korby adds this: “It does not follow that death is Life.”

    PAUL I cannot see how it was the purpose of Paul in Ephesians 5 to preach terror into the hearts of his hearers.

    FRANK Well now. Earlier I proposed to you, that the FC instructs us to read Eph 5 as Law. the FC says that the Gospel is often used to illustrate or explain the Law. And it does this by using Christ as Example. Christ as Example is Law.

    May I please for arguments sake assume that you now accept this.

    So now we can move on to that word terrify.The work of the Law is to terrify. IF Eph 5 is Law, then it’s purpose IS to terrify us. This is simply what the Augustana , in the section “on justification” says the Law always does.

    38] Paul says, Rom. 4, 15: The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences.

    This terrifying is actually The third (or theological) use of the Law. Only the Law applied by Christ himself can terrify a heart.

    This is where Christ personally takes the Law into his own hands. This is where Christ shows us that even though we are outwardly keeping the Law very tidily and to the letter, still…. we are not doing it from the bottom of our heart. The proof for this is obvious: We must work , and work hard, at being good!

    Why?

    It is not what our heart would prefer to do if it were not for the Law driving us!

    Read more on this in the FC on Law and Gospel!
    I will encourage you to download the pdf of the Book of Concord from the bookofconcord.org website, and do a word search on terrify. It will greatly illuminate your thinking.

    PAUL He exhorts them to “walk in love” and to be imitators of God, but our motivation to do this is not out of terror from the Law. In Ephes. 4:1 Paul speaks of walking in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called.” Have we been called by terror for terror? Are we, who have been called, to walk now in terror? And yet you say to Marie, “Your husband should hear the most terrifying Law” when hearing Ephesians 5 read in the assembly of believers.

    FRANK First let me agree. We are not called by terror for terror. We are called from Grace to Grace. And we, as New Men, can no longer be terrified by the Law! We are dead to the Law! The Law is never aimed at us as New Man.

    And yet… what I said to Marie is also true!

    How can that be? How this can be will be made amply clear by quoting, without any comment at all, passages from our Confessions that talk about being terrified over sin.

    I will quote a quite a few, since they bring such joy to my heart. They are the diamonds set in the Crown of Lutheranism that is her Confessions.

    106] .Augustine says..By the Law we fear God; by faith we hope in God. But to those fearing punishment grace is hidden; and the soul laboring under this fear [at the same time] betakes itself by faith to God’s mercy, in order that He may give what He commands. Here he teaches that by the Law hearts are terrified, but by faith they receive consolation. (Ap III “on justification”. Bente pdf)

    115] Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. (ibid)

    21] Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins,and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. Wherefore 22] it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So, too 8, 12. 13: We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

    23] Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin.

    24] From these effects of faith the adversaries select one, namely, love, and teach that love justifies. Thus it is clearly apparent that they teach only the Law. They do not teach that remission of sins through faith is first received. They do not teach of Christ as Mediator, that for Christ’s sake we have a gracious God, but because of our love. And yet, what the nature of this love is they do not say, neither 25] can they say. (Ap. IV Bente)

    32] But faith is that which freely apprehends God’s mercy on account of God’s Word which relies upon God’s mercy and Word, and not upon one’s own work. If any one denies that this is faith [if any one imagines that he can rely at the same time upon God and his own works], he does not understand at all 33] what faith is. For the terrified conscience is not satisfied with its own works, but must cry after mercy, and is comforted and encouraged alone by God’s Word. (ibid)

    Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term faith. For we do not speak of idle
    knowledge that merely the history concerning Christ should be known, such as devils have, but of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and consoles terrified hearts , the new light and power which the Holy Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of death, of sin, etc..

    129] Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the adversaries dream as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to believe! etc., nor a human power , thought which I can form for myself, but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which we overcome the devil and death. (ibid)

    150]….For although in the doctrine of repentance the scholastics have said nothing at all concerning faith, yet we think that none of our adversaries is so mad as to deny that absolution is a voice of the Gospel. And absolution ought to be received by faith, in order that it may cheer the terrified conscience. (ibid)

    171] Thus, therefore, we teach that man is justified, as we have above said, when conscience, terrified by the preaching of repentance, is cheered and believes that for Christ’s sake it has a reconciled God. (ibid. Also cf Small Catechism on Baptism: “Baptism signifies that we are to drown the Old Adam by daily …. repentence.)

    In the doctrine of the adversaries concerning justification no mention is made of Christ, and how we ought to set Him against the wrath of God, as though, indeed, we were able to overcome the wrath of God by love, or to love an angry God. 180] In regard to these things, consciences are left in uncertainty. For if they are to think that they have a reconciled God for the reason that they love, and that they observe the Law, they must needs always doubt whether they have a reconciled God, because they either do not feel this love, as the adversariesacknowledge, or they certainly feel that it is very small; and much more frequently do they feel that they are angry at the judgment of God, who oppresses human nature with many terrible evils, with troubles of this life, the terrors of eternal wrath, etc. When, therefore, will conscience be at rest, when will it be pacified? When, in this doubt and in these terrors, will it love God? What else is the doctrine of the Law than a doctrine of despair? 181] And let any one of our adversaries come forward who can teach us concerning this love, how he himself loves God. They do not at all understand what they say; they only cho, just like the walls of a house, the little word “love,” without understanding it. So confused and obscure is their doctrine: it not only transfers the glory of Christ to human works, but also leads consciences either to presumption or to despair. 182] But ours, we hope, is readily understood by pious minds, and brings godly and salutary consolation to terrified consciences. (ibid)

    10] …When, however, will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great terrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which those certainly taste [present tense!] who are truly converted, be able to decide whether it fears God for His own sake [out of love it fears God, as its God], or is fleeing from eternal punishments? [These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words.] These great emotions can be distinguished in letters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these sweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all good and wise men [who also desire to know the truth]. (ap “of repentence” bente)

    28] From contrition we separate those idle and infinite discussions, as to when we grieve from love of God, and when from fear of punishment. For these are nothing but mere words and a useless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state of mind of a terrified conscience. But we say that contrition is the true terror of conscience, which feels that God is angry with sin, and which grieves that it has sinned. And this contrition takes place in this manner when sins are censured by the Word of God, because the sum of the preaching of the Gospel is this, namely, to convict of sin, and to offer for Christ’s sake the remission of sins and righteousness, and the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, and that as regenerate men we should do good works. (ibid)

    53] For the two chief works of God in men are these, to terrify, and to justify and quicken those who have been terrified. Into these two works all Scripture has been distributed. The one part is the Law, which shows, reproves, and condemns sins. The other part is the Gospel, i.e., the promise of grace bestowed in Christ, and this promise is constantly repeated in the whole of Scripture, first having been delivered to Adam [I will put enmity, etc., Gen. 3, 15], afterwards to the patriarchs; then, still more clearly proclaimed by the prophets; lastly, preached and set forth among the Jews by Christ, and disseminated over the entire world by the apostles. 54] For all the saints were justified by faith in this promise, and not by their own attrition or contrition. (ibid)

    For a terrified conscience cannot set against God’s wrath our works or our love, but it is at length pacified when it apprehends Christ as Mediator, and believes the promises given for His sake. (ibid)

    95] But here we must know that this faith ought to be confident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the sake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience sees that these 96] works are unworthy. Accordingly,Ambrose speaks admirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to believe both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a handwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins.

    61] Job is excused that he was not afflicted on account of past evil deeds; therefore afflictions are not always punishments or signs of wrath. Yea, terrified consciences are to be taught that other ends of afflictions are more important that they should learn to regard troubles far differently, namely, as signs of grace, lest they think that they are rejected by God when in afflictions they see nothing but God’s punishment and anger.
    The other more important ends are to be considered, namely, that God is doing His strange work so that He may be able to do His own work, etc., as Isaiah 28 teaches in a long discourse.
    62] And when the disciples asked concerning the blind man who sinned, John 9, 2. 3, Christ replies that the cause of his blindness is not sin, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
    And in Jeremiah, 49, 12, it is said: They whose judgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly drunken. Thus the prophets and John the Baptist and other saints were killed.
    63] Therefore afflictions are not always punishments for certain past deeds, but they are the works of God, intended for our profit, and that the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness how He can help in the midst of death. (ibid)

    Now here is an excellent place to put our discussion into perspective. You properly said Paul , that our disagreement really seems to be centered in our method of interpreting scripture. It is a Law and Gospel difference you and I have. I would agree that this seems to be the case.

    I propose that this section will assist us in sorting out what is meant by Law and Gospel. This is where the Confessions first lay out, in great detail, what they see as that distinction. It is in the Apology on Free will. They first touch on this at the start of both art III and art IV, Here they fully expand:

    70] … The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can…render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft.

    Since there is left in human nature reason and judgment concerning [ALL!] objects subjected to the senses , choice between these things, the liberty and power to render civil righteousness, are also left.

    For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal nature, i.e., reason, renders by itself, 71] without the Holy Ghost

    73] Therefore, … we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward works of the Law.

    Make sure you catch what was just said! No Christ. No Holy Spirit and No bible are necessary to do everything right in a marriage or in any other thing we can think, do, say or work up our emotions over. The confessions call this kind of righeousness as “second table righeousness” , “civic righeousness”, “ethics”, “morality”, and “the righeousness of reason” and “natural law” which they narrowly designate as being reason.

    Although the power of concupiscence is such that men more frequently obey evil dispositions than sound judgment. And the devil, who is efficacious in the godless, as Paul says, Eph. 2, 2, does not cease to incite this feeble nature to various offenses. These are the reasons why even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see that not even the philosophers themselves, who seem 72] to have aspired after this righteousness, attained it.

    And make sure you catch this too! The failure to keep the Law is NOT because the Law written in the Reason and Conscience of all is deficient or missing important details that must be provided by the Bible! It it is rather because of the heart coveting.

    But it is false to say that he who performs the works of the commandments without grace does not sin. …

    Why is this?

    For human hearts without the Holy Ghost are without the fear of God; without trust toward God, they do not believe that they are heard, forgiven, helped, and preserved by God. Therefore they are godless. For neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7, 18. And without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11, 6.

    Luther in his Preface to Romans: You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That’s the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn’t let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

    73] … we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, to fear God, to believe God, to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc. These are the works of the First Table, which the heart cannot render without the Holy Ghost, as Paul says, 1 Cor. , 14: The natural man, i.e., man using only natural strength, receiveth not the things 74] of the Spirit of God.

    And this can be decided if men consider what their hearts believe concerning God’s will, whether they are truly confident that they are regarded and heardby God.

    Even for saints to retain this faith and, as Peter says (1 Pet. 1, 8), to risk and commit himself entirely to God, whom he does not see, to love Christ, and esteem Him highly, whom he does not see is difficult, so far is it from existing in the godless.

    But it is conceived, as we have said above, when terrified hearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation when we are born anew of the Holy Ghost.

    75] Therefore such a [distinction of Law and Gospel] … is of advantage in which:

    civil righteousness is ascribed to the free will [Old Adam driven by the Law written in Reason] and

    spiritual righteousness to the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate [New man , spontaneously moved by new emotions that are fear, love and trust].

    Outward righeousness that is ALL that we can see, do, think, emote and know with our senses. Versus; Inner, Spritual Righeousness which is ALONE, of invisible faith.

    For thus the outward discipline is retained, because all men ought to know equally, both that God requires this civil righteousness God will not tolerate indecent wild, reckless conduct, and that, in a measure, we can afford it.

    And yet a distinction is shown between human and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and it can be understood for what there is need of the Holy Ghost.

    76] Nor has this distribution been invented by us, but Scripture most clearly teaches it.

    PAUL @157 you have called Susan’s statement a heresy. She wrote
    “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational.”
    You then wrote: “Any Confessional Lutherans here besides me want to take the mic and respond to this heresy?”
    I don’t see the heresy. Perhaps those whom you say agree with your reading of Scripture and the Confessions will take your invitation and show us how that statement is heresy. Does anyone else here agree with Frank that Susan’s statement is a heresy?

    FRANK All of us are guity of unrepentant sin. The scriptures say that the heart is deceiptful beyond knowing. Calvinists willfully deny the clear words of Holy Scripture on so many things. Fundamental things of the faith. They willfully persist in this. They insist it is not sin. Homosexuals insist that homosexuality, per se, is not a sin. Homosexuality is not sodomy. Sodomy is anal sex whether it be between a man and woman or man and man. So does this willful denial of God’s Word damn calvinists and for them “there is no forgiveness”. I say no. Why not?

    95] But here we must know that this faith ought to be confident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the sake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience sees that these 96] works are unworthy. Accordingly,Ambrose speaks admirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to believe both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a handwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins. (Apology “on repentence”)

    At the same time this is also true:

    23] Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin. ( ap III Bente)

    but take good care here before you say “aha! Gotcha!”. For the Confessions also refer to this writing as a further amplification of what they say:

    sin in the Scriptures means not only external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers. Therefore the word do should refer to a person’s completely falling into sin. No external work of sin happens, after all, unless a person commit himself to it completely, body and soul. In particular, the Scriptures see into the heart, to the root and main source of all sin: unbelief in the depth of the heart. Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That’s what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Genesis 3). (Luther’s Preface to his 1545 Romans Translation).

    The distinction between “willful sinning” and other sinning is contrary to our Lutheran Confessions! ALL sinning is willed . NO sin happens, unless the person commits himself to that sin completely, body and soul!

    PAUL If I, as a simple parish pastor, speak to any believer concerning an ongoing sin, can there be forgiveness for that person who refuses to accept that it is a sin?

    FRANK Put this in the context of a Calvinist who refuses to accept that is false doctrines are false and therefore sinful. How would you deal with that unrepentant sinner and regard him? Damned to hell as Susan says?

    PAUL And when every teacher and doctor of the church has “completely” and “utterly” disagreed with Frank – as he, himself has told us – concerning the sinfulness of sodomy, is that not a refusal to repent apart from which there can be no forgiveness?

    FRANK This seems like a shameless false witness. I never used the word sodomy except to define it in respost to susan per the dictionary.. I have not voiced an opinion on the sinfulness of anal sex between either two men or a man and a woman.

    What I actually said was that I don’t believe that homosexuality , as defined by the medical community is a sin. And neither do you Paul most probably!

    PAUL So if a man comes to me, as his pastor, confessing that he is a murderer but doesn’t repent of that sin claiming that we are all sinners and murder everyday in our hearts, shall I offer this man the forgiveness of the Gospel?

    FRANK We would need to know more. The man is coming… to confession! And he is saying that he does not feel repentent? That he confesses he is truly not repentant of the murder in his heart? That would be called telling the truth!

    PAUL; Dr. Veith? Others? I do not see that Frank understands the very fundamental distinction between law and gospel.

    PAUL @151 you wrote: “Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government, it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall.” I will see your point if you also say that there is *another* sense that marriage is not government and not about law. You qualified your answer by saying, “in the sense that it is government.” But do you acknowledge any other ‘sense’ of marriage?

    FRANK The purpose and definition of Matrimony is defined in our Confessions in the Large catechism in the 4th and 6th commandment. What does it say? I already presented a detailed exegesis of that text to you. I dont think I need to repeat it.

    PAUL In the same post, you wrote, “The preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath.”
    It is, however, also the illustration and fulfillment of His love. See how He loved us! And if Paul says that we shall know nothing except Christ and Him crucified is the Apostle saying that we shall only preach the Law? Of course not. The death of Christ is also Gospel – that Christ loved me and gave His life for me.” Paul also writes: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ crucified is Gospel to those who are being saved!

    FRANK Amen! SHOUT that brother!

    PAUL []the difference in your reading of Scripture and the Confessions [is] apparent, but it is the methodology that is at issue.

    FRANK what the function of the Law is. Especially the third use. You seem to feel there is a Law that does not kill and does not terrify and does not accuse. You seem to identify that with a third use even though you have not specifically mentioned the third use.

    Bless you pastor Paul! +

  • fws

    PAUL Here are some of your statements which I question (in no particular order):

    FRANK Ok Pastor Paul. I will deal with them in the order which you have presented them. Thank you.

    “Government=Sword. Physical force supplied by God to stop wrongdoers. Marriage is such a government.” I ask: is not marriage much more than an instrument of the First use of the Law?

    “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”

    “See the Large Catechism as it described and defines Matrimony as an earthly government like unto the civil government and the church bureacracy that is also a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”

    PAUL I have always thought that there will be “Church Triumphant” in heaven; an “Israel” or “People of God”.

    Furthermore, I don’t see the purpose of marriage as primarily or even in a significant part to be “a government placed by God to rule over us and punish us when we stray.”

    Wow! Marriage as bearing the sword. Really? Marriage as a means to punish? Does Cwirla or Veith agree with you on this?

    FRANK

    When Marie asked you “Are you arguing that marriage is a government-a necessary government-to curb or reveal sin, and nothing else?” you replied @161 “Yes. I am saying exactly that.”
    A little further on you say, “So the aim of God is to extort Mercy out of us with marriage being the club and blunt instrument to do that with.” Wow!

    Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.”

    PAUL I cannot agree.

    FRANK The Large Catechism is in the Book of Concord. So the answer is Yes as to Cwirla and Veith.

    All of those quotes are paraphrases of the LC 4th commandment and the 6th as well.
    Note that at the start of the 6th commandment Luther makes clear that 4 and 6 are all about the topic of Matrimony.
    Is marriage more than the sword? No.
    But the God desired fruit of all government is more. It is to provide for us bodily and to protect us.
    You will find me exegeting the entire LC 4th commandment here.
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/05/10/president-announces-his-support-for-gay-marriage/#comment-149307
    Dont take my word that the Confessions say any of this. Read for your own self!

    PAUL Even more, the topic is the distinction between law and gospel which is at the very core of “how we read/understand” the Scriptures — which is what my challenge to you is all about.

    FRANK Excellent that you and I agree that this, really, is the real issue behind all of this. Really excellent pastor Paul!

    PAUL Again, you write: “Marriage is life for you only by being the death of others.” I cannot agree.

    FRANK So then where do you place mortification in the christian life. What purpose does mortification serve in God’s ecology/economy?
    I can also phrase this as: “Marriage requres the sacrifice of YOUR old adame that results in mercy for OTHER Old Adams.”

    PAUL Christ died for me. Christ died for my wife.

    FRANK In the specific context of Ephesians 5 this is Law. The formula explains why that is this way (FC SD Law and Gospel):

    It is true that the Law is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; nevertheless this is still Law.
    the Law reveals the righteous, immutable will of God. It describes what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God.

    In Eph 5 there is the implied threat for husbands who don’t follow the Example of Christ with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments.

    It remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. ….For example, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath

    Apply this now Paul to what you read in Eph 5 ok? Exegete Eph 5 following these directions from the Formula.

    PAUL I ‘give up’ or ‘submit’ to her and she to me out of reverence to Christ. But we do not “die for each other” and we do not “give life” to each other (except as it is procreative).

    FRANK The Confessions tell us that you do not do this out of reverence for Christ. You and your wife do this because your Old Adams are being driven and extorted to do this by the Law.

    The theological word that describes this is the word “mortification.” Mortification is latinate and means the process of “deathing.”
    You are told that what baptism signifies is precisely this death, in the Small Catechism. You are to daily drown (ie KILL!) your old adam by daily grinding down and repentence.

    Luther goes so far as to say this: “Life is mortification.’ Kenneth Korby repeat him and says: “Life is death” in is commentary on Ephesians. And then Korby adds this: “It does not follow that death is Life.”

    PAUL I cannot see how it was the purpose of Paul in Ephesians 5 to preach terror into the hearts of his hearers.

    FRANK Well now. Earlier I proposed to you, that the FC instructs us to read Eph 5 as Law. the FC says that the Gospel is often used to illustrate or explain the Law. And it does this by using Christ as Example. Christ as Example is Law.

    May I please for arguments sake assume that you now accept this.

    So now we can move on to that word terrify.The work of the Law is to terrify. IF Eph 5 is Law, then it’s purpose IS to terrify us. This is simply what the Augustana , in the section “on justification” says the Law always does.

    38] Paul says, Rom. 4, 15: The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences.

    This terrifying is actually The third (or theological) use of the Law. Only the Law applied by Christ himself can terrify a heart.

    This is where Christ personally takes the Law into his own hands. This is where Christ shows us that even though we are outwardly keeping the Law very tidily and to the letter, still…. we are not doing it from the bottom of our heart. The proof for this is obvious: We must work , and work hard, at being good!

    Why?

    It is not what our heart would prefer to do if it were not for the Law driving us!

    Read more on this in the FC on Law and Gospel!
    I will encourage you to download the pdf of the Book of Concord from the bookofconcord.org website, and do a word search on terrify. It will greatly illuminate your thinking.

    PAUL He exhorts them to “walk in love” and to be imitators of God, but our motivation to do this is not out of terror from the Law. In Ephes. 4:1 Paul speaks of walking in a manner worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called.” Have we been called by terror for terror? Are we, who have been called, to walk now in terror? And yet you say to Marie, “Your husband should hear the most terrifying Law” when hearing Ephesians 5 read in the assembly of believers.

    FRANK First let me agree. We are not called by terror for terror. We are called from Grace to Grace. And we, as New Men, can no longer be terrified by the Law! We are dead to the Law! The Law is never aimed at us as New Man.

    And yet… what I said to Marie is also true!

    How can that be? How this can be will be made amply clear by quoting, without any comment at all, passages from our Confessions that talk about being terrified over sin.

    I will quote a quite a few, since they bring such joy to my heart. They are the diamonds set in the Crown of Lutheranism that is her Confessions.

    106] .Augustine says..By the Law we fear God; by faith we hope in God. But to those fearing punishment grace is hidden; and the soul laboring under this fear [at the same time] betakes itself by faith to God’s mercy, in order that He may give what He commands. Here he teaches that by the Law hearts are terrified, but by faith they receive consolation. (Ap III “on justification”. Bente pdf)

    115] Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. (ibid)

    21] Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins,and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. Wherefore 22] it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So, too 8, 12. 13: We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

    23] Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin.

    24] From these effects of faith the adversaries select one, namely, love, and teach that love justifies. Thus it is clearly apparent that they teach only the Law. They do not teach that remission of sins through faith is first received. They do not teach of Christ as Mediator, that for Christ’s sake we have a gracious God, but because of our love. And yet, what the nature of this love is they do not say, neither 25] can they say. (Ap. IV Bente)

    32] But faith is that which freely apprehends God’s mercy on account of God’s Word which relies upon God’s mercy and Word, and not upon one’s own work. If any one denies that this is faith [if any one imagines that he can rely at the same time upon God and his own works], he does not understand at all 33] what faith is. For the terrified conscience is not satisfied with its own works, but must cry after mercy, and is comforted and encouraged alone by God’s Word. (ibid)

    Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term faith. For we do not speak of idle
    knowledge that merely the history concerning Christ should be known, such as devils have, but of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and consoles terrified hearts , the new light and power which the Holy Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of death, of sin, etc..

    129] Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the adversaries dream as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to believe! etc., nor a human power , thought which I can form for myself, but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which we overcome the devil and death. (ibid)

    150]….For although in the doctrine of repentance the scholastics have said nothing at all concerning faith, yet we think that none of our adversaries is so mad as to deny that absolution is a voice of the Gospel. And absolution ought to be received by faith, in order that it may cheer the terrified conscience. (ibid)

    171] Thus, therefore, we teach that man is justified, as we have above said, when conscience, terrified by the preaching of repentance, is cheered and believes that for Christ’s sake it has a reconciled God. (ibid. Also cf Small Catechism on Baptism: “Baptism signifies that we are to drown the Old Adam by daily …. repentence.)

    In the doctrine of the adversaries concerning justification no mention is made of Christ, and how we ought to set Him against the wrath of God, as though, indeed, we were able to overcome the wrath of God by love, or to love an angry God. 180] In regard to these things, consciences are left in uncertainty. For if they are to think that they have a reconciled God for the reason that they love, and that they observe the Law, they must needs always doubt whether they have a reconciled God, because they either do not feel this love, as the adversariesacknowledge, or they certainly feel that it is very small; and much more frequently do they feel that they are angry at the judgment of God, who oppresses human nature with many terrible evils, with troubles of this life, the terrors of eternal wrath, etc. When, therefore, will conscience be at rest, when will it be pacified? When, in this doubt and in these terrors, will it love God? What else is the doctrine of the Law than a doctrine of despair? 181] And let any one of our adversaries come forward who can teach us concerning this love, how he himself loves God. They do not at all understand what they say; they only cho, just like the walls of a house, the little word “love,” without understanding it. So confused and obscure is their doctrine: it not only transfers the glory of Christ to human works, but also leads consciences either to presumption or to despair. 182] But ours, we hope, is readily understood by pious minds, and brings godly and salutary consolation to terrified consciences. (ibid)

    10] …When, however, will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great terrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which those certainly taste [present tense!] who are truly converted, be able to decide whether it fears God for His own sake [out of love it fears God, as its God], or is fleeing from eternal punishments? [These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words.] These great emotions can be distinguished in letters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these sweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all good and wise men [who also desire to know the truth]. (ap “of repentence” bente)

    28] From contrition we separate those idle and infinite discussions, as to when we grieve from love of God, and when from fear of punishment. For these are nothing but mere words and a useless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state of mind of a terrified conscience. But we say that contrition is the true terror of conscience, which feels that God is angry with sin, and which grieves that it has sinned. And this contrition takes place in this manner when sins are censured by the Word of God, because the sum of the preaching of the Gospel is this, namely, to convict of sin, and to offer for Christ’s sake the remission of sins and righteousness, and the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, and that as regenerate men we should do good works. (ibid)

    53] For the two chief works of God in men are these, to terrify, and to justify and quicken those who have been terrified. Into these two works all Scripture has been distributed. The one part is the Law, which shows, reproves, and condemns sins. The other part is the Gospel, i.e., the promise of grace bestowed in Christ, and this promise is constantly repeated in the whole of Scripture, first having been delivered to Adam [I will put enmity, etc., Gen. 3, 15], afterwards to the patriarchs; then, still more clearly proclaimed by the prophets; lastly, preached and set forth among the Jews by Christ, and disseminated over the entire world by the apostles. 54] For all the saints were justified by faith in this promise, and not by their own attrition or contrition. (ibid)

    For a terrified conscience cannot set against God’s wrath our works or our love, but it is at length pacified when it apprehends Christ as Mediator, and believes the promises given for His sake. (ibid)

    95] But here we must know that this faith ought to be confident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the sake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience sees that these 96] works are unworthy. Accordingly,Ambrose speaks admirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to believe both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a handwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins.

    61] Job is excused that he was not afflicted on account of past evil deeds; therefore afflictions are not always punishments or signs of wrath. Yea, terrified consciences are to be taught that other ends of afflictions are more important that they should learn to regard troubles far differently, namely, as signs of grace, lest they think that they are rejected by God when in afflictions they see nothing but God’s punishment and anger.
    The other more important ends are to be considered, namely, that God is doing His strange work so that He may be able to do His own work, etc., as Isaiah 28 teaches in a long discourse.
    62] And when the disciples asked concerning the blind man who sinned, John 9, 2. 3, Christ replies that the cause of his blindness is not sin, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
    And in Jeremiah, 49, 12, it is said: They whose judgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly drunken. Thus the prophets and John the Baptist and other saints were killed.
    63] Therefore afflictions are not always punishments for certain past deeds, but they are the works of God, intended for our profit, and that the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness how He can help in the midst of death. (ibid)

    Now here is an excellent place to put our discussion into perspective. You properly said Paul , that our disagreement really seems to be centered in our method of interpreting scripture. It is a Law and Gospel difference you and I have. I would agree that this seems to be the case.

    I propose that this section will assist us in sorting out what is meant by Law and Gospel. This is where the Confessions first lay out, in great detail, what they see as that distinction. It is in the Apology on Free will. They first touch on this at the start of both art III and art IV, Here they fully expand:

    70] … The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can…render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft.

    Since there is left in human nature reason and judgment concerning [ALL!] objects subjected to the senses , choice between these things, the liberty and power to render civil righteousness, are also left.

    For Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal nature, i.e., reason, renders by itself, 71] without the Holy Ghost

    73] Therefore, … we concede to free will the liberty and power to perform the outward works of the Law.

    Make sure you catch what was just said! No Christ. No Holy Spirit and No bible are necessary to do everything right in a marriage or in any other thing we can think, do, say or work up our emotions over. The confessions call this kind of righeousness as “second table righeousness” , “civic righeousness”, “ethics”, “morality”, and “the righeousness of reason” and “natural law” which they narrowly designate as being reason.

    Although the power of concupiscence is such that men more frequently obey evil dispositions than sound judgment. And the devil, who is efficacious in the godless, as Paul says, Eph. 2, 2, does not cease to incite this feeble nature to various offenses. These are the reasons why even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see that not even the philosophers themselves, who seem 72] to have aspired after this righteousness, attained it.

    And make sure you catch this too! The failure to keep the Law is NOT because the Law written in the Reason and Conscience of all is deficient or missing important details that must be provided by the Bible! It it is rather because of the heart coveting.

    But it is false to say that he who performs the works of the commandments without grace does not sin. …

    Why is this?

    For human hearts without the Holy Ghost are without the fear of God; without trust toward God, they do not believe that they are heard, forgiven, helped, and preserved by God. Therefore they are godless. For neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7, 18. And without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11, 6.

    Luther in his Preface to Romans: You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That’s the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn’t let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God’s law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God’s law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

    73] … we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, to fear God, to believe God, to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc. These are the works of the First Table, which the heart cannot render without the Holy Ghost, as Paul says, 1 Cor. , 14: The natural man, i.e., man using only natural strength, receiveth not the things 74] of the Spirit of God.

    And this can be decided if men consider what their hearts believe concerning God’s will, whether they are truly confident that they are regarded and heardby God.

    Even for saints to retain this faith and, as Peter says (1 Pet. 1, 8), to risk and commit himself entirely to God, whom he does not see, to love Christ, and esteem Him highly, whom he does not see is difficult, so far is it from existing in the godless.

    But it is conceived, as we have said above, when terrified hearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation when we are born anew of the Holy Ghost.

    75] Therefore such a [distinction of Law and Gospel] … is of advantage in which:

    civil righteousness is ascribed to the free will [Old Adam driven by the Law written in Reason] and

    spiritual righteousness to the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate [New man , spontaneously moved by new emotions that are fear, love and trust].

    Outward righeousness that is ALL that we can see, do, think, emote and know with our senses. Versus; Inner, Spritual Righeousness which is ALONE, of invisible faith.

    For thus the outward discipline is retained, because all men ought to know equally, both that God requires this civil righteousness God will not tolerate indecent wild, reckless conduct, and that, in a measure, we can afford it.

    And yet a distinction is shown between human and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and it can be understood for what there is need of the Holy Ghost.

    76] Nor has this distribution been invented by us, but Scripture most clearly teaches it.

    PAUL @157 you have called Susan’s statement a heresy. She wrote
    “Outside the confession that sodomy is sin, there is no forgiveness. This is foundational.”
    You then wrote: “Any Confessional Lutherans here besides me want to take the mic and respond to this heresy?”
    I don’t see the heresy. Perhaps those whom you say agree with your reading of Scripture and the Confessions will take your invitation and show us how that statement is heresy. Does anyone else here agree with Frank that Susan’s statement is a heresy?

    FRANK All of us are guity of unrepentant sin. The scriptures say that the heart is deceiptful beyond knowing. Calvinists willfully deny the clear words of Holy Scripture on so many things. Fundamental things of the faith. They willfully persist in this. They insist it is not sin. Homosexuals insist that homosexuality, per se, is not a sin. Homosexuality is not sodomy. Sodomy is anal sex whether it be between a man and woman or man and man. So does this willful denial of God’s Word damn calvinists and for them “there is no forgiveness”. I say no. Why not?

    95] But here we must know that this faith ought to be confident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the sake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience sees that these 96] works are unworthy. Accordingly,Ambrose speaks admirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to believe both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a handwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins. (Apology “on repentence”)

    At the same time this is also true:

    23] Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin. ( ap III Bente)

    but take good care here before you say “aha! Gotcha!”. For the Confessions also refer to this writing as a further amplification of what they say:

    sin in the Scriptures means not only external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers. Therefore the word do should refer to a person’s completely falling into sin. No external work of sin happens, after all, unless a person commit himself to it completely, body and soul. In particular, the Scriptures see into the heart, to the root and main source of all sin: unbelief in the depth of the heart. Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That’s what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Genesis 3). (Luther’s Preface to his 1545 Romans Translation).

    The distinction between “willful sinning” and other sinning is contrary to our Lutheran Confessions! ALL sinning is willed . NO sin happens, unless the person commits himself to that sin completely, body and soul!

    PAUL If I, as a simple parish pastor, speak to any believer concerning an ongoing sin, can there be forgiveness for that person who refuses to accept that it is a sin?

    FRANK Put this in the context of a Calvinist who refuses to accept that is false doctrines are false and therefore sinful. How would you deal with that unrepentant sinner and regard him? Damned to hell as Susan says?

    PAUL And when every teacher and doctor of the church has “completely” and “utterly” disagreed with Frank – as he, himself has told us – concerning the sinfulness of sodomy, is that not a refusal to repent apart from which there can be no forgiveness?

    FRANK This seems like a shameless false witness. I never used the word sodomy except to define it in respost to susan per the dictionary.. I have not voiced an opinion on the sinfulness of anal sex between either two men or a man and a woman.

    What I actually said was that I don’t believe that homosexuality , as defined by the medical community is a sin. And neither do you Paul most probably!

    PAUL So if a man comes to me, as his pastor, confessing that he is a murderer but doesn’t repent of that sin claiming that we are all sinners and murder everyday in our hearts, shall I offer this man the forgiveness of the Gospel?

    FRANK We would need to know more. The man is coming… to confession! And he is saying that he does not feel repentent? That he confesses he is truly not repentant of the murder in his heart? That would be called telling the truth!

    PAUL; Dr. Veith? Others? I do not see that Frank understands the very fundamental distinction between law and gospel.

    PAUL @151 you wrote: “Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government, it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall.” I will see your point if you also say that there is *another* sense that marriage is not government and not about law. You qualified your answer by saying, “in the sense that it is government.” But do you acknowledge any other ‘sense’ of marriage?

    FRANK The purpose and definition of Matrimony is defined in our Confessions in the Large catechism in the 4th and 6th commandment. What does it say? I already presented a detailed exegesis of that text to you. I dont think I need to repeat it.

    PAUL In the same post, you wrote, “The preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath.”
    It is, however, also the illustration and fulfillment of His love. See how He loved us! And if Paul says that we shall know nothing except Christ and Him crucified is the Apostle saying that we shall only preach the Law? Of course not. The death of Christ is also Gospel – that Christ loved me and gave His life for me.” Paul also writes: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ crucified is Gospel to those who are being saved!

    FRANK Amen! SHOUT that brother!

    PAUL []the difference in your reading of Scripture and the Confessions [is] apparent, but it is the methodology that is at issue.

    FRANK what the function of the Law is. Especially the third use. You seem to feel there is a Law that does not kill and does not terrify and does not accuse. You seem to identify that with a third use even though you have not specifically mentioned the third use.

    Bless you pastor Paul! +

  • fws

    PAUL

    @151 you wrote: “Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government, it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall.” I will see your point if you also say that there is *another* sense that marriage is not government and not about law. You qualified your answer by saying, “in the sense that it is government.” But do you acknowledge any other ‘sense’ of marriage?

    response to Paul:

    I only know of two categories in the Confessions. those are law and gospel and another called “ordinances of God” which is an amoral into which the confessions would place things such as the sex drive and the law of gravity.

    So you suggest that marriage is Law, but it is more than that. What is the “more” how would you classifiy that “more” ? “fruit of the gospel”? No.

    Marriage is not ONLY Law in this sense: marriage is intended to produce the Merciful fruit of caring for others and protecting them bodily. But this all pertains to this life. this all falls into the romans 8 category of flesh . It will all perish with the earth, along with those who look for Life in it.

    againL This point about matrimony, along with other points, is fully and elaborately detailed in the Large Catechism 4th commandment.

  • fws

    PAUL

    @151 you wrote: “Marriage is pure law in the sense that it is government, it is about ordering people about. There was no need for that to be done before the fall.” I will see your point if you also say that there is *another* sense that marriage is not government and not about law. You qualified your answer by saying, “in the sense that it is government.” But do you acknowledge any other ‘sense’ of marriage?

    response to Paul:

    I only know of two categories in the Confessions. those are law and gospel and another called “ordinances of God” which is an amoral into which the confessions would place things such as the sex drive and the law of gravity.

    So you suggest that marriage is Law, but it is more than that. What is the “more” how would you classifiy that “more” ? “fruit of the gospel”? No.

    Marriage is not ONLY Law in this sense: marriage is intended to produce the Merciful fruit of caring for others and protecting them bodily. But this all pertains to this life. this all falls into the romans 8 category of flesh . It will all perish with the earth, along with those who look for Life in it.

    againL This point about matrimony, along with other points, is fully and elaborately detailed in the Large Catechism 4th commandment.

  • fws

    Paul

    marriage is not define by reproduction. That will happen, as a divine ordinance that is like irresistable law of gravity and the sex drive without marriage.

    Marriage is a government that God has place to regulate those ordinances in view of sin.

    Marriage is also part of the curses in Genesis 3. It exists due to our fallen state, It is a form of punishment even. that is usually what the word “curse” signals if it signals anything at all. Luther states in his genesis commentary that before the curse women were the coequals of men ruling creation. that women are subordinate to men is a curse in gen 3. This was not true before tbe fall.

  • fws

    Paul

    marriage is not define by reproduction. That will happen, as a divine ordinance that is like irresistable law of gravity and the sex drive without marriage.

    Marriage is a government that God has place to regulate those ordinances in view of sin.

    Marriage is also part of the curses in Genesis 3. It exists due to our fallen state, It is a form of punishment even. that is usually what the word “curse” signals if it signals anything at all. Luther states in his genesis commentary that before the curse women were the coequals of men ruling creation. that women are subordinate to men is a curse in gen 3. This was not true before tbe fall.

  • Grace

    fws @ 192

    “Marriage is also part of the curses in Genesis 3. It exists due to our fallen state, It is a form of punishment even. that is usually what the word “curse” signals if it signals anything at all. Luther states in his genesis commentary that before the curse women were the coequals of men ruling creation. that women are subordinate to men is a curse in gen 3. This was not true before tbe fall.”

    The LORD made plain in Genesis 2:24 that a man shall cleave unto his wife. In verse 18 the LORD God made plain that HE would make a “help meet” for Adam.

    Strong’s Greek defines help ay’-zer – in this particular chapter as: aid:–help.

    An aid is not a leader, but a helper. Adam and Eve were not as you say “coequals” –

    A wife is not a punishment, you need to study Genesis more closely.

    18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2

  • Grace

    fws @ 192

    “Marriage is also part of the curses in Genesis 3. It exists due to our fallen state, It is a form of punishment even. that is usually what the word “curse” signals if it signals anything at all. Luther states in his genesis commentary that before the curse women were the coequals of men ruling creation. that women are subordinate to men is a curse in gen 3. This was not true before tbe fall.”

    The LORD made plain in Genesis 2:24 that a man shall cleave unto his wife. In verse 18 the LORD God made plain that HE would make a “help meet” for Adam.

    Strong’s Greek defines help ay’-zer – in this particular chapter as: aid:–help.

    An aid is not a leader, but a helper. Adam and Eve were not as you say “coequals” –

    A wife is not a punishment, you need to study Genesis more closely.

    18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2

  • wcwirla

    Did I see my name pop up in this comment stream?

    For the record, marriage is temporal, “until death us do part.” “In the resurrection, they are neither married nor given in marriage.” Marriage is Law, a legal fence built around the “one flesh” union of man and woman as husband and wife. The Law always kills, even as it instructs. Marriage is treated as a 1st article gift in the catechism along with clothing and shoes. 1st article gifts are not Gospel, though they are gifts. Rain and sunshine are not Gospel, though they hint at God’s goodness and mercy.

    The issue on the table is not “gay marriage,” as there are no special sub-classes of marriage. The issue is whether society should widen the legal fence of marriage to include “committed and loving” gay relationships. The societal debate should focus on why we would want to do that and on what basis. And if we move the fence out to include same sex relationships, why stop there? We all have many “loving and committed relationships” in our lives. Who gets to decide where the boundary lines of marriage fall and on what basis do we as a society make that decision?

    These are the questions that need to be discussed in the public square.

  • wcwirla

    Did I see my name pop up in this comment stream?

    For the record, marriage is temporal, “until death us do part.” “In the resurrection, they are neither married nor given in marriage.” Marriage is Law, a legal fence built around the “one flesh” union of man and woman as husband and wife. The Law always kills, even as it instructs. Marriage is treated as a 1st article gift in the catechism along with clothing and shoes. 1st article gifts are not Gospel, though they are gifts. Rain and sunshine are not Gospel, though they hint at God’s goodness and mercy.

    The issue on the table is not “gay marriage,” as there are no special sub-classes of marriage. The issue is whether society should widen the legal fence of marriage to include “committed and loving” gay relationships. The societal debate should focus on why we would want to do that and on what basis. And if we move the fence out to include same sex relationships, why stop there? We all have many “loving and committed relationships” in our lives. Who gets to decide where the boundary lines of marriage fall and on what basis do we as a society make that decision?

    These are the questions that need to be discussed in the public square.

  • fws

    can someone please delete my post @ 190.

    major formatting errors.

    and… I promise not to hogg so much comment space in future posts….. really.

    I really.

    I am serious this time.

  • fws

    can someone please delete my post @ 190.

    major formatting errors.

    and… I promise not to hogg so much comment space in future posts….. really.

    I really.

    I am serious this time.

  • Paul in MN

    So “marriage”, by Rev. Cwirla’s usage @196: “Marriage is Law, a legal fence built around the “one flesh” union of man and woman as husband and wife.” Okay. I was talking about the “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife” as a correlative term to marriage. Perhaps this is not theologically exact enough. Rev. Cwirla makes a distinction between “marriage” and “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife.” Is there a better term or shorter term for “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife” than “marriage”? Can there be a “marriage” without a “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife”? Can there be a “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife” without “marriage” (most probably so because many people live as husband and wife without a legal ‘marriage’)?

    Next: as a parish pastor, I see that almost no one makes this distinction. They see “one flesh union” as synonymous for “marriage” at least “in the eyes of God.” Hence, the “piece of paper” is meaningless. Shall we say that fidelity, exclusivity, and ’till death do us part’ in the “one flesh union” is a matter of the sixth commandment while the necessity for “marriage” as defined by the state is a matter of the fourth commandment? I’ve thought of that when encountering couples who seem to have all the characteristics of a “one flesh union” but failed to obtain a “marriage” license.

    However, I must confess that I don’t see that distinguishing these two is at all helpful in pastoral practice since those with a “one flesh union” ought to also have “marriage” and those who have “marriage” ought to also have a “one flesh union.” I can see a distinction in the abstract, but in the concrete these two seem necessarily connected. How can this distinction help me in my pastoral practice?

    Finally, I will concede that defining “marriage” as distinct from a “one flesh union” makes “marriage” nothing but Law. But what happens when we see “marriage” (as in a matter of the state) as inextricable from “one flesh union”? Is it still “all Law”?

  • Paul in MN

    So “marriage”, by Rev. Cwirla’s usage @196: “Marriage is Law, a legal fence built around the “one flesh” union of man and woman as husband and wife.” Okay. I was talking about the “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife” as a correlative term to marriage. Perhaps this is not theologically exact enough. Rev. Cwirla makes a distinction between “marriage” and “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife.” Is there a better term or shorter term for “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife” than “marriage”? Can there be a “marriage” without a “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife”? Can there be a “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife” without “marriage” (most probably so because many people live as husband and wife without a legal ‘marriage’)?

    Next: as a parish pastor, I see that almost no one makes this distinction. They see “one flesh union” as synonymous for “marriage” at least “in the eyes of God.” Hence, the “piece of paper” is meaningless. Shall we say that fidelity, exclusivity, and ’till death do us part’ in the “one flesh union” is a matter of the sixth commandment while the necessity for “marriage” as defined by the state is a matter of the fourth commandment? I’ve thought of that when encountering couples who seem to have all the characteristics of a “one flesh union” but failed to obtain a “marriage” license.

    However, I must confess that I don’t see that distinguishing these two is at all helpful in pastoral practice since those with a “one flesh union” ought to also have “marriage” and those who have “marriage” ought to also have a “one flesh union.” I can see a distinction in the abstract, but in the concrete these two seem necessarily connected. How can this distinction help me in my pastoral practice?

    Finally, I will concede that defining “marriage” as distinct from a “one flesh union” makes “marriage” nothing but Law. But what happens when we see “marriage” (as in a matter of the state) as inextricable from “one flesh union”? Is it still “all Law”?

  • Grace

    wcwirla

    “Who gets to decide where the boundary lines of marriage fall and on what basis do we as a society make that decision?”

    ANSWER: God!

    If you look within the pages of the Bible, you will see that men are to love their wives, and wives are to love their husbands.

    HE, did, and HE continues through HIS Word. It wasn’t our decision in the first place.

    If you’re Lutheran you have the ELCA, they will be happy to compromise what the Bible states. If that won’t work, try the PCUSA, and then there is the Unitarian group, and a few others who will agree with marrying all the male to males, and female to females.

    All the arguments – re-arranging Scripture will never make homosexual relationships right.

  • Grace

    wcwirla

    “Who gets to decide where the boundary lines of marriage fall and on what basis do we as a society make that decision?”

    ANSWER: God!

    If you look within the pages of the Bible, you will see that men are to love their wives, and wives are to love their husbands.

    HE, did, and HE continues through HIS Word. It wasn’t our decision in the first place.

    If you’re Lutheran you have the ELCA, they will be happy to compromise what the Bible states. If that won’t work, try the PCUSA, and then there is the Unitarian group, and a few others who will agree with marrying all the male to males, and female to females.

    All the arguments – re-arranging Scripture will never make homosexual relationships right.

  • Grace

    NOTICE:

    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2

    Nothing about a man and man, or a woman and a woman. It’s all right there in the beginning!

  • Grace

    NOTICE:

    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2

    Nothing about a man and man, or a woman and a woman. It’s all right there in the beginning!

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

    Is there a better term or shorter term for “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife” than “marriage”?

    child

    It only saves a few letters, but changes the perspective from me, me, me to the person I am called to serve.

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

    Is there a better term or shorter term for “one flesh union of man and woman as husband and wife” than “marriage”?

    child

    It only saves a few letters, but changes the perspective from me, me, me to the person I am called to serve.

  • Grace

    sg @ 201

    A child is not always born from every marriage. It’s God’s choice to give a child or children to any couple. “One flesh” does not equate to having children.

    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
    Genesis 2:24

    one Strong’s Greek Dictionary

    ‘echad – ekh-awd’

    properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:–a, alike, alone, altogether

  • Grace

    sg @ 201

    A child is not always born from every marriage. It’s God’s choice to give a child or children to any couple. “One flesh” does not equate to having children.

    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
    Genesis 2:24

    one Strong’s Greek Dictionary

    ‘echad – ekh-awd’

    properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:–a, alike, alone, altogether

  • Grace

    We as Believers in Jesus Christ as Savior are not of this world, we hold to the only power, God Almighty. It all began in the Garden of Eden, and one can see through Scripture, that marriage, (man/husband and woman/wife) are still joined together in marriage, as being “one flesh” it’s not all about law, it’s what God ordained.

    It’s a shameful, when one wants to change the meaning of marriage, misusing the Bible to justify their stance.

    1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

    2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. John 2

    marriage Strong’s Greek
    gamos – gam’-os
    nuptials:–marriage, wedding.

    The unbelieving, false teachers, would have the unlearned in God’s Word confused, that is one of the reasons the passage of Scripture below is so important, we are to know what’s in the Bible, we are given the HOLY Spirit when we Believe in Christ as Savior. All the books in the world will not, cannot trump the Bible. It’s through these pages, we learn the truth.

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

    16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 2 Timothy 2

  • Grace

    We as Believers in Jesus Christ as Savior are not of this world, we hold to the only power, God Almighty. It all began in the Garden of Eden, and one can see through Scripture, that marriage, (man/husband and woman/wife) are still joined together in marriage, as being “one flesh” it’s not all about law, it’s what God ordained.

    It’s a shameful, when one wants to change the meaning of marriage, misusing the Bible to justify their stance.

    1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

    2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. John 2

    marriage Strong’s Greek
    gamos – gam’-os
    nuptials:–marriage, wedding.

    The unbelieving, false teachers, would have the unlearned in God’s Word confused, that is one of the reasons the passage of Scripture below is so important, we are to know what’s in the Bible, we are given the HOLY Spirit when we Believe in Christ as Savior. All the books in the world will not, cannot trump the Bible. It’s through these pages, we learn the truth.

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

    16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 2 Timothy 2

  • Grace

    Obama’s flirtation and acceptance regarding “gay marriage” isn’t accepted by the vast majority of this world. As I stated earlier, even California voted it down in PROP 8, a very liberal state.

    May 12, 2:30 AM EDT

    Around world, Obama’s presidency a disappointment

    By DON MELVIN and ROD McGUIRK
    Associated Press

    “In a world weary of war and economic crises, and concerned about global climate change, the consensus is that Obama has not lived up to the lofty expectations that surrounded his 2008 election and Nobel Peace Prize a year later. Many in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were also taken aback by his support for gay marriage, a taboo subject among religious conservatives.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_WORLD_VIEW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-12-02-30-29

  • Grace

    Obama’s flirtation and acceptance regarding “gay marriage” isn’t accepted by the vast majority of this world. As I stated earlier, even California voted it down in PROP 8, a very liberal state.

    May 12, 2:30 AM EDT

    Around world, Obama’s presidency a disappointment

    By DON MELVIN and ROD McGUIRK
    Associated Press

    “In a world weary of war and economic crises, and concerned about global climate change, the consensus is that Obama has not lived up to the lofty expectations that surrounded his 2008 election and Nobel Peace Prize a year later. Many in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were also taken aback by his support for gay marriage, a taboo subject among religious conservatives.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_WORLD_VIEW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-12-02-30-29

  • Carl Vehse

    Here is a Lutheran view on homosexual marriage (not likely to be printed in The Lutheran Witness) from Dr. Martin Luther’s “On War Against the Turk” (Vom Kriege wider die Türken, 1528, WA 30 II, 107-148):

    “Italian weddings – homosexual relationships

    “God visits them with the same plague, too, and smites them with blindness, so that it happens to them as St. Paul says, in Romans 1:28, about the shameful vice of the dumb sins, that God gives them up to a perverse mind because they pervert the Word of God. So blind and senseless are both pope and Turk that both of them commit the dumb sins shamelessly, as an honorable and praiseworthy thing. Since they think lightly of marriage, it serves them right that there are dog-marriages (and would to God they were dog-marriages), nay, ‘Italian marriages’ and ‘Florentine brides’ among them; and they think these things good;

    “For I hear one horrible thing after another about what an open and glorious Sodom Turkey is, and everybody who has looked around a little in Rome and Italy knows very well how God there revenges and punishes the prohibition of marriage, so that Sodom and Gomorrah, which God overwhelmed in days of old with fire and brimstone, must seem a mere jest compared with these abominations. On this one account, therefore, I would regret the rule of the Turk; nay, it would be intolerable in Germany.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Here is a Lutheran view on homosexual marriage (not likely to be printed in The Lutheran Witness) from Dr. Martin Luther’s “On War Against the Turk” (Vom Kriege wider die Türken, 1528, WA 30 II, 107-148):

    “Italian weddings – homosexual relationships

    “God visits them with the same plague, too, and smites them with blindness, so that it happens to them as St. Paul says, in Romans 1:28, about the shameful vice of the dumb sins, that God gives them up to a perverse mind because they pervert the Word of God. So blind and senseless are both pope and Turk that both of them commit the dumb sins shamelessly, as an honorable and praiseworthy thing. Since they think lightly of marriage, it serves them right that there are dog-marriages (and would to God they were dog-marriages), nay, ‘Italian marriages’ and ‘Florentine brides’ among them; and they think these things good;

    “For I hear one horrible thing after another about what an open and glorious Sodom Turkey is, and everybody who has looked around a little in Rome and Italy knows very well how God there revenges and punishes the prohibition of marriage, so that Sodom and Gomorrah, which God overwhelmed in days of old with fire and brimstone, must seem a mere jest compared with these abominations. On this one account, therefore, I would regret the rule of the Turk; nay, it would be intolerable in Germany.”

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

    Grace,

    My point is simply that the only way a man and woman are physically united into one flesh is the child. The child is one flesh that comes from the union of the man and woman.

    Any other union is metaphorical or metaphysical not literal and physical.

    Legal marriages are constructs of human understanding. They exist in our consciousness and social convention not in physical reality. I am not saying that is worthless or irrelevant. I am just saying that it isn’t concrete and physical.

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

    Grace,

    My point is simply that the only way a man and woman are physically united into one flesh is the child. The child is one flesh that comes from the union of the man and woman.

    Any other union is metaphorical or metaphysical not literal and physical.

    Legal marriages are constructs of human understanding. They exist in our consciousness and social convention not in physical reality. I am not saying that is worthless or irrelevant. I am just saying that it isn’t concrete and physical.

  • Grace

    sg @ 206

    YOU WROTE: “My point is simply that the only way a man and woman are physically united into one flesh is the child. The child is one flesh that comes from the union of the man and woman.”

    The Bible doesn’t state what you posted above. A man and a woman are one flesh when they are married or in the case of Adam and Eve, joined together, as God did in the Garden. Being married or joined together does not mean one must have a child to become “one flesh” -

  • Grace

    sg @ 206

    YOU WROTE: “My point is simply that the only way a man and woman are physically united into one flesh is the child. The child is one flesh that comes from the union of the man and woman.”

    The Bible doesn’t state what you posted above. A man and a woman are one flesh when they are married or in the case of Adam and Eve, joined together, as God did in the Garden. Being married or joined together does not mean one must have a child to become “one flesh” -

  • Grace

    sg,

    Can you just imagine a married couple, going about stating they weren’t “one flesh” YET, because they had not had a child? It’s absurd!

  • Grace

    sg,

    Can you just imagine a married couple, going about stating they weren’t “one flesh” YET, because they had not had a child? It’s absurd!

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

    Grace, in what way are they one flesh? When they cleave to each other, literally fusing their gametes into one zygote. Then they literally have combined to create something from their own two separate beings that is physically one flesh. It is just what it says on the page. Step one, cleave to wife. Step two, “shall become one flesh.”

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

    Grace, in what way are they one flesh? When they cleave to each other, literally fusing their gametes into one zygote. Then they literally have combined to create something from their own two separate beings that is physically one flesh. It is just what it says on the page. Step one, cleave to wife. Step two, “shall become one flesh.”

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

    Someone who knows the original language needs to clarify the “become” translation.

    People making a verbal commitment (in marriage) doesn’t literally create one flesh. Physical union (in marriage) does. When a spouse dies, the other can still live, unlike when a child of theirs dies.

    I am not saying the verbal commitment is worthless, but as another pointed out, it is only until the physical death of one spouse. Whereas a child often survives both parents.

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

    Someone who knows the original language needs to clarify the “become” translation.

    People making a verbal commitment (in marriage) doesn’t literally create one flesh. Physical union (in marriage) does. When a spouse dies, the other can still live, unlike when a child of theirs dies.

    I am not saying the verbal commitment is worthless, but as another pointed out, it is only until the physical death of one spouse. Whereas a child often survives both parents.

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

    “Bridesmaids? What!? You mean like in our white, middle class, suburban, 21st century type weddings? Oh please.”

    Kitty, do you have something against white, middle class, suburban, 21st century type weddings? If so, what is it?

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

    “Bridesmaids? What!? You mean like in our white, middle class, suburban, 21st century type weddings? Oh please.”

    Kitty, do you have something against white, middle class, suburban, 21st century type weddings? If so, what is it?

  • fws

    Paul @ 198

    What if we started by milking what the Confessions say is a) the definition of marriage and b) it’s intended fruit. and THEN see how that fits in with the one flesh union you seem t0o feel is so very critical? How would that look:

    We would start by changing Cwirla’s definition in that case.

    Marriage is Law, a legal fence built around the “one flesh” union of man and woman as husband and wife.

    It would need to read now as this:

    matrimony is the God-sanctioned/authorized rulership of a mother and father over their entire household (LC commandment 4)

    and also this:

    206] …[The purpose and definition of marriage is found in the sanctioning/Authorizing the rulership of mom and dad in the 4th commandment ... and here in the 6th commandment the purpose and definition of marriage is as a hedge and protection [or fence] provided for OTHER marriages.

    200] [The purpose of the commandments is ]that we avoid doing ..injury to our neighbor. They treat of his own person. Then ..his closest possession, his wife, who is one flesh and blood with him…..

    And this…

    207] He has instituted it ….[when he] created man and woman separately as is evident not for the purpose of sex [one flesh union?], but to provide the merciful fruit of…
    companionship, procreation, and childrearing.

    and finally this…

    211][Marriage is] …a necessary state, …[it is commanded for]… men and women, who were created for it. … 212] … nature … implanted by God, [makes it im]possible to remain chaste without marriage. [To make it ]….more easy in some degree to avoid inchastity. God has commanded the estate of matrimony.

    And how does marriage provide a fence or protection for marriage and sexual-self control? This way:

    [All are commanded to Marry so that] … every one may have his [very own]…ration of sex, and be satisfied therewith

    May I note this: There is nothing at all here that pagans cannot also fully do. No Christ or Holy Spirit are necessary in the least for any of this. This is to say: No Gospel is in any of this at all.

  • fws

    Paul @ 198

    What if we started by milking what the Confessions say is a) the definition of marriage and b) it’s intended fruit. and THEN see how that fits in with the one flesh union you seem t0o feel is so very critical? How would that look:

    We would start by changing Cwirla’s definition in that case.

    Marriage is Law, a legal fence built around the “one flesh” union of man and woman as husband and wife.

    It would need to read now as this:

    matrimony is the God-sanctioned/authorized rulership of a mother and father over their entire household (LC commandment 4)

    and also this:

    206] …[The purpose and definition of marriage is found in the sanctioning/Authorizing the rulership of mom and dad in the 4th commandment ... and here in the 6th commandment the purpose and definition of marriage is as a hedge and protection [or fence] provided for OTHER marriages.

    200] [The purpose of the commandments is ]that we avoid doing ..injury to our neighbor. They treat of his own person. Then ..his closest possession, his wife, who is one flesh and blood with him…..

    And this…

    207] He has instituted it ….[when he] created man and woman separately as is evident not for the purpose of sex [one flesh union?], but to provide the merciful fruit of…
    companionship, procreation, and childrearing.

    and finally this…

    211][Marriage is] …a necessary state, …[it is commanded for]… men and women, who were created for it. … 212] … nature … implanted by God, [makes it im]possible to remain chaste without marriage. [To make it ]….more easy in some degree to avoid inchastity. God has commanded the estate of matrimony.

    And how does marriage provide a fence or protection for marriage and sexual-self control? This way:

    [All are commanded to Marry so that] … every one may have his [very own]…ration of sex, and be satisfied therewith

    May I note this: There is nothing at all here that pagans cannot also fully do. No Christ or Holy Spirit are necessary in the least for any of this. This is to say: No Gospel is in any of this at all.

  • fws

    paul @ 198

    Now let’s see how the bible defines “one flesh union”. This seems important to you Paul. It seems to be the “more” you see in marriage. Does one-flesh-union=marriage? Does one-flesh-union= sex? What is the context for the term? Is it more than either marriage or sex?

    Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” (1 Corinthians 6:16 ESV)

    one-flesh-union=sex

    And Pharisees …asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
    But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
    … Jesus said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:2-12 ESV)

    Marriage, by definition is life-long. Divorce is therefore definitionally impossible. Therefore the divorced remarried are living in adultery.

    Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ..the LORD God …brought [all animals] to the man … But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. [so God formed woman out of the flesh of man]…Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18-24 ESV)

    It appears here that man and woman are “one flesh” not by virtue of sex, but by virtue of being complementary.

    The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, …, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. [they all died]… In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.” But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30 ESV)

    No “one flesh union” in the resurrection?

    Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:26-27 ESV)

    Marriage requires nothing on our part to save or preserve it as NOM claims. It will continue till Christ returns.

    So where does all this leave us Pastor Paul from Minnesota? Marriage=Goverment? Marriage=government+one flesh union?
    Marriage=Law? Marriage=Law+gospel?

    Give us some text to work with Please!

  • fws

    paul @ 198

    Now let’s see how the bible defines “one flesh union”. This seems important to you Paul. It seems to be the “more” you see in marriage. Does one-flesh-union=marriage? Does one-flesh-union= sex? What is the context for the term? Is it more than either marriage or sex?

    Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” (1 Corinthians 6:16 ESV)

    one-flesh-union=sex

    And Pharisees …asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
    But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
    … Jesus said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:2-12 ESV)

    Marriage, by definition is life-long. Divorce is therefore definitionally impossible. Therefore the divorced remarried are living in adultery.

    Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ..the LORD God …brought [all animals] to the man … But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. [so God formed woman out of the flesh of man]…Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:18-24 ESV)

    It appears here that man and woman are “one flesh” not by virtue of sex, but by virtue of being complementary.

    The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, …, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. [they all died]… In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.” But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30 ESV)

    No “one flesh union” in the resurrection?

    Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:26-27 ESV)

    Marriage requires nothing on our part to save or preserve it as NOM claims. It will continue till Christ returns.

    So where does all this leave us Pastor Paul from Minnesota? Marriage=Goverment? Marriage=government+one flesh union?
    Marriage=Law? Marriage=Law+gospel?

    Give us some text to work with Please!

  • fws

    paul @ 198

    And I omitted the passage you probably find most important in all of this. This is probably your sedaes. Please exegete it for us. Do so in light of Law and Gospel please if possible. You identified that as our major difference in approach to the text.

    In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
    For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
    “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
    This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
    (Ephesians 5:28-32 ESV)

  • fws

    paul @ 198

    And I omitted the passage you probably find most important in all of this. This is probably your sedaes. Please exegete it for us. Do so in light of Law and Gospel please if possible. You identified that as our major difference in approach to the text.

    In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
    For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.
    “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
    This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
    (Ephesians 5:28-32 ESV)

  • Grace

    fws @212

    “What if we started by milking what the Confessions say is a) the definition of marriage and b) it’s intended fruit. and THEN see how that fits in with the one flesh union you seem t0o feel is so very critical? How would that look:”

    Is it impossible for you fws, to begin with the Bible and it’s definitions, or do you need to DEPEND upon another book, a man who was not an Apostle to guide you. Is not God’s Word sufficient, by the HOLY Spirit to guide all Believers through HIS Word?

    How do you think YOU look, when you use a book other than the Bible to argue what God’s Word says. Who does it better than the LORD? ……… Do you think the LORD didn’t know that HIS Word would go through centuries, those reading and understanding through the guidance of HIS Spirit?

    Who is in charge of the interpretation of God’s Word?

    Is it the Roman Church
    Methodist
    John Calvin
    Martin Luther
    Or a host of other men who believed their beliefs and doctrine trumped God’s Word?

    Interesting you fws, would ask that question. And then:

    “We would start by changing Cwirla’s definition in that case.”

    On, and on…..

  • Grace

    fws @212

    “What if we started by milking what the Confessions say is a) the definition of marriage and b) it’s intended fruit. and THEN see how that fits in with the one flesh union you seem t0o feel is so very critical? How would that look:”

    Is it impossible for you fws, to begin with the Bible and it’s definitions, or do you need to DEPEND upon another book, a man who was not an Apostle to guide you. Is not God’s Word sufficient, by the HOLY Spirit to guide all Believers through HIS Word?

    How do you think YOU look, when you use a book other than the Bible to argue what God’s Word says. Who does it better than the LORD? ……… Do you think the LORD didn’t know that HIS Word would go through centuries, those reading and understanding through the guidance of HIS Spirit?

    Who is in charge of the interpretation of God’s Word?

    Is it the Roman Church
    Methodist
    John Calvin
    Martin Luther
    Or a host of other men who believed their beliefs and doctrine trumped God’s Word?

    Interesting you fws, would ask that question. And then:

    “We would start by changing Cwirla’s definition in that case.”

    On, and on…..

  • Susan

    @fws,

    Your arguments don’t make sense unless you are trying to bring the world’s identity politics into the church. You insist on identifying yourself as a homosexual (by a specific sinful proclivity) rather than a sinner/saint like the rest of us. Besetting sins are not an identity. Yet, you choose the identity of a specific sin rather than a sinner/saint. You seek to justify your stance via the world’s understanding of homosexuality: it is an identity not a sin. Bunk. We are to have our minds renewed by God’s truth not the world’s lies.

    Your arguments seem to fail to recognize how creation decides who we are. We are created male or female. The woman was taken out of man. We are created to be heterosexual in our union and thus reunited as one. That man would pervert this is only more proof of the fall. There are any number of ways to sin against they way God created us as male and female, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are created as heterosexual beings.

    You claim it is impossible for people to be chaste if they are not married. Bunk. We are created in the image of God not unthinking base instincts of animals. Many people, whether Christian or not, live chaste lives whether within marriage and without marriage. And the only lawful divorce would be because of sexual immorality. That many people live their lives in accordance with natural law of creation is not surprising. What is surprising is that a Christian would argue against the natural law of creation and insist that homosexual marriage is not a perversion of God’s creation.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    Your arguments don’t make sense unless you are trying to bring the world’s identity politics into the church. You insist on identifying yourself as a homosexual (by a specific sinful proclivity) rather than a sinner/saint like the rest of us. Besetting sins are not an identity. Yet, you choose the identity of a specific sin rather than a sinner/saint. You seek to justify your stance via the world’s understanding of homosexuality: it is an identity not a sin. Bunk. We are to have our minds renewed by God’s truth not the world’s lies.

    Your arguments seem to fail to recognize how creation decides who we are. We are created male or female. The woman was taken out of man. We are created to be heterosexual in our union and thus reunited as one. That man would pervert this is only more proof of the fall. There are any number of ways to sin against they way God created us as male and female, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are created as heterosexual beings.

    You claim it is impossible for people to be chaste if they are not married. Bunk. We are created in the image of God not unthinking base instincts of animals. Many people, whether Christian or not, live chaste lives whether within marriage and without marriage. And the only lawful divorce would be because of sexual immorality. That many people live their lives in accordance with natural law of creation is not surprising. What is surprising is that a Christian would argue against the natural law of creation and insist that homosexual marriage is not a perversion of God’s creation.

  • fws

    susan @ 216

    You claim it is impossible for people to be chaste if they are not married.

    I never claimed that Susan. I was quoting someone else who was claiming that wasn’t I?

  • fws

    susan @ 216

    You claim it is impossible for people to be chaste if they are not married.

    I never claimed that Susan. I was quoting someone else who was claiming that wasn’t I?

  • fws

    carl @ 205

    Luther did not know that homosexuality or even heterosexuality even existed. He would say that it is heterosexuals doing this. But he would not have considered that a category. 100% of anything is not something that can be categorized . Capische?

    That is why the confessions blame this sort of activity on forced celebacy. They assume that if women were made available sexually to men, there would be no choice to make.

    Dare to be Lutheran Carl. Read the text with it’s own assumptions. Dont read your modern categories into the text.

  • fws

    carl @ 205

    Luther did not know that homosexuality or even heterosexuality even existed. He would say that it is heterosexuals doing this. But he would not have considered that a category. 100% of anything is not something that can be categorized . Capische?

    That is why the confessions blame this sort of activity on forced celebacy. They assume that if women were made available sexually to men, there would be no choice to make.

    Dare to be Lutheran Carl. Read the text with it’s own assumptions. Dont read your modern categories into the text.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    You are dodging the truth and using “dare to be Lutheran” as a smokescreen to justify your incorporation of the world’s homosexual identity politics and the world’s teaching on homosexuality into your thinking. That identity politics and the world’s teaching on homosexuality would blind you to your errors, should not surprising.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    You are dodging the truth and using “dare to be Lutheran” as a smokescreen to justify your incorporation of the world’s homosexual identity politics and the world’s teaching on homosexuality into your thinking. That identity politics and the world’s teaching on homosexuality would blind you to your errors, should not surprising.

  • fws

    susan @ 219

    If you would get past the fact that I am a gay man and read what I say without reading into what I say, waiting for some other self-justifying shoe to drop, you would be saying none of this dear sister in Christ.

    You don’t know my personal life and what the sins are that I commit in word and deed that require repentence. The fact that I am a homosexual tells you none of this dear sister. Like others like me, I became aware that I was homosexual around age 6 or so. Sexual acts were one possible, but not inevitable consequence of that. You are right. Many persons, including homosexuals, lead chaste lives in word and deed.

    I hope you would agree though that in our hearts and thoughts all of us are far, far, from chaste. And because of this Susan, you and I both deserve the same punishment and eternal exile as those who use sex in a hurtful way towards their neighbor in violation of God’s Will.

  • fws

    susan @ 219

    If you would get past the fact that I am a gay man and read what I say without reading into what I say, waiting for some other self-justifying shoe to drop, you would be saying none of this dear sister in Christ.

    You don’t know my personal life and what the sins are that I commit in word and deed that require repentence. The fact that I am a homosexual tells you none of this dear sister. Like others like me, I became aware that I was homosexual around age 6 or so. Sexual acts were one possible, but not inevitable consequence of that. You are right. Many persons, including homosexuals, lead chaste lives in word and deed.

    I hope you would agree though that in our hearts and thoughts all of us are far, far, from chaste. And because of this Susan, you and I both deserve the same punishment and eternal exile as those who use sex in a hurtful way towards their neighbor in violation of God’s Will.

  • fws

    susan @ 219

    who is it between us that is doing “identity politics”.

    I am saying that the Bible knows of no categories called homosexual OR heterosexual. homosexuality is not identified, or singled-out/classified anywhere in scripture. But dont miss this: Neither is heterosexuality.

    The constant and unitary assumption in the bible is that every man there is a) married to a female, and b) is such because he is ordinarily attracted, sexually to a female.

    So where are the identity politics in that assertion?

    From that I keep insisting Susan that homosexuals are NO different than you are. Not in any way whatsover. Not in their desires for a relationship or sex. Not in their manner or motives for seeking sex and a relationship. None of that is ANY different than you Susan. You are exactly like your homosexual or lesbian neighbor. Identically human in every way you can name.

    So where is the “Identity politics ” in that assertion, which is biblical?

    It is not there. It is you that is claiming that homos are somehow different than you are!

  • fws

    susan @ 219

    who is it between us that is doing “identity politics”.

    I am saying that the Bible knows of no categories called homosexual OR heterosexual. homosexuality is not identified, or singled-out/classified anywhere in scripture. But dont miss this: Neither is heterosexuality.

    The constant and unitary assumption in the bible is that every man there is a) married to a female, and b) is such because he is ordinarily attracted, sexually to a female.

    So where are the identity politics in that assertion?

    From that I keep insisting Susan that homosexuals are NO different than you are. Not in any way whatsover. Not in their desires for a relationship or sex. Not in their manner or motives for seeking sex and a relationship. None of that is ANY different than you Susan. You are exactly like your homosexual or lesbian neighbor. Identically human in every way you can name.

    So where is the “Identity politics ” in that assertion, which is biblical?

    It is not there. It is you that is claiming that homos are somehow different than you are!

  • fws

    susan @ 219.

    what, precisely, is the truth you feel I am dodging. You really have not defined that have you?

    You use the word sodomy but you dont define it and you are not telling me what you think that word has to do with my life or person are you?

    I never used that word or gave any opinion on it beyond giving you the dictionary definition of it. Which is anal sex between man and woman or man and man. lesbians of course would be exempted here right?

  • fws

    susan @ 219.

    what, precisely, is the truth you feel I am dodging. You really have not defined that have you?

    You use the word sodomy but you dont define it and you are not telling me what you think that word has to do with my life or person are you?

    I never used that word or gave any opinion on it beyond giving you the dictionary definition of it. Which is anal sex between man and woman or man and man. lesbians of course would be exempted here right?

  • fws

    Susan @219

    Do you want to yell at me and talk AT me, or would you like to talk to me, as a fellow baptized believer in Christ our gentle Lord?

    I am inviting you to do the second with me dear sister. And I have not accused you of any hidden motive or judge your intentions. I could have. That would have been sinful to do. I am responding only to what you write, trying not to read into it your intentions.

  • fws

    Susan @219

    Do you want to yell at me and talk AT me, or would you like to talk to me, as a fellow baptized believer in Christ our gentle Lord?

    I am inviting you to do the second with me dear sister. And I have not accused you of any hidden motive or judge your intentions. I could have. That would have been sinful to do. I am responding only to what you write, trying not to read into it your intentions.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    I base my comments on what you have written and nothing else. You are the one who says you are a homosexual and the expert on all things homosexual. Now, you shift and make arguments about the words homosexuality and heterosexuality that are as silly as using arguments against the Trinity because it’s not in the bible. Bunk. You also try to shift by now arguing that others want to say you are different than anyone else. More bunk and dodging.

    It remains unacceptable to try to smuggle your erroneous understanding of sexuality into the church under the guise of “dare to be Lutheran.” That you would twist Luther, the confessions, and the bible to support your errors is what sinners do when they do not want to face the truth. You are looking for loopholes to support your errors and want to drag us into straining gnats and swallowing camels with you. No thanks. Instead, I would point you to the foundational errors that twist your understanding. And that is your erroneous understanding of identity and sex (which you are well aware is unacceptable to orthodox Lutherans). The problem is that you are blind to how it creeps into and colors your understanding of Luther, the confessions, and the bible.

    The use of the world’s understanding of homosexuality as an identity is what it is. The faux justification of saying this is an identity that began early in life is bunk. We are sinners from birth. Substitute the word liar for homosexual and you get the same results as you are trying to promote. The child begins lying at an early age. Some become ensnared by it and become compulsive liars. It is a besetting sin not an identity to wear. If we are in Christ, we are sinner/saints in this world and don’t wear our dominate sinful proclivities as identities. We are all alike in seeking to resist our sinful desires. We agree with God about our sin and receive forgiveness. The problem is that you refuse to agree with orthodox understandings and hold to error. It skews the rest of your understanding.

    Lastly, the silliness of claiming you are being yelled at is bunk. Trying to mute the problems you being addressed with by claiming someone isn’t being nice enough for your tastebuds and implying people must walk on eggshells with you is more bunk.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    I base my comments on what you have written and nothing else. You are the one who says you are a homosexual and the expert on all things homosexual. Now, you shift and make arguments about the words homosexuality and heterosexuality that are as silly as using arguments against the Trinity because it’s not in the bible. Bunk. You also try to shift by now arguing that others want to say you are different than anyone else. More bunk and dodging.

    It remains unacceptable to try to smuggle your erroneous understanding of sexuality into the church under the guise of “dare to be Lutheran.” That you would twist Luther, the confessions, and the bible to support your errors is what sinners do when they do not want to face the truth. You are looking for loopholes to support your errors and want to drag us into straining gnats and swallowing camels with you. No thanks. Instead, I would point you to the foundational errors that twist your understanding. And that is your erroneous understanding of identity and sex (which you are well aware is unacceptable to orthodox Lutherans). The problem is that you are blind to how it creeps into and colors your understanding of Luther, the confessions, and the bible.

    The use of the world’s understanding of homosexuality as an identity is what it is. The faux justification of saying this is an identity that began early in life is bunk. We are sinners from birth. Substitute the word liar for homosexual and you get the same results as you are trying to promote. The child begins lying at an early age. Some become ensnared by it and become compulsive liars. It is a besetting sin not an identity to wear. If we are in Christ, we are sinner/saints in this world and don’t wear our dominate sinful proclivities as identities. We are all alike in seeking to resist our sinful desires. We agree with God about our sin and receive forgiveness. The problem is that you refuse to agree with orthodox understandings and hold to error. It skews the rest of your understanding.

    Lastly, the silliness of claiming you are being yelled at is bunk. Trying to mute the problems you being addressed with by claiming someone isn’t being nice enough for your tastebuds and implying people must walk on eggshells with you is more bunk.

  • fws

    susan @ 224

    So I am right you are saying,. You are putting words into my mouth. And you are implying to me that you will insist on continuing this improper behavior.

    1) ” You are the one who says you are a homosexual and the expert on all things homosexual.” Silly. You are similary an expert on heterosexuality? I made no such claim did I? Fact.

    2)” Now, you shift . ” Shift from what argument ? You are talking AT me again. Not to me.

    3) “…and make [silly] arguments about the words homosexuality and heterosexuality. [This is the same as saying that the trinity does not exist because it is not in the bible].” I am not saying that homosexuality, as defined by the medical community since it is a medical term defined in 1980 does not exist. That is not my argument Susan. Try again. See if you can do something called nuance.

    4) ” You also try to shift by now arguing that others want to say you are different than anyone else.” I am addressing susan, not some anonymous “others”. So you are saying that you are exactly the same as homosexuals and lesbians. Cool. I agree! That is one less point of disagreement between us. Peacemakers are blessed by God. Those who actively seek out confrontation are not.

    Let’s talk to one another respectfully Susan. I am not dismissive of your or your opinions. I am responding to them and not just yelling “bunk”.

    Saying that something is does not make it so. One needs to demonstrate that what they are saying is true.

    When you talk to someone in person, do you approach that person with this same attitude? Or does the mask of anonymity allow this?

    Being polite and speaking with modesty to others is required by God. Being righteously right does not excuse us from this obligation Susan. I too am guilty and am pot calling kettle black therefore. But what I just said is still true even though I am the one saying it.

  • fws

    susan @ 224

    So I am right you are saying,. You are putting words into my mouth. And you are implying to me that you will insist on continuing this improper behavior.

    1) ” You are the one who says you are a homosexual and the expert on all things homosexual.” Silly. You are similary an expert on heterosexuality? I made no such claim did I? Fact.

    2)” Now, you shift . ” Shift from what argument ? You are talking AT me again. Not to me.

    3) “…and make [silly] arguments about the words homosexuality and heterosexuality. [This is the same as saying that the trinity does not exist because it is not in the bible].” I am not saying that homosexuality, as defined by the medical community since it is a medical term defined in 1980 does not exist. That is not my argument Susan. Try again. See if you can do something called nuance.

    4) ” You also try to shift by now arguing that others want to say you are different than anyone else.” I am addressing susan, not some anonymous “others”. So you are saying that you are exactly the same as homosexuals and lesbians. Cool. I agree! That is one less point of disagreement between us. Peacemakers are blessed by God. Those who actively seek out confrontation are not.

    Let’s talk to one another respectfully Susan. I am not dismissive of your or your opinions. I am responding to them and not just yelling “bunk”.

    Saying that something is does not make it so. One needs to demonstrate that what they are saying is true.

    When you talk to someone in person, do you approach that person with this same attitude? Or does the mask of anonymity allow this?

    Being polite and speaking with modesty to others is required by God. Being righteously right does not excuse us from this obligation Susan. I too am guilty and am pot calling kettle black therefore. But what I just said is still true even though I am the one saying it.

  • fws

    susan @ 224

    “implying people must walk on eggshells with you is more bunk.”

    Imply. So here you agree that this not what I said. I am inviting you to speak to me in a modest and loving tone.

    And I am inviting you to expect and demand the same of me.

    We are to win over other to the Truth with meekness and love.

    Again: being righteously right does not excuse us from this command of God Susan. This is especially truewhen we can hide this sin behind the anonymity of the internet.

    If you are right, you are vitiating and destroying any good you could do with your posture. Who is going to listen to someone who is attacking and shrill? Do you listen to anyone approaching you in that way? No. You don’t.

    So what are your intentions towards me here?

  • fws

    susan @ 224

    “implying people must walk on eggshells with you is more bunk.”

    Imply. So here you agree that this not what I said. I am inviting you to speak to me in a modest and loving tone.

    And I am inviting you to expect and demand the same of me.

    We are to win over other to the Truth with meekness and love.

    Again: being righteously right does not excuse us from this command of God Susan. This is especially truewhen we can hide this sin behind the anonymity of the internet.

    If you are right, you are vitiating and destroying any good you could do with your posture. Who is going to listen to someone who is attacking and shrill? Do you listen to anyone approaching you in that way? No. You don’t.

    So what are your intentions towards me here?

  • fws

    susan @ 224

    You seem to claim to be a lutheran. what is it in anything you have written so far would be evidence that that is so? You seem to be a roman catholic.

  • fws

    susan @ 224

    You seem to claim to be a lutheran. what is it in anything you have written so far would be evidence that that is so? You seem to be a roman catholic.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    Like it or not, my comments are based upon your statements in online comments that go back as far as February of this year. Trying to obfuscate the meaning of plain words, or shift the subject, or deny valid assessments will not change anything. To continue to claim you are being yelled at or mistreated remains bunk. To claim that you are being spoken to plainly and there is a refusal to indulge your demand to be coddled and go down rabbit paths with you would be true. My comments stand.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    Like it or not, my comments are based upon your statements in online comments that go back as far as February of this year. Trying to obfuscate the meaning of plain words, or shift the subject, or deny valid assessments will not change anything. To continue to claim you are being yelled at or mistreated remains bunk. To claim that you are being spoken to plainly and there is a refusal to indulge your demand to be coddled and go down rabbit paths with you would be true. My comments stand.

  • fws

    susan @228

    your vague reference to comments over a large time span is pointless. This is not to speak to me “plainly”.

    yeah. I am saying that the words ‘meek’ and ‘modest ‘ do not in any way characterize your words here. And your response is that you dont care. You are have nothing at all to repent of. To be meek or loving or charitable in your words would be to coddle me. It would be wrong to do that you are saying.

    Ahem.

    wherever you have quoted me specifically you have misquoted me.

    Further exchange would be pointless I am sure you agree. Have a nice day Susan.

    God bless susan.

  • fws

    susan @228

    your vague reference to comments over a large time span is pointless. This is not to speak to me “plainly”.

    yeah. I am saying that the words ‘meek’ and ‘modest ‘ do not in any way characterize your words here. And your response is that you dont care. You are have nothing at all to repent of. To be meek or loving or charitable in your words would be to coddle me. It would be wrong to do that you are saying.

    Ahem.

    wherever you have quoted me specifically you have misquoted me.

    Further exchange would be pointless I am sure you agree. Have a nice day Susan.

    God bless susan.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    Trying to hide behind claims that only words that you deem meek, humble, or loving are acceptable is a fig leaf. So is hiding from correction from a long history of being corrected by a litany of orthodox Lutherans. There is a habitual pattern of claiming you are misquoted, misunderstood, and so forth. To attempt to justify ignoring repeated corrections by saying we are all sinners is more hiding. If you don’t like being confronted by these habitual patterns in your online comments, so be it. Love often tells the truth without mollycoddling, indifference would lie or ignore the problem.

  • Susan

    @fws,

    Trying to hide behind claims that only words that you deem meek, humble, or loving are acceptable is a fig leaf. So is hiding from correction from a long history of being corrected by a litany of orthodox Lutherans. There is a habitual pattern of claiming you are misquoted, misunderstood, and so forth. To attempt to justify ignoring repeated corrections by saying we are all sinners is more hiding. If you don’t like being confronted by these habitual patterns in your online comments, so be it. Love often tells the truth without mollycoddling, indifference would lie or ignore the problem.

  • fws

    susan @230

    whatever.

  • fws

    susan @230

    whatever.

  • Grace

    fws @ 218

    “Luther did not know that homosexuality or even heterosexuality even existed. He would say that it is heterosexuals doing this. But he would not have considered that a category.”

    “Luther did not know that homosexuality or even heterosexuality even existed”? Luther knew the difference. What kind of nonsensical gibberish are you trying to sell now? The Bible is clear in Romans 1, and other places regarding homosexuality (and YES fws, it was not called homosexuality in Luther’s day) Luther knew, and you now you feel competent to speak for Luther? – as though he was a dumb one?

    Susan is right, you love to identify yourself as a homosexual, as OFTEN AS POSSIBLE, you talk about yourself all the time. The blog is full of your me, me, me, routine as a homosexual.

    Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

    “When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

    And you fws, claim that Martin Luther didn’t know about homosexuality, or whatever he, or others called it, including the farce of “same sex marriage” –

    WAKE UP!

  • Grace

    fws @ 218

    “Luther did not know that homosexuality or even heterosexuality even existed. He would say that it is heterosexuals doing this. But he would not have considered that a category.”

    “Luther did not know that homosexuality or even heterosexuality even existed”? Luther knew the difference. What kind of nonsensical gibberish are you trying to sell now? The Bible is clear in Romans 1, and other places regarding homosexuality (and YES fws, it was not called homosexuality in Luther’s day) Luther knew, and you now you feel competent to speak for Luther? – as though he was a dumb one?

    Susan is right, you love to identify yourself as a homosexual, as OFTEN AS POSSIBLE, you talk about yourself all the time. The blog is full of your me, me, me, routine as a homosexual.

    Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

    “When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

    And you fws, claim that Martin Luther didn’t know about homosexuality, or whatever he, or others called it, including the farce of “same sex marriage” –

    WAKE UP!

  • Pingback: My issues with Issues ETC. « theology like a child

  • Pingback: My issues with Issues ETC. « theology like a child


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X