What is a Lutheran?

Anthony Sacramone tells about his own spiritual history, his current frustrations in trying to find a Lutheran congregation, and various theological difficulties.  He closes by asking “what is a Lutheran?” and asks for help in sorting through all of this.

The man is a great humorist, but this is a plaintive post.  His experiences are important for us Missouri Synod types to face up to, how in our doctrinal purity we sometimes scare people off and drive them away even when they desperately want and are open to precisely what we can give them–Christ, the Gospel, the Sacraments. And can anyone help him with his search for a congregation that would put up with him and vice versa?  (I do know that Lutheran identity is, in practice, more flexible than it is sometimes presented and that congregations vary a lot, in some positive as well as negative ways.  He lives in New York City, a small town when it comes to the number of Missouri Synod Lutherans.  But perhaps some of you could give him suggestions.)

If I send you over to his blog Strange Herring, will you help him and not attack him?

If so, here is the link:  Nadia Bolz-Weber and Lutheran Identity « Strange Herring.

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.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, man. I haven’t gone there yet, but just invoking Nadia Bolz-Weber says we’re talking about a rather wide ranging discussion of Lutheranism.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, man. I haven’t gone there yet, but just invoking Nadia Bolz-Weber says we’re talking about a rather wide ranging discussion of Lutheranism.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    General godly rule of thumb in seeking a church home – go to the closest local congregation of an orthodox synod (cf the Lutheran confessions) and try your best to fit in. Consider this: to start with, they’ll probably find you as strange as you find them. Ask not what the congregation can do for you but what you can do for the congregation (i.e. it’s not just about you and your preferences!). Once you join, stay there; never leave of your own accord unless you move into another parish – trust that God has placed you where he wants you to be for his own good reasons.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    General godly rule of thumb in seeking a church home – go to the closest local congregation of an orthodox synod (cf the Lutheran confessions) and try your best to fit in. Consider this: to start with, they’ll probably find you as strange as you find them. Ask not what the congregation can do for you but what you can do for the congregation (i.e. it’s not just about you and your preferences!). Once you join, stay there; never leave of your own accord unless you move into another parish – trust that God has placed you where he wants you to be for his own good reasons.

  • Kathy

    Pastor Henderson, while I agree with your suggestions to find an orthodox congregation, close to your home, and to stay where God has put you, I don’t agree that a new member’s job is to just do what he can for the congregation.

    In the article linked above, Anthony Sacramone tells about Lutherans not being friendly and welcoming to visitors. A visitor’s job is not to find his place in the congregation. Confessional Lutherans should know their sin and the grace of the cross to such an extent that they can’t help but show that grace, love, and welcome to people who visit their church. The visitor may not even be a Christian, let alone a Lutheran. Or, the Lutheran visitor may be going through some awful crisis and need prayer, fellowship, and love. Been there.

  • Kathy

    Pastor Henderson, while I agree with your suggestions to find an orthodox congregation, close to your home, and to stay where God has put you, I don’t agree that a new member’s job is to just do what he can for the congregation.

    In the article linked above, Anthony Sacramone tells about Lutherans not being friendly and welcoming to visitors. A visitor’s job is not to find his place in the congregation. Confessional Lutherans should know their sin and the grace of the cross to such an extent that they can’t help but show that grace, love, and welcome to people who visit their church. The visitor may not even be a Christian, let alone a Lutheran. Or, the Lutheran visitor may be going through some awful crisis and need prayer, fellowship, and love. Been there.

  • Tom Hering

    Ask not what the congregation can do for you … (@ 2)

    No, don’t ask the congregation, but do ask the Lord. You’re there for the Gospel – to receive what the Gospel freely offers you. If the Gospel isn’t what the local church is all about, then there’s absolutely no reason to be there, no matter what the name above the door says. Whatever else a local church offers – like opportunities for service – you can probably find a better version of it out in the world.

  • Tom Hering

    Ask not what the congregation can do for you … (@ 2)

    No, don’t ask the congregation, but do ask the Lord. You’re there for the Gospel – to receive what the Gospel freely offers you. If the Gospel isn’t what the local church is all about, then there’s absolutely no reason to be there, no matter what the name above the door says. Whatever else a local church offers – like opportunities for service – you can probably find a better version of it out in the world.

  • Jim_777

    Get a copy of Pieper’s Dogmatics. Read it and believe it. If you accept what is contained in those books, you are an orthodox, confessional Lutheran. Put another way, anyone who believes in God’s inerrant, infallible Word and unreservedly subscribes to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is an orthodox, confessional Lutheran. Anyone who does not, is not.

    As far as Mr. Sacramone’s blog posting, in my view his problem as one of trust. He asks if he has to believe in the Biblical account of creation. God’s Word forbids belief in evolution. Death simply did not exist before the Fall. So Mr. Sacramone can choose to believe God or man. If he wishes to be Lutheran, he must believe God. The same is true for all his other questions. To be an orthodox, confessional Lutheran, he must believe God. If the Bible teaches heliocentrism and man does not, then he must believe it.

    The matter is simple, if not easy. There are no possible caveats or evasions. Anyone who believes in the Bible as God’s inerrant, infallible Word and subscribes unconditionally to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is an orthodox, confessional Lutheran. Anyone who does not or will not, is not.

  • Jim_777

    Get a copy of Pieper’s Dogmatics. Read it and believe it. If you accept what is contained in those books, you are an orthodox, confessional Lutheran. Put another way, anyone who believes in God’s inerrant, infallible Word and unreservedly subscribes to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is an orthodox, confessional Lutheran. Anyone who does not, is not.

    As far as Mr. Sacramone’s blog posting, in my view his problem as one of trust. He asks if he has to believe in the Biblical account of creation. God’s Word forbids belief in evolution. Death simply did not exist before the Fall. So Mr. Sacramone can choose to believe God or man. If he wishes to be Lutheran, he must believe God. The same is true for all his other questions. To be an orthodox, confessional Lutheran, he must believe God. If the Bible teaches heliocentrism and man does not, then he must believe it.

    The matter is simple, if not easy. There are no possible caveats or evasions. Anyone who believes in the Bible as God’s inerrant, infallible Word and subscribes unconditionally to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is an orthodox, confessional Lutheran. Anyone who does not or will not, is not.

  • Tom Hering

    Yeah. Read Pieper before you die. Or it’s Lutheran limbo for you. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Yeah. Read Pieper before you die. Or it’s Lutheran limbo for you. :-D

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

    I have enjoyed Pieper’s Dogmatics. I’d Hardly make them a litmus test of Lutheran orthodoxy. I’ve never gotten my jands on the original german. But based on what i ‘ve seen of J.T. Mueller’s other hack jobs o wouldn’t even think they are close to accurate depictions of what Pieper wrote especially where the word of God is concerned as a doctrine. He butchered that doctrine in Walther’s work routinely.

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

    I have enjoyed Pieper’s Dogmatics. I’d Hardly make them a litmus test of Lutheran orthodoxy. I’ve never gotten my jands on the original german. But based on what i ‘ve seen of J.T. Mueller’s other hack jobs o wouldn’t even think they are close to accurate depictions of what Pieper wrote especially where the word of God is concerned as a doctrine. He butchered that doctrine in Walther’s work routinely.

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

    Eric Brown over at strange Herring makes Luther’s Small cathechism the defining document. And more or less I ‘m there with him.

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

    Eric Brown over at strange Herring makes Luther’s Small cathechism the defining document. And more or less I ‘m there with him.

  • Jim_777

    God has blessed us with a beautiful, exhaustive explication of our orthodox doctrine, but certain people don’t want to us it as a standard. If not Pieper, what standard shall we employ? Everyone’s personal opinion and feelings? The reason the dogmatics text exists is to provide us with a standard. For those who reject Pieper as a standard of confessional orthodoxy, I would like to know where exactly he errs and departs from the pure doctrine. If he does not, then why refuse to use his dogmatics as a viable standard for orthodoxy?

  • Jim_777

    God has blessed us with a beautiful, exhaustive explication of our orthodox doctrine, but certain people don’t want to us it as a standard. If not Pieper, what standard shall we employ? Everyone’s personal opinion and feelings? The reason the dogmatics text exists is to provide us with a standard. For those who reject Pieper as a standard of confessional orthodoxy, I would like to know where exactly he errs and departs from the pure doctrine. If he does not, then why refuse to use his dogmatics as a viable standard for orthodoxy?

  • Pete

    Sacramone’s odyssey (chronicled in his unique fashion) is such a common story line: Raised in a church that, as a youth, seemed to him to be stuffy and uninteresting. Left to wander (agnosticism, evangelicalism, etc.) The supposed strictures of the church of his youth (in his case Lutheran) came to look better to him as he matured into an understanding of their true value. It’s the whole prodigal son/Pinocchio thing. Strikes me as a bit of an indictment of our culture’s deference to youth. Other cultures (ours, for that matter) at other times have had the wisdom to not be so deferential to youth and to say, “stick with this thing – it seems boring and irrelevant to you now, but you’re going to just have to trust us that it is, in fact, anything but.” A variation on this is Bolz-Weber’s story, as well. And if memory serves me well, from reading “The Spirituality of the Cross” it’s the path of our esteemed blogmeister. And countless others.

  • Pete

    Sacramone’s odyssey (chronicled in his unique fashion) is such a common story line: Raised in a church that, as a youth, seemed to him to be stuffy and uninteresting. Left to wander (agnosticism, evangelicalism, etc.) The supposed strictures of the church of his youth (in his case Lutheran) came to look better to him as he matured into an understanding of their true value. It’s the whole prodigal son/Pinocchio thing. Strikes me as a bit of an indictment of our culture’s deference to youth. Other cultures (ours, for that matter) at other times have had the wisdom to not be so deferential to youth and to say, “stick with this thing – it seems boring and irrelevant to you now, but you’re going to just have to trust us that it is, in fact, anything but.” A variation on this is Bolz-Weber’s story, as well. And if memory serves me well, from reading “The Spirituality of the Cross” it’s the path of our esteemed blogmeister. And countless others.

  • Jim_777

    The Small Catechism is wonderful, but it is hardly exhaustive (and of course wasn’t meant to be). I’m sure many ELCA’ers claim to accept the SC, but no one could credibly call a member of an ELCA congregation orthodox. That’s why the Pieper standard is valuable. He exhaustively explores our doctrine, leaving no room for personal interpretation. That’s a good thing. We are never called to create anything new, but rather only to repeat what was said by God through the prophets and apostles. That said, anyone is free to disagree with Pieper, but to do so and remain orthodox, he must demonstrate how Pieper has departed from the pure doctrine. A person who fails to demonstrate a departure from orthodoxy and yet disagrees, is simply unorthodox.

  • Jim_777

    The Small Catechism is wonderful, but it is hardly exhaustive (and of course wasn’t meant to be). I’m sure many ELCA’ers claim to accept the SC, but no one could credibly call a member of an ELCA congregation orthodox. That’s why the Pieper standard is valuable. He exhaustively explores our doctrine, leaving no room for personal interpretation. That’s a good thing. We are never called to create anything new, but rather only to repeat what was said by God through the prophets and apostles. That said, anyone is free to disagree with Pieper, but to do so and remain orthodox, he must demonstrate how Pieper has departed from the pure doctrine. A person who fails to demonstrate a departure from orthodoxy and yet disagrees, is simply unorthodox.

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

    I think it would be important to be aware that Nadia is not simply a lady pastor with body art, she is a very enthusiastic and outspoken support of the LGBTQ agenda.

    I think it is very important to understand that a person is able to give expression to Lutheran-sounding themes, while being rather completely disconnected from the truth of Sacred Scripture.

    Why is that?

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

    I think it would be important to be aware that Nadia is not simply a lady pastor with body art, she is a very enthusiastic and outspoken support of the LGBTQ agenda.

    I think it is very important to understand that a person is able to give expression to Lutheran-sounding themes, while being rather completely disconnected from the truth of Sacred Scripture.

    Why is that?

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Some of us ELCA’ers believe that we are orthodox in our Lutheran understanding of the confessions. But I can certainly see why many other Lutherans do think there are any of us left.

    We would say that Lutherans who have a Southern Baptist doctrine of the Word are unorthodox.

    For what it is worth, I’d say that there aren’t very many ELCA congregations left that I would join. Our congregation is in the process of deciding whether or not to leave, and where to go. Most want to leave but we don’t want to railroad the others without airing all the facts and discussing all the scenarios that we are able.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Some of us ELCA’ers believe that we are orthodox in our Lutheran understanding of the confessions. But I can certainly see why many other Lutherans do think there are any of us left.

    We would say that Lutherans who have a Southern Baptist doctrine of the Word are unorthodox.

    For what it is worth, I’d say that there aren’t very many ELCA congregations left that I would join. Our congregation is in the process of deciding whether or not to leave, and where to go. Most want to leave but we don’t want to railroad the others without airing all the facts and discussing all the scenarios that we are able.

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

    The point I’m making is that simply mouthing “Lutheran sounding” sound bites and phrases, no matter how engagingly presented or skillfully delivered, is pointless when one embraces a completely and fundamentally different view of mankind than that presented in Sacred Scripture and the consensus of the church catholic through the ages, which is precisely what the ELCA has now done. In other words, terms, phrases, concepts are filled with different meanings.

    This is why the ELCA has truly embraced apostasy, in its most elementary meaning.

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

    The point I’m making is that simply mouthing “Lutheran sounding” sound bites and phrases, no matter how engagingly presented or skillfully delivered, is pointless when one embraces a completely and fundamentally different view of mankind than that presented in Sacred Scripture and the consensus of the church catholic through the ages, which is precisely what the ELCA has now done. In other words, terms, phrases, concepts are filled with different meanings.

    This is why the ELCA has truly embraced apostasy, in its most elementary meaning.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Sacramone is addressing something I have lamented since becoming a Lutheran, that conservative Lutherans can be very insular and extremely mean. Baptist fundamentalists have nothing on some of those in our ranks. I have seen many people walk away from Lutheranism after investigating our churches, and not receiving even a modicum of courtesy or good will. It was not too long ago when a prominent blogger many of us know and read embraced Lutheranism, and was pilloried because he did not choose the LCMS as his home. This happened in spite of him putting up several good and orthodox posts promoting and defending Lutheranism to his readership of several hundred thousand non Lutherans. All some of our brethren could do was publicly scold him and call into question his faith because he didn’t join the ‘right’ Synod. It was sickening, and made me despair as I read the commentary of non Lutherans showing their disgust for this man’s sad treatment at the hands of his new found ‘brothers.’ Of course our rabid, self appointed doctrine police saw nothing wrong (and still don’t) with their scandalous treatment of this man. I wish I could say that this was the only time I have seen stuff like this, but sadly, it is not.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Sacramone is addressing something I have lamented since becoming a Lutheran, that conservative Lutherans can be very insular and extremely mean. Baptist fundamentalists have nothing on some of those in our ranks. I have seen many people walk away from Lutheranism after investigating our churches, and not receiving even a modicum of courtesy or good will. It was not too long ago when a prominent blogger many of us know and read embraced Lutheranism, and was pilloried because he did not choose the LCMS as his home. This happened in spite of him putting up several good and orthodox posts promoting and defending Lutheranism to his readership of several hundred thousand non Lutherans. All some of our brethren could do was publicly scold him and call into question his faith because he didn’t join the ‘right’ Synod. It was sickening, and made me despair as I read the commentary of non Lutherans showing their disgust for this man’s sad treatment at the hands of his new found ‘brothers.’ Of course our rabid, self appointed doctrine police saw nothing wrong (and still don’t) with their scandalous treatment of this man. I wish I could say that this was the only time I have seen stuff like this, but sadly, it is not.

  • Jim_777

    I’m not familiar with the situation you’re referring to, Mr. Kyle, so I can’t excuse or condemn the conduct that you’re criticizing. You may be correct that people behaved badly and violated the 8th. If so, that’s wrong.

    As to the point about Lutherans being unfriendly, that may in some cases be true. I certainly agree that congregants should be friendly and welcoming to all visitors. There’s no reason not be so. The Lutheran Church is the true visible church on earth. We should want everyone to join!

    However, as a general point, it matters whom we associate with. To claim orthodoxy while knowingly joining a heterodox communion calls that claim into serious question. Orthodox Lutherans should never make common theological cause with people who trample and disregard the pure doctrine. It may certainly be the case that a person may hold orthodox views while unknowingly being a member of a heterodox body. However, as soon as a person becomes aware of the heterodox nature of his fellows, he is required to disassociate himself from that communion and seek an orthodox port. Doctrine, after all, is life. Toleration of false doctrine is a blasphemy against God.

  • Jim_777

    I’m not familiar with the situation you’re referring to, Mr. Kyle, so I can’t excuse or condemn the conduct that you’re criticizing. You may be correct that people behaved badly and violated the 8th. If so, that’s wrong.

    As to the point about Lutherans being unfriendly, that may in some cases be true. I certainly agree that congregants should be friendly and welcoming to all visitors. There’s no reason not be so. The Lutheran Church is the true visible church on earth. We should want everyone to join!

    However, as a general point, it matters whom we associate with. To claim orthodoxy while knowingly joining a heterodox communion calls that claim into serious question. Orthodox Lutherans should never make common theological cause with people who trample and disregard the pure doctrine. It may certainly be the case that a person may hold orthodox views while unknowingly being a member of a heterodox body. However, as soon as a person becomes aware of the heterodox nature of his fellows, he is required to disassociate himself from that communion and seek an orthodox port. Doctrine, after all, is life. Toleration of false doctrine is a blasphemy against God.

  • SKPeterson

    Pr McCain @ 14 – Which is why I picked my family up and departed the ELCA in 2009 for Missouri. I couldn’t call myself a Lutheran in good conscience and stay in the ELCA, but I know some who have. And it is almost precisely for the reasons Pr. Henderson cites @ 2. They are members of a congregation that they have been a part of for decades and they are members of that congregation first, and the ELCA second, or even third. My parents have stayed put in the ELCA, which probably goes more toward their native Swedish stubbornness (to which I also credit my leaving, as I decided to stubbornly stay Lutheran) as well as the typical ELCA rumor-mongering about LCMS “closed-mindedness.” Which, sadly, Anthony Sacramone’s experience shows is alive and well in some parts. At the same time, the ELCA no longer bears much resemblance to even the LCA that I grew up in (and which shockingly taught me pretty well the tenets of the SC to the extent that I could take what I learned then and there in the old LCA and find the “doctrine” of the ELCA desperately wanting), much less the old Augustana and Church of Sweden that my parents and grandparents knew. Now, none of that really remains, my mother cannot and will not give to her alma mater, Gustavus, because of its rampant apostasy and promotion of rank immorality.

  • SKPeterson

    Pr McCain @ 14 – Which is why I picked my family up and departed the ELCA in 2009 for Missouri. I couldn’t call myself a Lutheran in good conscience and stay in the ELCA, but I know some who have. And it is almost precisely for the reasons Pr. Henderson cites @ 2. They are members of a congregation that they have been a part of for decades and they are members of that congregation first, and the ELCA second, or even third. My parents have stayed put in the ELCA, which probably goes more toward their native Swedish stubbornness (to which I also credit my leaving, as I decided to stubbornly stay Lutheran) as well as the typical ELCA rumor-mongering about LCMS “closed-mindedness.” Which, sadly, Anthony Sacramone’s experience shows is alive and well in some parts. At the same time, the ELCA no longer bears much resemblance to even the LCA that I grew up in (and which shockingly taught me pretty well the tenets of the SC to the extent that I could take what I learned then and there in the old LCA and find the “doctrine” of the ELCA desperately wanting), much less the old Augustana and Church of Sweden that my parents and grandparents knew. Now, none of that really remains, my mother cannot and will not give to her alma mater, Gustavus, because of its rampant apostasy and promotion of rank immorality.

  • Joe

    SKP — I also left the ELCA as an adult. It took me another decade to pry my folks (read stubborn Norwegian father) out of there. I missed the mark a bit as they ended up in the WELS (no offense tODD). It was a horrible decade filled with fights and shouting and then, worst of all, the inability to discuss my faith with the man who taught it to me, who took me to church every Sunday, who stopped on the way to pick up his friend’s kids to make sure they made it to church even though his friend had fallen away, who served as one of my Sunday school teachers. But in the end, I was able to rejoice that my parents left the ELCA. It was a horrible decade, but it was worth it.

  • Joe

    SKP — I also left the ELCA as an adult. It took me another decade to pry my folks (read stubborn Norwegian father) out of there. I missed the mark a bit as they ended up in the WELS (no offense tODD). It was a horrible decade filled with fights and shouting and then, worst of all, the inability to discuss my faith with the man who taught it to me, who took me to church every Sunday, who stopped on the way to pick up his friend’s kids to make sure they made it to church even though his friend had fallen away, who served as one of my Sunday school teachers. But in the end, I was able to rejoice that my parents left the ELCA. It was a horrible decade, but it was worth it.

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

    Patrick Kyle, how they should confessional Lutherans react when a man chooses to become a pastor in a church body that has walked away not merely from historic Lutheranism, but from even the most broad understanding of “Mere Christianity.”

    Is it “mean” and “nasty” to decry the fact that the man has chosen to become a pastor in such a church body? This is not a layperson choosing, out of ignorance, to join a given church.

    It is my opinion that you are missing the mark in your harsh criticisms of any/all who did not simply cheer when a man chose to join a church body that is continuing to betray what it means to be Lutheran, and what is more, even to embrace a theology that is contrary to Christianity, representing an apostasy from the very meaning of what is to be human, man and woman, etc.

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

    Patrick Kyle, how they should confessional Lutherans react when a man chooses to become a pastor in a church body that has walked away not merely from historic Lutheranism, but from even the most broad understanding of “Mere Christianity.”

    Is it “mean” and “nasty” to decry the fact that the man has chosen to become a pastor in such a church body? This is not a layperson choosing, out of ignorance, to join a given church.

    It is my opinion that you are missing the mark in your harsh criticisms of any/all who did not simply cheer when a man chose to join a church body that is continuing to betray what it means to be Lutheran, and what is more, even to embrace a theology that is contrary to Christianity, representing an apostasy from the very meaning of what is to be human, man and woman, etc.

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

    We generally tend to bewail perceived/imagined/real sins against the Second Table of the Law, while shrugging at sins against the First Table. Of course, I find this is ironic from a person who continues to sell “Weak on Sanctification” T-shirts. Quite a double standard you have going there, in my view.

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

    We generally tend to bewail perceived/imagined/real sins against the Second Table of the Law, while shrugging at sins against the First Table. Of course, I find this is ironic from a person who continues to sell “Weak on Sanctification” T-shirts. Quite a double standard you have going there, in my view.

  • larry

    There’s a lot of mix a match vent in his concern, but his pain is not false or unreal. Part is simple, and Patrick Kyle is alluding to it, you don’t have to be a jerk. Various levels of unfriendliness versus friendliness come and go in all denominations. Some of the friendliest congregations I’ve been in were the deadliest to the soul. And he’s kind of mixing that up with doctrinal issues. You have to separate those two things.

    If I were faced with this problem I’d boil it down to simplicity, do they administer Word and Sacrament according to Christ. Yes or no. But it gets down to a deeper issue, why do I want to go to church…I need my sins forgiven and I need to know its for real, yes again because I’m an old Adam and it doesn’t stick long or rather the old Adam is such a loud mouth in my head he’s constantly badgering the new man, the truster, to death and reducing him to tears “is it really true”. When it gets there the need for church and what to find gets real short, real real, real essential and real fast. It would be nice if every Lutheran church could smile Joel Ostean but be doctrinally like Luther, this is not generally going to happen. Again, its what do you need, why are you going, real simple. And so I’m going to beat importunately like a nagging jack ass if necessary for Word and Sacrament, even if you are not friendly or until I can find a friendly Word and Sacrament church. Until then I’m the lady in the NT bugging the put off judge to death, “you will absolve me and give me My Lord’s body and blood if I have to stay here and bug the hell out of you until you do”. It boils down to this, don’t let a jackass at the door keep one from the Word and sacrament even if I have to beat on the door until they do. If one does the old adam wins. Sure it would be great if you could get more friendly fellows, and some are, but that should never keep one from what one needs Word and Sacrament. This is nothing new in the church, its history is replete with it. If one has to go to where real Word and Sacrament are and then go drink beer with better agnostic buddies, do so, maybe that’s how they convert?

    That helps the unfriendly thing on the personal level.

    Other doctrinal issues. Same thing. Word and Sacrament, let the other stuff work its way out over time, yea it’s a life time and old Adam is incessant, in myself and in Bob over there that just simply “pisses me off”. It’s part and parcel with the patience of faith, old Adam want’s the answer key to the test questions yesterday so he can work his way to heaven via doctrinal purity, turn Gospel into Law and promises into a to do list. But patience is part and parcel with what Luther said in that if you stay with the revealed God the hidden God will be yours too, just don’t think it will happen like a TV commercial. And yea, its’ going to take some real wrestling with self and others. But for now, keep it simple, Word and Sacrament, one’s soul needs that. You may have to receive Word and Sacrament from the devil’s steaming claw, or a Judas, but its still the Word and still the body and blood of Christ for you. Keep your need simple. So take a break from religion and just go for Word and Sacrament!

    Let Word and Sacrament feed the new man who is being wounded in all this because the old man is trying “work out” all the test questions.

    Of course doctrinal issues and jerks are going to be in the church where Word and Sacrament are, to borrow from a line from Baptist preacher CH Spurgeon when Satan rules a church, “If its very peaceful at a given church one can be certain who holds the keys to the door”, similarly, “Satan never strokes the feathers of his birds in the wrong direction”.

  • larry

    There’s a lot of mix a match vent in his concern, but his pain is not false or unreal. Part is simple, and Patrick Kyle is alluding to it, you don’t have to be a jerk. Various levels of unfriendliness versus friendliness come and go in all denominations. Some of the friendliest congregations I’ve been in were the deadliest to the soul. And he’s kind of mixing that up with doctrinal issues. You have to separate those two things.

    If I were faced with this problem I’d boil it down to simplicity, do they administer Word and Sacrament according to Christ. Yes or no. But it gets down to a deeper issue, why do I want to go to church…I need my sins forgiven and I need to know its for real, yes again because I’m an old Adam and it doesn’t stick long or rather the old Adam is such a loud mouth in my head he’s constantly badgering the new man, the truster, to death and reducing him to tears “is it really true”. When it gets there the need for church and what to find gets real short, real real, real essential and real fast. It would be nice if every Lutheran church could smile Joel Ostean but be doctrinally like Luther, this is not generally going to happen. Again, its what do you need, why are you going, real simple. And so I’m going to beat importunately like a nagging jack ass if necessary for Word and Sacrament, even if you are not friendly or until I can find a friendly Word and Sacrament church. Until then I’m the lady in the NT bugging the put off judge to death, “you will absolve me and give me My Lord’s body and blood if I have to stay here and bug the hell out of you until you do”. It boils down to this, don’t let a jackass at the door keep one from the Word and sacrament even if I have to beat on the door until they do. If one does the old adam wins. Sure it would be great if you could get more friendly fellows, and some are, but that should never keep one from what one needs Word and Sacrament. This is nothing new in the church, its history is replete with it. If one has to go to where real Word and Sacrament are and then go drink beer with better agnostic buddies, do so, maybe that’s how they convert?

    That helps the unfriendly thing on the personal level.

    Other doctrinal issues. Same thing. Word and Sacrament, let the other stuff work its way out over time, yea it’s a life time and old Adam is incessant, in myself and in Bob over there that just simply “pisses me off”. It’s part and parcel with the patience of faith, old Adam want’s the answer key to the test questions yesterday so he can work his way to heaven via doctrinal purity, turn Gospel into Law and promises into a to do list. But patience is part and parcel with what Luther said in that if you stay with the revealed God the hidden God will be yours too, just don’t think it will happen like a TV commercial. And yea, its’ going to take some real wrestling with self and others. But for now, keep it simple, Word and Sacrament, one’s soul needs that. You may have to receive Word and Sacrament from the devil’s steaming claw, or a Judas, but its still the Word and still the body and blood of Christ for you. Keep your need simple. So take a break from religion and just go for Word and Sacrament!

    Let Word and Sacrament feed the new man who is being wounded in all this because the old man is trying “work out” all the test questions.

    Of course doctrinal issues and jerks are going to be in the church where Word and Sacrament are, to borrow from a line from Baptist preacher CH Spurgeon when Satan rules a church, “If its very peaceful at a given church one can be certain who holds the keys to the door”, similarly, “Satan never strokes the feathers of his birds in the wrong direction”.

  • aletheist

    Jim_777@5:

    I finally finished Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics recently; it took me quite a while to get through it. Good stuff, but a very tough read for the average layperson, and subscription to it is not required for anyone, not even LCMS pastors. Rather, the Book of Concord defines what it means to be a Lutheran, especially the Small Catechism (as others have suggested) and Unaltered Augsburg Confession (as you noted). Of course, the Formula of Concord is great for drawing clear distinctions with the Reformed.

    I believe that God created the universe in six 24-hour days several thousand years ago, because that seems to me to be the most natural reading of Genesis. However, I would be interested in finding out what Scripture passage, in your understanding, explicitly “forbids belief in evolution” and states that “Death simply did not exist before the Fall.” I assume that you are applying the latter to all living things, or at least all animals, and not just humans. Thanks in advance for the clarification.

  • aletheist

    Jim_777@5:

    I finally finished Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics recently; it took me quite a while to get through it. Good stuff, but a very tough read for the average layperson, and subscription to it is not required for anyone, not even LCMS pastors. Rather, the Book of Concord defines what it means to be a Lutheran, especially the Small Catechism (as others have suggested) and Unaltered Augsburg Confession (as you noted). Of course, the Formula of Concord is great for drawing clear distinctions with the Reformed.

    I believe that God created the universe in six 24-hour days several thousand years ago, because that seems to me to be the most natural reading of Genesis. However, I would be interested in finding out what Scripture passage, in your understanding, explicitly “forbids belief in evolution” and states that “Death simply did not exist before the Fall.” I assume that you are applying the latter to all living things, or at least all animals, and not just humans. Thanks in advance for the clarification.

  • Jim_777

    I didn’t say that LCMS pastors are required to subscribe to Pieper. I simply said that it is an exhaustive and accurate presentation of Lutheran orthodox doctrine.

    Sin entered God’s perfect creation with the Fall. The wages of sin is death. Before there was sin, there was no death.

  • Jim_777

    I didn’t say that LCMS pastors are required to subscribe to Pieper. I simply said that it is an exhaustive and accurate presentation of Lutheran orthodox doctrine.

    Sin entered God’s perfect creation with the Fall. The wages of sin is death. Before there was sin, there was no death.

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

    Jim_777,
    I remember having a conversation with Korey Mass almost 20 years ago now about Pieper, he said well there is nothing really wrong with it, but it was written about a hundred years ago, and doesn’t really address today’s culture. That is what is wrong with it more than anything. I mean there is the part where he argues the earth to be flat, and you can’t prove otherwise without an objective view point from the outside… He is limited on apologetics, and J.T. has given him a fundemenatalist spin I think was rather foreign to his own thought process, the same as he did to Walther. So there are a few of those issues too.
    And even if it didn’t have those flaws, I would be hard pressed to make it a criterion for communing at the altar overwhich I preside as Christ’s undershepherd. For pulpit fellowship, the book of Concord serves as a fine litmus test. For altar fellowship, the Small Catechism, perhaps a few conversations regarding the LCMS position on the word of God vrs the ELCA and what not. But even that is actually covered in Luther’s Small Catechism, with does a fine job of summarizing and outlining God’s word as we have it in Sacred Scripture. I don’t, for instance, think I could deny Lars Walker Communion should he show up at my church on Sunday Morning, because he didn’t read Pieper’s Dogmatics. I sure as hell am not going to turn a guy like Fredrik Sidenval of Sweden, or a Bengt Birgirson, away because the haven’t made a quia subscription to Pieper.
    The confessions are the confessions because they rise above a timebound volume such as that of Pieper, much more so than even “A Brief Statement.”

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

    Jim_777,
    I remember having a conversation with Korey Mass almost 20 years ago now about Pieper, he said well there is nothing really wrong with it, but it was written about a hundred years ago, and doesn’t really address today’s culture. That is what is wrong with it more than anything. I mean there is the part where he argues the earth to be flat, and you can’t prove otherwise without an objective view point from the outside… He is limited on apologetics, and J.T. has given him a fundemenatalist spin I think was rather foreign to his own thought process, the same as he did to Walther. So there are a few of those issues too.
    And even if it didn’t have those flaws, I would be hard pressed to make it a criterion for communing at the altar overwhich I preside as Christ’s undershepherd. For pulpit fellowship, the book of Concord serves as a fine litmus test. For altar fellowship, the Small Catechism, perhaps a few conversations regarding the LCMS position on the word of God vrs the ELCA and what not. But even that is actually covered in Luther’s Small Catechism, with does a fine job of summarizing and outlining God’s word as we have it in Sacred Scripture. I don’t, for instance, think I could deny Lars Walker Communion should he show up at my church on Sunday Morning, because he didn’t read Pieper’s Dogmatics. I sure as hell am not going to turn a guy like Fredrik Sidenval of Sweden, or a Bengt Birgirson, away because the haven’t made a quia subscription to Pieper.
    The confessions are the confessions because they rise above a timebound volume such as that of Pieper, much more so than even “A Brief Statement.”

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

    Still need to get one of those Tshirts.

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

    Still need to get one of those Tshirts.

  • Jim_777

    I never said anyone had to subscribe to Pieper in order to commune. That is a different issue. In my experience, people don’t really need to subscribe to anything in order to commune at most LCMS congregations. It would be nice if people were required to read the Book of Concord in order to commune. It would be nice if the average “confessional” Lutheran had even a passing familiarity with Lutheran doctrine. But, whatever.

    The question was: what is a Lutheran? My answer was a person who accepts Pieper’s Dogmatics as an exhaustive, accurate explication of orthodox Lutheran doctrine is certainly a Lutheran. Indeed, it would be to the great benefit of every Lutheran who claims to be orthodox and confessional to read and study Pieper.

    Pieper does not claim the earth is flat. That is false. I’m not aware of any credible person who has made such a claim for many centuries. One doesn’t need to view the earth from outside the universe to conclude that it isn’t flat. Also, and more importantly, the Scriptures make no such claim. Pieper believed the Bible teaches heliocentrism (whether it does or not is another issue) and on that basis accepted heliocentrism as true.

    By the way, if Pieper is so dated and so inadequate, would you be kind enough to direct me to better orthodox dogmatics treatise?

  • Jim_777

    I never said anyone had to subscribe to Pieper in order to commune. That is a different issue. In my experience, people don’t really need to subscribe to anything in order to commune at most LCMS congregations. It would be nice if people were required to read the Book of Concord in order to commune. It would be nice if the average “confessional” Lutheran had even a passing familiarity with Lutheran doctrine. But, whatever.

    The question was: what is a Lutheran? My answer was a person who accepts Pieper’s Dogmatics as an exhaustive, accurate explication of orthodox Lutheran doctrine is certainly a Lutheran. Indeed, it would be to the great benefit of every Lutheran who claims to be orthodox and confessional to read and study Pieper.

    Pieper does not claim the earth is flat. That is false. I’m not aware of any credible person who has made such a claim for many centuries. One doesn’t need to view the earth from outside the universe to conclude that it isn’t flat. Also, and more importantly, the Scriptures make no such claim. Pieper believed the Bible teaches heliocentrism (whether it does or not is another issue) and on that basis accepted heliocentrism as true.

    By the way, if Pieper is so dated and so inadequate, would you be kind enough to direct me to better orthodox dogmatics treatise?

  • SKPeterson

    Chemnitz. Which I haven’t read entirely – only selections. Hard going, but still applicable IMO.

  • SKPeterson

    Chemnitz. Which I haven’t read entirely – only selections. Hard going, but still applicable IMO.

  • Jim_777

    All that said, I certainly don’t argue that a person must be a Pieper fan or read Pieper in order to be Lutheran. Again, I simply assert that a person who agrees with Pieper’s Dogmatics (which is nothing more than the doctrine taught by Scripture) is certainly a Lutheran.

    As a minimum, then, I suppose I would divide my answer into two classes:

    1- A person is a Lutheran if he believes that salvation is had solely by God’s grace through faith in the Son’s vicarious atonement. Such a person embraces the living core of Lutheran theology, even if he knows nothing of the Lutheran Church and her doctrine.

    2- A person is a Lutheran who believes that the Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible Word and subscribes unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions. This person is obviously a more theologically sophisticated and knowledgable Lutheran than the person described in 1, but is without doubt the possessor of no greater measure of forgiveness and salvation.

  • Jim_777

    All that said, I certainly don’t argue that a person must be a Pieper fan or read Pieper in order to be Lutheran. Again, I simply assert that a person who agrees with Pieper’s Dogmatics (which is nothing more than the doctrine taught by Scripture) is certainly a Lutheran.

    As a minimum, then, I suppose I would divide my answer into two classes:

    1- A person is a Lutheran if he believes that salvation is had solely by God’s grace through faith in the Son’s vicarious atonement. Such a person embraces the living core of Lutheran theology, even if he knows nothing of the Lutheran Church and her doctrine.

    2- A person is a Lutheran who believes that the Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible Word and subscribes unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions. This person is obviously a more theologically sophisticated and knowledgable Lutheran than the person described in 1, but is without doubt the possessor of no greater measure of forgiveness and salvation.

  • Jim_777

    SKPeterson-

    In what way is Pieper’s Dogmatics no longer applicable? Where are his errors? Where are his incorrect explications of our doctrine? Isn’t it the Dogmatics text currently used in our Seminaries? I’m afraid I’m having a hard time understanding the hostility being demonstrated toward Pieper on this site. His Dogmatics is a great blessing to our church.

  • Jim_777

    SKPeterson-

    In what way is Pieper’s Dogmatics no longer applicable? Where are his errors? Where are his incorrect explications of our doctrine? Isn’t it the Dogmatics text currently used in our Seminaries? I’m afraid I’m having a hard time understanding the hostility being demonstrated toward Pieper on this site. His Dogmatics is a great blessing to our church.

  • aletheist

    Jim_777@23:

    Sin entered God’s perfect creation with the Fall. The wages of sin is death. Before there was sin, there was no death.

    A wage is what someone earns for what he or she does, so those who sin are subject to death–i.e., all humans since Adam and Eve. However, do animals sin? If not, what is the connection between human sin and animal death? What passage in Scripture unequivocally teaches that animals did not die prior to the Fall?

  • aletheist

    Jim_777@23:

    Sin entered God’s perfect creation with the Fall. The wages of sin is death. Before there was sin, there was no death.

    A wage is what someone earns for what he or she does, so those who sin are subject to death–i.e., all humans since Adam and Eve. However, do animals sin? If not, what is the connection between human sin and animal death? What passage in Scripture unequivocally teaches that animals did not die prior to the Fall?

  • Stone the Crows

    Nothing against Pieper’s Dogmatics, but I wouldn’t recommend that a layman read Pieper without a Pastor’s guidancce. I’d recommend starting with the readers edition of the Confessions, or Law and Gospel to start with.

  • Stone the Crows

    Nothing against Pieper’s Dogmatics, but I wouldn’t recommend that a layman read Pieper without a Pastor’s guidancce. I’d recommend starting with the readers edition of the Confessions, or Law and Gospel to start with.

  • Grace

    Wednesday Night Dome Speaker – Nadia Bolz-Weber

    Above is a good rendition of who Nadia is. What impression does anyone think will come from ELCA/Nadia Bolz-Weber?

  • Grace

    Wednesday Night Dome Speaker – Nadia Bolz-Weber

    Above is a good rendition of who Nadia is. What impression does anyone think will come from ELCA/Nadia Bolz-Weber?

  • Grace

    “What is a Lutheran” is a good question, but …………

  • Grace

    “What is a Lutheran” is a good question, but …………

  • Jim_777

    I just realized why I try to never get involved in comment section discussions. It really aggravates me to have my words mischaracterized. I also dislike mindless bickering. For some reason, these kind of discussions bring out the worst in people, me included. There’s a very smug and condescending quality to a lot of comment section posts. People seem to disagree and argue just for the sake of bothering people. Please understand, I’m not innocent of this dynamic either. I guess I would encourage people to actually read a comment before responding to it. Otherwise, I’m certain I can should something more productive to do. No mas. Have a great day everyone!

  • Jim_777

    I just realized why I try to never get involved in comment section discussions. It really aggravates me to have my words mischaracterized. I also dislike mindless bickering. For some reason, these kind of discussions bring out the worst in people, me included. There’s a very smug and condescending quality to a lot of comment section posts. People seem to disagree and argue just for the sake of bothering people. Please understand, I’m not innocent of this dynamic either. I guess I would encourage people to actually read a comment before responding to it. Otherwise, I’m certain I can should something more productive to do. No mas. Have a great day everyone!

  • SKPeterson

    Jim @ 28 – I have nothing against Pieper. I was just offering up Chemnitz as another orthodox Lutheran dogmatician in answer to your question @ 26. Some might consider Chemnitz outdated since he was very concerned with the current arguments over and against the Romans, but from what little I have read, I think his work is still relevant.

    As to Bror’s leeriness towards Pieper, I think you may be misunderestimating his comment. His criticism is not against Pieper per se, but against the available English translation(s) of Pieper. No one is being hostile to Pieper or questioning his orthodoxy. I have seen him quoted in many places on various LCMS blogs by pastors and theologians in whose orthodoxy I trust.

    Finally, though, I have to ask: Why is some sort of adherence to Pieper’s dogmatics your proposed litmus test? Why not Chemnitz? Or Gerhard? Or why not rather stick simply to the AC or BoC?

  • SKPeterson

    Jim @ 28 – I have nothing against Pieper. I was just offering up Chemnitz as another orthodox Lutheran dogmatician in answer to your question @ 26. Some might consider Chemnitz outdated since he was very concerned with the current arguments over and against the Romans, but from what little I have read, I think his work is still relevant.

    As to Bror’s leeriness towards Pieper, I think you may be misunderestimating his comment. His criticism is not against Pieper per se, but against the available English translation(s) of Pieper. No one is being hostile to Pieper or questioning his orthodoxy. I have seen him quoted in many places on various LCMS blogs by pastors and theologians in whose orthodoxy I trust.

    Finally, though, I have to ask: Why is some sort of adherence to Pieper’s dogmatics your proposed litmus test? Why not Chemnitz? Or Gerhard? Or why not rather stick simply to the AC or BoC?

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 12

    I think it is very important to understand that a person is able to give expression to Lutheran-sounding themes, while being rather completely disconnected from the truth of Sacred Scripture.

    It is important to understand that this also happens all the time in the LCMS as well.

    “Weak on sanctification? ”

    Pastor McCain. Go buy that Tshirt and put it on!

    16] And after …Baptism……by means of the daily exercise of reading and practising God’s Word, He would preserve in us faith and His heavenly gifts, strengthen us from day to day, and keep us to the end.

    25] … the Holy Scriptures ascribe …renewal, and all that belongs to their effective beginning and completion, not to the human powers of the natural free will, neither entirely nor half, nor in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part, but in solidum, that is, entirely, solely, to the divine working and the Holy Ghost, as also the Apology teaches.

    34] Furthermore, … Christians [contend their entire lives]… with sin remaining in the flesh… not by his own powers, but by the gift of the Holy Ghost, …This gift daily cleanses and sweeps out the remaining sins, and works so as to render man truly pure and holy. These words say nothing whatever of our will, or that even in regenerate men it works anything of itself, but ascribe it to the gift of the Holy Ghost, which cleanses man and makes him daily more godly and holy; and our own powers are entirely excluded.

    36] In the Large Catechism of Dr. Luther (the Third Article of the Christian Faith) it is written thus: … the Holy Ghost abides …to teach and preach to us the Word, whereby He works and promotes sanctification, causing [this community] daily to grow and become strong in the faith and the fruits of the Spirit, which He produces.

    38] In these words the Catechism does not mention our free will or cooperation with a single word, but ascribes everything to the Holy Ghost, namely, that through the office of the ministry He brings us into the Christian Church, wherein He sanctifies us, and brings it about that we daily grow in faith and good works.

    39] And although the regenerate even in this life advance so far that they will what is good, and love it, and even do good and grow in it, nevertheless this (as above stated) is not of our will and ability, but the Holy Ghost, as Paul himself speaks concerning this, works such willing and doing, Phil. 2:13. As also in Eph. 2:10 he ascribes this work to God alone, when he says: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk therein.

    40] In the Small Catechism [third article of the creed]: I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, and sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith, etc.

    41] And in the explanation of the Second Petition of the Lord’s Prayer the following words occur: How is this, done? When our Heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit, so that by His grace we believe His holy Word and live a godly life, etc.

    42] These testimonies state that by [not by] our own powers …[but by the] Holy Ghost, …we are enlightened, sanctified, and…kept with Him; and no mention is made either of our will or cooperation.

    And here is the part where you need to get on board with a gay, lesbian and transgender “agenda” that does all it can to get those people to show up in church every single sunday:

    48] For this reason we shall now relate…how and through what means (namely, through the oral Word and the holy Sacraments) the Holy Ghost wants to be efficacious in us, and to work and bestow in our hearts true repentance, faith, and new spiritual power and ability for good, and how we should conduct ourselves towards these means, and [how we should] use them.

    Pay attention here:

    52] Now, all who wish to be saved ought to hear…the preaching and hearing of God’s Word [which are] are instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to will and to do.

    So how is it that you are gonna make a fake christian into a true christian? Or turn a gay or lesbian or transgender or fake confessional christian who has franz pieper´s “dogmatics” memorized in order to be certain he is saved?

    This way….

    53] This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon.

    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-freewill.php#para1

    And this is, precisely, why the Apology , in art VII says this:

    1] The Seventh Article of our Confession, in which we said that the Church is the congregation of saints, they have condemned, and have added a long disquisition, that the wicked are not to be separated from the Church since John has compared the Church to a threshing-floor on which wheat and chaff are heaped together, Matt. 3:12, and Christ has compared it to a net in which 2] there are both good and bad fishes, Matt. 13:47. It is, verily, a true saying, namely, that there is no remedy against the attacks of the slanderer. Nothing can be spoken with such care that it can escape detraction. 3] For this reason we have added the Eighth Article, lest any one might think that we separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outward fellowship of the Church, or that we deny efficacy to Sacraments administered by hypocrites or wicked men.

    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php#para1

    Yet you seem to embrace the very thing that the Confessions say they were slanderously (!) accused of!

    Why would we ever want to exclude practicing homosexuals or any other “practicing ” sinners from the church?!

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 12

    I think it is very important to understand that a person is able to give expression to Lutheran-sounding themes, while being rather completely disconnected from the truth of Sacred Scripture.

    It is important to understand that this also happens all the time in the LCMS as well.

    “Weak on sanctification? ”

    Pastor McCain. Go buy that Tshirt and put it on!

    16] And after …Baptism……by means of the daily exercise of reading and practising God’s Word, He would preserve in us faith and His heavenly gifts, strengthen us from day to day, and keep us to the end.

    25] … the Holy Scriptures ascribe …renewal, and all that belongs to their effective beginning and completion, not to the human powers of the natural free will, neither entirely nor half, nor in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part, but in solidum, that is, entirely, solely, to the divine working and the Holy Ghost, as also the Apology teaches.

    34] Furthermore, … Christians [contend their entire lives]… with sin remaining in the flesh… not by his own powers, but by the gift of the Holy Ghost, …This gift daily cleanses and sweeps out the remaining sins, and works so as to render man truly pure and holy. These words say nothing whatever of our will, or that even in regenerate men it works anything of itself, but ascribe it to the gift of the Holy Ghost, which cleanses man and makes him daily more godly and holy; and our own powers are entirely excluded.

    36] In the Large Catechism of Dr. Luther (the Third Article of the Christian Faith) it is written thus: … the Holy Ghost abides …to teach and preach to us the Word, whereby He works and promotes sanctification, causing [this community] daily to grow and become strong in the faith and the fruits of the Spirit, which He produces.

    38] In these words the Catechism does not mention our free will or cooperation with a single word, but ascribes everything to the Holy Ghost, namely, that through the office of the ministry He brings us into the Christian Church, wherein He sanctifies us, and brings it about that we daily grow in faith and good works.

    39] And although the regenerate even in this life advance so far that they will what is good, and love it, and even do good and grow in it, nevertheless this (as above stated) is not of our will and ability, but the Holy Ghost, as Paul himself speaks concerning this, works such willing and doing, Phil. 2:13. As also in Eph. 2:10 he ascribes this work to God alone, when he says: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk therein.

    40] In the Small Catechism [third article of the creed]: I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, and sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith, etc.

    41] And in the explanation of the Second Petition of the Lord’s Prayer the following words occur: How is this, done? When our Heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit, so that by His grace we believe His holy Word and live a godly life, etc.

    42] These testimonies state that by [not by] our own powers …[but by the] Holy Ghost, …we are enlightened, sanctified, and…kept with Him; and no mention is made either of our will or cooperation.

    And here is the part where you need to get on board with a gay, lesbian and transgender “agenda” that does all it can to get those people to show up in church every single sunday:

    48] For this reason we shall now relate…how and through what means (namely, through the oral Word and the holy Sacraments) the Holy Ghost wants to be efficacious in us, and to work and bestow in our hearts true repentance, faith, and new spiritual power and ability for good, and how we should conduct ourselves towards these means, and [how we should] use them.

    Pay attention here:

    52] Now, all who wish to be saved ought to hear…the preaching and hearing of God’s Word [which are] are instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to will and to do.

    So how is it that you are gonna make a fake christian into a true christian? Or turn a gay or lesbian or transgender or fake confessional christian who has franz pieper´s “dogmatics” memorized in order to be certain he is saved?

    This way….

    53] This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon.

    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-freewill.php#para1

    And this is, precisely, why the Apology , in art VII says this:

    1] The Seventh Article of our Confession, in which we said that the Church is the congregation of saints, they have condemned, and have added a long disquisition, that the wicked are not to be separated from the Church since John has compared the Church to a threshing-floor on which wheat and chaff are heaped together, Matt. 3:12, and Christ has compared it to a net in which 2] there are both good and bad fishes, Matt. 13:47. It is, verily, a true saying, namely, that there is no remedy against the attacks of the slanderer. Nothing can be spoken with such care that it can escape detraction. 3] For this reason we have added the Eighth Article, lest any one might think that we separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outward fellowship of the Church, or that we deny efficacy to Sacraments administered by hypocrites or wicked men.

    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php#para1

    Yet you seem to embrace the very thing that the Confessions say they were slanderously (!) accused of!

    Why would we ever want to exclude practicing homosexuals or any other “practicing ” sinners from the church?!

  • fws

    pastor McCain@ 12

    interestingly you didnt mention the fact that she is a woman. Guess we softpedal that point of disagreement now that NALC is on the scene…

    My big problem with NALC is that they use really bad argument to justify women´s ordination.
    Why can´t they simply turn to the Apology in Article VII with it´s fine distinction between law and gospel, visible church and invisible church, faith and law?

    There they would read that women´s ordination falls into the category of outward rites and observances that outwardly and visibly unite the church but are on the same level as the french wearing french clothing and the germans wearing german clothing.

  • fws

    pastor McCain@ 12

    interestingly you didnt mention the fact that she is a woman. Guess we softpedal that point of disagreement now that NALC is on the scene…

    My big problem with NALC is that they use really bad argument to justify women´s ordination.
    Why can´t they simply turn to the Apology in Article VII with it´s fine distinction between law and gospel, visible church and invisible church, faith and law?

    There they would read that women´s ordination falls into the category of outward rites and observances that outwardly and visibly unite the church but are on the same level as the french wearing french clothing and the germans wearing german clothing.

  • TE Schroeder

    Aletheist @30,
    You asked: What passage in Scripture unequivocally teaches that animals did not die prior to the Fall?

    In the most literal terms of your question, there is none. But when we read, “The wages of sin is death,” (Rom 6:23), and God’s command, “When you eat of it, you will surely die,” sin and death become inseparable.

    As for the animal kingdom, it seems our answer comes from Rom. 8:20-21, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay….” The bondage to decay began with sin. All of creation was corrupted by Adam’s sin, but Scripture naturally puts the main focus on the sin and death — and redemption — of mankind.

    Is that what you are looking for?

  • TE Schroeder

    Aletheist @30,
    You asked: What passage in Scripture unequivocally teaches that animals did not die prior to the Fall?

    In the most literal terms of your question, there is none. But when we read, “The wages of sin is death,” (Rom 6:23), and God’s command, “When you eat of it, you will surely die,” sin and death become inseparable.

    As for the animal kingdom, it seems our answer comes from Rom. 8:20-21, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay….” The bondage to decay began with sin. All of creation was corrupted by Adam’s sin, but Scripture naturally puts the main focus on the sin and death — and redemption — of mankind.

    Is that what you are looking for?

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 12

    You seem to relabel Aristotle´s Virtue ethic of practicing the self disciplines until they become a habit and call that “sanctification”. Why do I think this? You seem to describe sanctification as something we can chose to do or leave undone. That free will is involved in this. You preach it that way.

    Instead the Confessions say that we urge sanctification precisely how? By urging believers not to despise the preaching of God´s Word and the Administration of the Sacraments.

    Good Works? Do them! Mortify the flesh in the sense of practice the Aristotelian self disciplines? Do that too!

    But that preaching of Good Works is not sanctification.

    Why not?

    Any pagan can do this without any need for Christ or the Holy Spirit. This is the point that the Apology makes! Is a pastor to urge such self discipline and good works? YES! But this falls under the category of “Mortification of the Flesh” and not “Sanctification.” And yes, the new man works on mortification. He welcomes it. So mortification too, is a part of sanctification in a sense. But still it is useful to make a distinction here. FC art II makes just such a distinction!

    What you call “sanctification” would be better and more confessionally labeled as “Baptism” or “Repentence”. Baptism is nothing other than Repentence . And repentence , in the broad sense (FC V SD) includes the practice of Aristotelian Virtue that is within Old Adam´s ability to do.

    You are not alone in the LCMS. “Issues Etc” had an article a while ago about “liberty vs licence” That article claimed to be making a christian distinction. Gospel=free. BUT! Don´t turn that into license. They probably thought they were doing a Law/Gospel distinction. Nope.

    Even aristotle can determine the proper balance between liberty and licence. No Christ or Holy Spirit is necessary for this. Yet here is an article that urges christians that it is a christian exercise to get Aristotle´s Golden Mean just right. Nope. Mahatma Ghandi, MLK Jr. Christ as new Moses…. all those work just dandy for that. Nothing christian about this! And this is the LCMS teaching Aristotle as though he is Christian!

    Is it important to practice virtue Pastor McCain? Of course it is!!!!! It is important to work and work hard to be a moral person? Of course it is!

    Does a pagan become exempt from this Divine Requirement when he becomes a believer? Silly question.

    But no Christ or the Holy Spirit is necessary for this.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 12

    You seem to relabel Aristotle´s Virtue ethic of practicing the self disciplines until they become a habit and call that “sanctification”. Why do I think this? You seem to describe sanctification as something we can chose to do or leave undone. That free will is involved in this. You preach it that way.

    Instead the Confessions say that we urge sanctification precisely how? By urging believers not to despise the preaching of God´s Word and the Administration of the Sacraments.

    Good Works? Do them! Mortify the flesh in the sense of practice the Aristotelian self disciplines? Do that too!

    But that preaching of Good Works is not sanctification.

    Why not?

    Any pagan can do this without any need for Christ or the Holy Spirit. This is the point that the Apology makes! Is a pastor to urge such self discipline and good works? YES! But this falls under the category of “Mortification of the Flesh” and not “Sanctification.” And yes, the new man works on mortification. He welcomes it. So mortification too, is a part of sanctification in a sense. But still it is useful to make a distinction here. FC art II makes just such a distinction!

    What you call “sanctification” would be better and more confessionally labeled as “Baptism” or “Repentence”. Baptism is nothing other than Repentence . And repentence , in the broad sense (FC V SD) includes the practice of Aristotelian Virtue that is within Old Adam´s ability to do.

    You are not alone in the LCMS. “Issues Etc” had an article a while ago about “liberty vs licence” That article claimed to be making a christian distinction. Gospel=free. BUT! Don´t turn that into license. They probably thought they were doing a Law/Gospel distinction. Nope.

    Even aristotle can determine the proper balance between liberty and licence. No Christ or Holy Spirit is necessary for this. Yet here is an article that urges christians that it is a christian exercise to get Aristotle´s Golden Mean just right. Nope. Mahatma Ghandi, MLK Jr. Christ as new Moses…. all those work just dandy for that. Nothing christian about this! And this is the LCMS teaching Aristotle as though he is Christian!

    Is it important to practice virtue Pastor McCain? Of course it is!!!!! It is important to work and work hard to be a moral person? Of course it is!

    Does a pagan become exempt from this Divine Requirement when he becomes a believer? Silly question.

    But no Christ or the Holy Spirit is necessary for this.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 12

    You seem to relabel Aristotle´s Virtue ethic of practicing the self disciplines until they become a habit and call that “sanctification”. Why do I think this? You seem to describe sanctification as something we can chose to do or leave undone. That free will is involved in this. You preach it that way.

    Instead the Confessions say that we urge sanctification precisely how? By urging believers not to despise the preaching of God´s Word and the Administration of the Sacraments. Our free will IS able to do that. Show up in church. Even fake christians can do this. And it is God´s Word alone that will sanctify them.

    Good Works? Do them! Mortify the flesh in the sense of practice the Aristotelian self disciplines? Do that too!

    But that preaching of Good Works is not sanctification.

    Why not?

    Any pagan can do this without any need for Christ or the Holy Spirit. This is the point that the Apology makes! Is a pastor to urge such self discipline and good works? YES! But this falls under the category of “Mortification of the Flesh” and not “Sanctification.” And yes, the new man works on mortification. He welcomes it. So mortification too, is a part of sanctification in a sense. But still it is useful to make a distinction here. FC art II makes just such a distinction!

    What you call “sanctification” would be better and more confessionally labeled as “Baptism” or “Repentence”. Baptism is nothing other than Repentence . And repentence , in the broad sense (FC V SD) includes the practice of Aristotelian Virtue that is within Old Adam´s ability to do.

    You are not alone in the LCMS. “Issues Etc” had an article a while ago about “liberty vs licence” That article claimed to be making a christian distinction. Gospel=free. BUT! Don´t turn that into license. They probably thought they were doing a Law/Gospel distinction. Nope.

    Even aristotle can determine the proper balance between liberty and licence. No Christ or Holy Spirit is necessary for this. Yet here is an article that urges christians that it is a christian exercise to get Aristotle´s Golden Mean just right. Nope. Mahatma Ghandi, MLK Jr. Christ as new Moses…. all those work just dandy for that. Nothing christian about this! And this is the LCMS teaching Aristotle as though he is Christian!

    Is it important to practice virtue Pastor McCain? Of course it is!!!!! It is important to work and work hard to be a moral person? Of course it is!

    Does a pagan become exempt from this Divine Requirement when he becomes a believer? Silly question.

    But no Christ or the Holy Spirit is necessary for this.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 12

    You seem to relabel Aristotle´s Virtue ethic of practicing the self disciplines until they become a habit and call that “sanctification”. Why do I think this? You seem to describe sanctification as something we can chose to do or leave undone. That free will is involved in this. You preach it that way.

    Instead the Confessions say that we urge sanctification precisely how? By urging believers not to despise the preaching of God´s Word and the Administration of the Sacraments. Our free will IS able to do that. Show up in church. Even fake christians can do this. And it is God´s Word alone that will sanctify them.

    Good Works? Do them! Mortify the flesh in the sense of practice the Aristotelian self disciplines? Do that too!

    But that preaching of Good Works is not sanctification.

    Why not?

    Any pagan can do this without any need for Christ or the Holy Spirit. This is the point that the Apology makes! Is a pastor to urge such self discipline and good works? YES! But this falls under the category of “Mortification of the Flesh” and not “Sanctification.” And yes, the new man works on mortification. He welcomes it. So mortification too, is a part of sanctification in a sense. But still it is useful to make a distinction here. FC art II makes just such a distinction!

    What you call “sanctification” would be better and more confessionally labeled as “Baptism” or “Repentence”. Baptism is nothing other than Repentence . And repentence , in the broad sense (FC V SD) includes the practice of Aristotelian Virtue that is within Old Adam´s ability to do.

    You are not alone in the LCMS. “Issues Etc” had an article a while ago about “liberty vs licence” That article claimed to be making a christian distinction. Gospel=free. BUT! Don´t turn that into license. They probably thought they were doing a Law/Gospel distinction. Nope.

    Even aristotle can determine the proper balance between liberty and licence. No Christ or Holy Spirit is necessary for this. Yet here is an article that urges christians that it is a christian exercise to get Aristotle´s Golden Mean just right. Nope. Mahatma Ghandi, MLK Jr. Christ as new Moses…. all those work just dandy for that. Nothing christian about this! And this is the LCMS teaching Aristotle as though he is Christian!

    Is it important to practice virtue Pastor McCain? Of course it is!!!!! It is important to work and work hard to be a moral person? Of course it is!

    Does a pagan become exempt from this Divine Requirement when he becomes a believer? Silly question.

    But no Christ or the Holy Spirit is necessary for this.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Jesus was both orthodox and evangelical, showing that one needen’t be mean to be good.

    On a related theme- There is a fundamentalist understanding of inerrancy and an orthodox one. Respectfully, I believe Jim-777′s is the former.
    The Bible can not be separated from the Church and it’s context. Look at Hebrews 10:5 and it relationship with Psalm 40:6 and theLXX. A brittle and ridged understanding of inerrancy will not help one understand this passage, an orthodox/catholic (with a small “c”) will.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Jesus was both orthodox and evangelical, showing that one needen’t be mean to be good.

    On a related theme- There is a fundamentalist understanding of inerrancy and an orthodox one. Respectfully, I believe Jim-777′s is the former.
    The Bible can not be separated from the Church and it’s context. Look at Hebrews 10:5 and it relationship with Psalm 40:6 and theLXX. A brittle and ridged understanding of inerrancy will not help one understand this passage, an orthodox/catholic (with a small “c”) will.

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

    Jim,
    I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic or nit picky. Yes you are right it was the heliocentric theory he was arguing for, I get that mixed up with flat earth as being equally untenable.
    And yes it would be nice if people had some passing knowledge of Lutheran Doctrine. As a pastor believe me, I know this angst well. But I find all a man can do is constantly teach.
    Now as far as contemporary systematics. well there isn’t anything on the scale of Pieper that has been published by a Lutheran in English for a longtime. There are the Dogmatics Series written piecemeal by various sem profs, and those are pretty good. Undoubtedly McCain would point out Lutheranism 101. There are plenty of Journals and such. There is always “To Live with Christ” by Bo Giertz, which though being a devotional does a great job teaching doctrine. And Sasse is always fun reading too.

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

    Jim,
    I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic or nit picky. Yes you are right it was the heliocentric theory he was arguing for, I get that mixed up with flat earth as being equally untenable.
    And yes it would be nice if people had some passing knowledge of Lutheran Doctrine. As a pastor believe me, I know this angst well. But I find all a man can do is constantly teach.
    Now as far as contemporary systematics. well there isn’t anything on the scale of Pieper that has been published by a Lutheran in English for a longtime. There are the Dogmatics Series written piecemeal by various sem profs, and those are pretty good. Undoubtedly McCain would point out Lutheranism 101. There are plenty of Journals and such. There is always “To Live with Christ” by Bo Giertz, which though being a devotional does a great job teaching doctrine. And Sasse is always fun reading too.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    Fascinating! Commenting on another article, you spent weeks falsely accusing me of saying and believing almost exactly the same things you are now acusing Pastor McCain of saying and believing (and preaching). I know you were lying about me, of course, can you give a rational reason for anyone to believe you are telling the truth about the pastor? Can you at least back up your accusations with evidence? Do you just do this to everyone who mentions homosexuality?

  • S. P.

    Fws

    Fascinating! Commenting on another article, you spent weeks falsely accusing me of saying and believing almost exactly the same things you are now acusing Pastor McCain of saying and believing (and preaching). I know you were lying about me, of course, can you give a rational reason for anyone to believe you are telling the truth about the pastor? Can you at least back up your accusations with evidence? Do you just do this to everyone who mentions homosexuality?

  • Morgan

    @fws:
    Something I’ve been wanting to gently say for a while, now. You’re intelligent. We get that. You’re far, far more intelligent than me, that’s absolutely certain. But I want to give you some cherished advice a professor gave me, writing in bright red ink on the right hand margin of one of my awful, awful papers.

    “Don’t write to impress. Communicate, and you will impress.”

    Honestly not trying to be a jerk, here. But this medium has its limits. Monopolizing posts with five-mouse-scroll-comments stuffed with 50-cent words and arcane references is well past those limits.

  • Morgan

    @fws:
    Something I’ve been wanting to gently say for a while, now. You’re intelligent. We get that. You’re far, far more intelligent than me, that’s absolutely certain. But I want to give you some cherished advice a professor gave me, writing in bright red ink on the right hand margin of one of my awful, awful papers.

    “Don’t write to impress. Communicate, and you will impress.”

    Honestly not trying to be a jerk, here. But this medium has its limits. Monopolizing posts with five-mouse-scroll-comments stuffed with 50-cent words and arcane references is well past those limits.

  • Jikkiyu

    Lutheranism is the Western Catholic church which rejected both medieval scholastic and reformed innovation.

  • Jikkiyu

    Lutheranism is the Western Catholic church which rejected both medieval scholastic and reformed innovation.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    JIkkiyu,
    The way I like to. Put it: Lutheranism is an unusually stubborn effort to be catholic.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    JIkkiyu,
    The way I like to. Put it: Lutheranism is an unusually stubborn effort to be catholic.

  • aletheist

    Jim_777@34: I hope that my comments and questions @30 did not irritate you. They were sincere, because a while back I specifically asked Anthony Sacramone on his own blog how he reconciles his acceptance of evolution with the fact that it requires animal death before the Fall. He got very upset with me–apparently this is a sore spot for him–and pointed out that Scripture never states that animals did not die before the Fall. I am looking for suggestions on how to deal with that argument.

    TE Schroeder@38: Thanks for responding. I had that passage in mind myself, but it still does not “prove” that animal death is a result of the Fall. Again, the most natural reading of the Bible as a whole would seem to indicate that no animals died before the Fall, but I do not think that we can dogmatically insist on it as a clear and undeniable teaching of God’s Word.

  • aletheist

    Jim_777@34: I hope that my comments and questions @30 did not irritate you. They were sincere, because a while back I specifically asked Anthony Sacramone on his own blog how he reconciles his acceptance of evolution with the fact that it requires animal death before the Fall. He got very upset with me–apparently this is a sore spot for him–and pointed out that Scripture never states that animals did not die before the Fall. I am looking for suggestions on how to deal with that argument.

    TE Schroeder@38: Thanks for responding. I had that passage in mind myself, but it still does not “prove” that animal death is a result of the Fall. Again, the most natural reading of the Bible as a whole would seem to indicate that no animals died before the Fall, but I do not think that we can dogmatically insist on it as a clear and undeniable teaching of God’s Word.

  • Other Gary

    Well said, Pastor Spomer, but would you go so far as to say Jesus was a confessional Lutheran? (Careful here that you don’t have both Luther and Pieper spinning in their graves!)

  • Other Gary

    Well said, Pastor Spomer, but would you go so far as to say Jesus was a confessional Lutheran? (Careful here that you don’t have both Luther and Pieper spinning in their graves!)

  • Jikkiyu

    Pastor Spomer,

    I like that, I’m stealing it :)

  • Jikkiyu

    Pastor Spomer,

    I like that, I’m stealing it :)

  • fws

    morgan @ 44

    Point well take. Thanks for the gentility.
    I am not so smart. And my aim is not to impress.
    I am passionate about the Confessions
    Because I am passionate about Law and Gospel and Two Kingdoms.
    Because I am passionate about the Passion and what it means for men and women like me.

    But here brevity is a virtue and a consideration for others. Point taken.

  • fws

    morgan @ 44

    Point well take. Thanks for the gentility.
    I am not so smart. And my aim is not to impress.
    I am passionate about the Confessions
    Because I am passionate about Law and Gospel and Two Kingdoms.
    Because I am passionate about the Passion and what it means for men and women like me.

    But here brevity is a virtue and a consideration for others. Point taken.

  • fws

    SP @ 43
    Why the need for sarcasm.
    Pastor McCain is one of the finest things that the LCMS has going for it for the past couple of decades.

    I could well be that I am totally misreading what he has had to say about sanctification. I would not be very surpised at that.

    You should note that it is Pastor Mc Cain who created http://www.bookofconcord.org ! What have YOU done lately SP that is that wonderful for others? More importantly, what good work or fruit of the Spirit have **I** done that equals that? (sound of crickets).

    I may think I have found a point if disagreement with Pastor Mc Cain on sanctification. Isn´t that sort of comical? Pastor Mc Cain has done more in the past year in terms of good works that usefully serves others than I have done in the past 10 years.

    And here I am … seemingly picking on him. Only fools go where angels fear to tread eh?

  • fws

    SP @ 43
    Why the need for sarcasm.
    Pastor McCain is one of the finest things that the LCMS has going for it for the past couple of decades.

    I could well be that I am totally misreading what he has had to say about sanctification. I would not be very surpised at that.

    You should note that it is Pastor Mc Cain who created http://www.bookofconcord.org ! What have YOU done lately SP that is that wonderful for others? More importantly, what good work or fruit of the Spirit have **I** done that equals that? (sound of crickets).

    I may think I have found a point if disagreement with Pastor Mc Cain on sanctification. Isn´t that sort of comical? Pastor Mc Cain has done more in the past year in terms of good works that usefully serves others than I have done in the past 10 years.

    And here I am … seemingly picking on him. Only fools go where angels fear to tread eh?

  • fws

    sp @ 43

    ” I know you were lying about me”.

    I need to apologize if I hurt your feelings or offended you. That would be uncalled for. But lying about you….

    Take a deep breath…. show me where I did that in what I wrote.

  • fws

    sp @ 43

    ” I know you were lying about me”.

    I need to apologize if I hurt your feelings or offended you. That would be uncalled for. But lying about you….

    Take a deep breath…. show me where I did that in what I wrote.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Paul @12

    I’ve got to hand it to you, if the shoe fits, you man up and put it right on. You are one of the several chief offenders I had in mind when I was writing….

    As to the situation referenced in my comment, you don’t even know the details involved. Neither do I, but I know the man in question, and heeding our catechism I attempt to put the best construction on the situation. What if he was serving one of the many faithful congregations still in the ELCA (and there are still some, just as conversely there are increasing numbers of heterodox congregations in the LCMS) and a bishop offered to ordain him so he could use his considerable skills to help his congregation? Good for him. He loves the Confessions and the BOC, and did all a good thing for all Lutherans explicating our teachings to thousands who otherwise may have never heard. Instead of rejoicing in the good, you and others seized on his lack of Synodical purity and proceeded to demean him, and humiliate us. I think what the ELCA is doing in many respects is damnable, and would not join myself to them given the choice. That being said, I realize that there are still orthodox, faithful congregations stuck there in a hard place.

    Man, you are obsessed with our ‘Weak on Sanctification’ shirts. Every time you rant about them we sell a boatload of them. Maybe you are jealous because President Harrison is enjoying his ‘Weak on Sanctification’ shirt.
    Tell you what, we can comp you a free one. We’ll even customize it adding ‘Breaker of the 8th Commandment’ :)

  • Patrick Kyle

    Paul @12

    I’ve got to hand it to you, if the shoe fits, you man up and put it right on. You are one of the several chief offenders I had in mind when I was writing….

    As to the situation referenced in my comment, you don’t even know the details involved. Neither do I, but I know the man in question, and heeding our catechism I attempt to put the best construction on the situation. What if he was serving one of the many faithful congregations still in the ELCA (and there are still some, just as conversely there are increasing numbers of heterodox congregations in the LCMS) and a bishop offered to ordain him so he could use his considerable skills to help his congregation? Good for him. He loves the Confessions and the BOC, and did all a good thing for all Lutherans explicating our teachings to thousands who otherwise may have never heard. Instead of rejoicing in the good, you and others seized on his lack of Synodical purity and proceeded to demean him, and humiliate us. I think what the ELCA is doing in many respects is damnable, and would not join myself to them given the choice. That being said, I realize that there are still orthodox, faithful congregations stuck there in a hard place.

    Man, you are obsessed with our ‘Weak on Sanctification’ shirts. Every time you rant about them we sell a boatload of them. Maybe you are jealous because President Harrison is enjoying his ‘Weak on Sanctification’ shirt.
    Tell you what, we can comp you a free one. We’ll even customize it adding ‘Breaker of the 8th Commandment’ :)

  • Stephen K

    fws I think you have a crush on McCain. Is it the way he obliterates anyone who questions his obnoxious firearm blogging mixed with Lutheran stuff?

  • Stephen K

    fws I think you have a crush on McCain. Is it the way he obliterates anyone who questions his obnoxious firearm blogging mixed with Lutheran stuff?

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

    “That being said, I realize that there are still orthodox, faithful congregations stuck there in a hard place.”

    Can you explain that?

    How are they stuck?

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

    “That being said, I realize that there are still orthodox, faithful congregations stuck there in a hard place.”

    Can you explain that?

    How are they stuck?

  • fws

    sg @ 55

    They are stuck Confessionally SG.

    1] they have condemned the Seventh Article of [the Augsburg] Confession, in which we said that the Church is the congregation of saints, and have added…, that the wicked are not to be separated from the Church since John has compared the Church to a threshing-floor on which wheat and chaff are heaped together, Matt. 3:12, and Christ has compared it to a net in which 2] there are both good and bad fishes, Matt. 13:47.

    [This is a slander of our position!].

    3] [ We do not]…separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outward fellowship of the Church, or …deny efficacy to Sacraments administered by hypocrites or wicked men.

    Therefore there is no need here of a long defense against this slander.

    We grant that in this life hypocrites and wicked men have been mingled with the Church, and that they are members of the Church according to the outward fellowship of the signs of the Church, i.e., of Word, profession, and Sacraments, especially if they have not been excommunicated.

    4] Neither are the Sacraments without efficacy for the reason that they are administered by wicked men; yea, we can even be right in using the Sacraments administered by wicked men.

    For Paul also predicts, 2 Thess. 2:4, that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, i.e., he will rule and bear office in the Church.

    SG , some actually read the Confessions and bind themselves to those Confessions in conscience.

  • fws

    sg @ 55

    They are stuck Confessionally SG.

    1] they have condemned the Seventh Article of [the Augsburg] Confession, in which we said that the Church is the congregation of saints, and have added…, that the wicked are not to be separated from the Church since John has compared the Church to a threshing-floor on which wheat and chaff are heaped together, Matt. 3:12, and Christ has compared it to a net in which 2] there are both good and bad fishes, Matt. 13:47.

    [This is a slander of our position!].

    3] [ We do not]…separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outward fellowship of the Church, or …deny efficacy to Sacraments administered by hypocrites or wicked men.

    Therefore there is no need here of a long defense against this slander.

    We grant that in this life hypocrites and wicked men have been mingled with the Church, and that they are members of the Church according to the outward fellowship of the signs of the Church, i.e., of Word, profession, and Sacraments, especially if they have not been excommunicated.

    4] Neither are the Sacraments without efficacy for the reason that they are administered by wicked men; yea, we can even be right in using the Sacraments administered by wicked men.

    For Paul also predicts, 2 Thess. 2:4, that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, i.e., he will rule and bear office in the Church.

    SG , some actually read the Confessions and bind themselves to those Confessions in conscience.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    “one of the many faithful congregations still in the ELCA ”

    Many? Really?

    Tell me how many ELCA congregations have formally and openly renounced the ELCA’s full communion with the Anglicans and Reformed? Can you name even one?

    And, from there, we can of course just keep going downhill until finally we find congregations that are bothered by the full call embrace of homosexuality.

    What I fear you fail to recognize, and I’ll assume the best and chalk up up to simple ignorance, is that the ELCA walked away from the Lutheran Church a long time before they thought the idea of Adam and Steve together in the parsonage bed was just peachy.

    A man who agrees to be a clergyman in a church body is held to a higher standard.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    “one of the many faithful congregations still in the ELCA ”

    Many? Really?

    Tell me how many ELCA congregations have formally and openly renounced the ELCA’s full communion with the Anglicans and Reformed? Can you name even one?

    And, from there, we can of course just keep going downhill until finally we find congregations that are bothered by the full call embrace of homosexuality.

    What I fear you fail to recognize, and I’ll assume the best and chalk up up to simple ignorance, is that the ELCA walked away from the Lutheran Church a long time before they thought the idea of Adam and Steve together in the parsonage bed was just peachy.

    A man who agrees to be a clergyman in a church body is held to a higher standard.

  • fws

    Stephen K @ 54

    You simply cannot shut the man up about Jesus.
    That is the mark of one who knows he has been forgiven much.

    Pastor Mc Cain has been so full of good works that it seems sort of trivial to criticize the man.
    That is just a plain and obvious fact Stephen K. We would possibly not be having this discussion on this or other Lutheran tilted site were it not for his tireless energy and effort. Fact.

    How could I not love a guy like that?

  • fws

    Stephen K @ 54

    You simply cannot shut the man up about Jesus.
    That is the mark of one who knows he has been forgiven much.

    Pastor Mc Cain has been so full of good works that it seems sort of trivial to criticize the man.
    That is just a plain and obvious fact Stephen K. We would possibly not be having this discussion on this or other Lutheran tilted site were it not for his tireless energy and effort. Fact.

    How could I not love a guy like that?

  • Stephen K

    fws You are an amazing man! I am inpressed!

  • Stephen K

    fws You are an amazing man! I am inpressed!

  • fws

    stephen K

    Acts 2:44, john 13:35, heb 10:24, 1 cor 13:4 , 1 cor 13:13, 1 cor 16:14, 1 tim 1:5 and the list goes on and on and on doesnt it Stephen K?

    Not amazing. Thanks for that. Just forgiven for far more than I would want to share with you. Love is the easy part after that.

  • fws

    stephen K

    Acts 2:44, john 13:35, heb 10:24, 1 cor 13:4 , 1 cor 13:13, 1 cor 16:14, 1 tim 1:5 and the list goes on and on and on doesnt it Stephen K?

    Not amazing. Thanks for that. Just forgiven for far more than I would want to share with you. Love is the easy part after that.

  • fws

    rev McCain @ 57

    I suppose that those congretations in the ELCA have approached their bishop. And if the bishop does nothing then they pray for him and for their diocese and synod. They follow the proper channels given them in the bylaws of their church. The Holy Catholic Church is an earthly Government like all others. Cf post @ 56 for the confessional position on this that a faithful ELCA Church would follow.

    The church is not a democracy. This form of action is the same thing one is to do with civil rulers . We pray for them if they are not doing the right thing. We honor them and their office and privately and discreetly encourage them to do their duty.

    This is something we would not be privy to.
    So your question I believe is not a proper one to ask.

  • fws

    rev McCain @ 57

    I suppose that those congretations in the ELCA have approached their bishop. And if the bishop does nothing then they pray for him and for their diocese and synod. They follow the proper channels given them in the bylaws of their church. The Holy Catholic Church is an earthly Government like all others. Cf post @ 56 for the confessional position on this that a faithful ELCA Church would follow.

    The church is not a democracy. This form of action is the same thing one is to do with civil rulers . We pray for them if they are not doing the right thing. We honor them and their office and privately and discreetly encourage them to do their duty.

    This is something we would not be privy to.
    So your question I believe is not a proper one to ask.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 57

    You might consider that I am a gay man who many would think should be in the ELCA. Why am I not? They confuse gospel with Gospel, mercy with Mercy and grace with Grace.

    Inclusiveness=Gospel. Not.

    So they go out of their way to encourage homos to show up at church. They should! FC Art II says that! Ap art VII demands that.

    But….. once the homos are in, where is the Holy Gospel?!

    I have a big big problem with that.

    nadia boltz? I follow what she writes. You are right. She says lots of stuff that could just be lutheran-ish but has various meanings. at the same time I see her talking more and more about death and resurrection and using that word “sin” and talking about the Gospel in terms of the Work of Christ. Give her time with the Word of God…. she is shifting in a good way…

    And.. those fags and transgenders are coming back to church because of her. That is great news. They hear the liturgy. They hear the creeds. And increasingly, Nadia´s sermons are getting it right. Check out her sermon on the original sin. She is getting that now even if she is still shy about the term original sin.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 57

    You might consider that I am a gay man who many would think should be in the ELCA. Why am I not? They confuse gospel with Gospel, mercy with Mercy and grace with Grace.

    Inclusiveness=Gospel. Not.

    So they go out of their way to encourage homos to show up at church. They should! FC Art II says that! Ap art VII demands that.

    But….. once the homos are in, where is the Holy Gospel?!

    I have a big big problem with that.

    nadia boltz? I follow what she writes. You are right. She says lots of stuff that could just be lutheran-ish but has various meanings. at the same time I see her talking more and more about death and resurrection and using that word “sin” and talking about the Gospel in terms of the Work of Christ. Give her time with the Word of God…. she is shifting in a good way…

    And.. those fags and transgenders are coming back to church because of her. That is great news. They hear the liturgy. They hear the creeds. And increasingly, Nadia´s sermons are getting it right. Check out her sermon on the original sin. She is getting that now even if she is still shy about the term original sin.

  • EGK

    Do we want sinners in our churches? Of course! The issue with Nadia’s message as I was listening was that it was one of inclusivity (which is good), but one that accepts people without calling them to repentance. And when Jesus associated with sinners he said he did so precisely for that reason. And I, like Pr. McCain, am troubled by those who are so fearful of any mention of good works that they fall into the Amsdorfian trap of thinking that good works are detrimental to salvation. The Formula of Concord is clear: good works are detrimental if we rely on them for our salvation. Yes the law always accuses. Yes, the law always accuses, even in our good works. Yes, apart from Christ the law only accuses. But in Christ we have been raised from death to life, and that life by its very nature shows itself in good works which manifests the fruits of love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness faithfulness, and self control. And we are to encourage those works by the encouragement of the Gospel. And God accepts those works, not for their own quality, but for Christ’s sake.

  • EGK

    Do we want sinners in our churches? Of course! The issue with Nadia’s message as I was listening was that it was one of inclusivity (which is good), but one that accepts people without calling them to repentance. And when Jesus associated with sinners he said he did so precisely for that reason. And I, like Pr. McCain, am troubled by those who are so fearful of any mention of good works that they fall into the Amsdorfian trap of thinking that good works are detrimental to salvation. The Formula of Concord is clear: good works are detrimental if we rely on them for our salvation. Yes the law always accuses. Yes, the law always accuses, even in our good works. Yes, apart from Christ the law only accuses. But in Christ we have been raised from death to life, and that life by its very nature shows itself in good works which manifests the fruits of love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness faithfulness, and self control. And we are to encourage those works by the encouragement of the Gospel. And God accepts those works, not for their own quality, but for Christ’s sake.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Paul@57,

    For people like you, the time is always opportune to rebel against your bishops, tear asunder what is left of the bonds of synodical fellowship and strike off on your own path, in a whirlwind of doctrinal righteous indignation. I kn0w a couple of ELCA congregations in our area that do a pretty decent job of trying to remain faithful in spite of the apostasy going on in their synod. You don’t know what they have tried to do to remedy their situation. Instead you issue blanket condemnations because they don’t immediately do what you think they should do. Some of them no doubt do what some of the best LCMS congregations do; ignore any and everything ‘synodical’ and carry on Word and Sacrament ministry as if Synod didn’t exist, calling their Pastors from among those they personally know to be doctrinally solid.

    I once heard one of my mentors tell someone “You can be ‘right’ and alone.” That is to say there is a way of being right doctrinally or whatever that repels those you are trying to help and those hearing you and acts as a stumbling block to the Gospel and alienates people from your cause. Make your own application….

  • Patrick Kyle

    Paul@57,

    For people like you, the time is always opportune to rebel against your bishops, tear asunder what is left of the bonds of synodical fellowship and strike off on your own path, in a whirlwind of doctrinal righteous indignation. I kn0w a couple of ELCA congregations in our area that do a pretty decent job of trying to remain faithful in spite of the apostasy going on in their synod. You don’t know what they have tried to do to remedy their situation. Instead you issue blanket condemnations because they don’t immediately do what you think they should do. Some of them no doubt do what some of the best LCMS congregations do; ignore any and everything ‘synodical’ and carry on Word and Sacrament ministry as if Synod didn’t exist, calling their Pastors from among those they personally know to be doctrinally solid.

    I once heard one of my mentors tell someone “You can be ‘right’ and alone.” That is to say there is a way of being right doctrinally or whatever that repels those you are trying to help and those hearing you and acts as a stumbling block to the Gospel and alienates people from your cause. Make your own application….

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “You should note that it is Pastor Mc Cain who created http://www.bookofconcord.org !”

    No, YOU should note that. Everything true that you think you just taught him is something he could have taught you.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “You should note that it is Pastor Mc Cain who created http://www.bookofconcord.org !”

    No, YOU should note that. Everything true that you think you just taught him is something he could have taught you.

  • fws

    sp @ 65

    Thanks SP for restating what I tried to say with even more clarity!

  • fws

    sp @ 65

    Thanks SP for restating what I tried to say with even more clarity!

  • fws

    EGK @ 63

    Yes… BUT!

    Yes, apart from Christ the law only accuses……
    But in Christ we have been raised from death to life, …And we are to encourage those works by the encouragement of the Gospel.

    You seem to relabel Aristotle´s Virtue ethic of practicing the self disciplines until they become a habit and call that “sanctification”. Why do I think this? You seem to describe sanctification as something we can chose to do or leave undone. You are clearly saying that free will is involved in this.

    42] These testimonies state that by [not by] our own powers …[but by the] Holy Ghost, …we are enlightened, sanctified, and…kept with Him; and no mention is made either of our will or cooperation. http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160100

    You are to exhort free will exactly here:

    53] This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon.

    Go and treat a homo in such a way that he is willing to come to your church. Nadia here is doing what God demands of us. Follow her example. Repent and go preach to Niniveh Jonah…er… EGK.

    And you wrote this:

    … and that life by its very nature shows itself in good works … which manifests the fruits of love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness faithfulness, and self control.

    So we are to do fruit inspection!
    Again you are substituting Aristotle for the Holy Gospel.
    Note this:
    Góspel and Law fruit are the same identical fruit.
    The difference is in the doer not in the done.
    The difference is in the heart of the doer and not the act.
    So how would that be “shown” or “manifest”?
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php#para16

    Good Works? Do them!
    Mortify the flesh in the sense of practice the Aristotelian self disciplines?
    Do that too! God does indeed demand that be done!
    He will reward or punish us accordingly! We should fear that!

    But here is the deal EGK: You are exhorting christians to do exactly what virtuous pagans are able to do. the same thing and the same fruits!
    Stop spiritualizing or christianizing Aristotle!

    Your preaching of Good Works is not sanctification. The preaching of Good Works is not to preach a 3rd use of the Law that does not always and only kill. Not even in believers.

    [the HS] slays and makes alive; He leads into hell and brings up again. He will reprove the world (which includes also the old Adam of the believer) of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. …14] …as often as believers stumble, they are reproved by the Holy Spirit from the Law , and by the same Spirit are raised up and comforted again with the preaching of the Holy Gospel. http://bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php#para12

    You are speaking as a man who’s conscience is not being terrified by what the Law and Judgement of God shows you about your own fruit of the Spirit and your own good works.

    Here is how Lutherans contextualize saving faith and good works. What I will quote seems so very foreign in spirit to what you posted :

    “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. ”
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php#para21

    Wherefore, [such faith] it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. (ibid)

    [Only a true believer can know and experience] how the remission of sins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors of conscience, trust in works is driven out of us.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para20

    And finally this about what to do with sinners in the church.

    Think ELCA here, Women pastors in stilhettos, Homos, trangenders and persons with “agendas” that you disagree with and that are flat out wrong:

    1] [The Romans have slanderously accused us of teaching] that the wicked are …to be separated from the Church. [ They point to ] John …comparing [the church] to a theshing floor in which wheat and chaff are heaped together, Matt. 3:12, and Christ has compared it to a net in which 2] there are both good and bad fishes, Matt. 13:47.
    3] [no one should think that we teach that we are to ]…separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outward fellowship of the Church, or that we deny efficacy to Sacraments administered by hypocrites or wicked men.
    Therefore there is no need here of a long defense against this slander.
    For we grant that in this life hypocrites and wicked men have been mingled with the Church, and that they are members of the Church according to the outward fellowship of the signs of the Church, i.e., of Word, profession, and Sacraments, especially if they have not been excommunicated.
    4] Neither are the Sacraments without efficacy for the reason that they are administered by wicked men; yea, we can even be right in using the Sacraments administered by wicked men.
    For Paul also predicts, 2 Thess. 2:4, that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, i.e., he will rule and bear office in the Church.
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php#para1

  • fws

    EGK @ 63

    Yes… BUT!

    Yes, apart from Christ the law only accuses……
    But in Christ we have been raised from death to life, …And we are to encourage those works by the encouragement of the Gospel.

    You seem to relabel Aristotle´s Virtue ethic of practicing the self disciplines until they become a habit and call that “sanctification”. Why do I think this? You seem to describe sanctification as something we can chose to do or leave undone. You are clearly saying that free will is involved in this.

    42] These testimonies state that by [not by] our own powers …[but by the] Holy Ghost, …we are enlightened, sanctified, and…kept with Him; and no mention is made either of our will or cooperation. http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160100

    You are to exhort free will exactly here:

    53] This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon.

    Go and treat a homo in such a way that he is willing to come to your church. Nadia here is doing what God demands of us. Follow her example. Repent and go preach to Niniveh Jonah…er… EGK.

    And you wrote this:

    … and that life by its very nature shows itself in good works … which manifests the fruits of love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness faithfulness, and self control.

    So we are to do fruit inspection!
    Again you are substituting Aristotle for the Holy Gospel.
    Note this:
    Góspel and Law fruit are the same identical fruit.
    The difference is in the doer not in the done.
    The difference is in the heart of the doer and not the act.
    So how would that be “shown” or “manifest”?
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php#para16

    Good Works? Do them!
    Mortify the flesh in the sense of practice the Aristotelian self disciplines?
    Do that too! God does indeed demand that be done!
    He will reward or punish us accordingly! We should fear that!

    But here is the deal EGK: You are exhorting christians to do exactly what virtuous pagans are able to do. the same thing and the same fruits!
    Stop spiritualizing or christianizing Aristotle!

    Your preaching of Good Works is not sanctification. The preaching of Good Works is not to preach a 3rd use of the Law that does not always and only kill. Not even in believers.

    [the HS] slays and makes alive; He leads into hell and brings up again. He will reprove the world (which includes also the old Adam of the believer) of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. …14] …as often as believers stumble, they are reproved by the Holy Spirit from the Law , and by the same Spirit are raised up and comforted again with the preaching of the Holy Gospel. http://bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php#para12

    You are speaking as a man who’s conscience is not being terrified by what the Law and Judgement of God shows you about your own fruit of the Spirit and your own good works.

    Here is how Lutherans contextualize saving faith and good works. What I will quote seems so very foreign in spirit to what you posted :

    “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. ”
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php#para21

    Wherefore, [such faith] it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. (ibid)

    [Only a true believer can know and experience] how the remission of sins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors of conscience, trust in works is driven out of us.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para20

    And finally this about what to do with sinners in the church.

    Think ELCA here, Women pastors in stilhettos, Homos, trangenders and persons with “agendas” that you disagree with and that are flat out wrong:

    1] [The Romans have slanderously accused us of teaching] that the wicked are …to be separated from the Church. [ They point to ] John …comparing [the church] to a theshing floor in which wheat and chaff are heaped together, Matt. 3:12, and Christ has compared it to a net in which 2] there are both good and bad fishes, Matt. 13:47.
    3] [no one should think that we teach that we are to ]…separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outward fellowship of the Church, or that we deny efficacy to Sacraments administered by hypocrites or wicked men.
    Therefore there is no need here of a long defense against this slander.
    For we grant that in this life hypocrites and wicked men have been mingled with the Church, and that they are members of the Church according to the outward fellowship of the signs of the Church, i.e., of Word, profession, and Sacraments, especially if they have not been excommunicated.
    4] Neither are the Sacraments without efficacy for the reason that they are administered by wicked men; yea, we can even be right in using the Sacraments administered by wicked men.
    For Paul also predicts, 2 Thess. 2:4, that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, i.e., he will rule and bear office in the Church.
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php#para1

  • larry

    The problem lay in the so called “call to repentance”. I fear far too many Lutherans are functioning Baptist and Evangelicals on this issue. For they think the call to repentance basically means some sort of call from vice to virtue and thus they preach a repentance that every fallen religion and Aristotle combined preach. They tend to think that repentance is a call from the “black devil” sins to virtues (white devil sins). Then they wrap it up in a term called sanctification and say, along with the heterodoxies out there, this is sanctification and good works. They tend to not believe Paul when he says ‘apart from faith all is sin’ and they do this with a quasi theology of the Reformed that once converted and saved can never fall away so that they can quickly get away from the Cross and “assume the Gospel” and onto “good works” and the business of sanctification. They tend to forget the old adam is still here and the old adam is first and foremost a distruster of God (original sin) and violator of the first table while keeping outwardly the second table of the law and slapping a “good works”, “sanctification” and “by the spirit” label on it in order to smuggle in.

    And then they define how they know they are saved not by the Word and sacraments, not by “I am baptized”, oh they can mouth the words when pressed but their larger talk and speech reveals something else, but by their sanctification records. In this they are just like heterodoxy, deeply deceived. For these, heterodoxy, measure the “I know that I’m saved” by the second table of the law forgetting that the first table is required and the first table can only even begin to be ‘new heart movements’ if one already is assured one is saved, forgiven and has eternal life via the Word and Sacraments. Without faith, ALL is sin. Without faith, “sanctification is damnable sin”.

    For the call of repentance is one of a call from unbelief to belief and belief is absolute assurance in that one’s sins are forgiven and Christ is one’s SOLE righteousness entirely apart from the Law in any since, in short to trust God again, not from vice to virtue.

    So when many huff and puff about repentance, beware of what they mean, for many only mean “repentance” ala heterodoxy, Aristotle and rank false religions and thus their “sanctification” is of the same cut as is their call to do “good works”.

    One can always tell when the offense of the Cross is getting to someone, such giddy spirits cannot wait to cover the light up with so called “repentance, sanctification and good works” and they always accuse the others of forbidden these when nothing is further from the truth. It’s just that our repentance, sanctification and good works are not the same as their repentance, sanctification and good works. The offense of the Cross is truly an offense to virtue.

    “Weak on sanctification” is pure Martin Luther used in the context of the false teaching of the heterodoxies out there in our day and age. Just as he turned Rome’s phrases against them for example in the HD concerning mortal and venial sin, turning their own terms against them. Same thing. Why? Because false teaching always shellacs itself with pious terms in order to Trojan horse itself into the true Christian faith. It is why wolves wear sheep’s cloth. The paradox of “weak on sanctification” is to be actually strong on real sanctification and simultaneously denying outright this false sanctification that comes about when “without faith all is sin”, it ferrets out the wolf under the sheep cloth, it strips the gloss from false teaching, removes the perfume from the dung.

  • larry

    The problem lay in the so called “call to repentance”. I fear far too many Lutherans are functioning Baptist and Evangelicals on this issue. For they think the call to repentance basically means some sort of call from vice to virtue and thus they preach a repentance that every fallen religion and Aristotle combined preach. They tend to think that repentance is a call from the “black devil” sins to virtues (white devil sins). Then they wrap it up in a term called sanctification and say, along with the heterodoxies out there, this is sanctification and good works. They tend to not believe Paul when he says ‘apart from faith all is sin’ and they do this with a quasi theology of the Reformed that once converted and saved can never fall away so that they can quickly get away from the Cross and “assume the Gospel” and onto “good works” and the business of sanctification. They tend to forget the old adam is still here and the old adam is first and foremost a distruster of God (original sin) and violator of the first table while keeping outwardly the second table of the law and slapping a “good works”, “sanctification” and “by the spirit” label on it in order to smuggle in.

    And then they define how they know they are saved not by the Word and sacraments, not by “I am baptized”, oh they can mouth the words when pressed but their larger talk and speech reveals something else, but by their sanctification records. In this they are just like heterodoxy, deeply deceived. For these, heterodoxy, measure the “I know that I’m saved” by the second table of the law forgetting that the first table is required and the first table can only even begin to be ‘new heart movements’ if one already is assured one is saved, forgiven and has eternal life via the Word and Sacraments. Without faith, ALL is sin. Without faith, “sanctification is damnable sin”.

    For the call of repentance is one of a call from unbelief to belief and belief is absolute assurance in that one’s sins are forgiven and Christ is one’s SOLE righteousness entirely apart from the Law in any since, in short to trust God again, not from vice to virtue.

    So when many huff and puff about repentance, beware of what they mean, for many only mean “repentance” ala heterodoxy, Aristotle and rank false religions and thus their “sanctification” is of the same cut as is their call to do “good works”.

    One can always tell when the offense of the Cross is getting to someone, such giddy spirits cannot wait to cover the light up with so called “repentance, sanctification and good works” and they always accuse the others of forbidden these when nothing is further from the truth. It’s just that our repentance, sanctification and good works are not the same as their repentance, sanctification and good works. The offense of the Cross is truly an offense to virtue.

    “Weak on sanctification” is pure Martin Luther used in the context of the false teaching of the heterodoxies out there in our day and age. Just as he turned Rome’s phrases against them for example in the HD concerning mortal and venial sin, turning their own terms against them. Same thing. Why? Because false teaching always shellacs itself with pious terms in order to Trojan horse itself into the true Christian faith. It is why wolves wear sheep’s cloth. The paradox of “weak on sanctification” is to be actually strong on real sanctification and simultaneously denying outright this false sanctification that comes about when “without faith all is sin”, it ferrets out the wolf under the sheep cloth, it strips the gloss from false teaching, removes the perfume from the dung.

  • fws

    EGK @ 63

    Not I am not slamming your teaching Aritotle or inserting the teaching of the Thomist Scholastics that our Apology writes against.

    Neither does the Apology.

    Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so learnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para14

    and…

    Now, although we cheerfully assign this righteousness of reason the praises that are due it (for this corrupt nature has no greater good in this life and in a worldly nature, nothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue, and Aristotle says aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more beautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodily rewards), …. BUT! it ought not to be praised with reproach to Christ. http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para24

    Sanctification happens, alone, by the hearing of the word of God. Period. It is alone, alone, alone, a work of the HS. You say the word “encourage” in the sense of “exhort”. That is Law. It is to kill and accuse.

    Sanctification does not happen by the “encouragement” you call “Gospel” that is really an antinomian/law-less/gospel-ish form of the Law.

    What you “encourage” is to be called by the term “Mortification of the Flesh.” It is about the death of Old Adam. There is no Life there. And this is something fake christians too are driven by the HS to do.

  • fws

    EGK @ 63

    Not I am not slamming your teaching Aritotle or inserting the teaching of the Thomist Scholastics that our Apology writes against.

    Neither does the Apology.

    Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so learnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para14

    and…

    Now, although we cheerfully assign this righteousness of reason the praises that are due it (for this corrupt nature has no greater good in this life and in a worldly nature, nothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue, and Aristotle says aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more beautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodily rewards), …. BUT! it ought not to be praised with reproach to Christ. http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para24

    Sanctification happens, alone, by the hearing of the word of God. Period. It is alone, alone, alone, a work of the HS. You say the word “encourage” in the sense of “exhort”. That is Law. It is to kill and accuse.

    Sanctification does not happen by the “encouragement” you call “Gospel” that is really an antinomian/law-less/gospel-ish form of the Law.

    What you “encourage” is to be called by the term “Mortification of the Flesh.” It is about the death of Old Adam. There is no Life there. And this is something fake christians too are driven by the HS to do.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I did not read every single comment above. However, my 2 cents:

    I really like Jikkiyu’s comment at #45. It was one of the big reasons I became Lutheran.

    As for what a Lutheran is, I would say he is a simple Christian, following the teachings God as delivered by the Church historic, and especially as it was “distilled and cleaned-up” by Luther, best presented in the Smaller Cathechism.

    Jim-77 wants to add on the burden, making every man a learned dogmatist, and load us up with more anathemas (Thou shalt not believe in evolution, otherwise thou art a heretic condemned to hell).
    As all dogmatists, he ran when questioned. There is nothing wrong with dogmatics, it is a good thing, but it should never become a hobby-horse. Any faith for which a simple explanation that a 5-year old can understand is insufficient, is worth nothing.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I did not read every single comment above. However, my 2 cents:

    I really like Jikkiyu’s comment at #45. It was one of the big reasons I became Lutheran.

    As for what a Lutheran is, I would say he is a simple Christian, following the teachings God as delivered by the Church historic, and especially as it was “distilled and cleaned-up” by Luther, best presented in the Smaller Cathechism.

    Jim-77 wants to add on the burden, making every man a learned dogmatist, and load us up with more anathemas (Thou shalt not believe in evolution, otherwise thou art a heretic condemned to hell).
    As all dogmatists, he ran when questioned. There is nothing wrong with dogmatics, it is a good thing, but it should never become a hobby-horse. Any faith for which a simple explanation that a 5-year old can understand is insufficient, is worth nothing.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I would add that those who require intellectual prowess of anyone to be a good Lutheran, are as bad, if not worse, than. The Baptists who withold the sacrament of Baptism, and thus entry into the Church, from the little ones.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I would add that those who require intellectual prowess of anyone to be a good Lutheran, are as bad, if not worse, than. The Baptists who withold the sacrament of Baptism, and thus entry into the Church, from the little ones.

  • fws

    KK @ 71

    Aw KK. You just had to come and spoil our fun.

    Don´t you know that we LCMS Lutherans believe we are saved by our achievement of doctrinal purity?

  • fws

    KK @ 71

    Aw KK. You just had to come and spoil our fun.

    Don´t you know that we LCMS Lutherans believe we are saved by our achievement of doctrinal purity?

  • Tom Hering

    Klasie, don’t miss the distinction Jim_777 made @ 28.

  • Tom Hering

    Klasie, don’t miss the distinction Jim_777 made @ 28.

  • fws

    Tom @ 73

    It still doesn´t work for me. In that case persons in the ELCA like Nadia Bolz-Webber who still have lots of stuff not quite right are not Lutheran.

    Heck Tom. Every time I reread the Confessions I find myself being corrected on stuff that I thought I was certain was Lutheran doctrine. It is humbling. I don´t like it to be honest. So am I only “Lutheran ” and not LUTHERAN! and…. why does that even matter?

  • fws

    Tom @ 73

    It still doesn´t work for me. In that case persons in the ELCA like Nadia Bolz-Webber who still have lots of stuff not quite right are not Lutheran.

    Heck Tom. Every time I reread the Confessions I find myself being corrected on stuff that I thought I was certain was Lutheran doctrine. It is humbling. I don´t like it to be honest. So am I only “Lutheran ” and not LUTHERAN! and…. why does that even matter?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Tom, sure, I did not see that. But he doesn’t remove his anathema (which, though he doesn’t know me, places me on the ‘die, heretic, die’ list. Also, even the cursary introductoin of classes of people is the beginning of pharaseeism.

    Also, there is the implicit belief in absolute literalism – something more akin to IFB’s. Wonder what Jim does with Luther’s doubts about James and Revelations.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Tom, sure, I did not see that. But he doesn’t remove his anathema (which, though he doesn’t know me, places me on the ‘die, heretic, die’ list. Also, even the cursary introductoin of classes of people is the beginning of pharaseeism.

    Also, there is the implicit belief in absolute literalism – something more akin to IFB’s. Wonder what Jim does with Luther’s doubts about James and Revelations.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    FWS: Exactly. Jim demands absolute “pure” doctrine. Who gets to define the purity standards, is what I ask. Because that fellow is going to be the Lutheran pope.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    FWS: Exactly. Jim demands absolute “pure” doctrine. Who gets to define the purity standards, is what I ask. Because that fellow is going to be the Lutheran pope.

  • larry

    KK and Frank bring up a good point. And the reality is what makes a Baptist withhold an infant from Baptism is the same as the doctrinal purity attempts, they are both the same thing – i.e. that’s why infants are not baptized in Baptist churches and if you are “lucky” enough to have been in a increasingly leaning reformed/Calvinistic Baptist church attempting to purge the roles and get back to the Baptist distinctive of a true regenerate congregation with Calvinism lathered on to make it work you see this play out more clearly as the elders have to eyeball and inspect the hearts of those wishing to be baptized, especially teenagers, for signs of regeneration. If not its back to the salt minds of reading and studying to death this or that systematic theology and finally being able to produce the “I’m elect” gold nugget in order to be baptized. And those who have been there know EXACTLY what I’m talking about.

    The argument against doctrinal purity versus orthodoxy has to be well handled. Because it is often used by heterodoxies to get a foot in the door, which in reality argue against the Gospel and the name of God.

    The old adam always wishes to make a work project out such and cries and whines about “you are not saved by doctrinal purity” usually when a false doctrine of his/hers is challenged. But only the old adam is trying to do this. Doctrinal purity is about the overflowing gifts of the Gospel, i.e. the new man is looking for more presents to unwrap, its the old adam that’s crying, “you are not saved by doctrinal purity or getting an A on a doctrine test. The new man, while unwrapping his endlessly flowing gospel presence looks up and a replied, “Huh!? Wow look what I got”. The old adam sulks in a corner, “you are not saved over there by your doctrinal purity”. So you have the new man unwrapping presents and the old adam complaining about that new man over there trying to save himself through doctrinal purity. The whole conversation looks foolish and is because the old adam simply doesn’t get the joke nor have the language. The fish cannot talk to the bird and the bird to the fish, likewise the old adam cannot talk to the new man, nor vice versa. The old Adam is disguising, secretly, his ‘act of faith’ under all this that’s why he cries the question “you are not saved by believing purified doctrine”.

    Let’s take a simple example (Nestingen has put this better than I, but I’ll give it a shot in my own words). The old adam is on the sinking and dying Titanic and so he views all of scripture through a lens of scarcity in which only law kicks in and reads even promises as law (the opinion legis, i.e. suspected opinion that the law in the end is what really counts). The logic of shortage Nestingen calls it, in addressing the benefits of the sacraments and their use, in opposition to the logic of the ressurrection. The logic of shortage is always legal, it asks the question “how do I qualify”. The logic of the resurrection is gift ad in finitum, it never runs out and it asks “what is the benefit. In this way the old adam reads the exact same passage that the new man does but hears it with dead ears and thus a different way. The best example is the Ethiopian Eunuch. Here the old adam and all his officially constructed doctrinal denominations and confessions sees this in the logic of shortage and thus legal and looks for “how did the Eunuch qualify for baptism” so it then can assert qualifications for baptism, usually on adults only and not infants. This is the logic of the fallen religion, the Titanic religion where shortage is as the old is dying, it is the Satanic religion, the law as the way of righteousness religion in its various forms. But the logic of the resurrected crucified one is a logic of utter infinite eternal over flowing abundance, Christ never runs out but over flows and so this logic is basically what the passage states and precisely the E. Eunuch’s reaction, because he’s just learned Christ has risen and BECAUSE of that he does not look for how he qualifies but asks question expecting an obvious answer that completes the logic of over abundance and shear grace and giftedness, “(this being so, Christ risen) here is water then what prevents me from be baptized!” Answer: NOTHING!

    By way of analogy: The starving old adam comes upon a banquet and asks, “how do I qualify (expecting a qualification answer, if you do this or that)”. The new man sees the same thing and says, “what prevents me…nothing at all”. BECAUSE Christ is risen you ARE forgiven. You see how rich the resurrection is and not just stopping at the cross. It’s the same thing with the woman at the well and Jesus. The old adam hears another qualifier there, but Jesus is really saying if you KNEW Who I was then you’d be asking ME for a drink. I.e. Jesus the cup spiller over filler upper constantly flowing free gift giver of forgiveness of sins and His righteousness.

    That’s getting the doctrine right, so you’ll hear and then you receive, not to pass a doctrinal exam to qualify. Two entirely different religions.

    The first time you ever hear that you do a double take on verses you heretofore heard as qualifying legal passages and then “you get the punch line finally”.

    So getting doctrine right is not about “passing the legal test” of the old adam in the logic of shortage dying world (how old adam sees doctrinal purity), but about receiving the overflowing never ending gifts and presence in the logic of the resurrection (and dawning Kingdom, is also why Jesus says bring the infants to Me and adults become like them, i.e. pure gift receivers or you’ll never enter the kingdom of heaven but sulk in hell like the older brother while the prodigal is drinking and feasting at My party). Have you ever been to a really lavious

  • larry

    KK and Frank bring up a good point. And the reality is what makes a Baptist withhold an infant from Baptism is the same as the doctrinal purity attempts, they are both the same thing – i.e. that’s why infants are not baptized in Baptist churches and if you are “lucky” enough to have been in a increasingly leaning reformed/Calvinistic Baptist church attempting to purge the roles and get back to the Baptist distinctive of a true regenerate congregation with Calvinism lathered on to make it work you see this play out more clearly as the elders have to eyeball and inspect the hearts of those wishing to be baptized, especially teenagers, for signs of regeneration. If not its back to the salt minds of reading and studying to death this or that systematic theology and finally being able to produce the “I’m elect” gold nugget in order to be baptized. And those who have been there know EXACTLY what I’m talking about.

    The argument against doctrinal purity versus orthodoxy has to be well handled. Because it is often used by heterodoxies to get a foot in the door, which in reality argue against the Gospel and the name of God.

    The old adam always wishes to make a work project out such and cries and whines about “you are not saved by doctrinal purity” usually when a false doctrine of his/hers is challenged. But only the old adam is trying to do this. Doctrinal purity is about the overflowing gifts of the Gospel, i.e. the new man is looking for more presents to unwrap, its the old adam that’s crying, “you are not saved by doctrinal purity or getting an A on a doctrine test. The new man, while unwrapping his endlessly flowing gospel presence looks up and a replied, “Huh!? Wow look what I got”. The old adam sulks in a corner, “you are not saved over there by your doctrinal purity”. So you have the new man unwrapping presents and the old adam complaining about that new man over there trying to save himself through doctrinal purity. The whole conversation looks foolish and is because the old adam simply doesn’t get the joke nor have the language. The fish cannot talk to the bird and the bird to the fish, likewise the old adam cannot talk to the new man, nor vice versa. The old Adam is disguising, secretly, his ‘act of faith’ under all this that’s why he cries the question “you are not saved by believing purified doctrine”.

    Let’s take a simple example (Nestingen has put this better than I, but I’ll give it a shot in my own words). The old adam is on the sinking and dying Titanic and so he views all of scripture through a lens of scarcity in which only law kicks in and reads even promises as law (the opinion legis, i.e. suspected opinion that the law in the end is what really counts). The logic of shortage Nestingen calls it, in addressing the benefits of the sacraments and their use, in opposition to the logic of the ressurrection. The logic of shortage is always legal, it asks the question “how do I qualify”. The logic of the resurrection is gift ad in finitum, it never runs out and it asks “what is the benefit. In this way the old adam reads the exact same passage that the new man does but hears it with dead ears and thus a different way. The best example is the Ethiopian Eunuch. Here the old adam and all his officially constructed doctrinal denominations and confessions sees this in the logic of shortage and thus legal and looks for “how did the Eunuch qualify for baptism” so it then can assert qualifications for baptism, usually on adults only and not infants. This is the logic of the fallen religion, the Titanic religion where shortage is as the old is dying, it is the Satanic religion, the law as the way of righteousness religion in its various forms. But the logic of the resurrected crucified one is a logic of utter infinite eternal over flowing abundance, Christ never runs out but over flows and so this logic is basically what the passage states and precisely the E. Eunuch’s reaction, because he’s just learned Christ has risen and BECAUSE of that he does not look for how he qualifies but asks question expecting an obvious answer that completes the logic of over abundance and shear grace and giftedness, “(this being so, Christ risen) here is water then what prevents me from be baptized!” Answer: NOTHING!

    By way of analogy: The starving old adam comes upon a banquet and asks, “how do I qualify (expecting a qualification answer, if you do this or that)”. The new man sees the same thing and says, “what prevents me…nothing at all”. BECAUSE Christ is risen you ARE forgiven. You see how rich the resurrection is and not just stopping at the cross. It’s the same thing with the woman at the well and Jesus. The old adam hears another qualifier there, but Jesus is really saying if you KNEW Who I was then you’d be asking ME for a drink. I.e. Jesus the cup spiller over filler upper constantly flowing free gift giver of forgiveness of sins and His righteousness.

    That’s getting the doctrine right, so you’ll hear and then you receive, not to pass a doctrinal exam to qualify. Two entirely different religions.

    The first time you ever hear that you do a double take on verses you heretofore heard as qualifying legal passages and then “you get the punch line finally”.

    So getting doctrine right is not about “passing the legal test” of the old adam in the logic of shortage dying world (how old adam sees doctrinal purity), but about receiving the overflowing never ending gifts and presence in the logic of the resurrection (and dawning Kingdom, is also why Jesus says bring the infants to Me and adults become like them, i.e. pure gift receivers or you’ll never enter the kingdom of heaven but sulk in hell like the older brother while the prodigal is drinking and feasting at My party). Have you ever been to a really lavious

  • larry

    Luther makes this point as a key difference between the Pope and doctrinal purity and truth in doctrine as doctrinal purity, and likewise applied it to the sacramentarians or heterodoxies. The Pope and heterodoxies always turn you in to their hearts, Christianity, orthodoxy turns one to the Word nude. So for example in “this is My body” I really don’t HAVE to point you to the Book of Concord, my explanations, Luther’s or anyone else…just Scripture. If one’s explanation does not directly match the scriptures then one is in reality turning the hearers into their own hearts ala the pope and the heterodoxies. A, for example, “well Jesus means ‘represents’ or some such as ‘this is the doctrine’ is precisely the move of the pope and all forms of enthusiasm (god within-ness). But what does Jesus actually say is sola scriptura, because at the end of the day Scripture speaks quite plainly. All attempts to do what Zwingli did to even Luther himself, pretend a better grasp of the Greek in such are just the popish tricks of everything having to come ex cathedra only in localized, now, enthusiast.

    It’s not that doctrine is not pure and true, it must be, every single Word of God demands it and it is intrinsic to the second commandment and second petition of the Lord’s prayer. To deny this is to in fact deny the Scriptures and demand a doctrinal purity of one’s own heart which is saying “hath God really said”.

  • larry

    Luther makes this point as a key difference between the Pope and doctrinal purity and truth in doctrine as doctrinal purity, and likewise applied it to the sacramentarians or heterodoxies. The Pope and heterodoxies always turn you in to their hearts, Christianity, orthodoxy turns one to the Word nude. So for example in “this is My body” I really don’t HAVE to point you to the Book of Concord, my explanations, Luther’s or anyone else…just Scripture. If one’s explanation does not directly match the scriptures then one is in reality turning the hearers into their own hearts ala the pope and the heterodoxies. A, for example, “well Jesus means ‘represents’ or some such as ‘this is the doctrine’ is precisely the move of the pope and all forms of enthusiasm (god within-ness). But what does Jesus actually say is sola scriptura, because at the end of the day Scripture speaks quite plainly. All attempts to do what Zwingli did to even Luther himself, pretend a better grasp of the Greek in such are just the popish tricks of everything having to come ex cathedra only in localized, now, enthusiast.

    It’s not that doctrine is not pure and true, it must be, every single Word of God demands it and it is intrinsic to the second commandment and second petition of the Lord’s prayer. To deny this is to in fact deny the Scriptures and demand a doctrinal purity of one’s own heart which is saying “hath God really said”.

  • SKPeterson

    larry @ 76 – You invoked Nestingen. While he has many friends in LCMS, he is ELCA and therefore anathema.

    I like your post though. The necessity to rightly divide calls for doctrinal purity from adherence to orthodoxy. And this division is not to make one exclusive of the other, but to provide the proper balance. True doctrine is orthodoxy and even orthopraxy. Yet, we must be careful of what we determine to be the content of true doctrine, or valid expressions of orthodoxy/praxy. We may be able to make distinctions of what is, or is not, true doctrine, but where we often fail is in determining the extent or comprehensiveness of the expressed doctrine. I’m thinking here of the evolution of Christology in the early Church as it worked its way through the various councils in the 4th through 7th centuries and the development of the creeds, the arguments against Nestorianism, Eutycheanism, etc.

    By the way, we do have a Lutheran pope, Pope Yankee Doodle Chemnitz I, as Benedict XVI has failed to live up to the challenge.

  • SKPeterson

    larry @ 76 – You invoked Nestingen. While he has many friends in LCMS, he is ELCA and therefore anathema.

    I like your post though. The necessity to rightly divide calls for doctrinal purity from adherence to orthodoxy. And this division is not to make one exclusive of the other, but to provide the proper balance. True doctrine is orthodoxy and even orthopraxy. Yet, we must be careful of what we determine to be the content of true doctrine, or valid expressions of orthodoxy/praxy. We may be able to make distinctions of what is, or is not, true doctrine, but where we often fail is in determining the extent or comprehensiveness of the expressed doctrine. I’m thinking here of the evolution of Christology in the early Church as it worked its way through the various councils in the 4th through 7th centuries and the development of the creeds, the arguments against Nestorianism, Eutycheanism, etc.

    By the way, we do have a Lutheran pope, Pope Yankee Doodle Chemnitz I, as Benedict XVI has failed to live up to the challenge.

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

    Patrick: You insist on missing the point and it is interesting you have now resorted to the whole “people like you” refrain.

    The ELCA is an apostate church body. Congratulations are never in order for a man who chooses to become a pastor in that church body. It’s that simple.

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

    Patrick: You insist on missing the point and it is interesting you have now resorted to the whole “people like you” refrain.

    The ELCA is an apostate church body. Congratulations are never in order for a man who chooses to become a pastor in that church body. It’s that simple.

  • larry

    SK,

    Yea I know, believe me I went back and forth over doing it or not for the very reason you stated. I always like to give credit where credit is due, I could just “sneak up” and pretend I thought of it originally, I’ve thought of that because many won’t get past “who said it” and commit the obvious logical fallacy of labeling the source and therefore anything they say is wrong. If so they might as well quite pretending to be Lutheran right away because that is precisely how many enthusiast argue. E.g. Grace. If you give mean to simply give credit and say Luther said X, the immediate response is the logical fallacy of “well that’s what a man says and I don’t follow a man” or some other such none sense. Its a rank logical fallacy and needs to be called for what it is. So if I give credit I’m damned, ‘we don’t like X’, and if I don’t in order to maybe get somebody to read past the name I’m damned, ‘that’s not your original idea’. You can’t argue with a fool when all is said and done.

    And at the end of the day, those doctrines, creation, etc…are plain too but I’m not getting into that here. Because you get into everything I just outlined above, the same Baptist blabber in principle over the sacraments is the same Lutheran blabber over creation and I don’t care who says it. I believe what the Word plainly says in Genesis about that, I’ve been clear about that, and I will not confess even on my very death bed otherwise, and I can loose all the friends in the world over that plain and simple. I’d rather be child like wrong with the Word than adult like wrong with the Word. Joel Heck and others have written well enough on this.

    The one thing many modern Lutherans seem to underestimate is temptation, and I’m not talking about coveting Frank’s mash potatoes or Bob’s bass boat or even some sexy picture one saw on the way to work. But REAL tempation away from the Word. At the end of the day its an individual decision a Christian has to make and one ought not underestimate temptation (which we do, we view it kind of as observers, “oh, I’m ready for that, “I’d done differently”. Real temptation, REALLY tempts you. Nothing is more true than orthodoxy in the face of family and friends. When Jesus said he will divide, mother, daughter, father, brother, we ought not think he was joking or being light. I’m not tempted when my enemy disagrees with me, but when my best friend, colleage, beloved parent does…then I REALLY tempted.

  • larry

    SK,

    Yea I know, believe me I went back and forth over doing it or not for the very reason you stated. I always like to give credit where credit is due, I could just “sneak up” and pretend I thought of it originally, I’ve thought of that because many won’t get past “who said it” and commit the obvious logical fallacy of labeling the source and therefore anything they say is wrong. If so they might as well quite pretending to be Lutheran right away because that is precisely how many enthusiast argue. E.g. Grace. If you give mean to simply give credit and say Luther said X, the immediate response is the logical fallacy of “well that’s what a man says and I don’t follow a man” or some other such none sense. Its a rank logical fallacy and needs to be called for what it is. So if I give credit I’m damned, ‘we don’t like X’, and if I don’t in order to maybe get somebody to read past the name I’m damned, ‘that’s not your original idea’. You can’t argue with a fool when all is said and done.

    And at the end of the day, those doctrines, creation, etc…are plain too but I’m not getting into that here. Because you get into everything I just outlined above, the same Baptist blabber in principle over the sacraments is the same Lutheran blabber over creation and I don’t care who says it. I believe what the Word plainly says in Genesis about that, I’ve been clear about that, and I will not confess even on my very death bed otherwise, and I can loose all the friends in the world over that plain and simple. I’d rather be child like wrong with the Word than adult like wrong with the Word. Joel Heck and others have written well enough on this.

    The one thing many modern Lutherans seem to underestimate is temptation, and I’m not talking about coveting Frank’s mash potatoes or Bob’s bass boat or even some sexy picture one saw on the way to work. But REAL tempation away from the Word. At the end of the day its an individual decision a Christian has to make and one ought not underestimate temptation (which we do, we view it kind of as observers, “oh, I’m ready for that, “I’d done differently”. Real temptation, REALLY tempts you. Nothing is more true than orthodoxy in the face of family and friends. When Jesus said he will divide, mother, daughter, father, brother, we ought not think he was joking or being light. I’m not tempted when my enemy disagrees with me, but when my best friend, colleage, beloved parent does…then I REALLY tempted.

  • Tom Hering

    With an orthodox Christology as a given, I’m going to suggest that a proper understanding of the Gospel, and so also of the Law, as well as of the means of Grace (Word and Sacraments), is what makes one a Lutheran. You can get everything else wrong and still be a Lutheran, though perhaps also a pain in the neck. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    With an orthodox Christology as a given, I’m going to suggest that a proper understanding of the Gospel, and so also of the Law, as well as of the means of Grace (Word and Sacraments), is what makes one a Lutheran. You can get everything else wrong and still be a Lutheran, though perhaps also a pain in the neck. :-D

  • Stephen K

    After reading all of these posts I believe that I need a”Weak on Sanctification ” T-Shirt!

    Can they be ordered from CPH?

  • Stephen K

    After reading all of these posts I believe that I need a”Weak on Sanctification ” T-Shirt!

    Can they be ordered from CPH?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    McCain said (@80):

    Patrick: You insist on missing the point and it is interesting you have now resorted to the whole “people like you” refrain.

    ooh, and you know what that means, don’t you Patrick?

    Ban him, Paul! Ban him! No one contradicts you with impunity! Ban him! Now! Do it!

    Oh, my bad, this isn’t your blog/Facebook profile. Never mind.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    McCain said (@80):

    Patrick: You insist on missing the point and it is interesting you have now resorted to the whole “people like you” refrain.

    ooh, and you know what that means, don’t you Patrick?

    Ban him, Paul! Ban him! No one contradicts you with impunity! Ban him! Now! Do it!

    Oh, my bad, this isn’t your blog/Facebook profile. Never mind.

  • Stephen K

    tODD
    I am concerned that your sanctification is not progressing very well. May I sggest that you read CPH executives blogs. They are very insughtful on how to do good works and squeeze of rounds with your glock at the same time. Good luck!

  • Stephen K

    tODD
    I am concerned that your sanctification is not progressing very well. May I sggest that you read CPH executives blogs. They are very insughtful on how to do good works and squeeze of rounds with your glock at the same time. Good luck!

  • Trey

    Thanks for hijacking the thread Frank it makes it difficult to read others postings.

    @Bror Why do you make a distinction between altar and pulpit fellowship? What is pulpit fellowship exactly?

    My concern regarding the Small Catechism is that it doesn’t teach about close communion. Specifically, belief in unity in doctrine. It clearly teached the vertical (sacramental union), but says nothing of the horizontal (Christian fellowship).

    Also, I would like specifics on your criticism regarding Pieper and Mueller. I hear it suggested but nothing concrete. How is JT Fundamentalist? My questions are sincere. I’m open to see the evidence against them. JW Montgomery exposes Mueller’s weakness regarding his fidielistic apologetics (or lack there of) in Faith Founded on Fact, in case anyone else wondered.

  • Trey

    Thanks for hijacking the thread Frank it makes it difficult to read others postings.

    @Bror Why do you make a distinction between altar and pulpit fellowship? What is pulpit fellowship exactly?

    My concern regarding the Small Catechism is that it doesn’t teach about close communion. Specifically, belief in unity in doctrine. It clearly teached the vertical (sacramental union), but says nothing of the horizontal (Christian fellowship).

    Also, I would like specifics on your criticism regarding Pieper and Mueller. I hear it suggested but nothing concrete. How is JT Fundamentalist? My questions are sincere. I’m open to see the evidence against them. JW Montgomery exposes Mueller’s weakness regarding his fidielistic apologetics (or lack there of) in Faith Founded on Fact, in case anyone else wondered.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Paul@80
    You said”The ELCA is an apostate church body. Congratulations are never in order for a man who chooses to become a pastor in that church body. It’s that simple.” So that is justification for you to publicly demean him, make yourself look like a hateful ass, give our church and Confessions a black eye by perpetuating the idea among non-Lutherans that the Lutheran faith gives rise to a mean and hateful people. You have garnered quite the reputation on the internet as a man lacking social graces and have alienated many would be Lutherans and those checking out the Lutheran faith for the first time.
    In the past I have had other bloggers ask me if there was any way I could get you to shut up because they were trying to discuss Lutheranism with non Lutherans and you were ruining the discussion by pissing everyone off. ( I told them I had no influence with you and apologized for your belligerence.)

    Please see my above comment about being right and alone, and get off the net and go back to publishing books, which is what you are good at.

    PS Thanks for plugging our shirts again. Traffic is booming and sales are starting to come in.!

  • Patrick Kyle

    Paul@80
    You said”The ELCA is an apostate church body. Congratulations are never in order for a man who chooses to become a pastor in that church body. It’s that simple.” So that is justification for you to publicly demean him, make yourself look like a hateful ass, give our church and Confessions a black eye by perpetuating the idea among non-Lutherans that the Lutheran faith gives rise to a mean and hateful people. You have garnered quite the reputation on the internet as a man lacking social graces and have alienated many would be Lutherans and those checking out the Lutheran faith for the first time.
    In the past I have had other bloggers ask me if there was any way I could get you to shut up because they were trying to discuss Lutheranism with non Lutherans and you were ruining the discussion by pissing everyone off. ( I told them I had no influence with you and apologized for your belligerence.)

    Please see my above comment about being right and alone, and get off the net and go back to publishing books, which is what you are good at.

    PS Thanks for plugging our shirts again. Traffic is booming and sales are starting to come in.!

  • Stephen

    SKP @ 79

    In defense of my old Reformation history teacher, Jim Nestigen retired in 2006. He is (or was) heavily involved in the Word Alone and LCMC movements which in turn influenced the creation of the NALC. I won’t speak for him, but I think as far as he’s concerned, the ELCA is not his church any more. So as far as orthodox street cred, he has it.

    And I would add that just because someone (like his old colleague Forde for instance) was or is once associated with the ELCA it does not follow that everything they write or say is to be written off. There are many things that influence a decision to leave one’s church. For me, it’s not the women or gay thing (as you may have guessed) but the loss of the name of the Father in the liturgy that did it for me. That, for me, is a true indicator of doctrine going off the rails. Others have different tolerance levels.

    I have thought a lot about what Fr Hogg had said on that other thread about the Orthodox church and that, among other things, he seems to have left over the use of plastic cups. I find it a troublesome practice as well. Is it worth leaving the LCMS? I’m not ready to go there, but I do think it glances up against orthopraxy not in sync with orthodoxy. They are connected. That seems to be the problem a lot of conservative shave with the LCMS. It’s not always or only about teaching and doctrine, it is about what the church “looks like” I think (tattooed women pastors, homos, etc.) as much as a concern over sound doctrine. That’s my feeling anyway. I could be wrong.

  • Stephen

    SKP @ 79

    In defense of my old Reformation history teacher, Jim Nestigen retired in 2006. He is (or was) heavily involved in the Word Alone and LCMC movements which in turn influenced the creation of the NALC. I won’t speak for him, but I think as far as he’s concerned, the ELCA is not his church any more. So as far as orthodox street cred, he has it.

    And I would add that just because someone (like his old colleague Forde for instance) was or is once associated with the ELCA it does not follow that everything they write or say is to be written off. There are many things that influence a decision to leave one’s church. For me, it’s not the women or gay thing (as you may have guessed) but the loss of the name of the Father in the liturgy that did it for me. That, for me, is a true indicator of doctrine going off the rails. Others have different tolerance levels.

    I have thought a lot about what Fr Hogg had said on that other thread about the Orthodox church and that, among other things, he seems to have left over the use of plastic cups. I find it a troublesome practice as well. Is it worth leaving the LCMS? I’m not ready to go there, but I do think it glances up against orthopraxy not in sync with orthodoxy. They are connected. That seems to be the problem a lot of conservative shave with the LCMS. It’s not always or only about teaching and doctrine, it is about what the church “looks like” I think (tattooed women pastors, homos, etc.) as much as a concern over sound doctrine. That’s my feeling anyway. I could be wrong.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Patrick, if you read your words, it is you who making yourself look poorly. When you can not argue facts, you resort to personal insults.

    Again, there is nothing to be seen as good, or to be congratulated, when a person chooses to become a clergyman in an apostate Church like the ELCA.

    That you don’t understand that is unfortunate.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Patrick, if you read your words, it is you who making yourself look poorly. When you can not argue facts, you resort to personal insults.

    Again, there is nothing to be seen as good, or to be congratulated, when a person chooses to become a clergyman in an apostate Church like the ELCA.

    That you don’t understand that is unfortunate.

  • SKPeterson

    Stephen – I should have put the ;) in my post when I mentioned Nestingen. He is one of my favorite Lutheran theologians and one of only a handful left in the ELCA (along with Paulson). I was a Word Alone supporter before finally leaving in 2009. Some of it was the gay ordination issue as a spur, but also the willy nilly faux ecumenicism with anyone and everyone. Coupling that with a loose and ever loosening grasp of historic understandings of Scripture (“God is doing a new thing” drove me up the wall) I finally had to decamp before I turned into the congregation’s obligatory angry cuss. I was fortunate to have several welcoming LCMS congregations

  • SKPeterson

    Stephen – I should have put the ;) in my post when I mentioned Nestingen. He is one of my favorite Lutheran theologians and one of only a handful left in the ELCA (along with Paulson). I was a Word Alone supporter before finally leaving in 2009. Some of it was the gay ordination issue as a spur, but also the willy nilly faux ecumenicism with anyone and everyone. Coupling that with a loose and ever loosening grasp of historic understandings of Scripture (“God is doing a new thing” drove me up the wall) I finally had to decamp before I turned into the congregation’s obligatory angry cuss. I was fortunate to have several welcoming LCMS congregations

  • Stephen K

    You said “Please see my above comment about being right and alone, and get off the net and go back to publishing books, which is what you are good at.” Amen to getting him off the net! As to being good at publishing that is a somewhat true statement. He gets a good volume out and some are pretty nice book. But that Study Bible is full of his sanctification bullet points and it has Reformed Covenants listed as though they were Lutheran ideas. Kind of troubling. If you are going to build a Lutheran Study Bible you might want to get some more Ft Wayne profs involved and less St Louis.

  • Stephen K

    You said “Please see my above comment about being right and alone, and get off the net and go back to publishing books, which is what you are good at.” Amen to getting him off the net! As to being good at publishing that is a somewhat true statement. He gets a good volume out and some are pretty nice book. But that Study Bible is full of his sanctification bullet points and it has Reformed Covenants listed as though they were Lutheran ideas. Kind of troubling. If you are going to build a Lutheran Study Bible you might want to get some more Ft Wayne profs involved and less St Louis.

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

    I’ve seen the direct consequences of Kyle and Stephen K’s attitudes about sanctification, picked up from various people channeling Forde, it has led to tragic consequences in the lives of men and women who have taken great pride in their “freedom” in Christ to sin.

    The same guy who told me how he is free to watch slasher porn is the same guy who left his wife, and the list can go on and on.

    Sick stuff. Very, very sick stuff.

    “Weak on Sanctification”?

    No, rather, “weak” on Biblical Christianity.

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

    I’ve seen the direct consequences of Kyle and Stephen K’s attitudes about sanctification, picked up from various people channeling Forde, it has led to tragic consequences in the lives of men and women who have taken great pride in their “freedom” in Christ to sin.

    The same guy who told me how he is free to watch slasher porn is the same guy who left his wife, and the list can go on and on.

    Sick stuff. Very, very sick stuff.

    “Weak on Sanctification”?

    No, rather, “weak” on Biblical Christianity.

  • Stephen

    SkP -

    Well, I’m relieved about Nestigen. He’s good, really good. He taught me a lot about the essence of Calvinism and how it differs from Lutheranism in a way that really stuck.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about the things Fr. Hogg said (don’t worry, I’m not going Orthodox!). When he said that there is no real Lutheran Church, and now this post from Andrew Sacramone, have echoed my own frustrations of searching for what I knew once. I have returned to the LCMS and find a lot of the same things that I didn’t like but in a new, weird way. The whole move toward the evangelical model is not just silly, it’s disturbing, and has me thinking it really does all boil down to political and institutional things.

    But the sermons are generally better in the LCMS, and that matters to me a lot. And because I fully agree with closed communion (unlike I once did – blame it on the B of C) I think now that the plastic cup thing is a significant issue. One of the LCMS churches we went to for a while does not have a common cup at all. And they are growing, and have video screens and “blended” services, and the preaching ambles around the truth. So we travel a ways to a dyed-in-the-wool, old school LCMS church.

    Anyway, my point is that maybe Fr. Hogg is at least partially right. I think of Paul defying Peter to his face because his practice did not follow what he preached. The way we practice faith matters, and perhaps really only in one place – church. That is, if we are the evangelical church of Word and Sacrament, then everything else is secondary. And it is there that consistency in practice would matter – not the gender of the pastor or the sexual preferences. I mean, if we are going to take those things so seriously rather than the one thing we say we take a stand on – the Holy Supper, which is the Gospel – then why aren’t we all laborers living quiet lives as Paul tells the Thessalonians to be? How is that not the same?

    I think it is a good question to ask if Lutherans, if they are really Lutheran, should be throwing out what is/was (I’m not sure which) the blood of Christ in the dumpster.

  • Stephen

    SkP -

    Well, I’m relieved about Nestigen. He’s good, really good. He taught me a lot about the essence of Calvinism and how it differs from Lutheranism in a way that really stuck.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about the things Fr. Hogg said (don’t worry, I’m not going Orthodox!). When he said that there is no real Lutheran Church, and now this post from Andrew Sacramone, have echoed my own frustrations of searching for what I knew once. I have returned to the LCMS and find a lot of the same things that I didn’t like but in a new, weird way. The whole move toward the evangelical model is not just silly, it’s disturbing, and has me thinking it really does all boil down to political and institutional things.

    But the sermons are generally better in the LCMS, and that matters to me a lot. And because I fully agree with closed communion (unlike I once did – blame it on the B of C) I think now that the plastic cup thing is a significant issue. One of the LCMS churches we went to for a while does not have a common cup at all. And they are growing, and have video screens and “blended” services, and the preaching ambles around the truth. So we travel a ways to a dyed-in-the-wool, old school LCMS church.

    Anyway, my point is that maybe Fr. Hogg is at least partially right. I think of Paul defying Peter to his face because his practice did not follow what he preached. The way we practice faith matters, and perhaps really only in one place – church. That is, if we are the evangelical church of Word and Sacrament, then everything else is secondary. And it is there that consistency in practice would matter – not the gender of the pastor or the sexual preferences. I mean, if we are going to take those things so seriously rather than the one thing we say we take a stand on – the Holy Supper, which is the Gospel – then why aren’t we all laborers living quiet lives as Paul tells the Thessalonians to be? How is that not the same?

    I think it is a good question to ask if Lutherans, if they are really Lutheran, should be throwing out what is/was (I’m not sure which) the blood of Christ in the dumpster.

  • SKPeterson

    There are good things about Forde. There are bad things. Because there is bad is no reason to discard the good. It just means care and discernment must be applied. A similar situation exists with Werner Elert. His Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries is an awesome piece of scholarship, and one that is used at CSL. My former associate pastor loaned me his copy to read before he decamped back to CSL for a phd. Great stuff. I also see him quoted on occasion by our esteemed President and by one of my favorite armchair theologian pastors, Pastor Peters over at Pastoral Meanderings. I hope nobody is questioning their orthodoxy. But, I’m also aware that there are some things that Elert wrote that are not always up to snuff. Again, take the good, leave the bad, and have the good sense to calmly discern which is which.

  • SKPeterson

    There are good things about Forde. There are bad things. Because there is bad is no reason to discard the good. It just means care and discernment must be applied. A similar situation exists with Werner Elert. His Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries is an awesome piece of scholarship, and one that is used at CSL. My former associate pastor loaned me his copy to read before he decamped back to CSL for a phd. Great stuff. I also see him quoted on occasion by our esteemed President and by one of my favorite armchair theologian pastors, Pastor Peters over at Pastoral Meanderings. I hope nobody is questioning their orthodoxy. But, I’m also aware that there are some things that Elert wrote that are not always up to snuff. Again, take the good, leave the bad, and have the good sense to calmly discern which is which.

  • SKPeterson

    Stephen @ 93 – I understand your concerns. My congregation is one that would be somewhere in the vast, muddled middle of the current LCMS, though it does trend toward a rather sloppy neo-evangelicalism in liturgical practice rather than a reliance on the historic liturgy. And I say this as an elder. We do have the traditional liturgy and a “blended” service that doesn’t have much blend being 95+% traditional, but the hearts and minds of the pastorate are committed to keeping the contemporary, even though most of the congregation doesn’t (and won’t) attend. I can also say that the “traditionalist” wing of the Elder board probably doesn’t make up even half at this point, so it’s simply voicing concerns, asking questions and attempting to focus on things where and when they seem appropriate. Picking the battles as it were. We use the plastic cups, and while that is a concern, a bigger battle is to try and get Communion done every service, every Sunday. We’re at least trying to see if we can institute it on the high holy days. Christmas service without Communion? Seriously? Changing that is the current goal. Current practices took years to develop, they’ll take years to change.

    So, yes, the LCMS is in many ways a weird place. But the ELCA was weirder despite the sad fact that many ELCA churches do liturgy better than LCMS churches. They are just doing it with women in inappropriate places and communing anyone with a pulse no questions asked. I find that disturbing as well.

  • SKPeterson

    Stephen @ 93 – I understand your concerns. My congregation is one that would be somewhere in the vast, muddled middle of the current LCMS, though it does trend toward a rather sloppy neo-evangelicalism in liturgical practice rather than a reliance on the historic liturgy. And I say this as an elder. We do have the traditional liturgy and a “blended” service that doesn’t have much blend being 95+% traditional, but the hearts and minds of the pastorate are committed to keeping the contemporary, even though most of the congregation doesn’t (and won’t) attend. I can also say that the “traditionalist” wing of the Elder board probably doesn’t make up even half at this point, so it’s simply voicing concerns, asking questions and attempting to focus on things where and when they seem appropriate. Picking the battles as it were. We use the plastic cups, and while that is a concern, a bigger battle is to try and get Communion done every service, every Sunday. We’re at least trying to see if we can institute it on the high holy days. Christmas service without Communion? Seriously? Changing that is the current goal. Current practices took years to develop, they’ll take years to change.

    So, yes, the LCMS is in many ways a weird place. But the ELCA was weirder despite the sad fact that many ELCA churches do liturgy better than LCMS churches. They are just doing it with women in inappropriate places and communing anyone with a pulse no questions asked. I find that disturbing as well.

  • Joanne

    Look Antony, You know New York like the back of your hand, so how could I ever help you find the perfect LCMS church in the whole Atlantic District (maybe something up around Lackawanna). But you’re in something of a mood of resistance now, the creation thing, so maybe you’re not looking for the perfect LCMS church, or any particular church.

    In New York City, you must admit it’s a religious schmorgasbord, I’d attend a different church every Sunday, learning something. You’ve got your Baptism to hang onto and all the basics down solid, so go church sailing for a year or two. If I had to live in Manhattan (not in no upper west side closet) for the next 2 years, I’d be in a Coptic church, the biggest in the city, next Sunday morning. You ask yourself, is it really what I always heard it was, and what is it when you have ground truthed it.

    We all have our religious GPSs, but many scholars still want a good ground truth before moving on to the next part. You live in a religious feast in NYC. Man, on big elephant blessing day, I would be in the middle of St. John the Divine catching the whole parade. Every Bach Concert at St. Thomas Episcopal. The jazz vespers at St. Peter’s Under-the-Bank (I know Citigroup sold the building). And you could write reviews like you did of the movies.

    Sub rosa, you could become like the invisible liturgy critic, read every Monday axiously to see who gets his liturgy performance pilloried today. You would be greatly feared and widely read. Of course if you going to trash the Imams, give me a few days warning. Know what I mean.

    Don’t ask us to tell you, you go find it by going to them all (or a goodly number). Then when you are somewhat familiar with all the churches, give the Lutherans another examination. You’ll know your there, the pure place, when you don’t give a ham how old the earth is, it’s whatever God says. (And you don’t care whatever fruit tree God doesn’t want you to eat from. “OK God, that tree it is, er isn’t, whatever you want, I’m happy to do it.” And your focused on what happened in the Garden and why. I keep hearing that Luther’s lectues on Genesis are pretty ham good, it’s like a dictation of his exegetical classes on it.

    Man, I tell you I would be in an Armenian (non-uniate) church the next Sunday, then I’d do the Indian Malabar Jacobites…….

    A frickin religious feast, and you think it’s a problem. You’ll get tired of it, but you could make some column money maybe. You write good. (and well too).

    Ixnay on the aintedpay adylay astorpay. Ivegay that lentypay of pacesay. Ouldcay loudcay the rainsbay.

  • Joanne

    Look Antony, You know New York like the back of your hand, so how could I ever help you find the perfect LCMS church in the whole Atlantic District (maybe something up around Lackawanna). But you’re in something of a mood of resistance now, the creation thing, so maybe you’re not looking for the perfect LCMS church, or any particular church.

    In New York City, you must admit it’s a religious schmorgasbord, I’d attend a different church every Sunday, learning something. You’ve got your Baptism to hang onto and all the basics down solid, so go church sailing for a year or two. If I had to live in Manhattan (not in no upper west side closet) for the next 2 years, I’d be in a Coptic church, the biggest in the city, next Sunday morning. You ask yourself, is it really what I always heard it was, and what is it when you have ground truthed it.

    We all have our religious GPSs, but many scholars still want a good ground truth before moving on to the next part. You live in a religious feast in NYC. Man, on big elephant blessing day, I would be in the middle of St. John the Divine catching the whole parade. Every Bach Concert at St. Thomas Episcopal. The jazz vespers at St. Peter’s Under-the-Bank (I know Citigroup sold the building). And you could write reviews like you did of the movies.

    Sub rosa, you could become like the invisible liturgy critic, read every Monday axiously to see who gets his liturgy performance pilloried today. You would be greatly feared and widely read. Of course if you going to trash the Imams, give me a few days warning. Know what I mean.

    Don’t ask us to tell you, you go find it by going to them all (or a goodly number). Then when you are somewhat familiar with all the churches, give the Lutherans another examination. You’ll know your there, the pure place, when you don’t give a ham how old the earth is, it’s whatever God says. (And you don’t care whatever fruit tree God doesn’t want you to eat from. “OK God, that tree it is, er isn’t, whatever you want, I’m happy to do it.” And your focused on what happened in the Garden and why. I keep hearing that Luther’s lectues on Genesis are pretty ham good, it’s like a dictation of his exegetical classes on it.

    Man, I tell you I would be in an Armenian (non-uniate) church the next Sunday, then I’d do the Indian Malabar Jacobites…….

    A frickin religious feast, and you think it’s a problem. You’ll get tired of it, but you could make some column money maybe. You write good. (and well too).

    Ixnay on the aintedpay adylay astorpay. Ivegay that lentypay of pacesay. Ouldcay loudcay the rainsbay.

  • Joanne

    Antony, I tell you what. I myself would give you $50 to pan Benke’s Easter Vigil service (as only you could). You could say he chants like a love-sick loon. I bet lots a people would pay to see Benke really roasted in the NY papers/websites.

  • Joanne

    Antony, I tell you what. I myself would give you $50 to pan Benke’s Easter Vigil service (as only you could). You could say he chants like a love-sick loon. I bet lots a people would pay to see Benke really roasted in the NY papers/websites.

  • Timothy

    Can I be a Lutheran if I don’t believe in “total depravity”? Not that I think humanity is without sin, but I think Christianity just affirms the depravity of man, not total depravity. I’m pretty sure I understand what Calvinists mean by total depravity, and I disagree (maybe the Lutheran view is somewhat different?). When one helps the poor, the lowly, the oppressed, one is truly pleasing God (remember “you fed, clothed Me”). Also the idea that our reason is also depraved is hard to believe. I think the important issue is that righteousness is a state of being (rooted in faith and love), not a set of good deeds. Even a sick man can function a bit and appear well sometimes, but he ultimately needs a physician to be healthy.

    Can I be a Lutheran hold to Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura? What if I think the real issue is the doctrine delivered to the apostles, which was believed upon and guarded by the church across the world and throughout the ages? Yes, the scripures are the main source for this; but I don’t care if you can’t extract the truth of the Holy Trinity (or the Real Presence) from the Bible – it doesn’t matter.

    Can I believe in sanctification and be a Lutheran? What if I actually believe we are cured of our sin, and not just as a part of justification, but in a real way? Christ saves us from sin, not just the penalty of sin. Do Lutherans take seriously that we “be perfect”, or becoming “partakers of the divine nature”?

  • Timothy

    Can I be a Lutheran if I don’t believe in “total depravity”? Not that I think humanity is without sin, but I think Christianity just affirms the depravity of man, not total depravity. I’m pretty sure I understand what Calvinists mean by total depravity, and I disagree (maybe the Lutheran view is somewhat different?). When one helps the poor, the lowly, the oppressed, one is truly pleasing God (remember “you fed, clothed Me”). Also the idea that our reason is also depraved is hard to believe. I think the important issue is that righteousness is a state of being (rooted in faith and love), not a set of good deeds. Even a sick man can function a bit and appear well sometimes, but he ultimately needs a physician to be healthy.

    Can I be a Lutheran hold to Prima Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura? What if I think the real issue is the doctrine delivered to the apostles, which was believed upon and guarded by the church across the world and throughout the ages? Yes, the scripures are the main source for this; but I don’t care if you can’t extract the truth of the Holy Trinity (or the Real Presence) from the Bible – it doesn’t matter.

    Can I believe in sanctification and be a Lutheran? What if I actually believe we are cured of our sin, and not just as a part of justification, but in a real way? Christ saves us from sin, not just the penalty of sin. Do Lutherans take seriously that we “be perfect”, or becoming “partakers of the divine nature”?

  • Stephen K

    #92
    You have fully misunderstood my attitude on sanctification. I do not condone sick behavior. I just believe that the preaching of Christ for the full forgiveness of sins with nothing required of the listener is the only thing that sanctifies. When you are left with Jesus “for you” ALONE then good works are stirred up within the believer. You think that a pastor should preach Jesus then start telling everyone what good works they should/must start doing. I fully disagree with your assertion.

    Now I ask you, be honest here, have you manipulated peoples comments on your blog either by selective blocking, editing and or not deleting comments that people have wanted to retract? If yes to any of these then you purposely try to make fellow Lutherans look bad and or foolish on your blog. I find this to be sick behavior. Especially from a Pastor! Maybe you need to wear your Weak on Sanctification shirt and join the rest of us sinners who need forgiveness. Also your mixture of Lutheranism and fire arms is in very bad taste. With all of the deaths lately from shootings and there you are in all of your glory firing away. That is a stumbling block. You should consider a blog about fire arms and not mix the two kingdoms. You have blogged about how you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force then you tell others about good works, sanctification and holiness. This may seem “normal” to you but it sure seems broken to me.

  • Stephen K

    #92
    You have fully misunderstood my attitude on sanctification. I do not condone sick behavior. I just believe that the preaching of Christ for the full forgiveness of sins with nothing required of the listener is the only thing that sanctifies. When you are left with Jesus “for you” ALONE then good works are stirred up within the believer. You think that a pastor should preach Jesus then start telling everyone what good works they should/must start doing. I fully disagree with your assertion.

    Now I ask you, be honest here, have you manipulated peoples comments on your blog either by selective blocking, editing and or not deleting comments that people have wanted to retract? If yes to any of these then you purposely try to make fellow Lutherans look bad and or foolish on your blog. I find this to be sick behavior. Especially from a Pastor! Maybe you need to wear your Weak on Sanctification shirt and join the rest of us sinners who need forgiveness. Also your mixture of Lutheranism and fire arms is in very bad taste. With all of the deaths lately from shootings and there you are in all of your glory firing away. That is a stumbling block. You should consider a blog about fire arms and not mix the two kingdoms. You have blogged about how you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force then you tell others about good works, sanctification and holiness. This may seem “normal” to you but it sure seems broken to me.

  • Joanne

    Let’s see, what is a Lutheran. First you have to be born of Lutheran parents, preferably Germans. Then you have to be baptised in a Lutheran church within days or weeks of your birth. You attend that church and the Lutheran school at that church and then in Junior High you attend catechism classes to memorize Luther’s Small Catechism. Your parents, especially your father helps you with the memory work. Then at Pentecost at a special service of confirmation, you are verbally examined by the board of elders publicly in church and the pastor vouches for your memory of the complete catechism, then you take your first communion.

    Then you take a long vacation until your wedding in a Lutheran church to a Lutheran spouse you’ve know all your life and are distantly related to. You are regular attenders at a Lutheran Church and send your children to the Lutheran school. You slowly grow old attending this same church and your Lutheran children go through all the same processes you did.

    You die with your Lutheran family and your Lutheran pastor at your bedside hopfully with a chance to have made a last confession with the pastor’s absolution, and then taken the Lord’s body and blood just before. Then your well shriven soul is gathered into God’s bosom in heaven and your body is placed in the earth to wait for the resurrexion of the body. You are buried in a Lutheran cemetery, or in a big city, the Lutheran section of a large cemetery. That’s pretty much is what a Lutheran is with minor variations here and there.

  • Joanne

    Let’s see, what is a Lutheran. First you have to be born of Lutheran parents, preferably Germans. Then you have to be baptised in a Lutheran church within days or weeks of your birth. You attend that church and the Lutheran school at that church and then in Junior High you attend catechism classes to memorize Luther’s Small Catechism. Your parents, especially your father helps you with the memory work. Then at Pentecost at a special service of confirmation, you are verbally examined by the board of elders publicly in church and the pastor vouches for your memory of the complete catechism, then you take your first communion.

    Then you take a long vacation until your wedding in a Lutheran church to a Lutheran spouse you’ve know all your life and are distantly related to. You are regular attenders at a Lutheran Church and send your children to the Lutheran school. You slowly grow old attending this same church and your Lutheran children go through all the same processes you did.

    You die with your Lutheran family and your Lutheran pastor at your bedside hopfully with a chance to have made a last confession with the pastor’s absolution, and then taken the Lord’s body and blood just before. Then your well shriven soul is gathered into God’s bosom in heaven and your body is placed in the earth to wait for the resurrexion of the body. You are buried in a Lutheran cemetery, or in a big city, the Lutheran section of a large cemetery. That’s pretty much is what a Lutheran is with minor variations here and there.

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 100

    You made the above statement without ONE WORD about
    “Christ, LORD, God, Jesus or Savior – that should stop any Born Again Believer from looking much further.

    Sarcasm or otherwise, it’s not humor, it’s disgusting.

    Thank about it!

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 100

    You made the above statement without ONE WORD about
    “Christ, LORD, God, Jesus or Savior – that should stop any Born Again Believer from looking much further.

    Sarcasm or otherwise, it’s not humor, it’s disgusting.

    Thank about it!

  • fws

    timothy @ 98
    No. No. Yes!
    That´s the short answer.
    The long answer is that you are probably defining all three of those terms differently than a Lutheran would define them.

  • fws

    timothy @ 98
    No. No. Yes!
    That´s the short answer.
    The long answer is that you are probably defining all three of those terms differently than a Lutheran would define them.

  • fws

    Grace @ 101

    One who is Lutheran, cannot say “lutheran” to another Lutheran without that other Lutheran hearing nothing but Christ.
    What is baptism if it is not to literally put on Christ Grace?

  • fws

    Grace @ 101

    One who is Lutheran, cannot say “lutheran” to another Lutheran without that other Lutheran hearing nothing but Christ.
    What is baptism if it is not to literally put on Christ Grace?

  • fws

    skp @ 94

    I haven´t read anything by Elert but he looks large with Dr Nagel at CSL which tells me he must be pretty good.
    Robert Baker who is an ex-ELCA pastor urging the LCMS to embrace Thomism and even claims that Luther was a Thomist said what I write sounds like Elert and urges me to repent for that reason. Another plaudit for Elert!
    The 3rd-Law-Use-As-”Gospel”-Encouragement crowd (pastor McCain are ya listening?) all hate Elert. But then they hate Forde too. I think Forde probably was antinomian. His paper on homosexuality seems to demonstrate that. Even Baker picked up on that.

    What would your church do if a gay couple showed up and wanted to enroll their kids in your preschool and have them baptized and take adult instruction for membership SKP?

  • fws

    skp @ 94

    I haven´t read anything by Elert but he looks large with Dr Nagel at CSL which tells me he must be pretty good.
    Robert Baker who is an ex-ELCA pastor urging the LCMS to embrace Thomism and even claims that Luther was a Thomist said what I write sounds like Elert and urges me to repent for that reason. Another plaudit for Elert!
    The 3rd-Law-Use-As-”Gospel”-Encouragement crowd (pastor McCain are ya listening?) all hate Elert. But then they hate Forde too. I think Forde probably was antinomian. His paper on homosexuality seems to demonstrate that. Even Baker picked up on that.

    What would your church do if a gay couple showed up and wanted to enroll their kids in your preschool and have them baptized and take adult instruction for membership SKP?

  • fws

    Paul @ 92

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160255

    You relabel Aristotle´s Virtue ethic of practicing the self disciplines until they become a habit and call that “sanctification”. Pagans can know that slasher porn videos and ditching the wife are wrong.

    You seem to describe sanctification as something we can chose to do or leave undone. You are clearly saying that free will is involved in this. And so you deny this:

    42] These testimonies state that by [not by] our own powers …[but by the] Holy Ghost, …we are enlightened, sanctified, and…kept with Him; and no mention is made either of our will or cooperation. http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160100

    You are to exhort free will exactly here:

    53] This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon.

    and here as well….

    Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so learnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para14

    and…

    Now, although we cheerfully assign this righteousness of reason the praises that are due it (for this corrupt nature has no greater good in this life and in a worldly nature, nothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue, and Aristotle says aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more beautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodily rewards), …. BUT! it ought not to be praised with reproach to Christ. http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para24

    Here are the two areas you are to “exhort to righeousness”. We Lutherans call this “Mortification of the Flesh”. Not sanctification.

    Sanctification? Preach the forgiveness of sins! It is the power of God to both salvation and sanctification.

  • fws

    Paul @ 92

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160255

    You relabel Aristotle´s Virtue ethic of practicing the self disciplines until they become a habit and call that “sanctification”. Pagans can know that slasher porn videos and ditching the wife are wrong.

    You seem to describe sanctification as something we can chose to do or leave undone. You are clearly saying that free will is involved in this. And so you deny this:

    42] These testimonies state that by [not by] our own powers …[but by the] Holy Ghost, …we are enlightened, sanctified, and…kept with Him; and no mention is made either of our will or cooperation. http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160100

    You are to exhort free will exactly here:

    53] This Word man can externally hear and read, even though he is not yet converted to God and regenerate; for in these external things, as said above, man even since the Fall has to a certain extent a free will, so that he can go to church and hear or not hear the sermon.

    and here as well….

    Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so learnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para14

    and…

    Now, although we cheerfully assign this righteousness of reason the praises that are due it (for this corrupt nature has no greater good in this life and in a worldly nature, nothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue, and Aristotle says aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more beautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodily rewards), …. BUT! it ought not to be praised with reproach to Christ. http://bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para24

    Here are the two areas you are to “exhort to righeousness”. We Lutherans call this “Mortification of the Flesh”. Not sanctification.

    Sanctification? Preach the forgiveness of sins! It is the power of God to both salvation and sanctification.

  • Stephen

    Thanks for the response SKP. I left my glasses at home. back later. No communion at Christmas IS weird! I heard of old Norwegian congregations only having it 4 times a year. That too seemed odd. I think that I have only attended churches where they at most skipped to every other Sunday. I think it should be offered every Sunday at every service. What else are we there for but the Gift itself?

    I can’t see!!!

  • Stephen

    Thanks for the response SKP. I left my glasses at home. back later. No communion at Christmas IS weird! I heard of old Norwegian congregations only having it 4 times a year. That too seemed odd. I think that I have only attended churches where they at most skipped to every other Sunday. I think it should be offered every Sunday at every service. What else are we there for but the Gift itself?

    I can’t see!!!

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

    Getting back to the original question and original post [OP]. And I know this comment will get lost in the shuffle of Frank’s never ending lengthy commentary, but….

    I would like to propose this answer:

    “A Lutheran is a person who confesses the Book of Concord to be true and correct, without qualification.”

    Therefore, a Lutheran is not a person who accepts the Reformed explanation of the Sacrament of the Altar, or allows the historic creeds to be denied or explained away, etc.

    http://www.bookofconcord.org

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

    Getting back to the original question and original post [OP]. And I know this comment will get lost in the shuffle of Frank’s never ending lengthy commentary, but….

    I would like to propose this answer:

    “A Lutheran is a person who confesses the Book of Concord to be true and correct, without qualification.”

    Therefore, a Lutheran is not a person who accepts the Reformed explanation of the Sacrament of the Altar, or allows the historic creeds to be denied or explained away, etc.

    http://www.bookofconcord.org

  • Stephen K

    #106

    Excellent answer!

    But no need to insult Frank. Frank is a thoughtful man and he has stood up for you several times. This is the paradox with you. Great thoughts and sharp answers but you can’t keep yourself from insulting someone.

    Seriously get offline! Do your “good works” at CPH but no more blogging. This is an intervention.

  • Stephen K

    #106

    Excellent answer!

    But no need to insult Frank. Frank is a thoughtful man and he has stood up for you several times. This is the paradox with you. Great thoughts and sharp answers but you can’t keep yourself from insulting someone.

    Seriously get offline! Do your “good works” at CPH but no more blogging. This is an intervention.

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

    Another comment responding to the OP, I put a version of this over on Tony’s blog:

    Herring is struggling with the fact that how a given church body actually gives expression to its confession, it can be great, or, it can fall flat on its face. That is life in a fallen world.

    But, getting to the substance of a given confession…

    The “oh so cool” painted lady can mouth all kinds of wonderful sounding things, but press a bit and ask if, in fact, she believes there actually was a First Adam for whom the Second Adam came, and you will hear the party line mythologizing the entire Creation account, not to mention denying most of the historicity of the Old Testament.

    Did Jesus actually say that humankind is created man and woman and only a man and only a woman are to be married? Yes, He did, but…. well, that’s out the window.

    And you can go on down the line and ask if in fact she does confess what the Lutheran Church confesses in the Augustana, or Formula and you will be hit with a barrage of politically correct blather qualifying, equivocating, subtly denying, changing the issue, minimizing and otherwise undermining the very content that makes us Lutherans.

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

    Another comment responding to the OP, I put a version of this over on Tony’s blog:

    Herring is struggling with the fact that how a given church body actually gives expression to its confession, it can be great, or, it can fall flat on its face. That is life in a fallen world.

    But, getting to the substance of a given confession…

    The “oh so cool” painted lady can mouth all kinds of wonderful sounding things, but press a bit and ask if, in fact, she believes there actually was a First Adam for whom the Second Adam came, and you will hear the party line mythologizing the entire Creation account, not to mention denying most of the historicity of the Old Testament.

    Did Jesus actually say that humankind is created man and woman and only a man and only a woman are to be married? Yes, He did, but…. well, that’s out the window.

    And you can go on down the line and ask if in fact she does confess what the Lutheran Church confesses in the Augustana, or Formula and you will be hit with a barrage of politically correct blather qualifying, equivocating, subtly denying, changing the issue, minimizing and otherwise undermining the very content that makes us Lutherans.

  • Grace

    fws @ 103

    “One who is Lutheran, cannot say “lutheran” to another Lutheran without that other Lutheran hearing nothing but Christ.”

    Christ did not, nor has he ever changed HIS name to “Lutheran” – HE is the LORD Jesus Christ our Savior. Changing the identity of Christ, using Lutheran to convey Christ’s name is a shame.

    Christ stands alone as Savior, HE has no others that come close, HE needs no other name to define who HE is, and HIS power. HE is sinless.

  • Grace

    fws @ 103

    “One who is Lutheran, cannot say “lutheran” to another Lutheran without that other Lutheran hearing nothing but Christ.”

    Christ did not, nor has he ever changed HIS name to “Lutheran” – HE is the LORD Jesus Christ our Savior. Changing the identity of Christ, using Lutheran to convey Christ’s name is a shame.

    Christ stands alone as Savior, HE has no others that come close, HE needs no other name to define who HE is, and HIS power. HE is sinless.

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

    “I just believe that the preaching of Christ for the full forgiveness of sins with nothing required of the listener is the only thing that sanctifies. When you are left with Jesus “for you” ALONE then good works are stirred up within the believer. You think that a pastor should preach Jesus then start telling everyone what good works they should/must start doing. I fully disagree with your assertion. ”

    This is precisely where you, Patrick and so many of the “weak on sanctification” group fails utterly to make proper distinctions and teach God’s Word correctly.

    When it come to our SALVATION this is only Jesus.

    When it comes to our CHRISTIAN LIFE the Word of God itself does indicate what we are to be doing, precisely because of our salvation through Christ alone.

    Unless/until you understand, you and others will just keep going wrong on good works.

    As I said, I was shocked to run into this whole school of thought when a group of young men, heavily influenced by the these thoughts, were very happily telling me how because they are saved ONLY by Jesus they are FREE in Christ and therefore, they are not worried about sin or doing good works. The were gladly congratulating one another for their “enjoyment” of slasher porn and pornographic and abusive rap music and lyrics. Why? Because they are so FREE in Christ.

    Stephen K, you will have to rip out significant pages from your New Testament to sustain your position that a pastor should not, in detail, be teaching and preaching what the good works are that Christians *are* to be doing.

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

    “I just believe that the preaching of Christ for the full forgiveness of sins with nothing required of the listener is the only thing that sanctifies. When you are left with Jesus “for you” ALONE then good works are stirred up within the believer. You think that a pastor should preach Jesus then start telling everyone what good works they should/must start doing. I fully disagree with your assertion. ”

    This is precisely where you, Patrick and so many of the “weak on sanctification” group fails utterly to make proper distinctions and teach God’s Word correctly.

    When it come to our SALVATION this is only Jesus.

    When it comes to our CHRISTIAN LIFE the Word of God itself does indicate what we are to be doing, precisely because of our salvation through Christ alone.

    Unless/until you understand, you and others will just keep going wrong on good works.

    As I said, I was shocked to run into this whole school of thought when a group of young men, heavily influenced by the these thoughts, were very happily telling me how because they are saved ONLY by Jesus they are FREE in Christ and therefore, they are not worried about sin or doing good works. The were gladly congratulating one another for their “enjoyment” of slasher porn and pornographic and abusive rap music and lyrics. Why? Because they are so FREE in Christ.

    Stephen K, you will have to rip out significant pages from your New Testament to sustain your position that a pastor should not, in detail, be teaching and preaching what the good works are that Christians *are* to be doing.

  • Stephen K

    #110
    Like I said before I do not believe in the freedom to sin, and I am disturbed with your movie theme that you keep bringing up. Don’t lump me in with that crowd. I still believe that the gospel is the only thing with will motivate “good works.” Preaching is the proclaim Christ. Isn’t there someting about preaching Christ….? St Paul did not say then preach good works.

    I don’t understand good works apart from vocation. Please list out the good works that you do so I can better understand the difference.

  • Stephen K

    #110
    Like I said before I do not believe in the freedom to sin, and I am disturbed with your movie theme that you keep bringing up. Don’t lump me in with that crowd. I still believe that the gospel is the only thing with will motivate “good works.” Preaching is the proclaim Christ. Isn’t there someting about preaching Christ….? St Paul did not say then preach good works.

    I don’t understand good works apart from vocation. Please list out the good works that you do so I can better understand the difference.

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

    Stephen, the point being that throughout the NT the Gospel is boldly declared and then there is teaching about the shape of the Christ-centered life takes, including detailed discussion about good works.

    It is not either/or, you seem to want the first half, not the other.

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

    Stephen, the point being that throughout the NT the Gospel is boldly declared and then there is teaching about the shape of the Christ-centered life takes, including detailed discussion about good works.

    It is not either/or, you seem to want the first half, not the other.

  • fws

    Rev PT McCain @ 110 & 112

    Your book “Lutheran Reapraisal of [Thomist Scholasticism and ] Natural Law” let that cat outta the bag as to where you stand, a while ago….

    The Apology applies to you as well as it did to the Thomists you now favor:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160180

    You seem to ignore our confessions here:

    42] These testimonies state that by [not by] our own powers …[but by the] Holy Ghost, …we are enlightened, sanctified, and…kept with Him; and no mention is made either of our will or cooperation.

  • fws

    Rev PT McCain @ 110 & 112

    Your book “Lutheran Reapraisal of [Thomist Scholasticism and ] Natural Law” let that cat outta the bag as to where you stand, a while ago….

    The Apology applies to you as well as it did to the Thomists you now favor:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160180

    You seem to ignore our confessions here:

    42] These testimonies state that by [not by] our own powers …[but by the] Holy Ghost, …we are enlightened, sanctified, and…kept with Him; and no mention is made either of our will or cooperation.

  • fws

    PT McCain @ 110 & 112

    You think you are not a Thomist Scholastic because you don´t place Aristotelian-Practice-Virtue-Till-it-becomes-a-habit before justification as meritious preparation for Grace.

    You simply reposition Aristotle´s outline for good works after Justification, say that Aristotle´s practice-makes-perfect is a result of Justification, and then you call that philosophical righteousness by the word “sanctification.”

    Ok. So I stand corrected: you are a Neo-Thomist-Scholastic.

    Sanctification is not something we can cooperate in. You mean to say mortification. What you call “Christian” Life, any pagan can also do.

    “Christ shaped”?

    FC V “Law and gospel” says this for you:
    the Gospel is often used to illustrate the Law. This does not turn that illustrated Law into “christian” or “gospel”.

  • fws

    PT McCain @ 110 & 112

    You think you are not a Thomist Scholastic because you don´t place Aristotelian-Practice-Virtue-Till-it-becomes-a-habit before justification as meritious preparation for Grace.

    You simply reposition Aristotle´s outline for good works after Justification, say that Aristotle´s practice-makes-perfect is a result of Justification, and then you call that philosophical righteousness by the word “sanctification.”

    Ok. So I stand corrected: you are a Neo-Thomist-Scholastic.

    Sanctification is not something we can cooperate in. You mean to say mortification. What you call “Christian” Life, any pagan can also do.

    “Christ shaped”?

    FC V “Law and gospel” says this for you:
    the Gospel is often used to illustrate the Law. This does not turn that illustrated Law into “christian” or “gospel”.

  • fws

    PT McCain:

    Tell us just ONE thing you do in your christian life that a fake christian never could or would do. Just. One. Thing.

    You are teaching Aristotle McCain. Christ-as-Example/Moses.
    And that is good!

    We cannot cooperate in our sanctification. FC II

  • fws

    PT McCain:

    Tell us just ONE thing you do in your christian life that a fake christian never could or would do. Just. One. Thing.

    You are teaching Aristotle McCain. Christ-as-Example/Moses.
    And that is good!

    We cannot cooperate in our sanctification. FC II

  • George A. Marquart

    If being a member of a denomination that has the word “Lutheran” in its name makes one a Lutheran, then defining what a Lutheran is becomes meaningless, because there are too many points of disagreement between the denominations.

    There is no binding definition of “what is a Lutheran.”

    If being a Lutheran depends on even superficial knowledge of the contents of the Book of Concord, there would be significantly fewer Lutherans than those who call themselves Lutheran today. On the other hand, those, who insist on unqualified agreement with the Confessions for those who want to call themselves “Lutheran”, require us to assent to some serious problems in the Confessions, which affect our understanding of the Gospel, the Kingdom of God, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Among these problems are:

    1. What God wrote in our hearts according to Jeremiah 31 are the Ten Commandments.
    2. That the Kingdom of God comes to us every time we pray “Thy Kingdom Come.”
    3. That David lost faith and the Holy Spirit when he sinned with Bathsheba.
    4. That what happens in Baptism should happen to us every day “by daily contrition and repentance.”

    If the above are not “serious doctrinal matters”, then, of course unqualified agreement is not be a problem.

    The vast majority of lay people who call themselves Lutherans, whom I have met, either do not care about what is happening in the governing body of their church, or simply do not know anything about it. The same is true of interdenominational differences, including when those involve denominations that call themselves Lutheran.

    Inasmuch as Lutherans believe, according to the Augsburg Confession, that, “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered,” it is appropriate that Lutherans concentrate on the Gospel and Sacraments in their beliefs. Sadly, many Lutherans, including pastors, do not understand the Gospel beyond the life, suffering, and death of our Lord, and how that accomplishes the forgiveness of our sins. Many Lutherans are not aware of the miracle that happens when a person is baptized and a new creature emerges from the waters of Baptism.

    I was baptized in a non-LCMS Lutheran congregation in Estonia more that 75 years ago.

    I was confirmed in an LCMS congregation.

    I have been a member of 5 LCMS congregations, 2 ELCA congregations, and the Moscow Protestant Chaplaincy, for which pastors were provided for terms of 2 years and more by 5 mainline Protestant denominations, including the ELCA.

    All Lutherans are sinners.

    I am a Lutheran.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    If being a member of a denomination that has the word “Lutheran” in its name makes one a Lutheran, then defining what a Lutheran is becomes meaningless, because there are too many points of disagreement between the denominations.

    There is no binding definition of “what is a Lutheran.”

    If being a Lutheran depends on even superficial knowledge of the contents of the Book of Concord, there would be significantly fewer Lutherans than those who call themselves Lutheran today. On the other hand, those, who insist on unqualified agreement with the Confessions for those who want to call themselves “Lutheran”, require us to assent to some serious problems in the Confessions, which affect our understanding of the Gospel, the Kingdom of God, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Among these problems are:

    1. What God wrote in our hearts according to Jeremiah 31 are the Ten Commandments.
    2. That the Kingdom of God comes to us every time we pray “Thy Kingdom Come.”
    3. That David lost faith and the Holy Spirit when he sinned with Bathsheba.
    4. That what happens in Baptism should happen to us every day “by daily contrition and repentance.”

    If the above are not “serious doctrinal matters”, then, of course unqualified agreement is not be a problem.

    The vast majority of lay people who call themselves Lutherans, whom I have met, either do not care about what is happening in the governing body of their church, or simply do not know anything about it. The same is true of interdenominational differences, including when those involve denominations that call themselves Lutheran.

    Inasmuch as Lutherans believe, according to the Augsburg Confession, that, “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered,” it is appropriate that Lutherans concentrate on the Gospel and Sacraments in their beliefs. Sadly, many Lutherans, including pastors, do not understand the Gospel beyond the life, suffering, and death of our Lord, and how that accomplishes the forgiveness of our sins. Many Lutherans are not aware of the miracle that happens when a person is baptized and a new creature emerges from the waters of Baptism.

    I was baptized in a non-LCMS Lutheran congregation in Estonia more that 75 years ago.

    I was confirmed in an LCMS congregation.

    I have been a member of 5 LCMS congregations, 2 ELCA congregations, and the Moscow Protestant Chaplaincy, for which pastors were provided for terms of 2 years and more by 5 mainline Protestant denominations, including the ELCA.

    All Lutherans are sinners.

    I am a Lutheran.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • fws

    George @ 117

    1. What God wrote in our hearts according to Jeremiah 31 are the Ten Commandments.

    That is a very superficial reading George that ignores the arc of an intricate argument that starts here…

    … for the sake of this discussion, by Law we designate the Ten Commandments, wherever they are read in the Scriptures. Of the ceremonies and judicial laws of Moses we say nothing at present.
    7] Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law. This is because human reason has the same Law divinely written in the mind.
    This natural law agrees with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments because it is the same Law. “Apology, on Justification” translation mine

    2. That the Kingdom of God comes to us every time we pray “Thy Kingdom Come.

    Where do you read that? Lutherans don´t teach that. I read, instead, this:

    ”The kingdom of God comes indeed without our prayer, of itself; but we pray in this petition that it may come unto us also. How is this done?–Answer.
    When our heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit, so that by His grace we believe His holy Word and lead a godly life here in time and yonder in eternity.

    3. That David lost faith and the Holy Spirit when he sinned with Bathsheba.

    Yes. We do in fact teach that. Tell us more please.

    4. That what happens in Baptism should happen to us every day “by daily contrition and repentance.”

    Luther: “Baptism is nothing other than repentence” Large Catechism. That is the thought behind that George. Tell us more. Why do you have a problem with that idea?

  • fws

    George @ 117

    1. What God wrote in our hearts according to Jeremiah 31 are the Ten Commandments.

    That is a very superficial reading George that ignores the arc of an intricate argument that starts here…

    … for the sake of this discussion, by Law we designate the Ten Commandments, wherever they are read in the Scriptures. Of the ceremonies and judicial laws of Moses we say nothing at present.
    7] Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law. This is because human reason has the same Law divinely written in the mind.
    This natural law agrees with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments because it is the same Law. “Apology, on Justification” translation mine

    2. That the Kingdom of God comes to us every time we pray “Thy Kingdom Come.

    Where do you read that? Lutherans don´t teach that. I read, instead, this:

    ”The kingdom of God comes indeed without our prayer, of itself; but we pray in this petition that it may come unto us also. How is this done?–Answer.
    When our heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit, so that by His grace we believe His holy Word and lead a godly life here in time and yonder in eternity.

    3. That David lost faith and the Holy Spirit when he sinned with Bathsheba.

    Yes. We do in fact teach that. Tell us more please.

    4. That what happens in Baptism should happen to us every day “by daily contrition and repentance.”

    Luther: “Baptism is nothing other than repentence” Large Catechism. That is the thought behind that George. Tell us more. Why do you have a problem with that idea?

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

    George:

    If you disagree with the doctrinal assertions contained in the Lutheran Confessions you are an erring Lutheran, at best, or, at worst, a person who is not a Lutheran, since you are rejecting the teaching of the Lutheran Church.

    PTM

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

    George:

    If you disagree with the doctrinal assertions contained in the Lutheran Confessions you are an erring Lutheran, at best, or, at worst, a person who is not a Lutheran, since you are rejecting the teaching of the Lutheran Church.

    PTM

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

    Sorry, Frank, I neither can, nor will, go down the rabbit hole your comments create…

    Now, as for good works:

    We teach that rewards have been offered and promised for the works of believers. We teach that good works have merit, not for forgiveness of sins, for grace, or for justification (for these we receive only through faith), but for other rewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life. For Paul says in 1 Cor. 3:8, “Each will receive his wages according to his labor.” There will be different rewards according to different labors. But forgiveness of sins is given alike and equal to all people, just as Christ is one, and is freely offered to all who believe that for His sake their sins are forgiven.—Apology IV:194-5

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

    Sorry, Frank, I neither can, nor will, go down the rabbit hole your comments create…

    Now, as for good works:

    We teach that rewards have been offered and promised for the works of believers. We teach that good works have merit, not for forgiveness of sins, for grace, or for justification (for these we receive only through faith), but for other rewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life. For Paul says in 1 Cor. 3:8, “Each will receive his wages according to his labor.” There will be different rewards according to different labors. But forgiveness of sins is given alike and equal to all people, just as Christ is one, and is freely offered to all who believe that for His sake their sins are forgiven.—Apology IV:194-5

  • larry

    “…reposition Aristotle´s outline for good works after Justification, say that Aristotle´s practice-makes-perfect is a result of Justification, and then you call that philosophical righteousness by the word “sanctification.”

    One thing I do know is that this (stated principle above) is pure Calvinism whoever holds to it. This is especially notable and more highly developed in the Puritans such as in John Owen’s “The Mortification of Sin” and Jonathan Edwards, but the early genesis of it definitely starts with Calvin. Mortification is thrust into this position and mingled with sanctification such that both become one and the same (seems to be a confusion of law and gospel the best I can tell). In this way the can deny saying “do what is within one to jump start the infusion of grace”. In this way objective justification can be said, “God alone/grace alone”, but subjectively (how you know) it’s the old Roman system repeated with a few new names.

    In short mortification is moved post conversion/election, thus plausibly they can still say “justification by faith alone”, shift everything Rome taught to “post conversion”, including pulling purgatory down to earth and here, delabeling the term “purgatory” while retaining the principle, and now, gate it with election and “can’t fall away if really elect” and basically move Rome to after justification. In this way a man is not overtly “working his way to salvation” but proving he is indeed saved. The end result, however, is the same thing “the arrogant on the right thinking they are pulling it off” and the “despairing on the left certain they never be”. This is why assurance can never be IN the Worded sacraments such as “I am baptized”. A religious hamster wheel is a religious hamster wheel by any other name.

  • larry

    “…reposition Aristotle´s outline for good works after Justification, say that Aristotle´s practice-makes-perfect is a result of Justification, and then you call that philosophical righteousness by the word “sanctification.”

    One thing I do know is that this (stated principle above) is pure Calvinism whoever holds to it. This is especially notable and more highly developed in the Puritans such as in John Owen’s “The Mortification of Sin” and Jonathan Edwards, but the early genesis of it definitely starts with Calvin. Mortification is thrust into this position and mingled with sanctification such that both become one and the same (seems to be a confusion of law and gospel the best I can tell). In this way the can deny saying “do what is within one to jump start the infusion of grace”. In this way objective justification can be said, “God alone/grace alone”, but subjectively (how you know) it’s the old Roman system repeated with a few new names.

    In short mortification is moved post conversion/election, thus plausibly they can still say “justification by faith alone”, shift everything Rome taught to “post conversion”, including pulling purgatory down to earth and here, delabeling the term “purgatory” while retaining the principle, and now, gate it with election and “can’t fall away if really elect” and basically move Rome to after justification. In this way a man is not overtly “working his way to salvation” but proving he is indeed saved. The end result, however, is the same thing “the arrogant on the right thinking they are pulling it off” and the “despairing on the left certain they never be”. This is why assurance can never be IN the Worded sacraments such as “I am baptized”. A religious hamster wheel is a religious hamster wheel by any other name.

  • Grace

    FAITH and WORKS: faith without works is dead also.

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

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

    19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

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

    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

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

    23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

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

    25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2

  • Grace

    FAITH and WORKS: faith without works is dead also.

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

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

    19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

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

    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

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

    23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

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

    25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2

  • Cranach Liberal Lapdog

    Now show us a Christian who has no works. Not even little works.

  • Cranach Liberal Lapdog

    Now show us a Christian who has no works. Not even little works.

  • larry

    James presupposes faith first, not vice versa. Paul: “All apart from faith is sin”. No contridication here. If faith is first presupposed then so is bold assurance that “I am forgiven, Christ is my righteousness alone and forever”. Thus, I’m assured not by works but by faith giving things, Word and Sacrament, things which assure “I in particular am forgiven and Christ is my righteousness” or “I am Christ’s sin as He is my righteousness” or “I am baptized” or “take eat this is My body given into death FOR YOU…take drink all of you this is My blood shed FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS”, or “be baptized everyone of you FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS and you WILL receive the Holy Spirit, the promise is to you and your children and all who are far off who are called”, or “…this baptism saves you…”, or in baptism you are put to death and raised in Christ.

    All James is simply saying is “where there is forgiveness of sin, (then) there is life and salvation”. Faith naturally works spontaneously and cannot help but exude works, including sleeping and eating as well as changing a diaper and other works. The reverse of what Paul is saying is that where there is faith, there is NO sin whatsoever. James is saying, where there is no life, then forgiveness of sins is rejected. or Where there is no life “I am baptized” is rejected. Or Where there is no life the body/blood of Christ is denied and is denied is that forgiveness is actually given. Or Where there is no life “this baptism saves you” is being denied. Or Where there is no life “when absolved you reject it” and so forth.

  • larry

    James presupposes faith first, not vice versa. Paul: “All apart from faith is sin”. No contridication here. If faith is first presupposed then so is bold assurance that “I am forgiven, Christ is my righteousness alone and forever”. Thus, I’m assured not by works but by faith giving things, Word and Sacrament, things which assure “I in particular am forgiven and Christ is my righteousness” or “I am Christ’s sin as He is my righteousness” or “I am baptized” or “take eat this is My body given into death FOR YOU…take drink all of you this is My blood shed FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS”, or “be baptized everyone of you FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS and you WILL receive the Holy Spirit, the promise is to you and your children and all who are far off who are called”, or “…this baptism saves you…”, or in baptism you are put to death and raised in Christ.

    All James is simply saying is “where there is forgiveness of sin, (then) there is life and salvation”. Faith naturally works spontaneously and cannot help but exude works, including sleeping and eating as well as changing a diaper and other works. The reverse of what Paul is saying is that where there is faith, there is NO sin whatsoever. James is saying, where there is no life, then forgiveness of sins is rejected. or Where there is no life “I am baptized” is rejected. Or Where there is no life the body/blood of Christ is denied and is denied is that forgiveness is actually given. Or Where there is no life “this baptism saves you” is being denied. Or Where there is no life “when absolved you reject it” and so forth.

  • Grace

    Now show us a Christian who has no works. Not even little works.

    If a Christian ALWAYS had works, there would be no reason for James to have made such statements, but alas he does. There are many Christians no one would recognize as such, their behavior, actions don’t represent a Believer.

  • Grace

    Now show us a Christian who has no works. Not even little works.

    If a Christian ALWAYS had works, there would be no reason for James to have made such statements, but alas he does. There are many Christians no one would recognize as such, their behavior, actions don’t represent a Believer.

  • Grace

    It’s always the same, Aristotle brought forth in these types of Lutheran dialogue.

    Aristotle was a pagan, he has nothing to do with HOLY Scriptures of the Bible? NOTHING!

    It matters not one dot or dash, what a pagan thinks, he thinks only of his own greatness, his ability, as if his mental capability is something to be praised… who but a pagan would say the things Aristotle blithered. He admired himself, and who else would remind you of this deft and blind mind?

    “A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.”
    Aristotle

    Aristotle and Hitchens, if alive today, would likely be joined at the hip, trying hard to persuade the peoples of today to stay within the bounds of paganism, as they believed, only to be swept away into the abyss that awaits all those who turn from God Almighty!

  • Grace

    It’s always the same, Aristotle brought forth in these types of Lutheran dialogue.

    Aristotle was a pagan, he has nothing to do with HOLY Scriptures of the Bible? NOTHING!

    It matters not one dot or dash, what a pagan thinks, he thinks only of his own greatness, his ability, as if his mental capability is something to be praised… who but a pagan would say the things Aristotle blithered. He admired himself, and who else would remind you of this deft and blind mind?

    “A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.”
    Aristotle

    Aristotle and Hitchens, if alive today, would likely be joined at the hip, trying hard to persuade the peoples of today to stay within the bounds of paganism, as they believed, only to be swept away into the abyss that awaits all those who turn from God Almighty!

  • Grace

    larry @ 123

    Why you TRY to re-work Scripture, you always do a very poor job of it. Scripture stands on its own –

  • Grace

    larry @ 123

    Why you TRY to re-work Scripture, you always do a very poor job of it. Scripture stands on its own –

  • fws

    Paul T @ 120

    68] … To disparage such works, the confession of doctrine, affliction, works of love, mortifications of the flesh, would be indeed to disparage the outward government of Christ’s kingdom among men.

    73] Here also we add something concerning rewards and merits. We teach that rewards have been offered and promised to the works of believers. We teach that good works are meritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace or justification (for these we obtain only by faith), but for other rewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life, because Paul 74] says, 1 Cor. 3:8: Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor.

    Read on:

    101] No one can infer anything more from this text than that love is necessary.

    This we confess.

    So also not to commit theft is necessary. But the reasoning will not be correct if some one would desire to frame thence an argument such as this: “Not to commit theft is necessary. Therefore, not to commit theft justifies [and sanctifies] .”

    Because justification [and sanctification] is not the approval of a certain work, but of the entire person.

    Regarding morality, nothing can be demanded beyond the Ethics of Aristotle. “Apology On Justification”

    We praise outward good works of thought, word and deed, Pastor Mc Cain. They are necessary and required by God.
    They are mortification.

    No Christ or Holy Spirit are needed for them to be done.

    Again: tell me ONE good work you do Pastor Mc Cain that a fake christian could not our would not do. Just. One.

  • fws

    Paul T @ 120

    68] … To disparage such works, the confession of doctrine, affliction, works of love, mortifications of the flesh, would be indeed to disparage the outward government of Christ’s kingdom among men.

    73] Here also we add something concerning rewards and merits. We teach that rewards have been offered and promised to the works of believers. We teach that good works are meritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace or justification (for these we obtain only by faith), but for other rewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life, because Paul 74] says, 1 Cor. 3:8: Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor.

    Read on:

    101] No one can infer anything more from this text than that love is necessary.

    This we confess.

    So also not to commit theft is necessary. But the reasoning will not be correct if some one would desire to frame thence an argument such as this: “Not to commit theft is necessary. Therefore, not to commit theft justifies [and sanctifies] .”

    Because justification [and sanctification] is not the approval of a certain work, but of the entire person.

    Regarding morality, nothing can be demanded beyond the Ethics of Aristotle. “Apology On Justification”

    We praise outward good works of thought, word and deed, Pastor Mc Cain. They are necessary and required by God.
    They are mortification.

    No Christ or Holy Spirit are needed for them to be done.

    Again: tell me ONE good work you do Pastor Mc Cain that a fake christian could not our would not do. Just. One.

  • fws

    CLL @ 123

    We are talking about GOOD works. Men WILL do works.
    Show me ANYone who doesn´t do Good Works. And bad ones.

    No Christ or Holy Spirit is necessary for this to happen in anyone.
    McCain is asserting otherwise.
    That is his error.

  • fws

    CLL @ 123

    We are talking about GOOD works. Men WILL do works.
    Show me ANYone who doesn´t do Good Works. And bad ones.

    No Christ or Holy Spirit is necessary for this to happen in anyone.
    McCain is asserting otherwise.
    That is his error.

  • fws

    grace @ 126

    Aristotle was a pagan, he has nothing to do with HOLY Scriptures of the Bible? NOTHING!

    That IS the point being made Grace. Aristotle was perfectly capable of knowing and doing what a virtuous and moral person is supposed to do.
    No Christ or Holy Spirit is necessary to be a moral person.
    Being a moral person will not save anyone.
    That is the point.

    Yet morality and virtue IS demanded by God of ALL men.

  • fws

    grace @ 126

    Aristotle was a pagan, he has nothing to do with HOLY Scriptures of the Bible? NOTHING!

    That IS the point being made Grace. Aristotle was perfectly capable of knowing and doing what a virtuous and moral person is supposed to do.
    No Christ or Holy Spirit is necessary to be a moral person.
    Being a moral person will not save anyone.
    That is the point.

    Yet morality and virtue IS demanded by God of ALL men.

  • fws

    grace @ 126

    This is merely to restate, using aristotle as an illustration, what St Paul says in romans 2:15.

    That is the point Grace.

  • fws

    grace @ 126

    This is merely to restate, using aristotle as an illustration, what St Paul says in romans 2:15.

    That is the point Grace.

  • Grace

    I did not post that which is posted @ 127

    127 Grace August 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm
    On second thought, after reading some Aristotle, I have to say that he is nothing like Hitchens. In fact, if Christ had revealed Himself to him, he probably would have become born again.

    After all, he did believe that knowledge of the “unmoved mover” was the highest good a human could obtain.

    This is a cheap shot!

  • Grace

    I did not post that which is posted @ 127

    127 Grace August 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm
    On second thought, after reading some Aristotle, I have to say that he is nothing like Hitchens. In fact, if Christ had revealed Himself to him, he probably would have become born again.

    After all, he did believe that knowledge of the “unmoved mover” was the highest good a human could obtain.

    This is a cheap shot!

  • fws

    Grace

    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2

    That is a great analogy of St James.
    What it actually says is this in the greek:

    As the body is to faith
    Good Works are to breathing.

    Is someone alive if they are not breathing?
    and at the same time this is also true:
    IF we need to encourage someone to breathe, or breathe harder, what does that diagnostically tell us about their body?

  • fws

    Grace

    26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2

    That is a great analogy of St James.
    What it actually says is this in the greek:

    As the body is to faith
    Good Works are to breathing.

    Is someone alive if they are not breathing?
    and at the same time this is also true:
    IF we need to encourage someone to breathe, or breathe harder, what does that diagnostically tell us about their body?

  • fws

    Grace

    Another great passage from St James:

    I will tell you my faith.
    I will SHOW you my good works.

    What is it I have to SHOW others by the tone of my comments on this blog? Am I kind. St Paul: “If you have not love… the greatest of these is love”.

  • fws

    Grace

    Another great passage from St James:

    I will tell you my faith.
    I will SHOW you my good works.

    What is it I have to SHOW others by the tone of my comments on this blog? Am I kind. St Paul: “If you have not love… the greatest of these is love”.

  • George A. Marquart

    Fsw @117.

    1. Apology, Art III, “2] It is written in the prophet, Jer. 31:33: I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. And in Rom. 3:31, Paul says: Do we, then, make void the Law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law. And Christ says, Matt. 19:17: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Likewise, 1 Cor. 13:3: If I have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 3] These and similar sentences testify that the Law ought to be begun in us, and be kept by us more and more [that we are to keep the Law when we have been justified by faith, and thus increase more and more in the Spirit]. Moreover, we speak not of ceremonies, but of that Law which gives commandment concerning the movements of the heart, namely, the Decalogue.” The word which is translated as “Law” is “Torah”. Scripture never uses this word to mean the Ten Commandments. In its widest sense, it means “the mind of God”, to which St. Paul refers in 1 Cor. 2, when he writes, v16, “but we have the mind of Christ.” Also, in 2 Cor. 3, when he writes about the writing on our hearts with the “Spirit of the living God,” he contrasts the ministry of death “on stone tablets” with the ministry of the Spirit. Why would God inscribe the ministry of death on our hearts?
    2. Small Catechism, The Second Petition.
    “Thy kingdom come.
    What does this mean?–Answer.
    The kingdom of God comes indeed without our prayer, of itself; but we pray in this petition that it may come unto us also.
    How is this done?–Answer.
    When our heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit, so that by His grace we believe His holy Word and lead a godly life here in time and yonder in eternity.” In the Greek, the verb ἐλθέτω in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:10/Lk 11:2) is an Active Aorist Imperative 3rd person singular of the Middle verb ἔρχομαι (= to come). It means “to come” only when used in the literal sense, of something that moves, as on legs. But when used metaphorically, it can mean many other things. In this case the sense is in all likelihood something like, “May Your Kingdom Prosper”, or “may Your Kingdom increase.” But it has nothing to say about the Kingdom coming to us, inasmuch as we are already in the Kingdom, Colossians 1: 13, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” To the best of my knowledge, of the many times the Kingdom is spoken of in Scripture, there is only one when it is referred to as being within us, Luke 17:21, where our Lord says, “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Do we then receive the Holy Spirit every time we pray the Lord’s Prayer? Do we get more “Kingdom”? This is a confusion of justification and sanctification.
    3. “The Smalcald Articles
    Of the False Repentance of the Papists.
    43] It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost].”
    Clearly this cannot be true, because David prays in Psalm 51, “and do not take your Holy Spirit from me” when “the prophet David came to him, after he had gone to Bathsheba”. If he had not lost the Holy Spirit by then, surely he did not loose Him after Nathan said, “Now the Lord has put away your sin.”
    4. Small Catechism, Baptism, “Fourthly.
    What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer.
    It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.
    Where is this written?–Answer.
    St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Nowhere in Scripture, not even in Romans 6, which Luther claims in support of his statement, does it say that “a new man daily come forth and arise …” A new man arises out of the waters of Baptism – one time- not daily. To be “simul iustus et peccator” means that, what Luther calls the old Adam, will always be with us.

    Finally, let me be clear that I think that the Lutheran Confessions are the finest exposition of the Christian faith. But they could use some tweaking, unless everything I have written above is not true.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    Fsw @117.

    1. Apology, Art III, “2] It is written in the prophet, Jer. 31:33: I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. And in Rom. 3:31, Paul says: Do we, then, make void the Law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law. And Christ says, Matt. 19:17: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Likewise, 1 Cor. 13:3: If I have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 3] These and similar sentences testify that the Law ought to be begun in us, and be kept by us more and more [that we are to keep the Law when we have been justified by faith, and thus increase more and more in the Spirit]. Moreover, we speak not of ceremonies, but of that Law which gives commandment concerning the movements of the heart, namely, the Decalogue.” The word which is translated as “Law” is “Torah”. Scripture never uses this word to mean the Ten Commandments. In its widest sense, it means “the mind of God”, to which St. Paul refers in 1 Cor. 2, when he writes, v16, “but we have the mind of Christ.” Also, in 2 Cor. 3, when he writes about the writing on our hearts with the “Spirit of the living God,” he contrasts the ministry of death “on stone tablets” with the ministry of the Spirit. Why would God inscribe the ministry of death on our hearts?
    2. Small Catechism, The Second Petition.
    “Thy kingdom come.
    What does this mean?–Answer.
    The kingdom of God comes indeed without our prayer, of itself; but we pray in this petition that it may come unto us also.
    How is this done?–Answer.
    When our heavenly Father gives us His Holy Spirit, so that by His grace we believe His holy Word and lead a godly life here in time and yonder in eternity.” In the Greek, the verb ἐλθέτω in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:10/Lk 11:2) is an Active Aorist Imperative 3rd person singular of the Middle verb ἔρχομαι (= to come). It means “to come” only when used in the literal sense, of something that moves, as on legs. But when used metaphorically, it can mean many other things. In this case the sense is in all likelihood something like, “May Your Kingdom Prosper”, or “may Your Kingdom increase.” But it has nothing to say about the Kingdom coming to us, inasmuch as we are already in the Kingdom, Colossians 1: 13, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” To the best of my knowledge, of the many times the Kingdom is spoken of in Scripture, there is only one when it is referred to as being within us, Luke 17:21, where our Lord says, “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Do we then receive the Holy Spirit every time we pray the Lord’s Prayer? Do we get more “Kingdom”? This is a confusion of justification and sanctification.
    3. “The Smalcald Articles
    Of the False Repentance of the Papists.
    43] It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost].”
    Clearly this cannot be true, because David prays in Psalm 51, “and do not take your Holy Spirit from me” when “the prophet David came to him, after he had gone to Bathsheba”. If he had not lost the Holy Spirit by then, surely he did not loose Him after Nathan said, “Now the Lord has put away your sin.”
    4. Small Catechism, Baptism, “Fourthly.
    What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer.
    It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.
    Where is this written?–Answer.
    St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Nowhere in Scripture, not even in Romans 6, which Luther claims in support of his statement, does it say that “a new man daily come forth and arise …” A new man arises out of the waters of Baptism – one time- not daily. To be “simul iustus et peccator” means that, what Luther calls the old Adam, will always be with us.

    Finally, let me be clear that I think that the Lutheran Confessions are the finest exposition of the Christian faith. But they could use some tweaking, unless everything I have written above is not true.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • Grace

    fws,

    “What is it I have to SHOW others by the tone of my comments on this blog? Am I kind. St Paul: “If you have not love… the greatest of these is love”.”

    Post the same question to yourself first!

    Ask yourself this – do you believe it is kind to post things to me which are crude, using the crudest language possible. Are your language skills so limited?

    70 fws June 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    Grace ,

    “You “use” Scriptures like men “use ” prostitutes.

    But you are more shameful than those men who use prostitutes. you are using Holy Scripture to do evil.
    You have zero shame.
    And you have zero sense that you have any real sin to repent of .

    Repent Grace before God has to punish you to make you repent.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/06/22/romneys-vice-presidential-pick/#comment-154056

  • Grace

    fws,

    “What is it I have to SHOW others by the tone of my comments on this blog? Am I kind. St Paul: “If you have not love… the greatest of these is love”.”

    Post the same question to yourself first!

    Ask yourself this – do you believe it is kind to post things to me which are crude, using the crudest language possible. Are your language skills so limited?

    70 fws June 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    Grace ,

    “You “use” Scriptures like men “use ” prostitutes.

    But you are more shameful than those men who use prostitutes. you are using Holy Scripture to do evil.
    You have zero shame.
    And you have zero sense that you have any real sin to repent of .

    Repent Grace before God has to punish you to make you repent.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/06/22/romneys-vice-presidential-pick/#comment-154056

  • fws

    grace @ 136

    Grace said:
    “Post the same question to yourself first!”

    That is what I did isn´t it?

    As to what you quote me as saying to you it is true and I hope you take it to heart.
    You use Scriptures the way I described.

  • fws

    grace @ 136

    Grace said:
    “Post the same question to yourself first!”

    That is what I did isn´t it?

    As to what you quote me as saying to you it is true and I hope you take it to heart.
    You use Scriptures the way I described.

  • fws

    Grace @ 136

    you have zero sense that you have any real sin to repent of .
    Repent Grace before God has to punish you to make you repent.”

    “He (or she) who says he is without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him.”
    Are you a sinner Grace?

    Quote yourself here in just one place where you confess that you are not living up to what God´s Law demands of you in your conduct.

    You can´t. You won´t. I rest my case.

  • fws

    Grace @ 136

    you have zero sense that you have any real sin to repent of .
    Repent Grace before God has to punish you to make you repent.”

    “He (or she) who says he is without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him.”
    Are you a sinner Grace?

    Quote yourself here in just one place where you confess that you are not living up to what God´s Law demands of you in your conduct.

    You can´t. You won´t. I rest my case.

  • Grace

    You have no case fws.

    As long as you believe that homosexuality is not a sin, you haven’t made any points. You want to lead with your own sin in tow, it doesn’t work that way.

    I rarely read your posts, it isn’t worth it. The ELCA is no different, it’s a perfect fit for you.

  • Grace

    You have no case fws.

    As long as you believe that homosexuality is not a sin, you haven’t made any points. You want to lead with your own sin in tow, it doesn’t work that way.

    I rarely read your posts, it isn’t worth it. The ELCA is no different, it’s a perfect fit for you.

  • fws

    Grace @ 39

    Mrs. Pot? Meet Mr. Kettle.
    We are both sinners Grace.
    I confess my sins. Not in general either.
    What about you?

    You say homosexuality is a sin without defining the word.
    Quoting Romans 1 or Lev 18 or 1 Cor 6 is not to define what that word you throw around means.

    I DO sin sexually in ALL the same ways you do Grace. I freely confess that. You know nothing about my sex life, but you can know that is true about me from Scriptures. And I can also know that about you. What sin is it that you think I commit sexually that you do not? Name it? Romans 2:1? Yup.

  • fws

    Grace @ 39

    Mrs. Pot? Meet Mr. Kettle.
    We are both sinners Grace.
    I confess my sins. Not in general either.
    What about you?

    You say homosexuality is a sin without defining the word.
    Quoting Romans 1 or Lev 18 or 1 Cor 6 is not to define what that word you throw around means.

    I DO sin sexually in ALL the same ways you do Grace. I freely confess that. You know nothing about my sex life, but you can know that is true about me from Scriptures. And I can also know that about you. What sin is it that you think I commit sexually that you do not? Name it? Romans 2:1? Yup.

  • Stephen K

    Grace 139

    I am so glad that you have no “sin in tow”

    Please tell me what that is like. My sin clouds my judgment all of the time. From my personal reading of the scriptures to my comments on blogs.

  • Stephen K

    Grace 139

    I am so glad that you have no “sin in tow”

    Please tell me what that is like. My sin clouds my judgment all of the time. From my personal reading of the scriptures to my comments on blogs.

  • Grace

    Stephen,

    “I am so glad that you have no “sin in tow”

    I didn’t say I never sinned did I?

    When someone tells me that homosexuality is not a sin, .. I know differently, the Word of God says it is. Sodom and its sister city were destroyed for the sin of immorality.

    The only sin that one can obtain a divorce, and then remarry is adultery – and that is for the one who’s spouse committed the act.
    Therefore, sexual sin carries with it a very strong warning, and restrictions, and many diseases. Of course this fact is ignored.

    Look at the diseases which accompany homosexual behavior. You can only get HIV/AIDS from anal or oral sex, .. that is a sexual practice most homosexuals involve themselves. I am sure there are straights who do it as well.

    STDs are rampant among homosexuals and heterosexuals, who have multiple sex partners. Many of these diseases cannot be cured.

    Homosexuals love to pounce on everyone who is straight, IF they don’t agree that homosexuality is normal, born within them, something they supposedly cannot change.

    Are there other sins, of course there are.

    Stating: ⚊“You “use” Scriptures like men “use ” prostitutes.”⚊ is vulgar, but it’s something the writer often writes, in many ways to get attention. It’s all he has to fall back on.

  • Grace

    Stephen,

    “I am so glad that you have no “sin in tow”

    I didn’t say I never sinned did I?

    When someone tells me that homosexuality is not a sin, .. I know differently, the Word of God says it is. Sodom and its sister city were destroyed for the sin of immorality.

    The only sin that one can obtain a divorce, and then remarry is adultery – and that is for the one who’s spouse committed the act.
    Therefore, sexual sin carries with it a very strong warning, and restrictions, and many diseases. Of course this fact is ignored.

    Look at the diseases which accompany homosexual behavior. You can only get HIV/AIDS from anal or oral sex, .. that is a sexual practice most homosexuals involve themselves. I am sure there are straights who do it as well.

    STDs are rampant among homosexuals and heterosexuals, who have multiple sex partners. Many of these diseases cannot be cured.

    Homosexuals love to pounce on everyone who is straight, IF they don’t agree that homosexuality is normal, born within them, something they supposedly cannot change.

    Are there other sins, of course there are.

    Stating: ⚊“You “use” Scriptures like men “use ” prostitutes.”⚊ is vulgar, but it’s something the writer often writes, in many ways to get attention. It’s all he has to fall back on.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@142):

    I didn’t say I never sinned did I?

    Please. You know what the issue is. You have repeatedly refused to answer the question of whether you continue to sin, or of whether you (presently) sin willfully.

    Until you answer otherwise, all your answers point to your holding to a theology that is unbiblical and unchristian, one in which there is no forgiveness for sins committed willfully, or sins committed after one becomes a Christian, or sins committed continually, etc. What you peddle here is little more than legalistic self-righteousness. I hope God’s more impressed with that than we are (hint: he’s not; read the Bible).

    Sodom and its sister city were destroyed for the sin of immorality.

    Why don’t you try actually reading the Word of God, rather than merely talk about it? Maybe you could read Ezekiel 16, for instance?

    You can only get HIV/AIDS from anal or oral sex, ..

    And, with that, you have destroyed any shred of credibility you might have had here when you try to convince people you know something about medicine. That is a remarkably ignorant statement.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@142):

    I didn’t say I never sinned did I?

    Please. You know what the issue is. You have repeatedly refused to answer the question of whether you continue to sin, or of whether you (presently) sin willfully.

    Until you answer otherwise, all your answers point to your holding to a theology that is unbiblical and unchristian, one in which there is no forgiveness for sins committed willfully, or sins committed after one becomes a Christian, or sins committed continually, etc. What you peddle here is little more than legalistic self-righteousness. I hope God’s more impressed with that than we are (hint: he’s not; read the Bible).

    Sodom and its sister city were destroyed for the sin of immorality.

    Why don’t you try actually reading the Word of God, rather than merely talk about it? Maybe you could read Ezekiel 16, for instance?

    You can only get HIV/AIDS from anal or oral sex, ..

    And, with that, you have destroyed any shred of credibility you might have had here when you try to convince people you know something about medicine. That is a remarkably ignorant statement.

  • Grace

    If you’re speaking of drug use and needles, then yes, there is more than one way. The majority of homosexuals get HIV/AIDS from anal, oral sex.

    There are two distinct ways in which to transmitt HIV/AIDS. “Anal sex” and “oral sex” –

    BELOW is from the CDC, which might inform those of “anal sex” and what it means to transmit HIV/AIDS by that or “oral sex” –

    CDC

    Basic Information about HIV and AIDS

    HIV is spread primarily by:

    ⚫ Not using a condom when having sex with a person who has HIV. All unprotected sex with someone who has HIV contains some risk. However:

    Unprotected anal sex is riskier than unprotected vaginal sex.

    Among men who have sex with other men, unprotected receptive anal sex is riskier than unprotected insertive anal sex.

    ⚫ Having multiple sex partners or the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) can increase the risk of infection during sex. Unprotected oral sex can also be a risk for HIV transmission, but it is a much lower risk than anal or vaginal sex.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/index.htm

  • Grace

    If you’re speaking of drug use and needles, then yes, there is more than one way. The majority of homosexuals get HIV/AIDS from anal, oral sex.

    There are two distinct ways in which to transmitt HIV/AIDS. “Anal sex” and “oral sex” –

    BELOW is from the CDC, which might inform those of “anal sex” and what it means to transmit HIV/AIDS by that or “oral sex” –

    CDC

    Basic Information about HIV and AIDS

    HIV is spread primarily by:

    ⚫ Not using a condom when having sex with a person who has HIV. All unprotected sex with someone who has HIV contains some risk. However:

    Unprotected anal sex is riskier than unprotected vaginal sex.

    Among men who have sex with other men, unprotected receptive anal sex is riskier than unprotected insertive anal sex.

    ⚫ Having multiple sex partners or the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) can increase the risk of infection during sex. Unprotected oral sex can also be a risk for HIV transmission, but it is a much lower risk than anal or vaginal sex.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/index.htm

  • Grace

    7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
    Jude 1

  • Grace

    7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
    Jude 1

  • Stephen K

    What is a Lutheran?
    And post #144 Wow!

    A Lutheran is a sinner who confesses the doctrines in the Small Catechism. An LCMS is a full BofC confessor. But boil it down and the Small Catechism is the measure. At least in this sinners opinion.

  • Stephen K

    What is a Lutheran?
    And post #144 Wow!

    A Lutheran is a sinner who confesses the doctrines in the Small Catechism. An LCMS is a full BofC confessor. But boil it down and the Small Catechism is the measure. At least in this sinners opinion.

  • Grace

    Stephen

    I confess my sins daily to my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, asking for forgiveness. The Bible is clear:

    8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

    9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
    1 John 1:2

  • Grace

    Stephen

    I confess my sins daily to my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ, asking for forgiveness. The Bible is clear:

    8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

    9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
    1 John 1:2

  • Grace

    Stephen

    “But boil it down and the Small Catechism is the measure. At least in this sinners opinion.”

    The accurate measure is, the Word of God, it trumps all the books, and written works of man. After all, the Bible is the inerrant Word, all the other books men have written are not.

  • Grace

    Stephen

    “But boil it down and the Small Catechism is the measure. At least in this sinners opinion.”

    The accurate measure is, the Word of God, it trumps all the books, and written works of man. After all, the Bible is the inerrant Word, all the other books men have written are not.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    StephenK, while a Lutheran may only be familiar with the SC, the SC teaches nothing more, or less, than contained in the BoC. Once a Lutheran is familiar with the BoC, she/she may not continue to claim to be a Lutheran and deny the truths confessed in the BoC. Your error here is trying to make some kind of distinction between the SC and the BoC.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    StephenK, while a Lutheran may only be familiar with the SC, the SC teaches nothing more, or less, than contained in the BoC. Once a Lutheran is familiar with the BoC, she/she may not continue to claim to be a Lutheran and deny the truths confessed in the BoC. Your error here is trying to make some kind of distinction between the SC and the BoC.

  • fws

    Grace

    You have yet to ever, ever repent of anything here.
    I don´t believe you think you are a sinner.

  • fws

    Grace

    You have yet to ever, ever repent of anything here.
    I don´t believe you think you are a sinner.

  • fws

    McCain @ 149

    I respectfully suggest that you could have read what Stephen K said with more charity.

    In that case you would have read it has he intended it to be read and to mean.

    There is nothing in what he wrote that would need you to conclude that he is saying that the theology in the SC and BofC are not identical. And in fact, he would reject that idea.

    See what you are doing dear Pastor McCain? There is no need to sow division where there is none. This only feeds Old Adam.

  • fws

    McCain @ 149

    I respectfully suggest that you could have read what Stephen K said with more charity.

    In that case you would have read it has he intended it to be read and to mean.

    There is nothing in what he wrote that would need you to conclude that he is saying that the theology in the SC and BofC are not identical. And in fact, he would reject that idea.

    See what you are doing dear Pastor McCain? There is no need to sow division where there is none. This only feeds Old Adam.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@147), and yet you’re still unable to answer the questions of whether you sin continually or whether you sin willingly.

    I submit that, though you know the answers to both must be “yes” (we all know you sin willingly and continually — every time you comment here, it’s made plain to us), yet your theology has you scared to admit as much because then, per your theology, you would be without salvation. You cannot admit to your own depraved state; your legalism precludes you from doing so.

    Also, news flash: you can get AIDS from vaginal sex.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@147), and yet you’re still unable to answer the questions of whether you sin continually or whether you sin willingly.

    I submit that, though you know the answers to both must be “yes” (we all know you sin willingly and continually — every time you comment here, it’s made plain to us), yet your theology has you scared to admit as much because then, per your theology, you would be without salvation. You cannot admit to your own depraved state; your legalism precludes you from doing so.

    Also, news flash: you can get AIDS from vaginal sex.

  • Grace

    Yes tODD, you read that in my post @145 from the CDC.

  • Grace

    Yes tODD, you read that in my post @145 from the CDC.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    You “admit” and “confess” that you sin “in all the ways that Grace does.” it is a hollow, meaningless confession since its purpose is to avoid confession. You’re confessing to sinning “in all the ways that Grace does” in order to justify NOT confessing to sinning in certain particular ways that Grace does not.

    That (along with the need to be noticed and seen by others, even strangers) is in fact the root and heart of your obsession. Your volumes of commentary are nothing but desperate self-justification and refusal to acknowledge your own sin. You will not escape your miserable predicament until you stop confessing “all the sins” that the rest of us commit and confess the sin that you are stubbornly refusing to admit is a sin.

    No, I don’t know what you’ve confessed or what your repentance is like. But you reveal yourself in your comments–dangerously, I might add, in ways that do you no good. That’s part of the problem, you paradoxically want to reveal yourself, want strangers to look at you, but at the same time want to control what they see. You know that’s impossible, don’t you?

  • S. P.

    Fws

    You “admit” and “confess” that you sin “in all the ways that Grace does.” it is a hollow, meaningless confession since its purpose is to avoid confession. You’re confessing to sinning “in all the ways that Grace does” in order to justify NOT confessing to sinning in certain particular ways that Grace does not.

    That (along with the need to be noticed and seen by others, even strangers) is in fact the root and heart of your obsession. Your volumes of commentary are nothing but desperate self-justification and refusal to acknowledge your own sin. You will not escape your miserable predicament until you stop confessing “all the sins” that the rest of us commit and confess the sin that you are stubbornly refusing to admit is a sin.

    No, I don’t know what you’ve confessed or what your repentance is like. But you reveal yourself in your comments–dangerously, I might add, in ways that do you no good. That’s part of the problem, you paradoxically want to reveal yourself, want strangers to look at you, but at the same time want to control what they see. You know that’s impossible, don’t you?

  • fws

    SP @ 154

    Excuse me, but I didn´t understand anything at all you wrote.

  • fws

    SP @ 154

    Excuse me, but I didn´t understand anything at all you wrote.

  • Grace

    Oh, you understood, you just don’t like the way in which it was fed to you. Selective understanding means nothing, it’s child’s play.

    I believe you’ve met your match fws.

  • Grace

    Oh, you understood, you just don’t like the way in which it was fed to you. Selective understanding means nothing, it’s child’s play.

    I believe you’ve met your match fws.

  • Grace

    S. P. @ 154

    Great post!

  • Grace

    S. P. @ 154

    Great post!

  • S. P.

    tODD

    You must have a pretty high opinion of yourself if you think complete strangers are going to answer your impertinent “questions of whether they sin continually or whether they sin willingly”

    If you often do that to commenters here, I hope they are normal and well-balanced enough to laugh at you.

  • S. P.

    tODD

    You must have a pretty high opinion of yourself if you think complete strangers are going to answer your impertinent “questions of whether they sin continually or whether they sin willingly”

    If you often do that to commenters here, I hope they are normal and well-balanced enough to laugh at you.

  • fws

    Grace @ 156

    I am not shy to respond in case you didn´t notice.
    I really didnt get what he said. Simple as that.
    And it would be foolish to respond therefore without asking for more…

  • fws

    Grace @ 156

    I am not shy to respond in case you didn´t notice.
    I really didnt get what he said. Simple as that.
    And it would be foolish to respond therefore without asking for more…

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@153), no, I learned in 6th grade that you can get AIDS from vaginal sex. That still doesn’t explain why anyone — much less someone who claims medical knowledge of some sort — would claim, as you did (@142), that “You can only get HIV/AIDS from anal or oral sex”, which error you then repeated again (@144).

    Meanwhile, you continue to be unable to answer basic questions about your sinfulness. But your silence speaks volumes about your unchristian theology.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@153), no, I learned in 6th grade that you can get AIDS from vaginal sex. That still doesn’t explain why anyone — much less someone who claims medical knowledge of some sort — would claim, as you did (@142), that “You can only get HIV/AIDS from anal or oral sex”, which error you then repeated again (@144).

    Meanwhile, you continue to be unable to answer basic questions about your sinfulness. But your silence speaks volumes about your unchristian theology.

  • fws

    SP @ 158

    Can you please avoid sarcasm.
    I like Todd. Alot. No.
    Not THAT way!
    Be nice.

    Is the sarcasm really necessary? I would sincerely like to like you as well. Can we disagree on stuff and still like each other and be nice?

  • fws

    SP @ 158

    Can you please avoid sarcasm.
    I like Todd. Alot. No.
    Not THAT way!
    Be nice.

    Is the sarcasm really necessary? I would sincerely like to like you as well. Can we disagree on stuff and still like each other and be nice?

  • Grace

    No, you’re not shy, but you aren’t clever either. You’ve fooled no one, expect perhaps, a few of your pals.

  • Grace

    No, you’re not shy, but you aren’t clever either. You’ve fooled no one, expect perhaps, a few of your pals.

  • Grace

    fws, when you speak of “being nice” I laugh, you act like a little kid who needs, and demands attention. Read my post @ 136 giving the post you wrote about “prostitutes” -

    “Being nice” ?

  • Grace

    fws, when you speak of “being nice” I laugh, you act like a little kid who needs, and demands attention. Read my post @ 136 giving the post you wrote about “prostitutes” -

    “Being nice” ?

  • Grace

    - @ 160 – Give it a rest tODD. Male homosexuals don’t have “vaginal sex” with other men. Did you learn that in 6th grade too? My point was MSM.

  • Grace

    - @ 160 – Give it a rest tODD. Male homosexuals don’t have “vaginal sex” with other men. Did you learn that in 6th grade too? My point was MSM.

  • larry

    Grace you are scriptures stand alone and need no commentary:

    This is my body given for you
    This cup the new testament in my blood shed for you the forgiveness of sins.
    this baptism saves you.
    Be baptized all of you for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit for the promise is to you, and your children and all who are far off to whom the lord calls.
    rise up and be baptized washing away your sins.

    Suffer the little children to come unto me for of such belongs the kingdom of God…if you do not become likewise you will in no way enter the kingdom of heaven.
    All apart from faith is sin.
    they heart is wicked above all things who can know it.

    You are right! Not a single syllable of commentary from the lips of any man or a woman. Scripture totally and utterly alone.

  • larry

    Grace you are scriptures stand alone and need no commentary:

    This is my body given for you
    This cup the new testament in my blood shed for you the forgiveness of sins.
    this baptism saves you.
    Be baptized all of you for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit for the promise is to you, and your children and all who are far off to whom the lord calls.
    rise up and be baptized washing away your sins.

    Suffer the little children to come unto me for of such belongs the kingdom of God…if you do not become likewise you will in no way enter the kingdom of heaven.
    All apart from faith is sin.
    they heart is wicked above all things who can know it.

    You are right! Not a single syllable of commentary from the lips of any man or a woman. Scripture totally and utterly alone.

  • Grace

    larry,

    There is no reason to throw Baptism into the mix once again. There is more to it, and I will not discuss it AGAIN on this thread. I’ve stated my reasons before, NUMEROUS times.

  • Grace

    larry,

    There is no reason to throw Baptism into the mix once again. There is more to it, and I will not discuss it AGAIN on this thread. I’ve stated my reasons before, NUMEROUS times.

  • S. P.

    It would be difficult discuss “what is a Lutheran?” without throwing baptism into the mix.

  • S. P.

    It would be difficult discuss “what is a Lutheran?” without throwing baptism into the mix.

  • larry

    The overall gravitation of the discussion makes the point regarding heterodoxies insinuation into orthodoxys confession. Now we find that heterodox confessors like grace have found a gap of day light for works salvation via moral discussion and it has gone from that to entertaining her worse blasphemes on baptism and the lords supper. Which ultimately profanes the very name of God. To wit this what goes on in the dirtiest of brothels is far less sin than the blaspheme that occurs in worship of the Baptist churches who raise their faith above the very name of Hod in believers baptism and their fruit juice and crackers toast.

  • larry

    The overall gravitation of the discussion makes the point regarding heterodoxies insinuation into orthodoxys confession. Now we find that heterodox confessors like grace have found a gap of day light for works salvation via moral discussion and it has gone from that to entertaining her worse blasphemes on baptism and the lords supper. Which ultimately profanes the very name of God. To wit this what goes on in the dirtiest of brothels is far less sin than the blaspheme that occurs in worship of the Baptist churches who raise their faith above the very name of Hod in believers baptism and their fruit juice and crackers toast.

  • larry

    More to it oh you mean other men’s words and your words added to the pure unadultrared words of God above, ie scripture alone, baptism and the lords supper and children in the kingdom, the deceptive heart also brought up above.

    Pure scripture on one side, the words of men and grace on the other side. I like. This scripture ALONE defending itself! It is wonderful.

  • larry

    More to it oh you mean other men’s words and your words added to the pure unadultrared words of God above, ie scripture alone, baptism and the lords supper and children in the kingdom, the deceptive heart also brought up above.

    Pure scripture on one side, the words of men and grace on the other side. I like. This scripture ALONE defending itself! It is wonderful.

  • Grace

    S. P.

    “It would be difficult discuss “what is a Lutheran?” without throwing baptism into the mix.”

    Another time, its been done dozens of times. But not on this thread. ;)

  • Grace

    S. P.

    “It would be difficult discuss “what is a Lutheran?” without throwing baptism into the mix.”

    Another time, its been done dozens of times. But not on this thread. ;)

  • larry

    What is a Lutheran? I think what is being confounded here is the difference in “what is a Lutheran” as an ideal with “any given Lutheran that is always in a state of constantly learning and even correcting heretofore self believed errors”. In this sense a “Lutheran” is not someone who “has arrived” personally on all points of doctrine but in a constant state of learning and as the Word and Sacraments work on them increasingly being set forth in the orthodox doctrine. In that state of learning there is pain, my old man always wants his old vomit and to my old man, who himself is in a state of being (being killed) its not vomit but tasty food. So the battle rages within one between the two old and new man. And this can be on any given doctrine. In fact its intrinsic to what is Lutheran (i.e. Christian) concerning baptism, dying and rising everyday and the simul man.

    The doctrine of Scripture and the confessions that confess this Scripture is immovable, the man/woman is in the state of flux being influenced by the doctrine, the Word and Sacraments.
    Even Luther makes this point concerning his own small catechism which he says that adults, not just kids to reach confirmation, should go over it again and again and ruminate on it. I’m constantly amazed at the wonders and connections I make when I go through the confessions and Scriptures, I can never say “I’ve arrived”. It’s a constant state of repentance, in the real since of that word not heterodoxies use of it.

    Over on world view’s blog they give a good answer to “what is a Lutheran” (link below). This is an appropriate answer. One cannot answer this expecting a beer commercial statement. And the Lutheran person is a person always in a state of learning and having their “minds renewed” as Paul states, until the very day they die. This is part and parcel with being a simul man, part and parcel with daily baptism.

    http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/what-is-a-lutheran/

  • larry

    What is a Lutheran? I think what is being confounded here is the difference in “what is a Lutheran” as an ideal with “any given Lutheran that is always in a state of constantly learning and even correcting heretofore self believed errors”. In this sense a “Lutheran” is not someone who “has arrived” personally on all points of doctrine but in a constant state of learning and as the Word and Sacraments work on them increasingly being set forth in the orthodox doctrine. In that state of learning there is pain, my old man always wants his old vomit and to my old man, who himself is in a state of being (being killed) its not vomit but tasty food. So the battle rages within one between the two old and new man. And this can be on any given doctrine. In fact its intrinsic to what is Lutheran (i.e. Christian) concerning baptism, dying and rising everyday and the simul man.

    The doctrine of Scripture and the confessions that confess this Scripture is immovable, the man/woman is in the state of flux being influenced by the doctrine, the Word and Sacraments.
    Even Luther makes this point concerning his own small catechism which he says that adults, not just kids to reach confirmation, should go over it again and again and ruminate on it. I’m constantly amazed at the wonders and connections I make when I go through the confessions and Scriptures, I can never say “I’ve arrived”. It’s a constant state of repentance, in the real since of that word not heterodoxies use of it.

    Over on world view’s blog they give a good answer to “what is a Lutheran” (link below). This is an appropriate answer. One cannot answer this expecting a beer commercial statement. And the Lutheran person is a person always in a state of learning and having their “minds renewed” as Paul states, until the very day they die. This is part and parcel with being a simul man, part and parcel with daily baptism.

    http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/what-is-a-lutheran/

  • S. P.

    Larry,

    Thank you! I like that answer.

  • S. P.

    Larry,

    Thank you! I like that answer.

  • Tom Hering

    Uh oh, larry. The linked article uses the word “concordia.” We’re in for it now.

  • Tom Hering

    Uh oh, larry. The linked article uses the word “concordia.” We’re in for it now.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank – Just dove back into this thread this afternoon. As to your hypothetical about a gay couple and entering their kids in school, I have a safe out: we don’t have a school, so I suggest heading to X Lutheran downtown, their school is top notch. ;) Seriously, though. It is a quandary on how one tactfully, carefully, and in Christian love one goes about witnessing to the truth of Scripture with people who need to be convicted of their sin under the Law, and still brought to repentance under the Gospel. We’re often very good at the former, and bad at he latter. At the same time, a pastor and the elders would and should counsel a gay couple that their actions are firmly bound as sinful under the Law and that they probably could not become members of the congregation, and definitely be admitted to the sacraments, without contrition and repentance. And, honestly, that may turn 95+% of gay coupes away, or even divide couples, as one is led to repentance and the other hardened in their sin. Ideally, the congregation would be there to walk them both through the process and bring them gradually and gracefully (in the fullest sense of the term) into the fellowship.

    That being said, we also need to be doing this to couples who are living together outside of marriage. I know we have done it, thankfully on a very limited basis, with persons who have engaged in adultery. Sexual sins are very private and delicate matters; they encompass us at our most vulnerable. As such a great deal of sensitivity to the sinfulness of each one of us must be acknowledged while still upholding the tenets of the Law. Again, the key is repentance, and the willingness for congregations to recognize that it is a struggle against sin of all types, but most especially sexual it seems, and that forgiveness when granted is permanent.

    Maybe Elert has something worthwhile to say on the matter, but more likely Sasse.

    Speaking of which – I’m reading an interesting little Sasse piece right now on the two kingdoms. I know you were wondering about the origin of Left Hand or Right Hand or other terms for the distinction and where the language came from or developed. Sasse actually uses the term “two regimens”, but we’re also dealing with German, Latin and political terms in their mid-16th century context. Still more for me to read and digest, but you can find it on Pr. Harrison’s Mercy Journeys blog.

    Tom @ 173 – Larry has now obviously outed himself as a pagan.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank – Just dove back into this thread this afternoon. As to your hypothetical about a gay couple and entering their kids in school, I have a safe out: we don’t have a school, so I suggest heading to X Lutheran downtown, their school is top notch. ;) Seriously, though. It is a quandary on how one tactfully, carefully, and in Christian love one goes about witnessing to the truth of Scripture with people who need to be convicted of their sin under the Law, and still brought to repentance under the Gospel. We’re often very good at the former, and bad at he latter. At the same time, a pastor and the elders would and should counsel a gay couple that their actions are firmly bound as sinful under the Law and that they probably could not become members of the congregation, and definitely be admitted to the sacraments, without contrition and repentance. And, honestly, that may turn 95+% of gay coupes away, or even divide couples, as one is led to repentance and the other hardened in their sin. Ideally, the congregation would be there to walk them both through the process and bring them gradually and gracefully (in the fullest sense of the term) into the fellowship.

    That being said, we also need to be doing this to couples who are living together outside of marriage. I know we have done it, thankfully on a very limited basis, with persons who have engaged in adultery. Sexual sins are very private and delicate matters; they encompass us at our most vulnerable. As such a great deal of sensitivity to the sinfulness of each one of us must be acknowledged while still upholding the tenets of the Law. Again, the key is repentance, and the willingness for congregations to recognize that it is a struggle against sin of all types, but most especially sexual it seems, and that forgiveness when granted is permanent.

    Maybe Elert has something worthwhile to say on the matter, but more likely Sasse.

    Speaking of which – I’m reading an interesting little Sasse piece right now on the two kingdoms. I know you were wondering about the origin of Left Hand or Right Hand or other terms for the distinction and where the language came from or developed. Sasse actually uses the term “two regimens”, but we’re also dealing with German, Latin and political terms in their mid-16th century context. Still more for me to read and digest, but you can find it on Pr. Harrison’s Mercy Journeys blog.

    Tom @ 173 – Larry has now obviously outed himself as a pagan.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank – I think you will like the Sasse article. It is quite provocative in several contexts. Here’s a link: http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=662.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank – I think you will like the Sasse article. It is quite provocative in several contexts. Here’s a link: http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=662.

  • fws

    SKP @ 174

    Interesting post SKP. Thanks.
    In the past, the church would have done what with those who divorced and remarried? ask them to put away their new spouse and kids?
    What would your church do if one of the Old Testament patriarchs showed up with their brood of spouses and concubines:

    I would ask you to rethink on the basis of Apology VII. There I read that it would be slander to say that the Lutherans would exclude the wicked from the Visible Church. What is it that I am missing there SKP?

    I believe the reason for that is simple: Where else would a non christian become a real one. Why would we discourage adult instruction, baptism for the kids and communion?

    As to two kingdoms, my thesis there is that Two Kingdoms is to be understood as the casuistic version of Law and Gospel Distinction. Nothing more. It is NOT a theory of civil vs churchly spheres of influence. That would be Thomism.

    try that thesis on for size as you read the confessions and Luther, It will have you seeing stuff you never say before there. Why? It is how that stuff is intended to be read!

    And in the earthly Kingdom there are three ordos/governments/orders … the household, society, and church.
    We make a distinction between the secular and churchly that the Old Lutherans would absolutely reject I am saying.

    When you read Apology VII and it says things like “The church is not only outward…..” Try reading that to say “The church IS outward blah blah blah, but it is not ONLY that. ”

    It will give you the proper intent of that article I suggest.

  • fws

    SKP @ 174

    Interesting post SKP. Thanks.
    In the past, the church would have done what with those who divorced and remarried? ask them to put away their new spouse and kids?
    What would your church do if one of the Old Testament patriarchs showed up with their brood of spouses and concubines:

    I would ask you to rethink on the basis of Apology VII. There I read that it would be slander to say that the Lutherans would exclude the wicked from the Visible Church. What is it that I am missing there SKP?

    I believe the reason for that is simple: Where else would a non christian become a real one. Why would we discourage adult instruction, baptism for the kids and communion?

    As to two kingdoms, my thesis there is that Two Kingdoms is to be understood as the casuistic version of Law and Gospel Distinction. Nothing more. It is NOT a theory of civil vs churchly spheres of influence. That would be Thomism.

    try that thesis on for size as you read the confessions and Luther, It will have you seeing stuff you never say before there. Why? It is how that stuff is intended to be read!

    And in the earthly Kingdom there are three ordos/governments/orders … the household, society, and church.
    We make a distinction between the secular and churchly that the Old Lutherans would absolutely reject I am saying.

    When you read Apology VII and it says things like “The church is not only outward…..” Try reading that to say “The church IS outward blah blah blah, but it is not ONLY that. ”

    It will give you the proper intent of that article I suggest.

  • fws

    skp @ 175

    Thanks for the kindness of the link. I will check it out.
    It is not a trivial exercise to get Lutheran stuff to read here in Brasil.

  • fws

    skp @ 175

    Thanks for the kindness of the link. I will check it out.
    It is not a trivial exercise to get Lutheran stuff to read here in Brasil.

  • fws

    skp @ 175

    I don´t find fault with the thesis of the article, per se.
    But it misses what the Two Kingdoms doctrine is in the broader context.

    My email is fwsonnek@gmail.com
    I will send you my retranslation of Apology art VII and you will see very quickly what I mean…….

    If you read Luther he often refers to 3 estates or ordos or governments. household, society and church.
    If you read for example Large Catechism 4th commandment, he says the very essence of matrimony is what? one flesh union? nope. It is the God sanctioned government of a husband and wife over their household. He despiritualizes and de sacramentalizes it in this very way. This should jar the senses of those who have read lots of Thomist stuff that has surfaced around the gay marriage issue.

    Article VII of the Apology, in exactly the same way, despiritualizes what happens in the Visible church. It suggests that when the Apostles Creed says Holy Catholic Church it means the Church as an outward government that must include the wicked and true believers without separating them! And then, in , with and under that outward carnal (!) government called the HCC is the communion of saints that is all those who have invisible faith in their hearts.

    Send me your email SKP and I will send you what I have done with this. It should be a nice counterbalance to that sasse piece. The sasse piece addresses a specific crisis in time and doesnt step far enough back to see the bigger theological context I am suggesting that is found in Ap art VII

  • fws

    skp @ 175

    I don´t find fault with the thesis of the article, per se.
    But it misses what the Two Kingdoms doctrine is in the broader context.

    My email is fwsonnek@gmail.com
    I will send you my retranslation of Apology art VII and you will see very quickly what I mean…….

    If you read Luther he often refers to 3 estates or ordos or governments. household, society and church.
    If you read for example Large Catechism 4th commandment, he says the very essence of matrimony is what? one flesh union? nope. It is the God sanctioned government of a husband and wife over their household. He despiritualizes and de sacramentalizes it in this very way. This should jar the senses of those who have read lots of Thomist stuff that has surfaced around the gay marriage issue.

    Article VII of the Apology, in exactly the same way, despiritualizes what happens in the Visible church. It suggests that when the Apostles Creed says Holy Catholic Church it means the Church as an outward government that must include the wicked and true believers without separating them! And then, in , with and under that outward carnal (!) government called the HCC is the communion of saints that is all those who have invisible faith in their hearts.

    Send me your email SKP and I will send you what I have done with this. It should be a nice counterbalance to that sasse piece. The sasse piece addresses a specific crisis in time and doesnt step far enough back to see the bigger theological context I am suggesting that is found in Ap art VII

  • Joanne

    There are people who use this blog often who don’t speak catholic, but speak sectarian. They really don’t understand a word we say, but they are excellent at talking past what they think they know of catholic. And no matter how much catholic we think we’ve taught or expained to them, they insist in converting it into sectarian and talking back to us in sectarian. It’s been going on for a very long time.

    These people are fascinted by what we say, but the Spirit will not give them understanding of it. Paul spoke on Mars Hill to well educated men. Paul, educated at the best schools in Tarsus and Jerusalem, used his best rhetorical skills to make his argument, most likely using his best Greek is such company, though they could instantly place him by his accent.

    Paul started out by making an observation that was polite and correct and then he offered to tell them who their unknown god was hoping to hook their curiostity with something familiar to them. Within a few minutes those who knew the Jews and their ways had him pegged, lost interest and wandered away. But in a few he found interest and that was enough at the time.

    Athens would be a hard nut to crack. The University of Athens was closed down on Justinian’s order I believe in the mid 500s, but could easily have gone on but with a larger and larger per cent of Christian students who were trying their best to be educated in the great philosophers, yet remain Christian. I think I remember that then Justinian founded a Christian University in Constantinople to continue. Some of the faculty at Athens may have been brought there as well.

    I’m wandering around trying to say, enough is enough. It’s time to mark those who cause divisions and exclude them. They only say the same things over and over again. It gives you a good blog count but makes it very predictable. And, they insist in talking in strange languages, we cannot communicate with them and neither side wants to learn the other lingo. The lingos themselves are mutually heretical. It’s an impass. Enlighten your 2 or 3 Athenians and move forward on to Corinth, a good Roman colony (with a very bad earthquake problem).

  • Joanne

    There are people who use this blog often who don’t speak catholic, but speak sectarian. They really don’t understand a word we say, but they are excellent at talking past what they think they know of catholic. And no matter how much catholic we think we’ve taught or expained to them, they insist in converting it into sectarian and talking back to us in sectarian. It’s been going on for a very long time.

    These people are fascinted by what we say, but the Spirit will not give them understanding of it. Paul spoke on Mars Hill to well educated men. Paul, educated at the best schools in Tarsus and Jerusalem, used his best rhetorical skills to make his argument, most likely using his best Greek is such company, though they could instantly place him by his accent.

    Paul started out by making an observation that was polite and correct and then he offered to tell them who their unknown god was hoping to hook their curiostity with something familiar to them. Within a few minutes those who knew the Jews and their ways had him pegged, lost interest and wandered away. But in a few he found interest and that was enough at the time.

    Athens would be a hard nut to crack. The University of Athens was closed down on Justinian’s order I believe in the mid 500s, but could easily have gone on but with a larger and larger per cent of Christian students who were trying their best to be educated in the great philosophers, yet remain Christian. I think I remember that then Justinian founded a Christian University in Constantinople to continue. Some of the faculty at Athens may have been brought there as well.

    I’m wandering around trying to say, enough is enough. It’s time to mark those who cause divisions and exclude them. They only say the same things over and over again. It gives you a good blog count but makes it very predictable. And, they insist in talking in strange languages, we cannot communicate with them and neither side wants to learn the other lingo. The lingos themselves are mutually heretical. It’s an impass. Enlighten your 2 or 3 Athenians and move forward on to Corinth, a good Roman colony (with a very bad earthquake problem).

  • fws

    SPK @ 175

    I took another l0ok at that Sasse article you kindly linked me to. It is very good. I can see how it would seem provocative to you.

    Here are some comments:

    God’s word provides no state law. In the Apology (16,15) Karlstadt20 is called “dumb and foolish” because he taught “that one should establish city and territorial government according to the law of Moses” (Ap XVI 3 [55]) And it is expressly stated that the Gospel offers no new law for secular government (leges de statu civili) [Ap XVI 3 and 6 (55 and 58)] and that Christ did not command his apostles to change the civil order (mutare statum civilium) [Ap XVI 7 (59)]. There is no Christian order for society, for that would be an attempt to make sin disappear from the world, that love would take the place of law, in other words, that
    the kingdom of God would have come in glory.

    Here is what I offer to underline this:
    There is no such thing as christian ethics or morality. The Lutherans, radically, departed from St. Augustine and St Thomas exactly here. This is THE bright line drawn by our Apology from both of those teachers:

    “Concerning morality, nothing can be demanded beyond the Ethics of Aristotle” (Apology III). What part of that word “nothing” is there to understand?

    We Lutherans say that there are only two kinds of righeousness worked by God on the earth. There is (1) an outward righeousness of our thoughts , words and deeds that they call civil, reasoned, or philosophical righteousness that free will is, to a large extent capable of doing. Then… there is that Righteousness that is an invisible one, that “I believe that I can not by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus nor come to him, but… the Holy Spirit….”

    Lutherans reject that there is some third kind of righeousness that is a churchly or spiritual yet external righeousness, or a kind of new testament purity code.

    Our opponents always declare that this doctrine means that we Lutherans want to throw virtue and philosophy and morality under the bus. No. We praise Aristotle and say that what he proposes must be done. But here is what we DO say: Morality and ethics have only no teleological, soteriological or eternal consequences except alone one. Romans 8 Eternal Death. And opponents to the Augustana hate that and flee from it. Old Adam hates that and flees from it.

    Therefore the Apology in art VII compares ALL rites and ceremonies of the church , including the outward forms and our administration of the sacraments and liturgy, to whether one choses to wear french or german clothing. And… it says that it would be slander to accuse the Lutherans of wanting to put out of the visible Church wicked men and emphasize this by saying that even the Antichrist would not be put out of the visible Church! Compare this to LCMS fellowship practices today and what you say you would do with that gay family showing up at your church to be baptized and instructed SKP.

    And this is about what I want to quote next….

    Here Sasse makes a comment in passing that is so brief as to miss but is the underpinning for all of what he writes. I would invite you to read the entire article through the prism of this one statement and to deeply ponder what it means….

    In both systems what the hymn
    states is impossible: “Even in the best of lives our deeds are useless!” [Es ist doch unser Tun
    umsonst auch in dem besten Leben!]27

    Luther says in a 1528 sermon this:

    Christian righteousness [can be recognized by the fact that it] is useless on earth except to God and a guilty conscience

  • fws

    SPK @ 175

    I took another l0ok at that Sasse article you kindly linked me to. It is very good. I can see how it would seem provocative to you.

    Here are some comments:

    God’s word provides no state law. In the Apology (16,15) Karlstadt20 is called “dumb and foolish” because he taught “that one should establish city and territorial government according to the law of Moses” (Ap XVI 3 [55]) And it is expressly stated that the Gospel offers no new law for secular government (leges de statu civili) [Ap XVI 3 and 6 (55 and 58)] and that Christ did not command his apostles to change the civil order (mutare statum civilium) [Ap XVI 7 (59)]. There is no Christian order for society, for that would be an attempt to make sin disappear from the world, that love would take the place of law, in other words, that
    the kingdom of God would have come in glory.

    Here is what I offer to underline this:
    There is no such thing as christian ethics or morality. The Lutherans, radically, departed from St. Augustine and St Thomas exactly here. This is THE bright line drawn by our Apology from both of those teachers:

    “Concerning morality, nothing can be demanded beyond the Ethics of Aristotle” (Apology III). What part of that word “nothing” is there to understand?

    We Lutherans say that there are only two kinds of righeousness worked by God on the earth. There is (1) an outward righeousness of our thoughts , words and deeds that they call civil, reasoned, or philosophical righteousness that free will is, to a large extent capable of doing. Then… there is that Righteousness that is an invisible one, that “I believe that I can not by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus nor come to him, but… the Holy Spirit….”

    Lutherans reject that there is some third kind of righeousness that is a churchly or spiritual yet external righeousness, or a kind of new testament purity code.

    Our opponents always declare that this doctrine means that we Lutherans want to throw virtue and philosophy and morality under the bus. No. We praise Aristotle and say that what he proposes must be done. But here is what we DO say: Morality and ethics have only no teleological, soteriological or eternal consequences except alone one. Romans 8 Eternal Death. And opponents to the Augustana hate that and flee from it. Old Adam hates that and flees from it.

    Therefore the Apology in art VII compares ALL rites and ceremonies of the church , including the outward forms and our administration of the sacraments and liturgy, to whether one choses to wear french or german clothing. And… it says that it would be slander to accuse the Lutherans of wanting to put out of the visible Church wicked men and emphasize this by saying that even the Antichrist would not be put out of the visible Church! Compare this to LCMS fellowship practices today and what you say you would do with that gay family showing up at your church to be baptized and instructed SKP.

    And this is about what I want to quote next….

    Here Sasse makes a comment in passing that is so brief as to miss but is the underpinning for all of what he writes. I would invite you to read the entire article through the prism of this one statement and to deeply ponder what it means….

    In both systems what the hymn
    states is impossible: “Even in the best of lives our deeds are useless!” [Es ist doch unser Tun
    umsonst auch in dem besten Leben!]27

    Luther says in a 1528 sermon this:

    Christian righteousness [can be recognized by the fact that it] is useless on earth except to God and a guilty conscience

  • fws

    Joanne @ 179

    I’m wandering around trying to say, enough is enough. It’s time to mark those who cause divisions and exclude them.

    The Lutheran Confessions disagree with your opinion dear sister may I suggest…

    Apology art VII says that it would be slander to accuse the Lutherans of wanting to put out of the visible Church wicked men and emphasize this by saying that even the Antichrist would not be put out of the visible Church!

    Where else is someone going to come to Christ without hearing the Word of Christ. I agree with what you say that there is a violation of good order here. And that is ok to deal with of course. But I would ask you to reflect onwhat that article says and why dear sister.

  • fws

    Joanne @ 179

    I’m wandering around trying to say, enough is enough. It’s time to mark those who cause divisions and exclude them.

    The Lutheran Confessions disagree with your opinion dear sister may I suggest…

    Apology art VII says that it would be slander to accuse the Lutherans of wanting to put out of the visible Church wicked men and emphasize this by saying that even the Antichrist would not be put out of the visible Church!

    Where else is someone going to come to Christ without hearing the Word of Christ. I agree with what you say that there is a violation of good order here. And that is ok to deal with of course. But I would ask you to reflect onwhat that article says and why dear sister.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Elsewhere, Frank has asserted that it is a violation of the Holy Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions to insist that homosexuals should be told that homosexual acts are sins and are never to be engaged in.

    He has proposed that we should permit homosexuals to commit homosexual acts within “monogramous” relationships, or else we are forcing people to be be celibate, contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

    He has asserted that the statements against homosexual acts in St. Paul’s letter are based on an understanding of homosexuality that we now know to be untrue.

    Frank is simply serving up the dreck that is commonplace in the ELCA and other liberal church bodies, trying to do so under the guise of being a “confessional” Lutheran.

    Beware the logomachy and subtle sophistry that Frank employs.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Elsewhere, Frank has asserted that it is a violation of the Holy Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions to insist that homosexuals should be told that homosexual acts are sins and are never to be engaged in.

    He has proposed that we should permit homosexuals to commit homosexual acts within “monogramous” relationships, or else we are forcing people to be be celibate, contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

    He has asserted that the statements against homosexual acts in St. Paul’s letter are based on an understanding of homosexuality that we now know to be untrue.

    Frank is simply serving up the dreck that is commonplace in the ELCA and other liberal church bodies, trying to do so under the guise of being a “confessional” Lutheran.

    Beware the logomachy and subtle sophistry that Frank employs.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 182

    Elsewhere, Frank has asserted that it is a violation of the Holy Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions to insist that homosexuals should be told that homosexual acts are sins and are never to be engaged in.

    This is slander Pastor McCain. I have repeatedly corrected you on this and you refuse to be corrected. A revered church father willfully doing this is very sad.

    He has proposed that we should permit homosexuals to commit homosexual acts within “monogramous” relationships, or else we are forcing people to be be celibate, contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

    Also slander.

    He has asserted that the statements against homosexual acts in St. Paul’s letter are based on an understanding of homosexuality that we now know to be untrue.

    Again nothing I have ever said.
    Quote me. Can I expect to be quoted fairly and in context? From this posting I am not so sure.

    I am really sad you would take this turn Pastor McCain. You are a better man than this. The Paul McCain I have known in the past would never sink to this level. What in the heck has happened to that old Pastor McCain full of Jesus also full of repentence? I want him to come back!

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 182

    Elsewhere, Frank has asserted that it is a violation of the Holy Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions to insist that homosexuals should be told that homosexual acts are sins and are never to be engaged in.

    This is slander Pastor McCain. I have repeatedly corrected you on this and you refuse to be corrected. A revered church father willfully doing this is very sad.

    He has proposed that we should permit homosexuals to commit homosexual acts within “monogramous” relationships, or else we are forcing people to be be celibate, contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

    Also slander.

    He has asserted that the statements against homosexual acts in St. Paul’s letter are based on an understanding of homosexuality that we now know to be untrue.

    Again nothing I have ever said.
    Quote me. Can I expect to be quoted fairly and in context? From this posting I am not so sure.

    I am really sad you would take this turn Pastor McCain. You are a better man than this. The Paul McCain I have known in the past would never sink to this level. What in the heck has happened to that old Pastor McCain full of Jesus also full of repentence? I want him to come back!

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 182

    I am well known on this site, and I have not been less than honest or dissembling in expressing my views.

    At times I have come here to repent of some views in the same public place where I expressed views that were wrong and needed to be not only repented of but repudiated.

    And there are many here who honestly have given me the kindness of trying to understand my views, and also disagree with me on some of my views.

    But I am fairly certain, except for your aparent soulmate here named Grace, no one here would accuse me of being dishonest.

    I can only ask you humbly, to reconsider your opinion of me. I have to say “of me” , since what the words you put into my mouth are not mine, so I need to conclude that what disturbs you is the presence of my person here as a gay man rather than my words here or elsewhere.

    I have told you many times that I would like to please you, and I have asked for your advice as to how I could share my views in a way that would please you better dear father. You simply refuse any discussion. I would urge you to do me the mercy and kindness of dealing with me differently. I am not saying that I have earned the right to ask for that mercy. Mercy by definition is to receive the opposite of what we deserve for what we have said or done.

    I hope you don´t simply dismiss what I have said here dear father.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 182

    I am well known on this site, and I have not been less than honest or dissembling in expressing my views.

    At times I have come here to repent of some views in the same public place where I expressed views that were wrong and needed to be not only repented of but repudiated.

    And there are many here who honestly have given me the kindness of trying to understand my views, and also disagree with me on some of my views.

    But I am fairly certain, except for your aparent soulmate here named Grace, no one here would accuse me of being dishonest.

    I can only ask you humbly, to reconsider your opinion of me. I have to say “of me” , since what the words you put into my mouth are not mine, so I need to conclude that what disturbs you is the presence of my person here as a gay man rather than my words here or elsewhere.

    I have told you many times that I would like to please you, and I have asked for your advice as to how I could share my views in a way that would please you better dear father. You simply refuse any discussion. I would urge you to do me the mercy and kindness of dealing with me differently. I am not saying that I have earned the right to ask for that mercy. Mercy by definition is to receive the opposite of what we deserve for what we have said or done.

    I hope you don´t simply dismiss what I have said here dear father.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 184

    I also need to add this. I am good friends with lots of the posters here and regularly exchange private emails with them. They will all testify that what I publicly say is identical to what I say privately. Meaning I harbor no hidden agenda whatsoever.

    To the others here who are reading and not posting:

    I would beg of all of you to please not form any negative judgements about Pastor Mc Cain or his character in general from what he has recently posted here or elsewhere. If you were to know him and follow the many good works this man has done for his church you would know that this man is ALL about doing goodness and showing mercy to others. Those great works far , far, far outweigh anything you are reading here. (are you reading my dear brother Pat Kyle??)

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 184

    I also need to add this. I am good friends with lots of the posters here and regularly exchange private emails with them. They will all testify that what I publicly say is identical to what I say privately. Meaning I harbor no hidden agenda whatsoever.

    To the others here who are reading and not posting:

    I would beg of all of you to please not form any negative judgements about Pastor Mc Cain or his character in general from what he has recently posted here or elsewhere. If you were to know him and follow the many good works this man has done for his church you would know that this man is ALL about doing goodness and showing mercy to others. Those great works far , far, far outweigh anything you are reading here. (are you reading my dear brother Pat Kyle??)

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 182

    Beware the logomachy and subtle sophistry that Frank employs.

    I have been called lots of things dear pastor Mc Cain, but those who know me would laugh until it hurt to hear the word “subtle ” employed to describe me.

    Hahahahahahah!

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 182

    Beware the logomachy and subtle sophistry that Frank employs.

    I have been called lots of things dear pastor Mc Cain, but those who know me would laugh until it hurt to hear the word “subtle ” employed to describe me.

    Hahahahahahah!

  • fws

    Pastor McCain@ 182

    I would ask you to repent of one very serious path of error you are inviting the LCMS to go down.

    You recently published “[Thomist Scholasticism and it´s Theory on ] Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal [and Bearhug]“.

    In that book one man accuses Luther himself of being a Thomist!
    This invitation is to exactly attack the Apology to the Augsburg Confession that is a response and repudiation of the Thomists. It is, as you say “Subtle Sophistry” and dishonestly misdirects and confuses. It floats the lie that the Confessions have no position on Thomist Natural Law (it is categorically rejected!). It floats the lie that Luther was a Thomist. It suggests a whopper of a lie that the Confessions and Lutheran fathers and Luther himself had no definite position on such matters.

    And this book was what was presented to the ELCA at the last big powwow between the ELCA and LCMS to discuss joint works of mercy. It was proposed that this was the crap that the ELCA needed to ingest to overcome their antinomian tendencies.

    This sort of thing needs to be repented of Pastor Mc Cain or God will punish our synod for turning it´s backside to our heritage.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain@ 182

    I would ask you to repent of one very serious path of error you are inviting the LCMS to go down.

    You recently published “[Thomist Scholasticism and it´s Theory on ] Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal [and Bearhug]“.

    In that book one man accuses Luther himself of being a Thomist!
    This invitation is to exactly attack the Apology to the Augsburg Confession that is a response and repudiation of the Thomists. It is, as you say “Subtle Sophistry” and dishonestly misdirects and confuses. It floats the lie that the Confessions have no position on Thomist Natural Law (it is categorically rejected!). It floats the lie that Luther was a Thomist. It suggests a whopper of a lie that the Confessions and Lutheran fathers and Luther himself had no definite position on such matters.

    And this book was what was presented to the ELCA at the last big powwow between the ELCA and LCMS to discuss joint works of mercy. It was proposed that this was the crap that the ELCA needed to ingest to overcome their antinomian tendencies.

    This sort of thing needs to be repented of Pastor Mc Cain or God will punish our synod for turning it´s backside to our heritage.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 182

    Thomist Natural Law specifically attacks Augustana/Apology art II.

    It denies that it is , alone, faith that is the Adamic Divine Image and Likeness that was COMPLETELY lost and is now restored, alone, through Baptismal Regeneration.

    Instead it suggests that the Image of God was only horribly damaged but not completely lost and is restored by reconformity to the Divine Design found in Nature and the Decalog which are the revelation (rather than Christ) of the Mind of God and the Image of God.

    To deny Original Sin in this way is to deny the Holy Gospel.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 182

    Thomist Natural Law specifically attacks Augustana/Apology art II.

    It denies that it is , alone, faith that is the Adamic Divine Image and Likeness that was COMPLETELY lost and is now restored, alone, through Baptismal Regeneration.

    Instead it suggests that the Image of God was only horribly damaged but not completely lost and is restored by reconformity to the Divine Design found in Nature and the Decalog which are the revelation (rather than Christ) of the Mind of God and the Image of God.

    To deny Original Sin in this way is to deny the Holy Gospel.

  • fws

    Paul McCain @ 182

    “To deny that the Image of God was completely lost is to deny Original Sin”.(emphasis mine)

    John Gerhard in his Loci.

  • fws

    Paul McCain @ 182

    “To deny that the Image of God was completely lost is to deny Original Sin”.(emphasis mine)

    John Gerhard in his Loci.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frank, the fact you feel a need to spew forth a series of further rambling comments only serves to confirm what I have said.

    Frankly, did clearly DID state that homosexuals should be in monogamous relationships or otherwise they are forced to be celibate contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

    You said:

    “I am suggesting that if this is what is suggested for men and women, for the logic given, theh why could that same logic not be applied to homosexuals? I know lots of homosexuals who have affairs with heterosexually married men. That would probably happen less of gay men were encouraged to be married if I followed the logic of the Large Catechism?”

    You said:

    “The categories heterosexual and homosexual simply do not exist there. [the Bible]. . . . Don´t engage in anachronism I suggest in your exegesis.”

    You said:

    “If you propose that Gay men should seek celebacy, then you are arguing the same as the Roman Confutation aren´t you dear man?”

    You said:

    “If I am wrong about homos trying to exercise sexual self discipline by pairing off in monogamous relationships is wrong, then God will certainly send punishment in my direction to correct my thinking. And if not, not.”

    Your words condemn you, Frank. Stop all the wimpy whining.

    You are making assertions that are wrong, very deadly wrong.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frank, the fact you feel a need to spew forth a series of further rambling comments only serves to confirm what I have said.

    Frankly, did clearly DID state that homosexuals should be in monogamous relationships or otherwise they are forced to be celibate contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.

    You said:

    “I am suggesting that if this is what is suggested for men and women, for the logic given, theh why could that same logic not be applied to homosexuals? I know lots of homosexuals who have affairs with heterosexually married men. That would probably happen less of gay men were encouraged to be married if I followed the logic of the Large Catechism?”

    You said:

    “The categories heterosexual and homosexual simply do not exist there. [the Bible]. . . . Don´t engage in anachronism I suggest in your exegesis.”

    You said:

    “If you propose that Gay men should seek celebacy, then you are arguing the same as the Roman Confutation aren´t you dear man?”

    You said:

    “If I am wrong about homos trying to exercise sexual self discipline by pairing off in monogamous relationships is wrong, then God will certainly send punishment in my direction to correct my thinking. And if not, not.”

    Your words condemn you, Frank. Stop all the wimpy whining.

    You are making assertions that are wrong, very deadly wrong.

  • Grace

    Rev. Paul T. McCain @ 182

    Check out the comment below:

    471 fws March 31, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    So am I a MSM? No. You would need to have sex with other men to be that. I am seeking treatment so I can do that again. Let´s see how that turns out. Maybe it won´t . I am learning to leave that to God´s Mercy and Goodness.

    Am I a gay man? Yes. Do I define being gay as who I have sex with? yes and no. Do you define marriage as being essentially about sex? I hope not? But it is about sex too. Hopefully the sex is a consequence of something more important to you.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112622

    Martin Luther wrote about homosexuality, and Sodom.

    “I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy.”

    Luther’s Works Vol. 3, 251-252

    Luther also writes:

    the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”

    Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255

  • Grace

    Rev. Paul T. McCain @ 182

    Check out the comment below:

    471 fws March 31, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    So am I a MSM? No. You would need to have sex with other men to be that. I am seeking treatment so I can do that again. Let´s see how that turns out. Maybe it won´t . I am learning to leave that to God´s Mercy and Goodness.

    Am I a gay man? Yes. Do I define being gay as who I have sex with? yes and no. Do you define marriage as being essentially about sex? I hope not? But it is about sex too. Hopefully the sex is a consequence of something more important to you.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112622

    Martin Luther wrote about homosexuality, and Sodom.

    “I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy.”

    Luther’s Works Vol. 3, 251-252

    Luther also writes:

    the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”

    Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain

    I am loathe to argue with an important father of our church. You are quoting me out of context.
    It would be considerate to quote our entire exchange.
    I will allow you to have the last word.

    To others here:
    Please do not judge Pastor McCain by the tone of his recent comments here. They do not characterize in any fashion his goodness and generosity of spirit.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain

    I am loathe to argue with an important father of our church. You are quoting me out of context.
    It would be considerate to quote our entire exchange.
    I will allow you to have the last word.

    To others here:
    Please do not judge Pastor McCain by the tone of his recent comments here. They do not characterize in any fashion his goodness and generosity of spirit.

  • Grace

    fws,

    I do not “judge Pastor McCain” – further more, I doubt many people do. It is homosexuality that is being judged, as a sin. Not a mix of everything you can think of, in which to compare it to, in order to justify homosexuality.

    You – - making a ‘grand stand statement asking everyone not to “judge Pastor McCain, is obtuse.

  • Grace

    fws,

    I do not “judge Pastor McCain” – further more, I doubt many people do. It is homosexuality that is being judged, as a sin. Not a mix of everything you can think of, in which to compare it to, in order to justify homosexuality.

    You – - making a ‘grand stand statement asking everyone not to “judge Pastor McCain, is obtuse.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 190

    Maybe in charity, I should assume you are honestly misreading.

    “…did clearly DID state that homosexuals | should be”

    I also believe Pastor McCain that there should be clean needle exchange programs for drug users, possibly drugs should be legalized since the war on drugs seems to work as badly as prohibition did in the 30´s, and would be against making divorce illegal.

    How does that mean that I am saying that persons should use drugs or get divorced?
    Please apply the same logic to where you are quoting me about homosexuals.
    Thank you.

    My words condemn me? Can we tone things down just a notch please with the tone used dear pastor?

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 190

    Maybe in charity, I should assume you are honestly misreading.

    “…did clearly DID state that homosexuals | should be”

    I also believe Pastor McCain that there should be clean needle exchange programs for drug users, possibly drugs should be legalized since the war on drugs seems to work as badly as prohibition did in the 30´s, and would be against making divorce illegal.

    How does that mean that I am saying that persons should use drugs or get divorced?
    Please apply the same logic to where you are quoting me about homosexuals.
    Thank you.

    My words condemn me? Can we tone things down just a notch please with the tone used dear pastor?

  • fws

    Grace @ 193

    Try being nice. It would suit you better.

  • fws

    Grace @ 193

    Try being nice. It would suit you better.

  • aletheist

    fws: It is probably a mistake for me to interject myself at this point, but here goes nothing. I think that it would help clarify things for everyone if you would answer this question with a simple “yes” or “no”: Do you believe that it is always, without exception, wrong and sinful for a man to have sexual relations with another man, or for a woman to have sexual relations with another woman? Thanks in advance, and blessings to you!

  • aletheist

    fws: It is probably a mistake for me to interject myself at this point, but here goes nothing. I think that it would help clarify things for everyone if you would answer this question with a simple “yes” or “no”: Do you believe that it is always, without exception, wrong and sinful for a man to have sexual relations with another man, or for a woman to have sexual relations with another woman? Thanks in advance, and blessings to you!

  • Grace

    fws @ 195

    “Try being nice. It would suit you better.”

    Your comment contradicts you. You spew the worst.

    When you started stating:

    70 fws June 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm
    Grace ,
    “You “use” Scriptures like men “use ” prostitutes.

    But you are more shameful than those men who use prostitutes. you are using Holy Scripture to do evil.
    You have zero shame.
    And you have zero sense that you have any real sin to repent of .

    Repent Grace before God has to punish you to make you repent.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/06/22/romneys-vice-presidential-pick/#comment-154056

    You stated something that is not only vulgar, but a lie! Using the Scriptures as a backdrop!

    DISCUSTING!

  • Grace

    fws @ 195

    “Try being nice. It would suit you better.”

    Your comment contradicts you. You spew the worst.

    When you started stating:

    70 fws June 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm
    Grace ,
    “You “use” Scriptures like men “use ” prostitutes.

    But you are more shameful than those men who use prostitutes. you are using Holy Scripture to do evil.
    You have zero shame.
    And you have zero sense that you have any real sin to repent of .

    Repent Grace before God has to punish you to make you repent.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/06/22/romneys-vice-presidential-pick/#comment-154056

    You stated something that is not only vulgar, but a lie! Using the Scriptures as a backdrop!

    DISCUSTING!

  • Grace

    My last word @ 197 should have read:

    DISGUSTING!

  • Grace

    My last word @ 197 should have read:

    DISGUSTING!

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    Let me be precise and clear:
    I know of no passage in scripture or the confessions that could be used in support of the idea that it is ok for persons of the same gender to have sex with each other. Period. End of story.
    And I avoid arguments from silence like the plague. They breed theological mischief.

    I also find clear passages in Holy scripture that absolutely and clearly forbid demanding celebacy of anyone and our Confessions describe such as demand as cruel because it is futile and impossible, leads to a degradation of public morals and state that they nearly always lead to a tragic end. Augustana XXIII.

    Those two statements sound contradictory do they not? I can´t help that. It is what I am reading. If you have a way to reconcile those two statements in a way that would show mercy to persons who find themselves in the situation of being gay that they wish were not so (which is about 99.9% of the time the situation….), I would be grateful.

    Is that good enough for you?

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    Let me be precise and clear:
    I know of no passage in scripture or the confessions that could be used in support of the idea that it is ok for persons of the same gender to have sex with each other. Period. End of story.
    And I avoid arguments from silence like the plague. They breed theological mischief.

    I also find clear passages in Holy scripture that absolutely and clearly forbid demanding celebacy of anyone and our Confessions describe such as demand as cruel because it is futile and impossible, leads to a degradation of public morals and state that they nearly always lead to a tragic end. Augustana XXIII.

    Those two statements sound contradictory do they not? I can´t help that. It is what I am reading. If you have a way to reconcile those two statements in a way that would show mercy to persons who find themselves in the situation of being gay that they wish were not so (which is about 99.9% of the time the situation….), I would be grateful.

    Is that good enough for you?

  • fws

    Grace @ 197
    You have such a lovely name dear sister. I would like to see more of your graceful side come out please. I am sure it would better suit you.

  • fws

    Grace @ 197
    You have such a lovely name dear sister. I would like to see more of your graceful side come out please. I am sure it would better suit you.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    “I think that it would help clarify things for everyone if you would answer this question with a simple “yes” or “no”: ”

    A simple yes or no please Atheist: When are you going to stop beating your wife?

    I am willing to have a nonprejudicial and genuine conversation with anyone dear brother.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    “I think that it would help clarify things for everyone if you would answer this question with a simple “yes” or “no”: ”

    A simple yes or no please Atheist: When are you going to stop beating your wife?

    I am willing to have a nonprejudicial and genuine conversation with anyone dear brother.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    Why wont I reduce my answer to yes or no?
    It would be a reductionist answer that would serve whom?
    And to what end?

    The Confessions and St Paul in I Cor say that celebacy is like unto denying the law of gravity. They say that by saying nothing short of a miracle can make that work. “nothing short of a miracle”=never in practical terms.

    Would I ever advice someone, like a 15 year old young gay person raging with hormones, to just go out and indulge? no? to get “married” no. Why not? I could not find support for that position in Scriptures OR the Confessions. It is that simple. And it is dangerous to urge anyone to violate their conscience.

    Do I think that clean needle exchange programs, legalized and heavily controled drugs, legalized divorce, remarriage for the divorced AND legalized gay civil marriage be allowed? YES! Why? for the SAME reasons Jesus instructed Moses to legalize Divorce. Jesus ´made this so even in spite of the fact that he later states that this was not God´s original plan.
    It is that simple. If you disagree with this and the reasons given for it, take it up with Jesus and Moses.

    Does that mean that I approve of any of those things or think they are the best moral option? Does God? Don´t be silly.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    Why wont I reduce my answer to yes or no?
    It would be a reductionist answer that would serve whom?
    And to what end?

    The Confessions and St Paul in I Cor say that celebacy is like unto denying the law of gravity. They say that by saying nothing short of a miracle can make that work. “nothing short of a miracle”=never in practical terms.

    Would I ever advice someone, like a 15 year old young gay person raging with hormones, to just go out and indulge? no? to get “married” no. Why not? I could not find support for that position in Scriptures OR the Confessions. It is that simple. And it is dangerous to urge anyone to violate their conscience.

    Do I think that clean needle exchange programs, legalized and heavily controled drugs, legalized divorce, remarriage for the divorced AND legalized gay civil marriage be allowed? YES! Why? for the SAME reasons Jesus instructed Moses to legalize Divorce. Jesus ´made this so even in spite of the fact that he later states that this was not God´s original plan.
    It is that simple. If you disagree with this and the reasons given for it, take it up with Jesus and Moses.

    Does that mean that I approve of any of those things or think they are the best moral option? Does God? Don´t be silly.

  • Grace

    fws,

    Please REFRAIN from calling me a “dear sister” because I do not consider you a brother.

    There is nothing “graceful” when someone states they do not believe homosexuality to be a sin, and then goes on to justify and defend that position.

    The words below are harsh, but they come straight from HOLY Scripture, as Paul writes:

    9 I wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with people who are sexually immoral-

    10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, greedy, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

    11 But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with someone like that.

    12 After all, is it my business to judge outsiders? You are to judge those who are in the community, aren’t you?

    13 God will judge out­siders “Expell that wicked man.”
    1 Corinthians 5

  • Grace

    fws,

    Please REFRAIN from calling me a “dear sister” because I do not consider you a brother.

    There is nothing “graceful” when someone states they do not believe homosexuality to be a sin, and then goes on to justify and defend that position.

    The words below are harsh, but they come straight from HOLY Scripture, as Paul writes:

    9 I wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with people who are sexually immoral-

    10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, greedy, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

    11 But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with someone like that.

    12 After all, is it my business to judge outsiders? You are to judge those who are in the community, aren’t you?

    13 God will judge out­siders “Expell that wicked man.”
    1 Corinthians 5

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    I am freely open to discussing all of this and the absolute possiblity that I could be mistaken ( being mistaken HAS actually happened , but only once, in my life).

    But I believe it is a great disservice and unmerciful to simply refuse to discuss such matters in a practical way in view of the fact that the full weight of both St Paul and the Confessions say that , short of miracle, celebacy is simply not within the power of man to maintain.

    To ignore this is to encourage lying, deceptions and all the horrible social and moral degradation that accompanies that. Here I am merely repeating the explicitly stated judgement of our Confessions.

    I have been told that I cannot read the Augustana Art XXIII this way and it is a reading that is full of presuppositions and… absurd.

    Why am I told this is so?

    The article is narrowly focussed on celebacy being demanded, by the church of clergy.

    I am not getting that. Call me stupid or dense or whatever. That is to say that celebacy is humanly impossible for pastors , but for gays? Meh. Not so much.

    You entered this discussion now. You broke it. You buy it. Straighten out my thinking here based on Scripture or the Confessions.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    I am freely open to discussing all of this and the absolute possiblity that I could be mistaken ( being mistaken HAS actually happened , but only once, in my life).

    But I believe it is a great disservice and unmerciful to simply refuse to discuss such matters in a practical way in view of the fact that the full weight of both St Paul and the Confessions say that , short of miracle, celebacy is simply not within the power of man to maintain.

    To ignore this is to encourage lying, deceptions and all the horrible social and moral degradation that accompanies that. Here I am merely repeating the explicitly stated judgement of our Confessions.

    I have been told that I cannot read the Augustana Art XXIII this way and it is a reading that is full of presuppositions and… absurd.

    Why am I told this is so?

    The article is narrowly focussed on celebacy being demanded, by the church of clergy.

    I am not getting that. Call me stupid or dense or whatever. That is to say that celebacy is humanly impossible for pastors , but for gays? Meh. Not so much.

    You entered this discussion now. You broke it. You buy it. Straighten out my thinking here based on Scripture or the Confessions.

  • kerner

    On a less contentious note, fws, if the Apology VII means what you think it means on putting wicked persons out of the visible church, how did this make its way into the Smalcald Articles?

    “Part III, Article IX. Of Excommunication.

    The greater excommunication, as the Pope calls it, we regard only as a civil penalty, and it does not concern us ministers of the Church. But the lesser, that is, the true Christian excommunication, consists in this, that manifest and obstinate sinners are not admitted to the Sacrament and other communion of the Church until they amend their lives and avoid sin. And ministers ought not to mingle secular punishments with this ecclesiastical punishment, or excommunication. ”

    This very much sounds to me that the kid gets into the school, but the gay “couple” don’t get admitted to communion, unless they “amend their lives”. What else can it mean?

  • kerner

    On a less contentious note, fws, if the Apology VII means what you think it means on putting wicked persons out of the visible church, how did this make its way into the Smalcald Articles?

    “Part III, Article IX. Of Excommunication.

    The greater excommunication, as the Pope calls it, we regard only as a civil penalty, and it does not concern us ministers of the Church. But the lesser, that is, the true Christian excommunication, consists in this, that manifest and obstinate sinners are not admitted to the Sacrament and other communion of the Church until they amend their lives and avoid sin. And ministers ought not to mingle secular punishments with this ecclesiastical punishment, or excommunication. ”

    This very much sounds to me that the kid gets into the school, but the gay “couple” don’t get admitted to communion, unless they “amend their lives”. What else can it mean?

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    Paul McCain´s wonderful site, http://www.bookofconcord.org has the Roman Disputation to the Augsburg Confessions.

    So to understand the Lutheran position on celebacy being futile and humanly impossible, one should take a look at the Roman Thomist position:

    For a priest has the intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of restraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by devout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils. …Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood; but let the priest pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4:13. For continence is a gift of God, Wisd. 8:21…. those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones – i.e. their carnal thoughts – upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in prayer.http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    May I note that this is called the Roman Confutation

    It is not the Lutheran position.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 196

    Paul McCain´s wonderful site, http://www.bookofconcord.org has the Roman Disputation to the Augsburg Confessions.

    So to understand the Lutheran position on celebacy being futile and humanly impossible, one should take a look at the Roman Thomist position:

    For a priest has the intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of restraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by devout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils. …Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood; but let the priest pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4:13. For continence is a gift of God, Wisd. 8:21…. those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones – i.e. their carnal thoughts – upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in prayer.http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    May I note that this is called the Roman Confutation

    It is not the Lutheran position.

  • aletheist

    fws@199: So your answer is yes, then? Some might be surprised by that, but it is exactly what I expected you to say. Okay, next question, and please bear with me; I hope that you will not be offended by the absurdity here: Do you believe that it is always, without exception, wrong and sinful for a man or woman to have sexual relations with an animal?

  • aletheist

    fws@199: So your answer is yes, then? Some might be surprised by that, but it is exactly what I expected you to say. Okay, next question, and please bear with me; I hope that you will not be offended by the absurdity here: Do you believe that it is always, without exception, wrong and sinful for a man or woman to have sexual relations with an animal?

  • fws

    Aletheist @207

    I am not offended and I am glad you label the question as absurd.
    It is absurd.
    Can you identify why, from God´s Word, why it is absurd?

    Hint: The second table Law pertains to your relationship with whom?

  • fws

    Aletheist @207

    I am not offended and I am glad you label the question as absurd.
    It is absurd.
    Can you identify why, from God´s Word, why it is absurd?

    Hint: The second table Law pertains to your relationship with whom?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 205

    Are you a “manifest and obstinate” sinner?
    You read the Scriptures according to the letter and miss the subject and point of the letter I suggest.

    What is excommunication? That is the question?
    Article VII states what it is NOT.
    The smalcald states what it is, and one should read that together with the Small Catechism I would suggest.

    To be more direct:
    Are we looking for a christian penal code here according to it´s letter or spirit and intent?
    What is the PURPOSE of excommunication I am asking? or does that not matter. I suggest that is THE thing to look for.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 205

    Are you a “manifest and obstinate” sinner?
    You read the Scriptures according to the letter and miss the subject and point of the letter I suggest.

    What is excommunication? That is the question?
    Article VII states what it is NOT.
    The smalcald states what it is, and one should read that together with the Small Catechism I would suggest.

    To be more direct:
    Are we looking for a christian penal code here according to it´s letter or spirit and intent?
    What is the PURPOSE of excommunication I am asking? or does that not matter. I suggest that is THE thing to look for.

  • aletheist

    fws@208: Okay, so that is also a yes. Another question: Do you believe that it is always, with only one exception, wrong and sinful for a man to have sexual relations with a woman, or for a woman to have sexual relations with a man?

  • aletheist

    fws@208: Okay, so that is also a yes. Another question: Do you believe that it is always, with only one exception, wrong and sinful for a man to have sexual relations with a woman, or for a woman to have sexual relations with a man?

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 207

    Arguments and discussions on something as serious as God´s Word, salvation of souls and God´s demand that we do mercy to others are not served by absurd and abstract theorizing.

    Imagine someone bringing up the topic of prostitution out of the blue in the middle of a discussion of YOUR marriage. If one needs to take things in such a direction then it is better simply to disengage. Are we trying to talk TO someone or AT them or ABOUT them. Whether we agree with where they take their personal lives or not, we need to show others the utmost respect and care I would suggest.

    It is way to easy to talk about groups of persons in abstract here in the net and say stuff that ( I hope) we would never dream of saying to them during coffee hour after church. We need to be mindful of our Old Adam here . I hope that does not sound preachy. I direct it at me as well as anyone else. I have not always, for example, been as merciful to our dear sister Grace as I should be. For example.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 207

    Arguments and discussions on something as serious as God´s Word, salvation of souls and God´s demand that we do mercy to others are not served by absurd and abstract theorizing.

    Imagine someone bringing up the topic of prostitution out of the blue in the middle of a discussion of YOUR marriage. If one needs to take things in such a direction then it is better simply to disengage. Are we trying to talk TO someone or AT them or ABOUT them. Whether we agree with where they take their personal lives or not, we need to show others the utmost respect and care I would suggest.

    It is way to easy to talk about groups of persons in abstract here in the net and say stuff that ( I hope) we would never dream of saying to them during coffee hour after church. We need to be mindful of our Old Adam here . I hope that does not sound preachy. I direct it at me as well as anyone else. I have not always, for example, been as merciful to our dear sister Grace as I should be. For example.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 21o

    No that was not a yes.
    I gave you my most thoughtful response at 202 and 204.

    I am used to conversations actually engaging one another.

    Let me ask you a question:

    God´s Word says that the entire point of morality is to help and befriend our neighbor. To bind his wounds. to take his suffering upon ourselves, and for US suffer the consequences of the sins and poor choices of OTHERS . The word for that last deal is “mercy”

    Mercy is to give others the opposite of what they deserve according to what they have done. Which is sin.

    How will your series of questions serve a lurking homosexual, transgender or lesbian reading this blog. Is your aim to speak, mercifully, TO them or AT them or ABOUT them?

    Can we please get to THAT part dear brother Aletheist?

  • fws

    Altheist @ 21o

    No that was not a yes.
    I gave you my most thoughtful response at 202 and 204.

    I am used to conversations actually engaging one another.

    Let me ask you a question:

    God´s Word says that the entire point of morality is to help and befriend our neighbor. To bind his wounds. to take his suffering upon ourselves, and for US suffer the consequences of the sins and poor choices of OTHERS . The word for that last deal is “mercy”

    Mercy is to give others the opposite of what they deserve according to what they have done. Which is sin.

    How will your series of questions serve a lurking homosexual, transgender or lesbian reading this blog. Is your aim to speak, mercifully, TO them or AT them or ABOUT them?

    Can we please get to THAT part dear brother Aletheist?

  • Grace

    fws,

    There is no honor shown to God’s HOLY Word when you continue to mock and contrive ways in which to justify homosexuality.

    Almost any and all threads, (if you are given the chance) degrade into you pontificating your view of homosexuality, which cannot be found in Scripture -

  • Grace

    fws,

    There is no honor shown to God’s HOLY Word when you continue to mock and contrive ways in which to justify homosexuality.

    Almost any and all threads, (if you are given the chance) degrade into you pontificating your view of homosexuality, which cannot be found in Scripture -

  • Dust

    fws at 199

    “Let me be precise and clear:
    I know of no passage in scripture or the confessions that could be used in support of the idea that it is ok for persons of the same gender to have sex with each other. Period. End of story.
    And I avoid arguments from silence like the plague. They breed theological mischief.”

    So it’s precise and clear that there are no passages to support gay sex….but, are there passages that clearly and precisely do NOT support it?

    thank you!

    fws at 211

    ” I have not always, for example, been as merciful to our dear sister Grace as I should be. For example.”

    This was a missed opportunity for some mercy….Grace had asked you to not refer to her as “dear sister” so why not start now?

    In any case, pretty good q&a so far…

    Thanks!

  • Dust

    fws at 199

    “Let me be precise and clear:
    I know of no passage in scripture or the confessions that could be used in support of the idea that it is ok for persons of the same gender to have sex with each other. Period. End of story.
    And I avoid arguments from silence like the plague. They breed theological mischief.”

    So it’s precise and clear that there are no passages to support gay sex….but, are there passages that clearly and precisely do NOT support it?

    thank you!

    fws at 211

    ” I have not always, for example, been as merciful to our dear sister Grace as I should be. For example.”

    This was a missed opportunity for some mercy….Grace had asked you to not refer to her as “dear sister” so why not start now?

    In any case, pretty good q&a so far…

    Thanks!

  • fws

    kerner @ 205

    Here is what I am getting at Kerner.

    The Formula of Concord in Art I and II state that we are utterly unable to cooperate in our Sanctification with our free will. We can contribute ZERO to that.

    Sanctification, according to the Confesssions is precisely that we hide ALL our own efforts , that we can do with our own free will , in the Works of Another. It is to confess that it is all useless in dealing with God.

    And,… it is to confess that we need a CHRISTIAN Righteousness. How can we identify true CHRISTIAN morality and righeousness? This way: It is USELESS to anyone except to God and a guilty conscience. That is precisely how we are told to recognize the only Righeousness and morality that is entitled to bear the name Christian.

    What is it we can do of our free will? All we can see and are able to do! It is to do what ANY pagan can do AND outline the rules for. It is utterly identical to that. Apology VIII. And our Confessional proof for this is Aristotle.

    Art II also states that there IS one thing we CAN do with our free will that furthers the cause of our salvation and sanctification. ONE thing. That is to be willing to show up in church , hear a sermon and receive the Blessed Sacrament.

    So you are telling me Kerner, that we want that gay family to avoid hearing God´s Word and being confirmed in faith in Christ that he died for their sins and avoid the ONE thing that will work their sanctification and turn them from being fake christians to real christians UNTIL they have learned to follow what Aristotle prescribes?

    Are you sure? Why would you want that? Tell me more.

  • fws

    kerner @ 205

    Here is what I am getting at Kerner.

    The Formula of Concord in Art I and II state that we are utterly unable to cooperate in our Sanctification with our free will. We can contribute ZERO to that.

    Sanctification, according to the Confesssions is precisely that we hide ALL our own efforts , that we can do with our own free will , in the Works of Another. It is to confess that it is all useless in dealing with God.

    And,… it is to confess that we need a CHRISTIAN Righteousness. How can we identify true CHRISTIAN morality and righeousness? This way: It is USELESS to anyone except to God and a guilty conscience. That is precisely how we are told to recognize the only Righeousness and morality that is entitled to bear the name Christian.

    What is it we can do of our free will? All we can see and are able to do! It is to do what ANY pagan can do AND outline the rules for. It is utterly identical to that. Apology VIII. And our Confessional proof for this is Aristotle.

    Art II also states that there IS one thing we CAN do with our free will that furthers the cause of our salvation and sanctification. ONE thing. That is to be willing to show up in church , hear a sermon and receive the Blessed Sacrament.

    So you are telling me Kerner, that we want that gay family to avoid hearing God´s Word and being confirmed in faith in Christ that he died for their sins and avoid the ONE thing that will work their sanctification and turn them from being fake christians to real christians UNTIL they have learned to follow what Aristotle prescribes?

    Are you sure? Why would you want that? Tell me more.

  • fws

    Dust @ 214

    There are no passages in the Bible that discuss homosexuality because the category did not exist them. The Biblical assumption is that ALL men are naturally attracted to women and would , with rare exceptions, be found married with a wife or wives.

    Is this your prejudgement and assumption about those you would classsify as homosexual?
    If the answer is no, then you made you get what I am saying perfectly.
    Don´t draw too many conclusions from this Dust. Example:
    That does NOT mean that the Bible has nothing to say about sexual morality.

    As for Grace. Scripture tells me she is a) my sister and b) dear in that she is blood bought.
    If your sister or mom or dad asked you to stop addressing them as such would you? I hope not.

  • fws

    Dust @ 214

    There are no passages in the Bible that discuss homosexuality because the category did not exist them. The Biblical assumption is that ALL men are naturally attracted to women and would , with rare exceptions, be found married with a wife or wives.

    Is this your prejudgement and assumption about those you would classsify as homosexual?
    If the answer is no, then you made you get what I am saying perfectly.
    Don´t draw too many conclusions from this Dust. Example:
    That does NOT mean that the Bible has nothing to say about sexual morality.

    As for Grace. Scripture tells me she is a) my sister and b) dear in that she is blood bought.
    If your sister or mom or dad asked you to stop addressing them as such would you? I hope not.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 210

    Forgive me if I sounded preachy or out of line.
    I am just constantly mindful that there are gay and other lurkers who are reading us.
    Some email me on the side in fact.

    I don´t want to have them feel like we are verbally and dispassionately dissecting the most intimate aspects of their personal lives like one would dissect a laboratory rat.

    However fun an intellectual dual might seem.

    I hope that makes sense to you.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 210

    Forgive me if I sounded preachy or out of line.
    I am just constantly mindful that there are gay and other lurkers who are reading us.
    Some email me on the side in fact.

    I don´t want to have them feel like we are verbally and dispassionately dissecting the most intimate aspects of their personal lives like one would dissect a laboratory rat.

    However fun an intellectual dual might seem.

    I hope that makes sense to you.

  • Dust

    fws at 216

    yes, would no longer address them as dear, out of respect for my dear sister, dear mother, etc….perhaps you and i are different, oh dear :)

    fws at 212

    “God´s Word says that the entire point of morality is to help and befriend our neighbor. To bind his wounds. to take his suffering upon ourselves, and for US suffer the consequences of the sins and poor choices of OTHERS . The word for that last deal is “mercy”

    so why not just keep quiet about all these difficult gay topics and have some sympathy for the folks that just can’t see your point of view, who sincerely believe the scriptures are against it, and not put a possible stumbling block in their way, viz a viz Paul and eating food sacrificed to idols?

    isn’t that a good way to show mercy too?

    thank you!

  • Dust

    fws at 216

    yes, would no longer address them as dear, out of respect for my dear sister, dear mother, etc….perhaps you and i are different, oh dear :)

    fws at 212

    “God´s Word says that the entire point of morality is to help and befriend our neighbor. To bind his wounds. to take his suffering upon ourselves, and for US suffer the consequences of the sins and poor choices of OTHERS . The word for that last deal is “mercy”

    so why not just keep quiet about all these difficult gay topics and have some sympathy for the folks that just can’t see your point of view, who sincerely believe the scriptures are against it, and not put a possible stumbling block in their way, viz a viz Paul and eating food sacrificed to idols?

    isn’t that a good way to show mercy too?

    thank you!

  • fws

    Kerner @ 205

    The Small Catechism says that excommunication is to put someone out of the visible Church? no. It is to put them outside of the christian congregation. There is an asymetry here I suggest. To absolve is to include into the Church. To excommunicate is an outward action.

    I suggest that excommunication is identical in form and intent as ushering someone out of the Divine Service. We dont allow anyone to be disruptive of the ministry of the Word. The word excommunicate is not used in scripture. It introduces another idea as to the Holy Supper.

    Art VII says that the visible church, that they identify as the Holy Catholic Church in the creed, is an earthly government in exactly the same sense as civil government or the family. And pastors are earthly rulers as well.

    I read what St Paul says about womens hair lengths and communism in acts and women being silent in that way. Chemnitz in his day ordered women to wear black and no jewelry to commune. He understood this. Let a Lutheran pastor try that today? “Legalist!” would be the cry.

    So a calvinist who cannot confess to the pastor that is belief on the real presence is sin but would be loathe to express such an opinion to others in the church? Excommunicate? nope. A gay couple who scrupulously does the opposite of unfurling a gay flag but cant yet see their relationship as sin? nope. Men who doubt things like a 6 day creation and arent ready to confess that as sin? nope. Someone who will not admit that their overeating is a sin and label it as such? nope. Someone … etc…. We are not saved by pure doctrine Kerner.

    Why not? Where else are they going to have their faith salvation and sanctification made sure? Only God´s Word can make that happen. No Army of Aristotles pr Moses or Jesus-as-Example that make a gay man celebate can make that happen.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 205

    The Small Catechism says that excommunication is to put someone out of the visible Church? no. It is to put them outside of the christian congregation. There is an asymetry here I suggest. To absolve is to include into the Church. To excommunicate is an outward action.

    I suggest that excommunication is identical in form and intent as ushering someone out of the Divine Service. We dont allow anyone to be disruptive of the ministry of the Word. The word excommunicate is not used in scripture. It introduces another idea as to the Holy Supper.

    Art VII says that the visible church, that they identify as the Holy Catholic Church in the creed, is an earthly government in exactly the same sense as civil government or the family. And pastors are earthly rulers as well.

    I read what St Paul says about womens hair lengths and communism in acts and women being silent in that way. Chemnitz in his day ordered women to wear black and no jewelry to commune. He understood this. Let a Lutheran pastor try that today? “Legalist!” would be the cry.

    So a calvinist who cannot confess to the pastor that is belief on the real presence is sin but would be loathe to express such an opinion to others in the church? Excommunicate? nope. A gay couple who scrupulously does the opposite of unfurling a gay flag but cant yet see their relationship as sin? nope. Men who doubt things like a 6 day creation and arent ready to confess that as sin? nope. Someone who will not admit that their overeating is a sin and label it as such? nope. Someone … etc…. We are not saved by pure doctrine Kerner.

    Why not? Where else are they going to have their faith salvation and sanctification made sure? Only God´s Word can make that happen. No Army of Aristotles pr Moses or Jesus-as-Example that make a gay man celebate can make that happen.

  • aletheist

    fws@212: With all due respect, I did not ask for a thoughtful response, I asked for a simple “yes” or “no”. I did not previously ask or say anything about celibacy or marriage.

    The point of my silly questions was to establish that it is always wrong and sinful for any person to have sexual relations unless both of these conditions are satisfied: (a) one party is a man and the other is a woman; and (b) the man and woman are married to each other. What this means is that a man having sexual relations with another man to whom he is married is just as wrong and sinful as a man having sexual relations with a woman to whom he is not married. It would not be merciful in either case to say otherwise; we are called to speak the truth–but we are also called to do so in love.

    So mercy comes in when I tell you (and everyone else reading this) that your sins are forgiven–all of them, including any that have to do with homosexuality! No matter who you are or what you have done or what you are now doing, Christ died for you. If you believe that and trust in Him alone to deliver you from the devil, the world, and your flesh, then we are brothers, no matter what Grace says. Such faith is a miracle even greater than maintaining celibacy!

  • aletheist

    fws@212: With all due respect, I did not ask for a thoughtful response, I asked for a simple “yes” or “no”. I did not previously ask or say anything about celibacy or marriage.

    The point of my silly questions was to establish that it is always wrong and sinful for any person to have sexual relations unless both of these conditions are satisfied: (a) one party is a man and the other is a woman; and (b) the man and woman are married to each other. What this means is that a man having sexual relations with another man to whom he is married is just as wrong and sinful as a man having sexual relations with a woman to whom he is not married. It would not be merciful in either case to say otherwise; we are called to speak the truth–but we are also called to do so in love.

    So mercy comes in when I tell you (and everyone else reading this) that your sins are forgiven–all of them, including any that have to do with homosexuality! No matter who you are or what you have done or what you are now doing, Christ died for you. If you believe that and trust in Him alone to deliver you from the devil, the world, and your flesh, then we are brothers, no matter what Grace says. Such faith is a miracle even greater than maintaining celibacy!

  • fws

    dust @ 218

    ” so why not just keep quiet about all these difficult gay topics and have some sympathy for the folks that just can’t see your point of view, who sincerely believe the scriptures are against it, and not put a possible stumbling block in their way, viz a viz Paul and eating food sacrificed to idols?”

    Dust, how is discussing the truth or the Holy Gospel causing a stumbling block in the context that term is used that you quoted.
    Break that down for me.

    You are saying that Grace or others who disagree with me all this will be caused to lose their faith ? Are you calling them “weaker brethren”? That is all of what the context you quote says.

  • fws

    dust @ 218

    ” so why not just keep quiet about all these difficult gay topics and have some sympathy for the folks that just can’t see your point of view, who sincerely believe the scriptures are against it, and not put a possible stumbling block in their way, viz a viz Paul and eating food sacrificed to idols?”

    Dust, how is discussing the truth or the Holy Gospel causing a stumbling block in the context that term is used that you quoted.
    Break that down for me.

    You are saying that Grace or others who disagree with me all this will be caused to lose their faith ? Are you calling them “weaker brethren”? That is all of what the context you quote says.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 220

    Are y0u your brothers keeper?

    If the Confessions and Scripture both state that celebacy is something noone can maintain short of a miracle, and we believe that to be true… then how are we to bear the burden of men and women who are gay. What am I to advice a 15 year old full of hormones and worse, full of a desire for a significant other? Tell him or her to save it for their wedding night?

    Or should we tell them “just say no!”

    You read the Roman Confutation. That sounds like exactly the advice even most Lutherans would give such a bloodbought soul.

    What would YOU say to your son or daughter Aletheist? Tell me.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 220

    Are y0u your brothers keeper?

    If the Confessions and Scripture both state that celebacy is something noone can maintain short of a miracle, and we believe that to be true… then how are we to bear the burden of men and women who are gay. What am I to advice a 15 year old full of hormones and worse, full of a desire for a significant other? Tell him or her to save it for their wedding night?

    Or should we tell them “just say no!”

    You read the Roman Confutation. That sounds like exactly the advice even most Lutherans would give such a bloodbought soul.

    What would YOU say to your son or daughter Aletheist? Tell me.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “But I am fairly certain, except for your aparent soulmate here named Grace, no one here would accuse me of being dishonest.”

    Politeness might prevent me from such an accusation; nevertheless, I have myself read comments authored by you or someone impersonating you to the effect that “it is a violation of the…Lutheran Confessions to insist that homosexuals should be told that homosexual acts are sins and are never to be engaged in” and “we should permit homosexuals to commit homosexual acts within ‘monogamous’ relationships, or else we are forcing people to be be celibate, contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.”

    And quite recently, you characterized the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexuality this way “I know of no passage in scripture or the confessions that could be used in support of the idea that it is ok for persons of the same gender to have sex with each other.” Perhaps a person skilled in what is called “Jesuitical casuistry” could call that a kind of “honesty,” but most people are just going to laugh at the idea, I bet. Your addition of a final and stern-sounding “Period. End of story” to that disingenuous mush is particularly risible.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “But I am fairly certain, except for your aparent soulmate here named Grace, no one here would accuse me of being dishonest.”

    Politeness might prevent me from such an accusation; nevertheless, I have myself read comments authored by you or someone impersonating you to the effect that “it is a violation of the…Lutheran Confessions to insist that homosexuals should be told that homosexual acts are sins and are never to be engaged in” and “we should permit homosexuals to commit homosexual acts within ‘monogamous’ relationships, or else we are forcing people to be be celibate, contrary to the Lutheran Confessions.”

    And quite recently, you characterized the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexuality this way “I know of no passage in scripture or the confessions that could be used in support of the idea that it is ok for persons of the same gender to have sex with each other.” Perhaps a person skilled in what is called “Jesuitical casuistry” could call that a kind of “honesty,” but most people are just going to laugh at the idea, I bet. Your addition of a final and stern-sounding “Period. End of story” to that disingenuous mush is particularly risible.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 220

    And if this sounds like I am being permissive of gay sex you are wrong.
    But what am I to say if neither celebacy nor marriage are feasable options?

    Can we have a real conversation that is actually based upon the scriptures rather than resort to the Roman Catholic solution that the Confessions declare that st paul rejects?

    Amen that we are brothers beyond this! But there are alot of persons undergoing real human suffering over this. This topic is charged with suicides , addictions and other human wreckage. So what? It is a difficult topíc with no easy solutions so we are to just say some pat answer and hope the homos go away?

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 220

    And if this sounds like I am being permissive of gay sex you are wrong.
    But what am I to say if neither celebacy nor marriage are feasable options?

    Can we have a real conversation that is actually based upon the scriptures rather than resort to the Roman Catholic solution that the Confessions declare that st paul rejects?

    Amen that we are brothers beyond this! But there are alot of persons undergoing real human suffering over this. This topic is charged with suicides , addictions and other human wreckage. So what? It is a difficult topíc with no easy solutions so we are to just say some pat answer and hope the homos go away?

  • Dust

    fws at 221

    it’s not for me to say who would lose their faith over any kind of issue….perhaps one could say, if they did, then their faith was of the weak kind anyway and not really saving faith?

    it’s just that Paul was concerned about creating a stumbling block lest one of his dear brothers would fall, so thought that that could be a possibility.

    not sure if it applies to the gay topic at all, but Paul did caution about flaunting (if that’s the right word) our freedom around for fear that weaker brothers would fall….did he mean fall from faith?

    so it was a simple question, from a simple person…probably way over my head…due to the hole have dug for myself :)

    thanks!

  • Dust

    fws at 221

    it’s not for me to say who would lose their faith over any kind of issue….perhaps one could say, if they did, then their faith was of the weak kind anyway and not really saving faith?

    it’s just that Paul was concerned about creating a stumbling block lest one of his dear brothers would fall, so thought that that could be a possibility.

    not sure if it applies to the gay topic at all, but Paul did caution about flaunting (if that’s the right word) our freedom around for fear that weaker brothers would fall….did he mean fall from faith?

    so it was a simple question, from a simple person…probably way over my head…due to the hole have dug for myself :)

    thanks!

  • kerner

    fws:

    You asked:

    “Are you a “manifest and obstinate” sinner?”

    As the Smalcald Article uses that term, I don’t think so (at least, I hope not). If that term means all people, including all Christians, because we all repeatedly sin, then everyone would be excommunicated and the Church would not exist.

    So there must be a subset of humankind to whom the term “manifest and obstinate sinner” applies, who are to be excommunicated from the church. Further, such people must be able to “amend their lives and avoid sin” in order to get back into communion with the church.

    “Amend their lives and avoid sin” is another term that needs a special definition, because you and I both know that all Christians remain simultaneously sinners and saints till we die.

    But the first thing I think we have to do is admit that you are wrong about Apology VII. Clearly there are some people who are to be put out of the visible church for manifest and obstinate sin (whatever that means), and clearly there is something they have to do to get back in. The only way to avoid that conclusion is to blow off the Smalcald Articles, which you, as a confessional Lutheran, cannot do.

    Now, I think a “manifest and obstinate sinner” is someone who is committing a particular sin on a continuous basis, AND clearly takes the position that:

    1.) The thing he is doing is not a sin, and
    2.) he has nothing to apologize for or repent of in doing it, and
    3.) he has been confronted with God’s Law on the subject that calls the activity sin, but still refuses to repent

    And I think “amend their lives and avoid sin” means the person must:

    1.) Agree that the activity he was committing, and that he may in the future still commit despite a desire not to, is a sin, and

    2.) Repent of (that is turn away from, however ineffectively) it.

    For example, a professional assassin (5th commandment) would have to find another job before the visible church would be likely to conclude that he has actually “amended his life and avoided this sin”. Now we know that sins against the 5th commandment include a lot more that actually killing somebody, and that the man, however repentant, will probably violate the 5th commandment many times in the future. But he not a “manifest and obstinate sinner” anymore.

    At least, we hope not, and I realize we can’t know that for sure, which is why such a dermination is rarely used and only in obvious cases, and sometimes not even then. But you have to admit that it is a perfectly Lutheran thing to do, because it is right there in the Lutheran Confessions.

  • kerner

    fws:

    You asked:

    “Are you a “manifest and obstinate” sinner?”

    As the Smalcald Article uses that term, I don’t think so (at least, I hope not). If that term means all people, including all Christians, because we all repeatedly sin, then everyone would be excommunicated and the Church would not exist.

    So there must be a subset of humankind to whom the term “manifest and obstinate sinner” applies, who are to be excommunicated from the church. Further, such people must be able to “amend their lives and avoid sin” in order to get back into communion with the church.

    “Amend their lives and avoid sin” is another term that needs a special definition, because you and I both know that all Christians remain simultaneously sinners and saints till we die.

    But the first thing I think we have to do is admit that you are wrong about Apology VII. Clearly there are some people who are to be put out of the visible church for manifest and obstinate sin (whatever that means), and clearly there is something they have to do to get back in. The only way to avoid that conclusion is to blow off the Smalcald Articles, which you, as a confessional Lutheran, cannot do.

    Now, I think a “manifest and obstinate sinner” is someone who is committing a particular sin on a continuous basis, AND clearly takes the position that:

    1.) The thing he is doing is not a sin, and
    2.) he has nothing to apologize for or repent of in doing it, and
    3.) he has been confronted with God’s Law on the subject that calls the activity sin, but still refuses to repent

    And I think “amend their lives and avoid sin” means the person must:

    1.) Agree that the activity he was committing, and that he may in the future still commit despite a desire not to, is a sin, and

    2.) Repent of (that is turn away from, however ineffectively) it.

    For example, a professional assassin (5th commandment) would have to find another job before the visible church would be likely to conclude that he has actually “amended his life and avoided this sin”. Now we know that sins against the 5th commandment include a lot more that actually killing somebody, and that the man, however repentant, will probably violate the 5th commandment many times in the future. But he not a “manifest and obstinate sinner” anymore.

    At least, we hope not, and I realize we can’t know that for sure, which is why such a dermination is rarely used and only in obvious cases, and sometimes not even then. But you have to admit that it is a perfectly Lutheran thing to do, because it is right there in the Lutheran Confessions.

  • fws

    sp @ 223

    Can you please provide a link to where I said that SP?
    Thanks.

    With no context, I would categorically reject what you quote me as saying SP. Let me underline that word REJECT.

    Since you are insisting I said it, I would like to see the context so I can either retract it in the same place I said it… OR… see that in context, without the elipsis, what I said has a different meaning.

    Thank you in advance for that courtesy SP. I will trust you to be an honorable man and not quote me without being able to produce a link to where I said it.

    Paul Mc Cain has also quoted me as saying something similar I think. If you are quoting-him-quoting-me then please identify that as the case ok?

  • fws

    sp @ 223

    Can you please provide a link to where I said that SP?
    Thanks.

    With no context, I would categorically reject what you quote me as saying SP. Let me underline that word REJECT.

    Since you are insisting I said it, I would like to see the context so I can either retract it in the same place I said it… OR… see that in context, without the elipsis, what I said has a different meaning.

    Thank you in advance for that courtesy SP. I will trust you to be an honorable man and not quote me without being able to produce a link to where I said it.

    Paul Mc Cain has also quoted me as saying something similar I think. If you are quoting-him-quoting-me then please identify that as the case ok?

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “Clean needles” are things, they are not persons. Nobody has any business using persons as if they were mere things, especially using someone whom one claims to love as a mere thing.

    Sodomy with strangers and mere acquaintances is a little less likely to harmful to the physical health (and this is especially significant for male homosexuals whose perversion is particularly likely to spread disease), but at least in that case one is not destroying someone whom one loves in some way and by whom one is loved.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “Clean needles” are things, they are not persons. Nobody has any business using persons as if they were mere things, especially using someone whom one claims to love as a mere thing.

    Sodomy with strangers and mere acquaintances is a little less likely to harmful to the physical health (and this is especially significant for male homosexuals whose perversion is particularly likely to spread disease), but at least in that case one is not destroying someone whom one loves in some way and by whom one is loved.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 226

    “But the first thing I think we have to do is admit that you are wrong about Apology VII. ”

    Show me from Apology VII please how I am misreading it. Let´s not pit one part of the Confessions or Scritures against another part. Let´s see if we can harmonize them.

    Quote more. We both have our opinions and ability to logic. You would for sure best me at any logical duel. but our interest is not to do that. Let´s dig into the text shall we dear brother?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 226

    “But the first thing I think we have to do is admit that you are wrong about Apology VII. ”

    Show me from Apology VII please how I am misreading it. Let´s not pit one part of the Confessions or Scritures against another part. Let´s see if we can harmonize them.

    Quote more. We both have our opinions and ability to logic. You would for sure best me at any logical duel. but our interest is not to do that. Let´s dig into the text shall we dear brother?

  • fws

    SP @ 223 & 228

    I see now that you claim to have read me to say the stuff you “quote” me on in 223 first hand. It´s slander and you should retract it.

    Consider that if you need to resort to misquoting me , your motive lacks righousness.
    Cigarette smoking seems be scientifically proven to cause harm to self and others. You use the same argument, with less scientific proof about S****y. Not a Biblical argument. We won´t go there SP.

    So do you want to appologize for misquoting me or not?

  • fws

    SP @ 223 & 228

    I see now that you claim to have read me to say the stuff you “quote” me on in 223 first hand. It´s slander and you should retract it.

    Consider that if you need to resort to misquoting me , your motive lacks righousness.
    Cigarette smoking seems be scientifically proven to cause harm to self and others. You use the same argument, with less scientific proof about S****y. Not a Biblical argument. We won´t go there SP.

    So do you want to appologize for misquoting me or not?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 215

    Would it be impolite to ask you to respond to 215? Especially the last question there?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 215

    Would it be impolite to ask you to respond to 215? Especially the last question there?

  • fws

    kerner @ 226

    “now I think… and I think… for example [to prove my logical point]….”

    I would be interested in a discussion of a text Kerner, ANY text, in the confessions. Not a proof text. An actually discussion of an argument or section presented in our Confessions.

    I have lots of ideas too and think lots of things. Most of those things are wrong. Can you find something in the Confessions that would seem to disagree with what you think? that is always a great way to read a text isnt it?

  • fws

    kerner @ 226

    “now I think… and I think… for example [to prove my logical point]….”

    I would be interested in a discussion of a text Kerner, ANY text, in the confessions. Not a proof text. An actually discussion of an argument or section presented in our Confessions.

    I have lots of ideas too and think lots of things. Most of those things are wrong. Can you find something in the Confessions that would seem to disagree with what you think? that is always a great way to read a text isnt it?

  • fws

    SP @ 228

    “Nobody has any business using persons as if they were mere things, especially using someone whom one claims to love as a mere thing.”

    I think you are sinning by assuming that gay men, lesbians, or even transgenders are treating others they love as “mere things.”

    I would suggest you rent the film “Ma Vie en Rose” (“My life in pink”) to get at least some idea of what the life of someone you dispassionately disssect looks like from an early age.

    The majority of homosexuals do not engage in the kind of sex you seem fixated on reducing their entire existence to.

  • fws

    SP @ 228

    “Nobody has any business using persons as if they were mere things, especially using someone whom one claims to love as a mere thing.”

    I think you are sinning by assuming that gay men, lesbians, or even transgenders are treating others they love as “mere things.”

    I would suggest you rent the film “Ma Vie en Rose” (“My life in pink”) to get at least some idea of what the life of someone you dispassionately disssect looks like from an early age.

    The majority of homosexuals do not engage in the kind of sex you seem fixated on reducing their entire existence to.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “we would never dream of saying to them during coffee hour after church.”

    Ya, I suppose that if you started telling people during coffee hour at church that you want them to accept your relationship with your sworn exclusive (more or less, depending on what you’ve mutually agreed to) partner in sodomy and to somehow treat you as if you are a “married” couple, you’ll get an uncomfortable embarrassed silence, not a warm embrace nor a vocal condemnation. Perhaps someone will try to change the subject, most assuredly everyone will quickly find reasons that they need to get home. If you are as narcissistic as you seem to be trying to convince us all that you are, this will undoubtedly be their fault as far as you are concerned.

    There are certain things that are just not talked about in polite company. Nevertheless, you are insisting in talking about them in these comments. Other people are responding to you, following your lead and being honest and frank. If you don’t like it being talked about, don’t talk about it. You and your volumes of repetitive promotion of the acceptance of homosexual acting out is the main instigator in these comments.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “we would never dream of saying to them during coffee hour after church.”

    Ya, I suppose that if you started telling people during coffee hour at church that you want them to accept your relationship with your sworn exclusive (more or less, depending on what you’ve mutually agreed to) partner in sodomy and to somehow treat you as if you are a “married” couple, you’ll get an uncomfortable embarrassed silence, not a warm embrace nor a vocal condemnation. Perhaps someone will try to change the subject, most assuredly everyone will quickly find reasons that they need to get home. If you are as narcissistic as you seem to be trying to convince us all that you are, this will undoubtedly be their fault as far as you are concerned.

    There are certain things that are just not talked about in polite company. Nevertheless, you are insisting in talking about them in these comments. Other people are responding to you, following your lead and being honest and frank. If you don’t like it being talked about, don’t talk about it. You and your volumes of repetitive promotion of the acceptance of homosexual acting out is the main instigator in these comments.

  • fws

    aleltheist @ 220

    “The point of my silly questions was to establish that it is always wrong and sinful for any person to have sexual relations unless both of these conditions are satisfied: (a) one party is a man and the other is a woman; and (b) the man and woman are married to each other.”

    Aletheist, we are both Lutheran and not Thomist Roman Catholic Natural Law students.
    I would love to lay out your two propositions in the form of Holy Scripture rather than a serious of logically deductive or inductive questions.

    Can you present this to us please? This would be a valuable service to a bunch of readers.
    I have actually never ever seen such a presentation.
    I guess people just assume it is so very obvious.

    I would be happen to play devil´s advocate if you wished. And we can hope no one would then use this exercise to misquote me out of context later on. Not.

    Do you have the ability and inclination to do this service for us Aletheist please?

  • fws

    aleltheist @ 220

    “The point of my silly questions was to establish that it is always wrong and sinful for any person to have sexual relations unless both of these conditions are satisfied: (a) one party is a man and the other is a woman; and (b) the man and woman are married to each other.”

    Aletheist, we are both Lutheran and not Thomist Roman Catholic Natural Law students.
    I would love to lay out your two propositions in the form of Holy Scripture rather than a serious of logically deductive or inductive questions.

    Can you present this to us please? This would be a valuable service to a bunch of readers.
    I have actually never ever seen such a presentation.
    I guess people just assume it is so very obvious.

    I would be happen to play devil´s advocate if you wished. And we can hope no one would then use this exercise to misquote me out of context later on. Not.

    Do you have the ability and inclination to do this service for us Aletheist please?

  • fws

    SP @ 234

    Every conversation, even here , should look as polite as one at church coffee hour. Tell me why that should not be so.
    You deliberately slandered me SP. Your heart should tell you from that that your purpose in this “conversation ” with me is feeding your Old Adam. We are done with our discussion.

    Feel free to have the last word.
    I hope it is a sincere apology. Slander is not a trivial thing.
    I hope you see to repent of that towards me.

  • fws

    SP @ 234

    Every conversation, even here , should look as polite as one at church coffee hour. Tell me why that should not be so.
    You deliberately slandered me SP. Your heart should tell you from that that your purpose in this “conversation ” with me is feeding your Old Adam. We are done with our discussion.

    Feel free to have the last word.
    I hope it is a sincere apology. Slander is not a trivial thing.
    I hope you see to repent of that towards me.

  • kerner

    fws @ 232:

    You are right of course, but the foundation of “what I think” is the ordinary meaning of the words in context. “Manifest and obstinate sinners” MUST be an identifiable group of persons and to “amend their lives and avoid sin” MUST be recognisable things for those persons to do, or Smalcald Article IX becomes meaningless.

    Without doing a lot of deep research, I’m sure that the meaning I ascribe to those terms is the most clear from the text and the very widely held interpretation.

    If you think I am wrong, feel free to use any part of the Lutheran Confessions to do so. I have no problem with harmonizing the various confessions, rendering one of them meaningless is not an option. That’s what the Anabaptists do.

    As in: ” Oh gee, all those inconvenient verses about baptism saving us (that conflict with my preconceived theology) “are meaningless.

    Don’t do that, Frank. You know better.

  • kerner

    fws @ 232:

    You are right of course, but the foundation of “what I think” is the ordinary meaning of the words in context. “Manifest and obstinate sinners” MUST be an identifiable group of persons and to “amend their lives and avoid sin” MUST be recognisable things for those persons to do, or Smalcald Article IX becomes meaningless.

    Without doing a lot of deep research, I’m sure that the meaning I ascribe to those terms is the most clear from the text and the very widely held interpretation.

    If you think I am wrong, feel free to use any part of the Lutheran Confessions to do so. I have no problem with harmonizing the various confessions, rendering one of them meaningless is not an option. That’s what the Anabaptists do.

    As in: ” Oh gee, all those inconvenient verses about baptism saving us (that conflict with my preconceived theology) “are meaningless.

    Don’t do that, Frank. You know better.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 237

    Let me clarify a little more.
    The idea there of manifest , is disruption of the church.
    Don´t ask. Don´t tell. That is the way I read that Kerner.
    Seriously.

    So you greet a young couple in church and need to verify whether or not they are married before allowing membership? why? And if they are not? Common law marriage? or not?Do you refuse communion UNTIL they get that piece of paper? Maybe not even ask.

    Two gay men? Roommates? with kids from a previous marriage?

    Article VII:

    49] Moreover, Christ has warned us in His parables concerning the Church, that when offended by the private vices , whether of priests or people, we should not excite schisms, as the Donatists have wickedly done.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 237

    Let me clarify a little more.
    The idea there of manifest , is disruption of the church.
    Don´t ask. Don´t tell. That is the way I read that Kerner.
    Seriously.

    So you greet a young couple in church and need to verify whether or not they are married before allowing membership? why? And if they are not? Common law marriage? or not?Do you refuse communion UNTIL they get that piece of paper? Maybe not even ask.

    Two gay men? Roommates? with kids from a previous marriage?

    Article VII:

    49] Moreover, Christ has warned us in His parables concerning the Church, that when offended by the private vices , whether of priests or people, we should not excite schisms, as the Donatists have wickedly done.

  • S. P.

    I think words should be understood according to their usual meanings, unless context suggests otherwise. So:

    “manifest and obstinate sinner”

    “Manifest” means apparent and visible to others. A secret sin is not manifest, so hypocrites cannot be excommunicated. I guess that suggests that excommunication is intended to help the community, in part at least.

    “Obstinate” means stubbornly unyielding to persuasion. So excommunication must follow an unsuccesful attempt at persuasion. The offender must be given much opportunity to repent before excommunication is resorted to.

    “Sinner” is what we all are. However, we are not all manifest sinners, obstinate sinners, nor unrepentant sinners. The Christian remains a sinner but lives a life of repentance. He is sorry for his sins and does not try to tell people his sins aren’t sins.

  • S. P.

    I think words should be understood according to their usual meanings, unless context suggests otherwise. So:

    “manifest and obstinate sinner”

    “Manifest” means apparent and visible to others. A secret sin is not manifest, so hypocrites cannot be excommunicated. I guess that suggests that excommunication is intended to help the community, in part at least.

    “Obstinate” means stubbornly unyielding to persuasion. So excommunication must follow an unsuccesful attempt at persuasion. The offender must be given much opportunity to repent before excommunication is resorted to.

    “Sinner” is what we all are. However, we are not all manifest sinners, obstinate sinners, nor unrepentant sinners. The Christian remains a sinner but lives a life of repentance. He is sorry for his sins and does not try to tell people his sins aren’t sins.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 237

    I propose that st Paul ordered

    women to not cut their hair,
    his assistants to be circumcised,
    women to be silent
    folks to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols around weak christians
    following jewish customs in church in general
    chemnitz ordering women to wear black/no jewelry to commune

    were all for a common purpose.
    You would focus on “aha there is a biblical rule” frank” bow to magisterial law!

    I would say that all these are illustrations of being all things to all men in illustration of I cor ¨ ALL things are Lawful, but the question you are to ask is what is USEFUL to others!” (I paraphrase)

    So with your method of reading text, you focus on the legalistic letter and miss the entire point and purpose for why that letter exists. Oi Vey. It is a very Jewish way to read a text Kerner. Shylock would be proud.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 237

    I propose that st Paul ordered

    women to not cut their hair,
    his assistants to be circumcised,
    women to be silent
    folks to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols around weak christians
    following jewish customs in church in general
    chemnitz ordering women to wear black/no jewelry to commune

    were all for a common purpose.
    You would focus on “aha there is a biblical rule” frank” bow to magisterial law!

    I would say that all these are illustrations of being all things to all men in illustration of I cor ¨ ALL things are Lawful, but the question you are to ask is what is USEFUL to others!” (I paraphrase)

    So with your method of reading text, you focus on the legalistic letter and miss the entire point and purpose for why that letter exists. Oi Vey. It is a very Jewish way to read a text Kerner. Shylock would be proud.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 237

    (continuation of the thought in 238)

    And WHY do we do dont ask dont tell?

    What is our purpose? To morally reform society?
    Teach everyone how to do a better Aristotle?
    Um. No.

    I have had pastors who disagree with me.
    They say homosexuality en toto, not just homosexual sex, is a sin.
    And they make me a member.

    If I started making an issue out of my homosexuality …..showing up wrapped in a rainbow flag, or insisting on talking about such matters as I sometimes do here….. in a church that would be disturbed at that, I would hope they would excommunicate me!
    Why?

    It isnt about me. The Divine Service is about the Gospel.
    Now if someone happened to find out I was gay I would not lie about it but I would urge whoever is making a deal out of it to quiet down.
    If THEY persisted, I would hope that the pastor would excommunicate them!

    Again, this is about outward order. Excommunication is not a spiritual exercise. It is done for the same reasons one would be ushered out of a service for being disruptive Kerner.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 237

    (continuation of the thought in 238)

    And WHY do we do dont ask dont tell?

    What is our purpose? To morally reform society?
    Teach everyone how to do a better Aristotle?
    Um. No.

    I have had pastors who disagree with me.
    They say homosexuality en toto, not just homosexual sex, is a sin.
    And they make me a member.

    If I started making an issue out of my homosexuality …..showing up wrapped in a rainbow flag, or insisting on talking about such matters as I sometimes do here….. in a church that would be disturbed at that, I would hope they would excommunicate me!
    Why?

    It isnt about me. The Divine Service is about the Gospel.
    Now if someone happened to find out I was gay I would not lie about it but I would urge whoever is making a deal out of it to quiet down.
    If THEY persisted, I would hope that the pastor would excommunicate them!

    Again, this is about outward order. Excommunication is not a spiritual exercise. It is done for the same reasons one would be ushered out of a service for being disruptive Kerner.

  • kerner

    I re-read your comment @199, and you do realize that your line of reasoning would apply equally to pedophiles as it does to gay people, don’t you? This doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong, but let’s look at it closely?

    Q: Is pedophilia a sin?

    A: I find nothing in the Bible that indicates that sexual relations between adults and children is OK, and I avoid arguments from silence.

    I also find clear passages in Holy scripture that absolutely and clearly forbid demanding celebacy of anyone and our Confessions describe such as demand as cruel because it is futile and impossible, leads to a degradation of public morals and state that they nearly always lead to a tragic end. Augustana XXIII.

    So, says the pedophile, it is wrong and cruel to tell me I can’t have sex with children, because marriage to an adult woman does nothing to ease my sexual urges. Sex with anyone over the age of 10 is revolting to me. If people who want to have sex with adults receive mercy in the institution of marriage, where is MY mercy? Scripture says you CAN NEVER demand celebacy of anybody (says the pedophile). And don’t tell me to try to change myself so that I can “learn” to be attracted to adults. That never works.

    And anyway, says the pedophile, if I tried to find sexual release in marrying an adult, it wouldn’t be fair to my spouse, because I would be indifferent, at best, to my spouse, and always yearning to have sex with children. But if it would be unmerciful for me to marry an adult, and you CAN’T tell me to be celebate, then there must be created some institution that allows me to have sex with children, guilt free.

    How should the Church respond? If the only sex that attracts an individual is wrong, why can’t the Church tell that person that they will have to 1) learn to enjoy sex that isn’t wrong, or 2) do without?

    Look, I know it doesn’t seem fair. But there is no way ariound it.

  • kerner

    I re-read your comment @199, and you do realize that your line of reasoning would apply equally to pedophiles as it does to gay people, don’t you? This doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong, but let’s look at it closely?

    Q: Is pedophilia a sin?

    A: I find nothing in the Bible that indicates that sexual relations between adults and children is OK, and I avoid arguments from silence.

    I also find clear passages in Holy scripture that absolutely and clearly forbid demanding celebacy of anyone and our Confessions describe such as demand as cruel because it is futile and impossible, leads to a degradation of public morals and state that they nearly always lead to a tragic end. Augustana XXIII.

    So, says the pedophile, it is wrong and cruel to tell me I can’t have sex with children, because marriage to an adult woman does nothing to ease my sexual urges. Sex with anyone over the age of 10 is revolting to me. If people who want to have sex with adults receive mercy in the institution of marriage, where is MY mercy? Scripture says you CAN NEVER demand celebacy of anybody (says the pedophile). And don’t tell me to try to change myself so that I can “learn” to be attracted to adults. That never works.

    And anyway, says the pedophile, if I tried to find sexual release in marrying an adult, it wouldn’t be fair to my spouse, because I would be indifferent, at best, to my spouse, and always yearning to have sex with children. But if it would be unmerciful for me to marry an adult, and you CAN’T tell me to be celebate, then there must be created some institution that allows me to have sex with children, guilt free.

    How should the Church respond? If the only sex that attracts an individual is wrong, why can’t the Church tell that person that they will have to 1) learn to enjoy sex that isn’t wrong, or 2) do without?

    Look, I know it doesn’t seem fair. But there is no way ariound it.

  • fws

    Kerner

    Lets say you are a proud man who is vocal about the fact that you cant forgive someone. Or say you vocally show disrespect for the republican president calling him a traitor etc.
    And you will NOT admit that to do those things is a sin.

    Are you manifestly impenitent in the sense your pastor would need to excommunicate you?
    Depends.
    On what?
    Is it interfering with the process of persons becoming Righeous in the ONE sense that righteous can be called christian?

    If the answer is yes, then the ushers need to usher you out, ie excommunicate you. Rinse and repeat for all sinners and sinning.

    We would want to avoid it coming to that. It is hearing the Gospel, strangely , that we are told will make you the kind of righteous that ONLY the church can make happen.

    We would pack you off to the Rotary Club or Scouts or the FreeMasons to teach you that other kind of righeousness……

  • fws

    Kerner

    Lets say you are a proud man who is vocal about the fact that you cant forgive someone. Or say you vocally show disrespect for the republican president calling him a traitor etc.
    And you will NOT admit that to do those things is a sin.

    Are you manifestly impenitent in the sense your pastor would need to excommunicate you?
    Depends.
    On what?
    Is it interfering with the process of persons becoming Righeous in the ONE sense that righteous can be called christian?

    If the answer is yes, then the ushers need to usher you out, ie excommunicate you. Rinse and repeat for all sinners and sinning.

    We would want to avoid it coming to that. It is hearing the Gospel, strangely , that we are told will make you the kind of righteous that ONLY the church can make happen.

    We would pack you off to the Rotary Club or Scouts or the FreeMasons to teach you that other kind of righeousness……

  • kerner

    fws @238:

    Actually, I think your analysis in this comment is excellent. OY VEY, you’re right!!

    The word “manifest” does mean open and obvious. Perhaps I assumed that the “gay couple” must have been openly and obviously “gay” and openly and obviously “a couple”, or the question wouldn’t have come up. Especially now when this increasingly common.

  • kerner

    fws @238:

    Actually, I think your analysis in this comment is excellent. OY VEY, you’re right!!

    The word “manifest” does mean open and obvious. Perhaps I assumed that the “gay couple” must have been openly and obviously “gay” and openly and obviously “a couple”, or the question wouldn’t have come up. Especially now when this increasingly common.

  • aletheist

    fws@222: If the Confessions and Scripture both state that righteousness is something no one can maintain short of a miracle, and we believe that to be true, then how are we to bear the burden of men and women who are sinners? The answer to this question is exactly the same as the answer to your question: We speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Specifically, we proclaim the Law so that people will know that they are sinners (gays included), and we proclaim the Gospel so that people will know that their sins are forgiven (gays included).

    My advice to the 15-year-old full of hormones is exactly the same as my advice to anyone else (including myself) who is struggling with any temptation, sexual or otherwise–run away! Avoid situations that would facilitate yielding. After all, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

    I would also pray for him, and encourage him to pray for himself exactly as our Lord taught us: “Lead us not into temptation.” What does this mean? “God indeed tempts no one, but we pray in this petition that God would guard and keep us, so that the devil, the world, and our flesh may not deceive us, nor seduce us into misbelief, despair, and other great shame and vice; and though we be assailed by them, that still we may finally overcome and obtain the victory.”

  • aletheist

    fws@222: If the Confessions and Scripture both state that righteousness is something no one can maintain short of a miracle, and we believe that to be true, then how are we to bear the burden of men and women who are sinners? The answer to this question is exactly the same as the answer to your question: We speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Specifically, we proclaim the Law so that people will know that they are sinners (gays included), and we proclaim the Gospel so that people will know that their sins are forgiven (gays included).

    My advice to the 15-year-old full of hormones is exactly the same as my advice to anyone else (including myself) who is struggling with any temptation, sexual or otherwise–run away! Avoid situations that would facilitate yielding. After all, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

    I would also pray for him, and encourage him to pray for himself exactly as our Lord taught us: “Lead us not into temptation.” What does this mean? “God indeed tempts no one, but we pray in this petition that God would guard and keep us, so that the devil, the world, and our flesh may not deceive us, nor seduce us into misbelief, despair, and other great shame and vice; and though we be assailed by them, that still we may finally overcome and obtain the victory.”

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frank’s appeal to discussions of celibacy in the Lutheran Confessions to prop up his advocacy of homosexual actions is absurd.

    “Celibacy” as discussed in the Lutheran Confessions is only referring to sexual relations between men and women and is a reference to the only alternative to marriage.

    Homosexuals are never to engage in homosexual acts, period. An appeal to the Lutheran Confessions as they discuss monastic celibacy is the height of absurdity.

    Frank, your number is up. Everyone sees right through all your bloviations, word play and the faux flattery.

    Repent and turn from your sin and your sinful errors.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frank’s appeal to discussions of celibacy in the Lutheran Confessions to prop up his advocacy of homosexual actions is absurd.

    “Celibacy” as discussed in the Lutheran Confessions is only referring to sexual relations between men and women and is a reference to the only alternative to marriage.

    Homosexuals are never to engage in homosexual acts, period. An appeal to the Lutheran Confessions as they discuss monastic celibacy is the height of absurdity.

    Frank, your number is up. Everyone sees right through all your bloviations, word play and the faux flattery.

    Repent and turn from your sin and your sinful errors.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 242

    If you cannot see any logical or moral difference between sex between:

    a) two consenting adults and
    b) a 3 year old child and an adult, then I am not sure you should be an attorney.

    I would be happy to introduce you to lots of pagans who would do a far better job at moral thinking than you are doing now. Romans 2:15 Kerner.

    I suggest this is our logjam Kerner. It is why we go round and round I suggest:

    “there is no meaningful Christian definition of virtue? ”

    Lutheran answer: No. Period.

    This includes, especially, in that all we are commanded to do in church.

    There is simply virtue and morality. Romans 2:15 is what says that.
    This virtue/morality/righeousness is Identical for pagan, fake christian and true christian.
    No Scripture, Holy Spirit, Faith or Christ is needed for this.

    This is not to reject the necessity of such virtue/morality/righeousness.

    It is to specifically, and very emphatically! insert this caveat:
    The telological, soteriological and eternal meaning of all this is…. Romans 8 death.

    This is THE bright line between Thomist Scholastic Rome and the Apology and Lutheranism.

    Luther: “This [christian] righteousness is useless in our earthly life except to God and a guilty conscience [it is, alone, faith , in Christ]” 1528 Sermon, 9th sunday after trinity at Marburg.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 242

    If you cannot see any logical or moral difference between sex between:

    a) two consenting adults and
    b) a 3 year old child and an adult, then I am not sure you should be an attorney.

    I would be happy to introduce you to lots of pagans who would do a far better job at moral thinking than you are doing now. Romans 2:15 Kerner.

    I suggest this is our logjam Kerner. It is why we go round and round I suggest:

    “there is no meaningful Christian definition of virtue? ”

    Lutheran answer: No. Period.

    This includes, especially, in that all we are commanded to do in church.

    There is simply virtue and morality. Romans 2:15 is what says that.
    This virtue/morality/righeousness is Identical for pagan, fake christian and true christian.
    No Scripture, Holy Spirit, Faith or Christ is needed for this.

    This is not to reject the necessity of such virtue/morality/righeousness.

    It is to specifically, and very emphatically! insert this caveat:
    The telological, soteriological and eternal meaning of all this is…. Romans 8 death.

    This is THE bright line between Thomist Scholastic Rome and the Apology and Lutheranism.

    Luther: “This [christian] righteousness is useless in our earthly life except to God and a guilty conscience [it is, alone, faith , in Christ]” 1528 Sermon, 9th sunday after trinity at Marburg.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 245

    The confessions and Scripture both state that righteousness is something no one can maintain short of a miracle”

    I don´t find the Confessions conflating the Righeousness of faith with civil righeousness.
    I was expecting better from you brother. I was expecting a serious and substantive discussion ok? There is an important distinction they make in Apology XVIII. Let´s not blur that to win some argumentative contest Aletheist ok?

    My advice to the 15-year-old full of hormones is…

    Precisely this! http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160569

    Ahem.

    Instead, as Lutheran Christian, your advice should rather be this to that 15 year old son of yours:

    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para17
    And this…
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para19

    Now if your son told you that he feels like vomiting at the thought of having intimate relations with a female, I am curious what advice you would give him Aletheist.

    What is your goal in discussing this with me Aletheist? Win some logical sparing match? This is a real issue that affects not just gays but their mothers and fathers, pastors and brothers and society.
    Shouldn´t their cries of anguish move us to consider the golden rule?

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 245

    The confessions and Scripture both state that righteousness is something no one can maintain short of a miracle”

    I don´t find the Confessions conflating the Righeousness of faith with civil righeousness.
    I was expecting better from you brother. I was expecting a serious and substantive discussion ok? There is an important distinction they make in Apology XVIII. Let´s not blur that to win some argumentative contest Aletheist ok?

    My advice to the 15-year-old full of hormones is…

    Precisely this! http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160569

    Ahem.

    Instead, as Lutheran Christian, your advice should rather be this to that 15 year old son of yours:

    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para17
    And this…
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para19

    Now if your son told you that he feels like vomiting at the thought of having intimate relations with a female, I am curious what advice you would give him Aletheist.

    What is your goal in discussing this with me Aletheist? Win some logical sparing match? This is a real issue that affects not just gays but their mothers and fathers, pastors and brothers and society.
    Shouldn´t their cries of anguish move us to consider the golden rule?

  • Dust

    fws

    very interesting and am learning lots….not necessarily 100% agree, since it’s a lot for me to absorb, but very interesting….

    thanks and God Bless!

  • Dust

    fws

    very interesting and am learning lots….not necessarily 100% agree, since it’s a lot for me to absorb, but very interesting….

    thanks and God Bless!

  • aletheist

    fws@224:

    But what am I to say if neither celebacy nor marriage are feasable options?

    Where does it say in Scripture or the Confessions that celibacy is not a feasible option? What Paul and Melanchthon reject is the imposition of celibacy on those who otherwise would be free to marry.

    “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) What is the context of this assertion that marriage is better than burning with passion? Just look several verses earlier: “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2) The solution is never man with man or woman with woman, but only man with woman and woman with man.

    “Gen. 1:28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful, and that one sex in a proper way should desire the other . . . And this love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.” (Apology XXIII.7) So the rejection of celibacy in the Confessions is grounded in the divine ordinance that men and women desire each other; it has no bearing whatsoever on men who desire men, nor on women who desire women, because those situations are not divinely ordained.

    “Paul says, 1 Cor. 7:2: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to all who are not fit for celibacy . . . Does not Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry? . . . Therefore all who burn, retain the right to marry. By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep themselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to the conscience of each one.” (Apology XXIII.14-17) Again, this whole passage is talking about men marrying women and women marrying men “to avoid fornication,” and the explicit alternative is to “keep themselves continent”–not by force, but by choice.

    I cannot imagine what it is like to be in your situation, but I struggle with sins just like you do, even though I struggle with different sins than you do. I would never want to add to your or anyone else’s suffering, but neither one of us should ever condone any sins, whether our own or someone else’s. The Good News is that both of us can and should always proclaim the forgiveness of sins to one another and to everyone else.

  • aletheist

    fws@224:

    But what am I to say if neither celebacy nor marriage are feasable options?

    Where does it say in Scripture or the Confessions that celibacy is not a feasible option? What Paul and Melanchthon reject is the imposition of celibacy on those who otherwise would be free to marry.

    “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) What is the context of this assertion that marriage is better than burning with passion? Just look several verses earlier: “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2) The solution is never man with man or woman with woman, but only man with woman and woman with man.

    “Gen. 1:28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful, and that one sex in a proper way should desire the other . . . And this love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.” (Apology XXIII.7) So the rejection of celibacy in the Confessions is grounded in the divine ordinance that men and women desire each other; it has no bearing whatsoever on men who desire men, nor on women who desire women, because those situations are not divinely ordained.

    “Paul says, 1 Cor. 7:2: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to all who are not fit for celibacy . . . Does not Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry? . . . Therefore all who burn, retain the right to marry. By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep themselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to the conscience of each one.” (Apology XXIII.14-17) Again, this whole passage is talking about men marrying women and women marrying men “to avoid fornication,” and the explicit alternative is to “keep themselves continent”–not by force, but by choice.

    I cannot imagine what it is like to be in your situation, but I struggle with sins just like you do, even though I struggle with different sins than you do. I would never want to add to your or anyone else’s suffering, but neither one of us should ever condone any sins, whether our own or someone else’s. The Good News is that both of us can and should always proclaim the forgiveness of sins to one another and to everyone else.

  • kerner

    fws @247:

    I see the distinction, but for the purposes of YOUR argument it is a distinction without a difference.

    I assume, because sex between an adult and a child is suficiently sinful, you are prepared to say that we CAN tell a pedophile that he must learn to change his sexual desires or be celebate?

    So, your position that Scripture absolutely prohibits the Chrurch from telling ANYONE to be celebate is WRONG. We can, in some cases, tell some people, that they have to redirect their sex drives, or abstain.

    And if we can tell some people to abstain, then the question becomes, “Who can we tell that to?”

    Proposal: We can tell it to anyone who wants to have sex outside of a male-female marriage, because that is the only Lawful way to do it, and it is the only Biblically sanctioned way to release sexual frustration, and it is the way to propagate our species, and it is the Biblical metaphor for Christ and the Church, and because when God made Adam a helpmeet he made Eve. (Just a few reasons off the top of my head)

  • kerner

    fws @247:

    I see the distinction, but for the purposes of YOUR argument it is a distinction without a difference.

    I assume, because sex between an adult and a child is suficiently sinful, you are prepared to say that we CAN tell a pedophile that he must learn to change his sexual desires or be celebate?

    So, your position that Scripture absolutely prohibits the Chrurch from telling ANYONE to be celebate is WRONG. We can, in some cases, tell some people, that they have to redirect their sex drives, or abstain.

    And if we can tell some people to abstain, then the question becomes, “Who can we tell that to?”

    Proposal: We can tell it to anyone who wants to have sex outside of a male-female marriage, because that is the only Lawful way to do it, and it is the only Biblically sanctioned way to release sexual frustration, and it is the way to propagate our species, and it is the Biblical metaphor for Christ and the Church, and because when God made Adam a helpmeet he made Eve. (Just a few reasons off the top of my head)

  • kerner

    ack! I mean, “celibate”.

  • kerner

    ack! I mean, “celibate”.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 246

    Ah. Finally dealing with the text. Alleuia.

    blockquote> “Celibacy” as discussed in the Lutheran Confessions is only referring to sexual relations between men and women and….

    Amen! There is ZERO support here for gay sex or gay marriage as a ok. It would be wrong to try to use this text to argue for that.

    is a reference to the only alternative to marriage.

    No. This argument is AGAINST the Lutheran position. Read the argument here: http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160569

    It would be also wrong to argue that celebacy is biologically/biblically/physically available to any man, including homosexual ones. Short of a miracle. which means miracle in the most literal sense. Which means never.

    Homosexuals are never to engage in homosexual acts, period.

    Ok. Agreed! But this is not in this text. We would need to turn to another text for that. Right?

    An appeal to the Lutheran Confessions as they discuss monastic celibacy is the height of absurdity.

    What is it you think I am “appealing “for? What is it that is absurd. You just like to write that word?

    Everyone sees…through …your … faux flattery.
    Repent and turn from your sin and your sinful errors.

    There is no flattery Pastor McCain. There is sincere and grateful deference to you as a gift to our church. What is it you are asking me to repent of? I will do so.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 246

    Ah. Finally dealing with the text. Alleuia.

    blockquote> “Celibacy” as discussed in the Lutheran Confessions is only referring to sexual relations between men and women and….

    Amen! There is ZERO support here for gay sex or gay marriage as a ok. It would be wrong to try to use this text to argue for that.

    is a reference to the only alternative to marriage.

    No. This argument is AGAINST the Lutheran position. Read the argument here: http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160569

    It would be also wrong to argue that celebacy is biologically/biblically/physically available to any man, including homosexual ones. Short of a miracle. which means miracle in the most literal sense. Which means never.

    Homosexuals are never to engage in homosexual acts, period.

    Ok. Agreed! But this is not in this text. We would need to turn to another text for that. Right?

    An appeal to the Lutheran Confessions as they discuss monastic celibacy is the height of absurdity.

    What is it you think I am “appealing “for? What is it that is absurd. You just like to write that word?

    Everyone sees…through …your … faux flattery.
    Repent and turn from your sin and your sinful errors.

    There is no flattery Pastor McCain. There is sincere and grateful deference to you as a gift to our church. What is it you are asking me to repent of? I will do so.

  • aletheist

    fws@235:

    I would love to lay out your two propositions in the form of Holy Scripture rather than a serious of logically deductive or inductive questions.

    Sometimes it is clearer and more helpful to express doctrine that is perfectly Scriptural in summary statements like the ones I posted than to quote directly from the Bible. After all, this is precisely what is done in the Confessions in many cases. That said, the simplest way for me to comply with your request is as follows.

    (a) “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) This is the direct institution by God of marriage as the union of one man and one woman (“a man” and “his wife” are both singular), which Jesus explicitly affirmed (Matthew 19:3-6). Any other arrangement is not marriage as ordained by God.

    (b) “You shall not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14) I trust that I do not have to defend the inclusion of fornication within the broad definition of adultery, such that it encompasses any sexual relations with someone to whom one is not married. In light of (a), that includes any sexual relations between two men or two women.

  • aletheist

    fws@235:

    I would love to lay out your two propositions in the form of Holy Scripture rather than a serious of logically deductive or inductive questions.

    Sometimes it is clearer and more helpful to express doctrine that is perfectly Scriptural in summary statements like the ones I posted than to quote directly from the Bible. After all, this is precisely what is done in the Confessions in many cases. That said, the simplest way for me to comply with your request is as follows.

    (a) “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) This is the direct institution by God of marriage as the union of one man and one woman (“a man” and “his wife” are both singular), which Jesus explicitly affirmed (Matthew 19:3-6). Any other arrangement is not marriage as ordained by God.

    (b) “You shall not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14) I trust that I do not have to defend the inclusion of fornication within the broad definition of adultery, such that it encompasses any sexual relations with someone to whom one is not married. In light of (a), that includes any sexual relations between two men or two women.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 250

    Where does it say in Scripture or the Confessions that celibacy is not a feasible option?

    I hope you are not offended at this question Aletheist:
    Is that a sincere question or a rhetorical one?

    6] Nor is it in man’s power, without a singular gift and work of God,… [for man to be celebate]. For it is patently obvious, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt [at self chosen celibacy] ), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end. ….

    Moreover, many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity.

    18] But while the commandment of God is in force, while the custom of the Church is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more cruelty exercised , etc…..

    Would you like more Aletheist. Check out the Large Catechism 6th commandment. And the Apology art XXIII as well. Those places also confess that it is obvious that celebacy is both a biological and biblical impossibiity.

    Show me , from the text, that I am wrong Aletheist.
    Or just blow me, and the text, off.
    Your choice.

    http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article23.1

  • fws

    Altheist @ 250

    Where does it say in Scripture or the Confessions that celibacy is not a feasible option?

    I hope you are not offended at this question Aletheist:
    Is that a sincere question or a rhetorical one?

    6] Nor is it in man’s power, without a singular gift and work of God,… [for man to be celebate]. For it is patently obvious, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt [at self chosen celibacy] ), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end. ….

    Moreover, many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity.

    18] But while the commandment of God is in force, while the custom of the Church is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more cruelty exercised , etc…..

    Would you like more Aletheist. Check out the Large Catechism 6th commandment. And the Apology art XXIII as well. Those places also confess that it is obvious that celebacy is both a biological and biblical impossibiity.

    Show me , from the text, that I am wrong Aletheist.
    Or just blow me, and the text, off.
    Your choice.

    http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article23.1

  • aletheist

    fws@252:

    It would be also wrong to argue that celebacy is biologically/biblically/physically available to any man, including homosexual ones. Short of a miracle. which means miracle in the most literal sense. Which means never.

    I see at least two problems with this statement:

    1. It is unbiblical. Some men do have the gift of celibacy, and apparently Paul was one of them. “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:7-9) Evidently Paul was able to “exercise self-control” and thus did not need to marry.

    2. It is false. Just because something requires a “miracle in the most literal sense” does not entail that it “never” happens. This is the point that I was trying to make by drawing the parallel between celibacy (in particular) and righteousness (in general). Our justification before God is a “miracle in the most literal sense.” If God can (and does) forgive a sinner like me, He can surely bestow celibacy upon a gay man. “With man it is impossible, but not with God . For all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:27)

  • aletheist

    fws@252:

    It would be also wrong to argue that celebacy is biologically/biblically/physically available to any man, including homosexual ones. Short of a miracle. which means miracle in the most literal sense. Which means never.

    I see at least two problems with this statement:

    1. It is unbiblical. Some men do have the gift of celibacy, and apparently Paul was one of them. “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:7-9) Evidently Paul was able to “exercise self-control” and thus did not need to marry.

    2. It is false. Just because something requires a “miracle in the most literal sense” does not entail that it “never” happens. This is the point that I was trying to make by drawing the parallel between celibacy (in particular) and righteousness (in general). Our justification before God is a “miracle in the most literal sense.” If God can (and does) forgive a sinner like me, He can surely bestow celibacy upon a gay man. “With man it is impossible, but not with God . For all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:27)

  • fws

    Kerner @ 251

    I see the distinction,

    Tell me more.

    but for the purposes of YOUR argument it is a distinction without a difference.

    Why if my argument IS the one that I am asking you to tell me more about? Exactly so?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 251

    I see the distinction,

    Tell me more.

    but for the purposes of YOUR argument it is a distinction without a difference.

    Why if my argument IS the one that I am asking you to tell me more about? Exactly so?

  • fws

    altheist @ 256

    I assumed you were a Confessional Lutheran.
    I apologize for making that assumption.

    The argument you disagree with is in the text or the Augsburg Confession and it´s Apology.
    I am not the one making that argument am I?

  • fws

    altheist @ 256

    I assumed you were a Confessional Lutheran.
    I apologize for making that assumption.

    The argument you disagree with is in the text or the Augsburg Confession and it´s Apology.
    I am not the one making that argument am I?

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 256

    So then you would align yourself with the Roman Catholics in their Confutation of the Augsburg Confessions against the Lutherans.
    Ok.

    You have exactly stated their argument.
    Here I have posted it:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160569

    You can find the full text for the Roman Confutation at Mc Cain´s excellent site:

    http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    Ok. So I am Lutheran and you are not . New information.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 256

    So then you would align yourself with the Roman Catholics in their Confutation of the Augsburg Confessions against the Lutherans.
    Ok.

    You have exactly stated their argument.
    Here I have posted it:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160569

    You can find the full text for the Roman Confutation at Mc Cain´s excellent site:

    http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    Ok. So I am Lutheran and you are not . New information.

  • fws

    Dust @ 249

    What you would agree or disagree with is whether or not I am fairly proposing and representing what the text of the Lutheran Confessions say, or not.

    Altheist is now saying he disagrees with what the text confesses and asserts that Holy Scripture says.

    He has exactly restated the argument presented for celebacy as a viable option to marriage that is found in the Roman Confutation of the Augsburg Confession that is answered, in turn by the Apology to the Augsburg Confession in Art XXIII

  • fws

    Dust @ 249

    What you would agree or disagree with is whether or not I am fairly proposing and representing what the text of the Lutheran Confessions say, or not.

    Altheist is now saying he disagrees with what the text confesses and asserts that Holy Scripture says.

    He has exactly restated the argument presented for celebacy as a viable option to marriage that is found in the Roman Confutation of the Augsburg Confession that is answered, in turn by the Apology to the Augsburg Confession in Art XXIII

  • fws

    Kerner @ 251

    Keep in mind that I make NO distinction between the morality Christians can know and do and that a pagan can know and do.
    I assert that this is a bright line difference between Thomism (Roman Confutation) and the Apology.

    Romans 2:15
    There is no “higher” or “spiritual” morality for christians or NT purity code that would not apply to those outside the church. Not even the status of women. If women can be over men outside the church then they can be pastors as well. If not, then not. Like that.

    There is , alone, faith that hides all we can do in the Works of Another.

    Read this for more on that:

    http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/LutherMoses.htm

    This is the theological underpinning for all we are discussing Kerner in ALL of it´s many contexts.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 251

    Keep in mind that I make NO distinction between the morality Christians can know and do and that a pagan can know and do.
    I assert that this is a bright line difference between Thomism (Roman Confutation) and the Apology.

    Romans 2:15
    There is no “higher” or “spiritual” morality for christians or NT purity code that would not apply to those outside the church. Not even the status of women. If women can be over men outside the church then they can be pastors as well. If not, then not. Like that.

    There is , alone, faith that hides all we can do in the Works of Another.

    Read this for more on that:

    http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/LutherMoses.htm

    This is the theological underpinning for all we are discussing Kerner in ALL of it´s many contexts.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 251

    I assume, because sex between an adult and a child is suficiently sinful, you are prepared to say that we CAN tell a pedophile that he must learn to change his sexual desires or be celebate?

    I am saying that a civil court and the church should look at this, and practically deal with the social ramifications and how it affects others in exactly the same way Kerner.

    So the level of sinfulness is irrelevant. I can´t see any court caring about that. What IS it that would guide their judgement? What WOULD matter to them.

    Ditto that for the goverment called Church that is about maintaining order among the Old Adams that populate it so that there is no distraction from their unitary mission of creating that ONE kind of Righteousness that cannot be done by our reason or strength , not even imperfectly or inchoately so.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 251

    I assume, because sex between an adult and a child is suficiently sinful, you are prepared to say that we CAN tell a pedophile that he must learn to change his sexual desires or be celebate?

    I am saying that a civil court and the church should look at this, and practically deal with the social ramifications and how it affects others in exactly the same way Kerner.

    So the level of sinfulness is irrelevant. I can´t see any court caring about that. What IS it that would guide their judgement? What WOULD matter to them.

    Ditto that for the goverment called Church that is about maintaining order among the Old Adams that populate it so that there is no distraction from their unitary mission of creating that ONE kind of Righteousness that cannot be done by our reason or strength , not even imperfectly or inchoately so.

  • aletheist

    fws@254:

    Nor is it in man’s power, without a singular gift and work of God,… [for man to be celebate].

    That is not what the text of AC XXIII.6 actually says. “Nor is it in man’s power, without a singular gift and work of God, to alter this creation.” (emphasis added) What creation? The previous sentence tells us. “Christ says, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, where He teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life; for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28.” (AC XXIII.5)

    Rephrased: God created man for procreation, and it is not in man’s power to alter this; so not all men are fit to lead a single life. But Christ did not say, “No men are fit to lead a single life.” Some men are fit to lead a single life, and Paul was one of them. God always provides a way of escape from temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13), so if same-sex marriage is not an option for a gay man or woman–see my #253–and marriage to a member of the opposite sex is not viable either, then abstaining from sexual relations is the alternative that God has provided. “When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

    Show me, from the text, that I am wrong Aletheist. Or just blow me, and the text, off. Your choice.

    This seems a bit uncharitable. I have quoted Scripture and the Confessions in several comments now. I became sympathetic to your position and decided to enter the conversation when I realized the difficult choice that you face as someone who acknowledges that homosexual relations are wrong and sinful, yet feels incapable of remaining celibate. The fact is, you are incapable–by your own reason or strength. However, God is more than capable.

    So the point here is not for me to beat you over the head and tell you that you have to stop yourself from sinning. That would be wrong and sinful on my part, not to mention hypocritical! If you acknowledge that you are a sinner, the Law has done its work, and I am obligated to move on to the Gospel: Your sins are forgiven! “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:22-25)

  • aletheist

    fws@254:

    Nor is it in man’s power, without a singular gift and work of God,… [for man to be celebate].

    That is not what the text of AC XXIII.6 actually says. “Nor is it in man’s power, without a singular gift and work of God, to alter this creation.” (emphasis added) What creation? The previous sentence tells us. “Christ says, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, where He teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life; for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28.” (AC XXIII.5)

    Rephrased: God created man for procreation, and it is not in man’s power to alter this; so not all men are fit to lead a single life. But Christ did not say, “No men are fit to lead a single life.” Some men are fit to lead a single life, and Paul was one of them. God always provides a way of escape from temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13), so if same-sex marriage is not an option for a gay man or woman–see my #253–and marriage to a member of the opposite sex is not viable either, then abstaining from sexual relations is the alternative that God has provided. “When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

    Show me, from the text, that I am wrong Aletheist. Or just blow me, and the text, off. Your choice.

    This seems a bit uncharitable. I have quoted Scripture and the Confessions in several comments now. I became sympathetic to your position and decided to enter the conversation when I realized the difficult choice that you face as someone who acknowledges that homosexual relations are wrong and sinful, yet feels incapable of remaining celibate. The fact is, you are incapable–by your own reason or strength. However, God is more than capable.

    So the point here is not for me to beat you over the head and tell you that you have to stop yourself from sinning. That would be wrong and sinful on my part, not to mention hypocritical! If you acknowledge that you are a sinner, the Law has done its work, and I am obligated to move on to the Gospel: Your sins are forgiven! “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:22-25)

  • fws

    Aleheist @ 263

    That is not what the text of AC XXIII.6 actually says. </blockquote.

    You mean to say that I altered the literal text.
    The text actually DOES say exactly what I said is says as to substance and argumentative point and purpose.
    You don't agree with what the text says as to its argumentative point.
    You agree with the Roman Confutation.
    You agree with the other side's arguments.

    Lets be clear on that.

    The Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and the Large catechism 6th commandment ALL say that celebacy is impossible for men to do short of a miracle. THEREFORE All men are commanded to marry. And they say it is unbiblical to demand it.

    Those documents do NOT say this: celebacy is an option for some or most people if they chose it and pray for it because all things are possible in faith, or , optionally, they can chose to be married. Show me that in the text! This line of thinking IS in the Roman Confutation.

    I became sympathetic to your position and decided to enter the conversation when I realized the difficult choice …

    To give simple respect is always better than to dole out pity.

    And for McCain to say that this ONLY applies to priests and no other males telling me it is “absurd” to assert otherwise I still do not get.

  • fws

    Aleheist @ 263

    That is not what the text of AC XXIII.6 actually says. </blockquote.

    You mean to say that I altered the literal text.
    The text actually DOES say exactly what I said is says as to substance and argumentative point and purpose.
    You don't agree with what the text says as to its argumentative point.
    You agree with the Roman Confutation.
    You agree with the other side's arguments.

    Lets be clear on that.

    The Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and the Large catechism 6th commandment ALL say that celebacy is impossible for men to do short of a miracle. THEREFORE All men are commanded to marry. And they say it is unbiblical to demand it.

    Those documents do NOT say this: celebacy is an option for some or most people if they chose it and pray for it because all things are possible in faith, or , optionally, they can chose to be married. Show me that in the text! This line of thinking IS in the Roman Confutation.

    I became sympathetic to your position and decided to enter the conversation when I realized the difficult choice …

    To give simple respect is always better than to dole out pity.

    And for McCain to say that this ONLY applies to priests and no other males telling me it is “absurd” to assert otherwise I still do not get.

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

    Frank continues to spout nonsense.

    The Lutheran Confessions do not, in a million years, every justify the idea homosexuals should engage in homosexual activity. Period.

    The “celibacy” they refer to pertains only to men and women who, if they do not have this gift, should marry.

    Frank, your opinions are baseless and plainly foolish.

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

    Frank continues to spout nonsense.

    The Lutheran Confessions do not, in a million years, every justify the idea homosexuals should engage in homosexual activity. Period.

    The “celibacy” they refer to pertains only to men and women who, if they do not have this gift, should marry.

    Frank, your opinions are baseless and plainly foolish.

  • aletheist

    fws@257-258: I am not going to bother defending my Lutheran bona fides. Suffice it to say that the argument you are making is not the one that the Confessions made (see #262), and the argument I am making is not the one that the Confutation made.

    What do you do with the words of Jesus and the example of Paul? Do you deny, contrary to AC XXIII.5-6, that it is possible for “a singular gift and work of God” to be bestowed on some men, such that they can and do remain celibate? Do you deny, contrary to 1 Corinthians 10:13, that God always provides a way of escape from temptation? It grieves me, dear brother, that you seem to be so dismissive of the truth that I am speaking to you in love here.

  • aletheist

    fws@257-258: I am not going to bother defending my Lutheran bona fides. Suffice it to say that the argument you are making is not the one that the Confessions made (see #262), and the argument I am making is not the one that the Confutation made.

    What do you do with the words of Jesus and the example of Paul? Do you deny, contrary to AC XXIII.5-6, that it is possible for “a singular gift and work of God” to be bestowed on some men, such that they can and do remain celibate? Do you deny, contrary to 1 Corinthians 10:13, that God always provides a way of escape from temptation? It grieves me, dear brother, that you seem to be so dismissive of the truth that I am speaking to you in love here.

  • helen

    If “celibacy is a biological and Biblical impossibility” why does Christ say that it is a gift to some men, “for the sake of the Kingdom”?
    And why does the Book of Concord echo Him in two places, saying that [voluntary] celibacy is a more preferred state than marriage, for those who choose it?

    What about the unmarried and the widows to whom Paul recommends remaining single?
    If it were impossible, would he do that? From all accounts, Paul was a single man himself.

    Teenagers can manage to restrain their “raging hormones” when they are taught it is the right thing to do, just as most of them avoid stealing, committing murder, fraudulently obtaining their neighbors’ property and abusing their own bodies by doing drugs or using alcohol to excess. [As do most adults!]

    None of this is impossible since the majority of them are not/have never been in jail!

  • helen

    If “celibacy is a biological and Biblical impossibility” why does Christ say that it is a gift to some men, “for the sake of the Kingdom”?
    And why does the Book of Concord echo Him in two places, saying that [voluntary] celibacy is a more preferred state than marriage, for those who choose it?

    What about the unmarried and the widows to whom Paul recommends remaining single?
    If it were impossible, would he do that? From all accounts, Paul was a single man himself.

    Teenagers can manage to restrain their “raging hormones” when they are taught it is the right thing to do, just as most of them avoid stealing, committing murder, fraudulently obtaining their neighbors’ property and abusing their own bodies by doing drugs or using alcohol to excess. [As do most adults!]

    None of this is impossible since the majority of them are not/have never been in jail!

  • fws

    aletheist

    if …. marriage is not an option…abstaining from sexual relations is the alternative that God has provided.

    Yes. I took the part about gay out. You are making a logical argument, not a scriptural or Confessional one.

    There would be nothing at all the matter with that, except for the sort of inconvenient fact that the Confessions , claiming that what they say IS what scriptures say, state that celebacy is impossible for priests to do.

    You state, nearly exactly, the logical position of the Roman Catholic Church.
    I do not deny the logic.
    It means that you reject the central argument art XXIII of the Augustana and Apology.

  • fws

    aletheist

    if …. marriage is not an option…abstaining from sexual relations is the alternative that God has provided.

    Yes. I took the part about gay out. You are making a logical argument, not a scriptural or Confessional one.

    There would be nothing at all the matter with that, except for the sort of inconvenient fact that the Confessions , claiming that what they say IS what scriptures say, state that celebacy is impossible for priests to do.

    You state, nearly exactly, the logical position of the Roman Catholic Church.
    I do not deny the logic.
    It means that you reject the central argument art XXIII of the Augustana and Apology.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 266

    The argument of the Augustana Art XXIII in a nutshell.

    St Paul commands ALL men to marry.
    Why:
    Celebacy is impossible for men to do short of a miracle.

    In this article you agree with Rome and disagree with the Augsburg Confession. This is not a lack of charity to say this.
    It is just what it is.
    Why the need to accuse me of lack of charity here?
    You just flat out disagree on this point with our Confessions.,
    I really didnt know whether you were Lutheran or not.
    You say you are. I accept that.
    I was not meaning to be snyde or snarky or disrespectful Aletheist.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 266

    The argument of the Augustana Art XXIII in a nutshell.

    St Paul commands ALL men to marry.
    Why:
    Celebacy is impossible for men to do short of a miracle.

    In this article you agree with Rome and disagree with the Augsburg Confession. This is not a lack of charity to say this.
    It is just what it is.
    Why the need to accuse me of lack of charity here?
    You just flat out disagree on this point with our Confessions.,
    I really didnt know whether you were Lutheran or not.
    You say you are. I accept that.
    I was not meaning to be snyde or snarky or disrespectful Aletheist.

  • aletheist

    fws@263: No, I agree with Scripture and the Confessions; I acknowledge that “celibacy is impossible for men to do short of a miracle.” Where we apparently disagree is on whether God ever performs the necessary miracle that enables a man to remain celibate. Where in Scripture or the Confessions does it say that this never happens? On the contrary, it evidently happened to Paul, and Jesus Himself affirmed that it happens.

    The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:10-12)

    Are you “one who is able to receive this”? You have not commented on my #253, but I presume that you acknowledge that marriage as ordained by God is only between one man and one woman, and that any sexual relations outside of marriage (including all homosexual relations) are wrong and sinful. So a gay man cannot marry another man, and he cannot have sexual relations with another man. What should he do?

    I submit that this is the wrong question. It is like asking, “What must I do to be saved?” There is nothing that he can do, only what God can do. A gay man confesses his sins and receives God’s forgiveness and grace just like the rest of us. Can we agree on that much, dear brother?

  • aletheist

    fws@263: No, I agree with Scripture and the Confessions; I acknowledge that “celibacy is impossible for men to do short of a miracle.” Where we apparently disagree is on whether God ever performs the necessary miracle that enables a man to remain celibate. Where in Scripture or the Confessions does it say that this never happens? On the contrary, it evidently happened to Paul, and Jesus Himself affirmed that it happens.

    The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:10-12)

    Are you “one who is able to receive this”? You have not commented on my #253, but I presume that you acknowledge that marriage as ordained by God is only between one man and one woman, and that any sexual relations outside of marriage (including all homosexual relations) are wrong and sinful. So a gay man cannot marry another man, and he cannot have sexual relations with another man. What should he do?

    I submit that this is the wrong question. It is like asking, “What must I do to be saved?” There is nothing that he can do, only what God can do. A gay man confesses his sins and receives God’s forgiveness and grace just like the rest of us. Can we agree on that much, dear brother?

  • fws

    Helen @ 267

    I didn’t bother to go to the Apology or the large catechism in the 6th commandment.

    What is your argument here Helen?
    Is it that I am
    a)misrepresenting the argument of Augustana art XXIII or
    b) that you disagree with our confessions on this point because it is contrary to scripture and the example of St Paul . or…
    c)your experience with 15 year olds and your common sense has you disagreeing with our confessions on this single point? or…
    d) ???

    Or try it this way: Why was it wrong for the Church to simply make a rule that pastors were not to be married. Why is that wrong?

    I would encourage you to go to http://www.bookofconcord.org
    1) Read the Augsburg Confession. Then…
    2) Read the Roman Catholic argument AGAINST the Augsburg Confession on this article. Note that they raise your very objections!
    3) The read the Apology art XXIII.
    4) Then , for good measure, read the Large Catechism 4th and 6th commandment that the Apology was largely based upon.

    It is not that long a read actually.

    THEN tell us where you stand on all this sister.

  • fws

    Helen @ 267

    I didn’t bother to go to the Apology or the large catechism in the 6th commandment.

    What is your argument here Helen?
    Is it that I am
    a)misrepresenting the argument of Augustana art XXIII or
    b) that you disagree with our confessions on this point because it is contrary to scripture and the example of St Paul . or…
    c)your experience with 15 year olds and your common sense has you disagreeing with our confessions on this single point? or…
    d) ???

    Or try it this way: Why was it wrong for the Church to simply make a rule that pastors were not to be married. Why is that wrong?

    I would encourage you to go to http://www.bookofconcord.org
    1) Read the Augsburg Confession. Then…
    2) Read the Roman Catholic argument AGAINST the Augsburg Confession on this article. Note that they raise your very objections!
    3) The read the Apology art XXIII.
    4) Then , for good measure, read the Large Catechism 4th and 6th commandment that the Apology was largely based upon.

    It is not that long a read actually.

    THEN tell us where you stand on all this sister.

  • aletheist

    fws@263:

    To give simple respect is always better than to dole out pity.

    I have tried to be very respectful throughout this exchange. If I have fallen short, I sincerely apologize. I have not sought to offer you pity; the word I used was “sympathetic,” as in, I felt like I understood (in a new way) where you were coming from. In any case, our Lord calls us to be compassionate, and you asked many comments ago that we all show mercy. I have tried to do this, as well. Again, if I have fallen short, I sincerely apologize.

  • aletheist

    fws@263:

    To give simple respect is always better than to dole out pity.

    I have tried to be very respectful throughout this exchange. If I have fallen short, I sincerely apologize. I have not sought to offer you pity; the word I used was “sympathetic,” as in, I felt like I understood (in a new way) where you were coming from. In any case, our Lord calls us to be compassionate, and you asked many comments ago that we all show mercy. I have tried to do this, as well. Again, if I have fallen short, I sincerely apologize.

  • kerner

    fws:

    Is it possible for a pedophile to be celibate? If not, what should he/she do?

  • kerner

    fws:

    Is it possible for a pedophile to be celibate? If not, what should he/she do?

  • Grace

    fws, lives for this sort of attention, no matter how un-Biblical, he powers the homosexual agenda, to what he hopes will be the finish line. That’s what the world loves, a so called Believer who hails homosexuality as “not a sin” – or who compares it to eating to much.

    I’m glad there are men like Rev. McCain who stand their ground knowing full well that what fws spouts is against God’s Word.

    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

    3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

    4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    2 Corinthians 4

    Read the passage below carefully:

    18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

    19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

    20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
    1 Corinthians 6

  • Grace

    fws, lives for this sort of attention, no matter how un-Biblical, he powers the homosexual agenda, to what he hopes will be the finish line. That’s what the world loves, a so called Believer who hails homosexuality as “not a sin” – or who compares it to eating to much.

    I’m glad there are men like Rev. McCain who stand their ground knowing full well that what fws spouts is against God’s Word.

    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

    3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

    4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    2 Corinthians 4

    Read the passage below carefully:

    18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

    19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

    20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
    1 Corinthians 6

  • kerner

    I can think of only 3 options for a pedophiler:

    1) Have the kind of sex he wants

    2) be celibate

    3) Try to redirect his sex drive and marry an adult woman

    What advice should the Church give him?

  • kerner

    I can think of only 3 options for a pedophiler:

    1) Have the kind of sex he wants

    2) be celibate

    3) Try to redirect his sex drive and marry an adult woman

    What advice should the Church give him?

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 272

    YOU WROTE: “Is it possible for a pedophile to be celibate? If not, what should he/she do?”

    I pedophile must first realize that their lust is evil and wrong, they must want to please God, and repent. God promises us an ESCAPE when we are tempted.

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

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 272

    YOU WROTE: “Is it possible for a pedophile to be celibate? If not, what should he/she do?”

    I pedophile must first realize that their lust is evil and wrong, they must want to please God, and repent. God promises us an ESCAPE when we are tempted.

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

  • Grace

    275 should read:

    A pedophile must first realize that their lust is evil and wrong, they must want to please God, and repent. God promises us an ESCAPE when we are tempted.

  • Grace

    275 should read:

    A pedophile must first realize that their lust is evil and wrong, they must want to please God, and repent. God promises us an ESCAPE when we are tempted.

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    I don’t know about some of the sins such as pedophilia and homosexuality. I’m beginning to believe that what is spoken of in Romans 1, (Reprobate mind) is something most of us don’t want to face, with those we know who have been deep into sexual sin, and then proclaim that it really isn’t sinful.

    I’ve had some very interesting conversations lately about these sexual sins – if their conscience no longer haunts them, if they then begin to expouse their behavior as non-sinful, it most likely is a “reprobate mind” –

    We cannot change God’s Word, nor can we ignore what the Bible states as the situation such a person ends up with.

    God doesn’t lie!

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    I don’t know about some of the sins such as pedophilia and homosexuality. I’m beginning to believe that what is spoken of in Romans 1, (Reprobate mind) is something most of us don’t want to face, with those we know who have been deep into sexual sin, and then proclaim that it really isn’t sinful.

    I’ve had some very interesting conversations lately about these sexual sins – if their conscience no longer haunts them, if they then begin to expouse their behavior as non-sinful, it most likely is a “reprobate mind” –

    We cannot change God’s Word, nor can we ignore what the Bible states as the situation such a person ends up with.

    God doesn’t lie!

  • fws

    Altheist @ 270

    No, I agree with Scripture and the Confessions; I acknowledge that “celibacy is impossible for men to do short of a miracle.”

    Cool.

    Where we apparently disagree is on…

    This is not about our agreeing or not. What is it that the text says?!

    ….whether God ever performs the necessary miracle that enables a man to remain celibate. …. it evidently happened to Paul,…..

    You just left the text. How does the text mean the word “miracle”. It does not actually use the word miracle does it? But the point is that it never happens. as in “it will be a miracle if I win the lottery or the publishers clearing house sweepstakes”. Not as in NEVER. As in, for-for-all-practical-purposes-lightening-doesnt-strike-twice-in-the-same-place … never.

    and Jesus Himself affirmed that it happens. Matt 19

    Did you see that the text we are discussion actually deals with matt 19? What does it say?

    14] Thirdly, Paul says, 1 Cor. 7:2: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to all who are not fit for celibacy. 15] The adversaries ask that a commandment be shown them which commands priests to marry. As though priests are not men! We judge indeed that the things which we maintain concerning human nature in general pertain also to priests.

    May I also assume that the things, such as having a sex drive, which pertain to human nature also applies to gays?

    16] Does not Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry? For he interprets himself a little after when he says, 7:9: It is better to marry than to burn.

    And Christ has clearly said, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
    Because now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two things concur, namely, natural appetite and concupiscence, which inflames the natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage than in nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as a remedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry.

    The command to a teen that cant keep it in his pants is not to attempt celebacy but rather to get married Aletheist. So this is confessional advice versus what Baptist do asking youth to take a pledge.

    Neither can any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration: It is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove the nature or concupiscence. 17] Therefore all who burn, retain the right to marry.
    By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep themselves continent;
    the decision concerning which pertains to the conscience of each one.

    18] For as they here give the command to seek continence of God, and to weaken the body by labors and hunger, why do they not proclaim these magnificent commandments to themselves? But, as we have said above, the adversaries are only playing; they are doing nothing seriously.

    Here is what they mean by miracle Aletheist:

    19] If continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar gift. But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift; therefore it does not belong to all.

    Celebacy is a gift. It is not a decision we can make they are saying. You have the gift or you do not. And they say that the gift is miraculously rare.

    God wishes the rest to use the common law of nature which He has instituted. For God does not wish His ordinances, His creations to be despised. He wishes men to be chaste in this way, that they use the remedy divinely presented, just as He wishes to nourish our life in this way, 20] that we use food and drink.

    Ok. Your next question:

    You have not commented on my #253, but I presume that you acknowledge that marriage as ordained by God is only between one man and one woman, and that any sexual relations outside of marriage (including all homosexual relations) are wrong and sinful.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160621 This should be more emphatic than even a simple yes or no. But apparently for Pastor Mc Cain… not! WHY IS THAT? http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160635

    May I feel just a big frustrated with Pastor Mc Cain just now?

    So a gay man cannot marry another man, and he cannot have sexual relations with another man. What should he do?

    We used to forbid divorcees to remarry as recently as around 1950. This was the universal position of the church. No one disputes that. A divorced person still has a sex drive. Should we tell them to pray for the gift of celebacy? Or allow them to remarry? If they DO remarry and they are the “guilty party” then what do we do about that? tell them they are committing adulterly and to put away their new spouse (and new kids?)

    I am saying this: I don’t know. I was hoping YOU would know Aletheist! Since 2-10 percent of christians face this issue it matters . In a church of 300 persons, we should expect , statistically, that 6 to 30 will be gay. Or rather…. will be till they quietly drop out of church just after confirmation since they know they are not really welcome…..

    I submit that this is the wrong question. It is like asking, “What must I do to be saved?” There is nothing that he can do, only what God can do. A gay man confesses his sins and receives God’s forgiveness and grace just like the rest of us. Can we agree on that much, dear brother?

    Yes. Aletheist. I am actually not sure I entirely agree with our Confessions on this point. Call me a “quis” Lutheran if you will. I also dont think garlic will demagnetize or that Mary didnt give Joseph any nookie after Jesus was born. I disagree with Luther there and probably Franz Pieper as well. And our Confessions.

    And I disagree based upon what authority? Gasp. Experience. I note that different folks have a different level of sex drive. Its true. Some folks are simply uninterested in sex. They have the gift of celebacy! Some are horny beyond belief. Maybe the Lutheran Confessors fit into that category. then there is everyone in between. Maybe some dont quite have the “gift” but close enough. Like some men and women have weak gay tendencies so those tendencies look really very much like a behavioral compulsive issue. They can exercise the same discipline that a smoker does to stop smoking and … presto.

    The mistake is to do this: ***I*** could do it so you can too!!!! That is cruel, and wrong. Or St Paul is proof that YOU too can do it! Also wrong. Or joe CANT do it. So neither can you.

    I always encourage gay youth to strive with all their might for celebacy? Why? so they avoid hell? Of course not. So life will be easier for them and less painful. If that doesnt work, I might encourage him to try to date girls. AND BE VERY HONEST. How do they know where they land in the spectrum between gay and straight if they dont at least try. No I am not telling them to go get laid. Being gay or not is about the emotional part and sex springs from there.

    If none of that works, then …what? You tell me? Encourage him to lie? Youngsters CRAVE approval. “Just dont” usually doesnt work out too well. So what? We turn them away from church unless they manifest an appropriate level of shame and self loathing? You tell me?

  • fws

    Altheist @ 270

    No, I agree with Scripture and the Confessions; I acknowledge that “celibacy is impossible for men to do short of a miracle.”

    Cool.

    Where we apparently disagree is on…

    This is not about our agreeing or not. What is it that the text says?!

    ….whether God ever performs the necessary miracle that enables a man to remain celibate. …. it evidently happened to Paul,…..

    You just left the text. How does the text mean the word “miracle”. It does not actually use the word miracle does it? But the point is that it never happens. as in “it will be a miracle if I win the lottery or the publishers clearing house sweepstakes”. Not as in NEVER. As in, for-for-all-practical-purposes-lightening-doesnt-strike-twice-in-the-same-place … never.

    and Jesus Himself affirmed that it happens. Matt 19

    Did you see that the text we are discussion actually deals with matt 19? What does it say?

    14] Thirdly, Paul says, 1 Cor. 7:2: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to all who are not fit for celibacy. 15] The adversaries ask that a commandment be shown them which commands priests to marry. As though priests are not men! We judge indeed that the things which we maintain concerning human nature in general pertain also to priests.

    May I also assume that the things, such as having a sex drive, which pertain to human nature also applies to gays?

    16] Does not Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry? For he interprets himself a little after when he says, 7:9: It is better to marry than to burn.

    And Christ has clearly said, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
    Because now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two things concur, namely, natural appetite and concupiscence, which inflames the natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage than in nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as a remedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry.

    The command to a teen that cant keep it in his pants is not to attempt celebacy but rather to get married Aletheist. So this is confessional advice versus what Baptist do asking youth to take a pledge.

    Neither can any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration: It is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove the nature or concupiscence. 17] Therefore all who burn, retain the right to marry.
    By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep themselves continent;
    the decision concerning which pertains to the conscience of each one.

    18] For as they here give the command to seek continence of God, and to weaken the body by labors and hunger, why do they not proclaim these magnificent commandments to themselves? But, as we have said above, the adversaries are only playing; they are doing nothing seriously.

    Here is what they mean by miracle Aletheist:

    19] If continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar gift. But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift; therefore it does not belong to all.

    Celebacy is a gift. It is not a decision we can make they are saying. You have the gift or you do not. And they say that the gift is miraculously rare.

    God wishes the rest to use the common law of nature which He has instituted. For God does not wish His ordinances, His creations to be despised. He wishes men to be chaste in this way, that they use the remedy divinely presented, just as He wishes to nourish our life in this way, 20] that we use food and drink.

    Ok. Your next question:

    You have not commented on my #253, but I presume that you acknowledge that marriage as ordained by God is only between one man and one woman, and that any sexual relations outside of marriage (including all homosexual relations) are wrong and sinful.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160621 This should be more emphatic than even a simple yes or no. But apparently for Pastor Mc Cain… not! WHY IS THAT? http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160635

    May I feel just a big frustrated with Pastor Mc Cain just now?

    So a gay man cannot marry another man, and he cannot have sexual relations with another man. What should he do?

    We used to forbid divorcees to remarry as recently as around 1950. This was the universal position of the church. No one disputes that. A divorced person still has a sex drive. Should we tell them to pray for the gift of celebacy? Or allow them to remarry? If they DO remarry and they are the “guilty party” then what do we do about that? tell them they are committing adulterly and to put away their new spouse (and new kids?)

    I am saying this: I don’t know. I was hoping YOU would know Aletheist! Since 2-10 percent of christians face this issue it matters . In a church of 300 persons, we should expect , statistically, that 6 to 30 will be gay. Or rather…. will be till they quietly drop out of church just after confirmation since they know they are not really welcome…..

    I submit that this is the wrong question. It is like asking, “What must I do to be saved?” There is nothing that he can do, only what God can do. A gay man confesses his sins and receives God’s forgiveness and grace just like the rest of us. Can we agree on that much, dear brother?

    Yes. Aletheist. I am actually not sure I entirely agree with our Confessions on this point. Call me a “quis” Lutheran if you will. I also dont think garlic will demagnetize or that Mary didnt give Joseph any nookie after Jesus was born. I disagree with Luther there and probably Franz Pieper as well. And our Confessions.

    And I disagree based upon what authority? Gasp. Experience. I note that different folks have a different level of sex drive. Its true. Some folks are simply uninterested in sex. They have the gift of celebacy! Some are horny beyond belief. Maybe the Lutheran Confessors fit into that category. then there is everyone in between. Maybe some dont quite have the “gift” but close enough. Like some men and women have weak gay tendencies so those tendencies look really very much like a behavioral compulsive issue. They can exercise the same discipline that a smoker does to stop smoking and … presto.

    The mistake is to do this: ***I*** could do it so you can too!!!! That is cruel, and wrong. Or St Paul is proof that YOU too can do it! Also wrong. Or joe CANT do it. So neither can you.

    I always encourage gay youth to strive with all their might for celebacy? Why? so they avoid hell? Of course not. So life will be easier for them and less painful. If that doesnt work, I might encourage him to try to date girls. AND BE VERY HONEST. How do they know where they land in the spectrum between gay and straight if they dont at least try. No I am not telling them to go get laid. Being gay or not is about the emotional part and sex springs from there.

    If none of that works, then …what? You tell me? Encourage him to lie? Youngsters CRAVE approval. “Just dont” usually doesnt work out too well. So what? We turn them away from church unless they manifest an appropriate level of shame and self loathing? You tell me?

  • Grace

    fws @ 278

    YOU WROTE: “We used to forbid divorcees to remarry as recently as around 1950. This was the universal position of the church. No one disputes that.”

    FALSE –

    It was never forbiden to remarry if ones spouse had committed adultery, and it could be proven. If you’re talking about the RCC, that might have been the case, but those who read, study and understand the Bible know differently.

    You’re very wrong, but of course you’re trying to build a case, for dates and times past to suit your position.

  • Grace

    fws @ 278

    YOU WROTE: “We used to forbid divorcees to remarry as recently as around 1950. This was the universal position of the church. No one disputes that.”

    FALSE –

    It was never forbiden to remarry if ones spouse had committed adultery, and it could be proven. If you’re talking about the RCC, that might have been the case, but those who read, study and understand the Bible know differently.

    You’re very wrong, but of course you’re trying to build a case, for dates and times past to suit your position.

  • Grace

    fws,

    You CONSTANTLY spell “celibacy” as “celebacy” with an “e” as the forth letter, is this word a problem for you? It might help if you learned how to spell it correctly, using an “i” instead of and “e” – very telling!

  • Grace

    fws,

    You CONSTANTLY spell “celibacy” as “celebacy” with an “e” as the forth letter, is this word a problem for you? It might help if you learned how to spell it correctly, using an “i” instead of and “e” – very telling!

  • fws

    Kerner @ 273 and 275

    What is it that is unsatisfactory to you about my response @ 251, 261 and especially 262?

    Again, what is the difference between sex between two consenting adults and sex between a 3 year old and a pedophile?

    What is the difference between the sexual urges you have with your spouse and the urges that a substance abuser or rapist or pedophile has?

    What is the difference between you getting into your car and driving off, and someone else, whom you don’t know, getting into your car, without your permission, and doing the same thing (and they are not repossessing your car or the popo legal eagle….)?

    If you dont know the difference what point is there for further discussion Kerner?

    What is the church to judge on such matters? they should use the same basis that a court would use to judge such matters and deal with them, in the context of the scope of their earthly vocation and authority that is……

  • fws

    Kerner @ 273 and 275

    What is it that is unsatisfactory to you about my response @ 251, 261 and especially 262?

    Again, what is the difference between sex between two consenting adults and sex between a 3 year old and a pedophile?

    What is the difference between the sexual urges you have with your spouse and the urges that a substance abuser or rapist or pedophile has?

    What is the difference between you getting into your car and driving off, and someone else, whom you don’t know, getting into your car, without your permission, and doing the same thing (and they are not repossessing your car or the popo legal eagle….)?

    If you dont know the difference what point is there for further discussion Kerner?

    What is the church to judge on such matters? they should use the same basis that a court would use to judge such matters and deal with them, in the context of the scope of their earthly vocation and authority that is……

  • Joanne

    God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

    Unt zo vee come to discussion of that “way of escape.” May I propose a fast, so that we will all equally have something to endure. Then we can each discuss how painful to us was what we endured, and the way of escape God provided for us.

    I’d like to suggest that we all observe a sexual fast for the next 12 months. You who are married will have to get permission from your wives since they will be enduring with you, and we might have more women in this discussion. Maybe the ways of escape for wemen are not so similar as they are to men.

    This certainly would even the playing field. I think it is cheating for a well fed man to taunt the starving, don’t you? And, think how humble we will all be at that time and how real and under our skin the words of Paul will be after a simple fast. Paul says he wouldn’t realize he was fasting since he is not being tempted nor desirous of the fasted thing. So, Paul can’t be part of the fast nor any other of us whom God has given the miracle of contenance.

    So, shall we all meet here in 12 months time and tell each other of the way of escape God provided for us, what we did to douse our flames. How this affected our spiritual life, feelings and praxis?

    It soulds like such fun and we’ve been needing a good fast. I can hardly wait. I do think however, that those who miss the mark, as they say, should keep a journal of each miss and how it happened that the escape failed you, if indeed any of us should fail, noting that the sexual confidence I’ve read here seems boundless.

    One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready now lets go, go, go.

  • Joanne

    God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

    Unt zo vee come to discussion of that “way of escape.” May I propose a fast, so that we will all equally have something to endure. Then we can each discuss how painful to us was what we endured, and the way of escape God provided for us.

    I’d like to suggest that we all observe a sexual fast for the next 12 months. You who are married will have to get permission from your wives since they will be enduring with you, and we might have more women in this discussion. Maybe the ways of escape for wemen are not so similar as they are to men.

    This certainly would even the playing field. I think it is cheating for a well fed man to taunt the starving, don’t you? And, think how humble we will all be at that time and how real and under our skin the words of Paul will be after a simple fast. Paul says he wouldn’t realize he was fasting since he is not being tempted nor desirous of the fasted thing. So, Paul can’t be part of the fast nor any other of us whom God has given the miracle of contenance.

    So, shall we all meet here in 12 months time and tell each other of the way of escape God provided for us, what we did to douse our flames. How this affected our spiritual life, feelings and praxis?

    It soulds like such fun and we’ve been needing a good fast. I can hardly wait. I do think however, that those who miss the mark, as they say, should keep a journal of each miss and how it happened that the escape failed you, if indeed any of us should fail, noting that the sexual confidence I’ve read here seems boundless.

    One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready now lets go, go, go.

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 282

    YOU WRITE: “I’d like to suggest that we all observe a sexual fast for the next 12 months. You who are married will have to get permission from your wives since they will be enduring with you, and we might have more women in this discussion. Maybe the ways of escape for wemen are not so similar as they are to men.”

    Your proposal is foolish and un-Biblical. Marriage is not to be tampered with by outsiders. Married sex is right in God’s eyes, for you to use this as a childish experiement is nothing short of sinful.

    Get a life!

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 282

    YOU WRITE: “I’d like to suggest that we all observe a sexual fast for the next 12 months. You who are married will have to get permission from your wives since they will be enduring with you, and we might have more women in this discussion. Maybe the ways of escape for wemen are not so similar as they are to men.”

    Your proposal is foolish and un-Biblical. Marriage is not to be tampered with by outsiders. Married sex is right in God’s eyes, for you to use this as a childish experiement is nothing short of sinful.

    Get a life!

  • kerner

    fws @281:

    So, you are saying that it is OK to tell pedophiles that they must be celibate (with all the cruelty and impossibility for them to do it that such a command entails), because they are different from you?

  • kerner

    fws @281:

    So, you are saying that it is OK to tell pedophiles that they must be celibate (with all the cruelty and impossibility for them to do it that such a command entails), because they are different from you?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 275

    I know you and consider you a friend.

    Consider this list:

    you, me…
    your wife, a whore……
    a pedophile, a homosexual….

    nothing personal Kerner. All on the list are equally sinners.

    Right? right.

    We are just very clinically and dispassionately dissecting the personal lives of people who are reading our exchanges and not commenting……

  • fws

    Kerner @ 275

    I know you and consider you a friend.

    Consider this list:

    you, me…
    your wife, a whore……
    a pedophile, a homosexual….

    nothing personal Kerner. All on the list are equally sinners.

    Right? right.

    We are just very clinically and dispassionately dissecting the personal lives of people who are reading our exchanges and not commenting……

  • fws

    Kerner @ 285

    You are joking right?
    Is this supposed to be a serious conversation?

    You think people in court wouldnt look at ya sorta funny if you there spend this sort of time teasing out the difference between a man or woman who raped a 3 year old little boy or girl vs two adult lesbians or gay men who agreed to have sex with each other?

    come on now.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 285

    You are joking right?
    Is this supposed to be a serious conversation?

    You think people in court wouldnt look at ya sorta funny if you there spend this sort of time teasing out the difference between a man or woman who raped a 3 year old little boy or girl vs two adult lesbians or gay men who agreed to have sex with each other?

    come on now.

  • Joanne

    Grace at 283. Hi Grace, I forgot you were still in this discussion. Else I would have said we’d need permission from our spouses. I apologize for being male-focused in that remark. Of course you don’t have to fast if you don’t want to, just as St. Paul warns married couples not to be over-confident in their ability to avoid sin in such fasts. So, everyone, Grace is OUT of the fast.
    To be fair Grace, you should also drop out of this discussion now since you will be a “well fed” person and in an unfair position to the rest of us, don’t you agree.

  • Joanne

    Grace at 283. Hi Grace, I forgot you were still in this discussion. Else I would have said we’d need permission from our spouses. I apologize for being male-focused in that remark. Of course you don’t have to fast if you don’t want to, just as St. Paul warns married couples not to be over-confident in their ability to avoid sin in such fasts. So, everyone, Grace is OUT of the fast.
    To be fair Grace, you should also drop out of this discussion now since you will be a “well fed” person and in an unfair position to the rest of us, don’t you agree.

  • fws

    Yes Kerner. I WOULD expect ANY court of Law , society, church or the rotary club or moose club to approach those two situations in an entirely different way.

    Do I need to draw you a diagram as to why that is? Really?

    There is a Righteousness that , Alone, is through invisible faith, alone, in Christ , alone, that we can’t do even %0.0000000000000….. to infinity of….
    This righeousness is USELESS on earth except to God and a guitly conscience. This righeousness alone is about our relationship with God and has the eternal consequence of Romans 8 Life Eternal.

    THEN there is ALL . ALL. EVERY, ALL INCLUSIVELY other forms of righteousness.

    THIS other righteousness, that we CAN do at least to some small fraction of some percent, with free will. and our reason. Romans 2:15 tells us, and Aristotle is proof of, needs NO church or Christ or Holy Spirit .

    In such matters the advice of the Church is not necessary, This righteousbness WILL happen and God WILL make it happen with the Divine Law he has place in the Reason of ALL men even where the church does not exist.
    Your situation of the rapist of 3 year olds fits right here. So does womens ordination. So does whether or not gays have sex every second or never ever.

    This second kind of righeousness is good on earth to avoid punishment, and it is intended by God alone, alone, alone, to be about having goodness and mercy (what we do not deserve as a consequence of what we have done) happen for all men, both the good and the wicked, and those who pray and those who do not. Why” Because God is good independent of the fact that none of us are. And this second kind of righeousness is USELESS in our dealings with God. It is good only between us and our neighbor. and it will all end with this life. It will all die. So it is all about death in that exact way.

    got it now Kerner?

  • fws

    Yes Kerner. I WOULD expect ANY court of Law , society, church or the rotary club or moose club to approach those two situations in an entirely different way.

    Do I need to draw you a diagram as to why that is? Really?

    There is a Righteousness that , Alone, is through invisible faith, alone, in Christ , alone, that we can’t do even %0.0000000000000….. to infinity of….
    This righeousness is USELESS on earth except to God and a guitly conscience. This righeousness alone is about our relationship with God and has the eternal consequence of Romans 8 Life Eternal.

    THEN there is ALL . ALL. EVERY, ALL INCLUSIVELY other forms of righteousness.

    THIS other righteousness, that we CAN do at least to some small fraction of some percent, with free will. and our reason. Romans 2:15 tells us, and Aristotle is proof of, needs NO church or Christ or Holy Spirit .

    In such matters the advice of the Church is not necessary, This righteousbness WILL happen and God WILL make it happen with the Divine Law he has place in the Reason of ALL men even where the church does not exist.
    Your situation of the rapist of 3 year olds fits right here. So does womens ordination. So does whether or not gays have sex every second or never ever.

    This second kind of righeousness is good on earth to avoid punishment, and it is intended by God alone, alone, alone, to be about having goodness and mercy (what we do not deserve as a consequence of what we have done) happen for all men, both the good and the wicked, and those who pray and those who do not. Why” Because God is good independent of the fact that none of us are. And this second kind of righeousness is USELESS in our dealings with God. It is good only between us and our neighbor. and it will all end with this life. It will all die. So it is all about death in that exact way.

    got it now Kerner?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 285

    go ask someone at your courthouse why they think you should be VERY concerned about the possibility that a pedophile confesses he has a strong desire to have sex with a three year old, and then act surprised when you express your opinion that society should exactly parallel this situation to two 60 year old lesbians who have agreed to have sex with each other.

    come on now buddy! Are you really serious?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 285

    go ask someone at your courthouse why they think you should be VERY concerned about the possibility that a pedophile confesses he has a strong desire to have sex with a three year old, and then act surprised when you express your opinion that society should exactly parallel this situation to two 60 year old lesbians who have agreed to have sex with each other.

    come on now buddy! Are you really serious?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 285

    You are repeatedly beating the living crapola out of your wife. she is missing teeth. is it really fair for society to punish you for this and to cruely demand that you stop while….

    two lesbian grandmothers are having sex right next door and society doesnt seem to even give a hoot even though both sins, in God’s eyes, are (at least in your mind) equally sinful?

    Is that fair? Lets discuss.
    How would we ever come to some reasonable conclusion on this?

  • fws

    Kerner @ 285

    You are repeatedly beating the living crapola out of your wife. she is missing teeth. is it really fair for society to punish you for this and to cruely demand that you stop while….

    two lesbian grandmothers are having sex right next door and society doesnt seem to even give a hoot even though both sins, in God’s eyes, are (at least in your mind) equally sinful?

    Is that fair? Lets discuss.
    How would we ever come to some reasonable conclusion on this?

  • fws

    and kerner @ 285

    what would a pastor be obligated to do about such situations? Where is … er… disciplining ones family to be found… explicitly, in the sin list in the Bible? Your wife was being mouthy again Kerner. She is to be silent and obey you.
    In many countries you would be shamed as having no cajones for not keeping the little woman in line. that is the case here in Brasil.

    on what basis would you Biblically object?

  • fws

    and kerner @ 285

    what would a pastor be obligated to do about such situations? Where is … er… disciplining ones family to be found… explicitly, in the sin list in the Bible? Your wife was being mouthy again Kerner. She is to be silent and obey you.
    In many countries you would be shamed as having no cajones for not keeping the little woman in line. that is the case here in Brasil.

    on what basis would you Biblically object?

  • Joanne

    Come on Frank, et alia, let’s leave the grandmas and the 3 year olds out of this discussion. Geez, you people get off subject in a heart-beat.

    My sister’s 4th grade teacher was 50% of such an old-maid teachers couple way back in 1958. They had lived together in the same house for maybe 40 years and not a soul called them anything but old maid teachers. Nowadays it’s fireworks and hellfire.

    Then people were polite and things weren’t rubbed in peoples’ faces on either side of this equation. The teachers dressed like old maid professionals, came and went quietly, and everyone in the community put the best construction on it, though most understood the situation even as it was cloaked in respectablity. There might be a lesson in that somewhere.

  • Joanne

    Come on Frank, et alia, let’s leave the grandmas and the 3 year olds out of this discussion. Geez, you people get off subject in a heart-beat.

    My sister’s 4th grade teacher was 50% of such an old-maid teachers couple way back in 1958. They had lived together in the same house for maybe 40 years and not a soul called them anything but old maid teachers. Nowadays it’s fireworks and hellfire.

    Then people were polite and things weren’t rubbed in peoples’ faces on either side of this equation. The teachers dressed like old maid professionals, came and went quietly, and everyone in the community put the best construction on it, though most understood the situation even as it was cloaked in respectablity. There might be a lesson in that somewhere.

  • fws

    kerner @ 285

    I need to apologize now. dang it.

    I felt very offended at having my own life and that of others like me compared to a rapist of 3 year old children.
    And that it was done ever so clinically and casually as in,,,
    “nothing personal ok”

    IF I am allowed feelings, it made me feel like a living laboratory rat being dissected . I was not expecting you to continue to pursue that line.
    I am sorry I decided to try to illustrate how that was looking by starting what seemed a similar line of discussion aimed at you.

    It is childish to do something so one can say “see what that feels like”?! But I succumbed to the temptation and I can only ask for your forgiveness now.

  • fws

    kerner @ 285

    I need to apologize now. dang it.

    I felt very offended at having my own life and that of others like me compared to a rapist of 3 year old children.
    And that it was done ever so clinically and casually as in,,,
    “nothing personal ok”

    IF I am allowed feelings, it made me feel like a living laboratory rat being dissected . I was not expecting you to continue to pursue that line.
    I am sorry I decided to try to illustrate how that was looking by starting what seemed a similar line of discussion aimed at you.

    It is childish to do something so one can say “see what that feels like”?! But I succumbed to the temptation and I can only ask for your forgiveness now.

  • fws

    Joanne @ 293

    Bingo. I was raised in the Dakotas. My dad said that there were lonely old ranchers who never married and sometimes the young help who drifted around for work during lambing or calving season or harvest would continue to stay on the ranch for…. decades…

    Those folks werent stupid. And they would have welcomed the old rancher, and his .. er… assitant… and your dear auntie to church, and would even have probably have brought by a cake and offered some very sincere condolences in a very very human way if one of the couple had died.

    It would be great if that silent social compact still were available. That to me would be the ideal.

  • fws

    Joanne @ 293

    Bingo. I was raised in the Dakotas. My dad said that there were lonely old ranchers who never married and sometimes the young help who drifted around for work during lambing or calving season or harvest would continue to stay on the ranch for…. decades…

    Those folks werent stupid. And they would have welcomed the old rancher, and his .. er… assitant… and your dear auntie to church, and would even have probably have brought by a cake and offered some very sincere condolences in a very very human way if one of the couple had died.

    It would be great if that silent social compact still were available. That to me would be the ideal.

  • fws

    Joanne @ 293

    Not that I would actually approve of either of those situations mind you…… how could I? On what basis?
    But I was serious about the inviting to church part and making them feel totally welcome there.
    Where else would they find that one Righeousness, that , alone, counts in the courtroom of God as “not guilty”?

  • fws

    Joanne @ 293

    Not that I would actually approve of either of those situations mind you…… how could I? On what basis?
    But I was serious about the inviting to church part and making them feel totally welcome there.
    Where else would they find that one Righeousness, that , alone, counts in the courtroom of God as “not guilty”?

  • fws

    kerner. are you gonna accept my apology?

  • fws

    kerner. are you gonna accept my apology?

  • Joanne

    I’m fasting Frank, please don’t talk about lonely old ranchers or wandering young buckaroos. It has a different effect on me than the men on this list.

  • Joanne

    I’m fasting Frank, please don’t talk about lonely old ranchers or wandering young buckaroos. It has a different effect on me than the men on this list.

  • fws

    mmm sorry m’am
    try some form of self flagelation to take your mind off of things.
    Rome claims good results from that.

  • fws

    mmm sorry m’am
    try some form of self flagelation to take your mind off of things.
    Rome claims good results from that.

  • Grace

    fws @ 281

    YOU WROTE and asked three ignorant questions:

    “Again, what is the difference between sex between two consenting adults and sex between a 3 year old and a pedophile?
    What is the difference between the sexual urges you have with your spouse and the urges that a substance abuser or rapist or pedophile has?”

    What is the difference between the sexual urges you have with your spouse and the urges that a substance abuser or rapist or pedophile has?

    If you don’t know the difference between a 3 year old and a pedophile having sex, you’re lost.

    IF you honestly don’t understand the God given difference between a spouse’s urges for their spouse and a “abuser” “rapist” or “pedophile” having, I DOUBT you understand much of anything that is wholesome, and Godly regarding sex.

    YOU WROTE:

    “What is the church to judge on such matters? they should use the same basis that a court would use to judge such matters and deal with them, in the context of the scope of their earthly vocation and authority that is……”

    The church is not the same as a court of law. The courts today, and in the past, don’t always decide moral law, if they did, there would be no abortion. You are constantly trying to score a home run with sin, .. however you’ve managed to lose every time, if one takes your stance and tries to align it with the Bible.

  • Grace

    fws @ 281

    YOU WROTE and asked three ignorant questions:

    “Again, what is the difference between sex between two consenting adults and sex between a 3 year old and a pedophile?
    What is the difference between the sexual urges you have with your spouse and the urges that a substance abuser or rapist or pedophile has?”

    What is the difference between the sexual urges you have with your spouse and the urges that a substance abuser or rapist or pedophile has?

    If you don’t know the difference between a 3 year old and a pedophile having sex, you’re lost.

    IF you honestly don’t understand the God given difference between a spouse’s urges for their spouse and a “abuser” “rapist” or “pedophile” having, I DOUBT you understand much of anything that is wholesome, and Godly regarding sex.

    YOU WROTE:

    “What is the church to judge on such matters? they should use the same basis that a court would use to judge such matters and deal with them, in the context of the scope of their earthly vocation and authority that is……”

    The church is not the same as a court of law. The courts today, and in the past, don’t always decide moral law, if they did, there would be no abortion. You are constantly trying to score a home run with sin, .. however you’ve managed to lose every time, if one takes your stance and tries to align it with the Bible.

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 297

    You need a vacation! :lol:

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 297

    You need a vacation! :lol:

  • Joanne

    Grace at 300:

    You need to be honest. You need to admit you do not speak catholic and you have no idea what we’re talking about. You’re a fish out of water in these catholic discussions and a constant irritant. But, it makes us feel good to tolerate you like when a person stops to explain something to a child during a discussion with adults.

    Sorry ab0ut that Grace, but to us you are religiously retarded. However, I’d imagine on your secterian websites you’re considered quite knowledgeable.

    Now, are you in the fast or are you not in the fast. If as you say you are out, then you are OUT.

  • Joanne

    Grace at 300:

    You need to be honest. You need to admit you do not speak catholic and you have no idea what we’re talking about. You’re a fish out of water in these catholic discussions and a constant irritant. But, it makes us feel good to tolerate you like when a person stops to explain something to a child during a discussion with adults.

    Sorry ab0ut that Grace, but to us you are religiously retarded. However, I’d imagine on your secterian websites you’re considered quite knowledgeable.

    Now, are you in the fast or are you not in the fast. If as you say you are out, then you are OUT.

  • Joanne

    Frank at 298:

    Frank we are investigating the “way of escape” God promises us by a simple fast. It should be very enlightning. Are you in?

  • Joanne

    Frank at 298:

    Frank we are investigating the “way of escape” God promises us by a simple fast. It should be very enlightning. Are you in?

  • fws

    joanne @ 303

    Fasting is indeed a fine outward bodily preparation.
    But he or she, is truly worthy and well prepared to receive Christ, alone, by faith, alone, in theses words…

    “Given and shed for YOU for the forgiveness of sins”.
    I have fasted for most of my life thinking that I would be able to bargain my way with God.
    I would not be the one to encourage others to do the same dear Joanne.
    I would advise them to trust the unlikely promise that doing nothing at all besides runnin yella and scurd and hiding in the Works of Another is really better.

    And oh yeah.

    God doesnt want us to hurt other people or ourselves in any bodily way either. And we need to look to improve and protect the lives of others wherever we have a chance to do that. We should fear his wrath and that he will punish us if we dont quite understand that . until we do…. but as for our standing with God? Run and hide all that inside of Jesus.

  • fws

    joanne @ 303

    Fasting is indeed a fine outward bodily preparation.
    But he or she, is truly worthy and well prepared to receive Christ, alone, by faith, alone, in theses words…

    “Given and shed for YOU for the forgiveness of sins”.
    I have fasted for most of my life thinking that I would be able to bargain my way with God.
    I would not be the one to encourage others to do the same dear Joanne.
    I would advise them to trust the unlikely promise that doing nothing at all besides runnin yella and scurd and hiding in the Works of Another is really better.

    And oh yeah.

    God doesnt want us to hurt other people or ourselves in any bodily way either. And we need to look to improve and protect the lives of others wherever we have a chance to do that. We should fear his wrath and that he will punish us if we dont quite understand that . until we do…. but as for our standing with God? Run and hide all that inside of Jesus.

  • kerner

    Of course I accept your apology. Now please accept mine for causing you the pain I know I must have caused, but you need to hear this.

    You, the pedophile, and I all have at least 3 things in common.

    1) We each sin against the 4th commandment., and deserve to die for it, and

    2) Celibacy is equally hard for us all, and

    3) The only practical “mercy” offered us in the Bible is marrying an adult woman.

    The differences between us are that for me, marriage to an adult woman offers some practical relief. Not enough to keep me from sinning against the 4th commandment, mind you, but enough to keep me from doing it with an actual “other woman”. For you and the pedophile, well, let’s just say that marriage to an adult woman offers a lot less relief.

    Now, the difference between a gay man and a pedophile is as follows. The pedophile sins against his own body, and against a little child. Whereas, the gay man sins against his own body and against the body of his partner, and vice versa.

    Now, your argument is that, even though it is equally cruel, merciless and impossible to demand celibacy from the gay man and the pedophile, it is acceptable to demand it from the pedophile because of the damage done to an unconsenting child. But, you argue, it is not acceptable to demand celibacy from a gay man, because his sin is only against his own body and that of his willing partner.

    That argument may hold up in civil society. I’m not saying that it DOES hold up, but in deciding whether to impose criminal penalties, I can see how a society might distinguish between penalizing the one and not the other.

    But for the Church, it can never be like that. The sin committed agains the pedophile’s own body and against the child is NOT significantly different from the sin two gay men commit against themselves and each other so as to make up some institutionalized practice of looking the other way for the two gay men (or women). We have to, in as much love as we can, call it sin. All the time, and tell the sinner to repent. This is basic Law/Gospel preaching. And we dare not change that formula, no matter how hard it may seem to some people to repent of some particular sin.

  • kerner

    Of course I accept your apology. Now please accept mine for causing you the pain I know I must have caused, but you need to hear this.

    You, the pedophile, and I all have at least 3 things in common.

    1) We each sin against the 4th commandment., and deserve to die for it, and

    2) Celibacy is equally hard for us all, and

    3) The only practical “mercy” offered us in the Bible is marrying an adult woman.

    The differences between us are that for me, marriage to an adult woman offers some practical relief. Not enough to keep me from sinning against the 4th commandment, mind you, but enough to keep me from doing it with an actual “other woman”. For you and the pedophile, well, let’s just say that marriage to an adult woman offers a lot less relief.

    Now, the difference between a gay man and a pedophile is as follows. The pedophile sins against his own body, and against a little child. Whereas, the gay man sins against his own body and against the body of his partner, and vice versa.

    Now, your argument is that, even though it is equally cruel, merciless and impossible to demand celibacy from the gay man and the pedophile, it is acceptable to demand it from the pedophile because of the damage done to an unconsenting child. But, you argue, it is not acceptable to demand celibacy from a gay man, because his sin is only against his own body and that of his willing partner.

    That argument may hold up in civil society. I’m not saying that it DOES hold up, but in deciding whether to impose criminal penalties, I can see how a society might distinguish between penalizing the one and not the other.

    But for the Church, it can never be like that. The sin committed agains the pedophile’s own body and against the child is NOT significantly different from the sin two gay men commit against themselves and each other so as to make up some institutionalized practice of looking the other way for the two gay men (or women). We have to, in as much love as we can, call it sin. All the time, and tell the sinner to repent. This is basic Law/Gospel preaching. And we dare not change that formula, no matter how hard it may seem to some people to repent of some particular sin.

  • Grace

    Great passage of promise:

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

    Male/female sex is not a “temptation, its part of marriage.

    When a wife and husband are drawn one to another ie; to have sexual relations they are NOT tempted, it’s what God has given them.

    There is no reason to “escape” the desire that men and women have for their spouses, .. to the contrary, it is their desire to give themselves to enjoy the marriage bed.

    The passage of Scripture (1 Corinthians 10:13) should never be misconstrued with a married female and male, being attracted and desiring one another. To say otherwise is to cast sin upon that which is not sin, but the marriage bed, which is theirs to enjoy.

    To the sinful man or woman this passage can be misconstrued, but it is to their SHAME.

  • Grace

    Great passage of promise:

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

    Male/female sex is not a “temptation, its part of marriage.

    When a wife and husband are drawn one to another ie; to have sexual relations they are NOT tempted, it’s what God has given them.

    There is no reason to “escape” the desire that men and women have for their spouses, .. to the contrary, it is their desire to give themselves to enjoy the marriage bed.

    The passage of Scripture (1 Corinthians 10:13) should never be misconstrued with a married female and male, being attracted and desiring one another. To say otherwise is to cast sin upon that which is not sin, but the marriage bed, which is theirs to enjoy.

    To the sinful man or woman this passage can be misconstrued, but it is to their SHAME.

  • Grace

    Below is a passage of Scripture which all can ponder:

    ⚫ TEMPTATIONS ⚫

    The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
    2 Peter 2:9

    Who are the “godly” ?

    Here we see two different peoples; those who are “godly” and those who are “unjust” ?

    Perhaps the “unjust” are not able to be delivered .. that is a frightful thought, but it is stated in the passage above.

  • Grace

    Below is a passage of Scripture which all can ponder:

    ⚫ TEMPTATIONS ⚫

    The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
    2 Peter 2:9

    Who are the “godly” ?

    Here we see two different peoples; those who are “godly” and those who are “unjust” ?

    Perhaps the “unjust” are not able to be delivered .. that is a frightful thought, but it is stated in the passage above.

  • Dust

    Grace in 306

    it could be something similar to the hardening of pharoah’s heart? am not an expert, but do believe luther sort of supported the idea that god had some sort of role in the hardening of pharoah’s heart…in other words, there was nothing pharoah could do about it, nor can any of us….if we are not born (make that reborn) again by the holy spirit, we cannot do it ourselves.

    am pretty sure another of luther’s point about god’s role in the hardening of pharoah’s heart is that folks like erasmus just could not accept that god could do such a thing….well, am again not a theologian, but it is a terrible thing to be on god’s bad side and he will do what he wants with us little lumps of miserable clay.

    work out your salvation with fear and trembling perhaps?

    cheers!

  • Dust

    Grace in 306

    it could be something similar to the hardening of pharoah’s heart? am not an expert, but do believe luther sort of supported the idea that god had some sort of role in the hardening of pharoah’s heart…in other words, there was nothing pharoah could do about it, nor can any of us….if we are not born (make that reborn) again by the holy spirit, we cannot do it ourselves.

    am pretty sure another of luther’s point about god’s role in the hardening of pharoah’s heart is that folks like erasmus just could not accept that god could do such a thing….well, am again not a theologian, but it is a terrible thing to be on god’s bad side and he will do what he wants with us little lumps of miserable clay.

    work out your salvation with fear and trembling perhaps?

    cheers!

  • Dust

    ps. am pretty sure the luther references would be from bondage of the will?

    cheers!

  • Dust

    ps. am pretty sure the luther references would be from bondage of the will?

    cheers!

  • fws

    Kerner @ 304

    You are ignoring my main point.
    You are dragging the idea of sin into the second table Law.
    And your idea of sin here is not the secular one.

    I am saying that it needs to be.
    The second table Law needs to look identical in and out of Church.
    How to do that?
    Take the god out of it. take the word sin out of it.
    sin is about god and not about neighbor.
    Where is evidential harm to another ? that is the question.
    Second table Law must not leave the courtroom I am saying and be dealt with in the church.

    Do you do that in court? Then do it in the church.
    Do you not do that in court? Then dont do it in the church.

    I felt really worried I had hit the send button and offended you Kerner. you SHOULD be offended. It was 2am and I have really bad strep throat. No excuse. A plea for mercy.

    This sorta talk desensetizes us to the fact that we are discussing the real lives of real people. things they hold dearest. To very casualy “nothing personal but lets compare your wife to a whore please :) ” is just inviting Old Adam to run wild. If we have to take things there, maybe that should tell us that there is something really wrong in the very idea of the kind of righteousness we think is right? SP ended up´lying and saying I said something I did not. If we have to win an argument with those sorts of scorched earth tactics, then maybe that is God saying we need to beat our clubs into plowshares?

    I think that I keep pitching and you keep failing to catch because I am proposing that the Confessions say something that is totally outside of any way you have connected the words christian and morality. As in … TOTALLY disconnect those two words.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 304

    You are ignoring my main point.
    You are dragging the idea of sin into the second table Law.
    And your idea of sin here is not the secular one.

    I am saying that it needs to be.
    The second table Law needs to look identical in and out of Church.
    How to do that?
    Take the god out of it. take the word sin out of it.
    sin is about god and not about neighbor.
    Where is evidential harm to another ? that is the question.
    Second table Law must not leave the courtroom I am saying and be dealt with in the church.

    Do you do that in court? Then do it in the church.
    Do you not do that in court? Then dont do it in the church.

    I felt really worried I had hit the send button and offended you Kerner. you SHOULD be offended. It was 2am and I have really bad strep throat. No excuse. A plea for mercy.

    This sorta talk desensetizes us to the fact that we are discussing the real lives of real people. things they hold dearest. To very casualy “nothing personal but lets compare your wife to a whore please :) ” is just inviting Old Adam to run wild. If we have to take things there, maybe that should tell us that there is something really wrong in the very idea of the kind of righteousness we think is right? SP ended up´lying and saying I said something I did not. If we have to win an argument with those sorts of scorched earth tactics, then maybe that is God saying we need to beat our clubs into plowshares?

    I think that I keep pitching and you keep failing to catch because I am proposing that the Confessions say something that is totally outside of any way you have connected the words christian and morality. As in … TOTALLY disconnect those two words.

  • fws

    Kerner

    Show me in the bible it says that the Golden Rule is supposed to be essentially about and focussed upon obeying written rules in the bible, and….
    only secondarily or incidentally, or as a collateral effect or possible yet unintended consequence, or a “by the way”, about doing mercy to others.
    I say you are flipping things on their head just like a good Pharisee would do.

  • fws

    Kerner

    Show me in the bible it says that the Golden Rule is supposed to be essentially about and focussed upon obeying written rules in the bible, and….
    only secondarily or incidentally, or as a collateral effect or possible yet unintended consequence, or a “by the way”, about doing mercy to others.
    I say you are flipping things on their head just like a good Pharisee would do.

  • fws
  • fws
  • fws

    Pastor McCain

    You have convinced me that you take delight in the wicked perishing, and in the sins of others. Your ears itch to find heresy out of the mouths of others and then dedicate yourself to spreading it around.

    You dont seem to care if gays die withhout Christ as long as they have the common decency and good sense to NOT do any of that where it is at all visible to you or in anything called “Lutheran”.

    You would really like me to just go away. Or at least stop insisting on calling myself Lutheran. Memo received.

    May I suggest that my efforts to the exact contrary dealing with your person are not “faux” or even if they are, they STILL look like the mercy that Noah’s good sons did for their alcoholic father? And yes, you sound nasty to others and that is never good. Would you talk to anyone at your church´s coffee our in that tone, or flit from group to group in the room waring those groups about “that one over there!”?

    I take the sad liberty of saying this on this thread since there was a sort of coarse and sad outbreak of this more than once here.

    Maybe my kind words to and about you ARE “faux” on my part Pastor Mc Cain in the sense that I have mixed feelings about you. My heart is full of evil. But my defending you and your actions and person is still the right thing to do whether I can be certain my motives are just right or not.

    And that you might try doing the similar mercy? Look for the best positive interpretation of what others say rather than seek out a hidden agenda and dishonesty in what they say? Encourage their better side to come out? Rather than seem downright gleeful at spreading the news that someone is wrong or ….whatever?

    It is NOT my right to criticize you given your position and place of honor in our church. God will probably show me just how wrong I am to dare to challenge your thinking in this way and punish me for this. But to not say anything at all to such a good man who looks like a moral trainwreck in progress, is also not a moral option as far as I can tell.

    You are going to be righteously right for all to see this way and damage the cause of the love of Jesus that is most important to your heart Pastor McCain.

    So I am stuck. Forgive me for offending you please.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain

    You have convinced me that you take delight in the wicked perishing, and in the sins of others. Your ears itch to find heresy out of the mouths of others and then dedicate yourself to spreading it around.

    You dont seem to care if gays die withhout Christ as long as they have the common decency and good sense to NOT do any of that where it is at all visible to you or in anything called “Lutheran”.

    You would really like me to just go away. Or at least stop insisting on calling myself Lutheran. Memo received.

    May I suggest that my efforts to the exact contrary dealing with your person are not “faux” or even if they are, they STILL look like the mercy that Noah’s good sons did for their alcoholic father? And yes, you sound nasty to others and that is never good. Would you talk to anyone at your church´s coffee our in that tone, or flit from group to group in the room waring those groups about “that one over there!”?

    I take the sad liberty of saying this on this thread since there was a sort of coarse and sad outbreak of this more than once here.

    Maybe my kind words to and about you ARE “faux” on my part Pastor Mc Cain in the sense that I have mixed feelings about you. My heart is full of evil. But my defending you and your actions and person is still the right thing to do whether I can be certain my motives are just right or not.

    And that you might try doing the similar mercy? Look for the best positive interpretation of what others say rather than seek out a hidden agenda and dishonesty in what they say? Encourage their better side to come out? Rather than seem downright gleeful at spreading the news that someone is wrong or ….whatever?

    It is NOT my right to criticize you given your position and place of honor in our church. God will probably show me just how wrong I am to dare to challenge your thinking in this way and punish me for this. But to not say anything at all to such a good man who looks like a moral trainwreck in progress, is also not a moral option as far as I can tell.

    You are going to be righteously right for all to see this way and damage the cause of the love of Jesus that is most important to your heart Pastor McCain.

    So I am stuck. Forgive me for offending you please.

  • fws

    Kerner

    …. accept mine for causing you the pain I know I must have caused, BUT you need to hear this.

    Why? for my eternal salvation Kerner? What if I , sincerely and honestly, just never can see your logical point with my logi^? what then? No communion or church for me?

    1) We each sin against the 4th commandment., and deserve to die for it, and…

    No Kerner, not in the sense we are discussing. In the earthly sense the punishment would not fit the crime in all three cases. Unless we are in Saudi Arabia, and even then only the chicks get stoned usually. So even in a country that meets the standard of your legal thinking, They are not equivalent. Why not? What would be the argumentation in court. That would govern here. This is how the watching world sees your comments and finds them off the wall. Because to reason they really and truly are.

    2) Celibacy is equally hard for us all, and…

    I don´t know that Kerner and neither do you.
    1) The opinion of the Confessions is that this is so hard that it would not only be impossible. 2) Don´t miss this part: they forbid us to ask anyone to even try it! Yes they do! 3) And note this: They say that such attempts at celibacy are a hazard to public morals.

    3) The only practical “mercy” offered us in the Bible is marrying an adult woman.

    True. And we arent talkin two lesbians…. you need to be more scrupulously clear like I am always espected to be. Should I be suspicious of a lurking lesbian agenda here? Where is the mens folks in that statement Kerner?

    The differences between us are that for me, marriage to an adult woman offers some practical relief. Not enough to keep me from sinning against the 4th commandment, mind you, but enough to keep me from doing it with an actual “other woman”.

    I am asserting, based on the Confessions, that IF you do this, you have kept the 4th commandment exactly as God intends, especially if you have added to that, love, respect and attending to the sexual needs of your wife cheerfully even when you are not in the mood. There is NO keeping beyond that. You are dragging the 1st commandment and faith into this and I am saying you need to stop.

    For you and the pedophile, well, let’s just say that marriage to an adult woman offers a lot less relief.

    Let´s say you would be laughed out of any courtroom and never be considered for a judgeship ever if you deplayed this as a sample of your best legal reasoning.

    Now, the difference between a gay man and a pedophile is as follows. The pedophile sins against his own body, and against a little child. Whereas, the gay man sins against his own body and against the body of his partner, and vice versa.

    So you just said there is NO difference. Ahem. Am I not to be offended at that? If you were an attorney in court and you argued this, what would your peers think of you? Ah, in the case of two gay men the sin is reciprocal? So it is two times as bad? Is that it?

    Now, your argument is that, even though it is equally cruel, merciless and impossible to demand celibacy from the gay man and the pedophile, it is acceptable to demand it from the pedophile because of the damage done to an unconsenting child. But, you argue, it is not acceptable to demand celibacy from a gay man, because his sin is only against his own body and that of his willing partner.

    No. That is not my argument at all Kerner. You completely missed my argument. My argument is that we have a different definition of the words “law” and “sin”. I keep pointing you to Luther’s preface to his romans translation and now to his writing on the law of moses. You apparently did not read those eh?
    Luther, in his Romans preface IS saying that the way to do civil Law IS how the law works between men. The Law that is the impediment between us and God is tne failure, 100% total failure , to keep the first commandment. And Christ is needed why? ONLY he can send the HS to let us keep that law even to the very teeniest extent. It is impossible to even make a start at keeping commandment 1. The rest of the commandments? We CAN do those with free will and reason. Perfectly? no. But no Christ is needed to do those.

    That argument may hold up in civil society.

    I would say it MUST hold up or God will punish society and hold it accountable for that error. God wants goodness and mercy rather than sacrifice to happen. That is the end goal or telos on earth of the Law.

    I’m not saying that it DOES hold up, but in deciding whether to impose criminal penalties, I can see how a society might distinguish between penalizing the one and not the other.

    I am very happy to hear this. I would not want you to lose your job as an attorney, and you should if your level of legal reasoning in a court could not distinguish between the rapist of a 3 year old and two 70 year old lesbian grandmas making nookie. And the physical harm (ie secular sin) those two grandmas are doing to each other in this is what? Remind me (without getting too graphic please…)

    But for the Church, it can never be like that. The sin committed agains the pedophile’s own body and against the child is NOT significantly different from the sin two gay men commit against themselves and each other so as to make up some institutionalized practice of looking the other way for the two gay men (or women).

    Huh? God sees NO significant difference between raping a 3 year old and two 70 lesbian grandmas making nookie. Now THAT would be a very chaotic world if the Divine Law of Romans 2:15 written , by God in the minds of all had that judgement!

    We have to, in as much love as we can, call it sin. Why is that? why not call it crime, and punishment. That is what 2nd table law looks like. It is even how Luther tells us Gods administration of it looks like on earth. We get punished for being bad and rewarded for being good. SantaClaus. That IS the biblical way to teach morality. It is not about good and bad being a matter of where our heart is. It is 100% about what is done and not the doer. Blindfolded justice is the biblical norm here. the person and his heart or motive is not considered. It is what is done. And the scale is about the relative harm done. Period. nothing more.

    All the time, and tell the sinner to repent.

    Repent of sin, repent of forgetting to floss or for not helping old women across the street. “That which is not of sin is faith” Your definition of sin is still the roman catholic and augustinian one Kerner. It is not the definition of St Paul and Christ. the opposite of sin is not second table goodness. The opposite of sin is first table fear love and trust in God.

    Basic Law/Gospel preaching.

    Not!

    And we dare not change that formula, no matter how hard it may seem to some people to repent of some particular sin.

    Your formula, your definition of law and sin, is the very formula that the Apology seeks to change Kerner.

    Bless you.

  • fws

    Kerner

    …. accept mine for causing you the pain I know I must have caused, BUT you need to hear this.

    Why? for my eternal salvation Kerner? What if I , sincerely and honestly, just never can see your logical point with my logi^? what then? No communion or church for me?

    1) We each sin against the 4th commandment., and deserve to die for it, and…

    No Kerner, not in the sense we are discussing. In the earthly sense the punishment would not fit the crime in all three cases. Unless we are in Saudi Arabia, and even then only the chicks get stoned usually. So even in a country that meets the standard of your legal thinking, They are not equivalent. Why not? What would be the argumentation in court. That would govern here. This is how the watching world sees your comments and finds them off the wall. Because to reason they really and truly are.

    2) Celibacy is equally hard for us all, and…

    I don´t know that Kerner and neither do you.
    1) The opinion of the Confessions is that this is so hard that it would not only be impossible. 2) Don´t miss this part: they forbid us to ask anyone to even try it! Yes they do! 3) And note this: They say that such attempts at celibacy are a hazard to public morals.

    3) The only practical “mercy” offered us in the Bible is marrying an adult woman.

    True. And we arent talkin two lesbians…. you need to be more scrupulously clear like I am always espected to be. Should I be suspicious of a lurking lesbian agenda here? Where is the mens folks in that statement Kerner?

    The differences between us are that for me, marriage to an adult woman offers some practical relief. Not enough to keep me from sinning against the 4th commandment, mind you, but enough to keep me from doing it with an actual “other woman”.

    I am asserting, based on the Confessions, that IF you do this, you have kept the 4th commandment exactly as God intends, especially if you have added to that, love, respect and attending to the sexual needs of your wife cheerfully even when you are not in the mood. There is NO keeping beyond that. You are dragging the 1st commandment and faith into this and I am saying you need to stop.

    For you and the pedophile, well, let’s just say that marriage to an adult woman offers a lot less relief.

    Let´s say you would be laughed out of any courtroom and never be considered for a judgeship ever if you deplayed this as a sample of your best legal reasoning.

    Now, the difference between a gay man and a pedophile is as follows. The pedophile sins against his own body, and against a little child. Whereas, the gay man sins against his own body and against the body of his partner, and vice versa.

    So you just said there is NO difference. Ahem. Am I not to be offended at that? If you were an attorney in court and you argued this, what would your peers think of you? Ah, in the case of two gay men the sin is reciprocal? So it is two times as bad? Is that it?

    Now, your argument is that, even though it is equally cruel, merciless and impossible to demand celibacy from the gay man and the pedophile, it is acceptable to demand it from the pedophile because of the damage done to an unconsenting child. But, you argue, it is not acceptable to demand celibacy from a gay man, because his sin is only against his own body and that of his willing partner.

    No. That is not my argument at all Kerner. You completely missed my argument. My argument is that we have a different definition of the words “law” and “sin”. I keep pointing you to Luther’s preface to his romans translation and now to his writing on the law of moses. You apparently did not read those eh?
    Luther, in his Romans preface IS saying that the way to do civil Law IS how the law works between men. The Law that is the impediment between us and God is tne failure, 100% total failure , to keep the first commandment. And Christ is needed why? ONLY he can send the HS to let us keep that law even to the very teeniest extent. It is impossible to even make a start at keeping commandment 1. The rest of the commandments? We CAN do those with free will and reason. Perfectly? no. But no Christ is needed to do those.

    That argument may hold up in civil society.

    I would say it MUST hold up or God will punish society and hold it accountable for that error. God wants goodness and mercy rather than sacrifice to happen. That is the end goal or telos on earth of the Law.

    I’m not saying that it DOES hold up, but in deciding whether to impose criminal penalties, I can see how a society might distinguish between penalizing the one and not the other.

    I am very happy to hear this. I would not want you to lose your job as an attorney, and you should if your level of legal reasoning in a court could not distinguish between the rapist of a 3 year old and two 70 year old lesbian grandmas making nookie. And the physical harm (ie secular sin) those two grandmas are doing to each other in this is what? Remind me (without getting too graphic please…)

    But for the Church, it can never be like that. The sin committed agains the pedophile’s own body and against the child is NOT significantly different from the sin two gay men commit against themselves and each other so as to make up some institutionalized practice of looking the other way for the two gay men (or women).

    Huh? God sees NO significant difference between raping a 3 year old and two 70 lesbian grandmas making nookie. Now THAT would be a very chaotic world if the Divine Law of Romans 2:15 written , by God in the minds of all had that judgement!

    We have to, in as much love as we can, call it sin. Why is that? why not call it crime, and punishment. That is what 2nd table law looks like. It is even how Luther tells us Gods administration of it looks like on earth. We get punished for being bad and rewarded for being good. SantaClaus. That IS the biblical way to teach morality. It is not about good and bad being a matter of where our heart is. It is 100% about what is done and not the doer. Blindfolded justice is the biblical norm here. the person and his heart or motive is not considered. It is what is done. And the scale is about the relative harm done. Period. nothing more.

    All the time, and tell the sinner to repent.

    Repent of sin, repent of forgetting to floss or for not helping old women across the street. “That which is not of sin is faith” Your definition of sin is still the roman catholic and augustinian one Kerner. It is not the definition of St Paul and Christ. the opposite of sin is not second table goodness. The opposite of sin is first table fear love and trust in God.

    Basic Law/Gospel preaching.

    Not!

    And we dare not change that formula, no matter how hard it may seem to some people to repent of some particular sin.

    Your formula, your definition of law and sin, is the very formula that the Apology seeks to change Kerner.

    Bless you.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 314

    I would suggest against spiritualizing St Pauls talking about sins against the body. This exactly parallels civil legal doctrine. Physical crimes against a person are, or should ,carry a greater seriousness than things like theft of a car. Paul does teach the Law of Reason aka Philosophical Righeousness aka civil righeousness. He is doing that WHENEVER he is not talking about that ONE Righteousness that , alone, alone , alone, has anything at all to do with our standing before God that is the ONE Righeousness , alone, that we can´t do in ANY sense of the word DO.

    He is talking about civil righeousness for example when he orders as a ruler his flock to get circumcised, later to not do so, to avoid eating sacrificed meat in front of people it would offend even if there is nothing wrong with it, rules about hair length, the conduct of the litury, women keeping quiet in churcn, submitting to men, etc etc etc.

    Our relation to God is to be left out of such matters. COMPLETELY out. Why, to not do so robs Christ of the honor we are to put on His Work before God.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 314

    I would suggest against spiritualizing St Pauls talking about sins against the body. This exactly parallels civil legal doctrine. Physical crimes against a person are, or should ,carry a greater seriousness than things like theft of a car. Paul does teach the Law of Reason aka Philosophical Righeousness aka civil righeousness. He is doing that WHENEVER he is not talking about that ONE Righteousness that , alone, alone , alone, has anything at all to do with our standing before God that is the ONE Righeousness , alone, that we can´t do in ANY sense of the word DO.

    He is talking about civil righeousness for example when he orders as a ruler his flock to get circumcised, later to not do so, to avoid eating sacrificed meat in front of people it would offend even if there is nothing wrong with it, rules about hair length, the conduct of the litury, women keeping quiet in churcn, submitting to men, etc etc etc.

    Our relation to God is to be left out of such matters. COMPLETELY out. Why, to not do so robs Christ of the honor we are to put on His Work before God.

  • fws

    Kerner

    Our works are to be ALONE about us and neighbor and his needs. ALONE means exactly we leave God out of that. COMPLETELY OUT . Why does that matter in the Confessions?

    If we make our works about GOD and our NEIGHBOR and not ALONE about neighbor, that means that our relationship with God is not dealt with ALONE by the Works of Another.

    There you have the argument in the Apology against the Thomist Scholastics in a nutshell!

  • fws

    Kerner

    Our works are to be ALONE about us and neighbor and his needs. ALONE means exactly we leave God out of that. COMPLETELY OUT . Why does that matter in the Confessions?

    If we make our works about GOD and our NEIGHBOR and not ALONE about neighbor, that means that our relationship with God is not dealt with ALONE by the Works of Another.

    There you have the argument in the Apology against the Thomist Scholastics in a nutshell!

  • fws

    Kerner

    The Law on earth is wholy to be vectored towards making others around us comfortable. I as a gay man would act differently in a church full of gay lutherans than I would in one so very not in oklahoma.

    If you were a Lutheran missionary in tahiti back in the ol days, I would fully expect you to demand of your wife and daughters the spiritual sacrifice of running around topless.

    In one situation St Paul demanded his assitants to be circumcized, and they went in the extreme opposite direction in another situation. Situation ethics? You bet! of the Christian kind.

    The idea is that we are now freed from looking over our shoulder at God´s opinion when we do the law and focus on the opinion of our customer called our neighbor. That allows us to do a level of customer service that no legalistic Pharisee or religious person who does good works by the numbers or from a menu legalistically weighing every ounce of butter fat can do to please.

    “More butter sir? Aw . have some more. I am sure my Boss doesnt care. He told me to be recklessly generous with our portions here! ” “Thanks but my wife is after me to lower my cholesterol” “Ok, that sounds like the Divine Law of God to you sir and i would recommend you follow her orders!” “Have a nice day!” smile. smile. “Hurry on back”

  • fws

    Kerner

    The Law on earth is wholy to be vectored towards making others around us comfortable. I as a gay man would act differently in a church full of gay lutherans than I would in one so very not in oklahoma.

    If you were a Lutheran missionary in tahiti back in the ol days, I would fully expect you to demand of your wife and daughters the spiritual sacrifice of running around topless.

    In one situation St Paul demanded his assitants to be circumcized, and they went in the extreme opposite direction in another situation. Situation ethics? You bet! of the Christian kind.

    The idea is that we are now freed from looking over our shoulder at God´s opinion when we do the law and focus on the opinion of our customer called our neighbor. That allows us to do a level of customer service that no legalistic Pharisee or religious person who does good works by the numbers or from a menu legalistically weighing every ounce of butter fat can do to please.

    “More butter sir? Aw . have some more. I am sure my Boss doesnt care. He told me to be recklessly generous with our portions here! ” “Thanks but my wife is after me to lower my cholesterol” “Ok, that sounds like the Divine Law of God to you sir and i would recommend you follow her orders!” “Have a nice day!” smile. smile. “Hurry on back”

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frank, you are not fooling anyone, but only yourself, with your tortured and twisted “logic” by which you would actually have anyone believe that a homosexual should not be told to refrain from homosexual activity.

    You continue to repeat your error and therefore are to be sharply rebuked. You can whine all you want about it, but it changes nothing.

    Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

    Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

    Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

    Matthew 10:14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frank, you are not fooling anyone, but only yourself, with your tortured and twisted “logic” by which you would actually have anyone believe that a homosexual should not be told to refrain from homosexual activity.

    You continue to repeat your error and therefore are to be sharply rebuked. You can whine all you want about it, but it changes nothing.

    Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

    Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

    Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

    Matthew 10:14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

  • fws

    Dust @ 308

    I would REALLY suggest you read the Formula of Concord on Election.

    http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#XI. Election.
    and
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php

    I would call your attention to this paragraph as the general test that Lutherans apply to all doctrine:

    : Since all Scripture, given by inspiration of God, is to serve, not for [cherishing] security and impenitence, but for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2 Tim. 3:16; also, since everything in God’s Word has been prescribed to us, not that we should thereby be driven to despair, but that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope, Rom. 15:4, therefore it is without any doubt in no way the sound sense or right use of the doctrine concerning the eternal foreknowledge of God that either impenitence or despair should be occasioned or strengthened thereby. Accordingly, the Scriptures teach this doctrine in no other way than to direct us thereby to the [revealed] Word, Eph. 1:13; 1 Cor. 1:7; exhort to repentance, 2 Tim. 3:16; urge to godliness, Eph. 1:14; John 15:3; strengthen faith and assure us of our salvation, Eph. 1:13; John 10:27f ; 2 Thess. 2:13f.

    and this…

    . 74] For the Spirit bears witness to the elect that they are God’s children, Rom. 8:16. And although they sometimes fall into temptation so grievous that they imagine they perceive no more power of the indwelling Spirit of God, and say with David, Ps. 31:22: I said in my haste, I am cut off from before Thine eyes, yet they should, without regard to what they experience in themselves, again [be encouraged and] say with David, as is written ibidem, in the words immediately following: Nevertheless Thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto Thee.

    75] And since our election to eternal life is founded not upon our godliness or virtue, but alone upon the merit of Christ and the gracious will of His Father, who cannot deny Himself, because He is unchangeable in will and essence, therefore, when His children depart from obedience and stumble, He has them called again to repentance through the Word, and the Holy Ghost wishes thereby to be efficacious in them for conversion; and when they turn to Him again in true repentance by a right faith, He will always manifest the old paternal heart to all those who tremble at His Word and from their heart turn again to Him, as it is written, Jer. 3:1: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to Me, saith the Lord.

    76] Moreover, the declaration, John 6:44, that no one can come to Christ except the Father draw him, is right and true. However, the Father will not do this without means, but has ordained for this purpose His Word and Sacraments as ordinary means and instruments; and it is the will neither of the Father nor of the Son that a man should not hear or should despise the preaching of His Word, and wait for the drawing of the Father without the Word and Sacraments. For the Father draws indeed by the power of His Holy Ghost, however, according to His usual order [the order decreed and instituted by Himself], by the hearing of His holy, divine Word, as with a net, by which the elect are plucked from the jaws of the devil. 77] Every poor sinner should therefore repair thereto [to holy preaching], hear it attentively, and not doubt the drawing of the Father. For the Holy Ghost will be with His Word in His power, and work by it; and that is the drawing of the Father.

  • fws

    Dust @ 308

    I would REALLY suggest you read the Formula of Concord on Election.

    http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#XI. Election.
    and
    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php

    I would call your attention to this paragraph as the general test that Lutherans apply to all doctrine:

    : Since all Scripture, given by inspiration of God, is to serve, not for [cherishing] security and impenitence, but for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2 Tim. 3:16; also, since everything in God’s Word has been prescribed to us, not that we should thereby be driven to despair, but that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope, Rom. 15:4, therefore it is without any doubt in no way the sound sense or right use of the doctrine concerning the eternal foreknowledge of God that either impenitence or despair should be occasioned or strengthened thereby. Accordingly, the Scriptures teach this doctrine in no other way than to direct us thereby to the [revealed] Word, Eph. 1:13; 1 Cor. 1:7; exhort to repentance, 2 Tim. 3:16; urge to godliness, Eph. 1:14; John 15:3; strengthen faith and assure us of our salvation, Eph. 1:13; John 10:27f ; 2 Thess. 2:13f.

    and this…

    . 74] For the Spirit bears witness to the elect that they are God’s children, Rom. 8:16. And although they sometimes fall into temptation so grievous that they imagine they perceive no more power of the indwelling Spirit of God, and say with David, Ps. 31:22: I said in my haste, I am cut off from before Thine eyes, yet they should, without regard to what they experience in themselves, again [be encouraged and] say with David, as is written ibidem, in the words immediately following: Nevertheless Thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto Thee.

    75] And since our election to eternal life is founded not upon our godliness or virtue, but alone upon the merit of Christ and the gracious will of His Father, who cannot deny Himself, because He is unchangeable in will and essence, therefore, when His children depart from obedience and stumble, He has them called again to repentance through the Word, and the Holy Ghost wishes thereby to be efficacious in them for conversion; and when they turn to Him again in true repentance by a right faith, He will always manifest the old paternal heart to all those who tremble at His Word and from their heart turn again to Him, as it is written, Jer. 3:1: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to Me, saith the Lord.

    76] Moreover, the declaration, John 6:44, that no one can come to Christ except the Father draw him, is right and true. However, the Father will not do this without means, but has ordained for this purpose His Word and Sacraments as ordinary means and instruments; and it is the will neither of the Father nor of the Son that a man should not hear or should despise the preaching of His Word, and wait for the drawing of the Father without the Word and Sacraments. For the Father draws indeed by the power of His Holy Ghost, however, according to His usual order [the order decreed and instituted by Himself], by the hearing of His holy, divine Word, as with a net, by which the elect are plucked from the jaws of the devil. 77] Every poor sinner should therefore repair thereto [to holy preaching], hear it attentively, and not doubt the drawing of the Father. For the Holy Ghost will be with His Word in His power, and work by it; and that is the drawing of the Father.

  • fws

    Dear Pastor Mc Cain @ 318

    Show me the words you tell me I need to repent of, in reasonably full context please,
    Tell me what should be said instead,

    And I will honor what you tell me.
    I have invited this before of you dear father.

    And you persist in dealing harshly with me.
    What is it you want ? really?
    You seem to enjoy this sort of thing. I am sure that can´t be the right perception of your behavior Pastor Mc Cain.

  • fws

    Dear Pastor Mc Cain @ 318

    Show me the words you tell me I need to repent of, in reasonably full context please,
    Tell me what should be said instead,

    And I will honor what you tell me.
    I have invited this before of you dear father.

    And you persist in dealing harshly with me.
    What is it you want ? really?
    You seem to enjoy this sort of thing. I am sure that can´t be the right perception of your behavior Pastor Mc Cain.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frank, you are being simply deceitful. I have already told you, numerous times, where you are in error. This is simply an elaborate mental game on your part to justify your sinful choices and sinful errors.

    You have been warned. And, yes, this is a “harsh” message. You persist in spewing your errors on this blog site and others, over and over again.

    Your passive aggressive syrupy whining and flattery only makes it more disgusting.

    I will have nothing further to say to you, Frank. I can only but pray you are let to genuine repentance and correct understandings.

  • Rev. Paul T. McCain

    Frank, you are being simply deceitful. I have already told you, numerous times, where you are in error. This is simply an elaborate mental game on your part to justify your sinful choices and sinful errors.

    You have been warned. And, yes, this is a “harsh” message. You persist in spewing your errors on this blog site and others, over and over again.

    Your passive aggressive syrupy whining and flattery only makes it more disgusting.

    I will have nothing further to say to you, Frank. I can only but pray you are let to genuine repentance and correct understandings.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 321

    I asked you tell me what it is I have written that you want me to repent of. In a reasonable amount of context.

    And I offered to do that.

    That should not be so hard.

    And your characterization of that was “passive aggressive , syruppy and whiney” piled onto similar such words you have aimed at me earlier.

    Go back and read you own tone over everywhere you have posted over the past few months. THEN go and read your wonderful posts on Cyberbrethren 8 or 9 years ago.

    I want the old Pastor McCain back that could not be shut up in talking about the love of his dear Jesus.
    Please.

    Whether you think I am sincere or syrupy or faux or…. whatever, the fact is, the level of praise I have aimed in your direction is unworthy of you. It is understatement.

  • fws

    Pastor Mc Cain @ 321

    I asked you tell me what it is I have written that you want me to repent of. In a reasonable amount of context.

    And I offered to do that.

    That should not be so hard.

    And your characterization of that was “passive aggressive , syruppy and whiney” piled onto similar such words you have aimed at me earlier.

    Go back and read you own tone over everywhere you have posted over the past few months. THEN go and read your wonderful posts on Cyberbrethren 8 or 9 years ago.

    I want the old Pastor McCain back that could not be shut up in talking about the love of his dear Jesus.
    Please.

    Whether you think I am sincere or syrupy or faux or…. whatever, the fact is, the level of praise I have aimed in your direction is unworthy of you. It is understatement.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 321

    …simply deceitful. …simply … elaborate mental game
    (Is… the yet unspecified “it”… simple or elaborate? Or both?)

    … “harsh” …
    (note not merely harsh without quotes. Nuance?)
    ….spewing ….on this …site and others….passive aggressive syrupy whining and flattery ……disgusting.

    And your Godly purpose in posting that was what?

    In less than 70 words you manages to squeeze all these words in.
    I was tempted to be sarcastic. No need.
    This looks as it looks without lots of comment from me.

  • fws

    Pastor McCain @ 321

    …simply deceitful. …simply … elaborate mental game
    (Is… the yet unspecified “it”… simple or elaborate? Or both?)

    … “harsh” …
    (note not merely harsh without quotes. Nuance?)
    ….spewing ….on this …site and others….passive aggressive syrupy whining and flattery ……disgusting.

    And your Godly purpose in posting that was what?

    In less than 70 words you manages to squeeze all these words in.
    I was tempted to be sarcastic. No need.
    This looks as it looks without lots of comment from me.

  • Grace

    Pastor McCain @ 317 and 320

    I believe God has blessed you to speak loudly, the warnings.

    For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
    Hebrews 4:12

    God bless you

  • Grace

    Pastor McCain @ 317 and 320

    I believe God has blessed you to speak loudly, the warnings.

    For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
    Hebrews 4:12

    God bless you

  • Dust

    fws at 318

    thanks for the links! as stated am not an expert, but do believe that Luther sort of said something along the effect that God sort of allowed Pharoah to follow his already hardened heart and so by not sending his spirit to change his mind, Pharoah continued down his hardened path…sort of like we all would, let to our own devices?

    Sort of recall Luther chiding Erasmus quite a bit for turning the Gospel into Law and the Law into Gospel too, but it’s been so many years it’s sort of fuzzy and would in no way be able to tie them to the Confessions, etc. as you have pointed here…guess it’s never to late to start :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    fws at 318

    thanks for the links! as stated am not an expert, but do believe that Luther sort of said something along the effect that God sort of allowed Pharoah to follow his already hardened heart and so by not sending his spirit to change his mind, Pharoah continued down his hardened path…sort of like we all would, let to our own devices?

    Sort of recall Luther chiding Erasmus quite a bit for turning the Gospel into Law and the Law into Gospel too, but it’s been so many years it’s sort of fuzzy and would in no way be able to tie them to the Confessions, etc. as you have pointed here…guess it’s never to late to start :)

    cheers!

  • fws

    Dust @ 325

    There is ONE thing you can do towards your salvation with your free will and reason. Pagans too can do this. This work requires no Holy Spirit or Christ . What is it?

    Go to church. Hear a preacher.
    And only there can one turn from being pharaoh to a believer. We are all hard hearted Pharaohs apart from the creative power of God´s Word that we hear.
    We are to seek our election, salvation and sanctification by hearing that Word and not in our own efforts.

  • fws

    Dust @ 325

    There is ONE thing you can do towards your salvation with your free will and reason. Pagans too can do this. This work requires no Holy Spirit or Christ . What is it?

    Go to church. Hear a preacher.
    And only there can one turn from being pharaoh to a believer. We are all hard hearted Pharaohs apart from the creative power of God´s Word that we hear.
    We are to seek our election, salvation and sanctification by hearing that Word and not in our own efforts.

  • fws

    Dust @ 325

    And you can ABSOLUTELY trust what that Word in your baptism, personally applied to your body by name says to you, individually, personally and singles you , by name out. You are forgiven in Christ.

    To only hear the Word broadcast like seeds to everyone will save you. But how do you know that YOU are included in those promises? God sends a preacher to individually forgive you by name. baptize you by name. Give you the very body and blood of Christ into YOUR mouth that was shed on the holy cross.

    You are a liar, but God simply cannot lie. So we wrestle with him like Jacob and hold him to his promise even though we hold no certain sign in our own works or life to prove our faithfullness. He is faithful. We can hold him to what he has told us in our baptism.

    May God confirm you daily in that Word of God to you personally Dust.

  • fws

    Dust @ 325

    And you can ABSOLUTELY trust what that Word in your baptism, personally applied to your body by name says to you, individually, personally and singles you , by name out. You are forgiven in Christ.

    To only hear the Word broadcast like seeds to everyone will save you. But how do you know that YOU are included in those promises? God sends a preacher to individually forgive you by name. baptize you by name. Give you the very body and blood of Christ into YOUR mouth that was shed on the holy cross.

    You are a liar, but God simply cannot lie. So we wrestle with him like Jacob and hold him to his promise even though we hold no certain sign in our own works or life to prove our faithfullness. He is faithful. We can hold him to what he has told us in our baptism.

    May God confirm you daily in that Word of God to you personally Dust.

  • aletheist

    fws@278: I am afraid that you are the one who apparently disagrees with the texts. Paul was celibate and wished that all were like him in that respect. Jesus affirmed that it was better for some–”those to whom it is given”–not to marry. The AC states that “not all men are fit to lead a single life,” implying that some are. The Apology asserts that “the decision concerning [whether to remain continent or marry] pertains to the conscience of each one.”

    You quoted (in bold) this excerpt from the Apology: “If continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar gift. But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift; therefore it does not belong to all.” Then you paraphrased it in your own words: “Celebacy is a gift. It is not a decision we can make they are saying. You have the gift or you do not. And they say that the gift is miraculously rare.” Your first three sentences give a fair interpretation, but the last one is clearly an overstatement. “A peculiar gift” is simply not equivalent to “a miraculously rare gift.” The fact that “it does not belong to all” does not entail that it does not belong to any.

    Then you undermined a large chunk of your whole argument: “I am actually not sure I entirely agree with our Confessions on this point.” You declared that I was not a Lutheran (at all) when you thought that I was disagreeing with the Confessions, but suddenly the shoe is on the other foot. And your authority in this case is . . . experience?! The Confessions have a term for those who rely on their experience, rather than the Word of God: enthusiasts. It is not a favorable ascription.

    You continue to ignore 1 Corinthians 10:13, even though several of us have called your attention to it. Do you deny that God always provides a way of escape from every temptation? To clarify, I am not suggesting that the temptation is removed in such instances. Rather, I affirm what the Large Catechism says when discussing the Sixth Petition of the Lord’s Prayer (III.106-108):

    This, then, is leading us not into temptation, to wit, when He gives us power and strength to resist, the temptation, however, not being taken away or removed. For while we live in the flesh and have the devil about us, no one can escape temptation and allurements; and it cannot be otherwise than that we must endure trials, yea, be engulfed in them; but we pray for this, that we may not fall and be drowned in them. To feel temptation is therefore a far different thing from consenting or yielding to it. We must all feel it, although not all in the same manner, but some in a greater degree and more severely than others; as, the young suffer especially from the flesh, afterwards, they that attain to middle life and old age, from the world, but others who are occupied with spiritual matters, that is, strong Christians, from the devil. But such feeling, as long as it is against our will and we would rather be rid of it, can harm no one. For if we did not feel it, it could not be called a temptation. But to consent thereto is when we give it the reins and do not resist or pray against it.

  • aletheist

    fws@278: I am afraid that you are the one who apparently disagrees with the texts. Paul was celibate and wished that all were like him in that respect. Jesus affirmed that it was better for some–”those to whom it is given”–not to marry. The AC states that “not all men are fit to lead a single life,” implying that some are. The Apology asserts that “the decision concerning [whether to remain continent or marry] pertains to the conscience of each one.”

    You quoted (in bold) this excerpt from the Apology: “If continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar gift. But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift; therefore it does not belong to all.” Then you paraphrased it in your own words: “Celebacy is a gift. It is not a decision we can make they are saying. You have the gift or you do not. And they say that the gift is miraculously rare.” Your first three sentences give a fair interpretation, but the last one is clearly an overstatement. “A peculiar gift” is simply not equivalent to “a miraculously rare gift.” The fact that “it does not belong to all” does not entail that it does not belong to any.

    Then you undermined a large chunk of your whole argument: “I am actually not sure I entirely agree with our Confessions on this point.” You declared that I was not a Lutheran (at all) when you thought that I was disagreeing with the Confessions, but suddenly the shoe is on the other foot. And your authority in this case is . . . experience?! The Confessions have a term for those who rely on their experience, rather than the Word of God: enthusiasts. It is not a favorable ascription.

    You continue to ignore 1 Corinthians 10:13, even though several of us have called your attention to it. Do you deny that God always provides a way of escape from every temptation? To clarify, I am not suggesting that the temptation is removed in such instances. Rather, I affirm what the Large Catechism says when discussing the Sixth Petition of the Lord’s Prayer (III.106-108):

    This, then, is leading us not into temptation, to wit, when He gives us power and strength to resist, the temptation, however, not being taken away or removed. For while we live in the flesh and have the devil about us, no one can escape temptation and allurements; and it cannot be otherwise than that we must endure trials, yea, be engulfed in them; but we pray for this, that we may not fall and be drowned in them. To feel temptation is therefore a far different thing from consenting or yielding to it. We must all feel it, although not all in the same manner, but some in a greater degree and more severely than others; as, the young suffer especially from the flesh, afterwards, they that attain to middle life and old age, from the world, but others who are occupied with spiritual matters, that is, strong Christians, from the devil. But such feeling, as long as it is against our will and we would rather be rid of it, can harm no one. For if we did not feel it, it could not be called a temptation. But to consent thereto is when we give it the reins and do not resist or pray against it.

  • aletheist

    fws@309:

    The second table Law needs to look identical in and out of Church. How to do that? Take the god out of it. take the word sin out of it. sin is about god and not about neighbor.

    I am curious–where do you find specific warrant for this particular approach in Scripture and/or the Confessions? For a counterexample, look at Psalm 51. Which commandments did David break that eventually led him to write it? The sixth, when he committed adultery with Bathsheba; and the fifth, when he gave orders that would ensure the death in battle of Uriah the Hittite. Did he take God and sin out of the Second Table of the Law? Apparently not: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.”

  • aletheist

    fws@309:

    The second table Law needs to look identical in and out of Church. How to do that? Take the god out of it. take the word sin out of it. sin is about god and not about neighbor.

    I am curious–where do you find specific warrant for this particular approach in Scripture and/or the Confessions? For a counterexample, look at Psalm 51. Which commandments did David break that eventually led him to write it? The sixth, when he committed adultery with Bathsheba; and the fifth, when he gave orders that would ensure the death in battle of Uriah the Hittite. Did he take God and sin out of the Second Table of the Law? Apparently not: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.”

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 327

    I guess if I were trying to use the Confessions as a source of prooftext to win some argument or prove some point or beat someone into submission or win some intellectual dual… what you say would matter.

    I just seek to deal with the text honestly even and especially if it doesn´t fit neatly into what I would like to think.

    I find lots of stuff in both Scripture and the Confessions that challenge my thinking and force me to often change my own opinion of things.

    I am grateful whenever that happens Aletheist. Why read Scipture or the Confessions if that is not our aim?

    Bless you.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 327

    I guess if I were trying to use the Confessions as a source of prooftext to win some argument or prove some point or beat someone into submission or win some intellectual dual… what you say would matter.

    I just seek to deal with the text honestly even and especially if it doesn´t fit neatly into what I would like to think.

    I find lots of stuff in both Scripture and the Confessions that challenge my thinking and force me to often change my own opinion of things.

    I am grateful whenever that happens Aletheist. Why read Scipture or the Confessions if that is not our aim?

    Bless you.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 329

    You ask questions that don´t seem like questions.
    In a courtroom I think they would be called leading questions or begging the question.

    David´s confession is certainly a fine one.
    You are making it your basis for saying the second table Law is defined as what? To what divine end?
    How does the second table law relate to the first table law in your opinion Aletheist?

    How would you reword what I wrote in 310 to adjust it to your liking?

    Bless you.

  • fws

    Aletheist @ 329

    You ask questions that don´t seem like questions.
    In a courtroom I think they would be called leading questions or begging the question.

    David´s confession is certainly a fine one.
    You are making it your basis for saying the second table Law is defined as what? To what divine end?
    How does the second table law relate to the first table law in your opinion Aletheist?

    How would you reword what I wrote in 310 to adjust it to your liking?

    Bless you.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 328

    My precise purpose in quoting a broad context is to scrupulously avoid filtering and tilting a text to make a point.

    So When I quote, I am not trying to proove a point or an agenda. I am trying to illumine the text and encourage the others to encounter the text and be challenged by it rather than look for comfort there for a pre-held view.

    I don´t see the points you are making as being the same points the text is urging upon us to accept Aletheist. Show me.

    Again. I suggest that their basic argument is this:

    St Paul commands ALL men to marry. Priests are also men.
    Why?
    Celebacy is contrary to the physical laws of nature ordinanced by God. Short of a miraculous Divine gift.
    Further they say it is obvious that requiring celebacy is cruel, leads to immorality etc etc.

    That seems to be clearly what the text says Aletheist.
    I then went beyond that text, and offered my own private musings on how I would try to apply that to peoples real life situations. My private musings are just that. Private. My public confessions is the BofC. If I my private opinions differ, I bow to the Confessional interpretation of I cor 7 on celebacy and marriage etc etc.

    There is no context here. Disregard what I have written in the last 20 posts or so that depart from what I just summarized as to what Art XXIII says. I fully retract it. Done!

  • fws

    Altheist @ 328

    My precise purpose in quoting a broad context is to scrupulously avoid filtering and tilting a text to make a point.

    So When I quote, I am not trying to proove a point or an agenda. I am trying to illumine the text and encourage the others to encounter the text and be challenged by it rather than look for comfort there for a pre-held view.

    I don´t see the points you are making as being the same points the text is urging upon us to accept Aletheist. Show me.

    Again. I suggest that their basic argument is this:

    St Paul commands ALL men to marry. Priests are also men.
    Why?
    Celebacy is contrary to the physical laws of nature ordinanced by God. Short of a miraculous Divine gift.
    Further they say it is obvious that requiring celebacy is cruel, leads to immorality etc etc.

    That seems to be clearly what the text says Aletheist.
    I then went beyond that text, and offered my own private musings on how I would try to apply that to peoples real life situations. My private musings are just that. Private. My public confessions is the BofC. If I my private opinions differ, I bow to the Confessional interpretation of I cor 7 on celebacy and marriage etc etc.

    There is no context here. Disregard what I have written in the last 20 posts or so that depart from what I just summarized as to what Art XXIII says. I fully retract it. Done!

  • fws

    errata. there is no contest here I meant.
    I aim to hold NO private opinions that vary from my public confession, which is contained in the BofC.

    If you find where I have done this, assume me to be offering here a FULL and complete retraction of such expressed opinions in whole and in part (insert other legal sounding words here as necessary to tell you I am really serious about that…..)

  • fws

    errata. there is no contest here I meant.
    I aim to hold NO private opinions that vary from my public confession, which is contained in the BofC.

    If you find where I have done this, assume me to be offering here a FULL and complete retraction of such expressed opinions in whole and in part (insert other legal sounding words here as necessary to tell you I am really serious about that…..)

  • fws

    Grace,

    My only basis for faith and life is the Holy Scriptures.
    What do I publicly state that I believe those scriptures to mean and say?
    Read the Book of Concord. That is my personal confession as to what I believe the Holy Scriptures say. I am NOT saying that the BofC is above Holy Scriptures or anything remotely like that.

    If you feel I have ever said anything to the contrary, I retract that.But I have not.

  • fws

    Grace,

    My only basis for faith and life is the Holy Scriptures.
    What do I publicly state that I believe those scriptures to mean and say?
    Read the Book of Concord. That is my personal confession as to what I believe the Holy Scriptures say. I am NOT saying that the BofC is above Holy Scriptures or anything remotely like that.

    If you feel I have ever said anything to the contrary, I retract that.But I have not.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 329

    Let me present the underpinning sylogism of the Apology:

    1) “We are saved by grace through faith ALONE, apart from OUR works. ” St Paul
    2) OUR works are ALONE to be aimed at our dealings with our neighbor.
    3) IF OUR works are not ALONE aimed at dealing with are neighbor, then this is true…
    4) Our relationship with God is not dealt with ALONE by the Works of Another. OUR Works are not then excluded.

    I would be curious to hear where you find fault with this.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 329

    Let me present the underpinning sylogism of the Apology:

    1) “We are saved by grace through faith ALONE, apart from OUR works. ” St Paul
    2) OUR works are ALONE to be aimed at our dealings with our neighbor.
    3) IF OUR works are not ALONE aimed at dealing with are neighbor, then this is true…
    4) Our relationship with God is not dealt with ALONE by the Works of Another. OUR Works are not then excluded.

    I would be curious to hear where you find fault with this.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 327

    This has stuck with me. I hope we can get past reading the text to look for something we home to find. Something tidy.

    so if same-sex marriage is not an option for a gay man or woman–see my #253–and marriage to a member of the opposite sex is not viable either, then abstaining from sexual relations is the alternative that God has provided. “When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

    I suggest that the argumentative outline of the Apology in XXIII is this:

    Because of the fact that celebacy is never an option short of a miracle or very exceptionally ,
    St Paul has therefore commanded all men to marry.
    Priests are men and therefore that command applies to them.

    As a side observation they say that it is obvious that attempts at celebacy for those lacking the gift end usually in tragedy, and that to insist on celebacy leads to the degradation of public morals.

    The points you are making seem like prooftexting.
    I am saying that the points you are driving to make parallel the points that the Confutation aims to make and so are in contrast to the points the Augustana/Apology aims to make.

    You have not show me otherwise.
    Beyond establishing the argument of the text, you may trust I have no agenda.

    Those who say that celebacy is an option that is ordinarily available to homosexuals seems to be a position only possible by ignoring this text. I agree with sir Doyle that this creates a problem. But it is what the text asserts as THE basis for demanding the marriage of priests.

    I also repeat, if needed, that this article nor the scriptures nor the rest of the confessions provide any aid and comfort to the notion that gay marriage or sex are sanctioned.

    I am striving to square with the text and not to win some debate contest with you. Are we wrestling with the text together or dueling Aletheist?

  • fws

    Altheist @ 327

    This has stuck with me. I hope we can get past reading the text to look for something we home to find. Something tidy.

    so if same-sex marriage is not an option for a gay man or woman–see my #253–and marriage to a member of the opposite sex is not viable either, then abstaining from sexual relations is the alternative that God has provided. “When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

    I suggest that the argumentative outline of the Apology in XXIII is this:

    Because of the fact that celebacy is never an option short of a miracle or very exceptionally ,
    St Paul has therefore commanded all men to marry.
    Priests are men and therefore that command applies to them.

    As a side observation they say that it is obvious that attempts at celebacy for those lacking the gift end usually in tragedy, and that to insist on celebacy leads to the degradation of public morals.

    The points you are making seem like prooftexting.
    I am saying that the points you are driving to make parallel the points that the Confutation aims to make and so are in contrast to the points the Augustana/Apology aims to make.

    You have not show me otherwise.
    Beyond establishing the argument of the text, you may trust I have no agenda.

    Those who say that celebacy is an option that is ordinarily available to homosexuals seems to be a position only possible by ignoring this text. I agree with sir Doyle that this creates a problem. But it is what the text asserts as THE basis for demanding the marriage of priests.

    I also repeat, if needed, that this article nor the scriptures nor the rest of the confessions provide any aid and comfort to the notion that gay marriage or sex are sanctioned.

    I am striving to square with the text and not to win some debate contest with you. Are we wrestling with the text together or dueling Aletheist?

  • fws

    Altheist @ 266

    The Augustana/Apology XXXIII
    presents an argumentative thread.
    It has a major premise , a minor one, and a conclusion.

    What are those?
    What does the Refutation present as the COUNTER argument Aletheist?

    Put those two side by side for me.
    You say you are pushing for the Apology´s argument and rejecting that of the Refutation? Show me.

    Again: What is the Refutation´s argument and how and on what points of the Apology does it seek to negate? and with waht scripture and logic?

    Here is where I summarize the most pertinent part of the Refutation, which was poorly written….

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160569

  • fws

    Altheist @ 266

    The Augustana/Apology XXXIII
    presents an argumentative thread.
    It has a major premise , a minor one, and a conclusion.

    What are those?
    What does the Refutation present as the COUNTER argument Aletheist?

    Put those two side by side for me.
    You say you are pushing for the Apology´s argument and rejecting that of the Refutation? Show me.

    Again: What is the Refutation´s argument and how and on what points of the Apology does it seek to negate? and with waht scripture and logic?

    Here is where I summarize the most pertinent part of the Refutation, which was poorly written….

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160569

  • fws

    That was, of course XXIII.
    I would like to feel that if I err it won´t be pounced upon to press an argument. I hope you trust me in the same way.

  • fws

    That was, of course XXIII.
    I would like to feel that if I err it won´t be pounced upon to press an argument. I hope you trust me in the same way.

  • aletheist

    fws@329:

    I just seek to deal with the text honestly even and especially if it doesn´t fit neatly into what I would like to think. I find lots of stuff in both Scripture and the Confessions that challenge my thinking and force me to often change my own opinion of things.

    If this is true, and I take you at your word that it is, then what I said in #327 should matter to you, regardless of whether you are “trying to use the Confessions as a source of prooftext to win some argument or prove some point or beat someone into submission or win some intellectual dual.” Paul says in Scripture that he was celibate, and Jesus says in Scripture that it is better for some not to marry. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, the Confessions never say that celibacy is miraculous in the sense that it never happens, only that it is not possible for everyone.

    I am grateful whenever that happens Aletheist. Why read Scipture or the Confessions if that is not our aim?

    Are you suggesting that I do not approach Scripture and the Confessions with the same aim? If so, that would be uncharitable on your part. If I say something incorrect, by all means please bring it to my attention, but do not presume to know my motives. I jumped into this discussion because you offered a perspective on this whole issue that was different from anything that I had seen before. I gave up a large chunk of my weekend to engage with you–reading, thinking, researching, and writing–time that I could (and probably should) have spent with my wife and children. Tomorrow it is back to work for me, so once I call it a night, who knows whether and when I will be able to resume my participation here.

  • aletheist

    fws@329:

    I just seek to deal with the text honestly even and especially if it doesn´t fit neatly into what I would like to think. I find lots of stuff in both Scripture and the Confessions that challenge my thinking and force me to often change my own opinion of things.

    If this is true, and I take you at your word that it is, then what I said in #327 should matter to you, regardless of whether you are “trying to use the Confessions as a source of prooftext to win some argument or prove some point or beat someone into submission or win some intellectual dual.” Paul says in Scripture that he was celibate, and Jesus says in Scripture that it is better for some not to marry. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, the Confessions never say that celibacy is miraculous in the sense that it never happens, only that it is not possible for everyone.

    I am grateful whenever that happens Aletheist. Why read Scipture or the Confessions if that is not our aim?

    Are you suggesting that I do not approach Scripture and the Confessions with the same aim? If so, that would be uncharitable on your part. If I say something incorrect, by all means please bring it to my attention, but do not presume to know my motives. I jumped into this discussion because you offered a perspective on this whole issue that was different from anything that I had seen before. I gave up a large chunk of my weekend to engage with you–reading, thinking, researching, and writing–time that I could (and probably should) have spent with my wife and children. Tomorrow it is back to work for me, so once I call it a night, who knows whether and when I will be able to resume my participation here.

  • fws

    Altheist, The call this the CONFUTATION for a reason.
    What points here do you disagree with?

    What are the points in the Augustana and Apology is the Confutation, um… confuting?

    For a priest has the intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of restraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by devout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils. …

    Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood;

    but let the priest pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4:13. For continence is a gift of God,

    Wisd. 8:21…. those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones – i.e. their carnal thoughts – upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in
    prayer.

    http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    Does what the Apology and Augustana say ONLY apply to pastors and priests?
    Specifically I am asking this:
    Would it be “absurd” as Pastor Mc Cain states to apply anything said in Apology XXIII to the situation of other men either heterosexual or gay?

    Your argument seems to be that it is a logical impossibility that NEITHER of the ONLY remedys for sexual self control listed in scripture and confessions are available to gays. Is that a compelling argument? Isn´t this simply to ignore the text in favor of reason? And I do find your reason compelling by the way. But it IS a reasoned argument that requires us to simply ignore Art XXIII I think.

    Maybe we should urge them all to find a female and marry? Why not?
    Apology XXIII seems clear that celebacy, ordinarily, is not a viable option.

    I am urging that we wrestle with the text. That is all.

    Bless you.

  • fws

    Altheist, The call this the CONFUTATION for a reason.
    What points here do you disagree with?

    What are the points in the Augustana and Apology is the Confutation, um… confuting?

    For a priest has the intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of restraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by devout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils. …

    Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood;

    but let the priest pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4:13. For continence is a gift of God,

    Wisd. 8:21…. those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones – i.e. their carnal thoughts – upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in
    prayer.

    http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    Does what the Apology and Augustana say ONLY apply to pastors and priests?
    Specifically I am asking this:
    Would it be “absurd” as Pastor Mc Cain states to apply anything said in Apology XXIII to the situation of other men either heterosexual or gay?

    Your argument seems to be that it is a logical impossibility that NEITHER of the ONLY remedys for sexual self control listed in scripture and confessions are available to gays. Is that a compelling argument? Isn´t this simply to ignore the text in favor of reason? And I do find your reason compelling by the way. But it IS a reasoned argument that requires us to simply ignore Art XXIII I think.

    Maybe we should urge them all to find a female and marry? Why not?
    Apology XXIII seems clear that celebacy, ordinarily, is not a viable option.

    I am urging that we wrestle with the text. That is all.

    Bless you.

  • aletheist

    fws@330: This may sound a bit childish, but I asked you first. Where do you find specific warrant in Scripture and/or the Confessions for taking God and sin out of the Second Table of the Law?

  • aletheist

    fws@330: This may sound a bit childish, but I asked you first. Where do you find specific warrant in Scripture and/or the Confessions for taking God and sin out of the Second Table of the Law?

  • Joanne

    We are talking about sexual attraction. Jesus and Paul say that it is a gift and better if you don’t have a sexual attraction at all, but very few have this “gift.” Today we’d call it a medical condition and the doctor would prescribe medications that would gift you with a sexual attraction and if needed treatments or medicines for any problems with erections or vaginal lubrication.

    But the nub of contintion is the object of the sexual attraction. In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam a sexual attraction to Eve and he gave Eve a sexual attraction to Adam, and they had many children, with painless births, there.

    Then the fall from grace came and sexual attraction just like everything else, including the will of humans, was corrupted. Even the animals were affected by it.

    Sexual attraction to nothing and no one is a special gift from God given to very few people. This is best.

    If you suffer from sexual attraction, however, then you should marry for the common good of society. We’d say, Boy you need to marry a nice girl and settle down, buy a house and have some kids.

    So sexual attraction is an irritant and not a gift and a likely social disturbance and like all temptations we are given a way of escape. Well this is another medical situation. Doctors can also prescribe medications and procedures to greatly assuage the pain of sexual attraction. Perhaps God is giving us all his gift of countenance, only now through medical science.

    I would think that medicine as “a way of escape” would be acceptable during the 12 month fast.

    Can you imagine a world with no sexual attraction. Sounds like heaven, doesn’t it.

  • Joanne

    We are talking about sexual attraction. Jesus and Paul say that it is a gift and better if you don’t have a sexual attraction at all, but very few have this “gift.” Today we’d call it a medical condition and the doctor would prescribe medications that would gift you with a sexual attraction and if needed treatments or medicines for any problems with erections or vaginal lubrication.

    But the nub of contintion is the object of the sexual attraction. In the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam a sexual attraction to Eve and he gave Eve a sexual attraction to Adam, and they had many children, with painless births, there.

    Then the fall from grace came and sexual attraction just like everything else, including the will of humans, was corrupted. Even the animals were affected by it.

    Sexual attraction to nothing and no one is a special gift from God given to very few people. This is best.

    If you suffer from sexual attraction, however, then you should marry for the common good of society. We’d say, Boy you need to marry a nice girl and settle down, buy a house and have some kids.

    So sexual attraction is an irritant and not a gift and a likely social disturbance and like all temptations we are given a way of escape. Well this is another medical situation. Doctors can also prescribe medications and procedures to greatly assuage the pain of sexual attraction. Perhaps God is giving us all his gift of countenance, only now through medical science.

    I would think that medicine as “a way of escape” would be acceptable during the 12 month fast.

    Can you imagine a world with no sexual attraction. Sounds like heaven, doesn’t it.

  • fws

    Altheist

    Are you saying that the text supports the idea that if someone needs to be celebate for whatever reason they can have that by praying for it and working at it?

    If that is so, on what basis do the Lutherans say it is wrong for Rome to demand celebacy of pastors?

  • fws

    Altheist

    Are you saying that the text supports the idea that if someone needs to be celebate for whatever reason they can have that by praying for it and working at it?

    If that is so, on what basis do the Lutherans say it is wrong for Rome to demand celebacy of pastors?

  • fws

    Altheist @ 341

    Not childish at all. we are brothers.

    Here was my response to your question:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160734

    The other passage I would quote is this one:
    “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”
    The opposite of sin is not…
    goodness or
    adherence to the Law or
    not breaking the Law.

    I presented an outline of the Apology´s sylogism to be brief.
    Feel free to ask me to demonstrate any point of that sylogism from the actual text of the Apology as it would please you.

    Ball back in your court brother or not yet? ;)

  • fws

    Altheist @ 341

    Not childish at all. we are brothers.

    Here was my response to your question:
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160734

    The other passage I would quote is this one:
    “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”
    The opposite of sin is not…
    goodness or
    adherence to the Law or
    not breaking the Law.

    I presented an outline of the Apology´s sylogism to be brief.
    Feel free to ask me to demonstrate any point of that sylogism from the actual text of the Apology as it would please you.

    Ball back in your court brother or not yet? ;)

  • fws

    Altheist @ 341

    The Apology/Augustana in Article II and.
    The Formula in article I
    tell us this:

    Original Sin is not defined as what we do or leave undone.
    Those things are the symptoms of sin.

    I consider there are Luther texts that are an integral part of the Confessions even though you will not find their text in the BofC.
    How is that possible?
    The Confessions tell us to read them for a more expanded explanation of what they are saying.

    So when we subscribe to the BofC we ALSO subscribe to the following:

    Luthers Genesis Commentary

    Luthers Galatians Commentary. Preface here to whet your appetite:
    http://www.newreformationpress.com/blog/nrp-freebies/martin-luthers-preface-to-his-commentary-on-galatians/

    Luthers sermon on Christs descent into hell

    Luthers Ephesians sermon on Old and New man in FC art VI

    The Wittenberg Concord,

    and….

    Luther´s Preface to the 1545 translation of Romans.
    It defines what sin and law as lutherans define them.
    Here is that writing. It is brief and a fantastic read.

    http://www.newcreation.org.au/books/pdf/295_Luther_Romans.pdf

    or

    http://www.google.com.br/search?q=luthers+preface+to+romans&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=qpoxULfNE6ra0QHrgoCoBQ

    Here is the mature Luther writing about the Law of Moses. It does not carry confessional authority, but it reflects Luther´s opinion on the Law:

    http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/LutherMoses.htm

  • fws

    Altheist @ 341

    The Apology/Augustana in Article II and.
    The Formula in article I
    tell us this:

    Original Sin is not defined as what we do or leave undone.
    Those things are the symptoms of sin.

    I consider there are Luther texts that are an integral part of the Confessions even though you will not find their text in the BofC.
    How is that possible?
    The Confessions tell us to read them for a more expanded explanation of what they are saying.

    So when we subscribe to the BofC we ALSO subscribe to the following:

    Luthers Genesis Commentary

    Luthers Galatians Commentary. Preface here to whet your appetite:
    http://www.newreformationpress.com/blog/nrp-freebies/martin-luthers-preface-to-his-commentary-on-galatians/

    Luthers sermon on Christs descent into hell

    Luthers Ephesians sermon on Old and New man in FC art VI

    The Wittenberg Concord,

    and….

    Luther´s Preface to the 1545 translation of Romans.
    It defines what sin and law as lutherans define them.
    Here is that writing. It is brief and a fantastic read.

    http://www.newcreation.org.au/books/pdf/295_Luther_Romans.pdf

    or

    http://www.google.com.br/search?q=luthers+preface+to+romans&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=qpoxULfNE6ra0QHrgoCoBQ

    Here is the mature Luther writing about the Law of Moses. It does not carry confessional authority, but it reflects Luther´s opinion on the Law:

    http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/LutherMoses.htm

  • aletheist

    fws@331:

    St Paul commands ALL men to marry.

    False. “Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:6-9, emphases added) Paul does not command all men to marry, but only those who cannot exercise self-control. He says that it is good for those who can exercise self-control to remain single, just like Paul did. You keep overlooking this. Why is that?

    Celebacy is contrary to the physical laws of nature ordinanced by God. Short of a miraculous Divine gift.

    You keep applying the word “miraculous” to celibacy even though, as far as I can tell, it does not appear in any of the relevant texts of Scripture or the Confessions. Why is that? Besides, as Christians we do not equate “miraculous” with “impossible” or even “rare” when applied specifically to believers, since saving faith is itself a miraculous Divine gift.

    Further they say it is obvious that requiring celebacy is cruel, leads to immorality etc etc.

    I am not advocating that celibacy be required of anyone as a human ordinance. The prohibition of homosexual relations and the establishment of marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman both come from God. That takes us back to 1 Corinthians 10:13, which you are still ignoring. Why is that?

  • aletheist

    fws@331:

    St Paul commands ALL men to marry.

    False. “Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:6-9, emphases added) Paul does not command all men to marry, but only those who cannot exercise self-control. He says that it is good for those who can exercise self-control to remain single, just like Paul did. You keep overlooking this. Why is that?

    Celebacy is contrary to the physical laws of nature ordinanced by God. Short of a miraculous Divine gift.

    You keep applying the word “miraculous” to celibacy even though, as far as I can tell, it does not appear in any of the relevant texts of Scripture or the Confessions. Why is that? Besides, as Christians we do not equate “miraculous” with “impossible” or even “rare” when applied specifically to believers, since saving faith is itself a miraculous Divine gift.

    Further they say it is obvious that requiring celebacy is cruel, leads to immorality etc etc.

    I am not advocating that celibacy be required of anyone as a human ordinance. The prohibition of homosexual relations and the establishment of marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman both come from God. That takes us back to 1 Corinthians 10:13, which you are still ignoring. Why is that?

  • aletheist

    fws#334: No objection. Where is the part about taking God and sin out of the Second Table of the Law? Who gave us the Second Table of the Law? What is it called when someone violates the Second Table of the Law?

  • aletheist

    fws#334: No objection. Where is the part about taking God and sin out of the Second Table of the Law? Who gave us the Second Table of the Law? What is it called when someone violates the Second Table of the Law?

  • fws

    Altheist @ 341

    The Apology/Augustana in Article II and.
    The Formula in article I
    tell us this:

    Original Sin is not defined as what we do or leave undone.
    Those things are the symptoms of sin.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 341

    The Apology/Augustana in Article II and.
    The Formula in article I
    tell us this:

    Original Sin is not defined as what we do or leave undone.
    Those things are the symptoms of sin.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 346

    Ok Aletheist. You wish to excape the text.
    So let´s take things slowly.
    Point by point:

    Altheist:

    St Paul commands ALL men to marry.
    False. “Now as a concession, not a command,

    Confessions:

    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para14

  • fws

    Altheist @ 346

    Ok Aletheist. You wish to excape the text.
    So let´s take things slowly.
    Point by point:

    Altheist:

    St Paul commands ALL men to marry.
    False. “Now as a concession, not a command,

    Confessions:

    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para14

  • fws

    Altheist @ 347
    People know those things as crimes because
    it is true of them as Romans 2:15 says.
    Aritotle calls those things vices.
    Moses called them sins.
    Romans 2:15 says that ALL men have the Divine Law written in their hearts. This Law agrees with the Decalog becaus it is the same law.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 347
    People know those things as crimes because
    it is true of them as Romans 2:15 says.
    Aritotle calls those things vices.
    Moses called them sins.
    Romans 2:15 says that ALL men have the Divine Law written in their hearts. This Law agrees with the Decalog becaus it is the same law.

  • aletheist

    fws@339:

    Your argument seems to be that it is a logical impossibility that NEITHER of the ONLY remedys for sexual self control listed in scripture and confessions are available to gays. Is that a compelling argument? Isn´t this simply to ignore the text in favor of reason? And I do find your reason compelling by the way.

    It is not ignoring the text in favor of reason. It is using our God-given reason to understand, interpret, and apply the text. You are doing it just as much as I am.

  • aletheist

    fws@339:

    Your argument seems to be that it is a logical impossibility that NEITHER of the ONLY remedys for sexual self control listed in scripture and confessions are available to gays. Is that a compelling argument? Isn´t this simply to ignore the text in favor of reason? And I do find your reason compelling by the way.

    It is not ignoring the text in favor of reason. It is using our God-given reason to understand, interpret, and apply the text. You are doing it just as much as I am.

  • fws

    Altheist

    I am not dealing with 1 cor 10:13 because I raised the issue of Apology XXIII.
    What part of Apology XXIII describes what 1 cor 10:13 speaks of in the case of sexual self control?
    Happy to take it right there, as it is relevant to Apology XXIII.

  • fws

    Altheist

    I am not dealing with 1 cor 10:13 because I raised the issue of Apology XXIII.
    What part of Apology XXIII describes what 1 cor 10:13 speaks of in the case of sexual self control?
    Happy to take it right there, as it is relevant to Apology XXIII.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 351

    . You are doing it just as much as I am.

    Where I am doing that, call me on it. I need to stop.
    What IS the argumentative thread of article XXIII Altheist?
    do you even know or care?

    I am saying it is this:

    It is wrong to forbid priests to marry.
    Priests are men.
    Men are incapable, ordinarily, of celebacy.
    That is why St Paul has commanded all men to marry.

    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para14

    And as side and sub observations:
    attempts at celebacy usually lead to a trajic end (augustana 6]ff)
    Ordering men to be celebate degrades public morals.

    If you disagree with this, what is your alternative view of the argumentative bullet points of XXIII?

    And Christ has clearly said, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Because now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two things concur, namely, natural appetite and concupiscence, which inflames the natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage than in nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as a remedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry. Neither can any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration: It is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove the nature or concupiscence. 17] Therefore all who burn, retain the right to marry. By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep themselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to the conscience of each one.

    This says to me simply this: If you find that you are incapable of keeping things in your pants than you are commanded to marry. Each man has to evaluate that for himself. Is that an honest reading with no agenda?

    By the way:
    I don´t argue with others by asking a question that begs an answer, asking another question that begs an answer, and so try to drive they to a logical conclusion without revealing where I aim to end up in advance. I feel that approach is dishonest, manipulative, and so disrespectful.
    IF I have a thesis, I will state that up front and THEN present my arguments.
    I am not accusing you of doing the former. I am saying this to help you trust that if I DO have an agenda I am aiming for, I feel moraly bound to identify what that is up front.
    This comment is about winning your trust I am saying.

    Accordingly, Ambrose is right in saying: Virginity is only a thing that can be recommended, but not commanded; 21] it is a matter of vow rather than of precept. If any one here would raise the objection that Christ praises those which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, Matt. 19:12, let him also consider this, that He is praising such as have the gift of continence; for on this account He adds: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 22] For an impure continence [such as there is in monasteries and cloisters] does not please Christ. We also praise true continence. But now we are disputing concerning the law, and concerning those who do not have the gift of continence. The matter ought to be left free, and snares ought not to be cast upon the weak through this law.

    Should we assume, based upon 1 cor 13 that if a man or lesbian is gay then they must assume that they also DO have the gift of continence? If that is your thesis, then state it please. We can then discuss it. Otherwise I would not know how to relate 1 cor 13 to the text of art XXIII. Unless you can tell me how to do that.

  • fws

    Altheist @ 351

    . You are doing it just as much as I am.

    Where I am doing that, call me on it. I need to stop.
    What IS the argumentative thread of article XXIII Altheist?
    do you even know or care?

    I am saying it is this:

    It is wrong to forbid priests to marry.
    Priests are men.
    Men are incapable, ordinarily, of celebacy.
    That is why St Paul has commanded all men to marry.

    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para14

    And as side and sub observations:
    attempts at celebacy usually lead to a trajic end (augustana 6]ff)
    Ordering men to be celebate degrades public morals.

    If you disagree with this, what is your alternative view of the argumentative bullet points of XXIII?

    And Christ has clearly said, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Because now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two things concur, namely, natural appetite and concupiscence, which inflames the natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage than in nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as a remedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry. Neither can any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration: It is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove the nature or concupiscence. 17] Therefore all who burn, retain the right to marry. By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep themselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to the conscience of each one.

    This says to me simply this: If you find that you are incapable of keeping things in your pants than you are commanded to marry. Each man has to evaluate that for himself. Is that an honest reading with no agenda?

    By the way:
    I don´t argue with others by asking a question that begs an answer, asking another question that begs an answer, and so try to drive they to a logical conclusion without revealing where I aim to end up in advance. I feel that approach is dishonest, manipulative, and so disrespectful.
    IF I have a thesis, I will state that up front and THEN present my arguments.
    I am not accusing you of doing the former. I am saying this to help you trust that if I DO have an agenda I am aiming for, I feel moraly bound to identify what that is up front.
    This comment is about winning your trust I am saying.

    Accordingly, Ambrose is right in saying: Virginity is only a thing that can be recommended, but not commanded; 21] it is a matter of vow rather than of precept. If any one here would raise the objection that Christ praises those which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, Matt. 19:12, let him also consider this, that He is praising such as have the gift of continence; for on this account He adds: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. 22] For an impure continence [such as there is in monasteries and cloisters] does not please Christ. We also praise true continence. But now we are disputing concerning the law, and concerning those who do not have the gift of continence. The matter ought to be left free, and snares ought not to be cast upon the weak through this law.

    Should we assume, based upon 1 cor 13 that if a man or lesbian is gay then they must assume that they also DO have the gift of continence? If that is your thesis, then state it please. We can then discuss it. Otherwise I would not know how to relate 1 cor 13 to the text of art XXIII. Unless you can tell me how to do that.

  • aletheist

    fws@343:

    Are you saying that the text supports the idea that if someone needs to be celebate for whatever reason they can have that by praying for it and working at it?

    Nope.

    fws@344-345: See my #347. Spell it out for me. Can you do so using just the text, and not your reason?

    fws@349: “This now is an express command pertaining to all who are not fit for celibacy.” Not all men, but all who are not fit for celibacy. The text makes my point, not yours.

    fws@350: The Divine Law written on men’s hearts comes from God; that is why it is called “Divine Law.” And violations of it are still called sins; actual sins, not original sin.

    fws@352: So you see sexual temptation as an exception? God does not always provide a way of escape from it? Where is that in the text? Why then does Paul imply that it is possible to stay single and exercise self-control, giving himself as an example?

    fws@353:

    This says to me simply this: If you find that you are incapable of keeping things in your pants than you are commanded to marry. Each man has to evaluate that for himself. Is that an honest reading with no agenda?

    Sure, but that is not what you have been saying up until now. Instead, you have been claiming that no one is capable of “keeping things in their pants.” Maybe we are finally getting somewhere.

    I don´t argue with others by asking a question that begs an answer, asking another question that begs an answer, and so try to drive they to a logical conclusion without revealing where I aim to end up in advance. I feel that approach is dishonest, manipulative, and so disrespectful.

    I ask questions not to be dishonest, manipulative, or disrespectful, but to encourage others to think through an issue for themselves. They might reach the same conclusions that I have, or they might not, but at least it will be their own thinking that leads them there. Sometimes their answers surprise me and force me to change my own thinking.

    Should we assume, based upon 1 cor 13 that if a man or lesbian is gay then they must assume that they also DO have the gift of continence?

    You mean 1 Corinthians 10:13, right? A person who is gay is someone who desires members of the same sex, rather than the opposite sex. Is such desire ordained by God? If not, what are the implications of this? Is the concept of celibacy or continence, as “a peculiar divine gift,” even applicable? Or does it mean that same-sex desire is the kind of temptation for which God always provides a way of escape, such that it is possible to exercise self-control (with the help of God)? This is a case where I am asking questions that I am still pondering myself.

    Otherwise I would not know how to relate 1 cor 13 to the text of art XXIII.

    Scripture is the norm that norms; the Confessions are the norm that is normed. Our interpretation of AC XXIII and Apology XXIII must be consistent with the whole counsel of God as revealed in His Word, including 1 Corinthians 10:13. How do you reconcile the two, given that you are clearly much more familiar with those portions of the Book of Concord?

    Look, you make it very difficult for me to keep up with you by offering multiple lengthy responses to every comment of mine and urging me to read not only the Confessions, but also the other documents that they reference. I am a layman with a full-time job and a family–vocations that supersede my particpation in the comments section of someone else’s blog. I have tried to be patient and work through this with you, but at this point, I am getting rather tired and frustrated. Just being honest here.

    I am going to bed now, and as I said earlier, it remains to be seen whether and when I will be able to participate further in this discussion. I hope that, if nothing else, this has been an instance of iron sharpening iron. Blessings to you!

  • aletheist

    fws@343:

    Are you saying that the text supports the idea that if someone needs to be celebate for whatever reason they can have that by praying for it and working at it?

    Nope.

    fws@344-345: See my #347. Spell it out for me. Can you do so using just the text, and not your reason?

    fws@349: “This now is an express command pertaining to all who are not fit for celibacy.” Not all men, but all who are not fit for celibacy. The text makes my point, not yours.

    fws@350: The Divine Law written on men’s hearts comes from God; that is why it is called “Divine Law.” And violations of it are still called sins; actual sins, not original sin.

    fws@352: So you see sexual temptation as an exception? God does not always provide a way of escape from it? Where is that in the text? Why then does Paul imply that it is possible to stay single and exercise self-control, giving himself as an example?

    fws@353:

    This says to me simply this: If you find that you are incapable of keeping things in your pants than you are commanded to marry. Each man has to evaluate that for himself. Is that an honest reading with no agenda?

    Sure, but that is not what you have been saying up until now. Instead, you have been claiming that no one is capable of “keeping things in their pants.” Maybe we are finally getting somewhere.

    I don´t argue with others by asking a question that begs an answer, asking another question that begs an answer, and so try to drive they to a logical conclusion without revealing where I aim to end up in advance. I feel that approach is dishonest, manipulative, and so disrespectful.

    I ask questions not to be dishonest, manipulative, or disrespectful, but to encourage others to think through an issue for themselves. They might reach the same conclusions that I have, or they might not, but at least it will be their own thinking that leads them there. Sometimes their answers surprise me and force me to change my own thinking.

    Should we assume, based upon 1 cor 13 that if a man or lesbian is gay then they must assume that they also DO have the gift of continence?

    You mean 1 Corinthians 10:13, right? A person who is gay is someone who desires members of the same sex, rather than the opposite sex. Is such desire ordained by God? If not, what are the implications of this? Is the concept of celibacy or continence, as “a peculiar divine gift,” even applicable? Or does it mean that same-sex desire is the kind of temptation for which God always provides a way of escape, such that it is possible to exercise self-control (with the help of God)? This is a case where I am asking questions that I am still pondering myself.

    Otherwise I would not know how to relate 1 cor 13 to the text of art XXIII.

    Scripture is the norm that norms; the Confessions are the norm that is normed. Our interpretation of AC XXIII and Apology XXIII must be consistent with the whole counsel of God as revealed in His Word, including 1 Corinthians 10:13. How do you reconcile the two, given that you are clearly much more familiar with those portions of the Book of Concord?

    Look, you make it very difficult for me to keep up with you by offering multiple lengthy responses to every comment of mine and urging me to read not only the Confessions, but also the other documents that they reference. I am a layman with a full-time job and a family–vocations that supersede my particpation in the comments section of someone else’s blog. I have tried to be patient and work through this with you, but at this point, I am getting rather tired and frustrated. Just being honest here.

    I am going to bed now, and as I said earlier, it remains to be seen whether and when I will be able to participate further in this discussion. I hope that, if nothing else, this has been an instance of iron sharpening iron. Blessings to you!

  • larry

    Here we go again. This id why the lcms at length will fall. The over all discussion of what is a Lutheran drops into such an antichristic state that rank blasphemer, such as grace, a blasphemer of holy baptism, the actual body and blood of Christ, of holy absolution finds themselves in alighmment with so called Lutherans. This is a constant damming reality. To wit, “damnable the homosexuals as if that I more grave, but embrace as a if vaguely. Christian the blasphemer s of holy baptism, , the body and blood of Christ and holy absolution for which the despairing of Satan’s lies derive the very essence of their assurance and salvation. Swallow a camel, choke on a gnat!

    Furthermore, I note that some selectively like to constantly beat the homosexual drum, and don’t bullshit me I very conservative, but they conveniently forget the rest of the list such as gosippers., slander, gluttoney and a whole host of sin acts as if they are “cleaner “. Yet we suffer the filthy blaspheme of deniers of holy baptism, the Lords Supper Wand absolution constantly…the soul of our faith with little more than a whence. I suppose because many theologians today like their fat bellies rubbed by intellectual accademics from heterodoxies, meanwhile the faith of laaity Christians is murdered in front of their faces by these clean white washed tomb blasphemous doctrines. Do such academic “Lutherans ” truly believe what they pray in the Lord’s prayer regarding “holy be Thy name “?

  • larry

    Here we go again. This id why the lcms at length will fall. The over all discussion of what is a Lutheran drops into such an antichristic state that rank blasphemer, such as grace, a blasphemer of holy baptism, the actual body and blood of Christ, of holy absolution finds themselves in alighmment with so called Lutherans. This is a constant damming reality. To wit, “damnable the homosexuals as if that I more grave, but embrace as a if vaguely. Christian the blasphemer s of holy baptism, , the body and blood of Christ and holy absolution for which the despairing of Satan’s lies derive the very essence of their assurance and salvation. Swallow a camel, choke on a gnat!

    Furthermore, I note that some selectively like to constantly beat the homosexual drum, and don’t bullshit me I very conservative, but they conveniently forget the rest of the list such as gosippers., slander, gluttoney and a whole host of sin acts as if they are “cleaner “. Yet we suffer the filthy blaspheme of deniers of holy baptism, the Lords Supper Wand absolution constantly…the soul of our faith with little more than a whence. I suppose because many theologians today like their fat bellies rubbed by intellectual accademics from heterodoxies, meanwhile the faith of laaity Christians is murdered in front of their faces by these clean white washed tomb blasphemous doctrines. Do such academic “Lutherans ” truly believe what they pray in the Lord’s prayer regarding “holy be Thy name “?

  • Helen K

    following….

  • Helen K

    following….

  • aletheist

    Aletheist @ 354

    You eviscerate the argument presented in Art XXIII
    that is all I keep trying to say.
    I hear you saying precisely what the Roman Refutation says.

    Can you even present the argument of Art XXIII, or does that not matter when we are dealing with this text?

    Yes art XXIII does say Paul commands marriage.
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para14
    And you say “false!
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160747

    In charity, you mean to say this:
    “yes they say that, but they also say there are exceptions to that command”.
    But you don´t. What do you do?
    You accuse me of ignoring stuff.

    So yes they DO say ALL men are commanded to marry, which, itself, does imply that any exception is of the miraculous kind. As in “Short of a miracle, I will NEVER win the lottery.” So there are exceptions to that! What an argument Aletheist!
    So the ONLY exception to the command to marriage is those who have the gift of celebacy?
    So what do they have to say about celebacy? We should be curious right?

    Christ says, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, He teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life [of celebacy]

    why not?

    for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28. 6]

    In context, what could that mean? All men have the urge to start a family? I say it can ONLY mean this: he puts a sex drive into men that they are simply unable to resist. Therefore this:

    It is not in man’s power, without a singular …… gift and work of God [miracle?] , to alter this creation.

    Man is incapable of altering the sex drive by attempting celebacy, short of a miracle happening.

    For it is manifest, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt [at celebacy]), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.

    Who ARE these people??!!
    Why don´t they just pray harder or try harder? Like gays are supposed to do urging 1 cor 10:13 and saying that THAT is what that passage MUST mean. Even though it does not say that. Maybe they should marry? Maybe God´s 1 cor 10:13 “escape ” is chemical castration that Joanne seems to suggest?

    |

    Therefore, 7] those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to 8] contract matrimony. For no man’s law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God.

    What “command and ordering of God?” The urge to have sex. The sex drive.

    For these reasons 9] the priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.

    many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy …….and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity. …impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates…But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it be done by any vow. 25] …women who do not keep the chastity they have promised should marry… if they be unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by their lusts.

    And then Altheist urges what? I cor 10:13

    The Confessions would respond that the ONLY escape provided is marriage. Celebacy, short of a true miracle, is simply not an option.

    So where do Gays fit into this? I don´t know. Unless this:
    1 cor 10:13 means what the Roman Confutation argues, AGAINST the Confessions. Which is that they should pursue celebacy and that it IS possible IF they work really really hard and pray really really hard at it. But Altheist decline to just come out and say what he thinks 1 cor 10:13 demands gays do :

    For a priest has the intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of restraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by devout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils. …

    Great. So are the romans demanding celebacy or not? Is Altheist demanding celebacy of gays or not?

    Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood;

    but let the priest pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4:13. For continence is a gift of God,

    Wisd. 8:21…. those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones – i.e. their carnal thoughts – upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in
    prayer.
    http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    May I say that to demand this of any man, OR to suggest to him that this is something he should expect can be made to happen in this way and with these methods, IS contrary to what our Confessions say? Does that sound right?

  • aletheist

    Aletheist @ 354

    You eviscerate the argument presented in Art XXIII
    that is all I keep trying to say.
    I hear you saying precisely what the Roman Refutation says.

    Can you even present the argument of Art XXIII, or does that not matter when we are dealing with this text?

    Yes art XXIII does say Paul commands marriage.
    http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para14
    And you say “false!
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/14/what-is-a-lutheran/#comment-160747

    In charity, you mean to say this:
    “yes they say that, but they also say there are exceptions to that command”.
    But you don´t. What do you do?
    You accuse me of ignoring stuff.

    So yes they DO say ALL men are commanded to marry, which, itself, does imply that any exception is of the miraculous kind. As in “Short of a miracle, I will NEVER win the lottery.” So there are exceptions to that! What an argument Aletheist!
    So the ONLY exception to the command to marriage is those who have the gift of celebacy?
    So what do they have to say about celebacy? We should be curious right?

    Christ says, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, He teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life [of celebacy]

    why not?

    for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28. 6]

    In context, what could that mean? All men have the urge to start a family? I say it can ONLY mean this: he puts a sex drive into men that they are simply unable to resist. Therefore this:

    It is not in man’s power, without a singular …… gift and work of God [miracle?] , to alter this creation.

    Man is incapable of altering the sex drive by attempting celebacy, short of a miracle happening.

    For it is manifest, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt [at celebacy]), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.

    Who ARE these people??!!
    Why don´t they just pray harder or try harder? Like gays are supposed to do urging 1 cor 10:13 and saying that THAT is what that passage MUST mean. Even though it does not say that. Maybe they should marry? Maybe God´s 1 cor 10:13 “escape ” is chemical castration that Joanne seems to suggest?

    |

    Therefore, 7] those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to 8] contract matrimony. For no man’s law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God.

    What “command and ordering of God?” The urge to have sex. The sex drive.

    For these reasons 9] the priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.

    many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy …….and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity. …impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates…But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it be done by any vow. 25] …women who do not keep the chastity they have promised should marry… if they be unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by their lusts.

    And then Altheist urges what? I cor 10:13

    The Confessions would respond that the ONLY escape provided is marriage. Celebacy, short of a true miracle, is simply not an option.

    So where do Gays fit into this? I don´t know. Unless this:
    1 cor 10:13 means what the Roman Confutation argues, AGAINST the Confessions. Which is that they should pursue celebacy and that it IS possible IF they work really really hard and pray really really hard at it. But Altheist decline to just come out and say what he thinks 1 cor 10:13 demands gays do :

    For a priest has the intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of restraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by devout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils. …

    Great. So are the romans demanding celebacy or not? Is Altheist demanding celebacy of gays or not?

    Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood;

    but let the priest pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4:13. For continence is a gift of God,

    Wisd. 8:21…. those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones – i.e. their carnal thoughts – upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in
    prayer.
    http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    May I say that to demand this of any man, OR to suggest to him that this is something he should expect can be made to happen in this way and with these methods, IS contrary to what our Confessions say? Does that sound right?

  • aletheist

    Aletheist

    Summary:
    Confessionally , Lutherans cannot propose celebacy as an option for gays.

    1) They may propose either marriage,
    2) or maybe joanne is right, and now chemical castration is available. Aletheist maybe wants to push 1 cor 10:13 in that direction and have the LCMS require that as a condition for church membership for gays and lesbians and transgenders.
    3) to propose celebacy is NOT an option available seems to be the main thrust of art XXIII.
    4) or maybe there is another option depending on how we understand the words law and sin.

  • aletheist

    Aletheist

    Summary:
    Confessionally , Lutherans cannot propose celebacy as an option for gays.

    1) They may propose either marriage,
    2) or maybe joanne is right, and now chemical castration is available. Aletheist maybe wants to push 1 cor 10:13 in that direction and have the LCMS require that as a condition for church membership for gays and lesbians and transgenders.
    3) to propose celebacy is NOT an option available seems to be the main thrust of art XXIII.
    4) or maybe there is another option depending on how we understand the words law and sin.

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

    Stupid thinking produces stupid conclusions. Thinking seeking self-justification for sin results in more sin. God commands us not to engage in sinful actions, whatever they are.

    Sonnett is doing nothing more here than spouting nonsense, but beyond that, spouting profoundly dangerous thinking. He foolishly distorts the meaning of the Lutheran Confessions. He explains away the clear meaning of Scripture.

    Homosexuals are never to engage in homosexual actions and activities, but to resist these temptations, just as all of us are to resist temptation, with God’s help.

    We must therefore reject and condemn the error Sonnet is promoting.

    The word is spelled “celibacy” by the way, not “celebacy.”

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

    Stupid thinking produces stupid conclusions. Thinking seeking self-justification for sin results in more sin. God commands us not to engage in sinful actions, whatever they are.

    Sonnett is doing nothing more here than spouting nonsense, but beyond that, spouting profoundly dangerous thinking. He foolishly distorts the meaning of the Lutheran Confessions. He explains away the clear meaning of Scripture.

    Homosexuals are never to engage in homosexual actions and activities, but to resist these temptations, just as all of us are to resist temptation, with God’s help.

    We must therefore reject and condemn the error Sonnet is promoting.

    The word is spelled “celibacy” by the way, not “celebacy.”

  • aletheist

    Joanne says this @ 342

    1) So sexual attraction is an irritant and not a gift and a likely social disturbance and like all temptations we are given a way of escape. 2) Well this is another medical situation.
    3) Doctors can also prescribe medications and procedures to greatly assuage the pain of sexual attraction.
    4) Perhaps God is giving us all his gift of countenance, only now through medical science.I would think that medicine as “a way of escape” would be acceptable during the 12 month fast.
    5) Can you imagine a world with no sexual attraction. Sounds like heaven, doesn’t it.

    Let´s assume that Art XXIII is right about the sex drive. Celibacy without a miracle is a practical near impossibility.
    I cor 10:13? Chemical Castration!

    What would be the problem with the LCMS making a resolution recommending there are only TWO options for gays for communicant fellowship with the LCMS:
    1) male/female marriage or
    2) chemical castration.

    Discuss.
    Kerner. Two scenarios for you :

    1) Imagine you are in a (packed) courtroom in Wisconsin. And you are arguing in favor of the castration of all gays since their situation is identical to that of men who have an irrisistable sexual urge to rape 3 year olds. Present your argument sir!

    2) You are an LCMS pastor who has a gay couple show up wanting to become members and have their kids enrolled in your school and be baptized. You demand that they be castrated so you can be certain, as a pastor, that they are NOT doing more than simply sleeping together. How would you present your suggestion to that gay couple? Why would you insist on that? Their salvation? If they refuse to come to church would that be a better alternative?

  • aletheist

    Joanne says this @ 342

    1) So sexual attraction is an irritant and not a gift and a likely social disturbance and like all temptations we are given a way of escape. 2) Well this is another medical situation.
    3) Doctors can also prescribe medications and procedures to greatly assuage the pain of sexual attraction.
    4) Perhaps God is giving us all his gift of countenance, only now through medical science.I would think that medicine as “a way of escape” would be acceptable during the 12 month fast.
    5) Can you imagine a world with no sexual attraction. Sounds like heaven, doesn’t it.

    Let´s assume that Art XXIII is right about the sex drive. Celibacy without a miracle is a practical near impossibility.
    I cor 10:13? Chemical Castration!

    What would be the problem with the LCMS making a resolution recommending there are only TWO options for gays for communicant fellowship with the LCMS:
    1) male/female marriage or
    2) chemical castration.

    Discuss.
    Kerner. Two scenarios for you :

    1) Imagine you are in a (packed) courtroom in Wisconsin. And you are arguing in favor of the castration of all gays since their situation is identical to that of men who have an irrisistable sexual urge to rape 3 year olds. Present your argument sir!

    2) You are an LCMS pastor who has a gay couple show up wanting to become members and have their kids enrolled in your school and be baptized. You demand that they be castrated so you can be certain, as a pastor, that they are NOT doing more than simply sleeping together. How would you present your suggestion to that gay couple? Why would you insist on that? Their salvation? If they refuse to come to church would that be a better alternative?

  • aletheist

    Paul Mc Cain @ 359

    Why not simply propose chemical or physical castration for all who can´t exercise celEbacy or refuse to marry?
    Maybe modern pharmaceuticals are what 1 cor 10:13 points to?

    Let´s assume that Art XXIII is right and celEbacy is virtually impossible short of a true miracle.
    I am open to discussing that.

    So why would you not urge a resolution that requires either marriage to a female or a certificate of chemical castration for gays seeking communicant membership with an LCMS congretation?

    Would that be unreasonable?
    Why or why not? discuss.

  • aletheist

    Paul Mc Cain @ 359

    Why not simply propose chemical or physical castration for all who can´t exercise celEbacy or refuse to marry?
    Maybe modern pharmaceuticals are what 1 cor 10:13 points to?

    Let´s assume that Art XXIII is right and celEbacy is virtually impossible short of a true miracle.
    I am open to discussing that.

    So why would you not urge a resolution that requires either marriage to a female or a certificate of chemical castration for gays seeking communicant membership with an LCMS congretation?

    Would that be unreasonable?
    Why or why not? discuss.

  • fws

    IMPORTANT NOTE AND CORRECTION!!!!!

    posts @ 360 and 361 were made by FWS and NOT Altheist!!!

  • fws

    IMPORTANT NOTE AND CORRECTION!!!!!

    posts @ 360 and 361 were made by FWS and NOT Altheist!!!

  • fws

    WEBMASTER:

    Could you please either delete posts 360 and 361 OR change the name of the poster to FWS rather than Aletheist?

    Thank you. FWS.

  • fws

    WEBMASTER:

    Could you please either delete posts 360 and 361 OR change the name of the poster to FWS rather than Aletheist?

    Thank you. FWS.

  • fws

    dang.

    I meant that posts 359 and 360 were posted by FWS and not ALETHEIST.

  • fws

    dang.

    I meant that posts 359 and 360 were posted by FWS and not ALETHEIST.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank – I just got back into this thread stream after getting some other things done this weekend. I have to say that I agree with kerner and aletheist on their conclusions. You’re drifting mighty close to outright antinomianism.

    I would have to say that your arguments against celibacy of homosexuals boils down to an argument that would be akin to using the teachings on the ninth or tenth commandments to advance the notion that thieves who break in and steal from someone need to share the spoils equally in keeping with the AC. And that we shouldn’t admonish the thieves or kick them out of the Church or congregation. And they would face church discipline and refusal of the sacraments, not for not sharing their ill-gotten loot, but for stealing. If they repented of their thievery, and gave back the items stolen, sought restitution, then they could be restored to fellowship.

    The meaning of “manifest” sins is precisely this, and it argues against your point. Are there people in the congregations who are unbelievers and will not repent of their sins? Yes. Are some of those sins homosexual in nature? Yes. To the extent that their sins are not known, or brought to light, they are not manifest. BUT, if they are known, if they are acknowledged, then they do become manifest. This then calls for repentance. If the person whose sins are made manifest, then stubbornly refuses to recognize their sin, be contrite, and repent, then the congregation has no choice (they do, I suppose; they could be weak and do the person no favors and ignore the sin) but to exclude the person from the sacraments. Not so much for their good, but for the individual. Remember, the Confessions also say that those who take communion without being forgiven of their sins, or being in a state of repentance drink damnation upon themselves, and this is not the church’s doing, but entirely the fault and responsibility of the sinful and unrepentant individual.

    You may argue against this and use the AC of FC to try to justify your position, but here the weight of the arguments are against you. This is not Thomistic casuistry condemning the homosexual, but rather the full weight of the Law, under which we all stand condemned and to which we all turn to Christ, in repentance for forgiveness and absolution.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank – I just got back into this thread stream after getting some other things done this weekend. I have to say that I agree with kerner and aletheist on their conclusions. You’re drifting mighty close to outright antinomianism.

    I would have to say that your arguments against celibacy of homosexuals boils down to an argument that would be akin to using the teachings on the ninth or tenth commandments to advance the notion that thieves who break in and steal from someone need to share the spoils equally in keeping with the AC. And that we shouldn’t admonish the thieves or kick them out of the Church or congregation. And they would face church discipline and refusal of the sacraments, not for not sharing their ill-gotten loot, but for stealing. If they repented of their thievery, and gave back the items stolen, sought restitution, then they could be restored to fellowship.

    The meaning of “manifest” sins is precisely this, and it argues against your point. Are there people in the congregations who are unbelievers and will not repent of their sins? Yes. Are some of those sins homosexual in nature? Yes. To the extent that their sins are not known, or brought to light, they are not manifest. BUT, if they are known, if they are acknowledged, then they do become manifest. This then calls for repentance. If the person whose sins are made manifest, then stubbornly refuses to recognize their sin, be contrite, and repent, then the congregation has no choice (they do, I suppose; they could be weak and do the person no favors and ignore the sin) but to exclude the person from the sacraments. Not so much for their good, but for the individual. Remember, the Confessions also say that those who take communion without being forgiven of their sins, or being in a state of repentance drink damnation upon themselves, and this is not the church’s doing, but entirely the fault and responsibility of the sinful and unrepentant individual.

    You may argue against this and use the AC of FC to try to justify your position, but here the weight of the arguments are against you. This is not Thomistic casuistry condemning the homosexual, but rather the full weight of the Law, under which we all stand condemned and to which we all turn to Christ, in repentance for forgiveness and absolution.

  • fws

    Mc Cain @ 358

    Who is “Sonnett”?

  • fws

    Mc Cain @ 358

    Who is “Sonnett”?

  • SKPeterson

    Frank @ 359. The kids would not be denied baptism or enrollment in the school. The congregation would also have to be up front and honest with the gay couple that they would not be admitted to the sacraments and that their child(ren) would be taught that the relationship their parent(s) have is incompatible with Scripture and with the tenets and doctrines of the Church. That this does not mean that God does not love them, but that they have chosen to separate themselves by their actions from the fellowship, but that this is no way diminishes the love of the congregation and of God for them (the child).

    Let me ask you this. If a gay couple comes to a church and wants to enroll their children in the school and be baptized, would they tolerate the pastor, the elders, and the other congregants embracing their child(ren) and them, while at the same time, telling them that their relationship was contrary to the will of God, and of the doctrine of the Church, and that they will be consistently reminded of this reality and not admitted to the sacraments until they repent? Could and would the couple honestly admit during the rite of baptism that they would fulfill the duties and obligations of the parents to the child in raising them in the faith?

    Here is an official LCMS rule on baptism:

    It has been the historic practice of the Lutheran church to welcome all children to Baptism, including those children whose parents may not be attending worship services–provided the parents give their consent and are at least open to bringing up this child in faithfulness to his or her baptismal covenant.

    Many times the Baptism of a child provides a wonderful occasion for bringing the Good News of Jesus and His salvation to a family.
    The Lutheran practice has been not to baptize a child contrary to the will and/or cooperation of the parents. Of necessity, pastoral judgment will have to be made in the individual case, since circumstances vary. For this reason, too, lay members of our congregations are urged to speak with their own pastor about individual cases where they may have a particular concern or desire.

  • SKPeterson

    Frank @ 359. The kids would not be denied baptism or enrollment in the school. The congregation would also have to be up front and honest with the gay couple that they would not be admitted to the sacraments and that their child(ren) would be taught that the relationship their parent(s) have is incompatible with Scripture and with the tenets and doctrines of the Church. That this does not mean that God does not love them, but that they have chosen to separate themselves by their actions from the fellowship, but that this is no way diminishes the love of the congregation and of God for them (the child).

    Let me ask you this. If a gay couple comes to a church and wants to enroll their children in the school and be baptized, would they tolerate the pastor, the elders, and the other congregants embracing their child(ren) and them, while at the same time, telling them that their relationship was contrary to the will of God, and of the doctrine of the Church, and that they will be consistently reminded of this reality and not admitted to the sacraments until they repent? Could and would the couple honestly admit during the rite of baptism that they would fulfill the duties and obligations of the parents to the child in raising them in the faith?

    Here is an official LCMS rule on baptism:

    It has been the historic practice of the Lutheran church to welcome all children to Baptism, including those children whose parents may not be attending worship services–provided the parents give their consent and are at least open to bringing up this child in faithfulness to his or her baptismal covenant.

    Many times the Baptism of a child provides a wonderful occasion for bringing the Good News of Jesus and His salvation to a family.
    The Lutheran practice has been not to baptize a child contrary to the will and/or cooperation of the parents. Of necessity, pastoral judgment will have to be made in the individual case, since circumstances vary. For this reason, too, lay members of our congregations are urged to speak with their own pastor about individual cases where they may have a particular concern or desire.

  • fws

    SKP @ 364

    You may argue against this and use the AC of FC to try to justify your position

    I am nowhere arguing that homosexuals/gays should be allowed to have a) have sex or b) have a homosexual marriage.

    I am arguing that the Confessions declare that celebacy is NOT a feasible for homosexuals and that it is contrary to a simple reading of the Confessions to say that it is.

    Here is my analysis of Augustana XXIII skp. Show me where I am wrong here. Don´t argue against some abtract argument I am not making.

    Here is what the text of Art XXIII says SKP. SHOW me where I am misreading or distorting or missing something:

    Christ says, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, He teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life [of celebacy]

    why not?

    for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28. 6]

    In context, what could that mean? All men have the urge to start a family? I say it can ONLY mean this: he puts a sex drive into men that they are simply unable to resist. Therefore this:

    It is not in man’s power, without a singular …… gift and work of God [miracle?] , to alter this creation.

    Man is incapable of altering the sex drive by attempting celebacy, short of a miracle happening.

    For it is manifest, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt [at celebacy]), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.

    Who ARE these people??!!
    Why don´t they just pray harder or try harder? Like gays are supposed to do urging 1 cor 10:13 and saying that THAT is what that passage MUST mean. Even though it does not say that. Maybe they should marry? Maybe God´s 1 cor 10:13 “escape ” is chemical castration that Joanne seems to suggest?

    Therefore, 7] those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to 8] contract matrimony. For no man’s law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God.

    What “command and ordering of God?” The urge to have sex. The sex drive.

    For these reasons 9] the priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.

    many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy …….and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity. …impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates…But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it be done by any vow. 25] …women who do not keep the chastity they have promised should marry… if they be unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by their lusts.

    And then some christians urge against all this what? I cor 10:13, or Phil 4:13.

    The Confessions would respond that the ONLY escape provided is marriage. Celebacy, short of a true miracle, is simply not an option.

    So where do Gays fit into this? I don´t know. Unless this:
    1 cor 10:13 means what the Roman Confutation argues, AGAINST the Confessions. Which is that they should pursue celebacy and that it IS possible IF they work really really hard and pray really really hard at it. But Altheist decline to just come out and say what he thinks 1 cor 10:13 demands gays do :

    For a priest has the intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of restraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by devout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils. …

    Great. So are the romans demanding celebacy or not? Is Altheist demanding celebacy of gays or not? This sounds like Aletheist to me.

    Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood;

    but let the priest pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4:13. For continence is a gift of God,

    Wisd. 8:21…. those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones – i.e. their carnal thoughts – upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in
    prayer.
    http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    May I say that to demand this of any man, OR to suggest to him that this is something he should expect can be made to happen in this way and with these methods, IS contrary to what our Confessions say? Does that sound right?

    Summary:
    Confessionally , Lutherans cannot propose celebacy as an option for gays. The Confessions declare that it is simply not feasible. They say this fact is “manifest/obvious” to any reasonable observer. Rome responds : “But not to someone with faith who prays and works at it!”

    So what are the options if celebacy is not a workable one?

    1) They may propose either marriage,
    2) or maybe joanne is right, and now chemical castration is available. Aletheist maybe wants to push 1 cor 10:13 in that direction and have the LCMS require that as a condition for church membership for gays and lesbians and transgenders.
    3) to propose celebacy is NOT an option available seems to be the main thrust of art XXIII.
    4) Kerner´s point is NOT without merit comparing gays to the serial rapists of 3 year olds, in the sense that both have a sex urge that is deviated from the purpose of being fruitful and multiplying.
    My response to him is that urging celEbacy obviously does NOT seem to work for serial rapists.
    My ONLY bone to pick with him, is that he is just totally ignoring a distinction society makes in courts and that distinction matters in moral questions socially where as the concept of sin? Irrelevant. I am NOT saying that the concept of sin is irrelevant. Sheesh.

  • fws

    SKP @ 364

    You may argue against this and use the AC of FC to try to justify your position

    I am nowhere arguing that homosexuals/gays should be allowed to have a) have sex or b) have a homosexual marriage.

    I am arguing that the Confessions declare that celebacy is NOT a feasible for homosexuals and that it is contrary to a simple reading of the Confessions to say that it is.

    Here is my analysis of Augustana XXIII skp. Show me where I am wrong here. Don´t argue against some abtract argument I am not making.

    Here is what the text of Art XXIII says SKP. SHOW me where I am misreading or distorting or missing something:

    Christ says, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, He teaches that not all men are fit to lead a single life [of celebacy]

    why not?

    for God created man for procreation, Gen. 1:28. 6]

    In context, what could that mean? All men have the urge to start a family? I say it can ONLY mean this: he puts a sex drive into men that they are simply unable to resist. Therefore this:

    It is not in man’s power, without a singular …… gift and work of God [miracle?] , to alter this creation.

    Man is incapable of altering the sex drive by attempting celebacy, short of a miracle happening.

    For it is manifest, and many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted (from the attempt [at celebacy]), but a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.

    Who ARE these people??!!
    Why don´t they just pray harder or try harder? Like gays are supposed to do urging 1 cor 10:13 and saying that THAT is what that passage MUST mean. Even though it does not say that. Maybe they should marry? Maybe God´s 1 cor 10:13 “escape ” is chemical castration that Joanne seems to suggest?

    Therefore, 7] those who are not fit to lead a single life ought to 8] contract matrimony. For no man’s law, no vow, can annul the commandment and ordinance of God.

    What “command and ordering of God?” The urge to have sex. The sex drive.

    For these reasons 9] the priests teach that it is lawful for them to marry wives.

    many God-fearing and intelligent people in high station are known frequently to have expressed misgivings that such enforced celibacy …….and depriving men of marriage (which God Himself has instituted and left free to men) has never produced any good results, but has brought on many great and evil vices and much iniquity. …impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just magistrates…But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can it be done by any vow. 25] …women who do not keep the chastity they have promised should marry… if they be unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by their lusts.

    And then some christians urge against all this what? I cor 10:13, or Phil 4:13.

    The Confessions would respond that the ONLY escape provided is marriage. Celebacy, short of a true miracle, is simply not an option.

    So where do Gays fit into this? I don´t know. Unless this:
    1 cor 10:13 means what the Roman Confutation argues, AGAINST the Confessions. Which is that they should pursue celebacy and that it IS possible IF they work really really hard and pray really really hard at it. But Altheist decline to just come out and say what he thinks 1 cor 10:13 demands gays do :

    For a priest has the intermediate position of neither marrying nor burning, but of restraining himself by the grace of God, which he obtains of God by devout prayer and chastising of the flesh, by fasting and vigils. …

    Great. So are the romans demanding celebacy or not? Is Altheist demanding celebacy of gays or not? This sounds like Aletheist to me.

    Furthermore, when they say that Christ taught that all men are not fit for celibacy, it is indeed true, and on this account not all are fit for the priesthood;

    but let the priest pray, and he will be able to receive Christ’s word concerning continence, as St. Paul says: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4:13. For continence is a gift of God,

    Wisd. 8:21…. those who are consecrated to God have other remedies of infirmities; as, for instance, let them avoid the society of women, shun idleness, macerate the flesh by fasting and vigils, keep the outward senses, especially sight and hearing, from things forbidden, turn away their eyes from beholding vanity, and finally dash their little ones – i.e. their carnal thoughts – upon a rock (and Christ is the Rock), suppress their passions, and frequently and devoutly resort to God in
    prayer.
    http://bookofconcord.org/confutatio.php

    May I say that to demand this of any man, OR to suggest to him that this is something he should expect can be made to happen in this way and with these methods, IS contrary to what our Confessions say? Does that sound right?

    Summary:
    Confessionally , Lutherans cannot propose celebacy as an option for gays. The Confessions declare that it is simply not feasible. They say this fact is “manifest/obvious” to any reasonable observer. Rome responds : “But not to someone with faith who prays and works at it!”

    So what are the options if celebacy is not a workable one?

    1) They may propose either marriage,
    2) or maybe joanne is right, and now chemical castration is available. Aletheist maybe wants to push 1 cor 10:13 in that direction and have the LCMS require that as a condition for church membership for gays and lesbians and transgenders.
    3) to propose celebacy is NOT an option available seems to be the main thrust of art XXIII.
    4) Kerner´s point is NOT without merit comparing gays to the serial rapists of 3 year olds, in the sense that both have a sex urge that is deviated from the purpose of being fruitful and multiplying.
    My response to him is that urging celEbacy obviously does NOT seem to work for serial rapists.
    My ONLY bone to pick with him, is that he is just totally ignoring a distinction society makes in courts and that distinction matters in moral questions socially where as the concept of sin? Irrelevant. I am NOT saying that the concept of sin is irrelevant. Sheesh.

  • fws