Messages

What is your response to the idea that whatever faith we have is likely smaller than a mustard seed?

I think it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Looking within for anthropocentric faith and measuring it runs things in the way of the law. It's a way of rejecting the gift. IOW, beware self-centered faith talk. "Pastor, I don't know whether I have faith." "Faith isn't important. Do you have a Savior?"

BTW, right out of my class notes from Nagel's Holy Baptism class.

I was taught the same solas at seminary, and continue to teach them. (I've suggested that rather than solas, they should be seen as a trio. Any one without the others become heresy.)

My so-called perverted mantra keeps "faith" from becoming a human work as can happen with your mantra.

So, you remove one of the "trio" and fall into heresy lest the doctrine of justification be misunderstood?  Perhaps, instead of your perverted mantra, you could try the other sola that you removed from your formal principle, i.e., Eph 2:8-10.

I do not remove any of the solas. "Faith alone" is centered on Jesus' faithfulness to us. Until we are moving mountains and trees by our faith, whatever faith we have is smaller than a mustard seed. Five times in Matthew Jesus describes his own apostles as having "little faith." Modern translations (like my Greek teacher at an LCMS college stated over 50 years ago) note that the grammar that was translated "[my] faith in Jesus" should be understood as "the faithfulness of Jesus." See Ephesians 3:12 for one example of this. Some translations, e.g., NRSV, let you know that the Greek is "the faith of him" or "his faith."

How do you define "through faith" in Ephesians 2:8?

Of course you removed one of the solas.

Tell you what, Brian. You pervert what your Greek teacher taught you, running with that wooden translation of Gal 2:16, and corrupt the doctrine of justification. I'll go with what Holy Scripture teaches as a whole:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." [Eph 2:8-10. God didn't give a gift/oblation to God.]

and what Lutherans confess. E.g.:

"Article IV. Of Justification.

1 Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2 Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3 This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4."

(Source: https://bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/ )

I was taught the same solas at seminary, and continue to teach them. (I've suggested that rather than solas, they should be seen as a trio. Any one without the others become heresy.)

My so-called perverted mantra keeps "faith" from becoming a human work as can happen with your mantra.

So, you remove one of the "trio" and fall into heresy lest the doctrine of justification be misunderstood?  Perhaps, instead of your perverted mantra, you could try the other sola that you removed from your formal principle, i.e., Eph 2:8-10.

I don't know how it is in the ELCA, but it really makes little sense to talk about what LCMS as a whole teaches or the nature or philosophy of the LCMS except for the official doctrinal documents. I was at the convention this summer. The only times there was unanimity was voice votes that everybody know would pass overwhelmingly and the nays just couldn't be heard over the usual clatter. You could find Mo Synod people whose actions s if not their words would fit any of the Material/Formal dichotomies posited above. I am so tired of the triumphalist chest thumping of my church-doctrine-churchmanship is more orthodox-loving-what Jesus would do than yours. Can we just stipulate that the ELCA are all soft on doctrine whose love is just wishy-washy mushy permissiveness and the LCMS are all anachronistic hard-nosed reactionaries for whom being nitpickingly doctrinaire is the essence of being loving?

No.

What is your point? The above-stated formal and material principles (the solas) are what I was taught at Sem and what continue to be confessed within the LCMS.

You go ahead and proclaim that perverted mantra of yours if you want.

Pastor Kirchner, let us be honest. If the ELCA or anyone in it were to say "we should love our mothers and not kick the crap out of cute little puppies," you would find something wrong with that statement.

Only if you then denied that it is law. For, as stated above, the ELCA has changed its material principle to love/tolerance instead of justification by grace through faith on account of Christ alone.

Has anything I posted said anything about the law, or had anything to do with the law?
No, it has not.

Yes. Nearly all of it. In fact, I don't recall seeing ANY Gospel whatsoever.

Perhaps that is because many have observed that the ELCA has a hybrid of the Lutheran formal and material principles, somewhere between Lutheranism and liberalism.

Lutheranism:
Formal Principle – sola Scriptura
Material Principle – justification justified by grace through faith on account of Christ alone.

ELCA
Formal principle- the Gospel
Material principle- love (aka tolerance?).

LCMS
Formal principle - the Gospel
Material principle - agree with our understanding of the Confessions (but don't call it legalism)

There is actually a love that is called "tough love" where, out of love, you do things that the other may consider harsh, e.g., letting an alcoholic sleep on the floor in his/her own vomit rather than clean them up and put them into bed.

You err.

LCMS:
Formal Principle – sola Scriptura
Material Principle – Justification by grace through faith on account of Christ alone.

See the CTCR document:  https://files.lcms.org/api/file/preview/DBC5134E-3A2A-4A53-B9DC-A215CBB5DE70

Has anything I posted said anything about the law, or had anything to do with the law?
No, it has not.

Yes. Nearly all of it. In fact, I don't recall seeing ANY Gospel whatsoever.

Perhaps that is because many have observed that the ELCA has a hybrid of the Lutheran formal and material principles, somewhere between Lutheranism and liberalism.

Lutheranism:
Formal Principle – sola Scriptura
Material Principle – justification justified by grace through faith on account of Christ alone.

ELCA
Formal principle- the Gospel
Material principle- love (aka tolerance?).

Yup, preach and teach to live under the Law, and their hearts probably will be focused on earthly treasure. And they'll want to keep it. If you've got their hearts, the treasure will follow.

A pastor who cannot sense which members are well-off or even wealthy and which members are not probably ought to resign the call and start working at Walmart.

That is so boorish, Charles.

The point is, Why is that even important for a pastor to know?

As stated above, I always tried to proclaim the proper distinction between Law and Gospel, i.e., I proclaimed the Good News. The congregations to which I was called never had financial difficulties. They always comfortably met their budgets. And I never had "the conversation about bequests and remembering the church in your will."

In fact, I don't believe I ever preached a "stewardship" sermon.

So if some regular attender misses five weeks in a row, you won't ask why?
If someone starts coming with a cane or walker, you won't ask why?

What did I miss? Who suggested that?!   

I never knew who gave what. I had no reason to know. If one renders appropriate pastoral care and communication, one doesn't need to know what a member is giving to determine whether a problem or issue needs to be addressed.

A quick observation: Dave, why is it necessary to color your comments about Lutheran entities with whom you disagree negatively? Couldn't you just state that the Steadfast Lutherans article gives an XXX dollar amount? Buried?   

You do this with your comments about Rolf's sons (Who but you cares how often they were at the convention mics?), Luther Classical College, etc. It's grating and bad-mannered. The disrespect is on par with Charles' misspelling of the names of those with whom he disagrees.

Better than criminal charges for receiving stolen property; however, such charges would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was knowledge of the pilferage. 

The civil bar is much lower.

Legal limbo stick.

?? 

The new normal by government entities is to sue for civil damages rather than to seek criminal charges. 

Many States are doing this in environmental law actions; local governments are pursuing a similar tactic with zoning and land development violations.

There is a lower standard of proof and a likelihood of a much more substantial payoff.

A legal limbo stick??  The comparison is incongruous. The purpose, etc of criminal and civil actions is entirely different. The SEC brought the civil action. The prosecutor (US Attorney or State Attorney) would bring a criminal action. Furthermore, it's not an either/or determination of actions. Example: Actions against OJ Simpson. Moreover, the issue is legal action against Messiah Lutheran. Even mentioning the subject of a criminal action makes absolutely no sense.

One question: is it just to require the congregation to pay back money that they did not know was tainted? They've already spent much of the money and may have to sell their building to pay the debt.

Better than criminal charges for receiving stolen property; however, such charges would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was knowledge of the pilferage. 

The civil bar is much lower.

Legal limbo stick.

?? 

Hmm, I'm not having that issue. But, about a year ago I had the same problem.