Messages

Hell hath frozen over! Charles is rolling his eyes at the New Yorker article! 😆

It seems to me that we get told only the Word of God can reveal something, then we get told our brains are too fallen to understand the revealed Word of God anyway, then we get told we have to live with ambiguity because there is no way of knowing in this fallen world, then we get told living with ambiguity means being unambiguously certain that sodomy is not sexual immorality and anyone who says otherwise just doesn't have the Gospel.

Exactly! AKA word salad. 

How can you tell he didn't read the article? 

How long did it take you to read the article?  Compare that with the time lag between my post and his response.

My! Do you really think it takes some of us more than 4-5 minutes to read that article?!      Yes, I read it and the link of what Sojourners is about as well, which is why I posted what I did.    How do you snarkily put it? Oh, yeah, "That's quite the 'head movie' you are playing!"

And, please note that I am not aware of anyone preaching a gospel that licenses sinful desires. 

Just another straw man. Of course not. Because, if so, it would not be the Gospel, as Rolf made clear by putting the word in scare quotes.

What policies do "Bible-believing Christian" politicians support that compromise the liberties of the citizens? What dehumanizing race-theory or military expansionist ambition (the bad things about Nazis)  do such politicians promulgate to merit your comparison?

Exploitation is the cornerstone of our nation's economy.  Progressive policies are focused on buffering the consequences.  Conservatives tend to embrace and understanding freedom that ignores/discounts critical elements of our history and the consequences of that history on current reality.

Regarding your second question, I note that "Bible believing" elected officials are strong supporters of Donald Trump.  Similarly, Trump receives strong support among "Bible believing" Christians.  The following recent Sojourners article is worth the read.  https://sojo.net/articles/christians-we-need-believe-trump-fascist-authoritarian

Yes, yes, Mr. Mundinger, we know you are the perfect model of the modern progressive and fit in perfectly with the creed of Sojourners. What you fail to acknowledge, however, is that you and your fellow progressives are the epitome of socialism and modern fascism/retribution.

I've been saying on this forum for twenty years what I wrote for an opening devotion at a Lutherans for Life convention: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people must know what a person is. A baby in the womb is a person.

Indeed! Which is why we celebrate The Incarnation on March 25th, at The Annunciation of our Lord.

I know this is a Palm Sunday video. But, given the Gospel reading for the first Sunday in Advent, I thought it appropriate. And besides, I love it! Cuz I'm married to a "donkey lady."

https://youtu.be/jy8zutTt8Xw

[God]

George, what you seem to NOT understand is that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a sign that God defines what is good and evil, NOT us!  By eating of the this tree Adam and Eve were taking on the role of God in that they would now define good and evil for themselves.

indeed! Exactly how it is articulated in the footnote to those verses in The Lutheran Study Bible.

I believe he was asking Brian. Furthermore, I don't see that conclusion from Ex 21:22-23.

Moreover, Charles, I've told you at least once who Fletch1 is and how you can look it up online. So, knock it off and stop being so rude.

But scripture does not make that distinction for sinners who appear before God's righteous face, imo.

1 John 5:16-17 (ESV) 16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life--to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

Will, as I understand the Lutheran distinction between mortal versus venial sin (and I believe I read this in Chemnitz' LOCI) is that "mortal sin" is ANY sin committed by a person without repentance (see Romans 1:32) and desire for that sin to be forgiven whereas "venial sin" is ANY sin by a person who repents of that sin and clings to Christ for salvation from the judgment that sin deserves.

Granted, some sins are "greater" in that they cause more damange to a person and society in general.  We don't treat a 10 year old who steals a candy bar the same way we do an adult man who rapes and murders a two year old girl.  But BEFORE GOD any and all sin is MORTAL without repentance and faith in Christ.

In other words, the "sin that leads to death" in the passage you quote from 1st John is the sin (any sin!) done by a person who refuses to see it as a sin (1st John 1:8 & 10).  We should not pray that God would forgive a person even though they REFUSE to repent.

Thoughts?

"42 On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants] came to my own view, holding that all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and [hence] crying thus: "Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing; faith blots out all sins," etc.—they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me [seen and heard] many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling].

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]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." [SA III, III]

I agree with Luther on this as long as we don't read him as though he is saying that a "true Christian" would NEVER fall into sinful behavior in a moment of weakness and then grieve over that sin, long for forgiveness and strive to do better.  Such a person is a repenant believer as Paul describes himself in Romans 7:14ff.  Luther describes the believer in this way in many of his writings.

What Luther is condemning in the SA is the notion that a person can remain a Christian while affirming a sinful behavior and refusing to repent of it.  Luther mentions David as an example of such an unrepentant unbeliever who had fallen away from faith.  Of course, it's hard to know what was going on in David's heart during his adultery and murder (maybe he was repentant but struggling with sin in weakness during this time?) - but, obviously, if David were somehow affirming his adultery and murder, then during this time of his life he, indeed, had resisted the Holy Spirit.  Thank God, the Holy Spirit renewed David's heart with repentance and faith through the witness of the prophet Nathan.

In any case, we have to be sure we don't read Luther in the SA as suggesting that what Paul describes in Romans 7:14ff is NOT his life as a believer but an unbeliever.

I think Walther explains it quite well in Thesis X of his Law and Gospel and his comments thereto. Of course, that won't go too far with some on this forum! 😄

But scripture does not make that distinction for sinners who appear before God's righteous face, imo.

1 John 5:16-17 (ESV) 16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life--to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

Will, as I understand the Lutheran distinction between mortal versus venial sin (and I believe I read this in Chemnitz' LOCI) is that "mortal sin" is ANY sin committed by a person without repentance (see Romans 1:32) and desire for that sin to be forgiven whereas "venial sin" is ANY sin by a person who repents of that sin and clings to Christ for salvation from the judgment that sin deserves.

Granted, some sins are "greater" in that they cause more damange to a person and society in general.  We don't treat a 10 year old who steals a candy bar the same way we do an adult man who rapes and murders a two year old girl.  But BEFORE GOD any and all sin is MORTAL without repentance and faith in Christ.

In other words, the "sin that leads to death" in the passage you quote from 1st John is the sin (any sin!) done by a person who refuses to see it as a sin (1st John 1:8 & 10).  We should not pray that God would forgive a person even though they REFUSE to repent.

Thoughts?

"42 On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants] came to my own view, holding that all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and [hence] crying thus: "Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing; faith blots out all sins," etc.—they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me [seen and heard] many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling].

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]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." [SA III, III]

That people are born with disordered desires is an aspect of the fall. That those desires are therefore justified, good, and in need of being acted upon does not follow logically.

Who is born without disordered desires?  Who is capable of refraining on their disordered desires?

Again, what is your point?

The underlying (il)logic is apparently that because all our thoughts/words/deeds are performed by sinners, and therefore always sinful to some degree, we cannot rightly classify any specific kinds of thoughts/words/deeds as sins, no matter how explicitly they are identified as such in Scripture. For example, since sexual activity of any kind is tainted by sin, homosexual activity is morally indistinguishable from heterosexual activity within a marriage of one man and one woman.

Yup. "Everyone's a sinner! Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." But you better dodge that one-man rock he just heaved at you!

I guess it depends greatly on whether one believes sexual orientations comes from God or not.
When heterosexuals state: "God made me this way," do you agree with them?
When homosexuals state: "God made me this way," do you agree with them?

A manifestation of the current and common confusion between the terms sex and gender.

Well, we're starting to move in a circle here. 

Ya think?!  Virtually every engagement with Mr. Mundinger ends up in that mode. That is, when he's not judging those who disagree with his bizarre, worldly definition of the "law of love."** But, OTOH, I guess criticizing others using the "law of love" as a hammer becomes, in a sense, a circular action as well.

** See: https://www.alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=8547.msg540885#msg540885

[noting biblical inerrancy and the exclusion of women from becoming pastors]

Again, we pray for devout and faithful rulers. While I disagree with Baptist theology on some major points, I don't think those points are really at issue in this discussion. Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, and I very much doubt you or John have a problem with that. Yet if a Baptist disagrees with his fellow Baptist Carter about what policies best lead to a healthy, safe, prosperous society, somehow he becomes a target for the lame criticism of him we see in this thread. 

Yes, Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, but he recently resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention over their rigidness.

Thank you for affirming Peter's point.

"'I have been disappointed and feel excluded by the adoption of policies and an increasingly rigid Southern Baptist Convention creed,' Carter wrote, noting biblical inerrancy and the exclusion of women from becoming pastors in the October 2000 letter he sent to 75,000 Southern Baptists nationwide. 'Some of those policies violate the basic premises of my Christian faith.'" [emphasis added]

Yup, kind of the same way that Brian and John feel about the LCMS. 

I was never part of the LCMS. Even during my two years at Concordia, Portland, I was a member of an ALC congregation. The two church bodies were in fellowship at that time. However, the ELCA has a number of clergy who had grown up LCMS, but they felt that they had to leave it because it was no longer teaching the faith that they believed.

Granted, the LCMC and NALC were formed by ELCA folks who felt that the ELCA was no longer teaching the faith that they believed.

?? No one said you were.

The parallel was made between us and Jimmy Carter. He was a member of the SBC and became critical of it. I was not a member of the LCMS (although I am critical of some of their positions). My wife grew up LCMS. We met at an LCMS college. She's even more critical of it than I am.

I understand. You've told us all this numerous times. Look to the bold. The parallel is that he objected to the same highlighted issues as you do with the LCMS. That's all.