Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - aletheist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 104
1
Your Turn / Re: Rescued by the Wood: A meditation for Holy Cross Day
« on: September 14, 2021, 04:15:10 PM »
"and to put an end to the passions suffered by the condemned at the tree"

....that thorny issue of sanctification aka Theosis, without which forensic justification makes little discernible difference in this life.
Jordan Cooper has an excellent new book out on this topic from a distinctively Lutheran perspective, Union with Christ: Salvation as Participation.

2
Your Turn / Re: LCMS Church Worker Recruitment Decline
« on: August 06, 2021, 08:07:01 PM »
I am not especially good at statistical analysis but the figures that Charles gave represented a 36% percent decrease over 8 years for the ELCA in graduations with an M.Div. Dave put the LCMS decrease in enrollment in the M.Div. program at 55% over a 14 year period. The time periods are not the same, neither exactly is what was being measured, but by my memo pad calculations, those figures are likely comparable within an order of magnitude.
They actually correspond to the very same 5.5% average annual rate of decline.

3
Didn't St. Paul say that the love of money was the root of all evil?
No. "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils" (1 Timothy 6:10, ESV, bold added).
Thanks!  I think it's the KJV that states "For the love of money is the root of all evil.."
Correct, but most of the modern translations are similar to the ESV, including the NKJV.

4
Didn't St. Paul say that the love of money was the root of all evil?
No. "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils" (1 Timothy 6:10, ESV, bold added).

5
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 13, 2021, 03:18:53 PM »
The essence of every human being whether male or female, their purpose (telos) and their relationship (ethics) to one another was to "Let God be God" in each of their lives and in the life of one another. ... The ultimate issue is God's order for living relationship of the ONE true living God to man and woman and their letting God be God in their life. ... Both were to let God be God in their life.
This expression, "let God be God," comes up repeatedly in your posts, not only in this thread but throughout all the years that I have been reading and occasionally participating in the discussions here. What is the Scriptural and confessional basis for it? Where exactly do the Bible and the Book of Concord state or imply that the purpose of every human being is to "let God be God in their life"? What does it mean in practical terms? How would the church be different if we all genuinely complied with it? What does it have to do with the proper relationship between men and women in general, let alone the "endless controversy" over whether God truly calls certain women to be pastors rather than only certain men?

6
Your Turn / Re: Religious Freedom Issues, Again
« on: June 11, 2021, 04:36:41 PM »
If you know what I mean.
That brings to mind a brief song by Heywood Banks, who is perhaps best known for "Toast," although my personal favorite of his is "Eighteen Wheels on a Big Rig."

If you know what I mean,
There's no need to explain.
It goes without saying,
If you know what I mean.
What more can I say,
If you know what I mean?
I think it goes without saying,
If you know what I mean.

7
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 11, 2021, 02:34:20 PM »
The pertinent statement is "when the dead rise they will be as the angels in heaven."  The secondary phrase in the sentence applies to marriage.  The substance of the sentence is that the dead will be as the angels in heaven.  Embodied and enspirited angels.
That is not what our Lord said.

Matthew 22:30 - "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
Mark 12:25 - "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
Luke 20:34-36 - "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

According to Matthew and Mark, the only sense in which our Lord said that we will be "like angels in heaven" after the resurrection is that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage. According to Luke, He also said that we will be "equal to angels," rather than "lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:9) as we are now. Again, Jesus said nothing whatsoever about our resurrected bodies in these texts.

8
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 11, 2021, 12:27:07 PM »
No physical presence?  Bodi-less?  Or body plus?  Or bodiless plus, ontological shape-shifting, meaning that's how we will be "as angels" - bodily resurrected, angelic in shape-shifting actualization.
Again, the relevant statements by Jesus say nothing whatsoever about our resurrected bodies, only that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage once we have received them.

9
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 11, 2021, 12:24:20 PM »
If every “what might be” is in some sense real, what distinguishes it from what might have been? It time itself the engine of grinding possibilities into realities, which therefore permanently destroys the unused possibilities?
The present is when some real possibilities are becoming actualities, thereby precluding other real possibilities from ever becoming actualities. From that standpoint, everything in the past is already actual, so I am not terribly interested in "what might have been," expressed as counterfactuals. From our time-bound perspective, real possibilities always lie in the future, along with real necessities expressed as subjunctive conditionals--if X were to happen, then Y would happen.

10
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 11, 2021, 11:54:18 AM »
I've been mulling over that which has become fairly standard in some contemporary theological literature -- that "possibilities" are real existents -- that "possibilities" are actual things -- that God created an eternal range of "possibilities," some of which, as we receive them, become instantiated in our world.  It's a derivative of "possible worlds" talk.
This strikes me as a category mistake, because anything that exists is by definition actual, not merely possible. I find it helpful instead to talk about certain unactualized possibilities nevertheless being real, which means that they are such as they are regardless of what any finite mind thinks about them. Note that this does not preclude them from being dependent on how they are conceived by an infinite mind, namely, the mind of God.

11
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 11, 2021, 11:40:38 AM »
Because - and you're not either willing or able to acknowledge this - we will be αλλ εισιν ως αγγελοι οι εν τοις ουρανοις according to our Lord.  Bodies, yes, but what kinds of bodies?  Angelic.
The context of the quoted passage has nothing whatsoever to do with what our resurrected bodies will be like. Jesus simply states that after the resurrection, we will neither marry nor be given in marriage--just like angels in heaven, in that specific respect. Do angels even have physical bodies in heaven? My understanding is that this is a fundamental difference between humans and angels--we were created to have physical bodies, but they were not. Am I wrong?

12
Your Turn / Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« on: June 10, 2021, 02:00:29 PM »
Is the Son less than Father with respect to His humanity to all eternity or just within time? Or is He not human in eternity? Or is humanity not less than God the Father?
Fortunately, the Formula of Concord provides unambiguous answers to these questions.

Quote from: FC SD VIII.26
Hence also the human nature, after the resurrection from the dead, has its exaltation above all creatures in heaven and on earth; which is nothing else than that He entirely laid aside the form of a servant, and yet did not lay aside His human nature, but retains it to eternity, and is put in the full possession and use of the divine majesty according to His assumed human nature.
Quote from: FC SD VIII.61
Christ is equal to the Father only according to the divine nature, while according to the assumed human nature He is beneath God; from which it is manifest that we make no confusionem, exaequationem, abolitionem, that is, no confusion, equalization, or abolition of natures in Christ

As Lutherans we thus believe, teach, and confess that Christ retains His human nature for all eternity, and according to that nature He is beneath (German unter, Latin sub) God the Father.

13
Your Turn / Re: One Thing
« on: May 28, 2021, 03:16:52 PM »
Rightly preach and teach the Word, both Law and Gospel, and rightly administer the Sacraments. Everything else is secondary.

14
Your Turn / Re: Confirmation Verses
« on: May 19, 2021, 10:42:49 AM »
Both my kids chose their own confirmation verses. My son's is Proverbs 9:10, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is insight" (ESV). Since he is now studying music composition in college, he set it to music and had it performed by the Men's Glee Club, of which he is a member (https://youtu.be/rqw7AaVTxEs). My daughter's is Proverbs 3:5-6, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight" (NIV). She specifically prefers "submit to" over the more traditional "acknowledge."

15
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: April 29, 2021, 06:05:03 PM »
Don Denkinger—one of the worst calls ever.
This lifelong Royals fan agrees, although since he immediately pointed at the base, I have always suspected that he believed that Todd Worrell's foot missed it, rather than that Jorge Orta got there first. The side of Worrell's foot was against the side of the base, so Denkinger still got it wrong, but the call is not quite so egregious from that standpoint.

And to be fair, it was not his fault that Jack Clark subsequently missed a foul pop-up; nor that Darrell Porter then got crossed up on a slider and had it bounce off his mitt for a passed ball; nor that Joaquin Andujar, Whitey Herzog, and the entire Cardinals team completely imploded the next day.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 104