Messages

FWIW, Luther had no reticence addressing the subject, and even in sermons. We have in the House Postils a homily he delivered in 1541 at the parish church in Wittenberg on the Eve of the Circumcision. He said:

"Now, although Mary was not required to do this—the Law of Moses having no claim over her, for she had given birth without pain and her virginity remained unsullied—nevertheless, she kept quiet and submitted herself to the common law of all women and let herself be accounted unclean. She was, without doubt, a pure, chaste virgin before the birth, in the birth, and after the birth, and she was neither sick nor weakened from the birth and certainly could have gone out of the house after giving birth, not only because of her exemption under the Law, but also because of the interrupted soundness of her body. For her Son did not detract from her virginity but actually strengthened it; but in spite of this, mother and Son allow themselves to be considered unclean according to the Law." HP III:256

Then in Eisleben, shortly before his death, he preached upon the Purification:

"For the Law says, 'Every male who is first to open the womb.' Opening the womb is said only of those that have lost their virginity and who have got a child from a man. That did not happen with this mother, for she remained a virgin during the birth and after the birth, just as she was from before the conception and the birth. [Is 7:14] And she suffered no harm to either body or virginity. The childbearing of other women does not arrive with laughing or amusement; instead, they have to feel fear and pain, as God said to Eve: "In pain you shall bring forth children." But in this case it took place without pain or injury, and there was nothing but joy when she had borne the child. That is why the law of purification and the requirement to redeem the firstborn Son did not apply to this mother and her Son, and likewise neither was she unclean. But over all other women, as over Eve, stands the law: "In pain you shall bring forth children." They have to feel fear and pain, but for Mary the birth came without bitterness, fear, hardship, or pain. Although she is pure and the Law cannot bind her or her Son, nonetheless she submits herself and her Son to the Law. She obeys the commandment, though Moses had commanded nothing that pertained to them; and both mother and Son voluntarily submit to and obey the Law, even though they were under no obligation to follow or obey it. For this command applied neither to Mary, nor to her Son. In the same way also He demonstrates His obedience to the Law in his circumcision, an obedience that He did not owe the Law in this case either, and there He shed His holy blood. For He was not born in sin like other children, and His mother also remained a pure, chaste maiden. Thus He was entirely holy and guiltless with respect to the Law." (AE 58:433, 434)

In these sermons, you hear echoes of a similar point he had made years before in the first volume of the Church Postils:

"It is well known what is meant by giving birth. Mary's experience was not different from that of other women, so that the birth of Christ was a real, natural birth, Mary being his natural mother and he being her natural son. Therefore her body performed the functions of giving birth, which naturally belonged to it, except that she brought forth without sin, without shame, without pain and without injury, just as she had conceived without sin. The curse of Eve did not come on her, where God said: "In pain thou shalt bring forth children," Gen 3. 16; otherwise it was with her in every particular as with every woman who gives birth to a child. Grace does not interfere with nature and her work, but improves and promotes it. Likewise Mary, without doubt, also nourished the child with milk from her breast and not with strange milk or in a manner different from that which nature provided, as we sing: ubere de coelo pleno, from her breast being filled by heaven, without injury or impurity. I mention this that we may be grounded in the faith and know that Jesus was a natural man in every respect just as we, the only difference being in his relation to sin and grace, he being without a sinful nature. In him and in his mother nature was pure in all the members and in all the operations of those members. No body or member of woman ever performed its natural function without sin, except that of this virgin; here for once God bestowed special honor upon nature and its operations." CP I:140. (Cf. AE 75:212, 213)

Where does the idea that Mary gave birth without pain or injury come from? It's not in Scriptures. 

We might ask: What are they providing that the church doesn't provide?

That's also my thinking about the Lodges: They provide something for the folks that they aren't finding in church. 

As I read it, I thought, some of this has been part of AA since its beginning in 1935. There is an emphasis on "a higher power." This might be the Christian God for believers, or any other god for religious folks, or a fence post for those who don't believe in any god.

And to show that this is not a problem that can be relegated to the past (as in pre-Vatican II), Cardinal-designate Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández announced in an exclusive email interview with Register just a few weeks ago (Sept. 8 ) that the Pope not only has a duty to guard and preserve the "static" deposit of faith, but also a second, unique charism, only given to Peter and his successors, which is "a living and active gift." I ask, then, was Luther really wrong then, in the SA, when he argued: "4 Actually, the papacy too is nothing but sheer enthusiasm. The pope boasts that all rights exist in the shrine of his heart. Whatever he decides and commands within his church is from the Spirit and is right, even though it is above and contrary to Scripture and the spoken Word."? Above and contrary to the Word: papal infallibility has led us to the dogmatizing of immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary and the anathematizing of those who dare to dispute these as divinely revealed doctrine. (And Brian, those are anathemas of the 19th and 20th century, not the 16th!). Sasse observed about the 1950 decision that this is what happens when the balloon of tradition comes untethered from the Sacred Scriptures.

An archbishop's announcement does not carry the same weight as a papal bull. I believe that there's also a difference between a pope expressing an opinion and speaking "ex cathedra." Since the official declaration of papal infallibility in 1870, there has been only one papal statement "ex cathedra." The pope's infallibility is not about everything he might say. What I've gathered, there are four criteria for a statement to be considered infallible: (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church.

I think that some of the issue is that many Catholics view as authoritative some of the writings we see as pseudepigrapha. Some of their teachings are based on them.

How is the pope's authority that much different than your CTCR? Do they not determine what is the correct theology for the LCMS? Those within and outside the LCMS (like ELCAers) are seen, at best, as heterodox, and at worse, heretics, if we disagree with their statements.

So I see that I still have to log in each time I visit the forum online, despite that I tell  it to log in "forever."  Is this a bug that is fixable?

I had that problem until I added www. to the login address.

[Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.]

Did I miss something? Has the Pope recently rescinded the last words the bull Unam Sanctam?

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I'd say that as long as that monstrosity stands, the answer to the question of the antichrist is sadly clear, and thus instead of being a symbol of the church's unity, the bishop of Rome with his pretensions remains the single largest stumbling block to Christian unity.

How is that unity of the church much different from the LCMS requiring confessional agreement before offering the Meal of unity?

If you can't see the difference between saying "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" and "you're Christian, but we disagree in doctrine, therefore we cannot in good conscience commune with you" then I don't know what to say.

Secondly, how can one celebrate a "Meal of Unity" if there is no actual unity (i.e. confessional agreement)?

First: you missed my addition to the post. By signing the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, they undid the condemnations of the 16th century. Similarly, when the ALC and LCA adopted their 1978 Statement on Communion, it nullified the Galesburg Rule which had been the official ALC practice, but often pastors took wide discretion on allowing exceptions to the rule. We never publicly stated that we repeal the Galesburg Rule, we just passed new rules that nullified them. So, I believe the Roman Catholics did when they signed the JDDJ document.

Secondly, just as "is" means "is" when we declare "This IS the body of Christ," so I believe "are" means "are" when Paul declares that "Because there is one bread, we who are many ARE one body, for we all partake of the one bread." The sacrament makes us one. It is not just a symbol of being one, any more than the bread is a symbol of the body of Christ.

[Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.]

Did I miss something? Has the Pope recently rescinded the last words the bull Unam Sanctam?

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I'd say that as long as that monstrosity stands, the answer to the question of the antichrist is sadly clear, and thus instead of being a symbol of the church's unity, the bishop of Rome with his pretensions remains the single largest stumbling block to Christian unity.

How is that unity of the church much different from the LCMS requiring confessional agreement before offering the Meal of unity?

Also, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification removed the 16th century condemnations we had of each other.

Interesting. The Greek verb that could be translated "to tolerate" (ἀνέχομαι) is translated "put up with," "bear with," "accepting," "submit," and "endure" in NRSV. The noun, ἀνοχή, can mean "tolerance," but NRSV uses "forbearance." There is also ἀνεξίκακος, that pertains "to enduring difficulties without becoming angry or upset." It is translated "patient," but could also be "tolerant."

In that regard, maybe a joint study by the two Lutheran groupings would be a helpful thing.  The Missouri Synod's CTCR recently written evaluation of LWF does not, in my reading, include anything about the papacy as anti-Christ. https://files.lcms.org/file/preview/0DF1078A-17DE-4318-9281-0FB02B6F8DD3?_gl=1*1ghivrn*_ga*NDM2MTIwMzk0LjE2MzUyNjQ3MDE.*_ga_Z0184DBP2L*MTY5NTMwMTU1NC40Mi4xLjE2OTUzMDIwNjMuMC4wLjA.
The critique tackles the LWF on social justice, women's ordination, LGBTQ and the dissent on the justification document which was approved by the LWF and RCC.

Considering that some within the LCMS opposed the Lutheran Book of Worship, which the LCMS invited the ALC and LCA to participate in - and certainly had their own LCMS representatives participating in its creation - it's not surprising that some will find fault among non LCMS Lutherans. They find faults within their own LCMS.

Aye.

The Communion Hymn for Feasts of the Theotokos:

Ποτήριον σωτηρίου λήψομαι καὶ τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου ἐπικαλέσομαι.

I will take up the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord.

And another--daily--reminder that Jesus is Lord and God, from the start of the hymnody of Orthros:

Θεὸς Κύριος καὶ ἐπέφανεν ἡμῖν.

God is the Lord, and He revealed Himself to us.

A Priest fluent in multiple languages including Greek and Arabic told me that "God is the Lord" is really a mistranslation; that it should be "The Lord [Jesus] is God...." and that the phrase so rendered serves as a direct challenge to the Muslim shahada.

The only place I found "Θεὸς Κύριος" in the LXX is Joshua 22:22 where the NETS translates it Lord God. The sentence above could be translated: "Also (the) Lord God revealed to us." "Himself" is not in the sentence.

Outwardly the obedience may look the same whether one is an unbeliever or a believer. But the obedience looks wholly different to the Lord. Those under first use obey from fear or from desire for a reward. The redeemed obey not from fear or coercion but with a free heart.

This is the difference Luther and Melanchthon are describing with the third use/group. These people use the Law rather than become ensnared by it. (Allowing of course the redeemed are still sinners and the Law still accuses them as they stumble.) Luther, Melanchthon, and other Reformers thought it important to describe this difference,  which is how the use is introduced.

There is a sense, something the Crossings Community (Ed Schroeder and Bob Bertram) often talk about, that for the redeemed, the "have to" has disappeared. (They replace it with "get to.") However, that attitude can be found among non-believers, too. There are good, moral people, who like being nice and helpful to others - not because they might get something out of it.

I agree that altruism and compassion are not exclusively Christian virtues. One even reads examples from nature where dogs and dolphins save people's lives. I think the Lord built these values into His creation so that they still manifest themselves. On the one hand, they are first article gifts. On the other hand, they are third article gifts enhanced by the work of the Holy Spirit.

I think we've been down this road before.  Is civil righteouosness righteousness before God and humans?  Yes.  Is it saving righteousness?  No.  That is applied externally, in and by and through Christ.

Dave Benke

I think that a difference may be: civil righteousness that is motivated by one's own conscious (and 1st use of the law?) and civil righteousness that is motivated by the Holy Spirit (3rd use?). I'm not sure that we can tell the difference. Although there have been times when conversing with someone, words popped into my head that seemed to fit the situation perfectly. I give the Spirit credit. Many other times, I've thought of things to say, that might not have been as helpful. I'm sure that those came from my own intellect.

It could be worse. You could be reporting on the ELCA Sierra Pacific Synod convention.

 
Last I heard, the leader on ballot 3 is Jeff Johnson, but he only inched up from the previous ballot and he has a lot of enemies. I don't really know numbers two and three, who will appear on the 4th ballot this morning.

John Valentine and John Keuhner are the other two. 

Outwardly the obedience may look the same whether one is an unbeliever or a believer. But the obedience looks wholly different to the Lord. Those under first use obey from fear or from desire for a reward. The redeemed obey not from fear or coercion but with a free heart.

This is the difference Luther and Melanchthon are describing with the third use/group. These people use the Law rather than become ensnared by it. (Allowing of course the redeemed are still sinners and the Law still accuses them as they stumble.) Luther, Melanchthon, and other Reformers thought it important to describe this difference,  which is how the use is introduced.

There is a sense, something the Crossings Community (Ed Schroeder and Bob Bertram) often talk about, that for the redeemed, the "have to" has disappeared. (They replace it with "get to.") However, that attitude can be found among non-believers, too. There are good, moral people, who like being nice and helpful to others - not because they might get something out of it. 

["Follow God's example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater —has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible — and everything that is illuminated becomes a light. This is why it is said: 'Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.' Be very careful, then, how you live — not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."]

Brian, what you seem to be missing is that for those who assert a "3rd Use" we view the civil as God's "curbing" use that applies even to those who deny the existense of a Law-giver versus the "3rd use" which is God teaching His childrenh (believers) how they are to live as His dearly loved people.  In other words, the "3rd use" does not "curb" (1st use) or "condemn" (2nd use) Christians per se but is viewed by Christians as Christians as the will of their Creator and Savior.  Simply put, the "3rd use" describes how Christians as Christians view God's Law.

Where I differ from you is: (1) I see the first use curbing and guiding. It governs our life concerning "things below." And (2) "How Christians as Christians view God's Law" is as God's first and second uses. That's what I was taught in seminary was meant by the article in the Formula. (It's probably not what you were taught.)

In a nutshell, there is a way the Law is proclaimed to CHRISTIANS that is different than how the Law is proclaimed to unbelievers - and this difference is what some call the "3rd use."

In other words, Paul (or a faithful pastor in our day) would NOT say the following to unbelievers who reject Christ and His Word: 

"Follow God's example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.  For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater —has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.  Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord.  Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.  But everything exposed by the light becomes visible — and everything that is illuminated becomes a light. This is why it is said: 'Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.' Be very careful, then, how you live — not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.  Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 5:1-20)

I suspect that Jewish rabbis would have said the same thing to Jewish believers. The same might have been, in later generations, said to Muslims.

The difference, as Walter Bruegemann, stated in a lecture, is that Jews and Christians (and Muslims?) see their obedience to God's Law as a witness to the world of our relationship with God; rather than a means of trying to save ourselves.

Thus, it is not so much how God is using the Law, but how we believers view our obedience. As such, I don't see it falling in quite the same categories as how God uses the Law with the first two uses.

No. I think the doctrine of purgatory, enumeration of sins in confession, ideas of merit, penance/atonement brought about popular notions of works righteousness in late medieval practice.

Teaching people to obey God's Law is repeatedly stated in the Bible and throughout the history of Christian doctrine. It's good catholic practice, so long as one's obedience is understood as an expression of faith and love for the righteousness received through Christ alone.

I agree that teaching people to obey God's Law - actually all moral and civil laws - is a good practice - regardless of one's beliefs. Thus, I see it falling under the Civil use of the law. It's not something that applies only to Christians - although we might see the laws, e.g., against murder, as coming from God rather than the wisdom of legislatures. I don't believe God's civil use of the Law is limited to only the laws in the OT.

An earlier generation of Luther scholarship recognized that the third use distinction for Christian life started with Luther. Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denefle (1844--1905) described how Luther was working from late medieval categories for his threefold use. Luther scholar Gustav Kawerau (1847--1918) affirmed that Luther taught the threefold use of the Law.

Somehow in the next generation these insights were lost---perhaps the troubles of two world wars disrupted the continuity of teaching. Elert and Ebeling introduced the only-two-uses idea, which took hold and has misled the church about the history of doctrine ever since.

For example, Luther (1522), Melanchthon (1528), and Roehrer (editor for Luther's 1535 Galatians Commentary) were all writing about threefold or third use of the Law before Calvin even published his Institutes (1536). The idea that a third use of the Law is Calvinistic is clearly inaccurate. The wiser course of study is to consider how Calvin said something different from the Lutherans, as Will points out above.

As I read the article that included "three-fold" it seemed to me that it wasn't so much about how God uses the Law, but the different ways three different groups of people hear (or ignore) the law. Three groups of people is certainly different than three uses.

An earlier generation of Luther scholarship recognized that the third use distinction for Christian life started with Luther. Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denefle (1844--1905) described how Luther was working from late medieval categories for his threefold use. Luther scholar Gustav Kawerau (1847--1918) affirmed that Luther taught the threefold use of the Law.

Somehow in the next generation these insights were lost---perhaps the troubles of two world wars disrupted the continuity of teaching. Elert and Ebeling introduced the only-two-uses idea, which took hold and has misled the church about the history of doctrine ever since.

For example, Luther (1522), Melanchthon (1528), and Roehrer (editor for Luther's 1535 Galatians Commentary) were all writing about threefold or third use of the Law before Calvin even published his Institutes (1536). The idea that a third use of the Law is Calvinistic is clearly inaccurate. The wiser course of study is to consider how Calvin said something different from the Lutherans, as Will points out above.

As I read the article that included "three-fold" it seemed to me that it wasn't so much about how God uses the Law, but the different ways three different groups of people hear (or ignore) the law. Three groups of people is certainly different than three uses.

If you read endnote nine in Paulson's article, you'll see that Melanchthon began teaching about the three uses of the Law in precisely this way. He's following Luther as he writes about three types of hearers. This is again firm evidence that what Luther writes in 1522 gives rise to what Melanchthon writes in 1527.

But taking the long view, such observations are already in Augustine, though not termed in this way. The Reformers are building their theology with ancient stones and not brand new. These are good catholic observations.

Didn't those "good catholic observations" lead to the "works-righteousness" that caused Luther to break with Roman Catholic tradition? That's the fear that we, who eschew a distinct third use, fear about those who promote any obedience to the Law.