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 - RDPreus

Pages: 1 ... 77 78 [79] 80
Your Turn / Re: The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment
« on: December 07, 2010, 02:08:32 PM »
What we can do is try to keep public institutions from blessing homosexuality.  

Exactly how will that strengthen and protect marriage? I just don't understand the logic that if we prevent same-gender folks from marrying, that will make marriages stronger.

The law is a teacher.  When the law blesses homosexual "marriage" it teaches that it is good.  This teaches the public that procreation and the nurture of children in a family is no longer the fundamental purpose of marriage.  As a matter of fact, however, it is likely that the widespread abandonment of this understanding of sex and marriage is what has led to the widespread acceptance of homosexuality.  The approval of homosexual marriage is therefore more a symptom than a cause of the destruction of marriage.  Still, it goes both ways.

Your Turn / Re: The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment
« on: December 07, 2010, 12:41:40 PM »
No one can keep sex between a male and a female.  What we can do is try to keep public institutions from blessing homosexuality.  When the Church and the State speak, people listen.  For some reason they think such institutions speak and act on God's behalf.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 26, 2010, 07:23:26 AM »
J & S, a couple of days ago you spoke of reducing “the concept of a congregation to a left hand kingdom organization.”  Now you speak of a congregation that “may not be formed as one in the Kingdom of the Left.”  Perhaps you’ve gone over this before on this forum, but would you be so kind as to explain it to me?  I think I know the difference between a Christian congregation and an ad hoc gathering of Christians for worship, but I don’t get the connection to the kingdom of God’s left hand.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 25, 2010, 12:56:16 PM »
God teaches this in these words recorded in 1 Corinthians 14 and in 1 Timothy 2.

As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.  And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.  Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?  If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.  And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.    Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 25, 2010, 12:10:46 PM »
The reason women serving as lectors in the Divine Service is a doctrinal matter is because the Word of God forbids it.  The Word of God does not forbid having a church service on a Sunday without offering the Lord's Supper.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 24, 2010, 06:23:45 PM »
J & S, how does saying that the Sacrament belongs in the congregation make the congregation a left hand kingdom organization?  I would think that the exact opposite would be the case.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 24, 2010, 01:11:00 PM »
Is this then the Rolf David Preus who served at one time at St. John's Lutheran Church in Racine, WI?  That's the church of my heritage; my mom was born in the parsonage and when she died this past summer a painting of the parsonage on Main Street that she possessed was taken by (I believe) my brother Bob.  If you're the Rolf Preus who shepherded there, then you filled the parsonage in the way my mom, one of twelve children, filled it in an earlier time.

Dave Benke

I remember meeting you briefly at your Uncle Jack Boerger's funeral.  Perhaps you didn't know who I was since I was wearing a clerical collar!  :)

Your grandpa, Pr. Boerger, who served at St. John's during most of the first half of the twentieth century, was a very much loved man.  I will never forget the heart-warming stories my shut-ins told me about him.  He gave away his winter coat to a homeless man who needed a coat.  He gave money to the wife of an alcoholic because he knew her husband was drinking away the money she needed for groceries for the family.  He showed a true pastor's heart.  All pastors hear stories of affection toward pastors who have gone before, but your grandfather stands out.  I wish I could have met him.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 24, 2010, 12:18:44 PM »
I'm Rolf David Preus, son of Robert David Preus.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 24, 2010, 12:11:32 PM »

“Would these old professors have advocated weekly communion in their home parishes?”

I doubt it, but maybe.

“I know some older Lutherans who object to weekly communion. Might your old professors have held an opinion that communion could be TOO frequent?”

I don’t know.  It never came up.  I suspect they would have been open to the arguments that have led to weekly Communion.


“Possible reasons not to partake, from what you said, seem to me to include: a) what is offered at what you call "auxiliary organizations" is not the Lord's Supper, so it would be improper to take it;”

I know of no one who would say that it is not the Lord’s Supper.

“b) one decides not to partake in order to make a statement regarding a particular polity;”

I don’t think that’s it.  One isn’t making any statement at all.

“c) one decides not to partake because a pastor partakes or presides whom one deems to be engaged in sinful behavior by his confession of false doctrine (OK, you didn't say this one, but it has appeared upstream);”

It’s obvious that that’s the reason some in the LCMS have not communed at conventions and conferences.  What I’m saying is that other reasons exist.

Say, could somebody tell me how to put that neat blue box around another guy’s words?  Thanks!

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 24, 2010, 10:54:47 AM »
The Lord’s Supper is gospel.  It is not law. 

The ministry of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted that we may obtain the faith through which we are justified by God.  This ministry and the church go together.  To regard the proper form of this church as the local, identifiable, Christian congregation and to regard all other gatherings such as Winkels, Pastoral Conferences, seminaries, colleges, conventions, youth groups, ladies aides, etc., as auxiliary to the church is an opinion with which any Missourian over the age of fifty must be familiar inasmuch as it was widely held for quite some time.

It is not to denigrate these auxiliary organizations to respect the opinion of those CTS professors who wanted the Supper to be identified with the local Christian congregation and to receive it there.

Such an opinion might be considered rather quaint these days.  But I would suggest that if we were to refocus on the primacy and necessity of the local Christian congregation where the gospel is purely preached and the sacraments are rightly administered by pastors called and ordained to do these duties and to view other groups as existing for the purpose of assisting the congregation we just might find ourselves more centered in the gospel and less preoccupied by synodical politics.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 23, 2010, 06:16:20 PM »
When I began the seminary (in Springfield), it was the only school (college or seminary) in the LCMS that did not yet have the Lord's Supper at any chapel services.  That changed when we moved to Ft. Wayne (my second year).  I distinctly recall several professors who attended chapel on Wednesdays but did not commune.  They all belonged to congregations where they could receive the Lord's Supper and they saw no need to have it at the seminary.  These men were all strongly committed to the view that the local Christian congregation was the only divinely established form of the church and that one should receive the Sacrament in the congregation.  I guess today one might call them "bronze" Missourians, though that designation was unknown at the time.  We called them conservatives.

Most of these brothers have died and gone to heaven. 

May one hold to their opinion in the LCMS today?  Is it acceptable to refrain from the Sacrament except at one's own congregation?  Or must one feel obliged to attend the Lord's Supper at events beyond the local Christian congregation for fear of being judged for not attending?

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 23, 2010, 02:23:50 PM »
Must a pastor commune at Winkels and Pastoral Conferences?  What if he believes that the Supper is best celebrated at the congregational level and that he personally prefers to receive it there? 

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 21, 2010, 04:41:17 PM »
So this gets back to an earlier, thread, and that is "by what authority" did he 'discover' this 'new understanding', and by what authority did he reject the normative understanding of his time, of the Fathers and the constant teaching of the Church through all time, up to today?

Luther did not reject the “constant teaching of the Church through all time, up to today.”  In affirming the alien righteousness that is ours through faith alone he was upholding the teaching of the Church of all ages.  The teaching of the apostles is the teaching of the Church.  The fathers affirm this as well.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 20, 2010, 01:46:31 PM »
Yes, Luther had received the Law and Gospel readings and the Lord’s Supper in the Mass all his life.  But it was by subjecting the Mass to the normative authority of the Holy Scriptures (from which he had discovered the pure gospel that reveals the righteousness of faith) that he was able to rid it of its objectionable features.

There is an intimate connection between right teaching and right worship.  We cannot disconnect the one from the other.  When considering which precedes which, perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between experience and norm.  Experientially, the right worship establishes for our faith the right doctrine.  But the norm for right worship must be the Holy Scriptures.  I think we all agree that as we pray, so we believe.  My question is: What norms our prayers?  Or are the prayers the norm?

To apply this to today’s worship wars, I’d like to offer a suggestion for thought.  Is it possible that the reason Lutherans adopt revivalistic forms of worship is because they have already embraced the theological tenets of revivalism?  Folks choose the worship they choose on account of what they believe. 

Well, it moves both ways, doesn't it?  Consider the great Lutheran chorales.  They teach the faith and they pray the faith and do both beautifully.

Your Turn / Re: Unity and the Means of Grace
« on: November 20, 2010, 09:12:47 AM »
I wholeheartedly agree that our unity begins in receiving God’s grace in word and sacrament.  Considering church fellowship apart from our justification before God will inevitably render it a legalistic caricature of what it truly is.

On the other hand, I cannot agree that correct worship must precede correct teaching.  Perhaps this is a chicken and egg kind of discussion, but consider that Luther found the righteousness that availed before God in the Holy Scriptures (Romans 1:17) and from learning the true teaching of the gospel proceeded to rid the liturgy of the Sacrifice of the Mass.  In this case was it not the correct teaching that led to the correct worship?

Thank you for your post.

Pages: 1 ... 77 78 [79] 80