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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 80
61
Your Turn / Re: LCMS Inc 2020 Report
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:33:07 PM »
I think it's sad that delegates rely on preferred candidate lists as they decide for whom to vote at LCMS conventions.  Can any of you name the men who make up the "United List" or tell us how many they are?  Yet, if one is not on it, he is rarely elected.  Sometimes they make excellent recommendations.  Sometimes they make bad recommendations.  I would like to see them go out of business.  I know and like both Matthew Harrison and David Maier.  They are both Christian brothers with feet of clay.  I won't say which one I voted for, but I will say that it was not a choice between good versus evil. 

I'll raise a glass - bourbon or single malt, take your pick - to the bolded and underlined section, RD.  What I'd love to see happen myself is for that anonymous group to simply state who they are/have been as they determine no longer to take part as the United List. 

I will add that if that were to happen, you could pretty well depend on the eschaton arriving within no more than 48 hours, give or take.

Dave Benke

I'll join you in that toast.  It will have to be single malt.  I'm out of bourbon.

62
Your Turn / Re: LCMS Inc 2020 Report
« on: January 05, 2021, 06:19:01 PM »
The LCMS Convention in 1969 at Denver signaled the debut of intense political
activity for the first time to oust an incumbent Synodical President.  That is a
fact beyond dispute. It was no accident that Herman Otten was involved in the
 campaigning against the incumbent President and part of the challenger's team.

The introduction of hard-nosed politics to  become a LCMS President began in
1969 and has never stopped.  Each national convention to elect a Synodical
President becomes a feud which short circuits the integrity of both candidates.
The infighting factions in the LCMS have helped to demoralize the love needed
to proclaim Christ to a lost world.

I agree!  I would like to point out that while Herman Otten was instrumental in the election of Jack Preus in 1969 he was by no means a part of his team.  Just a few months after Uncle Jack was elected he, along with most of the COP, repudiated Christian News.  It is true that Otten had a great influence on the LCMS, but he really didn't have the political influence many people think he had.  I'm not saying he had none.  Dean Wenthe ignored advice to visit with Otten to assure him of his Waltherian credentials.  Wenthe lost to Kieschnick.  Matthew Harrison, on the other hand, courted Otten and sought his support.  He won.  I doubt that Otten represented more than 5% of the delegates, but that's enough to tip a close election.

I think it's sad that delegates rely on preferred candidate lists as they decide for whom to vote at LCMS conventions.  Can any of you name the men who make up the "United List" or tell us how many they are?  Yet, if one is not on it, he is rarely elected.  Sometimes they make excellent recommendations.  Sometimes they make bad recommendations.  I would like to see them go out of business.  I know and like both Matthew Harrison and David Maier.  They are both Christian brothers with feet of clay.  I won't say which one I voted for, but I will say that it was not a choice between good versus evil. 

63
Your Turn / Re: The Orders of Creation - an Essay by Ed Schroeder
« on: January 05, 2021, 05:47:12 PM »

Whether or not we should use the term "orders of creation" (and whether or not it matters if the term was first popularized among the Reformed), it seems to me that the orders are incomprehensible apart from the creation.  Indeed, it is a waste of time and effort to figure out what constitutes orders apart from the creation.


I agree, Pr. Preus, that a discussion of "orders of creation" should begin with a robust theology of creation.  But why is it that talk of "orders of creation" so often is reduced to a singular analysis of the relationship between men and women?  Surely, there are other, and equally important, "orders" within creation that deserve at least as much attention as the "order" of the relationship between men and women, aren't there?

Tom Pearson
I think such discussion happens all the time with regard to environmentalism and the order of creation by which God gave mankind dominion over all the earth. Bioethics, when it remains sane, values human life over animal life for reasons reducible to creation.

I agree.  The value and dignity of human life is grounded in our creation in the image of God and confirmed in our redemption by Him who is the image of God.  We point to our creation in God's image as we affirm the sanctity of all human life.  This has tremendous implications for our teaching on such issues as abortion, war, environmentalism, etc.

64
Your Turn / Re: The Orders of Creation - an Essay by Ed Schroeder
« on: January 05, 2021, 01:05:46 PM »
Whether or not we should use the term "orders of creation" (and whether or not it matters if the term was first popularized among the Reformed), it seems to me that the orders are incomprehensible apart from the creation.  Indeed, it is a waste of time and effort to figure out what constitutes orders apart from the creation.  How does the Lord Jesus treat creation?  And what does this have to do with how matters are ordered among us?  When asked if divorce is acceptable, he does not appeal to the Law.  He appeals to creation.  He appeals to the Creator in creation and asserts that that event determines what obtains right now.  God joined Adam to Eve and the two became one flesh.  What does this mean?  It means that all subsequent marriages have God joining this man to this woman so that the two become one flesh. 

God created Adam first.  He thus established patriarchy.  1 Timothy 2:13.  Patriarchy isn't a social construct or a cultural development.  It is what our Father established in creation.  The problem we have in understanding and discussing women pastors today is the problem we have with patriarchy.  Forget about "orders" of this or that.  Instead, let's talk about what the Creator did when he made man in his own image, male and female.  What he did is what he does.  Creation, not the Mosaic Law, is determinative on this.

Women's ordination comes about when the political replaces the theological.  It is a very democratic concept!  Patriarchy is bad and Democracy rules!  Dostoevsky opined that universal and equal suffrage was "the most absurd invention of the 19th century."  Consider its fruit!  The state is Daddy.  The Fatherhood of God displayed in creation gives way to the codification of the sentiments of the majority.  With the eradication of patriarchy in principle, the so called nuclear family (with Dad and Mom and children) has neither identity nor authority.  We can argue until the cows come home about how to order this or that, but until we return to creation and the Creator and base our views about men, women, and family on what God did when he made us in the beginning we will find ourselves bogged down in legalistic wrangling that will go on and on.

65
Your Turn / Re: The Orders of Creation - an Essay by Ed Schroeder
« on: January 04, 2021, 12:25:38 PM »
I would be interested in what participants on this forum think about these words from the essay:

In St. Paul’s day it appears that womanly subordination was the Creator’s order (societal placement). Today it is obvious that there has been some change since St. Paul’s time and place in this cultural phenomenon. If the Creator has continued to be the Creator during the intervening years, why cannot we admit that the present growing “equality” station of women is a work of the Creator?

 


66
Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...
« on: December 21, 2020, 04:34:58 PM »
Whether I am right or wrong, it should be obvious that National Review is not an objective observer of Trump and his administration. 

Is there such a thing? Or do we all identify objectivity as what agrees with us?

Good question.

67
Your Turn / Re: Forum Letter, Jan 2021
« on: December 21, 2020, 03:05:17 PM »
"Our faith does not merit or work salvation, Jesus did. But faith is crucial in bringing that salvation to us."

It would be better to say that the gospel brings that salvation to us and faith receives what the gospel brings.

"So correct teaching and preaching of the Gospel does not make the Gospel salvific."

That's true!  Indeed, it is correct teaching of the Gospel to say that the Gospel obtains its salvific power from the vicarious work of Christ as St. Paul says in Romans 1:17.  Why is the gospel the power of God unto salvation?  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed, that is, because the gospel presents to us the saving work of Christ by which we are justified and saved.   

68
Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...
« on: December 21, 2020, 10:44:07 AM »
National Review has been moving more and more into the neo-conservative orbit since William F. Buckley died.  Its consistent anti-Communist posture during the Cold War led to embracing the neo-conservative agenda after the Cold War ended.  Once upon a time the Republican Party was antiwar to the point of being accused of isolationism.  It was the Cold War and the Communist menace that moved them into a more internationalist posture.  Donald Trump has tried to regain the "America First" political philosophy of the old Republican Party.  National Review, dominated as it has become by neo-conservatives, has consistently opposed him.  I believe that Donald Trump, not National Review, represents the historic conservative Republican position.  Whether I am right or wrong, it should be obvious that National Review is not an objective observer of Trump and his administration.  This should be kept in mind as we evaluate the National Review article under discussion.


69
Your Turn / Re: Forum Letter, Jan 2021
« on: December 20, 2020, 08:27:34 PM »
Pastor Preus:
The correct teaching of the gospel saves.
I comment:
No, it does not. Jesus saves.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'" Romans 1:16-17

70
Your Turn / Re: Forum Letter, Jan 2021
« on: December 20, 2020, 07:47:11 PM »
"Issues of inerrancy, real presence, and correct teaching are not unimportant nor should we neglect them. But in our zeal, we need to remember that they are not what saves . . . "

The body and blood of Jesus that I eat and drink in the Sacrament was given and shed for me for the remission of sins.  It saves me.  The real presence of Christ's body and blood saves.  The gospel saves.  The gospel is taught.  It is taught correctly.  The correct teaching of the gospel saves.

71
Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...
« on: December 12, 2020, 12:02:34 PM »
If you are white, you have benefited from the effects of racism on our society. True? Or false?

False.

72
Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...
« on: December 10, 2020, 07:26:45 PM »
If the electoral college were eliminated and the president chosen by popular vote, smaller rural states would suffer.  Presidential candidates would ignore them.  That would be bad for everyone.  The United States is made up of states.  Each state deserves its representation.  This is why all states get two U.S. senators, regardless of size.  The large urban areas dominate national politics in the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party is far more diverse, getting most of the votes of rural America.  The only real purpose for eliminating the electoral college is to advance the cause of the Democratic Party.  It's certainly not to benefit the United States of America. 

73
Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...
« on: December 09, 2020, 12:37:17 PM »
Starting a threat entitled "Not about the election" and telling us not to talk about the election is like the mom who tells her three year old not to put any peas up his nose.  What do you expect people to do when you tell them not to do it? ;D

74
Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...
« on: December 03, 2020, 01:48:46 PM »
The fact that Biden won the popular vote is irrelevant.  The electoral votes determine the winner.  Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin were very close.  If a majority of voters in these states voted for Trump, Trump would win.  Is it possible that he actually won a majority of the votes in all of these states?  I think so.  Can anyone prove it?  I don't know.  Will Biden become president in January.  It looks like it.  Did the Democrats cheat to get Biden the victory?  It looks like it.  I'm not sure what anyone can do about it.

Trump was my last choice for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, but since he was elected I have changed my mind about him.  I think he has been a very good president.  He's kept his word.  On trade, foreign policy, taxes and regulation, the federal judiciary, and other issues he has done a fine job.  That the left hates him with an irrational hatred is obvious.  Would they steal an election from him if they could?  I think they would.  Perhaps they did.  Ah, but we seek here no continuing city . . .

75
Your Turn / Re: Rev. Paul T. McCain, RIP
« on: November 26, 2020, 01:02:18 PM »
This is shocking news.  So young!  God blessed his church through Paul.  Feisty, energetic, and theologically sound, he was a born teacher.  I pray that the peace of the gospel Paul faithfully proclaimed will bring comfort to his family. 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 80