Author Topic: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...  (Read 9174 times)

Deb_H.

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #45 on: April 25, 2007, 08:47:11 PM »
"Well," the cop says, "It doesn't seem right to me."
It's a lot like the parable of the workers in the field. In our "natural" thinking, those who worked all day long should be paid more than those who only worked an hour. Most of us are like those who worked all day -- we don't like a gracious pay-master or God, because grace doesn't seem fair to those who work for it.

And thus, the reason for this parable story in the first place, I always thought.
Whoo-hoo, I agree with Brian S.!

Debbie

frluther1517

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2007, 08:48:30 PM »
I did say almost.... ;D

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42675
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2007, 08:56:09 PM »
"Well," the cop says, "It doesn't seem right to me."
It's a lot like the parable of the workers in the field. In our "natural" thinking, those who worked all day long should be paid more than those who only worked an hour. Most of us are like those who worked all day -- we don't like a gracious pay-master or God, because grace doesn't seem fair to those who work for it.

And thus, the reason for this parable story in the first place, I always thought.
Whoo-hoo, I agree with Brian S.!
Did the parousia happen and we missed it?

In a group discussion on the parable, a woman offered a different perspective. She had been one who was usually picked last for sports teams. She was one who always felt like the underdog. She empathized with those who had been standing around all day, wondering if they would have enough money to buy food for their families. She felt the grace of the land-owner in a way much different than we who empathized with the first hired and felt the unfairness of the situation. I've just read What Do They Hear?: Bridging the Gap Between Pulpit & Pew, by Mark Allan Powell, he notes in experiments he has done that different groups empathize with different characters in stories -- and are affected in different ways by the same story. He suggests that the meanings of stories can be a message (which clergy tend to look for) or the impact or affect the story has on the hearer/reader (which lay people tend to react to more than clergy).
« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 09:12:46 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Kris Baudler

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #48 on: April 26, 2007, 08:13:00 AM »

So what do you propose should be done about sins committed after Baptism?  Is such sin of no consequence?  Or, as in ante-Nicean years, should Baptism be postponsed until one's deathbed?


Do? DO? Why nothing, dear friend, since Christ has already done it. "Sin boldly! ...but believe more boldly still." As Luther wrote to Melanchthon in 1521, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners.  Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."   

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #49 on: April 26, 2007, 08:33:45 AM »

So what do you propose should be done about sins committed after Baptism?  Is such sin of no consequence?  Or, as in ante-Nicean years, should Baptism be postponsed until one's deathbed?


Do? DO? Why nothing, dear friend, since Christ has already done it. "Sin boldly! ...but believe more boldly still." As Luther wrote to Melanchthon in 1521, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners.  Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."   

Sola fidei, sola gratia was never intended to be a license for antinomianism.
Greek Orthodox-Ecumenical Patriarchate

Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014.
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.

Chrismated Antiochian Orthodox, eve of Mary of Egypt Sunday, A.D. 2015

Deb_H.

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #50 on: April 26, 2007, 10:34:30 AM »

So what do you propose should be done about sins committed after Baptism?  Is such sin of no consequence?  Or, as in ante-Nicean years, should Baptism be postponsed until one's deathbed?


Do? DO? Why nothing, dear friend, since Christ has already done it. "Sin boldly! ...but believe more boldly still." As Luther wrote to Melanchthon in 1521, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners.  Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."   

Sola fidei, sola gratia was never intended to be a license for antinomianism.

Well you had to know, Kris, that once "sin boldly" came out, the "a" word would show up. 

Of course, that's not what the phrase was ever meant to be, and not what Kris means by it either.  But if we are truly saint AND sinner at the same time ... we have no option but to sin.  If we're so afraid we might sin, (while believing it's possible not to) we may never ever get much of anything done that we were meant to do -- and so we do the best we know, believing if it wasn't quite 'right' that forgiveness will cover a multitude of sins.  To me, that is what sin boldly means.

It's sort of inside talk, though -- you have to be a Lutheran to understand it fully, and maybe even a 'certain type' of Lutheran.  To all others, it sounds like a license to go out and SIN freely and it makes them squirmy; but who, if they call themselves Christian, would even want to do anything like that? 

Debbie

frluther1517

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #51 on: April 26, 2007, 11:01:10 AM »
Of course, that's not what the phrase was ever meant to be, and not what Kris means by it either.  But if we are truly saint AND sinner at the same time ... we have no option but to sin.  If we're so afraid we might sin, (while believing it's possible not to) we may never ever get much of anything done that we were meant to do -- and so we do the best we know, believing if it wasn't quite 'right' that forgiveness will cover a multitude of sins.  To me, that is what sin boldly means.

It's sort of inside talk, though -- you have to be a Lutheran to understand it fully, and maybe even a 'certain type' of Lutheran.  To all others, it sounds like a license to go out and SIN freely and it makes them squirmy; but who, if they call themselves Christian, would even want to do anything like that? 

Debbie

Debbie- 

I think there is another issue that needs to be raised.  There is a difference between SIN and sinS.  Lutherans belive concupiscene  to be SIN and the actions that flow from that perverted desire sinS.  I think that what is at the heart of SIEP (simil iustes et peccator) for Luther isn't the focus of these sinS but rather SIN (concupiscence).  The Saint isn't a SIEP because of sinS, but rather because the SIN remains after Baptism (see previous apology quote).  Luther believed that a Christian could refrain from committing sinS (I believe the Commentary on Galatians addresses this) but was still plauged by SIN. 

Now if this SIN still remains in the Christian it obviously will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God.  SIN is opposed to the will of God and as a matter of fact cannot remain in us if we belive that our salvation is union with Christ and the Triune God.  Such a union between SIN and God cannot exist for a FULL UNION.  We are still a defective creature who is not the creature God has called us to be, even at death.  It would seem then that this SIN needs to go away before salvation (fulll union with the Triune God) is even possible.  Here is the theological possibility of speaking about purgatory, understood as a process or way whereby the SIN is removed from the saved inorder to enter into ultimate salvation, Union with the Triune God.  Seems to make sense to me...


Ian
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 08:32:38 PM by frluther1517 »

Michael_Rothaar

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
  • Married to Linda in 1970. Ordained in TALC in 1971
    • View Profile
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #52 on: April 26, 2007, 02:26:50 PM »
In a group discussion on the parable, a woman offered a different perspective. She had been one who was usually picked last for sports teams. She was one who always felt like the underdog. She empathized with those who had been standing around all day, wondering if they would have enough money to buy food for their families. She felt the grace of the land-owner in a way much different than we who empathized with the first hired and felt the unfairness of the situation. I've just read What Do They Hear?: Bridging the Gap Between Pulpit & Pew, by Mark Allan Powell, he notes in experiments he has done that different groups empathize with different characters in stories -- and are affected in different ways by the same story. He suggests that the meanings of stories can be a message (which clergy tend to look for) or the impact or affect the story has on the hearer/reader (which lay people tend to react to more than clergy).

Lots of years ago, Neill Hamilton (at Drew) called this the hermeneutic of analogy. (NB - hermeneutic, not exegesis) He used to say that there is no link between us and the people in the Bible -- worldview, social structure, economic life, etc. -- except human emotion. To be afraid, angry, proud, relieved, joyous, etc. is exactly the same for us as it was for them. So a good strategy for gaining a hearing for the word is to draw a picture of a situation that gives rise to the same emotion we're reading about. Like Powell's comments on empathy, it's a technique that requires good knowledge of the real life stories with which people enter the church.

It also marks a good use of film and tv, which often provide the mythic or archtypical points of identification. In my Bible study group this week, previewing Sunday's Gospel, it was helpful to get them hearing "Messiah" along the lines of "Braveheart." (But beyond establishing that "the Jews" were in the wrong Mel Gibson movie, it's also helpful to discuss the circumstances of life that brought forth William Wallace as leader, and which in Jesus' time had given rise to the messianic hopes and expectations -- why the great reversal of the parables was so hard to accept, and why we, too, sometimes have trouble actually hearing the voice of the shepherd.)
Mike Rothaar
Retired from roster of active ELCA pastors 01 Jul 2012.
Mind and Spirit still working.

Kris Baudler

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #53 on: April 26, 2007, 03:37:59 PM »
  Such a union between SIN and God cannot exist for a FULL UNION.  We are still a defective creature who is not the creature God has called us to be, even at death.  It would seem then that this SIN needs to go away before salvation (fulll union with the Triune God) is even possible.  Here is the theological possibility of speaking about purgatory, understood as a process or way where the SIN is removed by the saved inorder to enter into ultimate salvation, Union with the Triune God.  Seems to make sense to me...

Not to me. Of course we are not the creature God has called us to be. But Christ is, and by God's grace through faith in him, by his righteousness, and not our own, we are indeed the creature God has called us to be. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (St. Paul). To assume we need "do" something more is an affront to the cross of Christ. To the Harry Potter poppycock of purgatory, Luther writes: "Besides, this dragon's tail -- that is, the Mass -- has brought forth a brood of vermin and the poison of manifold idolatries. The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with all Soul's Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone.  Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls.  Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead.  All this may consequently  be discarded, apart entirely from the  fact it is error and idolatry." (The Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article II) To confess a belief in purgatory is to believe in something our Lutheran Confessions categorically reject.

As for the "a" word being invoked, Debbie, "we are now discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code, but in the new life of the Spirit." "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption." (St. Paul, Romans 7 & 8). The charge of antinomianism is most frequently invoked by persons for whom the sufficiency of the cross is folly, who refuse to die in Christ in order to justify their own works righteousness.


frluther1517

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2007, 09:08:09 AM »
Not to me. Of course we are not the creature God has called us to be. But Christ is, and by God's grace through faith in him, by his righteousness, and not our own, we are indeed the creature God has called us to be. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (St. Paul). To assume we need "do" something more is an affront to the cross of Christ. To the Harry Potter poppycock of purgatory, Luther writes: "Besides, this dragon's tail -- that is, the Mass -- has brought forth a brood of vermin and the poison of manifold idolatries. The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with all Soul's Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone.  Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls.  Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead.  All this may consequently  be discarded, apart entirely from the  fact it is error and idolatry." (The Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article II) To confess a belief in purgatory is to believe in something our Lutheran Confessions categorically reject.

As for the "a" word being invoked, Debbie, "we are now discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code, but in the new life of the Spirit." "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption." (St. Paul, Romans 7 & 8). The charge of antinomianism is most frequently invoked by persons for whom the sufficiency of the cross is folly, who refuse to die in Christ in order to justify their own works righteousness.




Kris-

This is why no one can dialogue with you...  If someone holds a different view than you do you immediately attack his or her faith and do not address the point raised.  Your argument that those who believe that a position is antinomian must obviously not TRULY believe in Christ or the Cross is comple poppycock!  Even though Christ lives in you apparently pride still remains, and that's my point.  This is all in relation to Christ reigning in our lives and at the same time SIN (concupiscence)remaining.  Do you believe that concupiscence is SIN?  Do you believe that it remains in the justified after baptism?  It seems our Confessions do.  Do you really believe when we enter salvation we will still have that SIN? 

Try reading the rest of Romans, there's a sharp turn in 12, because of the preceeding 11 chapters.  "I appeal to you THEREFORE, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship."  Romans 12:1   Becaue of Christ's work on the Cross and our union to him in Holy Baptism we are now able to do such a command from Paul.  No one here is denying Christ, the Cross or being united with him, in fact we take it very seriously and believe in Christ probably just as much as you do. 

In Christ,
Ian

Kris Baudler

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #55 on: April 28, 2007, 10:56:07 AM »
Ian asks:  "Do you believe that concupiscence is SIN?"

Yes.

"Do you believe that it remains in the justified after baptism?" 

"Yes."

"It seems our Confessions do.  Do you really believe when we enter salvation we will still have that SIN?"

Yes. But maybe this is where the misunderstanding occurs. Salvation is yours and mine the moment I receive faith. It's instantaneous. (If one were to argue it is gradual, that would be the Catholic, but not the catholic position.) As Augustine says (Marriage and Concupiscence, 1, 25), "Sin is forgiven in baptism, not that it no longer is, but it is not imputed." Thus concupiscence is sin, but not imputed to the person of faith. The Catholic (but not the catholic) position contra Augustine (e.g., Pope Julian) was that concupiscence is a penalty, necessitating purgatory. My point is that nothing further needs to be done after death to satisfy, purify, clarify one's sins, make one holier than Christ's blood has already made one, (e.g., in purgatory), since by grace through faith, the sins were never imputed to the believer in the first place.  I understood you to be suggesting that further "work," post mortem, may still need to be done. If I misread you I apologize.

frluther1517

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #56 on: April 28, 2007, 12:45:15 PM »
Ian asks:  "Do you believe that concupiscence is SIN?"

Yes.

"Do you believe that it remains in the justified after baptism?" 

"Yes."

"It seems our Confessions do.  Do you really believe when we enter salvation we will still have that SIN?"

Yes. But maybe this is where the misunderstanding occurs. Salvation is yours and mine the moment I receive faith. It's instantaneous. (If one were to argue it is gradual, that would be the Catholic, but not the catholic position.) As Augustine says (Marriage and Concupiscence, 1, 25), "Sin is forgiven in baptism, not that it no longer is, but it is not imputed." Thus concupiscence is sin, but not imputed to the person of faith. The Catholic (but not the catholic) position contra Augustine (e.g., Pope Julian) was that concupiscence is a penalty, necessitating purgatory. My point is that nothing further needs to be done after death to satisfy, purify, clarify one's sins, make one holier than Christ's blood has already made one, (e.g., in purgatory), since by grace through faith, the sins were never imputed to the believer in the first place.  I understood you to be suggesting that further "work," post mortem, may still need to be done. If I misread you I apologize.


Salvation is both here and not yet, it is proleptic.  I think the NT writers themselves argue such a position.  While it is here and present it still is yet to come, when Christ comes again.  While we are here we are still attacked by the devil and SIN remains, granted its punishment is not imputed to the justified, but nevertheless it is still there tempting us.  This SIN is something that is foreign to the human and not part of God's intention in creation.  God does not intend for his creation to have this SIN.  There must be, I would think, a restoration of the creation, whereby our SIN is removed (not just not imputed against us, but removed completely from us).  Clearly I am not arguing a position that one must be holier than Christ's own blood, that's just not possible and nonsensical.  But I would argue for a position that would talk about the restoration of creation.  A position that doesn't allow SIN to remain in the person since it is contra the intention of God's creation.  I would argue for an understanding whereby that very blood of Christ doesn't only not impute our sinS but like bleach removes the stain of concupiscence itself from the justified.  Clearly that hasn't happend yet, because concupiscence still remains in us.  If not now, when?  Clearly salvation is not completed (present but not fully), unless you believe that salvation includes the human will moving contrary to the will of God?  I would not.  Perhaps we better need to define our understanding of salvation as well.  I understand salvation to be complete unity with the Truinue God, through Christ.  Can there be true unity where our wills are conflicted? 

I think there is another misunderstanding we are having over SIN and sinS.  In your last post you seem to muddle the two.  You move from talking about Sin being not imputed then move to talking about nothing needing to be done about one's sinS.  I think the two should be kept distinct, not that they aren't related to each other, but for understanding's sake.  Here is how I distinguish the two.  Original Sin is the perversion of the human will (concupiscence) to move towards that which is contrary to the Will of God.  SinS are those specific acts which result from the movement of that perverted will.  SIN is forgiven and not imputed against us through the work of Christ, HOWEVER that SIN still remains in the justified.  SinS are those specific acts which the justified commit and too are forgiven through Christ.  SinS do not of necessity remain in the justified, Luther argues that the justified can not commit sinS. 

 

Kris Baudler

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #57 on: April 28, 2007, 04:24:29 PM »
Ian states: "I would argue for an understanding whereby that very blood of Christ doesn't only not impute our sinS but like bleach removes the stain of concupiscence itself from the justified."
 

Christians who keep one eye on satisfying the law remind me of a quote from Zorba the Greek, "You worry too much. Like old women in the market place, they weigh everything." The key ingredient you're missing here is sanctification. As we can no more be partially saved than we can be partially pregnant, might I recommend a rereading of Romans, especially St. Paul's glorious theology on the subject in chapters 5 - 8, beginning with "Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more..."

Also, "But now that you have been set free  from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life."

And, "Do you not know, brethren -- for I am speaking to those who know the law -- that the law is binding on a person only during his life?"

"Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God."

Again, "But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit."

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death." 

"For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship."

frluther1517

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #58 on: April 28, 2007, 04:39:33 PM »
Kris-

Sorry but I am not following you.  I have mentioned nothing about worrying about satisfying the Law, only Christ in his pure obedience to the Father can do that.  I am talking about salvation as being more than only an external proclamation.  That salvation brings about an internal effect as well, i.e. the removal of original sin.  I have no clue what led you down a treatise on the law.  That is another topic for another thread.  Again you have not addressed my points but slid into an anecdote about Zorba and scripture quotes not on topic.

Which is okay I guess seeing as we are the only two talking on this thread anymore...where did everyone go? 
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 04:48:57 PM by frluther1517 »

Kris Baudler

  • Guest
Re: Divine Mercy Sunday This is a test...
« Reply #59 on: April 28, 2007, 07:18:03 PM »
  That salvation brings about an internal effect as well, i.e. the removal of original sin.  I have no clue what led you down a treatise on the law. 

What led me straight to a treatise on the law is your statement below:

"Now if this SIN still remains in the Christian it obviously will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God.  SIN is opposed to the will of God and as a matter of fact cannot remain in us if we belive that our salvation is union with Christ and the Triune God.  Such a union between SIN and God cannot exist for a FULL UNION.  We are still a defective creature who is not the creature God has called us to be, even at death.  It would seem then that this SIN needs to go away before salvation (fulll union with the Triune God) is even possible.  Here is the theological possibility of speaking about purgatory, understood as a process or way where the SIN is removed by the saved in order to enter into ultimate salvation, Union with the Triune God.  Seems to make sense to me..."

How does one not conclude from this that you are advocating works righteousness through the fulfillment of the law? Asked differently, How in the world is sin removed "by the saved?"

Thanks.