Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[Brian Stoffregen]

Yes to this post.  The first sentence in the Lutheran Study Bible quote inverts the process.  "We," the Jews of that time or the Christians of ours, are by nature inclined to put ourselves in the position of the helpers of the helpless, when all too often we stand idly by.  And "they," those we objectify as on the outside, are (uh-oh) able to carry out righteousness in God's realm of the left as neighbors.  That is not the aim of the Study Bible, because the second sentence taken from the Lutheran Study Bible spiritualizes the parable eisegetically in a way not stated in the text at all.

Personally, I think Franzmann's notes on the parable are more helpful:

"The Law is clear and the imperative of love is inescapable; even a Samaritan could hear and heed it.  In the last analysis, the question is not one of mind (who is?) but of will - how can I prove neighbor to the man across my path?  Five men are confronted by the Law.  The lawyer, the priest and the Levite evaded it.  The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it.

Sounds like Franzmann is stating, as in TLSB note, in the end Jesus is the Good Samaritan.

In the end, do you want Jesus as the Lawgiver, a new Moses, or Jesus as Savior?

First of all, Jesus isn't what we want him to be. He is what God called him to be. He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."


Secondly, "or" is the wrong connection. Jesus is lawgiver, a new Moses, and our Savior.

Which is why I stated, in the end. If you want Him as Lawgiver, that IS what you will get. Irresistible law, BPS, not irresistible grace.

What do you see Jesus doing in Matthew 5? Is he just blowing smoke or redefining the Law?

Jeff Gibbs would simply roll his eyes with your characterization of Matthew. As would Matthew and the Lord. But then you've not shown a lot of respect for Matthew and fulfillment of the messianic prophecies of a Savior. as well as overlooking the following:

"The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ..."

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way."

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

"And he called his name Jesus."

That's in only the first chapter.

Matthew never uses the noun "Savior" in his Gospel. He does use the verb "save". Sometimes in specific instances, e.g., saving the disciples from the storm at sea, saving Peter from sinking in the sea, saving/healing the woman from her bleeding, but he does not save himself from the cross.

[Team Hesse]

1) "Acknowledge the reality of the problem"--


     We are all sinners curved in upon ourselves.


2)"Accept responsibility for the problem"--


     I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by        what I have done and by what I have left undone.


3)"Work together to resolve the problem"--


     Preach Christ and Him crucified, the rest will follow.


So we are in agreement, right?

How does that sermonette then apply to the reality that multi-generational disenfranchisement exists in our society?

The application of the sermon is always in the hands of the Holy Spirit who, according to our common confession, "works where and when He chooses." He may trigger some to a specific action, others He will trigger to other specific action, and some He may not trigger at all. Not everyone responded the same to Jesus.


Lou

[Team Hesse]

I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.

How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Very good, Brian, we may yet get you to admit that the law as given in scripture has a salutary purpose in human life this side of the eschaton-- curb, guide, and drive us to Christ.


Lou

[Donald_Kirchner]

He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."

Then, when pointed out that Matthew indeed refers to Jesus as Savior...

Matthew never uses the noun "Savior" in his Gospel.

That's so cute! 

He does use the verb "save". Sometimes in specific instances, e.g., saving the disciples from the storm at sea, saving Peter from sinking in the sea, saving/healing the woman from her bleeding, but he does not save himself from the cross.

No, BPS, He does not save Himself from the cross. As Matthew clearly tells us, He saves us. Matthew is referring to Him as Savior.

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

[Donald_Kirchner]

What do you see Jesus doing in Matthew 5? Is he just blowing smoke or redefining the Law?

Whoever said that Jesus did not preach the Law?! What I said was that, in the end, if you want Jesus as Lawgiver or a new Moses, that IS what you will get. Irresistible law, not irresistible grace.

Besides, I already answered your Matthew 5 inquiry above.  Compare, "Go and do likewise" with "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48

Note on 5:43-48 from TLSB:

"Some people, when confronted with the strict demands of the Law, will whittle off a point here, another there. [Just as the lawyer tried to do in Luke 10] They suggest that we do the best we can, and God will be satisfied. But God demands perfection, which sinners cannot achieve (cf Rm 7:21–25; 1Tm 1:15). Our perfection is in Christ alone. As God's redeemed people, Jesus declares that we are salt of the earth and light of the world."

[Donald_Kirchner]

First of all, Jesus isn't what we want him to be. He is what God called him to be. He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."

Secondly, "or" is the wrong connection. Jesus is lawgiver, a new Moses, and our Savior.

What Walther had to say about such a view...

"Thesis V.

The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily recognized — and the grossest. It is adopted, for instance, by Papists, Socinians, and Rationalists, and consists in this, that Christ is represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver..."

http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/theses.html

"In Canon 21 [of the Council of Trent], adopted at its sixth session, this synagog of Satan decrees:'If any one says that Christ Jesus has been given by God to men that He should be their Redeemer, in whom they are to trust, and not also their Lawgiver, whom they are to obey, let him be anathema.' This decree overthrows the Christian religion completely. If Christ came into the world to publish new laws to us, we should feel like saying that He might as well have stayed in heaven. Moses had already given us so perfect a Law that we could not fulfil it. Now, if Christ had given us additional laws, that would have had to drive us to despair. [emphasis added]

The very term Gospel contradicts this view of the papists. We know that Christ Himself has called His Word Gospel; for He says in Mark 16, 15: "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." In order that the meaning which He connected with the word Gospel might be understood, He states the contents of the Gospel in these concrete terms: "He that believeth and is baptized," etc. If the teaching of Christ were a law, it would not be an eujaggevlion (sic), a glad tiding, but a sad tiding...

All the apostles corroborate His teaching. John says in his gospel, chap. 1, 17: The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He places the Law over against grace and truth...

In chap. 3, 17 the same apostle says: God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Quite plainly the thought that Christ came into the world to proclaim a new law is barred here. Had that been His object, He would have come to judge the world. For the Law passes judgment on sinners. However, God did not send his Son to pass judgment on the world, but to save the world through Him. By the term world the Lord refers to mankind in its apostate and lost condition, to the lost, accursed, and condemned sinners that make up the world. To these the Savior brings this blessed doctrine: "Though You have broken every commandment of God, do not despair; I am bringing you forgiveness and salvation here and hereafter."

In language so plain that it requires no comment the apostle states in Romans, chap. 1, 16. 17: I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the Just shall live by faith.

1 Tim. 1, 15 we read: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. In view of these plain passages, is it not a horrible teaching of the papists that what is called Gospel in the Scriptures according to them is nothing else than a new law?"

http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/lecture-09.html#thesis_five

[Brian Stoffregen]

I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.

How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Very good, Brian, we may yet get you to admit that the law as given in scripture has a salutary purpose in human life this side of the eschaton-- curb, guide, and drive us to Christ.

I have argued for the necessity of the law repeatedly in this forum. My opponents accuse me if disregarding the law. Don't confuse what they accuse me of saying with what I actually write. While the law doesn't save us, it has its godly uses and purposes. The law is necessary. It is beneficial.

[Brian Stoffregen]

First of all, Jesus isn't what we want him to be. He is what God called him to be. He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."

Secondly, "or" is the wrong connection. Jesus is lawgiver, a new Moses, and our Savior.

What Walther had to say about such a view...

"Thesis V.

The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily recognized — and the grossest. It is adopted, for instance, by Papists, Socinians, and Rationalists, and consists in this, that Christ is represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver..."

http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/theses.html

"In Canon 21 [of the Council of Trent], adopted at its sixth session, this synagog of Satan decrees:'If any one says that Christ Jesus has been given by God to men that He should be their Redeemer, in whom they are to trust, and not also their Lawgiver, whom they are to obey, let him be anathema.' This decree overthrows the Christian religion completely. If Christ came into the world to publish new laws to us, we should feel like saying that He might as well have stayed in heaven. Moses had already given us so perfect a Law that we could not fulfil it. Now, if Christ had given us additional laws, that would have had to drive us to despair. [emphasis added]

The very term Gospel contradicts this view of the papists. We know that Christ Himself has called His Word Gospel; for He says in Mark 16, 15: "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." In order that the meaning which He connected with the word Gospel might be understood, He states the contents of the Gospel in these concrete terms: "He that believeth and is baptized," etc. If the teaching of Christ were a law, it would not be an eujaggevlion (sic), a glad tiding, but a sad tiding...

All the apostles corroborate His teaching. John says in his gospel, chap. 1, 17: The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He places the Law over against grace and truth...

In chap. 3, 17 the same apostle says: God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Quite plainly the thought that Christ came into the world to proclaim a new law is barred here. Had that been His object, He would have come to judge the world. For the Law passes judgment on sinners. However, God did not send his Son to pass judgment on the world, but to save the world through Him. By the term world the Lord refers to mankind in its apostate and lost condition, to the lost, accursed, and condemned sinners that make up the world. To these the Savior brings this blessed doctrine: "Though You have broken every commandment of God, do not despair; I am bringing you forgiveness and salvation here and hereafter."

In language so plain that it requires no comment the apostle states in Romans, chap. 1, 16. 17: I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the Just shall live by faith.

1 Tim. 1, 15 we read: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. In view of these plain passages, is it not a horrible teaching of the papists that what is called Gospel in the Scriptures according to them is nothing else than a new law?"

http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/lecture-09.html#thesis_five

Walther had little to no authority for me. I don't recall reading anything from him in seminary.


Jesus, (a higher authority than Walther,) commanded us to teach all nations to obey everything that he commanded. I don't know about you, but "commands" are equivalent to the law. The same word used of Jesus commanding in Mt 28:20 (also 17:9) is used of Moses commanding in Mt 19:7. Jesus gave commands. Jesus expects us to obey them. We will fail, but that doesn't change Jesus' expectations.

[John Mundinger]

Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Thank you for that nice manifestation of the 3rd use of the Law.

I'll ask a question that I asked you earlier, only slightly differently.  Irrespective of whether the Samaritan is a metaphor for Jesus, what does the Law, in the 3rd use, tell us about our obligations to our neighbors - especially those less fortunate than ourselves?

[Team Hesse]

I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.

How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Very good, Brian, we may yet get you to admit that the law as given in scripture has a salutary purpose in human life this side of the eschaton-- curb, guide, and drive us to Christ.

I have argued for the necessity of the law repeatedly in this forum. My opponents accuse me if disregarding the law. Don't confuse what they accuse me of saying with what I actually write. While the law doesn't save us, it has its godly uses and purposes. The law is necessary. It is beneficial.

Yes, you have so argued. I have never denied that. I have never accused you of being antinomian (I don't believe in antinomianism). What I have never been able to figure is where you derive your "law" from. My strongest impression is that the main source of your law teaching is ELCA social statements, like documents, and your own reason. You regularly skewer and deride most of the narratival historic Christian sources (the "great cloud of witnesses") that many of us here derive our notions of law from. (Witness your comments concerning Walther among others).

The key phrase for me in the post above is "the law as given in scripture". That seems to be highly malleable if not simply outdated to you.

Lou

[Fletch]

Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Thank you for that nice manifestation of the 3rd use of the Law.

I'll ask a question that I asked you earlier, only slightly differently.  Irrespective of whether the Samaritan is a metaphor for Jesus, what does the Law, in the 3rd use, tell us about our obligations to our neighbors - especially those less fortunate than ourselves?

I'm going to go way out on a limb and say, I have no OBLIGATIONS to my neighbor if I'm a Christian re. the third use.  Everything I do for them in my various vocations will be out of love, not obligation, when I'm guided by the third use of the law.  I would not even think of the word obligation in that context.  Let the fireworks begin.   

Edit to add:  I do not do guilt.  Guilt to me is not a good motivation.  2 Corinthians 9:7  Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

... F

[Brian Stoffregen]

I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.

How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Very good, Brian, we may yet get you to admit that the law as given in scripture has a salutary purpose in human life this side of the eschaton-- curb, guide, and drive us to Christ.

I have argued for the necessity of the law repeatedly in this forum. My opponents accuse me if disregarding the law. Don't confuse what they accuse me of saying with what I actually write. While the law doesn't save us, it has its godly uses and purposes. The law is necessary. It is beneficial.

Yes, you have so argued. I have never denied that. I have never accused you of being antinomian (I don't believe in antinomianism). What I have never been able to figure is where you derive your "law" from. My strongest impression is that the main source of your law teaching is ELCA social statements, like documents, and your own reason. You regularly skewer and deride most of the narratival historic Christian sources (the "great cloud of witnesses") that many of us here derive our notions of law from. (Witness your comments concerning Walther among others).

The key phrase for me in the post above is "the law as given in scripture". That seems to be highly malleable if not simply outdated to you.

That is a fair question. The Law, as I use the term, is anything that tells us what we are to do (or not do). Certainly there are laws in scriptures. Many are still reasonable for us to obey, e.g., don't murder. Some not so much, e.g., don't eat bacon. Civil laws are also laws that tell us what we are to do. I believe God uses them just as much as God uses the biblical mandates to curb, guide, and pound us to our knees before Jesus. When my parents had their household rules, e.g., taking out the garbage, washing the dishes, cleaning our rooms, etc., such rules are also Law. God uses them to keep order in the household. God uses them to convict me when I had "sinned" against my parents by disobeying them. (Of course, there is also the biblical command about honoring parents.) There are Laws at places of work, the ELCA has its "Vision and Expectations" for clergy and rostered leaders, there are society's rules, like proper manners, e.g., don't speak with a mouth full of food; or speaking with proper grammar.


Essentially, it is discerning through all the commands thrown at us, which ones accomplish God's will for a more just and peaceful society; and which ones expose our sinfulness and our need for salvation in Jesus. I don't see the commands about kosher foods fitting either of those criteria so they are "out-dated" to use your term. Commands about murder, stealing, adultery, greed/coveting are needed to curb our behaviors that would bring harm to neighbor or self; such behaviors work against a more just and peaceful society.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Walther had little to no authority for me. I don't recall reading anything from him in seminary.

'Tis a shame.

[RDPreus]

It was after reading Walther's Law and Gospel that I decided to go to the seminary.

[John Mundinger]

I'm going to go way out on a limb and say, I have no OBLIGATIONS to my neighbor if I'm a Christian re. the third use.  Everything I do for them in my various vocations will be out of love, not obligation, when I'm guided by the third use of the law.  I would not even think of the word obligation in that context.  Let the fireworks begin.

I won't put the match to that cherry bomb Fletch because I don't disagree with you.  But, I'll note that your response is incomplete.  If you fail to response to your neighbor out of love, the 1st and 2nd then apply because, by those uses, you do have the obligation.