Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[John Mundinger]

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.

[Team Hesse]

John Mundinger, you have also stated that you don't have a specific solution, more recently than your specific proposal, and that you were proposing a methodology or process, not specific solutions.

The "specific proposal" is not a "specific solution" because the latter requires our society working together to 1) acknowledge the reality of the problem; 2) accepting responsibility for it; and, 3) work together to resolve it. 

Were we to do #3, it would result in a comprehensive overhaul of our social services program; health care; and, public education.  It might include public works projects to both address our failing infrastructure and to provide employment and employment training opportunities (I don't think I said that in the previous post - I should have).  I also noted a personal preference for public-private partnerships for delivering social services (I referenced "Reinventing Government") - i.e. government defines minimum standards and provides some of the funding/private organizations deliver the services with accountability.  It might require additional revenue, especially if we are unwilling to reduce spending on defense. 

It is my observation that we do not want to do either #1 or #2 so we cannot even begin to have the dialog necessary to make #3 a possibility.  And, were we to actually have that conversation, it would be exceedingly difficult to control the influence who think profits are a higher priority than actually serving the people who need the service (e.g. note the influence the pharmaceutical industry had in developing Medicare Part D).

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?


Lou

[Donald_Kirchner]

Do you conclude that since we cannot perfectly fulfill the laws, we shouldn't even try to love God or do loving deeds for our neighbors because they will be tainted by sin?

That is simply silly, BPS.

The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use.

[Donald_Kirchner]

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?

[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.

[John Mundinger]

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?

[Donald_Kirchner]

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.

[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.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

1st use in my understanding. They are not rules that only Christians should be doing, but all people for the good of society.

[John Mundinger]

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?

Franzmann mentioned 5 men, not 4.  Franzmann also clearly distinguished between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law. 

[Donald_Kirchner]

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.

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.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Franzmann mentioned 5 men, not 4.  Franzmann also clearly distinguished between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law.

Which is exactly what I have done in my comments as well as in the notes from TLSB.

[John Mundinger]

Franzmann mentioned 5 men, not 4.  Franzmann also clearly distinguished between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law.

Which is exactly what I have done in my comments as well as in the notes from TLSB.

Except that you merged two different men into one to come up with four.  The Good Samaritan may demonstrate a level of obedience that is beyond our capacity but he is not a metaphor for fulfillment of the Law and there is nothing in Franzmann's notes to suggest otherwise.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Franzmann mentioned 5 men, not 4.  Franzmann also clearly distinguished between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law.

Which is exactly what I have done in my comments as well as in the notes from TLSB.

Except that you merged two different men into one to come up with four.  The Good Samaritan may demonstrate a level of obedience that is beyond our capacity but he is not a metaphor for fulfillment of the Law and there is nothing in Franzmann's notes to suggest otherwise.

Which is what Jesus did, merging two into one. That's exactly what the Good Samaritan is which is what Franzmann concludes.

" 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."

In the end, the Good Samaritan is Jesus.

[John Mundinger]

Which is what Jesus did, merging two into one. That's exactly what the Good Samaritan is which is what Franzmann concludes.

" 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."

In the end, the Good Samaritan is Jesus.

There is a clear difference between the Samaritan and Jesus and between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law in Franzmann's note.  Had Franzmann agreed with your conclusion, he would have said so, explicitly.  He didn't.