Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth

[Brian Stoffregen]

What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?

Marie asked the same question I have - which you still have not answered. Please give examples of laws that are directed to Christians only?

Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where in this thread Fletch claimed that there are laws that are for Christians only.  As Lutherans, we believe, teach, and confess that there are three different uses of the Law, not that there are three different sets of laws.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.

How gracious of you to confirm Jon Schmidt's observation, BPS, that Fletch never stated that there are laws for Christians only.  The 3rd use, however, is by definition for Christians only as Lutherans confess: "... also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning this third and last use of the Law." [FC SD VI 1]

BTW, if you are going to change another's statement in quoting it let the reader know you've done so.

OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

[Donald_Kirchner]

What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?

Marie asked the same question I have - which you still have not answered. Please give examples of laws that are directed to Christians only?

Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where in this thread Fletch claimed that there are laws that are for Christians only.  As Lutherans, we believe, teach, and confess that there are three different uses of the Law, not that there are three different sets of laws.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.

How gracious of you to confirm Jon Schmidt's observation, BPS, that Fletch never stated that there are laws for Christians only.  The 3rd use, however, is by definition for Christians only as Lutherans confess: "... also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning this third and last use of the Law." [FC SD VI 1]

BTW, if you are going to change another's statement in quoting it let the reader know you've done so.

OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

[peter_speckhard]

The third use is the law as spiritual gift. It is like wanting to buy a gift for someone and finding out what they really like. It has nothing to do with averting God's wrath or earning salvation. It is the "love" motive in, "We should fear and love God so that..."

[Brian Stoffregen]

The third use is the law as spiritual gift. It is like wanting to buy a gift for someone and finding out what they really like. It has nothing to do with averting God's wrath or earning salvation. It is the "love" motive in, "We should fear and love God so that..."

Why isn't "loving our neighbor as Christ has loved us" not a 1st use? We don't love them to avoid God's wrath. We don't love them to gain anything from God. We do loving acts for others because they need them and for the sake of justice, peace, and harmony in the world. To me, that's first use stuff.

[John Mundinger]

OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

I thought he asked for a personal example - something specific - not just another reference to an article from the confessions.

[John Mundinger]

The third use is the law as spiritual gift. It is like wanting to buy a gift for someone and finding out what they really like. It has nothing to do with averting God's wrath or earning salvation. It is the "love" motive in, "We should fear and love God so that..."

That's pretty much the way I understand third use.  Although, as a side note, I recall being told by a person who has chosen to no longer post here that, with that kind of thinking, I had swallowed the Holy Spirit - feathers and all.

Although I understand "third use" as guidance/instruction in righteousness, I also acknowledge a difficulty with it.  How do we deal with the reality that we are still sinners and, thus, unlikely to earn passing grades in the instruction.  If we accept third use, we also have to confess a plethora of sins of omission and, when we do, the Law is functioning in "second use". 

[Donald_Kirchner]

OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

I thought he asked for a personal example - something specific - not just another reference to an article from the confessions.

Because, Mr. Mundinger, one has to get the question right before it needs an answer.

[John Mundinger]

OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

I thought he asked for a personal example - something specific - not just another reference to an article from the confessions.

Because, Mr. Mundinger, one has to get the question right before it needs an answer.

In "conversations" with you, the only way to get the question right is to ask it in a way that you can repeat the memorized "correct" answer.  The difficulty is that this forum is not catechism instruction all over again.  It is conversation about the challenges of actually living the faith that we confess and, most of the time, life in the fallen world happens at the margins of the "formulas" articulated in the Confessions.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Although I understand "third use" as guidance/instruction in righteousness, I also acknowledge a difficulty with it.  How do we deal with the reality that we are still sinners and, thus, unlikely to earn passing grades in the instruction.  If we accept third use, we also have to confess a plethora of sins of omission and, when we do, the Law is functioning in "second use".

Of course. So, your point is...?  Oh right, you have a confusion with repentance and Luther's first thesis in the 95.

Dr. Kolb made this point in his Confessions class. We were discussing this subject ,and students gave a series of examples of a rule and guide of what God would have the regenerate do and asked Kolb what "use" it was. To each one he replied, "Second."

[John Mundinger]

Of course. So, your point is...?  Oh right, you have a confusion with repentance and Luther's first thesis in the 95.

Of myself, I am incapable of living a life of repentance.  Are you?

Dr. Kolb made this point in his Confessions class. We were discussing this subject ,and students gave a series of examples of a rule and guide of what God would have the regenerate do and asked Kolb what "use" it was. To each one he replied, "Second."

And your point is...

[Donald_Kirchner]

OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

I thought he asked for a personal example - something specific - not just another reference to an article from the confessions.

Because, Mr. Mundinger, one has to get the question right before it needs an answer.

In "conversations" with you, the only way to get the question right is to ask it in a way that you can repeat the memorized "correct" answer.  The difficulty is that this forum is not catechism instruction all over again. 

Applied to your failure to learn/memorize basic Lutheran definitions and concepts, yes it needs to be catechetical instruction, Mr. Mundinger. And that gets tiring because you refuse to go back and learn these basic concepts. Good grief, a couple of days ago you denied that the Holy Spirit uses the Law to bring to contrition!

Of myself, I am incapable of living a life of repentance.  Are you?

Read the "book," Mr. Mundinger. For that statement manifests a complete lack of knowledge of what repentance is, resulting in a rejection of the Gospel and despair.

Please talk to your pastor, and try to have e a good day.

[John Mundinger]

Applied to your failure to learn/memorize basic Lutheran definitions and concepts, yes it needs to be catechetical instruction, Mr. Mundinger.

All I have demonstrated is my unwillingness to embrace the legalism that you keep trying to re-write into the catechism.

[John Mundinger]

Shhhhh.  Don't poke the Mormons, they are busy working on social justice issues.

It is quite possible to do social justice for the wrong reasons.  But, refusing to do social justice for the "right reasons" is still a sin of omission. 

[Team Hesse]

Shhhhh.  Don't poke the Mormons, they are busy working on social justice issues.

It is quite possible to do social justice for the wrong reasons.

Amen! and it is possible to do social justice through the wrong means...which, more often than not, further more social injustice as many of the government efforts to date have done. (greater wealth inequality, less stable family life, greater incidence of single-parent family life, ad infinitum)


Lou

[Randy Bosch]

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.

I'm curious how it is possible to both embrace that understanding of the Law of Love and also be opposed to social justice.

The term "social justice" has now been hijacked or nuanced to unintelligibility by every state, group, religion and "leader" on earth, none any less than in America.

Please reference your specific definition (or the closest acceptable one that you have found, preferably in Scripture) in order for a socially just conversation to ensue 

(Edited to correct error in quote function usage)

John Mundinger , you must have missed my request.  It still stands.