Author Topic: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?  (Read 67708 times)

Eric_Swensson

  • Guest
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #390 on: August 28, 2007, 01:40:02 PM »
Also, what about the paranetic (admonishment) for those already justified?

That admonishement is still a conviction of sin covered completely under the second or theological use of the law. Even the justified need to be driven to grace over and over again by the law that always accuses. There is no need to split this use into that which is for the unjustified or for the justified. It's the same function of the law for both.

Mark C.

Well said, Mark, for one way that Lutherans look at it. But I'm not so sure that it works for the way some. For example, the way Brian speaks of the theological use of the law is to take Luther to mean that it kills. I wonder if folk like Brian think that happens once, people see their need for a savior, figure they need one too, and they are no longer addressed by the second use of the law.

Also, do you (anyone ) understand Brian's description that virtually everything that the law addresses in our lives falls into civil usage.

BTW, glad to see that you are still in the discussion.

Eric_Swensson

  • Guest
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #391 on: August 28, 2007, 01:42:24 PM »
So its correct to say that you only acknowledge law for the purpose "to convict of sin and/or promote peace and order in society"? There is no teaching function? Also, what about the paranetic (admonishment) for those already justified?
We've been over that numerous times. It is included in the first use that curbs bad behaviors and encourages good behaviors.

See what I mean? Brian seems to think this is settled, that everyone looks at it the way he does, but I am not certain of that at all.

John Dornheim

  • Guest
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #392 on: August 28, 2007, 03:34:07 PM »
So its correct to say that you only acknowledge law for the purpose "to convict of sin and/or promote peace and order in society"? There is no teaching function? Also, what about the paranetic (admonishment) for those already justified?
We've been over that numerous times. It is included in the first use that curbs bad behaviors and encourages good behaviors.

See what I mean? Brian seems to think this is settled, that everyone looks at it the way he does, but I am not certain of that at all.


Is it possible to earn a decent wage serving as a translator or interpreter for other posters here? Can one earn more for explain someone with whom you disagree as opposed to someone with whom you are in agreement? Just wondering, mind you.

John Dornheim
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 11:51:24 PM by Richard Johnson »

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43496
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #393 on: August 28, 2007, 04:51:25 PM »
For example, the way Brian speaks of the theological use of the law is to take Luther to mean that it kills. I wonder if folk like Brian think that happens once, people see their need for a savior, figure they need one too, and they are no longer addressed by the second use of the law.
Apparently you haven't read many of my posts about the theological use. I constantly talk about our need for it to kill. I've used the phrase "cheap law" when law is preached in such a way that it only wounds rather than kills -- when the law becomes Christian moralisms rather than a sharp, two-edged sword that cuts deep and kills. When the law is cheap, so is grace.

I have also argued that the theological use comes at us from many different sources -- all those people who can put us down, who remind us over and over again that we are not perfect, etc. The question that has been raised is whether or not the theological use needs to be proclaimed in every sermon, or if we can assume that most of the people in the pews have already heard the law from others during the way that God has used to kill them.
"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]

Eric_Swensson

  • Guest
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #394 on: August 28, 2007, 05:37:42 PM »
So its correct to say that you only acknowledge law for the purpose "to convict of sin and/or promote peace and order in society"? There is no teaching function? Also, what about the paranetic (admonishment) for those already justified?
We've been over that numerous times. It is included in the first use that curbs bad behaviors and encourages good behaviors.

See what I mean? Brian seems to think this is settled, that everyone looks at it the way he does, but I am not certain of that at all.


Is it possible to earn a decent wage serving as a translator or interpreter for other posters here? Can one earn more for explain someone with whom you disagree as opposed to someone with whom you are in agreement? Just wondering, mind you.

John Dornheim


Actually, I need a translation of the last comment. I'm sure it is meant to be humorous, but I need the joke explained. Thanks.

David Charlton

  • Guest
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #395 on: August 28, 2007, 11:25:36 PM »
It probably won't help, but let me rephrase Eric's question. 

Given that:

"Our churches teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruit.  It is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God's will.  We should not rely on those works to merit justification before God." (Article VI, Augsburg Confession.  St. Louis: Concordia, 2006)

How do I know which works are truly pleasing to God and which are merely man made works? 

Answer: God's Word, especially the Ten Commandments. 

I would suggest that even among those who reject the Law as a guide to the Christian life, there are plenty of man made works that they do feel bound to do.  Notice the proliferation of good works that many mainline denomations feel compelled to undertake.  "The church must (fill in the blank) or it will die!"

Deb_H.

  • Guest
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #396 on: August 28, 2007, 11:54:08 PM »
How do I know which works are truly pleasing to God and which are merely man made works? 

Answer: God's Word, especially the Ten Commandments. 

AND

"Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work."
                 ---------Thesis 11, Heidelberg Disputation

Humility -- don't forget humility. 
In the final analysis, I cannot by my own reason or strength recognize what is good.  (Third article of the Creed, or Article II- Augsburg Confession).

Churches which say 'the Church must do' ... xyz ... confuse Law and Gospel.

Lou Hesse



David Charlton

  • Guest
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #397 on: August 29, 2007, 12:16:26 AM »
True about humility. I don't mean to say that I can presume to know that what I do is not a sin.

My point was that even those who flee from any mention of a "teaching function" of the Law or a Third Use, still make judgements about what they and the church should do. Many who fear any use of the Decalogue because it fosters legalism, replace it with modern secular ideologies which are no less demanding. (Although far less realistic.) In the name of Gospel freedom God's Word is relativized, but it is only replaced with the latest fad of the right or the left.

I'm thinking of Luther's illustration of the simple servant girl who by doing her chores does a good work far more pleasing to God than all the works done by the religious of the day, because her obedience was commanded by God, while the works of the religious orders were self made.

An current example of this might be:

Don't worry, because you have been baptized, the prohibitions found in the Bible don't apply to you anymore! However, here are our new social statements. IF you don't subscribe to them THEN you are resisting the movement of the Spirit. Beware!
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 12:28:51 AM by David Charlton »

Deb_H.

  • Guest
Re: 2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?
« Reply #398 on: August 29, 2007, 12:47:58 AM »
True about humility.  I don't mean to say that I can presume to know that what I do is not a sin.

This was my hope.
Quote
My point was that even those who flee from any mention of a "teaching function" of the Law or a Third Use, still make judgements about what they and the church should do.  Many who fear any use of the Decalogue because it fosters legalism, replace it with modern secular ideologies which are no less demanding.  (Although far less realistic.)  In the name of Gospel freedom God's Word is relativized, but it is only replaced with the latest fad of the right or the left. 
And oftentimes these secular fads are far worse than the legalisms of those who follow the decalogue in a legalistic fashion.

Quote
I'm thinking of Luther's illustration of the simple servant girl who by doing her chores does a good work far more pleasing to God than all the works done by the religious of the day, because her obedience was commanded by God, while the works of the religious orders were self made.

I once argued on a WordAlone listserve when someone asked what a "Godly work" was, that the most Godly things I was doing that particular week was spreading manure prior to spring corn planting.  For a host of good stewardship reasons.  One of my pastor friends said this gave a whole new meaning to "spreading the aroma of Christ."  :)

Quote
Don't worry, because you have been baptized, the prohibitions found in the Bible don't apply to you anymore!  However, here are our new social statements.  IF you don't subscribe to them THEN you are resisting the movement of the Spirit.  Beware!
We are in agreement, I believe.

Lou Hesse