Mother Hubbard's Cupboard

Win Some and Lose Some

2009-06-17T00:57:00.000-07:00

Hey all. It's been a long time since I've posted anything of substance, so I'm going to give a general update.

First year at seminary went fine. I mostly got A's, but I was a little disappointed with my Gospels I, II grades, which were both B's. However, I managed to get an A from Dr. Nordling (I think the only one he's given since he's been at Concordia) on my paper regarding the Words of Institution in Matthew's Gospel. I also got B's in Hebrew I and II. Aside from that, I loved my history and exegetics classes. I was a little disappointed by the systematic and liturgical classes though.

However, after my first year of seminary, I've come to the conclusion that ordination is not for me. I've begun the process of switching out of the MDiv program and pursuing academic interests in historical theology. As a result I'll graduate next year with an MA in Religion. Due to some recent discussions with Calvinists, I'm anxious to work on the theology of the sixth ecumenical council and St. Maximus the Confessor. I've become convinced that at times when referring to the natures of Christ, Calvinists tend to the Nestorian, but when it comes to the will, they are Monothelites, which is itself an extension of Monophysitism and ultimately a form of Apolinarianism.

I met a lot of good people at seminary, but sadly, two of my close friends are doing years in the study abroad program. Matt Moss will be in England and Travis Berg will be in Germany. Mike Miller gets married this Summer (though since I can't find a job to save my life I don't know if I'll be able to make it). I reconnected with a friend from University who teaches Paleontology at Duke in Oklahoma, and he ardently discusses the creation/evolution debate.

Aside from theological discoveries, I have to admit that aside from Christology, I'm not learning a whole lot about systematics (even in that class a lot was review for me). I learned more systematics in church history I.

This Summer, if I can't find a job, I'll be reading and reviewing my languages and history, but also making movies on youtube...especially since I've found a text-to-speech program that lets you make 6 minute cartoons in less than an hour. I'm in the middle of doing a series on the history of Christology, aimed at explaining to Calvinists why some of us accuse them of Christological difficulties at times.

The only thing I'm going to ask for prayer is for a family member very close to me that has cancer. We've caught it early, but prayer is always good in this situation.

Glory to God for all things.

Sermon for Christmas Eve Midnight

2009-01-19T16:08:00.000-08:00

No, I didn't deliver it to a congregation, just Homiletics I.

Text: Isaiah 7:10-14
Psalm 110:1-4, Antiphon 2a
1 John 4:7-16
Matthew 1:18-25
Hymn of the Day: Lo, how a rose e'er blooming

Grace, mercy, and peace be unto you from God our Father, and our enfleshed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. Our Gospel text is an unusual one if you stop and think about it. Here we have a dream announcement to a man named Joseph, as if that idea doesn’t ring any bells from the book of Genesis. We have an unnamed angel who pretty much catches Joseph by surprise, and a message that has a reference to a passage from Isaiah, which we heard earlier tonight. This text seems to have something to do with tonight, but why does Matthew not record the birth of Jesus or the events leading up to it in Bethlehem? This is most of the setup for the birth, which is passed over relatively quickly. Rather than look to the events of tonight, this text is forward looking to the ultimate reason for the season, and the true reason Our Lord became man. This is not the “Peanuts Christmas Special” Gospel text of Luke 2 which we all know and love. There are no shepherds, no inn, no Caesar Augustus, no census, not even a choir of angels singing, “Gloria in excelsis!” One almost gets the idea from reading Luke’s Gospel, that everyone was happy that Jesus was born, and that Caesar himself would enter the manger right behind the shepherds. Everything is just peachy keen. But in Matthew, there is but one angel and St. Joseph the stepfather and guardian of Jesus.
Matthew’s Gospel portrays a darker Christmas story. One almost gets the impression that time is running out, and that this is completely unexpected by anyone. Joseph is thinking of divorcing his “virgin” wife whom he suspects of coming together with another man, he and Mary run from Herod into Egypt, and there is the awful slaughter of the holy innocents of Bethlehem. There is even a nice touch of pagan astrology where magi follow a star and show up the Jews who have the authoritative Scriptures and prophecies from God. No, this Gospel is gritty, and desperate. Yet God is still in control. As Joseph debates how to divorce his wife quietly in order not to “put her to shame” – that is, to avoid her being stoned to death for adultery according to Jewish law – he is visited by an angel in a dream. He is told that Mary is still a virgin, and her child is conceived by the Holy Spirit. After being told to name the child Jesus, he awakes, and with no hint of questioning, he goes off to do as he was told. In fact, Joseph says absolutely nothing in the entire Bible. All dialogue between Jesus and His earthly parents are with His mother, and her alone. Joseph is so seemingly unimportant, that his death during the life of Jesus is not recorded by any Gospel, nor spoken of much in the various traditions of the church. It is almost as if he doesn’t even exist. This event seemingly is quite unimportant in general, except that it seems to alleviate Joseph’s fears regarding his betrothed. He is a side character to this cosmic drama, and he does as he is told in a dream. This man, who is the stepfather of Jesus listens and does what most of us would think foolish, for how many of us do what our dreams tell us?
So, with no birth, one angel, and a dream, what are we to make of this text for Christmas? Well, we find the reason given for Christ’s coming; He is to save us from our sins. He is to save us not only from our acts of lust, greed, idleness, lewdness, and our acts of omission with regard to our parents, bosses, and governmental authority, but He frees us from the sin of our first parents which enslaves us and leads us to death and damnation. He comes to save us from ourselves and we don’t even know how to welcome Him. He is the rose to blossom from the dead stem of Jesse. He is the one the prophets foretold and who kings and peasants alike in Israel had believed in. He is their king and God. He is Immanuel, “God with us.” And just as He was with them, so He is with us as king and Lord.
This Gospel does nothing, but look forward, not to tonight, but to the cross, and the awaiting of His return following His resurrection and ascension. The psalm of the day we read earlier goes hand in hand with explaining that this annunciation at Christmas-time, is actually a Good Friday and Easter text. As the Psalmist says, He has taken the right hand of God until His enemies are made His footstool. He began His reign on earth amidst His enemies on the cross, between two thieves. He came from Mt. Zion and His trial. He was crowned with thorns and welcomed in true royal regalia of whips and spit. He ascended His throne with shouts of “crucify Him,” and He still saves them from their sins by asking His father to forgive them all. Because of His work on our behalf, we are free to be His people. We are free from death, sin, and the cause of our fall, the Devil. He gives us a share in His glory and might. He gives us the right to be born again and to be adopted as God’s sons. We join His kingdom through Holy Baptism, where we are given the white robes of His righteousness and become born again from the “womb of the morning,” that is the resurrection. We are fed at the glorious banquet of Heaven by His body while we wander through this desert on the way to our final Heavenly promised land, just as He benevolently fed the Jews in the wilderness with manna that fell like dew.
But we still have a tendency to let this all pass by unnoticed at Christmas. We shop and spend time with our relatives and only vaguely catch a glimpse of the star and the figurine of the young girl and shepherds looking intently into a manger with awe and wonder. We get so caught up in the trimmings of the season; the decorating, the cooking, the driving, that we ignore what is bigger than the turkey, goose, ham, or pudding. We get so caught up in what we have to do for ourselves and others, that often this season is one of darkness and despair, and we are blinded by this darkness to the true light. This season is filled with so many responsibilities to neighbors and relatives that we lose sight of the fact that God became our brother in order to die in our place and take us from darkness into light by His resurrection from death. We are too busy figuring out what gift to buy our loved ones, that Christmas passes by and we often completely forget that God sent His only Son to us as an ultimate gift of love, or at best, we mark off one church service and a quick prayer before we gorge at the feast. We are in such a hurry to get done with food, and turn on the television where we are treated to all manner of Christmas stories and shows, including ones that are idolatrous, elevating family, or an idea of love, in place of the child who sleeps in the manger. We are confronted by red suits that show a marred image of St. Nicholas, who would be appalled by how most of us spend this season. But how does Joseph spend this night?
If we return briefly to our text, and the similarity to the Joseph in Genesis, we see this point beautifully illustrated. Joseph awakens from sleep after a vision, says nothing but trusts that it is from God, he goes into Egypt, and he watches his son grow. Matthew intends for us to see this as, in some way, the Joseph from the Old Testament, who again goes to Egypt, where he welcomes and takes care of His Son, the king of the new Israel. Jesus comes to Joseph as a son, and saves him as well, making peace with him by the forgiving of his sins, just the opposite of the Genesis story, where Joseph forgave his brothers whom he protected. He is a silent witness that God fulfilled His promises to the patriarchs of the Old Testament, just as He will fulfill His promises to us.
So even though we are still mired by sin and love either ourselves or someone else more than God, we can still live with the knowledge that God loves us, and His love can overcome any sin we have. It was meant to. Even one drop of Christ’s blood is enough to forgive the sins of all mankind, many times over. His blood that would be shed for us and which we will drink here tonight is the blood of the Son of God Himself, who comes to claim us and make us the Father’s children. He is the king of glory that came to die and rise again to forgive you all of your sins. He is the king of glory who comes tonight from the womb of a young virgin. He is the king of glory who is still with us and who saves us from our sins. He is the king of glory whose announcing wakes us from our sleep of soul and fleshly idleness. He is the king of glory who gives Himself to us as a gift, from the true Father Christmas, God. Let us then, with thankfulness, be silent as Joseph, and bask in the goodness of our newborn king, Jesus, who in His weakness saves us in a way that we, His people, with all our strength, and might cannot.

And now, may the peace which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the savior born this day, who is Christ the Lord. Amen.

Happy Thanksgiving

2008-11-27T16:06:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
What I'm thankful for:
1. Jesus
2. Liturgy
3. Family
4. Bad Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven Segal movies :-).
5. church
6. Guys from seminary
7. The few friends from college I keep in touch with.
8. Republic....no.....Democra......no......Libterta......dangit!

No, Really....

2008-10-18T21:56:00.000-07:00

No, really, I'm not dead. I've just been SO busy that I haven't had time to think. I'm already getting some good posts ready though (in my mind), dealing with ecclessiology, soteriology, and the atonement. Believe me, it's gonna get strange :-P

The State of Our Theology

2008-08-28T19:38:00.001-07:00

Today the Lutheran church remembers St. Augustine the Doctor of Grace (St. Monica his mother was celebrated yesterday). He is chiefly remembered for his role in several debates (the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians) and his many works on the Christian faith, most notably his "Confessions" and "City of God." While the East sometimes doesn't care for him...he's one of the West's greatest defenders of the faith. With so many fights and battles to be fought, it would be next to impossible if he did not get something wrong some of the time...but those things pale in comparison to what he has given the West and the church catholic in general.

The story of his conversion is a good one, recorded in the "Confessions" and was brought about chiefly by the prayers of his mother and the instruction of St. Ambrose the Bishop of Milan (Dec. 7th). What a team up...and what an excellent type of how we are all brought into the church. The church prays for those who are lost to become her children and know salvation in Christ and the teachers of God's Word instruct and eventually bring in new believers in the Holy Mysteries. I still can't get over how amazing it is that both masculine and feminine work together to create new life, even in the Spiritual realm. Let us remember this story as we pray and weep for those friends and family (and they are innumerable) whom we know that are not in the family of God.

After Summer Greek, I was tired, but now have relaxed somewhat, and begun to read several of my books for the Fall Quarter. I have had the opportunity to return to my home congregation and I have been somewhat troubled by what I have seen and heard. This is not an indictment against Trinity alone, but against most of American Lutheranism. Something so simple as having the Blessed Sacrament every week has been met with such a negative and belabored response. Many of the laymen who have given their reasons why the Sacrament should not be offered at every Divine Service have, to put it bluntly, scared me. The excuses have scared me because they make me fearful for our salvation in times of trial. If the Christian church worries that we are not under persecution for our faith as countries in Africa are, do not worry. The Devil has his teeth sunk in our spoiled and lazy flesh. He has brought us to the point of thinking we don't have it that bad...and we don't need the Sacrament.

Here are the reasons given, my response, and my fear:
1. "I am satisfied." - No you are not! Thinking you are satisfied means you really aren't. This breads complacency and makes us forget that we are the church millitant...the fight isn't over yet.

2. "It will become a law." - To the church body, yes. The Sacraments are to be offered by the church or else it ceases to have the gifts of Christ. But to the believer it is yes and no. The believer is called by the Sacrament, but they choose whether or not to take it. You don't force anyone by offering it...but you can condemn those who need it and do not receive it. Not to mention...if those who say this also push members to read their Bible and pray daily (a worthy goal), how can this be a law but not reception of the Sacrament? Even granting that the Sacrament is a law and not grace (a damnable error), this seems to show a misunderstanding of law and gospel!

3. "I am completely forgiven." - Not if you deny what forgives you your sins and feeds your faith. There is a difference between the forgiveness given freely and you turning your back on one of the means instituted by Christ. You have forgiveness when your will is surrendered to Him and you receive His gifts with faith and repentance. To turn your back on His gifts is a lack of both.

4. "I don't need the church to get grace, it is between me and Jesus." - This one scares me more than the first three, for it shows a complete lack of communion with each other in the ONE body of Christ. This will also play into point 5. Aside from the potential condmenation spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11 for not recognizing the body, it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the means of grace...the means are offered by the priest on behalf of Christ to the congregation...and yes, I'm purposely using the dreaded (yet confessional) term "priest" to get this concept across...the Office of the Holy Ministry is a Divinely instituted office to shepherd God's people with Word and Sacrament...it is not the, "we get to wear cool clothes club." This is a misunderstanding of the church, the ministry, and the Sacraments...influenced by Baptiprotestant theology which gets the person and work of Christ wrong. This was also accompanied by "sometimes I don't take it because I don't feel worthy." What?! Such a high view of the Supper one minute and not the next? It is a means of grace...to prepare to receive it is to humble one's self and realize that no matter WHAT you do you are unworthy for it...but it is given anyway as long as you have faith that it forgives you your sins because it is the body and blood of Christ.

5. "It is up to the people of God to decide how to worship. If you don't like how we worship you can go to another church." - Ouch...swing and a miss. BTW, this quote just cast the individuals saying it out of the church catholic...the true "people of God" spoken of in the Communion of Saints. To see the the church as a congregation of voting members as in a Democracy is decidedly American and unscriptural. The church is a family and includes many many generations of faithful Christians who worshipped liturgically with Word AND Sacrament for nearly 1600 years before some boob decided to alter the theology behind the Supper and thus downplay its importance.

6. "If we have it too often, it will be taken for granted." - If this is a reflection of how much people read their Bible, then I'd believe it...but the problem is that I have centuries and centuries of the church's witness to tell you that such a situation (while possible) is not guaranteed.

7. "It's a means of grace just like preaching and Scripture is" OR "All we need is the general absolution at the beginning of the service." - Wow...so you can leave and we can continue to worship as Scripture says...thanks! This shows the Western theological error of simplifying everything down to its substance. Reasoning that all the means of grace are the same because they give grace (or that I only need one and not another) is tantamount to treating a person of the Trinity as more important because they are truly God...they're all God....so why should we mention the Holy Spirit everytime we mention the Father and Jesus?

8. "You can't show me in the Bible where it mandates worship every Sunday." - Yes I can...the Apostles did it and you call yourself an apostolic church in the creeds...either do what they did with the Sacraments or take it out of the creed....easy!

I know I may have seemed harsh above...but I'm tired of being called a legalist for pointing out to people the danger of their mindset. That their direct quotes show what is in their hearts indicates to me that the people running many of our parishes are wilfully ignorant of doctrine. This willful ignorance hurts the Sacramental ministry of our churches and WILL end up condemning people because of their lack of true faith. To treat faith as a purely intellectual or enthusiast understanding of "me and Jesus" and to have no worry of sin and sorrow with repentance which always seeks God's gifts and doesn't despise them is the same as having no faith at all. I say that to be complacent in one's Christian walk will lead to death...Scripture and our Confessions make this abundantly clear (the articles on Justification and Penitence in the AC and Ap spring to mind, as well as Christ's many exhortations to good works and sorrow over sin, such as the Parable of the Publican and the tax collector). True penitence seeks after God's gifts and hopefully is willing to take the pastor's chiding over such spiritual pride apart from where Christ is found.

We preach Christ crucified, and where else do WE (note St. Paul is speaking to a whole congregation, not just the bishop) preach and proclaim this than in the Holy Eucharist?! To say it is not necessary or to say we preach this same thing in the Sermon is to change the number of the one's proclaiming Christ crucified. Am I a legalist? I will gladly take the name if it means I spurn on others to good works, genuine repentance and proclaim the love of God which by faith we should emulate. The problem is we stop short of exhorting our people to good works. Many times we treat confession as mechanical and the lack of private confession as well as the lack of deacons means our pastors are too busy to truly get to know the needs of their members (at least in very large congregations). If I were a pastor of a large church, I would be trembling for fear of God...for their eternal destiny is in my care. Let us shed this antinomian mindset! That we can read Scripture and see the Gospel in every page but still not the law, which rather than fear we should want to do because we have been united to Christ and HE wants to follow the law, should embarrass us. We have cheapened the Gospel by making it about felling good for the next week.

To be forgiven in Christ is a joyful position, for we can call God "Abba." But to be forgiven and treat God's gifts with little or no care, or even contempt is a sure sign of Satanic influence on our Old Adam and a clear example of testing God. Let us remember not just that we are forgiven...but WHERE this forgiveness is made manifest....the Sacraments. Let us shed our pride and arrogance and realize that we are not strong at all spiritually. To be strong in the Spirit is to realize that you are weaker and weaker....therefore those externals which many feel are a crutch are to those who know they are sinners the Gospel, for they constantly bring to mind Christ and Him crucified.

Remember, when we are WEAK, He is strong. "I must decrease so that He may increase" (St. John the Baptist). Take the image of St. Monica and St. Augustine to heart...the church desires to give us the gifts of God...let us take them and become the converted St. Augustine, not the pagan one, so that God may be glorified in our salvation.

Heavy Metal Monk Equals ROFLCOPTERS

2008-07-19T20:08:00.001-07:00

I Taste Fresh Meat!

2008-07-05T15:57:00.000-07:00

Mini-Beast (a.k.a. "Pepper") - Now at 6.2lb from 4.5.

The Divine Service and the Changing Context of American Christendom

2008-07-05T13:15:00.000-07:00

"It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope" LW 37:317.

I have seen several discourses within our Lutheran circles that simply make my blood run cold. One the one hand, there are those who defend the historic rubrics and on the other, there are those who feel that the historic rubrics, at times, are meaningless, or practiced solely for the sake of one's piety. Before I begin, let me say this about American Lutheransim: We are scared of two things, Papists and Pietists. Historically, I understand the reason for both.

On the one hand, the Papists have destroyed the pure Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone through the merits of Christ alone as expressed in Scripture alone. Through this perversion all manner of adiaphora became tainted, including the very nature of adiaphora itself: Masses could be said for the dead and privately by a priest, the nature of man's relationship to His savior became one of an angry judge without whose intercession by His mother He would smite us for even thinking about calling on Him, blessing objects such as holy water or oil, or the visiting and invoking of departed saints became superstitious and the gaining of atonement for sins, etc.

On the other hand, the Pietists have destroyed the clear feeling of piety! The Eucharist was treated as only for those who already felt a connection to Christ, not as the means for the connection with Christ and the forgiveness of one's sins. Personal piety was separate from communal piety, and strict legalism became a problem! Salvation became uncertain!

What we are not scared of, is Reformed-ism. This belief rears its head as "receptionism," "liturgical minimalism," and also commonly as "crypto-Papal/Orthodox caw-cawing." Indeed, Fr. Todd Wilkens called this last one "playing the Pharisee card" in the newest "Issues, Etc. Journal." Similarly, this heterodox tradition has become inceptive within Lutheranism to degrees that lead to pure absurdities in theological discourse. Is the Formula speaking of doctrine or rites and practices when it addresses the concept of adiaphora? It's the latter. Therefore receptionism is not even a valid opinion as it contradicts Christ's words in the Sacrament (this IS, not "will become" my body), it is contrary to the received tradition of the church catholic, and as a paper by WELS theologian Rev. Dr. Becker has brought to light (though indirectly since he was arguing for the ambiguousness of the Real Presence), the promise of Christ's physical presence in the Eucharist is contingent upon our response to it and not on Christ's promise PERIOD.

Similarly, liturgical minimalism also begins to creep up and attack combined with anti-piety movements. Good lord, someone prays the minor hours regularly, venerates an icon, bows deeply at the point of the incarnation in the creeds, says a Hail Mary or prays a form of the rosary, crosses themselves, wishes to use holy water fonts to remind them of their baptism, etc., and they are a high church pietist! One wishes to retain the rubrics of the service? They must be a high church pietist! Worse yet, one could argue they are going against the Confessions in their actions, because the Confessions are as perspicuous as Scripture and have no context (sorry, being sarcastic as St. Paul here). What a way to defend Christian freedom....attack someone for having piety!!! Mmmm, that's good scholastic and intellectual Calvinism, may I have another?

But here is perhaps the biggest question I can ask, and will bring to light that we MUST be willing to have the guts to actually defend what we believe, teach, and confess. If certain doctrines and practices are TRULY adiaphora...then to attack someone for wanting to follow some of Rome's practices yet still confessing both through them and through the clear preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments is the equivalent of destroying church order and being in the spirit of antichrist....period! If it is worth getting worked up over and calling people out as being crypto-Romanists, etc., then let's actually deal with these doctrines. But let's also acknowledge that we in the Lutheran church have been heavily influenced through the backdoor by the Calvinists.

If one doubts that this is true, one merely has to go to a usual Lutheran congregation and ask about bringing in a Roman practice or a Reformed practice....and see which one people turn into sheets of white more for. Good heavens the Roman church has been greatly feared in the Americas so much so that John Kennedy was feared as a catholic! Yet the man in the funny hat from Geneva still affects our doctrines (and this from the man who denied the Genus Maiestacum!!!!).

Get it settled...now. And I don't want to hear Scripture badly invoked either, for all I hear concerning such practices is "they are not found in Scripture." I was unaware that Scripture had to be the source of all that we confess (and be source, I mean clearly exposited source). IF such a reformed view (which is an-oversimplified a-historical and magical view) is correct, then we cannot proclaim condemnation to Hell those who deny the homousious connection of the Father and the Son...for that word is not clearly in Scripture either, yet we say "Amen" to what is in the Nicene Creed. It is not Lutheranism which should be having the problem of changing contexts and how to preach Christ and Him crucified for us in a changing cultural landscape...it is the over-scholastic reformed who take all manner of documents and councils out of context (saying they agree with Chalcedon yet denying it in practice with the Eucharist).

What are we dealing with in the future of America, and sadly within much of American Christianity? Here's a list and a suggestion of ways to deal with them...and horrors, some might be *gulp* Romanizing!
1. Denial of the physical resurrection - Solution: Invocation of the saints (a practice that one cannot seriously deny the early church practiced, and one which can be rescued from the bastardization of it by the Papists).
2. Cheapening of grace - Solution: Preach the Law. I know it is hardly done...when it is, it is usually hidden as weakness that one cannot help, let alone sin one might "plan" to do. How can salvation be sweet to those who need it if they are not truly aware that they do?
3. Relativism in the church concerning truth - Solution: Uphold the historic confessions and creeds of the church catholic as authoritative and guided by the Holy Spirit. We deny this and have a tendency to treat much the councils discussed as "good ideas" rather than as clarifications of doctrine borne out of necessity...something Christ promised to the church that called upon Him in faith.
4. New Age Thinking - Solution: Christian piety COMBINED with the mystical end of the whole church's life of Word, Sacrament, and Prayer. True mysticism is Christ coming to us through His means and us being in communion with the Holy Spirit through prayer. Any other mysticism that comes to us apart from the means instituted by Christ, if not contrary to Scripture, must be tested against Scripture, the traditions of the church, and treated as subservient to the clear means He has given us (for God can operate any way He desires, yet we have a promise in a few).
5. Receptionism - Solution: Eucharistic adoration in the liturgy and the resurrection (forgive the pun) of the Tabernacle and table of repose with consecrated elements to be eaten at the next Divine Service. Again, this practice is adiaphora, but adiaphora with a clear confession against a potentially big problem.

I know, someone like me who does philosophy is dangerous and an Easternizing/Romanizing influence....but as the quote above says, I'd rather have true blood than just wine. And besides...if doctrine and practiced are as divorced as we practice, what have we to lose by taking on a practice? Let's use some common sense (yes, reason: The devil's whore!...oh, and God's greatest gift to man) and Scripture and come together as Lutheran Christians who desire to love and serve Christ.

Pictures to Write Home About

2008-06-21T21:16:00.001-07:00

Here is a collection of some fine pictures:

Seminarian Christopher McGarvey before his first year at St. Tikhon's Orthodox Seminary

The "Te Deum" mosaic from Ft. Wayne

The view of the Ft. Wayne Campus from the front door of Melanchthon Hall

Phil (el Conquistador) will love this: "We are more than conquerors."

Only Brigadier Generals Build Forts!

2008-06-06T17:30:00.001-07:00

Here is the little kitty we found outside of Bob Evans. She has a hurt right eye...the red you see is her nictating membrane (third eyelid). Hopefully it just settles down and doesn't shrivel up...:-(. Here below is her actual size...that's a pillow of mine! She is up from 4.8 lb to 5.4. She is supposed to be 2 and this is pretty much her full size. No real word yet on the mammary lump, though our vet seems to think she's too young to have cancer...she is frisky (the cat, not the vet)!

Also...yes, I am in Ft. Wayne now...Greek starts on Monday...and I fell as if I were left out of the loop on a few things....oh well.

First Council of Constantinople I

2008-05-22T19:50:00.000-07:00

Old Testament: The First Book of the Kings 1-2
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 15-18
Book of Concord: SD Art. 11 paragraphs 50-75
Small Catechism: The Holy Eucharist
Psalms: Morning - 73, 74
Evening - 75-77

The Orthodox Church in America seems to commemorate the holy fathers of the First Council of Constantinople today (as well as the martyr Bishop Basiliscus of Comana, St. John-Vladimir the Wonderworker, and others, including the icon of the Mother of God of Cyprus). The holy and ecumenical council included 150 bishops, all from the east.

The council's primary purpose was to defend the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father. Thus, the one homousion of God contained three hypostases. The longer third article of the Nicene Creed was added (thus the occassional name "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed"), as well as the condemnation of Arianism (again) and Apollonarianism.

This council has some noteriety in that it declared seven canons of which three are slightly questioned. The biggest issue was the declaration of the Bishop of Constantinople having the pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Rome. Because of the nature of this council having only eastern bishops, it was slightly questioned as an ecumenical council until it was affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon.

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life + of the world to come. Amen." - 3rd Article, Nicene Creed.

"Oh Heavenly King, O Comforter, Spirit of Truth who art in all places and fillest all things. Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life. Come and abide in us, and save our souls Gracious Lord."

"Holy Spirit, light divine,
Shine upon this heart of mine;
Chase the shades of night away,
Turn the darkness into day." - Holy Spirit, Light Divine v.1 LSB 496

Cat Cammando

2008-05-22T19:45:00.000-07:00

The cat we found was actually about a year or so old according to dental characteristics. This is troubling because I would be willing to bet she wasn't even six pounds, and she looked the size of a kitten.

Good news: 1. She didn't have upper respitory disease.
2. We have adopted her and she was supposed to be spayed tonight. We have an appointment with the vet tomorrow when we pick her up.

Bad news: 1. Her eye could be either trauma (preferrable) and might very well have to come out. However, she could also have feline leukemia, which will lead in a very quick death.
2. A lump was on her mammary area, indicating a potential tumor. If the tumor is in the mammary gland, is malignant, and is far along, it will be fatal.

Please keep us in your prayers. When we saw her yesterday, she was quite composed and spent much of the time in my arms rubbing my neck and face and laying down as if to sleep, then kneading my shoulder and rolling around sniffing things.

We Found a Stray, Injured Kitten

2008-05-15T20:55:00.000-07:00

And she was skin and bones. She also has a very bad eye infection and will most likely not be able to see out of one eye. There is also a chance that it is actually a respitory disease, which would mean even the "no kill" shelters would euthenize her.

Pray for her and us. I really don't want to have her euthenized....if it is the respitory infection, maybe we could continue to keep her in the pet carrier in the garrage and give her antibiotics and food/love till she could recover. Pray it isn't that.

LOL Cats!

2008-05-13T23:16:00.000-07:00

The Formula of Concord and the Adoration of the Consecrated Eucharist

2008-05-13T22:20:00.000-07:00

I've switched from the LSB daily lectionary to the "Lutheran Liturgical Prayer Brotherhood" lectionary. Similarly, I have moved to using the Psalter from the "Reading the Psalms with Luther" book from CPH...quite a good price and a wonderful resource.
Old Testament: 2 Samuel 9-10
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. Luke 9-12
Book of Concord: SD VIII Paragraphs 1-21
Small Catechism: Lord's Supper - The Sacrament of the Altar
Psalms for Wednesday of Pentecost: Morning - 25-27
Evening - 28-30

Yesterday, the daily lectionary from the LLPB website completed the five days of reading through article 7 in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. This article is addressing controversies and heresies with regard to the Lord's Supper. I found no real problem as I read the article, in fact finding several good points against the "Papists" and the view of transubstantiation which I was unaware of, or at least was unsure of.

However, when I reached paragraph 126, I had to do a double take. The paragraph condemned the adoration of the elements of the blessed bread and wine! Surely I had to be mis-reading the paragraph. Nope, it stayed the same...a big, "heck no" to that practice. It was then that it hit me...the adoration which both the Greek and Latin churches do after the Verba/Epiclesis is not thrown out, but understood against the Romanists. The paragraph is denouncing the adoration of the ELEMENTS....which, though blest, are still just bread and wine. What is adored after the consecration is Christ's body and blood "in, with, and under" the elements. Therefore, the adoration CAN be retained, just so long as those present realize it is not the bread and wine that is worshipped, but Christ Himself, present "in, with, and under" the elements, not according to the "first mode of presence," but the second (at least). The different modes of presence are covered in paragraphs 99-102 for those who are unsure of what I am referring to.

To adore the elements after consecration would be to confess that the substance of the bread and wine are destroyed and replaced with the body and blood of Christ. However, we do not adore the elements, which are the mode of transmission of Christ, but Christ Himself. This is perhaps why "impanation" is so condemned, for then one could worship the elements because Christ is actually "IN" the element. Thanks to the concept of Sacramental Union, what is to be adored is kept connected to what is not to be adored with regard to function/institution, but separated with regard to worship.

Brief news:
1. Done with classes at I.C.C. I now should receive an associates degree in philosophy...pastors who attended the Augustana Ministerium beware ;-)!
2. I move to "the Fort" (God-willing the financial details are ironed out by then) to begin Summer Greek....woot!
3. I had a good, long talk with McG about some theological and personal issues. I think I've been taking steps in the right direction to truly understand and appreciate the Orthodox view of theosis and the distinction between "essence" and "energy" of God. Though, I still had a question that was unable to be answered. Here goes: If Christ is God in essence and also man, and if man cannot witness the Divine Essence (not just "and survive" but simply not able to perceive it) because it is transcendant....was and is it ever possible for Jesus to perceive His own Divine Essence? I struggle to see how this question will be solved without drifting too far into Eutychianism or Nestorianism....but of course, I could be misunderstanding all points just mentioned ;-).
4. I'm going to try to post some of my papers, particularly the philosophy of religion ones and my ethics paper. The ethics paper I like, because I tackle a pro-choice favorite, and I think in only 6 pages I didn't do too bad of a job! The argument I will critique is Judith Jarvis Thompson's "violinist argument."
5. If anyone really knows a good source (or 10 LOL), I would like to look into several aspects of theology for personal interest:
A. Lutheran liturgy with regard to the evolution and removal of invocation of the saints and why certain hymns and aspects of worship seem to retain the practice ("Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones," the part of the Evening Prayer which says, "Rejoicing in the fellowship of all the saints, let us commend ourselves, one another, and our whole life to Christ, our Lord," etc.).
B. Lutheran architecture and the relationship between American pietists and the decreased usage of statues, icons, vestments, and incense.
C. The debate within American Lutheranism over the role, function, and necessity of Bishops (in Apostolic Succession), Priests/Pastors, and Deacons/Deaconesses. Also, how this debate changed what was seemingly a necessity in the time of the Reformation with the current "business as usual" mode of ecclesiology. It seems odd to me that a male-led system of succession which is received by the church became a female-led system of the Bride of Christ choosing the icon of Christ Himself for a congregation.
D. The acceptance (and to what degree) of the ancient councils of the church. Do Lutherans accept the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils (the eighth being the one dealing with Photius). It seems odd to me that we accept the reasoning behind using icons/statues, yet deny this same reasoning with regard to invocation. Similarly, we don't talk of "free will" often, but then again, free will can mean different things...what did it mean in the context of the fifth ecumenical council?
E. The relationship between Lutherans and those in the Reformed tradition, particularly with regard to ecumenical dialogue surrounding the person of Christ and the Communication Idiomatum and the further relationship of Lutherans to Rome within this light. Is our current direction aimed at pleasing the Reformed or main-line Protestants (you know what I mean you Wittenberg Trail fans ;-D)?

I think this gives me enough to start with....and go to my grave not being able to finish two of those goals to my satisfaction. However, most overlap, and that's good....because I'm a "big picture" THEN "little details" guy. Even though a trained science student....I'm right brained.

Colbert Report on "Better Know a Lobbyist"

2008-04-08T21:11:00.000-07:00

The Gay Lobbyist. Shared with me by McG. I was interested in how the lobbyist was stumped by a question (even though a joke) about contraception.

Gay Marriage, Abortion, School Violence, Euthenasia...are They Really Random?

2008-04-06T20:50:00.001-07:00

I love how my ethics class seems to intersect many areas of my life. Two weeks ago the topic was abortion. This week, the topic is sexual morality and same-sex marriage. It was not until debating with an atheist on youtube over the issue of gay marriage that I realized several things that I think have led to our current predicament. These thoughts were assisted in "coagulation," by Chris McGarvey, though I alone bear the burdon of error.

1. The modern world, particularly the West, has lost an understanding of the nature of "cause and effect."
2. The "modern mind" is actually "post-modern" (what I was describing as "existentialist"). By "existentialism," I am referring to that general philosophical worldview that has several points: A. There is no God. B. The existence of a being occurred before its essence...that is to say you have no soul apart from your physical existence or life experience. C. The structure of the universe is dynamic chaotic. This means that the universe has natural laws only to the point that they do not change. We can predict they will remain the same universally, we cannot claim knowledge of such a thing. D. Our fundamental worth as human beings comes about by our participation in an earthly relationship. E. ALL things are relative.
3. Starting from the 1950s with the influence of Freud on sexuality (McG argued even earlier in the 1930s with the advent of birth control which made reproduction a choice as opposed to a fundamental aspect of marital happiness), sex began to be spoken of apart from the action of sex. This allowed for sex education to focus on the nature of the organs and their functions without actually talking about the physical act. In 1957, Sputnik was launched, and the introduction of evolutionary theory into public education became mandatory...because knowing we came from Old World Monkeys is vital to rocket science!
4. In the 1960s, the sexual liberation occurred. This separated the act of sex from the bounds of marriage in a social movement and context. Relationships existed, but they were fundamentally based around individuals seeking pleasure. Such pleasure focused on the gaining of pleasure using someone else (even if they consented) rather than sharing in the pleasure.
5. In 1973, the United States Supreme Court overrode every state ban on abortion (some would argue unconstitutionally) and made abortion legal (with some stipulations). Now, not only was the act of reproduction a choice with regard to its first step, now the act after the first step was a choice.
6. In the late 1980s-1990s and today, there is a fundamental rise in school violence, in overall societal respect for one another, and towards human life in general. Many of those individuals who committed the school shootings that were big (Columbine, etc.) were self-avowed evolutionists, atheists, etc. This time period is roughly one generation after the Roe v. Wade decision.
7. Now: The redeffinition of marriage is in the public mind. Gay marriage is considered by some to be another step in the ruination of society. In other minds, to ban it is seen as cruel, discriminatory, and an issue of civil rights.

What can we take from this? I put them in this order for a reason. The fundamental issue here isn't even gay marriage (for Christians it really isn't about a philosophical worldview - a la sin), but the worldview of post-modernism/hyper-existentialism (I'll say "hyper-existentialism" to differentiate the view of existentialism that is actually helpful towards scholarship and is constructive and in some ways united with Christianity). Post-modernism speaks to our needs about community. It recognizes we need a community to be whole. This is clearly in line with Genesis when God says, "it is not good for man to be alone." The institution of marriage by God himself at the creation is fundamental to this community. While not all are married, the Christian view espoused by St. Paul is that virginity is a higher gift than marriage...meaning it is a special grace of God. The default goal however, is marriage.

Such separation in the modern mind however of sex and marriage or sex and reproduction, has led to a disastrous situation. Those supporting gay marriage don't even realize they're stepping into a trap! They believe that by simply redefining the word and making it legal, it becomes good and right. What they really look for is legitimacy in the eyes of society. Why? Because at least a generation ago, the traditional family began to break down. Now these sorry people are trying to find legitimacy in the highest authority they know...the society. Don't get me wrong, there are homosexuals out there who claim to be Christian, but aside from the fact that they are not, those who defend gay marriage don't need to argue usually with religious folk....they know they'll lose. They'll argue politically, using the assumption that God is for gays....read their literature and you'll see this. If the spiritual "Father" is for you, then it only stands that your earthly father be for you to...to support your decision and value you. Sadly, many lack this or don't see it as inherent within their father...instead the government is the highest form of authority figure, and since the government in this country is a democracy, to affect the law is to assume the legitimacy of the idea in the minds of the people.

Of course many would disagree with me. They would say I'm being bigotted or mean spirited. Consider further on top of the historic argument, these:
1. In nations that have adopted same-sex marriage, less than 10% (being generous) enter into it. Therefore they don't take advantage of the estate...they wanted legitimacy in the public's eyes. Maggie Gallagher's iMAPP has statistics of this kind.
2. To redefine gay marriage in the eyes of the law is to assume that the law alone was responsible for its origin and structure. Many see that view of history as highly speculative, arguing instead that the law simply recognized what the religious institution and biological relationships already involved....in other words, God/religion instituted it or at least dealt with it because of its role in giving life.
3. The Ancient Greeks and Romans were practitioners of homosexuality. Read Petronius's "The Satyricon" if you don't believe me (on second thought, don't. It's quite disturbing.). Yet even though they practiced...they never made it legal. How long did their civilizations last?
4. Gay marriage would alter the very nature of marriage and legally separate the insitution from the initial role of child-producing and raising. While there are heterosexuals who cannot have children, this is an exception, and laws should not be fundamentally based upon exceptions.
5. If I grant that I can only marry a consenting adult, what is to stop polygamy/polyandry or incest? If we're consenting and marriage isn't about reproduction, why not?
6. While the law in the U.S. defends your right to pursue happiness, it does not grant rights on the basis OF happiness. To say that you must be married to be happy is a stretch...especially if sexuality has been separated from marriage. Instead, the law recognizes the social contract nature of the institution. Yet still, traditional marriage, even done before a judge, has to do with committment, not happiness.
7. Marriage is not just social...it is religious. Even marriages done before a judge usually have a Bible or Quran or some mention of "God." One must also take up the argument with religions.
8. The financial benefits granted in marriage are not a justification to get married...that would be using an institution or person to an end...Kant's Deontology theory would say that is wrong. For those instances when individuals are not allowed to see their friend/lover in the hospital, this should be lifted for all people regardless of their sexual preference...I would want to see my best friend even though I am not a lover nor family member.
9. To redefine marriage is to think we can redefine words and change what they really mean. I can redefine colors, but this won't change what I was initially talking about...it will shift to a different thing.
10. Gays have the same marriage rights as straights....they can marry a member of the opposite gender.

But again, we are left with a quandy...what do these have in common? The breakdown of the family and the injection of anti-Christian ideas into our culture. Because people in the West are lazy, we have swallowed it all, hook, line, and sinker...because we don't bother to analyze what we think about anything. Talk to someone sometime about anything difficult or involved (politics, theology, etc.), and you'll soon find that the vast majority of people in the West do not have a coherent worldview. If they do, it tends to be post-modernism. It is sometimes good to talk to those who have a consistent worldview...because then you can actually talk!

God showed us what marriage is and what it is for. The church is Christ's bride, and with Him present in the Gospel message, new children are brought into the faith and family. It is for this reason that John's Gospel becomes poignant for us when Christ is on the cross. He gives His rightful mother over to St. John to protect and care for...and He gave St. John to her....St. John became adopted, or brought in to the earthly family of Christ just as we are adopted in a similar way to God the Father. Hence, the church's mother, the Theotokos is our best image of what it means to be a full woman. With Christ as the New Adam and the Blessed Virgin as the New Eve, the initial created order is not only fixed, but moved beyond its original bounds. God truly becomes "Our Father" again. The bond between a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony is one of the greatest and closest bonds in creation. The other bond is between the mother and her child. It is for this reason that both abortion and homosexuality is abhorrent. They are denials of God and our renewed natures in Christ!

As we live in this Easter Season where we celebrate our new life in the Resurrection, so to we should remember the growth of Christ in the Virgin's womb.

Sir Lancelot Attacks!

2008-04-04T09:26:00.001-07:00

Phrases No LCMS Church In Their Right Mind Would Use

2008-04-03T17:08:00.000-07:00

The title says it all:
1) "Make a decision for Jesus." - Haven't seen this yet, but some have said it is in some Ablaze!(tm) literature...if it's not, let me know.
2) "Biblical principles." - Used by Epic Church (http://www.epicchurch.com/boring.html) ...this just paves the way for sermon series on finances, marriage, etc. It wouldn't be so bad if it were talking about a Bible Study...but it's the SERMON!
3) "Bigger Heaven tomorrow." - Used in the Salem Lutheran Ablaze!(tm) service. Now, I don't know about you, but this language just strikes me as just a little...off by this statement. Maybe it's just me being paranoid....but something about it doesn't seem quite theologically right.
4) Not a quote, but comparing the verse "they will know that we are Christians by our Love" with simply respecting people. We do acts of mercy and compassion...simply respecting misses the whole point of "agape!" - Used in the Salem Lutheran Ablaze!(tm) service.
5) "Purpose Driven Church for People who Don't Go to Church." - Used by Jefferson Hills Church...so you're saying you aren't a church? Are you saying that other churches aren't "Purpose Driven"...whatever the heck that even means?

Now this list is only a group of five...but that's also from a cursory examination of several churches...ones which I would HIGHLY recommend anyone following the "Issues, etc."...um, issue...to look into.
1) Jefferson Hills Church - www.jhchurch.org in particular, you should check out www.ideateblog.com (This and This are interesting...particularly the ones about the billboards).
2) Epic Church - http://www.epicchurch.com I see no mention of Holy Communion on their webpage...only how boring the old way of doing church is. I do see they have a "relevant" youth ministry though...especially the names "Momentum" and "Excelerate." How about one for the college youth, "Hyperspace" or "Extremeinate!"
3) Water's Edge - http://www.watersedgefrisco.com/ Many of the sermons are...interesting. They really get at the heart of Lutheran pastoral theology (you know, Law/Gospel, Sacraments, prayer, faith, etc.). Especially the hits at the "old way of doing church" which according to I believe the March 9th sermon can't grow the church.

Now, I'm no expert on Lutheran theology or anything, but I do find it troubling that churches such as Jefferson Hills looks to Willow Creek for their inspiration (you know, that church that came out and criticized its own methods of "doing church?"). I also find it troubling that the pattern of Christianity for centuries is being broken here....we change for the culture now? We change to be relevant? I'm sorry, but I got the distinct impression St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius of Antioch gave a raspberry to that idea. The church has historically dealt with change as it has come, either passively if it were not harmful or actively in her preaching or apologetic writing if it was harmful.

I also find this idea truly strange: We seem to be trying to "do church" as if we're non-denominational megachurches (even if some of the churches above have less than 300 members), yet we're making use in our attempt to be relevant of Emergent ideas or language. Of course, one of the Emergent ideas is that Protestantism is bankrupt in her worship life...thus RETURNING to liturgical worship and ancient prayer practice. So let me get this straight...Confessionals are hammered for being "dogmatic" on the nature of the Divine Service (and for those who look at this blog and think, "oh boy, another one who thinks the liturgy has never changed," think again. I'm not defending the rigid use of TLH's setting...I'm defending the use of liturgical style and habit) yet those who we are using the language of and looking into are finding out that at least at the superficial level, there's more substance in liturgy! Combine that with the non-denom. model of worship which will inevitably lead to a lower view of worship in general and the Blessed Sacrament in particular (don't believe, me? Check out Spirit Garage and their statement on Holy Communion under Worship....yeah, that's not a low view of the Sacrament at all! I know it's ELCA...but what's to stop us!?).

Again...I'd say the Salem Lutheran Ablaze!(tm) says it all where absolutely no reverencing of the altar occurred. Call me finicky on rubrics...but when you just flat out don't give a crap about recognizing God present in worship....I find it hard to believe that a lower view of what is on the altar won't follow.

Confessional Evangelism

2008-03-31T20:30:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone...I had a monumental thought! Since the Ablaze!(tm) counter does not count baptisms or adult conversions....let's help them out! On top of the "sharing the Gospel," let's report the other two aspects and keep a tally. Nothing says "critical event" like being born again by water and the Word! What do you think?

Let me start with who I've done:
1. A really confused Oneness Pentecostal heard the Gospel.
2. My Jewish friend heard the meaning of the Gospel over a pint of beer at Granite City.
3. My Indian friend (;-x) heard the meaning of the Gospel the same time as 2.
4. An atheist in two of my philosophy classes heard the true meaning of the Gospel.

That's just off the top of my head! Seriously, I think we can demonstrate that the non-Ablaze! method works just as good, if not better!

P.S. The point of this post is that evangelism can happen, even if one does not count what are seen as "critical events." To deny baptism or teaching in Lutheran grade schools as "critical events" and still call yourself Lutheran tells me you haven't read the Scriptures or the Confessions very closely.

Actions > Words

2008-03-30T22:58:00.001-07:00

While surfing the internet and Lutheran blogosphere, I have come across several statements from those defending the Synod's decision to discontinue Issues, Etc. and fire its host and producer. Many of these statements describe those who attack the Synod as those akin to hunting for witches, conspiracy theorists, etc. They say that we should put the best construction on this event as the 8th Commandment says. I say they're correct with the last sentence.

Here is what we have:
1. Synod fires Rev. Todd Wilken and Mr. Gary Scwartz on Holy Tuesday with no explanation, citing "business" and "stewardship (programmatic)" reasons.
2. Supporters and listeners of Issues, Etc. decry the action and take up collections, offer prayers for, and generally support the displaced men......the Synod does nothing.
3. The Synod shares more information, some individuals believe is not too accurate or is somewhat doctored......many in the Lutheran blogosphere accept Rev. Wilken's suggestion to focus on the Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord and eat and drink His body and blood on Easter Weekend...many of us do so.
4. Those in the Lutheran blogosphere ask for a real answer as to why these men were fired in an unChristian manner.....the Synod keeps its mouth shut and does nothing.

Therefore: Those who are supporting Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwartz are acting in a Christian manner towards their brothers who are suffering. These supporters are also indignant (though some unjust anger and words has been experienced and shared) at the response (or lack thereof) from the Synod and her leadership on this matter. Even the "Epistle of Straw" hints that action speak louder than words....what if there are not even words let alone actions?

Perhaps in the future of the LCMS, it will be found that Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwartz simply did not speak enough faith into their situation. Perhaps it will be found that they have their shortcomings as well. Perhaps they should have shared the Gospel with others rather than focus on dogma and theology. Perhaps I'll sprout wings and fly with the pigs. The decision of the Synod cannot be interpreted as anything BUT a political move....there's your "best construction."

Why the move was most likely political:
1. It occurred the same day (March 18th) the SP spoke regarding the future direction of the Synod. The direction is to communicate the message of salvation...so that people get to church. Sorry, the church has traditionally confronted other religions and situations head on in her apologetic writings and preachment...but the church was not altered so that it appealed more to them. "Packing the pews" is important....whether most of the bodies are alive or corpses seem to be inconsequential. Sorry, that's a rant.
2. The individuals who were fired were quite vocal in their criticism of modern church growth methods and trends in main-line evangelicalism...some of which our leadership is partial to. Thus with all the debt I asked why, for example, Don Baker was not asked to leave (don't take this wrong, I love Don Baker and his show...it is merely to prove a point).
3. Any criticism of this decision or Ablaze!(tm) is met with criticism and questions regarding our focus and committment to missions. Return fire questions are of course, what Scriptural promise are we given for following modern church growth methods?

Problems with communicating via language people can understand:
1. Remember, it is the grace of God communicated through means that converts.
2. While communication must be understood, to focus on pure understanding is Protestant in nature and is designed to "convince" someone to join the church. Preaching should speak to people's problems in life so that it seems relevant....death and salvation from it doesn't seem that hard to get across to people who are not in the church.
3. When St. Paul used such a tactic in his preaching at the Areopagus, he convinced few converts...there is no church in Athens (as Fr. Weedon pointed out on IE when he covered that passage...or was it the Bible Study?). When St. Paul got to Corinth he said he would have NOTHING known among them except Christ and Him crucified.
4. Modern methods of speaking in the Ablaze!(tm) movement focus on "shortcomings" (sin is not left out, but it is undermentioned). Death is seemingly not connected with such "shortcomings." Thus Christ, while giving us eternal life (no explanation there) still seems to be a coach helping you to get the touchdown.
5. Affecting the style of worship is a slap in the face to those who have gone before us...such changes to the liturgy are only drastic when needed, other than that they are slow and organic. While my church in Peoria is careful with their selection of contemporary songs....not all are. Thus, some modern songs used in contemporary worship are just plain heretical. A video is circulating of a Houston, TX worship service...where the pastor wore a suit (so much an icon of Christ!...it shows where our focus is) and it seems as if no one reverenced the altar....yeah, that won't affect the parishioner's long-term theology my tush.
6. As Fr. Beane has said elsewhere....style says something about substance. Many people who are against the "Confessionals" (horrors!) seem to dislike the phrase, "lex orandi, lex credendi" even though it is blatantly obvious from general psychology (not marketing which sometimes misses the mark quite wide) and the history of the church.

Butt counting methods for "growth" (thus indicating that churches not undergoing growth are "dead" or "stagnant" - let alone that other nice word, "stable") tend to emphasize "sharing" rather than "sacrament." Of course, in small rural communities where there aren't many people around...God could just create more men from the dust so that the church can be seen as growing....noobs. They will eventually bankrupt the Synod in terms of her membership...those who have grown up in it or have been drawn to it by the beauty of her liturgy and the clarity of her sacramental message will feel alienated and leave. Similarly, those who are drawn by the huggy, touchy, feel goodness of church will eventually leave or look for something deeper, either because the feeling is gone (yay emotions!) or they think, "bored now." So either way, you lose your trees and you'll eventually lose your saplings....talk about a backfire! I fail to see how it is good marketing to offer what everyone else has....that's just dumb! Hmmm...I want to compete with the five other mexican restaurants on this road. Maybe I should offer the Chinese food I've been continuing to offer....nah! Of course, in typical marketing and business style...long term isn't even on the radar. We've set up for ourselves an impossible goal to accurately do.

Problems with the butt counting of Ablaze!(tm):
1. Saying to someone, "Jesus loves you" counts? - Seeker sensitive way
2. Do baptisms count...I've heard they don't? - Lutheran way
3. For those released back into the wild after they've been shared with...are they tagged or do you think since the target is 100,000,000 many will probably be recounted like people revote in Chicago (vote early, vote often).
4. What gets set on fire in a "blaze" typically burns out quick...how do you care for your new convert? What if they get tired of your church?

Sorry, while I see potential good from some aspects of Ablaze!(tm), particularly with "small group" Bible Study emphasis so that smaller relationships can build and grow, the rest is just awful. The clear expression of the Gospel should not be entangled in busines-ese, merged with seeker sensitive worship and Joel Osteen/Rick Warren messages that focus on purely me and my "shortcomings." The message of the Gospel is deliverance from sin, death, and Satan because God became man in Jesus, lived a sinless life, and died in my place, rising from the dead 3 days later so that I might have eternal life. Now if you've read this last sentence...let Ablaze!(tm) know so that they can add you to their counter. If you think about it long enough, accept Jesus as your personal saviour and prepare to live your best life now!

See No Evil - Must Not Be Evil...What is Evil Again?

2008-03-27T21:41:00.000-07:00

For Ethics class I am doing a paper regarding abortion. Before today, I didn't have the topic narrowed down. But now I realize that while I could argue for the status of personhood of the embryo, I am instead going to attack the view of Judith Jarvis Thomson wherein she states that just because a zygote is a person, because it must use another person's body, the law cannot force someone to let someone else use their body. She says the analogy is the same as hooking up a violin player to your kidneys without your permission.

In class, I brought up the maternal relationship, which was struck down because our professor didn't think that comes into the law's decision. He cited a recent case where one twin needed the organs of another twin which would not result in either of their deaths, the healthy twin refused, and the sick twin lost a lawsuit against the healthy twin. However, I would still hold that it is this unique relationship where an exception can be made on the basis of the protection of the life of one individual over the right of choice of the other. While not about life and death, the law does recognize relations when it comes to prosecution (I cannot as a lawyer prosecute my father), nor can I get married to my first cousin, even if we were to have abortions any time she became pregnant. Thus, familial relations can and should be taken into account when laws are written, and thus I hold (though I will argue by far more in depth in the paper) that the analogy breaks down by virtue of duty to different people and the state's right and duty to hold others to their duty.

If you disagree, let me know...if you agree, let me know what you think. It seems fundamentally improper for her argument to work when taken to its ultimate end. 1) The government cannot force me to use my body for someone else's benefit. Thus 2) My body which works to get money and a living is an extension of said body (this is Locke's point and is inherent in the amendments interpreted for privacy). Therefore, 3) the government cannot force taxation on me for ANY reason, even the regulation of a militia, let alone helping the poor, etc.

The Social Contract Theory is not the only moral theory used for legal ideas, and is in and of itself fundamentally flawed because it ignores duty to family which is meant to be the stable unit of society...for social well-being individuals are not autonomous and always combative as Hobbes suggested with regard to his fictitious history of the development of government from the "state of nature." I would argue that the branch of Virtue Ethics, particularly Feminist Ethics offers the strongest argument against abortion...even legally. What say you?

The Annunciation to the Most Holy Theotokos and the Incarnation of Our Lord

2008-03-25T15:04:00.001-07:00

Old Testament: Exodus 15:19-16:12
New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews 10:1-18
Psalms: Morning - 98
Evening - 66; 116

"God Our Father, Your Word became Man and was born of the Virgin Mary. May we become more like Jesus Christ, whom we acknowledge as our Redeemer, God and man. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen" - New St. Joseph Weekday Missal.

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou and blessed is the fruit of they womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." - Hail Mary

"'For He that is mighty hath done great things for me, and Holy is His Name.' (Luke 1:49)
The "great things" are nothing less than that she became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed upon her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among whom she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in Heaven, and such a child. She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is too exceedingly great; all she can do is break out in the fervent cry: "They are great things," impossible to describe or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. It needs to be pondered in the heart, what it means to be the Mother of God." - Luther's Works, Vol. 21, p. 326, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, Concordia Publishing House, 1956.

Now the Decision is "Programmatic" and "Stewardship" Related....HUH?

2008-03-25T14:53:00.000-07:00

According to the KFUOam.org website, the reason "Issues, etc." was canceled was due to "programmatic" and "stewardship" related reasons. After those two very vague terms, the promise of "new programming in this time slot" was given.

Now, I'm not taking logic or anything (oh wait, yes I am), but it seems to me that to say "stewardship" and "new programming in this time slot" seems a little bit of a contradictory answer. I also doubt it was programmatic, since it can't be based on the time slot itself, as Fr. Wilken and Mr. Schultz were as surprised to be canned as anyone else.

No, I think this shows that the LCMS is still tight-lipped about the decision, which is growing more and more blatantly political as the vague answers which make absolutely no sense keep coming out. It's okay then....the Synod will either die or will purge that which is grotesque to the nature of Christ's church.

If anyone is from the LCMS hierarchy and is reading this....here's a tip: Don't say "stewardship" and "new program" in the same sentence for different effects. It's like saying, "I sold my reliable and worthwhile car because I couldn't afford it anymore...I instead bought a 2008 car." Yeah...if that makes sense, I want you NOWHERE near my finances thank you very much.

I mean come on, the LCMS hierarchy may not be filled with theologians (which in and of itself is a completely crappy strategy...I don't think that's what "being a fool for Christ" means), but even kindergarteners can reason better than that...please.

Seriously, just be honest and give a full schpiel, "we fired the staff of Issues, etc. because they and the program did not conform to the watered down pseudo-Gospel message we want as our new image." Seriously, if you want to play Seminex all over again with the positions reversed, that's fine...just be prepared to actually have a backbone and STAND UP FOR YOUR DECISION BY FACING THEIR CONSEQUENCES AND BEING TRUTHFUL!

Rant mode off.

Do IT!

2008-03-24T20:07:00.000-07:00

I have (2:08)!

http://www.petitiononline.com/Issues/petition.html

He is Risen!

2008-03-23T18:08:00.000-07:00

Old Testament: Exodus 14:10-31
New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews 7:23-8:13
Psalms: Morning - 93
Evening - 136; 117

"To the chosen Champion Leader risen from the dead, a hymn of victory do we sing unto Thee, O Christ Eternal King, for Thou hast risen from the tomb: and we being delivered from everlasting corruption, bring joyous acclamations unto Thine honorable tomb crying out: Rejoice, life-bearing tomb whence Christ hath risen!" - The Akathist to the Life-Bearing tomb and Resurection of the Lord Jesus Christ, Kontakion 1.

"Now all the vault of heav'n resounds
In praise of love that still abounds:
'Christ has triumphed!
He is living!' Sing, choirs of angels loud and clear!
Repeat their song of glory here:
'Christ has triumphed! Christ has triumphed!'
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!" - LSB 465:1

Holy Saturday - The Vigil of Easter

2008-03-22T19:10:00.001-07:00

Old Testament: Exodus 13:17-14:9

New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews 7:1-22

Psalms: Morning - 43

Evening - 31; 143

"Heavenly Father, I am silenced at the grave of Your Son, who knew no sin, yet was made sin for us. You permitted Him to die, exchanging His innocence for our guilt. In love He came to us, but He was rejected by hate. He taught us obedience, but men rebelled against Him. I confess that a great mystery confronts me at this tomb of sin and death. He was buried behind the great seal of my sin and my death. By faith I know also that He who died is the One who unlocked the great secret of Your love. His tomb is my tomb. He carried with Him to the grave my sin and my death, that He might break their hold on me. Trusting in the Lord's promise that He would rise again on the third day, I come not to mourn Him but to confess the sin that He would leave buried. Have mercy on me, O God! Have mercy on me. Amen." - The Lutheran Book of Prayer, p. 135.

Good Friday - The Earthly Coronation and Enthronement of Our Lord

2008-03-20T22:43:00.003-07:00

Old Testament: Exodus 12:29-32; 13:1-16
New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews 6:1-20
Psalms: Morning - 22
Evening - 107; 130

Holy And Great Friday

Last Seven Sayings of Our Lord Jesus (ESV):
1. "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."
2. "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
3. "Woman, behold, your son....Behold, your mother."
4. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
5. "I thirst."
6. "It is finished."
7. "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

Orthodox Daily Office (Troparion): 6th Hour/Noon - "O You who on the sixth day and hour nailed to the cross the sin which rebellious Adam committed in Paradise, tear assunder also the bond of our iniquities, O Christ our God, and save us."

9th Hour/3pm - "O Christ God, Who at the ninth hour tasted death in the flesh for our sake, put to death the arrogance of our flesh and save us."

Concluding Prayer of the Noon Daily Office (according to pg. 296 LSB): "Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, at this hour You hung upon the cross, stretching out Your loving arms to embrace the world in Your death. Grant that all people of the earth may look to You and see their salvation: for Your mercy's sake we pray. Amen."

Maunday Thursday - The Institution of the Eucharist and the Betrayal in Gethsemane

2008-03-19T22:33:00.001-07:00

Old Testament: Exodus 12:1-28

New Testament: Epistle to the Hebrews 5:1-14

Psalms: Morning - 38

Evening - 126; 102

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the Night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: 'Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.' In the same way also He took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying: 'Drink of it, all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'" - Words of Institution

"How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

Answer: Certainly not just eating and drinking do these things, but the words written here: 'Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.' These words, along with the bodily eating and drinking, are the main thing in the Sacrament. Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say: 'forgiveness of sins.'" - The Small Catechism of St. Martin Luther

"O Lord and Master of my Life, take from me the spirit of slot, despondency, lust for power and idle talk. But grant unto me, Thy servant, a spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see mine own faults and not to judge my brothers and sisters. For blessed art Thou unto ages of ages. Amen." - St. Ephraim the Syrian

The Moratorium Has Begun...No More Posts On Issues, Etc. Till After Easter Sunday

2008-03-19T22:27:00.000-07:00

This letter is a copy of what I sent to David Strand. After this post I will resume purely religious and evangelical posts related to the Passion of Our Lord (as per Fr. Weedon's suggestion on a moratorium).

Mr. Strand,

I would like to express my deepest condolences for the loss of the Synod on Tuesday. The decision to cancel Issues, Etc. and replace it with an "alternative" program (whatever that means in political jargon) is I hope a deeply misguided mistake. Many people outside of our denomination (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Reformed Baptist, Presbyterian), not to mention within, are saddened by the loss of (in some cases the only) Lutheran program they listened to. As one of the most popular programs, I cannot believe it is a result of lack of funds or popularity.

I sincerely urge an HONEST answer as to why this decision was made and why Fr. Wilken and Mr. Schwartz were unceremoniously removed without any warning (they have families and loved ones for God's sake!). Such is the Christian duty of those whom the church herself by the authority of God has placed as her leaders. The Synod is now in more turmoil then I think anyone realized...many are considering leaving the Synod, and as a result many outside the Synod are looking at her leadership in disgust and this decision in disgust.

I pray this decision was not a politically motivated decision to stab fellow Christians in the back because they weren't onboard with a completely outdated and ineffective plan for evangelism that makes Martin Luther spin in his grave. We are to be unified...and I realize that this political debate goes back and forth, with un-Christian attitudes on BOTH sides. But I strongly urge that this decision is repealed, or else this Synod could very well be dead. No one wants to go to a Synod that claims to be Lutheran yet acts very similar to the Papacy in its authority and infallibility.

This program and its ministry brought me back to the fold of Lutheranism and the Gospel when I would have otherwise left. Do not let this slide by making enemies of brothers. Please do not make me regret my decision to remain in the LCMS. I like to think I am in a denomination of Christ's love, charity, and respect for one another.

Blessings on you and your family's Holy Week. Soli Deo Gloria,

Mr. Christopher Heren
B.S. Geology, B.A. Integrative Biology - U of IL 2005
A.A. Philosophy - I.C.C. in progress

Others Added it...I'm a Copy Cat

2008-03-18T22:06:00.001-07:00

Pray for them.

R.I.P. Issues Etc...You Will Be Missed.

2008-03-18T13:19:00.000-07:00

Holy Tuesday - Old Testament: Exodus 9:29-10:20

New Testament: Hebrews 3:1-19

Psalms: Morning - 34

Evening - 25; 91

Issues, Etc. - 9 year life is done. Thanks to the faithful proclomation of God's Word and message of salvation which has helped many renew their faith in Lutheranism and the historic doctrines of the church (I am one such example), Fr. Todd Wilken and the other hard workers in the program have done Our Lord a tremendously effective service. Through his program I heard Fr. Weedon give a 10 part series on the historic liturgy that completely changed my outlook on worship, heard Dr. Scaer talk about the sacraments, heard Dr. James White talk about Sola Scriptura, etc.

No reason was given as to why the show was canceled at the last minute. Calling the Synod and KFUOAM would possibly bring this issue to the forefront of their attention. Pray for Fr. Wilken and the families (his included) of those affected by this turn of events. If it is money, pray that the LCMS will be able front some cash to keep a radio program going which could have been an effective tool of Ablaze(tm)!, bringing many into the fold of salvation. In all things, God's Will be done. As St. Patrick of Ireland did, so must we in proclaiming the Gospel...let us pray some miracles happen here.

Many faithful Lutherans (and others) are grieved by this loss...I pray this isn't the start of something bigger.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Augustana Ministerium on Eastern Orthodoxy - and Ecumenical Dialogue With McG

2008-03-13T19:16:00.001-07:00

Old Testament: Exodus 4:19-31
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. Mark 15:16-32
Psalms: Morning - 38
Evening - 126; 102

WARNING: The discussion you will read about is true. The names have been referenced in case I get everything wrong. Cue: Dragnet music.

At McG's blog, he and I have begun a series of discussions (3 as of this date: 1, 2, 3) regarding Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. I am arguing that there is much more in common than either of us realize, and he is listening and thoughtfully digesting what is said. I am hoping to do the same.

He references a series of talks given by the Augustana Ministerium. While I have not listened to all three, I have listened once to the talk of Fr. Rutowicz, and twice to the talk of Fr. Juhl. In both talks, one could hear Fr. Weedon chime in (and timely I might add) to clarify a point or to give a suggestion. The problem was (at least in these two talks), I think Fr. Weedon was largely ignored or not fully understood (and indeed, if I have done the same here Fr. Weedon I beg forgiveness). He seemed to have suggested several times, particularly within Fr. Juhl's talk, that we in the Lutheran church are thinking too often in terms of "either/or," when the answer could potentially be "both/and" (I would argue that it does seem that Eastern apologists can seem to talk this way as well, thus perhaps showing a certain "infection" of Western philosophy and rhetoric gained during the period of "Catholic captivity" or simply due to the large impact the Western world had on the East even if they choose to ignore it or treat it negatively).

I would highly recommend one listen to the talks.....SEVERAL times. Listen carefully to the questions and comments as well. The comment in Fr. Rutowicz's talk that really aggrivated McG was, "Irenaeus could sure use a Pelagian controversy because the way he talks about free will, I think, is at the root of the Eastern view of original sin.....the way he [St. Irenaeus of Lyons] talks about free will, I think, is at the root of the Eastern view of original sin." McG went on to say that such a comment shows the pre-reflective committment to St. Augustine which the Lutheran father brought into the statement (McG's comments of free will and Augustine's arguments not-withstanding, which I disagree with).

To an extent, McG is right. Even though I understand what this Lutheran priest said, for he is echoing an opinion regarding heresy and the growth of doctrinal elloquence Fr. Burnell Eckardt had mentioned (the exact context of the quote escapse me...so I apologize), I would agree that the statement is somewhat irresponsible. However, I don't think either group is fully appreciating the differences (or similarities) of free will and original sin that both groups possess.

Here is what I have taken from the talks so far:
Lutherans - 1. Need to realize that the inversion of the "catholic principle" found in the Lutheran Confessions (not defined by that name, but present particularly in the Formula on "Adiaphora") is hurting us in terms of both ecumenical dialogue and internal issues regarding worship and ecumenism with those who use Scripture WITHOUT tradition. Here is an essay by two former LCMS priests who joined the Orthodox Church. Here is a response from CAT 41.
2. Need to stop always thinking in terms of "either/or" and begin using "both/and." The East's theology focuses on making "things" persons or energies (Fr. Weedon aptly pointed out that because grace is uncreated, the Orthodox have the propensity to effectively treat grace as the Holy Spirit...a point emphasized in a podcast of "Faith and Philosophy" - though I cannot remember what the podcast was), relationships, and eschatological goals with a focus on the process of getting there.
3. Begin to look into the fact that we actually do have a tradition that makes use of BOTH Greek and Latin fathers. I swear when I heard who Patriarch Jeremiah II cited against the Lutheran scholars of Tubingen I about laughed....with the exception of Augustine, most were GREEK fathers. Such shows a fundamental thought process of looking primarily to the Greek/Eastern fathers in the Eastern church.
4. Study the issue better and REALLY look at Orthodoxy on their terms, THEN come to the Lutheran Confessions and the Western tradition to see if there is a true contradiction or disagreement.
5. Continue to use Scripture, but also stress patristics as a source of our own authority. The Confessions don't make the statement that we have not deviated from the church catholic because it sounded cool at the time!

Orthodox - 1. Need to realize that post-modernism has demonstrated that no one, including the "traditionless Lutherans" brings no tradition into their reading/interpretation of anything. Our tradition is based on the Lutheran Reformers who were in turn trained as Scholastics and well versed in the Latin (and I'm sure not too shabby in the Greek fathers as well)...thus, we operate with a Western tradition which views most things theologically in terms of objects, deffinite beginnings and systematics.
2. Need to look into the Latin fathers critically and not just accept what you have been taught regarding the unanimity of the church based on Theologoumena. If the west are still Christians, why has the Holy Spirit not worked through them as well? It seems to me like the West has the better grasp of the true nature of the theologoumena, even though we don't always emphasize the Greek fathers (sometimes to our loss, but often just because they don't speak to our heresies and issues per se).
3. Appreciate our having to deal with heresies. Lutherans respect the 7th ecumenical council even though our use of icons is somewhat stagnant. We don't say, "we don't see what all the fuss was about." Please don't do the same to justification and divine monergism, particularly after you look at our theological and historical baggage. The presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V is our version of the "triumph of Orthodoxy."
4. Need to come to grips with the fact that the West deals with theological topics that "you don't like to mention." Fr. Juhl pointed out that Bishop Kalistos Ware in "How are We Saved" says that the Orthodox repudiate Augustinian original guilt (which he means as "imputation of guilt," something that is anti-Scriptural [Ezekiel 18:20, Christ does not answer directly the question about the blind man sinning or his parents sinning being the cause of his malady - John 9:2], the "guilt" is our own but is still dependent on the presence of original sin..or our "inborn corruption" and spiritual death)...yet later Bishop Ware says that to an extent we did have a part in Adam's sin....huh??? Similarly Bishop Ware says that the Orthodox "do not feel at home" with "imputation" nor do you like talking about "substitution." Sorry, but not liking something doesn't give you an excuse to deny the work other theologians and church fathers have done. Scripture is still clear that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (Ezekiel 18:20) and that a substitution is necessary for the forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). In essence, I'm saying not to simply dismiss the Lutheran theological positions because the Greek fathers don't get into much detail with it or don't feel comfortable discussing it....that is not a strong argument at all!
5. The fathers' interpretation of Scripture is still seen as almost irreproachable, and their closeness to the Apostles is almost seen as a trump card, yet if this were such a strong argument, WHY did Irenaeus need to write his whole book explaining why the heretics were wrong...he could have said all that paper and just said, "I heard Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle....you didn't, therefore, you suck and I win." That also might work 200 years after the fact but it gets a little hard to believe 2000 years after the fact, particularly when the blemishless church has its own internal issues (on both sides). Christ and His church may be infallible, but I'm willing to bet that to say the church is one visible ecclesial communion on church today is a bit naive. We have Scripture interpreting Scripture....200 years between Irenaeus and the apostles is a long time for the same words to change meaning (i.e. gay now and gay 50 years ago)....thus you are left to explain why the same criteria of hermeneutics we use to interpret and understand Scripture doesn't seem to be used on the fathers. Thus the church becomes solely the consensus opinion of the fathers....I recall a certain Second Council of Ephesus that acted the same way, before it was recalled.

Both sides need to stop the "pissing match" (yes, one of the pastors said it in the audience...and I was thinking it too), realize this is primarily about "East vs. West" and ask whether or not we are in different communions makes a whole Hell of a lot of difference when we are talking about fathers and doctrine that fundamentally developed prior to the Schism in 1054...thus they were part of the same ecclesial communion. I think if both sides swallowed their pride, pulled the 4x4 beam out of their eyes that reaches the moon, be nice to one another and not get super-pissed when one priest goes from the Missouri Synod to the East (or vice-versa), and MAYBE we can start to act like the spotless bride of Christ.

Bored at Work....Grab a Snickers

2008-03-13T11:23:00.000-07:00

Selectsmart.com "Christian Denominator Selector"
My results from most similar to least.
1. Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
2. Eastern Orthodox Church
3. Evangelical Lutheran Church
4. Roman Catholic Church
5. Church of Christ
6. Episcopal/Anglican Church
7. Methodist/Weslyan Churches
8. International Church of Christ
9. Assemblies of God
10. Free Will Baptist
11. Menonite Bretheren
12. United Pentecostal Church
13. Orthodox Quakerism
14. Presbyterian Church in America/Orthodox Presbyterian Church
15. Reformed Churches
16. Seventh-Day Adventists
17. Southern Baptist
18. Mormonism
19. Presbyterian Church, USA
20. Reformed Baptist
21. Jehovah's Witnesses
22. Liberal Quakerism
23. Unity Church
24. Unitarian Universalism

Why Do I Hang Around Youtube Again?

2008-03-09T21:50:00.000-07:00

UGLY VESTMENT WARS!

Fr. Heath Curtis Describes and Explains the Vestments for the Divine Service

Lenten Hymn: From Depths of Woe

2008-03-09T21:36:00.001-07:00

Many thanks to Fr. Weedon who posted several videos from the Transfiguration Matins service of Concordia Mequon (making use of the LSB Matins liturgy with Russian Orthodox chanting and icons).

This is from the same guy....one of my favorite hymns I've had the pleasure to play with Trinity brass last year.

Alright...I can't resist: The Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian

The Tie-Breaker Was Not Fair!

2008-03-07T14:44:00.001-08:00

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Karl Barth

The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.

Karl Barth

100%

Martin Luther

100%

Anselm

87%

Jürgen Moltmann

67%

John Calvin

67%

Augustine

60%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

60%

Jonathan Edwards

53%

Paul Tillich

33%

Charles Finney

20%

Quae Facta Sunt A Me Omnia Ob Te

2008-03-06T20:27:00.000-08:00

Old Testament: Job 38:1-18
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 12:20-36a
Psalms: Morning - 38
Evening - 126; 102

A gentleman need not know Latin, but he should at least have forgotten it. ~Brander Matthews

I'm happy to say I can sympathize with Brander :-(. The loose Bryan Adam's quote in the title is somewhat a fun poke at classical education. Now don't get me wrong....I'm not bashing it. In fact, I'm going to make the case for classical education....well, okay, that's too broad and it's way to late for me to do that.

At our Student Philosophical Association meeting on Wednesday, the topic was "Should all American students be required to learn Spanish." Some said, "yes," and others were vociferously against it. I had a third idea...require at least one secondary language starting when the child is in early elementary school. Teach grammer more often and earlier, and stay off the cutesy crap that causes their minds to jump from one subject to another with such rapidity that they aren't forced to develop patience. Also, synthesize what they learn in one class by bringing it up in another class. For example, if you teach science, bring math into the mix more often. If you teach history, bring up theology or philosophy or art. If you teach literature, bring up history and political science.

What langauge should they learn? I don't know...I suggested three and for two good reasons:
1. English is the primary language as it is what is spoken in the home...this fact as well as the fact that our laws are in English means...we should just stop fooling ourselves by acting dumb and say English is our official language.
2. Mandarin Chinese - It stands to reason that this will be the next Lingua Franca, and it would behoove us to learn it for that reason, as well as the fact that it uses a vastly different alphabet and rules from Western languages...it would really help our children's brains to develop useful skills.
3. Latin and Ancient Greek - The past Lingua Francae will enable the students to read anything from the past with at least some competence, and when they get to high school, they could decide if they want to continue in those languages, or move on to other Romance languages like French and Spanish, or begin to engage German...or even Russian, making use of some of their Greek skills.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't do math and science either. Our problem is that other nations think (and rightly so) that we're lazy. Two guys who were in the meeting are from foreign countries, and both speak three languages fluently. One guy was from Latvia and spoke Latvian, Russian, and English. The other guy, Fred, whose father was an ambassador, spoke French, English, and Swahili. Yet another guy in the room had a father who was Lebanese and a mother who was Mexican...so he could partially speak Arabic and Spanish on top of English!

Couple this with the fact that our writing ability in schools is a joke, it means we are falling dangerously behind in our ability to use the portion of the brain involved in languages. I have an idea...and I know it sounds crazy, but bring back classical education and stop focusing so much on sports. Sports are important for discipline, friendship, fitness, and physical development, but we focus so much time on it.

Can someone think of a potentially non-demanding schedule for Junior High and High School students that would allow them to have some free time, but would cover:
1. The classical languages
2. Religious education and theology
3. Philosophy and reasoning
4. Mathematics
5. Both the life and physical sciences with fundamental distinction in education
6. Art and drama (including music)
7. Literature and grammer (as separate courses...why high school just had "English" which only did literature I'll never know).
8. Mandatory sport

Such a school I think would be demanding on young kids, but well worth it in the long run, as the more you have to do when you are younger with regards to learning and education, the less hard you'll have to work when you get older.

Connecting to God With All the Senses

2008-03-03T21:34:00.000-08:00

March 3rd - Old Testament: Job 34:10-33
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 11:17-37
Psalms: Morning - 119:73-80
Evening - 121; 6

March 4th - Old Testament: Job 36:1-21
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 11:38-57
Psalms: Morning - 34
Evening - 25; 91

"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." - John 11:25-26 ESV

The title is somewhat ridiculous isn't it? We are connected to God through faith! Alas, such a simple answer, so complicated and wonderful a topic. We are connected through Word and Sacrament, yet what is that Word? The Word is the proclomation of the forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus. So how is this Word transmitted to us? Ah, now there's the interesting part!

Very often in the West we tend to think of the Word simply as the Bible...but alas, while the Sacred Scriptures can convey that grace of forgiveness, this is not necessarily always the case. If one reads the Scriptures with the eye of "what must I do," then you will see only law, and will ultimately be condemned. If you know what to look for, or you happen to read a blatant section of Gospel, then the story is different. We treasure and guard the Scriptures because they are a testimony of salvation through Christ that God has given to the church. Such a blessing is worthy of study, daily reading, and is the source for our dogma and preachment. This Word of forgiveness however has different means that may transmit the message of forgiveness....ways that make use of more than just our ability to read. These are:

1. The preaching of the law and Gospel (aural) - That which the priest proclaims in the service to the congregation based upon the readings of the day or the festival of the day.
2. The music & hymns which worship the Triune God and focus upon the Godman Jesus (aural and vocal).
3. The incense which reminds us of the sweetness of salvation and the promise of our prayers ascending to God - a thanks is due to Fr. Beane, whose story of the dead rat catalyzed this thought somewhat (olfactory).
4. The symbolism of the architecture and geometry of the church - this includes the shape of the traditional sanctuary as a cross with the altar at the head with the dome at the top for the incense to rise to God and return to us in answered prayer (visual and olfactory).
5. The icons and statuary of the church (visual) - these rich and full images can convey the Gospel and point us to those who have gone before us, to even the smallest child as well as remind the oldest Christian what the Gospel is about.....that St. Luther himself used a crucifix and an image of the Theotokos in his daily devotions speaks volumes of this form of transmission of the Word that is sadly lacking in many of our Lutheran churches.
6. Liturgical action and words (visual, physical, responsive, vocal) - Responding to God by praying the Psalms or another action as a church is the congregation's ultimate confession of unity and community. To cross one's self or bow, to genuflect and follow the processional cross, etc. is a way of reminding ourselves that our life in Christ is total and that we are to become living sacrifices to God as we are made into the image and likeness of His Son. The Christian life is one of worship and is therefore not a spectator sport! Making the sign of the cross as is suggested in the Small Catechism (a matter of adiaphora pushed by Luther!)...it's not just for Roman Catholics anymore ;-).
Finally there are the Sacraments: 1. Holy Absolution (aural) - the speaking of the Words, "you are forgiven," with the faith that while the priest is saying these words, Christ is speaking directly to you.
2. Holy Baptism (touch, aural) - Burried with Chist and risen to life! A rite that is done once but a sacrament that lasts and is returned to until the day you join the Church Triumphant!
3. The Holy Eucharist (taste, touch) - "Take eat, this is My body which is given for you....take drink, this is My blood shed for you." You don't get a higher connection to the Gospel than union with Christ Himself!

I point this out here because at times, many Lutherans and Lutheran churches to some extent or another, neglect all of these things. Many times it is because they are too Roman Catholic looking, yet in reality what is being done is that ways of communicating the Gospel are rejected. Now, it is not that these need be at every service, but one should begin to emphasize these in the lives of Christians so that they are surrounded and immersed in the message of Christ....I know I need more than just a ten minute devotion daily to remain in the Word....I can see the crucifix in my room every time I get up from my desk. If I'm reading and my screensaver comes on, I see icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and the saints. If I am driving to school or work, I listen to my ipod which has classes from the Seminary or programs from Issues Etc., WOTMR, and Ancient Faith Radio. The more I see simply a cross or hear someone talk about God, the more I realize how much MORE I need it. In times of boredom or if I don't need to use too much brainpower at work I can silently pray the Jesus Prayer, Lord's Prayer, or Hail Mary and instantly realize that I am a part of God's family in Christ who never leaves me and who draws me closer to Him.

Quick News: What I find utterly amazing is how God works through my fears of public speaking to allow me to talk to many people about Christ. I have shared the Gospel with at least three people at school, two of whom were already Christians, the third an agnostic/atheist. For some reason they are open to it, and I am glad for that. Pray for them.

Secondly, my friend Pat has bought quite a bit of pricey computer, audio, and video equipment with a vision of an online radio and blog ministry (that's what "Average Joes with Bibles" is). We'll basically be an evangelism/doctrinal discussion/apologetics ministry....I'm there as the "Lutheran/tradition guy"....probably to keep the Catholic bashing at acceptable levels :-D.

Also, I meet Fr. Braaten on Monday at University Lutheran in Champaign...I don't know exactly what we'll be talking about....but the Sem. days are coming!...yay.

Certainly....One of the Best Things to Hit Reality

2008-03-01T19:44:00.000-08:00

The guys who did Mystery Science Theatre 3000 have what are called "rifftrax." You pay a couple of bucks (if that) and you can watch your favorite movie and listen to how they make fun of it. McG, Tagge, and I watched the "Maxtrix" this last New Years with the rifftrax on....quite entertaining. Here are some free samples:

X-Men

Transformers

Spiderman

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Jurassic Park

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Sorry I got carried away...but these are GREAT!

Closet Romanists - Attack of the Catholic Lutherans

2008-02-27T21:11:00.000-08:00

Let's face it....I have no life. Because I have no life, I tend to spend my time being a dork. Being a dork, I tend to spend time cruising the internet looking up interesting topics. Today, I spent some time looking up the Society of St. Polycarp and several of its members on google. What I found, to be frank, urined me off. Here is why:

The Society is seen often as a "Romanizing" movement within Lutheranism. I have a theory about that. 1. Those Lutherans who call it Romanizing don't bother turning the mirror of logic back onto themselves and think, "hey, maybe I'm a crypto-Calvinist/crypto-Evangelical!" 2. Reading is not a gift when they analyze the rule of the Society. 3. High Church worship and practices are seen as legalistic because they have too many rules. And my favorite, 4. The Confessions obviously say ___________(fill in the blank) and therefore their rule is wrong in their opinions.

I will analyze each point in turn, after a general comment. Yes, it is true that many members of the society leave and join the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. Yes it is true that we are high church and proud of it. Yes it is true we focus our attention on those who have gone before us in the faith. If you see anything in these last two points that is not Lutheran or a mark of a free Christian, you need to do a bit more meditating on this issue. It is not that cut and dry. Why some leave Lutheranism is beyond me to some extent. To say, however, that they must not think justification is not important is just absurd. Many times they have understood the broader meaning of salvation and communal rconciliation which even we confess, but don't have the "stones" to actually say (or for that matter, act on it). One could also ask the question, "hey, maybe if we didn't have our heads in our respective crevasses, we might have actually been able to understand one another before they left....no, I'm right and they're wrong!" If it sounds like I'm being a little snippy...I am. For too long have I read many people's blatanly ignorant opinions with regard to their brothers' and sisters' actions with narry a thought to analyzing our own little opinions and actions with such severity. Truly we are all Christians....we treat even those in our own Confession as potential heretics!

Thus, my first point begins: 1. The term "closet Romanist" is a loaded term, implying and assuming several things, namely; A. Rome (or the East) is inherently evil. B. Many of Rome's teachings are unbiblical and hence, not to be practiced (true, yet debatable). C. The Papacy is the office of the Antichrist. Several problems with point 1: A. Nonsense, it is inherently Christian even though it has its faults, just like any other denomination, even faults which are quite major (the muddling of justification - leading to Purgatory and Rome's version of invocation, the altered nature of the Ecclesium, the application of Aristotelian logic to areas it doesn't belong, etc.). B. See A...one could (and I have and will) argue that some of Rome's practices are actually good and acceptable (or matters of opinion), but their understanding and confession of them is wrong. The East's understanding and confession is difficult to grasp, but their practices and understandings are quite similar to ours (which is an opinion I know many don't share with me...but it's my opinion and I can defend it, so there :-P). Our problem is that we often use reason with regard to comparing Confessional statements and think if a word doesn't mean the exact same thing, they're heretics...way to pit rather than atually compare two differing ideas and concepts, hence bringing in western reasoning of paired opposites (and we chide the Protestants and Rome for doing the same thing!). With this reasoning, Alexandria OR Antioch would have been the order of the day in the ancient Christological controversies...not an agreement between the two, so there is precedent for actually comparing and synthesizing rather than ripping apart and overlaying. C. The Papacy is indeed an office of the antichrist...though last year on Ash Wednesday (or around that time), I wrote a piece where I slammed those Christians who didn't accept infant baptism (and hence properly understand grace) as antichrists. Going to either extreme never helps....and simply identifying the spirit of the antichrist in their doctrines doesn't mean everything they say is evil or bad...Satan would have no followers if he worked this way (no, I'm not saying other Christians aren't saved, I'm saying that through sin guided by his infernal nastiness, doctrines have differed and thus there is truth muddled with error)!

My point 2: Our rule is clearly posted and referenced, yet complete noobs have mis-read it and misapplied it MANY times over. Even the WELS have misread, or attempted to mislead a questioner with regard to our society (even deigning to put the question under "Romanizing Lutherans," how "Reformed" of them :-D). First and foremost, I do not speak for our society. I speak for myself and myself alone. To be in the society one must accept a quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. Section 7 of our rule simply says that the Virgin Mary is to be recognized as the Ever Virgin Mother of God (it was brought to my attention by a Lutheran vicar that technically Mary is not referred to as Ever Virgin in the German translation which is what Pastors are to accept...I guess we get extra credit points ;-D) and recognize that she prays for the church. It DOES NOT FOLLOW that we advocate that we are to invoke her, and anyone who says this is completely overextending the meaning of the section in our rule. It basically is there to see whether or not you think the church dropped the ball on the Virgin for nearly 1800 years. If your confident that we know better, now, be my guest. I like to think I'm not smarter than the church fathers. Now, while I DO invoke her and the other saints, I have a clear and Confessional (and several other Lutherans do, or at least bandy the idea about) understanding of such an invocation. Again...the society does not endorse my view....but what allows me to have that view will be discussed later in this post. Maybe when we decide to seriously analyze our Romophobia (or Orthophobia) we can actually figure out what is going on with the doctrine in Scripture, tradition, our Confessions, and against denominational lines. IN SHORT - if you have trouble reading our rule properly I will have trouble caring about your response.

My point 3: Depending on if you think the Holy Spirit dropped the ball throughout the history of the church, your opinion will be different here (yes, I am implying that those who advocate against high church liturgy and ecclesiology are denying that fundamental aspect of the faith...those who advocate for low church or a change in church practice are not necessarily in this camp....I have more respect for the latter). We retain the high church view, because again, if you think you're smarter than St. Gregory the Great, St. Basil the Great, etc., show us that you can contribute as much to our practice and tradition and we'll make you St. _____________ the Great! Could these "the Greats" been wrong? Yes, in some things (Fr. Weedon mentioned on his blog that St. Gregory the Great argued against venerating icons...personally I would say he erred there), but wholesale no. Could you be right? Yes...but now the tricky thing is arguing for it and letting the Holy Spirit convict if you are right. To simply throw out liturgy and the church's tradition is basically to say to the church triumphant that what they did and thought was good for them, but we've got contemporary music and 45 minute - 60 sermons now that deal with how to live my best life now or how to have a better sex life in my marriage (how often to you hear the Trinity invoked in these churches btw? You often don't...you hear "God" and "Jesus," but usually only when there's a gospel presentation with an altar call, with the occassional smattering of the "Holy Spirit"), and also to tell the Holy Spirit that organic growth and change are not hip or cool anymore...we want punctuated equilibrium!

And finally, my point 4: Many people know what the Book of Concord says. Really? Why then do I commonly read that it condemns prayers for the dead...when it actually doesn't (Ap. XXIV [XII] p. 96)? Many people think that the church triumphant doesn't pray for the church on earth. Really? VERY WRONG. The problem with this one is that there are discrepencies between how certain Luther and Melancthan are. Luther is somewhat skeptical in the Smalcald Articles (Part II, Article II, p. 26), while Melancthan grants its certainty in the Augsburg Confession (Article XXI). In fact...Luther goes on to say in paragraph 26 that we should not hold fast and feast days for the saints........except we do have feast days for them! What is going on here? Historically speaking, the practice of invoking the saints is quite ancient (a history channel show I saw one night indicated that it existed in Judaism at the time of Christ - if this is true, it would most likey have been a pharisaical practice as they would have been trying to defend the resurrection of the dead against the Saducess) and is present in softcore form in the OT (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), as well as being present in the Shepherd of Hermas and Tobit(with reference to angels being invoked). Luther is CLEARLY DEFINING THE GOSPEL. In his clear deffinition he is showing us what to do when someone says YOU MUST practice adiaphora for your salvation, namely, to take the complete opposite position. ALSO, the doctrine of invocation in the west became extremely heretical when the treasury of merit for the saints was developed to deal with those Christians suffering for the temporal price for their sins in Purgatory...and this is why in the Apology Melancthan jumps into discussing the ATONEMENT and therefore, in that context, 1 Timothy 2:5 is indeed violated. However, for simple prayer (i.e. the older form of invocation), no such atonement context exists....so the use of 1 Timothy 2:5 in discussion as a response is just silly. Of course it could be brought up that we're not sure the saints hear us in Heaven....to which I respond, "yes, Melancthan is trying to argue against the invocation of Rome because of the mingling of the atonement with the practice." Melancthan, as a trained Scholastic would use this reasoning and try to go as counter to his opponents as possible...that is a common philosophical tactic (and who says Lutherans don't use reason ;-)). Also, one could argue that because it doesn't have the promise of Scripture, we cannot be sure of it, hence it does not come from faith, and hence, is a sin....again, see the previous answer. If it is not clear in Scripture and is a "practice," then it falls under Adiaphora....so if you say I can't do it...I'm going to say I can as my Christian duty because it does not conflict with the chief article (Justification) if properly understood....the gate swings both ways.

Another example for point 4: The Lutheran Confessions are against monasticism, since monastics are "works righteous." Well so are Protestants who think their works please God by virtue of them doing them (thus again, confusing grace and the idea that God is pleased with you as a Christian because you are being conformed into the image and likeness of His Son, not because you've done something sanctimonious and cool)....what's your point? In actuality the Confessions defend monasteries when properly understood. Perhaps in our sex-crazed society, we should be advocating a form of monastic life to our young kids, more of whom than not I think you'll find are (to quote Emerging pastor Mark Driscoll) "bangin their girlfriends." A close reading of the Confessions show that it isn't as cut and dry as we like to think it is....in fact, what it really means to even have a quia subscription to them is in question. Here's what I mean: We are to accept that the Confessions are a faithful exposition of the Scriptures....I do. Does this mean though we are to accept the historical assertions with regard to the fathers? Does this mean we are to accept the thinly veiled opinions of the writers? Does this mean I am to be a "Confessional fundamentalist" even though, I Lutherans are not "Scriptural fundamentalists?" Does this mean I have to accept the reasoning for doctrines if understood in the context above (Melancthan grants the saints pray for us on the basis of 2 Maccabees 15:14 which he regards as Scripture, and doesn't mention Revelation!!!)? What is the relation of the 7 Ecumenical Councils to the Book of Concord...and are we bound to them over the Confessions?

To conclude: STOP throwing around the term "Romanizing Lutherans" as if it is necessarily a bad thing (after all, Rome reads the Scriptures and places great emphasis on the Eucharist, albeit with a false understanding...therefore, am I "Romanizing" if I do this in my church? Absurd!). It is a label meant to incite terror in the hearts of people who might actually listen to people like us. Come let us reason together and stop acting as though we're trying to sheep steal from each other...we're in the SAME SYNOD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! We are saying nothing contrary to the Scriptures or the Confessions, and if we are, in love, let us discuss these issues as Christians, not bitter enemies. Save your wrath for Satan, not your brothers and sisters who might disagree with you in Christian freedom. However, to make dogmatic statements about matters which can actually be argued several ways from Scripture, are not central to the chief article, the Trinity, or the Sacraments, and are not fully supportive of your position from the Confessions is dishonest or ignorant, and hence, if you say that in matters of adiaphora I am bound to accept one way or else I'm "not Lutheran," then I believe I will go against your view on the basis of my Christian duty (and with "real Lutheran" precedence).

I know, I've probably ticked off some people....if you got ticked off, you should actually think about why you got ticked off...you may not like WHY you got ticked off on careful analysis. If you want to discuss WHETHER something I have mentioned is NOT adiaphora (invocation of saints, worship - there are Lutherans who hold that worship is not adiaphora, etc.), fine! Let's do it without the barstools in the backs. Let us discuss such matters in Christian love and humility, particularly during this season of Lent which focuses the church's minds on the foundation of our faith....the Passion of Our Lord and our delivery from the bondage of sin and death.

The Real Presence in the Fathers...Dr. White Still Can't Get it

2008-02-27T11:20:00.001-08:00

Festival: St. Alexander, Patriarch of Alexandria (d. 326AD) (from 1731 Lutheran Almanac)
Writing of St. Alexander: Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius
Old Testament: Job 30:16-31
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 9:1-23
Psalms: Morning - 5
Evening - 27; 51

My video responses to Dr. James White on St. Augustine not withstanding, it seems as though he is intent on ignoring what his Roman Catholic opponent William Albrecht is saying with regard to St. Ignatius of Antioch and his view of the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. I am pretty sure I have heard William mention that he is defending the Eucharist (meaning the Real Presence) with regard to the writings of St. Ignatius....and explicitly that he is NOT defending transubstantiation. Dr. White has, however, ignored when William has said this and explicitly mocks William in his "Dividing Line" (found here) by saying something along the lines of, "Ignatius believes as I do, that means he was Roman Catholic and accepted transubstantiation." Of course, such is utter nonsense.

Let us set the record straight. What were the Father's views on the Eucharist? Let us let the late and sainted Jaroslav Pelikan speak on the issue: "Yet it does seem 'express and clear' that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record either declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the REAL PRESENCE (emphasis mine). Fundamental to the doctrine was the liturgical recollection (anamnesis - transliteration from Greek) of Christ. It was, according to Justin Martyr, a 'recollection of [Christ's] being made flesh for the sake of those who believe in him' and of 'the suffering which he underwent' to deliver men from their sins and from the power of evil. But in the act of remembrance the worshipping congregation believed Christ himself to be present among them. That he was also present among them apart from the Eucharist, they affirmed on the basis of such promises as Matthew 18:20, which Clement of Alexandria applied to matrimony, an Matthew 28:20, which Origen cited against Celsus as proof that the presence of God and of Christ was not spatial. Yet the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of his presence in the church. In some early Christian writers that presupposition was expressed in strikingly realisting language. Ignatius called the Eucharist 'the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,' asserting the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist against the Docetists, who regarded his flesh as a phantasm both in the incarnation and in the Eucharist; Ignatius comined the realism of his eucharistic doctrine with a symbolic implication when he equated the 'bread of God' with 'the flesh of Jesus Christ,' but went on to equate 'his blood' with 'incorruptible love (emphasis mine).'" Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Christian Tradition Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), pp. 167-168.

It seems to me that to say that Ignatius was being symbolic in his view of the body and blood of Christ in his letter to the Romans is to miss the point in his letter to the Smyrnaeans where he is QUITE explicit: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (7:1)."

In fact it is interesting that Docetism is the order of the day where this quote comes up. Clearly Dr. White accepts the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Why then would a real physical presence be out of the ordinary? Oh wait...Jesus COULDN'T have possibly meant that the bread was literally His flesh and the wine literally His blood, because He was right there giving it to them. Of course...getting back to my rant against WOTMR on mysticism: if you think that the finite cannot contain the infinite you will ultimately fail to fully appreciate the incarnation, the Sacraments, and salvation in general. Everything becomes purely intellectual...Jesus is only figuratively God....the Sacraments are merely physical ordinances with no mystical tie to God.....Christianity pushes the 3rd use of the law over the Gospel.....did I miss the Gnostic memo here? Who's calling who "docetic?"

Well, Dr. White claimed that Roman Catholics are somewhat docetic for holding doctrines initially espoused by docetists....the one he brought up was the ever virginity of the Virgin Mary. Of course, the fact that early orthodox fathers held to that as well is inconsequential to this discussion...or the fact that most if not all of the Reformation fathers (even Calvin!) accepted it (as well as the title Mother of God - there's that pesky incarnational consistency thing again)....and even interpretations of Ezekiel 44:1-3 indicate that the Virgin had only one child. Of course, there's also the point that Christ gave the care of His mother (type of the church) to the Apostle St. John (type of the Apostolic teachings) which would have been unheard of if she had other children by Joseph....but hey, Jesus must have been a rebel!

All I can say is...thank God for the Eucharist and that taste of Heaven which it brings us!

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." - 1 Cor. 11:23-26 NIV

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" - St. Augustine, Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10.

This Literally Has Nothing to do with Christianity...Only Catianity

2008-02-26T23:32:00.001-08:00

Mysticism and the Emergent Church - Or, What I Did NOT Say Against WOTMR

2008-02-26T12:28:00.001-08:00

Festival of St. Dionysius (martyred ~303AD): First Bishop of Augsburg, Germany

Old Testament: Job 21:1-21

New Testament: The Gospel According to St. John 8:39-59

Psalms: Morning - 34

Evening - 25; 91

"At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely: "In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written 'he who through faith is righteous shall live." There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered Paradise itself through open gates." - Martin Luther

Alright. For the record: Here are some things directed towards WOTMR which I did NOT say with regard to mysticism. I did not give assent to all forms of mysticism and decry all forms of rationalism. Such was not and was never my intention. Let me be, perhaps, more clear. We cannot use our reason to know God, we know God through our faith. To confuse the two is to confuse gnosis and pistis. Too often I hear (or have heard) statements from not just Mr. Todd Friel and WOTMR, but from many Evangelicals who think that there is a certain amount you have to "know" to be saved, or some amount of concret knowledge. Why? If you can learn and are not mentally retarded, an infant, or elderly and infirm, you should learn about God because that is one of the things your brain was designed for. However, the problem comes into play with regard to this confusion of pistis and gnosis in Evangelical circles. We are to have faith like a child and as such, children are to grow, but does this mean that you are saved by spiritual puberty???

Here is an example of what I mean: Billy and Jean have a child. The child lives till the age of 2 when suddenly he dies of a genetic malady. You as a pastor tell the parents that the child is in Heaven, because he was not yet at the "age of accountability"(apparently God's justice and the child's original sin are inconsequential). Being a solid Sola Scriptura Bible-believing church, your members are keen to ask you great questions...Billy asks you where in the Bible the "age of accountability" is. What do you tell him? It of course, is not in the Bible (at least not explicitly), and thus is a matter of tradition, particularly western rationalism. You have no way of assuring Billy and Jean their child is in Heaven because you as a solid Bible-believing church do not practice infant baptism because it is not clear in Scripture. ISSUES FOR EVANGELICALS: Why did you trust the "age of accountability" tradition and not the "infant baptism" tradition?

Another example: Your high school youth group is learning about the Bible and one of your bright students asks why you don't take the Words of Institution literally. Being a solid Sola Scriptura Bible-believing church, you have no room for pesky grammatical nonsense in God's Word that contradicts plain reason, so you explain, in a manner that would make John Locke proud, that the "finite cannot contain the infinite." ISSUES FOR EVANGELICALS: Is John Calvin the 13th Apostle? How does his view of the incarnation seem to match in idea (though not necessarily in wording) the doctrines of the heresiarch Nestorius? Why did the church condemn his teachings in 431AD? Are you basically limiting God's omnipotence to enter into His creation?

Another example: Francine has had an abortion, and has been devastated by the experience. She comes to you, the pastor, with tears in her eyes and sorrow in her heart. She asks how she can be sure God has forgiven her. Being a solid Sola Scriptura Bible-believing REFORMED church, you have no guarantee for her forgiveness, because you cannot be sure she is in the elect (in fact, her teen pregnancy would be a sign of sin, and a shunnin' would be in order). Because of her sinful actions, you are almost certain that she is not in the elect, and therefore you preach to her, but wonder if such would do any good as she has attended your church all of her young life. ISSUES FOR EVANGELICALS: How can you wish her the peace of Christ? How are the actions of a merciful God apparent if an act of extreme sin indicates that someone who has been under the continual influence of the Gospel is not actually saved by your theology? How does this square with how Christ treats those who have sorrow for their sin, regardless of whether they know the truth or not? Is your attitude of justice with little compassion towards those who sin a possible reason she got the abortion in the first place (don't laugh this last one off, I think you'll find it occurs in these situations).

All three of these examples demonstrate a fundamental point in my last post. All three deal with ways Christians mystically interact with God by faith. The first deals with Holy Baptism, the second with Holy Communion, and the third with Holy Absolution. Such actions are mystical rites that are done by the whole church in communion with one another. Simultaneously, there are other, appropriate mystical and ascetical practices Christians can and should do. What do I mean by this? If mysticism is the interaction with that which is ultimately mystery, than anything involving interaction with God is mysticism. Prayer is itself mystical....why? I know a Christian's prayer is answered by God and that He hears it....why? The Holy Spirit intercedes for me....why? "He just does." That "He just does" is itself a silent assertion of a mystery (in other words, you aren't going to figure it out with your gray matter) which we interact with as Christians...and is hence, "mysticism." An ascetic practice which has become quite big in the Evangelical churches is fasting practices. Fasting though is something that the "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" churches do...hence they are bad because they are works righteousness. If that is your attitude, such shows your utter inability to actually use the reason you would esteem so highly, as Christ Himself says that it is not if you fast but WHEN you fast (Matthew 6:16-17)

The fact is that for many Evangelicals, the quote I used from the "Berean Call" in my last post emphasizes a fundamental point. God is transcendant (true) and totally "separate from His finite creation" (there are those interesting words "separate" and "finite" again), which is only a

half-truth. In actuality God is transcendant and separate with regard to His essence...but He shares His energy with His finite creation in the Godman Jesus Christ. This same Christ we are connected to by faith and whose blood we find the forgiveness of sins in. To view this any differently is to see God as a judge in eternity deciding who He will have mercy on and who He will consign to Hell....since we have no free will in spiritual matters before conversion, your lot in eternity is a crapshoot with the majority of mankind burning in Hell for eternity all because God decided to be merciful to only a few...so much for a loving God whose glory is shown in salvation! In all, such a view is similar to Zeus who has human passions and foibles, yet who is random in who he favors. If you're a Hercules...you're set...if your a Promethius, watch out!

Such views of God as an angry judge are what drove St. Martin Luther to desperation amidst the works righteousness of the Middle Ages which saw God as completely unmerciful....even Jesus Christ was an awful judge with no mercy...to get to Him you had to go through the Virgin who had to appease her angry son. Such a view of both God and the Virgin are appalling when you stop and think about it. Yet without the Virgin's role in prayer in Evangelicalism (who say they honor her yet I've seen Judas get more mention)....you still have the view of God as an angry judge who is wrathful towards sin and who shows mercy on those who either are in the elect or who please Him by their actions (depending on which heretical view you go with). What, are Protestants afraid that if we focus on God's love first and His wrath towards sin second that people will go around being hippies? I'd rather have someone who is confident in God's love as revealed at the cross than I would with a return to the superstitious Medieval theology of God's tempertantrum and unmerciful nature.

Similarly though...what I said was not a defense of the Emergent Church. The Emergents pursue mysticism with little or no insight into the nature or theology of the mysticism they

embrace. They use the eastern liturgy...but do they acknowledge the Real Presence or a clergy?

If not, then they're being illogical and are only doing it to emotionally "feel" God...not mystically

or "sacramentally" feel or feed on God. They use lectio divina, but do they know the ultimate meaning of the text in the reference to Christ, or is it still about "what God is telling me?"

It somewhat surprises me that Christian universalism is not rampant within Emergent circles...though I could be wrong about this. The problem with them is two-fold: 1. They lack a clear confession of doctrine within the historic framework of the church. and 2. They are political or ideological and they bring this to Christianity which they thus change so that suddenly Christ has absolutely no justice with regard to sin...but He'll punish those hateful Republicans between bong puffs.

Both extremes of Christianity are bad...if I had to take my pick, I'd be an atheist! On the one hand Protestantism generally pushes for fundamentalism...a view of Scripture as the literal Word of God (funny, I thought Jesus was the Word of God...should I worship my Bible??) and thus place scripture on a pedestal even the Reformers weren't willing to give it....that of being above God. Of course a general background in the history of the canon and our tranlsations somewhat shoots down the idea of fundamentalism...but hey, it's all they have since they reject the efficacy of the sacraments! For fundamentalists Sola Scriptura is the sole source and norm for doctrine (with reason thrown in there to, though not mentioned explicitly) and anathema to all tradition, because tradition is Roman Catholic, and that means funny hats, and hence, evil (come on, the Pope wears a hat INDOORS!). On the other hand you have the Emergents who are the blind trying to drive the racecar during the Indie 500...devoid of direction or goal, they wander aimlessly, using jargon from philosophy or politics that sounds snazzy. They'll use rhetoric while the Evangelical Protestants use logic....neither, when taken to their extremes are good for Christians who are supposed to live with paradoxes (i.e. God is three in one, Jesus is true God and true man, etc.).

Way of the Master vs. Saint Athanasius the Great on Mysticism

2008-02-21T21:58:00.000-08:00

Old Testament: Job 17:1-16
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 7:14-31
Psalms: Morning - 22
Evening - 107; 130

Link to the Show: February 20th, 2008 Hour 1

I was flabbergasted by this broadcast! There are times when WOTM gets things right and other times......BUZZZZZ. Such was the case this time around. Guest host David Wheaton was discussing the "ancient/future movement in the church." Basically within the hour, he takes non-stop slams at ANYTHING mystical....for those of you who might have issues with St. Ignatius of Loyola or Meister Eckart, don't feel left out! If you use a mystical liturgy (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc.), use prayer labrynths, Lectio Divina, Centering Prayers, "Ancient images," the Jesus Prayer, etc....you are unbiblical and wrong. Here's why! Many in Evangelicalism today are getting fed up with the shallowness of it all (it took them THAT long eh?) with regard to not doctrine so much, but practice. People my age want to actually experience "genuine" Christianity that goes beyond doctrinal statements and dry Bible studies and focus on prayer, service to others, and deeper more spiritual connections to Christ. Rather than talk about how they can do that...apparently the order of the day was to take another swipe at "Early Church Fathers" (I'm not kidding, Wheaton put quotes around them MANY times), Roman Catholicism, and "Eastern mysicism." In fact even St. Augustine was treated as only "he might have some good things to say."

These Christians want to return to the practices of the early church (100-~600AD [why Ignatian exercises got into Wheaton's hit-list escapes me as he is MUCH later than 600AD])...but Wheaton has one better...."return to the Bible!" Of course it's that simple...after all, most sermons are nothing more than what a text means in its context (and Jesus is where?), as are Bible study and apologetic curricula. No, I think that it isn't the Bible that's missing...it's the "authentic" (quite a good word I'd say) concept of communion with God. Of course, to be ENTIRELY consistent, Wheaton would also have to give up doctrinal positions and statements of the early church councils. If he's willing to give up the term "Holy Trinity" and "Holy Incarnation," then I at least would think he's being consistent. Of course what this really shows is that when you divorce the Scriptures from their historic reading, you end up lacking apostolic teaching authority. After all, St. Polycarp (celebrated tomorrow) of Smyrna wasn't "inspired by God to write a book of the Bible"...no, but he did know an apostle and was taught by him...so I think that gives him some credibility...WAY more than we do today being separated by 2000 years from the events in the Bible. I think Evangelicals are getting tired of an ephemeral spirituality that separates Christ from daily life in a real way that He Himself has promised us.

This also shows that individuals who lead churches or who do theology with that understanding of Scripture and history show that they haven't figured out that words can change meaning. It isn't JUST the context of the text or a minor historical fact that can put it all together in meaning, when YOU are reading it and what background YOU have will influence how YOU read it. If it were all self-explanatory, the best trained scholars wouldn't be disagreeing over major points of doctrine. Words like, "symbol" which have changed in meaning since the time of Christ are a good example of such, as they are commonly read by Evangelicals with an Enlightenment mindset, not an ancient Jewish one!

Indubitably though, the TRUE weakness of (Protestant, not Catholic) Evangelicalism comes in THIS quote from Wheaton who quotes Tom McMahon of the "Berean Call": "Catholic mysticism is thoroughly subjective and experiential...like its parent, Eastern mysticism...it claims that God can neither be known nor understood, through human reason, but only experienced subjectively through various techniques. It is the antithesis of what the Bible teaches in Isaiah 1:18, "Come now and let us reason together," saith the Lord.' Furthermore, the goal of mysticism is union with God, the merging of one's soul unto God. This is an impossibility...that reveals mysticism's pantheistic and panentheistic roots: that God is everything and is in everything. No, God is infinite and transcendant; absolutely separate from His finite creation."

So....God is absolutely separate from His creation. Who is Jesus Christ then? He is the Word of God MADE FLESH. God becomes our brother in the incarnation! That's EXACTLY why when we say the Nicene Creed, it has been customary to bow at the statement: "Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and was made man." We mystically partake of Him through faith! We mystically partake of Him when we eat His flesh and drink His blood in the Eucharist! We are reminded of when we were buried with Him in Baptism! To deny mysticism as completely as has been done is an affront to the root of Christianity, and in love we must correct our brothers, pointing out the importance of the incarnation with regard to our salvation...and hence, the writings of the church fathers, not as infallible men, but as men who preserved and died for the faith delivered from the Apostles.

Since the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was ardently defended by St. Athanasius, who also defended the mystical practices of the dessert hermits such as St. Anthony of the Desert...perhaps we should ask the question, "What Would Athanasius Do?" We don't give up doctrine by taking up mysticism...it is an expression of that truly and foundational doctrine of Christianity...that God became man and died for our sins so that we might live forever! And of course...mysticism is "works righteousness to earn our salvation" to quote Wheaton....what utter NONSENSE!

Biblical verses on mysticism: "I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." - 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 NIV

"Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." - 2 Peter 1:4 NIV..if "participate in the divine nature" isn't a mystical union with God...I don't know WHAT is.

"For he "has put everything under his feet."Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." - 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 NIV

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." - John 15:5

My Response to Dr. James White Continued

2008-02-18T23:08:00.000-08:00

My Response to Dr. James White on You Tube

2008-02-18T21:09:00.000-08:00

Born to Hell....Called in Christ

2008-02-18T20:13:00.000-08:00

Old Testament: Job 13:13-28
New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. John 6:22-40
Psalms: Morning - 119:73-80
Evening - 121; 6

This entry is not made to be a treatise on Predestination and Free Will. This is simply to put an idea out into the public sphere for discussion. As I know there are Lutherans, Calvinists, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic who may perchance happen to read this blog, this could be a good place to throw around commentary on my idea (or perhaps understanding).

First of all...because of some debate which eventually involved Dr. James White on You Tube (it was very brief...I will post my responses to him here soon), I have become increasingly interested in the discussion of how the change John Calvin did to the person of Christ (denying the Communicatio Idiomatum - specifically that the divine nature of Christ can communicate divine attributes to the human nature of Christ) and how this affects both the sacraments and the paradox between predestination and free will.

My understanding thus far is that God does indeed have just wrath towards the sin of mankind, yet He also loves us because we are creations in His image and we were supposed to be His children. The Father sends Christ, who calls ALL men to repentence and salvation through His incarnation, perfect life, death, and resurrection. Both send the Spirit who makes the call and atonement of Christ effectual in those whom He calls. God calls through means (preaching of the Gospel, Absolution, Baptism, and the Eucharist) and in this manner He "elects" those who are given these means. Those who are not brought to faith do not do so, not because God genuinely desires that they be saved, but because He does not force them to love Him. The salvation of the person who faith is made in does not choose Christ (though I know that McG has brought up that St. Gregory of Nyssa mentions in a catechetical writing that our rebirth in Christ is the choice we DO get, if McG or Fr. Weedon if he is familiar with it [or anyone else for that matter] could elucidate and provide their thoughts, it would be helpful).

Mainly...my point is this: God earnestly desires all to be saved. God earnestly gives grace to all so that all may come to Christ who are called by the Spirit through the means of grace. Those who are saved are saved purely out of God's grace (including the psychological experience of "choice-making" we experience), while those who are condemned are condemned because they rejected the call/election. This involves what the Orthodox Study Bible calls a paradox of God's sovereignty with man's will (Romans 9:19-21f). Once we become Christians, our will becomes free because in the person of Christ...the human nature is total including the flesh, soul, and will....following the Cappadocian Fathers ("what is not assumed is not redeemed").

Alright...I just want to toss that out there for some thoughts....from a Lutheran standpoint are there any improvements with how I could say it? From a Calvinist perspective...am I missing something that Calvin might actually teach concerning the nature of the atonement or the person and work of Christ? From the Orthodox/Roman Catholic perspective....comments?

Because Lutheran Was Apparently NOT an Option

2008-01-18T22:34:00.001-08:00

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Roman Catholic

You are Roman Catholic. Church tradition and ecclesial authority are hugely important, and the most important part of worship for you is mass. As the Mother of God, Mary is important in your theology, and as the communion of saints includes the living and the dead, you can also ask the saints to intercede for you.

Roman Catholic

86%

Neo orthodox

79%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

79%

Fundamentalist

71%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

43%

Reformed Evangelical

36%

Emergent/Postmodern

36%

Classical Liberal

29%

Modern Liberal

14%

My High School Students at Church Have WAAAAAY Too Much Free Time

2008-01-15T22:14:00.001-08:00

"To Those Who Are Elect...According ot the Foreknowledge of God the Father..."

2008-01-14T12:06:00.000-08:00

I thought I had predestination figured out, at least as was humanly possible. It wasn't until I spoke with my Orthodox friend who had issues with how we as Lutherans speak of predestination until I noticed a word that, to the best of my knowledge, Luther skips over in his Lectures on the Catholic Epistles. It is also glossed over and skimped on in exegetical explanation that I have seen very few people mention it.

McG (the Orthodox friend who used to be LCMS) said that the Orthodox concept of predestination is that God predestined in eternity those who would be elect on the basis of foreknowledge of perseverance in faith until the end. I was shocked...for I thought that election was based upon grace and done without foreknowledge....until I was reading both St. Peter and St. Paul on the subject.

St. Paul says in Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

St. Peter says in 1 Peter 1:1-2, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:"

In both passages election is not treated as some divine decree in eternity by a Sovereign God who wants all to be saved, but only elects to save a few. To me that still made our view of God the Calvinist view of God, but without simply saying Limited Atonement and Double Predestination......simply to be nicer.

But these passages brought about several questions: God's election is based upon foreknowledge of individuals (at the least, something about them) as the passages clearly say. Therefore, what is being or why are some foreknown within the context of predestination? The Formula of Concord on this subject simply says that God elects to salvation, that both foreknowledge and predestination are "separate," and that God's foreknowledge is over the lost and the saved.....fair enough, but that doesn't answer my question.

Could the Orthodox position actually be accurate? I have been reading (trying) a paper by Robert Preus on the view of election by Lutheran dogmaticians during the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy, and I must admit I still don't see what our Synod's view on this is. Is it accurate to say that God's election is based upon foreknowledge of perseverance (hence, non-rejection) of the Gospel by man? This still puts the blame of damnation on man and the glory of salvation on God.

I would greatly like some help on this matter as it is bugging me quite a bit. Is God detached from those whom He predestines to salvation as our usually worded answer seems to suggest? Or is God truly a God who elects for Christ's sake and is consistent with His ultimate will in all of man's salvation?

Seminary is a Go!

2008-01-10T22:20:00.000-08:00

I was just approved for Ft. Wayne entrance...I'm looking forward to it.

Way of the Huh? - NYG 2007 Visited by Surveys!

2008-01-10T22:03:00.001-08:00

For Friday January 11th,
FRIDAY OF THE OCTAVE OF EPIPHANY:
Festival of St. Hygenius - Martyr (from http://www.lexorandi.org/)
Old Testament - Ezekiel 33:1-20
New Testament - Romans 3:1-18
Psalms - Morning: 51
Evening: 142; 65

I just learned this by scanning the archives at http://www.wayofthemasterradio.org/! Apparently at the 2007 NYG in Orlando, FL which my church attended in force (and yes, they trusted me as an adult...gulp!), there were surveys asked of the youth. For a conservative Lutheran synod...both Todd Friel AND myself were shocked! The whole event is right after the news on hour 2 for January 8th (http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2008/01/10/january-10-2008-hour-2/) for those who wish to hear it.

Apparently only ~39% of the youth could finish the doxology, "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow," which Todd thought is somewhat a surprise since we're so good with liturgy. It wasn't until I realized that it was the synodically approved NYG....so it's not too surprising that most of the kids were unfamiliar with liturgy...precious few of our churches even teach what it means anymore.

The real kicker is that only about 68.5% of the kids thought homosexuality was always wrong....what's going on with that other 31.5%????!!!! This isn't asking the kids to explain the term "hypostatic union," it's simply asking them to say homosexuality is always wrong! This makes me weep inside!

Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth, Peace; Good Will Among Men!

2007-12-28T15:23:00.000-08:00

The Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord (Christ Mass):

Old Testament: Isaiah 49:1-18

New Testament: The Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 1:1-17

Psalms: Morning - 2

Evening - 98; 96

The Feast of St. Stephen (Christmas II-Dec. 26):

Old Testament - Isaiah 49:22-26, 50:4-51:8, 12-16

New Testament - The Gospel According to St. Matthew 1:18-25

Festival Reading - The Acts of the Apostles 6:5-7:60

Psalms: Morning - 116

Evening - 119:1-24; 27

The Festival of St. John the Apostle (Christmas III-Dec. 27):

Old Testament - Isaiah 51:17-52:12

New Testament - The Gospel According to St. Matthew 2:1-12

Festival Reading - 1 John 1

Psalms: Morning - 34

Evening - 19; 121

Feast of the Holy Innocents (Christmas IV - Dec. 28):

Old Testament - Isaiah 52:13-54:10

New Testament/Festival Reading - The Gospel According to St. Matthew 2:13-23

Psalms: Morning - 2

Evening - 110; 111

Shocking isn't it? I mean, Christmas is a season of twelve days, and yet it seems right off the bat we remember more people than just Jesus. Shouldn't He be the focus of our attention during this season? Technically, He should be our focus in all seasons. The question is not whether we are looking at Jesus or the Apostle whom He loved...the question for the Christian is, "are we looking at our brothers and sisters and seeing Christ in them?"

Such a question immediately fills us with dread. If we are supposed to be looking for the Holy Son of the Father in our brothers and sisters, that means they should be looking for Christ in us! Now I feel extreme remorse and shame for cutting off the other driver in traffic, or complaining about work! I have failed Jesus! But listen carefully to this fact: you have, but He hasn't. The best thing to remember this season when looking at these martyrs is not that they were excellent models of Christ of their own accord...they weren't. They all were sinners before Christ took them and molded them after His image, repairing the damage the Fall caused them.

Whenever the Scriptures give a commandment, it always seems so hard for us to look at it and follow it. Our sinful nature, the Old Man in us wants desperately to fulfill the Law on our own. It is sin that says, "I can do it!" We then try harder, and fail just the same. It isn't until our sinful self is destroyed by God's grace that we surrender and are broken and rebuilt up. Through faith, God declares us righteous for Christ's sake, but Christ resides in us too. Too often we forget that God hasn't just declared us righteous...He also lives inside of those who are clothed with righteousness, working out His plan for us.

During this season, we see in these martyrs not themselves dying for the faith, but God driving them home in faith. Without Jesus, St. John would be just another fisherman....but with Jesus, he became a Holy Apostle! He had visions, was protected from unnatural death, and taught other Christians about Our Lord! On their own, the Holy Innocents would be just some other Jewish boys, most not likely to be remembered by anyone 100 years after their death. With Christ, they are in glory in Heaven and are remembered by the church universal almost 2000 years after their deaths!

So remember this season, when you fail to fulfill the law, maybe it's because you are trying too hard...for no sinner is made righteous by following the law. Maybe you need to surrender to God's will and humble yourself and worship something as small as the Christ-child...God made flesh. Humble yourself to recognize in innocence and weakness the Immortal God who became a simple child to simple parents and who would one day suffer torture and crucifixion all for the sins of every man, woman, and child who ever lived. God humbled himself to die! Can we then this season and beyond humble ourselves and recognize God in our brothers and sisters by their acts of love, and not hold their sins against them.

I find it interesting how some modern theologians try to put the focus on us and not God. In his movie "Dust," Rob Bell said that it wasn't so important that you believe in God, but that you realize that He believes in you! What tripe! If God believed in us He would not have come down from Heaven and tell us that we must be reborn of water and the Word?! It is because God knows that we have no hope to come to Him alone that He dips down and picks us up and takes us up to Him.

What all the martyrs had is what we must have by God's grace alone...humility to realize that we can't do it alone...we need the help of Christ. As St. Athanasius said, "God became man, so that man may become god." Let us humble ourselves so Christ can make us into His image and let His light shine through us to those who know Him not!

"The Light Eternal, breaking through, Made the world to gleam anew; His beams have pierced the core of night, He makes us children of the light. Alleluia!" - We Praise You, Jesus, at Your Birth (LSB 382:4)

With All the Technology at Trinity's Disposal....

2007-12-06T23:11:00.000-08:00

....You'd think they could make more than one video! :-(

I happen to think our church is gorgeous (though it could use some more visual things...but that's me :-D).

The First Semester Comes to a Close

2007-12-06T22:57:00.000-08:00

Classes this semester: 1. Introduction to Philosophy. - Mr. Irwin
2. Comparative Religions - Dr. Pearce

Classes next semester: 1. Survey of Film - ?
2. Logic - Mr. Irwin
3. Ethics - Dr. Pearce
4. Philosophy of Religion - Dr. Weber

I.C.C. has a philosophy of religion class but not philosophy of science or introduction to Christianity???? both are fairly low to middle philosophy/religious studies courses....so I'm surprised.

What's done: 1. The rough draft of my research paper in Comparative Religions.
2. The application forms for the Ft. Wayne seminary.
3. Classes for this semester.

What's not: 1. The final draft of the research paper.
2. Ordering my GRE scores, ICC transcript, Bradley transcript, and signed background check.
3. First meeting with the young ragamuffin who I'm a faith mentor to.

I think I can handle this :-). Oh, btw. Does anyone know (and I know this is a very select few people) if Dr. Voelz's class on basic Greek on i-tunes U is similar to the introductory courses at Ft. Wayne? He seems to treat the language as if no one else teaches it the same. So far though, I like how he does it...particularly his 3-fold division of verbs. It makes the connecting vowel easy to remember and keep separate from the endings, which once they are separated from the C.V. seem similar in forms to Latin......which I need to review :-/. Just thought I'd ask :-).

God bless you this Advent season.

St. Ambrose of Milan

2007-12-06T22:25:00.000-08:00

Old Testament: Isaiah 24:1-13
New Testament: 1 John 1:1-2:14
Psalms: Morning - 102
Evening - 130; 16

"It is not the ambassador, it is not the messenger, but the Lord Himself that saveth His people. The Lord remaineth alone, for no man can be partner with God in forgiving sins; this office belongs solely to Christ, who taketh away the sins of the world." - St. Ambrose

O Blessed Light, O Trinity (LSB 890) Verse 3:
"All glory be to God above
And to the Son, the Prince of love,
And to the Spirit, One in Three!
We praise You, blessed Trinity. - Text by St. Ambrose

A detailed account of the life and works of the saint can be found here. God gave to him the gift of writing and preaching. Most people in the West know him because he also had a tremendous impact in the life of St. Augustine of Hippo, who through God's grace became a Catholic rather than a Manichaean and became one of the greatest of the Western theologians and fathers of the church. Aside from the hymn quoted above, he also wrote the text for "Saviour of the Nations, Come."

Collect: O God, who graciously gave Your servant Ambrose eloquence to proclaim Your righteousness and fearlessness to bear reproach for the honor of Your Name, mercifully grant to all pastors and overseers such excellence in preaching and faithfulness in ministering Your Word that Your people may be partakers with them of the glory that shall be revealed; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. - Taken from Aardvark Alley :-).

Orthodox Apolyptikion: The truth of things hath revealed thee to thy flock as a rule of faith, an icon of meekness, and a teacher of temperance; for this cause, thou hast achieved the heights by humility, riches by poverty. O Father and Hierarch Ambrose, intercede with Christ God that our souls be saved.

This Should Settle Who You Vote For......NOT!

2007-11-25T21:05:00.001-08:00

If This Guy Were Lutheran, This Problem Would Have Been Avoided

2007-11-24T17:46:00.000-08:00

Talking Cats....Awwww

2007-11-18T21:54:00.000-08:00

Theology....It Really is All That and a Bag of Chips

2007-11-14T19:48:00.000-08:00

Old Testament Reading: Jeremiah 29:1-19
New Testament Reading: The Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 26:36-56
Bonus New Testament Reading: The Revelation to St. John the Apostle 14:1-20
Psalms: Morning - 15
Evening - 48; 4

Really, theology is all that and a bag of chips. Don't believe me? Well, how can I put this? You spend your time thinking and meditating about the Creator of the Universe, the Savior of mankind, and the glue of the church. I think that's pretty dang "bagofchipallicious!"

Seriously though, an update. I haven't had time to think of anything theological for this blog. Instead I've been putting my efforts into reading and preparing for a Comparative Religions paper. More on that as the day for its being due draws near. The professor for that class has a habit of going off on historic Christianity...usually for historical or theological innaccuracies that he just doesn't know any better. However, we are developing a mutual respect for one another...usually because when I respecfully and tacitly correct him, he has a tendency to accept it, and when we debated the omnigod concept in class from Plato with regard to the problem of evil...he didn't really listen to me too carefully. That is however, becauses he jumped around between philosophy and religion as it suited him.

Here is the setup for the discussion. From a PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL viewpoint:
1. God exists.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God is omnibenevolent.
5. Evil exists.
In order to logically square one of these, according to philosophy, an adequate response would be to get rid of one of the five options. When I said I would get rid of 4 because I have no evidence to think God actually cares for those on earth from a purely philsophical point of view...he said effectively how I can then worship such a God. To which I responded that faith in a God and belief in a God's existence are two different questions....and again, from a purely PHILOSOPHICAL viewpoint....I have no reason to accept 4.

Isn't that the crux of the matter though? Isn't that why our conscience condemns us when we sin? According to all reason and logic...God could have just ignored us or justly punished us. Instead, He did what our logic says is faulty...and He became man and suffered for us to be free and with Him in eternity.

Philosophy can't answer that or provide that without God telling us in His Word.....anyway, just a side-note.

Really....that's it for right now...I'm tired and I have to work and go to class in the morning. Night.

Reformation Day and All Saints Day.....A Brief Comment

2007-11-01T20:57:00.000-07:00

Old Testament Reading: Deuteronomy 34:1-12
New Testament Reading: The Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 21:1-22
All Saints Reading: The Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew 5:1-12
Psalms: Morning - 97
Evening - 16; 62

"Lord God, who after long ages of darkness delivered the Church from the bondage of error, we thank You for those faithful witnesses through whom You restored the Gospel of Christ to men, and we praise You that this blessed light has been preserved for us to this present age. We thank You for making known among us the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, our only Mediator. Defend your Church against all her foes. Seek and save the lost and all who have gone astray. Prserve among us the pure Word and the holy Sacraments; turn our hearts from false and pernicious doctrine. Direct and strengthen us by Your Holy Spirit that we may abide in the confession of Your Word all the days of our lives and in the end, by Your grace, obtain everlasting life. This I pray in the name of God the Father, the Son (+), and the Holy Spirit. Amen." - Reformation Festival, Lutheran Book of Prayer.

"The glorious company of the apostles praise Thee. The goodly fellowship of the prophets praise Thee. The white-robed army of martyrs praise Thee. All Thy saints and elect with one voice do acknowledge Thee. O Blessed Trinity, one God!" - Taken from the Nov. 1 Antiphon at Lauds, from the Te Deum (http://www.wf-f.org/AllSaints.html)

Today the church celebrates the Festival of All Saints. This is a day when we remember all those saints in the church, named on other days or not. It is fitting today on two counts. On the first, the day follows the Reformation Day Festival, a day when we remember the work of St. Martin Luther and his message of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, for the sake of Christ alone. It is also fitting, because today, one of our older pastors fell asleep and entered the church triumphant. Therefore it is fitting to remember St. William Lange, who was minister to the EMH members at Trinity.

Because of the work of God through St. Luther, we realize that all Christians are saints by the sole virtue of the blood and righteousness of the Word made flesh. Together with all the saints, you should take time today to thank God for the gift of His Son, who brought you into the family of all believers and blessed you, regardless of your failings and sin.

Even though today is All Saints Day, we are want to say nothing else but Soli Deo Gloria!

St. Luke, Evangelist

2007-10-18T13:12:00.000-07:00

OLD TESTAMENT: Deuteronomy 17:1-20
NEW TESTAMENT: The Gospel According to St. Matthew 14:1-21
PSALMS: Morning - 97
Evening - 16; 62

A Gentile rather than a Jew, St. Luke was trained as a physician and after he became a Christian wrote the Gospel according to St. Luke and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles. He also accompanied St. Paul on several of his missionary journeys around the Meditteranean. His Gospel is the only one not written in cycles and is instead a purely historical account. He most likely interviewed many people associated directly with Christ such as the other disciples who were still alive and the Theotokos as well. It is for this reason that his gospel contains the most information of the Blessed Virgin in the early life of Christ. His second work focuses on the early Christian church from its birth at Pentecost until St. Paul preaches in Rome.

It is tradition that he died in his mid eighties. His symbol is the ox or calf, which signifies the priestly aspect of Christ. It is in his Gospel where all of Scripture is told to make sense: "'How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? ' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself."-Luke 24:25-27.

Philosophy Discussions at I.C.C. and Some Observations of Sin

2007-09-27T19:21:00.000-07:00

Scripture: Old Testament - Malachi 3:6-4:6

New Testament - Matthew 4:12-25

Psalms: Morning - 116

Evening - 26; 130

Festival: Sts. Cosmos and Damian - martyrs

Today is philosophy day for me. I have Comparative Religions from 11am to 1pm, at 2:30-4pm I have a philosophy discussion group I get extra-credit for attending, and from 6-9pm I'm at Introduction to Philosophy.

Not to talk bad about my comparative religions professor...but there are some things about Christianity he needs to brush up on. Aside from being the butt of innumerable jokes he constantly compares it to the more "inclusive" eastern religions, lauding their ultimate ability to adapt to any new religion that comes in. He even quoted a Hindu philosopher who said that we are all climbing the mountains, and if you run around the base telling others not to climb that path, you aren't climbing your path. This rancor towards Christian ethics shined through when he explained the concept that women are treated as property, and the reason virginity is so prized (which he pointed out conservatives laud) is that it made the girl more valuable for selling. He then went on to say something like, "if you want to build your sexual mores on that, be my guest." Keep this openness about sex and eastern religions in mind, because it comes full circle later on.

For starters, here are some problems with his thesis. Women are seen as even worse in Hinduism (the religion we talked about today). In fact, if you're a woman, you'll be reincarnated again...you did something bad in your previous life that was not in line with your Dharma. Looking at the Bible, we see Jacob getting irate at Laban for giving him Leah. This occurred not because Jacob looked at Rachel as property but he wanted her for his wife because he LOVED her. Women have been treated like second class citizens the world over, and to pin the blame on one religion when a contrary scenario is played out in that religions scripture is dishonest. Even Christianity, which he will paint as patriarchal I'm sure, honors the Theotokos above the rest of mankind. She is the only being to bear God in the flesh and she is the mother of Christians. Yeah, we hate women in Christianity. Even comparing salvation in Christianity shows we are more favorable to women, as women in Christianity can be saved while in Hinduism they must be reborn.

His other problems with Christianity are that it is arrogant to him that we will live forever in Heaven as individuals with our memories, kicking back as the universe experiences heat death. Well that's just ignorance of basic Christian teachings. Christ's return is not just a "good idea," it is fundamental to the resurrection of the dead! We will be not only with Christ, but with all the saints in perfect communion with the Triune God! Of course, we haven't gotten to Christianity yet, but I can already see this as an opportunity to see how well secular scholars really understand Christianity.

Moving from Comparative Religions, I attended a philosophical club debate which had the same guy. The topic of debate was, "is healthcare a right?" Now, very few people said, "yes." What's interesting is that many of the people who actually worked as blue collar workers argued philosophically against having it. The same professor said that the Declaration of Independence was a contract with the nation and the people that they are given those rights. I corrected him in that the Declaration of Independence hinges upon there being a Creator, and that it is He and not the state that gives rights. Now, has anyone here ever heard of the "genetic fallacy" or some such where the origin of a document does not necessarily carry through to its interpretation? That's just ludicrous! That means I can interpret anything I want to any way I want to. Now "Night" by Elie Wiesel is about Elie's latent homosexual tendencies in dealing with his fear of clowns. You see, the Nazi soldiers were the clowns, and his fear of them foreshadowed his latent homosexual tendencies. Of course it's just stupid to think that, but of course, the professor has a different worldview than I do. Can I judge that worldview? He would say, "no," most likely because that would make one of us right and hence one of us is being exclusive, not to an idea, but to a worldview, which postmodernism says is off-limits.

Enter Introduction to Philosophy. First of all, while Irwin is an almost strict Roman Catholic in the vein of St. Thomas Aquinnas, he at least has a good head on his shoulders when it comes to common sense. We both also happen to share the "premodern" view that all western religions have. He showed a video about prostitution in Thailand. The prostitution made such big money that people in poverty stricken villages sold their children into sexual slavery in order to eat. As a result, not only are children forced into horrible and monstrous situations, HIV is rampant and people die everyday from the disease. The point of the video is that your worldview colors your morality. In eastern relgions, especially Dharmatic regligions like Buddhism (an offshoot developmentally from Hinduism), what happens to you in this life is a result of your failure to follow Dharma in your past life. So they have bad Karma and that's why they're suffering. Wow, I'm glad those inclusivist religions have all the answers that prudish Christianity with its high sexual values and equality of women in God's eyes doesn't!

In Irwin's class, he brought up that in the western premodern philosophical mind, what couldn't be put into practical use as philosophy was discarded as worthless. As Christians, we fit this mindset to a degree. Sadly, sin not only causes such problems in Thailand (as in Africa and other places), but the fact that here in America people buy into the notion that we cannot judge other cultures simply because that is their right to behave that way. I don't recall the twelve year old girls getting the option or right to behave in that way. May God open the eyes of the blind and save their souls.

"Almighty God, You have called Your Church to witness that in Christ You have reconciled us to Yourself. Grant that by your Holy Spirit we may proclaim the good news of Your salvation so that all who hear it may receive the gift of salvation; throgh Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."-Intercession for the Mission of the Church, LSB pg. 305

Dave's Second Video Response

2007-09-27T19:17:00.000-07:00

4 in one day!!!!!

2007-09-17T23:17:00.000-07:00

This is the best Martin Luther movie EVER....I love this actor!

His Holy Space Debate

2007-09-17T23:06:00.000-07:00

The elimination of schisms is always the desired outcome of dialogue between Christian brothers and sisters. Such elimination should not occur at the expense of the Truth however. One individual on His Holy Space left me three replies in video format. The debate is on a group devoted to "hardcore discussions" of Christianity (it's called "Mars Hill Discussion Group)" and two threads in particular, "the 3rd use of the law" and "once saved always saved" generated some intense discussions between myself and a man named Dave.

Dave believes several things that have come to light. He does believe in the Holy Trinity, but denies the 3 uses of the law because he says Scripture doesn't break the law up like that. He says that because Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for sins, we are born both sinful and saved. We merely need to repent, not of our sins, but of our unbelief. He effectively then says that the law has no purpose in the life of a Christian because we are no longer under the law (although I keep pointing out to him that as Christians we would want to obey the law out of love for Christ..."if you love Me you will keep My commandments," but realizing that we are under grace. Listen carefully in the videos to how he describes "grace." The context is those passages which say that people have "fallen from God's grace" in the New Testament.

While I know strife and enmity are not our goals. I wonder how much of what we are talking about could be easily fixed with a few passages of Scripture I am just not catching. Pray for unity of the brotherhood.

Dave's first video:

Dave's second video:

Dave's third video:

Just leave your thoughts with me...or take a stop by the group. Lutheran theology usually does not sit well with Christians, and if you can tell, Dave interprets it to be works righteousness...perhaps I stated our doctrine in such a way as to indicate to him that it is works righteousness and legalism....though I usually double check for obvious mistakes like that...it could have happened. The difference could also be language. Again, pay attention to what he says about grace...is it really grace if you have to work or persevere to obtain it?

Thinking Bloggers-Part 3 I Guess

2007-09-17T22:41:00.000-07:00

Cheryl Magness recently said I was a blogger who made her think. The goal of this exercise is that I now nominate five blogs that have not been nominated yet which make ME think. If I call your name, step up and grab a seat on the bench :-). But seriously, if you are nominated, you then have to nominate five blogs that make YOU think and have not been nominated. You also need to link to this post which is the original.

TAG.....YOU'RE IT!

1) Weedon's Blog - 'Nuff said. Really though, Fr. Weedon has some dynomite quotes from the early church fathers and the Lutheran fathers. His original work always makes you question what you took for granted you knew (or thought you did ;-)). I would recommend his blog and his congregation's website to anyone wishing to learn about patristics.

2) Father Hollywood - Father Beane always provides great sermons and his political musings are just funnier than sin....well, it isn't hard to be funnier than sin, but it's the best I have. I highly recommend his blog when it comes to atomic (sorry, dynomite was used above) sermons that hit home the message of God's grace through Christ.

3) House, M Div. - Literally the FUNNIEST blog I have EVER read from a Lutheran pastor. The post on Solomon's Porch is by far my favorite so far.....he's just such a smart alleck!

4) Orthophile - A blog by Cheryl that explores many "darker" areas of Lutheran theology...well, it touches theology that few are brave enough to tread. The best part is that it is biblical and she thinks like a Lutheran! Most of my vocabulary comes from the discussions she has with people in the comments.

5) Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions - A roundtable discussion about the Lutheran Confessions by learned and able pastors who desire a better understanding of what our church teaches about God's Word. Boxing gloves are optional.

Holy Cross Day Thoughts

2007-09-17T22:02:00.000-07:00

Scripture: Old Testament-Nehemiah 1:1-2:10
New Testament-1 Timothy 1:1-20
Pslams: Morning-13
Evening-36, 5

Icon: Exaltation of the Holy Cross

Troparion of the Afterfeast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross: "Oh Lord, save your people, and bless Your inheritance. Grant victories to the orthodox Christians over their adversaries. And by virtue of Your Cross, preserve Your habitation." (Yes, I changed the "o" in Orthodox to lower case).

Kontakion of the Afterfeast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross: "As You were voluntarily raised upon the cross for our sake, grant mercy to those who are called by Your Name, O Christ God; make all orthodox Christians glad by Your power, granting them victories over their adversaries, by bestowing on them the Invincible trophy, Your weapon of Peace." (Same as in the Troparion).

Thoughts: For some reason, I really wanted to celebrate this feast of the church. I don't know why. I didn't do the prescribed fasts of the churches that hold this feast in high regard. I didn't read the Passion narratives in the Gospels to prepare myself for the festival...and I didn't even find a Lutheran church in the area to celebrate this feast. Instead, I thought upon the prayers for the sixth and ninth hours from the Orthodox church...the only church I desired to go to that celebrated this feast (for some reason I would choose to go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy over a Roman Mass, but that's just me).

The sixth hour daily troparion reads: "O You Who on the sixth day and hour
Nailed to the cross the sin which rebellious Adam committed
in Paradise,
Tear asunder also the bond of our iniquities,
O Christ our God, and save us."

It is amazing that Christ hung on a tree to undo the sin that Adam had done by eating from a tree in Paradise. Now, through this act, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life become one in us. The serpent did not ultimately lie, as through this act of compassion and humility on the part of God, He gives us eternal life in Him and yet we retain the knowledge of good and evil....we have in a sense, by grace, "become like God" with moral knowledge and still with eternal life.

"Here the King of all the ages, throned in light ere worlds could be, robed in mortal flesh is dying, crucified by sin for me."-Cross of Jesus, Cross of Sorrow, LSB 428 v. 2

It was at the ninth hour that the Roman centurion saw the crucified Christ and believed on Him. What better message to set men's hearts Ablaze!(tm) than this clear message of Christ and Him crucified?

You, like St. Luther may not like the story of the finding of the true cross, but such a story does not need to be true for us to appreciate the original story of this act of ultimate love, mercy, and grace on God's part for us. We celebrate today the weapon God used to conquer sin and flip the events of the Fall. Now, it is the New Adam who does right with a tree where Eve originally did wrong. He crushes the head of the Serpent/Satan in the presence of His mother, the New Eve who stands in sorrow at the horrible suffering and death of her son and her God. In the end, I would say it is sad that most Lutheran churches have forgone this feast, and many like it, which allow for the proclomation of the whole counsel of God by recognizing the guidance of the Holy Spirit in time and acknowledging that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against His (Christ's) church."

Afterthought: I was pondering the passage where God desires all men to come to the knowledge of Him (1 Timothy 2:4). I looked, and lo and behold, there is not a part of the Litany to my knowledge that has a petition in this manner.

"For those who are still in death and darkness, we pray you to bring them to repentance and the knowledge of you by the power of Your Holy Spirit so that Your will may be done." Or something like that.

The Good Samaritan PARODY!

2007-09-05T22:57:00.000-07:00

The Good Samaritan - For Susie :-)

2007-09-05T22:34:00.000-07:00

Scripture Readings: Old Testament - 2 Kings 4:8-22, 32-37
New Testament - Ephesians 5:15-33
Psalms: Morning - 97
Evening - 16, 62

Icon of the Day (well, for yesterday seeing as it was their festival day): St. Zechariah and St. Elizabeth

The meaning of the Good Samaritan: Suzie Fink asked me to explain this parable in written form. I would appreciate any pastoral helps beyond what I put down :-). I used this parable to introduce the high school Sunday School to the concept of biblical interpretation from a Lutheran perspective which is what this years curriculum is. I started by asking the kids what the main point of the parable was. They said things like, "love your neighbor as yourself because it's what Jesus wants," or "we're all equal and so we should help one another." I told them that that is a point of the parable, btu it isn't the MAIN point. After explaining how many people, including Christians, take Christ's parables and make them law when in fact they are really about gospel. In fact, the Parable of the Good Samaritan when properly understood is my favorite illustration of the gospel.

Good Samaritan Parable: The Gospel according to St. Luke 10:25-37

This is in response to the question: "Teacher, what must I do to inherrit eternal life?" Answer: "Nothing you can do can save you...only Christ can."

The person on the road is all of you (or man in general). The road at the time was also called the "road of death." On the road, man is beset by all manner of thieves and muggers in the form of sin and Satan. We are left for dead and we are unable to help ourselves.

The first person to come along is a pharisee who was a teacher of the law. He realized that touching a dead man would make him unclean...so he went on. This shows that the law cannot help us, it can only point out that we are dead.

The second person to come along is the Levite who was a member of the priestly tribe. He also realized that touching a dead man would make him unclean....so he went on. This shows that the OT sacrifices were not sufficient to save us.

Both precede the Good Samaritan, who is Christ. Christ was rejected by those he came to save and thus they looked down on Him as though He were different from them. Christ takes us from the road of death to the inn, which is the church (and the man who was left for dead does not help at all). He gives the inkeeper two silver coins and says that He will take care of anything the person needs when He returns. These two silver coins are most likely Holy Baptism and Holy Communion....the institutions of Christ for His church which give grace to a person which, when not rejected, give them faith to have Christ's payment save them.

In short: The parable is that Christ has come to save those of us who are helpless once the law and the sacrifices are shown to be worthless with regard to saving us apart from Christ, and He entrusts us to the church which has the means to keep us in fellowship with the church by faith.

I hope this helps Suzie :-).

Hank Hill and the Church

2007-09-03T22:40:00.001-07:00

Hank looses his pew in the Methodist Church (the one run by Rev. Strupe, the female preacher). The result of his church searching is HILARIOUS!

This Was Amazing for What I Was Posting!

2007-09-03T22:04:00.000-07:00

Scripture: Old Testament - 2 Kings 2:1-18
New Testament - Ephesians 4:1-24
Psalms - Morning: 42
Evening: 102, 133

Commemoration/Festival/Icon of the Day: St. Moses the Prophet

There isn't much in the way of remembrance of Moses in the Lutheran church with regards to hymns from what I can tell. From the Orthodox tradition there are these hymns.

Troparion (Russian) of Moses: The memory of your prophet Moses, we celebrate today, O Lord. By his prayers we beseech you, O Christ God save our souls.

Kontakion (Russian) of Moses: The company of the prophets rejoices with Moses and Aaron, for their prophecy is fulfilled as the Cross by which you have saved us shines forth. Save our souls by their prayers, O Christ our God!

The Song of Moses given to him by God: Deuteronomy 32:1-43

I would have put an icon of Moses and the burning bush, but for some reason many pictures have the Blessed Virgin with the Christ child (or without) in it and I cannot for the life of me understand why that is. Was the burning bush a form of pre-figuring of the incarnation? Does it have something to do with Moses being treated as "God" for the Israelites in that they were baptized into him as they went through the Red Sea?

While posting on a creation/evolution group on myspace.com, (boy, that debate can get real old real quick when it comes to atheists :-() I was looking for some church father quotes to announce my leaving of a discussion thread. I found this one from St. Maximos the Confessor that I didn't use, but really spoke to the situation: "If everything that exists was made by God and for God, and God is superior to the things made by Him, he who abandons what is superior and devotes Himself to what is inferior shows that he values things made by God more than God Himself" (The Philokalia vol. II, pg. 53).....I just thought it was interesting yet sad how accurate this is of those who deny God and Christ (in the style of Romans).

Perhaps it is interesting that this debate is discussed on the day of commemoration of the human writer of the book under question in that debate setting....as a Christian I must believe there is no such thing as "coincidence."

Quick prayer request: The mother of my friend who is attending St. Tikhon's Seminary was found to have cancer the day before he left. She has had surgery and they think they removed it all, but they are going to be doing a localized Chemo-treatment. Pray for her continued recovery.

Simpsons Catholic Episode...the Conclusion

2007-08-30T20:51:00.000-07:00

Scripture: Old Testament - 1 Kings 12:20-13:5, 33-34
New Testament - 2 Cor. 8:1-24
Psalms: Morning - 18:1-20
Evening - 126, 62

Icon of the Day: The Icon of Mid-Pentecost - Christ at age 12 teaches the teachers in the temple.

Here's the conclusion to that Simpsons episode where Bart and Homer become Catholic. I think it's funny that you find out the Simpson's religion....it's some wing of the "Presba-Lutherans." It's really funny, yet sad at how they in many ways paint Protestants trying to be "hip."

The Simpsons...Positive Catholic Episode

2007-08-29T22:19:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, there are times when the Simpsons makes a good episode.

Doctines That Divide.....or are at Least Poorly Understood

2007-08-29T20:00:00.001-07:00

Scripture: Old Testament - 1 Kings 11:42-12:19
New Testament - 2 Corinthians 7:1-16
Pslams: Morning - 96
Evening - 132, 134

Icon of the Day: St. John the Forerunner
Makup Icon for Yesterday's Feast Day: St. Augustine of Hippo

Troparion of St. John the Baptist: The memory of the Just is mentioned with praise, as for you, O Forerunner, the Lord's witness is enough. Indeed you were greater than the prophet since you were found worthy to baptize in the waters The One they could but announce. You have fought for the sake of Truth and proclaimed to those in hades: that God who appeared in the flesh has taken away this sin of the world, and bestowed His great mercy on us!

"Our thanks for John the Baptist who, till his dying day, made straight paths for the Savior and heralded His way! In witnessing to Jesus through times of threat or shame may we with faith and courage the Lamb of God proclaim."-By All Your Saints in Warfare v.24 "The Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist, LSB 518.

Kontakion of St. John the Baptist: Oh prophet of God and forerunner of Grace, your head has blossomed from the earth as a most sacred rose. We are ever being healed, for as of old, you preach repentance to the world.

Grace and peace! I've been reading a book entitled "The Doctrines that Divide" by Erwin Lutzer. The writer states that the book is "a fresh look at the historic doctrines that separate Christians." Mr. Lutzer is the senior pastor of the Moody Church in Chicago.

I'll be pretty frank with you. With the exceptions of the first two chapters, on Christ's humanity and divinity, this book lacks something.....scholarly. It's one thing to go into depth on your denomination's particular doctrine, but when you are detailing someone else's doctrine, PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Perhaps the reason I am most upset by the book isn't Mr. Lutzer's writing, so much as the store I found the book in. It seemed interesting since I could get a look at Roman Catholic doctrine especially from the eyes of someone who I get the impression thinks they are going to hell. The store was in Moline, IL and didn't even have a theology section. Their book sections were fiction, inspiration, and they had two racks devoted to "charismatic" books. This book was in the "pastoral helps" section. From a section of pastoral helps I would expect more research to be done on someone else's doctrine.

The chapters I have read so far include:
1. Is Christ Truly God - somewhat enjoyable and overly okay.

2. Is Christ Truly Man - same as chapter 1

3. Was Mary the Mother of God - While he doesn't deny it as Jack Chick does, he really supports Nestorius in that too much honor was being given to the Blessed Virgin. He accepts it because of the incarnation, so acceptable even though he overly goes against Roman Catholics and uses Ott (same book used by Wayne Grudem in his "Systematic Theology") and a devotional to the Virgin by cardinal Alphonse de Litouri. The latter I have never heard of and sounds more like a book by someone who Rome should have looked at more carefully from the quotes he uses.

4. Was Peter the First Pope - Somewhat oversimplified history...but hey, it's a doctrinal book! Does emphasize that the growth of the Papacy was gradual with regard to its political power. He does not however acknowledge that the title "Pope" was simply the title of the Bishop of Rome (and the Bishop of Alexandria).

5. Justification: By Faith, Sacraments, or Both - In my opinion, he butchers Roman teaching on this, and even to an extent, Luther's as well. His "both" never really even comes up! I was assuming he would mention Luther's views in such a way as to at least get across that Luther agreed with Scripture. Grace alone saves us through faith alone. The grace we get from the means Christ established through His true church. This was never addressed and this chapter felt....unfinished to me.

6. Why Can't We Agree On the Lord's Supper - Alright, just finished this one. He completely ignores what he wrote earlier in the chapter. He quotes such fathers as St. Ignatius of Antioch who said: "The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the Father in his goodness raised form the dead" and St. Justin Martyr who said that the elements are not regarded as ordinary bread and wine, "but as our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, was incarnated by the Word of God...so [the elements] are both the flesh and blood of that same incarnate Jesus." He then mentions that St. Augustine differentiated between the symbol and what is symbolized (a quote I've heard before but I know of no source that I can verify the context of this teaching). After mentioning two fathers who clearly accepted Christ being physically present in the elements, and one who seemingly does not, he says: "In summary, during the first eight centuries of the church the general consensus was towards a realistic view of the elements: Christ is SPIRITUALLY present in the bread and wine. To partake is to eat the body and blood of Christ, BUT NOT IN A LITERAL SENSE." I was floored!

He mentions the doctrine of the Real Presence straight out of Pelikan, but misunderstands what it means! The Real Presence is usually used by those denominations who believe Christ is REALLY and PHYSICALLY present (as He must be since His divine and human natures are not separated), such as the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. That and the fact that he described Luther as consubstantiation. For the last time....LUTHERANS DO NOT TEACH CONSUBSTANTIATION! We teach SACRAMENTAL UNION. He takes the side of Zwingli and possibly Calvin (though he seems a little vague on his support for his "spiritual presence" concept and treats it as a compromise between Luther and Zwingli) against Luther (who he still misunderstands).

He includes a great quote of Luther's against Zwingli though: "Your basic contentions are these: In the last analysis you wish to prove that a body cannot be at two places at once...I do not question how Christ can be God and man and how the two natures are joined. For God is more powerful than all our ideas, and we must submit to his Word. Prove that Christ's body is not where the Scripture says it is when Christ says 'this is my body.' Rational proofs I will not listen to. Corporeal proofs, arguments based on geometrical principles I repudiate absolutely. God is beyond all mathematics, and the words of God are to be revered and carried out in awe. It is God who commands, 'take, eat, this is my body.' I request therefore, valid scriptural proofs to the contrary."

That Luther believed the bread and wine to be the spiritual AND physical body and blood of Christ who is God is unmistakable. He retained the elevation of the Host in his liturgy (contrary to Newadvent's encyclopedia on Luther) and it was said of him one time at worship: "We have seen Luther throw himself on the floor with earnest and with reverence and worship Christ when the Sacrament was elevated"-WA tr5:308: 15ff.

The following chapters I have a feeling will be like 5 and 6: get ready!

7. Why Can't We Agree on Baptism
8. How Many Books Are in the Bible
9. Predestination or Free Will: Augustine v. Pelagius
10. Predestination or Free Will: Luther v. Erasmus
11. Predestination or Free Will: Calvin v. Arminius
12. Predestination or Free Will: Whitefield v. Wesley
13. Can a Saved Person Ever Be Lost
Conclusion

I'm sorry, I don't like tearing books down, but if this is the best of Moody Church, it's no wonder students go to Christ the Savior Orthodox Church...they are searching for more.

The Peace of Christ be with you!

Seminary Thoughts and Huge Decisions

2007-08-25T08:19:00.000-07:00

Congratulations on acceptance to Seminary McG. God bless!

Funny Video of the Day: Listen to how excited everyone responds with "He is risen indeed, Alleluia." I think I heard a snore in there!

Daily Lectionary: Old Testament-1 Kings 7:51-8:21
New Testament-2 Cor. 3:1-18
Psalms: Morning - 122
Evening - 141, 90

Icon of the Day: The Theotokos Icon where St. Seraphim Sarov prayed for 1000 days.

Good news! My friend Chris McGarvey (McG) left this morning for St. Tikhon's Orthodox Seminary. The icon was the one he gave to a mutual friend of ours who is a Unitarian. Aaron, our Unitarian friend and I grew up together (he lives across the street from me) and he grew up going to a megachurch of the non-denominational tradition. He was very put off by all of it. While talking to McG however, he is growing in his appreciation of traditional Christianity. Perhaps, God willing, he will become a Christian again. McG's mother wants him to accompany us to our Christmas Even candelight and our Good Friday Tenebrae service. McG still loved our Christmas Eve Candelight service, because he and I have gone to church together all of our lives.

On top of that, I have made a decision after much agonizing thought and prayer. I will not finish my M.S. next year. I will take the year and do six hours at a time of philosophy/business/psychology classes at I.C.C. for cheap and will attempt to enter Concordia Theological Seminary next academic year. There was deffinately God working in my decision, as those who disagreed with it became understanding and calm....they didn't flip out on me which I was expecting some to do, primarily my father, who appears to be behind me 100%...or at least 95%. Pray for his salvation. The same goes for my old advisor at Bradley, Dr. Foster. He usually acts very atheistic, yet when I told him my plans he seemed to understand and really respect them. He usually tells you like it is, so I figured he would just be disappointed.

I'm off to see my DCE friend get installed in East Moline! Later.

The Great Doxology

2007-08-24T14:46:00.000-07:00

Now that I know how to put video on my blog.....it's ON!

Lutheranism and Holy Ground/Sacred Space/Relics/Icons-a Quandry

2007-08-19T18:46:00.000-07:00

Scripture: Old Testament - 2 Samuel 11:1-27
New Testament - 1 Corinthians 11:17-34
Psalms: Morning-67
Evening-46, 93

Icon of the Day: Our Lady of the Don

Something has been bothering me recently. I wonder how much of it is simply my misunderstanding something key to Lutheran theology, or if there is something far more silly going on within the broader spectrum of the Lutheran Confessions. The subject in question is what is called, "Holy Ground" or "Sacred Space." Particularly, how this relates to what we understand "sacred objects" or relics of saints to be.

According to the Smalcald Articles (II ii 22-23), "Even if there were some good in them, relics should long since have been condemned. They are neither commanded nor commended. They are utterly unnecessary and useless. Worst of all, however, is the claim that relics effect indulgences and the forgiveness of sin and that, like the Mass, etc. their use is a good work and a service of God.”

Sounds pretty damning for relics at all doesn't it? However, I can't imagine this was written against all use of relics or honoring of saints, or our understanding of Holy Ground. I recall a radio program on KFUO where Fr. Weedon made the comment that within our PRIMARY theology, we don't have a theology of sacred space within Lutheranism. Where am I confused or in error? How is it that icons and relics from holy men and women of God have done miracles? Not to salvation, surely no! Nor to the forgiveness of sins which leads to salvation. But my question is simply thus: How can we say that the use of relics is superstitious and that the practice should be abolished when clearely in the Holy Scriptures there are various usages of relics and sacred space AFTER the incarnation???

Certainly the Smalcald Articles cannot be going against the CONCEPT of relics or sacred space, for it is clearly mentioned about St. Paul's handkerchief (healing and used as a witnessing tool without the apostle's physical presence) in Acts 19:11-12. God works through this object of the apostle's and the only thing we can seem to take from this is that healing on any plane (spiritual or physical) occurs by an action of divine grace. There is also the shadow of St. Peter in chapter 5 (verse 15) doing the same. Is this only an apostolic gift or does it continue today? Could someone keen on Lutheran theology let me know what is going on here? What our stand is on icons as means of grace using this same mindset? Please HELP!!!!

In Christ.

The God Who Wasn't There - A Poor Critique of a Poor Documentary

2007-08-16T20:13:00.000-07:00

Funny Links of the Day: The Projected Path of Hurricane Dean
Mortal 300
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Deffinately worthy of an "awwwww!"
Pulp Muppets....I'm not kidding.
Fire truck segment from Family Guy using Grand Theft Auto....pretty impressive.
Didn't you always hate it when this happened?
Alright, pastors, I KNOW something like this has happened to you :-)

Benny Hinn = Apparently worthy of a soundtrack?

Scripture of the Day: Old Testament- 2 Samuel 6:1-19
New Testament-1 Corinthians 9:1-23
Psalms: Morning-143
Evening-81, 116

Icon of the Day (well, from August 15) - Dormition and Assumption of the Theotokos

I recently saw a documentary on youtube which has been highly publicized by "The Rational Response Squad" called "The God who wasn't There." From the start I was worried. I knew this DVD contained arguments which many atheists believed to be so important and good that they were giving away the DVD for free (well, on the RRS website you had to forfeit your soul). Little did I know.....you get what you pay for.

The majority of the DVD is spent either interviewing people (random Christians who have no knowledge of church history or "scholars" from the Jesus Seminar or some secular university professors of folklore) or doing voice over for video or animation. The DVD basically says that Christ never existed. The scholarship however, is pretty bad to say the least.

Things wrong in the DVD:
1. The DVD asserts that St. Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews.
ANSWER: St. Paul most likely did not write the epistle. Some church fathers believed St. Barnabas wrote it or St. Timothy translated what might have been St. Paul's words. St. Luther accepted the possibility that St. Apollos wrote it. However, to say that St. Paul wrote it is somewhat disingenuous when making what is supposed to be an intellectual argument....which leads to the next two points.

2. St. Paul is thought to be the only one writing books of the Bible and that everyone else "forgot" about Jesus until about thirty years after his writing.
ANSWER: Forgotten in the DVD is the issue that we have very little literature from the first century. Perhaps more letters were written but God didn't deign for us to have them in the Scriptures. Also forgotten is the fact that St. Paul was a missionary AND bishop. He would have been travelling and guiding churches he was away from, thus he would be writing extensively more than other apostles who were closer to their parishes. Also, the problem with saying that everyone else "forgot" about Jesus ignores the clear indication that the Holy Apostles thought that the world would end and Christ would return BEFORE they all died. It wasn't until they started dying that the Gospels were really written down.

3. The DVD asserts that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not believe that the drama of Christ occurred on earth. It claims that the writer believed that it happened spiritually.
ANSWER: The passage used was, "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law (Hebrews 8:4)." The context of such a passage however is in reference to His being seated at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. He is the high priest in the ultimate tabernacle of heaven of which the earthly priests and earthly tabernacle are only shadows. He has become the mediator of a new covenant. What is going on in Hebrews is that it is a sermon discussing the nature of Heavenly worship. This is why Christians believe that when we worship on earth, we enter into a joining together of Heaven and earth (particularly when the Holy Eucharist is at the center of the liturgy).

4. The DVD says that St. Paul didn't quote Christ at all in any of his letters and never mentioned any events of His life. That statement was qualified by saying that St. Paul only covers the events of Holy Week.
ANSWER: Because of the qualification given, the initial statement had been invalidated. What the DVD meant to say was there is no mention of any miracles of Christ mentioned by St. Paul aside from the institution of the Holy Eucharist (1 Cor. 15) and the resurrection of Christ (Acts 17, 23, Romans 1, 16, 1 Cor. 15, Phil. 3). The DVD does not mention however that the Holy Gospels are passion narratives, and that these two miracles combined with the historic event of Christ's crucifixion is the common message of them. The incarnation is also not mentioned as a miracle that St. Paul talked about....but he did (true man-1 Tim. 2:5, true God and true man-Rom. 8:17). The comment of the DVD is meaningless if you actually understand the essential message of Christianity, "repent and be baptized....for the remission of sins."

5. The random "guy on the street" interviews involve the man behind the camera asking people if they have heard of some false gods.
ANSWER: Common, everyday lay people aren't told the history of our church, and this is a sad fact...but that does not mean we are ashamed of any lack of anything in that history. Perhaps one should ask the videographer if he is aware of the early racist history behind Darwinian evolution and how such racism using the "science" continues in some regards to this day? Now ask any random non-Christian that same question.....what do you want to say they haven't heard of it? The argument swings both ways and in the end is meaningless.

6. He quotes St. Justin Martyr as saying that Christ is no different than Zeus in regards to being born of a virgin.
ANSWER: This is what the early Christians recognized-that Satan took clear indications of what was known earlier (and can be shown from the Old Testament, even early on) about the incarnation of Christ and jaded it to be similar yet strikingly different from the truth. This has always been the explanation. But for example, there are differences between these. Hercules is a godman, but he is half man and half god because his father was Zeus and his mother was a mortal. Christ has a father in God the Father and a mother in the Blessed Virgin Mary, but He is not 50/50, but He is 100% God and 100% man.

7. In the argument for the non-existence of Christ, only fundamentalists are addressed with points of the movie. Never are the historic Christian denominations or traditions addressed. Such shows that by "stumping" fundamentalists they falsely think they have "sumpted" all of Christianity.

8. The DVD producer apparently still doesn't understand what "blaspheming the Holy Spirit is," nor why it is the unforgivable sin.
ANSWER: A Christian should never live in fear of this sin. It is a sin that is done by rejecting the Holy Spirit at ALL times. If you have Christ in your thoughts and heart, you aren't doubting the Holy Spirit with your heart. It is the unforgivable sin because rejecting the Holy Spirit with your heart prevents the salvific application of grace which has already been won for you through the atonement. That is why the videos of people denying the existence of the Holy Spirit is sad but also not a cause to believe they are eternally damned (for they may later not reject Him).

All I can say is that if this is the best atheists have, apologists will have their work much easier than in the past....because these arguments are some of the oldest. Praise be to God!!!

Expecto Petronum, Expecting Patriotism, and Expected Preus

2007-07-16T17:35:00.001-07:00

Funny Links for the Day: Transformers 300
Justice League 300
Walk it out....Penguine Style
A 3-D cube rendering of the universe with every dot a galaxy???
This is just disturbing!!!!! My kid WON'T read THIS last book!
Jean Luc "Exploder"
A creature of darkness.
Ted Stevens explains that it isn't a big truck....
Lex Luthor>Optimus Prime....yes I loved the new movie!

Scripture Readings:
Old Testament-Judges 16:4-30
New Testament-Galatians 4:12-31
Psalms-Morning: 51
Evening: 85, 47

Festival: Old Testament St. Ruth

Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Some news....first of all, I didn't expect Preus to win the Synod Presidential election....but I hoped Kieschnick would not be re-elected. However, I need to be content that the Holy Spirit guided the elections to fulfill God's ultimate plan and purpose.....and as long as our leaders whom we pray for constantly realize this......I assent to their decision. Secondly, I got to see the installation of my third cousin as pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Washington, IL. Thirdly, I turn 25 a week from today (yay). And fourth(ly), I liked the new Transformers movie, A LOT!

The Expecto Petronum in the title was a reference to Harry Potter. I've read and seen the first five movies/books. Would I recomend it to my kids? Maybe or maybe not. Would I be legalistic and contradictory about my attitute towards it? I hope not. I bring this up because Way of the Master host Todd Friel made the comment that Harry Potter leads to witchcraft and the occult, but seemed to side-step the issue that many Christians have the same attitude about Harry Potter but in the same breath will laud The Chronicles of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings.....as if the magic in those is not "occultish." To me it seems if you are against the one because it is occultish, you would be ardently against the other for the same reason.

I'm sorry, but stories of how kids went from Harry Potter to being witches doesn't necessarily win this argument......I'm sure there are kids who went from C.S Lewis or Tolkien to New Age or Druidism....a point Friel somewhat mentions then downplays. The fact remains that if a kid does that....they have trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy....and the parents aren't doing their job rightly. As a Christian, I would not tell my kids (students) at church.....read Harry Potter, it's good.....but I wouldn't say, "don't read it....it's bad" either. I would however push C.S. Lewis and Tolkien because their subject matter would be much safer to discuss in a Christian atmosphere. To be legalistic about the one while ignoring the other seems irresponsible to me......and to blame the book and not the parent (which was never brought up in the radio talk show) is the same.

The Expecting Patriotism in the title is in response to the same radio program's coverage of the Hindu priest leading prayer in the Senate. They focused on the behavior of some Christians who were rather rude by interrupting the priest's prayers with their own to God apologizing for the prayer of the wicked. Todd and many of the people who called in thought it was a travesty that this country was leaving its Christian roots (most of the founding fathers were Deists....so I don't know WHAT they're talking about) and Todd even made the comment, "I wonder if this is the final part where God just goes, 'okay, you're done.'" Where in the Bible does it say that America is the favored nation of God?! Scripture speaks of the secular authorities being ministers of God ordained for the enforcement of order.....but it does not say that the secular authorities must bow down to God and recognize Him. No where does it say this! Is this theology Dispensational Premillenialism? I'm aware that that theology focuses on Israel as God's chosen nation. The other group that accepts that America is God's chosen nation is the Phelp's family from Godhatesfags.com!

The fact remains that we are born as citizens of this world, but are made into citizens of the Heavenly world while remaining pilgrims on earth. We owe our allegiance to our nation as long as it keeps to its own rules and does not force a citizen to violate God's laws. It could be argued that because America uses our tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood which goes to paying for abortions, God would allow us to go against our government. However, within our government is the right of every citizen to vote their conscience and get rid of abortion non-violently. Would Christ's church like to have a nation which was responsible for the trail of tears and countless abortions as its witness? I DOUBT it!

Finally, to end....two things on the Lord's Supper. Way of the Master Radio brought up the Lord's Supper and of course, misunderstood the Lutheran view when asked a question on it (calling our understanding of it consubstantiation) and saying that while our view is valid the Roman view of transubstantiation is wrong because it has a whole boatload of problems with it. I corrected them in an email (which I'm sure they'll read :-/) that it is not the concept of transubstantiation that we necessarily have a problem with. We do not like Aristotelian metaphysics being applied to the Sacramental mysteries. That's all transubstantiation teaches.....the part of the re-offering Christ in the Roman Mass is, however, is not necessarily joined to the doctrine of transubstantiation (as much as I can tell). For those not familiar with the various teachings on the Lord's Supper I am discussing:

Transubstantiation: The bread and wine have a substance (what the object IS...its "essence") and an accident (what is perceived). During the Eucharistic Prayer (Words of Institution), the substance of the bread and wine are destroyed and replaced with the body and blood of Christ. Rome also accept "comingling" which does not separate the body and blood from one another. As a result, the bread has the body AND the blood and the wine has the body AND the blood.

Consubstantiation: The bread and wine are two substances and Chirst's body and blood are two other substances. During the Eucharistic Prayer, the two substances of bread and body and the two substances of wine and blood are combined to form a new third substance distinct from the first two because it is a combination. This is NOT taught by the Lutheran church....even though the TERM is used at times by some Lutheran dogmatic theologians. It is usually used to describe the Lutheran position by those who are NOT Lutherans.

Sacramental Union: The bread and wine are two substances and Christ's body and blood are two substances. During the Eucharistic Prayer, the different substances are brought together but NOT mixed as in consubstantiation. The bread and body are together and the wine and blood are together, but not mixed. That is the meaning of "in, with, and under." The body fills the bread but does not replace it nor does it mix with it....and the same with the blood.

All of the above three views recognize Christ's very real and true body and blood as present in the elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine). This view is called the Real Pressence and has been around in Christianity since Scripture.....and if you doubt that.....look at what St. Ignatius of Antioch calls the Eucharist (he was St. John the Apostle's disciple).....he calls it "the medicine of immortality" (Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 20). Clearly it is not just symbolic.

What boggles my mind about Way of the Master is that they will take a staunch stand on things but then call them "adiaphora." How can the details of what our Lord instituted be adiaphora?!?!?!?! Clearly this seems to show a low regard for the teachings of the historic church as it has guarded the Apostles' teachings through the ages. This must be what Father Todd Wilken was referring to in his article, "Bible-believing Liberals." Perhaps the problem is that Todd (Friel) doesn't think the Holy Spirit helps us understand Scripture. He said, "the Holy Spirit helps us in application," but that "understanding comes by careful study." Did the historic church botch that last part????

It might seem like I am overly harping on Way of the Master Radio. I do so in love. I like the program...it is entertaining. It reaches the lost. It helps to equip believers. However, when it is wrong on doctrine I will guard doctrine tooth and nail. Let us look at the Gospel of St. John where it speaks of the Paraclete:

John 14:16-[Jesus said,] "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.."
John 14:26-[Jesus said,] "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
John 15:26-[Jesus said,] "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."
John 16:7-[Jesus said,] "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."

What we see is that the Holy Spirit TEACHES US ALL THINGS. Especially Christ's church which "the gates of Hell shall not overcome." It is for this reason that the church's position is very important when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. Why? Well the church is guided by the Holy Spirit (not to say it cannot err, but that its opinions as long as they do not go contrary to Scripture should be respected) and St. Peter said that no prophecy of Scripture has its origins in man, and so no interpretation of Scripture is up to anyone's private interpretation.

Again, in love to our brothers at Way of the Master Radio, we pray for you and thank God for your evangelistic work. I pray for our Synod to return to its Confessional principles. I pray that the church does not mock the Son of the Holy Theotokos by its wanton disregard for all things Apostolic. I pray that the church takes caution before it enters into altar fellowship with heterodox brothers, and thus risk destroying further ecumenical dialogue as the ELCA has done with the Orthodox Church by its full force entrance into fellowship with other variant Christian denominations. I thank God for the prayers of His Son, the Mother of God, and the Holy Apostles continuously for the church.

Glory be to the Father, and the Son (+), and the Holy Spirit, now and forever. Amen.

The Rational Response Squad, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins

2007-07-04T12:53:00.001-07:00

Old Testament Reading-Joshua 10:1-25
New Testament Reading-Acts 11:19-30
Psalms-Morning: 89:1-18
Evening:1, 33

Icon of the Day: The Visitation-celebrated July 2nd

Secular holiday-July 4th!

Alright....this is just absurd! If you visit the Rational Response Squad's website, they say that they defeated Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in the official Nightline Debate over the existence of God. First of all, neither side won. The draw was made apparent because while Ray and Kirk completely didn't understand evolution, neither did Brian Sapient or "Kelly." However, just because you argue that evolution is true, that does not discount a designer. The argument that Ray was making with the painting is still 100% valid.

Ray's argument with the painting was that if you took a painting into a lab, you would conclude it was painted, or designed. Brian said, you could call the architech of a building to prove it had a designer and you can't do that with God. Ironically, Ray held up the Mona Lisa.....go ahead and call Leonardo Brian, we'll wait. Brian's final and very self-defeating cosmological concept was that matter was eternal and the universe has always existed. Well, what do we need for THAT to be true?

We would need: 1. More matter than the universe has so that it could continually have big bangs/crunches.
2. A physical mechanism to turn heat into a different form of energy.
3. Build matter from energy experimentally (we MAY have done this).
4. Ignore any consideration of time. Time after all is movement in the fourth dimension. Brian's argument is akin to saying, I have always ran down the road. I never started nor will I ever stop. That is absurd, but it is simply another dimension of space.....so my argument here is still valid.
5. He may have gotten the first law of Thermodynamics correct....but he DIDN'T mention the 2nd Law.....that entropy increases as time goes on (there's that pesky time again!). It was this very combination of laws that "proves" that a supernatural creator was necessary for the universe to come into existence. Matter and energy must have had a beginning because they tend towards entropy IN TIME, with heat (thermal energy) being the most entropic form of energy and matter. As a result, they had to have a beginning since there is no mechanism in existence that can 100% convert thermal energy to another form. Hence, since the first law cannot be violated (matter and energy cannot be created), a singularity must have occurred that created the universe which by virtue of matter in existence start time forward.

Brian and Kelly's point of view is invalidated by the laws of thermodynamics....and that is why very few scientists believe the universe has always existed (Carl Sagan among them). So your argument against design failed because you cannot call up the dead architects or artists to prove that they really made designs, and your cosmological argument failed. Case closed.

The fact remains that a singularity would be needed to explain the big bang in general. While Ray and Kirk were wrong with saying, "nothing exploded," because a singularity is something, it is still scientific to say nothing existed before the singularity. Hence, what created the singularity anyway? What is the evidence for the big bang theory? Well we have a few ideas behind that......ones which have yet to explain how galaxies can collide into each other going in opposite ways.....or why the Andromeda M31 galaxy is coming towards us, not away as the idea behind the universe expanding states. I still like the idea of creationist cosmologist Dr. Russel Humphrey's "white hole cosmology" where he takes the two assumptions in the equations for the big bang theory. Implicit within the big bang theory are two assumptions: 1. There is no center to the universe and 2. space is infinite. He switched them to 1. There is a center to the universe, and 2. Space is not infinte.

From this theory there is instead an expansion that occurs so rapidly that within the first 24 hour day of earth's creation, our galaxy is already in existence. Time is rapidly sped up at the edges of expansion. In other words, from our perspective near the center of the expansion, time occurs normally, but at the edges of the expanding wave, time is extremely sped up. It is a worthwhile theory to look into because he claims that it explains observations of magnetic moments in planets that the nebular hypothesis of the formation of our solar system cannot.

From here, I thought it was bad enough, until I heard of a debate about the existence of God on Hardball with Chris Matthews between Christopher Hitchens and the Rev. Al Sharpton. I never thought I would root for Al Sharpton....but oh did I. Hitchens recently wrote a book called "Why God is not good: How religion poisons everything." He does not tell you in that book that the 20th century is the year when secular/humanistic/atheistic governments killed more people than in the past combined. He does not tell you that two of his fellow writers at "Free Inquiry" magazine became Christians because they realized Christianity was more intellectually tenable (with some help by the Holy Spirit...'natch). My favorite however is the intellectual dishonesty and complete irrationality which he uses. He said, "religion tells people that God created them from a clot of blood (Islam) or a clump of dirt (Judaism, Christianity)...." For starters, this equates religion....something which he assumes you can do, but if you are going to disprove religion you must play by the proper rules. You can't play sociologist (he's an essayist) and expect to come to the conclusion that Christianity is correct.

Instead he fails to recognize how correct Christianity is: 1. When we die (opposite of creation), we return to dust.....this is observed.
2. Our fallen nature leads us to sin by not loving God or our neighbors......this is observed....that's why anarchy has never worked and we need laws.
3. Our ability to create and manipulate our emotions with art is a result of our creative ability as being made in the image of God..........this is observed....unless you think our mentality is an accident of moving from the trees to land......this origin would logically procede that anything we did with our intellect is an accident in the big scheme. I guess I accidentally appreciate fine art and architecture....elements of design which we are geared to recognize.
4. Our conscience recognizes right from wrong..................Hitchens believes in absolute morality.......from what source? The state? Hiel Hitler????
5. Our ability to love our offspring, even those who are not our own, and mourn when they are lost.................this is observed and is what God did by dying on the cross for us, His separated and lost children...................This is all an accident to Hitchens. Or some would say we mourn for the loss of our own energy and time expended in raising a failed child.......but why would we mourn? Why don't we just get back to work?

Face it....people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the RRS set up a strawman of Christianity, painting it as a mad dictator from the sky who likes to punish us and send us to Hell unless we believe in Him. This could not be further from the truth!!! But instead of actually reading the Bible and UNDERSTANDING IT, they read the Bible a few times to say they have (if indeed they aren't lying) and make stupid statements which people like to hear because it means they themselves don't have to think. Face it......God exists and this is evident from what you see with your own eyes. Face it..........Christianity explains psychology, nature, and most things better than any other religion. Face it...........to deny what your eyes see and brain recognize as design in nature is to fundamentally doubt your senses. How then could you trust what you would see in a lab? Face it..........you trust art historians to tell you Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa but doubt Christian historians who tell you Jesus existed, died, rose again, and that his followers died in the hundreds for Him peacefully!!!! Where are the atheist martyrs? Face it...............atheism is untenable!

Solo Scriptura and its Dangers for the Catholic Faith

2007-06-28T00:21:00.000-07:00

Scripture of the Day: Old Testament-Joshua 3:1-17
New Testament-Acts 9:1-22
Morning Psalm-85
Evening Psalms-25 & 40

Icon of the Day: St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Priest/Pastor)-Day of Commemoration

Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Recently Father William Weedon published a weblog discussing the "catholic principle" within Confessional Lutheran circles as discussed by former Lutheran priests, now Orthodox priests, Fathers Hogg and Fenton. The entry is still a point of debate between Lutherans, Orthodox, and those in between.

This is ultimately about the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura and tradition's role in defining doctrine and practice. While many Protestants have a concept of Sola Scriptura that is literally the fundamentalist, "me and my Bible alone in the woods" mentality, there are other views which have grown up concerning Sola Scriptura, particularly in the Reformed theological tradition. In this view, no doctrine can be made by the church and must have its origin in Scripture. As a result Reformed churches or those with Reformed influences can never become high church without some change in the understanding of Calvin or at most a rejection of some of his points.

For Lutherans, the Book of Concord provides two somewhat conflicting views for "Sola Scriptura." The first is that which is similar to the Reformed, that is, Scripture is the "sole source and norm of doctrine." This was the view made popular in Lutheran circles by the blessed theologian Carl Piepkorn because it was inserted in one of his Christian dogmatics books which became much used (as far as I know about the history of that view).

The second view is that Scripture is the "pure source and norm of doctrine," or the "norma normans." This is the view promulgated in the Formula of Concord and which says effectively that Scripture provides only a critique of doctrine. While it is most good and proper for doctrine to have its origin in the Scriptures, it may not necessarily occur this way.

What is at stake with either of these positions? I would posit that if the first view, the "Solenorm" (if Father Weedon can invent the word "unboxinable," I think I am justified here!) threatens the historical unity of the church, denies the power of the Holy Spirit to operate on Christ's church, and ultimately goes against Christ's promise that the gates of Hell will not overcome His church. While the church is still formed of humans and can and has erred, overall it defends the Apostolic deposit and if true to the Scriptures and to Christ it does not formulate new doctrines from nothing, but builds upon the Scriptures to better understand and teach the ultimate message of salvation: Christ crucified!

Where tradition has been swept aside for those ideas which are seen as "new" or "hip," regardless even of the worship style (though what is said in worship will eventually affect doctrine), the doctrine has lapsed and Scripture itself is seen as a human invention and fallible. In these churches we see all manner of apostasy that would make Luther write another 95 Theses. We know that the historical church has NEVER accepted homosexuality, abortion, syncretism, universalism (not including St. Gregory of Nyssa's view which was never decided on), rampant sexual deviantism among youth, etc. Yet these churches which view all of the church's history with the mind of modern Protestants (that we in the present are smarter than those in the past save the writers of Scripture) have lapsed into heresy and damnation!

Instead let me offer the other view, the "Purenorm," as the answer. If Scripture is the pure source and final norm for doctrine, it guards against a possible hijacking of Scripture by the hierarchy in church authority and the sacramental priesthood (the ordained "called out ones" of the royal priesthood). Similarly, it allows the church to pursue possibilities without having to prove everything from Scripture alone and as a result it guards against heresy from those who read the Bible without a guide. As Father Weedon is very apt to point out from Scripture itself, "no prophecy is of anyone's private interpretation, because prophecy had as its origin in the Holy Spirit." Who better to interpret the Scriptures than the church itself, formed of laity and clergy who all have the Holy Spirit? Certainly one person interpreting all of Scripture for people cannot work because it gives the Papacy, cults, and is contrary to Christ's words that "where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am among them." There is no talk of the one wise man which figures out all of the Scriptures on his own.

Purenorm also has its origin in Scripture, wheras Solenorm does not. Scripture speaks of itself as God-breathed and useful for teaching, instructing, etc. (St. Paul's Second Letter to Timothy, the 3rd Chapter). From this we know only that Scripture is God's Holy and Inerrant Word and is useful for teaching, rebuking, etc. This does not say it alone is to be used for those roles and indeed without a teacher who does the teaching and rebuking?

Let us pray that the purenorm becomes the "norm" and the "solenorm" is crushed like a serpent which threatens to strangle Christ's bride who by God's grace has delivered unto modern Christians the ancient creeds and confessions of faith (which some even in Protestantism reject). Let us pray that the history of the church will be looked at seriously rather than forgotten because tradition becomes minimally important. Let us pray that we hold on to the traditions we have been taught concerning the Scriptures so that we do not become like mainline Protestant denominations and accept Mormonism as a Christian denomination or T.D. Jakes as an orthodox Christian preacher. Today let us remember Irenaeus (a true orthodox Christian preacher) and what he did for the church by God's grace and what he continues to do for the church through his prayers along with all the company of Heaven. Let us emulate his actions and defend the faith against all heresies by God's grace.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son (+), and to the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Pentecost, Cicadas, Atheists, and Logical Death Traps.....SUSPENSE!!!

2007-05-28T21:45:00.000-07:00

Scripture of the Day: Old Testament - Ecclesiastes 5:1-20
New Testament - The Gospel According to St. John 8:1-20
Psalms: Morning - 42
Evening - 102, 133

Icon of the Day: Pentecost

Grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I deny the existence of cicadas. They do nothing good for me, they don't obey me, they make a sickly green goo on my shoes after I step on them, and I still suffer because they exist. This is of course ridiculous.....cicadas exist regardless of whether or not I get out of my house to see them or not. Before you stop and say, "whoah...that's not fair because you still CAN go outside and look at them," let me rephrase this with another more real analogy.

I can't see the Holy Spirit. I can't see wind. I can only see the effect of wind on an object, just as I can see the Holy Spirit work faith in someone. To observe them both directly goes against their purpose and nature. I can only see both when they are enveloped in a visible material. For the wind....it could be sand grains, or plant material blowing in the wind. For the Holy Spirit, it was a dove, or a person (a la Holy Trinity appearing to Abram at Mamre). What is fascinating however is that wind is predictable....you can make measurements on it and direct it. You can tell where it is by what it is effecting. Now let's look at this Scriptural passage about the Holy Spirit, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (John 3:8).

How fascinating that Jesus uses an analogy of wind with the Holy Spirit. It should not be surprising that at Pentecost (Acts 2), the Holy Spirit's coming is accompanied by the sound of wind. The Spirit is undirected by anyone other than the Father who directs it and the Son who sends it in tandem with the Father's will. We know where the Holy Spirit resides though.....how it moves has been revealed to us as Christians. The Holy Spirit is within all believers....for without His taking up residence in us and making us a temple....we would be unable to have faith in Christ. He is also found in God's life giving Word and Sacraments. What is fascinating is that many people read His Word and reject it.....and therein lies the problem with the Blasphemy Challenge. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit isn't a one time event......it isn't something done haphazardly......it is a long-running and continual sin. It is a sin of rejection and hatred of the Spirit which brings life for the sake of Christ's sacrifice. How can those atheists sit in a debate on national television, say they've read the Bible, and then say something about God being a megalomaniacal barbarian? Have they died for their atheism? The worst video on their website is a kid who isn't old enough to vote or even drive saying he doesn't believe in God and his mother goes nuts on him. I'm sorry....but this is unconvincing.

Brian, Kelly, and everyone at the "Rational Response Squad," let me know when you have atheists whose throats are slit, who are crucified, who are flayed alive, who are beheaded, who are drowned, whose families are slaughtered before their eyes, who are castrated, etc. THAT is true suffering......would you REALLY die for atheism? In the end you are faced with an inescapable truth.....your rationalism is nothing more than epicurianism. Carpe Diem!!! You would scream at the top of your lungs that this life is all there is. Let everyone alone and stop trying to control their lives. How dare you tell a woman abortion is wrong! How dare you tell us what is right and wrong as if you have a message from God! And of course, how dare you tell me I'm a sinner who is deserving of death, Hell, and judgement! Perhaps you would wonder why this loving God is sitting like a judge above waiting to strike down those who sin and offend Him. Perhaps you would wonder why those who have become Christians are vehement to defend the life of unborn children. Perhaps you wonder how some all-loving God allows evil to exist....and when you argue that He is morally obligated to stop evil and doesn't, you feel you've won some logical battle and should be awarded a medal for your troubles.

Take it....take the medal......but realize you haven't won......you've failed. You act intelligent....you and your friends call us "dims" while you are the "brights." The brightness is merely your self-righteousness which blinds you to the ultimate truth.....namely, you are wrong, and have failed to develop any new argument that makes atheism tenable. How can God allow evil you say? Or perhaps we should phrase this the way popular culture does, "How can God let bad things happen to good people?" Such a question misses the point of sin and the crux of the Christian worldview.....the real question is, "How can God let good things happen to bad people?" I carry within myself a nature inherrited from our first parents that makes me tainted.....yet God lets me be born with a tainted nature mocking His own which He has given to me. I can breathe and live for 24 years having done MANY horrible and grievous sins, calling Him a liar and wallowing in mire which disgusts Him.....and yet I live! I can only stand in awe of this merciful and gracious God and say with the whole church, "Lord have mercy!" Of what do you have? hopelessness? After all, atheism breeds relativism and the belief in no life after death. If there is no life after death......what are you wasting your time doing atheist evangelism for anyway? The only way to explain it is that you hate God....regardless of whether you "believe" in Him or not. This is your original sin.......you are born in attrition to God.....and unless the Holy Spirit works within you to make your heart contrite and repent.....you are lost. God does not wish for this. This megalomaniac you claim to be the most heartless being in existence limited Himself to be born of a Virgin in a stable! He grew, was tempted, never had a family of His own, was mocked, rejected in His own hometown, healed many, taught many, and finally was wipped, tortured, and crucified for a crime He didn't commit.....bore the world's sins on His shoulders and in that moment God died. He rose again not to go back to Heaven and say, "wow, glad that's over.....they're on their own now," but to deliver US from the bondage of death...........and you claim that this God who became like you and I (in all ways except sin) is a horrible being???? Are you nuts????? Even as an enemy of God He loves you enough to not force you to love Him......in a sense YOU CONDEMN YOURSELF TO HELL!!!! Don't look at Him and say it isn't fair.....His love knows no bounds and while it pains Him to send you there because He desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3).

Look at this evil, hateful God whom you hate with a relative mindset! "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time" (1 Timothy 2:1-6 ESV).

How can you sit there and say there are absolutes with regard to morality and then say that such an absolute is found within culture??? Such a statement is absurd because something absolute is based upon that which lasts eternally....it has no end nor beginning.....society will end....those alive now who vote on laws will die and their laws will eventually be forgotten anway. Would you then look to Israel's laws in the Old Testament and say it was "absolutely moral" to do that which you have said you hate? How is it absolutely moral to honor God with all my heart, soul, and strength as it was written in the Old Testament laws and then say God does not exist......you have made that law a relative statement in your mind.....or an absolute statement about God's non-existence which contradicts your source for absolute morality. Face it......YOU LOSE.....GOOD DAY SIR!

You might wonder why I spent so much time on morality.....well, you as atheists speak in absolutes with regard to the evils of religion and belief in God, yet when behavior comes around, morality is relative. If religion is evil, why? What then is evil? Perhaps, like St. Augustine, you ponder the source of evil.....and to say men's hearts is not the end of the question. Like him you would have to ponder it until you came to the conclusion that if absolute evil exists, absolute good exists as well. The answer is that absolute good has always existed as the incorruptable triune God. Evil exists as the antithesis of God's will......thus God didn't create evil, but creation had the capacity for evil because God gave man free will.....and he chose to do that which was against God....and thus, evil stems from the heart of men, as a result of severence from God. What answer does atheism offer that doesn't leave me asking more questions that lead to self-contradiction. Christianity has the answers......but even this will not convert you. Apologetics is for defending the faith, not for evangelism......God operates through His Holy Spirit working through the proclomation of the Gospel......if apologetics has it, He will act, if not, the message will be for the prepration of the faithful for defending that faith which saved them from death.

As a Christian I defend the faith and spread the Good News not because I "have to," but because I "want to" help God save the lost......I want to help God do spiritual CPR. If you reject it....it is YOUR OWN FAULT....not God's. God has given you life, even in your sinful state.......this alone should humble you!

May the God who made the innumerable stars and who became man so that man may become like Him bless and direct you to the true faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

This is My Body....This is My Blood

2007-05-23T14:11:00.000-07:00

Scripture of the Day: Old Testament-Song of Solomon 7:6-8:14
New Testament-The Gospel According to St. John 6:41-59
Psalms: Morning-99
Evening-8, 118

Icon of the Day: Christ blessing the elements of the Eucharist

The Doctrine of the Real Presence in Christianity: It is perhaps fitting that the daily lectionary for the New Testament today is the area in John's Gospel where Christ refers to His flesh as real food and His blood as real drink. I have been listening to several things today about how the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a Roman Catholic invention.....well, Protestants have another thing coming if they really think that, because the evidence is overwhelming that the church has ALWAYS had SOME form of literal reading of Christ's words. How do I know? Well, for starters....you don't get much more concise than...."This is my body.....This is my blood." The Jews who heard the conversation in John 6 left Jesus because they had trouble with the teaching that He is the manna from Heaven.....but it would be made clearer here....when He blesses the elements of bread and wine and connects them to His fleshly nature. It is also illustrated when He departs from the two at Emmaeus AFTER He blesses the bread! Not before...but after. So as Father Weedon said in the historical liturgy series on Issues Etc. in reference to this event....did Jesus REALLY actually leave them?

What church father before the end of the first millenium denies this fact about the Eucharist and who is not chided by the church catholic for practicing heterodoxy? None. Even St. Augustine who such scholars as Dr. James White quote as reading Christ's words symbolically matured and we are never told if the quote is from "early" or "late" Augustine. He also does not mention Martin Luther's thoughts on the issue, because while Transubstantiation is not accepted, the ancient orthodox and catholic understanding of the Real Presence is, as well as the sacramental nature of it. That is why Luther adored and even worshipped the consecrated bread after the Words of Institution (and why in our Divine Service it is written to make the sign of the cross as the Pastor says "This is my body....This is my blood.). This is not unorthodox nor idolatry....but wholly in keeping with the Old Testament representation of Christ in the Temple.....the bread of the Presence (yes, the P is capitalized....check out your Bible on this).

And now I must go.....for now.....Pax Christi.

Boy It's Been a While

2007-05-21T23:11:00.000-07:00

Boy there's a lot to catch up on.

Funny Links of the Day: There's a little 300 in all of us
Family Guy hits the censor nail right on the head....take responsibility!
Spider-Car
Tetris Ninjas
Drunk Squirrel.....and it's REALLY funny.
Ali G. vs. Kent Hovind
I don't think that was what the Professor REALLY meant.
Starcraft 2 is announced???? I guess that means I'll be like, 50 by the time it's released.

Scripture of the Day: Old Testament-Song of Solomon 6:4-7:5
New Testament-John 6:22-40
Psalms-Morning-98
Evening-66, 116

Saint of the Day: Constantine and Helena (from yesterday)

Icons of the....day/last month: Feast of the Raising of Lazarus
Palm Sunday
Christ cleansing the temple.
Maunday Thursday-Institution of the Lord's Supper
Jesus praying in Gethsemene
Good Friday
Holy Saturday-Christ's descent into Hell (1 Peter 3:18-20)
Easter Sunday
Ascension of our Lord

Debating God's Existence: Did anyone catch the recent Nightline debate with Way of the Master (WOTM) representatives Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort against the Rational Response Squad representatives Brian Sapient and "Kelly?" It was....um....interesting. With the exception of a poorly formed argument against evolution using transitional forms (I'm not a supporter of evolution by any means) from the WOTM group, their arguments were actually pretty good. The Rational Response Squad came across as both angry and their arguments were simply liberal philosophy and politics targetted at religion.....it came across as if America is the worst nation on earth and that because we are a "Christian nation," we should behave more morally than the atheistic nations which are much more moral than we are. Well, that would be misunderstanding Original Sin for starters.

I'm sorry...for me, to be an atheist means that logically I would have to deduce that ultimately there was no meaning in anything, and if I could get away with anything I wanted to....I could....and then I would believe that nihilism would be the best philosophy. As the noted and late saint Jaroslav Pelikan said on his deathbed (or was rumored to have said), "If Jesus Christ rose from the dead, nothing else matters. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead....nothing else matters." As Lent drew to an end and the church celebrated Christ's resurrection, we look at how we are forgiven at the cross and what made the sacrifice ultimately possible and allows us to overcome sin, death, and the Devil is the resurrection. As Christians we are "Easter Christians," but we PREACH Christ crucified as the Holy Apostle Paul says.

Getting back to the debate, it is sad that for starters, they had two evangelists debating rather than apologists. This was a debate that left me banging my head on the desk. For starters, I agree with James White that in public debates (not scholarly ones), AUDIENCE QUESTIONS ARE HAVE NO PLACE!!!!! How could they not refer to the Uncaused First Cause? The atheists believed some of the most ludicrous things....they believed that Jesus never existed and that the universe is eternal!!!! That's completely a denial of the evidence and all they do is close their eyes and say, "show me evidence that Jesus existed and was God?" They can't do it! This is really the most laughable part of the debate.....several atheists are becomming so vehement in their arguments that they are accepting some of the most ridiculous arguments. First of all....Jesus existed! Aside from the New Testament, most of the 1st century documents we have are in reference to Jesus and/or mention Christianity! I don't know how Kelly can say there is quite a bit of 1st century documentation otherwise....she hasn't read them! All that we have from the first century can fit on one of my shelves!

She also claimed (under her breath) that Josephus's comment concerning Jesus was a forgery....and there's an interesting fact about this. Eusebius most likely quoted the original Josephus document (Antiquities) and there is a mention of Jesus albeit with less than we have now. This is evidence that Josephus mentioned Jesus but SOME of the quote, not all of it, is a forgery. There is of course also Tacitus, and the other non-canonical Gospels. Anyway, it is an important debate is because this is the first time on a primetime major network a debate of this magnitude has occurred.....so it was a HUGE evangelism opportunity.

Anway....sorry, my mind is in many different directions. I'm also listening to the Open Lines Way of the Master Radio from May 18th....and there are some questions that I don't agree with the answers given (well....they deny the Sacraments....so right there is a problem):
1. Does God repent of His actions....the Bible says He does change His mind....how is this possible? ANSWER: God changes His Mind which is behavior and action towards us IN TIME....God's Will is eternal and unchanging.
2. Where did the doctrine of Purgatory come about in Roman Catholicism (Todd said 1 Corinthians)? ANSWER: It's also in the book of 2 Maccabbees indirectly because there is efficacious prayer for the dead....though I don't think God speaks positively or negatively on the subject, it just happens.
3. When are we to worship? ANSWER: We should worship at all times...but we need to understand the difference between "sacramental" and "sacrificial"worship. When Holy Communion is offerred, it is considered a Divine Service/Liturgy/Mass where God is the primary actor and we respond secondarily.....and this type of service can happen anyday....but the church is called to offer it without fail on the Lord's Day which Scripture tells us the Apostles celebrated on Sunday.....and as Christians according to Acts 2:42 we are to follow in the spirit of Pentecost and "devote ourselves to the Apsotle's teachings."

Anyway....I'm going to bed :-). I pray that God's will is done on earth as it is in Heaven....this disunity among Christians is disheartening....even though I understand why it is here.

Pax Christi.

On the Eve of Brother Tagge's Chrismation....A Pause

2007-03-30T21:59:00.000-07:00

Scripture of the Day: Galatians 2:16

Icon of the Day: St. Michael the Archangel

I'm writing this post from my friend Michael's apartment in Chicago (and on his laptop). Therefore my normal resources are out of touch. Tomorrow (well, at 8:30 AM today) he will be Chrismated into the Orthodox Church. I have mixed feelings on the issue. I sympathize with him tremendously when it comes to being indignant at the annihilation of the traditions of the church catholic from our synod and the general lack of interest by the laity in the work that the Holy Spirit has done throughout the church's existence. I also sympathize with him concerning doctrinal points that until recently I didn't think could fit within the confines of the Lutheran Confessions (thankfully I was wrong!). However, I regret that he is going to a church that prides itself on its identity and what it perceives as pure white as snow dogma handed down from the Apostles. True, they have authentic apostolic succession, but to me it seems like they are going the direction of the Jews at the time of Christ...worried more about their identity than anything else.

A point of doctrine that I was unaware of until recently was that according to Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff, the Orthodox believe that a theology that has man as sinner and saint simultaneously is incompatible with the ancient church.....but is it? Or is it a thin veil to cover over the problem that the limited view of sin on man's will and nature is incompatible with what is observed in the world....even in Christian nations? To me the whole crux of this issue is sin and the fallen nature of man. Too high a view of man after the fall, and we only need a little help to clean us off and pick us up from falling down and going boom. Too low a view of man after the fall indicates that we are brought back to life, picked up and carried to the nearest house, and pampered while simultaneously having the guy who helped us take over at our job and deal with our problems. I cannot personally accept the Orthodox concept of man as having an inherently free (albeit narrowed and limited) will. Scripture never speaks of this, but does say quite the opposite. "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin" Romans 7:14. "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies and the like" (Galatians 5:19-21a). If indeed that passage is talking about not a choice we make, but our condition before we are joined to Christ, then why would it be followed with this passage, "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful-nature with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24).

Simultaneously with this emphasis away from the evil of man and the limitations of his will ("But now that you have been set free from sin and become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life"-Romans 7:25) there is an emphasis away from legalistic and forensic language. Why is this? I am not totally against the idea that God renews the relationship between us, and makes it better than before, but with regards to our being made righteous before Him it is faith alone in the sacrifice of Christ. That is the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ. "God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses His wrath every day" Psalm 7:11. "However, to the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteous" Romans 4:5. Indeed it is commonly asserted that the Subtitutionary Atonement Model is a view of Anselm and not to be found in Eastern Orthodoxy....indeed that is false. "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" 1 Peter 1:18-19.

It would be argued that the fathers never spoke of this...and again incorrect, for St. John Chrysostom's Homily #8 on the "Church and Repentance" says thus: "God is a great lover of man. He did not hesitate to surrender His Son as prey in order to spare His servant. He surrendered His only-begotten to purchase hard-hearted servants. He paid the blood of His Son as the price. O the philanthropy of the Master! And do not tell me again, “I sinned a lot; how can I be saved?” You cannot save yourself, but your Master can, and to such a great degree as to obliterate your sins. Pay attention very carefully to the discourse. He wipes out the sins so completely that not a single trace of them remains." St. Chrysostom speaks of a price of blood...a price from the sin offerings that much if not all of the Old Testament sacrifices were set up to show.

To wit, this is not what I intended to write so much about. I merely wished to state what I view as problems with the Eastern Orthodox positions on key Scriptural and Christian truths. If Orthodoxy is the "fullness of the Gospel" as many attest to (I admit they have understandings that may be synergistic to the West), why would the full pronouncement of the Gospel for the forgiveness of sins be fully expressed only on the day of Easter? Pay attention to all of the pomp and celebration of the Easter service...it speaks of us being covered in the blood of the lamb for forgiveness of sins. Dr. Eugene Smith chronicled his transition from the Eastern Orthodoxy Church to the Lutheran Church (here) and brought up the questions he was posed by a Lutheran Vicar while he was still a priest. 1. Is God a liar? 2. Do you believe you are forgiven from the cross? 3. What's your problem? 1 and 2 were easy (no and yes respectively)...but he was caught off-guard by question 3. What indeed is our problem? If we are forgiven from the cross and God became fully man and suffered for us....how then do we become deified by what we do (even with grace) when Christ clearly did it all for us? What is our problem with connecting to that grace-filled act on the cross? It is this that Orthodoxy cannot deliver for me....it seeks to connect and experience God through prayer and yet it is everyday that I experience God within me....when I'm at prayer or not.

Regardless of what side of the divide you fall on...make Christ your God and be subservient to Him and His cross.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son +, and to the Holy Spirit.

"Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word"

2007-03-28T22:53:00.000-07:00

Funny Links of the Day:
-The Sentinels have ONE weakness.
-Okay...this is kinda lame.
-Annoying but cool.
-Thankfully he wasn't a St. Louis Cardinal.
-Really cool.......and useless trick.

Scripture of the Day:
Old Testament-Exodus 4:19-31
New Testament-Gospel according to St. Mark 15:16-32
Psalms-Morning: Psalm 38
Evening: Psalm 126 and 102

Icon of the Day: See to the left.

Belated Feast of the Annunciation: This is indeed a time of great joy in the fast of Lent. While we are called to repentence by the sufferings of Christ and his eventual death on a cross (of course, not outside of the context of Easter which all of Lent leads to), it is a nice respite from the focus on Christ's suffering with a preview of his birth! Lo in the season of the remembering of the mystery of Redemption we have a day to think ahead to the season which focuses on the mystery of the Incarnation. The feast is based on the biblical account in the Gospel according to St. Luke 1:28-38 where the archangel St. Gabriel informs the Blessed Virgin Mary that she will become the Theotokos....the mother of God. Her willingness to be submissive to the Father's will is a witness to all of us that while suffering follows from being a Christian, we are redeemed by Christ and take to heart the words St. Peter wrote, "but even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed (1 Peter 3:14)." The feast is usually celebrated on the 25th day of March (9 months before Christmas), but this year it took place on the 26th because (unknown to me before I read Father Weedon's blog) it is a feast of Lent, and Sundays are "in" Lent, not "of" Lent. On those years when the 25th falls on a Sunday, it is moved to the next weekday. Next year I think it takes place on Good Friday.

The prescribed Scriptures for the feast are:
Old Testament-Isaiah 7:10-14
Epistle-Hebrews 10:4-10
Gospel-Gospel according to St. Luke 1:28-38

Eastern Orthodoxy Comments: Reloaded

2007-03-16T00:12:00.000-07:00

Scripture of the Day:
Old Testament - Genesis 39:1-23
New Testament - The Gospel According to St. Mark 10:13-31
Psalms: Morning - Psalm 38
Evening - Psalm 126 and 102

Icon of the Day: St. Augustine - "Doctor of Grace" (I know that today is not his feast day, but he factors heavily in the discussion with Eastern Orthodoxy that I have had with several people.)

Grace, mercy, and peace! As many readers here will know there has been a recent discussion with two of my best friends who are Orthodox over what I had written in the "Sola fide.....really?" post. The contention is that my statement concerning the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of salvation included works in the final equation. While the debate was never over whether the faith we have or even the works God prepares for us are a result of grace, it was over how God sees us justified when we are judged (if indeed this is the initial disagreement). For starters, the Orthodox position as I have rediscovered it is OFFICIALLY the same as the Lutheran view....salvation is achieved by faith intimately tied to works which flow from salvation....the source of which is grace (getting something you don't deserve). The Lutheran view is split apart into different categories so that what St. Paul exposited in his Epistles could be better understood without being taken and twisted into heretical and damaging practices. We believe faith is a free gift of grace and that this faith justifies you (makes you righteous before God the Father) and that INTIMATELY tied to this and flowing FROM the grace and faith is works of charity which is the progress of our sanctification. We even disagree that faith will not be given to the unrepentent! We might disagree with the terms "synergy" or "monergy" in this regard, but either way, our soteriology is almost identical overall.

However, disagreement still abounds, particularly in the area of the fall of man from grace. First of all, I don't even know anymore what the Orthodox church teaches on the subject as it is akin to nailing Jell-O to the wall! Bishop Kalistos Ware states in "The Orthodox Church (2 ed.):" The image of God is distorted by sin, but never destroyed; in the words of a hymn sung by Orthodox at the Funeral Service: ' I am the image of Your inexpressible glory, even though I bear the wonds of sin.' And because we still retain the image of God, we still retain free will, although sin RESTRICTS ITS SCOPE (emphasis mine). Even after the fall, God 'takes not away from humans the power to will - to will to obey or not to obey Him'." So you might think they teach that the human nature is tainted....and while Father Matusiak uses this metaphor with "tarnished silver" which Christ came to polish, he even says blatantly (I mean almost verbatim)that humanity is "inherently good." You might think he is simply a parish priest who is incorrect on this issue (kind of a major point for even a parish priest to be wrong about), but this man is the Orthodox Church in America's head press people (I believe that was his position).

My understanding of the Orthodox view of the Fall and how it has affected humanity is thus:
1. The image of God was tainted/distorted but not destroyed or removed.
2. Man's communion with God was severed by the effects of Adam's disobedience.
3. Man still has free will to choose good actions, but is unable to come to God because of the barrier of sin.

Bishop Ware states: "Many western Christians used to believe that whatever a person does in the fallen and unredeemed state, since it is tainted by original guilt, cannot possibly be pleasing to God." I should start by stating that this point of Bishop Ware's is correct to a point, but he does NOT address something inherent in the action of those who are still fallen and without Christ, and that is that any action, even good is done not for the glory of God, but usually for their own glory or for the remediation of their guilt at seeing suffering of people they can help. Who being fallen says to themselves when helping to give to charity, "I hope this glorifies God?" Father Matusiak said in the radio interview that Christ is our ultimate model......well, yes he is........and he is also our victorious king, because as was stated by another caller, "if Christ's sacrifice was part of the model of his life only....what example did the sacrificed bull show the ancient Israelites?" The answer is that Christ demonstrated not just the consequences but the just punishment for sin. He graciously took our place, and this is the point of the substitionary atonement model. Scripture? Yes: Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 2:2 ("sin sacrifices" are spoken of in Leviticus and needed the shedding of blood from a clean animal).

But you might think, this wasn't the focus of the first post, and you would be right. But what I'm trying to show here is that to focus only on the Christus Victor model undermines the central idea of man as INHERENTLY or "BY NATURE sinful and unclean." Bishop Ware does not deny that the Substitutionary Atonement model is held by the Orthodox, merely that it is not emphasized. He says that the Orthodox do not "feel less happy about compositions of the later Middle Ages such as 'Stabat Mater'" which focus on Christ's human suffering. In this regard, Lutherans don't overemphasize either model, but fully embrace both! For to emphsize Christus Victor is to emphasize Christ's divinity over his humanity and to emphasize the Substitutionary Atonement model is to emphasize Christ's humanity over his divinity. God the Son became limited (though not sinful) man and died in man's place, went through life with men and experienced our triumphs and tragedies, and ultimately took his earthly throne atop a tree to not only reunite man with God, but to take our place as suffering and dying because of the tree in Eden.

Why does the Substitutionary Atonement Model show that man is inherently sinful and evil? Well, it makes sense out of Christ's suffering and the writer of Hebrews words that "Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many..." (9:28). I was challenged to find a Scripture passage which states that man's image has been destroyed. This is perhaps an unfair question, as was my comment, for we do not know FOR SURE what God's image really is.

Some Biblical Passages Supporting Total Depravity:
-In Genesis 8:21, God states that man's heart is evil from its youth.
-Ecclesiastes 9:3 states, "Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead."
-Ephesians 2:3 states that "in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body[a] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
-James 5:17: "Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. "

St. Augustine said in Chapter 58 of "On Nature and Grace": "Observe also what remark he adds, by which he thinks that his position is confirmed: "-->No will,"--> says he, "-->can take away that which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature."--> Whence then comes that utterance: "-->So then you cannot do the things that you would?"--> Galatians 5:17 Whence also this: "-->For what good I would, that I do not; but what evil I hate, that do I?"-->Romans 7:15 Where is that capacity which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature? See, it is human beings who do not what they will; and it is about not sinning, certainly, that he was treating,—not about not flying, because it was men not birds, that formed his subject. Behold, it is man who does not the good which he would, but does the evil which he would not: "-->to will is present with him, but how to perform that which is good is not present."-->Romans 7:18 Where is the capacity which is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature? For whomsoever the apostle represents by himself, if he does not speak these things of his own self, he certainly represents a man by himself. By our author, however, it is maintained that our human nature actually possesses an inseparable capacity of not at all sinning. Such a statement, however, even when made by a man who knows not the effect of his words (but this ignorance is hardly attributable to the man who suggests these statements for unwary though God-fearing men), causes the grace of Christ to be "-->made of none effect,"-->15-1268--> since it is pretended that human nature is sufficient for its own holiness and justification."

This discussion can continue, but the fact remains that there seems to be a correlation in traditions between emphasis of a view of the atonement based on Scripture and the view of the fall of man. Let us reason together!

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son +, and to the Holy Spirit! Amen.