Crisis in the Emerti

Crisis in the Episcopal Church

2006-12-06T14:25:00.000-06:00

http://mcj.bloghorn.com/2775

Sunday Sermon

2006-11-12T23:55:00.000-06:00

When Meg invited me to preach here a few weeks ago, she said you could preach on any text you wanted, and any subject you wanted. This invitation left me with quite a few possibilities. I thought of what other Pastors might be preaching this morning around the Twin Cities.

I figure you might have some preachers talking about this week’s elections, and how their congregation can try to make this world a better place by working for justice

I also figured you might have some preachers talking about people’s moral fallings, and how they need to try harder to live better lives or else!!!!

But I decided to instead preach on some different, and that is the --------Gospel. Here this morning.

And since I don’t really feel like giving you a, song and dance number, a motivational speech or a lot of pop psychology. I figured a good place to preach from is the Holy Scripture and some of its most important words in Romans 5:6-11.

6For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- 8but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Let’s look at these verses.

Verse 6- For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For Verse 6 here lays out the Gospel in 5 words- Christ died for the ungodly.

Some might ask who are the ungodly, since there seems to be a lot of pious people in the churches today. But the ungodly consist of everyone who isn’t God. The ungodly consists of anyone who has ever sinned. The ungodly consists of everyone who has fallen short of God’s salvation. The ungodly consists of everyone in this room and this world.

One thing that should be noted from this verse is that it presents no distinctions about the ungodly- It doesn’t say Christ died for those who-

are kind of ungodly-thereby stating how Christ died for those people who might have sinned in the past, but live holy enough lives to really not be that sinful before God.-

or Christ died for those who-pause used to be ungodly- stating how Christ died for those who might have sinned before, but now they are so righteous, holy, and perfect they have no need for Christ, -

or Christ died for some- - but not the really ungodly- Saying that Christ died for some people, but not the ones that commited the really bad sins.-

This verse speaks of how Christ died for all the of us. For Christ died for all sinners, of which we are all equal.- Christ died for those whose very nature is against God in word and deed. For Christ died because nobody is able to save themselves.-

Verses 7-8 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person- though perhaps for a good person- one would dare even to die. But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

These verses speak of the love God has for us, inspite of us being sinners.

To illustrate this Imagine this, you are walking down the street today, and someone comes out from the behind the bushes and assualts you up leaving you bloody, dinged up, and sore. -

Now imagine, that the Cops catch this person and this person is brought to court, and going to be thrown in jail. -

What Christ- Did for us- is the equivalent of you standing up at the trial and saying- that you are going to serve the criminal’s punishment on his behalf, even after he beat you up. -

For inspite of us being against God because of our sins, Christ still loved us so much, he endured our punishment of death , and overcame it so we may inherit eternal life. -

Christ doesn’t love us because we are perfect and holy. Christ loves us even though we aren’t perfect and holy. Christ loves us even though we are sinners. And this love is so great, Christ values us more than his own life.

Verse 9-9Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. This verse Makes the points- We are justified by Christ’s blood alone, and Christ saved us from the wrath of God. For since Christ loved sinners like us, he did the unthinkable in the cross to save us. He shed his blood on the cross, so we can be justified. For we are justified by Christ’s blood alone meaning that it is only through Christ no doing on our own that we are saved.

For we are more likely to swim across the Atlantic Ocean than we are to earn our salvation.

This verse makes clear that it is because of only the Grace of God that are sins are completely forgiven, not through our works, but only through the complete payment through Christ’s blood.

But yet many churches will still drive home the message of the Gospel plus, the message churches will still say is-Christ died for your sins, now you better do this or else. Churches will preach the Gospel then add moral requirements necessary for salvation still. For the absolute hardest thing for people to grasp is that Christ did it all for our salvation, without our help, without asking us for a thing

I am a big football fan, so let me use an analogy to illustrate this. Many churches it seems view salvation like a football game. Christ’s cross allows you to play in the Football game. Then if you do some good deeds, you score a few points with God, if you do something bad you lose a few points with God, and at the end of your life- If you have done more good things than bad things- God lets you into heaven.

But God doesn’t leave you doubt, For while we sit as spectators, God has achieved victory through Christ Jesus and the score is final. .

For this verse contradicts this thinking of God’s grace allowing us to earn salvation.

For this verse teaches it is by Christ alone that we are saved. Not by Christ with some help from ourselves. For it is by Christ that we are saved from God’s wrath and the fires and torment of hell. But ultimately it is through Christ we know that we have a God that loves us so much, he will go to the cross to bring us to him for all eternity.

Verses 10- 11-10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. These verses speak of how we have been reconciled with God, these verses speak of how we have been made right with God. –

These verses speak of the total, and complete forgiveness of our sins through Christ Jesus.

This happened, because Christ was put to death- Pause-

the very thing that separated us from God because of our sins.

Therefore Christ paid the penalty in full for sin- that made us enemies of God. So it was in Christ’s death- we were made right with God. For it is because of Christ’s resurrection in overcoming death for us through life- that we are able to overcome death for eternal life. -

It is for this fact that we rejoice. It is this belief and no other on which the Church must be centered on. It is because of Christ’s death and resurrection alone do we gather here for worship. It is because of Christ’s death and resurrection- that we know that inspite of our sins, no matter how bad we have committed- we are forgiven. It is because of Christ’s death and resurrection- that at the time of our deaths or the deaths of our loved ones- we are assured that God loves us and forgives us because of his cross, and that because of God’s love we can overcome death and pass

into eternal life. For it is this belief that makes all the difference in our life and death –

For Christ Jesus- Died for the Ungodly- He died for you and he died for me. This passage from Romans speaks of how we are sinners, yet Christ loves us, and died for us and rose again, so we may be completely forgiven by God.

For this is the Gospel- Amen.

Luther Seminary- Great Moments in Heresy-Professors

2006-11-01T01:39:00.000-06:00

1. The current president of the Seminary who is seeking to give Luther a Missional focus declaring that he considers himself a Christo-Centric Univeralist.

2. A Pastoral Care Professor saying "In Pastoral Care, we don't worry about saving souls, whatever that means, when we think of salvation, we think of what you do to the least of these you do unto me"

3. This same Pastoral Care professor praising John Shelby Spong as a theologian who has greatly shaped him in the last few years.

4. An Old Testament Professor saying that "We can't proof-text seven verses on Homosexuality and come to resolution on this manner."

5. A different Old Testament professor declared "God is doing a new thing in Homosexuality and citing Isaiah 43:19"

6. A meeting being hosted on campus led by the ecumenical coordinator for a group called Prayerfully- Pro-Choice.

7. A supposedly conservative Systematics Professor openly denying the Virgin Birth in class.

8. A New Testament professor saying "Morality is ascerned communally". This professor had students read a book written by Dale Martin of Yale which said that "If you really love Jesus you would want to f%&* him"

9. An education professor saying "All truth is Relative"

10. A New Testament Professor promoting Sacramentalism the idea that if you are baptized as an infant whether you have faith or not as an adult- you are saved.

Lutherans For Life on Missouri's Amendment 2

2006-10-28T05:34:00.000-05:00

http://www.lutheransforlife.org/PDF_Files/MO_stem_cell_initiative_2006.pdf

Heresy Warning-

2006-10-27T19:35:00.000-05:00

Two

1. I was talking to a seminary classmate, and he had a CPE experience with a girl who was pursuing ordained ministry in the ELCA. She openly said to her whole group "She didn't believe in God, but in the concept of love instead." -Yikes.

2. In this month's Lutheran magazine, their is an ad for Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary which promotes as its four core principles: Lutheran Identity, Multi-Cultralism, Public Sphere, and Religious Pluralism- Yikes

Stem-Cell Article

2006-10-26T11:19:00.000-05:00

This being one of the most divisive issues this election season, due to controversial measures like Missouri's Amendment Number 2. The debate over Stem-Cell research is terribly misconstrued by the media. Here's an article from Ryan T. Anderson of First Things from the Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000
/012/861hhanx.asp?pg=1

New Writer

2006-10-25T18:44:00.001-05:00

I have doubled the writing staff to the Emerti Blog to 2 people. My good friend Carl Fiskness will also be giving commentary from time to time. Carl is another Lutheran who offers a Bible-Based Christ-Centered persepctive to the debates of our ages.

Back and Proof-Texting

2006-10-25T18:42:00.000-05:00

I'm back I have had some personal turmoil for the last several months that has occupied time away from blogging. But I am back ready to confront the false doctrine and heresy that has perverted itself throughout Christendom. This perversion most specifically plays itself out in Mainline Denomiations, like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America to which I formerly belonged. I am currently in my last year at a Seminary in this denomiation- Luther Seminary.

At Luther, we have a Senior Biblical Theology class led by a professor who seems to consider himself "confessional" and "conservative", this might sound good but it's not. To give you an example of this guy's Biblical Hermaneutic, he has said on more than one occasion in regards to Homosexuality- "That we can't just proof-text seven verses and come to an answer on this question" . This professor also wrote an article entitled "The heresy of infalliability". So this should give you a good idea who you are dealing with.

So I better respond to his objections over proof-texting. Well this is a ridicolous statement in the first place since most major doctrines especially within Lutheranism are based on a few scripture texts. No one would ever say something like you can't just base a doctrine of the Lord's Supper on 1 Corinthians 10, or a doctrine of Baptism on Matthew 28. No one would say you can't just proof-text Romans 1 for the doctrine of justification. All major doctrines are based on specific texts.

I would also challenge whether this is proof-texting this isn't some argument citing some scripture passages against the other, the whole weight of Biblical evidence states that Homosexuality is sinful. A proof-text is meant to state what the Bible says and it seems to be pretty uniamous as to it's statement.

The last idea I should challenge is with such a statement as the professor's proof-texting statement. It would seem scripture has no authority, which it really doesn't but he wouldn't open say that. Instead, what has authority is some Christian-Centric hermeanutic. Never mind this hermeanutic often makes the end result totally subjective. I talked about it some here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/09/generic-gospel.html.

The idea that since Christ was welcoming, or tolerant, or loved people this argument takes many forms, we should bless homosexual behavior. Never mind that Jesus constantly tries to change people from their live of sin.

This also raises a problem since it is poor scripture intrepretation. For scripture speaks as either law or gospel to the situation it address. In Romans 1:26-27, it is addressing homosexuality as sinful behavior. You can't just make up some vague ethic and apply it however you want. Scripture still determines doctrine as it did for Christ. Scripture either has authority or it doesn't, it doesn't have authority in the sense we want it to have authority.

7-30 Sermon

2006-07-31T16:21:00.000-05:00

This is from my return to the Pulpit, doing some guest preaching in Sioux City, Iowa based on Ephesians 1:3-14

Good Morning, Before I start speaking this morning I wish to extend thanks to the Worship Committee of Saint Luke’s Lutheran Church for inviting me down here this morning, and also to extend a very special thanks for John, and Lorene Glant for hosting me last evening. I look forward to having a chance to meet all of you after the service.

I know a guy at Luther Seminary where I go to school named Brian. Brian is different than the other students at Luther Seminary in the amount of obstacles he has had to overcome in his life. For Brian has Cerebal Palsy a disability that affects movement throughout one’s life. Cerebal Palsy effects Brian’s movement for example he carries himself with a very noticeable akward posture.

When Brian had first came to Luther, he went to a Minnesota Twins game with a group of guys with the Seminary. I noticed great difficulty walking for him at a normal pace due to the challenges with lifting his legs when he walked.

Besides having these difficulties with movement, Brian also has a speech impediment that can make his words difficult to understand. So Brian goes through challenges in his late twenty’s a lot of people can’t comprehend.

But yet when it comes to his faith Brian realizes perhaps as well as anybody I have ever met what means to be blessed by God. When Brian starts talking about what Christ’s love, salvation, and forgiveness means to him, you can just see the joy that comes over him.

He worked in the Kitchen at the Seminary, and a few times I would here him just belt out his favorite songs of praise. He might not have won on American Idol, but he wasn’t for one second going to hold back his praise for God.

When some people see Brian they might say this guy has reason to be angry at God for his hardships. But when you talk to Brian you hear a young man speak who knows what it means to blessed by God.

For today’s scripture reading from Ephesians 1 deals with blessing. It addresses the question what does it mean to be blessed?

Now before I talk about what I mean to be blessed I better talk about what blessing doesn’t mean.

You can turn on the TV on Sunday Morning and hear a preacher talk about how people because they are such dedicated Christians, God has given them more money. You can go to some churches and hear people talk about how someone was so faithful, God restored them to perfect health. You might hear someone telling you that since they became a Christian, they’re life became much easier. This message is what some would call the Health, Wealth, and Prosperity Gospel. This is the idea that God blesses Christians only to make our life easier.

But this message is quite different from what the Apostle Paul is talking about when he speaks of “ be blessed “in today’s text from Ephesians. For when Paul and others became a Christian- they never encountered any of this health, wealth, or prosperity. For when Paul and others in the Early Church became Christians they were stoned, whipped, nearly murdered, thrown in prison and eventually beheaded. So the last thing, Paul was ever blessed with was health, wealth or prosperity. For Paul being a Christian made his life much harder. And in our own lives our we and our loved ones have had our own personal, financial, and health difficulties even though we are Christian people

But yet, Paul still spoke of himself and us as being blessed . For Paul being blessed was about more than lots of money, lots of admiration, or easy living. Rather Paul was blessed because he had a God who loved him greatly. A God that inspite of Paul’s sins went to the cross so may be forgiven. Paul spoke of being blessed as being more than just earthly comfort. Paul spoke of being blessed as knowing that inspite of what you have done wrong God will forgive you, Paul spoke of being blessed as knowing whatever hardships you will endure in this world, Christ died on the cross so you may be in paradise with God for all eternity. It is this blessing that makes all the difference in our life and death.

This is the first time in my 26 years, I have ever been to Sioux City, Iowa. I am not even sure if I had seen a picture of Sioux City before yesterday. There are very few of you in the audience I have met. And the ones I have met I don’t know too well. But there are a few things I am sure of.

First - We are all sinners, everyone hear has done things that we know that not only are we not proud of, but we know God doesn’t approve it. We have sinned against God in word and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not always loved our neighbors as ourselves. We rebel against God every day by our very nature.

Because of this there are people out there today that may be asking “ I have not always been the best Christian can God still accept me? “ or “ “What I have done is so bad an could God possibly forgive me?”

But second thing I am sure of is that no matter how bad a sinner you are or have been?

God can forgive you. For Paul in I Timothy 1 describes himself as the worst of all sinners. Yet as he says in verse 7 of this text, he is forgiven and blessed by God’s endless and infinite grace.

Paul in this text says we know we are blessed because Christ came inspite of being sinners, and died so we may be forgiven of our sins.

Paul says we are blessed because Christ came so we may united with God for all of eternity.

The Ephesians text speaks of Blessing in such a way that even if you have had hardship in your life like Brian. Even if you might not be the richest, the best-looking, the best athlete, the greatest talker, the healthiest, or have the best life. God has provided you with blessings much greater than all these things: Endless Love, Forgiveness, and Salvation.

If someone were to ask me after the service how I would define God’s blessing: “I would say receiving what we do not deserve, yet God provides for us “

For God has blessed us by giving us so much we don’t deserve, of which we reap wonderful benefits. For God has blessed you by coming to die, so we may be forgiven of our sins and spend eternity with God. God has blessed us so we may receive the wonderful gift of salvation. This is how God blessed Paul in much greater ways than just health, wealth, or prosperity.

The second part of the Ephesians text speaks of blessing in a different sort of context. It says God works all things for good. This text states that all the bad things that happen to us, God uses them to bless us.

These words in verse 11 seem quite scary to hear. You are probably saying I have had all these problems in my life, how can God be possibly working them for good?

How could my bad times end up be a blessing. How can all these bad things lead to salvation?

In fact I believe that it can be the very bad things in our life that can bring us the blessing of salvation.

Let me explain, Imagine a world, where as soon as you just get up you are no longer tired, then you make breakfast and nothing is ever dry or burnt, then you have a nice-relaxing drive to work, then you love every second of your work day, then you come home and there is never any conflict of any sort.

Imagine a world which you live in day after day, and there is never sort of tears, pain, or hardship. Now, if we lived in such a perfect, ideal world.

How would one ever have any sort of need for God’s salvation, since life is perfect what would you be saved from. If life was always ideal how could one realize their sin and their need for Christ.

For example, I was talking to a friend of mine who told about when she lost very suddenly lost her mother to an aneyrsum. It was in this experience that was probably that her faith was all that she could trust and take comfort in.

It was in this time of great personal sadness and turmoil that all her hope for this world and beyond, lied in not what she or her mom had done, nor could she take hope in how wonderful her life was always going to be , but rather she could take hope only in the wonderful blessing of salvation, forgiveness and eternal life that springs forth from Christ’s cross.

Some people think about blessing they might only think it terms of how rich, how athletic, how powerful, or how good of health one might be in.

But how God blesses us goes beyond these things. God blesses us with his love, grace, forgiveness, and salvation. It is these blessings that comfort us and provide us strength in our most difficult times.

When thinking of those who understand blessing, I think of Brian. Brian who could very easily be mad at God for all the hardship in his life. Yet, Brian still just lives his life praising God for the great blessing of his salvation. Brian knows that he has received the wonderful blessing of being forgiven for his sins, Brian knows the blessing of having a God who brings us hope on our most difficult of days, and Brian takes comfort in our blessing of having a God who will take us away one day from the struggles of this world into his kingdom and loving arms for all of eternity.

Amen.

Those Methodists

2006-06-05T23:00:00.000-05:00

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/472880.html

Davinci Code Review

2006-05-29T23:01:00.000-05:00

I was on my way back from a Minnesota Twins game yesterday, when My Dad wanted to know if I could go out for dinner with my Mom and my grandma. To which I said "Yes", but he said we would be eating after watching the Davinci Code. It's not something I would see on my own, and I hadn't read the book but I knew it's basic misleading theological content. So here is my review.

The Good: It does have a very intresting storyline with quite a few surpising plot turns. If someone likes murder mysteries- combined with quasi-history they probably would like this movie. I think the Critics that ripped it as a flim give it a raw deal. I actually enjoyed sitting through it as a movie-goer. I will say this about Dan Brown his next book The Solomon Key is going to be written to expose Free-Masonry.

The Bad:This blog was started to expose heresy and this movie was ripe with it. Such as Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene named Sarah, that they were married, and Mary was supposed to be the leader of the Church not Peter. Brown's sources non-canonical gospels like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Phillip. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene was a second century Gnostic Gospel used to promote the idea that Jesus came to help us discover our own goodness, so we may be liberated from time. the Gospel of Philip emphaized the sacramental nature of Sexual Intercourse. These books were rejected in the Early Church due to their sharp contrast to Paul's writings and earlier Gospel accounts. The movie also says Constaine was a pagan before his death-bed who only choose Christianity to avoid violence while also promoting Paganism on the side. This book also states there was no basis for the decision at the Council of Nicea to declare Jesus divine. The real goal of Jesus was to continue the Church through Mary. But this was hidden because of a fear of goddess worship. This movie also denies the Resurrection. This movie denies the Entire Christian Faith. I'm not going to comment on the Opus Dei and the Priory as dueling sects, since this isn't a great area of my knowledge.

Would I go watch it: Hard to say, the story is actually good. The theology underlying this movie is deadly. But if one knows this going in then it might be worth seeing.

Renewing Worship

2006-05-11T21:09:00.000-05:00

The ELCA Hymnal project which will produce a Hymn Book entitled Evangelical Lutheran Worship has produced some trends detailed here by Gracia Grindal at

www.luthersem.edu/ggrindal/OpenLtr_GG_Dec2003.pdf

http://www.luthersem.edu/ggrindal/language.htm.

While some classics are kept in place, some are changed, and some aren't there altogether. I would prefer this hymnal be used http://www.reclaimlutheranworship.org/introductory.php

The worship service also shouldn't be centered on our efforts for human justice, as ELH has many hymns that emphaize this theme. Our Worship should be centered on our forgiveness precisely from the fact that God didn't give us what we deserve, but instead died on the cross for our sins.

I have not had a chance to review ELH in depth. But the report of having 10 communion settings, I would question. Although I am not as much of an absolutist on this issue as some this seems to be quite excessive, as what a communion setting should be an sermon-an the words of instution, and then you recieve the means of grace.

This along with the Grindal letter should express my concerns in full.

Contemp. Worship

2006-05-11T01:33:00.000-05:00

I've been accused of being a shill in the past for both Contemporary and Traditional Worship. But what I really prefer is traditional hymns spruced up with drums, guitars, a keyboard, and song leaders. This is to not to say I am against newer praise songs, especially if they are popular and catchy such as Beautiful One, Days of Elijah, Forever, I Can Only Imagine, etc. Any song that is quite popular in contemporary Christian music one can look at singing.

But I prefer to choose from a collection of about 50 of the most popular hymns of all-time. Singing three-five hymns a week this cycle should extend about 10-12 weeks. People like to sing hymns they know, and it makes worship more meaningful for them. Never have them learn more than one new song per week, and don't have one new song, and two songs they might vaguely know.

The problem one runs into with Contemporary Worship in some settings is finding enough people to do it well especially in small-town settings. When I see Contemporary Worship done poorly, the issue is that people sing the same six campfire songs that they have been singing for the last 10 years.

A lot of the issues as to when to do contemporary worship will depend on setting. I would not advocate stirring the pot too much when it comes to forcing these issues. A balance of worship styles would seem to work best for a diverse congreation.

Classic Sermon

2006-05-05T02:11:00.000-05:00

This is from my First-Year Preaching Lab at Seminary. The Professor said he would use it word for word. I know the editing is terrible, but here goes.

Some gardens can produce nutritents which sustain our

lives, or gardens can eventually rot to death,

depending on how people tend to gardens,  this idea of

gardens producing life and death is evident in God’s

word, because of how people tend to them.

Today’s text from Philipians can be related back to

Gardens, and what how life and death came from Gardens

in the Bible.  The Philipians text speaks of Christ’s

humilty.  Verses 6 and 7 speak of how Christ how

Christ humbled himself into the form of man.  How

Christ was humble, and trusting in God even to the

point of death in a form way more gruesome from what

we know about 1st century crucifixions,  than Mel

Gibson could even re-create in the passion.  What was

the point of Christ humbling himself and how does this

relate to gardens,  in this way for that answer we

need to look way back to Genesis 3, and how the first

Garden produced death in Eden.  God had provided Adam

and Eve with a paradise, so unbelievable we can not

comprehend, due to the fallen world we lived in, but

Adam and Eve seemingly needed more. God had specifally

told them though not to eat from the tree in the

middle.   In  Verse 3 Adam and Eve state they know

that they know they must not eat from the tree in the

middle of the Garden or they will disobey God, and

they will turn from God.  In verse 4 the Serpent

twists truth as is often the case with sin.   For Sin

is something that appears good on the service, like

the fruit in the Garden as it states they saw in Verse

6, how good this fruit appeared to be.  The serpent

stated they would not die in the terms they thought

they would, but what the serpent didn’t tell them is

that this death would separate them from God, this

death would destroy the good order of creation.  Adam

and Eve hear had a choice they could rely on their own

temptations or desires, as they would figure they knew

better than God, or they could humbly trust in God

realizing all God had provided them with.  Adam and

Eve didn’t choose humility in the Garden of Eden they

choose, their own self-desires, and in turn creation

was made into a haven of human desire rather than

God’s desire as this is evidenced throughout the Old

Testament with Murder, Idolatry, Slaughter, Sexual

Pervesion, and constant examples of human desire the

lack of humility in the Garden of Eden for the Wages

of Sin were death, and this is turn  is what seperated

man from God.  This self-desire here in the Garden in

entrapped the human condition in sin.  There was no

way that humanity could escape from sin at this point,

because of Man’s lack of humility before God.

               Now let’s turn to Mark 14:32 and see of how in the

Bible, a Garden produced life.  As we enter the Garden

of Gethesemene, this sequence is powerfully recreated

in the Passion.  The first thing we see from scripture

about  Christ’s humility in the Garden is that he

prayed, Christ acknowledged that the only way he could

get through the trials of the next 12 hours was with

the strength of God.   Jesus in verse 36 he states let

not human will but God’s will be done.  The practice

of people trying to perform their own will rather

God’s, was the very reason Christ had to come down and

overcome death on the cross.  For the human condition

of sin is very serious business, although some in the

Church would like to have you think God gives sin a

wink and a nod.  If there were any other ways to

Salvation, why would Christ have endured what he

endured.  The Passion in Gethesmene  shows Christ knew

that if not for what he was going to go through Sin

would not have been able to defeat sin.  The images of

the Satan and the Snake are really quite provactive

images in the passion. Satan tries to tempt Christ to

not endure the next 12 hours , when in the Passion he

asks “If one man can bear the full burden for sin.”,

basically trying to get Christ to abandon God’s will

for the human will of acting for themselves, just like

Adam did in the Garden of Eden.  Christ stands firm

though through this temptation and as soon as a

serpent comes out of Satan like in the Garden of Eden,

comes out, Christ smashes the snake to signal the end

of humanity’s burden of sin is near.

The  humilty by seeking to perform God’s will rather

than Human will,  by Christ beginning at Birth to

Gethesemene all the way to the Cross is how Christ

defeated sin by living a life free of sin, and then

defeating death by rising on the third day..

               Now I ask you today what type of garden are you

trying to re-create in your life.  Are you trying to

re-create a Eden, in which you uplift yourself, and

display a complete lack of humility before God.  Will

you try to re-create the type of Garden which might

appear to be good, and satisfying like the fruit in

Eden, but deep down eats you up inside, the garden

which seeks to separate one from God.  This Garden is

what brought us death and seperation from God.

               Or will you try to re-create a garden like

Gethesemene in which you try to do emulate Christ in

Gethesemene.  Christ did two things in Gethesmene that

we can seek to emulate in our own lives.  The first

thing is Prayer.  Prayer is how we build our

relationship with God, it is our communication between

us and the maker.  Prayer is where we draw our

strength in God throught the trials, and hardships

that life might bring us.  I can’t promise Prayer

eliminates hardships, but it helps us realize that we

are not going through these hardships alone and that

someone will be listening .  The second thing Christ

did in the Garden and throughout his whole life, was

trust to perform God’s will, not human will.   Christ

seemed to perform God’s will by putting others before

himself, by seeking to teach what God wanted him to

teach, and to go out and share the saving faith

provided by God.

               For the actions in the Garden of Eden brought about

Death for humanity by entreching the human condition

in sin, human arrogance led to man turning from God,

and to himself thereby seperating man from God. God

loved humanity way too much to keep this condition in

place.  So God assumed human form in Christ Jesus and

came to Earth, fully human/fully divine. Read from

Philipians 2:8.  In that very death, and subsquent

resurrection the wages of sin in death was defeated

providing life for all those who follow Christ.  As

the attitude of Man in Eden brought death, subsquently

Christ’s humility as shown in Gethesmene brought life.

A question of death

2006-04-27T00:08:00.000-05:00

Q: People will sometimes ask you what happens right after you die do you go to immediately be with Christ or are you not with Christ till the final resurrection.

A: Christ clearly says to the theif on the Cross "Today you will be with me in paradise"-Luke 23:43. The Apostle Paul speaks of how it is better to be out of this world, and be at home with the Lord-2 Corinthians 5:8, and Phillipians 1:23-24.

But Paul also speaks in 1 Thessolonians 4:13-18, about the soul being asleep upon our death, and eventually rising on the last day. Christ also speaks people literally coming out of tombs and rising from the dead to go onto eternal life or eternal punishment at the last day-John 5:28-29. The Apostle Paul then speaks of how our resurrected bodies will physically change and be glorified (which means our bodies will be like God created us and perfect.

So to string these seemingly contradictory verses together. What I think happens is that upon our death we are in some state of bliss as evidenced by the theif of the cross, but during the final resurrection we will be brought back to life and made perfect and all of sin, death, and evil will be defeated forever more.

Coming Up: Topics on Worship Issues

Article

2006-04-11T09:08:00.000-05:00

Found this intresting.

http://www.startribune.com/614/story/363359.html

Ash Wed. Sermon

2006-03-02T08:46:00.000-06:00

Not exactly feel-good preaching. So fans of Osteen, Vincent Peale, Schuler, or the Process wouldn't like it.

Tonight we come together to do something that might seem strange at first glance. We put ashes on one’s forehead, and mark the sign of the cross . It might not be clear as to why we do this. .

But the tradition of placing ashes on one’s forehead is one of of centuries of tradition in the Christian church, with it’s very roots from scripture itself. -

The first mention of Ashes being used in the history of the Church occurs in the third century- when those who were viewed as really bad sinners and had been kicked out of the Church, such as murderers and adulters. would put ashes on their forehead to state their sorrow for their sin, and hope to be let back into the Church-.
This practice would continue for hundreds of years. Now there were certain periods of the year when these certain sinners, could ask to be let back into the Church.
But during the middle ages, the most common times for public sinners to try to get back into the Church was during the season of lent. –

For Lent is a season of repentance- a season of acknowledging our sins before God, and our need for Christ’s salvation. A season to focus on all Christ did for us, and what it means. –

So Ashes on the forehead soon took on a different meaning. In the 12th century-Ash Wednesday became the beginning of the Lenten season. By placing the ashes on the forehead- a confession of is given of one’s sins, and one’s need for forgiveness by the cross of Christ. –

Although interestingly in Church History- After Lutherans split from the Catholic Church in the 16th century. Within a few generations, Lutherans stopped using Ashes during Ash Wednesday services till within the last 30 years–

The reason for this isn’t entirely clear-since Martin Luther never really wrote anything about this practice. –
And Lutherans have always believed that if ceremonies like placing Ashes can have benefit for people’s faith life they can be used. –

There are reasons Lutherans wouldn’t want to use place ashes on the forehead Ash Wednesday, these reasons include: If people think it’s a necessary for salvation to place ashes on their forehead, -
or if people think they get extra grace or blessings from God for putting on ashes-
or people wear ashes to show off their faithfulness to other people. –

Although placing Ashes on one’s forehead comes originally from the Bible. Ashes have a two-fold meaning in the Bible. The first use is to remind us of our own mortality as found in Genesis 3:19 and stated tonight when Ashes were put on your forehead which states –

-“ Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.”.
What this means is that God created us from out of nothing. God created life from the dust of the ground.
But when Genesis 3:19 says “to dust you shall return” ,these words are spoken right after Adam and Eve committed their first sin. Adam and Eve’s sin would be the cause of every sin for all of eternity (Romans 5:12) . At the same time, Sin has a punishment and that punishment is death (Romans 6:23) .-

For everyone who has ever done something wrong, whether it be putting yourself before God or others, or doing something you know God doesn’t want you to do.-
Whether you think it’s just once, or a million times.
All people have fallen short of God’s standards of perfection for salvation. For as stated in Romans 3-No one has met God’s standards for salvation on their own, no one. –
It is because death came into this world through sin- we deserved to go back into the ground. For as our lives started by God’s creation of bringing us out of the ground, our lives end due to our sin being put to death back in the ground, where our bodies return to the dust out of which they were formed.-

So the first meaning of ashes from Genesis 3:19-Is one of our mortality. It is a statement of confessing our sin and saying, we deserve God’s Punishment, , For we are sinners who deserve to lie dead in the ground from which we came. –

The second thing the Ashes signify is our repentance. In tonight’s scripture reading from Job 42-verse 6- Job states that he is sorry for not trusting in God. –
When Job repents “he says I am wrong God because I did this, and I need your salvation.” To repent- Job placed dust and ashes on his forehead.-

The practice of repenting with dust and ashes is found also in the New Testament when Jesus says in Matthew 11 to cities that had been especially wicked, they should have acknowledged their wrong doing before God by repenting in ashes. –

So to repent with ashes is to say:
I am not going to get to heaven because I lived such a good life,

it is to say I have committed sins, and I have done things, I am not proud of. –

To place ashes on one’s forehead is to say I need Christ to forgive me. –

It is to say I need Christ like the beggar needs bread, or those wandering in the desert need water.

For we are as likely to earn our own salvation as we are to swim across the pacific ocean against a fierce wind. It is not going to happen. Yet we need Christ to throw our life preserver of his cross.

For Christ gained salvation for us. Christ overcame death, so one day we may overcome death. –

So the second reason we places ashes on our forehead is to say because I am a sinner, I need Christ, and I need his salvation. –

So why do we place ashes- on our forehead. 1.To state we are imperfect we have sinned against God, in thought, word, and deed. We have fallen way short of God’s salvation, and we deserve the punishment of eternal death. We deserve to return in the ground from which we came. 2. To repent, to say- because I am a sinner, I am unable to save myself, I need to trust in Christ for my salvation. –

But we don’t just place the Ashes on our forehead to say how bad we are. When the Ashes are placed on they are made in a sign of a cross- For it is by the cross of Christ we are made right with God.-
It is this mark that says-although we deserve God’s punishment, Christ took on the punishment we deserved, where as we deserved death-Christ served our penalty of death.

. It is because of Christ’s cross- that punishment for our sin can go away.
It is because of Christ’s cross, we know in spite of whatever we have done wrong in the past, we are forgiven by faith in our savior. –

In this room tonight come people from a variety of backgrounds, but people that all have one thing in common. We are all sinners, we have done more things, than we can maybe even recall we are not proud of. we have wronged God by our bad thoughts, our bad words, and our bad actions. –
We deserve God’s punishment. We need to repent of our sins, and trust in Christ for our salvation. –
But God doesn’t give us punishment-he gives us salvation , he gives us his forgiveness through his cross, his death, and his resurrection. Christ died when we deserved death, yet Christ gives us eternal life.-

We place the ashes on our forehead to publicly say “God I am a sinner, I deserve your punishment, I need your salvation,
but the ashes are marked with the sign of the cross to say “By Christ’s cross you are forgiven”-Amen

Sunday Sermon

2006-02-26T13:59:00.000-06:00

If I were to go out onto the street and ask people “ who is Jesus” “What is Jesus about” I might get a variety of answers. Some might say to me well Jesus was a great teacher, some might say Jesus was a great thinker, some might describe Jesus as moral great example. Some might say Jesus was loving, and open, Muslims would tell you that Jesus was a good prophet but neither the son of God nor a savior, Jews would disagree with Jesus’ claims to be God, and the Messiah. , Buddhists might speak fondly of Jesus because they think he was dedicated to the happiness of all people. For there are many things people might tell you about Jesus.

But Today’s Gospel lesson on the Transfiguration begins to ulitmately answer the question of “who is Jesus?”

Up until this point in the Gospel of Mark- Jesus had driven demons out of people, and healed people . Jesus had fed five-thousand people, with five loaves of bread and 2 fish. People had heard Jesus tell parables, and explain to them the Christian faith.

And Maybe a week before they had even hear Jesus talk about how he must be rejected by those in authority, killed, and after three days rise again.

But who exactly would be undergoing this dying and rising, this is what today’s Gospel reading seeks to answer.

In Today’s Gospel Reading, Jesus goes up onto the mountain top with Peter, James, and John. Then something strange happens all of a sudden-The scripture reading says that Jesus was transfigured. To be transfigured means a change in appearance or form.

For instance, the seventh grader who grew six inches, and gained fifty pounds of muscle over the summer , would be transfigured.

But Jesus transfiguration or changing of appearance was a bit different. The scripture reading from Mark says that Jesus’ clothes become a dazzling white, whiter than anyone could bleach them. Other gospel accounts of the Transfiguration describe Jesus clothes as being bright as light, and his face shining like the sun. -

This wasn’t the first shock to come though for the three disciples, then -all of a sudden Moses and Elijah appear along Jesus. Moses who had freed the Israelites from the slavery of the Egyptians, given God’s Law, and was buried by God around 1200 years before with Elijah who had brought a dead boy back to life, and called down fire from heaven. Elijah who had been taken up to heaven by God in a fiery chariot via a whirlwind, 800 years before. They were now standing alongside Jesus before Peter, James, and John.

But then even more shocking !!!! a Cloud came over head and the voice from the cloud then speaks the important words of this passage “ This is my son, whom I love. Listen to him”.
It was in those words that state all the heroes of the faith that had come before such as Moses and Elijah whatever they had said about God, or whatever miracles they did, were all leading to God’s salvation in Jesus Christ.

It was in those words along with Christ’s transfiguration that spoke to that Jesus is of God, and is god.

For in scripture:
Colossians 1-speaks of Jesus being the image of God, and the first born in all of creation.
In Philipians 2-It speaks of Christ being in the form of God, and equal to God.
Colossians 2- speaks of Christ being God in a human body. John 1 points to Jesus being present at the creation of the world.

So when scripture speaks of Jesus, he wasn’t just a someone who did great things through God and was faithful like Moses and Elijah, but rather God himself.

Although to just focus on stories of Jesus displaying great power like the transfiguration, doesn’t paint a full picture of who God is.

For instance, This month I have been choosing hymns to sign during the service. So considering what hymns to sign I thought about the hymn Holy, Holy, Holy- And this song speaks about how “ God is holy, God is without sin, God is perfect, God deserves to be worshipped by all people living and dead, and God does many great things in the world”- And all these things are 100 percent true.

But standing up here as one, who doesn’t like to be critical of great classic hymns. I saw this song like the Transfiguration as not giving the full details of who God is.

For when speaking of someone as Holy means to be “set apart” or to be “different” from us so it is true that God is different from us by his awesome power, and perfection.

But God’s most important work is centered on the doing something unholy, something downright shocking, the last thing, you would ever expect God to do, and that was to come into this imperfect sinful world in our flesh, as Jesus, and suffer the humiliation of the cross to bring us salvation.

For in the words of Phillipians 2:6-8 speaking of Christ says “Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! “

In the last couple weeks in the news their has been a lot in the news about the controversial Danish cartoons of Mohammed-the founder and leader of the Islamic faith, which caused riots, and demonstrations with some Muslims. The fury was caused by Muslims saying that Mohammed must be honored, and Mohammed must not be insulted.

Where as in Christianity the saving work of Jesus Christ is based on Christ being insulted, and mocked.

. For Jesus as Holy as he is, as perfect as he is, even though he is God.

He still came into this world and he became one of us.

Yet he was mocked, riducled, stripped, spit on, forced to wear a crown of thorns, and beaten by religious leaders, and government leaders of his day. To top it all of he died what was considered the most, humiliating death of all and that was death on the cross.-

He did this Inspite of every bad thought, bad word or bad action we have ever committed.-

All so sinners like us can be forgiven. –

For when Muslims speak about Jesus Christ-the hardest thing for them to understand is how someone being of God could ever have been put to death in such a humiliating way as the cross. But you can’t understand who Jesus is without understanding how Jesus did the very last thing, one would ever expect a God to do.-

For every Sunday-we speak of Christ’s power, his miracles, the trueness of his teachings, and his authority. But we don’t really understand who Jesus is- Without all he endured to show the depths of his love for us and bring us salvation. –

So who is Jesus? He is more than just a great teacher, or thinker. He is more than just a moral example, he came to offer us more than self-help theories. For Jesus is our God, who out of his love for us, did the unthinkable, so he could be our savior.-Amen

More Star Tribune

2006-02-16T10:23:00.000-06:00

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/249772.html

Read this and all you can say is wow. To speak of Roe vs Wade as Redeeming is sad. Read how little value she places to the unborn. This is Narcissim in its purest form.

Abortion is a Civil Rights issue. For the same mindset that led to slavery, and holocaust is behind Abortion. The idea that life in a certain form is inferior to life in another form, so life in the so-called lesser form can be abused or even destroyed.

For Biblical background on Abortion see http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/abortion-debate.html

John Piper

2006-02-09T14:28:00.000-06:00

On the difference between Christ's Humilty and Mohammed's exualation and the impact it has on its followers.

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2006/020806.html

Sunday Sermon on Miracles

2006-02-06T11:40:00.000-06:00

Today’s Gospel reading from Mark starts with Jesus placing his hands over Peter’s mother in law, and instantly curing her fever. Then the Disciples brought many people from the City of Capernaum to Jesus. Jesus would then proceed to heal people of a variety of illness’ while driving demons out of them.

Now this story of Jesus healing people with his touch might seem hard to believe.. But this is just one of many stories about Jesus that might seem hard to believe. For it is hard to believe that Jesus was really born of a virgin? It is hard to believe that Jesus really did walk on Water. It is hard to believe that Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of Bread and 2 fish. It is hard to believe that Jesus could turn Water into wine? It is hard to believe that Jesus could cure the sick of their illness with his touch. And it is hard to believe that Jesus rose from the dead two days later.

For the miracles of Jesus can be difficult to believe in, since we never have experiences like them.. For example you could pour a pitcher of water into a cup millions of times, and it in all likihood won’t turn into wine. If you were to go out on Lake Shamineau, and try to step out of a boat and walk on water, you would instantly realize why swimming lessons are a good idea. You could go out to Lakewood Health Center everyday for years, touch everyone there in a hospital bed, and no one would be instantly healed of serious illness. You never hear of anyone being born of a virgin, and you have never seen the dead walking around town. For The miracles of Jesus seem so spectuaalr, so extraordinary in this day, that it can be easy to wonder if they really happened. –

But when someone goes up to me and says “Did Jesus really do all the miracles that the Bible said he did,?-
It takes me a half-second to respond “Absolutely, yes”. For although Miracles are so contradictory to our everyday experiences, they are at the very center of the Christian Faith. –
For The Christian Faith without Miracles, would be like the Super Bowl being played today without a football, there would’t be much there. –

When looking at how miracles shape the Christian faith.
In The Virgin Birth- Jesus was born of a virgin, so that he was would be different than every other child, For Jesus was God born in human flesh.
It was because Jesus was God in human flesh that his resurrection became possible. - Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, so he could overcome sin and death the- the penalty of sin. For only God in human flesh could do what no human could do, and that was live a life without sin, and then defeat sin’s penalty in death by his resurrection. .

He did this out of his great love for people, all that they may be saved. How did people hear of this salvation through the Bible. For The Bible itself is miraculous in its origins. For it is not just the written words of humans like Harry Potter, Moby Dick, or Tom Sawyer. For the Bible is authoriative in that it is God’s inspiriation and God’s conviction of people that brought God’s very word and the message of salvation to be written down and spread throughout all nations.
For without these miracles of Christ’s birth, Christ’s message , or Christ’s resurrection then there would be no way for us to receive salvation.

But still people will say? Miracles are so strange? So out of the ordinary? How can I ever believe in them? Well if one believes in God. They would say that God created nature as it is. By this I mean someone would say God created the world so that people need to be born with two parents, God created the world so you can’t stand on top of water. God created the world so when people died, they stayed dead.

But just as God created all these things in this world, he can change all these things in his very creation. Anything that in this world that might seem impossible, God as this world’s creator can make possible.

For Also, if you believe that God created the universe, created life as we know it, , and God watches over creation today, it is not hard to believe at all that a God this powerful can perform miracles when he wants..–

For no different than a writer changing their own book? Or a cook changing their own recipe. Or a Basketball Coach their game plan. -

God can change his creation when he wants, to perform miracles, for his own reasons, most of all to bring us salvation. ?-
What difference does it make one might say if Jesus miracles aren’t true?-

For there are important reasons for why Jesus’ miracles need to be true. Such as to deny miracles is to say the Bible isn’t true, or that if Christ couldn’t do miracles, how can he be God. –

But the most important reason, Jesus’ miracles need to be true. Is because the miracle of Christ’s resurrection is the most important event of the Christian Faith. The resurrection is the very foundation of our
salvation.

For In 1 Corinthians 15verse 14- in some of the most important words in scripture, Paul speaks to the resurrection. And he states –
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” For the miracle of Christ overcoming sin and death by his resurrection is of such importance. If it didn’t happen there would be no point in getting up on a Sunday morning and being here today. In fact, there would be no point in having any sort of faith in Jesus Christ. If Christ hadn’t been raised from the dead, and I was visiting someone on their death bed, I really don’t know what I could tell them. –

- For as Paul says” For if Christ hadn’t been raised from the dead, we would face punishment and not forgiveness for our sins.”

But Paul then gives hope later on in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says-
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first of many to be raised.-
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.-
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”.-

It is because of Christ overcoming the one thing everybody will experience in this world - Pause- death, that we too have hope that one day we may overcome death, and be with God for all eternity. . It is because Christ was raised from the dead, that we know that God can overcome all the pain, sin, and suffering of this world. It is because Christ was raised from the dead, that we may have comfort in our most difficult of hours. It is because Christ was raised from the dead, that we gather here on Sunday morning’s to worship a God, who we know loves us because he died and rose again so we may be forgiven of our sins.

For We worship here Sunday mornings because it is through God’s miracles of becoming man, dying and rising again, and revealing his message through the Bible, that we receive his grace and salvation. –

When we read accounts of miracles in the Bible they might seem strange, we might even wonder did they did really happen. But miracles can happen, because we have a God who created this world in every detail, and is powerful enough to perform miracles. And the reason God acted in Christ Jesus through miracles, wasn’t just because he could, but so we may that we may receive God’s wonderful gift of salvation. Amen

The Book of Daniel

2006-01-26T12:27:00.000-06:00

The TV show has been canceled. I watched about 10 minutes of one episode. It was loaded with Heresy.

For an explaination read this review by Gene Veith

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=9414

More on Crisis at Luther Seminary-Update 1/21

2006-01-19T12:25:00.000-06:00

This is the Last I will comment on this topic, unless otherwise dictated.

When searching the blogsphere for commentary on Kelly Fryer I came across this gem from a blog called On the Cusp-

http://dapeeg.blogspot.com/2006/01/well-im-pissed.html

1. In this blog the commentator who is a Pastor in the ELCA states:
My comments in Bold . His comments emphaized in Italics

" In other words, she's gay and living in a relationship with another woman.

Now, I would like to have a good, solid theological discussion about Kelly Fryer's fitness to teach theology ... whether she's gospel centered, whether her words are faithful, and so on. There's plenty in her writings and teachings to discuss, believe me. I haven't really sat down and read Kelly Fryer's writings in great detail. But I did have her as a student. She pushes for more contemporary music, which is good depending on your situation. Her views about the Office of Ministry I agree with some of them, and disagree with some of them. She does seem to be as I stated early more into self-help than Gospel-centered preaching. But the main point isn't to issue a critique in this area. One of here closest students said she openly denied Hell in class, well this teaching is debunked http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/univeralism-revised.html. Thankfully this student condemned her teaching on this subject.

But I don't give a rat's ass as to how she achieves orgasm. This line which I do here some at Luther Seminary is totally devoid of logic. If you don't care how one achieves orgasm at all than Pederastry, Adultery, Polyandry, and Beastiality would be permissable. Basically any form of sexual behavior is permissable. But then one would probably say it needs to be two consenting adults, which is basically an outcome which is achieved just because society says it is permissable.

Nor do I think it makes any difference to, or makes her less effective at, her calling to teach others to go out and tell people about Jesus. As I have stated here on more than one occasion, this isn't quite in line with what is said in 1 Timothy 3, which defines standards of behavior very clearly seperate from other standards of behavior for Pastors. If one corrupts the law to the point where impentitent sin is OK, then the Gospel is not being preached.

And people wonder why our denomination is shrinking. We are soooooo screwed up." The author seems to have no grasp of stastics either. The reason the ELCA is shrinking isn't because of not allowing Homosexual ministers. If that was the reason look at the demographics for the ECUSA, and the UCC. The groups that are growing are churches that have an evangelistic focus like the Southern Baptists, and generally more conservative bodies.

But then the Author goes on to give more insight into Luther Seminary in his next post.

http://dapeeg.blogspot.com/2006/01/still-pissed-off.html

How one goes about labeling "Word Alone" as a fundamentalist organization is hard because of what exactly that term means. As stated here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/11/fundamentalists_26.html.

. As far as Word Alone not keeping up with the ELCA constituion. A couple problems with that statement.

1. You are making the assumption that the ELCA constution is some sort of divine authority. As far as Word Alone not abiding by the ELCA constution, if you read the Word Alone Common Confession http://wordalone.org/docs/wa-comconf.htm. It does what Melancthon did when writing the Augsburg Confession and tries to show it's agreement with it.

2. When you accuse people of being suppodesly confessional, because they don't elevate Christ above scriptures you're own lack of knowledge of Lutheran Confessional writings is on display as evidenced here. As evidenced here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/authority-of-bible.html , where as direct quotes are taken from the Luther Confessions. To say Luther promoted the authority of scriptures when only dealing with Christ is wrong. While, it is true Luther viewed scripture's main teaching as Christ, this is not to say Luther viewed the rest of scripture as non-authoritative. So your Luther quote, and my several from the article on Biblical authority are not at odds.

3. To name profesors as Fundamentalists is odd. When you come across Liberal Thelogians, they label anyone with a higher view of scripture than them as a fundamentalist. As I stated earlier this is a hard term to define, so I can't really comment on it's damage. I can speak as to the Profesors I had who weren't fundamentalists.

Like the Old Testament Profesor who said the story of Abraham sacrificing Issac should be taken out of the Bible because it promotes Child Abuse

Or the Pastoral Care Profesors who openly praised Abortion. Or my New Testament Profesor who said that Romans 9-11 stated that everyone from Carnal Israel shall be saved, wrong Romans 9-27.

The Emerti Prof who spoke of the Dalai Lama as a role model for the Christian Faith, although I would hear several students promote blatant Inner-Faith unionism. he wasn't a Fundamentalist. Nor My Theology Prof who openly denied the Virgin Birth.

Profesors would promote Process Theology, Univeralism along with other heresies detailed on this blog. One NT profesor had students read a book that said if you really loved Jesus you want to f*&% him. But these are the Profesors whose portyal of the Christian Faith at Luther Seminary is what seems to be what this ELCA pastor considers acceptable. The funny thing about Luther Seminary it is the most Conservative of all the ELCA seminaries.

As my good friend Carl wrote he in a later post said Word Alone was hypocritical for wanting ordination exceptions, but not for people engaged in same sex-behavior. This is a ridicilous analogy.

1. Episcopal Ordination has no scriptual backing. For scripture never associates special gifts with Ordination.

2. It is totally inconsistent with Lutheran Theology's historic witness.

3. The ELCA adopted what is called the Milwaukee Common Ground Resolution in Feb. 2000. Which calls for people to have Freedom in regards to ordination practices. So it is well-within ELCA legal proceedings to do such a thing. The only reason this is a big deal is becuase it becomes a circus everytime someone wants this exception.

How does this relate to Same-Sex exceptions. Well it doesn't. As I have stated their needs to be behavioral codes for ministers as stated in I Timothy 3. Why because the Law condemns our sinful nature, it makes us realize the error of it's way and the need for Christ. For a Church to have ministers engaged in proud, open and impentitent sin makes the case that human nature is good, and the Gospel serves to affirm not convict human nature.

Also, the ELCA doesn't allow for this behavior in any of its legal documents. So to violate legal documents would hence deserve punishment.

Sunday Sermon

2006-01-15T12:25:00.000-06:00

Recent American History is filled with unexpected people who have achieved big things. Last Night I was watching football seeing the Broncos play the Patriots in the NFL Playoffs. The Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady who was picked to be on an NFL team after 198 other players in 2000, no one knew if he would even make the team. yet he has gone on to be the star of a Patriots team that has won three Super Bowls in four years. The US Presidency in my life time has been occupied by, the son of a shoe-salesman, and a homemaker from the small village of Tampico, Illinois in Ronald Reagan. While another President was born three months after his father died in a car-crash, then his mother would re-marry a man who was an alcoholic and a spousal abuser. The child from these humble begins was Bill Clinton. These are just three stories of many of people from unlikely background achieving big things.

This is not unlike today’s Gospel reading which deals with people from unexpected backgrounds being called by God to achieve big things. Today’s reading deals with Jesus calling of the disciples-Philip, Andrew, and Nathaniel. When looking at the backgrounds of these men. All three of these disciples were from the town of Bethsaida in the region of Galilee in Northern Israel. Bethsaida was a city so small that it wasn’t discovered by Archeologists till 1987. Bethsaida lied in the region of Galilee. Galilee was a region considered by people who lived in the big city of Jerusalem to be remote, to be filled with people who were uneducated, immature and simple, this was the last place the big shots thought anyone who would make a difference in the world would come from. Yet, 11 of the 12 disciples along with Jesus were from the region of Galilee. There was though one disciple who came from outside Galilee, and from around Jerusalem and that disciple was Judas.

Not only though did the disciples come from a remote region with ordinary backgrounds. The disciples also didn’t have some of the personal characteristics that one might expect of someone being called by God. For Scripture describes on several occasions, Jesus as having to explain parables to the Disciples, right after telling them, until they made sense. So it’s fair to say the Disciples didn’t get the point of every sermon, they heard. Jesus also in John 9 had to give the disciples a long lecture because their understanding of the issue of “Why bad things to people” happen was completely wrong, so the Disciples didn’t have the answer to every question. In Mark 14 when the Disciples were supposed to be on watch for people coming to arrest Jesus, the Disciples fell asleep within the first hour, so no one would describe the Disciples as having the greatest work ethic. When Jesus was arrested in Mark 14 and Matthew 26, the Disciples were so scared they ran off into hiding... When Peter was asked if he knew Jesus upon Jesus arrest’, he denied Jesus three times. For the Disciples seemed to lack great courage and conviction in times of turmoil. For it might have seemed everything God would want as leader in his Church, the disciples lacked. Yet, after the Resurrection of Christ Jesus. - The disciples became strong courageous witnesses to Christ’s salvation. In Acts 4 after months before running into hiding from the threat of being associated with Jesus. The Disciples stood before the Jewish Council- under the threat of death, saying “Jesus did rise from the dead, and salvation only comes from having faith in Jesus Christ. The disciples after being bumbling, stumbling, and uneducated cowards had become great speakers, who would travel around the world with great courage facing the threat of death.

So magnificent things were done by the Disciples, Even though the disciples didn’t have the background or characteristics, that one would expect God to use them, , but yet God called them to start the Christian Church.

But in the Scriptures God didn’t just call people from unexpected backgrounds. God also called people whose sins, people would think might totally disqualify them from ever being called by God. For instance, scripture describes Noah as a drunk in Genesis 9, but God used Noah to save his family and many animals from a great flood. Moses murdered an Egyptian in Exodus 2, but God used him to deliver and rescue the Israelites from the Egyptians and lead them to the Promised Land. David committed adultery with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 12, but God used him to unite all of Israel, and build the city of Jersualem from a fishing village to one of the most important cities in the world. Then there is Paul. Paul held people’s coats, as they stoned Stephen to death for confessing the Christian Faith, Paul is described as seeing to it that Christians were arrested, and Paul describes himself as persecuting Christians more than anybody else, yet Paul became the Christian Church’s greatest missionary, and was inspired by God to write more books of the Bible than anyone else, thereby shaping Christianity forever. For God used a sinner like Paul to let people know that Christ died and rose for the forgiveness of not only Paul’s sins but all people’s sins.

So some of the greatest leaders of the faith. Had done things in their past, that might have got people to say God could never call them. Yet, God called them to do great things in his name. .
This idea of God using flawed, ordinary people to do God’s work is one I can attest in my own life. Standing up here preaching from God’s Word today, has not always been something people would expect of me. For instance, when I was three years old, I had such a bad speech impediment; I took Speech therapy till I was over 21. When one has a speech impediment, the last job one would seem called to is a job that requires public speaking, week in and week out. When I was in Middle School, I was a terribly behaved student; I was a real-smart aleck, without respect for anyone or anything. One day, I was kicked out of 6 of 7 classes for poor behavior. I remember on more than one occasion as punishment having to do mandatory Janitorial duty after school, I also remember sitting in detention on more than one occasion. When I was in college, I was such a non-dedicated student my first couple years, I would show up to about half of my classes, and pull in C average. And still today I need to confess my sins and need for Christ’s forgiveness and salvation as much as anybody else on Sunday Mornings.

Yet God led me, an imperfect sinner who has done many things that he’s not proud of, through these things, so I can stand here today.

Though these stories don’t paint a the full picture of what constitutes being a disciple. For one of the great misconceptions though about whom God calls and who is a disciple is that people are disciples only if they do seemingly great earth-shattering things. But the reality is God calls all believers to serve as his disciple’s everday.For everyday God uses ordinary people with ordinary backgrounds and jobs, people with flaws and imperfections to serve as his disciples. Some people are probably sitting out here today. Saying what does this sermon have to do with me, I’m not going to preaching sermons anytime soon, or sharing the Christian faith under threat of death, like the disciples. This might be true. But God still calls us to be his disciples ,no matter how old or young, no matter what skin color or nationality, no matter how physically able, no matter how tall or short, thin or fat, no matter how educated, or uneducated, whether you’re married, widowed or single, male or female.

For God calls people to serve as his disciples in a variety of ways.
For example God might have called you by placing before you the opportunity to raise or work with children. And some have filled these roles by teaching the Christian faith to children whether as a parent or Sunday School Teacher more effectively than any Pastor ever could. God has called people to help their neighbors in times of need. Whether it be as a listening ear, or offering encouragement for someone going through a tough time, helping someone out with some money when they can’t pay their bills, helping the motorist stranded in the parking lot or on the side of the road. God puts before us everyday opportunities like this to serve as his disciples. God has called people to serve him by the jobs they have. Whether they be a Doctor, Banker, Mechanic, Factory Worker, or whatever job they have. God has given them opportunities in this job to help customers, and co-workers by their honesty, kindness, and effort. But most of all it is not perfect people with no problems, but flawed, ordinary people like the Disciples that are the backbone of this Church. It is people who like me and all people are in need of God’s grace and salvation. It is these people God has called to teach Sunday school, and Confirmation, lend their time and talents to various committees, serve at funerals, and build a New Church. And to serve here in a variety of other ways. As the Christian Church was started by the 12 disciples, this Church wouldn’t stay open if it wasn’t for all the Disciples of today.

The Disciples called by Jesus in today’s Gospel reading were men that didn’t come from the most impressive of backgrounds nor did they have standout abilities. They didn’t get the point of every sermon, nor have the answer to every question. They didn’t have the greatest work ethic, or great courage with nerves of steel. Yet God called them to be persons, he used to start the Christian Church. But the Disciples were not unlike the flawed, ordinary forgiven sinners that Christ calls to serve him everyday. We might not be called by God to serve in some of the same ways as the Disciples. But it is in our daily lives whether by sharing the faith, helping our neighbors, or through our jobs, and through service in this Church that we serve as Christ’s disciples. Amen

Letter

2006-01-13T17:07:00.000-06:00

Most E-mails you get are kind of bland, and a lot of them are deleted right away. Look at the letter that came in the mail to me. From one of my Professors at the Seminary. A missions Prof None the less. My Comments in Bold. Emphasis in Italics.

An open letter to my friends and colleagues who are part of the staff, faculty, student body, and boards of Luther Seminary; and to all those across the church who are my co-learners and partners in ministry:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am writing to you with a heavy â€“ but hopeful! â€“ heart.

I want to share with you my decision to resign from the faculty of Luther Seminary. This decision hasnâ€™t been easy or quick. In fact, since I arrived at Luther, three years ago, I have been wrestling with whether or not this is a place from which I can best fulfill my call to help lead the church in renewal for the sake of Godâ€™s mission in the world. In recent days, after much prayer and conversation, it has become clear to me that God is leading me in new directions. Iâ€™ve spent a lot of time talking with colleagues and the leadership of Luther Seminary about various options that would serve the seminary best and, also, my sense of call to do a new thing. Some of you may be aware of how complicated â€“ and prayerful â€“ this process has been. In the end, Iâ€™ve decided to make my resignation effective immediately. It has been a privilege to be a part of some important initiatives here at Luther Seminary and I hope that, as I begin to move in new directions, Luther will consider me a friend and partner in the kingdom work to which we have all been called. In fact, I want to make two things clear. First, this decision stems from a relationship of mutual respect and reflects the high regard in which I hold Luther Seminary and they hold me. And, second, although the situation I describe below has complicated this process a bit, my decision is not being driven by it. I am thankful for the warm words of encouragement and appreciation I have received from the administration and from many of my colleagues on the faculty here; and I look forward to dreaming with them about creative new ways for us to be in partnership together in the years ahead.

What's the Big Deal-The next paragraph explains it.

On a separate and more personal note, Iâ€™d like to let you know that another letter from me was hand delivered, by my bishop, Peter Rogness, to the Conference of Bishops, this week. This letter informed them of my intention to resign from the clergy roster of the ELCA on the basis of my inability to live in compliance with â€œSection III: Sexual Conductâ€ of the document titled Visions and Expectations (specifically the sentence that reads â€œOrdained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationshipsâ€).

Some of you were aware of the cataclysmic changes in my personal life, culminating in the sad and quiet ending of my marriage very early last year. When I came to Luther three years ago, this was not something I ever dreamed would happen. I want to thank you for the support, prayers, and encouragement you offered to me during that time. These events, however, created space for me to see things I had never seen before. Even as our church has been publicly wrestling with the issue of sexual orientation over this past year, I have been on a private journey of my own. It has been scary and confusing, but it has also been full of joy. As it turns out, the remarkable woman who has been my best friend for over ten years has a story not unlike my own. We are looking forward to our future togetherâ€¦making a home, raising our kids, doing ministry.

This women is a fellow seminary student. If Sexual Orientation is so strong why did it take someone 45 years to discover such a thing. Did this have anything to do with the end of the marriage? I feel so sorry for her 12 year old son, and ex-husband.

It makes me sad that finding such happiness and wholeness in my life means that, at this point, I cannot serve as a pastor in my church. And I hope that one day I will again be a member of the ELCA clergy roster. But, in the meantime, I am committed to continuing my ministry of teaching and writing in this church, for the sake of our call to participate in Godâ€™s passionate mission to love and bless the world.
What does this line have to do with the forgiveness of sins. Is the mission of the Church to accept people for whatever they do, and make them feel good about themselves? The Apostle Paul didn't seem to think so. When you define the Gospel like this is becomes self-centered rather than Christ-centered.

In fact, I have chosen this approach to communicate with you because I want it to be clear that I have no interest in being drawn into the unhealthy fascination our culture â€“ and our church â€“ has with matters sexual.
I had no intention to write about this matter, till I was sent this letter via e-mail . I would hope I didn't have to write about this issue on my blog again and again. But other people still keep bringing it up, regards of what the scriptures teach.

To be sure, I disagree strongly with the current policies of the ELCA on these issues. Considering the ELCA strongly rejected this in 1993, and narrowly in 2005, the time of change is probably coming. I remember talking to a Pastor from down in Texas over dinner at a convention one night. He was telling me that his confrence had a meeting with the Bishop. Where the Bishop asked "Do any people in your congreation, have problems with the potential sexuality change." The Pastor raised his hand and said "What about Pastors". The Bishop assumed they would be all all right with the Ordination of practicing Homosexuals. Martin Luther must be spinning in his grave.
But, frankly, my primary concern isnâ€™t about what is happening â€œin here!â€ My passion is â€“ and has always been â€“ for the mission field into which God is sending us. My heart beats for Godâ€™s world â€œout there.â€

I believe the gift of salvation, which we receive through faith in Jesus Christ, is also a call to participate in Godâ€™s mission in the world. For some crazy reason, God uses people â€“ even people like you and me! â€“ to get it done. Sometimes when getting into arguments with people over this issue. The common response is aren't we all sinners, and in need of God's grace. Of course, but I Timothy 3 makes clear there are standards of behavior for the Pastoral office. And where as we all struggle with issues, there is a difference between being contrite and being proud.

â€œCome follow me!â€ Jesus says, especially to those of us who least deserve it, and to all of us together. Answering this call isnâ€™t a right any of us has. It is, however, a responsibility we all share...every single one of us. In fact, this call to be a part of Godâ€™s passionate mission to reach the world is at the very core of what it means to be a Christian. I wonder why the term "Reach" instead of "Save" is used?

It is at the heart of what it means to be the Church. As we answer this call, I believe we can be guided by these five simple principles: Jesus is Lord, Everyone is Welcome, Love Changes People, Everybody has Something to Offer, and The World Needs What We Have.
Don't these seem to be more self-help principles than the Christian Gospel. While their is truth to these principles. When nothing really related to sin or redemption is mentioned, you have to wonder.
This mission and these values give shape to my life and my ministry. They have been â€“ and will continue to be â€“ at the very center of all my preaching, teaching, researching, learning, and writing. In fact, in the months and years to come, I make this promise to you: The message you hear from me will be the same message you have always heard.
I'm guessing there will be a book written by here on this subject.

Please know that I am open to hearing from and being in conversation with you as we move forward. I am excited about what lies ahead, although I am not certain yet exactly what form my ministry will take. I am hopeful about the many good things that God will do and is doing in the midst of all these changes. And I ask for your prayers. To be sure, you are in mine.

In Christ,

Kelly A. Fryer

Closing Comments: I had Kelly Fryer as a Profesor. She did make some good points. I had no problems in my personal interactions with her. I was troubled when she told another student that ordination of Gays and Lesbians would create a "Renaissance" for the Church. Her students sometimes seemed non-theological in their methodology. They would probably chime back and say I'm too theologically conservative.

In a time like this we need to watch ourselves, so we don't exude self-righteousness. For I am also a sinner forgiven by the Grace of God. We also need to pray for Kelly Fryer in the struggles she is going through. The last thing I want to do is to come-off like my only goal is to attack Kelly Fryer.

Dr. Roy Harrisville, JR. the man this blog was named in his defense. Stated the most troubling part about this letter is all the God talk in it. If she is a Lesbian come right out and say it. Just don't infiltrate it with all this piety.

More Star Tribune

2006-01-12T11:46:00.000-06:00

The Star Tribune decided to write a profile on a candidate for Governor. No big deal, until you see the profile.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/178289.html

Emphasis in Bold-Italics for My comments
Home Politics
'Impaler' sinks his teeth into governor's race
Self-styled "vampyre" Jonathon Sharkey is running for governor on a platform that includes impaling terrorists.
Dane Smith, Star Tribune
Last update: January 11, 2006 – 11:08 PM
Printer friendly E-mail this story

Jonathon (The Impaler) Sharkey has chosen Friday – yes, Friday the 13th – to formally announce his candidacy. “Unlike other candidates, I’m not going to hide my evil side,” he said.
Take a gander at Jonathon (The Impaler) Sharkey, who will launch his gubernatorial campaign in Princeton, Minn., on Friday the 13th as a "satanic dark priest" and the leader of the "Vampyres, Witches and Pagans Party."

The Town of Princeton must be very proud.

Since there's nothing but a $300 filing fee to stop anyone from running for statewide office, campaigns in Minnesota typically attract colorful and eccentric characters looking for attention. And of course, former Gov. Jesse Ventura broke the mold and got elected. But Minnesota may never have seen a more outside-the-box politician than the Impaler, also a former pro wrestler.
For starters, he describes himself as a "sanguinary vampyre ... just like you see in the movies and TV, I sink my fangs into the neck of my donor (at this time in my life, it is my wife, Julie), and drink their blood," he said in an e-mail.

The 13-point platform on his extensive website (www.jonathonforgovernor.us) offers a number of conventional policy initiatives, including emphasis on education, tax breaks for farmers and better benefits for veterans.

Although you can't have a Satanic Priest run without some really intresting policy proposals.

Quite some distance from the mainstream, however, is his pledge to execute -- by impalement in front of the State Capitol -- terrorists, rapists, drug dealers, child abusers, repeat drunken drivers and anybody who preys on the elderly.
"I'm going to be totally open and honest," he said. "Unlike other candidates, I'm not going to hide my evil side."

Well I can see why people wouldn't want to be gutted like a fish in front of the state capitol.

Sharkey's religious convictions also might be described as well removed from the middle of the road. Call it compassionate Satanism. "On a whole, those who worship Lucifer are no more evil than those who worship other gods," he says on his website.
Although he calls the "Christian God the Father" his "mortal enemy," Sharkey said he has nothing against Jesus Christ or his followers. But he thinks God the Father was a poor parent for allowing his son to be crucified.

Well, there was a professor at Luther Seminary who said that the story of Abraham sacrificing Issac should be taken out of the Bible, because it contains Child Abuse. But then there was another prof who said Christ the Son died against the best wishes of God the father.

Sharkey, 41, is receiving veterans' disability benefits because of a severe injury in the Army in 1982. On a high-altitude jump while training as a paratrooper, he says, his main parachute failed and the reserve chute opened just before he hit the ground "like a ton of bricks."
He has registered as a 2008 presidential candidate with the Federal Election Commission and says he soon will register with state campaign officials as a gubernatorial candidate.

Part of me would be tempted to say I was going to vote for him if contacted by a polling agency. Because it would be funny to watch him get to 2 percent and be entered into a debate.

Dane Smith • 651-292-0164

Hollywood

2006-01-09T22:21:00.000-06:00

Released a movie a while back that I found out about. How do you like this premise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There

Granted, even the vast majority of Liberal scholars (Who deny Miracles and Christ's deity) , do believe Christ actually existed. Some will denounce this film as shocking. I am not replying since it is silly claims far outside the mainstream of Biblical scholarship. But found it intresting.

John Piper

2006-01-09T13:04:00.000-06:00

Someone I have quoted on this blog several times, has been diagonosed with Prostate Cancer here is a letter detailing it here. So remember Dr. Piper in your prayers.

http://www.desiringgod.org/news_events/dgm_news/2006/20060106_cancer_announcement.html

Shocker

2006-01-06T23:08:00.000-06:00

I have made several posts detailing Heresy offered up in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but this week someone posted an article that was truth for beginning to end, from a copy editor at the STRIB, nonetheless. There is really nothing new here, but good to see.

http://www.startribune.com/614/story/167905.html

Heresy Watch-

2006-01-04T12:37:00.000-06:00

Heresy Watch-

Yesterday I was at an Text Study. Where one of the Pastors wanted to preach this week comparing Jesus' baptism to our baptism. Only problem is Jesus was baptized under the Old Covenant to fulfill all righteousness to become a preist (Ex 29:4, MT 3:15), so he could offer the perfect sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 5, Hebrews 6;20). When I pointed this out to him, he couldn't really respond, but wanted to keep preaching this anyway. I then had to distunigh between John's Baptism and the Sacrament of Baptism established by Jesus (Acts 19:1-7). In simplicity, Jesus Baptism in nowhere near our Baptism since A. Jesus lived a life without sin B. Baptism involves the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39, Titus 3:5-6) C. Jesus established the sacrament of Baptism after his death and resurrection for the forgiveness of our sins (Matthew 28:19)

But more troubling was the blatant promotion of adoptionism. The idea that at Jesus' baptism was when he was "adopted" or "became" the Son of God. This idea which was condemned as heresy by Pope Victor I . But one must adapt an adoptionist view of Jesus if one denies the "Virgin Birth" or almost be forced to deny Christ's divinity outright, as some theological liberals do.

Christmas Sermon

2005-12-26T21:58:00.000-06:00

-Sorry it's a bit late.

Last year, my parents brought me a really nice Christmas Present- they bought me a Satelite Radio, so I could get a whole bunch of Radio Stations-Commercial free. They first bought me a unit to put in my car. But I had a car with real high mileage that might last another few months. I also didn’t drive that much, since I was in seminary in Saint Paul at the time, and I had an on-campus job, so I didn’t really want a new radio in my car. Especially, since my car had been broken into earlier that fall.. So then the Satelite Radio was returned. So right before I came up here to Staples, I got another Satelite Radio unit that I could have in my Car or home. Well, I drive 2 miles to work, and I rarely listened to a radio at home. So then this unit was returned. Because, the Salesman said in a few months they were going to come out with a Satelite Radio that you could listen to while walking around, this would have been great for me, since I walk to work when it’s nice out. Well, then this satellite radio came out with a sky-high cost, sketcy reception and you couldn’t even listen to live radio programs, but only what had been already recorded and the process to record required more technoligcal savvy than I had. So this really nice Christmas Gift I received last year from my Parents, was of basically no-use.
Where on the other hand, the most valuable and precious gift I received and will ever receieve is something so ordinary, so common as a a little baby being born in a manage in the town of Bethelham -2000 years ago .

. It is because of this gift of Jesus Christ that whenever I do something wrong, I know that I am forgiven. It is this gift that when I experience pain, hardship, heartache, sadness, and death- I know that their is the hope of a better place, no matter what tomorrow should bring. Whatever present someone could give me today, it could give me enjoyment. But it will not bring the hope of Jesus Christ being Born of a Virgin, being born God in Human Flesh so he may overcome sin and death, so one day I may be with him in Paradise to comfort me all the days of my life. No gift, can be greater than to know-Jesus Christ came into the world to die for me, to die on the cross for my sins, and to rise again, so that I may live. It is this gift which gives me strength every day of my life.

For People often speak of God being so separate from them, so above them, so pure and so holy. But it is in the birth of Jesus Christ that are assumptions of God being so far above us are shattered, in that our Lord Jesus Christ lied in a manager as an infant, born of a virgin, no different than we lied in our bedrooms as a child.-

With that I ask the first Question: Why was Christ Born of a Virgin?

-Well everyone in this room who has created a child, with another person has found one similarity in all children and that is that they are not God. The similarity is that they have committed sins by their nature, for they are not perfect as God is perfect. The reason Christ had to be Born of a Virgin was because it was the only way-God could assume human flesh-. Let me tell you a Christmas story to illustrate this.

Well, I grew up in a Swedish family and I know it is quite similar in Norwegian Families to have Rice Pudding at Christmas dinners. I know many people in this congregation, love rice pudding. Well, one time about fifteen years ago, my Grandma decided to make Rice Pudding, she put the Rice Pudding on the table, but left out one important detail-She forgot to Cook the Rice, making it taste like Gravel.

So what is just one detail in how the Rice Pudding was made, led to a different non-delicious desert

Just as Jesus Christ is different then us in that he is God in human flesh, so this is why Jesus needed to be made different than us, so Christ needed a different birth than we had.
So when we confess the Apostles Creed and speak of Jesus being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit- This means the Holy Spirit created a child within Mary totally different from normal means of creating a child., apart from physical contact of a father, And Born of the Virgin Mary means that Jesus was born as every other child was born through a human mother. -
So Christ had to be born of a Virgin, because it was the only way the God could become human in Jesus Christ. –

The Next Question: Why is this important?

Let me put it this way, a lot of people here know the song “Santa Claus is coming to town” Which says “He sees you when your sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, he knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake. This song speaks of people being well-behaved then Santa Claus will bring you presents. –

But Scripture contrary to the story of Santa Claus doesn’t describe anyone as being a good enough or well-behaved enough person to present of salvation. For Romans 3 states No one is righteous, not even one. For We have all commit sins, against God in thought, word, and deed. . So in other words, scripture states no one is going to be saved because they are a good person, because they did a few good things, or because they tried to live a good life.-

So the reason God needed to become human in Jesus Christ was because Christ alone was good enough to gain the gift of salvation Because Jesus could live a sinless life- as stated in 1 Peter 2 to overcome human sin, so then he overcome death-the penalty for sin as stated in Romans 6 by his resurrection. Christ met God’s standards for salvation on our behalf, so we may receive salvation through Faith-

It is in Christ’s resurrection that Christ overcame death, so we may one day overcome death, so God may bring us into heaven as stated in Philipians 3. –

So the reason, God had to assume human flesh by a Virgin Birth is because God had to what no human could do which was overcome sin and and overcome our sin’s punishment of death , by Jesus Christ’s sinless life and resurrection. So that we may one day , we may overcome death and be with God in paradise.

Christmas is a special time of year for many reasons whether it is being with family, big meals, Christmas cookies, but what many of us look forward to from the time, that we are young children is the gifts, we receive. Some of you have or will receive gifts this Holiday season, that will bring you great joy. But the greatest gift we will ever receive is the gift of Jesus Christ and his salvation. The gift that Jesus Christ became God in human flesh, so he may save us from our sins by his life, death, and resurrection. . It is this gift that shows us God loves us. It is this gift that shows us that God can wors all things for good. It is this gift that offers hope from our Baptism to the day we are on our death bed. It is this gift that reveals the wonderful grace of God, in doing for us what we didn’t deserve. It is this gift that so when we sin and do something wrong, we know because of Jesus Christ we are forgiven by faith. It is the gift that makes all the difference in our life and death. It is because of this gift I can wish you all a - very
Merry Christmas-

Amen

More Heresy-More Star Tribune

2005-12-23T22:00:00.000-06:00

http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/5797395.html.

This defies explaination. She defines the incarnation of Jesus as him coming for some sort of teaching about love and community. I define it as God taking on human flesh, so he may accomplish the forgiveness of our sins. The truth of God's Word is so far from this essay. Christ didn't come to teach us how to live out in community, Christ came because we are beggars in need of his grace.

Faith+Values forum: A Mary Christmas to all
A few years ago I experienced three miracles that changed the way I see Christmas.
Jaime Meyer
Last update: December 22, 2005 at 12:39 PM
Printer friendly E-mail this story
Faith + Values
Singing some of the unsung
A few years ago I experienced three miracles that changed the way I see Christmas.
First, I bought a pack of Christmas cards that showed what I thought was a typical manger scene with Mary holding a swaddled baby, surrounded by colorful animals. But when I got the box home I saw that the animals were not the usual farm animals I expected, but peacocks, giraffes, llamas, iguanas, butterflies, squid -- on and on. Surrounded by emissaries from every corner of creation, Mary embraces and protects her newly born incarnation of radical love for this world.

I was struck with a dizzying mystical thought: My task is to become Mary. To become open to that source of radical love for this world, to let it be planted in me, to carry it, and to give birth to it through my body, and to protect and nurture it and send it into the world. What would happen to me, and to my world, if the first lesson of living "The Way" were to incarnate in myself a radical love for all of creation -- not only the human world, but all of it?

The next day, I met a shaman from northern Norway, from the people who call themselves the Saami (whom the Scandinavians call the Lapps). He told me how the great white reindeer comes at the winter solstice, bearing the newly born sun between her antlers. She, too, is a mother of light and life. For the Saami, the Holy incarnates in the reindeer -- their primary source of food. In an act of radical love and sacrifice, God offers her entire self, every day, to the Saami, to become their muscles and blood and bones and thoughts. God incarnates in everybody -- in every body. The wolf, too, eats the reindeer, and so God incarnates in the wolf -- and in the bee, which drinks from the flower that springs from the soil, which is infused with the nutrients from the wolf's decaying body, which is made of reindeer meat, which is God incarnated. When I drip golden honey in my morning tea, I drink the Divine.

Then I met an Irish scholar who mentioned that the Gaelic word for Creator is Dúileamh (pronounced DOOL-yev), which means roughly "the force of love inside all of creation."
These three small miracles made me see the Christmas season like this: Winter is the least fecund time of the year -- the land bare, the sky gray, the days silent, the darkness deep.
And in this time of bareness, the Holy comes to remind us that creation is bound together by the force of love, and that we take that force into us, carry it, gestate it and birth it. Incarnation not only happened 2,000 years ago, it happens at every moment, and it happens in every body, and in uncountable variations. For me, this radical, impossible, naïve, idealistic notion has become the reason for the season.
Jaime Meyer is a writer and vice president of institutional advancement at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities

48 Hours

2005-12-23T17:46:00.000-06:00

Did a Special on the Virgin Birth-the other night. In it they had John Dominic Crossan on speaking openly against why the Virgin Birth didn't happen.

He made two points I heard the next day.

1. Mark,John, and Paul didn't mention it.

Response: If Matthew and Luke didn't mention it than this would be Crossan's ammo. Crossan denies the Resurrection which all 4 Gospels and Paul mention. As far as why Mark doesn't mention it a lot has to do with the way, Mark is written. Everything is written from the persepctive of an eyewitness. So since Mark reads like a news-reel this is why it maybe isn't mentioned. John claims Jesus is God in Human Flesh, this is the very crux of why the Virgin Birth is important, so it's not a contradictory doctrine here. Paul maybe didn't mention it since it wasn't really a disputed fact, also Paul doesn't reflect a lot on events in the life of Jesus. Liberals like to quote Galatians 4:4 as arguing against a Virgin Birth, but no one disputes Jesus was born of a women in human flesh, and this does not contradict the accounts of Matthew, and Luke.

2. It was copied from a Pagan Religion.

I wrote a paper on this topic debunking this point from J.Gresham Machen's The Virgin Birth of Christ. Most Pagan Virgin Birth narratives deal with Gods engaging in sex with mortals, this is not the claim of the Virgin Birth. Machen goes through about every one of these stories, people like to cite and point out their differences. I could post what I wrote at a later date to debunk this. But the main point is that they are dissimilar stories in comparing Pagan Birth narratives to the Birth of Jesus Christ.

Heresy Watch-Minneapolis Star Tribune

2005-12-23T17:24:00.000-06:00

This is quite a display of Heresy as found in Last Saturday's Minneapolis Star Tribune. My Comments are in Bold.

Found at http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/5786815.html

Faith+Values forum: Santa and the Other Big Question
W e don't have believers at our house anymore. My youngest son expressed doubts about Santa Claus a few years ago.
Judith E. Budreau, Special To The Star Tribune
Last update: December 16, 2005 at 12:40 PM
Faith + Values

Singing some of the unsung
W e don't have believers at our house anymore. My youngest son expressed doubts about Santa Claus a few years ago.
"Tell me why you think Santa isn't real," I said over a quiet snack, hoping to generate the kind of parent-child discussion we'd both remember warmly for years to come.
He hemmed and hawed and then described a playground conversation about the tooth fairy, in which kids were pretty evenly divided over real vs. not. An older and wiser kid asked them about Santa. John had figured out the tooth fairy deal the year before when he grabbed for the cash-filled hand disturbing his pillow. We'd been waiting for the Santa question ever since.
I played up the magic part, conceded that Mom and Dad were Santa's helpers, talked about the spirit of giving. I tried to explain that we need magic and enchantment and faith; we need to believe in things we can't see.
"If there's no magic, how do the stars light up at night?" said I.
"Mom, that's not magic. It's science." True enough.
His dad and his older siblings all confirmed their belief in Santa's magic, even if we have to make it ourselves. We read "Yes, Virginia." We decorated the tree, reminiscing with him about his younger years, before he was in on the secret. It turned out fine, as these things usually do.

So what do I say when his next question is about baby Jesus? And, Mom, how could Mary be a virgin and be pregnant and be engaged to Joseph and have a baby before they were married? Isn't that backwards?

We have three teenagers at our house, so John is no stranger to discussions about sexuality and sexual mores. He understands the mechanics of conception and birth -- which actually raises more questions than it answers.

We'll read the Gospels and Isaiah, and I'll explain that this is the story enough people agreed on that it got written down and passed to us. I'll tell him that different parts of the Christian church disagree about what the Bible says. I'll say it may not even matter what's fact and what's fable. I'll remind myself that if the symbols and metaphors in religion and art and literature mean something else, then maybe the confusing reality in front of me means something else, too. Maybe there's some hope.

1. It is true that there was a human process in which the Biblical Canon was assembled, no serious scholarship would deny that. But at the same time, Christians believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit as I talk about here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/authority-of-bible.html. Jesus certainly talks of the Bible as being inspired. As J.Gresham Machen's classic The Virgin Birth of Christ talks about their really isn't any dispute found on Historical Record in the Early Church as to the Historicity of the Virgin Birth.

It is true Different parts of the Christian Church disagree about what the Bible means, the major differences I worry about isn't between denomiations it is between Rationalists, and Confessionalists/Evangelicals and these difference center back towards the Authority of the Bible themself.

To say it doesn't matter if it's fact or fiction as to the Virgin Birth-means the Deity of Christ is of little importance. I really don't think this women has any intrest in the Christology laid out in scripture (John 1:1, John 8:24, Romans 10:9, Colossians 2:9) or the Council of Chalcedon. As I'll talk about in my Christmas Sermon this does have a lot to do with Christ's redemption work that Christ is God in Human Flesh.

So, John, here's what I believe and here's what I have questions about. Let's go to church again this week. Let's talk about this some more. Religion is ritual, and repetition; grace is finding the new, the relevant in the ancient. There is comfort in both.

It's sad when you here someone define Religion in this way.

What will I say when my son asks the hard questions? First, I'll try to be grateful that he asks. Then, I'll tell him we find our faith by asking questions, and by searching long and hard and far for the answers. I'll tell him the God I believe in may give us extra points if we listen to other people's questions about our beliefs, and about theirs.

The God she believes in, is one of her own iminigation not one of the Bible. The point is not about be willing to answer questions, I'm more than willing to do that. The point is what is your standard of truth is the Bible, or is your rationalistic theories.

And I'll say that religion and art and literature are the power of the universe, distilled by human imagination.
Believe, John, believe.

Judith E. Budreau is a freelance writer living in Excelsior. She and her husband have four children, who are learning to appreciate metaphor.

It's great that they decided to have a freelance writer attack one of the Central Doctrines of the Christian Faith, I hope they have someone respond to this.

Virgin Birth Q & A

2005-12-17T11:14:00.000-06:00

Q: Is it neccessary to preach on the Virgin Birth in a Christmas Sermon

A: The Virgin Birth (Or the Incarnation) is one of the most important doctrines of the Christian Faith since it asserts that Jesus Christ is God in Flesh. People assert that you can deny the Virgin Birth and assert that Jesus is God in Flesh. I don't know how you really can...

If Jesus was conceived by two human parents as every other child, he would be a human being. Then the question is when did Jesus become God? You could say the Holy Spirit magically effected the Sperm, but this is not Biblical. You could say Jesus became God at some time, in his life, this Non-Biblical Heresy of Adoptionism which was condemned in 798 as a Heresy by Pope Leo III.

If Jesus wasn't God in Flesh, then he would have sinned since all people have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), scripture describes human nature as bound to sin (Romans 8:5-8, Romans 7:17-18, John 8:34) , but Christ lived a Sinless life (1 Peter 2:22-24) so he could defeat sin and death by his resurrection (Philippians 3:9-11).

If Christ was fully human he would have sinned as every other human, and deserved death as every other human, hence not been able to overcome death.

So is it neccessary , yes. The Virgin Birth is difficult to preach on for some since it doesn't open itself up to cute analogies or stories. But the fact that God became flesh couldn't have happened without a Virgin Birth, and we celebrate on the Christmas season that it is this God who redeemed us.

Sunday Sermon

2005-12-12T09:06:00.000-06:00

This weekend, I went to see the movie version of CS Lewis’ “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe). Lewis was a very devout and Outspoken Christian. He wrote books defending the Christian faith, we have quoted him, when teaching Confirmation here, I have a book of Reflections on the Psalms written by him in my office. Lewis would weave in ideas of the Christian faith into what he wrote. I would call the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe an allegory of the Christian faith in that it means by telling a fictional story to explain a real story in message of the Christian Gospel. There are so many refrences to concepts from the Bible, that to stand up here and do justice for, would require hours. Before I keep preaching this morning, I must warn of plot spoilers in the next few minutes for those who might go see the movie, or read the book. But this is to illustrate how it connects with Today’s gospel which speaks of Jesus being the light in our world?

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a fantasy story in that it speaks of undiscovered worlds, talking animals, half-human/half-animal creatures, witches, and magic spells, it tells the story of four children, who enter into the world of Narnia . Narnia used to be a beautiful place with wonderful weather, but Narnia has since fallen victim to endless winter. Now the Chronicles of Narnia is a series of books, the first book The Magican’s Nephew speaks of the suffering of endless winter being brought on by a character ringing a bell he was told not to, which brought an white witch into rule Narnia. who has police and an army to see that her evil wishes are carried out. So Narnia had been transformed from paradise to a land with an evil dictatorship, and endless winter leading to much suffering for the creatures that live there.

The four children enter into the world of Narnia through contact with a wardrobe (Which I learned watching the movie is another way of describing a large dresser, When one of the children (Edmund) who I could probably best described as a rotten, spoiled child is in Narnia, he is tempted and promised by the white witch (who calls herself the queen of Narnia) to give him all the candy he wants, as long as he would serve the white witch by bringing her the other children.. When the four children are in Narnia they hear that a Lion named Aslan is coming back to Narnia, and Aslan hadn’t been in Narnia for many years. The The Magican’s Nephew tells of how Aslan is the creator of Narnia. The Children here a Prophecy about how Aslan is going to bring the end reign of the white witch , when four human children called (Sons of Adam, and Daughters of Eve) are in Narnia.
Edmund soon realizes after seeing the horrors of the reign of the white witch by seeing her put inhabintants of Narnia to death,
, the mistake that he made siding with the white witch and the forces of evil. Aslan’s followers than save Edmund from certain death by rescuing him from the white witch. Then occurred what I thought was one of the most touching scenes in the movie, where as soon as Edmund is rescued, Aslan tells Edmund that all he did will be forgiven. The White Witch then comes and finds Aslan forcing a meeting, demanding that he give Edmund to her, so he can be put the death. Since Edmund is a traitor, and all traitors have belonged to White Witch from the beginning of time. The White Witch had a point, Edmund for being a traitor, deserved any punishment, even death that he was going to receive. Aslan comes out of the meeting and tells everyone, that Aslan and the White Witch have figured out a way to settle the White Witch’s demands of the Justice of Edmund’s death. Aslan was going to die in the place, of this spoiled child. A couple of the children then see Aslan being put to death on a stone table, while being mocked and humiliated by the white witches’s forces, all the while Aslan doesn’t fight back. The white witch is convinced that she has achieved victory.

But then as two of the children sleep through the night the next day, they see that Aslan’s body is gone. They then see Aslan behind them and he tells them that the white witch had failed to see that when a willing victim of death, who had committed no treason or sin was killed as a traitor, the suffering brought to Narnia would begin to end. The story closes with the White Witch in a weakened state being killed by Aslan in a great battle, The four children then go on to live and reign as kings and queens of Narnia for years in the paradise as the suffering caused by the reign of the white witch was over.

What does this have to do with today’s scripture reading speaking of Jesus being the light of the world, one might ask? For Narnia was a land of perpetual winter, and suffering brought on by the reign of the white witch. When I was doing research this week on the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, I thought that the White Witch was meant to illustrate the devil, but in reality the White Witch was mean to illustrate sin, and all sins consequences were illustrated by endless winter. Scripture desbribes in places like Job (10) , Micah (7) , Lamentations (3), and the Psalms (107) us living in a world of darkness, where we deal with suffering because of the consequences of human sin. The truth is everyone in this room will endure bad things in life. For the reality of sin is that has corrupted all of creation as stated in Romans (8) so that it will bring pain, it will bring suffering, and it will bring death. This is a reality of the darkness brought on by each and everyone of our sins. For myself and every person in this room is guilty of being sinner For Edmund, as for us, we deserve punishment for our sins and not a light in the darkness .

But there is a light in the darkness. One time I was working as a hospital chaplain in Fargo, and I was visiting a gentleman in his room who had been given that very day been given a dianogis of terminal cancer,. His son was taking the uncertainty hard by hitting the bottle, and called up his dad’s room to yell at him. He would tell me of the sadness his wife of around 40 years was going through. He was telling me how he would cry all night until eventually he fell asleep. For if I didn’t believe in Jesus Christ there was no nothing I could tell this guy, to offer any hope in this situation.

For the reason scripture refers to Jesus as Light in this world, is because scripture speaks of light as identical with salvation in Psalm 27, Isaiah 49, and Isaiah 60. It is this salvation from this darkness that gives us hope in these most difficult of situations. So what I could tell this guy as he was dealing with terminal cancer. I could remind him of the hope of salvation by telling him that Jesus Christ died on the cross for his sins as well as mine. For Christ didn’t die to save those who are perfect, Christ didn’t die to save those who lived holier lives than others, Christ died to save sinners, so that our sins may be forgiven. Christ died so he could undergo and overcome the punishment, we deserved. Christ died so we may have faith in the light of his salvation in our darkest, most difficult of hours. Christ died so believers don’t say on their death bed “Is this all there is” “Or now things are really going to get bad.” Christ died for us, out of his love for us, so on our days of greatest sadness, we may have hope that we shall be with Christ, some day in Paradise, not because of what we did, but because of what Christ did. Just as in Narnia, the children lived in Paradise because of Aslan’s death and resurrection, ending the reign of the white witch and the suffering it brought .

In Conclusion: Jesus is refered to as a light because he offers the hope of Salvation in the darkest of situations. Like Aslan in the movie, Jesus overcame sin by his sinless life as stated in 1 Peter 2, and overcame death by his resurrection, so we may overcome death and be with God upon our death as stated in Philipians 3. Edmund deserved death for his treachery, where we deserve death, and separation from God on account of our sins. But as Aslan died for the sake of Edmund, Christ died for our sake. But we don’t place our hope in a fictional story, but rather in Jesus Christ alone. So in this world of total darkness-,in this world of our endless winter, we have light in the darkness. A hope of salvation in that we will one day be with God in paradise on those darkest of days. This is why Jesus Christ is called the Light of the World.

Sunday Sermon

2005-12-08T07:58:00.000-06:00

Will be on The Chronicles of Narnia-The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. The scripture text I am going to be speaking on is John 1:7-9.

Article

2005-12-04T10:05:00.000-06:00

On Anti-Discrimination laws written by John Leo of US NEWS and World Report.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_4_05_JL.html

Heresy Watch #4

2005-12-03T21:04:00.000-06:00

From the Lutheran magazine ''Letters to the Editor"-For December 2005-PG.65

A letter writer named Kelly Donahue of Albuqerque, NM writes

"I read the article about Isalm and Christianity(July, Page 12). Many Evangelical Christians want to blame an entire religion for the acts of a few terrorists. MUSLIMS BELIVE IN THE SAME GOD I DO AND ARE GOOD PEOPLE.

boldness added for emphasis.

I need to address this issue. Since I went to a clergy conference this week where the presenter said basically "All religions are the same", and "If you worship a tree, or a rock or a deity you are all worshipping God.

Granted that is pluralism, where as the Letter Writer doesn't go quite that far. There are more issues, I could address with the letter, but wouldn't for lack of time.

The fact is that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus don't worship the same God. Christians believe God cannot be understood apart from Jesus Christ (John 1:1, Romans 10:9, John 10:30). Throughout the New Testament similar attributes are given to both God and Jesus. Muslims, and Jews both strongly reject any notion that Jesus was God. The Lutheran Confessions strongly teach that one can not know God apart from Jesus Christ (AC XX, AAC IV, LC-Creed). So the assertion here is one never found in scripture. Syncretism is getting to be so serious, I should address it more in depth.

More Fundamentalism

2005-11-27T09:56:00.000-06:00

Q: Do you consider what this blog promotes as Fundamentalism?

Well as said in the previous post is a hard question to address. Lutherans tend to start from the salvation of Jesus Christ which leads to the authority of the Bible, where as groups often defined as Fundamentalist tend to start from the authority of scripture, which leads to Christ. As I said in the previous post, and on the post on the Authority of the Bible, these things should go hand and hand, so as I said their shouldn't be a great difference from this approach. This blog is not seperatistic in its theology in that it believes fellowship and recoginzes others as Christians who confess salvation in Jesus Christ as Lord. Lutherans don't align with most groups deemed fundamentalists by their sacramental theology. This blog doesn't line up with Millenalist theology, that the media often cites in labeling fundamentalism. Lutherans aren't Fundamentalists in the sense that they seek to seperate from the culture. Some groups that are labeled fundamentalists often tend to look to the Bible to solve every life problem (ex. Government taxes), where as I look to the Bible to solve issues of Faith and Doctrine. But if one is to go be the definitintion of those who find the Bible authoriative in these matters as labeled at Luther Seminary, then yes this blog would be considered such. If another definition would be the rejection of rationalistic views of the Christian faith than this blog would be considered fundamentalist. So with so many possible ways Fundamentalistism is defined, I would say this blog isn't a Fundamentalist blog, since it doesn't fit in with many of the possible descrpitions. I prefer the terms "Lutheran Confessional" or "Evangelical" for the definition of my theology.

Fundamentalists

2005-11-26T13:08:00.000-06:00

I know from experience when people don't like certain Bible arguments, they label those they deal with fundamentalists, to dismiss thier position. I know when I have argued in defense of the Orthodox Christian faith, by saying nothing different than Martin Luther would I have been labeled a "Fundamentalist". At Luther Seminary, you can here people speak about how great hinduism is, but watch out for those "Fundamentalists". I better address this issue?

What does Fundamentalist mean? Well it was first defined by the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America in 1910. As those who believe in the following 5 points

*Inerrancy of Scripture
*Virgin Birth and Deity of Jesus
*Doctrine of Atonement
*Resurrection of Jesus
*Literal Miracles of Jesus

-So men like Augustine, Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, Martin Chemnitz,Hans Nielsen Hauge, and John Calvin would be considered Fundamentalists for thier beliefs, or anyone that upholds the Lutheran Confessions.

-What consistutues modern fundamentalism is harder to define. It could be defined by those who reject Modernism, by Eschatology, by Political Ideology, or by Scientific world view?

-Fundamentalists were defined by a prof of mine as those who hold sepratisic views from other Christians. By this I mean those who break-off fellowship from those that they are in any sort of disagreement with. So groups like the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, or Bob Jones university would apply by this definition.

I have heard at Seminary professors say those who make the Bible an article of faith instead of Christ are fundamentalists? I see what they are saying here salvation does come from Christ and not from the Bible. But the Bible is what reveals Christ and in its words through the Holy Spirit produces faith.

I have often heard professors at Luther Seminary accusing "Fundamentalists of viewing every verse of scripture as equally important. So they might accuse fundamentalists of placing the same importance on I Timothy 5:23 as John 3:16. Where as these profesors at Luther Seminary, say we view all scripture through Christ, which I agree with. But Christ is also revealed throughout all of scripture. I commented on the authority of scripture here

http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/authority-of-bible.html. A Fundamentalist as people at Luther Seminary would define them, would say all scripture is equally inspired, not equally important. To say all scripture is equally inspired means to state that all scripture is in the canon for a reason. When people say one verse of scripture is less inspired than another you go down a slippery slope as evidenced here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/09/generic-gospel.html and http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-generic-gospel.html.

The reason I have begun seeking to define what Fundamentalism means is that it is often used in the form of Name-Calling when one is engaging in Theological debate. Name-Calling is often substuited when substantive argument is gone. It has never bothered me to be called a fundamentalist. Because people that use that term towards me it is often because I have a Biblically-Based argument against thier rationalistic argument. The fact that the media has seems to define all Orthodox Christians as the same ,also made me intrested in writing on this topic.

Update-Heresy Watch

2005-11-16T14:17:00.000-06:00

A Letter from another Confessional Lutheran.

I went to the lecture-thingy for this "prayerfully prochoice" thingy. I sought to be a light in the darkness, but the darkness wasn't just darkness, it was also chaos. They would make a piss-pore arguement, I would respond and then five of them (there were about 6 or 8 of them)would enter the respond to me at the same time; I swear, it was crazy. Not> only were their arguements absolute luticrist, but there were so many horrible comments coming my way at the same time and then they wouldn't> let me respond again.

The one guy even essentially argued to take out the Old Testament after he somehow used it (Numbers 5 and Exodus 21 I think it was) to argue that the Bible liturally speaks to and supports abortion.

Comments: I am not sure if she quoted Exodus 21 or Levitcus 21. John Piper addressed the Hebrew behind the Levitical text in the following post http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/abortion-debate.html. As far as Leviticus 21 or Numbers 5, the idea is that if one has a blemish they should be discarded. The laws dealing with blemishes, are like laws in the Old Testament dealing with cleaniness the idea that one has to be perfect to go before God.

But as I stated on my Post concerning Heresy Watch #1 : "We don't follow Old Testament Sacrifical system because Christ is the ulitmate high preist as stated in Hebrews 6-10. So this is quite well laid out in the New Testament. Laws dealing with issues of cleaniness fall along these lines, since Christ took away any need to make pure sacrifices for sin." The number of times I have to go into the book of Leviticus, for today's relevance is amazing. People like to say we don't follow some levtical law, so we can't take anything literally in all of scripture. This is a different poor use of scripture, as they decide to poorly use these laws when they are convient.

They also used a text from Amos (Amos 5:24) to support their arguement for a woman's "right to choose" what she does... to which I of course responded with that being a poor use of that passage in light of other> lessons, most specifically 1 Corinthians 6:19, to which they responded "well, the temple has already been broken." Anyway, I just thought I'd share that with y'all.

As far as Amos 5:24 it took a while for me to figure, out what they were getting at here. But the argument seems to go being forced to have a baby is the power structure-male making the oppressed female-carry out a child. Obviously injustice occurs, when some sort of power structure is violated. Were as an Unborn Child is clearly the one with no voice in this situation, of whom justice is required. But this is somewhat inaccurate proof-texting, responding to terrible proof-texting on my part. As for the book of Amos it deals with abuse of the sacrifical system, and mistreatment of the poor.

Heresy Watch #3

2005-11-15T12:18:00.000-06:00

From Luther Seminary's calendar found at www.luthersem.edu/intranet

Prayfully Pro-ChoiceTuesday, 11/15 TODAY! 12p-1:30pCampus Center - Seminar Rm 1
How can we educate the public to make it clear that many religious people support a public opinion climate that is conducive to pro-choice policy making and affirms women as moral decision makers? All students, staff and faculty are invited to the discussion: Joining the faithful movement for reproductive justice.

Led by the MN Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and Debra Wells, Ecumenical Coordinator.

The MN Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is comprised of religious denominations and faith groups which are committed to the preservation of religious freedom and reproductive choice.

This group doesn't aim to only allow abortions when the Mother's life is in serious danger, or in cases of rape, or incest. For the record, I don't support abortions in cases of rape. Since two wrongs, don't make a right. I know that statement will have me labeled as a fringe, fanatic.

Why does this woman have a job at Luther Seminary? I debunked the Pro-Choice position on Abortion here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/abortion-debate.html. I really don't see a serious debate taking place anytime soon. I don't consider a serious debate calling me a Fundamentalist who is a close-minded sexist.

Real Lutherans baptize babies, they don't Abort them. Real Lutherans bring babies to the font, not to the garbage. I should seriously consider taking action as to this abomination. But what should I expect from a Church in the ELCA who pays for Abortions for any reason, in their health plan with offering dollars.

Sunday Sermon

2005-11-14T10:10:00.000-06:00

One time this summer I was out eating Chicken Wings with an old High School Teacher of mine, and he started giving me a detailed theory about what events are going to bring about the end of the world? A few weeks after I started up here, a Pastoral Intern in Southern Minnesota, e-mailed me, and told me that people in her congregation kept telling her the end of the world is upon us, due to all the troubles in the world? Pastor Steve has told me that questions about the end of the world have been asked to him answer? I see the popularity of this topic in that the Left Behind Series which has sold over 60 Million Books, and has been made into three movies this series, tries to formulate what the end of the world might look like highlighted by true Christians being taken away into heaven before complete Global chaos and conflict breaks out starting in the Middle East. I have been asked a couple times to respond to statements made by TV preachers, regarding how the world was going to end soon. So this is an issue that has people wondering, so this is why I am going to address it today, by answering common questions people have about the End of the World?

Question 1: What do I mean when I say the world is going to End? I mean the day when Jesus Christ returns as taught in Acts 1. When Jesus does return pain, sin, Satan and death will be all done away with as taught in I Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20. At the last day, Believers will inherit eternal life, joy, and bliss and unbelievers to eternal punishment as taught in John 5, and Revelation 20. So what Lutherans believe about the end of the world is no different than anything than what we confess every Sunday in the Apostles Creed that “Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead. When Christ does return, all suffering, pain, and death will be gone from the Earth forever as stated in 2 Peter 3. Where as now only pain, suffering, and death are eliminated in heaven.

Question 2: When is the world going to End? To this I say I have absolutely no clue? Although, when the Vikings win the Super Bowl that might get me wondering a bit. The reason I have no clue is because of the witness of scripture. In Today’s scripture reading from I Thessalonians 5-Verse 2 specifically-Paul says the “Day of the Lord will come like a Thief in the Night”, this is a restatement of what Jesus says in Matthew 24 ,Mark 13 and also is stated 2 Peter 3. So the idea that someone is going to be able to accurately predict when the world is going to end is beyond me. The world could end today, or it could end 10,000 years from now.

Question 3: Doesn’t scripture speak of what events are going to precede the End of the World? These signs are what people like to refer to predict the End of the World. The signs that are spoken about in scripture include “Wars, Famines, Earthquakes, Persecution and suffering of Christians, and churches preaching contrary to the Gospel. . For instance this week with the riots taking place in France, and then a TV preacher might say the end of the world is upon us since 2 Thessalonians 2 speaks of lawlessness occurring before the end of the world. But the truth is that all signs these signs scripture speaks of going on before the end of the world, have been going on for as long as we can remember, and hundreds of generations before us, as they are all caused by human sin. This is why such things as Earthquakes, Wars, and the suffering of Christians have always existed.

So when scripture speaks of signs of the end of the world, and also speaks of how no one knows when the world is going to end. This is not a contradiction, because scripture is talking about the state of the world, before Christ’s return. Scripture describes signs for the End of the World, so people may know the imperfect suffering nature of the world that Christ is coming to save people from.

Question 4: How do Lutherans view the Book of Revelation?
Well to understand, the Book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John while he was exiled in Patamos, John wrote a letter to Several churches intending to provide comfort for these churches in the midst of persecution for the faith. Lutherans believe the Book of Revelation does not come up with exotic new ideas, but reinforces the idea throughout all of scripture that God will overcome all things in times of great distress, and suffering.. The Book of Revelation seeks to reinforce what is taught elsewhere in the scriptures. The Book of Revelation is symbolic literature in that it uses a lot of symbols, signs, and cycles. For instance, Revelation constantly uses the number 7, since it is a number used to indicate completion or fulfillment of God’s work. So the Book of Revelation uses symbols such as Beasts, and Harlots, to indicate those who perscute and decieve God’s people are going to one day be defeated. Revelation also speaks of the day when all pain and tribulation or suffering are going to end. Then Believers are going to be in heavenly paradise with God thanks to Christ’s work on the Cross. So the Book of Revelation was written not to shed light into 21st century Global Politics such as how to interpret the Israeli/Palenstianian conflict but to assure believers in the 1st century, but also today that in the midst of hard times of God’s triumph over all things till the end of time.

Question 5: How do Lutheran views about the End of the World contrast with other Churches?
Well great majority Lutheran belief, and what I am, is called Amillenialnist which was the dominant belief about the end of the World in the Early Church the view, held by the Lutheran reformers, and the great majority view till this last century. Besides Lutherans holding this view are Roman Catholics, Episcopals, Presbyterian, some Baptists, and the Church of Christ, , just to name a few Churches. This view began to be challenged by a preacher in the late 19th century named John Nelson Darby who first began formulating the idea that all Christians would be taken away in a rapture, before seven years of great suffering takes place under the leadership of the Anti-Christ Darby’s view shaped the Left Behind series, and has been influential in many churches. . Then Christ will come an establish a thousand year Political rule on Earth. In contrast to Darby’s views.

Lutherans do believe in rapture, as stated in I Thessalonians 4, but by this I mean Lutherans believe at the end of time all believers will be with God.

As far as being taken away before seven years of suffering taking place after Christians have been taken away, Lutheran believe the Christian life is one of suffering as stated by Jesus in John 16. For instance, every person is this room has gone through hard times, pain, suffering, sin, and sadness. For these are the very things that Christ came to save Christians from by his cross, and when Christ returns all these things will be gone from the Earth forever.

Lutherans don’t believe Christ is returning to set up any sort of political rule, since Jesus states pretty explicitly in John 18 that his Kingdom is not of this world. Now, when we pray thy Kingdom Come every Sunday in the Lord’s Prayer. . We as Christians are praying that God’s will for the world be done: A world where everyone believes the Gospel, a world where no one is a recipient of unjust violence, a world where not one person goes hungry at night. So Christians are called to try to create God’s kingdom on Earth although we realize God’s kingdom will never be accomplished on Earth because of human sin. But God’s perfect kingdom will be realized in heaven. For Philippians 3 speaks of how Christian’s true citizenship is with Jesus Christ in heaven. .

So if somebody starts telling some real exotic theory about the end of the world other than Christ will come to judge the living and the dead, it is an idea that is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach about the End of the World or witness of the Historic Christian Church.
In Summary- the Lutheran Belief about the end of the world is nothing fancy, it is just that Christ will one day return to Judge the Living and the Dead, as stated in scripture, and the words of the Apostles Creed. When Christ will return is as predictable as when the thief comes during the night. This is why Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years have been wrongly predicting when the world is going to end. We must not sit here speculating about the end of the world though.

Rather, we must continue to trust in God’s salvation in Jesus Christ from all things and be assured in those sweet words from Romans 8” Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger or sword. “

Be assured today that nothing, not even the end of the world cannot separate those who believe from the love of God. For any talk about the end of the world and Christ’s return must be connected with Christ’s resurrection. For as Jesus came the first time to defeat our sin, and our death by his resurrection, so we as believers may be forgiven in heaven. Christ will come again someday, so that all the sin, pain, suffering, and death of this world may exist no more. And all believers of the living and the dead will be with Christ.

For in the words of Revelation 21-“And I heard, the loud voice from the throne saying “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man, He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things has passed away.” -Amen

This Sunday

2005-11-10T13:01:00.000-06:00

I am preaching on the End Times.

Sunday Sermon

2005-11-06T08:08:00.000-06:00

Here goes, things have been a bit hectic, so I might not post again till after my Sermon, next sunday.

This morning is All-Saints Sunday the day were we remember those who by their death in the past year. Have entered into eternal life by their faith in Christ Jesus. But as we reflect on those who have recently passed, there is one thing I have always wondered about funerals. It is that people seem to lavish as much as praise on a person as possible. They talk about all the great memories they have of a person. But people never seem to acknowledge those times of their imperfection, the sins they may have committed.

But the truth from God’s word is that inspite of our imperfections, inspite of whatever sins we may have committed in the past. God has forgiven us totally by grace through Faith. We have no need to sit in the back of the Church wondering “I remember that good thing this person did, but what about when they did this, will God still forgive them for that. ” Do we sometimes have a fear that if we acknowledge a wrong in one’s past, then God might change his mind and change the verdict in regard to someone’s salvation.

I know from my own life, I have a very loved family member that is getting up in years, who has struggled with recovery from Alcoholism for about the last 30 years. She does not stand up proud of her condition like the openly unrepentant, or deny her need for God’s grace and forgiveness like the Self-Righteous , she has faith that Jesus Christ alone can make her right with God. Now she has good qualities that people could go on and on, when we come to her funeral service. But her life dealt with a very traumatic death by giving into alcoholism. She is a sinner, just like the rest of us.

I wonder if at her funeral, people might sit back wondering, what about the drinking, the DUI’S, and the rage shown. Can God ever forgive her for that? But I suspect her situation isn’t that different from a number of people’s situations. People often wonder if they or their loved ones have done enough for God? Wondering Could God possibly forgive me of all my sins? Wondering , How can I ever be called a Saint by anyone?

But the truth is in the words of Martin Luther the Christian Life is one being both sinner and saint. . This sounds like an odd statement to make- no one would ever say look at that good football team that is 0-10 on the season, no one would ever say what a good driver to someone with multiple accidents, and reckless driving tickets, no one would ever say someone’s a good cook, if you get sick every time, you eat their food. So how can one be both Saint and Sinner at the same time.

For we are sinners by our very nature listen to the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 7: “18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

For we can leave this room, and say “I am never going to sin again, but soon we will put our own interests before God’s, . as soon as someone does something that we don’t like-are we really going to love our neighbor as ourselves-. How ever hard we might try to not sin, we just aren’t by nature able to meet God’s standards of perfection. But yet, we don’t have to sit here today wondering if maybe we tried hard enough, so hopefully God might cut us some slack?

For, we are Saints in that God has promised to declare us to forgiven of all our sins before him by faith.

Let me read what I consider to be some of the most important words of scripture to answer how we are both Sinner and Saint at the same time -From Colossians 2:13-14-“You who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumsion of your flesh, yet God made us alive together, having forgiven all our trespasses by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside nailing it to the cross.-

This verse nails down the message of the Gospel and why someone inspite of their sins can be called a Saint. For we are all dead before God because of our sin. . What this means is that anyone who has ever sinned. If left to be judged by God by their own actions will lead to death, as stated in Romans 6.

But God’s in displaying his tremendous love for us, wanted to see us become his children. as stated in I John 3:1. So God by his grace acted so that we would be totally without debt before him, so we may spend eternity in paradise with God as stated in I John 3:2.
How did God act so that any gap in what we should do, and what we do before God because of sin , be eliminated and paid in full? By paying it on the cross. By the Cross-God experienced death-which is our fate because of sin, but at the same time-God defeated death by his resurrection, so God made us totally right with him, and we and all the saints are thus resurrected from the dead,because of him.

For we are sinners-in that we all have sinned. But we are Saints in that God has declared us to be totally forgiven of all our sins before him by his grace through faith.

Here’s an analogy of how this works, as told by a Seminary Professor on a video in the Augsburg Confession class, I teach - He told the story of being student who drove a car that was just a beater. A car that was all-rusted out, with a radio that barely works, a Car that doesn’t start up all that quickly, then when it does fires off a sound to wake the neighbors He then met a girl that who had a brand new Cadillac. These two then unite in marriage, and that the car that was her’s became his’. For as Paul states in 2 Corinthians 5. For God’s united himself with us through Christ’s death and resurrection, so that God’s righteousness, may be our righteousness. Therefore everything we have done in the past may be forgiven. This is how a Sinner can be a Saint.

So when a funeral comes remember in spite of whatever sins someone has committed-defining them as a sinner. God will still forgive them by faith, and they will still be with God-for God has declared us to be Saints. For as our reading from I John 3:3 states “And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. For it is in this hoping in Jesus Christ that we are made pure. We are called saints, not by our own actions. But by the fact that Christ canceled all our sins, and sins’ debts by his cross and resurrection. This is how we become totally right before God, and are forgiven of all our sins. This is why we can remember our loved ones today,-not for the sins they may have committed or wondering if they did enough, but for the fact that God declared them saints and totally righteous in Jesus Christ, so they may be with God.
Amen

Sermon

2005-11-02T18:52:00.000-06:00

I will be preaching this Sunday on how we are both sinners and saints at the same time. For we are sinners by nature, but Saints as God has forgiven all our sins and declared us righteous .(Colossians 2:13-14)

Heresy Watch #2

2005-11-01T10:46:00.000-06:00

From the ELCA's Lutheran magazine . The late Walter Bouman who is considered a somewhat conservative Theologian by ELCA standards in that he opposes Sexual Revionism. Stated for theological insight on his death-bed

"Difficult as it is—because I always think of it as unfair—I’ve come to accept God’s universal salvation as the final consequence of Jesus’ resurrection. I think of all the best and worst, the innocent and the guilty, Holocaust victims and the evil perpetrators, those killed in all of our senseless wars and the misguided leaders who send them into battle. Christ will raise us all—and somehow bend us into shape so we become the human beings we were intended to be."

-I have debunked his position here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/univeralism-revised.html and I forgot to quote John 3:18-which is pretty explicit. Bouman never addresses any of these verses. Would the ELCA publish something articulating Biblical Doctrine on Univeralism.

-Bouman's idea represnts what is the next series I am going to do here called "What is the root of Bad Theology? The three areas I will address include "Poor use of Scripture", "Emotion vs Biblical Doctrine", and "Denial of Sin as bondage". If I can think of anymore, I might do more parts. But this series, will have its first post Saturday.

Works Consulted

1. http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=5534

Heresy Watch #1

2005-10-29T21:08:00.000-05:00

I saw the Metro Lutheran when I was down in the Twin Cities this weekend. A man named Sven Erlandson had written a letter that had created some contraversy in basically stating that Christians don't take the Bible literally, since they don't follow Levitical laws to a tea. Erlandson has already written a book called Rescuing God from Christianity. Which is a book taken shots at Fundamentalists and how they have corrupted the Christian Faith. I only read reviews I didn't sit down and read this book. The basic point is I guess basically a rehash of Baruch Spinoza's idea, where you need to just love your neighbors and love God and this is a religion. So doctrines like the Trinity, and the Resurrection can be discarded according to the review I read, and this was from someone who liked the Book.

Erlandson in the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote http://ivarsvoice.blogspot.com/2005/09/word-alone.html

As far as what he says about Leviticus 20:13b-Leviticus 20 deals with punishments for sins in Theocratic Israel. So this is why we don't put people to death for Idolatry. Since the state is not the one's enforcing but human self-righteousness in John 8 with the Women at the Well, this is why Jesus tells them "Let though without sin, cast the first stone." So John 8 would also seem to address why people aren't put to death for Sexual Sin. But in Romans 13:4 the state is one who enforces people's behaviors. So if we were living in a Theoacry this law would be valid. This question also probably goes to a degree how as blatant disregard of God's law in such a way as in violating the sabbath, would put someone to death as Hebrews 3-4 or Colossians 2:16-23 seem to argue because Christ has made us right with God. The observances of God that previously made us right with God are no longer valid.

But people like Erlandson, and classmates at Seminary like to point out how we eat Shellfish so we don't take the Bible literally along these lines. But hopefully they know well enough that in Acts 10, Peter has a vision which says all foods are permissible to eat this is backed up in Colossians 2:16-17.

We don't follow Old Testament Sacrifical system because Christ is the ulitmate high preist as stated in Hebrews 6-10. So this is quite well laid out in the New Testament. Laws dealing with issues of cleaniness fall along these lines, since Christ took away any need to make pure sacrifices for sin.

But yet Old Testament moral law is unchanging. So issues like Leviticus 20:13a- would seem to be cover. You're not permitted anywhere to engage in Murder, Theft, or Adultery. As I have stated earlier on this blog, who would argue for any changes to anything stated in Leviticus 18.

This might seem like a minor issue, but people throwing Levitical references, and pointing out how we don't follow them, so we should promote any behavior they want, has happened on more than one occasion. So this is why I felt the need to respond to Erlandson.

Works consulted

1. http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99757.qna/category/ot/page/questions/site/iiim

2. http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/category/ot/file/99939.qna

3. http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=7486

Is the Papacy the Anti-Christ?

2005-10-24T15:36:00.000-05:00

Before, I answer this question I must state that this is not an Anti-Roman Catholic Blog. I am responding to statements from the Lutheran Confessions (Apology 15:18-19, Apology 24: 97-98, Smalcald Articles II-II-25, Smalcald Articles II-IV-10-14, Treatsie 39-41,57). But the Lutheran Confessions and the Scriptures define as doing the work of the Anti-Christ any Religious Gathering that shields people from the truth of the Gospel (Matthew 24:23-24, Matthew 24:5, Mark 13:21-22, 1 John 2:18-22, 2 John 7). This should not be confused with the ulitmate Antichrist in the Devil who is taught of in Revelation 17-18, and 2 Thessolonians 2. So these verses make a uniform witness that their are many false teachers who have sprung-up over the history of Christianity. The Lutheran Confessions were reacting very strongly in that, they felt Roman Catholic theology of the 16th century took people away from the merits of Christ. . The Council of Trent from 1545 to 1563 spoke of Justification by Faith as Heresy. So what the Lutheran Confessions define as the Anti-Christ is anything that teaches people anything other than the merits of Christ for salvation. So the New Age movement, and people from many Church bodies would fit this description.

This is not to say their aren't still Theological Disagreements between the brand of Orthodox Lutheranism that I follow, and Rome. This is inspite of agreements like The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Though, if this document was much of a breakthrough at all should be debated. A lot of the arguments for this agreement seem centered on the idea of Roman Catholics accpeting Salvation is by Grace, and Christ's Merits. Roman Catholics made this belief clear at the Council of Trent.

However, problems still exist. The Roman doctrine of Justification as taught in their Cathecisms still makes Grace to much of a process in which grace is continually infused over time, where as Historical Lutheranism has also viewed the implementation of Grace as Forensic in that it is done once, and for all (Colossians 2:13-14). Rome still defines Grace as leading to good works, and this what JDDJ agreed to. This runs into the problem of making salvation into a Mormon like system. This very easily leads to the idea that Saving Grace, can be found in Pagan Religions, when Justification isn't defined alone by the merits of Christ. Although their are American-Evangelical Churches, and Churches in other denomiations I could of which I could offer similar critiques.

I am also critical of other Roman doctrines like: Praying to Saints, and their Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Both ascribe qualities to finite human beings, that are never given scriptually since as omnipotence, and making the Lord's Supper valid. Disagreements also exist about the Role of the Pope-a Non-Biblical Office, and Mary. But the Major difference deals with Justification as Forensic as opposed to Infused.

That being said I would praise the Roman Catholic Church in they do have an accurate view of the Trinity, and does believe in Salvation by Grace through Christ. I would never say the Roman Catholic Church does not have Christian memebership, and leadership. I do admire Rome's strong stance on Abortion, and their level of doctrinal disciplined as levied against heretics like Matthew Fox. But I am only writing to point out what is meant by refrences in the Lutheran Confessions to the Papacy as the Anti-Christ . While, at the same time seeking to honestly address areas of Theological disagreement. If someone suggests to point out theological disagreements with another denomiaton, I would do it.

Love Your Neighbor as Yourself-Matthew 22:34-40-UPDATE

2005-10-21T15:48:00.000-05:00

Is the lectionary text this week, in congreations that use a lectionary. This verse though can sometimes be represented, and what the nature of this love is should be explored. This is not a sermon, but a Commentary.

Sometimes people like to use this verse to promote thier own humanist agendas. So any sort of condemnation of anyone's behavior or beliefs. Some Pastors will preach this text as generic, and ignore some of the radical nature of this love here, so someone may not be offended.

A few points in response

Since Jesus is God, we must look at some other examples of when Jesus was loving.
When Jesus comes to the defense of the women caught in adultery in John 8. Jesus is loving when he tells her to go and sin no more in verse 11. The reason, sin has serious consquences. We often don't understand how God's law was established not only to bring people to Christ, but to reign the pain caused by sin. Every law, God comes up with it is as a loving father for our benefit, not as a strict discipinarian. In Matthew 9-Jesus speaks of how he came to call sinners, and make them well for they are ill. In John 9:31-Jesus speaks of how those who engage in blatant unrepentant sin, God does not hear. Jesus was very loving of other people when he took their sin seriously.

It should also be noted that Jesus makes all sorts of absolute truth claims regarding himself with judgement to those who don't accept them (John 3:36, John 3:18, John 8:24, John 8:16-19, John 5:24, Luke 24:27, Matthew 25:31-46). So this passage doesn't mean, not to make absolute truth claims to your neighbor, or the idea that you should just accept your neighbor's beliefs, and maybe they can except yours. The loving thing to do to your neighbor according to these verses is to witness to the truth of Jesus Christ.

But what does this love mean. Someone asked me does this love, we are called to extend to Rapists, Child Molestors, and Murderers?

Well Scripture speaks of how we are by object natures of wrath (Eph 2:3, and I Thessolonians 1:10). We have all sinned, and fallen short of God's standards. These verses state we all deserve God's punishment. We're not going to be able to stand up there on the judgement day, and point out how we aren't as bad as someone else, for we all still fail to meet God's standards by our own actions. For the difference between Murderer and us is like an pothole, but the difference between God and us is like the Grand Canyon.

So point 1: We are called to love God as well as our neighbor, because we are as in need of God's forgiveness as our neighbor. We can't deny love to our neighbor because of our own self-righteousness.

Self-Righteous love is not hard to find. We love people that can give us money, makes us feel good about ourselves, or make us look better. Rigtheous love as displayed by Jesus coming down to eat with Tax Collectors, and Sinners, and dying and rising so that we may live. This is what seperates our self-righteous love from God's righteous love.

Love though also has a degree of justice. For God is loving, yet God still has us die to experience death as the justice for our sin (Romans 6:23). So God is just in his love, as wrong-doings have consquences. So this is why you can still love a Child Molestor in your neighborhood, and not hire them as your baby-sitter. This is why a parent can discipline a child and still be loving. In fact, it is more often loving to punish than to ignore. The reason is actions have consquences.

Point 2: So basically, what I am saying is that love has a degree of justice, when it is dealing with sinful people.

But love also has a degree of action involved. We can't just walk around saying, we love people, only to ignore people, we come across.

But when we ulitmately think of what it means to love God and our neighbor. We must realize that the ulitmate form of love was displayed in the Cross, where Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6-8). Christ died not because he had anything we could give him, but because he loved us so much he didn't want to see us perish. God loved us so much, he wanted to make us his own. This is the love that should define how we love God, and how we love our neighbor. So love is a more complex picture than sometimes portrayed: Love is defined by truth,justice, acceptance, and action. But love is most ulitmately defined by our Sin and Christ's cross. We love God because he died for our sins, and love our neighbor because God died for his sins too.

Is Jesus the Only Way to Salvation?

2005-10-17T09:22:00.000-05:00

JI Packer gives a very well thought out and Biblically-based answer.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/010/29.88.html

My Sunday Sermon

2005-10-15T21:06:00.000-05:00

Today’s scripture reading has a verse that sticks out at us in Isaiah 45:7 which states “7I form light and create darkness,I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.” So what this verse states is not only does God bring all good occasions but also all-bad occasions So what does this mean for our lives.

Let me take the first question that has been asked many times in the past month, Does God want for natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina to occur? I give an answer that would qualify me to be a Politician someday. I say No, but at the same time I say Yes. I better explain. I say no, for God is not the author of Evil or Sin. (James 1:15). For God did not cause Hurricane Katrina for Hurricane Katrina like all natural disasters are caused by human sin. Scriptually as Romans 5 states when Adam and Eve sinned this sin ruined God’s ideal, this sin extended to all people for all times, and the nature of this sin corrupted all of creation-of which weather would be included as stated in Romans 8. We can all point to times where our suffering occurred because of not only the sinful behaviors of others, but also our own sinful behavior.
For God never wanted people to sin, and for such consequences to occur. Heaven is where the ideal will of God occurs. Where everything God wants occurs and in heaven there is no such thing as suffering. But at the same time-Scripture emphatically states that God knows all things(Isa 46:10, Job 28, Psalm 90, Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1), and knows the future of all things( I John 3:20, I Samuel 15:29), while at the same time being all-powerful . So this is why scripture speaks in verses like Isaiah 45:7 about God controlling all things even disasters. This is why Amos 3 says if not disaster comes do not I the Lord bring it, similar sentiments are expressed in Lamentations 3-. So since God knows bad things are going to occur, God can allow it for God’s own reasons. So when something like Hurricane Katrina comes, or someone gets hit by a bus? This is nothing new to God, but God has known it would happen from eternity but God didn’t want it, since God didn’t want people to sin and suffer sin’s consequences. So if someone were to ask me did God cause Hurricane Katrina? I would say no in that it was caused by human sin, but yes in that God knew what was coming, and has reasons for allowing suffering and those reasons will be explored today.
The second question people might ask is did Hurricane Katrina come to New Orleans since it was more sinful than Our Town? To this I answer no. For as Romans 3:23 states “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God this means all people have fallen short of God’s standard for salvation”. No one in this room has lived a life without sin. We have sinned so frequently, we cannot even remember, everything we have done wrong before God. Scripture speaks of a sin as a instict in Romans 8. So no one here is less guilty before God than anyone in New Orleans. We need to confess our sins every Sunday, as much as anyone down there. The reason disaster didn’t strike Our Town is only because of the Grace and the love of God. Let me put it another way, if I were struck by lightening and killed walking home today. God would be totally in the right, as I have sinned and would hence deserve it. Although as a devout Vikings fan, God is probably punishing me in a different way. But it is by the Grace of God and the love of God that not only am I saved, but that anything of benefit comes to my life.
For the concept of Grace is what separates Christinanity for every other world religion, where Karma is the prevailing thought. By Karma, I mean the idea that our relationship with God is totally cause and effect, we do bad then God punishes us, we do good then God rewards us. Basically, the idea that you get what you deserve. But what separates Grace from this, is the idea that you might have sinned before God, it doesn’t howmatter many times, but God still loves you, and forgives us by his cross
Now back to why God allows bad things and suffering to occur-
The first reason is to bring people to God. This might sound kind of a strange, but let me explain. Imagine a world, where as soon as you just get up you are no longer tired, then you make breakfast and nothing is ever dry or burnt, then you have a nice-relaxing drive to work, then you love every second of your work day, then you come home and there is never any conflict of any sort. Now, if we lived in a state of Bliss like this. How would one ever have any sort of need for God’s salvation, since life is perfect what would you be saved from. If the world was always ideal how could one realize their sin and their need for Christ’s salvation. One of the seemingly strangest passages in the Gospel occurs in Luke 13 when the Tower of Siloam falls down, and kills 18 people. People ask Jesus why God allows disasters like this to occur? Jesus makes clear that people aren’t affected by natural disasters since they are worse sinners than other people, but to remind us of our need for repentance, of not trusting in ourselves but trusting in God for our salvation. For what Jesus says here follows along the line that God allows sin’s consequences to take shape, to show the separation between people and God because of Sin Hence, leading people towards God’s salvation in Jesus Christ.

The second is that we ultitmately don’t know God ways. For instance in the Old Testament, when Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery, nothing but bad should have come out of this, but as soon as Joseph saves Israel from the famine. He tells his brothers who had sold him into slavery ,. When standing before him, asking for forgiveness, Joseph Said“What you meant for evil, God meant for good.” So something that in our mind would seem so horrible, God meant that for good. In John 9, The disciples came across a man born blind, something that no one would say is a good thing, but Jesus said this happened not because this man was sinful, but so the work of God could be displayed in his life. So as Isaiah 55 says our ways are not God’s ways. Our knowledge of how the universe works together, cannot even begin to be compared with God’s knowledge. This is how God answered Job when Job asks why God allowed him to lose his wife, his children, and his possessions. God didn’t answer Job with a direct answer, since it is maybe possible Job couldn’t have comprehended a direct answer. For when God is all-powerful, knows all things, and knows the future, it is possible we cannot comprehend why he allows suffering, since we are so different in our base of knowledge and power. But God assured Job, how he did he care for creation. The evidence of God’s care creation is what we do know about God, and how it relates in times of hardship.

Now as a Pastor you deal with some very traumatic situations. One of the great Professors at Luther Seminary,Dr. Walter Sundberg told me what to say when someone asks why God would allow their spouse to be dying or , their child to be in a car crash, and I am going to tell it to you today? I don’t know why God would allow this to happen, but what I do know about God I know from the cross. I know God loves us as Romans 5 says, while we still sinners, Christ died for us. Even though, we didn’t meet God’s standards of perfection, God still loved us, and died for us. God wanted to see our suffering end, so he suffered on the cross for us. For on this Cross, the sin of the world put Jesus to death. When Jesus was up there dying, it looked like the worst thing one could ever imagine for his followers. For when God seemed the most absent, he was in fact the most present.

All this happened so God could claim us as his own. So no matter how bad anything you have done in the pass, God forgives us by faith and makes us totally right before him. We know God loves us, because God came to Earth to save us. So that we may spend eternity with God in heavenly paradise. God’s salvation should assure us about the nature and love of God above all else.

Each and every person is this room is going to go through hard times in their life. You’re probably picturing those hard times now. I think the second scariest idea when it relates to bad things happen, is that God is in charge, and God has a reason for allowing this. But the scariest idea is the bad things, you are going through and from pure chance with no purpose, and a God who can’t help. When these bad moments come. You’re going to be like me and not know why God would allow something like this to happen, or how God uses it for his purposes. But take heart in what we do know about God. That God suffered on the cross, so a day would come when we no longer suffer. That inspite of our sins, and imperfections, he died on the cross for us, and rose again so that we may live, not eternally in the troubles of this world, but in blissful paradise in the world that is to come. This is how inspite of our suffering, we know God loves us.
Amen

Is what I teach a Determinism?

2005-10-08T10:56:00.000-05:00

This is a teaching by Calvinists that God has ordained all things from the beginning of the world. For instance that someone is headed to condemnation before they are born, and this is willed by God. I would say this is foreknown by God as stated in my previous verse. God knows all things that are going to come. But this does not neccesarily mean that God wills all things. For instance scripture speaks of God wanting everyone to be saved ( 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 4:10, and I Timothy 2:4), but this does not mean all people are saved as scripture clearly talks of all people not being saved( Matthew 25:31-46, John 3:18, I John 5:11-12, John 3:36, Acts 26:17-18, Acts 13:41). The reason people are condemned is their own wickedness, and rejection of faith (Ephesians 2:3, Acts 7:51, Hebrews 3:5-6, and Mark 3:27-28). So I hold that God knows all things that will come to pass, but God doesn't will all things that would come to pass (I.E. The Fall). But God allows bad things to happen, which he doesn't will for his purposes (Hebrews 12:5-9). So God does not want evil to occur (James 1:15), but works through the evil for his own purposes. God wants no one to perish, knows who will perish. I know that this is a complicated issue, hopefully this clarifies the position.

My Next Sermon

2005-10-06T16:16:00.000-05:00

Will be given on Sunday October 16. I am doing an expostional sermon as Isaiah 45:7 basically on the question God's Will and Hurricane Katrina, The Why and the Hope? A lot of the sentiments will be similar to my last post on Hurricane Katrina.

God's Will and Hurricane Katrina

2005-10-05T09:10:00.000-05:00

Well let's look at what Scripture teaches about the subject.

Isa 45:7- I make will being and create calamity says the Lord.
Amos 3:6- If disaster comes to a city do not I the Lord bring it.
Lamenations 3:37-38-What has come to pass unless the Lord has spoken it, he brings good and evil.

In the Gospel
Luke 13:1-5: When Jesus is asked about God's will in Natural Disasters, Jesus said they serve as a reminder of our need to repent or perish. Jesus never diassociates God's Will with the disaster.

John 9-Jesus says the Blind Man was made blind for God's Glory.

The clear witness of scripture is never does anything bad happen, without God being involved.

The reason is that scripture teaches that not only does God know all things (Isa 46:10, Job 28, Psalm 90, Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1) scripture teaches that God has extensive foreknowledge or knowledge of all things that come to pass (I John 3:20, I Samuel 15:29). So God clearly knows what is going to happen and makes no effort to stop it.

So when people ask if the people in New Orleans were more sinful? I think they might have an inaccurate appriasial of Sin. Scripture speaks of sin as Bondage (Romans 8:5-8), that all people have (Romans 3:23), which has been created from birth (Psalm 51:5) this sin has corrupted all of creation leading to natural disasters (Romans 8:18-22). So the answer is not that New Orleans is more sinful, but as Jesus says in Luke 13 all people need to repent of their sinful nature, and trusts in Christ's merits for salvation.

It is true that sin is not brought on by God as stated in James 1:15-God is not the author of evil, but allows it for his purposes. For God wills all things in accord with his purpose Ephesians 1:11.

I see the problem with most of the New Orleans discussion as being two-fold. One people assume an entitlement mentality before God. That God needs to give them something. But because of our rebellion against God, God owes us nothing. If God was to cast me into the Lake of Fire tonight it is not because I don't deserve it. The fact that God provides us anything of benefit is by God's grace, not because of our nature.

So why might God will Hurricane Katrina? Well if we lived lives where nothing ever went wrong, everyday was hunky-dorry, we would have no need for a savior.

But what we do know about God and his desire for all of creation is made clear in Jesus Christ. For God's love for us is revelaed in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, out of God's love for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

We might not know the will of God in all things(Isaiah 55:8), but we do know this about God.

Preterist

2005-09-30T15:48:00.000-05:00

Question: Do you consider yourself a Preterist? No, Preterist believe the majority of prophecy has already been fulfilled. As I stated in the previous post, I believe in a Second-Coming, I believe Revelation 20 was not describing persecution which ended with the Jersuleum Temple, but persecution that still occurs today, and will keep occuring. My postion is similar in that we both deny that their will be a thousand year reign of peace on earth over and against the Millenialists. The reasons being that Christ would have no need to rule in such for a 1000 years in contrast to heaven, and human nature is to sinful for such an event to occur as the Postmillenaists believe.

Amillennialism Alone

2005-09-30T14:17:00.000-05:00

Is the official teaching of this blog.

The Book of Revelation was written for Pastoral Comfort of believers by John, and to show how God triumps over all things. It was not written so people can come with speculative theories about the end of the age.

I reject the idea of Christ setting up a kingdom on Earth? The reason being why would Christ need to set up an earthly kingdom at the same time as heaven. Especially with the world still in a depraved state.

-It should be noted that the book of Revelation is apocalyptic in its nature. Most apocalytpic writing is largely symbolic. For instance the reason the number 7 is always used is to speak of "Completeness" or "Fulfillment" This isn't to deny that there are accurate elements as the Seven Churches stated in Revelation 2-3 are indeed Churches. I intrepret Revelation based on the understanding of what is clearly taught elsewhere in scripture.

For instance I don't deny a Rapture as it is taught in I Thessolonians 4:14-17: A Rapture means that believers( Living and Dead) will meet the Lord at their judgement. Paul mentions this because believers were concerned about if other believers who were dead were going to meet the Lord.

I believe Christ will one day return, so all people may see him. (Acts 1:11, Matthew 24:27-30, Revelation 1:7)

When scripture speaks of signs of the end of the age. Such as natural disasters and apostasy these are signs that have occured all throughout human history. This isn't to say they might not increase towards Christ second return. But both are examples of human depravity which is rather consistent. I reject a specific time-frame for which they events occur.

So how do I intrepret Revelation 20

-20:1-3 at Christ's first coming Satan's was cast out (John 12:31) , where as Christ bound Satan (Matthew 12:24-29). Basically Satan can not keep all nations from hearing the Gospel (Acts 14:16). The time Satan shall still have authority will be limited. So this passage speaks of soemthing bad which has been defeated.

-2o:4-6-This was defeated by conversion as John seems to be refering here to the First Resurrection as taught in Romans 6:2-11; Colossians 2:12-13) Those who share in this resurrection are no longer under the power of eternal death.

-20:7-10-Describes the persecution of Christians which has been taken place ever since there was a Christian church.

20:11-16- Teach the simple Biblical teaching that on the judgement day there will be a judgement of believers to eternal life, and unbelievers to eternal punishment.

So I obviously reject any sort of politicizing of this passage. It is speculative to speak of this as refering to any sort of war or to refer to Gog and Magog as any sort of modern politicial states. This is not to say I am not a strong supporter of Israel's right to defense, and support America's support of Israel but not because of any sort of Theological reasons.

The notion of all of Israel includes two seperate uses by Paul in Romans for instance in Romans 9:27-Paul refers to Israel as being the Jewish People where as in Romans 11:26- He refers to Israel as God's elect over and against a refernce made to Israel as a people in verse 23. Any sort of verses speaking of persectuion of the elect seem to be refering to Israel seems to be refering to persecution of the elect.

More will be given on this topic as requested.

-

Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel

2005-09-28T14:55:00.000-05:00

This according to the great book of the same title produced in the 19th century by CFW Walther, the founder of the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod. Walther rightly asserts that the cheif task of every theologian is the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Yet this distinction as it was during Walther's time cannot be done. False application of these truths has led to every false doctrine imaginable.

What is the proper defintion of these two doctrines.

Law- Would be defined as humanity's total depravity. By Total Depravity I mean that human nature is so corrupt on its own, that it can do anything good. It can do nothing good before God. Every good thing, we receive is only from the grace of God. Biblical Support for this belief is Romans 8:5-8, Romans 3:23, Psalm 51:5, I John 1:8). Our sin is so serious before God it leads to our death ( Romans 6:23). Sin has corrupted all of creation this is why natural disasters occur (Romans 8:18-22). To put this bluntly, if someone thinks they deserve anything before God apart from Christ's merits they do not understand the Christian concept of Law. Ephesians 2:1-3, Makes clear that we are dead before God because of our sins. All people deserve God's wrath. The idea that we aren't condemned tommorrow is only by God's grace. Some might say is this taught in all of scripture? One need not look beyond Israel's continued wickedness against God's faithfulness throughout the Old Testament to see this doctrine enforced. The problem with the Pharisees? Is that they didn't understand Total Depravity, and how they would stand before God sinful in their own nature.

Gospel- This is quite simply because of what Christ has done in defeating sin and death the very things which seperate us from God in his resurrection. Those who believe are made totally justified with God by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 4:4-5, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, Romans 1:17, John 3:16-18, Acts 4:12, Romans 3:24-26, Romans 9:1-23)

I will now start to look at how this doctrine is corruptued.

1. The most serious corruption of the doctrine of the Law is denial of the doctrine of Total Depravity. People like to speak of Sin as just as bad thing done now and again. Some Churches down play this doctrine to the point where they believe people can be completely holy, and live without sin in this life time. Liberals often reject this doctrine in their support of such items as Homosexuality. If one really believes in the doctrine of Total Depravity as taught in the scriptures, one would never speak as something being OK because of one's oreintation. Since they realize how corrupt our nature is.

2. Another major error in the law which goes to what I call an entitlement mentality before God. For instance if someone says people in Hurricane Katrina didn't deserve what they got, or it couldn't have been God's Will. The truth is every victim in Hurricane Katrina has fallen short of the glory of God. Every not only victim of Katrina/but every person alive deserves death and punishment in Hell. Everything moment of joy, we get is by God's grace though we don't deserve it. If we receive Good weather it is not because we are good, it is because God decided to bestow his grace upon a people.

3. A major Gospel corruption occurs when one speaks of the Gospel as anything other than Jesus Christ defeating sin and death on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins to make the faithful in just accord with God. If one speaks of the Gospel as terms of this earth. I.E. Someone is a good person, by whatever deeds they do, so they might be saved. This corrupts not only the Law, but the Gospel. If someone speaks of the Gpspel in humanistic terms of just doing good for other people, than they have perverted the Gospel.

4. The Gospel is corrupted as stated in Hebrews 10: 26-27, and Romans 6:15- When people go and aften they claim to be saved openly go about sinning, . This is Grace abuse, and they will be judged accordingly.

This is part 1 of a Topic, I will post on later.

Sermon

2005-09-25T09:59:00.000-05:00

Is on Matthew 21:28-32- The Parable of the Two Sons.

My Sunday Sermon

2005-09-25T09:57:00.000-05:00

So this is why I haven't posted all week. I might post later today on the Proper distinction between Law and Gospel.

Appearances are not always accurate. A few months ago Sports Fans like myself heard from people at ESPN how this was the year the Twins were going to win the World Series. We heard up to two weeks ago, how the Vikings are going to be a better Football team this year; well I don’t even know where to go with this. There are times when we see something that looks delicious, and we take a bite, and it doesn’t satisfy quite like we want. A lot of us have thought a movie looked really good, only to be thoroughly bored for two hours while watching it. Today’s Gospel reading deals with appearances. How appearances can be misleading, and how one’s salvation doesn’t come by their works or appearances.

In today’s Gospel reading regarding the Parable of the Two Sons. Jesus is talking about what it means to Repent. Repentance being the central teaching of all of scripture according to Martin Luther. Repentance means to confess that you have done wrong, and cannot save yourself before God, that only through Christ’ defeating sin by his sinless life, and defeating death by his resurrection that we are saved before God. It doesn’t matter what your appearance is to others, but your faith before God. Repentance is a confession of your need for Grace. “That you can’t go to heaven, because of your good works, but because of Christ. So how do I see this message comes from this text?
Now Jesus was talking to the Pharisees here. We know this because if one looks down to Matthew 21:45-It explains that Jesus was telling a collection of parables this one included to the Chief Priests and the Pharisees. Now the Pharisees were the scholars defined by how well they followed the Jewish Law. The Pharisees were the type of people if they lived here today, would drive the Speed Limit on an abandoned country road in the middle of night. They would never rip a tag of a pillow, per be a violation of federal law. They would never sneak to a better seat in a lopsided baseball-game. So the Pharisees were really committed, and really detailed. To following God’s law as set forth in the Old Testament. Now the problem with the Pharisees isn’t that they followed the law, it was that they were blind to Grace. Since Scripture states “all have sinned and fallen short of God’s standards for salvation (Romans 3:23) For the Pharisees were so proud of themselves, and how obedient they were of God’s law, that they couldn’t stand to here the message of Grace. They couldn’t stand to think that someone who was associated as a sinner, and didn’t meet their own high standards could be saved. This is why they were always in conflict with Jesus in Matthew 5:20-Jesus told them that even they weren’t holy, and righteous enough to enter heaven because of their own doing. In Matthew 9:11-13-Jesus told them that he came not for the righteous, but for sinners. In Matthew 12-The Pharisees got into an argument with Jesus over whether he should be picking, and eat grain on the Sabbath.

So this shows the Pharisees mindset. They though that through their faithful of observance of Old Testament Rules and Laws that they would be saved with God, and those who didn’t God would condemn. But Jesus would always say “All have done wrong before God, and that it is only because of God’s grace that people are saved. This idea carries itself out in the text. The common view of this parable of the two sons. Is that it is a tells people not to talk, but do action. I disagree strongly with this assessment in that being given to the Pharisee they lived as holy, and seemingly faithful of lives as anybody. The problem with the Pharisees was not a problem of not undertaking action. The problem with the Pharisees was one of having a hard-time of repentance, confessing their own flaws before God and confessing Christ as their savior. This is the parable of the second son. Where as in the case of the first son, you have someone openly disobedient of his father. But despite the First’s son unlikable first appearance, his doing comes from the fact that he acknowledges his sins before God, and trusts in God for his salvation. The exact opposite of the Pharisees. So the contrast here is one of appearance, who is the one who confesses Christ for salvation.

21.28-What do you think? A Man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.”
21.29- Now Jesus speaks of the first son. The type of person that all people would dislike if he was on a reality TV show. The type of guy that if he came home to date one’s daughter would have Mom and Dad reaching for the Pepto-Bismol. And the first son answered I will not go work in the Vineyard. . Here the first son is just stating his natural emotion. He didn’t want to do anything. Just as scripture describes our natural emotion against God is rebellion as stated in Romans 8:5-8, Psalm 51:5. Just imagine if we always acted on the first thought that comes into one’s head, or if we could go before God claiming we have done no wrong in his eyes. But then the text says the First Son changed his mind. What does the author mean “When he uses this term” Now the term Changed his mind is used twice in the Gospel of Matthew. Once in verse 32 of this passage, which talks about how the Tax Collectors and Prositiues changed their minds to believe in him. The change of mind here didn’t refer to the idea that the Tax Collectors and Prositutes suddenly became perfect and holy before God because of any action they did. The Tax Collectors and Prostitues trusted not in their good works, , but in Christ alone. This term changed their mind is also used in Matthew 27:3- When Judas changed his mind seeing Christ condemned. Judas realized he was wrong, and tried to acknowledge the error of his ways. So the point of this passage is the first son acted on his natural emotions which were sinful, he confessed his errors, and his need for Christ. And he was forgiven no matter what he had done.

21.30-Then the Vineyard owner went to the second son and asked him to go work in the vineyard. The second son. Not only gave the right answer in saying that he would. The second son gave the right appearance. The second son is the type of guy that if he walked into this church. People would marvel at how faithful he was. The second son was the type of guy that would have mom and dad high-fiving if he came to date their daughter. But yet the Second Son did not go into the Vineyard. The second son gave the appearance of faith,. For the second son was arrogant and trusted in himself for his salvation. If one wants to know what Lutherans believe about salvation it is “Only Jesus Christ can save us (Acts 4:12), but people’s own sinfulness and arrogance is why people are condemned.( Mark 3:27-28).” Jesus was comparing the second son to the Pharisees. They could fulfill every law, , and do everything imaginable to have the appearance of faith. But their faith was faith in themselves, and their own doing. They saw no need to acknowledge the own error of their ways, and have faith in Christ.
21.31-Jesus asks the pharisees who did the will of their father in heaven? The Pharisees said the first son. This was a rather easy answer for them since they judged people before God on what they did, and they heard a first son taking action.. But then Jesus radically challenges their beliefs in his parable in the second half of this verse. The Pharisees assumed the common assumption of this parable that it was a call to action of which they were very good at. But no. Jesus says “Truly I say to you, the Tax Collectors who were known for their basic organized theft backed up by the State, and refered to in scripture as the worst of all sinners, and the prostitutes will go into the Kingdom of God before you. So here Jesus finds two groups of people that were probably the lowest of the low when it came to the view of the Pharisees. Jesus says they will enter the kingdom of God before you. This is shocking this is radical. Jesus says the people who have lived a life with such an appearance of righteousness, and holiness before God will enter the kingdom of God after the people who would have interacted more today with Cops than with the Church. So the people who are thought of as the most sinful, are made right before God. The idea is given here no matter how good, holy, and faithful of an appearance you give other people, this in no way can save you since no one has meet God’s standards of total perfection, but no matter what you have done wrong, no matter how bad you have been like the Tax Collectors and prosistutes God can save you by grace through faith, and has in Jesus Christ.

21.32-Here Jesus refers to an earlier encounter the Pharisees had with John the Baptist in Matthew 3. In this conversation. The Pharisees come up to John the Baptist and he says that they need to repent, for they have done wrong, it doesn’t matter what appearances they give or what they say, for if we were measured before God by what we did everyone would be thrown into Hell upon their death. But then John said spoke of the way of righteousness, the one who would make it possible for sinners to enter heaven. The one who would make people right with God is Jesus Christ this is backed up in 2 Peter 2. Yet the Pharisees kept trusting, even as they saw Christ, in their own works before God. But as was stated in verse 31- those who society thought of as the lowest, believed in Christ. The people that we might shun if we saw them. They were convicted of their sin, believed in Christ and were saved.

In Conclusion. The Parable of the Two Sons was told by Jesus because it gets at the Radical message of grace. A message that is against our world where if you do this you get this, if you do this better, you get more. A world where appearances, and results mean everything. Yet we are never able to on our own do enough good actions, or works to be right with God. For since we have all sinned in our lives, and made mistakes. Our actions will never measure up to God’s standards. Our confession of this is our repentance. The message of this parable is no matter how bad you have been, how bad you have appeared to others, God out of his love has made us totally forgiven you by faith before him on what Christ has done for us.

Amen

More Generic Gospel

2005-09-18T16:53:00.000-05:00

5. A big reason a lot of this is problematic is that its non-Trinatarian. What do I mean buy this. A lot of these people hold the God of the Old Testament to be a God of Judgement, where as Christ is the one that ushers in a new light. I don't say that I am going to be Faithful to Christ, I say I am going to be faithful to God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as defined in both the Old and New Testaments. To say that one is faithful to Christ is generally to get away from the ideas of sin, and judgement brought forth in the Old Testament. But without these ideals, their is no such reality as grace. So when one comes up with an image of Christ without judgement, never mind the constant Judgement Christ is giving, one is generally promoting an idol who is in direct contrast to the God of the Bible.

Generic Gospel

2005-09-17T13:00:00.000-05:00

I am not saying that the Gospel is generic, when it's the true Gospel. But often times what one might hear among Theological Liberals is what I call a concept of "Generic Gospel". This concept goes basically sincewhat they teach is not in line with scripture, they say they are being faithful to Christ. This view of Christ generally makes him into a big-time humanist. Christ never would make any statements of absolute spiritual truth, (i.e Non-Christians are lost, and need to repent, and their is a Hell), would always be non-judgement (i.e. Abortion and Homosexuality are OK) and would turn the Gospel into some sort of social agenda.

This teaching basically goes since Christ was welcoming of Tax Collectors this is in contrast to what Paul says about Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. So since Christ welcomed Tax Collectors, therefore Homosexual behavior is OK.

This view is extremely problematic for several reasons.

1. To hold it one needs to hold to Scripture as non-inspired. People who hold this view would only say parts of scripture are non-inspired, culturally-conditioned or unclear. But to hold this position one needs to hold scripture as a whole as not-being from God, since it contradicts itself. But Scripture is merely reduced to the opinion of various authors. Where as people with Orthodox faith beliefs, need to treat Scripture as a super-natural doctrine. By this I mean that God interacted with the authors of Scripture in such a way that the final product they produced is his word.

2. This isn't consistent with what Jesus said about scripture. Jesus in John 10:35 says Scripture cannot be broken. In Luke 24:27-Jesus explained how all of scripture from Moses to the Prophets pointed to him. This teaching is backed up in John 5:37. These people never mention how Jesus constantly cites the Old Testament as a source of authority as being from God. Christ in fact in Matthew 4:4-10 uses scripture to debunk false teaching. This seems to contradict this teaching with the idea of scripture as being a natural doctrine.

3. The third idea is that people want to be tolerant as Jesus is tolerant. Jesus is forgiving more than tolerant. Let me explain the difference if one is too-take tolerance or non-judgementalism to its fullest capacity, their would be no concept of truth. Say someone drove 80 miles an hour through a Nursing Home, someone wouldn't say I can't judge them. To take this modern defintion of tolerance or non-judgement to its fullest capacity: One wouldn't be able to condemn anything, and there would be no distinction between right and wrong. Jesus was forgiving, he never condemned the Pharisees as being inaccurate in their judgements. Jesus never said what a Tax Collector, or an adulter did was not wrong. What Jesus would say is that they did wrong, but I came to forgive them.

4. To promote this idea of Generic Gospel is to deny that all doctrines serve the Gospel. For every scripture passage is authoriative to the doctrines of which it speaks. You can't just start making up vague principles and putting them against scriptures. For example the Doctrine of Hell is clearly taught in scripture. Jesus refers to Hell about 20 times in the Gospel, yet this doctrine in denied on this vague principle of whatever. At this point you either assert Scriptures as truth, or you assert this philosophical notion as truth.

This gives a pretty good idea to start on this topic, I might post more later on it.

Next Sunday

2005-09-14T14:19:00.000-05:00

I will be preaching on Repentance using Matthew 21:28-32.

Heresy Watch

2005-09-13T17:29:00.000-05:00

Warning: The following post contains Heresy. Heresy being defined as a teaching in clear contrast to Holy Scriptures. Those who are weak in faith, need not read.

So I was at text study today, and the group was quite bad.

The group started out by taking shots at President George W. Bush. One pastor made what started out like a humble confession saying 'That though I disagree with the President, I need to have a more graceful attitude, and focus on his gifts". I was shocked by this non-self rigtheous confession. But then it turned back to self-righteousness on a dime as the guy said "He couldn't think of one good thing about President Bush". Then one Pastor said Barbara Bush said that "People in Katrina got what they deserved for their poverty." This is not quite the case, as this pastor openly violated the 8th Commandment when what she said was ""What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality," she said during a radio interview with the American Public Media program "Marketplace." "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.-http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/06/katrina.presidents.ap/. Was this the most apropriate statement maybe not. Was what she said wasn't totally untrue on all true on all levels. They were having a rough go off it, and people were now working to help them out. Then the Pastor I formerly praised as being humble, then said "She's the most sain one of the family".

Then they decided to start questioning the intelligence of members of their congreations, by saying they couldn't believe how many of them believed the historicy of the Jonah story. They ignored how Jesus spoke of the Jonah story in Matthew 12:38-42. They find hetrodox commentaries to try to explain texts. As far as the Jonah story goes their is obviously some exegreation in describing the size of the city, but this is a really minor point. The point of Jonah 3:3 is that it was a large city, not the exact accurate details of the city's size. But again my point is the self-righteousness, and the fact that many churches that are far more Orthodox than the churches these pastors are in believe in the Historicity of the Jonah story. They probably could make better arguments for its historicity than I am doing right now.

Then a Pastor (Lutheran) said that Jonah 3:10 is an example of God changing his mind. I explained that a condition was set forth that if they persisted in their sin they would be destroyed. God made this condition and sent Jonah so they wouldn't be destroyed. God didn't change his mind, the condition didn't persist which would gain their destruction. Then a Pastor (Lutheran) and a Pastor (Methodist) said God repented and that's the greek. But as I pointed out before to say God is perfect in no need of repentance, when we repent we say we are unlike "God" when "God" repents he says he is unlike us. So this one Methodist pastor said "God could have repented for threating to bring destruction". These are the very words of the Self-Righteous. The Self-Righteous can't stand the Doctrine of Grace, because our need for grace is predicated on our wickedness. They can't stand the Old Testament, when it talks about our deserved Judgement. The reason is because it doesn't jive with thier man-made worldview. The truth is God is just, we are wicked, the fact that we aren't destroyed today by God is an act of Grace.

Then we talked about Philipians 1-I don't remember saying anything at this. But there was talk about Sexuality and one of the Heterodox pastors talked about being Faithful to Christ is worth seperating the Church. So basically implying that his view on changing sex standards is predicated on the Bible, but a faithfulness to Christ apart from the Bible. He never addresses how the Gospel cites the Old Testament 121 times. How Jesus said in John 10:35 that scriptures cannot be broken. Nor Luke 24:27-When Jesus speaks of all of scripture pointing to him. He doesn't cite Luther's view of "How the word of Man can error, but the Word of God cannot error" as it is found in the Large Cathecism. I needed to confront this idea of people saying stuff that is heterodox and claiming to be faithful to Christ. This is a blatant false teaching of what I like to call "Generic Gospel", I will address it this weekend.

Then we talked about Matthew 20:1-16: They turned it into a economic parable, I said it is a parable about how the Self-Righeous have a problem with the concept of Grace. But then some views were exchanged to close the day. One Pastor said that this parable could argue for univeralism, except that so many other parable argue for judgement. Well, at least he was honest.

One Methodist pastor said "He was trained in Process Theology, so when he had to write a ordination paper on Christology, "He had no Christology" since he was into Process. He said this in such a way that he could have been disproving of Process Thought. Even if he didn't he condenmed Process as the Heresy that it is.

This pastor then said that all people will be saved. He didn't do exactly careful exigesis on John 3:18 or John 3:36. My supervisor said "He would have confronted him, but he had to get back" So praise God for his stance for truth.

Then this heterodox Methodist Pastor said that he visited with a member of his congreation, who thought it was God's will for Katrina, and how he didn't believe this image of a domineering God, though he didn't come close to citing Isa 45:7, Amos 3:6, nor Lamentations 3:38, but whatever.

So if this is what Mainline Text studies are like, a lot is explained.

My next post will be Saturday on this concept of Generic Gospel.

No new thoughts today.

2005-09-11T17:36:00.000-05:00

I need requests, or information. Maybe, Tommorrow.

John Piper on Katrina-

2005-09-07T13:32:00.000-05:00

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/fresh_words/2005/090205.html

This is great stuff like I never hear at Luther Seminary.

September 2, 2005
On his 89th birthday (August 31) NPR Senior News Analyst, Daniel Schorr, observed that President Bush had “staked out a non-position” on the debate between evolution and intelligent design. Bush had said that “both sides ought to be properly taught in the schools of America.” Then, with manifest scorn, Schorr linked the devastation of Hurricane Katrina with the concept of intelligent design: “[Bush] might well have reflected that, if this was the result of intelligent design, then the designer has something to answer for.”
No, Mr. Schorr, you have something to answer for, not God. God answers to no man. Come, Daniel Schorr, take your place with Job and answer your Maker: “The Lord answered Job [and Daniel Schorr] out of the whirlwind and said: ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. . . . Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, “Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed”?’” (Job 38:1-3, 8-11).
Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Shall the pot say to the Potter, “This is an unintelligent way to show your justice and your power? Come, Maker of heaven and earth, sit at my feet—I have lived 89 years and have gotten much wisdom—and I will teach you—the eternal God—how to govern the universe”?
No. Rather let us put our hands on our mouths and weep both for the perishing and for ourselves who will soon follow. Whatever judgment has fallen, it is we who deserve it—all of us. And whatever mercy is mingled with judgment in New Orleans neither we nor they deserve.
God sent Jesus Christ into the world to save sinners. He did not suffer massive shame and pain because Americans are pretty good people. The magnitude of Christ’s suffering is owing to how deeply we deserve Katrina—all of us.
Our guilt in the face of Katrina is not that we can’t see the intelligence in God’s design, but that we can’t see arrogance in our own heart. God will always be guilty of high crimes for those who think they’ve never committed any.
But God commits no crimes when he brings famine, flood, and pestilence on the earth. “Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6). The answer of the prophet is no. God’s own testimony is the same: “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7). And if we ask, is there intelligent design in it all, the Bible answers: “You meant evil . . . but God meant it [designed it] for good” (Genesis 50:20).
This will always be ludicrous to those who put the life of man above the glory of God. Until our hearts are broken, not just for the life-destroying misery of human pain, but for the God-insulting rebellion of human sin, we will not see intelligent design in the way God mingles mercy and judgment in this world. But for those who bow before God’s sovereign grace and say, “From him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever,” they are able to affirm, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Romans 11:36, 33). And wisdom is another name for intelligent design.
No, Daniel Schorr, God does not answer to us. We answer to him. And we have only one answer: “Guilty as charged.” Every mouth is stopped and the whole world is accountable before God. There is only one hope to escape the flood of God’s wrath. It is not the levee of human virtue but the high ground called Calvary. All brokenhearted looters and news analysts and pastors are welcome there.

My Sunday Sermon

2005-09-04T17:06:00.000-05:00

I would have liked to preach on the Sovergnity of God in relation to New Orleans, but I am preaching on Isaiah 45:1-7 on October 16.

So here goes. This sermon is Law and Gospel, and Biblically based. It is actually an exigetical sermon preached in an ELCA congreation.

So in this morning’s text starting with Romans 13.8- Paul uses strange language, talking about how not to owe one anything except love. My observations in regard to are the following verse. The first observation is how does Paul understand this term owed. In Romans 1 -Paul speaks of how he is under obligation (which is another way of saying owed) to the greeks and barbarians and the wise and the foolish. So by this Paul means he owes them the Gospel.. Paul’s debt to the Gospel arose because of sin, he wasn’t able to save himself. The second part of this verse deals with how the ones who have loved have fulfilled the law. This is true if one has perfectly fulfilled every aspect of the Ten Commandments, and every last letter of the law. If one had never held anger against their neighbor or wished harm to them, if one has never ignored God for their own pursuits, if one has never coveted what someone has. Then one could fulfill the law on their own. One is less likely to be made right with God through their own good works than they are to swim across the Pacific Ocean. So from verse 8-We know that Paul is in debt to spread the Gospel, Paul’s debt arises from the very fact that he could never fulfill the Law on his own. But the law has been fulfilled through Love.

So Point 1: You will never be able to save yourself before God, because of your own good works.

13.9- gets to how the Law has been fulfilled by Love. Let’s look at how Paul understands the Law has been fulfilled by love. Let me cite from Galatians 3.Galatians 3-Explains why God added the Law. This chapter states the reason the law was given was so that it could convict people of their own sinfulness, till Jesus Christ came . So as Galatians 3 God’s law exists so our need for Christ can be revealed. If there was no such thing as Law, no one could ever be saved, So as Verse 9 gets to the Law and the Ten Commandments came not only so the world didn’t end up killing each other, but so People may be convicted of their sinfulness and saved.
13.10-So back to the idea of how Law was fulfilled by love. So love in its purest form in the person of Jesus Christ is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 5.8-So God showed his love for us in that while we were sinners, Christ died for us. . John 15:9-As the father, loved me, so I have loved you, abide in my love. So to say Love is fulfilling of the law-means that because of Christ’s love the law has been fulfilled. By Christ meeting all the requirements of the law, which no one else could do, people were saved.. So Christ by his love for us defeating the very consequences of the Law- Sin and Death-Romans 6.23 by his resurrection is what saves us.

Point 2: God established the Law out of love. Christ saved us by defeating death, the very penalty of the Law.

The second half of these verses are more straight-forward
13.11-Besides this you know that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us than when we first believed. If I were to ask people what Paul meant here. Chances are I would get quite a few different answers. But the meaning of verse 11 is answered in I Thessolonians 5. In this passage, which is considered to be by scholars the Apostle Paul’s first letter. Paul speaks of how people are Children of Darkness, or Children of the light. By Children of Darkness, Paul means those who are defined by sin. Paul refers to the Children of Darkness as people that are sleeping. Where as Children of the light are those who are defined by Christ. So when Paul says in Romans 13.11 –The time has come to wake from sleep. Paul is addressing this to Christians (or Children of the Light), but when referring to sleep he means what has been brought on by Sin. All bad things happen because of sin.. I will defend this argument Biblically. In Genesis 3 when humanity fell, it showed Sin led to consequences. The consequences of Adam’s and Eve’s sin extend to all people for all time this in Romans 5. This sin corrupted all of creation, and that is why items like Natural Disasters take place, so that is why Romans 8 speaks of Christ coming to redeem all of creation. So when I make the claim that Sin is the cause of all bad things. I am making the claim of the human condition of sin being the cause of all bad things, not necessarily individual sins. This isn’t saying their aren’t consequences for individual sins, but it is speculative what these things are in all people. So Paul is saying all this pain, sickness, war, famine, and death. Pretty soon these things will be no more. The idea that Salvation is nearer to us than when we first. Drives home the point that the time for us to experience the sin of the world is relatively short, compated to eternality of heaven that is come.

Point 3: Because Christ saved us, soon we will be with Christ.

13.12-So what does this all mean for today. Since the day when all our suffering shall be no more, and the glorious light of God is going to come shining down upon us. This verse calls us to avoid sin, and seek to delight in the light that is to come. To speak of what this means, I must first answer why Heaven shall be so great. Since sin is the cause of all bad things, sin shall be absent in heaven. Thereby this world because of sin is separated from the perfect love of God. The fact that we will experience the perfect love of God, is the primary joy of eternal life. This is why Paul says in Philipians 1-To be departed and to be with Christ is far better than what the flesh can offer. For heaven is great because one receives joy so fulfilling, that the contrast between the troubles of this world and heaven cannot be imagined. So what is this calling you for in the here and now. It is calling for a focus on Christ, a focus on the one who will take all this pain away. If one asks me why we should do good works? It is not because good works will save you, since they have never saved anyone before. The reason one should do good works is because one delights in the contrast between the present and the future. This is why David in Psalm 119 speaks of “Delighting in God’s law, after in Psalm 51 talking about how sinful he had been since birth. One should do good works because they are so excited for what the future is going to hold, they want to get in on the act now. I had a professor at seminary named Jim Nestingen who when people asked him why you do good works. “He would respond why are you intimate with your husband/wife?”. . “Is it because you must, no it is because you can”. For Christ has done it all as far as salvation is concerned. We do good works, so we can begin to enjoy some of the very things, which make heaven so great.

Point 4: Being With Christ in heaven is great because: We will experience the Love of Christ. We will experience God’s perfect intent for creation, with an abscene of the pain caused by sin.
13.13-Now a lot of churches would just give you a lecture of all the things being talked about in verse 13 not to do. Don’t engage in orgies, drunkenness, sexual immorality, sensuality, quarreling, and jealously. They might make the focus of the sermon why you shouldn’t do these things. They would make accurate points as to why not to do them not only Biblically, but morally. I think this verse is pretty clear, so I will not really expand on this point. But the reason God does not want us to do these things goes back to David in Psalm 119, because they don’t fulfill anybody in anyway. The reason people engage in these activities deals with the attractiveness of sin. If people didn’t think engaging in this or that act couldn’t take away my problems. Then no one would ever sin. I realize this. But sin does have consequences. No one could stand up here and talk about jealously,substance abuse, or sexual sin and speak how that behavior enriched them. For often breaking God’s law creates attack on our conscience. . A lot of times, people kind of have this idea of a petty God. Who just makes up things for people not to do to bide time. But God sets laws as parents often set laws, not to be petty or unhip, but for the betterment of their children. But God wants us to be happy. God wants our focus, not because he is a narcist. But since God is the epitome of love as taught in 1 John 4. God is the epitome of Joy and Peace as taught in Galatians 5. So why would God not want one to delight in God, and not in sin? When love, joy, and peace are not found in sin. When sin often causes people pain.

Point 5: Why would one want to sin? When there is so much pain and emptiness caused by Sin. We do good works, not because they save us. But so we may begin to take in what is to come.
13.14-So here Paul concludes the argument of the last 6 verses. We are to put on Christ. What this means is that not only should we seek to follow Christ, by doing actions which are done by the Children of the light, not by Children of the darkness. One would never go get food poisoning at a restaurant, as soon as they got out of the hospital, go eat at the same restaurant For if sin has caused people so much emptiness, and pain why would we want to engage in it. We should seek to live to follow Christ, so we may start to take in the light. No one has ever spoken of regret from truly loving their family, friends, neighbors, and children. No one has ever spoken of regret for trying to help others out. I have never heard anyone talk about regret arriving from sharing the Gospel that Jesus Christ died for them, so that they may live. So God wants us to do good works for our own benefit. This verse summarizes the hope of the rest of the passage. You will never save yourself by the law, but Christ saved you by fulfilling the law, we have been saved in such a way that the hope of heaven is coming, heaven is great because it contrasts all the sin and pain we experience on earth, so delight in turning from sin and towards Christ and all its benefits. –Not because you must but because you can.

Amen.

New Orleans Response

2005-09-04T17:01:00.000-05:00

I loved some of these points from a conversation on the Hugh Hewitt show friday by Dr.Albert Mohler, Dr. Mark D. Roberts, and John Mark Reynolds they touched on the Sovergnity of God during the New Orleans event. Great stuff. This was found at www.radioblogger.com

Jerret: I had a question for the panel. I heard someone mention the word act of God, and I believe Dr. Mohler mentioned sovereignty. When we talk about God and natural disasters, is it safe to say, or correct to say that God causes these things to happen? Or does he simply allow them to happen?
HH: Well, that's the fifty billion dollar question. Let's go and ask John Mark Reynolds first, since you're the philosopher as well as a theologian.
JMR: Well, it's like this. I'm responsible for what my kids do, because I'm the father of my kids, and I provide supervision for them. But when my kids do something bad, I have a kind of responsibility, but I don't have a direct responsibility. God's a little bit different, because He also sustains the universe. But God is the cause, the first cause of everything. But He isn't the direct cause of evil that occurs in the universe. I'm afraid that we messed up the system. We put grit in the divine watch. And the universe is running badly. So God is not directly to blame, if you want to say that, for the hurricane. He doesn't want people to hurt, and He tried to, and did provide the means to fix the system. And so slowly, like a good surgeon, He's bringing the universe back into order. He's taking the grit out of the machine. And He's doing it with the least possible pain to humanity. But sometimes, it does hurt, because we get in the way of that divine operation.
HH: Rev. Dr. Al Mohler?
AM: Well, yes. You know, that's a fascinating question, isn't it? How do we explain how God is active in this, because we make two claims at the same time? We claim simultaneously that God is good and God is all-powerful. And an event like this causes us to say well, if God was all-powerful, why did not He prevent it? And you know, I agree with what John Mark Reynolds had to say. It's not as if we can just say we know why this happened. But at the same time, we do know that God has not let the universe just spin out on its own. When I said He was sovereign, the caller asked about that, it means that God exercises an active rule over the universe. And so to some extent, we also have to believe that God is doing something in this that will bring out good. Now that's not to say that the hurricane was good. It's certainly not to say that the tragedy was good. That would be a lie. And it would be an obvious untruth. But you know, in the midst of this, much good is happening, and I think we really have to look at that. And we also, Hugh, have to look at the long haul. We have to take a look and understand that only when God makes all things right...we have to believe in the consummation of all things, that God will bring that about. And when God makes all things right, at that point, every tear will be wiped away. And until then, we do live in a world that, at many times, is a veil of tears.
HH: Mark D. Roberts?
MDR: Well, not much to add, except just to reflect on both of those answers, which I think are really right on. That this is one of the places where we really want to avoid over-simplified answers, because they will either compromise God's sovereignty and power, or they'll compromise God's goodness. And as Christians, we can do neither one. So we're caught in a tension, and I think it's important not to make that all go away. And that's why I...what both of those guys have just said is right. And we need to hang onto that.

Human Response or Blame Game

HH: Now, I want to talk to you, before we come back and do a little bit more on aid and long-term...about the response we've seen of finger-pointing and blame-casting. My theory is that a lot of people are just in shock, and that they can't absorb this. And one way that they do this...and I mean, there's a lot of anti-Bush stuff out there. But a lot of this is just grasping for something. And you mentioned Job, Al Mohler. There was a lot of that in Job as well.
AM: Oh, absolutely. It went both ways. Job's wife wanted him to curse God, and Job's friends wanted to curse Job. And in reality...you know, Hugh, we're facing some pretty difficult issues here, but there are a couple of things I would want to warn us against. I hear out there in talk land, and in the community, and even among some Christians, some of them are ready to say I know exactly why this storm hit New Orleans. It was because of A or B or C. You know, that's exactly what God told Job's friends not to speculate about. And at the same time, I hear other people saying look. God's not even involved in this. God couldn't prevent this. And so, let's just curse God. Well, we know that that's not right, either. God is right in the midst of this. He is the soveriegn God, Creator of the universe, and He is the one right now who is holding the world together by the power of His word.
HH: Mark Roberts?
MDR: That's so right. And it's tempting to want to find easy answers when you're confronted with something as difficult as this. And that's been true throughout the centuries. You know, it was common in the time of Jesus for people to basically blame the sick for why they are sick. If a person was sick, that person must have a particularly bad sin. And at one point in the Gospel of John, the ninth chapter, there was a blind man, and Jesus' disciples actually asked Him, so why is this guy blind? Basically, is it his fault, or his parents'? And Jesus' answer was neither. It's neither this man's fault nor his parents. He was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him. And there's a mystery to that. But it says don't blame the victim. Don't settle for simple answers. God nevertheless will make His will and His way known in this. But there's kind of a mystery to the whole thing, and when folks want real easy answers, they're inevitably going to get the wrong ones.
HH: John Mark Reynolds?
JMR: I couldn't agree more, but I also think we have a problem that's unique to our culture. And that is that people are used to information, and even money, changing hands very quickly. We want to give money to the Red Cross. We use our credit card, it goes through in a matter of seconds. But a disaster like this reminds us that really concrete, steel, food, people, they don't move so quickly. They move in real space and time. And yet, we're used to being able to solve information problems immediately. Well, in some ways, we're facing a crisis that requires 1950's technology: steel, people, concrete. Fixing very complex, very real world structures. And we're going to have to be patient. We're not going to be able to click a button and do it. I have some students leaving the honors program here at Biola at Torrey, to go and be boots on the ground, and try to help. But those students are going to take a day to get there. You just can't move through three dimensional space immediately. And so patience in a crisis like this, when you're hurting, that's a hard thing to find. And the temptation is to blame the grown-ups, or the people in charge. But we have to remember that this isn't the internet.

Response to Process Theology

2005-08-27T13:19:00.000-05:00

Process Theology is problematic for several reasons.

1. No Prophecy could ever come to be. If God could not realize the future, how could God have known what Jesus Christ was going to do on the cross. There would be no possible way for knowing what is going to happen in the future, since the future is just a series of possibilites. There would have been no way for Jesus to predict the denial of Peter, or the betrayal of Judas since they just acted on possibilites.

2. There is no sort of Pastoral gain. Process might like to say that it was just bad choices, and not God that led to a car crash. But if God wasn't in control of the Car Crash, how can God be in control of what happened after the car crash. We don't testify about what God can't do but rather what God can do.

3. The distinction between Law and Gospel is greatly skewed. Process speaks of sin as a deviation from the ideal. Well since God is constantly developing, it should be noted that the ideal is developing. So therefore any sort of set conviction of sin, or absolute morality is non-existent in Process Thought. This is why you will rarely find a Process Theologian opposed to Homosexuality. The traditional idea of law is that people are sinful this is constant this is taught in Romans 5:12-21. People are continually in need of God's grace. People aren't progressing to any sort of lesser need of God's grace. God isn't moving the goalposts of what constitues sin. For if God is changing how can God's promises be certain.

4. Process is Biblically inaccurate.

I have already gone through a while back texts which allegedly speak of God changing his mind. But now I will throw the following texts at the Process Theologians.

God guarntess that his will be done. Romans 8:28, Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2.

Ask if there is one text in Scripture that speaks of God's development or lack of foreknowledge.

God declares he does all things in Isaiah 48:3-5, and Isaiah 46:9-10.

God propheized what would happen to the Israelites in Genesis 15:13-14. Although most Process Theologians wouldn't take this passage literally.

God knows the plans for all our individual futures in Jeremiah 29:10-11. Even from the womb as taught in Jeremiah 1:5.

God propheizes in Nebuccanezer's dreams in Daniel 2.

Acts 2:23 says Christ suffered according to the foreknowledge of God.

Scripture constantly asserts God's sovergnity over all things (Genesis 1:1, John 1:3, Job 23:13-14, Dan 4:34-35)

Ask the Process Theologians how anything stated in John 9 about the Blind Man makes any sense, or Genesis 50:15-21. When it states God willed the following things for good.

Ask does not Lamentations 3:37-38 states God does do all things for God's purpose.

So this section states the big time problems with Process Thought from scripture.

I will respond to other things related to process as the time shall arise.

More Process Theology

2005-08-23T17:27:00.000-05:00

I had a request for this, so here goes some tenats of Process Thought

1. God is within Time, there is no such thing as creation out of nothing. God offers limits thereby making growth possible. God does call us to great complexity or great beauty. As time changes God changes-God advances as people advance. God is only in control of the past since the Present actualizes the future.

2. God is energy as everything else is energy. There is no such thing as spiritual/physical contrast.

3. The Past influences the present by shaping ideals. God shapes subjectively, subjectively shaping what it becomes. God can't determine outcome, as he is not the exclusive factor. Hence, God doesn't create alone.

4. The future is open to all possibilites as we strive for beauty.

5. God readjusts to circumstances, God deals with possibilities. For God doesn't know the future as it is a series of possibilities. God tries to lure us to possibilites.

6. This process has always been.

7. Defined by Di-Polar Theism of Charles Hartschorne who holds that elements of God remain the same (i.e. goodness and wisdom). while at the same time God changes as the universe changes.

8. Big in tolerance, open-mindnesses, and pluralism.

9. God is more relational than mechinal.

10.God needs us or God's ideals couldn't be realized.

11. Christ as example in process thought.

I will deal with a response late in a few days to some of these ideas.

albertmohler.com

2005-08-19T16:59:00.000-05:00

This is where I found this post. I will comment in BOLD.

I had to hear this one for myself. Presiding Bishop Mark Hansen of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has called for an ecumenical council to convene in order to resolve the question of biblical interpretation in the church. Calling for the global council, Bishop Hansen called upon Pope Benedict XVI, leaders of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and mainline Protestant leaders to convene the council in order to stem the tide of what he called "fundamentalist" readings of Scripture. A lot of the ideas that are cast today in Mainline Denomiations, really didn't develop till the Enlightenment. Such ideas include: Using Social Sciences to try to correct Scripture, downplaying doctrine, and uplifting Social Causes. The idea that Pope Benedict XVI would see eye to eye with Bishop Hanson, or the Orthodox church on issues like Homosexuality is laughable.

"Christianity is in the midst of a global identity crisis because we have not addressed ecumenically the questions of authority and interpretation of scripture," Hanson told the ELCA's Churchwide Assembly last week. Religion News Service reported that the bishop also "called for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches to come together to combat a 'fundamentalist-millennialist-apocalypticist reading of Scripture.'" Does by Fundamentalist does he mean people that adhere to the Five Points( Actual Virgin Birth, Atonement, Authority of Scripture, Literal Miracles, and Actual Resurrection) as laid out by the Presbyterian Contraversy in the 20's, if this is what he means then the Orthodox Church and The Roman Catholic Church will keep laughing at Bishop Hanson. I am an amillennialist, who as stated last week is a strong supporter of Israel's right to defense. I really don't know if people like Lahaye, Jenkins, Van Impe, Robertson, and Lindsey are my greatest concerns with their flawed beliefs about the end times. If Hanson' complaint is with Millennialists then he would naturally invite RC Sproul, Alvin Plantinga,D.James Kennedy, and John Piper to this conference. Apocalyptic means bracin for the end times, so when I preach a Funeral Sermon I am being Apocalyptic if I speak about what happens to people after they die. I think what this means is he wants people to care more about Global Social Issues(I.E. The Israeli Wall), than telling people if you don't repent: You're going to burn in Hell. Apocalyptic could also be relating to Millenialist. As I said I hold the Millenialist position to be an errorist position, but hardly consider this position that foremost challenge of my Ministry.

Christianity certainly is "in the midst of a global identity crisis," but that crisis is the result of theological accommodation and confusion -- not biblical literalism. In this context, biblical literalism is code language for any assertion of biblical authority or biblical inerrancy.

As I have said before "When people say, I don't take the Bible literally, this often means they try to find other sources to circumvent the authority of the Bible. This way they can create the Rationalist religion of No Supernatural Doctrines, combined with no concept of sin combined with a Humanist Jesus.

The RNS report also included this: "Although Hanson did not elaborate, mainline churches traditionally are uneasy with literal readings of Scripture, particularly in fundamentalist churches, regarding the end of the world and political unrest in the Middle East. In addition, mainline churches have been divided over what the Bible says about hot-button issues such as homosexuality and women's ordination."

I have already commented on every issu discussed here.

The claim that the ELCA, along with most other liberal Protestant denominations, is deeply divided over issues like homosexuality is truly an understatement. The liberal denominations long ago liberated themselves from anything close to a literal interpretation of Scripture.

This is generally true, but their are people in Mainline Denomiations who do try to get to the central truths Scripture is trying to convey. For instance I believe Genesis 1-3 (The term Day doesn't mean a literal day, but an extended period of time, as this is generally more accepted among Intillgent Design Theorists, while still holding Darwinian Evolution as a very flawed theory. I have argued their are examples of Women's leadership in the Bible, I would also argue that being a women does not take away from one's ability to be used by the Holy Spirit such as the qualities described in I Timothy 3. Their are issues I would disagree with Mohler on, but I think we could both agree our arguments are being based on the Bible, not all sources but the Bible.

Over the past half-century, various heresies, aberrant beliefs systems, and theological movements have found a safe home under the umbrella of the "mainline" denominations. Now, Bishop Hansen want to convene a global council to combat literalist interpretations of the Bible.

This is as true as the Sun rising in the East. The Majority of what I hear at Luther Seminary from fellow students is Humanistic and Rationalistic thinking that looks view different from the Theology of the Early Church. This is perhaps why I have heard more complaining about the Fundamentalists, then about the serious nature of Sin. A lot of what is being said by Bishop Hanson, here is vague, and hard to comment on. The terms Fundamentalist, and Apocalyptic can mean many different things. I think sometime soon, I should lay out thoughts on my Amillenalism, and its implications.

There once was a time when the great councils of the church defended theological orthodoxy. Whatever happened to Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Ephesus? We can only imagine where this bizarre council might meet. The Council of Greenwich Village? Harvard Yard? Riverside Drive? I suggest the Council of Laodicea. The possibilities are endless.

Have a good weekend.

SEEING IS BELIEVING: Hanson's address is available in video format, courtesy of the ELCA.

New Topic

2005-08-15T14:20:00.000-05:00

I am done writing about Sodomy till the issue comes up again. So here is an intresting article on the Intelligent Design/ Creation debate as found in USA Today found at http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-14-evolution-debate_x.htm

Evolution: Debate it

By John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer

The sky is falling.

Or so you might think if you have been reading reports about the Kansas State Board of Education's proposed policy on teaching evolution. Though many have portrayed the hearings that led to the Kansas policy as a re-run of the Scopes trial, the reality is much different. Rather than prohibiting teachers from teaching about evolution (as Tennessee law did for John Scopes in 1925), Kansas is poised to adopt a policy that would enable students to learn more about the topic. (Related:Just teach it)

Specifically, the Kansas policy would require students to learn not only the full scientific case for contemporary evolutionary theory, called "neo-Darwinism," but also the current criticisms of the theory as they appear in scientific literature. The Kansas policy would not require, or prohibit, discussing the theory of "intelligent design," which has been so much in the news since President Bush spoke about it earlier this month.

Though Zogby polls show that 71% of the public favors a policy like the Kansas one, defenders of teaching only the case for Darwinian orthodoxy regard it with suspicion. For them, the Kansas policy illustrates the folly of determining the science curriculum within the democratic process.

Moving forward

The two of us disagree about the status of Darwin's theory. Even so, we think there is a way to teach evolution that advances science education, fosters civil discourse and also respects public opinion. We encourage teachers to present the case for Darwin's theory of evolution as Darwin himself did: as a credible, but contestable, argument. Rather than teaching evolution as an incontrovertible "truth," teachers should present the arguments for modern neo-Darwinism and encourage students to evaluate these arguments critically. In short, students should learn the scientific arguments for, and against, contemporary evolutionary theory.

There are good reasons for teaching science, and Darwinian evolution, this way. Teaching scientific controversies and arguments helps students understand the nature of science. Contrary to the "men in white coats" stereotype, with scientists as data-collecting automatons, scientists argue about how best to interpret evidence. Students who learn the arguments for and against a theory are learning how science works. Teaching current scientific arguments about a theory also gives students an understanding of the status of a theory. And, in the case of neo-Darwinism, there are significant scientific criticisms of the theory students should know about.

Some scientists think the fossil record challenges the Darwinian idea that all organisms share a common ancestor. Events such as the "Cambrian explosion" show that new forms of life appear suddenly in the fossil record without evidence of connection to earlier forms — contradicting Darwin's picture of the history of life as a fully-connected branching tree. (Related: Curriculum battles across the USA)

Many scientists also doubt the ability of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection to produce the major innovations — the new organs and body plans — that arise during life's history.

Recently, 400 Ph.D.-level scientists, including a distinguished embryologist and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, signed a statement questioning the creative power of the natural selection/mutation mechanism.

In May, 15 such doubting scientists from universities such as Cornell, Wisconsin, Georgia and Italy's Perugia came to encourage the Kansas board to let students learn about the evidence challenging (as well as supporting) evolutionary theory.

Some scientists also doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely "appear" designed. Instead, they think living systems display indicators of actual or "intelligent" design. Prominent scientists such as biochemist Michael Behe and biophysicist Dean Kenyon have cited intriguing evidence to support this theory, such as the presence of digital code, complex circuits and miniature motors in living cells.

Additionally, mathematician William Dembski has developed a statistical method for identifying tell-tale signs of intelligence. Dembski's method of design detection confirms our common sense intuition that digital information — including that found encoded within the DNA inside the cell — points to an intelligent source.

Because intelligent design is a new theory, we, like Kansas' board, don't think students should be required to learn it. But we do think teachers should be free to discuss such alternatives if they are based upon scientific evidence, not scriptural texts.

So what should the public do when competent experts disagree about whether evidence supports a theory, as they do in the case of Darwinian evolution? Our answer: Teach the competing arguments.

'One long argument'

To his great credit, Darwin addressed every competing argument he could in The Origin of Species. When evolution is taught as Darwin presented it — as "one long argument" resting on a large and diverse body of facts, but nevertheless as an argument from which thoughtful people (and scientists) can dissent — fewer parents will object to their children learning about it.

As John Scopes said, "If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought. ... I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory."

John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer are the editors of the book Darwinism, Design and Public Education. Campbell is an expert on the rhetorical structure of Darwin's Origin of Species. Meyer, who supports intelligent design, received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from Cambridge University. He directs Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and testified in the Kansas hearings.

What to do now.

2005-08-14T17:26:00.000-05:00

I will address this from a couple different points such as Laity, and Pastors.

Should I leave the ELCA due to the closeness of the Sexuality vote, and the Errorist teaching that has crept in?

I would say as Laity this really depends on the individual church. But I would ask a few questions of a Pastor before joining or staying in an ELCA church.

1. Do you believe Salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone (Acts 4:12, John 14:6)

2. How do you interpt John 3:18? If the Pastor starts dodging the texts in the first two questions you know you are in trouble.

3. Describe the Sinful Nature of Man?-If the Pastor doesn't describe this nature as Bondage as found in Romans 8:5-8,

4. Ask What Jesus meant about the Authority of Scripture in John 10:35? If the Pastor starts talking about how we don't follow all parts of scripture, or take them literally( This often means they are ignored all together), then you have a few problems.

5. Ask how they understand I Corinthians 11:27, do they understand how Ted Tappert in his book on the Lord's Supper, talked about how in the Early Church were frequently denied the Lord's Supper for living in impenitent sin or Heterodox confession of faith?

6. Ask how they understand the Lord's Supper? If they talk about it as a communal celebration, not in terms of how Matthew 26:28 describes it as a need for our sinful nature, then be worried.

7. Ask if Baptism produces Salvation? If they say yes, then ask "doesn't Luther say that Baptism is only valid because of Faith, which saves (Romans 1:17)". If they keep arguing then leave?

8. Ask how they understand Matthew 28:19? If the answer is in terms of Social Gospel, or vague than run. If the answer is in line with Romans 6:23 than you are OK.

9. Ask how does the Church's moral teachings contrast with Culture's Moral Teachings? The answer here should be self-explaintory.

It should be pretty obvious that if one answere one of these questions correctly they should be correct on the majority of these questions. If they seem to grab on to Church Growth Models (I.E. Purpose Driven Life, Alpha), I would be somewhat leary.

As far as Seminarians or Pastors go. One must be more careful inquiring about what type of Church they are going to be going to. Although it is acceptable to go and try to make a positive influence at a Church. A lot of the bureaucracy influenced by the ELCA is problematic, but individual congreations can still be influenced.

Is there any chance the ELCA gets more theologically conservative in the coming years?

If people work at it maybe. If people make demands before giving to Seminaries(I.E Seek to find out what is being taught). If People seek to recruit Theologically-Conservative people to Seminary. If Pastors start trying to influence congreations more, and be less afraid of potential consquences. If people start getting agressive in local mission. This is one thing the conservative movement has in that it has an actual defintion of who is lost. So it will be more naturally agressive in this way.

What is the problem with LCMC?

LCMC is great when it comes to matters of theology and structure. As a Seminarian, you face three problems 1. They have more Seminarians although a small number, than avaible calls. 2. The limited number of Churches also makes switching Churches problematic. 3. There is no great need to effective positive theological change within LCMC congreations. These three reasons are why the ELCA is a better option than the LCMC at this time. As Laity if there is a good LCMC Church around that you like by all means attend it.

ELCA Assembly

2005-08-12T17:08:00.000-05:00

The fact that Resolution #3 failed is not a victory. Their needed to be a 2/3 majority basically rejecting Resolution #3, for this issue to be off the table. This issue isn't going off the table. The Minneapolis and Saint Paul Area Synods aren't going to enforce the ELCA standards in that they will still allow Gay/Lesbian Pastors. The Seminaries are going to keep getting more liberal as they have in the last forty years. The fact that this was so close, means it is going to be brought up again soon. The Lutheran Landscape is changing at a slower pace than it might of, but the times they are a changing. How to address the Changing landscape, I will address at a later time.

I do want to endorse Peter Rogness' idea to enlarge the Church Council with at least 69 members one from each and every synod.

Matthew 19 and Mark 10 texts

2005-08-12T14:31:00.000-05:00

People say these texts deal with Divorce, not Homosexuality. But let's actually look at what these texts say in regard to Marriage, and how might they relate to Homosexuality.

. Matthew 19

*Speaks of how God created Male and Female seperately. How Male and Females are to be united in Marriage, thereby making two one flesh. So let Man not seperate what God has created in Marriage. This seems to not leave open any discussion of what consistutes acceptable sexual behavior.

Jesus reached out to Tax Collectors, Sinners, and Women in a radical way. How come Jesus in his radical nature never sought to address this issue?

Jesus in verse 8 states what breaks up marriage is due to human sin. So anything that breaks up Marriage between one man and one woman is rooted in Sin.

These passages state Jesus' view on Marriage pretty clearly. Some might say well it condemns Divorce. Yet, we welcome Divorced people in our Church. Well a few points

1. No one ever says Divorce is a good thing, and that it is to blessed.
2. No one would ever say the circumstances that lead to Divorce are a good thing.
3. No one constantly engages in Divorce, Divorce is not a continual lifestyle.
4. A Pastor with mulitple divorces probably wouldn't be hired in most Congreations.

I will comment Saturday on the final vote of the ELCA asssembly. The reasons 1. I am going to Roy Harrisville's. 2. The Vikings play their pre-season opener, so I am going to cook up Some Swedish Meatballs and enjoy the game, before worrying about this.

Scripture Texts on Homosexuality

2005-08-11T13:40:00.000-05:00

Romans 1:27- It is asserted by people who support the Same-Sex agenda that this verse isn't talking about Homosexuality as we understand it today. It seems to be talking about man-boy love, or adultery between married men, or male prostitution. GLBT Advocates state that this has nothing to do with commited loving Sexual Relationships. Well it should be stated that the text makes no distincitions that would lead one to believe any sort of sexual-behavior between people of the Same-Sex is a good thing. The idea that Paul might have been talking about this form of behavior, by doing historical research to find one form of practice, isn't stated anywhere in the text. It should also be pointed out that since Same-Sex practice was quite common in the ancient world, why was it never found in the Early Church? It seems rationale that it would be accepted if it was understood by the apostles to be OK in certain circumstances. The thing is here you have a blanket statement.

Leviticus 18:22-It is often stated their are all sorts of things we do don't in Levitcus. People often throw out some sort of statement about not eating shellfish (Ceremonial Law), or mixing dyes (Ceremonial Law) to stay Homosexual behavior falls in this category. There are also Governmental laws stated during the Old Testament that applies just to Israel's Theocracy, but these laws are rarely found in the debate. Well it should be stated that we don't need to follow Ceremonial laws anymore because they were meant to pay the price for sin through Ceremony. This is became irrevleant when Jesus paid the price for Sins. So looking at what type of Sexual Behaviors are condemned in Leviticus 18 we see: Laws against Incest (6,8,9,10,11,,12,13,14) Orgies(17) Child Sacrifice(21), Adultery (7,15,16,20), Beastilaty(23), and verse 19-Dealing with ceremonial law for cleanless. So which of the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 do people think should be violated besides Same-Sex Behavior. These verses are dealing with God's Moral Law dealing with among other items Rape. Where does God make sweeping changes to Moral Law in the Old Testament? Well this is hopefully the longest Leviticus commentary, you get for a while. I will write on Matthew 19, and Mark 10 a bit later. I will also share various thoughts on Today's ELCA assembly.

Day 3 ELCA Assembly

2005-08-10T17:26:00.000-05:00

*Renewing Worship passed today. I will make all efforts to oppose this resource, and the promotion of the Word Alone: Worship Hymnal that seeks to reveal God's Truth as revealed in the Bible. I have commented on one of the main issues of this hymnal being God's Gender in depth at http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/god-as-father.html.

*A questionable vote is going to take place on whether to share the Lord's Supper with the United Methodists. I oppose such a measure on grounds that Methodists have radically different views on why we take the Lord's Supper in response to how we differently view our sinful state. But since Lutherans( I use this term to associate people that go to Lutheran Churches, not people that hold Lutheran Theology as defined in the Reformation) don't believe in a bound-will as evidenced by the Sexuality discussion. *-

*The ELCA is going to continue to question the right of Israel this week to defend themself by condemning their security wall. Inaccurate reporting by the Lutheran is laid out on this issue at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=176&x_article=958. My concern isn't with the end times, since I am an amillenalist, who belives that the prophecy in Revealation 20 has already been fulfilled, only that Christ will come back. My concern is putting out a really radical view of world affairs that isn't consistent with Political reality.

ELCA Assembly

2005-08-09T13:42:00.000-05:00

More on Homosexuality Here are responses to a few arguments that are thrown my way on this.

1. It is their orientation which cannot be changed?

Romans 7:18, and Romans 8:5-8 speak of our nature being so totally depraved that we cannot due anything by our nature pleasing to God. To say one is born a certain way is irrevelant Psalm 51:5 acknowledges our sinful nature since Birth. To state orientation makes one good denies the will is bound in direct contrast to Martin Luther.

2. How can you deny people's love? I am not denying anyone the right to love. It is how you express that love I am denying. The sixth commandment doesn't say you can't love your attractive female neighbor in the sense that you care about her, and love her as yourself. But it does limit how that love is expressed. The Bible is constantly speaking out against sex outside of marriage, the problem isn't their love, it's how they express their love.

3. God loves Gay People? God loves all people, he loves Hindus, he loves Drug-Addicts, this doesn't mean that God accepts all behaviors as evidenced as this is constantly laid out in scripture. I Timothy 3 also states that their are behavior standards and theology standards for Church Leaders. To deny this is to be damaging to the Church.

Starting Monday

2005-08-06T15:57:00.000-05:00

I will give daily thoughts on the ELCA National Gathering.

Upcoming topics include: Is the Papacy the Anti-Christ? Why Christians should support Democracy? More Cults being explored upon request.

To close before the ELCA Assembly let me quote my Professor Dr. Walter Sundberg who stated in the April 1993 edition of First Things:

"Across the centuries, educated and well-meaning people have claimed that if religious creeds were rationalized and pared down to their moral claims, the human family would fare much better. Baruch Spinoza was an early, eloquent spokesman for this position. The sad fact is, however, that rationalistic religion, such as deism, appeals only to the intellectual few and cannot inspire devoted followers. It thus bears no "fruit" and is soon replaced by godless creeds that practice demonization with scientific efficiency. Hitler and Stalin confessed neither God nor Devil and did things of which Spinoza never dreamed. The Devil will have his way whether or not we acknowledge him. Only the power of God can save us from ourselves-and the Devil."

Mormonism

2005-08-06T15:52:00.000-05:00

Here is the last of my reports on Cults, this is taken from a Paper I wrote.
The Font is a bit off. 

What do Mormons believe?
- They believe in a third testament called the Book of Mormon.  This is because of a
revelation to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni in the year 1827.  Mormons according
to Gospel Principles on pages 52-53 believe that the Book of Mormon is the most
correct book on Earth.  It also believes that the Bible must be correctly
translated.  The Mormons also regard Doctrines and Covenants and The Price of the
Great Pearl as authoritative.
-Works righteousness salvation.  The book Gospel Principles describes Salvation as
such on page 19.  Mormons will speak of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  But they
also will speak of salvation as series of our own requirements that must be meant,
so that we are made more like God. To read there view of salvation, one must consult
non-canonical books like Abraham, Ether, and Moses, translated by Joseph Smith.
Mormons believe the faith is a progression towards God the Father, as stated on page
24 of Gospel Principles Mormons believes in a great celestial battle that has taken
place between God’s two sons, Jesus and Satan.  This battle occurred after Jesus was
chosen to show the World how to live the path to salvation.  Mormons believe that
three were three choices in this great heavenly battle.  One-third chose Jesus, and
then they came down from heaven in Mortal bodies to witness to the truth.  One-third
chose Satan, and they came down to try to blaspheme the truth as spirits.  Another
third stayed neutral and as the Gospel Principles state never received mortal
bodies.  This belief though held for many years that they were cursed with the skin
of the Negro.
- Mormons believe in Baptism of the Dead.  They don’t believe in Baptism of Children
according to the Book of Moroni as stated on page 132 of Gospel Principles, since
they have no sin, and can’t respond.  But they logically believe in the Baptism of
the Dead, as defined on page 377 of Gospel Principles.
-Mormons believe in degrees of glory as stated on page 297-298 of Gospel Principles.
Celestial-Where the truly obedient go to upon their death.  Terrestrial-Those who
rejected the Gospel on Earth, but received it in the spirit world. Telestial-These
people will reside in hell till the Millennium.  For they never received the
testimony of Jesus on earth or in the spirit world.  The final level is the Outer
Darkness where people gave in to the temptations of Satan, and didn’t live a holy
enough life.  They will live with Satan forever. These doctrines shockingly aren’t
based on the Bible, but on the writing Doctrine and Covenants 76.
-Mormonism believes we have the power to develop the divine qualities of our
heavenly parents as stated on page 11 of the Gospel Principles.  Page 14 of Gospel
Principles even talks about God’s plan that we may become like him.  There is also a
mother God, along with the father God that we were born out of in our spiritual
bodies.  I’ve also read that Joseph Smith believes that God originated from a Man
that had achieved a level of goodness on another planet.  So this shows our
potential to become Gods- http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_doctrines.htm-  Number 6
-Mormonism denies the Trinity.  Mormonism will speak of God as three distinct
persons.  When speaking about the levels of Heaven in 297-298.  They speak of how
only the highest level is visited by all three members of the Godhead.  How God the
Father doesn’t visit the second level, and how the Holy Spirit only visits the
third.    Thereby stating the Godhead is three separate beings.  You never find in
Gospel Principles any talk of God the heavenly father, being the same as Christ the
son, and the Holy Spirit.  When Gospel Principles uses the term God it is always
referring to God the father.
-Mormonism believes as stated on page 113 of Gospel Principles that they have
restored the truth of the Gospel.  Warning Heresy ahead!!!!
    1. That God is a real person with flesh and bones.
    2. Our pre-mortal existence.  One good thing about Mormonism is that they are
consistently Pro-Life since they believe the soul is pre-mortal.
    3. The Priesthood is necessary to reveal God’s ordinances.  This is because the
truths of scriptures aren’t clear without priesthood.
    4. Family relationships can be eternal through the power of God’s ordinances.
    5. Temple ordinances such as Baptism apply to the living and the dead.  This is
assuming that God isn’t in control of the dead, but has to wait for our own actions
like re-baptism.
    One good thing about Mormons is that they do practice traditional marriage since
when a man marries women they are together in the eternal kingdom.  This pretty
much explains why they reject enlightened approaches to sexuality.
    Mormonism is an unbiblical false system of beliefs.  This is a heresy that
Christians will have to confront in the future, due to the growth of Mormonism.
    Sources used
1.        Gospel Principles.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake
City, 1997.
2. http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_doctrines.htm

Unity Church of Kansas City

2005-08-06T15:28:00.000-05:00

I will do this segment, then either tonight or tommorrow, finish up on Mormonism. Unity sought up out of the New Thought movement which a rejection of the Authorianatarism, or even Doctrinal Rigidness of Christian Science. New Thought believes

.Man is Good

.Evil and Pain occur when Man does not reflect this image.

.All religions contain truth that should be unified.

The largest of all these New Thought religions became the Unity School of Christianity as founded by Charles&Myrtle Fillmore.

Unity believes

.The Bible is Allegory from Cover to Cover.

.People are not only good, but divine. The Unity School is Panthestic.

.They seek to borrow from the best of all religions.

.Denies the Trinity.

.Believes in Reincarnation. As they deny Heaven and Hell. Heaven because Heaven is in the Here and Now. Hell in that it is inconsistent with the nature of a loving God. They reject Incarnation in terms of Karma. Charles Fillmore thought Reincarnation occured so we would have numerous chances for fulfillment.

.Explain Miracles by Naturalistic laws (I.E. Jesus feed the five-thousand to break down the bonds of atoms)

.Open to Doctrinal Revionism whenever they see fit.

.Mind has power over Body and can cure Death and Sickness.

.Jesus was not different from us in capacity, but only in his perfect demonstration.

.One must renounce Sex according to Charles Fillmore to defeat death.

.Big into prosperity Theology, in fact Fillmore rewrote the Twenty-Third Psalm to speak of The Lord as his Banker. Prosperity comes through the mind.

.A system of human merit which teaches Salvation by enlightenenment.

Unity is probably the farest of the Christian Faith of any of the cults, we have studied so far. Not that any of the other cults are all that close.

Source Used Tucker, Ruth A. Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement. 1989. Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids.

What do they believe-Part 4

2005-08-04T14:16:00.000-05:00

I was going to do the Unity Church, but I figured I better do their precursor, Christian Science.

What are their doctrinal distincitives.

.They don't belive that the Bible is perfect, in fact they declare parts of it to be irrevelant. In fact the parts they declare to be revelant, are often not taken literally. They believe translations of the Bible contain many errors. So they believe the only perfect source of spiritual truth to be Science and Health with Key to Scriptures written by Mary Baker Eddy in 1875. So here you are starting off on a bad foot already.

. They vehmentaly deny the Atonement theory

.They deny the Trinity. They believe that the Holy Spirit is Divine Science which was essentially the teachings offered by Christian Science. Jesus is basically just our example of how to live out the principles of understanding the divine mind that is within us.

. They deny any sort of personal attibutes of God for that would be limiting of God.

.Sin is a misintrepretation of God's mind, so therefore it is not real as in a doctrine of Orginal Sin. For God would never allow Sin, since God is perfect love. Since Sin is not real neither is sickness. Sickness is rather just a misintrepretation of God's mind.

.They belive Salvation is a process of one's continual surrender to the divine mind.

.So Christian Science doesn't even begin to approach Orthodox Christianity. Although they do believe in Jesus' miracles in not that they change laws of science, but rather natural unfolding of God's power. So miralces like the Virigin Birth were basically triumphs of connection of the mind over matter.

What do they believe-Part 3

2005-08-03T13:55:00.000-05:00

Scientology isn't really a religion in that it doesn't have any sort of defined views about God, but rather a system of Physchological thought. It's defining tenets include as laid out in the book Dianetics, which is considered their Bible.

...A claim to heal all mental or physical illness. Bad things happen in Scientology because of Engrams which are memories or thoughts of bad events that have happened in a past life. These Engrams are the source of all the bad that happens in this life. These Engrams develop from past lives, and pre-birth experiences of this life. So what needs to happen is these Engrams need to be contacted, so that they can be experienced in the present. This here by puts to death their impact in the past. One the Engram is erased so will all negative effects that goes with it. This process is done by Auditors, who work with the patient one on one.

...A claim to greatly increase one's IQ.

...They have been in battle with the Psychiatry since the publishing of Dianetics, due to the fact that the mind can cure all illness.

Thier beliefs are somewhat theological only in that they have been shaped by sources such as Buddhism and Confusiainism.

They believe that every human being is a Thetan(Soul) with infinite powers. Each Thetan has a mind bank which contains Engrams, which keep one from fully realizing thier potential. These Engrams are erased through their physcological thearpy. No Thetan has ever been fully realized in human history. Once one becomes an operating Thetan(The Highest Level of Perfection), they can soul travel, and explore their past lives. So to get to these higher level one must go through various states of consiciousness. When one is totally without Engrams they become "Clear", like Jesus and Buddha where they have uncanny abilities to see the World.

...

Seventh-Day Adventists

2005-08-02T12:52:00.000-05:00

They are not a blatant cult in thier modern form though they do have different beliefs from traditional Christianity.

Adventists do belive that Salvation is by grace, they believe in the Trinity, they believe in the Authority of the Bible. They also hold an orthodox view of the Atonement.

Adventists differ from traditional Christianity in their view that the wicked will be annihilated upon death ( A view shared by some like Greg Boyd in Evangelical Christianity).

Adventists belive Baptism must be done to Adult Converts, and must be by immersion.

-Adventists deny any sort of Calvinistic election.

Seventh Day Adventists are defined by their insistance that worship must be on the Sabbath Day(Saturday) and Their are strongly defined by their premillineal beliefs. Adventists believed that Christ returned in 1844 to inspect the world, before his final reign was to begin.

-One of their big past problems was placing of writings by their founder Ellen G. White as an equal authority with the Bible. This is something they seem to have moved away from.

-Although they were founded by a women, they still vehmentaly deny Women's Ordination.

George W. Bush on Relativism

2005-08-01T15:52:00.000-05:00

I liked this quote from the president of the United States, so I will put in on the blog

"Always remember where you come from and what you believe. At times, you may come across people who say that moral truth is relative, or call a religious faith a comforting allusion. They may question the values you learn in scouting. But remember, lives of purpose are constructed on the conviction there is right and there is wrong, and we can know the difference"-George W. Bush-In an address to the 2005 National Boy Scout Jamboree, given July 31, 2005 found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050731.html

What do they believe-Part 1

2005-08-01T13:02:00.000-05:00

Jehovah Witnesses

-Deny the Trinity. Jehovah Witnesses deny that Christ is coeternal with the father, but created by the Father. They view the Holy Spirit as a force, rather than a deity. Jesus was not God in flesh, but the angel Micheal who became Man. They believe Jesus rose as a spirit, not in the flesh, and that he was killed on a stake. The Jehovah Witnesses use only the New World Translation, which adjusts verses denying the Trinity. http://www.carm.org/jw/doctrines.htm

-The Watchtower organization founded by Charles Taize Russell are God's guardians of the truth on Earth. They believe they are the only True Church, of which 144,000 members are elect to heaven, the rest will spend eternity on paradise on earth.

-Believe in works-righteousness salvation. This salvation is acheived through door to door witnessing.

-Jehovah Witnesses deny the eternal punishment of Hell, they promote an annihalist position for those who aren't Jehovah Witnesses.

-The Jehovah Witnesses have a long history of inaccurate predictions regarding Christ's return.

Tolerance, and Theocracy

2005-07-17T00:09:00.000-05:00

This deals with commentary on American culture. The first part is again dealing with Tolerance. I was at Bethelham Baptist tonight hearing the Best Preacher in the Twin Cities John Piper preach part 4 on Romans 13:1-7. The second part of his sermon was terrific. One of the points made was the misconcept that arose in the debate of Tolerance. There are really two different views of Tolerance, the first view is this relativisit view espoused by the Secular Humanists. Where basically there are no absolute truth claims. So therefore activities like Abortion, and Gay Marriage, are totally morally acceptable. It is just those intolerant people of Faith, that are judgemental about what consituties right or wrong. But the truth is tolerance as relativism leads to Destruction, look at Roman Civilzation, where all behaviors went out the window. If one is to define Tolerance as Relativism than murder of people born would be legal, mob rule accepted, any sort of sexual practice tolerated, and a crime could never be condemned. If Tolerance is just defined as relativity, society collaspes. Since there are no limits on any sort of behavior. Christians though as Piper stated should oppose Abortion because if you have the indiscrimnate taking of the Unborn, society's view of human life collaspes, and ulitmately society. As far as something like Gay Marriage goes you have a fundamental building block of society in marriage-redefined. Marriage is no longer defined as a societal benefit, but only in terms of Erotic fulfillment. If an instuition like Marriage is redefined, this radically altars society. This altering of society could lead to its collaspes. Piper said we should make arguments on issues like these in terms that they are of benefit for people. This doesn't mean everything we are to be commanded to by scripture should be sactioned by the State. For instance if you went around just letting people serve no punishment for murder, society would collaspe. So here you have a contrast of what is called for in the Church-Matthew 6:15 and what is called for in the State-Romans 13:4.

The second part of this is the myth that it is in the Intolerant Christians vs the Tolerant Secularists. What is a difference is that Christians make claims of truth in society. If one is to go on a Secular College Campus, how many shots are taken at Christians. How many times are Christians mocked and called stupid. How often do writers from the New York Times, Minneapolis Star Tribune, or New Yorker make positive statements about those who practice Biblical Christianity. Christians are portrayed as bigots, and ignorant by these people. Even as a student at a Christian seminary, a Professor and I were talking about every pot shot taking at Fundamentalists at Luther Seminary. But my contention is the reason at a lot of my classmates have so much dislike for Religious Conservatives are two-fold. One they are growing in influence, while mainline Denomiations are declining in influence. The second is that they are just ignorant of the Bible, since they don't find it all that authoriative, and with a small exception wouldn't be able to hold their own in an argument about the Truths of Scripture. What these so-called tolerant secularists, and humanist Christians like to do is pigeonhole by coming up with a Fred Phelps of www.godhatesfags.com like figure, and associating this person as normative. If these professors on College Campuses, and elite writers are so confident of the ignorance of Christians ,why don't they seek to debate them and debunk them? I will agree that their have been Christians who have responded in a less than positive light to humanist assertions. So this is a two-way street to a degree. I think Ephesians 4:15-calling of us to speak the truth in love, should define our attitudes for this debate. As Piper said last week 'We don't need to name-call, or just start shouting they are going to hell as soon as they disagree. We also need to realize the Secularists will do what they want to do. I should point out that their are secular writers that are fair minded people, out there.

So what should Tolerance be? Well Piper said, he rejected the notion of Theocracy over and against some of the other early Reformed and Anabaptist traditions. The reason no one is ever coerced by sword to Christ. To try to coerce someone to your position of faith is problematic. Just look at the crusades, the trouble they brought. It should be noted that the crusades like the Humanist/Christian argument were a two-way street. This idea of the sword coercing faith is what has created so many problems with in Modern Day Islam. Piper tonight echoed the ideas of John Locke' s essay from 1689 A Letter Concerning Toleration. The fact that we live in a plurastic soceity calls for tolerance. We should call for freedom to express our views, just as the New Agers, Jehovah Witnesses, Humanists, Hindus, and Muslims have theirs. For once we loss the idea of freedom of expression, people take their sword to defend their faith, and society will collaspe. Christians should call for Religious Tolerance for All Religions in the Modern American State. This is not to be carried over to the Church in acceptance of pluralism and relativism though, for once the Church makes no claim of truth it in itself will collaspe. So what defines a good state does not define a good Church. For the state is defined by good order, and this is something that does benefit. But the Church is called to preach the Gospel to save people from everlasting punishment of their sins in Hell.

Process Theology-Part 1

2005-07-12T19:19:00.000-05:00

ReI have heard that God, Evil, and Suffering Class at Luther Seminary is overflowing with students. The Biblical View set forth is that God does not will such bad things to happen as September 11 or the Tsuanmi. Well it is true God isn't the one that wills that these actions take place, for these actions take place due to human sin and its ramifications. For if one never saw the serious consquences set forth by sin, how could one ever be brought to repentance. So God uses suffering for good. No one is immune from this suffering, except God who cannot suffer for to suffer is to be without hope. The reason no one is immune, is because all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

Process Theology is different from Open Theism in a couple ways.

1. Open Theism does not believe in the co-eternity of Man and God. God does not need Man to actualize God.

2. Open Theism does hold that God created the Earth out of nothing.

3. Open Theism believes in Satan, where as in Process Thought God is only trying to lure people to his ideal, to make himself more like God.

4. Open Theism does not deny the Omnipotence of God.

5. Open Theism is more focused on the actuality of the relationships between Man and God, when it comes to issues of faith. Process Theology is more focused on the actuality of God in its relationship with Man.

Both are centered on the ideas of

1. A Di-Polar relationship of God to the world in that he knows all in the present, but does not know all in the future. Because of this they hold to the idea that God is both changing and unchanging.

2. The future for God is based on a series of possiblities that can be acted upon. So life is a series of determining experiences, instead of a foreknown existence.

3. Both like to focus on Bible verses which speak of God changing his mind.

4. Both draw on metaphysics and philosophy in explaining God. Metaphysics in explaining the idea that experiences that relate to other expriences that set forth events in place.

I want to focus on part 1 on two things. One texts which speak of God changing his mind used by both Process Theologians and Open Theists. Process Theologians like to use these to downplay the Omnipotent and Omniscience of God. So hence forth, God is realized by how we act out the possibilities.

The great majority of this exigetical work. I mean about 99 percent was done in the Resolution on the Foreknowledge of God: Reasons & Rationale prepared For The Baptist General Conference in 2000 by John Piper and Justin Taylor found at

www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/ booklets/bgc_foreknowledge_booklet.pdf

1. Hezekiah is added 15 years after he repents (Isaiah 38:1-5)

A few obesrvations...

1. One you have a condition in death which is to be brought to Hezekiah if he persists in his current state.
2. Hezekiah realizes a problem with his current state, and repents. So therefore an action takes place to remove Hezekiah from the state which brings death.
3. After Hezekiah's repentance from the trouble of his current state, God adds fifteen years to his life.

This text.
1. Does not say God changes his mind. What happens here a condition is set forth, Hezekiah seeks to change to condition by repentance, and the condition is changed. This is similar to what happens to Jonah in Jonah 3, when looking at the fate of the Ninevites. God sets forth what will happen in a current state, this convicts, and leads out of a current state. For instance, Romans 6:23-Says the wages of sin is death-This is the current state, but then the Gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus-Christ Jesus takes one out of the current state of sin brining death.

2. These texts process birds like to use deal with a conditional threat (ie I will fire him if he shows up 4 hours late to work, then he never shows up 4 hours late to work, I don't fire him. This is not an example of my changing my mind.

This logic applies to Jeremiah 18:7-8 when it speaks of God changing his plan. This text is quite simple though. What is true in verse 7-that God has to destroy a nation if it continues in its ways, doesn't make verse 8 untrue that God will not destroy a nation if it does not continue in its ways. For it is not illogical to say someone is saved by Grace at Baptism(This is true at the time), but then say if they become atheists later in life, they are not saved(This is true at that time). This is not God changing his mind.

What about when God repents as in 1 Samuel 15:11.

1. To say God repents is not the same as to say we repent, for God is without error. When we repent is it to acknowledge that God's nature is in contrast to ours. So for God to repent does this not mean the same thing that our nature is in contrast to God's. So when we repent, we say we are not like God, when God repents he says he is not like man. So in God's repentance it is stating a disapproval of man's nature, and how it is not like God.

This logic continues in Genesis 6:5-6 when God says he is sorry for what he made. Here God is acknowledging he is not like man. So God is stating the consquences here of sin which he foreknew, this is backed up by 2 Timothy 1:9.

When God says perhaps in Jeremiah 26:1-3.

1. To say perhaps suggests people may do this or do that, and that it might lead to this or that consquence. To speak in such a way is required when communicating this message to human beings. This goes back to the Hezekiah text, a condition exists, if people persist in that condition a calamity will ensue, but if they don't persist a calamity will not ensue. This is not an example of the future being open for God, or God changing his mind. The future is open from a human perspective, but not from a divine perspective.

What about God making a wrong predicition as in Jeremiah 3:6-7. Well in a text like this all it can say is normally Israel(Northern Kingdom would repent). But this time they did not. No one could argue that this was the first time the people in the Northern Kingdom engaged in sinful activity, but one could argue it was the first time they did not repent as they always had before.

Why did God test Abraham as in Genesis 22.

1. God had purposes for his own glory. We know that God had promised Abraham many descendants before this. Could God have not had a purpose in testing Abraham here so that Abraham would lead Israel for God's own glory. The Process view here is problematic since if God wanted Abraham to do this, and he did do it. Who is to say Abraham wasn't going to turn to sin five minutes later. The reason Orthodox Christianity holds that God did this isn't because God didn't foreknow, but because God wanted mold the leadership of Abraham. For God doesn't just foreknow, he is involved in history so that it may be done for God's own glory.

The final passage to look at is Exodus 4:7-9. Where it seems God didn't know how many signs needed to be performed for Moses to believe. One, God doesn't always reveal his will to us for a specific situation. Two, God reveals in Exodus 4:17-that the signs were all done for God's own purpose. Another reason is God's relational language such as in Genesis 18:21. The reasons God speaks like this is for communication purposes with human beings.

Conclusion: I think one needs to work through the texts the process people to throw out. By asserting that they never downplay the foreknowledge of God. There are different factors at play here dealing with Conditions being met, the meaning of God's repentance, and God's will and purpose.

But here are a few questions to ask the Process Theologians.

1. Can you affirm since you believe in Panetheism that God is in all things, also the doctrine of Orginal Sin. Since if God is in all things, they cannot be contrary to God in all nature, since God is in them?

2. Doesn't this view stand in complete contrast to the view of God presented in Article 1 of the AC, and throughout the confessions?

Breakdown of prominent Evangelicals

2005-07-10T16:51:00.000-05:00

I found this intresting

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/000790.html

Thanks to

Authority of the Bible

2005-07-07T19:07:00.001-05:00

This must be stated in light of Bishop Hanson's Comments about Fundamentalism from this post on June 10

But Bishop Hanson stated " he rejects a literalistic view of the Bible "in this culture so dominated by fundamentalism." Instead of relying on a "bibliocentric" version of Christian faith, "I believe in a triune God who reveals God's self to me in Scripture," Hanson said, "who is revealed in Christ, and who is revealed for us in the bread and wine" of Communion."

A second set of great quotes is given by Bishop Margaret Paine of the New England Synod who said in
" We see the Bible not as a handbook for moral behavior, but as a source of wisdom for life in the compassion and peace of Christ. "

So in an age where things like this I feel compelled to respond, by stating what the Confessions and Scriptures do state in regard to the authority of the Bible.

The Second of the Smalcald Articles stated in Kolb/Wengert 304.15 states "This means that the Word of God-and no one else not even an angel-should establish articles of faith.

Article IV of the Large Cathecism in KW 464.57 states that "Because we know that God does not lie. My neighbor and I-in short, all people-may deceive and mislead, but God's Word cannot deceive."

We have only one guiding rule for our Faith and Life as stated in the Preface of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord which states the Old and New Testament are the only guiding principle.

Luther refered to the scriptures courtesy of John Theodore Mueller's Christian Dogmatics pg.116 as "God's Letter to Men". Luther spoke of scriptures as in error due to only people's flawed intrepretation of them which took away from Christ. Luther as Mueller states on page 117 did point to Christ above scriptures, but these were flawed intrepretations of the scriptures by the papists or enthuiasts of his day. Luther as Mueller points out on Page 118 speaks of how scripture is apostolic not from who teaches it, but from its proclaimation of Christ.

But the problem has became this pointing to a Christocentric intrepretation of the Bible. It is true the Lutheran Confessions do refer to the aim of the Bible as pointing us to Christ. But this role is served by all 66 Books, not in just select passages.

For the Scriptures states in 2 Timothy 3:16- That all Scripture is inspired by God. 2 Peter 1:21-Says scripture is the voice of God. In John 10:35-Jesus says the words of scripture cannot be broken. Romans 3:2-states that the Jews received the very words of God. On the Road to Emmamus, Luk3 24:27-states that Christ explained how from Moses and the Prophets and all of scriptures related to him. In John 5:39- Jesus pointed out how the Scriptures testify about him. The Gospel accounts cite the Old Testament 121 times. While other New Testament Books cite Old Testament scripture 158 times. This is courtesy of http://www.theology.edu/b310.htm. So it is fair to say that in the New Testament the Old Testament was regarded as authoriative.

Here are some such as all passages of scriptures aren't equally important?

This is true, this is an accusation levied against those with a high authority of the Bible. I have never heard someone say 1 Timothy 5:23 is equally important as John 3:16. Although, it is not our judgement to really have any say why the Bible would say this, due to our depraved nature. This depraved nature leads us to want to make theological doctrines pleasing to man, even when they directly contradict the Word of God. One shouldn't be able to hold that the Bible cannot address details for minor life situations. But what people like to take this and turn this into is the deleting elements of God's Law people feel uncomfortable with or making them unclear. For the Law works on turning us from our sin, and leading us to Christ. (Romans 4:15, Romans 5:20, Smalcald Article:Concerning Law KW 311-312) .

What about inaccuracies in Science? Well the Bible I have never claimed it's main intention to be a science textbook. I would never put the claims of Physcology above the claims of God's Word regarding Human Nature. The reason is that our nature is important in convicting us of our sin. This being said their might be inaccuracies in how people in the Old Testament saw the world (Job 37.18, Ps 75:3, 104:2, Gen 7:11, Gen 1:14). Although it can be stated that God could have left this views in the Bible to communicate the truths of his word to people in an BC context. The reason being that God wanted the truths of his word communicated, not engaging in the sceintific understanding of one's day. But either God's Word is authoriative in matters of Faith and Life or it is not. There is really no middle ground, so when so called scientfic teachings try to give "Sin and Wink" and a nod, we must reject them.

What about Groups like the Jesus Seminar? Well they start out with a bias against the Supernatural, so the inspiriation of scripture is not important. They then like to take historical study as shaped by the wishes of their own reason to try to figure out the true teachings of Jesus, influenced further by their humanistic world view. When you start out with the bias of your own reason, you have already stated what is your authority, and it isn't the Bible.

We must take the general tone of the Bible to assert what it teaches? Never mind that Christ and His apostles use scripture to debunk false arguments (Matthew 4:4-10, Romans 1:17). These people never engage in what scripture does teach, but use selective quotes for what they ascert scripture should teach. Reason is flawed in its application as a source for scripture due to our depraved nature (Romans 8:7, I Corinthians 2:14), which is in direct contrast to the teachings of the scriptures.

Conclusion: Scripture's Authority is the prime issue in the Church today. Once the authority of scripture is defined, all other issues can be quickly addressed. My view of scripture is that it is infalliable in matters of faith and doctrine. This is how Jesus viewed it, this is how the Bible views it, and this is how the Confessions view it. This new appeal to Christo-Centric translation is really an appeal to Rationalism in how we think of what the scriptures should really say. This is not to deny the Bible is Christo-Centric in how its aim is to reveal Christ. But this does not mean as Schleimacher developed that faith is defined by overview to the world. If you read Brateen and Jensen's Christian Dogmatics, they do address Biblical events as defined by their meaning. Although, they do keep the Cross and Resurrction as non-negotiable. My point in this writing is not to condemn others, but state what I see as the Historic Lutheran witness in regard to the truths of scripture.

Univeralism revised

2005-07-06T23:11:00.000-05:00

I have been laying out arguments in regards to what I feel are the major issues in the ELCA today. I have already done Homosexuality, Abortion, God's Gender, and will still do write ups on The Office of Ministry, and The Authority of the Bible. But right here is maybe the most unBiblical view that I have heard as an ELCA seminarian.

First of all I hold that God wants all to be saved as stated in 2 Peter 3:9, I Timothy 4:10 and I Timothy 2:4.

What we know from scripture in regards to Univeralism is the following Matthew 7:13-14, which states how broad the road to destruction is, but how the narrow the road to salvation. For as Ephesians 2:3 states we are objects of wrath by our sinful nature. Every sort of sin imaganible leads to destruction for as Romans 6:19-20 states we are slaves to sin. But as 1 Timothy 2:5 states- Jesus is the only mediator between God and Man to Heaven. This is reinforced in Luke 13:22-27.

Further verses debunking Univeralism

Matthew 25:46-Jesus speaking of seperating the sheep and the goats. How the Unrighteous will go to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

John 3:36- John the Baptist says who that does not have faith in the Son will not see life, because God's wrath is on him.

Mark 16:16-Whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 16:23-Speaks of the Rich Man seeing Lazarus and Abraham from Hell.

I John 5:11-12-Which states he who has faith has eternal life, he who does not have the son does not have eternal life.

Acts 26:17-18-States the urgency to for people to abandon their religions, as thier is only salvation in Christ.

Matthew 5:22-30-Jesus makes three references to sin leading people to hell.

Matthew 10:26-33-Jesus states he will give his whole message, so people will not be destroyed in hell.

Luke 13:1-5-Jesus says unless we are convicted of our sins to repentance, we will perish.

Acts 13:41-Those who scoff at the Gospel shall perish.

2 Thessolonians 1:6-9-States the reason we perish is because of the Justice of God.

Romans 9:27-Only a remnant shall be saved.

Philippians 1:28-Constructs those with destruction with those with salvation.

Philippians 3:18-19-States that the destiny of enemies of the Cross is destruction.

2 Peter 2-Speaks of how False Teachers have a destiny of destruction.

2 Peter 3:7-States how the Ungodly will face destuction.

So the problem with the doctrine of Univeralism is that it has no basis in scripture. The reason God damns people is for justice as it is stated in 2 Thessolonians 1:8-9. If God was not just why would Christ have to die on the Cross. People are mentioned as condemned for their sin and unbelief. The truths we know from scripture are that God desires all to be saved, Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and Man due to the Justice of God, Those who believe in Christ will be saved, due to the Justice of God those in unbelief will perish. This is clear Biblical teaching. No where is the Cross ever talked about as providing salvation for those without faith by Paul or Jesus.

Isn't it God's desire to see all people saved? Yes, as cited by the verses above. But God's desires aren't always fulfilled due to human sin, and the wrath that comes from it.

Doesn't Faith only come from the Holy Spirit? Yes,. and people are condemned for their own blaspheme or rejecting of what comes from the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-29, Hebrews 3:7-8, and Acts 7:51)

People what they like to do now when they realize they can't argue for Universal Salvation is they like to associate you with other people's arguments. Such as do you think Hell looks like Dante's Inferno? What about the eternality of Hell? The first question is trying to dodge the subject. The second question is trying to dodge the topic some more? I could answer these later, but I don't see them as the key issues right now.

The key is that many people's embrace of Univeralism leads one away from proclaimation. Univeralism damages the Biblical witness of those in the Lutheran Church. We must speak the truth in love(Ephesians 4:15), but this truth must come the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16)

God as Father...

2005-07-06T14:30:00.000-05:00

Here is what the Bible says

Psalm 2:7-I Will become your father a reference to us as children of God backed up in Hebrews 1:5
Psalm 89:26-God is refered to as Father, Rock, and Savior.
Isaiah 9:6- God is refered to as our everlasting father, wonderful counselor, and the prince of peace.
Malachi 2:10-God is our father, in our creation. This mention is reinforced in Verse 15.

But the real key reason is how Jesus refers to God.

Jesus refers to God as our father when speaking of whom we pray to in praying the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, and Luke 11:2-4.

John 1:18-Jesus is refered to as coming from the right side of the father.
John 5:18-The Jews tried to kill Jesus for saying that God was his own father.
John 6:45-46-Jesus refers to those who learn from him and he learned from God the father.
John 8:54-Jesus says his glory comes from the Father.
John 10:36-Jesus was sent by his Father.
John 13:3-Jesus claimed authority from his father.
John 16.27-Jesus says his father loves us, because we loved him.
John 20:27-Jesus states that he will return to his father.

Acts 2:33-Jesus is seated at the right hand of the father.

Romans 1:7-God is refered to as our father.
Romans 15.6-God calls on us to glorify God the Father
I Corinthians 1:3-Paul greets from God the Father.
Similar references are made to God as Father in I Cor 8:6, I Cor 15:24, 2 Cor 1:2-3, 2 Cor 11:31, Gal 1:1 and Gal 1:3-4, Eph 1:2-3, Eph 1:17, Eph 4:6, Eph 5:20, Eph 6:23, Phil 1:2, Phil 2:11, Phil 4:20, Col 1:2-3, Col 3:17, I Thes 1:1, I Thes 1:3, I Thes 3:11, I Thes 3:13, 2 Thes 1:1, 2 Thes 1:2, 2 Thes 2:16, 1 Tim 1:2, 2 Tim 1:2, Titus 1:4, Plus 13 more such refernces. This makes a total of at least 61 times that I could find that God is refered to as Father.

Do these texts say that God has male-sex organs, No. But what these texts do say is that God has revelaed himself to us as a Perfect loving heavenly father. It is to deny the perfect of attributes of God. For God is embodied in Love (I John 4:9, Jeremiah 31:3, Ephesians 4:1-5, Romans 8:35-39, John 3:16, Song of Solomon 8:6-7, Mark 10:45, and Romans 5:6-8). This love is infinite, and rooted in God's wonderful grace. This grace is centered in the work of Jesus Christ dying on the Cross for our sins as stated in Romans 5:6-8. This is in direct contrast to Total Depravity of Man (Romans 5;12-21, Romans 8:7-8, Romans 14:23, Romans 3, Romans 7:18, 2 Corinthians 4:4-6).

So when one uses the argument how can somewhat abused by her father call God "Father". The answer is given by contasting the total goodness of God with the total depravity of man (Galatians 5:16-26). Compare the perfect love of God, with the distorted love often put forth by Man. The problem with a question like this is that it poses God's revelation as insufficent, when the real focus should be on the deffiency of man.

Conclusion: The terms used to define Gender in our culture, are defined by our ability to reproduce. This is not a quality we associate with God. It should also be noted that God is hard for us to describe in our modern thoughts. To call God father sheds truth into the light of our relationship with him. The Bible does teach God that both Adam and Eve were created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-28). But God reveals himself to us in Scripture as our father. This is a perfect, loving heavenly father this doctrine can not be distorted by those who seek to associate God with situations that come from the depravity of Man. The reasons often given for refering to God as mother are (Some human situation makes one hostily inclined towards fathers or males... i.e. Sexism, Abuse. It also sometimes done to thumb noses at what other people believe or have believed...(ie I don't want to be like Fundamentalists). These situations take us away from the true focus of God's true loving nature revealed as Jesus Christ, who revealed God as Father. These situations seek to blur the references to God as Father by Jesus, with the depravity of human situations. This is why I refer to God as Father.

Tolerance- and It's Distortions.

2005-07-06T00:00:00.000-05:00

The push for Tolerance within the Church or acceptance of all behaviors, humanists want accepted is to point to Matthew 7:1-5 or John 8:1-11. Matthew 7-states do not judge, till you remove the log in your own eye. This is stating, don't judge with any sort of standards of hypocrisy. As the Christianity Today article pointed out, we are called to judge and discipline the transgessions of those within the Church as stated in I Corinthians5:12. In John 7:24- Jesus states not to judge by apperances. So Matthew 7 is stating don't judge from your own position of self-righteousness. John 8:11- is frequently ignored when Jesus tells the women to go and sin no more. Jesus offers forgiveness, and states the conviction of the consquences of sin that goes with it. John 8:7-Also points not to rule self-righteousness, nor act as somone is so sinful they must be put to death. It should also be noted this passage deals with only capitol punishment in regard to adultery, as was expected in the Old Covenant. Another point made is that Jesus eats with Tax Collectors and Sinners, this is true. But Jesus is never indifferent to their behavior. In Matthew 9:12-13-He states he came so he could call sinners, and make them well for the ill caused by their sin. In Matthew 18:17-Jesus states if someone engages in unrepentant sin and proudly, to not consider them as in the Church. This is not tolerance. In Luke 15:1-7-Jesus speaks of how he came for lost sinners, who are saved from repentance. This does not mesh with the modern tolerance talk. John 9:31- Speaks of those who live in blatant unrepentant sin, God does not hear.

Some might like to point to Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees as to their intolerance, when their main problem was their self-righteousness. In Matthew 5:20-Jesus tells them that their righteousness will never be good enough to enter the kingdom of heaven. In The Matthew 9:9-13- The problem is with thier judgement, but their lack of Grace. The problem is never with them realizing the trouble of someone's sin, rather their arrogance when it comes to their own.

Doesn't Jesus say "Love Your Neighbor as Yourself"? Yes, but if Jesus is God, and an example of love as advocates of this position claim. Was he not loving when preaching to people in regard to their own sinfulness as stated above. Was Jesus loving when he tossed the tables of the Money-Changers. The problem with this question is that it promotes a 60's view of love. In which case Love is indifferent to any sort of behavior. But Christ is love in that he died for the Ungodly as stated in Romans 5:6-8. Our need for a savior is due to their very judgement as us as Ungodly. So this defintion doesn't really fit in with the term "Tolerance". Which ironically wasn't developed in the Bible but during the Enlightenment of either the 18th or 19th century. I can't rememeber, and I have posted enough tonight.

More on Women's Ordination

2005-07-05T23:38:00.000-05:00

Greg Boyd though I don't agree with some of his views makes some further good points on this subject.

Mailnly the sayings of women are incorporated into scriptural authority in Judges 5, Luke 1:46-55, and Exodus 15:21, this is the sayings of Deborah, Mary, and Miriam.

I forgot to cite Acts 18:26- With Prisiclla and Aquilla being teachers of the Gospel. Boyd points to Prophets in Noadiah, Anna, and Huldah. In Genesis 21:12- God tells Abraham to listen to Sarah. In Philipians 4:2-3 it is made clear how women have taught the Gospel alongside Paul.

Also Galatians 3:28-Could be relevant to this debate, since it seems to eliminate distinctions on basis of race or gender, not behavior though as Pro-Homosexual advocates would have one believe.

-Last night, when a cited the Women cult, it was the cult of Diana.

-Two Points regarding the 1st Timothy 2 text, and the 1st Corinthians 14:34. To start off with I Corinthians 14:34- this is explained by 1 Corinthians 14:35-which states that women should stay silent, so they may ask questions at home. The problem was the inquiry of women interputing the service. This is why as Boyd says I Corinthians 11:5- states women can prophesy. These aren't two contradictions within a few chapters, there was problematic behavior leading to the second one. A lot of the problem with women's ordination in the Bible was the lack of education that women generally had. As Boyd points out in the rabbinic tradition a lot of the talk used in I Timothy 2:13-14 is because Women were thought of as being have to be taught by their more well educated husband. This is why the fall happened, because Adam didn't teach eve.

These points are taken from Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology as stated on pages 230-235.

The main point with this is to contrast the Biblical support for Women's ordination and approving practing Homosexual Ministers. My main issue with Ministers is if they preach from the Word of God. I don't care if it's men or women that do that. For Luther said this very thing in the Treatsie on Power and Primacy.

Homosexuality, Women's Ordination and Divorce

2005-07-04T23:55:00.000-05:00

One of the common misnomers in the debate about Homosexuality is a refernce to Orientation or Experience in deciding whether this is acceptable or unacceptable behavior.

The first assumption stated is that Paul never spoke about Sexual Orientation. Well, this is correct. But what Paul did talk about was our sinful orientation. But in Romans 5:12- Paul talks about how people were sinful by nature due to fall of Adam, this language is continued in Romans 5:21-Where Paul talks about the reign of sin. In Romans 8:5-8-Paul talks about how because of our sinful nature, our very intuitions are against God because of our own sinful mind. So Paul does talk about our sinful orientation, but it is never in a good way. To state you approve of Homosexuality based on oreintation is acceptable if you are a heretic in the mode of Origen or Pelagius who denies the Doctrine of Orginal Sin, or from any sort of Armenian tradition. This argument in Lutheran circles though is in direct contrast to what is taught regarding Orginal Sin in Article 2 of the Augsburg Confession. If one is to state our own nature as an authoriative source. One could claim that they need four women to be sexually sastified, or they would like to engage in sex acts every night outside of marriage. I have a lot of bad desires throughout the day, this does not mean I should act on them. The only reason, people don't do it, is because they might figure the social stigma is worse than the actions themselves. My point with this is to appeal to our natures as authoriative in determining if something is right or wrong, is something Paul was against due to the corruption of our nature.

Why didn't Jesus speak on this issue? Well, does his silence promote acceptance, or agreement with Old Testament teachings? Here one is just speculating. But let's look at what Jesus says in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9. Here Jesus cites as a defintion of what consitiutes a marriage-One Man and One Women, created by God and urges man not to seperate. Those who like to ignore this text like to just focus on the warnings against divorce, but ignore why divorce is such a negative. The argument made for marriage as Natural Law is made by Luther in the Small Cathecism pg. 369 Kolb and Wengert, where he cites Matthew 19:6, and then Genesis 2:18(21-24). Speaking of how God created the very instution of marriage, so the man and women may become one. GLBT Advocates never mention this for if they address Luther's position as one of Natural Law, they know they are admitting their position is in direct contrast to the Confessions.

Doesn't the Church allow Divorce? Yes, a few points should be made. The Church never celebrates divorce, nor the circumstances that lead to divorce, nor does a Divorced pastor ever get up and talk about how good a thing is a divorce. Malachi 2:16- Makes clear God hates divorce. Deut 22:19, 24:1, and Jeremiah 3 state that divorce is acceptable on grounds of adultery. In Mark 10:5-Jesus states the reason divorce is allowed is because of people's sinfulness. Then Jesus affirms in Matthew 19, and Mark 10 that divorce is only sufficent on grounds of infidelty. Paul makes clear in I Corinthians 7:27-Not to seek a divorce. Divorce does happen though on grounds of abandonment, or general incompablity. As Jesus states this is due to people's sinfulness. Should the Church allow remarriage? I think it would be hard to justify it, if someone left his wife, for another women. It would also be difficult if someone had no repentance for a previous divorce. But due to God's forgiving nature as stated in I John 1:9 that God will forgive and we can move on. It should also be noted why their are reasons given for divorce, never is there a reason given for Homosexual activity in the Bible.

Women's Ordination- Well, we know from Scripture that Deborah was placed in a role of leadership in Judges 4 and 5 over a man. We know in Romans 16- That Paul thanks Many Women for their help in the ministry. We know in I Corinthians 1:11-That Chloe(A women) is spoken of as head of a household. We know in the four Gospels that Mary Magadalene was the first proclaimer of Christ's death. The Book of Esther is a recount of how she saved the Jews from the Persians. So there is women's leadership in the Bible. But one looks at pasages like 1 Timothy 2 and says Women can't be ordained, we changed that know we need to change Homosexual Orientation. Well, we know in I Timothy 1:4- that certain false teachings have arisen. Most scholars have figured out in the region of Ephesus and Crete- There was a heretical Goodess cult that engaged in sexual ritual as a form of worship. Since this witness might be troubling. Wholah- You have I Timothy 2:12, it should be noted before this is a warning against Women wearing all sorts of provactive clothing, this would seem to be pointing to the Historical thesis. Now, someone is going to say what about verses 13 through 15. Well in 13-14 it should be noted that Eve was appealing to her own desires, as were the women cult in this time period. So to appeal to one's very nature is problematic, as would be a man's. But in this time, Women still had a very important role in the raising of children. The reason this was said, was to not be a stumbling block to the Gospel. Here the point wasn't to say women were worthless. I think this passage applies in places like Saudi Arabia in that the view of women would be so perverted in that society, it is not acceptable for them at this time to serve as ministers there. So this shows the point of ordaining women isn't that we are more enlightened than the scriptures. Which as Luther says are "without error".

Since aren't we all sinners can't Homosexuals serve as ministers? Well as I Timothy 3 states. Their are definite qualifications for serving in the Pastoral Office, even though we all are sinners. But Hebrews 10 26-31 that to abuse grace is to pervert the Gospel. For as I Timothy 3:6-7- For a Minister to be Self-Righteous is a perversion of the Gospel, and to go on embracing sinfulness in public in a perversion of the Gospel. The question isn't whether we all sin, the question is whether our sin convicts us, thereby seeking to turn us from it. This is not to say the Church shouldn't be welcoming of all people, but to act as if some sort of sinful behavior is acceptable, is to pervery why Christ came.

When I am refering to Homosexuals, I am refering to practicing Homosexuals. I am also condemning any sort of self-righteous towards Homosexuality(I Cor 5:12, John 7:24), or any sort of persecution ( Leviticus 19:18). They are to be welcomed into our Church as all people, and not make light of their situation publicly(Matthew 18:15). I realize the emotional detail involved with this issue and I try to live out Ephesians 4:15. This is something my fellow theological conservatives don't always do the best.