Over at First Things, this article describes one Christian's perspective on homosexuality and marriage. The author quotes Elizabeth Anscombe’s essay "Contraception and Chastity":
"If contraceptive intercourse is permissible, then what objection could there be after all to mutual masturbation, or copulation in vase in debito, sodomy, buggery (I should perhaps remark that I am using a legal term here—not indulging in bad language), when normal copulation is impossible or inadvisable (or in any case, according to taste)? It can’t be the mere pattern of bodily behaviour in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition." (emphasis mine)
While the details will differ on reaching the conclusion Scripturally, there are good points made here. The answer to the questions of contraception (as well as homosexuality) rest solely in the question: "what has been given by God in Christ?"
Marriage is a given estate of God as gift. Luther highlights this in the Small Catechism in drawing out our gifts of "daily bread" to include devout husband or wife and devout children. The reality is that not all gifts are given equal save one. The gift of salvation, freely offered and given as complete and finished in the death and resurrection of Christ. The gifts of daily bread that follow vary among us.
The Christian reality is in the gifts given by God in Christ. Marriage seen as right and not as gift will have a differing view. Children seen as right or commodity or anything other than gift will have a differing view. Christians are indeed drawn out of the pagan world. Drawn out to receive the gifts of God in Christ. Gifts received in faith as the Lord gives. Important for us to remember that gifts given are simply gifts. They are given as the gift giver would have them be received. He gives marriage as one man and woman and within that union He gives children. We are called out of this pagan world to receive Christ's gifts. The gifts He gives from the cross as well as the temporal gifts. Not with greed, not with complaint, and not with demands of telling our Lord when and how to give. We receive as beggars, with joy, by faith that He indeed is Lord of all creation, over life and death, over marriage, over the gifts of creation. Thanks be to God.
Posts
31 comments:
"Gift" language, while popular in "confessional" circles, isn't helpful here. It's too broad, and allows for abuse. It also isn't specific to ethics, and for ethics we need to be talking about the Law.
"Rights" language, while not entirely non-problematic, are indeed apropos. Indeed, it is curious that Rev. Amen rejects such talk given that Melanchthon appeals to natural rights, specifically the right to marry, in Ap XXIII.
Finally, it's unnecessary for someone to be a Christian to recognize that abortion, contraception, adultery, homosexuality, and all the other sexual sins not only have disastrous consequences, and thus an a mere consequentialist basis are wrong, but also they militate against nature. Indeed, they are vices, which destroy moral character.
Robert C. Baker
Gift is indeed helpful. What is given? The answer rests in the gift of the Word. It is entirely within this gift that marriage is defined, life defined within the womb, and everything else. In ethics, this is precisely the question to ask. Has it been given? Has it been given to have authority over this life, this death, this issue? It is the very question of ethics and certainly not too broad.
Melanchthon does indeed use "right." Yet I would argue that in our context when a "right" is used it means that everyone must be given this. Thus, many argue that the homosexual has a right to marriage. The reality is marriage is not given to all. This is what is meant by a "right." It is is a right as the Apology says that cannot be taken away by status or vows, in context to ordination, monastic vows.
It is entirely necessary to be Christian and have the conclusions drawn. Is it possible to be an unbeliever and have those moral values? Sure. But the problem rests in that without the Word of God given society becomes moral relativists (which most already are.)
Pr. Baker, would you please expand on your criticism of Rev. Amen's post. I must say that I tend to agree with Rev. Amen, though I would add that the gifts of marriage and children are not exclusive to Christians, they are common graces. It seems to me that Natural Rights language addresses the relationship between men, while gift language addresses the relationship between God and man. That is, I have a God-given (Natural, if you prefer) right to marry and have children which man may not restrict precisely because God is the giver of marriage and children. Both terminologies are correct, but each applies to a different relationship. I have no "rights" in my relationship with God. He is the giver and I am the receiver.
I undoubtedly am missing something in Pr. Baker's criticism and so ask that he expand upon it.
Thank you,
Greg Laughlin
I was typing my previous post before Rev. Amen's appeared. I am again in agreement with him.
Greg Laughlin
Chris, your first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. It is sheer gobbledygook, manufacture from whole cloth by "confessionals" trying to do ethics.
Marriage is Law. Only through the gift of faith can one view marriage as a "gift". By trying to handle the Law by handling the Gospel, you confuse both.
There is no "gift" ethics, no "Law-Gospel" ethics, etc. Ethics is Law, plain and simple.
The problem is not with "right". Rights do indeed mean that everyone must be given it. That's the whole concept of rights with which, apparently, you're not familiar.
There is an inherent right to life, which means that my life cannot, except for exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, be deprived of me by anyone else.
Unless there is an impediment to marriage, male and female possess an inherent, God-given right to marry. That's Melanchthon's whole point, the fact of which the Papists denied with their filthy celibacy.
But no such right exists for male-male pairings, or female-female pairings, etc., for that would require a redefinition of marriage.
Robert C. Baker
Greg,
Why do you suggest that natural rights address only the relationship between people, leaving God out entirely?
That's not the classical understanding of natural rights, whether believed in and taught by Orthodox Lutherans or by John Locke and the American Founders.
And you do have rights in your relationship with God. Prior to faith you had no rights; now, in faith, you have full rights as God's son (Galatians 4:1-7).
Robert C. Baker
The reason why two men may not marry is because marriage is not merely a word with a man-made definition which may be modified. The word "marriage" describes something which exists in nature, a union between two persons which is designed by God to be by its nature open to His gift of children should He chose in any given relationship to so bless the couple. Only a union between a man and a woman can, by its nature, be open to God's gift of children. Historically, a marriage was not consummated (that is, brought to completion) until the couple engaged in the act which God uses to give His gift of children. Until coetus was consummated, the marriage was not consummated, that is, it had not been completed. In a very real sense, the couple were not married until the had coetus. I would argue that this is still the case whether man's law recognizes it or not.
Thus, it is impossible for two men to marry each other (or for two women to marry each other). To say that two people of the same sex have a "right" to marry is an oxymoron. It is akin to saying that a man has a "right" to fly unassisted by any technology. Man cannot have a right to fly naturally because he hasn't been given by God the gift to fly naturally.
Likewise, two men or two women cannot marry each other because they have not, as a couple, been given the gift to be naturally open to His gift of children. Calling a union between two men or two women a marriage doesn't make it one. And even if we redefine the meaning of the word "marriage", we cannot erase the reality of the difference in the unions which it formerly referenced and any and all other kinds of unions. The difference remains. A union between a man and woman open to God's gift of children is still different in essence from all other unions even if we no longer have a word designated exclusively to reference that distinct union. That is, what same-sex "marriage" advocates propose is that we cease the recognize in our law and language the unique nature of what marriage has heretofore referenced and treat essentially different relationships in nature as if they were essentially the same.
In sum, and I think I am merely following Rev. Amen on this, two men or two women cannot have a "right" to marry because they lack the God-given gift to marry. Natural (or God-given) rights limit man's relationship to man so that men may not deprive other men of the gifts of God. Where God has not given a gift, there can be no natural right.
Greg Laughlin
It is true to I have rights in my relationship to God once adopted by him, but those rights are themselves a gift. They exist because God chose to adopt me. As you say, I did not have those rights until He adopted me, and in that act of adoption, He gives me certain rights. Rights follow from the gift.
But it seems to me that we are conflating two different uses of the word "rights". When homosexuals declare that they have a right to marry, they mean they have a right which man must recognize, either God-given (if they believe in God) or by nature (if they don't believe in God), but the right is a right the applies to their relationship with each other. That is, man may not prohibit their marrying each other because they have been given the right to marry by God; the right follows the gift.
You'd have to provide me with proof that the Founders had a different understanding. Here in the language from the Declaration:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
To endow someone with something is to give them that something. God gives us rights; thus, any rights we have vis-a-vis our relationship with God are gifts in the first instance. Man does not give us these rights, but is bound by God's giving us these rights.
I have no doubt that you have far more knowledge in this area than I do, but I still believe Rev. Amen's post to be accurate.
Greg: "In a very real sense, the couple were not married until the had coetus."
This is historically inaccurate. Betrothal in the Bible was tantamount to marriage; violating a betrothal through illicit sexual intercourse constituted adultery and was punishable by death in the OT: Deuteronomy 22:23.
Orthodox Lutherans continued to teach this about betrothal (sans stoning) even to the first half of the twentieth century.
Marriage consists of a number of things including valid consent and consummation.
Robert C. Baker
Anonymous: "But it seems to me that we are conflating two different uses of the word "rights". When homosexuals declare that they have a right to marry, they mean they have a right which man must recognize, either God-given (if they believe in God) or by nature (if they don't believe in God), but the right is a right the applies to their relationship with each other. That is, man may not prohibit their marrying each other because they have been given the right to marry by God; the right follows the gift."
This likewise is inaccurate. "Rights" in this context are not given by a Creator as part and parcel of membership in the human family (classical view), but are confections of the State and doled out to whomever screams the loudest (Hobbes, others).
Persons advocating for same-sex "marriage" on the basis of "rights" do not do so on the basis of God-given rights or natural rights. The do so only on the basis above that I've described.
Of course, if rights are tied neither to God nor nature, then man can create--indeed is creating--any rights he wishes.
Robert C. Baker
I disagree that marriage must be only law. Quite simply it is a gift of God, first given to Adam and Eve. There is indeed "Law-Gospel" ethics, which the lack of recognition of such is why many Lutherans have trouble with sanctification. The premise on this site is speaking as a Lutheran, one who is baptized, and so when you say that, "Only through the gift of faith can one view marriage as a "gift," I have no problems for I am speaking through faith.
This was not and is not intended to be the full gambit on these issues but a post to highlight that marriage and children naturally go together, and yes, as gifts of God.
There is also great deviation from the intent of the post, which is to say that for the Christian receiving the gifts of children are inherently part of Christian marriage. Changing definitions and changing what is given is precisely the issue this site has been addressing for years and I simply am seeking to highlight that for Christians to consider in their life, that children be received as the gifts of God they indeed are.
The gift of the gift-giveness of the Gift-giver. Such is the stuff of nonsensical beings.
The Solid Declaration is clear: The Law reveals the immutable will of God, "what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God; and it threatens its transgressors with God's wrath and temporal and eternal punishments.." (FC SD V:17)
In commanding male and female to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28; 2:25; 9:7; Mat. 19:1-12; Mar. 10:1-12; 1 Cor. 7:2), God was not proclaiming the Gospel, the free forgiveness of sins. Rather, He was commanding His human creation to marry, beget and raise children, apart from those granted an extraordinary exception (Mat. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:8-9.
These are all "proof texts" marshaled by various Orthodox Lutherans to support and confirm marriage.
Melanchthon also calls marriage an "ordinance" and a "natural right," that is, a divine order or institution established by God for specific purposes, in which male and female are joined in an intimate union for the purposes of: 1) procreation; 2) mutual support and encouragement; and 3) after the fall, as a prophylactic against sin.
That's right; natural sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is God's remedy for sexual lust. Contraception is the sinful flesh's perversion of this of God's gift of marriage (not "sex" or "sexuality").
To understand a thing, we must first ask what it is. What is marriage? A wrong answer would be, "It is a gift." No; unbelievers may be and indeed are married, and, while they may receive temporal blessings within marriage, marriage isn't in its very essence a gift because it cannot be received by and through faith. Faith, faith, faith in Jesus Christ is ALWAYS the issue.
What is marriage, then? Marriage is the life-long, one-flesh union of male and female for the purposes just described. Marriage is commanded and established by God as part of the created order. Christians may receive marriage and children as gifts, but only in view of faith.
Robert C. Baker
But even unbelievers can receive gifts, as in the fourth petition: "God gives daily bread, even without our prayer, to all wicked men; but we pray in this petition that He would lead us to know it, and to receive our daily bread with thanksgiving."
"Christians may receive marriage and children as gifts, but only in view of faith."
What I guess I do not understand as objectionable to the original post, since it precisely in view of faith that I write. Is it perhaps that you perceive each post to be an entire piece that covers the entire Scriptural narrative?
"...marriage isn't in its very essence a gift because it cannot be received by and through faith." Read Ephesians 5. Marriage is certainly gift in its essence and received by and through faith.
The issue of "be fruitful and multiply" as Law has been addressed various times on this blog and other discussions. Not going to rehash those.
Gifts certainly include more than the free gift of the forgiveness of sins, especially in daily bread and First Article gifts. Yet, we perverted them all. He continues to give by grace. It is received through faith. It is by faith in Jesus, in death and resurrection that our identities are new, new hearts. So yes, it does always come back to Jesus and yet it so much more, our entire life and being.
Nowhere in the Bible is marriage referred to as a “gift”.
In the New Testament “gift” is ordinarily used to refer to a) salvation or eternal life (John 4; Rom. 6:3; Eph. 2:8); b) God’s grace in Christ (2 Cor. 9:15) c) spiritual gifts given to believers (1 Cor. 12; 14; 1 Pet. 4:10); c) the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45) and d) tithes and offerings (Mt. 2:11; 5:23; Luk3 21:1; 2 Cor. 9).
In the Confessions, continence, or celibacy, and marriage are considered gifts, which are to be received by faith. Ap XXIII:
And Paul says of marriage, of meats and similar things, 1 Tim. 4:5: It is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, i.e., by the Word, by which consciences become certain that God approves; and by prayer, i.e., by faith, which uses it with thanksgiving 31] as a gift of God.
53] Thus God avenges the contempt of His own gift and ordinance in those who prohibit marriage.
16] Does not Paul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry? For he interprets himself a little after when he says, 7:9: It is better to marry than to burn. And Christ has clearly said, Matt. 19:11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
“Gifts” require a “Giver”, and if in unbelief you don’t recognize the Giver, you don’t recognize the gift.
Lastly, you misunderstand the word "essence" when you write, "Marriage is certainly gift in its essence and received by and through faith."
"Essence" refers to the definition of a thing, not how a thing can or should be used. So, the essence of marriage most assuredly is not "gift," although God intends it to be so and it is received as such by believers.
But the essence of marriage refers to its definition, those parts or particles of which marriage would not consist if some or all them would be lost.
Hence, the "essence" of marriage is the lifelong one-flesh union of one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation, mutual aid, and prophylaxis (after the fall).
By continuing (wrongly) to assert that the essence of marriage is "gift", then you've put yourself in the same category as marriage revisionists who think that the essence of marriage is a "right".
Robert C. Baker
Robert C. Baker
I am finding this discussion of great interest and value. I think this is an important statement:
"Essence" refers to the definition of a thing, not how a thing can or should be used. So, the essence of marriage most assuredly is not "gift," although God intends it to be so and it is received as such by believers.
We need to return to the proper understanding of what the essence of marriage is - the conjugal definition of marriage in contrast to the revisionist definition. In this regard, I would agree that "gift" language is not helpful.
I also think it is important to consider Robert Baker's premise that "all ethics is law."
"We need to return to the proper understanding of what the essence of marriage is - the conjugal definition of marriage." In what it is, essence, is providing a helper for Adam, then one flesh union. That the Lord gives life, at creation and through marriage, is still all gift. To say it is law, even before sin seems troubling. That we've corrupted the whole thing in sin is certainly the problem where many are, but does not change that it was still as given by God.
Again, it is important to read the basis of the original post. It assumes and states a Christian marriage. I am always speaking of those who are Christians, so yes, I assume they know the Giver. So I still don't see the real problem other than just wanting to argue against "gift" even when speaking of Christians. Luther includes marriage and children as given in the First Article as well as the Lord's Prayer. And what follows is certainly children.
The Christian life always receives as the Lord provides. Which once again, is the point of the whole thing. "We are called out of this pagan world to receive Christ's gifts. The gifts He gives from the cross as well as the temporal gifts. Not with greed, not with complaint, and not with demands of telling our Lord when and how to give. We receive as beggars, with joy, by faith that He indeed is Lord of all creation, over life and death, over marriage, over the gifts of creation."
"All ethics is law." Sure, but law does not go without gospel. Distinction sure. Separation no.
It's also helpful to consider his other premise: "dichotomies such as Law/Gospel, sinner/saint, etc. are helpful only as pastoral applications," which it is always and only in pastoral applications that I write or speak since it where I am called. Pastorally, faith receives as given, always.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-c-drosendahl/being-fruitful-and-multiplying/10152098898457120
The fact that Rev.Cwirla agrees with that post shows it is inconsistent with the beliefs of this blog.
Great to use the text as presented Erich.
Also, just curious, since when did "blessing" become "law"? Since it is in the blessing of Genesis 1 that this all stems.
In other words, treating this subject solely with gift language allows for the modern view that contraception itself is a gift from God.
That's where the law comes in, to the ones rejecting the gifts of God. "Solely gift language." I reject "solely" gift, but I also reject any notion of only the Law. The Law kills. The Gospel makes alive.
Again, why do we call the blessing of the Lord "law"? The sole blessing of God we have before the fall is marriage. I am thankful His providing in that gift. I pray for those who do not recognize or reject it.
And now, I must be done with this post. Sadly, the Lutheran problem of arguing with those whom we actually agree has taken over.
For the world, especially the unbelievers (if any stumble across), continue laughing as Christians argue over receiving things from God. I pray though that your laughter turns to joy, in recognizing the Gift-Giver. For those Christians who struggle with issue, the Lord be with you in repentance and faith and it is always my prayer that the Lord's gifts always be received as He gives, in 1st Article and 2nd Article blessings (received in the 3rd Article.)
I agree with Erich that this conversation has been enlightening. If anything, it goes to prove the lack of understanding of good, Orthodox Lutheran theology among some younger LCMS seminary graduates now serving as pastors in that denomination. It also exemplifies how confused they are, and presumably their seminary teachers are, about God’s holy Law. Let’s take a look:
Amen: “In what it is, essence, is providing a helper for Adam, then one flesh union. That the Lord gives life, at creation and through marriage, is still all gift. To say it is law, even before sin seems troubling.”
Baker: The Formula makes abundantly clear that the Law is God’s immutable, holy will. God’s will is expressed in commands: “Do this; don’t do that.” God (who possessed a will before the Fall) commanded (before the Fall) that His human creatures “Be fruitful and multiply.” So important was this command that He repeated it immediately following the Flood (after the Fall). In fact, this command, this Word of God, is still imprinted on human nature, as Melanchthon persuasively argues in Ap XXIII. Hence, he rightly concludes, mandatory clerical celibacy violates the Scriptures and natural law.
Rev. Amen expresses confusion why the Law would precede sin. Apparently, he labors under the misunderstanding that the Law first showed up as the Ten Commandments. Clearly, however, he doesn’t understand the Formula’s definition of the Law. God’s law, His holy will, is eternal.
Amen: “So I still don't see the real problem other than just wanting to argue against ‘gift’ even when speaking of Christians. Luther includes marriage and children as given in the First Article as well as the Lord's Prayer. And what follows is certainly children.”
Baker: No one, certainly not I, am against calling marriage and/or children a “gift” or a “blessing”. In fact, while I noted that the New Testament doesn’t refer to marriage as a gift, I did note that Ap XXIII refers both to marriage and continence as gifts. “Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him.” Ps. 127:3. “He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.” Prov. 18:22 Many other passages from Scriptures could be marshaled here for support.
But while God intends marriage and children as gifts and blessings to be received with thankful, faith-filled hearts, marriage and children are not gifts and blessings according to their essence, that is, what they are according to their constitutive, necessary parts. To define “marriage” one doesn’t answer “gift”. To define “child” one doesn’t answer “blessing”. Any cursory examination of dictionary.com will confirm what I’m saying, and it’s absolutely less than helpful for “confessionals” to drone on and on with these terms as if mere repetition of such shopworn phrases proves their point.
Robert C. Baker 1/3
Erich recalled to our minds, abstract theological terminology, or what I call “systematic categories,” can be misused to support antibiblical, anticonfessional agendas, especially when it comes to marriage. As proof, see Laurie Jungling’s “A ‘New’ Vision of Marriage as Vocation for the Lutheran Tradition”, in which Jungling argues in favor of a view of marriage that supports male/male oe female/female marriage on the basis of “Lutheran vocation”. Available at: http://www.reconcilingworks.org/images/stories/downloads/resources/016_ANewVisionofMarriageasVocation-Jungling.pdf.
Drosendahl: “When people find out that my wife and I have 10 children, they often will comment with interesting statements. One of the most common is, "Well, you must be taking God's command to 'be fruitful and multiply' pretty seriously!" What often surprises them is my response. "No." For we have never viewed having children as a "duty" or an "obligation". Not one time have we considered the having of children as some sort of "you gotta" from God.”
Rev. Amen points us to this piece, and so it deserves a look. Drosendahl, despite his familial achievements, operates with a false dichotomy, or false alternative. Either “be fruitful and multiply” is “duty” or “obligation,” or it’s a blessing, something related to the First Article of the Creed, or so on. But never “Law”. Inquiring minds want to know, Why not!?!
Since Drosendahl brought up his old teacher, Norman Nagel, let’s address Nagel’s chief theological conversation partner throughout most of Nagel’s career: Werner Elert. Werner Elert, the neo-Lutheran from the Erlangen School, by its own admission a school seeking validation through “religious experience,” and one that militated against objective truth being written down by holy writers in the Bible. Law bad, Gospel good. Law is God’s wrath, not God’s eternal will. Rejection of Third Use of the Law, natural law, and on and on. You get the point. But this is Drosendahl’s chief influencer on how he views the Law, whether he recognizes it or not.
Law is not “do”, it is “be”. And, since we cannot be, God “be’s” for us. He does it! He does it all! Notice how none of this makes any sense, whatsoever, even though “confessionals” lap it up like drops of Jaegermeister at a late night frat party. It makes no sense biologically, for indeed male and female (even non-Christians!) procreate children. And it makes no sense theologically, for male and female Christians indeed ***do cooperate with God*** by their obedience to the Law. (This causes all Fordeites, neo-Lutherans, and former members of the American Lutheran Church, now serving on the LCMS roster, to go into conniptions.)
But neo-Lutherans will have none of this, because a) religious truth is known only through experience, that is, the Law-Gospel experience; and b) we are set free totally, not just from the oppressive demands of the Law, but from the Law entirely. We make up our own laws, say, like the Categorical Imperative (in all three permutations!).
Robert C. Baker 2/3
Why do I mention that? Because the chief philosophical influence of the Erlangen School is Kant (and Schleiermacher), not Luther, Melanchthon, or any other Orthodox Lutheran. The Erlangen School was built on the attempt by its first founder, JCK von Hoffman, to cleave a “new” Lutheranism from Lutheran Orthodoxy. (Guess who were fans of Lutheran Orthodoxy? Walther and Pieper and the early LCMS.)
Amen: “Also, just curious, since when did "blessing" become "law"? Since it is in the blessing of Genesis 1 that this all stems… Again, why do we call the blessing of the Lord "law"? The sole blessing of God we have before the fall is marriage. I am thankful His providing in that gift. I pray for those who do not recognize or reject it.”
Here Rev. Amen is again confused. No one here has converted to Romanism and is now trying to transubstantiate “blessing” into “law”. What Rev. Amen finds amazing is that God blesses through the Law, that is, through the command of “be fruitful and multiply”. That’s right; it’s a command ***and*** blessing! That seems inconceivable if one is to remain a “confessional” Lutheran, right? Blessings only come through the Gospel!!!
Wait a minute, the smart kid in the front row begins to ask. This is starting to sound eerily familiar, kinda like—the student struggle for words—kinda like Law-Gospel reductionism. And it is! Law bad, Gospel good! Anything bad must be Law; anything good must be Gospel! What is good and what is bad is determined not in an of itself, but by ***how I experience it***. Again, my experience determines religious truth, not the words of an old, dusty, worn-out Bible, and certainly not whore Reason.
Amen: “That's where the law comes in, to the ones rejecting the gifts of God. "Solely gift language." I reject "solely" gift, but I also reject any notion of only the Law. The Law kills. The Gospel makes alive.”
Right. Law is only there to accuse. Lex semper accusat (the Law always accuses) becomes Lex solum accusat (the Law only accuses; all apologies to Mayes and Curtis).
Taken right out of the old, liberal handbook.
Note some additional, awful, antibiblical and anticonfesional thinking here, this time from Rev. Matthew Richard:
“The New Man isn’t the ‘real’ you. That would be nice but it denies the simul and is probably self-righteous gnosticism. If you want to see the Old Man, all you gotta do is look in the mirror. You don’t see the New Man or you don’t see him only. If you wanna see the New Man, you have to look at His gifts – the water, Word, Body and Blood. The New Man is in Christ. The New Man is forgiven, clothed with Christ, and sprinkled in His Blood.”
Robert C. Baker 3a/3
Contrast Rev. Richard with St. Paul, who’ll I’ll back any day:
“And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor. 6:11
The new man ***is*** the real us. The Old Adam has been crucified. Through the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, God not only forgives our sins, He also “re-hardwires” us, that is to say, He re-engraves His holy, immutable Law on our hearts. And so, when we do good in repentant faith, whatever that good is, we are indeed obeying—and yes, class, fulfilling—the Law. We are not doing abstract things apart from God’s Law, we are actually obeying God’s Law, motivated not by temporal or eternal gain or feelings of superiority, but solely by God’s unfathomable grace.
This is what these young “confessional” guys don’t get. And the LCMS will suffer greatly because of it.
Robert C. Baker 3b/3
"The fact that Rev.Cwirla agrees with that post shows it is inconsistent with the beliefs of this blog." - Ad hominem? Why, yes! It most certainly is. Let's stand back and admire it.
Not exactly, Rev. Cwirla. I was actually referring to your acceptance of birth control, not you personally. I followed up immediately with this clarification: "In other words, treating this subject solely with gift language allows for the modern view that contraception itself is a gift from God."
I have nothing against you personally, Rev. Cwirla, but rather your erroneous beliefs on the subject this blog is about. The fact that one can hold to your beliefs about birth control and agree with Rev. Drosendahl's post is the only point I was making. It really was not an ad hominem falacy at all.
I think that Erich's further explanation merits a retraction from Bill. But will he get it?
Robert C. Baker
Hey so I realize that I’m a bit late to this conversation and I don’t know whether anyone is still keeping tabs on it, but I had hoped to get some clarification on a certain point. It’s not exactly in line with the discussion, I guess, but it’s sort of related to it. In an earlier comment it was said that:
“In commanding male and female to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28; 2:25; 9:7; Mat. 19:1-12; Mar. 10:1-12; 1 Cor. 7:2), God was not proclaiming the Gospel, the free forgiveness of sins. Rather, He was commanding His human creation to marry, beget and raise children, apart from those granted an extraordinary exception (Mat. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:8-9.
These are all "proof texts" marshaled by various Orthodox Lutherans to support and confirm marriage.”
See now I had the idea that Luther’s understanding of “be fruitful and multiply” was more of a physical law than a moral law. –more of “you will do this” than “you must do this.” Of course, as we have this “fruitfulness drive” we must then use it in the right place and in the right way as laid down by our creator. Specifically, within marriage and open to procreation. So the moral issue is certainly there, but I had thought that the Lutheran understanding of those words was to see them as not so much of a direct moral imperative but as more of a creative word with moral implications.
Anyway, I’d be grateful to hear anyone’s thoughts on that as I’m trying to better understand what the Lutheran view is on this.
Micah B.
"See now I had the idea that Luther’s understanding of “be fruitful and multiply” was more of a physical law than a moral law. –more of “you will do this” than “you must do this.” Of course, as we have this “fruitfulness drive” we must then use it in the right place and in the right way as laid down by our creator. Specifically, within marriage and open to procreation. So the moral issue is certainly there, but I had thought that the Lutheran understanding of those words was to see them as not so much of a direct moral imperative but as more of a creative word with moral implications."
This is a distinction without a difference, Micah. What God commands and blesses through HIs Word, He effects, and expects man to do.
Man can reject that command and blessing, and he often does. But note well, man in this instance isn't rejecting merely a blessing, but a command.
Question: Would the Church be doing something morally wrong if it no longer baptized? taught the Scriptures? absolved? celebrated the Lord's Supper? Why or why not?
Certainly God commands His Church to do these things, and He blesses His creatures through His redeeming Word.
Yet willfully going against His institution and command would be sinful, that is, morally wrong.
Robert C. Baker
Post a Comment