tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post113752960729734500..comments2023-12-05T19:10:42.635-05:00Comments on Lutherans and Procreation: God's Word and ProcreationErich Heidenreich, DDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1138126550075019592006-01-24T13:15:00.000-05:002006-01-24T13:15:00.000-05:00Lauren,"Sin boldly" is an unfortunate mistranslati...Lauren,<BR/><BR/>"Sin boldly" is an unfortunate mistranslation of Luther used by many as a license to sin. What he actually wrote is more accurately translated:<BR/><BR/>"Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world." [Source: Project Wittenberg]<BR/><BR/>The point is that it is important not to minimize any of our sins or try to interpret the Law as something manageable. There is a verse in Luther's German translation of the Bible which uses virtually the same wording Luther did in the above quote. There is little doubt in my mind that this is what Luther was paraphrasing in his (in)famous statement quoted above.<BR/><BR/>Romans 5:20-21 (Luther Bibel 1545)<BR/><BR/>"Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen, auf daß die Sünde mächtiger würde. Woaber die Sünde mächtig geworden ist, da ist doch die Gnade viel mächtiger geworden, auf daß, gleichwie die Sünde geherrscht hat zum Tode, also auch herrsche die Gnade durch die Gerechtigkeit zum ewigen Leben durch Jesum Christum, unsern HERRN."<BR/><BR/>My English translation of the German: <BR/><BR/>"The law however came in besides, so that sin became more strong. But where sin becomes strong, nevertheless grace becomes even more strong, so that, as sin prevailed to death, thus grace also prevails through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord."<BR/><BR/>NKJV - "Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."<BR/><BR/>My point is not to say that Luther's German is the best translation of the Greek of this verse (I haven't even looked at that), but rather to point out what it is that Luther was trying to say in this often misunderstood phrase.<BR/><BR/>So now, to put this in context, we must not say, as you did above, <I>"so, here's to sinning boldly."</I> Paul continues from the verse quoted above: <BR/><BR/><I><B>"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"</I></B><BR/><BR/>NO! We must not "sin boldly" in the sense that phrase is understood by people. We must flee from sin straight to the cross. Of course we will continue to <I>fall</I> into sin because of our weakness and sinfulness. But we must not resign ourselves to <I>living</I> in sin.<BR/><BR/>I understand that you are not convinced of my biblical argument at this point, Lauren. I really haven't even begun to present it yet! <BR/><BR/>Thanks, all, for your patience.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>CasparErich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1138069272387660012006-01-23T21:21:00.000-05:002006-01-23T21:21:00.000-05:00As I imagined, comments slowed when Caspar posted ...As I imagined, comments slowed when Caspar posted that all contraception is sin. What then is there to talk about regarding NFP, the Pill, etc? Nothing, I guess. However, I remain unconvinced that planning your family is sinful (even from the passages in Scripture), so, here's to sinning boldly and forgiveness! <BR/><BR/>*maybe this will spark some conversation*Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1138038369309925412006-01-23T12:46:00.000-05:002006-01-23T12:46:00.000-05:00Sarah,Rhetorical skill rests upon three basic mode...Sarah,<BR/><BR/>Rhetorical skill rests upon three basic modes of persuasion:<BR/><BR/>1. Reasoning (Logic) - this is the argument, and what I said is fact: if the premises are true, and the logic is valid, reasonable people cannot disagree with the conclusion. If all participants of a discussion are using logic, and being careful not to be swayed by the next two modes of persuasion, all will agree in the end.<BR/><BR/>2. The Ethical Appeal - the speaker's character as revealed in the presentation makes you believe his argument, irrespective of the actual valitity of the reasoning or the truth of the premises.<BR/><BR/>3. The Emotional Appeal - the presentation of the argument is such that it elicits the emotions desired in the audience to accept your argument and act upon it - think of Mark Antony's speech at Caesar's funeral (Shakespeare), again irrespective of the logic.<BR/><BR/>I am obviously not very good at #2 and #3. My character seems to be in question already, as I have been accused of being <I>"rather harsh and condescending to individuals on this blog."</I><BR/><BR/>My emotional appeal is also very weak. My "radical, extreme" position against family planning is one which elicits the most negative emotions from people. It is completely contrary to the postmodern way of thinking. It intrudes in the most relentless way on concept of individual rights as it prohibits the "right to choose" how many (if any) children to bear.<BR/><BR/>No, Sarah, you need not be afraid of my rhetorical skills in this instance. I am a logical thinker, and will continue to present my position in a simple logical format, regardless how "heartless" it may make me sound and regardless how many negative emotions it elicits - NOT because I don't care about people's feelings, nor because I desire to make them mad, but rather because I am apparently not gifted in the ability to appeal to people in that way. <BR/><BR/>At least you know I'm not trying to trick you. What you see is what you get. If my premises and untrue, and/or my reasoning invalid, all I have to present are qualities of speech which seem to repel most people. In any case, there's nothing "clever" about it in the sense that you need be wary of me. I know I'm not going to convince you or anyone else unless what I present is true.<BR/><BR/>CasparErich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1137779619119600662006-01-20T12:53:00.000-05:002006-01-20T12:53:00.000-05:00Chris,Thanks for your comment. I hope no one feel...Chris,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment. I hope no one feels they have to wait to comment on anything. Please, feel free to comment on the LCR document.<BR/><BR/>CasparErich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1137778401180232852006-01-20T12:33:00.000-05:002006-01-20T12:33:00.000-05:00"If the evidence indicates my premises are true, a..."If the evidence indicates my premises are true, and my logic is valid, then reasonable people cannot disagree with my position in the end - even if you still don't agree. ;-)"<BR/><BR/>I am wary of clever arguments sometimes. <BR/><BR/>As many lawyers know, the TRUTH is of no concern in a court of law. The "winners" tend to be the ones with the greatest rhetorical skill. It is altogether possible for someone to hold the TRUTH and not have the skills to articulate it.Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18122162947646462967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1137768980453777052006-01-20T09:56:00.000-05:002006-01-20T09:56:00.000-05:00Ok, Thanks for answering. :)Ok, Thanks for answering. :)Devonahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768505492952325016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1137761487119646092006-01-20T07:51:00.000-05:002006-01-20T07:51:00.000-05:00Yes, Devona, I did. He's been very busy but is pl...Yes, Devona, I did. He's been very busy but is planning to get back to the blog soon.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1137733001505092182006-01-19T23:56:00.000-05:002006-01-19T23:56:00.000-05:00I'm relatively new to this blog but have been foll...I'm relatively new to this blog but have been following it intently since I discovered it a few weeks ago. Although I've never commented, I check for new comments from others every day.<BR/><BR/>To be candid, I'm rather disappointed that we have to wait for your evidence before discussing the LCR document. I hope it's not too long before you post again.<BR/><BR/>I'm looking forward to the discussion being centered on Biblical arguments. I really enjoy this blog.<BR/><BR/>ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1137719636731748602006-01-19T20:13:00.000-05:002006-01-19T20:13:00.000-05:00Caspar, did you get Pr. Rufner's permission to cha...Caspar, did you get Pr. Rufner's permission to change the format of the blog? <BR/><BR/>I haven't heard from him for a while. I was wondering what is going on.Devonahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17768505492952325016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1137703160390213612006-01-19T15:39:00.000-05:002006-01-19T15:39:00.000-05:00Eric,My intent of throwing out the LCR position do...Eric,<BR/><BR/>My intent of throwing out the LCR position document was merely a starting point prior to the arguments. The supporting arguments will come in subsequent posts. As I said, "I would like to present the entire biblical evidence first in short form in this post and then move through it point by point in subsequent posts according to individual biblical arguments."<BR/><BR/>The LCR document is not complete in its explanation of the biblical evidence, but it does present it in the best concise organized format I seen. Evidence approves premises. Premises are not arguments. This evidence is not organized in the LCR document exactly the way I will make my argument, but it presents virtually all of it in an organized way. <BR/><BR/>In order to support my position, I must take the biblical evidence and through argument prove a conclusion. I have not begun that yet. I'm sorry you expected my supporting argument in this post. By way of the LCR document, I'm just giving biblical citations for those readers who are truly engaged in this discussion to begin investigating.<BR/><BR/>If the evidence indicates my premises are true, and my logic is valid, then reasonable people cannot disagree with my position in the end - even if you still don't agree. ;-)<BR/><BR/>CasparErich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1137684505895138492006-01-19T10:28:00.000-05:002006-01-19T10:28:00.000-05:00Caspar,Of the 10 points in the LCR statement, the ...Caspar,<BR/><BR/>Of the 10 points in the LCR statement, the only one that actually supports your radical position is #8, which also happens to be the one in the list that makes no exegetical sense.<BR/><BR/>When you begin a post by saying that all "family planning" is sin, and the post is so very long, one might expect to find something more than that by way of a supporting argument.<BR/><BR/>Oh, also, it's unlikely you are going to find any interlocutors who agree to the way you group contraception and abortion together under the heading of "family planning" for "purposes of this discussion." That's nonsense, man. Next we can have a discussion of the sinfulness of "vocation planning" where "for the purposes of discussion" we equate the desire to be a soldier and the desire to be a hitman.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.com