tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.comments2023-12-05T19:10:42.635-05:00Lutherans and ProcreationErich Heidenreich, DDShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comBlogger1593125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-38684176039371863442023-12-05T19:10:42.635-05:002023-12-05T19:10:42.635-05:00I appreciate the positive community your blog has ...I appreciate the positive community your blog has built. It's a joy to be a part of.Malwinahttps://issuu.com/online-bets.io-casino-reviewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-77290626932805552612023-08-12T08:49:10.972-04:002023-08-12T08:49:10.972-04:00Wrong link sorry. It’s actually this one: https://...Wrong link sorry. It’s actually this one: https://www.scribd.com/document/74962251/Should-Christian-Couples-Use-Contraception-3rd-EdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-17154854890609747582023-08-12T08:48:09.384-04:002023-08-12T08:48:09.384-04:00This link is outdated. Try this one: https://www.y...This link is outdated. Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljn1WLbei0g&t=669sAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-33341021791861217512021-01-17T18:18:44.469-05:002021-01-17T18:18:44.469-05:00So fascinating that this is a called a Lutheran we...So fascinating that this is a called a Lutheran website and this is titled as a post about the Lutheran position on procreation, yet you are talking more about Catholicism. Clearly you "think" you knw and understand the Catholic position but you are missing what the full position is and what the church actually means by what she teaches. You don't have to be Catholic but please stop maligning this church within your personal views and persona interpretations of what you clearly do not understand.<br /><br />Many converts to the Catholic Faith from all denominations of protestant Christianity, and there are many, so very many, often speak of needing tie to understand the way Catholicism uses terms and words for it often differs from protestants. I know this because I walk closely with many converts who have fallen in love with Catholicism and realize what they did not see and understand about Catholicism when looking at it through protestant lenses.<br /><br />So, believe and think what you want but stop maligning the Catholic church you do not know. Beware, you just may find Jesus asking you one day why you slandered His church and your brothers and sisters in His Mystical Body!<br /><br />Mercyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10019578069153111394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-38930430026669589822018-08-20T20:51:31.992-04:002018-08-20T20:51:31.992-04:00Thanks for sharing this.Thanks for sharing this.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-3323782779031171962017-11-30T00:11:22.890-05:002017-11-30T00:11:22.890-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Lace Bernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09895175789845476091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-2498192345516411102016-01-15T20:16:34.431-05:002016-01-15T20:16:34.431-05:00Your multiple comments are ludicrous. Luther is co...Your multiple comments are ludicrous. Luther is correctly conveying the consistent, catholic, Christian and biblical principle that sex should be enjoyed in moderation, not in fervent lust like non-rational beasts. Your comment posits a false dichotomy: that sex either should be enjoyed, or should not be enjoyed. The Lutheran position about sex is that, like a fine wine, it should SHOULD be enjoyed, but in MODERATION.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-56469319874622794772016-01-15T20:13:08.053-05:002016-01-15T20:13:08.053-05:00So, in other words, you might have to do it, but y...So, in other words, you might have to do it, but you better not enjoy it. Do you treat your food like that too?elderdxchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18071222328972267419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-22363011319481145982016-01-15T20:12:57.056-05:002016-01-15T20:12:57.056-05:00So, in other words, you might have to do it, but y...So, in other words, you might have to do it, but you better not enjoy it. Do you treat your food like that too?elderdxchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18071222328972267419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-49477909143858238032014-11-21T09:31:00.990-05:002014-11-21T09:31:00.990-05:00Wow, thank you so much for this post! I'm prep...Wow, thank you so much for this post! I'm preparing to write a series on the Proverbs 31 woman in different walks of life, but as a Lutheran studying to be a church worker, I can't believe I missed the blatant Christology in this passage! This certainly changes my entire perspective on the series. God's blessings!Dakotah Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652024837056678662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-80816701315071027432014-09-09T21:53:39.495-04:002014-09-09T21:53:39.495-04:00Just finished reading it. Well done! Nothing new h...Just finished reading it. Well done! Nothing new here that I haven't already seen and argued myself, but it is orthodox and well presented . Over half of the book is a review/refutation of Alfred Rehwinkel's arguments as presented in his 1959 book Planned Parenthood. This is a relatively effective method of exposing many of the common arguments in favor of contraception, though not an exhaustive one. It is a brief book (91 pages), though not as brief as Pr. Heath Curtis's pamphlet. It would be a very good resource to share with those beginning a more thorough study of the issue. It's a blessing to have this in print!Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-28361992600183144472014-06-17T09:48:44.500-04:002014-06-17T09:48:44.500-04:00"See now I had the idea that Luther’s underst..."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."<br /><br />This is a distinction without a difference, Micah. What God commands and blesses through HIs Word, He effects, and expects man to do.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Certainly God commands His Church to do these things, and He blesses His creatures through His redeeming Word.<br /><br />Yet willfully going against His institution and command would be sinful, that is, morally wrong.<br /><br />Robert C. Baker<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-58072191035495096902014-06-17T09:22:14.614-04:002014-06-17T09:22:14.614-04:00Hey so I realize that I’m a bit late to this conve...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: <br />“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. <b> Rather, He was commanding His human creation to marry, beget and raise children, </b> apart from those granted an extraordinary exception (Mat. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:8-9. <br />These are all "proof texts" marshaled by various Orthodox Lutherans to support and confirm marriage.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /> <br />Micah B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-36534575295984603562014-06-12T17:43:53.174-04:002014-06-12T17:43:53.174-04:00I think that Erich's further explanation merit...I think that Erich's further explanation merits a retraction from Bill. But will he get it?<br /><br />Robert C. BakerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-79512735272664624912014-06-12T17:04:45.306-04:002014-06-12T17:04:45.306-04:00I have nothing against you personally, Rev. Cwirla...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 <i>ad hominem</i> falacy at all. Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-13042568497149339702014-06-12T16:59:05.967-04:002014-06-12T16:59:05.967-04:00Not exactly, Rev. Cwirla. I was actually referrin...Not exactly, Rev. Cwirla. I was actually referring to your acceptance of birth control, not you personally. I followed up immediately with this clarification: <i>"In other words, treating this subject solely with gift language allows for the modern view that contraception itself is a gift from God."</i>Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-68114005296353162462014-06-12T16:50:10.366-04:002014-06-12T16:50:10.366-04:00"The fact that Rev.Cwirla agrees with that po..."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.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-47863640984865122642014-06-12T15:14:31.476-04:002014-06-12T15:14:31.476-04:00Contrast Rev. Richard with St. Paul, who’ll I’ll b...Contrast Rev. Richard with St. Paul, who’ll I’ll back any day:<br /><br />“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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />This is what these young “confessional” guys don’t get. And the LCMS will suffer greatly because of it.<br /><br />Robert C. Baker 3b/3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-65563978157204740992014-06-12T15:13:50.500-04:002014-06-12T15:13:50.500-04:00Why do I mention that? Because the chief philosoph...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.)<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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!!!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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).<br /><br />Taken right out of the old, liberal handbook.<br /><br />Note some additional, awful, antibiblical and anticonfesional thinking here, this time from Rev. Matthew Richard:<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />Robert C. Baker 3a/3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-47735793590315373752014-06-12T15:12:10.062-04:002014-06-12T15:12:10.062-04:00Erich recalled to our minds, abstract theological ...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. <br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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!?!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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!).<br /><br />Robert C. Baker 2/3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-75833306558864695512014-06-12T15:11:14.182-04:002014-06-12T15:11:14.182-04:00I agree with Erich that this conversation has been...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:<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Robert C. Baker 1/3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-32044897269372397592014-06-11T19:52:54.594-04:002014-06-11T19:52:54.594-04:00That's where the law comes in, to the ones rej...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />And now, I must be done with this post. Sadly, the Lutheran problem of arguing with those whom we actually agree has taken over. <br /><br />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.)Christopher Amenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04941831321863980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-1645135209476586662014-06-11T19:39:18.132-04:002014-06-11T19:39:18.132-04:00In other words, treating this subject solely with ...In other words, treating this subject solely with gift language allows for the modern view that contraception itself is a gift from God.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-91165519983565442382014-06-11T19:39:17.017-04:002014-06-11T19:39:17.017-04:00Great to use the text as presented Erich.
Also, ...Great to use the text as presented Erich. <br /><br />Also, just curious, since when did "blessing" become "law"? Since it is in the blessing of Genesis 1 that this all stems.Christopher Amenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04941831321863980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18631784.post-65742058711775568732014-06-11T19:35:43.659-04:002014-06-11T19:35:43.659-04:00The fact that Rev.Cwirla agrees with that post sho...The fact that Rev.Cwirla agrees with that post shows it is inconsistent with the beliefs of this blog.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.com