Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

If I had to guess, JW is probably exploiting an early, pre-Catholic tenant of Christian theology since Christians still believe in coffin burials, specifically to preserve the body.

Not for my denomination (LCMS), or those I am familiar with. Which Christians are you referring to?

... Mountaineer

[Ad Orientem]

I never quite understood the idea that burial in a coffin "preserves" the body, as opposed to cremation. First, the body still rots away in the grave, and second, I think the Creator of the Universe is probably able to reconstruct a body from ash just as easily as from dust and bone.

when creamation was proposed as a denial of the resurrection of the body...the Church opposed creamation.

Until fairly recently (the mid 20th century) almost all Christian denominations forbade cremation as a pagan practice. Now that situation has come full circle. I think even the Roman Catholics have caved. The Orthodox still prohibit it, but I think we are alone on this.

[Xan]

LCMS has no official position on it.  I certainly don't like it, and think it should be discouraged (without some good reason).  But then I also don't like the whole process of huge thick expensive fancy caskets, of mutilation of the corpse (embalming), etc.  I'd like to be wrapped in a burlap sack and buried next to a tree or something.

[Mountaineer]

I thought it might be interesting to post some material on "free will" or lack thereof.  Many people I know say they have "free will", i.e. can find God or make a decision to follow Christ; note that this discussion is dealing with how one is saved, not with what you are going to have for dinner tonight.  Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam had this debate almost 500 years ago.  I believe Luther got it right.  It is interesting to read the Scriptural references and Luther's conclusions (see link). 

Here is an excerpt from the summary of the condensed version of "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther:

"Here is another example. If you use human reason to consider the way God rules the affairs of the world, you are forced to say either that there is no God or that God is unjust. The wicked prosper and the good suffer (see Job 12:6; Psalm 73:12)—and that appears to be unjust. So, many men deny the existence of God and say that everything happens by chance.

The answer to this problem is that there is life after this life, and all that is not punished and repaid here will be punished and repaid there. This life is nothing more than a preparation for, or rather, a beginning of the life that is to come. This problem has been debated in every age but is never solved, except by believing the Gospel as found in the Bible. Three lights shine on the problem: the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory. By the light of nature, God seems to be unjust, for the good suffer and the wicked prosper. The light of grace helps us further, but it does not explain how God can condemn someone who, by his own strength, can do nothing but sin and be guilty. Only the light of glory will explain this, on that coming Day when God will reveal Himself as a God Who is entirely just, although His judgment is beyond the understanding of human beings.  A godly man believes that God foreknows and foreordains all things, and that nothing happens except by His will. No man, or angel, or any other creature, therefore, has a “free will.”? Satan is the prince of this world and holds all men in bondage unless they are released by the power of the Holy Spirit."

http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/4913 ... 3/botw.pdf

... Mountaineer

[Tortoise]

I thought it might be interesting to post some material on "free will" or lack thereof.  Many people I know say they have "free will", i.e. can find God or make a decision to follow Christ; note that this discussion is dealing with how one is saved, not with what you are going to have for dinner tonight.  Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam had this debate almost 500 years ago.  I believe Luther got it right.  It is interesting to read the Scriptural references and Luther's conclusions (see link). 

Here is an excerpt from the summary of the condensed version of "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther:

"Here is another example. If you use human reason to consider the way God rules the affairs of the world, you are forced to say either that there is no God or that God is unjust. The wicked prosper and the good suffer (see Job 12:6; Psalm 73:12)—and that appears to be unjust. So, many men deny the existence of God and say that everything happens by chance.

The answer to this problem is that there is life after this life, and all that is not punished and repaid here will be punished and repaid there. This life is nothing more than a preparation for, or rather, a beginning of the life that is to come. This problem has been debated in every age but is never solved, except by believing the Gospel as found in the Bible. Three lights shine on the problem: the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory. By the light of nature, God seems to be unjust, for the good suffer and the wicked prosper. The light of grace helps us further, but it does not explain how God can condemn someone who, by his own strength, can do nothing but sin and be guilty. Only the light of glory will explain this, on that coming Day when God will reveal Himself as a God Who is entirely just, although His judgment is beyond the understanding of human beings.  A godly man believes that God foreknows and foreordains all things, and that nothing happens except by His will. No man, or angel, or any other creature, therefore, has a “free will.”? Satan is the prince of this world and holds all men in bondage unless they are released by the power of the Holy Spirit."

http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/4913 ... 3/botw.pdf

... Mountaineer

Thanks for the link, Mountaineer.

Most of the Scriptural references in those arguments come from Paul's Epistles, which usually seems to be the case with Lutheran and Reformed theologians who are defending the idea that man lacks free will to even attempt to align himself with God.

But one thing I noticed is that in the Gospels, several times Jesus rebuked his disciples (and other people) for lacking faith. (One example was when he was sleeping on the boat in the middle of a big storm, and his frightened disciples woke him up to save them.) He also complimented certain people such as the Roman centurion for having great faith. If faith comes from God, not from any effort on the part of man, why would Jesus ever rebuke or compliment his disciples--or anyone--for lacking or possessing faith as if they had some control over it?

[Mountaineer]

I thought it might be interesting to post some material on "free will" or lack thereof.  Many people I know say they have "free will", i.e. can find God or make a decision to follow Christ; note that this discussion is dealing with how one is saved, not with what you are going to have for dinner tonight.  Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam had this debate almost 500 years ago.  I believe Luther got it right.  It is interesting to read the Scriptural references and Luther's conclusions (see link). 

Here is an excerpt from the summary of the condensed version of "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther:

"Here is another example. If you use human reason to consider the way God rules the affairs of the world, you are forced to say either that there is no God or that God is unjust. The wicked prosper and the good suffer (see Job 12:6; Psalm 73:12)—and that appears to be unjust. So, many men deny the existence of God and say that everything happens by chance.

The answer to this problem is that there is life after this life, and all that is not punished and repaid here will be punished and repaid there. This life is nothing more than a preparation for, or rather, a beginning of the life that is to come. This problem has been debated in every age but is never solved, except by believing the Gospel as found in the Bible. Three lights shine on the problem: the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory. By the light of nature, God seems to be unjust, for the good suffer and the wicked prosper. The light of grace helps us further, but it does not explain how God can condemn someone who, by his own strength, can do nothing but sin and be guilty. Only the light of glory will explain this, on that coming Day when God will reveal Himself as a God Who is entirely just, although His judgment is beyond the understanding of human beings.  A godly man believes that God foreknows and foreordains all things, and that nothing happens except by His will. No man, or angel, or any other creature, therefore, has a “free will.”? Satan is the prince of this world and holds all men in bondage unless they are released by the power of the Holy Spirit."

http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/4913 ... 3/botw.pdf

... Mountaineer

Thanks for the link, Mountaineer.

Most of the Scriptural references in those arguments come from Paul's Epistles, which usually seems to be the case with Lutheran and Reformed theologians who are defending the idea that man lacks free will to even attempt to align himself with God.

But one thing I noticed is that in the Gospels, several times Jesus rebuked his disciples (and other people) for lacking faith. (One example was when he was sleeping on the boat in the middle of a big storm, and his frightened disciples woke him up to save them.) He also complimented certain people such as the Roman centurion for having great faith. If faith comes from God, not from any effort on the part of man, why would Jesus ever rebuke or compliment his disciples--or anyone--for lacking or possessing faith as if they had some control over it?

Tortoise,

That is an excellent question for which I have no immediate answer.  I'll have to consult with my Pastor and/or those with more expertise than I have.  Hopefully, I'll be able to post something in a couple of days.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Thanks for the link, Mountaineer.

Most of the Scriptural references in those arguments come from Paul's Epistles, which usually seems to be the case with Lutheran and Reformed theologians who are defending the idea that man lacks free will to even attempt to align himself with God.

But one thing I noticed is that in the Gospels, several times Jesus rebuked his disciples (and other people) for lacking faith. (One example was when he was sleeping on the boat in the middle of a big storm, and his frightened disciples woke him up to save them.) He also complimented certain people such as the Roman centurion for having great faith. If faith comes from God, not from any effort on the part of man, why would Jesus ever rebuke or compliment his disciples--or anyone--for lacking or possessing faith as if they had some control over it?

Tortoise,

I had coffee with my Pastor this morning and we discussed your question.  The underlying theology for the answer is:  We are dead in our sin (see the first part of Ephesians chapter 2) and there is nothing we can do on our own to find God, increase our faith, get faith, etc.; it is all the work of the Holy Spirit after we hear the Word.  Being dead in our sin is like the person who dies on the operating table - there is nothing he can do to revive himself; it all depends on the external source (the doctor and his staff) to bring him back to life.  So it is with us and being dead in our sin; only God can restore us to a life without sin (dimly now and brightly after our resurrection).  Another analogy would be like a person deciding to be conceived and born; it is an impossibility to do without the external sources (dad and mom) making it happen.

So, for the two passages you mention (the boat and the centurion), in the boat situation Jesus tells his disciples they have little faith.  This passage makes us wonder, in the bigger picture, why God gives some people faith and does not give faith to others; unfortunately, that is a question for which there is no answer revealed in Scripture.  So, that question is us trying to understand the mind of God, which in essence is us wanting to be like God or thinking we can do what we want on our own in spite of what God reveals to us or tells us (i.e. the original sin).  Thus, “Why some and not others?”? is a question we should refrain from asking.  (A side note - God reveals to us in Scripture everything we need to know to be saved, but not everything we want to know.)  In the second passage you mention, Jesus is complimenting the centurion in the presence of others to make a point or an example of what it looks like to have great faith; in that passage it seems easier to understand what is going on, but, once again, why Jesus chooses to do that we do not know - Scripture does not address it.

... Mountaineer

[murphy_p_t]

Jesus also said that if we have faith the size of a mustard seed...

[Tortoise]

Tortoise,

I had coffee with my Pastor this morning and we discussed your question.  The underlying theology for the answer is:  We are dead in our sin (see the first part of Ephesians chapter 2) and there is nothing we can do on our own to find God, increase our faith, get faith, etc.; it is all the work of the Holy Spirit after we hear the Word.  Being dead in our sin is like the person who dies on the operating table - there is nothing he can do to revive himself; it all depends on the external source (the doctor and his staff) to bring him back to life.  So it is with us and being dead in our sin; only God can restore us to a life without sin (dimly now and brightly after our resurrection).  Another analogy would be like a person deciding to be conceived and born; it is an impossibility to do without the external sources (dad and mom) making it happen.

So, for the two passages you mention (the boat and the centurion), in the boat situation Jesus tells his disciples they have little faith.  This passage makes us wonder, in the bigger picture, why God gives some people faith and does not give faith to others; unfortunately, that is a question for which there is no answer revealed in Scripture.  So, that question is us trying to understand the mind of God, which in essence is us wanting to be like God or thinking we can do what we want on our own in spite of what God reveals to us or tells us (i.e. the original sin).  Thus, “Why some and not others?”? is a question we should refrain from asking.  (A side note - God reveals to us in Scripture everything we need to know to be saved, but not everything we want to know.)  In the second passage you mention, Jesus is complimenting the centurion in the presence of others to make a point or an example of what it looks like to have great faith; in that passage it seems easier to understand what is going on, but, once again, why Jesus chooses to do that we do not know - Scripture does not address it.

... Mountaineer

Many thanks for taking the time to discuss my question with your pastor when you met up with him for coffee. I'm honored!

So it sounds like your pastor is interpreting those two faith-related Gospel passages not as Jesus commending or rebuking those people on their faith or lack thereof, but rather as Jesus pointing out what faith is--what it looks like. Interesting.

The doctrine of total depravity is one of the most challenging things for me as I continue to learn more about the theology of certain Christian traditions like Lutheranism and Calvinism. I have no idea why God would confuse me by giving me the illusion that I have free will to trust Him or turn away from Him, if I don't in fact have such free will. Free will (including choosing to seek God) seems to me roughly as fundamental to my existence as the fact that I exist and light is the opposite of dark. One thing I notice is that almost all of the Scriptural arguments I see people make in favor of the doctrine of total depravity come from the Epistles of Paul. That's understandable since the Epistles comprise a good portion of the New Testament, but nevertheless, Paul is not the entire Bible. At times I feel like Paul-centric arguments would be more even-handed and have a broader Biblical context if they were compared and reconciled with verses outside of the Epistles that present a slightly different perspective than Paul's.

To take another example from the Gospels:

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:7-11, ESV)

In that passage, Jesus seems to be inviting his would-be children to take action. He didn't say, "Don't bother asking, because it has already been given to you." He said if you want it, ask. He didn't say, "Don't bother seeking, because you have already found it." He said if you want to find it, seek. He didn't say, "Don't bother knocking, because it has already been opened to you." He said if you want it to be opened to you, knock. These all sound to me like imperative statements about what we should do--what we ought to do--not just descriptions of what the grace of the Holy Spirit looks like when it is animating spiritual zombies.

Another example is in Mark 9:24. The father of a demon-possessed child asked Jesus, "If you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us." To which Jesus replied, "'If you can'! All things are possible for one who believes." And then the child's father cried out, "I believe; help my unbelief!" So what we have here is a man who apparently wants to believe, and kind of imitates a man who truly believes by outwardly saying "I believe," but inwardly recognizes that his belief might not be genuine--so he asks Jesus to help his unbelief. Either his prayer is pointless since he's not asking Jesus in faith (remember, he lacks faith and needs it), or else the Holy Spirit is already in him and his prayer isn't actually needed because he must already have faith for the Holy Spirit to be in him. It seems like we can either view this as yet another divine paradox, or we can more logically see it as an illustration that God sometimes waits for us to put forth a little human effort in the vertical realm and ask Him for His grace before he bestows it on us. ("Ask, and it will be given to you.") Grace is defined as free and unmerited favor, but can't grace still be grace even if we sometimes have to ask for it or reach out and grab it? Not as a way of "deserving" it, but simply as a way of letting God know that we really want it?

[Mountaineer]

Tortoise,

This is not an answer to your questions, but I do think you might find this helpful.  It discusses the differences between Lutheranism and several other church bodies and gives Scriptural references.  The original is a pdf file you can find with a Google search.  This link is a Google conversion from pdf to html.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

I also think your questions are really good ones.  The best advice that I could offer is for you to find an LCMS church with a Pastor you can relate to.  A conversation in person would be of much more value to you than an email exchange since you could followup the "answers" with additional questions on the spot.  Based on the LCMS Pastors that I know, they would heartily welcome such an interchange.  I'd same the same strategy would be useful for any other denomination you think you may wish to know more about.

Back to your questions:  The fundamental way that the LCMS interprets Scripture is - Scripture is God breathed and inerrant when taken in context.  Clearer passages interpret more nebulous passages.  Scriptures are interpreted in a Christo-centric manner.  It is essential to distinguish between Law and Gospel - Law commands, Gospel frees and saves - both are God's Word.  Personally, I sometimes view Paul's writings as the original commentary.  I expect you would gain much insight into Lutheran theology (which in my opinion is just Christian theology) if you have the time to read the Book of Concord which summarizes the Lutheran confessions; it is available online.  http://bookofconcord.org 

... Mountaineer

[ns3]

Even talks a little about free will.....

http://www.fredoneverything.net/PondScum.shtml

[Mountaineer]

This post on doctrine (teaching) may be informative to some, boring to others .... anyway, here it is.

... Mountaineer

Why Heart Disease And Traumatic Head Injuries Should Be Avoided
April 24th, 2014 - Post by Pastor Matt Richard

Signs and symptoms - When advocating for correct Biblical doctrine there will always be that one person who responds, “We are not saved by pure doctrine. You are a doctrinal Pharisee advocating for a salvation by works.”? This refutation brings up a very valid point. Does doctrine matter and if it does, how much doctrine must be pure if one is to remain a Christian?

Dr. Robert Kolb in his book The Christian Faith presents an excellent metaphor that helps us understand the serious threat that incorrect doctrine has upon Christian thought. His metaphor of the human body also allows us to understand that even though incorrect theology is destructive, it does not necessarily result in one becoming apostate. Finally, his metaphor assists us in understanding that the question, “How much doctrine must be pure if one is to remain a Christian,”? is simply the wrong kind of question to ask. He states,

Some people define biblical teaching as a series of topics. Like pearls on a string, these topics are all roughly of equal importance for them. If we conceive of doctrine in this way, we could say that losing any one pearl has about the same effect on the whole of biblical teaching as losing any other pearl. Some people could say that you dare not lose any pearl if you are to be dressed for the host of the heavenly banquet. Others could say that as long as you have a pearl or two left on the string, you are ready to be received at his table.

Others conceive of biblical teaching as a wheel, with a hub and spokes and rim. They suggest that wheels cannot exist without hub and rim and some spokes, but other spokes may be broken without immobilizing the wheel.

Neither of these metaphors adequately describes the nature of biblical teaching. It is better to compare the doctrine of the Scripture to a human body. The body of doctrine cannot exist if Christ the head is decapitated. It dies without the heart of our understanding of how we become right with God pumping away—although the heart, the doctrine of justification, may be partially diseased and still pump, it is true. This was evident in the medieval church, where preachers put a high but false premium on good works and still pointed people to Christ’s saving blood. We see this in contemporary Christians who empathize the contribution of our own personal decision in coming to Christ and still try to cultivate trust in his grace.

If an arm, the doctrine of Baptism, for example, is severed, the body may be able to survive. But it may hemorrhage and die. If the leg of the doctrine of the church become paralyzed, the body may survive, but it will be crippled at best, and it may fall down in a heap and crack the head, too.

So the question, “How much doctrine must be pure if one is to remain a Christian?”? is simply a wrong kind of question. The whole of our conveying of biblical teaching needs to be accurate and on target—both because believers need to know what God wants us to know and because God’s Word is true. Nonetheless, sinful doctrinal error does not always break our relationship with the Lord even though it makes it more tenuous.[1]

Applying this metaphor to a contemporary example we can derive that one who embraces the tenets of the Church Growth Movement should not automatically be considered an unconverted pagan outside the Christian faith, but rather a person who walks with a serious limp due to their doctrine of the church (i.e., leg) being influenced by inflated anthropological assumptions. Consider another example, a person who embraces decision theology from the old Semi-Pelagian American Revivals of the nineteenth-century is not necessarily one who is completely lost, but one who tragically has heart disease (i.e., heart of justification is infected with free will theology). Thus, these examples are not necessarily people who specifically reject Christ as the head or promote decapitation. These examples are not necessarily people who reject Justification or celebrate heart disease. Rather, they are individuals whose body of doctrine is unknowingly ill in some areas and possibly healthy in other areas. They are individuals who are at risk of a heart attack and traumatic head injury. They are at risk of losing justification due to their free will theology infecting the heart. They are at risk of the doctrine of Christ being traumatically struck due to their faulty anthropological assumptions weakening the leg; a leg that may give out causing the whole body of doctrine to fall.

Furthermore, this metaphor also helps in showing the motives of those advocating for pure doctrine. Otherwise stated, those advocating for pure doctrine are not advocating for works righteousness by doctrine, but are fighting against false theologies that damn, distort, and poison a person’s body of doctrine. They are not advocating pure theology to meet a certain doctrinal purity quota for a salvific payout, but rather are promoting purity of doctrinal truths for the health of God’s saints.

Finally, this metaphor helps us understand why correct theology matters. It matters because it is indeed important to guard Christ and the doctrine of Justification. It matters because it is indeed important to take note of false theology within secondary doctrines that can advertently and inadvertently impact the head (i.e., Christ) and heart (i.e., Justification).

As a closing point, this metaphor allows us to consider this subject within a compassionate pastoral framework, a framework that causes one to assess a person’s error in light of its seriousness and location in the body of doctrine, which then allows one to assess the proportional corrective response that is needed.

———————-

[1] Robert Kolb, The Christian Faith: A Lutheran Exposition (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1993), 13-14.

[murphy_p_t]

Mountaineer,
I am glad to learn more about the beliefs of the Missouri Synod from your postings. I have a high regard for people of the LCMS as my best friend from HS is of that denomination. I note that you encourage people to speak w. a LCMS pastor. Is this a contradiction with the idea of "Sola Scriptura"? More broadly, the need to seek guidance from someone as an authority to interpret the scripture as opposed to each reader making their own interpretation?

How do you know that an LCMS pastor is a better authority on the interpretation of scripture than, for example, Thomas Aquinas? Or Joseph Ratzinger?

Furthermore, what is the source of the doctrine, "Sola Scriptura"? Can this be found in the Bible?

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,
I am glad to learn more about the beliefs of the Missouri Synod from your postings. I have a high regard for people of the LCMS as my best friend from HS is of that denomination. I note that you encourage people to speak w. a LCMS pastor. Is this a contradiction with the idea of "Sola Scriptura"?
Not in my opinion.  Sola Scriptura means the revealed Word of God comes from the Scriptures, not for example, from what I might stand on a street corner and proclaim.  It does not mean other sources are completely irrelevant, just that Scripture has primacy.

More broadly, the need to seek guidance from someone as an authority to interpret the scripture as opposed to each reader making their own interpretation?
Again, not in my opinion.  The benefit to me of a Pastor is that (in the LCMS) he can read and understand the original languages, in addition to having studied Theology.  He will be well versed in helping one understand the various interpretative debates that have taken place throughout history.

How do you know that an LCMS pastor is a better authority on the interpretation of scripture than, for example, Thomas Aquinas? Or Joseph Ratzinger?
I can't say with 100% certainty that he is.  All I can do is read and study the Scriptures, go to where I receive Jesus (via Word and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper) according to where Jesus says He is, study doctrinal information and pray.  At some point, I have to discern truth by the reason, faith and knowledge God has given me.  So far in my life, that is in the teachings of the LCMS, which is as I've stated before, is nothing but the teachings of Christianity. 

Furthermore, what is the source of the doctrine, "Sola Scriptura"? Can this be found in the Bible?
The term came from the Protestant Reformation.  You can find an overwhelming amount of pro and con discussion via a Google search.  This link may be helpful to sort through some of the basics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura  .

... Mountaineer

[Tortoise]

Tortoise,

This is not an answer to your questions, but I do think you might find this helpful.  It discusses the differences between Lutheranism and several other church bodies and gives Scriptural references.  The original is a pdf file you can find with a Google search.  This link is a Google conversion from pdf to html.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

I also think your questions are really good ones.  The best advice that I could offer is for you to find an LCMS church with a Pastor you can relate to.  A conversation in person would be of much more value to you than an email exchange since you could followup the "answers" with additional questions on the spot.  Based on the LCMS Pastors that I know, they would heartily welcome such an interchange.  I'd same the same strategy would be useful for any other denomination you think you may wish to know more about.

Back to your questions:  The fundamental way that the LCMS interprets Scripture is - Scripture is God breathed and inerrant when taken in context.  Clearer passages interpret more nebulous passages.  Scriptures are interpreted in a Christo-centric manner.  It is essential to distinguish between Law and Gospel - Law commands, Gospel frees and saves - both are God's Word.  Personally, I sometimes view Paul's writings as the original commentary.  I expect you would gain much insight into Lutheran theology (which in my opinion is just Christian theology) if you have the time to read the Book of Concord which summarizes the Lutheran confessions; it is available online.  http://bookofconcord.org 

... Mountaineer

Okay, I'll give those a read. And I agree, it would probably be a good thing for me to sit down with a pastor or two and grill them on theology at some point.

Just last night I happened to listen to a really good White Horse Inn podcast from 3/10/2013 in which they discussed John chapters 13-15. And interestingly enough, in those chapters Jesus reiterates "Ask and it shall be given to you," but with the clarification that he's not addressing everybody--only those whom he has already chosen. And he specifically says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you..." (John 15:16). That's actually in pretty close agreement with Paul's writings on grace. (Dammit, Paul, sometimes I wish I could write you off as a loony, but it's like you're always right! Showoff.)

I still have a lot to learn. Thanks for being patient with everyone's questions, Mountaineer, including my own. You're doing Christ's work!

[ns3]

In my earliest Christian days I was once a member of a Lutheran Church. I can't tell you what branch of Lutheranism it was but I know it was not the Missouri Synod because I remember hearing that we were somehow not "in fellowship" with them (actually, to be precise I believe they weren't in fellowship with us because we were the bad guys). There were even two factions in the same church meeting at separate times because they disagreed with each other about how worship was to be conducted. I lost track of them over the years and for all I know they split up and either formed new denominations or joined different ones.

A few blocks from where I used to live I remember there was an intersection that I drove by every day and there was a different church on every corner. One of those churches had a big long name that always gave me a chuckle. I don't remember exactly but it was something like "Second Church of the Brethren, Presbyterian, Reformed". Another was some branch of the Baptist church, not Southern, another was Catholic, and another was a Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. Another type of Lutheran church was also just down the road if the menu wasn't rich enough for you.

(And for the record, my favorite church name of all time is "Saint Matthews Fire Baptized Holiness Church of America").

I came to believe that this was a perfect picture of what Christianity has become. Maybe an unbeliever driving by might think to himself that he had better go check them all out one by one in case they had the truth of salvation but I think it's more likely he's thinking that if they can't even agree among themselves, why should he bother?

Early on I read in the Bible that there is "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" and "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" So if I call myself a Lutheran, or a Methodist, or a Baptist, or a Southern Baptist, or a Southern Methodist am I not also being "carnal" (translation, carnal = "meathead"). The very names of some of these denominations like "Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod" sound like testimonies to schisms within schisms.

Fortunately, I have observed that most of the members of these denominations don't take the differences as seriously as their leaders do. My wife is a perfect example. She's Catholic so I have had to warn her before she attended a protestant church with me that her church teaches that this was a mortal sin. "Yeah, right" was her answer (and a proper one I might add).

Here's another example from the news....

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/11/ ... n-debacle/

[Mountaineer]

Tortoise,

This is not an answer to your questions, but I do think you might find this helpful.  It discusses the differences between Lutheranism and several other church bodies and gives Scriptural references.  The original is a pdf file you can find with a Google search.  This link is a Google conversion from pdf to html.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

I also think your questions are really good ones.  The best advice that I could offer is for you to find an LCMS church with a Pastor you can relate to.  A conversation in person would be of much more value to you than an email exchange since you could followup the "answers" with additional questions on the spot.  Based on the LCMS Pastors that I know, they would heartily welcome such an interchange.  I'd same the same strategy would be useful for any other denomination you think you may wish to know more about.

Back to your questions:  The fundamental way that the LCMS interprets Scripture is - Scripture is God breathed and inerrant when taken in context.  Clearer passages interpret more nebulous passages.  Scriptures are interpreted in a Christo-centric manner.  It is essential to distinguish between Law and Gospel - Law commands, Gospel frees and saves - both are God's Word.  Personally, I sometimes view Paul's writings as the original commentary.  I expect you would gain much insight into Lutheran theology (which in my opinion is just Christian theology) if you have the time to read the Book of Concord which summarizes the Lutheran confessions; it is available online.  http://bookofconcord.org 

... Mountaineer

Okay, I'll give those a read. And I agree, it would probably be a good thing for me to sit down with a pastor or two and grill them on theology at some point.

Just last night I happened to listen to a really good White Horse Inn podcast from 3/10/2013 in which they discussed John chapters 13-15. And interestingly enough, in those chapters Jesus reiterates "Ask and it shall be given to you," but with the clarification that he's not addressing everybody--only those whom he has already chosen. And he specifically says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you..." (John 15:16). That's actually in pretty close agreement with Paul's writings on grace. (Dammit, Paul, sometimes I wish I could write you off as a loony, but it's like you're always right! Showoff.)

I still have a lot to learn. Thanks for being patient with everyone's questions, Mountaineer, including my own. You're doing Christ's work!

Tortoise,

Thank you for the kind words. 

This episode may also help address your questions, particularly how to know if you are going to the "right" church for you.  Jonathan Fisk is an LCMS Pastor.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAwDNiA4Vrw

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

51 pages and still trying to get it all figured out.

I love it! 

I think that discussions like this would please God. 

IMHO, the human experience of trying to comprehend all facets of religion is like a group of little green plastic army men contemplating the nature of the light bulb at the top of the closet--it's mysterious, miraculous, just a little scary, and obviously beyond comprehension, and yet think of all the interesting stories and mythology that might grow up in little green army men society based on speculation and meditation on the nature of the light bulb.

Even if we know that the nature of the light bulb is very different from what the little green army men imagine, their interpretation of the light bulb nevertheless could have a sacredness to it, though ironically it might tell a bystander more about the propensity of little green army men to cluster around certain explanations of the unexplainable than it would actually help the little green army men understand the true nature of the light bulb.  In other words, the little green army men religious experience might ultimately be a rationale for seeing what they wanted to see in the first place (e.g., a deity manifesting in the form of a bright light at the top of the closet who provided a remedy for the pain, confusion, and nihilistic tendencies that go along with being a little green army man  ). 

What ultimately is sacred, however, is not the light bulb (it's just a light bulb)--what is sacred is the little green army mens' interpretation of the light bulb, which provides a window into the nobility of the little green army man inner life, along with a nice showcase for little green army mens' capacity for self-delusion.

It's interesting to think of how completely off-base the little green army man understanding of the light bulb would be (by our standards anyway), and yet when you asked yourself what stood between the little green army men and a true understanding of the light bulb, you would realize that it was a combination of the following: (i) a limited ability to comprehend the nature of the light bulb, and (ii) a tendency to supply basically narcissistic explanations for things that weren't well understood ("The light bulb spoke to me and said that I was going to live forever, and all of the little green army ladies who also want to live forever should visit my box for further spiritual teaching.").  These two factors would make it virtually impossible for the little green army men to come to any kind of real and true understanding of the light bulb, simply because the truth was so different from their preconceived notions about the nature of the light bulb.

A little green army man who said "I think that the light bulb is a globe of thin glass with a tiny filament in it with electricity passing through it to make light, and it was created by large creatures who are just as insecure as us" would probably be ridiculed, in part because his explanation simply wouldn't sound serious enough to meet the expectations of little green army men when it came to the nature of "their" deity.

Are you there Light Bulb?  It's me, G.I. Joe.  I feel so empty.

[Mountaineer]

One of my favorite quotes:  "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made." 

I think it is one of my favorites because the truth of that statement plays out every second ... so many have been and are deceived.  For example, thinking greed is good (or rewriting the definition to say so); sort of like all the rewriting of history that has taken place over the past hundred plus years.  Another example:  It is eye opening to read old newspapers from before and just after the Civil War and today's accounts of the same events.

... Mountaineer

Edited to add:  I just read MG's post about Satan's Handiwork - Common Core math.  A perfect example of my thoughts above.

[doodle]

Mountaineer,

Have you read Leo Tolstoy's "What I Believe"?

I think most Christians would find it very hard to live up to Christ's moral teachings. That is the part that frustrates me the most about Christians. They say that they believe in the moral precepts that Christ taught, but they are unwilling to follow them.

https://librivox.org/what-i-believe-by-leo-tolstoy/

Why do Christians support the justice system, self defense, the death penalty etc. etc. when the Bible says this?
http://www.openbible.info/topics/judging_others

[Pointedstick]

I think most Christians would find it very hard to live up to Christ's moral teachings. That is the part that frustrates me the most about Christians. They say that they believe in the moral precepts that Christ taught, but they are unwilling to follow them.

Christ was a spiritual leader. It's unreasonable to expect his followers to live up to his levels of moral dedication, any more than you would criticize any Buddhists who have not yet achieved enlightenment. The very fact that they are willing to behave in such righteous manners that are often extremely difficult and even incompatible with the way the world actually works--this is why such people become spiritual leaders! And especially for Jesus, look what it got him: he was murdered by the government. Probably very few of his followers are be willing to be murdered by their governments in defense of their ideals, and I don't think that's particularly damning.

[doodle]

I think most Christians would find it very hard to live up to Christ's moral teachings. That is the part that frustrates me the most about Christians. They say that they believe in the moral precepts that Christ taught, but they are unwilling to follow them.

Christ was a spiritual leader. It's unreasonable to expect his followers to live up to his levels of moral dedication, any more than you would criticize any Buddhists who have not yet achieved enlightenment. The very fact that they are willing to behave in such righteous manners that are often extremely difficult and even incompatible with the way the world actually works--this is why such people become spiritual leaders! And especially for Jesus, look what it got him: he was murdered by the government. Probably very few of his followers are be willing to be murdered by their governments in defense of their ideals, and I don't think that's particularly damning.

I agree, but then dont say you are a follower of Christ when you refuse to follow his teachings....

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

Have you read Leo Tolstoy's "What I Believe"?

I think most Christians would find it very hard to live up to Christ's moral teachings. That is the part that frustrates me the most about Christians. They say that they believe in the moral precepts that Christ taught, but they are unwilling to follow them.

https://librivox.org/what-i-believe-by-leo-tolstoy/

Why do Christians support the justice system, self defense, the death penalty etc. etc. when the Bible says this?
http://www.openbible.info/topics/judging_others

I do not remember reading Tolstoy's book you mention.

The whole point of the Old Testament and New Testament "Law" (including moral teachings such as the 10 Commandments and Jesus' moral precepts) is to make us aware that no matter how hard we try, we cannot do it ... and realize we need a Savior.  Jesus is that Savior.  As a thankful response to that gift of a Savior and our forgiveness of sin and eternal life for those who believe, we Christians "try" to live according to God's will (expressed in the Law) but recognize that we constantly stumble and fall short.  We just get back up and try again the next day.  Every day is a new start; we are encouraged to begin each day reflecting on our baptism (we are a child of God) and start afresh.  You may wish to read Romans chapter 7 and 8 for some discussion of that.

Your second question concerns the "Two Kingdoms" that I've frequently discussed in the Religion thread.  Basically, even though we may be "saved" in the vertical kingdom (Spiritual realm), we are still responsible for our behavior in the horizontal kingdom (civil realm).  Perhaps these two Bible Studies will clarify if you wish to listen to them (see the first two studies on the page):
http://uaclutheran.com/blog/tag/judging-others/

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

That sounds like a cop-out, Mountaineer. Jesus and the prophets clearly told you what to do....yet Christians choose not to put their faith in God and instead follow man's laws.

[doodle]

that no matter how hard we try, we cannot do it ... and realize we need a Savior.  Jesus is that Savior.

And this is how church incorporated keeps its balance sheet in the black.