Gyroscopic Investing

Mountaineer wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: My Pastor sent a great note on "the cure" to our congregation this morning. 

... M

I expand below the quotation that I mention often: 1 Peter 3:15.  Within its immediate context, it rings even louder and clearer after The Supreme Court's recent decision regarding marriage - which is a gift from God to be enjoyed by one man and one woman and is not merely a legal right for everybody! 

Having read a good amount regarding this decision from other Christians who believe The Bible to be God's inspired word to humanity, the consensus is starkly clear:  from a cultural perspective the decision should not surprise us, for it is a continuation of the rejection of Christianity in what is called Western Civilization. This began all the way back in The Enlightenment (1650s-1750s) and has continued up to this point through the most recent cultural convulsion that has deliberately demeaned The Bible - The Sexual Revolution. 

It is painful to witness this downfall around us, and it will continue according to Revelation.  Already in an article from Politico on June 26 Fredrik Deboer is arguing for the next logical step now that gay marriage is legal: polygamy.  We are witnessing the full manifestation of Satan's temptation (" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:4-5)), of which the father of The Enlightenment, Renee Descartes, was in-your-face aware when he wrote, "I think, therefore I AM."  What he meant is, "I think, therefore I am god." 

We are witnessing the idolatry of self in our culture at a new level!  Jesus is the only cure.  This is what the Apostle Paul teaches:  "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:11). 

This is the dynamic that happens every Sunday at Concordia:  we die as sinners (Baptism and Confession) and we are made alive to God in Christ Jesus (Baptism, Absolution, and The Supper). 

Come Sunday to hear the promises of Jesus!

In Christ,
Pastor Dave

------


13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil. 1 Peter 3:15

Wait a second, in the Old Testament the apple of God's eye was David, and he had 30 wives.  I don't recall God saying anything about that, and in fact God didn't really get annoyed with David until he capped his buddy to make Bathsheba wife #31.  (God expressed his displeasure with David over that incident by killing his newborn baby.)

Solomon was supposed to be the smartest man who ever lived and another of God's favorites and he had 400 wives and 600 other chicks on the side.

Has God changed his views on marriage since then?

MT,

Are you asking this question seriously?  I think I have described how Scripture interprets Scripture (the hermeneutic that Lutherans think is most trustworthy) many, many times.  I understand if you do not agree with that method, many don't.  But to keep asking the same question repeatedly, expecting to get a different answer ..........................



If you are really asking seriously, I apologize.  Short version is that pretty much the whole OT from the fall onward is a story of mankind spiraling downward when they abandon God and pointing to how futile it is for man to try and save himself - thus the OT points to the need for a Savior.  Do you think David was the apple of God's eye because of his sinning, or because he recognized his sin, repented and turned back to God?

... M

I'm just reentering this conversation so I'll let MT handle the rest, but what about the part of God punishing David by killing his baby...

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Wait a second, in the Old Testament the apple of God's eye was David, and he had 30 wives.  I don't recall God saying anything about that, and in fact God didn't really get annoyed with David until he capped his buddy to make Bathsheba wife #31.  (God expressed his displeasure with David over that incident by killing his newborn baby.)

Solomon was supposed to be the smartest man who ever lived and another of God's favorites and he had 400 wives and 600 other chicks on the side.

Has God changed his views on marriage since then?

MT,

Are you asking this question seriously?  I think I have described how Scripture interprets Scripture (the hermeneutic that Lutherans think is most trustworthy) many, many times.  I understand if you do not agree with that method, many don't.  But to keep asking the same question repeatedly, expecting to get a different answer ..........................



If you are really asking seriously, I apologize.  Short version is that pretty much the whole OT from the fall onward is a story of mankind spiraling downward when they abandon God and pointing to how futile it is for man to try and save himself - thus the OT points to the need for a Savior.  Do you think David was the apple of God's eye because of his sinning, or because he recognized his sin, repented and turned back to God?

... M

I'm just reentering this conversation so I'll let MT handle the rest, but what about the part of God punishing David by killing his baby...

What about it?  God is a just God.  As well as a God of mercy.  Do you see that as a paradox?  As inconsistent?  I'm not sure I get your point.

... M

moda0306 wrote: I'm just reentering this conversation so I'll let MT handle the rest, but what about the part of God punishing David by killing his baby...

Mountaineer wrote: What about it?  God is a just God.  As well as a God of mercy.  Do you see that as a paradox?  As inconsistent?  I'm not sure I get your point.

When it comes to baby killing in the Bible, this incident with David and Bathsheba's son is rather trivial. You only have to read about 6 chapters in before you have God drowning every baby in the world. And I assume there were a lot of pregnant women at the time so this would have included lots of abortions too. Then you have the genocidal orders which did not spare babies or pregnant women.

In my opinion the only "Good News" to be found in these Bible stories is that they didn't actually happen, something of which geologists, archaeologists and other scientists are quite confident.

If I die and find out that God is totally pissed off at me for not believing he was capable of killing all those babies I guess I'll be in big trouble.

screwtape wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I'm just reentering this conversation so I'll let MT handle the rest, but what about the part of God punishing David by killing his baby...

Mountaineer wrote: What about it?  God is a just God.  As well as a God of mercy.  Do you see that as a paradox?  As inconsistent?  I'm not sure I get your point.

When it comes to baby killing in the Bible, this incident with David and Bathsheba's son is rather trivial. You only have to read about 6 chapters in before you have God drowning every baby in the world. And I assume there were a lot of pregnant women at the time so this would have included lots of abortions too. Then you have the genocidal orders which did not spare babies or pregnant women.

In my opinion the only "Good News" to be found in these Bible stories is that they didn't actually happen, something of which geologists, archaeologists and other scientists are quite confident.

If I die and find out that God is totally pissed off at me for not believing he was capable of killing all those babies I guess I'll be in big trouble.

screwtape,

I'm suspecting you have a presupposition that all babies are innocent from conception through some young age.  I have lots of friends that think that (e.g. oh, isn't that little angel cute? and similar talk.)  We all have a tendency to use our reason to judge things by our human standards, not by God's Word *. 

The doctrine of original sin says we are all sinful and deserving of God's wrath (as I've said before, I struggled mightly with this doctrine earlier in my life - I wanted desparately to believe in the innate goodness of man but my wanting something to be true is not the same as what is really true).  I came to realize the truth of God's Word - it is only because of what Jesus did on the cross, for all of humanity from all time, that we live - eternally for those who believe in the promises of God.  Confer Romans 8, Psalm 51.

So, for all those babies born or unborn of the unbelievers that God wiped out in the flood, Egyptian plagues, settlement of Caanan, war, modern day Islamic countries, etc. (due to their unbelief), I have no idea what methods God may have used to have the unborn hear his promises and thus live eternally with Him - Scripture does not address this.


* Ecclesiastes 8:13-15  English Standard Version (ESV)
13 But it will not be well with the wicked, neither will he prolong his days like a shadow, because he does not fear before God.

Man Cannot Know God's Ways
14 There is a vanity that takes place on earth, that there are righteous people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked, and there are wicked people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity. 15 And I commend joy, for man has nothing better under the sun but to eat and drink and be joyful, for this will go with him in his toil through the days of his life that God has given him under the sun.

... M

Mountaineer wrote: The doctrine of original sin says we are all sinful and deserving of God's wrath (as I've said before, I struggled mightly with this doctrine earlier in my life - I wanted desparately to believe in the innate goodness of man but my wanting something to be true is not the same as what is really true).  I came to realize the truth of God's Word - it is only because of what Jesus did on the cross, for all of humanity from all time, that we live - eternally for those who believe in the promises of God.  Confer Romans 8, Psalm 51.

I don't struggle with the doctrine of original sin at all. I flat out don't believe it. I know this is standard Christian dogma and the whole salvation narrative falls apart without it but I don't believe that "we are all sinful and deserving of God's wrath".

And there is little point in quoting the Bible or referring me to verses to prove the point because I don't believe the Bible is the word of God.

screwtape wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: The doctrine of original sin says we are all sinful and deserving of God's wrath (as I've said before, I struggled mightly with this doctrine earlier in my life - I wanted desparately to believe in the innate goodness of man but my wanting something to be true is not the same as what is really true).  I came to realize the truth of God's Word - it is only because of what Jesus did on the cross, for all of humanity from all time, that we live - eternally for those who believe in the promises of God.  Confer Romans 8, Psalm 51.

I don't struggle with the doctrine of original sin at all. I flat out don't believe it. I know this is standard Christian dogma and the whole salvation narrative falls apart without it but I don't believe that "we are all sinful and deserving of God's wrath".

And there is little point in quoting the Bible or referring me to verses to prove the point because I don't believe the Bible is the word of God.

screwtape,

OK, but then I don't get why you seem to get so upset about a God you don't believe in killing babies that probably did not exist (or do I misunderstand your comments)?

... M

Mountaineer wrote: OK, but then I don't get why you seem to get so upset about a God you don't believe in killing babies that probably did not exist (or do I misunderstand your comments)?

I don't know where you see me getting upset, but when I see people defending beliefs that I find repugnant, I sometimes have an impulse to comment on them.

screwtape wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: OK, but then I don't get why you seem to get so upset about a God you don't believe in killing babies that probably did not exist (or do I misunderstand your comments)?

I don't know where you see me getting upset, but when I see people defending beliefs that I find repugnant, I sometimes have an impulse to comment on them.

That is pretty much my point.  Why does it bother (substitute your words of choice) you at all?  I find many things repugnant, and comment on a lot of them, but I accept others' right to be wrong.      Do you have a vestigial nagging fear the Christians could have it right and you are trying to convince yourself otherwise?  And I know that probably sounds snarky, but I do not mean it that way.  I just don't completely understand where you are coming from.  Peace bro!

... M

Mountaineer wrote:

screwtape wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: OK, but then I don't get why you seem to get so upset about a God you don't believe in killing babies that probably did not exist (or do I misunderstand your comments)?

I don't know where you see me getting upset, but when I see people defending beliefs that I find repugnant, I sometimes have an impulse to comment on them.

That is pretty much my point.  Why does it bother (substitute your words of choice) you at all?  I find many things repugnant, and comment on a lot of them, but I accept others' right to be wrong.      Do you have a vestigial nagging fear the Christians could have it right and you are trying to convince yourself otherwise?  And I know that probably sounds snarky, but I do not mean it that way.  I just don't completely understand where you are coming from.  Peace bro!

... M

MT,

I can't speak for screwtape, but for me, for those Christians who enthusiastically engage in debate on the topic, I'm essentially taking advantage of the interaction to hopefully learn more about how they came to their conclusions, and therefore if I might be seeing things incorrectly. 

Part of that is expressing frustrations with what I see as presuppositions or inconsistencies.

Hopefully I'll learn something new.  Or open up a new line of thinking that takes me somewhere.

moda0306 wrote:
I can't speak for screwtape, but for me, for those Christians who enthusiastically engage in debate on the topic, I'm essentially taking advantage of the interaction to hopefully learn more about how they came to their conclusions, and therefore if I might be seeing things incorrectly. 

Part of that is expressing frustrations with what I see as presuppositions or inconsistencies.

Hopefully I'll learn something new.  Or open up a new line of thinking that takes me somewhere.

Perhaps these thoughts on Hell will open up a new line of thinking.

On the subject of atonement, Lutheranism parts serious company with the Reformed traditions who champion a limited atonement on the cross.  Jesus died for all, not simply the repentant (2 Cor 5:19).  All in Hell are both forgiven and justified.  They just insist on living separated from these realities and the Author of them.  Rather than say to the Lord God, "Thy will be done," the Lord God has said to them, "Thy will be done."  In this sense, C. S. Lewis has observed, "The gates of Hell are locked on the inside."  Hell is populated with all who insist on their rights and what they deserve ... and they are willing to die for it.

... M

Mountaineer wrote: Do you have a vestigial nagging fear the Christians could have it right and you are trying to convince yourself otherwise? 

You mean do I still have that darkness in my soul? Not very much left, I think, but I'm still working on it. Could be a lifelong process.

And where did you seeing me saying you didn't have a right to be wrong?

screwtape wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Do you have a vestigial nagging fear the Christians could have it right and you are trying to convince yourself otherwise? 

You mean do I still have that darkness in my soul? Not very much left, I think, but I'm still working on it. Could be a lifelong process.

And where did you seeing me saying you didn't have a right to be wrong?

Huh?  Where did that come from?  One of us better turn on the lights. 

... M

No time to prepare this Sunday's sermon from the gates of hell so I'll have to defer once again to Robert Price.

I love this relatively short essay on the The Inspiration and Authority of The Bible....

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_inspir.htm

A couple of quotes....

"I love the Bible. I have devoted my life to the study of it. I wrote one Ph.D. dissertation on the various evangelical theories of Biblical authority, and a second one focusing on themes in Luke and Acts. None of this means my views must be correct. But it does show I do not approach this sensitive topic as an opponent of the Bible. Just the reverse. I disagree sharply with many Bible devotees, but we both love it and want to know it better. I want to suggest that, first, the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired is spurious; second, that it is pernicious; and, third, that it is moot. The Bible and our study of it will be better off without that claim."

"Some people seem to imagine, whether consciously or not, that God is a cranky theology professor, and that he has assigned us the task of answering all the questions of existence by a deadline: the day we die. And some are afraid that if they show up at the pearly gates and hand in the exam book, and if there are enough wrong answers, especially on some big ticket questions (like the deity of Christ and the atonement), they will get a big rosy “F” and go down the shoot to Hell. Where did this crazy idea of God come from? I know: from church. But it is a bad idea. It maligns God in more ways than I have the space to explain. But what on earth does this have to do with grace? It is a form of Gnosticism, salvation by knowledge."

(Bolded parts represent my own emphasis).

Desert wrote:

screwtape wrote: "Some people seem to imagine, whether consciously or not, that God is a cranky theology professor, and that he has assigned us the task of answering all the questions of existence by a deadline: the day we die. And some are afraid that if they show up at the pearly gates and hand in the exam book, and if there are enough wrong answers, especially on some big ticket questions (like the deity of Christ and the atonement), they will get a big rosy “F” and go down the shoot to Hell. Where did this crazy idea of God come from? I know: from church. But it is a bad idea. It maligns God in more ways than I have the space to explain. But what on earth does this have to do with grace? It is a form of Gnosticism, salvation by knowledge."

What sort of church teaches a ridiculous idea like this?  This is either a strawman argument, or there are some pathetic churches out there.

I have no personal experience with such a church because I would never have attended one myself, but it isn't hard to find by searching the internet that there are conservative Christians who believe if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy you should be considered an apostate. Read what the Bible says about apostates. It isn't very nice. So I don't think that is a strawman argument. I don't want to speak for him or his church, but I suspect that if you openly disagreed with this doctrine you would not be allowed to join Mountaineer's LCMS church.

You can also check out the controversy between Norman Geisler and Michael Licona if you think this mentality is only a strawman. Norman Geisler was one of the authors of the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy and apparently considers himself a policeman charged with enforcing it. Michael Licona wrote a popular book defending the resurrection which got a lot of good reviews and earned him a reputation as a young, up and coming Christian apologist. Unfortunately, he admitted that there are contradictions in the resurrection account and when it came to Mr. Geisler's attention, he managed to get him fired from his University position.

So I think it is not correct to say this mentality is a strawman argument. I think it is a very real mindset.

Desert wrote: In general, I don't have much respect for fellows of the so-called Jesus Seminar (Price being one of them).  They don't believe much they read in the Bible, but still waste their careers attacking it, all the while referring to themselves as theologians.  It's pretty pathetic.  They need to move on with their lives.

I avoided reading Price also because of the Jesus Seminar because I associated it with the far out idea that Jesus never existed. As of yet, I have not read a single writing of his where he makes that claim so I'm no longer sure what the Jesus Seminar was all about. The last thing I read was a website where they were trying to figure out which sayings of Jesus were authentic using current standards of historical investigation, so if their conclusion was that he didn't even exist, I'm not sure what that was all about.

Mr. Price spent a good part of his life immersed in the Bible just like I did and I can understand that you wish people who eventually come to different conclusions about it would just go away, but it's not gonna happen. The devil also has his purpose in the grand scheme of things, doesn't he?

But on the subject of biblical inerrancy, I'm curious about what you do believe. I think i182start tried to start a conversation some time ago and nobody chimed in. Seems like an interesting subject of discussion for "Figuring Out Religion" to me.

screwtape wrote:

Desert wrote:

screwtape wrote: "Some people seem to imagine, whether consciously or not, that God is a cranky theology professor, and that he has assigned us the task of answering all the questions of existence by a deadline: the day we die. And some are afraid that if they show up at the pearly gates and hand in the exam book, and if there are enough wrong answers, especially on some big ticket questions (like the deity of Christ and the atonement), they will get a big rosy “F” and go down the shoot to Hell. Where did this crazy idea of God come from? I know: from church. But it is a bad idea. It maligns God in more ways than I have the space to explain. But what on earth does this have to do with grace? It is a form of Gnosticism, salvation by knowledge."

What sort of church teaches a ridiculous idea like this?  This is either a strawman argument, or there are some pathetic churches out there.

I have no personal experience with such a church because I would never have attended one myself, but it isn't hard to find by searching the internet that there are conservative Christians who believe if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy you should be considered an apostate. Read what the Bible says about apostates. It isn't very nice. So I don't think that is a strawman argument. I don't want to speak for him or his church, but I suspect that if you openly disagreed with this doctrine you would not be allowed to join Mountaineer's LCMS church.

You can also check out the controversy between Norman Geisler and Michael Licona if you think this mentality is only a strawman. Norman Geisler was one of the authors of the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy and apparently considers himself a policeman charged with enforcing it. Michael Licona wrote a popular book defending the resurrection which got a lot of good reviews and earned him a reputation as a young, up and coming Christian apologist. Unfortunately, he admitted that there are contradictions in the resurrection account and when it came to Mr. Geisler's attention, he managed to get him fired from his University position.

So I think it is not correct to say this mentality is a strawman argument. I think it is a very real mindset.

Re your statement above - completely untrue for my church, and the other LCMS churches that I've attended.  My church is full of sinners and those who do not yet believe or question various parts of Christian teachings.  Our Pastor encourages asking any question that you have.  Otherwise, how do you come to know truth if you can't wrestle with the hard topics and get satisfactory answers?  Teaching false doctrine is a different matter for a Pastor; in the LCMS they take an oath to teach what Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord which is 100% consistent with Scripture) say.  The LCMS also teachs there are different accounts of the resurrection in the Scriptures - just like if several people see the same event, say a car accident, they will give a different account of what happened even though the central truth is the same.

Unfortunately, I'm aware of many denominations that teach a fire and brimstone edition of Scripture - they are the ones firmly anchored in the Law, as I've discussed before.  Generally, people leave a church, or at least close their ears and sometimes become very soured on religion, when BOTH Law and Gospel are not proclaimed with a big emphasis on the Gospel.  If you focus on what you have to do (which is never enough to be assured of your salvation) and not on what Jesus did FOR YOU, you will come out at a different place.  Sad but true.  I feel really sorry for people who have not had or taken the opportunity to hear the Gospel proclaimed faithfully.  We humans  indeed are a bunch of sinners who use any excuse to reject God and the whole truth of his teachings.

... M

Mountaineer wrote: Re your statement above - completely untrue for my church, and the other LCMS churches that I've attended.  My church is full of sinners and those who do not yet believe or question various parts of Christian teachings.  Our Pastor encourages asking any question that you have.  Otherwise, how do you come to know truth if you can't wrestle with the hard topics and get satisfactory answers? 

I know for a fact that LCMS holds steadfastly to the doctrine of Biblical innerancy, even before the Chicago statement was issued. If you say that it is not a qualification of membership I'll take your word for it because you know your church better than me.

Mountaineer wrote: Scriptures - just like if several people see the same event, say a car accident, they will give a different account of what happened even though the central truth is the same.

Be careful, because I think if you are going to subscribe to Biblical inerrancy you can't say this exactly the way you just said it. You seem to be implying that some of the witnesses might be "in error". That isn't possible. You're treating the Bible like the word of Men, not the word of God. You have to say that ALL the facts of all the witnesses are completely true and just need to be properly reconciled. So it needs a little work

screwtape wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Re your statement above - completely untrue for my church, and the other LCMS churches that I've attended.  My church is full of sinners and those who do not yet believe or question various parts of Christian teachings.  Our Pastor encourages asking any question that you have.  Otherwise, how do you come to know truth if you can't wrestle with the hard topics and get satisfactory answers? 

I know for a fact that LCMS holds steadfastly to the doctrine of Biblical innerancy, even before the Chicago statement was issued. If you say that it is not a qualification of membership I'll take your word for it because you know your church better than me.

Mountaineer wrote: Scriptures - just like if several people see the same event, say a car accident, they will give a different account of what happened even though the central truth is the same.

Be careful, because I think if you are going to subscribe to Biblical inerrancy you can't say this exactly the way you just said it. You seem to be implying that some of the witnesses might be "in error". That isn't possible. You're treating the Bible like the word of Men, not the word of God. You have to say that ALL the facts of all the witnesses are completely true and just need to be properly reconciled. So it needs a little work

Actually, it is inspired and inerrant (but in context and that is something I've discussed before, at least a few times).

Also, as I've discussed ad nauseum, the Bible is fully God inspired and fully man written.

Thirdly, you are definitely proving that man is naturally inclined to reject God and rebels against him at every turn.  I ask you again, are you afraid that Christians might have it right and you are indeed in danger of damning yourself?  If so, never fear, there is always hope - Jesus died for you too! 

Forthly, it actually matters not what I say, or whether I misquote something, although I do not try to do so and ask for forgiveness if I did.  It only matters what God says in his Word, if you have a beef, take it up with the Big Man.  I'm still waiting for you to respond to that better worldview than Christianity that you must think you have ... throw it out there for the sharks to feed upon if you like.  Make a better case.

Have a fantastic evening, I know I will no matter how crappy the news, weather, or argumentative friends may be.  I know the end of the story and where I'll be when this life has run its course.  I'm ready whenever God's decides he is finished with me.  I'm ready to wear one of those white robes that has been cleansed in the blood of Jesus.  There is one waiting for you too - just make sure you are ready to hear when God tells you he has one ready for you. 

... M

Mountaineer wrote: Thirdly, you are definitely proving that man is naturally inclined to reject God and rebels against him at every turn.  I ask you again, are you afraid that Christians might have it right and you are indeed in danger of damning yourself?  If so, never fear, there is always hope - Jesus died for you too! 

Sounds like you need a Bible lesson Mountaineer....

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned


26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

So there is no hope for me. The inerrant Bible tells me so. Your compassion for me is misguided.

screwtape wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Thirdly, you are definitely proving that man is naturally inclined to reject God and rebels against him at every turn.  I ask you again, are you afraid that Christians might have it right and you are indeed in danger of damning yourself?  If so, never fear, there is always hope - Jesus died for you too! 

Sounds like you need a Bible lesson Mountaineer....

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned


26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

So there is no hope for me. The inerrant Bible tells me so. Your compassion for me is misguided.

Some information I found on this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Hebrews-6.html

"the first interpretation presents unbelievers rejecting Christ and thereby losing their chance of salvation; the second interpretation presents the very idea of believers losing salvation as impossible. Many scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is eternal (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:35, 38-39; Philippians 1:6; 1 Peter 1:4-5), and Hebrews 6:4-6 confirms that doctrine."

screwtape wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Thirdly, you are definitely proving that man is naturally inclined to reject God and rebels against him at every turn.  I ask you again, are you afraid that Christians might have it right and you are indeed in danger of damning yourself?  If so, never fear, there is always hope - Jesus died for you too! 

Sounds like you need a Bible lesson Mountaineer....

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned


26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

So there is no hope for me. The inerrant Bible tells me so. Your compassion for me is misguided.

Sorry, there is always hope.  With God all things are possible (Mt 19:26).  Just go to where Jesus promises to be; let him nourish you, let him strengthen your faith (I know you have some or you would not be in this discussion):  Jesus promises to be in the Word, In the water and Word of Baptism, in the bread and wine and Word of the Lord's Supper - FOR YOU!    Read these two sections:

... M

Do believers have eternal assurance?
Q: One of your FAQ answers states that it is possible for one to lose his salvation. However, in your Theses on Justification (1983) on this website it says plainly that believers have eternal assurance (paragraph 58). Which is it?
A: Lutherans believe both are true and Scriptural: It is possible for a believer to fall from faith and lose salvation, and it is possible for a believer to have complete assurance of eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. If this seems paradoxical to human reason, then (Lutherans say) this is only because the teaching of Scripture itself on this issue (as on many other issues) appears paradoxical to human reason.
For Lutherans, this is essentially a matter of properly distinguishing between Law and Gospel: Warnings against falling from faith are the strongest form of God's Law, intended to warn against "carnal security" based on "good works" or against the attitude that "since I'm saved, I can do anything I want to do." Assurances of God's constant and eternal love in Christ are the sweetest and purest form of Gospel, intended to comfort those who are plagued by their sins and by their failures to keep God's Law perfectly.


God chose us?
Q: I understand that God chose those for salvation before the very foundation of the world. The Bible does not say that there are those who are chosen and that there are those who are not. So, does that mean then that God chose everyone to be saved before the foundation of the world and therefore it is man's choice whether he will accept God's saving grace or not? However, one cannot come into God's grace by himself, but by the Holy Spirit "leading" him unto salvation. Is that the correct interpretation? I am confused by the fact that we were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, yet the very action of choosing can mean that there were those who were not chosen. I know that God wishes everyone to be saved. Can you help me?
A: The question you are wrestling with is really the question, "Why are some saved and not others?" Theologians throughout history have referred to this question as the "crux theologorum" ("the cross of the theologians") because of the difficulty (and from the Lutheran perspective, the impossibility) of giving an answer to this question which is satisfactory to our human reason.
Some answer this question by pointing to man's "free will"--only those are saved who "choose" to be saved. Lutherans reject this answer as unscriptural because according to the Bible even man's will is "dead" and powerless to "choose" God and his grace in Christ. We are saved not because we "choose" to be saved but because the Holy Spirit works faith in our heart through the Gospel (even faith is a gift!). Others answer this question by pointing to God's sovereign will: God himself predestines from eternity some to be saved and others to be damned. Lutherans reject this answer as unscriptural because according to the Bible God sincerely desires all to be saved and has predestined no one to damnation.
So how do Lutherans answer this question? The answer is that Lutherans do not try to answer it, because (we believe) the Bible itself does not provide an answer to this question that is comprehensible to human reason. Lutherans affirm, with Scripture, that whoever is saved is saved by God's grace alone, a grace so sure that it excludes all human "action" and "choice" but rather rests on the foundation of God's action in Christ and his "choice" (predestination) from before the beginning of time. Lutherans also affirm, with Scripture, that those who are damned are damned not by God's "choice" but on account of their own human sin and rebellion and unbelief. From a human perspective, there is no "rational" or "logical" way to put these two truths together. Lutherans believe and confess them not because they are "rational" and "logical," but because this is what we find taught in Scripture.
For a further discussion of this issue, you may want to read Of the Election of Grace in the Brief Statement of the LCMS, and/or Articles II and XI in the Formula of Concord (contained in the Book of Concord, the Lutheran Confessions).
Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion. Published by: LCMS Church Information Center

Here are two stories about a recent event in Ferguson, MO that may give a flavor for what "boots on the ground" Christianity can do. 

... M

The Church as Christ's Hands of Mercy
Yesterday at 06:40:35 PM

Every once in a while, it is good to focus on positive news in the Church rather than the constant analysis of her many failures. The following appeared on the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod's Facebook page. Pastor Steve Schave shares a last name with a resident Deaconess here on ALPB. He and others were "boots on ground" in the immediate aftermath of those tragic days when most ran in the other direction.

The LCMS will be one of three organizations on the ground floor in Ferguson, Mo. where eleven months ago, the local QuickTrip gas station was the epicenter of unrest that would set off a chain reaction across the nation. This past Thursday, this same location was dedicated to become the epicenter for rebuilding and new hope.

Pastor Steve Schave, LCMS Director for Urban and Inner City Ministry, participated in the groundbreaking and spoke on behalf of the many LCMS partners who have worked so hard to seek peace and healing in this community. Here's the local news story about the event:

The posting then links to:

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/fe ... /29920693/


Re: The Church as Christ's Hands of Mercy
« Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 10:17:53 PM »

Wow, thanks so much for sharing this.  I was present at the groundbreaking ceremony along with two of my children and a young family friend that Steve mentored and tutored when he was a parish pastor back in Cincinnati.  It was an experience I won't soon forget.  What to me in the last year amounted to just images on a TV turned into an appreciation of how far a community has come to work together to not only heal, but to rebuild.  Here are some thoughts I shared on Facebook if anyone has an interest in reading them. 

It was a blessing to be in attendance at this landmark event for the community of Ferguson. We had no idea when we made plans to host our friend, Remi, from Cincinnati for a long weekend that it would end up coinciding with this event. For a young man who is in the throes of overcoming overwhelming odds much like the young people of Ferguson, I pray he was inspired by those he heard speak formally and those who talked to him afterwards to take a path in life that will lead to stability and happiness.

I have to admit it was fun to play the part of "first lady" again (it's been two long years!), and thanks to the heartfelt speech by my husband, we weren't seen as outsiders, but welcomed by many with open arms.

I was amazed when the owner of the beauty shop at ground zero (it was pretty much always in the background during news coverage last year) came up to Steve and hugged/thanked him for his ministry in the aftermath of last year's events. Who knew a ministry of presence could mean so much that a year later, you would still be recognized and appreciated?

It was eye-opening for me to be in the presence of Michael Brown's mother to see her as a person and not just a figure on TV. She experienced the same heartache that I did twenty years ago this week through the loss of her son. I came to appreciate that how that loss happened is immaterial where her pain and need for hope is concerned.

I didn’t agree with everything that was said at this event. I surely didn’t clap when one particular speaker proceeded to lash out at law enforcement. I’m a former military police officer and have friends in law enforcement, and I respect and appreciate that they put their lives on the line every day to protect me as well as my family and uphold the laws of the land that we have enacted. I don’t agree with how Michael Brown ended up in the situation he was in, whether it was his own fault, his parents' fault, the system’s fault, etc. But I can agree that young people in areas such as Ferguson need to be shown a different way. A better way.

What Steve and I both have learned through our work in the city (and in my research) is that there is a real need for JOBS in these locations. People don't instinctively want to subsist off the government or handouts. They need to be given a chance (and sometimes a second chance), and businesses are perfectly poised to offer the hope and stability that those in the city or urban areas need. Churches can come alongside as a partner to help build these relationships and offer life-changing counsel to those trying to make positive changes in their lives. In fact, it is my opinion that true change can only come when our Father’s love is truly grasped by a person who may have never experienced love from a parent or family members. (That is why the gang culture is so attractive . . . it’s the family they never had.) Who else but the church is in a position to be at this intersection?

I realized my husband has been living a double life this past year or so because of all the people who greeted him and thanked him afterwards and because I had no idea that the relationships he had been building had led to such a tangible outcome. I am extremely proud of the work he has done to break down racial and other barriers to forge partnerships with organizations that some might say are a little untraditional for a church body that is about 95% Anglo. The LCMS through the Missouri District and the Lutheran High School Association will be one of three tenants in this new building offering afterschool programs and other forms of assistance for school-aged children. We have a long-established presence in the community already through Lutheran High School North, and the reputation of Lutheran North helped this partnership come to fruition.

I was especially touched when one particular gentleman came up to Steve afterwards and gave him a big bear hug accompanied by some complementary words. It turns out it was our District President, who I hadn’t yet had the privilege of meeting. He proceeded to tell me what a great guy I had (as if I didn’t know) and how much he appreciated Steve’s persistence with the Missouri District leadership when at times it seemed the effort might stall.

I hope that the few short days we have had with Remi, crazy as our family is, might help him see the importance of having a family of his own someday. I pray he will be there for his children as a loving and doting father and treat his future wife with tenderness and respect. He didn’t experience that himself growing up, and by the grace of God, maybe He used us in a small way to show him that there is a better way. I pray that the young men and women of Ferguson and beyond will come to understand the importance of the family unit remaining intact. In a culture that seems hostile to the traditional family, I pray that the church can do some good in specific corners of the world similar to what is happening in Ferguson.

In my mind, the biggest winner of the day was our young friend, Remi, who had the opportunity to meet a multitude of individuals who had overcome challenges similar to those he faces.  He received a nice thank you and pep talk from a state senator, a pep talk from an aspiring musician whose song about putting down the pistol has been successful, and an opportunity to talk to the state trooper who was put in charge of the response after the initial failure, among countless others.  I was especially excited to see the support from local corporations, as it fits in nicely with my dissertation research.

The LCMS continues to cooperate in the externals in order to bring hope, healing and restoration to the hopeless, hurting and broken through the only means possible . . . Jesus Christ.  The established Word and Sacrament ministries as well as schools in the Ferguson area that have been ministering to the community through the years have received a shot in the arm, so to speak, as a result of this evolving partnership.  The LCMS presence in this building isn't about activism, it is about love of neighbor--a love that extends to the young people of the community who need to hear the good news of a God that loves them so much that He allowed His son to die on their behalf.  In a community that is so familiar with death, the story of the one death that matters the most needs to be told.  What a blessing that the LCMS has the opportunity to tell it in this place.

The gang-bangers of our inner cities would need to be equipped with fully automatic weapons, and work around the clock for years to wrack up a body count equivalent to the abortuaries in the neighborhoods they terrorize. For every one life whose blood is spilled on the mean streets, how many 10s and 100s are destroyed in ill managed and unsafe "clinics?"

... M

Mountaineer wrote: The gang-bangers of our inner cities would need to be equipped with fully automatic weapons, and work around the clock for years to wrack up a body count equivalent to the abortuaries in the neighborhoods they terrorize. For every one life whose blood is spilled on the mean streets, how many 10s and 100s are destroyed in ill managed and unsafe "clinics?"

... M

And those abortuaries would have to be open around the clock to rack up the death count of children/babies killed by the hand of God via illness, natural disasters, famine, orders to slaughter other groups (Old Testament style), whathaveyou.  :/


But hey I have a question for Christians here that mirrors what I've asked myself regarding Christianity.  I've often asked myself "what would it take for me to believe," and I'm not sure I have a very solid answer, but it would probably have to be some sort of immense spiritual experience or some very good empirical evidence of Jesus' resurrection, though both of these would still leave plenty of holes to fill.

But my question to religious folks is this:

If life was discovered on another planet, would it challenge your faith?  If that wouldn't be enough, what if it was intelligent life on par with human beings, and similar moral tendencies (care for one another, etc)?

I don't think one could discover life on another planet and still think of earth or human life as nearly as unique as the Bible tries to make it out to be, but that's just be.  Mountaineer, Desert, etc.... what are your thoughts?

moda0306 wrote: But my question to religious folks is this:

If life was discovered on another planet, would it challenge your faith?  If that wouldn't be enough, what if it was intelligent life on par with human beings, and similar moral tendencies (care for one another, etc)?

I don't think one could discover life on another planet and still think of earth or human life as nearly as unique as the Bible tries to make it out to be, but that's just be.  Mountaineer, Desert, etc.... what are your thoughts?

For me, of course not!  God created everything, the universe(s) on down to the smallest microbe.  Why would you even think that would challenge my faith?  What part of the Bible are you referencing when you say we are unique and whatever you take that to mean?  My understanding would be that God chose Israel to bring the Savior to the world.  He does not discuss many other earthly civilizations, let alone alien ones, that he did not choose.  I'm a bit flumoxed by your question.

... M

moda,

Edited to include link to Sunday's Sermon at my church that somewhat speaks to your question: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SimuKXQ ... Wilmington