News:


Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - George Rahn

#1
Quote from: Randy Bosch on Yesterday at 12:08:44 PMIn most States, the barkeep and the liquor store clerk who sell alcohol to an evident intoxicated person are subject to penalty of law.  The "friend" who lets an inebriated person take the keys and drive has some explaining to do.
The Pastor who knowingly Communes a blatantly unrepentent person has an interesting view of stewardship and love.

From Romans 3:21

"But now apart from law a righteousness of God has appeared..."

#2
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on Yesterday at 11:57:19 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 11:42:16 AM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on Yesterday at 09:50:42 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 12:17:35 AM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on June 18, 2024, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 18, 2024, 01:01:26 PM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on June 18, 2024, 12:58:26 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 18, 2024, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on June 18, 2024, 12:37:59 PMBecause belief in the blessings of the Supper alone are not enough.  Just one example: if an unrepentant adulterer came forward and expressed his faith in the blessings of the Supper but stated he would not give up his adultery, ought he be communed?

That person should not be communed but the example is irrelevant to this conversation.

Why is it irrelevant?  You just admitted that faith in the words "given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins" is not the only factor in determining admission to the Supper.

Because the conversation is not about communing adulterers.  It is about communing members in good standing of congregations that are not affiliated with the LCMS and whether it is appropriate to deny them the benefits that the Lord promises in the Sacrament.

The conversation is about who is to be admitted to the Supper at our altars.  You want to focus only on one aspect of that conversation and ignore the parts that are inconvenient to your argument.
I would venture to guess that at every altar at every communion service there are people who have lusted in their hearts, which Jesus calls "committing adultery."

In many of our altars there are people who have married a divorced person, which Jesus calls "committing adultery."

Unless you refuse to commune those adulterers, you have opened the sacrament to adulterers.

Unfortunately for your silly argument, you totally ignored a most important word in my post: unrepentant.  If I knew he was unrepentant than I am not to commune him.  And before you go there with the "well, how do you know they are repentant?" line, let me point out that in our communion services we have confession and absolution prior to the Sacrament.  So, as far as I can know, he is repentant and absolved. If he is lying about that, there is nothing I can do; it is in God's hands.  However, if I know the person is unrepentant and commune him anyway then I am partaking in that person's sin.
"Father, forgive them. They don't know what they are doing." How many of those people were repentant? Do you believe the Father forgave everyone in the crowd? Where do you find repentance as a requirement for God's grace given in the sacrament? Should it be our job to judge the unrepentant, or let the real presence of Jesus in the sacrament be the judge?ChristYou seem to think the Supper was given to bring about repentance and faith.  Lutherans believe it was given for those who are repentant and have faith.  Scripture and history show that there is to be discretion as to who is admitted and who is not.  It is not just a cattle-call and "let Jesus sort 'em out" kind of thing.

I cannot judge what is in another's heart (whether or not he is repentant and has faith); only God can do that.  But I can -- and am called to -- discern what a person's confession is.  And that is done in several ways, including where one holds church membership and his actions/words (a man who continues to cheat on his wife, or who tells me he intends to do so, is making a confession but not the good confession).

Lastly, how does "the real presence of Jesus in the sacrament" do this judging that you mention in your last sentence?
Christ does the judging in the same way that Christ forgives.

Yes.  Include this from 2 Cor. 5:

So we are always of good courage. We know that (H)while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for (I)we walk by faith, not (J)by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we (K)would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to (L)please him. 10 For (M)we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, (N)so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
#3
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 11:47:00 AM
Quote from: George Rahn on Yesterday at 09:58:24 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 12:39:05 AMThe earliest requirement for baptism from the Didache (perhaps end of 1st century) is baptism.

But let no one eat or drink of your thanks-giving except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for the Lord has said, "Do not give that which is holy to the dogs." (Didache 9:3)

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165) adds to that:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. (First Apology, CHAP. LXVI)

Proper belief and right living was now also required in addition to baptism.

In addition, Jesus used actions quite similar to the Last Supper when feeding the crowds: blessing, breaking, distributing. Was that a type of holy Meal? Is Jesus indicating that all who are hungry are invited to eat and drink the free food that his himself?

Depending on what scriptures and extra-biblical resources one uses, there are arguments for offering Jesus' meal to everyone; to only the baptized, or to the baptized who share our beliefs and are living a properly Christian life.

According to the words of institution given to Paul by Christ directly the intention is that the elements are given for you.  It is a local "for you."
The "yous" in the words of institution are all plural.

Yes, local.
#4
Quote from: John Mundinger on Yesterday at 10:21:26 AM
Quote from: George Rahn on Yesterday at 09:58:24 AMAccording to the words of institution given to Paul by Christ directly the intention is that the elements are given for you.  It is a local "for you."

Wouldn't that local "for you" include everyone present whom the Lord has invited and for whom the Lord offers fulfillment of the promise of forgiveness and eternal life?

Yes.
#5
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on Yesterday at 12:39:05 AMThe earliest requirement for baptism from the Didache (perhaps end of 1st century) is baptism.

But let no one eat or drink of your thanks-giving except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for the Lord has said, "Do not give that which is holy to the dogs." (Didache 9:3)

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165) adds to that:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. (First Apology, CHAP. LXVI)

Proper belief and right living was now also required in addition to baptism.

In addition, Jesus used actions quite similar to the Last Supper when feeding the crowds: blessing, breaking, distributing. Was that a type of holy Meal? Is Jesus indicating that all who are hungry are invited to eat and drink the free food that his himself?

Depending on what scriptures and extra-biblical resources one uses, there are arguments for offering Jesus' meal to everyone; to only the baptized, or to the baptized who share our beliefs and are living a properly Christian life.

According to the words of institution given to Paul by Christ directly the intention is that the elements are given for you.  It is a local "for you."
#6
Quote from: Charles Austin on June 11, 2024, 09:50:53 PMPastor Preus:
Jesus said he would be with us always to the end of the age. He is still with us 2,000 years later.
Me:
You mean like Ovid, Sappho, Euripides, Plato, Socrates and Alexander the Great are with us? Ok.



Absolutely stupid remark, Pr. Austin
#7
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on June 11, 2024, 10:50:53 AM
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 11, 2024, 06:54:18 AM
Quote from: aletheist on June 10, 2024, 09:06:21 PMWithin the LCMS, such final authority is vested in the Convention; and in 1973, it determined that "facticity of miracle accounts and their details; historicity of Adam and Eve as real persons; the fall of Adam and Eve into sin as a real event, to which original sin and its imputation upon all succeeding generations of mankind must be traced; the historicity of every detail in the life of Jesus as recorded by the evangelists; predictive prophecies in the Old Testament which are in fact Messianic; the doctrine of angels; [and] the Jonah account" are all examples of "matters which are in fact clearly taught in Scripture," not "theological opinion or exegetical questions."

I thought the final authority was Scripture and the Confessions.
Not really. It's who gets to interpret Scriptures and the Confessions. The ELCA has Churchwide Assemblies who can approve proper interpretations. We approve Social Teaching Statements which suggest interpretations. Our Confession of Faith begins with the Trinity, and statements about Jesus Christ - Scriptures and Confessions come after such key doctrines. Certainly our doctrines about the Trinity and Christ come from Scriptures; but other groups use the same scriptures and come to other interpretations which we consider false: Unitarians, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Jews (same OT), to name some.

The final authority are the scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions despite ELCA constitutional statements and authority.  If it was the other way around, the ELCA  would be imposing a papist view of authority upon itself which makes scriptures secondary.  The scriptures and Lutheran confessions are the final word.

Interpretation also is secondary as it would contradict scripture interpreting itself.
#8
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on June 10, 2024, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on June 10, 2024, 02:43:06 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 10, 2024, 01:57:27 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on June 10, 2024, 01:19:21 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 10, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on June 09, 2024, 10:33:49 PMThat is not true.  When I insist on taking Genesis 1 & 2 at it reads, that is literally, I am saying nothing at all about "creation science."  This isn't science.  It's history.  Moses wrote an historical account of creation.  That's the natural reading of the text.

That would be the natural reading of the text if you assume that it was written, literally, as history.  That, however, is a debatable assumption.  At the same time, I note that there is a school that teaches "creation science" based on the proposition "Answers in Genesis".


But this assumes that history cannot "run" differently under different circumstances.

If that is correct, then it also assumes that you know how history was running at the time the autograph was written


Not necessarily.  I'm suggesting that we can only infer on assertions about history and origins under specific conditions.

We can also make predictions of what we should expect to find. 

Perhaps in limited situations and certainly may not be projected into distant histories.
#9
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 10, 2024, 02:16:43 PM
Quote from: aletheist on June 10, 2024, 02:00:32 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 10, 2024, 01:53:54 PMIf that is the case, please explain the difference between inerrancy as an LCMS dogma and inerrancy as a fundamentalist dogma.
"Inerrancy" is a vernacular English word that means "without error." The Christian doctrine of inerrancy is the teaching that Scripture is without error. As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who assigns any additional "baggage" to this concept.

If there is only one inerrancy dogma, it is fundamentalist dogma.  And, yes, it does come with a lot of baggage that has much more to do with interpretation than Scripture.

That is according to your bias and understanding that inerrancy of scripture and fundamentalist ideas of scripture are the same.  There is a wider variety of understandings of which many do not correlate with what Lutheran theology defines as inerrancy of scriptures. 
#10
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 10, 2024, 01:57:27 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on June 10, 2024, 01:19:21 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 10, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on June 09, 2024, 10:33:49 PMThat is not true.  When I insist on taking Genesis 1 & 2 at it reads, that is literally, I am saying nothing at all about "creation science."  This isn't science.  It's history.  Moses wrote an historical account of creation.  That's the natural reading of the text.

That would be the natural reading of the text if you assume that it was written, literally, as history.  That, however, is a debatable assumption.  At the same time, I note that there is a school that teaches "creation science" based on the proposition "Answers in Genesis".


But this assumes that history cannot "run" differently under different circumstances.

If that is correct, then it also assumes that you know how history was running at the time the autograph was written


Not necessarily.  I'm suggesting that we can only infer on assertions about history and origins under specific conditions.
#11
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on June 10, 2024, 01:26:37 PM
Quote from: George Rahn on June 10, 2024, 01:21:03 PM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on June 10, 2024, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: George Rahn on June 09, 2024, 11:30:54 PMI don't know where this fits, but I'll give it a try:  Genesis 1 and 2 is an only available to us sinners as looking back into the garden from the stance of never being allowed to return to Eden.  Therefore I can fully agree that God created the first man as God did ala the narrative as it stands in those chapters.  The same with the first woman as coming from the first man's rib.  Those ways of God are no longer available to us in terms of God's creating activity.  After exile from the garden, sexual intercourse became the way forward in terms of human propagation.  Perhaps and only perhaps this is where the subject of evolution can begin. 

This goes to the same presupposition issue.  These are your assertions from your reading.  You may or may not have the correct understanding.  Evolution doesn't need to be shoehorned into the text.  It would require a reassessment of other theological elements, but none that are a problem for essential doctrines.

Yes.  Again, you say tomahto and I say tomaaato

The big difference would be the lines of evidence I can use from independent lines of inquiry that corroborate with my position. 

Huh?
#12
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on June 10, 2024, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: George Rahn on June 09, 2024, 11:30:54 PMI don't know where this fits, but I'll give it a try:  Genesis 1 and 2 is an only available to us sinners as looking back into the garden from the stance of never being allowed to return to Eden.  Therefore I can fully agree that God created the first man as God did ala the narrative as it stands in those chapters.  The same with the first woman as coming from the first man's rib.  Those ways of God are no longer available to us in terms of God's creating activity.  After exile from the garden, sexual intercourse became the way forward in terms of human propagation.  Perhaps and only perhaps this is where the subject of evolution can begin. 

This goes to the same presupposition issue.  These are your assertions from your reading.  You may or may not have the correct understanding.  Evolution doesn't need to be shoehorned into the text.  It would require a reassessment of other theological elements, but none that are a problem for essential doctrines.

Yes.  Again, you say tomahto and I say tomaaato
#13
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 10, 2024, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on June 09, 2024, 10:33:49 PMThat is not true.  When I insist on taking Genesis 1 & 2 at it reads, that is literally, I am saying nothing at all about "creation science."  This isn't science.  It's history.  Moses wrote an historical account of creation.  That's the natural reading of the text.

That would be the natural reading of the text if you assume that it was written, literally, as history.  That, however, is a debatable assumption.  At the same time, I note that there is a school that teaches "creation science" based on the proposition "Answers in Genesis".


But this assumes that history cannot "run" differently under different circumstances.
#14
I don't know where this fits, but I'll give it a try:  Genesis 1 and 2 is an only available to us sinners as looking back into the garden from the stance of never being allowed to return to Eden.  Therefore I can fully agree that God created the first man as God did ala the narrative as it stands in those chapters.  The same with the first woman as coming from the first man's rib.  Those ways of God are no longer available to us in terms of God's creating activity.  After exile from the garden, sexual intercourse became the way forward in terms of human propagation.  Perhaps and only perhaps this is where the subject of evolution can begin. 
#15
Quote from: aletheist on June 06, 2024, 02:37:49 PM
Quote from: LC IV:57, TriglottaI and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.
Quote from: LC IV:57, Kolb and WengertMy neighbor and I – in short, all people – may deceive and mislead, but God's Word cannot deceive.
The German text states that all people may fehlen (err) and truegen (deceive), but the Word of God cannot fehlen (err). The Latin translation states that all people may errare (err) and fallere (deceive), but the Word of God can neither errare (err) nor fallere (deceive).

Fehlen also has the connotation of "to fail."
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk