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 - Fcdwyn

#46
Your Turn / Re: Joe Biden denied communion
October 31, 2019, 08:43:31 PM
Quote from: Dave Benke on October 30, 2019, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on October 30, 2019, 02:15:37 PM
Quote from: pearson on October 30, 2019, 02:09:50 PM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on October 30, 2019, 12:08:46 PM



At the same time, this is precisely the Donald Trump argument, isn't it?  "I could kill someone in front of a crowd on Fifth Avenue and not go to jail."  One of his support team, KA Conway, has stated that if Trump did not feel in his heart of hearts that it was wrong to withhold Ukrainian funds unless the Biden dirt-digging took place, then it couldn't be wrong because his conscience was not bound.  Again, same logic you're using on the other side of the road.

Dave Benke

Trump did not ask for dirt-digging on a political opponent. As the President whose responsibility it is to enforce the law, he was asking for Ukrainian help in investigating whether Joe Biden broke the law when demanding that the prosecutor who was investigating the company whose board Biden's son sat on be fired within 6 hours or Biden would withhold U.S. funds he was there to deliver to Ukraine.
#47
Quote from: J.L. Precup on September 17, 2019, 08:16:01 PM
I have a photo of my father from 1944 with some of his Navy shipmates in the US Grant hotel in downtown San Diego.  It was before he sailed to the South Pacific to fight for freedom in WWII.  Another person will have lunch tomorrow at the US Grant hotel on Wednesday.  He will be here to solicit funds to continue to profit from his elected office.


I am most grateful for your father's service.  But tell me which president has not profited from his elected office.  What's good for Obama -- coming to CA any number of times to raise funds -- is not OK for Trump?
#48
Your Turn / Re: LCMS Convention in Tampa, FL
July 22, 2019, 01:25:45 PM
This morning after some rather awkward and last minute floor committee revisions of phrases in the Resolveds to the motion,  table, or refer the resolution for further study, Resolution 7-08, To Aid Our CUS Schools in Clear Confession (printed in Todays Business, p. 298-9) was passed with a 75% yes vote. The key phrase was that campus groups celebrating and/or affirming sinful behavior would be dealt with by ecclesiastical and other appropriate supervision.
#49
Your Turn / Re: Ark Encounter
June 18, 2019, 05:11:10 PM
Is not Genesis 1:1 saying that God created the universe and is that verse not also consistent with what scientists such as Dr. Hugh Ross believe and teach about the "Big Bang Theory"--that the creation of the universe began some 14 billion years ago which brought about the earth some 4 billion years ago at which time Genesis 1:2ff. picks up the story?
#50
Quote from: Linda on July 17, 2018, 11:16:13 PM
Looking forward to voting for Trump, again.

Linda

:)
#51
Quote from: Richard Johnson on June 30, 2018, 02:55:05 PM
Quote from: Fcdwyn on June 30, 2018, 01:39:52 PM
Quote from: Richard Johnson on June 29, 2018, 01:24:05 PM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on June 28, 2018, 09:43:48 AM
The Republican argument was that it would be better for the new president to nominate the Supreme Court justice rather than a lame-duck president. 

And it was not a good argument, no matter whether it was made (as an off the cuff remark) by Biden in 1992 or (as an enforced policy) by McConnell in 2016. We may speak of "lame duck presidents," but in our system, the president is the president until the last minute of his/her term, and he/she has the right and the responsibility to appoint justices. The Senate similarly has the right/responsibility to vote whether or not to confirm. If there were an attack on our nation on January 15, no one would argue, "The president can't respond, he's a lame duck. Wait for the new guy."

Except that the argument McConnell made - giving advice in the matter as the Constitution grants to senators - still allowed for the possibility (probability at the time) that a democratic president would be choosing the next Justice - and Obama's right to choose a candidate was not taken from him.  That McConnell might have been hoping for a Republican choice, doesn't take away from the fact that his advice did not guarantee a Republican choice.

Well, I guess we're left, then, with the idea that McConnell's strategy was simply a peevish refusal to allow the appointment to a president he despised. As Steven said, the proper and constitutionally responsible thing to do would have been to take up the nomination of Garland and then give their advice by voting it down.

Whether or not McConnell "despised" Obama, he certainly did not agree with his political ideology, and therefore had every right to do what he did to delay the vote until after the election.  The senate's constitutional authority to "advise..." has to do with all of the interviews, discussions, and debates, along with the rules and procedures of the senate.  To use the rules that are in one party's favor when it has a majority in the senate is part of the "advise..." given by the Constitution, and is not denying or abusing any appointment power of the president. It is what anyone who is in support of the majority in the senate has a right to expect. 
#52
Quote from: Richard Johnson on June 29, 2018, 01:24:05 PM
Quote from: Steven W Bohler on June 28, 2018, 09:43:48 AM
The Republican argument was that it would be better for the new president to nominate the Supreme Court justice rather than a lame-duck president. 

And it was not a good argument, no matter whether it was made (as an off the cuff remark) by Biden in 1992 or (as an enforced policy) by McConnell in 2016. We may speak of "lame duck presidents," but in our system, the president is the president until the last minute of his/her term, and he/she has the right and the responsibility to appoint justices. The Senate similarly has the right/responsibility to vote whether or not to confirm. If there were an attack on our nation on January 15, no one would argue, "The president can't respond, he's a lame duck. Wait for the new guy."

Except that the argument McConnell made - giving advice in the matter as the Constitution grants to senators - still allowed for the possibility (probability at the time) that a democratic president would be choosing the next Justice - and Obama's right to choose a candidate was not taken from him.  That McConnell might have been hoping for a Republican choice, doesn't take away from the fact that his advice did not guarantee a Republican choice.
#53
Your Turn / Re: Immigration Laws
June 29, 2018, 08:44:05 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on June 29, 2018, 07:39:12 PM
Richard I expected better than this of you. 

I second Dan's response!
#54
MBecker stated: "There is no resolution of this paradox (the "simul") until God raises us from the dead and brings us into God's eternal light. In the meantime, we return again and again, daily, to our baptism, to the the confession of our perpetual, continual, inevitable sins of omission and commission, and to the promise of Christ's treasured forgiveness."

My concern in my previous posts is that the confession of sins in the Lutheran liturgy -- in the way that it is worded -- can leave the impression (it gave me that message!) that our sins cause us to lose our status of sainthood which cannot be restored until the words of absolution are pronounced.  This takes away the certainty of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.  Is not Luther going beyond St. Paul with the "simul" when Paul addresses the churches in his letters as saints? When you state that "we return again and again, daily, to our baptism..." are you saying that we do so to gain assurance that sainthood status trumps my sin and I am still saved or are you saying that we "return again and again..." to regain sainthood? If the latter, then where is the certainty of salvation by grace through faith?  What if I die before absolution, or the "return again..."?
#55
Thank you for the response, but if I may, let me push back a bit....

I do not think that my revised form of confession is saying the same thing as the words in the LSB say.  It seems to me that there is a big difference when the people confess together, "I a poor, miserable, sinner, confess unto You all my sins and iniquities with which I have ever offended You..." or when the people say, "...we justly deserve Your present and eternal punishment. ...have mercy on us...." and (my suggested form) "...even though we have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed, we will not face the punishment we deserve."  The former two forms -- to my mind -- say that I am not a forgiven sinner at that moment.  Perhaps that is not the intent -- thus my suggested form where the people acknowledge their sainthood.

The Luther quote is trying to say that we sin even after becoming saints, but Paul refers to the Philippians, et. al., as saints only as he greets them in his epistles (even though he points out sins later in those epistles).  Maybe the quote should be "...we are saints, who do sin..." with apologies to Dr. Luther.

You stated, "...but also in the world not perfect and so still fall into sin in spite of our redeemed nature."  This is true, but it needs to be clear that we do not fall out of grace by sinning -- and I think the confessional forms used in LSB, allow for that thought to take hold in the minds of worshipers.

 
#56
I am an occasional "lurker" who attends a non-denomination church (we sing our worship and praise and then listen to a teaching) and just discovered this thread this morning.

I have always been curious as to why Lutherans begin the worship service as if they have reverted back to their status as condemned sinners rather than as they have become by faith in Christ -- forgiven and redeemed children of God. I would agree that it is good to remind ourselves who we were without faith in Christ, but the general confession of sins (I have been to Lutheran services) seems to say to me that I have fallen out of grace during the week and have to "get saved again" by the words of the pastor in the absolution.

Far be it from me to tell Lutherans who have been worshiping this way for 500 years how they ought to change their service, so let me ask it this way. What would be wrong with modifying the confession and absolution in the following way:

P   If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
C   But if we confess our sins, God, who is faithful and just, will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Silence for reflection on God's Word.

P   We humbly acknowledge together our imperfect obedience.
C   Heavenly Father, we are so grateful for Your word and promise that declares that now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. Even though we have sinned against You in thought, word, and deed, we will not face the punishment we deserve. May Your Holy Spirit renew us, and lead us, so that we may more fully delight in Your will and walk in Your ways to the glory of Your holy name.

P   Almighty God in His mercy gave His Son to die for us and because of Him our sins are removed from us as far as the east is from the west. I assure you that our heavenly Father sees us as His holy children through the faith that the Holy Spirit has given to us in the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord, Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
C   Amen.

Thanks for your consideration.
   
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk