News:


Main Menu

Sola Scriptura

Started by RogerMartim, May 10, 2012, 06:18:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Team Hesse

Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 10:06:30 AM

A professor at Luther, Dr. Walter Sundberg, has put out a book entitled "Worship as Repentance" that deals in part with the neglect of repentance in modern American Lutheranism.  It will be controversial and will face criticism from evangelical catholics as well as some on the confessional side who resist placing any conditions on the Gospel.  Sundberg criticizes the shift from "penitential piety" to "eucharistic piety" that began with SBH and came to full flower with the LBW.  He also criticizes the unconditional absolution found in many Lutheran liturgies in the second half of th 20th Century.  He calls for the restoration of a penitential piety and the use of both the binding and the loosing keys in worship.

Conditions on the Gospel? Hmmmmm......????

Lou

peter_speckhard

Conditions on applying the Gospel, not on the Gospel itself. It is false to give the comfort of the Gospel to one secure in his sins. Hence repentance is a pre-requisite for receiving the Gospel in faith.

Team Hesse

Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 18, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
Conditions on applying the Gospel, not on the Gospel itself. It is false to give the comfort of the Gospel to one secure in his sins. Hence repentance is a pre-requisite for receiving the Gospel in faith.
And a person who is unrepentant has no ears for the forgiveness of sins and cannot hear it anyway.


Probably should not stop us from speaking it anyway. Jesus did, "Father forgive them for they never know what they are doing".....

And scripture and our confessions are quite clear that we cannot know all the ways we are sinners (every thing and every way we need to repent ), "who can discern their errors?"

Lou

DCharlton

Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 11:07:06 AM
Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 10:06:30 AM

A professor at Luther, Dr. Walter Sundberg, has put out a book entitled "Worship as Repentance" that deals in part with the neglect of repentance in modern American Lutheranism.  It will be controversial and will face criticism from evangelical catholics as well as some on the confessional side who resist placing any conditions on the Gospel.  Sundberg criticizes the shift from "penitential piety" to "eucharistic piety" that began with SBH and came to full flower with the LBW.  He also criticizes the unconditional absolution found in many Lutheran liturgies in the second half of th 20th Century.  He calls for the restoration of a penitential piety and the use of both the binding and the loosing keys in worship.

Conditions on the Gospel? Hmmmmm......????

Lou

Well, that is the critique leveled against his thesis.    I'm not sure Dr. Sundberg sees it that way.  The broader question is whether it is appropriate to pronounce forgiveness upon those who are unrepentant and unbelieving.  He argues that including both the binding and losing key in order of confession and forgiveness is consistent with Lutheran practice, particularly in reference to the Common Service. 

I'm not completely converted to his point of view, but it raises important questions about the way Law and Gospel is distinguished in American Lutheranism.  Similar to the questions raised by Walther's lectures on Law and Gospel. 
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Confessional Lutheran on May 18, 2012, 06:41:31 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 17, 2012, 11:18:53 AM
Quote from: Confessional Lutheran on May 17, 2012, 11:00:43 AM
But as you say, Antinomianism never really works.

Seems to be doing real well in the ELCA.


It's a matter of perspective.


We see it as the proper distinction between law and gospel -- with the emphasis on gospel.


What the LCMS calls law and gospel, we see as legalism because of their emphasis on the law.

I was taught that in Law and Gospel, if the law is dropped and your only preaching the gospel, the gospel become the law, and there is no Gospel.

So there again the ELCA doesn't believe as we do, doesn't even come close, Brian.


I had a professor who stated that we did not always have to preach the law from the pulpit because the world does a very good job of preaching the law. The folks come to worship already beaten down by the demands of work, household responsibilities, rude people on the roads in grocery lines, cancer and other illnesses, etc. Telling them that God loves them, God accepts them, God forgives and removes whatever is burdening them is Gospel -- and it is not turning Gospel into law.


There were other professors who disagreed and taught that each sermon needed the preaching of Law to set the context for the Gospel that has to be proclaimed; and/or to verbalize the power of sin that has beaten the folks down so that the Gospel can raise them back up again.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 11:07:06 AM
Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 10:06:30 AM

A professor at Luther, Dr. Walter Sundberg, has put out a book entitled "Worship as Repentance" that deals in part with the neglect of repentance in modern American Lutheranism.  It will be controversial and will face criticism from evangelical catholics as well as some on the confessional side who resist placing any conditions on the Gospel.  Sundberg criticizes the shift from "penitential piety" to "eucharistic piety" that began with SBH and came to full flower with the LBW.  He also criticizes the unconditional absolution found in many Lutheran liturgies in the second half of th 20th Century.  He calls for the restoration of a penitential piety and the use of both the binding and the loosing keys in worship.

Conditions on the Gospel? Hmmmmm...... ??? ?


A lot like telling confirmation kids, "You have to pass this test to really understand grace."
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
The broader question is whether it is appropriate to pronounce forgiveness upon those who are unrepentant and unbelieving.


Jesus did. "Father forgive them. They don't know what they are doing."


Jesus healed a number of people without any mention of repentance or faith -- and healing is the releasing/forgiving of a disease. "Saving" and "healing" are two different ways of translating the same Greek word.


Jesus communed the Twelve when he knew one would betray him, one would deny him, and all would abandon him.



I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

DCharlton

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2012, 01:11:55 PM
Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
The broader question is whether it is appropriate to pronounce forgiveness upon those who are unrepentant and unbelieving.


Jesus did. "Father forgive them. They don't know what they are doing."


Jesus healed a number of people without any mention of repentance or faith -- and healing is the releasing/forgiving of a disease. "Saving" and "healing" are two different ways of translating the same Greek word.


Jesus communed the Twelve when he knew one would betray him, one would deny him, and all would abandon him.

Since I have not adopted that thesis, but am still pondering it, I'm not going to argue it with you.  However, the argument hinges on the the historical practice of the Lutheran churches in America, as well as on the pastoral wisdom of including an unconditional absolution on all, repentant or not, believing or not, as part of public worship.  So its not a question of whether such an absolution ever be appropriate, but what is more appropriate for regular pastoral practice. 
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Team Hesse

#98
Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 11:07:06 AM
Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 10:06:30 AM

A professor at Luther, Dr. Walter Sundberg, has put out a book entitled "Worship as Repentance" that deals in part with the neglect of repentance in modern American Lutheranism.  It will be controversial and will face criticism from evangelical catholics as well as some on the confessional side who resist placing any conditions on the Gospel.  Sundberg criticizes the shift from "penitential piety" to "eucharistic piety" that began with SBH and came to full flower with the LBW.  He also criticizes the unconditional absolution found in many Lutheran liturgies in the second half of th 20th Century.  He calls for the restoration of a penitential piety and the use of both the binding and the loosing keys in worship.

Conditions on the Gospel? Hmmmmm...... ??? ?

Lou

Well, that is the critique leveled against his thesis.    I'm not sure Dr. Sundberg sees it that way.  The broader question is whether it is appropriate to pronounce forgiveness upon those who are unrepentant and unbelieving.  He argues that including both the binding and losing key in order of confession and forgiveness is consistent with Lutheran practice, particularly in reference to the Common Service. 

I'm not completely converted to his point of view, but it raises important questions about the way Law and Gospel is distinguished in American Lutheranism.  Similar to the questions raised by Walther's lectures on Law and Gospel.

It would be an interesting conversation to sit in on. Dr Sundberg has been involved in the Reclaim hymnal project. My congregation uses that hymnal but I could not bring myself to threaten my poor parishioners with the conditional absolutions offered therein. I substituted one I had heard used among my friends and I have received good comments for having done so. The Mennonite backup keyboardist at our place asked for a personal written copy of it because it was the "clearest absolution he had ever heard." He told me I would make a Lutheran out of him yet ;) .

Reclaim has a strong Pietist streak to it, as does N American Lutheranism generally.

It is always fine to deal in questions regarding the correct distinction of Law and Gospel--it is the challenge of the Office.

Lou

George Erdner

Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 18, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
Conditions on applying the Gospel, not on the Gospel itself. It is false to give the comfort of the Gospel to one secure in his sins. Hence repentance is a pre-requisite for receiving the Gospel in faith.
And a person who is unrepentant has no ears for the forgiveness of sins and cannot hear it anyway.


Probably should not stop us from speaking it anyway. Jesus did, "Father forgive them for they never know what they are doing".....

And scripture and our confessions are quite clear that we cannot know all the ways we are sinners (every thing and every way we need to repent ), "who can discern their errors?"

Lou

The statement "Father forgive them for they never know what they are doing" tells us that the legal principle "ignorance of the law is no excuse" only applies to secular law. To God's Law, ignorance (not know the Law) IS an excuse, because Jesus calls on His Father to forgive them based on their ignorance. However, once one does know the Law, then (I presume) one can no longer plead ignorance, and instead must repent as a prerequisite for receiving the Gospel in faith. That's why the antinomian position that one need not repent, and the revisionist position of looking for loopholes (it's all about the relationship) in the Law are so damnably perverse. That's exactly what the Great Deceiver wants people to believe.

I also submit that since we know we are sinners, and that being in a state of sin is our basic condition, we need not enumerate each specific act of sin that we repent of, unless we need to unburden ourselves of something particularly troubling. That's why we confess to sins "known and unknown".

The basic gist of it is that God will let us off the hook for ignorance, but not for pretending that something we know is a sin isn't really a sin.

Team Hesse

Quote from: George Erdner on May 18, 2012, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 18, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
Conditions on applying the Gospel, not on the Gospel itself. It is false to give the comfort of the Gospel to one secure in his sins. Hence repentance is a pre-requisite for receiving the Gospel in faith.
And a person who is unrepentant has no ears for the forgiveness of sins and cannot hear it anyway.


Probably should not stop us from speaking it anyway. Jesus did, "Father forgive them for they never know what they are doing".....

And scripture and our confessions are quite clear that we cannot know all the ways we are sinners (every thing and every way we need to repent ), "who can discern their errors?"

Lou

The statement "Father forgive them for they never know what they are doing" tells us that the legal principle "ignorance of the law is no excuse" only applies to secular law. To God's Law, ignorance (not know the Law) IS an excuse, because Jesus calls on His Father to forgive them based on their ignorance. However, once one does know the Law, then (I presume) one can no longer plead ignorance, and instead must repent as a prerequisite for receiving the Gospel in faith. That's why the antinomian position that one need not repent, and the revisionist position of looking for loopholes (it's all about the relationship) in the Law are so damnably perverse. That's exactly what the Great Deceiver wants people to believe.

I also submit that since we know we are sinners, and that being in a state of sin is our basic condition, we need not enumerate each specific act of sin that we repent of, unless we need to unburden ourselves of something particularly troubling. That's why we confess to sins "known and unknown".

The basic gist of it is that God will let us off the hook for ignorance, but not for pretending that something we know is a sin isn't really a sin.

No George, there is no getting off the hook. The wages of sin is death and I haven't seen any press release to the effect that the death rate is anything less than 100%. The unrepentant are one thing. The repentant another.

Lou

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Lutheranistic on May 17, 2012, 07:27:59 PM
Pr. Stoffregen wrote:
QuotePerhaps Jesus looked around and saw free men and soldiers using and abusing young men and women of the lower classes for their own sexual pleasures, he might have said, "Publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous relationships ... hmmm, sounds like a good idea."

Pr. Stoffregen, you left "same gender" out of the hypothetical response from Jesus...I'm assuming that was an oversight, not a modification of your view..if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.


Not an oversight; but also a corrective to the use and abuse of women back in that culture. According to some studies, the "natural" use of sex was for a dominant (higher ranking person, primarily free males) to use a subordinate (females, slaves of either sex) for sexual pleasure.


I'm also following Paul's lead that if one cannot control sexual passions get married (enter into a publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous relationship).

QuoteI realize that I'm now coming at this from a reasoning/logic standpoint rather than a scriptural one, but I think that has it's place, even in a thread entitled "Sola Scriptura"...but do we now determine that an action is God-pleasing because something worse is possible? I can (ok, have) justify all sorts of questionable behavior on my part by looking across the street and saying, "God must be pleased with what I'm doing because it's not nearly as bad as what those people over there are doing!"


Even when I attended the conservative Lutheran Bible Institute in Seattle, I remember a teacher saying that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils; e.g., divorce rather than a bad, abusive marriage.

I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 18, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
Conditions on applying the Gospel, not on the Gospel itself. It is false to give the comfort of the Gospel to one secure in his sins. Hence repentance is a pre-requisite for receiving the Gospel in faith.


According to Paul's only use of "repentance" in Romans, it comes as a result of God's kindness -- not a prerequisite for it.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

DCharlton

Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 01:41:00 PM
Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 01:03:47 PM
Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 11:07:06 AM
Quote from: DCharlton on May 18, 2012, 10:06:30 AM

A professor at Luther, Dr. Walter Sundberg, has put out a book entitled "Worship as Repentance" that deals in part with the neglect of repentance in modern American Lutheranism.  It will be controversial and will face criticism from evangelical catholics as well as some on the confessional side who resist placing any conditions on the Gospel.  Sundberg criticizes the shift from "penitential piety" to "eucharistic piety" that began with SBH and came to full flower with the LBW.  He also criticizes the unconditional absolution found in many Lutheran liturgies in the second half of th 20th Century.  He calls for the restoration of a penitential piety and the use of both the binding and the loosing keys in worship.

Conditions on the Gospel? Hmmmmm...... ??? ?

Lou

Well, that is the critique leveled against his thesis.    I'm not sure Dr. Sundberg sees it that way.  The broader question is whether it is appropriate to pronounce forgiveness upon those who are unrepentant and unbelieving.  He argues that including both the binding and losing key in order of confession and forgiveness is consistent with Lutheran practice, particularly in reference to the Common Service. 

I'm not completely converted to his point of view, but it raises important questions about the way Law and Gospel is distinguished in American Lutheranism.  Similar to the questions raised by Walther's lectures on Law and Gospel.

It would be an interesting conversation to sit in on. Dr Sundberg has been involved in the Reclaim hymnal project. My congregation uses that hymnal but I could not bring myself to threaten my poor parishioners with the conditional absolutions offered therein. I substituted one I had heard used among my friends and I have received good comments for having done so. The Mennonite backup keyboardist at our place asked for a personal written copy of it because it was the "clearest absolution he had ever heard." He told me I would make a Lutheran out of him yet ;) .

Reclaim has a strong Pietist streak to it, as does N American Lutheranism generally.

It is always fine to deal in questions regarding the correct distinction of Law and Gospel--it is the challenge of the Office.

Lou

I wondered if you were familiar with the Reclaim Hymnal.  As you probably know, Dr. Sundberg's book arose from the controversy surrounding the absolution that you mention.  I have used parts of the Reclaim hymnal, but was not able to use either absolution found in the first setting.  Is used one based on the absolution found in many versions of the Common Service, including the SBH. 

What's your position on the exclusion of the Eucharistic Prayer and the inclusion of the Exhortation in Reclaim?
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

George Erdner

Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 02:19:58 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on May 18, 2012, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Team Hesse on May 18, 2012, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on May 18, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
Conditions on applying the Gospel, not on the Gospel itself. It is false to give the comfort of the Gospel to one secure in his sins. Hence repentance is a pre-requisite for receiving the Gospel in faith.
And a person who is unrepentant has no ears for the forgiveness of sins and cannot hear it anyway.


Probably should not stop us from speaking it anyway. Jesus did, "Father forgive them for they never know what they are doing".....

And scripture and our confessions are quite clear that we cannot know all the ways we are sinners (every thing and every way we need to repent ), "who can discern their errors?"

Lou

The statement "Father forgive them for they never know what they are doing" tells us that the legal principle "ignorance of the law is no excuse" only applies to secular law. To God's Law, ignorance (not know the Law) IS an excuse, because Jesus calls on His Father to forgive them based on their ignorance. However, once one does know the Law, then (I presume) one can no longer plead ignorance, and instead must repent as a prerequisite for receiving the Gospel in faith. That's why the antinomian position that one need not repent, and the revisionist position of looking for loopholes (it's all about the relationship) in the Law are so damnably perverse. That's exactly what the Great Deceiver wants people to believe.

I also submit that since we know we are sinners, and that being in a state of sin is our basic condition, we need not enumerate each specific act of sin that we repent of, unless we need to unburden ourselves of something particularly troubling. That's why we confess to sins "known and unknown".

The basic gist of it is that God will let us off the hook for ignorance, but not for pretending that something we know is a sin isn't really a sin.

No George, there is no getting off the hook. The wages of sin is death and I haven't seen any press release to the effect that the death rate is anything less than 100%. The unrepentant are one thing. The repentant another.

Lou

Lou, I didn't say "getting off the hook", I said "God will let us off the hook". That might not be typical, flowery "preacher speak" to describe God's loving gift of forgiving grace, but I think it's linguistically accurate. If God forgives us our sins, God has "let us off the hook". My point was to disagree with your assertion that the words of Jesus to forgive those who didn't know what they were doing indicated that repentance was unnecessary. It indicated that God's mercy is such that He won't punish those whose failure to repent is because of ignorance. Those who know that are sinners can't count on God forgiving them because they aren't aware that they are sinners. Those who know that they are sinners need to repent.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk