Fruit is pretty important - probably more as a sober self-appraisal more than anything else. As far as our wanting to set ourselves up as judges in border-disputes, Matthew 7:21-23 pretty much blows that entire program right out of the water.
1 Like
No.
The only consistent freedom of religion means the freedom to do MY religion free from the dictates of YOUR religion. Thus the freedom of religion MUST include the freedom from religion. It means that no religion dictates anything to anyone. It most certainly does not mean not having to put up with the religious beliefs, and behaviors of others who make different choices when it comes to religion PROVIDED that those behaviors do not violate the same rights of other people. Religious freedom is certainly not a licence for theocracy OR atheocracy.
1 Like
Ah… so in your case knowledge that someone is Xtian means an assurance they will go along with your demand for power over others. According to this, being Xtian mean people have to obey what you dictate the words of Christ to be and what you understand those words to mean.
That was the argument of Pelagius declared heretic in the council of Carthage 418.
The notion of a free society is that nobody speaks for God and so everyone has to decide for themselves if and what God has said to us, and nobody has a right to dictate that their book or magazine and their understanding of these publications makes that decision for other people.
So I suppose there is no reason why you would have to care about what Jesus said. “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” And so making the Bible your measure of others means that you have made it the measure by which God will judge you. And so your salvation now rests on the shifting sand of your own scriptural and theological expertise. I bet I know more of the Bible than you do and yet I would not do anything so foolish.
So If you are a Christian, then you would do what Jesus has said in Matthew chapter 7.
Not quite sure how this relates to my post, but as an American, I could probably argue that both are included in our constitution to an extent. So yes, I’m for freedom of religion. It’s a bit thornier when one person’s religious expression violates another’s.
1 Like
Are you saying that the Ten Commandments, Jesus commands and the instruction of the Apostles are not easily understood? You are trying to make something mysterious that is simple enough for anyone to understand.
Otherwise when your religion is not the one in power you’d have to worry about being able to practice your own. Only by everyone foreswearing religious domination can everyone be assured the right to practice their own will be respected. Of course that extends to no religion. After all, what is a coerced profession of faith worth?
1 Like
Is your faith grounded in the Word of God or the edicts of the Councils? Montanus, Tertullian, and Nestorius were also considered heretics, but like Pelagius they had much to say that was beneficial. In contrast, Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria, who was responsible for the brutal murder of Hypatia, is considered orthodox. Is everything Augustine and Calvin said and wrote orthodox? Certainly not.
As you have pointed out, only God can judge, but as a Pastor, I have the right to an unbinding opinion. One who lives in habitual, unceasing sin cannot possibly be a Christian in the strictest definition of the term. Armenians would say he/she fell from grace; Calvinists would say he/she was never saved in the first place. To quote Ayn Rand, “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”
I am glad that you get that the two are distinct. Since 99% of the colonists called themselves Christians, it is hard to think that the Founders and Framers intended freedom from religion, but that is the concept that pervades cultural thinking today. From my perspective that notion creates a moral dilemma and gives rise to hedonism and anarchy, but isn’t that quite evident today?
Since these 99% were not Church of England and they came to this continent in order to practice their own religion, that is EXACTLY what they meant!!!
From my perspective your notion creates intolerant communities and give rise to bigotry and tyranny. And this is quite evident from comparing today with times past.
Neither. My faith is in God alone.
Indeed! Not everything the majority of western Xtianity believes is what I would call orthodox, let alone sane or reasonable.
Much of what Pelagius said was later adopted by the Protestants and some of what Augustine said was extremely bizarre. Those two should have sat down and talked.
Ah!! you mean those who live in habitual, unceasing sins which you don’t indulge in yourself are denied being Christian – just as long as people are following you in your sins then it is ok dokey.
And I would say this poor sinner has been a little too honest and indiscreet so all those other sinners at the church can look down their noses at him.
Well let me be the first LCMS member on this site to respond. It was of course disappointing to hear the news of this decision, but anyone familiar with our history could see it coming half a year away.
Really, it changes absolutely nothing because we’ve been making these affirmations since 1932. It’s just sad to see how our synodical and lay leadership continue the conflict theory paradigm. We just keep doubling down on it. It’s a very complicated dynamic in our history.
On a positive note, I outed myself to my pastor last week about my acceptance of evolution and scientific consensus and we’ve had some very good mutually respectful dialogue. As they say, hope springs eternal. Please keep us in your prayers!
And if I can answer any specific questions, feel free to let me know.
12 Likes
Is there pressure on pastors? Like, do they have to sign doctrinal statements, or just agree not to actively undermine the denomination’s teaching? I noticed the vote had a significant dissenting population.
There was dissent but I think it was about the use of the word “natural days” and the lack of clarity regarding that phrase. So, I’m not sure how much dissent was actually about the resolution itself.
We have congregational polity, so it’s not hierarchical and my understanding is that pastors aren’t technically expected to sign off on the statement per se, but they wouldn’t go against it. So they may have their own opinion, but they’d need to publicly affirm the teaching consistent with the statements of 1932 and 1973.
That said, we don’t make doctrine by Synodical resolution and Synod is only an advisory body. The only rule and norm for faith and practice is the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. And the confessions don’t say anything about a six day creation, just that we confess that “God made me and all creatures”. All our confessional documents retained in the Book of Concord begin with Original Sin and the Fall.
My concern is that we have a large school system including grade schools and the Concordia University undergrad system. Second largest parochial system only to Catholic schools and this makes it hard to teach science. I wouldn’t send my child to one as a result, especially if he’d think about higher education in the sciences.
6 Likes
I listened to the recorded discussion, and I was amazed that the resolution was passed, particularly in view of some well articulated dissent from the floor.
The resolution assumes that any Christian reading the Genesis 1 text would automatically assume that the “evening and morning” referred to a 24-hour day period, without even allowing for the possibility of a metaphorical interpretation. This seems consistent with Ken Ham’s view that a mere child would know exactly what a “day” in Genesis was all about, and that such a child would completely and competently understand the implications of such a reading, without any need to resort to “interpretation.”
One could go onto allow for the “natural day” interpretation… er… I guess “interpretation-less”(???) interpretation…, and then consistently follow John Walton’s temple inauguration view, but I don’t think the advocates of the resolution would have imagined Walton’s view as a legitimate alternative either.
This is sort of off-topic, but could be related, if you see where I am going. When Martin Luther championed sola scriptura, he was originally quite enthusiastic about the doctrine of soul-sleep, as there are several New Testament passages, that when read “plainly,” talk about the soul sleeping when a person dies. John Calvin directly challenged that type of reading of Scripture, as not paying attention to the category of metaphor. However, I think the issue of soul sleep parallels the “natural days” reading of Genesis that the LCMS resolution advocates: Who needs to interpret the text, just simply read it, right?
Has the Lutheran tradition come to grips with the hermeneutical questions of metaphor regarding Luther’s reading of the soul sleep passages, and has this ever come into play in the Genesis 1 discussions?
Or are these Genesis 1 discussions mainly an attempt to lock the door on Darwin, and keep him outside the church, if you know what I mean?
1 Like
Kudos to you for listening through that! I haven’t quite gotten the desire up to sit through it yet.
I’m not aware of anyone bringing up the ‘soul sleep’ issue, at least in any official argument from the CTCR or in casual discussion. I believe it’s more of the second question you mentioned and that it desires to shut the door on Darwin, especially as it relates to our universities and schools.
I think it’s also fueled by America’s general ignorance of how evolution works or scientific consensus is formed and refined. On top of that you have the national political divide where groups like the ACLU and others who support causes we don’t like, also support keeping Creationism and intelligent design out of public schools. And there’s our own divide with the far more liberal ELCA who accepts evolutionary teaching, but also a whole host of other issues that result from how one views Scripture that we don’t accept. That of course brings up the Seminex controversy and the fact that when we purged our Concordia Seminary SL faculty over teaching higher criticism, they found acceptance in the ELCA. I think all these things tie together which makes us dig our heels in any time the matter of Scriptural authority is involved.
3 Likes
Lord Jesus. Thank you for coming to dwell among us and for teaching us your wisdom. Help us to reject sin and to follow your Word on loving one another. And please, Lord, come back to tell us again. Your people need you now.
3 Likes
Both, freedom of and freedom from, because both are biblical.
While we are indeed commanded to evangelize those who will listen voluntarily (otherwise dust off your feet and be on your way),
-
There is no call in the New Testament to prevent others from worshipping false religions, therefore there is found, in the New Testament, freedom of religion.
-
There is no call in the New Testament to create a civil government that enforces biblical law, (1) i.e., no call for anything that resembles a theocracy. We are supposed to obey our rules, not require others, by force of law, to obey or to listen. Therefore there is found, in the New Testament, freedom from religion. We are called to consider ourselves citizens of the Kingdom of God and aliens in whatever land we live in.
If you do not affirm both, freedom of and from religion, then you are too liberal (2) for my tastes.
(1) Of course, a subset of biblical law, such as a prohibition against murder (at least of those outside the womb) will overlap with civil law.
(2) Liberal in the sense that John Gerstner used it: taking liberties with scripture. In this case (denying either freedom of or freedom from) it would in the form of assuming instructions that God apparently didn’t have time to tell us when the Holy Spirit inspried the New Testemant writers.
EDIT: TYPO
1 Like
They have effectively passed a resolution stating that “God is a god of deceit and confusion, a god who has seeded the earth and heavens with vast amounts of fake evidence, for some unknown purpose. A god that behaves in a capricious manner that is contrary to all his attributes as expressed in scripture.”
This is dangerous, as making something cardinal that is not intended to be cardinal always is. It splits the body over something that should not be the source of a split. Creation should be an agree-to-disagree matter, as the early creeds understood when they expressed the who (God) and the what (maker of heaven and earth) but were wisely silent on the when and the how.
It is also dangerous in a more poignant way that I have seen, first-hand, more than once. A student reared in such an environment, assuming the literal six day dogma is reaffirmed in the home and Christian school, arrives at university and is immediately placed in tension between what they learn about modern science and what they have been told (out of foolhardiness) is sacrosanct. They are, due to the dogmatic insistence of those who should be emphasizing the gospel rather than a theory of creation, given an impossible Sophie’s Choice. And sometimes when they choose one (unimportant dogma or secular science) the other becomes dead to them.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.