XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers

You may also like...

425 Responses

  1. just my opinion (… ignorant or pompous so I’ve been told)

    why is it that people are always trying to make relationship with God thru Jesus Christ so Unsimple and ‘corporate bylaws’ sounding?

    why the apparent desire to run back to a Law of Moses type of ‘ordering’ or ‘consecration’?

    this section looks like the CC and Rs of my mom and dad’s HOA.

    isn’t this like the Jews adding the Traditions or the Elders and Rabbinical Interpretations to the Word of God?

    “Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus… just to take Him at His Word…”

    Simply follow Jesus and follow His Word. “He’ll take care of the rest”- Keith Green
    -mic

  2. Reuben says:

    IMHO, it is interesting that you would quote Keith Green there.

    The further folks try to emancipate themselves from anything but Jesus (so to speak), the wackier they become.

    Like Keith Green.

    I have to get on a roof early today. Have fun.

  3. My response to article 36 is … What the hell? Pretty unconsecrated I guess.

  4. mike says:

    What was wacky about keith green?
    -mic

  5. MIC,
    “What was wacky about keith green?”
    Forget about his songs and read his sermons – Green was a works righteous kind of guy, because of his lack of theological training.

  6. PP Vet says:

    Enjoyed Keith Green’s music but was not necessarily a big fan or anything.

    But I do remember exactly the moment I heard the news of his death.

    Many of us old pfoofs are here talking about our faith because of that 70s Jesus Movement.

    So grateful.

  7. the moment of his death – when he killed his kids because he was too pig headed to listen to warnings about overloading the plane?

  8. Gary says:

    Yeah. That moment.

  9. Gary says:

    I’m not too big on confessions. I need to keep my convictions to a minimum so as to be able to live by them. Consecration is a serious matter.

  10. David Sloane says:

    #1
    Some of my ‘free~range’ thoughts…

    Those who were closely associated with Keith Green have pointed out that he had a tendency to be very legalistic in his own walk with God. Thus he was very hard on others in their walks with God. Just saying.

    But you are right about “just simply follow Jesus” it is a great point that you make. It is so simple that even a young child can understand it.

    Those who prefer to dwell intellectually on the simplicity of this will indeed screw it up at some point with the resultant rules and regulations of hoops to jump through before one can have “arrived” with consecration intact.

    I have met some Christians who have an incredible grasp of doctrines and such, but have no perceivable light of Christ in their eyes. And I have met simple Christians who know nothing of doctrines who radiate the love of Christ in their eyes.

    As always it comes down to relationship with Christ. I love Jesus. Or I love doctrines and such?

    Those who tend to be legalistic tend to be the least spiritual it seems in my world.

    Although there is a balance between obedience and borderline legalism. I have personally bounced back and forth over the years on this issue. Not intentionally, but by default, I throw my hands up in despair and let go and become as a child and look to Jesus in simplicity.

  11. Goose says:

    David Sloane @ 9 said…

    “Those who tend to be legalistic tend to be the least spiritual it seems in my world.”

    David, could you give us a definition of “legalistic” or “legalism”?

  12. Gary says:

    I like free range thoughts- no cages, no added fillers or hormones. I’m trying to sing “Doctrine loves me this I know” and it’s not working. If Keith Green was so legalistic why do his songs still bang around in my mind? Rushing wind blow through this temple…

  13. PP Vet says:

    I guess we can never know the full extent of the circumstances, conversations, and context that led to that, and maybe there is a noble explanation – but – yes MLD #7 it certainly appears that way based on what we do know.

    I remember how much even more saddened I was to learn that.

    I hate for my heroes to have feet of clay.

    But they pretty much all do.

  14. Gary says:

    Oh for the perfect righteous hero
    comparable to Luther, Nero.
    Good guys come in many colors
    except for Green and those unscholors.

  15. “I have met some Christians who have an incredible grasp of doctrines and such, but have no perceivable light of Christ in their eyes. And I have met simple Christians who know nothing of doctrines who radiate the love of Christ in their eyes.”

    David, would you please explain what you mean by “light of Christ in their eyes” & “the love of Christ in their eyes”?

    Without any intent of rehashing yesterday’s dialog over language, I’m sincerely at a loss at understanding what you mean by those two phrases.

    Thanks
    ( |o )====:::

  16. Nero, a hero?
    I find him such a zero…

  17. Gary says:

    😉 I wondered if someone would pick up on that.

  18. covered says:

    MLD, I am curious about your take on Keith Green’s death. The report in Wikipedia claims that it was 100% pilot error. How would Keith know that the plane was grossly overweight with passengers? Unless I’m missing something, did he know that they were overloaded? I’m just curious because I know that you typically do your research.

  19. Xenia says:

    I am a firm believer in what you all would call (but I would not) “works righteousness.”

    As a matter of fact, it was Keith’s “Sheep and Goats” song that was one of the coals that fueled my years of discontent with evangelicalism. At the end of the song, Keith says “And it was what they did and didn’t do.” That went through me like an arrow, piercing my little antinomian heart. It took years but I think Keith planted a seed in my heart with that song. May his memory be eternal.

  20. Gary says:

    The story was that Keith knew the plane was overloaded but evidently he didn’t know by how much. Also, the pilot was as responsible as Keith was. Keith could be pigheaded but at least he was headed.

  21. Xenia says:

    Always better to err on the side of caution when you are flying an airplane.

    A few years ago I won a prize at a school fund raiser and the prize was an airplane ride with the physics teacher who had access to a Cessna. I really didn’t intend to win this prize as I am skeered of heights but finally I couldn’t put it off any longer and we took off over the ocean, heading north. This teacher was not a big talker but this day he was chattering away about how the airplane worked, the sights we were seeing, etc. Then the chatter stopped. We were out over the Pacific, a good distance yet from our destination, and all the sudden he made a U-turn, without comment. He didn’t say anything and I didn’t say anything for quite some time. Then he said, “Do you think you could reach under your seat and pull out the operator’s manual? And turn to the page on electrical failure?”

    So that was pretty scary. We landed at the nearest airport and I was assured that we were never in any real danger (Ha!) but I do think that when you are messing around with airplanes it it best to err on the side of caution. God does not suspend the laws of physics for us just because we are Christians.

  22. Xenia says:

    “Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus… just to take Him at His Word…”<<<

    The thing is, you would not even know what His Word was without 2000 years of Tradition to preserve it.

  23. To obey is better than sacrifice
    I don’t need your money
    I want your life
    And I hear you say that I’m coming back soon
    But you act like I’ll never return

    Well you speak of grace and my love so sweet
    How you thrive on milk, but reject my meat
    And I can’t help weeping of how it will be
    If you keep on ignoring my words
    Well you pray to prosper and succeed
    But your flesh is something I just can’t feed

    To obey is better than sacrifice
    I want more than Sunday and Wednesday nights
    Cause if you can’t come to me every day
    Then don’t bother coming at all

    To obey is better than sacrifice
    I want hearts of fire
    Not your prayers of ice
    And I’m coming quickly
    To give back to you
    According to what you have done
    According to what you have done
    According to what you have done

  24. Michael says:

    I’ve interviewed people over the years who were close to Green and they have all put the plane crash responsibility on him.
    As a matter of fact, I’ve been told repeatedly that if he had lived he was a candidate to be a PhxP poster boy…harsh, legalistic, and full of himself.
    God uses who He will…

  25. Xenia says:

    ^^^^^ Amen. I agree with the gist of Keith’s song.

  26. Michael says:

    This article simply sets out the ecclesiology of the Anglican church…ordination and church government.
    Every time we run something similar we the “just follow Jesus” mantra discounting any sort of order or doctrine.
    That’s called anarchy…and the road to hell is full of those who discounted tradition, teachers, and doctrine and just made it up as they went.

  27. “and the road to hell is full of those who discounted tradition, teachers, and doctrine and just made it up as they went.”

    True, but there has been just as much abuse from those who stuck to tradition. So, what do you do?

    You follow your conscious and do the best you can.

  28. Michael says:

    Josh,

    This is so frustrating.
    You follow a tradition, set up by teachers, with recognizable doctrine.
    What’s the difference between the Mormon “burning in the bosom” and “following your own conscience?”

  29. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    Some people like to complicate and over analyze the word of God and the Faith, I’ll leave them to that and enjoy my life in Christ. I’ll take simplicity over full of themselves pseudo intellectuals every and any day of the week.

  30. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    mic said:

    “why is it that people are always trying to make relationship with God thru Jesus Christ so Unsimple and ‘corporate bylaws’ sounding?

    why the apparent desire to run back to a Law of Moses type of ‘ordering’ or ‘consecration’? ”

    This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  31. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    Speaking of pigheaded full of themselves arrogant men in the Faith, seems like Calvin and Luther would fit right in

  32. Michael says:

    Solomon,

    The “Word of God” says that the church will have pastors-teachers, deacons, and elders with specific qualifications and duties.
    Some folks have taken “The Word of God” seriously enough to try to discern order and office in the church.
    For that, they get labeled as “full of themselves pseudo intellectuals” by those who evidently favor unbiblical anarchy in the gathering.

  33. Michael says:

    Solomon,

    Please tell us what works of Luther and Calvin you have read.
    What would the church look like today without Luther?

  34. @ 28 – Certainly you don’t deny that religions rich ion tradition have caused a ton of problems over the years, right? So, it seems the perfect church government hasn’t been found. Those who buck tradition are guilty along with those who follow tradition.

    My tradition for the last few years has been the SBC. We have problems. Some that deal with abuse and cover-up, some that deal with hero worship, and plenty more. If someone were to learn all those things and then tell me that they could not, in good conscious, join an SBC church, I’d understand.

    Because I’ve also seen faults in all the other systems, if someone says, “Just Follow Jesus” I understand that position as well.

    Not sure I’m understanding the Mormon question?

  35. Michael says:

    Josh,

    No one is arguing for a “perfect church government”.
    We all should want “some” form of church government, because the Bible has church government.
    There will be flaws because churches are run by fallen people in a fallen world…but this “just follow Jesus” stuff is unbiblical nonsense uttered by rebellious people who want to be the sole authority in all things related to doctrine and practice.

  36. Xenia says:

    Actually, a strong Holy Spirit inspired Tradition frees us up to “just follow Jesus” as we don’t have to waste time trying to invent it all for ourselves.

  37. @ 35 – But that’s you too, right? You aren’t ordained and placed by a body of Bishops or anything, right? Just a home church. So you don’t follow this type of tradition, why do you get upset with others who don’t follow it?

  38. Neo. says:

    Keith Green was headed back in the “right direction” before he died. Look at his final songs….all about Grace. He died in his twenties. Most Christian youngsters go through childish stages of legalism. He was just coming out of his.

  39. I am still trying to figure out what it means to simply follow Jesus.

    I think many cults started that way… and then added on the layers.

    How do I know Jesus to follow without some study time or reading others who have successfully done so.

    Is simply follow Jesus equal to “put my brain in neutral.”?,

  40. Michael says:

    Josh,

    We still have an organized body with biblical offices in place.
    There is a defined structure and has been from day one.

  41. Michael says:

    Josh,

    I would add that if there were a conservative Anglican body anywhere nearby I would seek to transfer my ordination to them for that very reason.

  42. Xenia says:

    I have known some “Just follow Jesus” folk. They have invented a Jesus who is pretty much just like them. If they like something, their Jesus likes it, too. If they hate something, so does their Jesus. They are pretty much worshipping themselves.

  43. Neo. says:

    X. So interesting that very song that inspired you, the sheep and goats one, is in my opinion a classic case of Graw, the lethal mixture of Law and Grace. Yet, you and I are still in the family of faith. God speaks to each of us in terms we can personally identify with and thus be able to process.

  44. Michael says:

    MLD,

    You are correct.
    Most cults started that way.
    Thus my comment to Josh about the Mormons.
    Without tradition you don’t even know which Jesus to follow.

  45. Michael says:

    Xenia,

    Your #42…amen and amen.

  46. @ 40 – But you guys “just made it up”. I mean you invented the structure, and placed your own officers. Of course, you did this in your best estimation, trying to follow scripture, but that seems to be exactly what the “Just follow Jesus” crowd is talking about, too.

  47. Neo. says:

    Michael. Transfer your ordination to ACF.

  48. Xenia says:

    Yet Neo, the lyrics of that song come straight from Scripture.

  49. Neo. says:

    Yes, X. The Law. Good for conviction, bad for salvation. Remember to whom Jesus is speaking to, the House of Israel.

  50. Michael says:

    Neo,

    LOL!
    Last time I checked I wasn’t allowed on the grounds… 🙂

  51. Michael says:

    Josh,

    The bunch here has pled for no structure and continually demeans the place of pastors and elders in the Body.
    I didn’t “make up” our structure it was taken straight out of your tradition…the 1689 Baptist Confession.

  52. Wait. @ 41 – So you want to become an Anglican Priest?!?!

    There is a process for doing so, you know.

  53. Michael says:

    Josh,

    I am very Anglican theologically and practically.
    I am aware of the process, but it can’t be done where I am.

  54. Gary says:

    I don’t believe in Christianity by consensus. Tradition is like government. It’s a necessary evil. It’s a vehicle to get where you’re going. Tradition does not equal Christianity. Maybe it’s a by product. The Jews had tradition and look where it got them. The only good traditions are those that commend us to God. Short list imo.
    I am a “just follow Jesus” guy but I fellowship with others who have traditions and I suppose some or most of those traditions are intentional and not just cuz “We’ve always done it that way.”

  55. @ 53 – “I am aware of the process, but it can’t be done where I am.”

    The process IS the tradition that places Anglican Priests. You are not willing to be a part of that tradition for whatever reason.

    I’m fine with that, but you have invented your own little thing. I think that’s great!

    I couldn’t be Anglican either, for my own reasons. If someone wants to “just follow JEsus”, I say that’s a good start.

  56. Nonnie says:

    I have a friend who was an evangelical for many years. She was a school teacher, never married, in her late 30’s and truly believed God had called her to be single and live her life serving Christ. She shared that call, first of all through her life and giving herself away through serving in her local church, then she spoke to her pastor and some trusted older friends. They saw the gifts in her and encouraged her to move to the Anglican church and become an Anglican priest. The reason was that there would be no limitations to to gifts God has given her in the Anglican church. She prayed about that for 3 years and then applied and was accepted. On the weekend of June 22 and 23, she will be officially ordained as a priest in the Anglican church. I have seen my friend preach and teach the word, and I cannot deny that God has gifted her, not just with teaching His word, but even more, with loving His people. My friend is still “evangelical,” meaning, she preaches the gospel and encourages people to trust in God and receive Christ as Lord and Saviour. I know that I have been extremely blessed by the ministry God has given her, through her teaching and her friendship.

  57. Bob says:

    After more years in this path than many I too admit the most powerful song Keith G sang was, “The Sheep and the Goats.” While his conclusion is a bit simplified it is what Jesus said, the goats who lived in the same pasture, a pasture tended by the same shepherd, totally missed the hurting others around them. And yet the sheep had no clue they were doing anything right either, so the moral of Jesus’ simple story is not what they “did or didn’t do” it is what drove them to “do or not do.”

    The theme of “if you love God you will hear His words” begins with the first breath of Adam and ends with the last Saint singing “glory to the lamb” in the New Jerusalem. If you love Him with all your hear, mind, soul and power you will love your neighbor as yourself and you will “do” without knowing it like those in Jesus’ story did.

    Of course the church is filled with “goats” taking advantage of the Shepherd’s love from the lowest pew to the finest, most powerful presbyter dressed in all his earthly glory, saying his most beautiful prayer, and living in the most pious manner.

    I don’t want to be a goat and that is the warning.

    PS. While Keith was possibly over bearing and such it was the pilot of that airplane who was responsible for the lives of his passengers. He failed in that duty the moment he pushed those throttles forward and the airplane began to roll down the runway. He let fear and intimidation rule over his responsibility to care for those in his charge.

    Oh and maybe many of us are goats more often than we think. Do I ignore the weak and hungry around me and just live in the prosperity afforded me by my Shepherd? Is PP all about those who are more like “goats” than “sheep?”

  58. Steve Wright says:

    Traditions by definition do not EQUAL Scripture, but they are to be rooted in Scripture. At the same time, we see Scripture allows room for a variety of tradition too.

    As long as a tradition is not clearly (clearly!) contradictory to Scripture, I have no problem with it. Some will gravitate to different traditions for different reasons, and in different seasons of their lives.

    We don’t need traditions to keep from becoming cultists that deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. My faith in the deity of Christ is based solely on what the Scripture teaches about Him. The councils and creeds have certainly been helpful and necessary at times, but even if they never existed, that would not change my faith.

    In point of fact, I was a Christian long before I ever heard of such creeds and councils. And as most of you know, my conversion came from reading the Scriptures apart from any church attendance or Christian witnessing. (I did get a helpful book or two along the way though…that helped in understanding the Bible better)

  59. Michael says:

    Bob,

    Three things I’ve not been accused of…ignoring the weak, ignoring the hungry,… or being prosperous.
    This is a blog, so knowing how each person serves offline is pure speculation.
    I do know that this is a generous group…

  60. And when the Son of Man comes, and all the Holy Angels with Him,

    Then shall He sit on His Glorious throne,

    And He will divide the nations before Him, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

    And He shall put the sheep on His right and the goats on His left,

    And He shall say to the sheep; come ye, blessed of My Father,

    inherit the Kingdom I have prepared for you from the foundation of the world,

    For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat,

    I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink,

    I was naked, and you clothed Me,

    I was a stranger, and you invited Me in,

    I was sick, and I was in prison, and you came to Me.

    Thank you! Enter into your rest.

    And they shall answer Him, yes, they shall answer Him,

    And they’ll say, Lord, when?

    When were You hungry Lord, and we gave You something to eat?

    Lord, when were You thirsty? I can’t remember. And we gave You drink?

    Huh, when were You naked Lord, and we clothed You?

    And Lord, when were You a stranger and we invited You in?

    I mean, we invited lots of people in Lord. I could never forget that face.

    And Lord, when were You sick and we visited You?

    Or in prison, and we came to You? Lord, tell us?

    In as much as you did it to the least of My brethren, you’ve done it unto Me.

    Oh yes, as much as you’ve done it to the very least of My brethren, you’ve done it,

    you’ve done it unto Me. Enter into your rest.

    Then He shall turn to those on His left, the goats.

    Depart from Me, you cursed ones, into everlasting fire,

    prepared for the devil and his angels.

    For I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat,

    I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink,

    I was naked, out in the cold, in exposure, and you sent me away,

    I was a stranger, and I knocked at your door,

    But you didn’t open, you told Me to go away,

    I was sick, racked in pain upon My bed,

    And I begged, and prayed, and pleaded that you’d come, but you didn’t,

    I was in prison, and I rotted there,

    I’d prayed that you’d come.

    I heard your programs on the radio, I read your magazines, but you never came.

    Depart from Me!!!

    Lord, there must be some mistake, when?

    Lord, I mean, when were You hungry Lord and we didn’t give You something to eat?

    And Lord, when were You thirsty, and we didn’t give You drink?

    I mean, that’s not fair, well, would You like something now?

    Would one of the Angels like to go out and get the Lord a hamburger and a coke?

    Oh, You’re not hungry, yeah, I lost my appetite too.

    Uh Lord uh, Lord, when were You naked,

    I mean Lord, that’s not fair either Lord,

    We didn’t know what size You wear.

    Oh Lord, when were You a stranger Lord,

    You weren’t one of those creepy people who used to come to the door, were you?

    Oh Lord, that wasn’t our ministry Lord. We just didn’t feel led, you know?

    Lord, when were You sick? What did You have, anyway?

    Well, at least it wasn’t fatal; oh, it was?

    I’m sorry Lord, I would have sent You a card.

    Lord, just one last thing we want to know,

    When were You in prison Lord? What were You in for anyway?

    I had a friend in Levenworth..

    ENOUGH!

    In as much as you’ve not done it unto the least of My brethren,

    You’ve not done it unto Me.

    In as much as you’ve not done it unto the least of My brethren,

    You’ve not done it unto Me. Depart from Me.

    And these shall go away into everlasting fire.

    But the righteous into eternal life!

    And my friends, the only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this scripture,

    is what they did, and didn’t do!!

  61. Michael says:

    Without the creeds and councils we would still be arguing about the most basic tenets of the faith.

  62. Bob says:

    Do I hear my Shepherd’s voice?

    From what Michael posts here on this blog (unless this is just some on-going fraud and he is pulling the “wool” over many eyes) I would say he hears!

    Thank you for listening!

  63. Hey Michael,
    I think I found the inspiration for your famous “ENOUGH!” 😉

  64. “Without the creeds and councils we would still be arguing about the most basic tenets of the faith.”

    Even with them we are still arguing about the most basic tenets of the faith 😉

  65. Michael says:

    Josh,

    Yes, I’m “unwilling” to leave my church, my son, and my mother to pursue ordination in another city.
    You’re right.
    I’m out.

  66. @ 58 – I had a very similar experience to Steve.

    Got “saved” in the bathroom of the motor shop where I worked. There was a bible on the break table, and reading it, God pierced my soul (Maybe G will translate that 🙂 )

    I went through a period where tradition was absolutely poisonous to me. I think the key is, like Xenia has often shown us, finding the meaning behind the tradition. Why was it started, where did it come from, and what does it say about JEsus?

    Between “Just follow Jesus” and “Just follow Tradition” I’ll take the first,

  67. Gary says:

    That’s right, Steve- rooted in scripture. You get away from scripture and you go all sorts of wrong directions. I don’t mean you personally. I mean that other Steve. He who must not be named. *grin*

  68. Bob says:

    Michael I posted my #62 before I had a chance to read your comment. But, are all genuine here? Only God knows for sure.

    You might notice I haven’t accused you of those things at all and I haven’t read others doing so either.

    I don’t want to be a goat and I will admit I am more often than I should and that is why God is full of mercy and compassion and it is also why He named His nation Israel.

    Got to go, thank you again!

  69. Xenia says:

    The Orthodox say that Scripture is part of the Tradition, not the other way around. The most important part for sure.

  70. @ 65 – Again Michael, I think you are perfectly following God exactly where you are, you just aren’t part of a tradition. Again, I THINK THAT”S GREAT!!!

    You seem to have a problem with it, but I do not.

  71. Nonnie says:

    Seriously, anyone who loves Christ, is going to have compassion on others, reach out to others, give to the needy…seek to serve…….., yet I don’t think any of us will ever think we have DONE enough.” Thus, we cry out….”Lord have mercy on me a sinner” and we fall upon the grace of God. It is that mystical tension…….Knowing Christ has done it all, yet because of what HE has done, my response is “Lord help me be like you in loving others.” Yet we never live up to that ideal. So we fall upon His mercy and grace.

    If I remember correctly, in Keith’s last sermon (newsletter) he repented of laying a burden on others. I believe he shared that someone had prophesied over him as a young Christian and told him he would be a “prophet” calling people to radical living, etc, etc. It has been a long time, but I think Keith said something like he repented of that and now just wanted to love and serve Jesus and not try to be a prophet, telling others how to live their life in Christ. (I am going from memory…If I have this wrong, I am open to and would appreciate correction)

  72. Xenia says:

    I wish I could smack up the side of the head these false “prophets” who do a reading over the heads of young Christian men and tell them God has a great ministry in store for them, they will be a mighty preacher or a prophet or whatever. I have known several lives that were ruined by this kind of thing.

  73. Gary says:

    It was the traditions of men that drove me away from the Church. Years later I heard the gospel. The first time I didn’t get it. I read the sermon on the mount and it frustrated me so much that after reading it for the third time in 3 days I tore the bible up and told God to get lost. I still had the vestige of tradition rattling around. So, yeah, I reject most traditions unless I can see spiritual value there.

  74. Gary says:

    If #69 is true then I reject orthodoxy out of hand. (But I don’t.)

  75. Xenia says:

    unless I can see spiritual value there.<<<

    You have great confidence in your own discernment.

  76. Xenia says:

    Gary, it’s because you probably don’t understand what the Orthodox mean by “Tradition.” It may not be exactly what you think it is.

  77. Gary says:

    lol at #64. Those who like to argue can doo it with or without an external weapon.

  78. I’m with Gary. Tradition almost killed me spiritually. Now, I don’t condemn a tradition if I don’t understand it, but I won’t be burdened with it either.

  79. Nonnie says:

    The thing is, in the ancient churches, the traditions have biblical meaning and value. Sadly, some do not teach what all the symbols, robes, candles, incense, processions, etc, etc. actually mean. When we see the meaning of them, they become beautiful, they point to Jesus, to His kingdom, to His glory, His power, His mercy, etc, etc.. Just like most evangelical Christians can see a cross and our hearts and minds are moved by that image. We understand the depth, the beauty of the cross. It has incredible significance to us. So do the “traditions” of the “traditional churches.” But you have to inquire and see what they mean, don’t just assume they are just vain (without meaning) “tradition.” I ‘ve been reading a lot about ancient church tradition and there have been times that tears have streamed down my eyes as I read the meaning of a certain procession and the robes the priest wore. Instead of only using words to teach (as we do in our evangelical modern churches), they are using sight, smell, touch….all the senses, to proclaim the gospel.
    Anyway, that is what I have discovered.

  80. Neo. says:

    Sheep. Goats. End of the world. In context, Jesus is talking about 70 AD and not 2013 specifically. Definitely a good principle/virtue for us to live by, though.

  81. Gary says:

    Xenia,
    Yes I do but subject to the voice of Jesus and His written word. Without discernment where would any Christian be? A Christian without discernment may end up in the wrong sheep pen. They may end up in a strait jacket.
    You may be right about the definition of the word. You must be talking about the traditional meaning of the word tradition.

  82. erunner says:

    Keith Green mad a lot of music. Two songs I think of are “Love With Me” and “Song For Josiah”, the first being for Melody, his wife, and the latter for his son. Beautiful songs of love for each of them.

    As Neo stated Keith wrote absolutely beautiful songs about grace as he grew older and wiser.

    Keith was very self conscious that people saw him as some sort of rock star which upset him deeply as his heart was for Christ only to receive any and all adulation.

    He made mistakes but who hasn’t?

    He impacted my life deeply with his music and I’m sure if he had not died so young he would have grown and matured into a man that could have been a huge impact on the CCM scene.

    I miss him to this day for what might have been….

  83. Xenia says:

    Nonnie, that was a beautiful post.

  84. Gary says:

    I looked up the word online:

    1a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)

    b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

    2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

    3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

    4: characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition

    Are any of these what you are referring to?

  85. Bob says:

    Neo:

    “End of the world. In context, Jesus is talking about 70 AD and not 2013 specifically. Definitely a good principle/virtue for us to live by, though.”

    You sure? 70AD?

    Tradition says your wrong.

    I know many who aren’t in the same pasture who live and practice the “virtue” of Matthew 25 better than those who hang out in the “Good Shepherd’s” pasture.

    Why is it goats seem to be willing to eat more and different things than a sheep?

    Thank you Xenia for bringing up Keith Green, I too loved him (yes my wife and I still have his “Last days News Letters” saved away) and Keith was very tough on RCC.

  86. Xenia says:

    Gary, number 2 is closest.

    Tradition is the Holy Spirit directed handing down of the Gospel message from Apostolic times till now. It includes the Scriptures (and the New Testament’s Table of Contents), the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Church Fathers (commentary on Scripture) and some other things as well. It is all one big ball of Holy Spirit inspired wax. It is the Life of the Church as directed by the Holy Spirit.

  87. Xenia says:

    (Except we have now written it all down so not all of number 2 applies today)

  88. “Got “saved” in the bathroom of the motor shop where I worked. There was a bible on the break table, and reading it, God pierced my soul (Maybe G will translate that 🙂 ) “

    Became a follower of Jesus in the bathroom of the motor shop where i worked. There was a bible on the break table, and reading it, ____________________________.

    Sorry Josh, my translation algorithm needs more caffeine.
    You’ll have to help the readers with your own clarification 😉

  89. @ 88 – HAHAH.

    “God pierced my soul” = “I realized how good God was, and how bad I am”. 🙂

  90. erunner says:

    Nonnie, The spiritual environment I grew up in frowned upon the traditions you mentioned and today some might call it emergent. Last year I observed Ash Wednesday and the lesson that night taught me so much. Sadly I know many who would scoff at what I did.

    When I read of different perspectives and traditions here even though I might not agree with everything it’s finally dawned on me we are all family. With that being the case it behooves us to act as family instead of all the infighting we see so often.

    Thanks for sharing today.

  91. Neo is offering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism … a tradition which looks at Jesus’ statements and looks for immediate and direct fulfillment and application based on cultural idioms which Jesus’ hearers immediately understood.

    Its a game changer because it dispenses with Dispensationalism.

  92. Gary says:

    If it’s Holy Spirit directed I would call it theology rather than tradition. Like I said- I don’t believe in Christianity by consensus. The early church fathers gathered the writings and made their canon. That’s about as far as I can comfortably credit church fathers with following the Holy Spirit.

  93. Nonnie,
    Thanks, that is so significant to me as I rediscover the value of the traditions which are not vain. Love it that you reconnect us to the significance of the senses as part of living fully in God’s world

  94. Neo. says:

    Bob. Are you a pre-trib Dispensatioalist? If so, I gotta heck of a lot more Tradition as a Partial Preterist than you. Mine is bigger than yours. 🙂

  95. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    “Solomon,

    Please tell us what works of Luther and Calvin you have read.
    What would the church look like today without Luther?”

    No at as much as you obvisouly but I have read historical accounts of these gentleman

  96. Neo. says:

    G. Great minds…

  97. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    “I’m with Gary. Tradition almost killed me spiritually. Now, I don’t condemn a tradition if I don’t understand it, but I won’t be burdened with it either”

    this^^^^^^^

  98. Michael says:

    Solomon,

    There is simply no substitute for reading the primary sources.
    Period.
    I have read scurrilous historical accounts of both, (as well as other historical figures)…and those accounts were utterly refuted by reading the men themselves.

  99. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    “I have known some “Just follow Jesus” folk. They have invented a Jesus who is pretty much just like them. If they like something, their Jesus likes it, too. If they hate something, so does their Jesus. They are pretty much worshipping themselves.”

    I call you out on that, traditional folk do the same thing and sometimes even worse. Just look at RCC

  100. Patrick says:

    It always cracks me up when people rail against traditions and creeds but say, “no creed but the Bible” or “I follow Jesus”.

    Why does it crack me up? Well for starters, Jesus says, “this is my body, and this is my blood.”

    Simple, straightforward, clear and concise.

    But those who just follow Jesus take this and turn it against the words of the man and make their own tradition that follows the tradition of the Radical Reformers while saying they have no tradition.

    Sorry if I am brushing with a broad object, but that’s precisely how it comes across.

    Don’t even get me started on baptism 😉

  101. Patrick says:

    Solomon, what abbout the RCC do you specifically disagree with?

    I’m not RCC, but I’m curious because most people who are against it are Evangelicals who are pretty much RCC without a Pope and the Sacraments.

  102. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    “Solomon, what abbout the RCC do you specifically disagree with?

    I’m not RCC, but I’m curious because most people who are against it are Evangelicals who are pretty much RCC without a Pope and the Sacraments.”

    I’m not an evangelical

  103. Bob says:

    Neo:

    “Mine is bigger than yours.”

    Now we’re talking.

    No my tradition was turned upside down when I took what people told me to believe and compared it to what history (beyond the “church”) taught and scriptures say. Spent some time learning the basics of Hebrew and Near-East thought compared to Greco-Roman traditions and viola, things got a bit mixed up!

    You mean to say what the church teaches ain’t necessarily true? You mean the “end times teachings” are open to interpretation? You mean when Jesus says something about the sheep and the goats, the lake of fire and judgement the RCC, SBC, Lutherans and so many others may actually not have it completely right?

    Well Jesus did say this, some did and some didn’t and they all are in the same field, tended by the same Shepherd. I also know this if don’t listen to His teaching, whether it’s end times or not, than I haven’t listened to my Shepherd and I am therefore Guilty of turning another ear and having an “evil eye” (look up that idiom and its tradition).

    Yeah mine is pretty small. 🙁

    Now I really have to work.

    Oh and in NO WAY am I teaching faith through works!

  104. “pretty much RCC without a Pope and the Sacraments.”

    Two things from the RCC that I am against are the Pope and the Sacraments, so uhhh, yeah. You take those two things away and we are a lot closer to talking.

  105. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    What I disagree with is their mstanding on Mary and the various Saints, also their mandate that Preists and Nuns be celibate, their veiw of communion. Their veiw on the Pope being the vicar of Christ, their version of the bible

  106. Solomon Rodriguez says:

    also many of the their mandates, too many to mention. The Catholic Chruch represents much of what I despise about Religion

  107. This post made me think of this old hymn:

    Take my life, and let it be consecrated, Lord, to Thee.
    Take my moments and my days; let them flow in ceaseless praise.
    Take my hands, and let them move at the impulse of Thy love.
    Take my feet, and let them be swift and beautiful for Thee.

    Take my voice, and let me sing always, only, for my King.
    Take my lips, and let them be filled with messages from Thee.
    Take my silver and my gold; not a mite would I withhold.
    Take my intellect, and use every power as Thou shalt choose.

    Take my will, and make it Thine; it shall be no longer mine.
    Take my heart, it is Thine own; it shall be Thy royal throne.
    Take my love, my Lord, I pour at Thy feet its treasure store.
    Take myself, and I will be ever, only, all for Thee.

  108. Gary says:

    *singing along*

  109. wow. whoda thunkit that “Simply follow Jesus” and Keith Green would kick up so much dust…

    and again, I hear Tev’ye singing “Tradition…”
    good night all
    -mic

  110. David Sloane says:

    Michael at #24

    Thank you for your back~up of my #10 on Keith.

    On his public face it looked so much like grace but in reality it was far from it. Those who knew him not saw grace those who actually knew him report that he was very legalistic in his own walk with the Lord.

    If anyone does not know or understand the term “Legalistic”
    that I have used as it apples to the Christian walk (which I don’t honestly believe they are unaware of the definition of the term “Legalistic”) here is a good place to start:
    http://tinyurl.com/mw8k8qc

  111. Michael says:

    David,

    I actually understated the case.
    Some people that were close have a very negative opinion of him.
    So much so that I was shocked by some of the statements.

  112. Patrick says:

    @solomon I would agree with you. I don’t agree with the Marian view of the RCC, or the Pope’s status, or their view on justification by faith alone.

    I also firmly disagree that the Eucharist is a re-offering of Christ.

    What would you identify yourself as(since you said you’re not an Evangelical)?

  113. Patrick says:

    @josh What is your understanding of a Sacrament? Because I’m pretty sure you have at least a couple. Or is your disagreement with the RCC sacraments(help me understand your point)?

  114. David Sloane says:

    Michael,

    Keith Green actually stumbled a few young Christians by his harshness. But to his credit he was apologetic to them when he realized it…

    He was a good person in reality.

  115. Michael says:

    David,

    The people I talked to said the plane crash was his responsibility and reflected a part of his character.
    Others may have seen him differently.
    My only interest was historical…never liked his music or his theology.

  116. David Sloane says:

    Michael,

    I don’t know why but I see you as a listener of John Michael Talbot. I like his music.

  117. Michael says:

    David,

    People don’t believe this, but it’s true.
    I rarely listen to anything other than Jerry Lee Lewis.
    Rarely.
    If I do it’s Orbison, or Wynette or some other classic country.
    I’m weird.
    I wouldn’t mind seeing Talbot in concert, though.

  118. David Sloane says:

    The Traveling Wilburys were the finest ever!

  119. PP Vet says:

    John Michael Talbot.

    🙂

    People, we are old.

    Lots of years. What a ride we’ve had.

  120. I never really cared for John Michael Talbot – but I did like his brother Terry Talbot.

  121. Got a question for people smarter than I. I was wondering what the difference is in consecration and sanctification. It seems to me that consecration is something we, people, do, while sanctification is something God does. Asking this, ’cause I saw where John 17:19, in different translations either uses sanctify or consecrate, depending on the translation. Any insights?

  122. brian says:

    I will be honest the 80’s was a horrible time to be a Christian in my neck of the woods, so much damage that still follows many of us around.

  123. Steve Wright says:

    the 80′s was a horrible time to be a Christian in my neck of the woods, so much damage that still follows many of us around.
    ————————————————————–

    I hear you, Brian. But as one who lived it, the 80’s were a horrible time to be an unbeliever living for sin in the world too. AIDS, cocaine, porn going mainstream thanks to the VCR and cable TV – three things that jump to mind in addition to the typical temptations and problems as old as time.

    However, I am encouraged and firmly believe that my experiences as an unbeliever are used by God today to aid in ministry to others.

    And I’m sure your experiences then, bad as they were, are likewise used by the Lord today.

  124. brian says:

    Actually Pastor Wright I was a “believer” in the 80’s and it was horrible, truly scared me deeply to the point of making me nutz. But I see your point. I will leave it there as I deleted about ten posts because they would not have been helpful. Thanks for your kindness.

  125. Steve Wright says:

    To be clear, Brian, I was not at all dismissing your experiences back then or the damage they did to you. I trust you see that.

    For those of us who did not know a single thing about Jesus or the Bible (and I mean nothing) there is a lot of permanent wreckage for us children of the 80s as well…I started High School in 1981 and graduated College in 1989. The 80s were truly the formative decade of my life

    I wish I knew the Lord back then. I truly do – even if I had gotten caught up in the madness and the worst the church had to offer. But I can’t regret it too much, because those years are all part of who I am today.

    Heck, if I had grown up in the church, I probably wouldn’t be pastoring today. But finding the truth after 25 years causes a man to rearrange priorities – at least it did for me.

    Good night.

  126. brian says:

    We are separated by a decade, my experience was that Jesus would return and we needed to be about His work. Well He did not and has not and at times I dont have a clue if He will, but that is another post. I would not blame Him if he did not, that to is another post. I became a Christian in 1980 I dove in with both feet. That was a very bad choice on my part but we need to suck it up and live with our choices. About finding truth, I love that idea, but like it or not practical truth, not apologetic truth is relative, it just is. That aside I think we see each others points. I envy your world view I really do, in someways we walk the same path, in others we live in different realities. For what its worth thanks for your kindness.

  127. Patrick, Baptists do not believe in Sacraments… that some actions or rituals are sacramental by nature. We keep two ordinances, baptism and Lord’s supper, which we view as memorial and symbolic rather than sacramental.

    Here’s a pretty good article about the distinction by Dr. Steve Lemke: http://sbctoday.com/2011/09/06/distinctive-baptist-beliefsnine-marks-that-separate-baptists-from-presbyteriansdistinctive-baptist-belief-5%E2%80%94baptism-and-the-lord%E2%80%99s-supper-as-symbolic-ordinances-not-sacraments/

  128. brian,
    “my experience was that Jesus would return and we needed to be about His work. ”

    Even if Jesus does not return in our lifetime (or in the next 1,000 lifetimes – we are “to be about His work.”

    Never forget or shy away from that.

  129. @ 121 – Derek, I know you asked for someone smarter…but I’m gonna answer anyway 🙂

    In John 17:19, the word used for ” I sanctify myself” and “they will be sanctified” is the same Greek word. Most translations use sanctify in both cases. The ESV uses consecrate for the first and sanctify for the second.

    It seems the translators viewed the two terms as synonymous in this context and used different English words to cut out the repetition.

    Literally, in English, sanctify means “to be set apart” and consecrate means “purify”. They would not always be synonymous, but Greek definitions are often influenced by context more so than English words. If I were translating that verse, I would use sanctify (sanctified) in both cases, but the ESV translators are infinitely better with Greek than I am.

  130. RE: 121 and my 129 – Steve Wright is also way better with Greek than I am, so if he has a different answer than me…listen to him 🙂

  131. If people would just “simply follow Jesus” it wouldn’t matter what the meanings were to Greek words. 🙂

  132. Eh, most of the “follow Jesus” folks are pretty serious about the Bible.

  133. David Sloane says:

    I agree with #131

    Simplicity of following Jesus by grace…instead of struggling with Greek words or rules and regulations etc…

    You do not work up to God; God reaches down to you. In no way can you come with any works of righteousness that have a merit before God. You do not work up to the cross to receive salvation, but you surely work diligently from the cross. As soon as God takes hold of you, you go to work. Because your life is redeemed, you are qualified. But you do not work up to God. When God touches you, you work outward from what God has done in your life.

    God lifts you to Himself, and you reach into Him. If you try to take the stairs, you will never get there. Take the elevator. Take His provision. Be lifted into His very presence. Paul said, “You are fallen away from grace if you believe that righteousness is generated from within you.” No real righteousness can come forth that way. That is why the Law was imposed in the Old Testament; every man making an effort to keep it would be proven a sinner before God. The Law came to give the knowledge of sin. If there were no Law, we would not know what sinners we really are. The Law came that we might see sin to be exceedingly sinful and realize that we cannot with our human nature produce in any way the righteousness that God will accept.

    The Law had to come in order to reveal the fact that grace was the only route, yet invariably believers are deceived into trying to keep a few rules and regulations to be righteous (WWJD). You absolutely will not be righteous because you keep certain laws, even if you write your own laws (which is what many people do).

    Galatians 5:5 presents the way to righteousness so simply. For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness. Righteousness has to come from an outside source to our inward nature. We do not produce it, but we actually receive righteousness from another. Whose righteousness? Christ’s righteousness. What can we do for that righteousness? Believe. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness (James 2:23).

    The Body of Christ today will not be focused on cleaning itself from the little problems of people who walk into the spiritual sanctuary of God with “muddy feet.” Those who come from a background of sin where they have become tolerant of sin and abounding inquity and the changing moral standards often do not even have a conscience about sin. When they finally come to God, they trample into the holiest of holies with very “muddy feet.” But God says to them, “I will make you clean and righteous. What counts now is not what you were, but what I am going to rain upon you. I will give you My righteousness.”

    We shall never be able to come into true righteousness by all sorts of discipline. Although we are not under the Law but under the grace of God, and God does not look upon us to enforce little rules and regulations, yet God;s sense of righteousness and holiness remains the same whether we are under the Law or under grace. What God wants out of us does not fluctuate. God looks at a the man who is under the Law and He says, “You will never make it because your righteousness is like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).

    For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision (the austerity of the flesh that tries to please God) availeth anything, nor uncircumcision. The Christian world is filled with people who through the years have taken truths from the Word of God, and instead of finding the spirit of them, they let them deteriorate into a legalistic observance. For instance, some people cling to religious modes of dress. Such customs have become to them like circumcision, a sign of goodness that they hold; but in truth they are filthy rags. Christ said that the outward appearance of the pharisee is like a whited sepulchre, beautifully polished but rotten inside, filled with dead men’s bones (Matthew 23:27).

    Inside is the filth and the evil just the same. We certainly do not want that form of deceit. Dead men’s bones are dead men’s bones. Whether you polish the outside of the tomb of circumcision, or rip it open and let the bones lie there in plain sight, they are still filthy bones. The basic nature of sin is still there.

    If circumcision does not avail anything, and uncircumcision does not avail anything, then what does? But faith working through love. Believe God. Take hold of God, and let Him transform you. You can change, but because of willpower and a regimentation of your thinking and of your life. You will change because you are going to be a believer. When you believe, God’s nature will be given to you and imparted to you.

    All change comes from outside of you. It is not generated within you. It comes to you, and it is put within you; then it grows and develops. God gives you a transplant of righteousness. He takes out of you a heart of stone, and he puts in you a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26). He takes out the heart of wickedness, and he puts in another heart. Medical science has begun to make heart transplants, but God was doing this first. He promises to take out of you what is wrong and put in you of Himself what is right. God imparts and imputes His righteousness to you. Calvinism teaches that God does it.

    God sees you functioning with His heart, His faith, and walking in His righteousness, and He exclaims, “That is better!” You look up and say, “I love you, Jesus.” And He responds, “You love Me because I first loved you. If I had not beamed My love to you, it would not have transformed you.

    You are only loving me back with my own love. You are believing with My faith. You are walking in My righteousness and in My holiness. You are moving in My power and in My grace.”

    We seem to sense our total dependency on God’s grace in elementary salvation, but then we forget it. We start a new life in the grace of God, but later we tend to think that it is all up to us. There is an austerity and a diligence that we must exercise, and the Word constantly exhorts us to that. The only caution is not to go back to deadly legalism, thinking that we can produce righteousness of God.

  134. It’s not the “follow Jesus” folks I am concerned with – I count myself as one.

    It is the “simply follow Jesus” folks that give me heartburn.

    You know as in, “why be concerned about doctrine & theology – why can’t you… here it come,- “why can’t you SIMPLY FOLLOW JESUS?”

  135. Well, what do you think of this particular article, MLD?

  136. As a creedal, confessional, liturgy following churchman, I do think that there are “more right” ways to do church.

    If others choose to follow the path that leads to a “less right” way to do church – but are happy, then good for them. 🙂

  137. @ 135 – Agreed.

    Hence my defense of the “simply follow” group. I understand where they are coming from, and have been there before.

  138. I don’t know how that works – simply follow Jesus.

    I told a guy at work yesterday to “simply follow Jesus” and he replied “who is Jesus?” and I said, “I can’t tell you because that would get into doctrines, theology, apologetics my own presuppositions – you just must simply follow Jesus.”

    He walked away. Why would he not “just simply follow Jesus” as I told him to.?

    The rich young ruler wanted to “simply follow Jesus” – but Jesus would not allow that.

  139. See that’s interesting, I was also talking to a coworker about Jesus. He asked some specifics about my beliefs to which I began:
    “THE Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain”

    That’s as far as I got before he left.

  140. Reuben says:

    You guys are fun today!

  141. Glad you enjoyed that episode of “Argumentum Absurdem” 🙂

    BE sure to tune in next week when MLD asks . “Other than being wet, what’s the difference in a Baptized believer and an unbaptized one?”

  142. Gary says:

    MLD,
    Please don’t misunderstand me. When I say I’m a ‘simply follow Jesus’ guy that doesn’t mean I have no interest in doctrine or that I haven’t spent a lot of time and thought on the issues. No way! A Christian without doctrine is like a meal without nutrition- a pile of mush. I know what I believe about doctrine. Fer instance I know what the bible says about the nature and character of God, the divinity, etc. of Jesus, the resurrection, sin, redemption, repentance, propitiation, salvation by grace through faith, election, sanctification, justification, inerrancy of scripture and all that stuff. I can hold my own with a Mormon or a J-Walker. I know about religion and legalism.

    I may be a simp but I know condescension and judgement when I see it. If an education leads to being like you I prefer being a simp or being thought of as one. That’s A-OK with me.

  143. Muff Potter says:

    Derek Thornton @ # 107 & Gary @ # 108:
    Great hymn! It’s no. 400 in the old, old Lutheran hymnal published by Concordia in 1941. I go back far enough to remember that when I was a little kid in Wisconsin, Lutheran Pastors still wore the cassock on high holy days.

  144. Gary says:

    LOL @ Josh. Touché! So funny.

  145. Gary says:

    Muff,
    I remember singing How Great Thou Art at CC in ’71. How odd is that.

  146. Gary says:

    I Enjoy Being a Simp!

    When men say I’m just a dummy
    and call me a dunce or wimp
    I smile cuz I think it’s funny
    I enjoy being a simp!

    I flip over good Ned Flanders
    I drool over Joel Osteen
    I listen to Smith for hours
    while sending my SSI checks in between!

    I’m strictly a Jesus person
    And my future I hope will be
    in a church where there’s no conversion
    they’ll enjoy being a group having a simp… like… me.

    When men say I’m wrong or lying
    as around in the Gospel Blimp
    I go overhead; tracts flying
    I enjoy being a simp!

    Gotta stop writing -and laughing- and post this…

  147. Another great one, Gary !

  148. MP’s #142. I love old hymns! Like seeing the consecrated in the article just brought it immediately to mind. I have that happen a lot, that is see a word that brings a hymn to mind. Maybe that is partly what Col 3:16 is all about.
    Josh, thanks for the response. I will get back to that later though because I am still busy getting my house in working order. Gotta get myself to the Home Depot in Olive Branch and buy some hoses for the washing machine. It is nice not to have to drive 45 minutes to get to a hardware store!

  149. Xenia says:

    I am rather attracted to the idea of simply following Jesus but I find that I can do it a lot easier if there’s a framework in place (Tradition) so I am freed up to follow Him in a simple, child-like way without having to determine doctrine for myself. It is very easy to “simply follow Jesus” in a liturgical setting, if one wants to.

  150. Gary, then you are not “simply following Jesus.” – but are indeed putting much research into what it means to “follow Jesus” … simple or not.

    My point is,it is not simple to follow Jesus at all – read John 6 – it was so simple to follow Jesus that no one was able to do it. Jesus even had to check with his own 12 to make sure that they were still on board.

  151. Gary says:

    I don’t want anyone doing my thinking for me. I have to study the bible for myself.

  152. Gary says:

    Perhaps the simplicity of following the Jesus of the bible without all the trappings of extra biblical writings is enough for me.

  153. Michael says:

    “See that’s interesting, I was also talking to a coworker about Jesus. He asked some specifics about my beliefs to which I began:
    “THE Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain””

    Wow.
    Simply wow.
    Unless the SBC no longer has offices and ordination and doesn’t have those procedures written down you should be embarrassed to have written this one.

    What denomination or tradition doesn’t have those procedures on paper?

    That’s all this article is and it’s being treated as a barrier to evangelism.

    Who the hell leads off a conversation about Christ with the constitution of their tradition?

    The answer?

    NOBODY.

    That is quite simply…stupid.

  154. Xenia says:

    Because of Tradition, I don’t have to dig through the Scriptures to develop for myself the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is the Tradition of the Church. This does not mean, as many suppose, that it’s a “vain tradition of men” and therefore, not true. No, it means that men of God, directed by the Holy Spirit, determined that God exists as a Trinity and He revealed this to the Early Church Fathers in Councils, which is the biblical way to determine truth from error, see the Council of Jerusalem for the prototype.

    Because of Tradition, I don’t have to wonder what ancient Church writings are canonical. I can trust the table of contents in my New Testament. I don’t have to do years of research to determine if The Shepherd of Hermas is on par with the Gospel of John.

    Because of Tradition, I know that Christ has two natures: 100 percent God and 100 percent man. I won’t fall into the heresy of Arianism because the Church, directed by the Holy Spirit, has determined this doctrine 1700 years ago. No need for me to search the Scriptures to prove this for myself.

    You all benefit from these three Traditions, too, even though most people take them for granted nowadays.

    I know some of you are put off by my calling the doctrine of the Trinity a Tradition. When some of you hear that word the tape that says “Vain traditions of man! Vain traditions of man!” starts playing and you can’t get past it. When I hear the word Tradition (in the Orthodox sense) I hear “the Holy Spirit directing the Church!”

  155. @ 150 – but MLD, why are you defining what the term “simply follow Jesus” means? Noone said “easily follow Jesus”. There is a difference between simplicity/ complication, and ease/ difficulty. I think you are conflating the two ideas.

  156. Hey Michael, before you get too aggravated, read my comment in the context against MLD’s comment, and then my further comment that it was an episode of “Argumentum Absurdem”.

    I wasn’t being serious.

  157. # 138 – 141 are all together.

    I didn’t think MLD was being serious and responded in kind.

    I’m not embarrassed or stupid.

  158. Michael says:

    Josh,

    You’ve been taking shots the whole thread.

    Oddly enough I went to the home page of the SBC…and found a charter for incorporation, the Baptist Faith and Message, various position papers, and a host of other things that define what a Southern Baptist believes and practices.

    These could rightly be called “traditions”.

    Further, each SBC church will have it’s own charter and by laws…piling tradition upon tradition.

    If the Anglicans do it there’s a problem…if the Baptists do it, that’s fine.

    There’s a word for that…

  159. Where have I taken a shot at anyone?
    Not once.

    Nor have I said that I don’t have, or follow, any tradition. In fact, I’ve admitted it multiple times, while saying that I sympathize with those who seek to “just follow Jesus”.

    I have no problems when the Anglicans “do it”, but I am unable to ascribe to certain articles of this tradition…which is why I’m not Anglican.

    Are we not supposed to discuss these articles? Because you seem to get bent out of shape every time. I’m fine with Anglicans, but if asked, I will explain why I can’t be Anglican.

  160. My #138 was light hearted – intended for laughter … not strife.

  161. Gary says:

    Xenia,
    Let’s make a deal. I won’t make assumptions about what you think, what you know, and why you think the way you do, and you do likewise for me, ok? My thinking is 100% different than yours. I know the difference between a worthwhile tradition and a worthless one. If you know what you believe and why that’s great.
    I sort through whatever I hear or read and if it lines up with scripture I accept it. Otherwise I let it go. That means I have to know what scripture says. Only scripture is the source of truth. As I wrote earlier I appreciate the men who decided on the canon. How-some-ever, I can read the other writings and decide for myself what they’re worth. The bible has a warning for anyone who adds to or subtracts from God’s word. Even if that verse refers the the book of Revelation is encompasses whatever follows. I take that warning very seriously.

  162. Steve Wright says:

    I guess we need to define ‘tradition’. Ephesians tells us about the Spirit-given offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor-teacher. And their purpose, which is very much doctrinal in nature.

    I don’t think that just because these teachers are old, that somehow we are following “tradition” in saying we believe in the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union and so forth. We are following the Spirit-led teachers of the past that God gave us, and people today are following the Spirit-led teachers of the present who repeat these teachings to a new audience.

    That tradition umbrella gets real big if everything I teach from the Bible is lumped into it. Am I teaching Scripture, or teaching traditions.

    I think the former, not the latter.

  163. Xenia says:

    Only scripture is the source of truth.<<<

    Well, that's where we disagree. God is the source of truth and He uses the Bible as one means to reveal His truth to us. The most important means to be sure but not the only means.

  164. London says:

    I thought Josh’s post was creative and funny!
    He and MLD were just having a laugh.

  165. “God is the source of truth and He uses the Bible as one means to reveal His truth to us. The most important means to be sure but not the only means.”

    Awesome! =)

  166. mike says:

    Michael,
    I don’t personally know josh, but from what I’ve read by him here, I would definitely say he’s not stupid. Neither are you. You should apologize for your rudeness to him.
    -mic

  167. mike says:

    You seem to have a propensity to name call when you don’t agree with someone or they express disagreement with you. Might be something you can work on.
    -mic

  168. Xenia says:

    Steve, your interpretation of Scripture is your tradition. You read the scriptures and in them see the Pre-Trib/ Pre-Mil rapture. I don’t know about you (you are a little unique among CC pastors) but in my experience, this is presented to the congregation as “Teaching what the Scriptures say about the End Times” when in fact it is a presentation of what Calvary Chapel believes the Scriptures say about the End Times. This is CC’s tradition. And this applies to many other traditions I was taught while at CC.

  169. Gary,
    your #146… you have a great future in musical theater.
    Too bad they cancelled Smash but Glee might accept a demo 😉

  170. “…your interpretation of Scripture is your tradition. You read the scriptures and in them see the Pre-Trib/ Pre-Mil rapture. I don’t know about you (you are a little unique among CC pastors) but in my experience, this is presented to the congregation as “Teaching what the Scriptures say about the End Times” when in fact it is a presentation of what Calvary Chapel believes the Scriptures say about the End Times. This is CC’s tradition. And this applies to many other traditions I was taught while at CC.”

    Realizing this fact was a sobering reality for me but once i accepted the reality it freed me up to explore other traditions and find enrichment in them and liberation from what I needed to be freed from.

    Xenia, thanks for patiently sharing your perspective.

  171. back to Photoshop

  172. Xenia says:

    And even if Scripture were the only source of truth, we still have a problem because:

    1. I am still relying on my own darkened mind to figure out what’s what.

    2. I might be hoping the Holy Spirit will help me arrive at the truth but if He did this for individuals then why doesn’t He tell everyone the same thing? If it really worked this way there would be no disagreements on the end times, on predestination vs free-will, and myriad of other controversies. What’s the problem? Is the Holy Spirit playing games with His people? Or are most of us unable to hear Him correctly? If I don’t hear Him correctly, what must I do to become someone who does hear the Holy Spirit correctly? If I think I do hear Him correctly, then how do I avoid patting myself on the back because I am someone who has achieved a level of personal piety that surpasses everyone else. I am chosen by the Holy Spirit to receive the truth, glory to me.

    3. So for this to work I have to have confidence in my own brain-power and confidence that the Holy Spirit will guide me correctly while wondering why He is misleading almost everyone else.

  173. MIc @ 166 – Thanks, but Michael doesn’t need to apologize. He just misread my post. No biggie.

  174. Michael says:

    mike,

    I just edited my response to you for the sake of the community.
    It was only two words so editing was fruitless.

  175. Xenia, I understand what you are saying @ 172, but couldn’t the very same thing be said about “tradition”?

    How do you know the tradition is right?

    Why are there different traditions?

    Did God only give the truth to you tradition?

  176. Michael says:

    My objection is to the constant chant of “just follow Jesus” as if such a pristine state of existence without any tradition or input of men were possible.

    Not only does such a state not exist, it’s utterly unbiblical as God has used human agents to transmit His word in the first place.

    He still does.

  177. Gary says:

    Ok
    Here’s the full version…

    I Enjoy Being a Simp!

    When folks say I’m just a dummy
    and call me a dunce or wimp
    I smile cuz I think it’s funny
    I enjoy being a simp!

    I flip over good Ned Flanders
    I drool over Joel Osteen
    I can listen to Smith for hours
    while sending my SSI checks in between!

    I’m strictly a Jesus person
    And my future I hope will be
    in a church where there’s no conversion
    They enjoy being my pimp; having a simp… like… me.

    When men say I’m wrong or lying
    as around in the Gospel Blimp
    I float overhead; tracts flying
    I enjoy being a simp!

    When someone with words that smoulder
    says I’m a bible gimp
    I see that chip on their shoulder,
    I enjoy being a simp!

    When I hear the condescending whistle
    That greets me from folks who disagree
    I retort as I glower and bristle,
    But I’m happy to know the insult’s meant for me!

    I’m strictly a simple Christian
    And my future I hope will be
    In the home of my Lord and Savior
    Who’ll enjoy being my God having a simp… like… me.

  178. Michael says:

    Josh,

    i wasn’t calling you stupid.
    There are some here who take your caricature seriously and it did indeed trip my trigger.
    You are respected and valued and I do apologize for the offense.

  179. Gary says:

    Xenia,
    More assumptions, straw men, and leaps of logic. If the Holy Spirit does not indwell you, you are not a Christian. Not a biblical one, anyway. If the Holy Spirit does indwell you, He teaches you what is truth.

  180. @ 178 – No need to apologize. I’m one of the usual brawlers here, so if something I say gets taken more tersely than I intended, it is easy to understand.

    I probably should (no promises) shy away from the Anglican threads. I’ve made it clear that I don’t follow, and any more is just piling on. I see the value in tradition, and am very happy for those who have found a home.

  181. Gary says:

    Michael #176. I agree. No pristine here.

  182. Xenia says:

    Josh, in the beginning (for 1000 years) there was only one Church. It was united and not a scattering of denominations or independent groups. I think reading the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch) demonstrates this clearly. It was One Church and this One Church was still being guided by the Holy Spirit just as it was in the book of Acts, through councils. When the last chapter of the NT was penned, that wasn’t the last word the HS had for the Church. He continued guiding her, just as He does today. When groups began to break away from The Church, they fell into various errors, some very grievous. The farther and farther away they got from the Church, the more corrupt their doctrine became. There were reform movements throughout history that attempted to set some things aright but they were still estranged from the Church.

    I believe the Orthodox Tradition is the correct Tradition because it is the original Church, the one born on the Day of Pentecost. I believe the Orthodox Church is the Church that is uniquely guided by the Holy Spirit. That’s why I joined up.

  183. And I have no clue how Gary does that.

    That’s amazing.

  184. Michael says:

    Josh,

    The benefit of posting these articles is the intelligent interaction with other traditions.
    You bring your perspective as do others.
    That is valuable.
    My trigger is with those who claim no traditions, “no creed but Christ”.
    That is a crock…and it frustrates me no end.

  185. Xenia says:

    If the Holy Spirit does indwell you, He teaches you what is truth.<<<

    I am assuming you believe you are indwelt with the Holy Spirit? I am assuming that you believe that what you imagine He is telling you is the truth?

    And what of everyone else? Those who don't share your doctrines? Are they not indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Are they not Christians?

    See, you got a problem bigger than my "One True Church-ism."

  186. @ 182 – I am glad that you have confidence in your tradition. I think your history is wrong, but of course I do, I’m baptist.

  187. Xenia says:

    Josh, that is a very irenic response, thank you!

  188. Gary says:

    Xenia,
    Not true at all. There were many local churches. All over the world. Those early fathers you listed only spoke of what they knew; mostly Rome. The council at Jerusalem was but a very small aspect of what happened in the book of Acts. And they were apostles not merely church fathers. Tell me RCC is not corrupt. Cruel joke. Tell me high religions are not corrupt. Orthodoxy at best cannot be called the original church. That’s the mush I was referring to.

  189. @ 184 – I get that Michael. I guess I feel for those people because I was there within the last few years. When you see so many church systems deny God with their actions, it’s easy to cling to “only Jesus” for the sake of being able to salvage any faith at all.

    I think with a little patience, many will see the positive contributions of those who came before them, but for a while, the knee-jerk is to condemn anything that even smells of tradition.

  190. Xenia says:

    Sts. Ignatius was from Antioch
    St. Clement, true, was from Rome
    St. Polycarp was from Smyrna

    Not all from Rome.

    I do believe the RCC is corrupt, I said as much in my 182.

    As for the rest of your post, we disagree, I guess.

    –>>> Help! There’s someone on the Internet who disagrees with me!<<<<—

  191. Xenia says:

    Gary, of course there were local churches, this is plain from Scripture. Who said otherwise?

  192. Xenia says:

    As long as people think that Tradition = The Evil Roman Catholic Church then we are going to be talking past each other.

  193. Gary says:

    Michael,
    I don’t mean to frustrate you. Sorry. I can’t say “No creed but Christ” but I find little outside of scripture I can completely agree to. I do agree with parts of creeds though, if that helps.
    Xenia,
    I got no problem with the Holy Spirit. Your assumptions are not accurate.

  194. Xenia says:

    I do agree with parts of creeds though, <<<

    What parts do you disagree with? (Not said in a hostile tone at all.)

  195. Gary says:

    Xenia,
    What I hear you saying is that the orthodox church is the original church. If the RCC isn’t the original church what original church did you join up with? Eastern Orthodox? Which of the church fathers you espouse are or were from EOC? RCC claims to be the original church. EOC says the same. Heck, most everyone claims that. It only took CC about ten years to become corrupt. Are you saying EOC has no corruption? I ask you to compare EOC in form and function to the church in the book of Acts. I see no similarity whatsoever.

  196. Gary says:

    Xenia,
    Post a creed and I’ll be able to respond. The first example is the one that says I believe in the “holy catholic church” (or the Holy Catholic Church). I think that one is called the Apostles creed but it isn’t. I know catholic means universal and if the creed said universal I could agree. I do believe in the body of Christ at large as well as the local body of Christ. People should mean what they say and say what they mean.

  197. Gary says:

    By the way, Xenia,
    thanks for putting up with my rants. I appreciate it.

  198. Xenia says:

    Church history in a nutshell:

    1. Day of Pentecost, The Church was born.
    2. For 1000 years, there’s One Church. It’s not the Orthodox Church, it’s not the RCC, it’s the Church. It is orthodox (correct worship) and it is catholic (universal).
    3. Differences between the Latin West and the Greek East arise, one serious difference being that the bishop of Rome thinks he’s got authority over everybody else.
    4. The Schism of 1054 occurs. Greek East and Latin West split up.
    5. Latin West is now the Roman Catholic Church
    6. Greek East is now the Orthodox Church

    Now you might say, so the One Original is now in two pieces, which one can claim the title to The Original. They are both part of the Original but which one is truest to the Tradition? And we say, I say, the Orthodox Church is truest to the Apostolic Tradition and therefore, can lay claim to being the Original.

    The Orthodox Church has plenty in common with the book of Acts:

    1. Bishops
    2. The Eucharist
    3. Baptisms for salvation
    4. Councils to determine truth from heresy
    5, Liturgical worship (you got to look for it, but it’s there)

  199. Xenia says:

    Gary, you are fun to talk with and every now and then you produce a poem! What’s not to like!?

  200. Gary says:

    Also I wanna say that I never heard of the Shepherd of Hermas. I’m reading the text as we chat.

  201. Xenia says:

    The Nicene Creed
    —–

    I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
    heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
    God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

    Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
    not created, of one essence with the Father
    through Whom all things were made.

    Who for us men and for our salvation
    came down from heaven and was incarnate
    of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

    He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
    and suffered and was buried;

    And He rose on the third day,
    according to the Scriptures.

    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

    And He will come again with glory to judge the living
    and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

    And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
    Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
    Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
    spoke through the prophets.

    In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

    I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

    I look for the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the age to come.

    Amen.

  202. Xenia says:

    We are about to run out of Anglican Articles. What are we going to do next?

  203. Gary says:

    Ok,
    I now realize which I didn’t before is that when you say orthodox church or Orthodox Church you are referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Up until now I missed that.

  204. @ 202 – Baptist Faith and Message 🙂

  205. Steve Wright says:

    Xenia, I think you moved the goalposts. 🙂

    You first mentioned the absolute fundamentals of our Christian faith. Trinity and Deity of Christ. To THAT I made my response.

    You then moved to what we commonly call the non-essentials of eschatology.

    To be very, very clear. I do not follow a CC tradition. CC invented nothing doctrinally. I am a hybrid of dispensationalism in the Dallas mold, but without the cessationist aspect to Spiritual gifts.

    I don’t baptize babies either – that is hardly a CC tradition, and it goes back to some groups from centuries ago. But it is because this is my understanding of the Scripture.

    I teach what I believe the Bible teaches. I do NOT teach something just because some man before me taught it, because such men disagree with each other on many things. I disagree with Chuck on some things in favor of the Dallas School, I disagree with those at Dallas in favor of what Chuck might teach and so forth. My whole Masters Thesis was along this path.

    Having said that, in anticipation of a common objection, I do NOT teach anything that I can’t find taught before by SOMEBODY (in fact multitudes of somebodies) throughout Church History. The idea that a specific tradition keeps me from going astray is faulty. The combined teachings of the Body of Christ is what keeps me from going astray.

  206. Gary says:

    The Nicene Creed
    —–

    I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
    heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

    simp agrees

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
    God,

    agree

    begotten of the Father before all ages;

    agree

    Light of Light, true God of true God,

    agree

    begotten, not created,

    agree

    of one essence with the Father

    vague but I can agree

    through Whom all things were made

    agree.

    Who for us men and for our salvation
    came down from heaven

    agree

    and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

    agree

    He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
    and suffered and was buried;

    you (or they) forgot ‘died’ The meaning of ‘under Pontius Pilate’ is questionable but mostly agree

    And He rose on the third day,
    according to the Scriptures.

    agree

    He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

    agree

    And He will come again with glory to judge the living
    and dead.

    agree

    His kingdom shall have no end.

    agree

    And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,

    agree through inference although not directly stated as such in scripture

    Who proceeds from the Father,

    agree

    Who together with the
    Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,

    agree

    Who spoke through the prophets.

    agree

    In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

    Disagree with the use of catholic as universal. Not sure what apostolic church means so can’t agree with that. Agree that the church is one and is holy.

    I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

    agree with one baptism but disagree with baptism saves.

    I look for the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the age to come.

    Mostly agree but not exactly. I’m looking for the return of Jesus and all that that includes.

    Amen.

    I agree with the gist of the creed but not all the tenets. I’m not a tenant of the creed. Gotta go.

  207. Patrick says:

    @josh What is your understanding of a Sacrament? I am asking because the Scriptural view would be something commanded by Christ attached to a promise. For example when Christ says, “this is my body given for the forgiveness of sins… do this in remembrance of me.” there is both command(do this) and a promise(forgiveness of sins).

    Or even when Peter declares on the Day of Pentecost, “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of your sins…”

    A Sacrament is joined to the Word and is empowered not by us, but by God himself who has commanded and promised.

    I don’t get the Ordinance language, maybe you could explain it so I can understand it better.

    For the record, I am a Lutheran Christian so we prolly won’t agree on a few things 😉

  208. The “ordinance” language is “I offer me and my work (baptism – communion) up to God in obedience to the word”

    Baptism is something you get to do when you show God you have obtained enough faith.

    Communion is to show Jesus you love him.

    Oh heck, I will throw in a 😉

    Hey Patrick – I saw you comment one day at the GW Facebook.

  209. “I am asking because the Scriptural view would be something commanded by Christ attached to a promise”

    Did you mean to say “Scriptural”? There is no scriptural definition of sacrament that I know of.

    Basically, we do not believe that the act itself delivers on a promise. We wouldn’t say God gives salvation through baptism, or forgiveness is obtained by taking the Lord’s supper. We do these things in remembrance, and in obedience. From the article I linked to earlier:

    “From the Baptist perspective, the answer is that while the ordinances are profoundly significant events, they are not salvific in any sense.[8] The ordinances are outward symbols of what is going on spiritually inside the person and reminders of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. The ordinances are not sacraments — that is, “means of grace.” God’s grace comes directly to humans through the Son and the Spirit, not indirectly through the intermediary means of the bread and the wine. And that is a big difference in doctrine, a difference that really matters.”

  210. “Baptism is something you get to do when you show God you have obtained enough faith.”

    Nope.

    “Communion is to show Jesus you love him.”

    Nope.

    Rather –
    Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

    And –
    The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

  211. Josh,
    Actually, if you read the statements you quoted, they are almost exactly what I said.

    I said ” you show God you have obtained enough faith.”
    You said “symbolizing the believer’s faith…”

    I said ” to show Jesus you love him”
    You said “memorialize the death of the Redeemer…”

  212. Umm, that’s nothing alike MLD. Sorry.

  213. Do you baptize people who have not demonstrated that they have enough faith to be called a believer?

    Is not memorializing Jesus the same as showing you love Jesus?

  214. Why can’t I just say what I say?

  215. I’ll let you define your beliefs, and you can let me define my beliefs.

  216. Why can’t I just say what I say? 🙂

    I made my say @ 208 and you objected and said I couldn’t say that.

    I made my 2nd say @ 211 and then you again said that I couldn’t say that.

    Why can’t I just say what I say?

  217. Just don’t speak on my behalf, and there is no problem. If you want to say you believe certain things about baptism, go for it, just don’t propose to speak for me on such matters.

  218. Muff Potter says:

    Xenia wrote @ # 163:
    “Well, that’s where we disagree. God is the source of truth and He uses the Bible as one means to reveal His truth to us. The most important means to be sure but not the only means.”

    Erasmus said pretty much the same thing in one of his arguments with Luther. I’ve got to be honest here and say that I agree with Erasmus (and you) too.

  219. Steve Wright says:

    I don’t know a single person who would argue that the Bible is the ONLY means God uses to reveal His truth. The creation is obviously a major means of God’s revelation.

    However, that is different from saying that tradition is a means God REVEALS truth. In denying tradition as revelatory, I am not saying the Bible is the only means.

    I am a stickler on that word “reveals” – I don’t really even like people speaking of God revealing things from the Bible even – rather He illuminates things – but revelation, as I believe the term is proper, is different.

  220. Xenia says:

    I don’t know a single person who would argue that the Bible is the ONLY means God uses to reveal His truth.<<<

    Gary said in his # 161: "Only scripture is the source of truth."

    I was responding to this statement.

  221. Reuben says:

    I really feel Michael’s frustration here, as I catch up a bit with my own thread.

    I have thoughts about the “Me and Jesus” type poop.

    I have two bosses at my job. They are co-owners of the company. One is a devout Anglican, and very instrumental in my move that direction. The other is an associate pastor at a rather unusual church. I say unusual, because when I ask him questions about what they believe, he points to this notion of “Biblical Theology”. When he uses that line, I get aggravated. It becomes the dump all catch phrase for answering questions. “Well, why do you believe that?” “Reuben, its Biblical.” What kind of denomination are you? “Biblical.” Where do you stand on predestination or free will? “We stand Biblically.” What model of church government…? “Biblical model.”

    I am not going to claim for a second to have this all figured out. This is speculative to a degree. So there is the disclaimer, before anything else.

    When someone starts in with the “our church just loves the Lord” stuff, supposedly cutting themselves off from any tradition, I get this twitch in my right eye. Breaks from traditional traditions, if you will, usually result in some pick and choose theology mess, and a trend develops where these “Jesus’ Church” folks start majoring on a lot of disproportionately tedious details.

    For example, Vineyard majors on the stuff God does. Calvary Chapel majors on scriptures. Things become wacky and before you know it, they are rushing people out the door who do not major in the same details.

    I remember when guys over at SMP where arguing for weeks about some high profile pastors doing teachings that were not VBV, but topical in nature. There were those who could care less. But there were also those who thought that topical teaching was a self motivated work, denying the work of the Holy Spirit in the tried and true method of VBV, thus, very unchristian and demonic in nature.

    At the same time, pastors everywhere were spouting turn or burn warnings from the pulpit about Harry Potter, and demon-crats.

    Defining yourself as a Jesus-ite or whatever, in my personal experience, leads to a tremendous level of pride in ignorance as well. “I don’t need to know what Luther has to say about that, I got Jesus…”

    Admittedly, that was me not so long ago.

    People who do not study history and theology, challenging themselves in their own hermeneutic, are doing themselves a great disservice. I learned this about 70 pages into Calvin’s Institutes.

    Even if one is in a denomination that is a self proclaimed departure from another tradition, and sits there willingly, understanding exactly why, one still has to consider if they are off the map every now and then. I like to challenge guys from my former tribe with this, do you worship the Bible? Has it become an idol?

    You may or may not be surprised to learn that some consider holding the Bible to be holding God. Literally. Most of those will only read from the N/KJV, and condemn anyone who even blasphemes God by proclaiming HIS WORDS from a translation made of women and devils like Amplified or Living.

    My guess is that nobody envisioned it would come to this when some nobody named Chuck decided to rearrange chairs one night in a four square church. But when people break from one tradition and start another, it tends to become a very personalized venture, and ends up only reflecting the man, rather than the councils and wisdom of collectives.

  222. Gary says:

    Reuben,
    Only in the bible will you find the first-hand accounts of the Son of God; His life, His death and resurrection, and His Revelation. All of it. Thanks for reaffirming my opinion of folks like yerself with all those straw men. Read #177.

  223. Gary says:

    Jesus made a mistake when he told the repentant thief “Today you will be with me in paradise.” He should’ve kept the simp alive until the last of the church fathers finished his treatises.

  224. Gary says:

    The bible claims to be God breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit etc. Other writings may be wholesome and worthwhile but not on a par with the bible, your straw men notwithstanding. Even your friend J I Packer says so. Maybe you need to read all the posts here. Maybe some of them are on a par with the bible. Please please tell me which ones. Then tell me why I should believe you.
    2 Peter 1:19-21
    Matthew 5:18, 19
    2 Tim 3:15-17

  225. Gary says:

    Josh,
    Do you write songs? Do you write music? I have poems that are asking to be sung. Not the snarky parodies I make up here but real poetry.

  226. Gary says:

    Meanwhile, while my scripture verses post is in moderation, my wife and I will watch Flower Drum Song to find out how to get our spiritual papers in order.

  227. mrtundraman says:

    I just saw the 2009 SMP videos on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/user/simplemindedpreacher?feature=watch

    Hilarious…

  228. Josh Re: your #121
    I see what you are saying. I guess what I am really wondering is can we, people, consecrate, purify, sanctify (whichever word is used) anything? I guess the whole article posted seems to imply that we can, but I am not seeing much support in scripture. If anyone has some please post it, ’cause I am open to hearing it out.

  229. Oh, and I guess I am mainly talking about what I see in the NT. I see a lot more about consecration of people and objects in OT, but not in NT.

  230. Reuben says:

    Ahh yes, Tundra

    Those were the good old days…

  231. jlo says:

    What a great thread. Even the misunderstandings were handled in a gracious manner. Apologies were made where they need to be made, clarifications were made where needed, and we all came away with a greater knowledge and maybe a bruise or two, but no wounds that needed binding.

    Well done PxP.

  232. mrtundraman says:

    It seems to me that this article was about church and state. I find a state church unthinkable given the country we live in. I bothers me that the state would make a decision about the legitimacy of religious callings. Even more it bothers me that the head of the church is the King or Queen.

  233. fme2 says:

    MLD @ 5… Hmmm…it’s amazing to me that Jesus invested himself in fisherman who were not exactly trained in theology. You may treading on consecrated ground..

  234. mrtundraman says:

    fme2 – A good book to read is “The Training of the Twelve”. Can you imagine what three years of OJT under Jesus would produce?

  235. Patrick says:

    Hey Josh, I appreciate you replying. You said(quoted from your posted link)

    Rather –
    Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

    Can you provide any Scriptural basis for the need for immersion? The word “baptizo” simply means “washing” and people baptized lots of things. Take for example Mark 7:4,
    “and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)”

    Here the verb is a form of “baptizo”, so these people are “baptising” their couches. Does this mean that they are immersing them?

    Now as for the act of obedience part, can you provide a verse that commands baptism? The only one I can think of is in Acts where Peter clearly says, “repent and be baptized”

    BUT he goes on, “for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

    How do these people receive the Holy Spirit if they are already believers being obedient? Also, how do explain that the baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?

    Your quote seems to draw from Romans 6 a bit, so I wonder where you see any statement of the baptism being a sign of obedience? It does clearly say that when a person is baptized, there certain things that happen and there is no clause saying “if you believe then this is true”.

    What would you say about 1 Peter 3:21 which says, “Baptism, which corresponds to this(Noah and the Ark), now saves you…”? I mean sure you could say that it isn’t being literal, but the thing it represents(i.e. Noah passing through the waters of judgment to new life etc.) was real and Peter doesn’t say otherwise.

    One last question(on this post anyway), can you show me one verse that specifically says that baptism doesn’t save or that infants shouldn’t be baptized?

  236. Patrick says:

    @MLD Yep! I absolutely love that show! That and Table Talk Radio have been big parts in me embracing Lutheran Christianity.

  237. Patrick says:

    @Josh I replied, but it’s in the land of Moderation 🙂

  238. Gary says:

    Here is a workable definition of the bible as the only source of truth. It’s called sola scriptura and I don’t think I’m the only one who subscribes to it:

    Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today.

    Of course nature speaks of God. The bible says so. 😉

  239. David Sloane says:

    Xenia #163
    Very profound insight!
    Your stock has gone up in my estimation. Your statement was spot on.

  240. Xenia says:

    Nature speaks of God whether the Bible says so or not.

  241. Steve Wright says:

    Patrick, I’m not going to get into the theology of baptism with you because we will never see eye to eye, but you are definitely conflating some Greek terms there. That Mark word is only used four times, three clearly speaking of ceremonial washings under the law, and the 4th likewise could be included as it is open to interpretation given its place in the letter to the Hebrews.

    The primary verb does in fact mean to dip, and commonly used to dye.

    This is foundational to the doctrine (no matter one’s view on the doctrinal issues of baptism).

    The idea is “identification” – that is how the Greek word was used before the Christians showed up and claimed the word. If I dye a white tunic into purple dye, it is now identified as a purple tunic because it went through this “baptism” process. Another common example is the cucumber to the pickle. (Full immersion needed in both cases for that identification to take place I might add)

    Baptism is how we identify with Christ. Even if one practices infant baptism, the point is to identify that child with Christ.

    We no longer identify as in Adam, but now as in Christ – because He has died for our sins and risen – thus baptism by immersion certainly fits that model the best.

  242. fne2,

    MLD @ 5… Hmmm…it’s amazing to me that Jesus invested himself in fisherman who were not exactly trained in theology. You may treading on consecrated ground..

    They were after he was done with them. Have you ever read any of their post resurrection writings? Pretty deep stuff, that takes us a lifetime of continual reading to try to grasp.

    I would say that the early followers of Jesus were highly trained theological commandos.

  243. Steve,
    “Baptism is how we identify with Christ. Even if one practices infant baptism, the point is to identify that child with Christ.”

    Patrick and I would see it a little differently – baptism is the way that Jesus identifies with us. The whole gospel message is Jesus coming to us… not us coming to Jesus.

    That small point makes for a big difference of what we see happening in the sacraments and other parts of the liturgy

  244. Gary says:

    Xenia,
    I was funnin’ you. Did you see the smiley face? Way before I had my encounter with God I suspected He was out there somewhere.

  245. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – Our identification changes, not the Lord’s. We were once “in Adam” and now we are “in Christ”

    Of course, the “whole gospel message” is Jesus coming to us. Who said otherwise.

    (We’ve been round this bend many times, at least I am glad to see you connect the word “identification” with the act in some manner)

  246. Scott says:

    MLD, are you still arguing about infant baptism? How surprising 😉

  247. Gary says:

    I don’t believe in infant baptisms. They’re not even ordained.

  248. Scott, others were, I just jumped in with my one comment.

    How ya doin’? 😉

  249. Xenia says:

    Ah, Gary. Thanks for the clarification. I just thought you were a cheerful person, all in all.

    🙂

  250. Steve,
    “Our identification changes, not the Lord’s.”

    Yes but is it because as you say, WE identify with him or as I say because He has identified with us.

    My point is, we see something like baptism totally differently and for different purposes. I admit it.

  251. I am watching an old Charlie Chan movie on Netflix and Oden Fong’s dad is Tommy Chan.

  252. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – you miss the point of the identification as to the use of the Greek words per my example.

    The shirt is not identified as ‘white’ but as ‘purple’ – The vat of die does not somehow identify with a shirt. The shirt’s identity changes.

    The sinner identifies with Christ, not Adam anymore. His identity changes.

    And the specific identification with Christ is the death and resurrection.

    This is different imagery from say, the marriage, where the groom (Jesus) asks and joins the bride (Church) in marriage.

    I do recognize as you put it “you see baptism differently and for different purposes” but this explanation (my cliff notes version here) is why I hold to the view I hold. Why I insist on only those old enough and insist on full immersion as much as humanly possible.

  253. Patrick says:

    @ Steve
    I don’t see what your point has to do with immersion or baptism being an act of obedience for believers.

    The Greek word baptizo did have difffering meanings such as dip, but it wash also used for wash as well. That is why it says they “baptized” their couches.

    And what about my other points? Is there any verse in Scripture that commands baptism aside from Acts 2:38? Or are the passages speaking of baptism telling of facts that occur in baptism?

    Of course Matthew 28:20 commands us to “go to every nation and make disciples”, but the command is not to baptize(the language doesn’t allow for that).

    The part about baptism, teaching is telling how disciples were to be made.

  254. mrtundraman says:

    The Orthodox practice full immersion – even of infants…

    The parish i attend has a large baptistry and I have seen the priest fully immerse adults who come to faith.

  255. mrtundraman says:

    “Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today.”

    Not sure why it isn’t called Prima Scriptura since what you describe above is to give priority to Scripture not Scripture Alone.

    Anyway where in Scripture can I find this principle itself? Or was it just, as suggested by the above, just a Protestant invention? If it’s a principle which stands above Scripture then it self stultifies, itself being above something which it says can have nothing above itself.

    This is why Sola Scriptura has collapsed for those who go the way of Orthodoxy.

    Scripture itself recognizes both sources of tradition as carrying authority, both written and verbal”

    2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

    So if Sola Scriptura tells me I am to follow Scripture above all else and if the Scripture tells me that I am to follow both the traditions (word and handed down verbally) then which is right? Clearly, the passage above shows that Sola Scriptura isn’t a Scriptural principle.

  256. mrtundraman says:

    And if it only takes one single passage to knock the authority out of under the legs of the foundational Protestant principle, then what does that say about the rest of the Protestant enterprise?

    Orthodoxy keeps looking better and better.

  257. mrtundraman says:

    Jesus said to go into all the world baptizing and teaching… Unless children are excluded from “all the world”, I will assume that we are to baptize and teaching children, of all ages.

    Note the order from Matthew 28:19-20. Baptizing and teaching…

  258. Goose says:

    Xenia @ 198 said…

    “Church history in a nutshell:
    Day of Pentecost, The Church was born.”

    Reading Acts 1-2 doesn’t seem to provide any evidence of, or allusion to, some “new entity”, aka The Church, being born. In fact, the men and women mentioned in these chapters were already part of an entity that was worshipping/following Messiah and The Lord simply added to them daily.

  259. mrtundraman says:

    If the Lutherans are right, then Jesus was giving people bad advise in this passage:

    Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

  260. MTM.
    Why is this verse a problem for Lutherans? I don’t see your point.

  261. Steve,
    You keep trying to make a point about baptism that I do not see in the scriptures – that of identification (as you stretch your dye example).

    What I see in the Bible is not identification, but statements of ‘for the forgiveness of sin’, ‘for the washing away your sin’, ‘for receiving Christ’ – all are examples of God giving us something through baptism.

  262. mrtundraman says:

    MLD, It’s not that you don’t see my point. You don’t see Jesus’ point in the passage.

  263. Bob says:

    “Josh, in the beginning (for 1000 years) there was only one Church. It was united and not a scattering of denominations or independent groups. I think reading the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch) demonstrates this clearly. It was One Church and this One Church was still being guided by the Holy Spirit just as it was in the book of Acts, through councils.”

    I don’t mean to be rude nor do I mean to say how Xenia has arrived at her peace with EO as “The Church” (my words), but when I read the church fathers I don’t get all confident and comfortable in the religion of the Christian church. In fact what I do get (hear and see in their writings) is a bunch of men who struggle with the same issues of grace, theology and practice all of us are posting about here on this thread. Additionally I see all of them writing about and interpreting what they found in the light of their own personal and cultural traditions, which is also no different than any of us do today.

    My opinion of the various historic counsels is one where there is often not a pure desire to set the world straight about who Jesus is and direct them toward Him, but rather a political desire to reign in and control the masses of people. I believe It’s part of the human psyche to do such things.

    My point is I believe God is far simpler and requires far less tradition and practice than what most struggle with.

  264. Whether I see it or not, you haven’t said why it is a problem for Lutherans – as you claim. I think you are just in one of your “I will make up what someone else thinks” plans.

  265. Lutherans are one of the very few who see Jesus bodily still here on earth – so we hold true to the “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

  266. mrtundraman says:

    “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”

    I think you see the problem…

  267. mrtundraman says:

    “Lutherans are one of the very few who see Jesus bodily still here on earth”

    Ya, you and the other billion Catholics who see the same thing…

  268. You talk in riddles – have you ever just come out and said what you mean – directly answer a question?

  269. Lutherans have not divided Christ as you do. We still deal with Jesus as fully man and fully God – you deal only with some spiritual side of Jesus. That is why to you he cannot have a physical but only a spiritual presence on earth.

    You are a common heretic at that point

  270. mrtundraman says:

    1Cr 2:6-7
    Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
    But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

  271. Can you explain your heretical position? Dividing Christ’s body from him?

  272. mrtundraman says:

    MLD – Who are you calling a heretic? I believe in the real presence…

  273. Back to Steve,
    Josh brought up the other day “besides getting wet – what is the difference between the baptized believer and the unbaptized ‘believer'” I never get an answer.

    Paul is very clear what you get – that I would assume means that the unbaptized do not have.
    Acts – having your sins washed away – he at least claims that for himself in ch 22
    Rom – by baptism being buried and raised with Christ –
    Col – through baptism God clothes you with Jesus

    No a word about identification – but all words of “gifts” to those baptized.

    So is there such a thing as a believer who has not had his sins washed away?

    In your view are there 2 classes of Christians?
    A believer who has not been buried and raised with Christ?
    A believer who has not been clothed with Christ?

  274. Until you clearly explain your statement @ 259 – I will have to doubt your claim to believing in the real presence.

    You dispute the Lutheran position on “I will be with you always – so I assume you cannot believe in the real presence.

    A clear explanation is all I have asked for … you think it is funny to play the game. You leave me no choice but to view your words as heretical .

  275. mrtundraman says:

    MLD, why do you libel by bearing false witness against me? I believe in the Real Presence…

  276. mrtundraman says:

    Once again the pigeon knocks over the pieces and leaves his calling card on the board…

  277. You contradict yourself – I think this discussion is between the 2 yous. The EO guy who doesn’t trust the EO enough to join and the Protestant who hates being a Protestant.

    It must be difficult to wake up each day and try to identify yourself.

  278. MTM, so what did you mean by #259 and why do you not want to be clear? I don’t understand what you are getting at? Avoiding the pieces is not playing the game either.

  279. mrtundraman says:

    Lutherans don’t like this “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:”.

    The reason is that it is “LAW”, not Gospel. Both the command to teach is LAW (to a Lutheran) and the thing being taught is LAW (to obey EVERYTHING Jesus commanded). And to a Lutheran the LAW is death so Jesus is telling people to bring death…

  280. mrtundraman says:

    But MLD already knew that was the problem with the passage. He just wanted to use his usual misdirection and slander methodology.

  281. mrtundraman says:

    Everytime a Lutheran reads a passage like “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” they read it as a command to teach people to follow the LAW so that they will fail and realize they need Jesus. Although even their realization itself isn’t even meritorious in any sense…

    In contrast the rest of the church thinks that Jesus really meant it when He told us to observe everything He commanded and to teach others to do the same.

  282. And this has to do with the consecration of Bishops and Ministers how? Seems more like, let me throw some red meat out there so I can get MLD to bite and then throw out my favorite “strutting pigeon” phrase. That is getting old. You need to come up with a better schtick.

  283. MTM,
    You have a 14 yr old’s view of Lutheranism – which means you know nothing and have fantasies floating in your head. The charge of the Lutheran pastor is to preach both the law and the gospel.

    In fact (and you would know this if you didn’t hate the church of your parents so much) is that Lutherans “preach the law ‘in all of it’s harshness’ and the gospel ‘in all of it’s sweetness’.”

    What we don’t do – like your EO is when you have a repentant sinner, we don’t beat them more with the law – but comfort with the gospel.

    Everything you said in your 278 is a known lie – which would make you a …

  284. To show that MTM knows absolutely nothing about Lutheranism – he has already admitted that he lied to his Lutheran pastor to get through confirmation – why is one of the 6 chief parts of the Lutheran catechism both small and large on the 10 commandments?

  285. mrtundraman says:

    Derek see #257 and the “strutting pigeon” just fits so well because MLD does it every time…

  286. mrtundraman says:

    MLD – if you care in the least about any of the ten commandments when why the constant bearing of false witness against others?

  287. mrtundraman says:

    “In fact (and you would know this if you didn’t hate the church of your parents so much) is that Lutherans “preach the law ‘in all of it’s harshness’ and the gospel ‘in all of it’s sweetness’.””

    My parents ceased to be Lutherans decades ago and made the switch to Evangelical of various sorts over the years since then.

  288. mrtundraman says:

    Real simple, MLD, is this passage Law or Gospel?

    “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”

  289. mrtundraman says:

    “You contradict yourself – I think this discussion is between the 2 yous. The EO guy who doesn’t trust the EO enough to join and the Protestant who hates being a Protestant.”

    No contradiction at all. I am a Protestant, just not LCMS or Reformed type… I follow one of the other major Protestant Reformers, Jacob Arminius… The others went too far in their hyper theistic determinism and as a result they rejected the historical faith…

  290. Steve Wright says:

    Reading Acts doesn’t seem to provide any evidence of, or allusion to, some “new entity”, aka The Church, being born. In fact, the men and women mentioned in these chapters were already part of an entity that was worshipping/following Messiah and The Lord simply added to them daily.
    —————————————————————
    Acts 11:15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. – Peter

    “The beginning”

    The Church is marked by the sealing, indwelling, earnest of the Holy Spirit – something quite new, as even seen in the promises of Jesus in the Upper Room. The role of the Spirit in the OT was quite different.

  291. mrtundraman says:

    For those who have only heard Calvinists use the term “Arminians” and haven’t read for themselves, the views of the followers of Arminius were formulated in the Five Articles of the Remonstrants. Here’s an article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_articles_of_Remonstrance

    Maybe the five articles would make a good weekly series when the Anglican articles are completed?

  292. “MLD – if you care in the least about any of the ten commandments when why the constant bearing of false witness against others?”

    Who says that anything I have said about you is a false witness? I think it is truth.

  293. mrtundraman says:

    “The Church is marked by the sealing, indwelling, earnest of the Holy Spirit – something quite new, as even seen in the promises of Jesus in the Upper Room. The role of the Spirit in the OT was quite different.”

    The Holy Spirit dwelled in believers in the OT and Pre-Pentecost days.

  294. Real simple, MLD, is this passage Law or Gospel?
    “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”

    You still do not understand the proper distinction between law and gospel. Why do you just break it down into a sentence – would the distinction change if you included a whole passage?

    MTM – “things” law or gospel????

    This is how you have spent your adult life – nit pick at words by Chuck Smith and Greg Laurie – pick a word, a phrase and cast them out as false teachers.

  295. mrtundraman says:

    The distinction in the beginning of Acts was the broadening of the mission from the lost sheep of the house Israel to the world…

    The broadening is shown throughout the book of Acts as the major theme.

  296. Xenia says:

    What we don’t do – like your EO is when you have a repentant sinner, we don’t beat them more with the law – but comfort with the gospel.<<<

    MLD, you are so wrong. After listening to me describe the gentleness of the Orthodox Church for all these years… Comforting the repentant sinner with the Gospel is what Orthodoxy is all about.

  297. mrtundraman says:

    MLD. Doesn’t seem like it should have been all that hard for you to answer this simple and direct question.

  298. mrtundraman says:

    Xenia, the EO doesn’t teach a radical distinction between Law and Gospel. Nor does the EO handle the Word of God in such a way as to lead the hearer to say that they can’t follow the commandments of God and shouldn’t even bother trying. Neither does the EO leave the sinner without hope, but through confession and repentance the EO offers the way to a restored relationship with God.

  299. Reuben says:

    Tundra @290

    I might be game with that…

  300. Xenia says:

    So MLD, shall I say “Everything you said in this thread about the EO is a lie? Therefore, you are a …..?”

    But I would not say that. It’s not a lie if you actually believe what you wrote. It doesn’t make you a liar, just mistaken.

  301. MTM,
    “I am a Protestant, just not LCMS or Reformed type…”

    Once again you are unzipped and your ignorance is showing. Why would you link Lutherans and the Reformed together on this. We are nothing alike on this topic.

    Perhaps you should not retrieve things from your 14 yr old distortions and actually read a book on the topic.

    Calvinis & Arminianism is just an in house Reformed debate. Lutherans are not involed with either side. Actually, from a Lutheran position, both are wrong and bad examples of the radical end of the reformation.

  302. Xenia,
    My apologies to you – but you must stop letting MTM represent EO thought and doctrine. He misrepresents the EO position even more than he misrepresents the Lutheran position.

  303. MTM,
    Your #297 is manure.
    Show me where a Lutheran discourages people from following commands. The point is can you keep them or not? So yes we do say keep the commands but when you realize that you can’t, you need to look to the promises of Christ for your already won forgiveness.

    Perhaps your view is one of self flagellation until you can “get it right”

    Now, tell me even one command that you have kept.

  304. Steve Wright says:

    The Body of Christ is the Church (universal). The Bride of Christ is the Church (universal) as well.

    Jesus is the Head of the Body, and the Groom of the Bride.

    How anyone can have the Body and Bride being formed and added to before the Coming, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus is beyond me – but both make perfect sense as beautiful symbolism if you start in chapter two of Acts, which conveniently is after chapter one’s Ascension.

    Seeing the Church as something new and unique starting in Acts really has nothing to do with the rapture – nothing to be afraid of.. 🙂

  305. mrtundraman says:

    What is the problem with seeing the Holy Spirit at work in the Old Testament the same ways we see the Spirit at work in the New Testament times?

    Isa 63:10-11
    But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.
    Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

    I can find plenty of passages in the OT about believers being filled with the Holy Spirit.

  306. mrtundraman says:

    “Seeing the Church as something new and unique starting in Acts really has nothing to do with the rapture – nothing to be afraid of.”

    Actually… it is a tenant of Dispensationalism…

  307. mrtundraman says:

    Xenia, as usual, if I am misrepresenting the EOC in any way, feel free to correct me.

  308. Xenia says:

    MLD, MTM’s post at # 298 is 100 percent correct.

    It is *you* who is misrepresenting Orthodoxy.

  309. Steve Wright says:

    Actually… it is a tenant of Dispensationalism…
    —————————————————-
    Agreed. Never said otherwise. Nor is that the point.

    Certainly you aren’t arguing that one can’t see the Church as starting in Acts chapter two without also being a dispensationalist.

    But you can take it up further with Xenia. She’s the one who wrote the Church was born at Pentecost – and I was agreeing and supporting her in my reply to Goose.

  310. Xenia,
    He is wrong – if his representation of Lutheran doctrine in regards to the law and gospel is being represented as the EO position.

    His statement (in 298) of Lutherans is “and shouldn’t even bother trying.” is a gross misrepresentation – so is that the EO position? I challenged him earlier to show me where Lutherans advocate not following the commands in the Bible. But when he has no answer, he calls me a pigeon and goes away.

    His #298 was not what I was referring to in the first place.

  311. Xenia says:

    Besides, MTM is not presenting himself here as a spokesman for Eastern Orthodoxy. He has written many times that he enjoys attending the Orthodox Church but he is a Protestant at heart. Some of the ideas he presents are in direct conflict w/ Orthodox teaching. When he writes “The Orthodox believe thus and so,” he is generally correct, as far as I can tell. When he just writes his own opinions on things, we can’t say he is misrepresenting Orthodoxy because he is not talking about Orthodoxy.

  312. Xenia says:

    His statement (in 298) of Lutherans is “and shouldn’t even bother trying.<<<

    That is pretty much a summary of what I have gotten from your posts over the years.

    The EO strongly disagrees w/ the Lutheran Law-and-Gospel dichotomy.

  313. Xenia says:

    In a sense the Church was born at Pentecost but in another sense, the people of God of all ages can be called the Church.

  314. Xenia says:

    Well boys and girls, I will be AWFK most of the day. See you all laterz.

  315. Steve Wright says:

    In a sense the Church was born at Pentecost but in another sense, the people of God of all ages can be called the Church.
    ———————————————–
    Except they never are in the Bible. Never (with the one poor KJV translation verse duly noted – properly corrected in all other English translations)

    If simply being a “person of God” at any time in history puts you in the Church, then nothing at all could be said to begin at Pentecost.

    And Jesus’ words are sure confusing there in the Upper Room as He promised this new relationship with the Spirit, for His followers, after His departure.

  316. Xenia,
    You get from my posts over the years that it doesn’t matter if you try to keep the commands? Can you, even from some memory give me a paraphrase of my ever saying “don’t even try to keep commands?”

    But then, if the EO does not make any distinctions about when to preach law and when to preach gospel … perhaps we do run on 2 separate tracks. MTM like to make a big deal about the law / gospel thing as evidenced by his out of the blue post raging about it in #259.

    As I said earlier, we are commanded to keep the commands (so we try), but in the end, we can’t (because the standard for keeping the commands is perfection – so we all fall short) so we must then turn to Jesus’ promises of forgiveness (which has already been secured for us. – and then we repeat the cycle again.

    We don’t just stop and say “I tried, that’s good enough for God” – I don’t want to say that is the EO position, but it sounds as if it could be.

  317. mrtundraman says:

    “In a sense the Church was born at Pentecost but in another sense, the people of God of all ages can be called the Church.
    ———————————————–
    Except they never are in the Bible. Never (with the one poor KJV translation verse duly noted – properly corrected in all other English translations)”

    Not a poor translation at all. It’s the same Greek word, “ekklesia”. Hard to be a “poor translation” when it’s the exact same word used for church in other places.

  318. Bob says:

    MLD said:

    “As I said earlier, we are commanded to keep the commands (so we try), but in the end, we can’t (because the standard for keeping the commands is perfection – so we all fall short) so we must then turn to Jesus’ promises of forgiveness (which has already been secured for us. – and then we repeat the cycle again.”

    Too bad the scriptures really didn’t ever teach salvation through works, God has always saved via grace and compassion. But James and Paul debated the place of works, following the commands of God, by all people of faith in Him.

    Now do we learn from the commands we are fallen? You bet! But of course we have to be listening to Him rather than our lusts to even know we are failures at keeping even the most natural of the laws of creation.

    But I agree with Xenia about MLD –

    “His statement (in 298) of Lutherans is “and shouldn’t even bother trying.<<<

    That is pretty much a summary of what I have gotten from your posts over the years.

    The EO strongly disagrees w/ the Lutheran Law-and-Gospel dichotomy."

  319. mrtundraman says:

    “The Missouri Synod believes that the Holy Scriptures contain only two teachings—the Law and the Gospel. The Law is all those parts of the Bible that provide commands and instructions, which the LCMS believes are impossible to completely obey. Therefore, the Law through this stated relationship with God, implies an inevitable consequence of God’s wrath, judgment and damnation… The function of the law is to show a person their sinful nature and drive (draw) them to the Gospel”

  320. mrtundraman says:

    If the writers of the New Testament were to use a Greek word to describe a gathering together of the people of God in the Old Testament they would naturally use the Greek word ekklesia which means assembly. The word has a “holy” meaning to us today, but if we just use the word “assembly” we can see how absurd the claim is that the church was born that day. The people of God have always assembled together and the Greek word could even be used to describe the assembly of Jews in a synagogue.

    The same Greek word is used in this passage translated as “assembly” and it’s not about the church at all:

    Act 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.

  321. mrtundraman says:

    The unique thing about the gatherings were that they were in Jesus’ name, but even that was not necessarily immediate with Acts 2. It took the disciples some time and persecution to separate themselves from the Jews.

    The outpouring of the Spirit was on a flesh – Jew and Gentile alike. That’s what was distinctly true of the “church” in the NT. The Gospel went out beyond the lost sheep to all the world.

    Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon ALL FLESH: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

    The OT always had foreshadows with Rehab and others who pointed to the promise that the Gospel would go to the world, but they were exceptions rather than the norm.

  322. mrtundraman says:

    And yet I agree with Xenia. Something was born that day that was something different than what had existed previously in Israel. Structurally it would have bishops, priests, etc. who were different than the Levites. The national makeup of the church would be the church of all nations. Not the like the church of Southern California, but the church of the world. The church that started at Jerusalem was there because it was a commandment to attend the Jewish feasts but it would quickly become apparent that the church didn’t need the Jewish faith any longer. It had outgrown the ingrown faith of Israel.

  323. mrtundraman says:

    MLD, is it a sin to try to obey the Law?

  324. MTM,
    “MLD, is it a sin to try to obey the Law?”

    Have you ever read the LCMS position of the 3 uses of the law? I don’t think you have.

    Do you know the 3rd use of the law? I don’t think you do.

    Your 14 yr old mind makes stuff up.

  325. To show that MTM knows absolutely nothing on the subject he speaks of. I present the Lutheran view on the 3 uses of the law. The 3rd use is for the Christian.

    1. As a mirror it shows us our sin and the need of a Savior.

    2. As a curb it checks to some extent the coarse outbreak of sin, thereby helping to preserve order in this sinful world.

    3. As a rule it guides us in the true fear, love, and trust in God, that we willingly do according to His commandments.
    – Luther’s Catechism (1956), Explanation p. 90-91

    The Lutheran Confessions speak much on the 3rd use, also the new obedience, and the righteousness of faith.

    MTM may have just fallen of the turnip truck, but we Lutherans have not.

  326. Bob says:

    “MTM may have just fallen of the turnip truck, but we Lutherans have not.”

    MLD I have to ask, why do you resort to name calling?

    You really don’t do much for the Missouri Synod and Christ for these continued bouts of name calling.

  327. mrtundraman says:

    “Luther’s Catechism (1956)”

    Funny, I thought Luther died in the 1500’s…

    Why does this page say “In neither of his two catechisms did Luther explicitly enumerate three uses of the Law.”

    http://www.ryancmacpherson.com/publication-list/26-research-papers/73-a-lutheran-view-of-the-third-use-of-the-law.html

    Oh, I see. It’s not actually in Luther’s Catechism at all. It’s in a book about the Catechism. Sounds imaginative…

    Anyway I will remember to quote back the third use to MLD in the future when he makes his pronouncements about the Law.

  328. Bob, it’s funny that you call me out for saying that MTM fell off the turnip truck, but say absolutely nothing about his made up charges – which in some circles are called lies, but I will just settle that he is telling campfire stories.

  329. MTM,
    Luther is not the only Lutheran to teach.

    But this is a funny statement “Anyway I will remember to quote back the third use to MLD in the future when he makes his pronouncements about the Law.”

    I am the one who said that Lutheran pastors are charged with preaching both the law and gospel.

    You are the one who says that no distinction needs to be made. You are a fan of sitting in churches that preach the ‘GoLawspel’. Throw out a little law, a little gospel and blend them together.

  330. mrtundraman says:

    The churches I attend preach all three “uses” of the Law (as if such a thing could be differentiated into categories in such a manner as the Scholastics of the Middle Ages did). They just don’t draw false categories when the Scripture is silent on them.

  331. mrtundraman says:

    “Luther is not the only Lutheran to teach. ”

    What do Lutherans do when Mormons come to their door? I assume they can’t talk about changes that happened to the Book of Mormon with their own kind altering the words of Luther.

  332. The words of Luther are not scripture.

    You really need to brush up on what you know about Lutheranism … and I don’t mean, click – copy / paste from the internet.

    Very little of the Lutheran confessions were written by Luther – in fact much after his death.

  333. mrtundraman says:

    It is interesting that MLD has to step outside of his LCMS Lutheranism to pick up the third use of the Law since the LCMS don’t typically make much use of the third use of the Law. The founder of the LCMS CFW Walther wasn’t much of a fan of the third use. Other Lutherans like the ELCA Lutherans use it as license for all sorts of behaviors and practices.

  334. mrtundraman says:

    I don’t feel that much of a need to brush up on Lutheranism since there are very few where I live and the few that are here have zero impact on the area. There are two very small and dying Lutheran churches in the city I live in.

  335. The point is that you make false accusations – I say that Lutherans preach Law & Gospel.

    You keep saying that I don’t say that.

    I say that there are particular distinctions to be made – you keep making the case that there are no distinctions between law & gospel.

    I keep saying that we do indeed work at keeping God’s commands – you say we don’t.

    If I say anything about your beliefs and you call me a pigeon.

    I always get baited by dishonest people. I will let you keep both feet in your 2 false associations and let it be.

  336. Well believe me, I put no stock in your evaluation of churches – especially since you just go whoring around to churches. I can’t tell if you are cheating on your protestant church or your EO church – but you are.

  337. mrtundraman says:

    Not sure how I am “whoring around to churches”. I have only attended the EO church for the past 7 or so years. I haven’t been to any Protestant Churches other than to attend non-worship events. I am not cheating on my particular Protestant Church since they don’t have a local church here – the nearest is more than an hour away. If there was one of those particular churches within a half an hour I would gladly attend it. The EO church is the best thing around here and I probably drive past a half dozen small Lutheran churches to get to my EO parish.

  338. mrtundraman says:

    MLD, Do they let you teach on the third use of the Law in your local LCMS church? I am curious since that use does seem contrary to Walther’s view of the Law-Gospel distinction. If you really reject Walther and follow Concord on this matter then why are you still in the LCMS church?

  339. One has nothing to do with the other. Do you think Walther denied Concord? Yikes, I had better call the LCMS owned Concordia Publishing House Publishing company and tell them they are not allowed to publish the Book of Concord any longer. LOL

    There is nothing that puts 3rd use at odds with Concord.

    But it is comical that you accused me all these times of denying the use of the law and now you are arguing about the fact that I use the law.

    Do you listen to yourself?

  340. Well, I am off to a church budget forum. The leadership board (I am VP) has approved a budget to present to the congregation in 2 weeks. This is the 1st of 2 forum to allow people to come in, here a line by line presentation and ask questions.

    I am sure before it is over I will be wanting to tear my skin off – I have been through this process many times.

  341. mrtundraman says:

    “There is nothing that puts 3rd use at odds with Concord.”

    I think you misread/misunderstood/miswrote.

    The third use is found in Concord. It was Walther who rejected the third use.

    And you have stepped around the question. Do you accept Walther or Concord on the 3rd use. You seem to want to pick and choose as you go along and that’s OK, I just want to understand which part of Lutheranism you accept and which part you reject.

    Do you follow Walther when he rejects the third use or the law or do you follow Concord on the 3rd use of the law? Or neither?

  342. mrtundraman says:

    Here is the Book of Concord on the Third Use of the Law (too long to copy/paste): http://bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php

    I find very little to disagree with in Concord. Not sure how Walther and the LCMS can reject that…

  343. Gary says:

    *Looks around* Eee-uuuuu! It smells bad in here. The place is waist high in -um- in misunderstanding. Can’t stay.

  344. Q says:

    “I guess we need to define ‘tradition’. Ephesians tells us about the Spirit-given offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor-teacher. And their purpose, which is very much doctrinal in nature.”

    Why does the Apostle do his job and move on, the Prophet do his job and move on, the Evangelist do his job and move on (I mean as much as possible unless some help is needed) But the Pastor and Teacher or Pastor Teacher stay for ever and sometimes build their own kingdom.

    If he did his job well wouldn’t the Pastor be able to move on at some point? Or is it the only gift that just keeps giving (sorry).

    Honest question.

  345. Goose says:

    Steve @290 said…

    “The Church is marked by the sealing, indwelling, earnest of the Holy Spirit – something quite new, as even seen in the promises of Jesus in the Upper Room. The role of the Spirit in the OT was quite different.”

    Steve, there may have been some promises given in the Upper Room by the Messiah but they weren’t that of a “new entity” called The Church being birthed.

  346. Goose says:

    Steve @ 304 said…

    “How anyone can have the Body and Bride being formed and added to before the Coming, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus is beyond me”

    Steve, aren’t the Old Testament believers part of the Body and Bride?

  347. Goose says:

    Steve @ 315 said…

    “In a sense the Church was born at Pentecost but in another sense, the people of God of all ages can be called the Church.
    ______________________________________________________________
    Except they never are in the Bible. Never (with the one poor KJV translation verse duly noted – properly corrected in all other English translations)

    If simply being a “person of God” at any time in history puts you in the Church, then nothing at all could be said to begin at Pentecost.

    And Jesus’ words are sure confusing there in the Upper Room as He promised this new relationship with the Spirit, for His followers, after His departure.”

    Steve, I thought we covered this issue a couple of weeks ago (and MTM surely did with you today)….the ekklesia, per the Acts passage you are referring to, has been in existence for thousands of years.

    This also means that nothing new began at Pentecost, at least in terms of a “new entity” known as The Church being birthed.

    Actually, the Messiah’s words become confusing when one posits that His promises in the Upper Room are referring to a “new entity”, known as The Church, that is going to be birthed.

  348. Goose says:

    MTM @ 322 said…

    “The church that started at Jerusalem was there because it was a commandment to attend the Jewish feasts but it would quickly become apparent that the church didn’t need the Jewish faith any longer. It had outgrown the ingrown faith of Israel.”

    MTM, yet Paul’s Torah observance, post-resurrection, seems to suggest otherwise, doesn’t it?

  349. mrtundraman says:

    I do think we have made some big progress in this thread. Next time MLD makes some comment about the futility of obeying God’s Law in response to someone else’s comment about the Law we have a response. We just respond that we were talking about the 3rd use of the Law not the first or second use. I’d say that will shut down 90% of what he has posted here over the years. At least until MLD figures out that his own LCMS founder rejected the third use of the Law. Then he gets to choose whether or not he is an LCMS or ELCA kind of Lutheran.

  350. mrtundraman says:

    Goose, I distinguish between the cult practice which was dying even at that time and would be dead in 70 AD from the observance of the other aspects of the Law (moral aspects and civil aspects).

    Paul and Peter both found themselves working out their exit from the Jewish religion and into the new faith throughout the entire book of Acts. They had to work out for themselves under the guidance of the Spirit what this new reality meant. Would they keep shaving their heads for vows? Would they be able to eat things sacrificed to idols? Would they be able to enter the homes of Gentiles? Would they be able to eat formerly unclean things?

    All of these questions flowed from the new reality post-resurrection.

  351. mrtundraman says:

    ” Steve wrote – “How anyone can have the Body and Bride being formed and added to before the Coming, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus is beyond me”
    Goose wrote – Steve, aren’t the Old Testament believers part of the Body and Bride?”

    And more particularly what did Jesus do during the three days? He proclaimed the Gospel to those who had perished so that there would be one body – living and dead…

    I find it particularly interesting that the part of the OT Law requiring attendance at the feasts was the means of bringing believers from all over the world into the city of Jerusalem for the formation of the church. That itself was even a sign of what the church should be – an assembly of people from all nations…

  352. mrtundraman says:

    This is why Steve has to see the church starting with Acts. ch 2…
    “Start of the Church Age
    Mainstream dispensationalists such as Scofield and Ironside identify Pentecost, in the second chapter of Acts, with the start of the Church as distinct from Israel; this may be referred to as the “Act. ch 2″ position.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism#Start_of_the_Church_Age

  353. MTM,
    You can’t keep playing slight of hand (well, you can because at your core you are a dishonest person). You can’t accuse me of not placing any value on the commands of God and then try to beat me up when I show you I do.

    Dishonest people do that – try to beat up people regardless of their position.

    You give Walther way too much credit (although I doubt you have ever read any Walther other than snippets from the internet. Walther was one person in Lutheran history. The LCMS is not against 3rd use.

  354. But here is where MTM is at his pinnicle of ignorance on the topic (I know, he has 2 Masters Degrees from institutions he is too ashamed to mention here) but when I talk of the proper distinction of law & Gospel – MTM thinks OT or NT or THE LAW & THE GOSPEL.

    Change the wording law = the commands of God – – gospel = the promises of God. This is what overworks MTMs brain.

    The commands of God are NEVER kept. If MTM wants to jump in here and give me a list of commands he has kept, I would be honored to read them – but he will go off on some mis direct.

    The gospel – the promises of God are ALWAYS kept.

    Now the distinction between the 2 is a hermeneutical devise, not a doctrine as MTM wishes to make it.

    Now i will wait at MTM addresses everything except what I have stated.

    MTM, please list the commands of God you have kept… oh yes, in the way God expects the commands to be kept.

  355. We will need to wait a while for MTM to respond. He has to consult with Perry Robinson as MTM never has an original thought.

  356. mrtundraman says:

    “MTM, please list the commands of God you have kept… oh yes, in the way God expects the commands to be kept.”

    MLD – you keep confusing the first two uses of the Law with the third use of the Law. Don’t you know that our spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake?

  357. MTM,
    That’s all I wanted was for you to agree with me that no one can keep even one command.
    I guess it was good you consulted with Perry …

    I am off to church – perhaps I will bring up to my class today the 3 uses of the law. Old subject to them, but a good reminder.

  358. PP Vet says:

    MTM:

    Please be patient. MLD will resume calling you dishonest and the “pinnicle” of ignorance when he returns from … church.

    I love this site. 🙂

    God bless us all.

  359. mrtundraman says:

    Thanks MLD. Finally we agree that we are working together with Christ to do good works.

  360. mrtundraman says:

    PPVet – LOL. I had to laugh hard at that one…

    MLD reminded me how much I am thankful to have a spiritual friend like Perry… Too bad that MLD doesn’t have a friend like Perry in his life. But to tell the truth if I asked Perry for advice about talking with MLD he’d ask me why I am wasting my time on an idiot.

  361. MTM,
    Never denied that. You will note that there are many Lutheran mission organizations, medical centers, homes for the disabled and indigent along with a school system that is unsurpassed in this country. I will match the good works of Lutherans to any church body.

    So why did you ever doubt my position or the position of my denomination? – other than you childhood lack of understanding.

  362. PP Vet – I hope you call out MTM for calling me an idiot.

  363. PP Vet says:

    MLD:

    Yes, of course. I will resume my caustic commentary, and look far any excuse whatsoever to go after both you and MTM, as soon as I finish watching Joel Osteen remind me of my limitless potential. 🙂

  364. mrtundraman says:

    “Never denied that. You will note that there are many Lutheran mission organizations, medical centers, homes for the disabled and indigent along with a school system that is unsurpassed in this country. I will match the good works of Lutherans to any church body.”

    Yes, the ELCA have done many great works.

  365. Lutherans of all stripes – all in for good works.

    But since you refuse to commit yourself to affiliate with the church he goes to (all take no give) you have no standing in this part of the conversation.

    What keeps you from joining? the fact that they pass the plate. 😉

  366. Even the worst of Lutherans are better than what you belong to. Oh wait, I forgot, you don’t belong anywhere – the Lone Christian.

  367. mrtundraman says:

    I would love to compare the average giving of the Lutherans to that of the denomination to which I belong. I know that our churches are mostly small and poor but we do operate hospitals and care centers for seniors as well as many other good works. I just wish there was a church in my area from my denomination because I would be a part of that church.

  368. mrtundraman says:

    It makes my heart glad to hear MLD speaking so well of good works. I’ve never heard him do anything other than condemn others who speak of good works. This whole discussion of the third use of the Law has certainly clarified his thinking about the place of good works.

  369. Gary says:

    I could play this game. The game no one wins. But it’s so futile. “Dishonest people do that – try to beat up people regardless of their position.”

  370. I have never denied the need for good works – for the sole purpose of “serving my neighbor”. If I ever object to “good works” talk (and I do) it is when people present it as a “you will be a better Christian if you do XY or Z”

    I am the one here who speaks continually about vocation and how our everyday life is to be conducted in a manner that serves my neighbor so he can carry out his vocation to serve his neighbor.

  371. Gary – that’s why there are several threads on this blog – go find one that you can play on. It’s like going to the park – not everyone wants to be on the baseball field so the go to the BB courts or play on the swings and slides.

    Go have fun.

  372. “I just wish there was a church in my area from my denomination because I would be a part of that church.”

    Don’t make excuses – get up a half hour / hour earlier and drive the extra time. It’s not like you have to hitch up the buckboard like Pa Ingalls used to do.

  373. Gary says:

    Bullies have taken over the baseball field. But you’re right. There are better fields across town. Good luck!

  374. Gary,
    All I am doing is sitting back and reading it now. Looks like the homeschool conversation is dying down on “Open Blogging”, start a new topic there.

  375. Gary – join it.
    Good works – are you for them or against them? 🙂

  376. Gary says:

    If you’re asking me, MLD, I’m for good works. Go ahead and slice and dice. Debatives are restless tonight. I just got a pop up saying McAfee just blocked a risky connection. Must be the Holy Spirit.

  377. mrtundraman says:

    MLD has recently discovered a third use for the Law. It’s not a part of his LCMS heritage so he’s now borrowing from more traditional Lutheranism for the view (like the ELCA), but either way I welcome his newly discovered love of good works. I got so tired of him constantly going after anyone who spoke of good works. This is a good change for him and all of us.

  378. mrtundraman says:

    Earlier MLD wrote about Keith Green “Forget about his songs and read his sermons – Green was a works righteous kind of guy, because of his lack of theological training.”

    No, it was Green’s position based on the third use of the Law…

  379. mrtundraman says:

    MLD wrote earlier “I am still trying to figure out what it means to simply follow Jesus.
    I think many cults started that way… and then added on the layers.”

    Like where Luther taught just two uses of the Law and then Melancthon came along and added in a third use of the Law weakening Luther’s view?

  380. mrtundraman says:

    MLD wrote “Show me where a Lutheran discourages people from following commands. The point is can you keep them or not? So yes we do say keep the commands but when you realize that you can’t, you need to look to the promises of Christ for your already won forgiveness.”

    From the three uses of the Law MLD is describing a non-Christian, not a Christian above.

  381. mrtundraman says:

    MLD wrote – “Don’t make excuses – get up a half hour / hour earlier and drive the extra time. It’s not like you have to hitch up the buckboard like Pa Ingalls used to do.”

    I drive the half hour to the Antiochian Orthodox church. That works fine for me. Thanks…

  382. mrtundraman says:

    MLD wrote “I am the one here who speaks continually about vocation and how our everyday life is to be conducted in a manner that serves my neighbor so he can carry out his vocation to serve his neighbor.”

    Talk is one thing – it’s cheap. Exemplifying it is quite another….

  383. Oh well, MLD. It is pretty obvious that he likes to twist your words. There will be no end to the OCD’ness of 3rd use and pigeonstrutting now.
    Hey, not complaining as much though, at least it isn’t the blather we had to wade through only a few weeks ago.

  384. MTM,”
    “From the three uses of the Law MLD is describing a non-Christian, not a Christian above.”

    Time for you to put up or shut up – tell me the commands of God you keep? You keep saying that Christians keep God’s commands, I say no they don’t.

    Let’s see the list – just show me one or two. (probably the 5th time I have asked you to back up your comments with personal experience but you misdirect and avoid.

    But there is a big difference between us, as I don’t see myself in the glory of my own works.

  385. MTM,
    “I got so tired of him constantly going after anyone who spoke of good works. This is a good change for him and all of us.”

    You have hung out with the “works will save me” crowd at the EO way too long. Even though they like to fill you full of “keep those good works coming in to make God smile and save your soul in the end” (which is the “good works “talk I object to), I will just stick with “do good works to serve my neighbor.”

    Work your way up that ladder MTM, perhaps you will find a new way of salvation.

  386. “MLD has recently discovered a third use for the Law.”

    LOL, what is to be newly discovered, the 3rd use is right there in the middle of probably the most important of the Lutheran Confession The Formula of Concord. It’s been there since 1577 for all to see.

    The LCMS publishes The Book of Concord – I don’t see any deletions or editor’s notes. The issue is that you had never heard of the 3rd us before I mentioned it.

    Continue on you quest to work your way to heaven MTM.

  387. MTM,
    “I drive the half hour to the Antiochian Orthodox church. That works fine for me. Thanks…”

    How can it be? in your #367 and your #372 – you long to be with your denomination (you almost sound wounded that you can’t attend.)

    In your #337 you said a church of your denomination was an hour away. I suggested you wake up earlier and go to that wonderful denominational church. What did I do, scare you back into “non committed.” – do you fear commitment?

    How do you continually go to a church where you cannot participate in the Lord’s Supper? 7 years no communion? Why do you keep the wife away from communion? What the heck is going on here?

  388. mrtundraman says:

    MLD wrote – “Continue on you quest to work your way to heaven MTM.”

    I am a Christian. My spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake.

  389. mrtundraman says:

    MLD wrote – “The LCMS publishes The Book of Concord – I don’t see any deletions or editor’s notes. The issue is that you had never heard of the 3rd us before I mentioned it.

    Not sure how you can reconcile to yourself that Walther didn’t accept the third use of the Law as being Lutheran. Seems like you are picking and choosing but why be a part of the LCMS if they believe something different than you do?

  390. mrtundraman says:

    Keith Green recognized that our spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake.

  391. MTM,
    Unlike the EO, Lutherans allow independent thinking and scholarship.. Because a person holds a dissenting view does not gain privilege nor does it exclude you.

    Not everyone uses the same brain cell as in the EO.

  392. MTM,
    You don’t need to keep convincing me that “your” salvation is of “your” own works and offerings.

    Keep climbing that ladder MTM.

  393. mrtundraman says:

    I am so glad that my spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake.

  394. mrtundraman says:

    “Unlike the EO, Lutherans allow independent thinking and scholarship.”

    True, that independent thinking and scholarship has led the Lutherans to ordain homosexuals…

    I am glad that the EO thinking hasn’t taken them in that direction…

  395. I wonder who your God is? The God of the Bible has said that our offerings are like filthy rags. You must have a different God.. Now understand, that’s OK if you do – after all the Dali lama has a different God too and he is happy.

    Keep climbing that ladder of your own works MTM

  396. mrtundraman says:

    MLD, What’s wrong with what I wrote “my spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake.”?

  397. You stilll haven’t explained why you have chosen to stay away from the communion table for 7 yrs. Are you punishing God?

  398. Nothing is wrong with your statement – as I said it could be a quote from the Dali Lama.

  399. mrtundraman says:

    It’s actually a quote from the Book of Concord where it talks about the third use of the Law. Sad that you can’t tell your own religion from the Dali Lama…

  400. mrtundraman says:

    MLD wrote “You stilll haven’t explained why you have chosen to stay away from the communion table for 7 yrs. Are you punishing God?”

    I am not into following the Law, sorry.

  401. Either is the Dali Lama 🙂

  402. According to the Bible, communion is pure gift.

  403. mrtundraman says:

    But your repeating of the commandment to take communion is Law and I am not buying it.

  404. mrtundraman says:

    MLD seems to have missed this-

    “spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake” is actually a quote from the Book of Concord where it talks about the third use of the Law. Sad that MLD can’t tell his own religion from the Dali Lama…

  405. mrtundraman says:

    MLD are you rejecting the Book of Concord since it says “spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake”? Earlier you said you accepted the Book of Concord. I’m OK with you rejecting it since i rejected Lutheranism too, Sounds like you may be waking up from a long slumber…

  406. mrtundraman says:

    Derek wrote “here will be no end to the OCD’ness of 3rd use”

    You got that one thing right. MLD will always be answered since he’s now on record as accepting good works.

    “The good works of believers, although in this flesh they are impure and incomplete, are pleasing and acceptable to God, namely, for the sake of the Lord Christ, by faith, because the person is acceptable to God.” — Book of Concord

    Sadly MLD doesn’t seem to recognize the words from his own Book of Concord nor does he speak in a way agreeing with the Book of Concord.

  407. You are a trickster, MTM. Not much honor in that, only dishonor.

  408. How is taking communion not gift when Jesus himself gives you his true body and his true blood? You know, after 7 yrs of neglect, I guess you forgot what it’s all about.

  409. mrtundraman says:

    “Take and Eat” sound like Law (per Waltherian Lutheranism)…

  410. No, that is not what you said – you said you were SAVED by your own offerings – that is not what the article on the 3rd use is talking about – there it is clearly speaking of what good works of the Christian do – not as your church teaches – “How to be Saved.”

    You have the cart before the horse.

    Look, theological heresy is always just 1 degree off from truth – with a little work, you might be able to come back… maybe

  411. mrtundraman says:

    “You are a trickster, MTM”

    You are right. I did trick MLD by getting him to state he agrees with the Book of Concord, then quoting the Book of Concord to show he didn’t know the Book of Concord then getting him to condemn the quote from the Book of Concord and say that the quote from the Book of Concord might as well as have been from the Daii Lama.

    It was a pretty darn good trick. Took a while to set. But it wasn’t that hard to set given MLD’s propensities.

  412. “Take and Eat” sound like Law”

    Now you are stretching. I went to my 2 yr old granddaughters birthday party last evening and I gave her a gift and I said “Take and Play and have a good time. Was I binding her to commands and a life of law.

    Wow – the EO is all in for works salvation. If I were you, I would get out.

  413. Well, I guess we are back to you punishing God. “Jesus I will not take the free gift of your body and blood. No God is going to tell me what to do!!!”

    Do all Ortholanders believe this or is this just your own personal interpretation.

  414. mrtundraman says:

    MLD claims “No, that is not what you said – you said you were SAVED by your own offerings”

    Can you list the post # where I allegedly said I was SAVED by my offerings?

    Or admit you are lying.. Either way…

  415. What’s the trick – you applied a statement to your salvation that is not meant to be used in that way.

    I remember another guy who misquoted statements in order to trick Jesus in the wilderness – what was his name?

    But a misquote is still a misquote and a mis application is still a mis application.

    Wait, isn’t that the same thing that you do on your WIKI about Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel? The quick answer is yes.

  416. mrtundraman says:


    “Take and Eat” sound like Law”
    Now you are stretching.”

    So a command to do something isn’t necessarily Law? Now I am really confused because that’s what Walther said it was…

  417. mrtundraman says:

    See my 6:50. There’s no point in dialoging with you if you continue to make up stuff like this…

  418. I was talking about your adamant defense of works salvation theology and you quoted back to me that your offerings were sufficient for your salvation.

    Don’t try to change the context of your statement – I think you tricked yourself.

  419. mrtundraman says:

    OK, I think we are done. You are not an honest person.

  420. You can make statements about Walther all you want – what does that mean to me? Do you think there is a big division within Lutheranism over Walther? Check it out, all American branches of Lutheranism publish and or use the writings of Walther.

    You know nothing about the man, his writings or teaching. Only about 10% of his stuff has been translated into English.

  421. OK, here it is @388

    I said; “Continue on you quest to work your way to heaven MTM.”

    You said in defense of my claim “I am a Christian. My spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake.”

    So, the context is how you obtained salvation – that part is crystal clear. (read my statement again, that is what you responded to.)

    Your response said that you had to make a spiritual offering to God 2,000 yrs after Christ’s death on the cross.

  422. mrtundraman says:

    I take back my statement – you are not dishonest – rather you are illiterate.

    Again, I see no point in further discussion.

  423. To all out there don’t let MTM confuse you. When someone hands you something of value, that you did not ask for or work for – that is a gift.

    Perhaps it is “the something of value” that has confused MTM. Someone who willingly refuses to receive Jesus’ offer of his body and blood (for 7 yrs) must hold it in very low regard.

  424. It was YOUR response to my “works salvation” statement – if you want to do a ‘do over’ on your reply, I am open to that.

  425. Reuben says:

    Good night guys. This is done.

%d