Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lutheran Hermeneutic of Christ¢Theology of Comfort

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by bj -bear View Post
    Hej Nic!
    (In memory of Elder. ☺️ )

    The additional info was helpful. Since you touched on a lot of things my replies will be in sections.

    On a side note, Dr Savage (Microbiology not MD) says sleep is number one in recovering from cold or flu. Get some rest, amigo.



    A Christ centered reading of Scripture is necessary because the Lord said the Scriptures testify of Him and the NT with exception of Jakobus or James also testify explicitly to Him. I can see how someone would call a Christ centered reading of Scripture a hermeneutic but not how a person would call it a presupposition.

    That Christ centered reading, a bone of contention with non-Evangelicals remains one today. To know Jesus in the way in which He reveals himself requires recognizing and affirming the Lord's distinction of law and Gospel. Otherwise, the gospel, the good news of the incarnate, crucified, and risen Lord ceases to be objective true good news to and for all men. In that case confusion reigns to a greater or lesser degree.

    Since it is faith in Christ first, whether a person is baptized and raised in the faith from infancy on or an adult convert, the undisputed presupposition is that God is the Creator and men are the creatures so listen attentively to what He says in the way He says it.

    My .02¢.
    Thanks on the rest recommendation.
    Yes I recognize the throwback to Elder, Josiah used to close with the 0.000000002 cents or similar .

    I like the post and may yet comment further. It's a good post I just want to think about it more.
    We can all Tuesdays in the month of February as ""Throwback Tuesdays."
    Piggybacking off your Tuesday post RevT first said hi to you as Bjorn, was it? Coupled with Baer, maybe?

    Nic
    Last edited by Nic; 02-14-2020, 10:52 AM.
    1Corinthians 1:30-31
    30
    And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Tertiumquid View Post

      Hi Nic... appreciate the rundown.

      There is a distinctly Lutheran way to understanding the Scriptures, and I guess I've been confused by two types of Lutherans. One type realizes there is a distinctly Lutheran way to understand the Scriptures, the other way simply says, "this is what the Scriptures say and too bad for you if you don't see it the right way." Granted, sometimes Luther certainly put forth the "too bad for you" way. Luther though often argued his position on exegetical or theological grounds.

      The later way is present in all sorts of folks here on CARM (of all theological brands) that think it's their god-given task to assault people with the Bible (my way.. or the highway to hell).

      IMO, each person has their own systematic theology, whether they'll admit it or not. That is, each person attempts to understand how all the passages of Scripture are related together. Some people have complex systems. Other's have a hodge-podge.

      -end thought-

      -new thought-

      In regard to the possibility that Luther overreacted with a sharp distinction between law and Gospel: I think yes he did, but rightly he did because of the state of the church during his time period. Works righteousness ruled the day, and the works being put forth were narcissistic nonsense to the betterment of one's soul to avoid God's judgment. Pure selfishness. Sorta reminds me of the "I don't want to be left behind when the rapture happens" folks that were so prevalent in the 1970's. A lot of those people walked the aisle or filled out the "I want to be a Christian" card so they wouldn't have to face the wrath of God... In essence, making their conversions works righteousness.
      Hi Tertiumquid,
      -omitted previous comment-
      I never suspected you of trickery.
      -End of omitted previous comment-

      -new tbought-
      I came across some information that pretty much agrees with something we've all have probably known all the time.
      Lutherans use a Christ-Centered lens to read Scripture.
      Which can all be stated all Scripture is to be taken in light of death, burial and resurrection of Christ as well.
      But I think what is new for me to a certain degree is how actively one must be as a Lutheran keep the cross in view. A lot of comfort and promise is missed without this (IMO).
      This acknowledges our view of the supper and baptism but our understanding of Christology also says same about the supper. I don't know enough about M. Chemnitz to know if his Christological views were primarily driven by the cross, if so that explains that. If not, then his defined Christological views corroborate the Christ-Centered emphasis of the supper.

      From what else I gleaned from my research was that each tradition or sect predictably reads their interpretation onto/into the scriptures if they are practicing good systematic theology to some degree of their own background. I suppose that's why non-Lutherans usually or sometimes don't see a Lutheran rendering when observing an exchange between a Lutheran and a non-Lutheran. Some do, this is where I raise my hand to be counted. It was a very slow turn of events but RC and American Christianity both left such a bad taste in my mouth I was not in a hurry to make more mistakes.

      From pondering as I wrote the above, I suppose systematics in theology are fairly liquid in terms of what a person wants to look at. E.g.. Sacramental understanding can be viewed pitted against non-sacramental. Or Sacramental groups vs non-sacramental groups and not just one personal tradition against the world.

      As BJ pointed out there are pitfalls to systematics theeology, that said historical usage and understanding play somewhat of an arbiter so it seems. I also have read same as well as benefits to the practice. Any other ways to guard against the short-comings? Scripture itself comes to mind, what else?
      -close of new thought-

      How am I doing? Am I beginning to understand what you are driving at?
      Concerning Luther's would be over-reaction (if that's true), personally I find a lot of comfort in that methodology of that very clear distinction of Lutherans. And after what I've been through I would probably be struck with anxiety and/ or depression anywhere else. Or maybe I would not feel as comfortable or perhaps feel less loved. But may be that's the point from a Reformed view? Not the less love so much if at all, but maybe the somewhat distant sense of comfort or potentially encroaching anxiety on the periphery always trying to worm it's way inward. Comfort being there but just far enough away to drive a person in their quest for sanctification, maybe? (Is this an approximation of the Reformed 2nd or 3rd understanding use of the law? Or is that a big embarrassing miss. (Just streaming thoughts here.) That's seems to line up with what I think I know of some of the Reformed.

      Thanks again.

      p.s.
      I totally get your take on their works righteous efforts on some conversions.

      Nic
      Last edited by Nic; 02-14-2020, 10:45 AM.
      1Corinthians 1:30-31
      30
      And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

        I have a question here, please.

        How does one's views of judging another's intentions in doing works--somehow cover up or cancel out the reality of God's testimony---that all will be judged according to works--after death--and that for life or damnation?

        John 5:28-29---King James Version
        28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
        29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

        So--did those who have "done good"--and are raised to life---only count if they do it without guile?

        You see--either way--doesn't that still leave works as being the point where they receive of God's grace unto life--as a personal reception--or damnation?
        Bump for Lutherans

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Nic View Post
          To the penitent soul, not so much the impenitent one.

          Nic

          This is most certainly true--to the impenitent one, it is a double-edged sword.
          "It is easy to fool a man, but almost impossible to get him to admit he was fooled." (attributed to Mark Twain)

          "If the truth hurts--it's working." (Anonymous)

          "Let the wife make her husband glad to come home and let him make her sorry to see him leave." (Martin Luther)

          "A layman who has the Scripture is more than Pope or council without it."
          (Martin Luther)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nic View Post
            Thanks on the rest recommendation.
            Yes I recognize the throwback to Elder, Josiah used to close with the 0.000000002 cents or similar .

            I like the post and may yet comment further. It's a good post I just want to think about it more.
            We can all Tuesdays in the month of February as ""Throwback Tuesdays."
            Piggybacking off your Tuesday post RevT first said hi to you as Bjorn, was it? Coupled with Baer, maybe?

            Nic
            You have the eyes of a hawk, a hawk, I tell ya. ☺️

            Yes, but as Mr Hope used to say, "You can call me anything you want, but don't call me late for dinner."

            I too have been thinking of our discussion. I'm not sure where or who has my copy of The Two Natures In Christ so I started listening to Dr Rosenbladt's presentation.

            If your comment about Chemnitz and a use of philosophy in that work is from lesson one then my recollection is that it was regarding the use of terminology. Chemnitz wanted to be understood by as many as possible so he didn't want to introduce or invent new or novel terminology when there was already an existing well understood manner of speech which could convey the thought.

            Cooper noted that there were sections missing from the translation of Chemnitz' Loci Theologici. One of those sections left untranslated into English is on the Supper. I think that may be because there was or was planned the translation of his The Lord's Supper. It may also be that the Examen was done or in the works. I don't remember the publishing dates of any of these works.

            For what it is worth, the line goes from Melancthon's Loci Communes (Common places) to Chemnitz' Loci Theologici (Theolocial Places, a commentary of sorts on Loci Communes) to Gerhard's Loci Theologici (The English translator's title may be a way of indicating that lineage.).

            Comment

            Working...
            X