Home

Advertisement

Customize
Die, Old Adam! Die!
"The chief worship of the Gospel is to desire to receive the forgiveness of sins, grace, and righteousness."

          Apology of the
          Augsburg Confession
, V: 189


Listen weekdays from 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. to Issues Etc. Or Listen to what you want when you want. Either way, click on the logo above!

Visit these places!
Saint John's in the Cove Issues, Etc. Concordia Publishing House Concordia Theological Seminary Cranach: The Blog of Veith My Amazon Wishlist
This month
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930
Nov. 27th, 2009 @ 09:10 pm Sermon for Ad te Levavi
Rev. Charles Lehmann + Ad te Levavi + Jeremiah 23:5-8

In the Name of + Jesus. Amen.

A good king is hard to find. The people of Jerusalem couldn't have learned what a king was like by looking at their world. If they'd done that, they could have drawn a lot of conflicting conclusions. Looking at the Roman emperor, they could have thought either that a king was a successful military leader or that a king was a dark, somber, and depressed man. Looking at Herod Antipas, they would have thought that a king was a bloodthirsty tyrant who thought nothing of his people and sought only to satisfy his own whims and desires. But neither Tiberius Caesar nor Herod Antipas were true kings.

If we move forward two thousand years we find that we're in no better situation to understand what a king is than the people of Jerusalem were. The kings of our day are usually figureheads with no real power. The few kings that do have real authority over their subjects tend to be very much like Caesar and Herod. They are self-absorbed gluttons who live off the pain and toil of their people.

None of these examples show us what a king actually is. They are all flawed. They are vague shadows, tarnished by the sin and evil of the world. And so, if you want to know what a real King is like, the only place you can find one is in the Scriptures. There you will meet the true King face to face. There the One who has ruled the universe since the very beginning of time comes to give you His gifts of life and salvation.

Jesus, the true King, is nothing like the other kings of history. Though the whole universe is His, the true King is penniless. Though the true King is the very incarnate Word of God and His words are sharper than any two edged sword, Jesus has no blade strapped at His waist. Though the true King could at a word call down thousands of angels to lay waste to all those who oppose Him, Jesus has no army of men. Jesus conquers sin, death, and the power of the devil by laying down His life. He is in His greatest glory when He is crowned with thorns. This is not the sort of king that the world could ever come up with. No worldly king ever freely allowed Himself to be tortured to death. No worldly king has ever been willing to die in order to save all His enemies.

Read more... )
Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 25th, 2009 @ 08:18 am Sermon for the day of national thanksgiving
Rev. Charles Lehmann + Day of National Thanksgiving + Luke 17:11-19

In the Name of + Jesus. Amen.

When we think of Thanksgiving, our thoughts often go to Plymouth colony in the fall of 1621. It was then that the pilgrims shared a harvest feast with the Wampanoag Indians. As children we all made turkeys from paper plates and heard the story of Europeans and Native Americans coming together to give thanks for the bounties of the harvest that year.

But though it is certain that the feast celebrated by the pilgrims in 1621 was one of the first times Europeans held a celebration on this continent so they could give thanks to God for all of His bounty, our modern celebration of thanksgiving goes back only to 1863. It was then, in the midst of war, less than a year before Saint John's was founded, that President Lincoln proclaimed a day of national thanksgiving to be held on the last Thursday of November.

President Lincoln was grieved by the evils of war. Though he believed his cause was right, he was deeply troubled by the fact that his country was filled with death. It is likely that Abraham Lincoln talked about God more than any other American president. Because of that, it is surprising to us that Lincoln never joined a church, and never considered himself to be a Christian. But even though he never confessed the faith, Lincoln did know what all reasonable human beings know. He knew that the world and all the people that live in it had been created by an Almighty God who provided for all their needs, both in war and in peace.

Lincoln wanted to give thanks to God for all He had given our nation even though He never was exactly sure who God was. And so, today, the people of the United States are asked to give thanks, and many of us try. Some do it as Lincoln did, not knowing who God is or what He has done for us in Christ.

For us, however, thanksgiving is more focused and more clear. We know God. He has revealed Himself to us in the Scriptures. We know what He has done. We don't know God in general way. We know all the details. We know Jesus. We listen to His words every Sunday. We know that the eternal Son of God was willing to take on our own human flesh so He might bear the penalty for all our sin. We know that in the cross, we have the forgiveness of all our sins. We know that because Jesus is risen from the dead that we too shall rise. We give thanks to God today that in Jesus we have a Savior. In Jesus we have the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

Read more... )
Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 19th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm Sermon for the Last Sunday of the Church Year
Rev. Charles Lehmann + Last Sunday of the Church Year + Matthew 25:1-13

In the Name of + Jesus. Amen.

The bridegroom has been delayed. For nearly two thousand years, the Church has waited for Him. Every moment we should be quaking in eager expectation of His arrival, but two thousand years is a long time. When Jesus ascended into heaven, most of our ancestors were primitive pagan idolaters in Germany and England. Hundreds of kingdoms have risen and fallen in the years since then. The earth is filled with the billions who have been born, lived, and died since those days.

In Sudan, Christians are slaughtered for their faith. In Turkey, there were millions of Christians a hundred years ago, but there are less than one hundred thousand alive today. The rest are dead, their grandfathers and great-grandfathers murdered at the point of Muslim swords.

Christians are constantly being led like sheep to the slaughter. We live and we die, but mostly, we die. The bridegroom has waited these two thousand years, and now it's hard to live each moment it could be now, right now, that Jesus will come for us.

We know well the prayer that is prayed by the martyrs who are under the altar of heaven. In the book of Revelation they say, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” The shed blood of millions of slain Christians cries like Abel from the ground.

Read more... )
Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 14th, 2009 @ 09:47 am The 14th Victim
As I read this story this morning, I learned a detail about the terrorist attack on Fort Hood that I hadn't know before.  One of the "thirteen" victims was pregnant.

This means that Hasan actually murdered 14 people.

Speaking theologically, I don't think there's any doubt at all that this was a satanic attack.  Hasan "consecrated" the murders to his false god by shouting "Allahu akbar" before beginning his shooting spree.  All death is tragic, and it should not happen.  But it is particularly devastating when a baby is murdered before they are even born.

Let's be perfectly clear.  Satan loves to kill babies.

I pray that justice is done to Maj. Hasan in the military courts.
Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 11th, 2009 @ 03:58 pm Medication CAN treat demonic oppression
I regularly read both the Internet Monk and Boar's Head Tavern.  Though I find much more that I disagree with than I agree with, I generally do find the blogs to be interesting and worth my time.  Yesterday, however, Michael Spencer posted this and this and this and this and this at Boar's Head Tavern.  If you read those posts, I think you'll see that Mr. Spencer has a very flawed Christology and a very flawed view of the Scriptures.

I am going to begin my response by providing a summary of Spencer's argument as I understand it.

Much of his stance is based on this view:  Jesus was a man of the first century with all the foibles of a first century man in terms of his understanding of science and medicine.  Related to this he says, "Do I know more than Jesus articulated in his human nature about epilepsy, brain tumors, strokes, Alzheimer’s, etc.? Quite possibly."  Spencer is maintaining a rigorous separation between Christ's two natures.

Related to this point, Spencer notes: "I simply am losing the ability to feel anything towards the version of Christianity that sees our lives and actions as the passive playgrounds of demonic forces, which are apparently going to be cured by joining in the thought-world of a few fundamentalist sects and their anti-Obama conspiratorial mindset."  Focusing on the part I placed in italics, Spencer seems, at least where mental illness, epilepsy, etc. are concerned to not see any sort of demonic element.  While I would not say that our lives and actions are "passive" playgrounds, I am wondering why Spencer seems to want to eliminate the possibility of a demonic element having any part in disease.

Third, and very significantly, Spencer doesn't seem to understand how God uses physical means in order to serve the needs of His children.  "[Jesus] played the first century man, right down to explaining epilepsy as demonic, using saliva and using mud as healing agents."  Of all of Spencer's theological errors in his approach to this topic, I think this one is the most illuminating.

Now, for my response.

As a Lutheran, I confess with the Scriptures that the attributes of Christ's divine nature are communicated to the human nature because of the hypostatic union.  What does this mean?  It means that Jesus, as a man, is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.  This is why the Scriptures can say "the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin."  It is why Jesus, as a man, can say, "I am with you always to the very end of the age."  It is why He can say, "I have received all things from my Father."

Now some will be quick to point out that Jesus doesn't know the day or hour of His return.  Fair enough.  But where, on the basis of the Scriptures, can we say that Jesus' knowledge is limited in any other way?  You might say that He "grew in wisdom."  Sure enough.  But He did grow up.  In the years of His earthly ministry, Jesus had become a mature man.  Though we do distinguish the divine and human natures, we do NOT as Spencer has, separate them.

This also explains how Jesus used saliva and mud as healing agents.  Divine spittle has divine power.  This isn't hocus pocus.  This is just recognizing that Jesus' spit is God's spit.  For a Lutheran, this is no problem at all.  We have no problem saying that when we eat a little wafer we're eating God's flesh.  We have no problem saying that when we drink a sip of wine that we're actually drinking God's blood.  God works through created means.  He has done this ever since the moment after he created the created means.  He made man out of mud... no reason he can't fix man with mud.

I think that Spencer is seeking to defend the use of modern medicine to treat disease.  He noted in one post that he's heard Christians connect the spiritual origin with disease with the idea that all disease should only be spiritually treated.  When I visit people in the hospital, I always remind them that their affliction has a spiritual cause.  Sin has messed up the world to the degree that people get sick and die.  All illness is spiritual in that regard.  But the folks are still in the hospital being treated by doctors and often taking several different drugs.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with treating a spiritual problem (sickness) with a good gift of God that He has given for the purpose (medicine).

I can say this because I know that the work of a physician or even of a pharmaceutical researcher is work that is being done through these people by God for the sake of humanity.  The drugs work because God has ordained it.  The physicians skills help a person heal because God is working through them.

I think it is in part because he doesn't understand vocation that Spencer doesn't buy into the idea that the afflictions that Jesus treats in the Gospels that are identified as demonic oppression have anything to do with demons.  But his conclusion isn't a necessary one.  I'm going to be extremely blunt here.  My dear friend, Pr. Todd Peperkorn, who writes so eloquently here about his struggles with mental illness, is a victim of demonic oppression.  Demons do not want anyone to have peace or joy.  They do not want our minds to function properly.  They want to drag us down so far that we can't get out of the situation we're in.

My friend Todd has been given by God many good gifts to oppose the will of the demons that have attacked him.  One of them is medication.  Another is the Gospel.  Drugs do not cease to be an option because an illness is a demonic affliction any more than the demonic affliction makes Todd cease to be a Christian.  It can be argued on the basis of the Scriptures that they don't talk about "demonic possession" but rather "demonic oppression."  Certainly a demon cannot "possess" a Christian.  We belong to Christ.  But demons certainly do attack and oppress Christians.  Luther knew it, and more to the point... Jesus knew it.

The exorcisms of Jesus freed a person from demonic attack, but there's no reason to believe they didn't also cure the physical ailment (chemical imbalance or neuropathy) that remained behind.

I don't think you need to make Jesus into a primitive in order to understand either the way demonic oppression is used in the Scriptures or the way Jesus dealt with it.
Talk to me!
fro
Nov. 11th, 2009 @ 11:09 am Mac v. PC, part deux
In the several places I asked yesterday's question I got lots of very helpful replies and a few not so helpful ones.  I generally would classify them in the following categories:

1.  Those who want to storm all Apple stores with scimitars while shouting, "Microsoft Akbar!"

2.  Those who want to storm all PC vendors with scimitars while shouting, "Apple Akbar!"

(Those two sorts of responses, while entertaining, were the not so helpful ones...)

3.  Those with extensive background in software engineering and IT work (or just impressive amounts of ubergeekiness) who've been using Linux since before it was cool and can't understand why anyone would consider any other option besides the cool little penguin because they've only spent $3.50 on computers in the last 300 years and have no trouble updating whichever Linux distribution they use and making their PCs open stargates to other dimensions and they have rooms full of Jaffa staff weapons and zats which they are hoarding in order to begin their eventual secret conquest of the rest of the computing world.

4.  Those who aren't sure what a hard drive or RAM is, but have used Macs for the past several years and find them fairly easy and straightforward and reliable and stick with them because they work and they don't aggravate them.

5.  Those who are somewhere between #3 and #4.  Some of these use PCs because they can't afford a Mac or just aren't willing to pay for them and are willing to put up with the aggravations (slight and extreme) because though they might need to replace the computer frequently, it's still fairly cheap to do so.  Some of these use Mac's because though it's more expensive in the beginning, they like not having to buy a computer more than once every 4 or 5 years.

The upshot is this.

I'm going to buy a Mac if I can afford it, but don't know if I will be able to afford it.  If I can't, I'm going to get way more PC than I think I need so that it will aggravate me less than usual.  Either way, I'm probably going to get a refurbished Apple Time Machine.
Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 10th, 2009 @ 12:41 pm Make your argument...
I'm hoping to get a new laptop sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I've used Macs (back in the OS 8.0 days).  I liked them.  I'd love to get a Mac now, but if I'm going to seriously consider that option, I need responses to the following issues:

1.  Am I going to be able to run Libronix without buying Virtual PC and a Windows OS?  Will I have to buy a Mac box edition to switch platforms?

2.  The Macs I'm looking at have, at the most, a 250 GB hard drive and 3 gigs of RAM.  The PCs I'm looking at have minimum of a 320 gig hard drive and 4 gigs of RAM.  Many have 500 gig HDs.

3.  If you have a Mac laptop, how long have you had it?  Have you upgraded it at all?  How well is it keeping up with newer versions of software?  Does it run as well now as it did when you bought it?

4.  What are the differences between a MacBook, a MacBook Pro, and a MacBook Air?

5.  My current 2 year old PC laptop has an 80 gig hard drive, 1 gig RAM, and dual 1.46 GHz processors.  I never thought I'd need even close to the 80 gigs when I bought it and now I have 500 megs left and am having to watch it like a hawk to keep that 500 meg free.  How does it make any sense at all for me to get a Mac that has a 160 gig hard drive when the smallest PC hard drive I'm looking at is 320 gigs (and would probably not lead me to this problem)...

Mac users.  Here's your chance to win me over for good.

PC users.  Here's your chance to talk me out of it.

Make your argument.
Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 9th, 2009 @ 06:41 pm Sermon for the 23rd Sunday after Trinity

Rev. Charles Lehmann + Trinity 23 + Matthew 22:17-22

 In the Name of + Jesus.  Amen.

 A lot of preachers use today's reading from Matthew 22 to talk about taxes.  That makes sense.  After all, the Pharisees were the tax protestors of their day.  They hated paying because it forced them to admit that they were under the thumb of the pagan Romans.  And, even worse, the coin of the day claimed that Tiberius, the Roman emperor, was the son of a god.  Having that filthy lucre in their pockets must have angered the legalistic Pharisees something fierce.

 Other preachers use this text to talk about tithing.  They say that you should pay your taxes both to the state and the church.  Those sermons go something like this:  “The state gets twenty-five percent or more from most of you, so why not give the church at least ten percent.  Isn't God worth at least half as much to you as the government?”

Read more... )

Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 9th, 2009 @ 01:12 pm A reason I think virtue ethics is most congruent with the Scriptures...
Question:  Under what circumstances can I torture someone to death who annoys me?

Answers from various ethical systems:

Situational Ethics:  This system will seriously consider the question and offer a rather detailed response.
Deontological Ethics:  If you do that, you better wear asbestos pajamas into the afterlife.
Virtue Ethics:  Huh?

Virtue Ethics doesn't know how to answer the question because there is no appropriate answer to the question.  There is nothing in the habitus of a virtuous person that can respond to the attempted justification of a clearly evil act.  It's simply not on the radar.  It's unthinkable.
Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 7th, 2009 @ 04:57 pm Sermon for the 22nd Sunday after Trinity

Rev. Charles Lehmann + Trinity 22 + Matthew 18:21-35

 In the Name of + Jesus.  Amen.

 I wonder if Peter got the point.  He had asked Jesus if he should forgive someone up to seven times.  Seven seemed like a good number.  If someone wronged you in the same way over and over again, to forgive them seven times seems like it would be more than fair.  Enough is enough, right?

 But seven times is not even a drop in the bucket for Jesus.  He says, “Not seven times, but seventy times seven.”  That comes out to 490, and not even the most resentful person we can imagine is going to keep a running tally of sins for that long.  And that, people loved by God, is exactly the point Jesus is making.  Stop counting.  Love keeps no record of wrongs.  For the Christian, our tally of our neighbor's sins should never rise above zero.  The Lord has forgiven us such a multitude of sins that the sins of our neighbor are nothing by comparison.  When our neighbor sins against us, we should forgive them freely and completely.  You are never so free as when you have not counted your neighbor's sins against them.

Read more... )

Talk to me!
hat
Nov. 6th, 2009 @ 11:24 am Loving your neighbor...
I have a great family.  Here's some evidence.

My cousin Grant saved a neighbor's business yesterday.  He heard crackling, saw an accounting business behind his house was on fire, called 911, emptied 3 fire extinguishers on it, and made it possible for the fire department to save the building by knocking down the fire a bit and guiding the fire engines to the site.

Grant probably doesn't think much of what he did.  He's just the kind of guy who when he sees someone in need addresses it immediately without even considering the option of not doing it.  Grant and I have been great friends for 36 years, and so his heroic actions don't surprise me even a little bit.

Now, it is certainly true that non-Christians can and do do the sort of thing that Grant did.  It happens all the time.  Even an atheist knows that you should do what you can to help your neighbor.  But not a lot of people do it.  And I can say with absolute certainty that in the case of what Grant did, it was a fruit of faith.  He did it because the love of Christ that he received 36 years ago in baptism was bearing fruit when he woke up to the sound of the fire.

Anyway, I'm mucho proud of Grant and wanted to share. ;-)

Update:  Here is another article. Click on watch the story to see Grant's wife Janice (and their baby). Janice talks about Grant's awesomeness. ;-)

Here is another TV news story.  Clearly it's inferior, because it doesn't talk about Grant's awesomeness at all.
Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 26th, 2009 @ 06:54 pm Dude, where's my brain?
Seriously.  I can't find it.  I think reading Dan Brown's latest foray into brain-dead theological hoodoo liquified my gray matter and made it ooze out of my ears.  The laundry bill for my clerical shirt is going to be murder.

Brown always gets hot under the collar when he's called out on the hundreds of factual flaws in his novels.  But, seriously... if you don't want to be called out on your idiocy, don't start every book with a "fact" page.  I just read a review of the book by a mason that praised Brown for having some inaccuracies regarding the rituals and preserving the secrecy of them.  Oh, please... Do you really think Brown is smart enough to make mistakes on purpose when he doesn't know that the letter "H" in Greek is a capital eta and has a long a (as in aim) sound instead of the hard h (as in heretic) sound it has in English?  Seriously, anyone who's had two hours of Greek class knows that the H sound in ancient Greek doesn't even have a letter.

Robert Langdon makes hundreds of linguistic and theological errors that would be pounded out of most C- students after one freshman level course in philosophy and one in the history of religions (even if they were taught by rabid Richard Dawkins worshiping atheists).

I wouldn't be surprised if the Grand Lodge offers Brown the 33rd degree for extraordinary work on behalf of Freemasonry even though he's not even a 1st degree initiate.

Other than revealing that Dan Brown is, at least functionally,  a unitarian universalist with no theological knowledge and has a serious man-crush on Isaac Newton, Alisteir Crowley, and the rest of freemasonry, I really fail to see what good purpose The Lost Symbol can serve.

The only people who could ever compete with Dan Brown in the "pull a passage out of context and use it to argue something totally different than what it means" arena are Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Rick Warren.

Don't bother with the book.  Your brain cells will thank you for leaving it on somebody else's shelf.
Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 26th, 2009 @ 03:47 pm Romans 7
A dear friend and former student (one I brag about to my wife frequently) e-mailed me this question this morning. I thought that my response might be of interest to more folks than just him, so I'm posting it here.
Hey, I have a question on Romans 7 that has been troubling me. I have always thought that in Romans 7 Paul is speaking about his dual nature as a sinner/saint, his flesh versus his new heart in Christ. But recently I heard someone argue that what Paul is actually doing here is engaging in a typical Greco-Roman rhetorical practice (also found in Jewish literature, including the Qumran Psalms) in which the personal "I" and the present tense is used as a literary convention. In other words, where the personal "I" is combined with the present tense, the author is utilizing a practice called "speech in character" to represent a universal experience. Paul would thus be bringing out the universal experience of those who do not know Christ (and that did include him, at one time) and their struggle with moral law and sin. He would not be giving a biographical account of his present experience (as I have always thought). Which is accurate? How do you interpret this? And what implication does your interpretation of this have for someone struggling with sin? I eagerly await your response. Thanks!
Short answer first:  The new view you've heard about is wrong.  Paul is talking about his present experience.

Longer answer:  First off, I think that the other view you've encountered would have to do a lot of work just to establish itself as plausible (which can be a long way from true).  First, they would have to establish that this sort of discourse is common in the New Testament (and Paul in particular).  They'd have to go through every time that Paul uses a first person present indicative verb and establish some sort of pattern.  In order to buy the premise, we really need a smoking gun.  We need something in the text that flashes in red neon saying, "Paul is using the first person as a rhetorical device and isn't talking about his present reality."  Sadly for the theorists of the New Perspective, no such neon exists.

The ones postulating this idea also need to answer a very basic question.  "If Paul is not talking about his present reality, would Romans 7 still be consistent with the rest of Paul's writings?"  For my money, the answer to this is clearly, "No."

Let's look at the text of Romans 7 itself:
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.  The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.  For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.  So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.  Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.  For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.  For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.  Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.  So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me...
In the beginning of this section, Paul discusses a change in himself.  "I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died."  Now some might think that's a strange way to describe conversion, but it's not.  "I was once alive apart from the law," describes one who has not yet felt the pangs of the law.  They have not had the Law slap them in the face with their sin.  They believe that they are "alive."  "But when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died."  As soon as Paul became aware of his sinfulness, he knew he was dead.  Notice the tense of all these verbs.  They are imperfects and aorists (past).

In verse 15 the verbs turn to perfects and presents.  "For I do not understand (οἶδα) my own actions."  Remember that οἶδα, though grammatically perfect is always translated in the present since the verb is never used in the present (the past of οἶδα is expressed in the pluperfect).  Let's look at this data in light of the argument you've been given.  The present/perfect tense verbs are rhetorical.  They aren't "real" present tense verbs.  If that were the case, why the transition in tense between what Paul's situation was (before v. 15) and what it is now?

The explanation most consistent with the text as we have it is that before v. 15, Paul is talking about his past, and when we get to v. 15 he's not.

Now, is the way that Paul describes himself in v. 15ff consistent with an "unregenerate" state?  Absolutely not.

Let's look:
For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
I have italicized the sections of this discourse that could not possibly be spoken by an unregenerate man. Here are the reasons for that impossibility, from Paul's own lips:
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
     - 1 Corinthians 2:14

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
     -Ephesians 2:1-3

"You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.  But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
     -Romans 8:9-10
Try as we might, we cannot get away from the fact that Paul never speaks of desire to do good or to do the things of God apart from living faith in Christ.  We also cannot get away from the fact that there is no smoking gun telling us to read Romans 7 in any way other than the most obvious and straightforward.  I think that the desire to reinterpret Romans 7 almost always comes from a perfectionist stance that wants to deny the reality of sin in the Christian life.  This way always leads to works righteousness where sins that are still present are downplayed so the person can believe that they've actually conquered sin.

As for me and my house, we let Jesus do the sin conquering.
Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 23rd, 2009 @ 09:45 pm Confessing the Faith in Difficult Times
I am presenting this study tomorrow to a group of concerned ELCA Lutherans who desire to learn more about the Missouri Synod.  Please keep these Christians and all who are troubled by the recent actions of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in your prayers.

Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 23rd, 2009 @ 11:20 am Talk Radio for the Thinking Christian
Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 21st, 2009 @ 10:32 pm Sermon for Reformation Day

Rev. Charles Lehmann + Reformation Day + Romans 3:19-28

 In the Name of + Jesus.  Amen.

 “Though devils all the world should fill, all eager to devour us, we tremble not, we fear no ill; they shall not overpower us.  This world's prince may still scowl fierce as he will.  He can harm us none.  He's judged.  The deed is done.  One little word call fell Him.”  The message of Luther's hymn is clear.  Satan wants to kill you.  He and his minions fill all the world trying their best to drag you and all whom you love into the pits of hell.  We too often forget that wherever Christ is, Satan is not far away.  Satan is absolutely implacable in his hatred of God and His Church.  Since most of the world is already under Satan's control, the devil focuses his efforts on the church.  He tries his best to pull you away from Christ.  He wants you to doubt what Christ has done for you, and he wants you to look to yourselves instead of Christ for life and salvation.

 For this reason, Saint Paul writes that our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the spiritual forces of darkness in the heavenly places.  Have no doubt, dear Christians.  The battle is taking place here, right now, in this place.  There is nowhere more heavenly than the Church.  It is here that the Gospel is proclaimed.  It is here that the forgiveness of sins is given out.  It is here that your Lord comes to you with His promise of life and salvation.  And so it is also here that Satan is always working to draw your attention away from your Savior and toward other things.  He will work at this throughout your earthly life.  He'll never stop until you draw your last breath.

Read more... )

Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 17th, 2009 @ 01:22 pm Sermon for the Marriage of Amber Close and John Stark

Rev. Charles Lehmann + Marriage of Amber Close and John Stark + Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

 In the Name of + Jesus.  Amen.

 Ecclesiastes is one of those books in the Bible that most people have heard of but have never read.  That's very unfortunate, because Ecclessiastes is a wonderful book, and it is filled with wisdom.

 It is good, John and Amber, that you wanted to hear words of wisdom on your wedding day.  The longer you are married the more you will find that God's words in Ecclesiastes are true in important ways.  Before I was married, I sometimes would wonder why it was that husbands and wives slept in the same bed.  On the surface, it doesn't really seem necessary.  In fact, there was a time when only poor couples who could not afford separate beds slept  in the same bed between the same sheets and under the same blankets.

 Solomon throws this old so-called wisdom on its head.  He says, “If two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone?”  The answer is simple.  They can't.  This week my wife has been on a short vacation in Savannah, Georgia.  I haven't slept well all week.  Why?  I'm cold.  Even if I leave the heat turned up all night, I wake up in the middle of the night trying to find a way to keep warm.

 It's a futile effort.  I'll be warm tomorrow but not before then.  Without Jen, I can't be warm.  Tomorrow night she will be home.  She, and she alone, is the one whom God has given to keep me warm at night.  But why make so much of it?  Keeping warm in bed at night seems mundane.  If we listen to the world, marriage is supposed to always be popping with excitement.  Hollywood makes hundreds of millions every year by telling us stories of love that are epic in scope.  Keeping warm at night is too mundane for the big screen.  It's a day to day part of marriage that just isn't worth the world's time.

Read more... )

Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 10th, 2009 @ 12:52 pm Sermon for the 18th Sunday after Trinity

Rev. Charles Lehmann + Trinity 18 + Matthew 22:34-46

 In the Name of + Jesus.  Amen.

 Hear, dear Christians, a small portion of what the Scriptures say about love.  “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.”  “You were called to freedom. . .  Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”  “The one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”  “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”   “Let all that you do be done in love.”  “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.”  “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.  Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.  In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.  This is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

 Love is important.  We all know that.  Even the world thinks it knows it.  The world thinks love is important even though it doesn't know what love is.  Turn on the radio.  You won't have to wait long until you hear the world saying all sorts of things about love.  But, the world can only ever get part of the way there.  At best, the world can only see a shadow, a broken picture, a flawed and imperfect copy of the self-giving love that is revealed only in the Scriptures.

Read more... )

Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 9th, 2009 @ 11:58 am Sadly, I had to send this to the Brothers of John the Steadfast today...

Dear Rev. Rossow,

I have on at least three separate occasions requested that I and my congregation's e-mail addresses be removed from the mailing list for the Brothers of John the Steadfast.

At least once per week I receive material from you.  What part of "stop e-mailing me" do you not understand?

I have, in the past, written to you about why I don't want to receive your material.  Let me reiterate it once more.

1.  You do not address people in a respectful manner.  I have, at times, read racial slurs and other sorts of personal attacks in comments on your blog and the offenders continue to be allowed to comment months later.

2.  Sometimes the personal attack is in the body of the post itself.

3.  You send unsolicited e-mails and fail to remove addresses from your list when requested.  Today I received one from you and from Jesus First at the same time.  They also have ignored my requests to be removed from their list.

4.  You pretend that your behavior is acceptable because you're "right."  That doesn't play.  Being right does not entitle your organization to behave poorly or to give a forum to others who desire to behave poorly.  On points 3 and 4, you are at best no better than those whom you oppose.

Talk to me!
hat
Oct. 6th, 2009 @ 09:36 pm Two "people loved by God"
One sign that you're listening to a Weedon vicar preach is that we sometimes address our parishoners as "People loved by God."

It's a Weedon phrase that thoroughly infects us during our vicarage.

In a conversation with a pastor friend ([info]tutal) it struck me that there are two Evangelists who refer to themselves in that way.

Mark* is the only person in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) said to be "loved" by Jesus.

In John, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are specifically said to be loved by Jesus, and then we also have "the disciple whom Jesus loved," the Evangelist himself.

Now to the asterisk (*):
It is the rich young ruler that the synoptics say Jesus loved.  Specifically, we hear that Jesus loved him just after he brags about obeying the commandments and just before Jesus tells him to sell all he has and give the money to the poor.  Though this person is not explicitly identified in the Gospel as Mark, he is referred to as a "young man" in Matthew 19:22.  That same word is used of the man who loses his underwear in Gethsemane (Mark 14:51).

If they are the same man (and I'm suggesting that they are), then we see that the rich young ruler did just what Jesus commanded him to do.  He gave up everything except his underwear and then followed Jesus, and then he lost the underwear at Gethsemane.
Now back to the original point.

Nowhere in John does he talk about how great John is.  He says that he had the nickname, "Son of Thunder" (=blowhard).  He doesn't really rise above the other disciples in piety or anything else.  He is, however, "the disciple whom Jesus loved."  He knew his Lord loved him.  And that was his self-identification.  In Mark, Mark refers to himself as one loved by Jesus, making a very similar point.  He was a pompous self-righteous man who was "loved by God."

Two out of the four evangelists find ways in their Gospels to say that they are "loved by God."  Do Matthew or Luke do the same?
Talk to me!
hat